It's a shame that he's taking this route of lying about the past. Didn't the previous Pope admit that the Church's policy during the Holocaust was wrong and apologized? Though, I guess he could have done that, but still committed the ol' no-true-Scotsman fallacy of calling the Nazis pagan. My question would be: why bother and place blame when any moron with google can find out that what he's saying is wrong? Wouldn't it be better to reconcile with what actually happened and move forward?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
When the Pope is right, he's invoking papal infallability (Speaking for God).
When the Pope is wrong, he's just speaking as a man, aka, no infallability.
Of course determined afterhand.
This actually told me almost exactly as above by a catholic who bought into it.
And yes Karnaj, JPII admitted that the Church's policy during the Holocaust was shameful and a mistake on the Church's part.
quote:
Talonus wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Welp, there goes hoping we'll continue to see the progressive movement started by John Paul II in the Church.And yes Karnaj, JPII admitted that the Church's policy during the Holocaust was shameful and a mistake on the Church's part.
I think we all know he was not going to continue the progressive path as soon as he was elected Pope. He is the worst thing that could have happened to the Catholic church.
quote:
Zaza said this about your mom:
It works like this.When the Pope is right, he's invoking papal infallability (Speaking for God).
When the Pope is wrong, he's just speaking as a man, aka, no infallability.
Of course determined afterhand.
This actually told me almost exactly as above by a catholic who bought into it.
Eh, I don't like the concept of papal infallibility (because it puts man in the place of a God), but I will admit that I do agree with the concept (with the underlying assumption that correct means to do the will of God, and incorrect means to not properly communicate the will of God). If a man is following and speaking the will of God, then a man is listening to and being guided by the holy spirit, whereasif he is incorrect, then he is making the decision for some innate, fallen man reason.
Before you ask "how do you determine what is correct or incorrect", let me just say that scripture (correctly interpreted scripture I might add, which means using context and literary criticism), wisdom, and circumstance all can lend a hand in determining such.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about (_|_):
I think we all know he was not going to continue the progressive path as soon as he was elected Pope. He is the worst thing that could have happened to the Catholic church.
Yeah I know. I didn't have a whole lot of hope for him in the first place. I had been trying to be at least a little bit optimistic though. Now...
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Lenlalron Flameblaster absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Eh, I don't like the concept of papal infallibility (because it puts man in the place of a God), but I will admit that I do agree with the concept (with the underlying assumption that correct means to do the will of God, and incorrect means to not properly communicate the will of God). If a man is following and speaking the will of God, then a man is listening to and being guided by the holy spirit, whereasif he is incorrect, then he is making the decision for some innate, fallen man reason.Before you ask "how do you determine what is correct or incorrect", let me just say that scripture (correctly interpreted scripture I might add, which means using context and literary criticism), wisdom, and circumstance all can lend a hand in determining such.
And who's the ulitmate arbiter of what scripture really means? That's right: nobody, because it means whatever the hell the person reading it wants it to! All you just said is if they agree with what you already think, they're right, and if not, they've made a mistake. "Correctly interpreted scripture" is a meaningless phrase.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
At least Azizza isn't Somthor:
I think we all know he was not going to continue the progressive path as soon as he was elected Pope. He is the worst thing that could have happened to the Catholic church.
He's not going to be around for long. The idea, as I heard it, was to put a more conservitve man in power to pull in some of the people who have been turned off by JPII's progresiveness, and then to put another progressive in when he dies.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Bloodsage:
And who's the ulitmate arbiter of what scripture really means? That's right: nobody, because it means whatever the hell the person reading it wants it to! All you just said is if they agree with what you already think, they're right, and if not, they've made a mistake. "Correctly interpreted scripture" is a meaningless phrase.
So you're essentially saying that people don't have a specific meaning in mind when they write something?
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Lenlalron Flameblaster absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
So you're essentially saying that people don't have a specific meaning in mind when they write something?
First, what somebody meant when they wrote something is irrelevant.
Second, and actually on topic, exactly how do you propose to contact the originators of scripture to see what they really meant? And that's not even mentioning the self-contradictory nature of much of it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's opinion of themself must be pretty good:
First, what somebody meant when they wrote something is irrelevant.Second, and actually on topic, exactly how do you propose to contact the originators of scripture to see what they really meant? And that's not even mentioning the self-contradictory nature of much of it.
The Constitutionalist judges on the supreme court would like to have a word with you.
quote:
Blindy. painfully thought these words up:
The Constitutionalist judges on the supreme court would like to have a word with you.
Dang, Blindy thought of a better example.
I'm not going to say that we know to 100% what the writers of scripture mean when they write something, but by using the arts of contextual and literary criticism we can get a good idea about pretty much every verse (and obviously some verses are easier to understand than others, and would require some sort of dramatic evidence from archeology or social critiscism to even warrant a rethinking). You can say with a good amount of certainty that this is what x means, if you have done the proper work, and you can dang well be wrong.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Blindy. absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
The Constitutionalist judges on the supreme court would like to have a word with you.
Constitutionalists are idiots. Nobody with a brain gives a flying fuck what somebody in the 18th century specifically intended when he wrote something. What matters are the underlying principles, and how they apply and should be applied to the modern world.
As a matter of fact, that's the same problem the "scripturalists" have: they ignore the overarching principles in favor of narrow readings of convenient passages to support their existing prejudices.
For both, the question, "What did the authors intend?" is irrelevant. It should be, "Are these principles still valid today, and, if so, how should they be applied?"
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Now, you're saying, omg, that means that we have no clue what the writers really meant, and you're a moron, Len.
However, I assert that we have sufficient archeological evidence (and I don't have the time to find a lot of it, because I'm not an freaking archelogist) to show that the translations we have obtained from the dead sea scrolls, and the large amount of new testaments to show that the accounts given are, to at least a historical context, reliable.
Additionally, to say that Christians and other people have changed or grossly misinterpreted the text is pretty foolish, given that many, many translations exist, and it is a reasonable assertion that people are getting better at translating ancient languages.
(As a side note: I know that genesis 1 is still very up in the air, and people are still trying to understand it, along with still discuss science, etc. I'm not well versed in it, so, find someone else to argue that with. ;p)
Now, to address Bloodsage-
How would someone discover the underlying principles if he did not do he best to understand what principles the author intended? You seem to have a very poor view of people who try to correctly interpret what the author meant- you're confusing 'literalist' (who does not bother to use any textual criticism) with "scriptualist" (which I think you made up, since I've never heard that one).
Are these principles still valid today? Well, obviously, it depends if God exists or not. ;p
If the God of the Bible does exist, then, yes, the princples are still very valid, and they should be applied with a mind that seeks God and to do his will.
If he doesn't exist, then, no, they really don't, and I should just go home and torch my Bible.
But if I didn't believe in God, why would I even be arguing? ;p
Lenlalron Flameblaster fucked around with this message on 08-20-2005 at 12:34 PM.
Edit: I suck at grammar. Princples are plural.
Like all intelligent people, I believe that human knowledge peaked roughly 2000 years ago, and strive to live my life in accordance with the intent of some dude who thought brass was a pretty neat invention, was convinced the world was flat and the center of the universe, and who was convinced women had no rights. Because, as everyone knows, truth is only found through exhaustive study of ancient texts and never through applying the trivial bits and pieces of knowledge humanity has garnered over the last couple of millenia.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Like all intelligent people, I believe that human knowledge peaked roughly 2000 years ago, and strive to live my life in accordance with the intent of some dude who thought brass was a pretty neat invention, was convinced the world was flat and the center of the universe, and who was convinced women had no rights. Because, as everyone knows, truth is only found through exhaustive study of ancient texts and never through applying the trivial bits and pieces of knowledge humanity has garnered over the last couple of millenia.
Ooh, chronological snobbery! I love that one! Because, you know, just because someone lived long ago means that they can't find any truth, ever.
Seriously, though. At least try to do some criticism, first, before you rag on the Bible. I even posted some for you. (
Dissenting opinion on the bible teaching a flat earth
(there's a lot on the women issue, but I don't have any links atm. I'm lazy.))
Secondly, due to the fact that archeological evidence is supporting the histrocity of the Bible means that we should at least look at if the divine claims and events (especially of Jesus) could be taken as also reliable. And if it were, then we would be forced to find out of the divine things (that is, something that has no natural explanation, such as a man raising from the dead), were also of the same reliable sort. Then we would be forced to challenge our current worldviews.
It is quite possible ancient people could have discovered truth that we don't recognize.
But does that mean that the things we understand and discover are useless? No, of course not. Speaking from a purely biblical sense, God put us in charge to tame the earth, and to become stewards of it. That includes science.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Pirotess:
Oh, that crazy guy!
If you really read what he says, he's kinda right, if even the explanation would be a bit of a stretch. He only mentions neo-paganism in one sentence. Well, one dependent clause acutally. And if you've done any in-depth reading about Nazi philosophy, you'd know that there actually was a fairly strong pagan undercurrent to Nazi ideology.
What's that? Examples, you say? Ok, how about Alfred Rosenberg's contributions of "blood and soil" mythology. The Nazi's delving into Nordic mythology and appropriation of its symbology (the SS lightning bolt collar runes being the best known example). The replacement or elimnation of traditional Christian chaplins in the German military (the Luftwaffe had "morale officers", the SS had nothing even remotely resembling a chaplin in their organization). The Nazi's well-documented interest in occult affairs. I'm sure entire books have been written on this subject.
I don't think that he's saying pagans or paganism are directly responsible for the Holocaust. That explanation is ludicrous on its face. Nor is he inferring that this somehow lets the Church off the hook, as some of you seem to be. I think what he's saying is, a bunch of people who took some pagan beliefs into their political philosophy did a bad, bad thing. If there had been a more Christian slant to their thinking, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Yes, the explanation is a bit stretched, perhaps more than it should be, but there it is.
/edit: Grammar for great justice! Callalron fucked around with this message on 08-20-2005 at 02:11 PM.
Where did I say that the flat earth is taught in the Bible? That's right: nowhere. As for women's roles in society, that's pretty much already a matter of historical record, so, again, it's irrelevant what revisionists want to say the Bible really meant. I can't really answer the ridiculaus claim that further historical digging might unearth proof of divinity without this being a flame thread, but suffice it to say that just because certain persons or events or places really existed, it hardly means that everything those people said is therefore true--otherwise, you should convert to the ancient Greek pantheon, because many of those events are indeed factual and the people real.
Finally, it is perfectly logical to assume that people who have the advantage of the last 2000 years of progress--which, by the way, has been rather more logarithmic than linear, making the knowledge gap much, much wider than you seem to assume--are better qualified than ancient barbarians to decide how best to create modern society. I really don't care if you decide to believe in ghosts and magic and whatever, but you really need to quit asserting that there's anything logical or scientific about it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage sed this :
The question, "What did the authors intend?" is irrelevant. It should be, "Are these principles still valid today, and, if so, how should they be applied?"
I like the way he worded that, because it's basically my thoughts on the bible. The principles themselves are still valid (Don't be a dick, don't kill people, treat others like you wanna be treated, etc) but their actual applications in our lives are going to be very different than was ever intended when it was written.
quote:
Callalron had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
If you really read what he says, he's kinda right, if even the explanation would be a bit of a stretch. He only mentions neo-paganism in one sentence. Well, one dependent clause acutally. And if you've done any in-depth reading about Nazi philosophy, you'd know that there actually was a fairly strong pagan undercurrent to Nazi ideology.What's that? Examples, you say? Ok, how about Alfred Rosenberg's contributions of "blood and soil" mythology. The Nazi's delving into Nordic mythology and appropriation of its symbology (the SS lightning bolt collar runes being the best known example). The replacement or elimnation of traditional Christian chaplins in the German military (the Luftwaffe had "morale officers", the SS had nothing even remotely resembling a chaplin in their organization). The Nazi's well-documented interest in occult affairs. I'm sure entire books have been written on this subject.
I don't think that he's saying pagans or paganism are directly responsible for the Holocaust. That explanation is ludicrous on its face. Nor is he inferring that this somehow lets the Church off the hook, as some of you seem to be. I think what he's saying is, a bunch of people who took some pagan beliefs into their political philosophy did a bad, bad thing. If there had been a more Christian slant to their thinking, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Yes, the explanation is a bit stretched, perhaps more than it should be, but there it is.
Not to mention that in Hitler's book he talks about bringing about a national pride in the German people by using Norse history and mythology while at the same time staying true to religious beliefs and not bringing back "Odin's cult", meaning Asatru. The "SS" symbol wasn't the only symbol they used either. The swastika is actually a nordic sun circle showing the circle of life.
Blaming everyone else but the people that were responsible is just wrong. Hell, if that's the case then Christianity is in bad shape since it can be held responsible for the destruction of the heathen way of life.
quote:
UBT had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
The swastika is actually a nordic sun circle showing the circle of life..
The swastika actually shows up in several cultures around the world, among them the Native American and the Hindu, where it was used as a ward against evil, I believe. A representation of the Earth's movement around the Sun is another interpretation that I've read about.
Almost.
quote:
How.... Callalron.... uughhhhhh:
The swastika actually shows up in several cultures around the world, among them the Native American and the Hindu, where it was used as a ward against evil, I believe. A representation of the Earth's movement around the Sun is another interpretation that I've read about.
I think the Nazis made it backwards for their own use, though.
quote:
Snugglits thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I think the Nazis made it backwards for their own use, though.
It has been depicted, in both directions, long before Hitler ever crapped in his lederhosen.
Very little, if any, of Nazi philosophy or symbology is original. Which I think is one of the reasons why it is so intellectually barren, especially when compared to other political philosophies.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Jensus wrote:
Ratzinger is the best thing that ever happened as far as the Catholic Church goes. JPII was making it seem almost sensible.Almost.
American catholics never really listened to the pope, anyways.
quote:
JooJooFlop had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
American catholics never really listened to the pope, anyways.
But apparently he's real big in Italy.
He's like the Coca-Cola of Italy.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
So quoth JooJooFlop:
American catholics never really listened to the pope, anyways.
Yes, but the clergy they do listen to are subordinate to the pope.
quote:
We were all impressed when Callalron wrote:
The swastika actually shows up in several cultures around the world, among them the Native American and the Hindu, where it was used as a ward against evil, I believe. A representation of the Earth's movement around the Sun is another interpretation that I've read about.
True, but I seriously deoubt that he would have researched it from the Hindu or Native Americans instead of the Norse, of which the Germanic tribes (Germany) was actually part of. Hence why he would use Nordic symbology to bring about a huge movement of National Pride.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Mod said:
Yes, but the clergy they do listen to are subordinate to the pope.
That isn't clear cut either. Some religious orders, namely the Jesuits, don't exactly voice the same feelings of the Pope on some subjects.
