|
Alright, enough religious debate. If you want to talk about Pope Benedict and what he specifically did or didn't do, go ahead. But no more general discussion on the merits or ills of the Catholic church or their history.
-page 12 |
On February 13 2013 05:10 KwarK wrote:
Even then not in the political communist sense, nor in the historical class theory one. Rather that it suggests he believed in an ideal communal society without divisions based on race, class or wealth in which people did things for the common good of their neighbour and a fraternal ideal without expecting immediate reward. It's difficult sometimes to identify the meaning of the words we use because communism is refers to a political ideology, an economic belief, a historical narrative and a utopian stateless society. I believe his teachings and the actions of his followers imply that he argued for the communist utopian society, not the other stuff.
The thing is, I don't think the actions of his followers were necessarily done for the purpose of creating a utopia through the means of egalitarianism. Jesus used the analogy of shepherd and his flock... these types of things doesn't really mesh well with a classless/egalitarian society. Hierarchies/classes even exist in heaven (archangels, cherubim, seraphim, etc), why would the expectation be different for flawed humans on imperfect earth? I think a distinction needs to made between equal and just. I think Jesus wanted people to live justly, if not necessarily equally. That's why it's wrong for a person to become wealthy through fraud or theft (injustice), but not necessarily wrong for a person to simply be wealthier than others (inequality).
Remember also, this arrangement was only a temporary thing, while Jesus was alive, his followers still had privately owned possessions and homes, and did so after his death as well. I'd argue that what they did was more in response to the incredible events that were happening around them, similar to how people these days will band together after a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Becoming more close knit and treating each other like family makes perfect sense when you're being forced into hiding due to the world around you seeking to persecute the "cult of Jesus".
On February 14 2013 05:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 03:19 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 13 2013 01:36 KwarK wrote:On February 13 2013 01:23 vividred wrote:On February 13 2013 01:13 ZasZ. wrote:On February 13 2013 00:44 vividred wrote:On February 13 2013 00:32 Djzapz wrote:On February 12 2013 22:23 vividred wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize.  He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war. And they called him a conservative pope... The pope is neither left, right, conservative or liberal. Stop spouting shit Explain yourself because you don't get to tell people they're "spouting shit" without any argument. I'd like to remind you that the church has been extremely influential politically. To say that the pope is not anywhere on the political spectrum despite the fact that he influences policy in some countries just makes me confused. see: On February 12 2013 09:10 sAsImre wrote:On February 12 2013 09:08 lord_nibbler wrote:On February 12 2013 07:26 vividred wrote:
L-liberal... Pope?
uhh what? unless the so called "liberal" defined here in the US is what you're talking about then LOL He is a lot more left to US liberals than you seem to realize. He talked about the sins of the modern investment bankers and that societies should strife for fair distribution of wealth. He went to Lebanon in 2010 and practically called out the US for arming the rebels and enlarging the war. And they called him a conservative pope... Pope stance is related to morale, a system which put the economy before the human will never satisfy the church but it doesn't qualify the pope. Have an explanation that doesn't seem like gibberish? I don't expect the Pope to lean left or right on economics or fiscal policy, but when people are talking about wanting a "liberal" Pope, they're talking about his stance on gays, contraceptives, female priests, etc. and whether or not the Catholic Church might be more open to discussing reform on these topics. They are by no means obligated to, but one would think they need to keep up with the times if they want to retain their constituency in developed nations, where Catholicism has been dwindling rapidly. Roman Catholic or any other religion is never in the political compass. Just because they oppose contraceptives/premarital sex etc. doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of what you call "progressivism" or "liberalism" They follow their dogma or the bible or whatever and doesn't mean they're "conservative" You're like saying jesus christ is a republican. Jesus Christ was socialist and a populist. That's not even disputable. It's very easy to place Jesus on a political spectrum, we have four accounts of his speeches, policies and views on wealth and society. Following his death the members of the early church sold their possessions and formed a classless commune in which they provided for people from the common pool of wealth according to their need. It's all there in the book of acts. The Holy Spirit even struck down Ananias for lying about his wealth and refusing to contribute his share. That doesn't mean that religion has to be political but Jesus' teachings can certainly be found in modern politics in fairly radical communist parties. Yeah, Jesus was a socialist, if you want to hijack his teachings to advance socialism. And I'm unsure of calling him a populist as well, considering the people of his time sentenced him to death on a cross. The sharing of possessions described in Acts were done voluntarily, and not done at gunpoint (or I suppose swordpoint) like "redistribution" of wealth is done today. Ananias and his wife were struck down for lying about having given up everything, not because they did not give up everything. You only have to look at the fact that the teachings of Christ influenced Aquinas and schools of thought like the School of Salamanca and Austrian Economics. Whereas Socialism and Communism have been terribly hostile to Christianity and other religions, to the point of murdering millions. But when unsuccessful in eliminating the church from the outside, they began to subvert the church from within. Even though JPII was more liberal than BXVI, he opposed the radical liberation theology that was taking root in Latin America. And BXVI himself was a staunch opponent of liberation theology. As far as I've understood, the church teaches that the rich should help the poor through the virtue of charity, not forced redistribution as socialism/communism desires. That is not to say that American conservatives don't abuse the bible either. They'll be glad to say that God supports this or that military action, despite Jesus being the prince of peace. And just recently, a lot of Republicans got mad at a certain politician quoting Jesus' famous "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" line. But Jesus a Socialist? I think not. Like it or not, Institutional Catholicism has a very strong socialist/social justice bent, in part because there is a very strong argument for the proposition that Jesus was a socialist/communist in the idealistic sense of the terms.
Sure, if you disregard everything I said in what you quoted.
|
|
|
supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest.
thats a really bold claim, I wont believe it until I see confirmation.
|
Not a very convincing story, how should he have been persecuted for anything. He is not living in italy but in the vatican. And if the source for this information was good, some larger newspaper would have wrote about it too.
Edit: The article is very young, we will see by tommorow if anybody has any proof for that.
|
See, that kind of nonsense can only really work if you utterly disregard the direct words of Christ in the gospels. Christ clearly says that if you truly want to follow him then you must sell all that you have and give it to the poor (Mt 19:21, Lk 18:22, Mk 10:21). The shepherd and flock imagery doesn't change anything because the shepherd is Christ, the Son of God, the second of the Trinity. The shepherd is never simply another human being. It's not as if the existence of social hierarchy isn't acknowledged either (give unto Caesar) - it is only that in essence, under God, all humans are equal regardless of the structures of society. Thus Christ ate with the poor, ate with the tax collectors, protected the prostitutes etc., because we are all sinners (throw the first stone).
Christianity is not synonymous with socialism or communism. Lets be clear about that. But lets also be clear that it is diametrical to capitalism as we know it.
edit: What kind of acrobatics would one have to engage in to explain away the eye of the needle?
|
|
|
On February 16 2013 00:27 koreasilver wrote:
See, that kind of nonsense can only really work if you utterly disregard the direct words of Christ in the gospels. Christ clearly says that if you truly want to follow him then you must sell all that you have and give it to the poor (Mt 19:21, Lk 18:22, Mk 10:21). The shepherd and flock imagery doesn't change anything because the shepherd is Christ, the Son of God, the second of the Trinity. The shepherd is never simply another human being. It's not as if the existence of social hierarchy isn't acknowledged either (give unto Caesar) - it is only that in essence, under God, all humans are equal regardless of the structures of society. Thus Christ ate with the poor, ate with the tax collectors, protected the prostitutes etc., because we are all sinners (throw the first stone).
Christianity is not synonymous with socialism or communism. Lets be clear about that. But lets also be clear that it is diametrical to capitalism as we know it.
Edit: Sorry I was going off topic.
|
You honestly need MUCH better proof. The Pope is the head of a foreign state, and Italy is supposed to be prosecuting him? Moreover, he's the leader of one of the world's dominant religions (Catholicism, not Christianity on a whole, before anyone gets mad). Trying to prosecute someone as high-up as him is worse than just an exercise in futility, it's political suicide. The better explanation is that Ratzinger had seen his predecessor slowly drift off into mental instability and realized it probably wasn't a good idea for him to stay Pope while going the same route.
|
And therefore: Christianity is not synonymous with any political system. I'm not disagreeing with you at all here, and Christ himself does not promote any kind of political system or a radical overthrowing of any political establishment, or anarchism (give unto Caesar). Now, the kind of ethic that Christ does promote might be very similar to some forms of socialism and it does have very radical implications. But it is not synonymous with socialism primarily around the fact that for Christ the main question is not the life that we live on this world in our societies (my kingdom is not of this world). Now, it is this fact that helps Christ push forward such radical things like selling all you have and giving it all away, "think not of the morrow", etc. But for socialism and Marxist thought as a whole, what matters is this world and perhaps it's also what only matters (if we go by a Marxist materialism). Perhaps the reason why Marxism can manifest in similar ways to a Christ-ian ethic is because Marxism is at its roots quasi-theological (Walter Benjamin), but I would be very wary of pursuing that point.
But the fact that the Gospels are really on the opposite to capitalism is so explicitly borne out by Christ that to say otherwise would involve a whole lot of intellectual acrobatics. It's just fraudulent.
|
change is the most essential attribute of life, what we call time is just another way of desribing the change or transition of different material states. how could a philosophy overcome this basic concept of "being" by ingoring this factum of universe?
|
On February 16 2013 00:27 koreasilver wrote:
See, that kind of nonsense can only really work if you utterly disregard the direct words of Christ in the gospels. Christ clearly says that if you truly want to follow him then you must sell all that you have and give it to the poor (Mt 19:21, Lk 18:22, Mk 10:21). The shepherd and flock imagery doesn't change anything because the shepherd is Christ, the Son of God, the second of the Trinity. The shepherd is never simply another human being. It's not as if the existence of social hierarchy isn't acknowledged either (give unto Caesar) - it is only that in essence, under God, all humans are equal regardless of the structures of society. Thus Christ ate with the poor, ate with the tax collectors, protected the prostitutes etc., because we are all sinners (throw the first stone).
Christianity is not synonymous with socialism or communism. Lets be clear about that. But lets also be clear that it is diametrical to capitalism as we know it.
edit: What kind of acrobatics would one have to engage in to explain away the eye of the needle?
No, it's the kind of thinking you get when you actually use your brain to analyze the bible as a whole instead of cherry-picking sections and taking them simply at face value like a lot of bible christians do. It's no wonder such a shallow understanding would reach a different conclusion than that of Aquinas in his Summa.
Eye of the needle is the go-to bible verse that people use to demonize the rich. Jesus did not say it is impossible for wealthy people to get into heaven. In fact, in the gospels you quoted, his disciples ask him how can anyone be saved if that's true? And he responds that it's possible through God, but you conveniently left that out.
Jesus himself even mentions investment in the parable of the talents, where the servants who bring a return on the original investment are rewarded and the one who buries it in the ground is punished... not exactly a scathing review of capitalism.
If the shepherd is not simply another human being, why does Jesus tell St. Peter to tend to his flock, not once, but three times? Come on man, where do you think the word pastor comes from? Why is there a hierarchy in the church, Pope, archbishops, bishops, priests, if no classes are to exist? If no classes are to exist, then the topic of the Pope's resignation seems to be a moot point...
There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth, but it should never be the end goal, because heaven should be the end goal for Christians. And I agree that there isn't really explicit support for capitalism or socialism in the bible (which are both modern concepts), but I think free markets are implicit in the absence of a state.
|
As much of a great thinker Aquinas was, he was working purely off of the Latin texts that were later found to be wrought with mistakes in translation and even additions of extraneous words or phrases that were not present in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This was a large point of contention that preceded the Protestant reformation and eventually the Catholic Church came down with the dogmatic assertion that only the Vulgate could be used within its church. This ridiculous affront to scholarship and scripture was only lifted during the 20th century. All the traditional ways that theologians have tried to explain away the eye of the needle has been found to be based on questionable arguments by various Biblical scholars.
Now, of course Christ say that it is possible through the grace of God for the rich man to be saved, but this theme is something that is generally extended to all persons. You are saved through faith, you are saved by grace. But Christ's contention with worldly treasure can't be whisked way by your shallow interpretation because you are still ignoring pretty much every other part of the gospels where Christ speaks against worldly good. You still have Christ's direct command to sell everything you have and give all to the poor, and that this action must precede following him. His saying that one should not worry for the morrow, that his kingdom is not of this world, etc., is all explicit.
As for the parable of the talents, you're completely missing the point because the parable is thematically linked to the parable of the ten virgins that precedes it, which is preceded by the disciples asking Jesus about the second coming and the end of the world. So you're missing the whole context again. Where firstly you comically accuse me of taking something out of context when you are missing the totality of the gospels, and once again here.
And lastly, Christ never instituted a church hierarchy. Nowhere in the gospels does Christ lay out a systematic hierarchy. The ecclesiastical structure of the churches is an invention that has no precedence in the gospels. Lets not mistake Christendom for Christianity.
Also, there is nothing spoken of in the bible about an absence of state, and neither is there anything that points toward a free market.
|
On February 16 2013 00:45 koreasilver wrote:
Perhaps the reason why Marxism can manifest in similar ways to a Christ-ian ethic is because Marxism is at its roots quasi-theological (Walter Benjamin), but I would be very wary of pursuing that point.
I delight in pursuing this point 
Watch out, there's a gnome in your chess machine!
edit: for what it's worth, in my opinion, Marxism is entirely compatible with, and SHOULD ally itself with, religion. This is a tendency which, as koreasilver has pointed out, has a canonical precedent in Benjamin, and is being developed now by people like Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou. It's kinda the new thing in Marxism. that being said, Christ was not a political philosopher and Marx was not a theologian, although certainly Christ was influenced by the politics of his day and Marx spent some time thinking about theology. We've already allied ourselves with Lacan, and there's certainly a mystical-spiritual dimension here - when you start going around saying "les non-dupes errent," there goes the rabbit hole, and when you consider that the ideological enemy of Marxism today is cognitive-instrumental cult of the lab coats/ GDP tumor, getting in with the holy men starts to sound better and better every day.
Also, people don't understand what Marx meant by "opiate of the masses." He might as well have said "the tylenol of the masses." He also said religion was "the sigh of the oppressed." The conflict between institutional religion and actually-existing-communism has everything to do with history and not much to do with any real conflict between religion and marxism, since neither of the aforementioned institutions was exactly true to its philosophical core.
On February 16 2013 03:00 koreasilver wrote:
As for the parable of the talents, you're completely missing the point because the parable is thematically linked to the parable of the ten virgins that precedes it, which is preceded by the disciples asking Jesus about the second coming and the end of the world..
this sounds interesting can you elaborate for my edification?
|
Viganò’s plight and other unflattering machinations would soon become public in an unprecedented leak of the pontiff’s personal correspondence. Much of the media — and the Vatican — focused on the source of the shocking security breach. Largely lost were the revelations contained in the letters themselves — tales of rivalry and betrayal, and allegations of corruption and systemic dysfunction that infused the inner workings of the Holy See and the eight-year papacy of Benedict XVI. Last week, he announced that he will become the first pope in nearly 600 years to resign.
The next pope may bring with him an invigorating connection to the Southern Hemisphere, a media magnetism or better leadership skills than the shy and cerebral Benedict. But whoever he may be, the 266th pope will inherit a gerontocracy obsessed with turf and Italian politics, uninterested in basic management practices and hostile to reforms.
VatiLeaks, as the scandal came to be known, dragged the fusty institution into the wild WikiLeaks era. It exposed the church bureaucracy’s entrenched opposition to Benedict’s fledgling effort to carve out a legacy as a reformer against the backdrop of a global child sex abuse scandal and the continued dwindling of his flock.
It showed how Benedict, a weak manager who may most be remembered for the way in which he left office, was no match for a culture that rejected even a modicum of transparency and preferred a damage-control campaign that diverted attention from the institution’s fundamental problems. Interviews in Rome with dozens of church officials, Vatican insiders and foreign government officials close to the church, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, mapped out that hermetic universe.
“We can reveal the face of the church and how this face is, at times, disfigured,” Benedict said in his final homily on Ash Wednesday. “I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the church, of the divisions in the body of the church.” He called for his ministry to overcome “individualism” and “rivalry,” saying they were only for those “who have distanced themselves from the faith.”
Source
|
On February 18 2013 02:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Viganò’s plight and other unflattering machinations would soon become public in an unprecedented leak of the pontiff’s personal correspondence. Much of the media — and the Vatican — focused on the source of the shocking security breach. Largely lost were the revelations contained in the letters themselves — tales of rivalry and betrayal, and allegations of corruption and systemic dysfunction that infused the inner workings of the Holy See and the eight-year papacy of Benedict XVI. Last week, he announced that he will become the first pope in nearly 600 years to resign.
The next pope may bring with him an invigorating connection to the Southern Hemisphere, a media magnetism or better leadership skills than the shy and cerebral Benedict. But whoever he may be, the 266th pope will inherit a gerontocracy obsessed with turf and Italian politics, uninterested in basic management practices and hostile to reforms.
VatiLeaks, as the scandal came to be known, dragged the fusty institution into the wild WikiLeaks era. It exposed the church bureaucracy’s entrenched opposition to Benedict’s fledgling effort to carve out a legacy as a reformer against the backdrop of a global child sex abuse scandal and the continued dwindling of his flock.
It showed how Benedict, a weak manager who may most be remembered for the way in which he left office, was no match for a culture that rejected even a modicum of transparency and preferred a damage-control campaign that diverted attention from the institution’s fundamental problems. Interviews in Rome with dozens of church officials, Vatican insiders and foreign government officials close to the church, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, mapped out that hermetic universe.
“We can reveal the face of the church and how this face is, at times, disfigured,” Benedict said in his final homily on Ash Wednesday. “I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the church, of the divisions in the body of the church.” He called for his ministry to overcome “individualism” and “rivalry,” saying they were only for those “who have distanced themselves from the faith.” Source
These stories are traveling around the world. according to news here, there is a report on the VatiLeaks case that has allegations of the Vatican getting extorted by unknown entities to keep homosexuality in the Vatican secret. It is not as much a condemnation of the Vatican or the recent popes as a questioning of why the Vatican doesn't at least open up a little bit, so they can avoid extortion and make it easier to follow the money. The document is rumoured by LaRepubblica.it
|
On February 16 2013 03:00 koreasilver wrote:You still have Christ's direct command to sell everything you have and give all to the poor, and that this action must precede following him. His saying that one should not worry for the morrow, that his kingdom is not of this world, etc., is all explicit.
I take it from your posts in this thread that you are Christian? In that case, have YOU sold everything you own? Why do you still have a computer to type on when God's children in Africa are obviously starving? What kind of computer do you have, is it good enough to run StarCraft II? Because you certainly don't NEED a computer like that for most jobs or university, if your argument is that you need your computer for work or study. Did you buy StarCraft II when it came out instead of sponsoring an extra child? Why have you not sold everything you own?
|
^my guess is you don't want to pick a fight with koreasilver about christianity
|
The Vatican on Saturday strongly condemned media coverage of a report that is said to contain information about the influence of a gay network and financial mismanagement within the Vatican, and which may have triggered Pope Benedict's decision to resign. But in his statement, a spokesman for the Vatican did not deny the report's existence or dispute the description of its findings.
The Italian newspaper La Repubblica broke the story that the report, which was commissioned by Pope Benedict in the wake of Vatileaks and prepared by a trio of cardinals, concluded that "various lobbies within the Holy See were consistently breaking" the sixth and seventh commandments, "thou shalt not commit adultery" and "thou shalt not steal."
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi hit back on Vatican Radio Saturday morning by questioning the motives and method of the newspapers that reported the story and implying that the media is seeking to influence the election process of the next pope.
"There is no lack, in fact, of those who seek to profit from the moment of surprise and disorientation of the spiritually naive to sow confusion and to discredit the Church and its governance, making recourse to old tools, such as gossip, misinformation and sometimes slander, or exercising unacceptable pressures to condition the exercise of the voting duty on the part of one or another member of the College of Cardinals, who they consider to be objectionable for one reason or another," he said.
Lombardi also questioned the moral authority of the media. "Those who present themselves as judges, making heavy moral judgments, do not, in truth, have any authority to do so," he said. "Those who consider money, sex and power before all else and are used to reading diverse realities from these perspectives, are unable to see anything else."
Source
|
Who's gonna be the next pope?
|
Someone from Latin America or maybe even Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
