Pope Francis Smacks Trickle Down

[JoltinJoe]

Catholics don't presume to limit the mercy or grace of God; however, the fullness of Christ is found within the Church he established and which, through the power of the Holy Spirit, has preserved -- even though this Church should have never survived the execution of a leader who had but a few followers. That this Church thrives 2000 years later is miraculous.

And there is no need to wipe. People who follow Luther, or Calvin, or any other man adhere to a church started by a man.

Christ didn't establish a church. The church was established after his death, in his name and based off his teachings.

Frequently asserted. Not true. Matthew 28:19.

[D1B]

D, you have a source from that quote from Ghiberti? Seems doubtful to me that he said that.

This quote is from the II Secondo Commentario, C. 1447.

The book I'm reading that contains the quote is "Renaissance and Mannerist Art" by Robert Erich Wolf and Ronald Millen

Here's rest of the quote:

"...Then the Byzantine Greeks began again the art of painting, but in a most feeble and most crudely. As skillful as were the Ancients, so in that age were artist rough and uncouth in their art...The art of painting began to rise again in Etruria (Tuscany). In a village near Florence call Vespignano was born a boy of wondrous talent....He (Giotto) was the harbinger of the new art. "

[Ibanez]

Christ didn't establish a church. The church was established after his death, in his name and based off his teachings.

Frequently asserted. Not true. Matthew 28:19.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

This is what is "great" about the Bible. First, it's a book "written" by illiterate fishermen but really they were recorded decades to centuries after the events by men with an agenda. Second, it's open to interpretation. I read that passage and in no way do I read, go create a brand new religion. I read it as saying, go and preach the word, transform them into believers and bring them into communion with us...a group of Jews. Go and preach, I'll give you that. But breakaway from Judaism and establish a new church? Break away from the chosen people and establish a new religion? That's a tough sell...

[Ibanez]

Joe, are you researching the Holocaust? Let me know when you get to Dachau or Auschwitz.

[D1B]

Frequently asserted. Not true. Matthew 28:19.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

This is what is "great" about the Bible. First, it's a book "written" by illiterate fishermen but really they were recorded decades to centuries after the events by men with an agenda. Second, it's open to interpretation. I read that passage and in no way do I read, go create a brand new religion. I read it as saying, go and preach the word, transform them into believers and bring them into communion with us...a group of Jews. Go and preach, I'll give you that. But breakaway from Judaism and establish a new church? Break away from the chosen people and establish a new religion? That's a tough sell...

Surprised Joe used the bible. He's typically the first one to abandon it in favor of 20th century convoluted Jesuit apologetics.

Anyhoo, his Mathew 28:19 is chock of contradiction - according to the bible, the gospel is not to be preached to everyone......

No, the gospel is not to be preached to the Gentiles and Samaritans.


Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Acts 16:6
Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contr ... itans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

This is what is "great" about the Bible. First, it's a book "written" by illiterate fishermen but really they were recorded decades to centuries after the events by men with an agenda. Second, it's open to interpretation. I read that passage and in no way do I read, go create a brand new religion. I read it as saying, go and preach the word, transform them into believers and bring them into communion with us...a group of Jews. Go and preach, I'll give you that. But breakaway from Judaism and establish a new church? Break away from the chosen people and establish a new religion? That's a tough sell...

Surprised Joe used the bible. He's typically the first one to abandon it in favor of 20th century convoluted Jesuit apologetics.

Anyhoo, his Mathew 28:19 is chock of contradiction - according to the bible, the gospel is not to be preached to everyone......

No, the gospel is not to be preached to the Gentiles and Samaritans.


Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Acts 16:6
Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contr ... itans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, but what Bible are you using? There are hundreds of Bibles. is that the New American? King James? International?

[JoltinJoe]

This is what is "great" about the Bible. First, it's a book "written" by illiterate fishermen but really they were recorded decades to centuries after the events by men with an agenda. Second, it's open to interpretation. I read that passage and in no way do I read, go create a brand new religion. I read it as saying, go and preach the word, transform them into believers and bring them into communion with us...a group of Jews. Go and preach, I'll give you that. But breakaway from Judaism and establish a new church? Break away from the chosen people and establish a new religion? That's a tough sell...

Surprised Joe used the bible. He's typically the first one to abandon it in favor of 20th century convoluted Jesuit apologetics.

Anyhoo, his Mathew 28:19 is chock of contradiction - according to the bible, the gospel is not to be preached to everyone......

No, the gospel is not to be preached to the Gentiles and Samaritans.


Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Acts 16:6
Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contr ... itans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are quoting Bible verses out of context.

[Ibanez]

Surprised Joe used the bible. He's typically the first one to abandon it in favor of 20th century convoluted Jesuit apologetics.

Anyhoo, his Mathew 28:19 is chock of contradiction - according to the bible, the gospel is not to be preached to everyone......

No, the gospel is not to be preached to the Gentiles and Samaritans.


Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Acts 16:6
Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contr ... itans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are quoting Bible verses out of context.

And you aren't!? Matthew 10:5-6 is pretty specific. It's more specific than the passage you posted.

Jesus was not here to establish a new Church. Hell, I learned that in my Catholic high school. Jesus' disciples established the new church and it was born out of the Jews not accepting Jesus or his teachings. Jesus was a heretic in the eyes of the Jewish leadership.

[D1B]

D, you have a source from that quote from Ghiberti? Seems doubtful to me that he said that.

Also, to clear up some myths about Constantine:

(i) he legalized Christianity, but he did not outlaw paganism, so it is doubtful he engineered or allowed any massive destruction of works of antiquity.


(ii) Constantine himself was an admirer of art and learning, so it is doubtful he engineered or allowed by massive destruction of works of antiquity.



Like most charges against the Catholic Church, the charges advanced in the quote (whether spoken by Ghiberti or not) are hyperbole.

Edit:

See this link. pagan temples were razed under Constantine, but the destruction was nowhere near what was suggested in the quote.

You're misreading Ghiberti's quote.

The destruction Ghilberti speaks of happened primarily after his death, but certainly within the "the time" or age of Constantine as his influence was enormous.



Tapestry showing Constantine Ordering the Destruction of Pagan Idols - 1637 - Philadelphia Museum of Art

[JoltinJoe]

From what I can tell, the quote is legitimate although the authors' translation likely exaggerates what Ghiberti said, through use of debatable terms like "all." Obviously, not all pagan temples were razed. Many still survive today. Not all pagan artwork was destroyed. Much survives today (ironically, much of it is in the Vatican Museum -- which you should really see, you would love it).

I can't believe Ghiberti, whose art was supported by the Church, would say something so emphatically (and obviously inaccurately) about the Church.

[D1B]

Surprised Joe used the bible. He's typically the first one to abandon it in favor of 20th century convoluted Jesuit apologetics.

Anyhoo, his Mathew 28:19 is chock of contradiction - according to the bible, the gospel is not to be preached to everyone......

No, the gospel is not to be preached to the Gentiles and Samaritans.


Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Acts 16:6
Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contr ... itans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are quoting Bible verses out of context.

Seems sound to me, but I'll defer.

I lifted this off of skepticsannotatedbible.com, so they are actually wrong. Well, maybe not, because they do offer biblical quotes to support your position thus highlighting contradiction within the bible and that it can be used to justify any position.

Anyhoo, here, I think, is the guy you can talk to about the errors:

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Send comments to Steve Wells
at swwells@gmail.com

Alert him and let us know how it goes.

[JoltinJoe]

You are quoting Bible verses out of context.

And you aren't!? Matthew 10:5-6 is pretty specific. It's more specific than the passage you posted.

Jesus was not here to establish a new Church. Hell, I learned that in my Catholic high school. Jesus' disciples established the new church and it was born out of the Jews not accepting Jesus or his teachings. Jesus was a heretic in the eyes of the Jewish leadership.

Mark, it is painful to try to respond to you. You are so misinformed about these things it is impossible to know where to begin.

Matthew 10 deals with a specific period of Jesus' ministry. It is earlier in time than Matthew 28, which occurs after the Resurrection. Matthew 10 deals with the first command spread the word. The apostles do in fact go out on their mission, and then they later return to Jesus and report what they accomplished. The ministry to take the faith to all nations is commanded after the Resurrection.

And just to set the record straight, Matthew 15 deals with a Canaanite woman who asks Jesus to cure her daughter. Jesus tests her faith by saying he was sent to the Jews, and tells her Canaanites are not chosen -- that he should not share the bread intended for the children with the dogs (the reference to "bread" here is important). But the women persists, and Jesus cures her daughter because she is one of great faith. So the point of the story is that Jesus' ministry is for all of great faith.

And the Acts directive to not preach in Asia was to Timothy and Paul only. Other disciples were already ministering in Asia.

[D1B]

From what I can tell, the quote is legitimate although the authors' translation likely exaggerates what Ghiberti said, through use of debatable terms like "all." Obviously, not all pagan temples were razed. Many still survive today. Not all pagan artwork was destroyed. Much survives today (ironically, much of it is in the Vatican Museum -- which you should really see, you would love it).

I can't believe Ghiberti, whose art was supported by the Church, would say something so emphatically (and obviously inaccurately) about the Church.

When you kill 999 out of 1000 birds, you've pretty much killed them all. If you want to focus on meaningless degrees and translations, fine, but look at what happened. The actions of the christian/catholic rulers who succeeded Constantine were so effective, they plunged Western Civilization into the Dark Ages for 1000 years. Sorry, you don't get to a place like that through tolerance, appreciation of pagan beauty and doing a half-assed job eradicating competition. They meant fucking business.

I also object to your use of the the term "many" and "much" . There were probably thousands upon thousands of temples and many millions of pieces of pagan art back in the day. Only a miniscule handful exist today and shame on you for taking the credit for the Vatican's pagan art holdings. Your church stole that art after you destroyed that religion and those people.

You have a habit of doing this, minimizing heinous crimes, and it's wrong. I remember you defending Pope Pius, saying he helped a few jews escape the Nazis (bullshit myth crafted to rehabilitate a seriously flawed pope who failed humanity.) BFD. And you defend to the death his role in legitimizing Hitler and the Third Reich for the world through his cowardice and the Concordat. You also minimize your church's role in creating and fostering antisemitism, which is what ultimately led to the death of tens of millions of Jews throughout history. But....you saved a couple hundred jews so it's all cool.

[D1B]

And you aren't!? Matthew 10:5-6 is pretty specific. It's more specific than the passage you posted.

Jesus was not here to establish a new Church. Hell, I learned that in my Catholic high school. Jesus' disciples established the new church and it was born out of the Jews not accepting Jesus or his teachings. Jesus was a heretic in the eyes of the Jewish leadership.

Mark, it is painful to try to respond to you. You are so misinformed about these things it is impossible to know where to begin.

Matthew 10 deals with a specific period of Jesus' ministry. It is earlier in time than Matthew 28, which occurs after the Resurrection. Matthew 10 deals with the first command spread the word. The apostles do in fact go out on their mission, and then they later return to Jesus and report what they accomplished. The ministry to take the faith to all nations is commanded after the Resurrection.

And just to set the record straight, Matthew 15 deals with a Canaanite woman who asks Jesus to cure her daughter. Jesus tests her faith by saying he was sent to the Jews, and tells her Canaanites are not chosen -- that he should not share the bread intended for the children with the dogs (the reference to "bread" here is important). But the women persists, and Jesus cures her daughter because she is one of great faith. So the point of the story is that Jesus' ministry is for all of great faith.

And the Acts directive to not preach in Asia was to Timothy and Paul only. Other disciples were already ministering in Asia.

God bless The Bible.

[Ibanez]

Misinformed? Hardly. I'm quite educated on world religions, my own Catholicism and have the ability to think for myself. Misinformed? Anyone with sense can read the bible and see contradictions. We can have a great discussion on religion, which I would enjoy, but I won't ridicule anyone in the process. Being Catholic doesn't make one an expert.

The Jesus that was sent to Earth, was not the messiah the Jews were expecting. The message Jesus taught was blasphemous, in the eyes of the Jews. I find it hard to believe that God was so fond of the Jews for so long, that he sent himself to be sacrificed to himself to save his people and in the process just decided to start a new religion. That's Illogical. Jesus message wasn't received but was preached nonetheless and out of it an new religion and understanding was established, based on the principles and teachings of Judaism and Jesus.


Then again, I'm putting thought into all of this instead of blind faith.


Sent from my iPhone

[Ibanez]

And you aren't!? Matthew 10:5-6 is pretty specific. It's more specific than the passage you posted.

Jesus was not here to establish a new Church. Hell, I learned that in my Catholic high school. Jesus' disciples established the new church and it was born out of the Jews not accepting Jesus or his teachings. Jesus was a heretic in the eyes of the Jewish leadership.

Mark, it is painful to try to respond to you. You are so misinformed about these things it is impossible to know where to begin.

Matthew 10 deals with a specific period of Jesus' ministry. It is earlier in time than Matthew 28, which occurs after the Resurrection. Matthew 10 deals with the first command spread the word. The apostles do in fact go out on their mission, and then they later return to Jesus and report what they accomplished. The ministry to take the faith to all nations is commanded after the Resurrection.

And just to set the record straight, Matthew 15 deals with a Canaanite woman who asks Jesus to cure her daughter. Jesus tests her faith by saying he was sent to the Jews, and tells her Canaanites are not chosen -- that he should not share the bread intended for the children with the dogs (the reference to "bread" here is important). But the women persists, and Jesus cures her daughter because she is one of great faith. So the point of the story is that Jesus' ministry is for all of great faith.

And the Acts directive to not preach in Asia was to Timothy and Paul only. Other disciples were already ministering in Asia.

btw, I didn't post any of the bible quotes you mentioned. Misinformed? Try not to judge.


Sent from my iPhone

[CID1990]

I don't know what's dumber...

arguments about religion or

a bunch of supposedly smart guys on a message board who really think the pothead journalists at Time and other outlets actually were able to comprehend what the Pope was saying

[D1B]

I don't know what's dumber...

arguments about religion or

a bunch of supposedly smart guys on a message board who really think the pothead journalists at Time and other outlets actually were able to comprehend what the Pope was saying

BIOYA.

Get the fuck out and go watch Taps for the 200th time.

[Ibanez]

I don't know what's dumber...

arguments about religion or

a bunch of supposedly smart guys on a message board who really think the pothead journalists at Time and other outlets actually were able to comprehend what the Pope was saying

It's as dumb as Rushs comments on the pope.


Sent from my iPhone

[CID1990]

I don't know what's dumber...

arguments about religion or

a bunch of supposedly smart guys on a message board who really think the pothead journalists at Time and other outlets actually were able to comprehend what the Pope was saying

BIOYA.

Get the **** out and go watch Taps for the 200th time.

Hey check it out! Pope's a progtard AND a racist: (taken from the very same doc)

"When we, for our part, aspire to diversity, we become self-enclosed, exclusive and divisive; similarly, whenever we attempt to create unity on the basis of our human calculations, we end up imposing a monolithic uniformity. This is not helpful for the Church’s mission"

Wow. Guess there a little sumthin for everybody in this here pope

[JoltinJoe]

From what I can tell, the quote is legitimate although the authors' translation likely exaggerates what Ghiberti said, through use of debatable terms like "all." Obviously, not all pagan temples were razed. Many still survive today. Not all pagan artwork was destroyed. Much survives today (ironically, much of it is in the Vatican Museum -- which you should really see, you would love it).

I can't believe Ghiberti, whose art was supported by the Church, would say something so emphatically (and obviously inaccurately) about the Church.

When you kill 999 out of 1000 birds, you've pretty much killed them all. If you want to focus on meaningless degrees and translations, fine, but look at what happened. The actions of the christian/catholic rulers who succeeded Constantine were so effective, they plunged Western Civilization into the Dark Ages for 1000 years. Sorry, you don't get to a place like that through tolerance, appreciation of pagan beauty and doing a half-assed job eradicating competition. They meant **** business.

I also object to your use of the the term "many" and "much" . There were probably thousands upon thousands of temples and many millions of pieces of pagan art back in the day. Only a miniscule handful exist today and shame on you for taking the credit for the Vatican's pagan art holdings. Your church stole that art after you destroyed that religion and those people.

You have a habit of doing this, minimizing heinous crimes, and it's wrong. I remember you defending Pope Pius, saying he helped a few jews escape the Nazis (bullshit myth crafted to rehabilitate a seriously flawed pope who failed humanity.) BFD. And you defend to the death his role in legitimizing Hitler and the Third Reich for the world through his cowardice and the Concordat. You also minimize your church's role in creating and fostering antisemitism, which is what ultimately led to the death of tens of millions of Jews throughout history. But....you saved a couple hundred jews so it's all cool.

Your accounts of history are exaggerated and inaccurate. Not that people acting on behalf of the Catholic Church (and other churches) have not engaged in wrongful conduct throughout history. You distort that history, though, just draw all the worst inferences from those distortions.

But in the end that is neither here nor there.

You want to eradicate religion and faith, and rely on the alleged misdeeds of religious throughout history to argue that religion is something evil. In doing so, you ignore that vast amount of good that the religious have done throughout history and continue to do today.

You don't grasp why your message doesn't resonate with the vast majority of religious people. Here's why. We don't care what happened 1000 years ago, or 500 years ago. We can't change it. It's history, for better or worse. At this point, if there is any justice for the victims of these atrocities, it is in the hands of the God that I hope in.

TODAY, though, WE do receive enormous amounts of strength, hope, and optimism from being people of faith. Our faith helps us deal with the worst events in our lives, and the worst events in the news. I went to a number of services for people who died in 9/11. (Indeed, up to 1997, my law firm maintained an office for me on the 89th Floor of Tower 1, which I went to two or three times a week). These guys were my age, they had young children. What was I suppose to say. "Your dad died a horrific death, for no reason, and he's not even worm food because they can't find his body?"

Our faith gave us the strength to get through that. Our faith gave us the optimism to believe that they have gone to a better place, and the hope to move forward.

Why do you want to take all that away? You have acknowledged that, through prayer, people can achieve levels of consciousness/spirituality comparable to a LSD trip. You think prayer is delusional. I say our call to prayer is intuitive, part of the human experience, and our denying that humans are both creatures of reason and creatures of intuition (and that both inform our person hood) is irrational.

I enjoy going into a Church when there is no one there, and just observing and listening, waiting to hear something. I ask God to speak to me, and I pay attention to what comes into my mind. I find all my cares and concerns become very small, and I leave feeling rejuvenated and like a better person. You should try it sometime. It works. As good as a guy as you are, I doubt you ever feel as happy as I do when I leave those sessions with my "shrink."

[D1B]

I think your accounts of history have been filtered and sanitized by 1700 years of catholic censorship and brutal catholic oppression of free thought.

The only people, historically, who want to eradicate religion are the religious, especially the catholics. Only recently has your church even (reluctantly) recognized the right of other faiths to exist. I've said many times there are many noble faiths among us. The ones that need eradication are those dangerous to mankind - christianity, judaism and Islam.

You fail to acknowledge the real reasons secular humanism or similar reason-based moral systems do not yet resonate in high numbers. You like to think it's solely due to the message of christ and the false promise of hope and salvation that your church sells like widgets. It's not. For centuries your church has operated an elaborate system of indoctrination that actually begins before conception with strict rules regarding non procreative intercourse and the sacrament of marriage. From birth a catholic child is baptized into the faith and forced by threat of punishment to believe the myths and half-truths crafted by church management. Trillions upon trillions of dollars have been embezzled by the ignorant laity to fund these endeavors that include churches, day care centers, child counselors, kindergartens, middle schools, high schools, colleges, CCD classes, bible camps, catholic retreats and camps, public relations and most important - already brainwashed parents ready to punish a child for non-compliance.

The above is all in addition to the fact that the catholic church pretty much controlled the lives of everyone in the West for some 1700 years and they did it with unparalleled brutality and efficiency. You denounced the church and you died - period. You also fail to acknowledge why your church no longer burns witches or kills someone for reading the bible in German. Secular humanism has had to drag your church out of the dark ages and into the light of reason. Without it, you'd still be beheading people for not going to church or paying their taxes, to the church.

You fail to acknowledge that people are leaving religion in droves, especially your church. The fastest growing group of the religious are those without religion.

Bottom line, you let a child reach the age where they can grasp logic before telling them about your beliefs and they will laugh in your face.

You don't need the industry. That's all. Private reflection and wonderment and even worship is fine, its the evil industry your religion has become and sorry Joe, the Catholic Church was and is still the worst - corrupt, immoral, bigoted, obsessed with money and power, worships idols - just plain evil.

Your church has strayed so far from the message Christ that it's ironic your steadfast support of it will most likely keep you from salvation. People like Paul Kurtz and Gandhi and the Buddha will be there with Jesus though.

[Cap'n Cat]

[kalm]

[JoltinJoe]

D, In college, I had a history professor by the name of Lawrence Kohl. Very even-handed in his approach to things; if he had some religious or social opinions, he never expressed them in the classroom. He was a great teacher and if he had any religious faith, I know nothing about it.

He was discussing one day his expectations for us about our class thesis paper. In explaining how we should approach our research, he said something that always stuck with me, to the effect: "View with great suspicions contemporary historians who are writing for a political or social purpose. Often their intent is to mold the future rather than fairly explain the past, and they will mold their historical accounts to coincide with their hopes for the future."

You rely on precisely such people when you form your opinion of the past.