Pope Francis condemned the “very strong, organised, reactionary attitude” in the US church and said Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.
Pope Francis has blasted the “backwardness” of some conservatives in the US Catholic Church, saying they have replaced faith with ideology and that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.
Francis’ comments were an acknowledgment of the divisions in the US Catholic Church, which has been split between progressives and conservatives who long found support in the doctrinaire papacies of St John Paul II and Benedict XVI, particularly on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
Now the pos conservatives are gonna start calling the pope woke. 🤣🤣🤣
They’re already doing that, have been for a long time. I have a Baptist coworker who thinks Catholicism isn’t real Christianity…
I had a Catholic coworker who said some of her Catholic relatives were becoming “Christians”, which turned out to mean Evangelicals.
I had a Catholic coworker who said some of her Catholic relatives were becoming “Christians”, which turned out to mean Evangelicals.
in the US they refer to Protestants as “Christians”, mainstream Christianity is made up of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants
Right—my point is that my coworker (like the previously-mentioned Baptist) was implying that Catholics were distinct from Christians, in spite of being Catholic herself.
I was raised Catholic and the distinction was always made between Catholics and Christians. I didn’t really understand that Catholics were a subtype of Christians until someone pointed it out to me when I was a teenager - I just thought Christians was a catch-all term for non-Catholics that believed in jesus.
What country were you raised in? I was raised Catholic in the Philippines and in the US and it was made explicitly clear in my education that Catholics are Christian.
I’m from Ohio and there is a massive Catholic community in my hometown and “Christian” as a term was always used as a throwaway term for the various non-denominational evangelical sects.
Catholics and Protestants do not get along, even today. When I went to college and people thought I grew up Catholic, they would try to “convert” me away from “ancestor worship and idolatry.”
My father made that exact distinction and he grew up in Iowa.
I’m from New Jersey
Baptist coworker who thinks Catholicism isn’t real Christianity…
I’ve seen a lot of that and not just recently.
All religions think all other religions are not “real”, because of their “There can be only one!” Highlander shit.
I think all religions are just fake copycats of the one true god.
Praise be Flying Spaghetti Monster
Ramen
Pork Belly
To be fair, it isnt; but then neither is Evangelicism or Mormonism or any of these other wackadoo cults within which these assholes conflate their hatred and fear with faith.
What makes Catholicism fake Christianity in your view? Any faith that believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God that died for the sins of humankind meets the threshold, imo. The Catholic Church fits comfortably within that definition.
If I were being charitable I’d label these heretical creeds as Paulity. They have very little to do with the words and deeds of Christ, or living up to them, and far more to do with how Saul of Tarsus interpreted them.
You may recall the Catholic Church was born out of the first Nicaean Council, where they canonized the four gospels that best reinforced the idea of the supremacy of the Roman state, and burned the hundreds of other so-called “gnostic” gospels, which (judging by the content of the few that survived) far better encapsulate what I would consider “real Christianity”.
That said, the whole “No True Scotsman” fallacy really isn’t worth pursuing. It’s been this way since 325 CE, and there really is no painting a happy face on one of the most destructive and inhumane ideologies history has to offer. No matter what my opinion may be, you are correct in pointing out that the Paulity is the institution that is currently regarded as “Real Christianity”, as sick and anti-Christian as it may be.
All Christians use some interpretation of Bible and Christ.
From the outsiders it’s a bit funny to observe these squabbles and the heretic accusations.
You may recall the Catholic Church was born out of the first Nicaean Council, where they canonized the four gospels that best reinforced the idea of the supremacy of the Roman state, and burned the hundreds of other so-called “gnostic” gospels, which (judging by the content of the few that survived) far better encapsulate what I would consider “real Christianity”.
I believe you are mistaken. That was next big council. The 27 books were finalized by a man who attended the Nicaean Council. When he got back he wrote a letter stating which books he considered to be canon.
Well there is all that child sex abuse.
That is an institutional failing of the Catholic Church, it was never endorsed as a part of the Church’s dogma. While I would encourage any Catholic to ask themselves if they really should continue to support an organization that hasn’t done even close to enough to reckon with their many sins over the past two millennia, I still think it’s silly to act like they’re not Christian.
Fucking kids ≠ following the teachings of Jesus in my book.
This is also how the Catholic Church sees it.
Well then you can include baptists in that too.
the only difference between the priests and pastures is the “born again” churches do not have a central structure to follow up on it so they are all just one offs.
There’s a ton of it in protestant churches too. The national Baptist church is under federal investigation for it right now. The US has always had an easier time hating Catholics.
Not for nothing but that claim is hardly new. Goes back to the Reformation.
It’s hard to imagine now , but Catholics were not considered Christians and it was ok to openly discriminate against them. I know of people fired for that. People still try and convert me to ‘Christianity’ and claim all sorts of stuff.
The KKK and Nixon were vocally against’Papists’
To be fair, even the super conservative Catholics aren’t into this pope. Benedict was their jam.
There a whole YouTube channel by some ex fox host called church militant… It’s all about hating gays and lesser religions. They talk shit about the Pope all the time.
It’s like everything in America is just power struggles, selfishness, greed, and crime. There’s no God or respect for life here. The “good guys” don’t even go after the “bad guys” because the bad guys are ahead now. People are so naive here they think heartless crimes are not happening when it’s right under their nose. Sometimes the good guys even get used in the plot. Just look at all the old politicians and Americans that got roped in Rogers stones mob puppeting of Trump. America had a mob affiliate for president. I think that puts in stone… Americas bullshit. It’s going to take decades to get trust and genuine patriotism back.
I wonder where do they think it all comes from?
Even when I was one I had zero interest in that game.
deleted by creator
Even the most minimal amount of compassion is a sin to these people. They’re just straight up evil at this point.
Didn’t they recently called Jesus / Christianity woke?
You know you fucked up bad when even the Pope is saying, “Whoa, slow it down there with the fascism, bud”.
American Catholics have largely voted Democrat for much of the last century. This flip-flop to voting Republican is relatively recent.
It seems to me to be a bit of a religio-coup. Bishops have some autonomy, and Priests some as well. It’s become increasingly common that both are in opposition to Rome on certain behaviors related to politics, and exactly how strongly they should be pushing people to vote and for what reasons. The dehumanization of Biden (publicly refusing him Eucharist) for his nuanced pro-choice views is in direct contradiction of papal behavior going back at least to the turn of the 20th century. Telling people that in voting, any sin is forgivable except being pro-choice… well, there’s no basis in Canon Law for that attitude.
I live in a very Catholic area, and have a lot of Catholic family. Talking to them, they mention their priests say “you can vote for either party, as long as they’re pro-life”. The Abortion issue is not the only or greatest issue to Rome. It is AN issue, but disagreeing with the Church is generally not going to earn their full enmity unless you are preaching your disagreement. Biden (the target of that local church smear campaign) is absolutely not preaching pro-choice to anyone.
Pope Francis is right to be saying that because American Catholic Leadership has gone WAY astray from what Catholicism allows or mandates of them.
Conservatives are mostly christian, but if they aren’t catholic the pope has little sway over what they do. And they love dissing catholics so yes they will more than they have been already.
If you have a throwaway email to see comments on the Newsmax site, it is Catholics and whatnot saying the Pope isn’t the real part of the religion anymore.
Time for a reality check on the history of Popeing
my god that is the best meme ever
Happy to share!
Thanks, ButtholeSpiders!
These christians will drop their Pope before they drop their politics
They already have. Only Roman Catholics really care what the Pope has to say. There are far more Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Presbyterian in the US than Catholics.
The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic church, it’s always been the case that only Catholics really care about what he says.
*Roman Catholics as multiple churches claim catholicity that are not associated with The Vatican. For example the Anglican Church claims catholicity.
The Anglican Church is Protestant. Pretty sure they don’t like being called Catholic, they had a whole thing about that.
Just a minor tiff really, just some spilled tea and crumbled crumpets really
Catholicity is unrelated to Protestantism. Catholicity means the church claims an unbroken line from the apostle Peter meaning they are the “real” church
*catholicism
For reasons I can’t explain, many of those denominations don’t even recognize the catholic church as being Christian.
The problem is much more fundamental than this. I have repeatedly had to explain to adults, in many different contexts the subset/superset relationship. People do not know that you can be part of a superset that describes all things in a subset. For some reason you are able to graduate high school without every actually figuring this out
No Child Left Behind really did give out a lot of diplomas to dummies…
I’m pretty sure the reverse is true.
There are some differences in the details of each denominations beliefs enough to mark some Christians as not real Christians. If only God could just make an announcement over the PA to clear things up…
Related: How many denominations only allow their own denomination to take Communion?
That ship has already sailed - I was just with my conservative uncle this last weekend when he complained that the current pope is “woke”
To these people, their political ideology is their religion
Absolutely agree. I am certain ifwe’re real and appeared in person and spouted half the stuff attributed to him in the gospel they would call him “woke” too.
Absolutely no doubt. Kind of surprised no one has done a video series where you anonomize Jesus’s teachings, then read them back to conservative Christians and ask what they think about them
The results would be hilarious, no doubt
Probably because they don’t want Tucker Carlson siccing a mob on them
does anyone know off the top of their head how/when Christianity became so tightly associated with the Republican party? No way it was always so extreme in US history
My favourite bumper sticker ever said: The moral majority is neither
Having lived though it in the 1990’s there was a marked turn in the politicizing of Christianity. There was a rise of mega churches and politicians who worked to make churches align to the Republican Party for government assistance. The money for what was welfare was shuffled to churches to take up services that once were secular.
The whole tenor of conversion changed. It just got mean and only got worse from there.
Interesting, I’m assuming that politicians who bought into this evangelical pandering benefited from this by getting votes/support?
Over time. It was more of a mutual benefit the government gives money to the church and the politicians got votes from the churches. At one time there were a lot more social services, not enough, but much more.
They dropped the Jesus Christ of the New Testament half a century ago, and even then they pretended he was somehow as white as mayonnaise, so why not drop his earthly mouthpiece?
Honestly, I consider that a win. A huge reason I left the catholic faith wasn’t because of the religion itself, but because of the people who claimed to follow Jesus but in practice did nothing like Jesus.
yout are not wrong given survey data
Religion is the biggest scourge against humans. Controlling behavior, brainwashing the young and stolen untold trillions of $$. Fuck religion. They all need to be labeled as cults and treated as harshly.
Religion, at its core, is basically rules that state “don’t be a dick.” Unfortunately, all of the dicks didn’t get the message.
It’s not "don’t be a dick’.
It’s “do as we want you to do”
Plenty of the rules are “be a dick, like this:”
Plenty of the rules are “don’t do this objectively harmless thing”
Plenty of the rulez are “do this ridiculously pointless thing”
Yes, modern religion has many rules made by the dicks once they took over. Before the dicks rules were things like don’t steal shit, don’t fuck your neighbor’s wife, don’t murder people, don’t lie about shit, etc. The dicks were so bad that some other guy had to come along and say “seriously guys, stop being dicks”. But the dicks didn’t like that so they killed him.
Phallus 6:9 - And lo’ the Lord said unto Clitoris, “Be thou not a dick by thine actions, nor by thy words, nor by thy thoughts.”
Amen!
Plenty of the rules are “don’t do this objectively harmless thing”
Plenty of the rulez are “do this ridiculously pointless thing”
Most declarations of what religions do and don’t don’t do miss Discordianism pretty hard, but you got us on those.
Exhibits: A) Don’t eat hotdog buns. B) Go off alone on a Friday and eat a hotdog with a bun.
Good looking out for us religious minorities.
All of culture is “do as we want you to do.” We’re hierarchical animals.
Ish.
Many religions are more “don’t be a dick to your fellow brothers in faith, but feel free to be a dick to others”. In-group out-group dynamics were historically quite important.
You know - “don’t murder”, but at the same time Deuteronomy says
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.
Also
(19) “You are not to lend at interest to your brother, no matter whether the loan is of money, food or anything else that can earn interest. 21 (20) To an outsider you may lend at interest, but to your brother you are not to lend at interest, so that Adonai your God will prosper you in everything you set out to do in the land you are entering in order to take possession of it.
You know - “don’t murder”, but at the same time Deuteronomy says
If you take each verse at face value, this is a problem and what you imply is true.
But the thing you quoted from Deuteronomy were instructions to the Israelites. It’s recorded history, not instruction. You can’t just point to a verse in the Bible (like Acts 8:8 "Saul, for his part, approved of his murder") and say “see? The Bible says to do bad things!”
And going deeper shows that the Mosaic Law (the laws in the old testament, excluding the ten commandments), part of which is in your second block quote, was superceded by the Law Covenant when Jesus died. Again, it was a law directed specifically at Jews of the time.
You can kinda think of the first five Bible books (called the Torah in Judaism) as a speed run of history. So much happens in terms of time covered in those five books.
Not everyone who considers Deuteronomy to be scripture is Christian. For example, basically any rabbi would disagree with you.
The Deuteronomic code is literally presented as instruction from Moses to Israel as a normative set of rules for israel to follow. Many of the rules in it are included in the traditional lists of the Torah’s 613 commandments.
I don’t know of similar commandments in the new testament, but it’s had its fair share of religious leaders inciting sectarian wars, pogroms, persecution, etc. For example, Pope Paul IV wrote a decree that forced the Jews of Rome into a ghetto in 1555, prevented them from owning property or working most skilled jobs. The Spanish Inquisition primarily targeted Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity under threat of exile.
any rabbi would disagree with you.
Have even met a single rabbi, no two rabbi’s agree on anything.
And going deeper shows that the Mosaic Law (the laws in the old testament, excluding the ten commandments), part of which is in your second block quote, was superceded by the Law Covenant when Jesus died. Again, it was a law directed specifically at Jews of the time.
While rabbis don’t agree on much, the official line of all the denominations is that messianic Jews are Christians, not Jews.
Every “rabbi” that accepts that the Torah was superceded by Jesus is a messianic Jew, basically by definition. That makes them not a rabbi, but a Christian minister in cosplay.
I don’t disagree with you entirely I was pointing out that using absolutes with Jews is fraught with contradictions. I wasn’t necessarily trying to support the person you responded to. Even within the framework that they were rules to follow there is an extremely wide variety of interpretation. And while I agree with your messianic assessment, as an atheist Jew that remember a tiny amount, I also think gatekeeping a religion is sketchy territory. Most fundamentalists don’t believe any other sect is truly part of their religion, hard to draw lines using the perspectives of people that have a clear in group mentality. To me, if you say you’re a Jew, you’re a Jew, I have no reason to challenge the claim.
Not everyone who considers Deuteronomy to be scripture is Christian. For example, basically any rabbi would disagree with you.
Sure, but this thread is mostly about Christianity (the post is about the Pope and the Catholic Church).
The Deuteronomic code is literally presented as instruction from Moses to Israel as a normative set of rules for israel to follow.
Yes. I said basically this. I wrote: But the thing you quoted from Deuteronomy were instructions to the Israelites.
I don’t know of similar commandments in the new testament
Because there aren’t any like that.
had its fair share of religious leaders inciting sectarian wars, pogroms, persecution, etc. For example, Pope Paul IV wrote a decree that forced the Jews of Rome into a ghetto in 1555, prevented them from owning property or working most skilled jobs. The Spanish Inquisition primarily targeted Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity under threat of exile.
And? Your next door neighbour can be a “Christian”, go to church every week, etc, but then find out he’s a regular thief and had murdered someone. Would you then conclude there must be a commandment somewhere in the Bible that condones stealing and murder? Or would you conclude that he didn’t follow the principles of the Bible he proclaimed to believe in?
Examples of people doing bad things in the name of the Bible is not evidence of anything against the Bible. It’s just an example of terrible people being manipulative, exploitative, and ultimately evil. Many people throughout history (and many alive today) have realized that many people are more willing to listen to and accept what you say when you claim it’s from the Bible. These people don’t care about the Bible, they just care that it’s a tool they can use for manipulation.
Examples of people doing bad things in the name of the Bible is not evidence of anything against the Bible.
Christianity, and catholicism more specifically, are more than just the Bible itself.
Religious teachings evolve over time based off of new reinterpretations of old passages, teachings from influential leaders, folk traditions that spring up, etc. Those are all part of the religion, too.
For example, most Christians would say that the serpent in the garden of eden is Satan. Yet Genesis doesn’t say anything about that, and the New Testament doesn’t explicitly say it either. Mostly, it’s a folk tradition some people found a couple verses you could squint at to support it.
And particularly in the case of Catholicism, there’s a world of difference between a pope issuing an official bull, and your neighbor being a catholic who happens to be a shitty person. There’s a huge difference between a random person teaching to be nice to your neighbor but shitty to outsiders, and for St Jerome to do that.
Christianity, and catholicism more specifically, are more than just the Bible itself.
Catholicism yes. Christianity, no. Christianity is literally based on the Bible and a “Christian” is a follower of Christ (it’s actually what the word means).
most Christians would say that the serpent in the garden of eden is Satan. Yet Genesis doesn’t say anything about that, and the New Testament doesn’t explicitly say it either.
Well, that’s not exactly correct. It’s true that in Genesis it doesn’t say “the snake in the garden that spoke to Eve was Satan”. However, Satan is referred to as “the father of the lie” and “the original serpent”. Satan is the only one to directly challenge God’s right to rule and the lie to Eve was the first challenge. It has nothing to do with folk tradition. There are other supporting scriptions also.
And particularly in the case of Catholicism, there’s a world of difference between a pope issuing an official bull, and your neighbor being a catholic who happens to be a shitty person.
Yes, there is a difference in the sense that the Pope has a huge and wide reaching audience and the neighbour is mostly a nobody. But that doesn’t matter when we’re talking about their conduct as it relates to “doing the right thing according to God”. Each person is accountable to God for their own behaviour and actions.
On the other hand, there’s an argument to be had about whether or not Catholicism should even be considered Christian anymore. There are so many doctrines and teachings that aren’t in the Bible, or flat out taken from other “pagan” religions (religious syncretism). Sometimes even going against teachings in the Bible.
Reference:
John 8:44 “You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.”
Revelation 12:9 “So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan”
And yet the golden rule usually doesn’t get written down until multiple generations after the religion is formed. Took almost a century for Christianity to bother.
The problem is “don’t be a dick” meant different things in different points in time. Now, enough time has elapsed that there are a huge amount of different iterations of “don’t be a dick” rules and people just pick and choose which rules suits them.
If you’re talking about all religions, I can’t speak to that. But if we’re talking about “Christians”, then that’s not the case. “Love your neighbour” and “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you” are pretty hard to interpret “differently”. There’s no excuse.
It’s not about interpreting things differently and more about picking and choosing what to believe.
This is true also
When the rules are laws, lawyers argue in front of judges and define the grey areas. They change the grey areas from time to time. We as a society have agreed to have a single interpretation of those rules.
In religion, when people don’t agree on the rules or how they should be interpreted, they can break apart and form their own religion. There is no governing body with the power to enforce the single interpretation.
Thus, people who missed the dont be a dick memo just find each other and pretend their interpretation of the thousands of years old text is more valid than the don’t be a dick crowd.
Some dicks created religion.
I would settle for taxing them.
I think a better option would be stripping the tax exempt status from the ones that politik from the pulpit. Actually enforce the law we have now instead of being afraid of looking like we’re persecuting them. Hell, they all have that complex already anyway.
Taxing them all would just open the floodgates.
It’s very inline with the church’s teaching to pay taxes.
Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and give to God the things that are God’s.” The men were amazed at what Jesus said.
There is no religious conflict at all with taxing churches.
There is no religious conflict at all with taxing churches.
You gave one example for one religion. I don’t necessarily think taxing churches is a bad idea, but I don’t think that’s a great argument for it.
This is in a thread about a sect of Christianity. I am not aware of another religion that uses the word church. The dictionary definition is christian house of worship. Jewish Synagogue. Islamic Mosque. Hindu Temple. Norse Hof. Greek and Roman temples.
Talking about taxing churches is about a tax on Christian houses of worship. There is no Christian religious rule against it, which means that it would be a stretch for anyone to claim that the government is violating the first amendment.
I assumed you meant churches as all places of worship. If you meant you want to only tax Christians, then I completely disagree with you.
Taxing them all would just open the floodgates.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
These assholes should deal with a real flood for once.
I dont think the churches that just sit and read a book are really deserving of a “flood”. I also wouldn’t call taxes a flood though, so I’m not opposed to that.
Not good enough. They need to strip that status even from the ones that don’t.
Would definitely be a step in the right direction. I’d even be ok with exceptions for the tiny churches in small towns.
I agree but only because they tend to have budgets so small that they aren’t worth taxing.
At the risk of interrupting the circlejerk here, most churches have tiny budgets that aren’t worth taxing, and run by clergy with very little pay. The other side of that is the established ones sit on land in the center of towns that has been in their hands for decades or centuries: they may not be able to afford the property taxes.
On the other hand, if you were thinking of modern televangelist millionaires, by all means tax their income. I don’t know where to draw the line and it’s probably good to be conservative about it, but some of these people really seem to have crossed it already
If you allow taxing churches you open the door for Republicans to just tax every church they disagree with, and I’m pretty sure you can figure out how that will go.
I don’t understand the problem.
The problem is there will still be untaxed churches and all of those churches will be evangelical churches that promote the Republican party.
All the others will be taxed out of existence.
I believe the intent of the first comment was all churches would be taxed.
That’s just not how government works in practice, however.
While true, how the us government works in practice currently cannot be a barrier for ideas. I mean that it isn’t working at all
Removed by mod
Oh the horror
“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”
We’re doing pretty good on the king front, lets work on the priests a bit
We’ve just changed the form of monarchal feudalism, it’s still very much alive. Just disguised as CEOs and Presidents in our present oligarchy. But they might as well be kings and queens. And an enormous amount of those people still manipulate religion as a means to holding on to power. We are a long way from strangling our last king or priest.
“Cult” is just something the big congregation calls the small congregation.
IDK, if we’re comparing scourges against humanity I’d say “the rich” in general are worse, be they kings, CEOs, religious icons, politicians, or whatever. Their pursuit of money and the power to keep that money corrupts everything. They ruin everything from companies to countries and even religions (makes them even worse).
Really though, the most evil thing is cancer. It kills indiscriminately and tortures its victims the whole way. Even if you win, you never get the peace of knowing it’s truly gone. True evil.
Really though, the most evil thing is cancer
Another reason why, if God exists at all, they’re not worth a penny of my income or a moment of my time.
Yuh if we’re gonna go that deep, the rock are responsible for the deep corruption running thru society, across all society’s ills around the world. I agree that american religion’s descent into facism-promotion is a symptom of that rather than a driving force.
Hitler bent the knee to the Roman Catholics. Nuff said.
I’d have a hard time believing that Hitler was super cool with the people who worship a Jew as a god.
Hitler in his table talks: “The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science … Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left to prove that nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”
Good rule of thumb is to never underestimate Hitler’s ability to hate a group of people lol
Don’t have a hard time believing it. Christianity has indoctrinated most into believing Jesus was white. Just look at all these southern baptist molesters that want Trump as their new god.
I’m sorry, I’m genuinely not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that because you believe Christian propaganda to be that powerful, you’re ready to believe that Hitler also fell for the same propaganda? I get why you’re ready to make that assumption, but I don’t think choosing to believe an assumption made out of heavy bias is appropriate in the face of evidence directly to the contrary. Hitler outright condemned the belief more than once
I didn’t say that at all. I’m saying Christianity isn’t about God. It’s about power, slavery, money, pedophilia. Same as with the elite now. Hitler was just a part of it. It’s all a big club.
Hitler also loved dogs. So not sure there’s anything to that.
Pedo apologist.
Nice strawman
100%
And the Catholics were cool with him.
Look at how much hate we’re getting. All of my posts about corporatism and GOP spouting nonsense getting blasted. This place is another spot for GOP, facism and the church to have a voice in the form of bots.
Agreed.
I’ll gain an iota of respect for Frankie and Catholics when they unilaterally decide to stop donating money to this church until they purge all of the child rapists and reform their teachings on confessions so child rapists are no longer protected.
You think the Pope donates money to the church?
I like the similar sentiment from a while back:
The messengers and the prophets will come to you and give you what belongs to you. You, in turn, give them what you have, and say to yourselves, ‘When will they come and take what belongs to them?’
- Jesus (but in a text buried in a jar for centuries after becoming punishable by death for just possessing it)
Religion can fuel some truly abhorrent things, but at the same time I know people who have used religion and faith to pull themselves out of a really bad spot in life.
There can be a middle ground between admonishing all religious practices and dogmatic bible thumpers, and that starts with religion being a understood as a personal choice and how people interpret the religion being a reflection on their self and not the every religious person ever.
No. Religion is a scam. Lies to all it’s members. Steals from anyone that tithes or donates anything, including their time.
And yet a lot of people are still religious so if you’re running around suggesting destroying the thing they love and feel positive about you might find they are unwilling to listen to anything you have to say. Right now I really would rather we focus on collective action over the climate than worry about whose version of faith is correct.
------ian doomsday fantasy is one of the major drivers of climate change. They have always viewed the world as disposable, indeed, the sooner disposed the better.
What middle ground is there?
I reject that premise entirely.
Maybe anti-religious people need to make an effort to understand how to better communicate their views as frankly many cone across as the same as bigots do.
I dunno if it’s actually possible (for me) to be honest and communicate evenly with the faithful. I cannot see their beliefs as anything other than wishful thinking and fantasy.
Not to say the religious are stupid, i don’t believe in binary smart/stupid in most cases. I know some very intelligent religious folks who have what i consider at best a blind spot for their belief.
I frankly believe it to be impossible. Any discussion where one side has “faith” to fall back on and calls poking holes in religion as an attack on that faith is fated to fail before you start
Don’t talk about their faith then. Talk about what needs to be done and if a member of an Abrahamic faith asks why remind them it’s what God told Adam to do. Genesis makes it clear humanity is to tend the earth not exterminate all life on it.
Well that is a good point. I’m not well versed in the Bible however, and i would hesitate to quote it even if i were. how would it sound to someone faithful to have someone without, quoting their faith at them? It would further require my reading the Bible with the express purpose of busting their chops, which wouldn’t feel good to me.
It’s literally in the first book of Genesis. Takes about 4 minutes to read
When this sorry undeserving species is all dead, alien archaeologists will learn how religion was the biggest, most successful device used by the powerful to sedate the poor and keep their interests driving everything (including destroying the habitability of the planet for short term luxury), from the early civilizations until the very end. Then they will find your comment on an HDD and fucking laugh at you, at all of our stupid asses.
Edgy enough to qualify as AtheistPosting but unfortunately too silly to be fun.
Modern day religion. In the past your faith was quite important and dictated morals. It’s unfortunate it’s been so twisted over the years. And by past I’m not just saying the 50s, but even back in the 1500s.
Religion has sucked shit since it started & the first scam artist started stealing $ in the name of a fake “god”.
Everything has two sides to it. I think it was predominantly used more for good back in earlier civilizations, but I don’t think there’s a need for it today.
It’s much easier now in 2023 to be able to look back at how religion was used for thousands of years and criticize it. I’m an atheist myself and I think the necessity of religion was to learn from it and advanced society. Today I think we’re so advanced we no longer need it.
Religion has never been good.
What? Look, I’m an atheist myself by choice but I’ve seen religion fix up a homeless man and through “God” he was able to get himself back on his feet and reenter society. I think reddit/Lemmy has too big of a hate on religion, but in the outside world it’s still the majority dominated beliefs.
Plus you can’t overgeneralize “religion” as there’s about 4000 of them. Buddhism is pretty dope if you read into it. Regardless, I think we will see a shift into more atheists/agnostic people in the future though.
Religion is abhorrent no matter how you keep trying to paint it.
Yea I don’t think I’m changing your opinion here. I think everything has two sides to it. I’m of the opinion of just let people live their lives. Shoving atheism down everyone’s throat is equally as annoying as shoving religion. Remember that religion ≠ Christianity. The Greeks gods are also pretty cool in my opinion.
It’s just human nature to “worship” something. Whether it be materialism or idealism. As I see it, there couldn’t have been an early world without religion because humans are just that way.
Religion has always been a cancer on humanity. We don’t need an imaginary sky daddy for morals. We would have got there (and likely much quicker and much better) without religion.
I’m not religious myself, but “God” played a role in at least trying to comprehend the world before science. Whatever we didn’t know was “God” until we did know. I don’t think modern society needs it, but our concept and understanding of the world and universe is so broad now that we don’t.
It’s dangerous now to label whatever we don’t know as “God” but earlier in humanity I think it’s part of the reason why some (not all) laws and morals were established in the first place.
Calling religion the biggest scourge on humanity is a huge exageratrion. I’d probably say slavery is significantly worse, and human trafficking shows no signs of stopping. Capitalism is also clearly worse, and it’s the most impactful force today. A large reason religion, and specifically Christianity, has gotten worse in recent years is because of the influence of capitalism.
I’d elaborate a bit on my interpretation of what the fella said.
The religion in point - catholicism, and maybe we can generalize to all abrahamic religions, I’m not very familiar with other religions to speak of them, instill a way of thinking that doing wrong is all fine and well as long as you repent and ask for forgiveness. Sound sensible, right? Except we’re dealing with people here so they take it to mean that you can do all sorts of crap as long as you say you’re sorry. It got so bad at some point that the pope was selling indulgences. ‘Give me money and I’ll let you sin’.
They also instill a sort of moral superiority on the adherents to said religions versus the pagans.
So yeah, slavery is worse (and I’m counting human trafficking here as well - it’s the modern version), but is it not facilitated by the mindset instilled by religion? First - you see them as savages needing to be civilized - that’s the moral superiority talking - you enslave them, BUT you bring them to god as well, so there’s a load off your moral issues. Add to that the fact that even if you were wrong and did bad stuff, you didn’t ‘know’ any better, and it’s ok cause hellfire won’t get you because you repent, there’s your free ticket.
On the other hand, if you kidnap and force good christians into sexual slavery, you can be pretty sure that you most likely won’t get murdered / maimed while you’re raping because their moral teachings say to turn the other cheek instead of fighting back. And one of the 10 comandments is thou shalt not kill. Also a belief in sky-papa dishing out punishment in the afterlife makes people less inclined to seek vengeance (compounded with the previous point - thou shalt submit to being dehumanized by a fellow human without recourse).
This is an oversimplification to make a point, but sure, religion is seemingly not worse than other crap people are capable of but it sure sets the groundwork nicely. Sort of like you need to know a language before you can swear in it. A tool, but less like a hammer and more like a scythe. One good use, but so many other bad ones.
Same hydra, different heads.
What is the hydra in this situation? Is it just the concept of evil?
No. I’m correct.
Pope Francis is completely right.
first Jesus, now the pope is woke? At what point do I start considering that maybe I’m actually the asshole here?
AITA for allowing a person with mental illness claiming to be god be put to death?
I’ve (30M) been reflecting on a past decision I made and I could really use some outside perspective. There was this significant event involving a certain crucifixion, and I had a role to play in it. At the time, I was faced with a lot of conflicting pressures and I ended up not doing much to prevent it.
Looking back, I’m starting to wonder if I made the wrong call. I know hindsight is 20/20, but I can’t shake the feeling that I should’ve done more to change the outcome.
What do you think? Was I in the wrong for not taking a stronger stand against what happened, considering the circumstances? Your honest opinions would be greatly appreciated! 🤷♂️🙏
I think most of them just don’t want to do that.
Pretty sure the head of a church of pedophiles and their enablers are about as far from Woke as you can get.
I have found this to be true. The current pope is doing a lot of work to bring Catholicism into the modern age. Starting with acknowledging and addressing in material ways the history of abuse.
There is going to be , or should be , a full on schism in the US church. The parishioners I practice with are more for the Republican Party than for the pope. They basically are waiting for him to die and ignoring doctrine that does not match ‘how it used to be’ Ya know with all of the sexual abuse and bigotry.
There is going to be , or should be , a full on schism in the US church. The parishioners I practice with are more for the Republican Party than for the pope. They basically are waiting for him to die and ignoring doctrine that does not match ‘how it used to be’ Ya know with all of the sexual abuse and bigotry.
How many schisms would that make now? There was the Protestant schism, the Anglican one, Eastern Orthodox one (I think?), and uhh…I’m sure there may be more but at any rate, I guess they certainly are due for another given it’s been awhile.
No Council of Nicaea fans?
Constantine: Ok guys, nobody leaves the room until we sort out this Holy Trinity thing you’re all killing each other over.
I still have no clue what’s up with the holy trinity tbh 🤨
I chalk it up to, “well, glad i’m not christian” and leave it at that as much as I can.
Well neither did Constantine. But people were killing each other over it, so… Council of Nicaea. From what I understand he didn’t really say anything in the Council, just sat there and let all the priests argue it out.
Basically the holy trinity is the idea that Jesus,God and the Holy Spirit are all aspects of the same being. They are not independent of each other.
In Lovecraftian terms the full extent of God is an eldritch being is so incomprehensible that it would break mortals if he appears directly to them. Jesus and the Holy spirit are two ways that god can interact with mortals without them, or the universe, breaking. They are not lesser separate gods .
I left catholocism shortly after getting my CS degree, but I think it works roughly like this:
class Trinity { private: God g; public: God& father = g; God& son = g; God& holy_spirit = g; };Edit: stupid Lemmy can’t render ampersands correctly: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3774
Think of it how like the US gov is made up of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches but they’re all part of the government.
The Anglican schism is generally considered to be part of the protestant schism.
Ngl I wasn’t sure, it just pops out to me as its own thing, so thanks on the clarification!
That schism happened with Vatican II. After that point, it seems like Popes have regularly been political instead of doing what they knew was right, because they seem to think slight improvement by the congregation is better than alienating the conservative membership. I think the growth Sedevacantism terrifies them more than anything. The group is clearly heretical by every Catholic doctrine, but so popular you will not see any formal declaration that they are in a state of excommunication.
The thing is, we non-Catholics should be rooting the religion on to shed that craziness. Whether you like religion or not, Catholicism is not going anywhere and a progressive Catholic Church is better than a Regressive Catholic Church.
New Pope diss track just dropped.
Hey babe, wake up
This is the fruits of the GOP strategy that’s been going on for decades to strengthen their support through Christian believers. The Pope is just recognizing the impact of that from the religious side, whereas Barry Goldwater warned of it’s impact from the political side.
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.
It certainly is a terrible damn problem, and we’re knee deep in the shit right now.
Separation of Church and State: Good for the Church, Good for the State.
Pot meet kettle
Ironic… he could see the problems in others… But not himself.
Broken clock right twice a day, etc.
American conservatives really hate that this pope prioritizes Jesus-y stuff like love, forgiveness, and taking care of your fellow humans.
I have a bunch of Catholic family members that are much more into being angry, fighting to shove dogma down everyone’s throat, and not helping anyone that doesn’t sit in the pew next to them.
Vatican Girl sheds some light on that, great show.
Could you summarize what they found?
I’m in episode 2 out of 4 and so far,
spoiler
It’s about a girl from a family that lived on Vatican grounds who was kidnapped. We know the mob and the Vatican are working together and the pope tried to cover it up. The pope was backing a Polish group that was going after communism in Russia. The US and the pope were on the same side for this one issue. The bank on the Italian side of the Vatican walls were laundering money so the pope could send money to the group that was going after communism. The girl who was kidnapped and probably killed was a warning to the pope that the mafia wanted their money back since the money was supposed to go both ways, but stopped at the Vatican. The last time we have info on the girl is that the mafia dropper her off to a person dressed as a priest.
That’s how I understand it, it’s complicated and they’re going through it as the journalist discovers information. This journalist is amazing and did a deep dive on their finances. I grew up catholic and still think of the religion and a lot of my friends and family as awesome, but that church was corrupt all the way down to the small parishes. The small parishes just did it in a different way.
Mind you, none of that is 100% true. It’s just one of the most likely hypotheses. No one will ever know for sure what the hell happened to that girl.
Read the journalist’s books on the finances or “Vatileaks”, it’s more likely than not.
deleted by creator
And that conman was (at the very least) a friend of a very famous child sex abuser.
Being called “backwards” by the head of the catholic church is quite something
Pretty sure it was a Roman Catholic priest that burned all the Mayan texts. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest destroyer and oppressor that ever existed.
Pope Francis has blasted the “backwardness” of some conservatives
Media needs to find another word for speaking up in opposition to something.
Slammed. The pope lept from the turnbuckle, robes aflurry, and slammed the backwardness.
Oh mah gawd King, the the pope has a steel chair! A steel chair!
Ba GAWD, that’s the Pope’s music!
Commenter SLAMS media over use of word “blasted”.
