Did Pope Francis help the church by going woke?

[ding]

So, you are proving an earlier post I made where I said I need a Christian to fill out a questionnaire. You do not believe that God inspired your Bible then?

No. I don't believe I am proving you need a questionnaire. I think I proved you don't read the bible in context. As for was the bible written by or inspired by God... that's a more complex question. Technically anything which is true is the word of God as God is truth among other "things." Let's take the account of George Washington and the cherry tree as an analog. George didn't really chop down a cherry tree and say I cannot tell a lie. That wasn't the point the author was trying to make. The point the author was trying to make is that George Washington was an honorable man which was true. The whole cherry tree thing was an embellishment to make the account more memorable and easier to remember to pass down which is the same thing that is occurring in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. That you can't decipher the points the authors' were trying to make reflects on you, not the authors.

But this conversation is on laws. There's no embellishments going on there. What you are reading is a people codifying standards that were materially different for their day. They were literally raising the bar; raising the standard. So when I see people doing like you are doing by comparing this to today's standard, I can't help but say that you are taking these passages out of context and criticizing something that was a positive to make it look like a negative. Are you so against Judeo-Christianity that you are willing to suspend being objective? Or is that you lack the intellectual capacity to do so.

 

[ding]

I am saying that the Bible simply copied previous laws and previous gods.

Good luck proving that.

The Jews are widely attributed with raising moral standards. In fact the basis of the Jew's claim for their being "chosen" by God is that they were chosen by God to be set apart to follow God's laws. You don't seem to be thinking through these things objectively. It seems like you hear something that is pleasing to your ears and then you blindly accept it without doing any due diligence. That's not a recipe for success in life.

 

[ding]

Evidence of what specifically? That Paul never had a vision? You are the one who needs to prove he did. Claims aren’t enough.

Evidence of a conspiracy. Feel free to name names and dates of all who conspired. Make sure to provide motive too. It wouldn't hurt if you could show how these anonymous co-conspirators profited from their conspiracy to defraud the world. Because from what I have seen, none of the first Christians profited materially from their beliefs. They only profited spiritually. In fact, they were persecuted. Who gained from this conspiracy of yours?

 

[Mac-7]

Did Pope Francis help the church by going woke?​

Pope Francis helped the Church by assuming room temperature

 

[ding]

Donations from millions of fearful flock.

I don't know any of these fearful flock you speak of. Quite the opposite. Everyone I know in the flock are pretty amazing and accomplished people. That's what happens when one practices successful behaviors. As to your vague and poorly supported reference that the Church is profiting from religion, haven't we already agreed that the Church is the largest charitable organization in the history of the world? Your logic that the Church is bilking it's congregants so it can give the money away is idiotic. People and organizations who bilk others keep the money.

And lastly and most importantly here's who you are sounding like and it's not a good look. If this doesn't give you pause for concern, nothing will:

...in order to charm the golden birds, out of the pockets of his dearly beloved neighbours in Christ. He puts himself at the service of the other’s most depraved fancies, plays the pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for each of his weaknesses – all so that he can then demand the cash for this service of love. (Every product is a bait with which to seduce away the other’s very being, his money; every real and possible need is a weakness which will lead the fly to the glue-pot. General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability and to say to him: Dear friend, I give you what you need, but you know the conditio sine qua non; you know the ink in which you have to sign yourself over to me; in providing for your pleasure, I fleece you.)

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
3rd paragraph

 

[ding]

The Vatican is wealthy. No conspiracy there.

See post #105.

 

[ding]

That mere mortals wrote a rather crappy Bible without any “god” inspiration.

I'm pretty sure I proved the opposite. But if you'd like to discuss it 1v1 in the bull ring, I'm your guy.

 

[fncceo]

View attachment 1102585

After reading that Francis appointed to many Cardinals, I would assume that after placing his Left wing stooges to replace him, they will continue down this road.

But does the Left think of the church anymore favorably? I don't think so. All they have done is driving away conservatives from their flock. In fact, Pope Francis went on a jihad against conservative priests by defrocking many of them for doing such things as being anti-abortion activists in the US.

So refreshing for The Catholic Church to come out of the closet after 2,000 years.

No one was surprised.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

No. I don't believe I am proving you need a questionnaire. I think I proved you don't read the bible in context. As for was the bible written by or inspired by God... that's a more complex question. Technically anything which is true is the word of God as God is truth among other "things." Let's take the account of George Washington and the cherry tree as an analog. George didn't really chop down a cherry tree and say I cannot tell a lie. That wasn't the point the author was trying to make. The point the author was trying to make is that George Washington was an honorable man which was true. The whole cherry tree thing was an embellishment to make the account more memorable and easier to remember to pass down which is the same thing that is occurring in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. That you can't decipher the points the authors' were trying to make reflects on you, not the authors.

But this conversation is on laws. There's no embellishments going on there. What you are reading is a people codifying standards that were materially different for their day. They were literally raising the bar; raising the standard. So when I see people doing like you are doing by comparing this to today's standard, I can't help but say that you are taking these passages out of context and criticizing something that was a positive to make it look like a negative. Are you so against Judeo-Christianity that you are willing to suspend being objective? Or is that you lack the intellectual capacity to do so.

What of the 613 laws raised the bar?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Evidence of a conspiracy. Feel free to name names and dates of all who conspired. Make sure to provide motive too. It wouldn't hurt if you could show how these anonymous co-conspirators profited from their conspiracy to defraud the world. Because from what I have seen, none of the first Christians profited materially from their beliefs. They only profited spiritually. In fact, they were persecuted. Who gained from this conspiracy of yours?

I am very familiar with those who play the conspiracy card. That word is used to put the other person on the defensive. I have not used it. YOU have.

 

[ding]

What of the 613 laws raised the bar?

Tell it to google.

The Jews are widely attributed with raising moral standards.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Evidence of a conspiracy. Feel free to name names and dates of all who conspired. Make sure to provide motive too. It wouldn't hurt if you could show how these anonymous co-conspirators profited from their conspiracy to defraud the world. Because from what I have seen, none of the first Christians profited materially from their beliefs. They only profited spiritually. In fact, they were persecuted. Who gained from this conspiracy of yours?

Have all the Muslims in the wolrld profited from their beliefs? Many were killed (BY Christians) for their beliefs. They were martyrs.

 

[ding]

I am very familiar with those who play the conspiracy card. That word is used to put the other person on the defensive. I have not used it. YOU have.

Are you familiar with the concept of evidence and how it relates to proof?

Do you have any of that? Or just conjecture?

 

[ding]

Have all the Muslims in the wolrld profited from their beliefs? Many were killed (BY Christians) for their beliefs. They were martyrs.

So what? How does that prove anything? Where's your evidence? I thought your type was supposed to be big on evidence.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I don't know any of these fearful flock you speak of. Quite the opposite. Everyone I know in the flock are pretty amazing and accomplished people. That's what happens when one practices successful behaviors. As to your vague and poorly supported reference that the Church is profiting from religion, haven't we already agreed that the Church is the largest charitable organization in the history of the world? Your logic that the Church is bilking it's congregants so it can give the money away is idiotic. People and organizations who bilk others keep the money.

And lastly and most importantly here's who you are sounding like and it's not a good look. If this doesn't give you pause for concern, nothing will:

...in order to charm the golden birds, out of the pockets of his dearly beloved neighbours in Christ. He puts himself at the service of the other’s most depraved fancies, plays the pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for each of his weaknesses – all so that he can then demand the cash for this service of love. (Every product is a bait with which to seduce away the other’s very being, his money; every real and possible need is a weakness which will lead the fly to the glue-pot. General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability and to say to him: Dear friend, I give you what you need, but you know the conditio sine qua non; you know the ink in which you have to sign yourself over to me; in providing for your pleasure, I fleece you.)

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
3rd paragraph

Hillary Clinton and George Soros ran charitries and raked in millions like the church. Somehow she had a billion for her campaign and Soros reaped billions also. Charities are cash cows. Look at the gilded churches with all their orbate scrollwork and leaded glass.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Tell it to google.

The Jews are widely attributed with raising moral standards.

By who?
was that one about the length f ones beard the winner?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Are you familiar with the concept of evidence and how it relates to proof?

Do you have any of that? Or just conjecture?

YOU are the one who needs evidence that Paul had a vision. Not me.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

So what? How does that prove anything? Where's your evidence? I thought your type was supposed to be big on evidence.

Evidence of what? Thaty Christian beliefs are whacked? Or Muslim beliefs are? How about Calvinists? Joly Roillers? jesuits, Mormons. the all have the truth. Just ask them.

 

[ding]

Hillary Clinton and George Soros ran charitries and raked in millions like the church. Somehow she had a billion for her campaign and Soros reaped billions also. Charities are cash cows. Look at the gilded churches with all their orbate scrollwork and leaded glass.

What's your point? You already acknowledged the Church is the world's greatest provider of charity.

 

[ding]

By who?
was that one about the length f ones beard the winner?

The world.