Did Pope Francis help the church by going woke?

[ding]

Here we go again with a "Christian" telling someone that unless he knows Hebrew (and perhaps Koine Greek as well?) that he is just not qualified to debate. That he has to be a religious scholar or PhD or Doctor of philosophy.

I don't condemn "God" because I don't believe he exists. It's like saying I condemn Thor, Ra, Cyclops or Zuess, Bigfoot, the lochness monster.

You and others say "Oh, the bible was written for the people of that time" and yet claim it was divinely inspired. Yet, there is not one sentence, one syllable, on dot or iota of either the OT or NT written in Hebrew, Koine Greek, Latin or English that you or anyone can point to that could not have been written by any ole bloke centuries ago who knew how to write.
It is a decadent book filled with male superiority, killing, torture and a "GOD" who was a mere copy of all the imagined gods before nut of course more powerful and bigger because he had tobe in order to win converts and belief. The kicker was that it was just for a chosen fgew, of course...the believers, the favorites of this vengeful god construct. YOU are one of them! Go figure, eh?

I would have said you should read these accounts in the context of their day and not ours. But that's just me.

 

[ding]

It is common for believers like yourself to say that a non believer just doesn’t know what he’s talking about and you know the correct translations from Hebrew and The dead and obscure language called Koine Greek. It is certainly a conversation stopper akin to a scientist who says the world will burn up in 40 years if we don’t all stop fossil fuels and he, as an expert knows this and we can’t possibly know more than him. I mean how can a mere layman dispute such things?

Can’t know the Bible backwards, forwards, and upside down, and it’s still will not change the fact that everything in the Bible amount to claims of non-eyewitnesses to the events. As far as the gospels that were written after Paul, most all Bible experts maintain that they were written 40 to 80 years after the death of Jesus. You can claim that some of the accounts were the original apostles all you want, but they weren’t.

Whereas I would have argued you don't understand the purpose these accounts served when they were being passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before being recorded in writing. And that's why these accounts don't make sense to you and they do to me.

 

[ding]

With Catholics and Christians it is always stating claims as facts. Such as the claim that Paul met Jesus after the resurrection. That is a claim. Not a fact. It is your belief and not a fact. His claims run counter to what Jesus is alleged to have said in many areas. He was an interloper who co-opted Christianity to make it more palatable to regular people is all. No one wanted to follow those 613 laws and Jesus himself never, ever said that any of them were abolished or not to be followed. For that matter, Jesus was an expert in the Torah and stated that none of them would ever be abolished. You can try to twist and turn what was written by unknown people decades after Jesus died and that doesn’t change what is written and it doesn’t matter how you might want to re-interpret it using Hebrew.

So you believe it was a conspiracy of epic proportions?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

So now you are arguing that the institution which has done more to shape western civilization and is widely considered to be the largest charitable organization in the world should have done more?

I didn’t say that at all. They help the poor for power and money. Their charity is to gain converts.

 

[ding]

I didn’t say that at all. They help the poor for power and money. Their charity is to gain converts.

You seem to be arguing they have too much money, right? Almost as if having too much money is a bad thing. Does your level of wealth determine if you are a good person or a bad person? Are poor people good and rich people bad?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I would have said you should read these accounts in the context of their day and not ours. But that's just me.

So your great god couldn’t have said slavery was wrong because that might upset slave owners? He couldn’t have said women were not less than men?

Kinda seems like any old lecher could have written the OT and NT, doesn’t it. The only thing of note is that it plagiarized just about everything from tribes before it, from a great flood wiping out humans to a god coming back to life.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Whereas I would have argued you don't understand the purpose these accounts served when they were being passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before being recorded in writing. And that's why these accounts don't make sense to you and they do to me.

The Hammurabi code did the same thing. Your Bible is just a flowered up version of secularism and gods before yours.

 

[ding]

Their charity is to gain converts.

Oh... so you are arguing they have ulterior motives. Ok. Let's test that. How exactly have they used these converts for their own gain and what evidence do you have for that?

Because you have already admitted the Church is charitable, right? So they aren't keeping all that money, right?

 

[otto105]

https://shiftnews.com/article/CMSP2CHGCRRK4S1SC9J32E9GCRSK0SB26SHP6R9M69HKADHS6GV3MCHG68TJTC1M5MS3281G70X34CST68RKMKJ368?category=News

Francis Worked to Make Catholic Church More Inclusive​

View attachment 1102582

The cardinals who will choose Pope Francis' successor will have to decide whether to follow his path toward a more welcoming, global and collegial church or restore the more doctrinaire approach of his predecessors. Francis made strides in addressing the church's sexual abuse crisis and tackled its murky financial culture. He created thousands of bishops and appointed more than half of the College of Cardinals. He also reached out to Muslim leaders.

• The cardinals are at a crossroads, deciding whether to continue Pope Francis' vision of a more inclusive and global church or revert to the traditional stance of previous popes. This choice will spark significant discussions among them.
• Pope Francis leaves behind a complex legacy, as early hopes for a 'Francis effect' to boost church attendance in the secular West have largely not materialized, even as attendance grows in the global South.
• While Francis made notable progress in addressing the church's sexual abuse crisis and financial issues, the future direction he set is likely to be a contentious topic among the cardinals.
• His openness to discussing major theological issues like divorce, married priests, same-sex couples, and women's roles excited many liberal Catholics but raised concerns that a less reform-minded successor could undo these changes.
• Francis aimed to shift the church's trajectory away from the conservative paths of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, especially in response to the latter's failure to adequately address child sexual abuse within the church.
• Despite his progressive agenda, Francis was not afraid to confront conservative elements within the church, even dismissing high-ranking officials who resisted his vision.
• His global outreach, particularly in engaging with Muslim leaders and addressing issues affecting vulnerable Catholic communities, was significant, but his lasting impact is likely to be seen in the church's internal structure and the bishops he appointed who align with his priorities.

I referred to being more "inclusive" as being woke. Many may disagree, but it's the truth nonetheless.

Was it worth it? Did it help spread the gospel of Christ? According to church attendance, not so much.

Politically, did it help the church? Will governments around the world, which have progressively gotten more woke themselves, now treat the Catholic church better politically? If so, is that a good thing, considering that Christ basically upset every world government on earth as well as every religious institution, causing them to put him to death?

Fuck that!

Religion ain’t meant to be inclusive and caring. It’s meant to dumb the people down and become white reactionary mouth breathers.

 

[ding]

So your great god couldn’t have said slavery was wrong because that might upset slave owners? He couldn’t have said women were not less than men?

Kinda seems like any old lecher could have written the OT and NT, doesn’t it. The only thing of note is that it plagiarized just about everything from tribes before it, from a great flood wiping out humans to a god coming back to life.

God didn't write these accounts. Men did. Is this new news for you?

 

[Moonglow]

So your great god couldn’t have said slavery was wrong because that might upset slave owners? He couldn’t have said women were not less than men?

Kinda seems like any old lecher could have written the OT and NT, doesn’t it. The only thing of note is that it plagiarized just about everything from tribes before it, from a great flood wiping out humans to a god coming back to life.

Some folks get Hellenized and others don't.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

So you believe it was a conspiracy of epic proportions?

Of course it was. But the thing is that humans want and need their gods. The main ingredient in the belief recipe is fear. “Gid loves you but only if you believe. If not you’re toast”. This is bullying like a wife beating husband.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

You seem to be arguing they have too much money, right? Almost as if having too much money is a bad thing. Does your level of wealth determine if you are a good person or a bad person? Are poor people good and rich people bad?

How did they get it?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Oh... so you are arguing they have ulterior motives. Ok. Let's test that. How exactly have they used these converts for their own gain and what evidence do you have for that?

Because you have already admitted the Church is charitable, right? So they aren't keeping all that money, right?

Donations.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

God didn't write these accounts. Men did. Is this new news for you?

Thanks for proving my point. However, that happens often.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Some folks get Hellenized and others don't.

Summer folks getting indoctrinated and stay that way and some don’t.

 

[ding]

So your great god couldn’t have said slavery was wrong because that might upset slave owners? He couldn’t have said women were not less than men?

Kinda seems like any old lecher could have written the OT and NT, doesn’t it. The only thing of note is that it plagiarized just about everything from tribes before it, from a great flood wiping out humans to a god coming back to life.

So we have established that men wrote these accounts. So what you really mean to say is that these men could have said slavery was wrong, right? And yes, they could have. But what you don't understand is that these slaves were not forced slaves like in America, they were indentured servants who voluntarily entered into a contract with their "masters." And that the Jews were establishing standards for their treatment because back in that day they were not treated well. So you are criticizing a people who were actually raising the bar by arguing they should have done more.

 

[ding]

The Hammurabi code did the same thing. Your Bible is just a flowered up version of secularism and gods before yours.

Really? Tell me all about it. Make sure to put it into the context of that day. Say like how they raised the bar for treating others. Then you can criticize them for not doing enough.

 

[ding]

Of course it was. But the thing is that humans want and need their gods. The main ingredient in the belief recipe is fear. “Gid loves you but only if you believe. If not you’re toast”. This is bullying like a wife beating husband.

A conspiracy this big should have left a trail of evidence, right? Where's your evidence? Maybe a whistleblower or something?

 

[ding]

How did they get it?

You tell me. You are the one who thinks it's a conspiracy and should have done more.

All without any evidence or reason and logic. Amazing. Do tell me what you think the Church controls.