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

The Jewish leadership was who lead Jesus to His preordained death on the cross. They were more concerned with losing their positions than anything else. Ordinary Jews were not the villain, the Jewish leadership was.

Wasn't it the crowd of ordinary Jews that chose to save Barabbas over Jesus?

Well, after much thought, my final observations on the Visit to the United States by Pope Francis are that it was the greatest shot in the arm concerning our relationship with God that I have witnessed. America needed this and he delivered.

I saw so many people with zero religious experience come out to see him and have had so many say to me it was a changing moment in their lives. Many, for the first time in their lives have actually considered their relationship with God.

I watched the anchors on CNN well up with emotion and thought.
I saw local News people do the same. One local anchor could not bring himself to speak and when asked if he was ok, he emotionally said he was overwhelmed with the thought that he needed to get his life in order. So many examples of people having their souls touched by the Popes presence. More than all the TV and Radio gum flappers combined could ever hope for. I for one was impressed.

Pope Francis did not come in Judgement, he did not come to warn us of what is sin or to point fingers. He came with open arms to welcome us all, prisoners and the poor, the rich and Gay, Holy and nonbeliever alike. He embraced us all with open arms, welcoming us back to God.

He only focused on the basics such as all life being important and precious from beginning to the end. He reminded us of the fact we are a Nation of immigrants and it is our duty to concern ourselves with new immigrants the world over. He told us to care for the poor and the sick, to bring in the outsiders of our Society.

I think his visit was a blessing for America and her people as he showed how God welcomes all of us and cares for all of us with wide open arms.

It's crazy isn't it? Both Christmas and Easter traditions are steeped in pagan symbolism, yet in todays version of what's considered to be Christianity, they make every excuse known to man to observe pagan customs within their religion.

They refuse to keep the actual Sabbath and claim it's done away with on one hand, then espouse that our nation and laws are based on the Ten Commandments. I guess picking and choosing works well for them?

They claim you go to heaven when you die which goes totally against the scripture as it pertains to the resurrection of the dead which is clearly the plan laid out in the Bible.

To me, it's why so many are Christian, yet have no faith in religion a a whole.

The Pharisees "stacked the deck", so to speak. They flooded the area with their supporters, and made sure that supporters of Jesus were kept far away.

Finally got around to watching that HBO documentary on Scientology this afternoon, and it was full of former believers expressing similar sentiments. If you combine the power of endorphins with the neediness that arises from longing desperation, and any belief becomes possible.

The Pope > L Ron Hubbard

I don't disagree. But, as much as I like the guy, I highly doubt Pope Francis is going to say or do anything that leads me to gush like a teenager about changing my life or the way I live it. Too old for that. That happens with my lady and our kids. Melting over religious figures is for the desperate people looking for a reason to question the way they live their lives. If you're getting the willies over an old Argentinian who is merely waving at crowds while you're live on CNN, it's either for effect or because you're desperate to buy into something.

When I was around 18 years old, (way before the internet) I was interested in the possibilities of the human mind, and I bought a copy of "Dianetics". When I started reading it, I thought to myself .... this reads like it was written by a science fiction writer ........

You don't have to be desperate to periodically question the way you live your life. Actually, it's quite healthy to do so. If the pope is the stimulus for that and it leads to positive changes and healthy introspection, that's a good thing....not some sign of dysfunction as you're making it out to be.

Referring to Pope Francis as nothing more than an old Argentinian is quite insulting, and there are quite a few non-Christians that would agree.

So old friend are you to old to learn new things?

Pope Francis Met With Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, Her Lawyers Say


Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, privately met with Pope Francis during his historic trip to the U.S., according to her legal team.

Davis and her husband Joe met with the pope at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 24, according to a statement from the Liberty Counsel.

The Vatican Press office has not confirmed or denied that the meeting occurred, and the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C., has not commented on the matter.

ABC News' Terry Moran asked Francis Sunday night if he supports individuals, including government officials, who claim religious liberty as a reason to disobey the law.

Francis responded, "I can't have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection, but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."

When asked if that includes government officials, Francis said, "It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right."

https://gma.yahoo.com/pope-francis-met-k...topstories.html

Kim Davis said, "I was humbled to meet Pope Francis. Of all people, why me?" Davis continued, "I never thought I would meet the Pope. Who am I to have this rare opportunity? I am just a County Clerk who loves Jesus and desires with all my heart to serve him." Kim said, "Pope Francis was kind, genuinely caring, and very personable. He even asked me to pray for him. Pope Francis thanked me for my courage and told me to 'stay strong.'"

"The challenges we face in America regarding the sanctity of human life, marriage, and religious freedom are the same universal challenges Christians face around the world. Religious freedom is a human right that comes from God. These values are shared in common by people of faith, and the threats to religious freedom are universal. Kim Davis has become a symbol of this worldwide conflict between Christian faith and recent cultural challenges regarding marriage," said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

https://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/pope...o-stay-strong-1

How did he insult the pope by referring to him as such? If he called him decrepit or ancient I'd be inclined to agree with you, but old by itself has neither positive nor negative ramifications. Methinks you're reading too much into this.

Huh?

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.

He is 78 years old, and Argentinian. And as I said, I like the guy. Perhaps you missed that part in your need to inject political correctness. I swear, people are just constantly on the lookout for a reason to throw their "I'm offended" flag anymore.

I'm not. But that gets tossed on me all the time.........can't say what I think because someone might get offended? Tough.

I'm offended. I can't believe you'd swear that like on this forum.

I guess if I find comparing the Pope to scientology and referring to him as some old Argentian as insulting, it makes me overly sensitive. That's the first time I've been referred to as politically correct or accused of throwing the "I'm offended" flag. Look at me.....I'm progressive!

Yeah, bro- you've never been confused with a 'new-age progressive' before today, that's for sure!




I think it has less to do with political stripe than where each of us draws his own personal lines. Each of us has a set of things/ideas/icons that we hold sacrosanct. When we hear others make statements that aren't as reverential as we feel, we tend to bristle. Conversely, there are boundaries we cross with others, simply because they revere a different set of things/ideas/icons.

In short: Their 'Personal Lines' are drawn in different places than ours. Doesn't necessarily make them bad or evil people... it just makes them different (in makeup) from us. Their lines are simply drawn at different places on different subjects- because of different things/ideas/icons that impacted their lives.

Nowadays, everyone has a mouthpiece to the world, so it's easier for us to voice our offense at anyone who (wittingly or unwittingly) 'attacks' our personal sacred cows.

_______________________


Over the past 15 or so years, I've felt myself 'checking out', a little at a time... and I'm actually OK with it. I'm much less "of this world" than I used to be. I find myself 'stepping outside' more often- so I can just observe, and study the flow of daily stuff we call Life.

I like it 'out here,' most times.
I like the distance/perspective it gives me.
It's peaceful... because it takes my ego out of the equation (...the source of most of my self-imposed stress...).

Someone says something that deeply offended me when I was 35, it hardly raises an eyebrow any more. Because I've been 'checking out,' I'm much less invested in the daily personal battles that I used to join/fight with gusto and abandon.

Taking that step back has allowed me to not just read/react... but to read/think/consider/respond. Even when my lines get crossed.

Just sayin'... I don't think Tripper wrote what he did to intentionally provoke you. I think his wording 'crossed your personal line' in this thread. It happens in a LOT of threads, and it happens with a wide variety of posters. I see it all the time here. Read enough from your fellow posters, and you can get a feel for who they truly are- even if you've never shared time, a bar table or a tailgate with them:

their likes/dislikes
their intellectual interests/hobbies
their life priorities
their sacred cows

Tripper's description of the Pope didn't offend me on any level. But this subject finds my line in a different place than yours. In another thread, I might rise to an ethnic remark that means absolutely nothing to you.


Now... if 20 years ago, someone had said: "Rostropovich is an old, skirt-chasing Russki box-scratcher," I might have bloodied a lip at a posh post-concert reception....




I don't think there's really such a thing as being 'overly sensitive' to any issue/circumstance. We are what Our Lives have made us. We respond to stimulus in accordance to our life's history, and how we've trained ourselves.

Personally, I think that reading posts on a football fansite is a lot like attending a big, impersonal party... where hundreds of people are all brought together under some general 'unifier'- and are engaging in hundreds of different conversations at the same time.

As a 'roamer,' I get to decide for myself whether I want to engage these eavesdropped conversations or not. When I do decide to engage, I do so knowing these 3 things:

Some will agree with what I've said, based on content.
Some will disagree with what I've said, based on content.
Some will take issue with the way I've said it.


I can't control ANY of the responses that my post triggered... but I CAN give background to WHY I said it... and hope that those who didn't like my statement can at least understand WHY I said it. From that starting point, meaningful dialogue can commence.

_______________

This would be a great conversation to watch over a bar table. My guess is that it would have gone very differently, had we all been talking together.

Wow. Brain Cramp: Clemmy sits at bar table with JFan and Jack Tripper

Not to mention that the man who was probably the least religious, Ben Franklin, suggested they pray to God when they were seemingly irrevocably stuck on certain aspects of the Constitution, and the formal union of the colonies into the United States was in serious doubt. An agreement on those issues came soon afterwards.

People have this vision of the founders as being some heathen group who never prayed, never went to church, and so on, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The phrase originated from Thomas Jefferson and others, and since they helped pen the Constitution, the phrase has meaning. The phrase actually had its origins with a Baptist preacher I've never heard of anyone claim that our founding fathers were heathens though. Not a single one was atheist. They were mostly deist. The only Christian in the major founding fathers ranks was John Jay. Our country was founded during the Age of Enlightenment. An age where reason was valued over authority. I have however seen revisionist history from certain folks who wish to proclaim our country as being "founded on Christianity." Even the Pledge of Allegiance didn't add "Under God" until the 1950s...

Yeah, it was a Baptist preacher who was concerned about America having a national religion, like the Church of England. He wrote to Jefferson, IIRC, shortly after his election as President.

It was never about keeping Christians out of government, public policy, or the public arena.

I don't know where people get the idea that the founders were not Christian though.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Ennumerating the Founding Fathers
The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)
There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # %
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.

In the table above, some people have been counted more than once because they changed religious affiliation from one denomination to another. Thus, the individual amounts added together total more than 100%. This method is used because it results in accurate numbers for each individual religious affiliation. For example, a total of 7 Quakers are shown in the table above. There were indeed 7 Quakers who were in this group. (However, not all of these were life-long Quakers.) For the most part, very few Founding Fathers switched denomination during their lifetime (less than 8%), so double-counting has occurred only rarely in this table. Quakers, in fact, are more likely to have switched denominations than members of any other religious denomination. Along with taking up arms and supporting military action against the British, a large proportion of Quaker Founding Father officially renounced or were expelled from the ardently pacifistic denomination they had been raised in and joined another denomination (usually Episcopalianism).

Also, note that the proportions shown (percentage of each religious affiliation out of the total group of Founding Fathers) is the proportion out of Founders whose religious affiliation is known. The religious affiliation of a significant number of signers of the Articles of Confederation is not known, but if that information was available, it is expected that such information would not change the overall proportions signifcantly.

Your confused due to the fundamentalists' campaign to redefine these words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and the courts wont allow government officials to establish religious rule in the way Kim Davis attempted to religiously(?) violate constitutionally enforced civil rights law to suit her bigotry.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;, no government or citizen is stopping Kim Davis from exercising her religion. Bigotry and violating civil rights is not protected by the American constitution and not even close to actual Christianity.

These are the same fundamentalist activists who campaign the idea that our constitution is being, "torn to shreds".

You need to be careful of wanting to change or redefine the constitution to meet the need to discriminate because that freedom opens the door to other religions(?) legally practicing the violation of civil rights as well.

I'm not sure why these fundamentalist are promoting Sharia Law.

I like this Pope, but meeting with Kim Davis... I hope he thumped her in the head with a really big bible.

Oh crap, that was a flag? I thought it was toilet paper. Oh well that explains why I don't have a PC flag

I agree that Tripper wasn't trying to provoke anybody with his comments. However he does like to "Poke the Bear" sometimes then sit back and laugh and feel entertained when the bear roars at him

Because there is a confusion today and people claim the founding fathers were like modern day Evangelicals. It's simply unfounded. They were deeply spiritual men, but largely abhorred organized religion. They read the Bible, but were pro-rational, not pro-faith. They felt that Jesus was a real man who existed but that his purpose had been perverted from the original design by the Romans and others. Sure, none of the major founding fathers were straight up atheist. But they weren't orthodox christian either.

Even in your link, it supports its claim by saying James Madison was Episcopalian and leaving it at that. Sure, he was raised in an Anglican home, but he changed a lot of his ideas on religion in his early 20s, Largely after witnessing persecution of Baptists at the hands of Anglicans. The Baptists were arrested and charged and found guilty. How, may you ask? Because Virginia ordained the Anglican Church as the official state church. So it was within their realm (and desire) to punish non anglicans. This affected Madison a great deal, and he's not the only founding father who saw the damage that can be done by having the state sponsor a religion. You can see it in his later writings as he spoke very ill of ecclesiastical establishments.

Also within that link I think some of those religions would not readily fly in todays Christian society. Unitarians believed everyone went to heaven no matter what. So by that measure I don't think you can consider John Adams a Christian in the modern sense. They list Thomas Jefferson as Episcopalian when he is quoted as a materialist and a deist also...

There is a big push these days by people to proclaim the founding fathers as either Evangelical Christians or as atheists. Neither is true. The reality is that the major founding fathers were theistic rationalists. They believed in God and Jesus, and read the Bible. But if the Bible mentioned something that seemed irrational, they didn't jump through hoops to rationalize it. They knew the text they read had been modified several times and read it through that lens. Thomas Jefferson was so deeply rational he cut out every verse that mentioned things like miracles or the virgin birth of Christ. His character was attacked by clergy and ministers because of his views on faith.

The big question to me is if you think Christians today would support someone for president (like Jefferson) who ripped up parts of the Bible and proclaimed Christianity as corruption.

The real story behind the pope’s meeting with Kim Davis

This is what it sounds like when a pope gets mad.

On Friday, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi released an extraordinary statement, personally approved by Pope Francis, debunking nearly everything that has been reported this week about a meeting between the pope and Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The private meeting between Davis, her husband, Joe, and the pope, which Davis’ attorney says took place at the Apostolic Nunciature (Vatican Embassy) in Washington, D.C. last Thursday? It didn’t happen. Instead, Davis was one of “several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet [Pope Francis] as he prepared to leave

Washington for New York City,” Lombardi said in the statement.

The statement stressed that “the only real audience” — private meeting— “granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.” As CNN reported Friday afternoon, that student, Yayo Grassi, happens to be an openly gay man who brought along his partner of 19 years. “Three weeks before the trip, [Pope Francis] called me on the phone and said he would love to give me a hug,” Grassi told CNN.

The idea that Pope Francis has been following Kim Davis’ case and requested a meeting with her? (“I’m just a nobody,” Davis told ABC News after her lawyer began asserting that she had met privately with the pope. “It was really humbling to think he would want to meet or know me.”) Not so. Father Tom Rosica, who assists the Vatican press office with English-language media, told the National Catholic Reporter that the
encounter was not organized by staff at the Vatican, and might have been at the initiative of the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S., Archbishop Carlo Viganò.

And the assertion that any meeting between Davis and the pope reflected the Holy Father’s support for her case? (Davis also told ABC: “Just knowing the pope is on track with what we’re doing and agreeing, you know, kind of validates everything.”) The statement is especially clear on this point: “The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.”

Perhaps the most stinging line in the statement was this: “Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness.” Translation? He was only being nice. And woe to those who take advantage of that kindness for their own purposes.

While the controversy stirred up this week has focused on the surprise of Pope Francis meeting with Davis, the two figures really at the center of this story are her lawyer, Mat Staver of the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, and Viganò, who has served as the Vatican’s ambassador in Washington since 2011.

As of Friday morning, Staver was sticking to his story, telling the Associated Press that Davis did indeed meet privately with the pope. By his own admission, Staver was not at the nunciature for the encounter, but he disputes the Vatican’s characterization, a characterization approved by Pope Francis, who was obviously in attendance.

That’s not out of character for Staver, who was forced to admit last week that a photo he presented at the Values Voters Summit, which he claimed showed a 100,000-person prayer rally to support Davis in Peru, was taken in 2014 and did not, in fact, have anything to do with Davis.

So it boils down to ... who's telling the truth? The Pope, or a lawyer?

Everything is so Political in this country that the Pope does not wish to be dragged into our obsessions. He avoided taking public stances on particular political issues.

Fact remains he met with her, perhaps it was only to get her autograph.

Fact is he didn't meet with her. She was in a group of people he said, "Yo!" to on his way out the door.

Fact is he did have a private meeting with an openly gay guy.

Pope no say Yo!

Vatican say...

"The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...clerk-kim-davis

Sounds like a meeting took place to this guy.

"On Friday, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi released an extraordinary statement, personally approved by Pope Francis, debunking nearly everything that has been reported this week about a meeting between the pope and Kim Davis".

From your link; Davis was one of "several dozen" people the pope met at the end of his visit to Washington, D.C., the Vatican says.

When two people meet do they have a meeting y/n?

Debunking everything except the fact that he met with her.
Why do you suppose he did such a thing as meeting with her?
Why her?
Perhaps she sings well or her hair smells like flowers. There must be some reason he met with her and gave her two sets of the Rosary.
Yo! Perhaps he needed a marriage license! Yea, yea, that's it.

So you didn't answer me there Rocky, why did the Pope meet with the Clerk lady?

Perhaps for the same reason he met with the Gay couple?
Perhaps for the same reason he ate at the food kitchen with the poor?

The Pope was showing us in deeds what Jesus has told us in words, that ALL ARE WELCOME into the arms of God!

The Rich and the poor and the Black ones and White ones, the happy and the sad, the killer and the loving, the sinner and the saint! Yes, ALL.

God loves us all the same and wishes for each of us to be with him to enjoy the inheritance he has prepared for us in Heaven!

In the New Testament there is the story of the one son who asked for his inheritance early, from his father, so he could go out and start his own life. The father gave him the money which the son ran out and spent on parties and drunkenness until he ended up broke. He ended up feeding the pigs of another man and wished he could eat as well as those pigs.

He was starving when he remembered how good he had it at his fathers place and wanted to return there. He feared his father would say no, you already had your chance and blew it.

When he returned to his father, he said he was so sorry and he asked if he could come back and be treated like any other worker because he knew his father treated his workers well.

His father threw his arms around the kid and cried, being so happy to have him back. He welcomed his son with open arms for his son was dead and had returned to life! He ordered up a tremendous feast of celebration!

God is our Father who loves us dearly and we All can come to Him through His Son, Jesus Christ. Get a Bible and read the New Testament to understand how it is done and how to pick up your inheritance which is awaiting each and every one of us.

quote above by 40:

"So you didn't answer me there Rocky, why did the Pope meet with the Clerk lady?"

Sorry 40. I've been enjoying these fine October days. My favorite time of the year.

OK So let's see. Why did the Pope meet with the cleaning... I mean Clerk lady?

The only reason the Pope meet with the yahoo clerk from Arkansas or Kentucky or West Virginny (whatever podunk place she was from) was because she was a current headliner and she made a big stink about wanting to see the Pope and the people who control his schedule decided to work her in for the reasons previously stated above. (It would look good.)

Feel free to ask my advice anytime 40. (ps. your welcome)