rumitoid

This has been a major point of mine for a while but he says it far better than I have or could.

“In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is t***sformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?”
~Pope Francis, taking aim at ideologically obsessed Christians, October 2013

You will find more of the same at "Why Do Conservatives H**e Pope Francis"

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Another reason I am a big fan of Pope Francis, and I am not a Catholic! :wink: :thumbup: :mrgreen:

rumitoid

I have written numerous times on this point, slatten49, while here. As Idsuttonjr put it so brilliantly, "T***h has no agenda." And it is not the property of the Left or Right. Ideologies are by nature and definition self-limiting. To pledge sole allegiance to any ideology is a promise to be, at minimum, myopic or ill-informed, unreasoning and unreasonable. Lumping people whole into some category of Left or Right by their comments on a particular topic is either self-serving or demeaning, but always half-blind and misleading.
There is no subject that should be rubber-stamped because it is considered liberal or conservative, or opposed for the same reason.
There have been a number of occasions where I sent a supporting link to what would be considered a conservative thread and the author, obviously without following the link, jumped on me for my "libtard views." Hmmm, just realized something: I do not give such links to what could be considered a liberal thread. Why? Have to look at that. Counter-balance: just saw something else and it explains a lot. I very, very rarely comment on Liberal posts. Need to look at that as well.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

It would seem, Rumi, that we are both facing a similiar dilemma. I, unabashedly, am a moderate, with leanings to either side, depending upon the topic. As such, I am subject to occasional "bashings" from each. In all fairness, though, they are few and far between. Most on the OPP, in my experience, are as civil as you are with them.

I venture that, if you treat someone with respect and civility, you are generally afforded the same from them. I see more vitriol and hatred between obvious antagonists than I do between two people having a dialogue, with mutual respect being shown.

If I cannot see myself being reasonable/civil on any given subject, I usually delay my response for a later time, when I have had time to reflect. It generally works.

I do avoid, to some degree, posts that seem to be looking for confrontation. They are frequently posted by two or three from opposing perspectives. Their posts are often
venomous in the very nature of their title. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I guess.

Onward through the fog!

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Every couple centuries or so, the Pope says something insightful to think about. I like it - not intended to be a pun of the Holy See on facebook.

rumitoid

Love it and so apropos: "Onward through the fog!" Brilliant and wonderfully put on so many levels. Well done.

rumitoid

It is curious to me that there are at least two admitted Christian here that would probably disagree, but for different reasons. We have the same Bible and I thoroughly concur with the Pope, although I have not been a Catholic for over two decades and presently disagree with much of their dogma. "T***h has no agenda," thus spaketh Idsuttonjr.
One may be more inclined to condemn the RCC as the "whore of Babylon" while the other would say that the Bible supported certain worldly ideologies. The t***h is probably somewhere in the mix of our different views.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Idunno, what gets me is that everyone believes theirs is the only one and all the others are damned.

For all the worship of the bible, few think about how Jesus didn't write it and pass it on - - it was invented in the 4th century by a government council (Council of Nicaea).

I think if it was as important as it is made to be, wouldn't Jesus have written something down? Instead, nothing was written by Him. That is the most important message to me. It has t***hful words to live by but many modern novels with heroic tales of loving self sacrifice, self denial, discipline, forgiveness and empathy towards others can be claimed as being inspired by God as much as the bible.

I think if any of them are closest to the t***h, the RCC is high up there on the list. The "whore of Babylon" shtick has been around a few centuries and you'd think those that still believe it would have some more credible data by now.

rumitoid

I have had these same thoughts and they persist. I am the Director of Control at a local Christian TV station (not as sinister as it may sound, simply the person in charge of assuring our programs and advertisers are properly inputed and aired), and I find many shows to be usually more concerned with dogma than living right, as Christ.
There seems to be sufficient evidence by scholars that certain portions of scripture in the NT has been altered for certain ends. This is not exactly true of the story of "casting the first stone," for it fits the overall ethos of Christ's message and does not work as a power grab or of political intent, yet it is clearly a much later addition to the Gospel. Whether a pure invention or a later discovery is unclear.
The Gospel of Luke is a sign of changing times for the emerging Christian faith: a thunderous indictment, polemic, against the Jews, which neatly coincides with Christian persecution, the Jews looking to placate Rome at the same time. Offer a sacrifice.
I have far more to bring serious questions to bear on the NT, but that does not matter to me. My personal experience, rightly or wrongly, assures me that Christ is real and his teachings what will naturally lead to our greatest freedom and deepest joy.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I see a lot of wisdom in this post, Jesse. But, I am not all, and you stand to catch some criticism!

I try hard to avoid discussing matters of Faith. They are, by nature, so personal, as they should be, and I honor the Faith of all who discuss theirs with me. Of course, their Faith need be credible, and not cultish in definition or appearance/practice. And, I do not need to feel any overt attempt at conversion by them. :wink:

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Yeah, with written contradictions, you either get it, or not. If not, you either get another insight to live by, blindly accept it anyway or just chalk it up to how this is a guide formulated by the Roman government to seek a standard to prevent multitudes of sects causing civil war in your empire. If you are a part of Him, He holds on tight and dogmatic contradictions are trivial.

It was revolutionary at the time and gave hope to the average and below average social classes. They knew in the spiritual world, they are equal to the emperor, soldier, master and lord. And in many ways, they will be better off in the next life because of the struggles they endure in made their soul better. This gave many hope and allowed them to grin and bear it in the Roman Empire.

Today, we do have differences in income and social status but not as dramatic as ancient times. It seems church sometimes, is a social club for the self-righteous and materialistic. To me, this is why the Pope is on target and timely with many of his recent opinion articles/quotes that all Christians can relate to.

rumitoid

Attesting to the fact that I have personal experience the message of Christ works for me is superficial; if it works for you, it is t***h.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

;)

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

I have no clue where you got this false notion, Uncle, the Holy Bible is composed of scriptures written over a period of 1500 years by 42 different authors. Three centuries after Jesus lived, the Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders, was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin. These Theologians did not "invent" anything.

The original scriptures that compose the OT were written in Hebrew. The scriptures that make up the NT were written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Beginning around 250 bc, the books were t***slated into Greek.

I'll leave it there for now because the history of the Holy Bible is a fascinating subject. The most remarkable thing about the Bible is that a universal foundation of t***h underlies the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation.

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

I look at the Bible as a vast gold mine, and that it is up to us under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to dig to seek out its most precious gems. I also believe there are many things that the finite mind cannot as yet comprehend.
Deut. 29:29