Pope Francis condemned the “very strong, organised, reactionary attitude” in the US church and said Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.
Pope Francis has blasted the “backwardness” of some conservatives in the US Catholic Church, saying they have replaced faith with ideology and that a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time.
Francis’ comments were an acknowledgment of the divisions in the US Catholic Church, which has been split between progressives and conservatives who long found support in the doctrinaire papacies of St John Paul II and Benedict XVI, particularly on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
I never understood this argument. If God is all powerful how come he leaves his messages to interpretation. Shouldn’t we all just be born knowing the exact wording and understanding? Also why does he need people to write his books and teach his lessons when again he supposedly is all powerful and could make it so we were born with this knowledge instead of leaving it to idiots who can’t “comprehend God’s great plan”.
It’s a way to select the good ones for his next experiment.
Ever have a dog? You really love the dog and the dog is smart for a dog, but no matter how hard you train them they won’t really understand you. You can get them to follow a few rules , but after a certain point you can’t really train them much more.
People can’t even handle the few very basic messages that were already laid out.
Except if God is truly omnipotent they can dumb it down to a point we can understand it or iunno increase our mental capacities. We aren’t omnipotent so of course we can’t explain every concept to a dog, but god could.
Ssssh. It’s just a way to control Pharaoh’s slaves.
Yeah it seems ridiculous now that I’ve deconverted and can finally look at this critically from the outside. It would be like raising a kid by leaving them a letter. If the god existed surely they would have the bright idea to drop some updated material every few decades and maybe make the occasional clarifying announcement to humanity.
Having a collection of religious texts, physically recorded by human hands, that provide information about the religion is a feature consistent with any religion that has a human-fabricated deity. Coincidentally, it is also a feature of every major religion. 🤔
Oh, but God does and coincidentally God’s will always coincides with what the person proclaiming to relay God’s will wants to be true .
this was part of what Jesus was supposed to do, actually.
… and Mohammed… and Joseph Smith…
Depending on which items of Abrahamic scripture you consider canon.
Atheist here, putting in a Christian hat. If you were omnipotent and creating a game, would you make it easy or hard?
If I was omnipotent I could make the game specifically challenging in it’s own ways for every single individual on a changing whim, while also knowing their full skillset and potential plus what they want out of the game. If they want it casual, competitive, for fun, screwing around, etc. If they want zombies, new IPs, shooters, MMO, what ever. And since I was omnipotent I could weave them in such a way they all work together for every single player. And the players would know the rules of their version because as soon as they’re born they know everything they need to know about the rules of their game.
I’d also have a working anti cheat for once and GMs to enforce said rules to a certain extent (small dig at the industry here :P)
EDIT: Do I really have to say that I’m not a Christian before arguing from their point. Didn’t you muppets notice the blasphemy I added?
So that humanity can learn:
Then we’d be mindless puppets without free will. The guy, however, doesn’t want to be admired by automatons but people who could decide otherwise.
It’s the ole “if you slip your crush a love potion, is it actually love” problem and, indeed, no, it’s rape.
What if you tell your crush they need to love you or you will throw them in a lake of fire to suffer for eternity while you enjoy sniffing the smoke?
That seems abusive. And maybe somewhat unhinged.
I really don’t want to play Christian apologetics here, yes the whole thing is unhinged, and no I’m not even a Christian, this is all just comparative mysticism for me and I like The Sandman much better.
But specifically as to the hell thing the doctrine of denominations differ, e.g. Lutherans think that faith is not required before you have proof, that is, until you’re standing at the crossroads of afterlife, heaven on one side and hell on the other. Capability to tell the both apart is something you probably should have taken some time to learn on earth, though.
It is possible to make Christianity make sense if, and only if, you interpret things just right. And it will put you at loggerheads with practically all Christians. Been there, done that, either they fall silent or they unleash the full force of their neuroses to ignore you, little in between.
And, of course, originally hell didn’t even exist it was a question of oblivion vs. spend the afterlife in the radiance of god’s presence. Not sure exactly where in the transformation from Judaism to Christianity that one happened but at the very least the vast majority of stuff about hell is bible fan-fiction.
Actually Hell is only a lake of fire on pop culture. In theology it is a state of depression persisting throughout the afterlife brought on by seperation from the divine.
Lol how does having that knowledge untainted message take away free will? To your example if someone doesn’t know rape is illegal that doesn’t mean it’s a free pass if they rape someone and vice versa just because people know rape is illegal doesn’t mean there aren’t people raping other people out there.
Because knowledge is proof and in Christian understanding that would zonk your mind due to god’s purported properties. Think of it like the ultimate high-ball, you’d instantly become a junkie.
What are you even saying? Just a long winded way to say “durrr you no comprehend God’s will cause you silly stupid hoomen”
I mean there’s a lot of things I don’t understand, and don’t think I can possibly understand, that are way smaller than how Christians describe god.
They understand it more like a consequence of physics, as a logically necessary property. Like a fat man jumping on a trampoline full of kids, sure they’re still going to bounce but it won’t be their bouncing, any more.
Which is my point, their god if they exist clearly isn’t omnipotent, otherwise the dude could do anything from turning the frequency down to something us wittle itty bitty silly hoomens could understand or vice versa increase our mental aptitude and make us ‘smarter’.
I mean he did by sending a less fat guy down (the one who got nailed to the cross). But jumping on a trampoline with Jesus doesn’t constitute proof of the whole trinity shebang.
And yes the whole omnipotence thing breaks down as soon as you try to break logic with it. The Stoic take on that stuff makes a lot more sense: The gods are benevolent and the hardness we suffer is a product of their non-omnipotence, however they gave us that divine spark – reason and wisdom – to be able to get on top of things. They furnished the world to be as perfect as they could, the rest is up to us. Of course for the Stoics philosophy comes first, religion is simply some mythology to tack on afterwards.
I mean yes that idea has been in many religions since we were shitting on the grass living in huts. Greek mythology, Aztec mythology, Chinese mythology, Japanese mythology all follow similar lines of thought where you try to gain the attention of what ever god you’re seeking favor from by doing X thing(s)(sacrifice of some sort, leave food/drink as offering, slaughtering other gods followers). But even that doesn’t prove anything especially if they were truly benevolent why wouldn’t they reveal themselves? And not just through a human but ACTUALLY reveal themselves.
An all knowing all powerful God is incompatible with free will.
Those ascriptions are incompatible with logical consistency in general. But a Christian would say: God chooses to not use power.
Because that would be boring.
If we had all the answers, we’d be all knowing. If we were all knowing we wouldn’t be distinct beings, we’d just be part of some hive mind that is God. Like an appendage of God.
Free will requires each of us to be beings that have knowledge and the capability to make decisions (even bad ones) outside God’s control.
The old paradox, if God was so powerful could he make a Rock so big even he couldn’t move it? Basically what free will is. Something created by God that can’t be controlled by God. If it we were controlled by God it would destroy free will, which is something a Creator can’t do.
He could be very clear about the law and his expectations (or even the fact that he exists) and we would still have free will to choose to follow the law or not.
Did the people in the bible who actually saw him not have free will? Did Adam and Eve not have free will? Do the people in heaven not have free will?
It’s a commonly touted excuse, but it falls apart under a modicum of scrutiny.
I see your belief system is focused on nitpicking details to avoid the point. Commonly touted among people in the atheist belief system LOL.
Next you’ll say I don’t actually believe in God unless I think the Bible is 100% literal, because that’s the argument you want to be having. But that’s a boring discussion, so good day to you sir.
Hilarious.
What nitpicking details are you talking about? You mentioned that if we knew the truth about god and his law we would be a hive mind and not have free will. I was responding to that point, not avoiding it at all. And the rest of your comment is a straw man arguing against some atheist you have in your mind and never once addressed the points I made.
I don’t believe in that paradox because if God is all powerful he could indeed make a rock so big he couldn’t move it in that moment and at the same time could move it. Because that’s what omnipotence looks like.
Yes but if moving the rock destroys the rock, then if God did that, God would become a destroyer. If God is defined as being a Creator, destroying the rock results in God no longer being a Creator and therefore no longer God.
But a paradox doesn’t disprove the existence of God. Life is full of paradoxes. Like quantum physics, WTF is going on there? I don’t know, it’s a thing that exists even though it doesn’t make any sense.
Wtf are you babbling about god has destroyed plenty of things, like when they supposedly drowned all the world during the Noah’s ark arc, to the destruction of the cities of Sodom and gamorra.