Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
I'm sorry I don't mean to stir this particular topic, but that quote isn't explicative of anything.. <.<
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jassik said: »
Why do you always consider the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church to be the center of Christianity?
Because it's not just Catholics who hold respect for him.
Respect, sure. I'm a-religious and I respect the man and will listen to whatever he has to say with a healthy degree of rationale. The point is, Catholics tend to view their faith as the supreme Christianity, which is understandable as it's Peter's church, but it just isn't for many if not most followers of Christ. For purists, the Catholic church represents an almost complete corruption of Jesus's teachings.
[+]
Jassik said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jassik said: »
Why do you always consider the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church to be the center of Christianity?
Because it's not just Catholics who hold respect for him.
Respect, sure. I'm a-religious and I respect the man and will listen to whatever he has to say with a healthy degree of rationale. The point is, Catholics tend to view their faith as the supreme Christianity, which is understandable as it's Peter's church, but it just isn't for many if not most followers of Christ. For purists, the Catholic church represents an almost complete corruption of Jesus's teachings.
There isn't even any proof that it's Peter's church. That's what tradition says, but that's all they've got.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jassik said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jassik said: »
Why do you always consider the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church to be the center of Christianity?
Because it's not just Catholics who hold respect for him.
Respect, sure. I'm a-religious and I respect the man and will listen to whatever he has to say with a healthy degree of rationale. The point is, Catholics tend to view their faith as the supreme Christianity, which is understandable as it's Peter's church, but it just isn't for many if not most followers of Christ. For purists, the Catholic church represents an almost complete corruption of Jesus's teachings.
There isn't even any proof that it's Peter's church. That's what tradition says, but that's all they've got.
You're preaching to the choir on that one.
[+]
So strange to see how catholicism is perceived by you americans. I'm not used to this whole way of putting it by protestants. There are no protestants in Italy(metaphorically).
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Again, the only way you can know for sure is God to show up. And he better not ask for a starship.
YouTube Video Placeholder
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
I'm sorry I don't mean to stir this particular topic, but that quote isn't explicative of anything.. <.<
It's an analogy, but it's not even a difficult one. What's the hold up?
I didn't say I don't understand the meaning. But it is not explicative is what I'm trying to say. It doesn't clear any doubts on the topic at hand, so to speak. It's very generic.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
There isn't even any proof that it's Peter's church. That's what tradition says, but that's all they've got.
That's all any religion's got once you get past verifiable facts and get into conjecture, translating and interpreting meanings, and trying to claim things that are physically impossible under the laws of physics as presently understood really happened and it's punishable by death to feel otherwise.*
*Obviously there are degrees of punishment by religion and sect. Some just tell you that you can't have your unleavened wafer until you've apologized.
But that's all okay up until the "punishment for not believing what we believe" part. As long as it's all voluntary and not encroaching on anyone else, it's all good. We certainly don't know everything there is to know about the universe.
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
But that's all okay up until the "punishment for not believing what we believe" part. As long as it's all voluntary and not encroaching on anyone else, it's all good. We certainly don't know everything there is to know about the universe.
I REALLY hate the slippery slope, but the idea of volition or consent being the end-all for scrutiny of religious organizations is a little weak. Look at the FLDS or any of the more well-known Christian cults and the crimes their leaders have been convicted of.
Jassik said: »
I REALLY hate the slippery slope, but the idea of volition or consent being the end-all for scrutiny of religious organizations is a little weak. Look at the FLDS or any of the more well-known Christian cults and the crimes their leaders have been convicted of.
It's very difficult for me to say it, but you can't go too far in telling people what they can and can't consent too/against.
I will malign and speak ill of adults* who refuse medical treatment for religious (or equally unsound secular) reasons because I think it's absolutely the most idiotic thing you can do in their situation.
But as long as they're not hurting anyone else, it's their right to be idiots.
*does not extend to children over whom they have sway. You should not be able to decide a child does not receive life-saving treatment because your shitty** beliefs (religious or otherwise) dictate they should die rather than have a chance to grow and learn and make their own choice.
*My belief that they are shitty, obviously.
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
Jassik said: »
I REALLY hate the slippery slope, but the idea of volition or consent being the end-all for scrutiny of religious organizations is a little weak. Look at the FLDS or any of the more well-known Christian cults and the crimes their leaders have been convicted of.
It's very difficult for me to say it, but you can't go too far in telling people what they can and can't consent too/against.
I will malign and speak ill of adults* who refuse medical treatment for religious (or equally unsound secular) reasons because I think it's absolutely the most idiotic thing you can do in their situation.
But as long as they're not hurting anyone else, it's their right to be idiots.
*does not extend to children over whom they have sway. You should not be able to decide a child does not receive life-saving treatment because your shitty** beliefs (religious or otherwise) dictate they should die rather than have a chance to grow and learn and make their own choice.
*My belief that they are shitty, obviously.
Yeah, that's basically how I feel about it.
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
So strange to see how catholicism is perceived by you americans. I'm not used to this whole way of putting it by protestants. There are no protestants in Italy(metaphorically).
It's American mentality. When I've visited family Mexico, which does have a significant Protestant population. Protestants still line up to see the Pope.
They don't seem to understand that the RCC is the largest Christian church, and when the Pope speaks it's not just Catholics who take notice.
The Pope: Not just for Catholics anymore
Quote:
Pope Francis may be the head honcho of the world's largest Christian church, but since he stepped into the papacy in March 2013, he's captured hearts across religious -- and even nonreligious -- lines.
From his acts of compassion, such as his embrace of a severely disfigured man, to his strong statements on the environment and his forgiveness of those who've had abortions, this pontiff has sparked a lovefest among non-Catholics. One self-described "staunch atheist" called the Pope a "cool cat" on Twitter. Plenty others also have spread the tweet love.
From his acts of compassion, such as his embrace of a severely disfigured man, to his strong statements on the environment and his forgiveness of those who've had abortions, this pontiff has sparked a lovefest among non-Catholics. One self-described "staunch atheist" called the Pope a "cool cat" on Twitter. Plenty others also have spread the tweet love.
[+]
I wouldn't call less than half of all Christians "the vast majority" but hey.
They're certainly the largest denomination however.
Either way, couldn't care less about the dude with the funny hat.
They're certainly the largest denomination however.
Either way, couldn't care less about the dude with the funny hat.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Matthew 7:15-20
Quote:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Again, conversing as if real prophets are actually a thing, it's not impossible to tell the difference without a huge sign from God. It takes careful consideration and a close review of their works, but there is a way to tell. If Noah is any indication, you can't pull the "But I had no way of knowing" card, and miraculous sign-seeking doesn't always lead to good results, Biblically speaking.
Judge a man based on his character essentially is the spirit of bewaring false prophets. If you look and observe carefully without falling into blind following, people often give tells that they're good/bad people. Judge a man based on his works, not alone what he/she says.
The problem is, that's no way to find a bona fide prophet. A prophet who is going to be bringing information that concerns your *immortal soul.* Because again, your best judgments can still fail. People who are generally good need not be prophets and terrible people can/will/have manipulated others into making bad decisions under the guise of prophet. To muddle things, you've got plenty of people who fall into shades of grey. Very upstanding in some ways but dubious in others. Or maybe I'm not that not bright and can't pick up on not-so-obvious signs.
MLK led his people to civil rights. He was a Christian. He took, questioned and wielded his faith as a means of living his life. But he also womanized. Is he a prophet? Was there something in his life/works that could give me insight into the overall plan God has in place? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Essentially it's a decision you have to make based on your own presuppositions.
I further use Fred Rogers as an example. He is generally accepted to be a good man and a good Christian, by contemporary Christian values. He never pushed his faith and he acted like the person he wanted others to be. Very Christ-like. If I were prophet hunting, Mr. Rogers might set my meter off but he was no prophet either. Or was he?
So how exactly does one discern without faith in believing something without facts (or God) to back it up? Moses wielded miracles by the account of the stories. What would a modern prophet do to rile the masses?
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Matthew 7:15-20
Quote:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Again, conversing as if real prophets are actually a thing, it's not impossible to tell the difference without a huge sign from God. It takes careful consideration and a close review of their works, but there is a way to tell. If Noah is any indication, you can't pull the "But I had no way of knowing" card, and miraculous sign-seeking doesn't always lead to good results, Biblically speaking.
For starters, prophets are generally not shy about calling themselves prophets. There aren't many people out there bold enough to make such a proclamation. Now that you've narrowed down the field considerably, it's pretty much just a process of vetting them out.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
What would a modern prophet do to rile the masses?
curb obesity in america!
[+]
On a completely different note (again), Arnold Schwarzenegger is replacing Donald Trump as the host of The Apprentice.
I'm... not sure where to even begin with this.
I'm... not sure where to even begin with this.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
On a completely different note (again), Arnold Schwarzenegger is replacing Donald Trump as the host of The Apprentice.
I'm... not sure where to even begin with this.
I'm... not sure where to even begin with this.
Begin by changing the channel or turning the TV off.
[+]
Arnold: You're fahrd.
Contestant: I'm what?
Arnold: You're fahrd!
Contestant: I'm sorry, one more time?
Contestant: I'm what?
Arnold: You're fahrd!
Contestant: I'm sorry, one more time?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Arnold: You're fahrd.
Contestant: I'm what?
Arnold: You're fahrd!
Contestant: I'm sorry, one more time?
Contestant: I'm what?
Arnold: You're fahrd!
Contestant: I'm sorry, one more time?
I keep reading that as 'Fafhrd', which would probably be a more interesting show.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
On a completely different note (again), Arnold Schwarzenegger is replacing Donald Trump as the host of The Apprentice.
I'm... not sure where to even begin with this.
I'm... not sure where to even begin with this.
Also, where you start is here: "Wow, not even Trump's job is safe from immigrants!"
[+]
Rick Perry megadonor wants his $5 million back
Politco
Politco
Quote:
The ghost of Rick Perry’s presidential campaign may haunt his erstwhile rivals for the Republican nomination.
Though the former Texas governor folded amid fundraising turmoil, supporters running a well-funded super PAC supporting his candidacy are considering whether there’s an outlet for as much as $13 million they had in the bank when Perry dropped out.
The son of one top donor to the PAC, Doug Deason, said his father – tech magnate Darwin Deason -- anticipates that contributions will be returned and the committee, dubbed the Opportunity and Freedom PAC, will shutter. But Austin Barbour, a senior member of the PAC’s leadership, said he’s still discussing options with the group’s lawyers.
“I think it is fair to say that we don’t yet have a full understanding of what the law allows for,” Barbour said in an email. “Once we understand that we can talk with our donors about options.”
But Deason, whose father contributed $5 million to the super PAC, said Barbour was just being cautious.
“We have made it clear we expect the PAC to shut down and send the funds back,” he said. “Austin is just being cautious to make sure it is all done properly and legally. We appreciate that he is.”
Asked about his family’s involvement in a Republican nomination fight without Perry, Deason added, “We are going to sit back and let things shake out a bit before we choose another candidate.”
The remnants of Perry's super PAC present a relatively untested phenomenon in presidential politics. Super PACs -- which emerged after the 2010 Supreme Court Citizen's United decision -- are forbidden from coordinating with presidential campaigns, but few have been left with such significant sums on hand after their favored candidate has dropped out. Perry's 2012 presidential campaign tangled with the FEC that year over whether his campaign could deliver its remaining funds to a super PAC or his gubernatorial reelection campaign.
Though the former Texas governor folded amid fundraising turmoil, supporters running a well-funded super PAC supporting his candidacy are considering whether there’s an outlet for as much as $13 million they had in the bank when Perry dropped out.
The son of one top donor to the PAC, Doug Deason, said his father – tech magnate Darwin Deason -- anticipates that contributions will be returned and the committee, dubbed the Opportunity and Freedom PAC, will shutter. But Austin Barbour, a senior member of the PAC’s leadership, said he’s still discussing options with the group’s lawyers.
“I think it is fair to say that we don’t yet have a full understanding of what the law allows for,” Barbour said in an email. “Once we understand that we can talk with our donors about options.”
But Deason, whose father contributed $5 million to the super PAC, said Barbour was just being cautious.
“We have made it clear we expect the PAC to shut down and send the funds back,” he said. “Austin is just being cautious to make sure it is all done properly and legally. We appreciate that he is.”
Asked about his family’s involvement in a Republican nomination fight without Perry, Deason added, “We are going to sit back and let things shake out a bit before we choose another candidate.”
The remnants of Perry's super PAC present a relatively untested phenomenon in presidential politics. Super PACs -- which emerged after the 2010 Supreme Court Citizen's United decision -- are forbidden from coordinating with presidential campaigns, but few have been left with such significant sums on hand after their favored candidate has dropped out. Perry's 2012 presidential campaign tangled with the FEC that year over whether his campaign could deliver its remaining funds to a super PAC or his gubernatorial reelection campaign.
[+]
Probably should have just had Bill Clinton take over The Apprentice and call it The Intern. Wouldn't be good for Hillary's campaign, but it would attract a ton of viewers.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Probably should have just had Bill Clinton take over The Apprentice and call it The Intern. Wouldn't be good for Hillary's campaign, but it would attract a ton of viewers.
Just you putting this idea out in the open has made several late-night talk shows hosts' pants tight.
[+]
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
They don't seem to understand that the RCC is the largest Christian church, and when the Pope speaks it's not just Catholics who take notice.
Mmmm...Have to disagree here. Lutherans, Anglicans (Episcopalians, if you will), and Methodists have an acute understanding of this. Just my experience, though.
Lessons aren't liturgically exclusive.
EDIT: For the record, I'm in a state where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Baptist church.
DOUBLE EDIT: I would say that John Paul recognizing the Big Bang in the allegorical sense, at the very least, was a progressive segue to people accepting that there can be a cohesive relationship between science and faith, if the person chooses that route.
But hey! This isn't FFXIAH's first rodeo with religion, and even recognizing that science and theology don't have to be mutually exclusive is also a source of mockery on here.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
On a completely different note (again), Arnold Schwarzenegger is replacing Donald Trump as the host of The Apprentice.
I'm... not sure where to even begin with this.
I'm... not sure where to even begin with this.
Arnold's back story is pretty impressive.
IIRC He made a ton of money before he ever was a serious actor by running a "European" roofing business, which basically meant he could charge way more by having a bunch of buff Europeans putting regular ol' roofs on houses because people thought they were getting some special thing, or because they just wanted to watch a bunch of muscle bound Euro guys work (I'm not judging).
Oh. And let's not forget that while he may have later *** it up, he married his way into the Kennedys. As a Republican.
He's really a pretty *** brilliant guy.
Wait a minute, it's been 4 hours since rav made the comment and no one has posted some stupid ***yet again misunderstanding the legal vs illegal immigration argument?
Random P&R, I'm actually proud of you today.
Random P&R, I'm actually proud of you today.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Wait a minute, it's been 4 hours since rav made the comment and no one has posted some stupid ***yet again misunderstanding the legal vs illegal immigration argument?
Random P&R, I'm actually proud of you today.
Random P&R, I'm actually proud of you today.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Wait a minute, it's been 4 hours since rav made the comment and no one has posted some stupid ***yet again misunderstanding the legal vs illegal immigration argument?
Random P&R, I'm actually proud of you today.
Random P&R, I'm actually proud of you today.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.