Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

So what you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things, these debates on interpretation are irrelevant, and determining which interpretation is correct is just because of someone's interest in which is correct? That all that really matters is the overall big picture of Jesus' teachings, such as kindness to all people?
.

That is his opinion. The Bible says very clearly that taking in accurate knowledge of God and his purposes is inestimably valuable.

Commenting on this, John 17:3 Reads: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ"

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

About 1600 B.C.E., God asked Job: “Have you come to know the statutes [or, laws] of the heavens?” (Job 38:33)

In this passage, God is chastising Job for his presumption. God asks him a number of rhetorical questions designed to highlight God's Mighty power. And I quote:

32 “Can you lead forth a constellation in its season,
And guide the Bear with her satellites?
33 “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens,
Or fix their rule over the earth?
34 “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
So that an abundance of water will cover you?
35 “Can you send forth lightnings that they may go
And say to you, ‘Here we are’?

Please explain to me how God saying, basically "Man, you have no idea what you are talking about, for I am God and only I have this power" is in any way shape or form the same as actual Mathematical proofs by Pythagoras to demonstrate that the universe operated according to rules? The passage you quoted demonstrates no knowledge "before its time" whatsoever. Quite the opposite. That passage is a writer going "Only God can know how things work, so stfu"

Further...-EVERYTHING- is attributed to God. A passage that says "God knows how the universe works" isn't advanced scientific thinking that is somehow involving people being actually consciously aware of the fact that the universe operates according to exact scientific principles. It is people saying "God knows everything"

As for the water cycle, my goodness do you have a low standard for what qualifies as understanding. "The water flows to the sea, but the sea doesn't overflow" Please explain to me how -OBSERVATION- of a fact in any way communicates an understanding of the underlying processes? He didn't say "The rivers flow to the sea, then the water leaves the sea, ascending to the heavens to fall again as rain" That might give you -some- ground to stand on to claim that these people had some highly advanced insights into the world.

They neither of them "accurately described" the water cycle at all, they merely observed something that they clearly didn't understand, seeing as they attributed the process to -GOD- and not a naturally occuring phenomenon.

What you're saying is that if I took a television back to the ancient world, and someone wrote of it "For there are small men inside the box, putting on plays for our entertainment" that you would feel justified in saying that those people "understood television" thousands of years before its time.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Further...-EVERYTHING- is attributed to God. A passage that says "God knows how the universe works" isn't advanced scientific thinking that is somehow involving people being actually consciously aware of the fact that the universe operates according to exact scientific principles. It is people saying "God knows everything"

That is a direct reference to acknowledgment of laws, and since the writers of the Bible were under divine inspiration, they did not necessarily have to understand everything they wrote. That however doesn't change the fact that a factual statement is recorded.


-Water cycle argument-

"To the place from which the rivers come, to there and from there they return again"
Where does the water come from to form the river? The Sky, obviously, and as it says "from there it returns again"
Rain falls into river-which leads into sea-which returns to the place where rivers come from (sky).

Again, the Bible is not a scientific textbook, however when it touches on events that occur in nature, such as this, you can see that it is correct.

-Television argument-

No, but because of your direct action, they would have knowledge of something they otherwise would never naturally encounter or even imagine.

The same applies to my point, they did not have to understand the precise details of any of the events, but they came to conclusions and penned the verses based on divine inspiration.

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Again, the Bible is not a scientific textbook, however when it touches on events that occur in nature, such as this, you can see that it is correct.

No it isn't.

"There are rules" != "Here are the rules"

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

So what you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things, these debates on interpretation are irrelevant, and determining which interpretation is correct is just because of someone's interest in which is correct? That all that really matters is the overall big picture of Jesus' teachings, such as kindness to all people?

Pretty much what I was trying to get at. Model your life after the teachings of Jesus. Become your own Christ. We are all equal, regardless of what color our skin is, or what faith we prescribe too. We are all the sons and daughters of God. No human life is more important than another, and all life on Earth should be respected. The Catholic Church, being the totalitarian dictatorship that it was, sought to suppress equality, peace and democracy by making Jesus Christ "the divine Son of God and savior," robbing him of his humanity, as well as setting up a theological bureaucracy so that the masses wouldn't be able to interpret the stories of the Bible on their own, having to instead rely on the Church for their salvation.

Eh, I'm probably totally wrong, but I don't wish to derail this thread further. Please continue with the other topic at hand; don't waste your time on someone like me who really doesn't care about religion. I just wanted to know the reason behind needing to know a specific interpretation, but it seems that that won't be possible without delving into deeper religious matters. So please, just continue on with what you were doing.

So really, there is no "deeper religious" matters to be discussed other than the only people who care about transubstantiation are theologians whose stagnant dogma must not contradict itself.

For the rest of us, we can go on living our own lives, with our own personal relationship with God...well, except for me. I'm an atheist.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Pretty much what I was trying to get at. Model your life after the teachings of Jesus. Become your own Christ. We are all equal, regardless of what color our skin is, or what faith we prescribe too. We are all the sons and daughters of God. No human life is more important than another, and all life on Earth should be respected. The Catholic Church, being the totalitarian dictatorship that it was, sought to suppress equality, peace and democracy by making Jesus Christ "the divine Son of God and savior," robbing him of his humanity, as well as setting up a theological bureaucracy so that the masses wouldn't be able to interpret the stories of the Bible on their own, having to instead rely on the Church for their salvation.

People have to realize that religion doesn't govern your individuality unless you let it. So what if there may or may not be any god(s) and people tell you what is "right","wrong",or "normal". The truth is that the only thing relevant to any person is their own life, liberty, and property. How you want to give, take, defend, or do what ever with your own life, liberty, or property shapes how you see what people call "right","wrong",or "normal".

Until there is any proven connection between anyone's life, liberty, and property to praying or customs, I see no reason to pray or believe in these customs created by humans especially without proof of validity.

People believe there is a "hell" and if such a place as hell can truely exist, it wouldn't just make you a sinner to be in such a place, but a person whos individuality clashes with that of a being such as these god(s) that people believe in or atleast with what we know, a person's individuality that would clash with that of some religious person's view. Perhaps you might want to pray, but I'm not stopping you if that's your wish. However, if people are going to force others to pray or violently bigot against others who pray to other things, then you are trying to take away live, liberty, or property that not even a righteous god or being should do. After all, would a god of any decency want you to fight a religious war?

Edit: I remember seeing this quote from wikipedia as shown by slipstrike0159 in the scientology thread:

"Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The Church of Satan draws its name from the mythological and cultural concepts of Satan. Satan stands as the central symbol for many different gods, including Ahriman, Loki, Set, Amon, and Belial, all seen as symbolic of the same ideals and archetype. The Church of Satan claims that every individual can be his or her own god and is responsible for his or her own destiny. (In their usage, "Satan" denotes a symbol and metaphor rather than a literal anthropomorphic deity.) People who follow this belief system are called "Satanists"".

When I read the line that says "every individual can be his or her own god and is responsible for his or her own destiny", this really hints at the fact that people should respect their own life, libery, or property/individuality over anything else (perhaps even over some god if you so choose).

How can a pope even call others defective without having any physical evidence to back up any stated claims? Humans are all said to be imperfect and even though we hate to accept that title as well as want to achieve perfection in the ways that we choose, it's very much true that humans are imperfect right now in some shape or form. I wouldn't be surprised if any popes themselves were "defective" especially if they unnecessarily bigot against other religions (these last statements were only made assuming that this pope frowns upon the other churches or bigots against any other religions with actually calling any of them "defective").

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

How can a pope even call others defective without having any physical evidence to back up any stated claims?

He didn't call them defective. A statement was interpreted to mean that, and had you read the entire thread to see where the article in question was quoted, you'd have seen that. And he -did- have evidence for the fact that these other religions were missing an integral factor, namely that they didn't follow several of the practices that the "true" church did.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Devonin-
"practices that the "true" church did"

Yes, practices that as we have established, are biblically unfounded.

And to Jewpin-

Please quote for me the scripture which states :

"Jesus is in all of us, theres no specific way to follow his teachings, do what you feel is right"

You will not find that scripture or any other scripture even remotely close to it in the Bible, because it does not exist.

There is a clear method to worship God and be an "Ideal" Christian, that is outlined in the Holy Scriptures.

[Grandiagod]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Hmm, what could possibly motivate the Pope, the leader and ultimate authority in Catholicism to declare Catholicism the one true religion?

I mean, it's not like by declaring Catholicism the only true religion he sets himself up as the most spiritually powerful human being on the planet.

I mean, it's not like a return to a few hundred years ago when Catholicism was the most corrupt, morally bankrupt, barbaric sect of Christianity to ever exit. Where people who weren't Catholic were persecuted, tortured, killed, etc. because Catholics believed their religion is the only true one thus they had the ultimate moral authority to do whatever they pleased.

I mean nowdays the Catholic Church is a great morally robust institution. You would never find any outdated inane customs, such as condemning birth control, having to have the church's blessing to dissolve a marriage which often results in a
psychological drag through the mud or denying abortion in the case of rape or incest. I mean, it's not like Catholics think sex is impure thus their priests and bishops have to take a vow of celibacy. And of course they wouldn't try to hide the scandal of thousands of molested and raped children by the morally corrupt priests driven insane by the ridiculous requirements of celibacy.

No, of course not. Catholicism is the one true religion.

Edit for this incredible video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k

Yes it may be a bit fallacious but hey, <3

OOPS I put the wrong vid in there the first time =(

[Dropkick_Pantacles]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

haha, hes stupid.

for one, he believes in god.

secondly, he is a meanie.

[Loot You]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

The Pope was right. You're either a Catholic or a heathen.

[Dropkick_Pantacles]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

The Pope was right. You're either a Catholic or a heathen.

Those are your words... Catholic or Heathen. how bout... Pushover or Critical Thinker. OR, Delusionist or Logical Person. OR, why not Crackpot or Not-Stupidass.

[OrganisM]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

This topic's gone the toilet. While I have a lot of problems with religion, I won't discount somebody as stupid, illogical, or as being a pushover and a crackpot simply because they make the conscious decision to believe in a deity.

This topic belongs in Chit Chat - very little discussion is being made on it, and many of the replies in this thread are childish or uninformative. Better to post the article as a matter of curiosity in Chit Chat, rather than trying to milk it for CT, and upon finding very little to debate about, resorting to name-calling.

[Dropkick_Pantacles]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

This topic's gone the toilet. While I have a lot of problems with religion, I won't discount somebody as stupid, illogical, or as being a pushover and a crackpot simply because they make the conscious decision to believe in a deity.

This topic belongs in Chit Chat - very little discussion is being made on it, and many of the replies in this thread are childish or uninformative. Better to post the article as a matter of curiosity in Chit Chat, rather than trying to milk it for CT, and upon finding very little to debate about, resorting to name-calling.

Well I call em as I see em. The people are believing in many things disproved by fact, and they are being lead on by a book written by a bunch of people claiming to be something or other 2000 years ago. We've proven the medical practises and beliefs back then to be false, the bible is next.

[OrganisM]

Re: Pope said other churches are &quot;defective&quot;, is he right?

No, you resort to ad hominem attacks, and as such don't belong in CT.

While I disagree with many of the principles of religion and of course question its foundation, I think the way you're handling it is rather childish. The whole point of Critical Thinking is to debate. When you debate you rebut and can attack the points of others. Attacking your opponent personally is not part of debate. Leave that for The Garbage Bin.