DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Hey… It’s the Pope!

so taking care of this planet goes against religious teachings?

taking care of the poor, fighting social injustice and income inequality goes against religious teachings?

Well it goes against the religious teachings of capitalism.

Capitalism is not a Religion.

Capitalism is a system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market (market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy). Capitalism is generally characterized by competition between producers. Other facets, such as the participation of government in production and regulation, vary across models of capitalism.

Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

'Pope Invoking Globalization: Pope tearing down Christianity in bid for One World Religion'

http://www.infowars.com/pope-invoking-globalization/

by LEO LYON ZAGAMI | INFOWARS.COM | SEPTEMBER 27, 2015

The US visit of the first Jesuit Pope in history concluded with a speech in Philadelphia’s Independance Mall for a crowd of an estimated 50,000 at the “World Meeting of Families.” He pushed for globalization and his usual immigration agenda, preaching for immigrants’ religious freedoms in the prescence of many celebrities which arrived from all over America. This after receiving an unusual blessing from Madonna during her concert in Philadelphia two days earlier, which featured lots of religious imagery including crosses used improperly, and fake nuns.

The closing event for Pope Francis followed his Mass in “Francisville,” which the archbishop of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia renamed the city during mass, at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Peter and Paul. It was quite boring compared to his appearance in New York at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan for the evening prayer, where he delivered pretty shocking words, stating with no shame to his flock that: “We need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross.”

These words have of course outraged most true Christians around the world who cannot imagine Christianity without the value of the cross, which symbolizes the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus for mankind. It’s impossible for a Christian of any denomination to imagine the very essence of their faith being discussed in this way, let alone by the Pope. The fact that blood was shed on the cross by Jesus for the ultimate self-sacrifice that could help rid mankind of all sins is one of those essentials of the Faith that should never be questioned.

The mainstream media persists with their undying affection for Pope Francis, never commenting on this outrageous statement.

So why is the Jesuit Pope putting the sacrifice of the cross into question? The answer is to gradually prepare us for “One World Religion,” where no symbol will prevail over the other in the name of ecumenism. For this reason, the disgraceful use of the cross by people like Madonna is not only tolerated, but encouraged in their mission to destroy Christianity’s symbols.

The New World Order destroyed the sacrality of the Petrine Ministry when they forced Joseph Ratzinger to resign back in 2013 under the priority of constructing and promoting with Pope Francis a “One World Religion.” The interfaith ceremony on the 25th of September 2015, at the “Ground Zero Memorial,” was concocted by James Massa, a Brooklyn bishop who has been a national Catholic leader on interfaith work. A truly staged event, Pope Francis surrounded himself with supposed leaders of other faiths, that in reality seemed to the expert eye, more like well-placed actors in a well-crafted Jesuit play. There was Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the young Khalid Latif, described by Wikipedia as someone who “has offered his experience to the U.S. State Department.” The only genuine figure amongst the many seemed the current Archbishop Demetrios, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and Ex-arch of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, who by the way seemed distant and cold to Pope Francis during the entire ceremony.

Of course most of America’s media loves Pope Francis’ interreligious ways. The Huffington Post reported that Imam Sayyid M. Syeed stated before the Pope’s historic visit to the US that, “Much of Catholic America is excited about Pope Francis’ first visit to the United States — and so are many American Muslims,” adding that Francis’ visit, “is even more important for Muslims than it is for Catholics.” Are you shocked? Not yet? Well, “This pope,” the Imam said, “is our pope.”

During his speech at St. Patrick’s Cathedral Pope Francis stated to his now loyal Muslims, “I would like to express two sentiments for my Muslim brothers and sisters: Firstly, my greetings as they celebrate the feast of sacrifice. I would have wished my greeting to be warmer. My sentiments of closeness, my sentiments of closeness in the face of tragedy. The tragedy that they suffered in Mecca. In this moment, I give assurances of my prayers. I unite myself with you all. A prayer to almighty god, all merciful.”

The stage is now set, and you may not realize this yet, but during the interfaith service at Ground Zero with Pope Francis, on the 25th of September of the year of Our Lord 2015, One World Religion has been activated. But nevermind that, let’s just listen to the Young People’s Chorus of New York City as they sing happily during the departure of the Holy Father from Ground Zero: “Let there be peace on Earth.”

From the article:

The closing event for Pope Francis followed his Mass in “Francisville,” which the archbishop of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia renamed the city during mass, at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Peter and Paul. It was quite boring compared to his appearance in New York at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan for the evening prayer, where he delivered pretty shocking words, stating with no shame to his flock that: “We need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross.”

These words have of course outraged most true Christians around the world who cannot imagine Christianity without the value of the cross, which symbolizes the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus for mankind. It’s impossible for a Christian of any denomination to imagine the very essence of their faith being discussed in this way, let alone by the Pope. The fact that blood was shed on the cross by Jesus for the ultimate self-sacrifice that could help rid mankind of all sins is one of those essentials of the Faith that should never be questioned.

-The cross comment by the pope was pretty crazy, at least to me.

Man, that was one hell of a slanted and biased article based on wild speculation, at least to my eyes.

The way I interpreted what he said is that it was the cross itself that failed...ie it was a futile attempt at destroying Him. Could just be my interpretation though.

That's an interesting take on it, dawglover05.

Wasn't he referring to the priests who abused kids and the failure of the church to appropriately solve the issue?

I don't read it that way at all. I would hope that it is just a poor translation, because that is a truly revolting statement for a Christian to make.

This is his exact quote:

“We need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross.”

That is just appalling, and I cannot think of too much that would be more insulting to a Christian that what he said.

You cannot separate the human and God sides of Jesus Christ. He lived a perfect human life, so as to be a perfect sacrifice. This was His entire purpose for being born as a human being. That life cannot, in any way, be considered a failure, as it specifically and completely followed the Old Testament prophesy, and ended in the only way it could to fulfill that prophesy. Jesus gave His life for us. He sacrificed Himself for us.

"Humanly speaking", the human life of Jesus Christ brought forgiveness and salvation to the world. He saved those who would believe from their sins, and from condemnation because of those sins. He saved the world, at least those who would follow Him. I cannot imagine a soldier, who gave his life to save his fellow soldiers and friends would ever have his life referred to as a "humanly speaking, ending in failure". In the same way, I could never call the death of Jesus a "failure", from any viewpoint .... human, or not.

If you believe in the same Jesus, God, and Bible that I do, then Jesus' life ended exactly where, how, and why it was supposed to end. There was no failure about it.

What the Pope said...

“We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management and outward success which govern the business world. Not that these things are unimportant! We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us. But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes. To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility. The cross shows us a different way of measuring success. Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labours. And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus, and His life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross”.
http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2015/09/vespers-with-clergy-and-religious-of.html

What it means to me...

-Jesus's death on the cross appeared from the human prospective to be a terrible failure and a waste of Jesus's life but seen from a Spiritual prospective, we know it was actually a great victory for mankind.

So don't feel lost when you appear to fail in your religious mission because it may have actually been your greatest achievement and victory.

“Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross.”

Wouldn't being crucified equal to a failure as a "human" and the Pope clearly stated "humanly speaking"?

The result of the Crucifixion and Ascendance is the spiritual essence.

I'm not sure, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" sounds like success to me.

That's what I thought too, but you said it better.

That is still horribly worded.

If he would have said something like, "According to the world, Jesus' life ended in failure with His execution on the cross. However, we know that His life was lived perfectly, in accord with scripture, and that it ended as it had to end in order to fulfill prophesy, and God's perfect plan for man's salvation. Thus even what was initially perceived by some as failure, was in fact the greatest triumph in the history of mankind."

That would have been much better than what he actually said. I am amazed that someone in his position, with so many experienced, and supposedly knowledgeable Biblical experts around him, would say something that could be seen as being so anti-Christ.

Well then perhaps next time they will elect you as Pope.

Man, I would have to dismantle much of that religion in order to bring it back to a strictly Biblical stance. I would never survive.

I'll pass, thank you very much.

This is one of my favorite biblical arguments. Doesn't that statement make Judas a hero?

During my life I have heard this kind of statement many times to which I always reply...

We will see how well your Church has done when it has been around for 2000 years and ruled the known World for nearly 1000 of those years. When your Church has encompassed the entire planet and over 1 billion people of different Nations and Races as the Catholic Church has done during its time.

No, no more than the Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross were heroes. They were people who acted in a way that God knew they would, and who He used as part of His overall plan as a result. God can use the evil man does in a lot of different ways, but that does not make those who do evil into heroes.

I hope one of those blessings got through the TV screen at ya.

Sorry, but while confessing your sins to a fellow believer, priest or not, is perfectly acceptable, doing penance to "make up" for one's sins is not.

The practice of granting annulments to couples with multiple children, who have been married for years, or even decades, is an absolute joke.

Selling "indulgences" was an atrocity.

Using Latin in services, so that no one can understand what is said is ridiculous, and I see no way that it would be what God wants.

The opposition that the Catholic Church had to faithfully translating and distributing the Bible was appalling.

There are many other such examples that are found nowhere in the Bible, and others that are completely in opposition to the Bible. Because of this, I cannot follow, or support the Catholic Church in any way.

My denomination, the United Methodist Church, was begun as a response to many of these things. Wesley, and his brother, designed the Methodist Church in order to take the Church back to basics, and get rid of as many of the man made additions to the Church as possible. We all accept the fact that the exact dates for Christmas and Easter are probably not accurate, but the dates really don't matter, as long as the message is Biblical. Besides, these holidays were created for man, and to the best of my knowledge, were not in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has too many teachings that are not Biblical for me to ever consider them my church. I have attended Catholic services in the past (not as a member) and they are often absolutely beautiful, but if the message is not the right message, than all of the beauty in the world does not matter. I see far too many problems with their teachings, and even if they have been around for a million years, the Bible should still be the basis of our faith in Christ, not tradition and ceremony.

That's your prerogative. However, I would suggest you might take a less hardened stance as many of the things that the UMC preaches is also not in the Bible. Latin was the language of Christ and Theology long before English resembles what it is now. It's unsurprising that many people believe that Latin should be used as it is important. Translations over centuries and centuries from Latin and Greek to English or German can become unreliable. Words come and go, meanings change. Sometimes in translations one can get too focused on spreading the message that they lose track of the words. And sometimes in translations one might get too caught up in the words and lose the message. As someone who used to translate poems from English to Spanish, it shows me how hard it is to fully grasp something once it's translated. I digress. All I'm trying to say is, be careful when speaking about church practices and "what the bible really says", because the arguments could be turned back onto you. For example, I know that the UMC believes in free will, but that seems very against the Bible. And while I'm not trying to rehash the old argument of predetermination, mainly because it's very circular on this board -- "God knows everything you're going to do before you do it, but he allows you to still make the choice that he knows." -- and that time could be better spent arguing over Colt McCoy vs. Brady Quinn. Just saying to keep an open mind or equally scrutinize yourself like you do others. I hate to point you out, but I do have a hard time remaining quiet when people take such hardened stances on religion and act like they are more pure. Especially considering, like you said, your church still believes and practices pagan rituals that have morphed into Christianity.

And yeah, this seems pretty hypocritical for me to say, but I do try to be semi-respectful in religious debates unless I'm just ****posting the more zealous members of the forum.

This is why I like to say...

We're handed this precious gift, Each one of us granted redemption from the Creator - murderers, rapists, and molesters - all of us, we only have to repent, and God takes us into His bosom through the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Everything else is lightweight when compared to this in my way of thinking.

According to the Gnostic Gospel of Judas he certainly wasn't the wretched betrayer of Jesus we've been led to believe.

Latin is a translation of the Bible.

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. To the best of my knowledge, no books were originally written in Latin. Do you know otherwise? There is no justification for using Latin above any other languages, except that it eliminates anyone asking difficult questions of their religious leaders.

As far as the holidays ..... I have no problem with them, because we don't know the dates. The dates are not important. If it was discovered that Jesus' birthday was actually May 23, then I believe that the Methodist Church would change their Christmas celebration to that date. However, we do not know the exact date, so we follow the celebratory date set down by tradition. What we celebrate on the days of Easter and Christmas is far more important then the actual date itself, and having an (almost certainly) inaccurate date on which to celebrate them is really unimportant.

While the early church used pagan holiday dates to conceal their Christian celebrations, they did not necessarily take part in those pagan celebrations. They merely used them as a mask for their forbidden faith.

Predestination is a really difficult topic with which to wrestle. I believe that God knows who will decide to be saved, and who will not. I believe that he uses people for His work, and he might use either a saved person, or an unsaved person, to help save another who will decide to be saved. I believe that God allows us to decide for ourselves, but also that He knows how and what we will decide, because He is timeless and all-knowing. To me this is not a debate that the Bible ever plainly states one way or the other.

However, there are so many practices in the Catholic Church that are forbidden by the Bible ..... praying to saints, and statues of saints, for example. I am trying to visualize what Jesus would say about that practice if He was walking the earth in human form today. I suspect that He would not be pleased. Even just praying to a person who is not God (either the Father, Jesus, the Son, or the Holy Spirit) is idolatry. I see no way around that. I doubt that Saint Paul would want anyone to pray to him following his death, yet many people do, every day.

I think that we should move back to the Bible as much as is possible. I also think that we should interpret the Bible to the best of our ability. One example would be female clergy. Paul's stance on Women in some of the churches of the day is more cultural than anything else, especially since Jesus Himself had female apostles who taught and healed in His name.

So, the Bible should be our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th supporting document for our faith, and the Bible should be taught, or else we should go join a pagan religion that does not use the Bible.

Yep. This "Gospel", dated to many centuries after Christ, in the name of Judas, claims that he was not the villain of the piece. How surprising. (and I can say this with absolute certainty, because it contains late 2nd century Christian theology in it texts)

None of the books were written in Latin. However Jesus and the apostles spoke Latin to some extent, which was the point of that comment. And while I agree with you that Latin isn't needed in today's world, I can't help but cringe when suggesting that Latin is hurting the Church or a crime against God. While you have a point about Latin once being a tool to trick the proles, I don't think many see it that way today. With the advancement of knowledge and technology these previous barrier of entries are fairly small today.

It's very fair of you to say that celebrations should remain the same, because they should. However, they're still pagan festivals. When preaching that you're getting back to the basics, then absolving the religion of its pagan roots would be the first step I would make. Especially since you noted that dates and times don't really matter all that much. While it's certainly more convenient to leave the dates the same, and making new dates is a tedious process full of PR backlashes, it might be very important. However, when taking things back to the bible then removing paganistic rituals and influences should take a very big role in the religion. Begging the question, does your religion allow the eating of pigs? How does your church feel about the change in laws and philosophies in trying to recruit gentiles?

The Bible doesn't say anything explicit as "God has predetermined everything", but it does call him "all knowing" and "all powerful", as well as multiple hints and tales of his power. The giving thing is the "all knowing" and predetermination. If you view "all knowing" as literally knowing everything than God would know how everything plays out. However, Him talking to many people in the Bible, giving them "choices" and advice muddles the issue.

I agree with the idea of praying to Saints being against the Bible though. But again, Pagan influences are pretty much intertwined with modern day Christianity. It's unfair to draw such a line in the sand when we're pretty far pass that line.

Perhaps not so much today, but the RC church fought vigorously to prevent the translation of the Holy Bible into other languages specifically for this reason., They held the power of God in their hands, and they did not want to share that power with anyone else. That was one of the major issues behind the Protestant Reformation.

My sister-in-law is Catholic, and she thinks that the Latin is beautiful, but she admits that she has no idea what is being said. I am willing to bet that most Catholics are in the same boat.



I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Eating pork is fine, as long as doing so does not force a believer into doing something he thinks is a sin. God removed the dietary restrictions in the New Testament. Gentiles are Gentiles. They are not subject tot he Jewish Law, because we are free from the law. Our law is to Love God with all of our hearts, minds, souls, and beings, and to love one another as ourselves. The Disciples of Christ laid down the following laws for Gentiles as far as behavioral laws, in Acts 15:28, and reiterated in Acts 21:25, (IIRC) “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

That is pretty succinct, and clear as a bell.

As far as the holidays, the "secular" Christmas and Easter are secular. The religious Christmas and Easter are religious. Do churches hold Easter Egg rolls for children? Sure. However, that is usually after services, where the true value of Easter is taught. Same with Christmas. Churches also sometimes celebrate Veterans Day, and other holidays as well. The secular can be a small part of the church, as it is part of the community, but it should remain in its appropriate place.

I find it odd that non practicing Catholics keep holidays what are based on principals and customs of paganism.

Just to let you know, I'm bowing out of this discussion. While it's particularly entertaining, it's just a rabbit hole that I'd rather not explore at the moment. YTown, you are very knowledgeable about the subject, and if I wanted to debate you further I would have to take time and prepare responses, however I don't. I also don't like to come across as someone who attacks Christianity, where I can feel myself going. So again, respectfully bowing out. Good show, YT

I thank you for a respectful debate.

Yes. I do believe that is the one in which Jesus requested Judas betray him to the Pharisees, as Judas was the most respected disciple. Off the top of my head, I think the document was dated to the 8th century, but it's been disputed to be earlier.

J/C ....

It is amazing how the Lord leads me in His ways, seemingly on a daily basis.

<My daily study of the Bible has reached Colossians, and I was in chapters 1-2. It is amazing how several of the very subjects we spoke about are in these 2 chapters, specifically in Chapter 2.

Colossians Chapter 2: 13-21;

"13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19 He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. 20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

A date of approximately A.D. 280 is when they say it was written. Who wrote it and it's truth value is always debatable.

http://www.livescience.com/28506-gospel-judas-ink-authenticity.html

Yep, and while the "age" of 280 AD may make it seem as though it's definitely a forgery, it would be the 8th youngest book in the New Testament (based on fragments we've found so far).

We can't even posit that him being resentful of betraying Jesus is proof it's a forgery, because the canonical New Testament isn't consistent on his devices either. In some accounts, Judas asks the priests for money, in other accounts the priests just give him the money. His death account in Matthew is contradicted by his death account in Acts as well.

Judas in general is the subject of many philosophical writings. After all it is said in John 17:12 that he was doomed to destruction, but if Judas acted in obedience to God's plan, is he really deserving of destruction? Most of it comes down to whether or not you believe he was able to free will himself away from betraying Jesus though. If the Gospel of Judas is to be believed, then he shouldn't be doomed to destruction because he was doing what Jesus told him to do.

There is even a theory (by a bishop no less) whereby Judas was invented so people had someone to blame for Jesus' death other than the Romans. Whether this is true or not is unknown (and unimportant really) but it does play along with the rampant antisemitism in the story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion.

If a man will be bound and determined to do something, does it make his actions any better if God uses that determination in His plans.

Judas was a zealot. He was intent on overthrowing Roman rule by any means possible. He saw Jesus as the means of doing so, as he thought that Jesus was going to reestablish the Jewish Kingdom on earth, and be its king. That was not the path Jesus was taking, so Judas tried to push Jesus down the path to war with Rome. I believe that Judas, if not convinced of the deity of Jesus, was at least convinced that He was blessed of God, and powerful enough to win a war with Rome. That is what Judas wanted, and if he had to push Jesus into the path of Rome in order to get what he wanted, then so be it.

The Bible says that Satan whispered in the ear of Judas, and I think that we all have that experience ..... where we hear that voice telling us to do something we "want", but that know that we should not do. Is it anyone else's fault if we do what the little voice says? We have free will, and the ability to do decide on our own actions, so of course it's our fault. Judas made his own decision, and God used what He knew Judas would do as part of His divine plan.

I see nothing antisemitic about any of the New Testament. There were Jewish people on the side of Jesus, and Jews of the other side, opposing Jesus. The Jewish leadership loved their positions of power, and so they acted to protect themselves. It is a story that is repeated even to modern times .... those in power, scapegoating another in order to protect their own power.

Almost all of the earliest followers of Christ, before His death and resurrection, were Jews. There is no antisemitism at play. Jewish leaders, politicians, in a way, acted to protect their own interests, incomes, and positions of power in society.

I'm glad you know which book written 1800 years ago is right! That's settled then



Really? All the New Testament does is paint the Jews as the reason for Jesus' death. Yet he died at the hands of the Romans! He was on a roman cross. You can see the whitewashing when you compare the 4 gospels of Jesus by date. Mark, the earliest book, says Jesus' crucifixion was authorized by Roman authorities from the Sadducees. That's it. Matthew gets a bit more antisemitic, especially in Matthew 27:25 "His blood be on us and on our children!" This is the origin of the blood guilt. Still, John changes the game further. He writes that Jesus and Pilate had extended conversations, and Pilate wanted him to be free, but somehow the Jews forced his hand...

The Romans influenced Christianity so much. It's why we celebrate Christmas when we do. It's why we celebrate passover and easter roughly together. It's why we have the concept of the Trinity. It's why the Sabbath is now on Sunday. Constantine wanted a universal church that combined many faiths into one. Catholic means "universal" in Greek. Constantine hated the Jews and used his power to paint the Jews as the villain in the story of Christ. So yes, you should see at least some antisemitism in the Bible, and if you don't, you aren't looking close enough.