Slashdot Mirror

Catholics, for example, are encouraged to not read the Bible. I suppose they might learn something.

Sorry, I found someone wrong on the internet - and had to comment :)

http://www.catholiclane.com/ig...

https://zenit.org/articles/pop...

If one were interested, they could look up St Jerome for whom the quote is attributed.. interesting fellow

Christianity is no joke. It's serious business.

I'm having a hard time figuring how rational and religious isn't a contradiction. Perhaps you could clarify?
 
I could, but Pope Benedict XVI put it much better than I can in his infamous University of Regansburg speech. Too bad his counter example was Islam and not very well understood- that speech caused the deaths of several priests and nuns throughout the Middle East and pretty much proved his point that Islam is not a rational religion.
 
  Some religions do clearly have a concept of human dignity, but that's defined much differently from religion to religion and within any particular religion. It seems to me that the end goals are what we call morality and rationality comes into it as we try to determine how to get there.
 
A few religions actually do the reverse- start with a clear concept of what human dignity is, then try very hard to serve that human dignity. Universal morality and a single reality is required for that- concepts that are currently not in vogue with philosophers, but which are nonetheless required if we're going to approach problems rationally. If, for instance, the gravitational constant is different from person to person, it's pretty hard to have a universal science, let alone a universal morality.

Oddly enough combining Christianity with science resulted in the history of Western Civilization.

There, FTFY.

Just because a lot of current Christians (e.g., the Fundamentalists) have some weird and fairly novel ideas that Christianity and science are at odds with each other doesn't mean its true. That isn't to say there haven't been issues along the way (like Galileo) but the reason Western Civilization totally took off, while many other societies stagnated or declined is precisely because Christianity, specifically Catholicism, is compatible with science and reason in ways that many other religions fail. For a much better summary of the idea, see Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech from a few years ago.

Meanwhile, I downloaded several books last night and found a couple I would like to buy. John Derbyshire has written two really excellent books about math that I have read and learned a lot from. They are both definitely worth reading again: Unknown Quantity and Prime Obsession.

Or do you mean helped like the way the Catholic Church maintained a stance of indifference during the holocaust on grounds of "neutrality"?

You mean how he had to walk a fine line between doing everything possible to condemn atrocities without provoking people who could very easily send a batallion to take out the Vatican? Or how he _personally_ saved the lives of thousands of Jews in Italy and helped support the rescuing of hundreds of thousands more? Or how the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Christianity after seeing the Pope's example and took the Pope's first name "Eugenio" as his baptismal name?

These links give a pretty good summary:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm
http://www.zenit.org/article-29766?l=english
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods48.html

Read a little history and don't just swallow the leftie and commie propaganda.

Sorry, typo on my links, fixed:

Vatican Notes Common Quest for Truth with Buddhism (Zenit)

Wikipedia: Dignitatis Humanae

If anything, the clarification by the Vatican promotes the app as stated here Confession App Developer Agrees 100% With Vatican Clarification:

Father Lombardi acknowledged that in a world in which many people use information technology as a support for reading and accessing texts for prayer, it is not out of the question that "someone might reflect on confession preparation using digital instruments as aids, as was done in the past with texts and questions written on paper, which helped to examine one's conscience."

This "could be useful," for the examination of conscience, he said, as long as the person knows that "it is absolutely not a substitute for the sacrament."

> That's not railing against the internet?
> the pope is clearly railing against the internet,

I asked where the Pope "rails against [...] transparency" and you spend your entire post claiming it's an attack on the Internet.

Then you tell me to learn to read.

> Again, if the passage is faithful to the essence of the Pope's words, which are not placed in TFA verbatim,

Two problems with this. One is that there IS a direct quote of the Pope (which I helpfully quoted for you...). Yes, there were other quotes in the article (from an aide of some kind, who *supported* transparency even though he said it was painful), but if you actually read what I quoted, you will find that those are the Pope's words.

Second, you say "if the passage is faithful to the essence of the Pope's words" like this article is the only source we have. If you spent even a minute or two looking around this thread, you'd have found this link to the entire speech (hint: it's in a highly-moderated comment and it was here on Monday April 26, @02:10PM, about a day before you posted).

Here's that "attack on the Internet" BTW:

How is it possible today to return to faces? I tried to show the road in my third encyclical. It passes through that "caritas in veritate" that shines upon the face of Christ. Love in truth constitutes a "great challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized" ("Caritas in Veritate," no. 9). The media can become a factor in humanization "not only when, thanks to technological development, they increase the possibilities of communicating information, but above all when they are geared towards a vision of the person and the common good that reflects truly universal values" (no. 73). This demands that they "focus on promoting the dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural fraternity" (ibid.). Only under those conditions can the epochal journey that we are undertaking become something rich and fertile with new opportunities. Without fear we want to set out upon the digital sea embracing the unrestricted navigation with the same passion that for 2,000 years has steered the barque of the Church. More than with technical resources, although necessary, we want to qualify ourselves dwelling in this universe too with a believing heart, that contributes to giving a soul to the uninterrupted communicational flow of the Internet.

So they don't hate it, they want to improve it. Even though I focused on whether they were "railing on [...] transparency" I think this is a fair point as well. Now, this is a criticism of the Internet, but not the kind it's being made out to be. They want to see it improve, not to ban it or something.

> Please read and at least attempt to understand comment before replying, kthxbye.

Words fail me given that you spent your whole post arguing against something I didn't even argue in the original post, namely that it is an "attack on the Internet" (which I pointed out in this post is of questionable accuracy in itself). Worse, you didn't bother to consult any of the other sources (which quote the whole damn speech) that can be found in this thread, but instead pointed out to bits of TFA that can be twisted to support your view.

So, exactly when did you attempt to understand anything with respect to this story? You clearly didn't bother to look anything up. You attacked my post for something I didn't argue. And you ignored easily-found means of supporting your point (possibly because the full speech doesn't really support your point).

Hmm I don't see a link to the actual speech. Why? Because he quoted a letter from a jew friend, who did the comparison. He later said: "I inserted the letter from [my] Jewish friend only because it seemed to me a witness of solidarity with the Pope so harshly attacked in recent weeks, (..) My intention therefore was a friendly one, not at all hostile." (source.
This happened before, in Regensburg. Clearly clerics should not use quotes when they speak.

Most of the discussion on this thread is way off base. Here [zenit.org] is the text of the speech that the Pope actually gave. It wasn't exactly a major address. He gave the closing speech at a conference entitled "Digital Witnesses: Faces and Languages in the Cross-Media Age," sponsored by the Italian bishops. So, he is giving a polite little address to a conference with a particular theme.

<summary>
It's actually pretty boiler-plate non-controversial stuff (at least coming from a Catholic prelate). Media outlets are rapidly expanding. The Internet has an "open vocation, with an egalitarian and pluralistic tendency." But, due to the "digital divide," which creates new categories of inclusion and exclusion and new sources of division, not all can participate. Moreover, disembodied and impersonal communication presents a new outlet for dehumanization in the culture. Often, one can observe on the Internet a dynamic "that can make us lose the perception of the depth of persons and remain at the surface: When that happens, they are bodies without souls, objects of trade and consumption."

What is needed in such a situation? The Pope suggests (in a nod to the theme of the conference) "a return to faces." New media, when used rightly, can actually become a humanizing force in the culture. In order to do this, people involved in media work need to proceed from a more profound vision. Media workers should see their profession as something more than communicating information. They should see it as communicating humane values based on thoughtful reflection on the nature of the human person and the common good. This means that they should "focus on promoting the dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural fraternity."

If media workers do this, then far from being a dehumanizing venture, the "epochal journey" that we have begun will be "rich and fertile with new opportunities." "Without fear we want to set out upon the digital sea embracing the unrestricted navigation with the same passion that for 2,000 years has steered the barque of the Church. More than with technical resources, although necessary, we want to qualify ourselves dwelling in this universe too with a believing heart, that contributes to giving a soul to the uninterrupted communicational flow of the Internet."

This should especially be the task of Christians. "The task of every believer who works in the media is that of 'opening the door to new forms of encounter, maintaining the quality of human interaction, and showing concern for individuals and their genuine spiritual needs. They can thus help the men and women of our digital age to sense the Lord's presence.'"
</summary>

There have been a lot of particularly clueless reporters covering the Church over the last month, and this one is no exception. She breathlessly reports that the Pope did not talk about clerical sex abuse at a conference on the role of Christians on the Internet. Why is that surprising? Note also that the Pope's speech did not mention anything about transparency one way or the other. For the very simple reason that it wasn't a speech on that topic! What is so difficult about this to understand? The mention of "transparency" came up when the Vatican press secretary made some off-the-cuff remarks about how we need more of it, not less! Which brings me to the summary by tcd004. He misread the headline. (Did he read the article?) The Pope didn't talk about transparency. The press secretary did, and he didn't attack it--he called for more of it.

http://www.zenit.org/article-29033?l=english

There is nothing against transparency in the full text of the speech, and in fact even the original article doesn't say there is. The speech seems balanced. On the one hand it says "Without fear we want to set out upon the digital sea embracing the unrestricted navigation with the same passion that for 2,000 years has steered the barque of the Church" and on the other hand there are "The dangers of homogenization and control, of intellectual and moral relativism" (these are opposed dangers, I suppose) and a "digital divide".

Here you can read the complete speech without filter: http://www.zenit.org/article-29033?l=english.

Certain religions, notably christians and muslims, have at their core the simple fact that everyone who is not one of them is evil.

What you say is absolutely not true about Christianity. Everyone was made in the image of God, and God loves everyone. God calls everyone to him. And everyone in the world today (apart from young children, etc.) does evil now and then.

The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian, as far as goodness or evil is concerned, is threefold. First, to knowingly reject Christ is a sin, and some non-Christians have done this, while others have not. Second, Christians have received justifying grace through baptism, and so they are in a state of salvation as long as they don't commit mortal sins. It is not impossible that a non-Christian receive this grace without the sacrament, but if I'm not mistaken it would require pure love of God, a complete rejection of sin, etc., so it would be a somewhat rare occurence. Third, most Christians have access to other sacraments besides baptism, and especially the Eucharist, which gives us grace (help from God) that helps us to be good and avoid evil. Non-Christians don't have access to this, unfortunately.

The christians have mostly managed to defeat themselves to the point that it is now a very different religion then the one that went on crusades to spread the fate.

The Crusades had nothing to do with spreading the faith. They were defensive wars in response to Muslim aggression.

What the Crusades Were Really Like
Part 2

Certain religions, notably christians and muslims, have at their core the simple fact that everyone who is not one of them is evil.

What you say is absolutely not true about Christianity. Everyone was made in the image of God, and God loves everyone. God calls everyone to him. And everyone in the world today (apart from young children, etc.) does evil now and then.

The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian, as far as goodness or evil is concerned, is threefold. First, to knowingly reject Christ is a sin, and some non-Christians have done this, while others have not. Second, Christians have received justifying grace through baptism, and so they are in a state of salvation as long as they don't commit mortal sins. It is not impossible that a non-Christian receive this grace without the sacrament, but if I'm not mistaken it would require pure love of God, a complete rejection of sin, etc., so it would be a somewhat rare occurence. Third, most Christians have access to other sacraments besides baptism, and especially the Eucharist, which gives us grace (help from God) that helps us to be good and avoid evil. Non-Christians don't have access to this, unfortunately.

The christians have mostly managed to defeat themselves to the point that it is now a very different religion then the one that went on crusades to spread the fate.

The Crusades had nothing to do with spreading the faith. They were defensive wars in response to Muslim aggression.

What the Crusades Were Really Like
Part 2

The $1500 was for an advertisement, not for a letter to the editor, and was not endorsed by any church.

It's important to admit when you're wrong. I made a mistake, and you are correct; it was a paid advertisement that got the guy fined. So "Freedom of Speech" only matters when you express a popular viewpoint? That's not freedom at all.

Cite a major media source or fuck off.

"A British Anglican bishop, for instance, who suggested that homosexuals seek psychological counseling was the target of a police investigation" Oops, that was England, not Canada. Same thing - "hate speech" used to persecute a religious group. The bishop's quote is in the article. You decide if that's "hate speech." At least they dropped the charges. They still accomplished the point of making people worry about being prosecuted for expressing their religious beliefs.

"The first conviction under the Swedish law" at the bottom. While he said some very unkind things about homosexuals, he still did not cross "the line" into advocating violence. Some people like their religion with a little more fire and brimstone than others. Who are you to judge?

"Swedish Pastor Sued For So-Called Hate Speech". A different pastor, same result.

Oh wait, I'm still not coming up with examples in Canada. I think I might not be able to find any. The references I was remembering were in opposition to C-250 which was eventually passed. While it was being debated, people raised their concerns that this law would be used by homosexuals as a weapon against churches. The provisions in the bill to "protect" pastors have all sorts of wiggle-room in them which can allow the crown to threaten pastors all the same.

I could go on, but I'm stopping at the first page of google results for "church hate speech homosexuality."

I don't care whether you are gay or not; leave me alone to live my life, and I'll leave you alone to live yours. Don't flaunt your homosexuality in my face, and I won't tell you to your face that I think it's wrong. But don't ever expect me to actually approve of your choices. I have my standards, and no amount of whining or legislation is going to change my mind.

-paul

"I am not trying to say that [the Americans] are angels! They have their interests; they came to Iraq for that reason, not to free the Iraqis. But the fruit is, in fact, liberation." - Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, speaking to an Italian journalist.

Read it for yourself.

The most important issue here is that the Iraqi people are free and their future just got brighter. It is unfortunate that the first reaction by so many wasn't to be happy for the Iraqi people but to, instead, spin this against Bush.

Your hermeneutics and exegetical principles are clearly badly lacking, and discussion with you bears no fruit. Your twisting of scripture is painful to witness, and I suggest you read the Bible and ask God directly with all your heart to open its meaning to you.

Amazingly, you see no doctrinal issues with a Bible altered to state that Methusaleh survived the flood. A basic principle in Biblical understanding is types. For example, the passover lamb is a type of Christ.

In the same way, the ark is a type of Christ. When judgment (the flood) came to destroy sin, only those safely in Christ (Noah, his wife, and his three sons with their wives) could survive. Yet from your acceptance of Methusaleh surviving the flood as the Septuagint teaches, that would mean that one can survive God's coming judgment without Christ. I realize the RCC teaches this, but it is utterly against the entire redemption message of the Bible ([N]o man cometh unto the Father, but by Me -- John 14:6).

If you don't know that, the RCC teaches this ; the current pope on December 6 of 2000, said "The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God's kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom". Reference: here about twenty minutes in. There are many further examples if you doubt that one, see here, here, here, etc. etc.

Again proof that the RCC is not only non-biblical, it's anti-biblical. And note that here the "infallible" pope got the gospel entirely wrong.

While your acceptance of Methusaleh surviving the flood is tragic, your (and the web site you cited) claim that Jerusalem is Babylon in Revelation 17-18 is as well. Revelation 17:9 states "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth". Can you find a single source that says Jerusalem was known at the time John wrote Revelation (90-95 A.D.) as a "city on seven hills"? It doesn't have seven hills, Mount Moriah is its chief feature. Or perhaps you could admit that even today Rome is universally known as the "city on seven hills"? Additionally, the source you quote confuses the Whore OF Babylon with the city, as he cites OT references to Jerusalem as a harlot city. The Roman Catholic Church is not the city of Rome, but it's located there. Thus the seven hills are the hills on which the women sitteth. Further, when John wrote, Jerusalem had been destroyed at least twenty years earlier. It was rubble, not one stone was left on top of another.

On the theme of OT references to harlotry, I recommend you read the book of Hosea. The entire book is given to that theme. It shows how God views spiritual infusion of pagan practices and other pseudo-gods into worship of Him.That is what God considers harlotry against Him. And notice that Hosea is directed to Israel (and Judah as well, but primarily the northern kingdom of Israel). The book is certainly not directed solely at the capital (Jerusalem) of the southern kingdom. Now that you see what harlotry is about, examine Jeremiah 7 and 44, see what God thought of worship directed to "the queen of heaven". Then check here, here, here,