"If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened." -- Psalm 66:18
"Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear."
-- Isaiah 59:1-2
"If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination." -- Proverbs 28:9
"When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil.
-- Isaiah 1:15-16
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” -- 1 Peter 3:12
Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.
-- Proverbs 21:13
"The Lord is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous."
-- Proverbs 15:29
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty maker of heaven and Earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, never did or said anything important, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried..."
1 Deliver me, O Lord, from evil men;
Preserve me from violent men,
2 Who plan evil things in their hearts;
They continually gather together for war.
3 They sharpen their tongues like a serpent;
The poison of asps is under their lips. Selah
4 Keep me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked;
Preserve me from violent men,
Who have purposed to make my steps stumble.
5 The proud have hidden a snare for me, and cords;
They have spread a net by the wayside;
They have set traps for me. Selah
6 I said to the Lord: “You are my God;
Hear the voice of my supplications, O Lord.
7 O God the Lord, the strength of my salvation,
You have [a]covered my head in the day of battle.
8 Do not grant, O Lord, the desires of the wicked;
Do not further his wicked scheme,
Lest they be exalted. Selah
9 “As for the head of those who surround me,
Let the evil of their lips cover them;
10 Let burning coals fall upon them;
Let them be cast into the fire,
Into deep pits, that they rise not up again.
11 Let not a slanderer be established in the earth;
Let evil hunt the violent man to overthrow him.”
12 I know that the Lord will maintain
The cause of the afflicted,
And justice for the poor.
13 Surely the righteous shall give thanks to Your name;
The upright shall dwell in Your presence
Sounds like the opposite might be true, and it's OK to pray for the death of evil men.
This just shows that the bible isn't a coherent story. On many topics it is near impossible to say what position the bible takes, because it was writen by different men in different times with different agendas. Often, as in the present case, positions contradict each other.
Every denomination of christiantv is negotiating with the bible and chooses what to leave out, what to include and what to interpret how. This is driven by their specific dogmas, that are often post biblical.
Yes by rejected equally I mean always rejected, exactly because god doesn't exist.
Some claim that the reason we can't see the effect, is because god doesn't reveal himself.
Funny thing is though, that a study on how prayer works for sick people showed they actually got worse!
So there isn't even a beneficial psychological effect, it's actually negative.
If god was working without revealing himself, there is no reason it should be worse.
So when people claim there is no evidence against the existence of god I disagree.
There is no evidence that a god exist, but there is actually evidence against the existence of the Judaic god.
Also the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a god, is evidence that the existence of a god is highly unlikely.
Funny thing is though, that a study on how prayer works for sick people showed they actually got worse!
Uuh, is it because they refuse other types of treatment? That is a pretty important distinction. I don't believe for a second that just praying magically makes you more sick.
I guess that's what we call atheism.
But there has been real studies on the efficacy of prayer, and when it turned out to be negative! Such studies suddenly stopped.
US Christian’s don’t give a fuck about the pope. Probably most aren’t Catholic anyway. And even some of US Catholics (likely in the south and midwest) don’t give a fuck what the pope says either.
The more entrenched conservative US christians would undoubtedly dismiss the pope's message, but those who are less affiliated might give it some thought.
There’s an evolving strain of US Catholicism, exemplified by weirdos like JD Vance, who like the aesthetic of Catholicism (especially the Deus Vult thing) without really caring about any of the actual Catholic beliefs. It’s more like they have a childish misunderstanding of Catholicism as just being a more serious Christian. Which is not uncommon a misunderstanding in the south/Midwest, oddly enough - the desire for fundies to create a coalition to fight abortion in the 70’s/80’s really ended a lot of the more typical anti-Catholicism of the south.
Similar to the “American Orthodox,” which is the same idea with more of a Russian flavor.
I think wha you meant to say is that American conservatism was a mistake. Not like Luther had any idea when was nailing his 99 thesis’s to the door that centuries later American conservatives would be so unscrupulous that they would weaponize the ignorance of the congregations to build an unholy malicious political coalition.
Religion can be fine. It is and always has been the idiots who ruin shit, just like with everything. I have churches around me that help the community, are open to all sorts of people. So the leader of one of the largest churches finally doing what he can to denounce nonsense is a step in the right direction for sure.
Unfortunately, the idiots will most certainly be heard.
This comment is entirely clueless to the nature of the American Catholics. The US would be in a much more neutral political position if the American Catholics actually followed the pope’s lead.
The Israelites were YAHWEH’s special people, so when they are oppressed it’s bad, but they are obligated to genocide anyone that stands in their way. Even babies and animals.
This should sound familiar even you have never read a line of a Bible or Torah.
I mean, that's not wild on it's face. You can explain shifting morality with respect to changing material conditions and social relationships.
I might argue that the Old Testament God was intended to offer leverage to the intelligencia (priest class) over the military/aristocracy (kings and their courtiers).
Meanwhile, the New Testament was fundamentally describing a God of Slaves, preaching equinimity and grace in the next life for the hardships of the modern day.
And then, when the slave class overthrew and supplanted the Pagan aristocracy, suddenly the Old Testament was back in fashion again.
You're describing Revelations Jesus. And by the time he finally shows up, all the killing's been done by the Fake Jesus that's tricked legions of people into damnation.
This is also the only Gnostic text that made it into the canonical texts. If you get into the actual Gnostic beliefs about Jesus, you're on a rollercoast ride of spiritualist philosophy bordering on the Sci-Fi. Alternate dimensions, shared souls, astral projection, just all sorts of weird goofy shit that the Council of Nicea cut from the program.
Revelations is, at its heart, a story of how Rome and its pagans will all eventually get what's coming to them. That the Christians-Who-Are-Doing-It-Wrong will get what's coming to them. That the Jews will get what's coming to them. It is a story wildly out of line with the prior books, but one that resonated strongly with the post-Constantine neo-Christian order.
yea that why I think it is more to the point to equate them with antichrist (or atleast their cult if we wanna give it a lovecraftian twist) rather than just someone whose prayers don't get accepted. Leo is a playa, he should know this.
These guys may not care about God, but they sure do invoke him a lot. Hegseth and other commanders are catching a LOT of complaints from officers and troops about the constant barrage of religious rhetoric coming from the top. And Israel and Iran are doing everything they're doing in the name of the same God as us.
So it's good that Pope Leo is speaking out directly against those hypocrites. I don't believe in any of that hogwash, but Pope Leo has a lot more credibility as a man of God than any of those other psychopaths.
Not catholic myself so take it with a bucket of salt, but i always figured it was because it was all the holy dudes doing the voting. Sacred by osmosis or something
So voting puts you in the wrong mindset. Think of it more as consensus decision making of a group of bishops who have the special honor of being the ones who get to vote on this (that's the only official difference between a regular bishop and a cardinal), but with everyone secluded to prevent campaigning or discussing their votes.
Theologically this is supposed to ensure that everyone ignores politics and spends the days praying to try to figure out who their god wants.
Practically this does what good consensus aims to do and generally gets someone everyone can live with. Francis was generally seen as pretty radical, but everyone seemed to understand that Benedict had gone very poorly and that the church needed increased modernization and appeals to the international community. The fear last year was that a far right cardinal would be chosen to try to halt the rising schism in the church, but instead Leo was chosen as someone who had been in Francis's camp but was seen as more moderate.
And yeah, because of the isolation at conclave they're supposed to be incapable of campaigning. In reality, as the pope gets older and sicker you start seeing increased campaigning from cardinals and by the time the pope dies it's known who the main candidates are. Upsets can still happen, especially if the main candidates are all unacceptable to another faction, but we knew Leo was a possibility when Francis died.
The bishops responsible for ejecting the Pope are likely aware of this, and is by in large why Leo was chosen. The church really doesn't get to set the cultural trend as much as nudge it in a particular direction. It's the bumpers in a bowling alley, not the ball.
People are going to find something they don't like,then seek justification for not liking it.
Two dudes fuckin, ew! I would never do that that's so gross. Oh look, here's this passage in this book I like saying that's actually evil! Hell yeah!
When it looks like 'Christians' cherry pick passages to support whatever nonsense they're on about, that's because they are, always have done so and always will. Because the nonsense was always more important to them than the Bible. It just so happens that the Bible says a lot of shit that's very easy to take out of context to support whatever nonsense you want.
The Pope is reading the room, and providing justification. Or rather, the Cardinals elected a Pope that aligns with the current climate and he's just saying whatever God tells him to comes to mind. He might swing a few people but if he pushes too hard what he'll just alienate some Catholics and they might break off and do their own thing, again.
Motion carries. All opposed say : ic̷̢̧̡̡̡͉̩̠̤̻̠̠͇̳̝̹͎͚͙̖͉̳͓̦̳̰̳͒̓̐̆͋͒̌̿͒̈̅̾̑͋̂͒͐̇̑̄̄̏͗̃͒̍͂͆̍̈́͗͊̚̚̚͜͝͠͝͝ķ̷̨̨̢̛̻͇͎̰͉̤͇̳͍̫̰̣̘͇̮̱̠̖̞̤̭̩̮͍̬̼̱̝̝͎͕͖͉͎̱͍̣̺̯̣̜̭̝͎̙̞̉̈́̽͌̒͒̑̾̈̾̈́͛́̉̉̄̔̽̍͆̆̏̉̈́̆̽̈́̋̾̊̒̚̕̚̕̕̕͜͜ͅy̶̢̨̡̧̢̧̲̘͎̺̳̘̘͓̟͍̼̬̦̗̜̠̰̖̙̠͕͖̫̪̦͓̖̯̞͌̂͌̐͂̎̏̐͂̓̃͐͑͗̄͌̽̑̒̏̂̌͐̍̔̃̉͜͝i̴̧̡̨̨̢͈͔͖̳̣͙̭͈̖̯̭̬̩̫̼̟̮͍̤͕̫̹̭͔͇̣̥̱̗̩̘̼̖̯͆̾̃̈́̃̒̾͗͒̿̚͜͠c̵̝̞̞͌̾̉́́̏͛͆́̃̈́̒͂͒́͌̐̊͆͂͑̓̈́̄͒̑̽̈́̇̎͂͑̓̽̾̽͋̐̾͗̌̚͝͝͝͝k̸̢̢̡̧̘͕̘͇͔̲̬͓͙̝̺͙͙̩̮̹̼̺͕͓͇̭̣̬̭̫͓͙̞̖̭̱̖̮͓̤͋͊̆͛̃́́̎̉̕͜ͅy̷̨͍̙͓̦̦̳̗̲͇͈̞͙̮͕͎̯̝̼̩̰͔͓͓̥̤͍̤̙͇̣̓͗̽͛̈́͆̈́̍̔́̿͊̈́́̎̀̌̐̿̂͗̐̎͑͝͝ͅͅb̸̢̨̨̨̢̼̮͈̙̟̠̹̞̲̯̳̙̤̮̲͓̹̰̠̬̥̲̟̤̖̳͓͚̻̯̬̤̙̥̘̟̐̓́́̈́̔͌̾͂̒̂̈͒͌̀̌̌̅̂̇̆͑̆̆̑̊͌̕͜͠͠ͅų̸̨̨̨̢̨̡̛̛͇̪̯͙͔̠͕͓̬̳̖͉͙̪̦̤̦̘͕͈̯̣͔̣̱̯̫̳̥̫͔̗̼̼̠̣̳̠̤̫̫̻͚͕̠̘̐̓̃͐̿̇̔̑̒̈́́̓͆̈̄̈̏̆͛̐̾̄͌̀͂̐̓͘͘͝͝͝ͅm̶̨̧̨̡͕͇̜̦͓͈̦̗̘̭͎̪͓͇͎̻̼̰̼͖̰͉̙͎̼̹͉̭͎̫̻̯͕̯͙̭͇̗͔̦̜̼͗͐͛̑̀͊̒̊̃͒̓͐̌͊̿̾̑͆̕͜͜͠ͅp̴̢͒̈́̑̔̈́̒̃͗̾̀̓̀̇́̃̑̌̈́̓́̾̅̃̂͗͗̅̀̐͗̈̃̚͠͝ͅi̷̧̧̨̡̢̡̢̧̛̛̗̲͈̮̬͉̞͉̮͚̱̦̻͙͉̗͈̜͙̦̱̱̱͈̣͕̞̰̮̼̦̯͍̜̭̻͙̩̻̯̠̮̦͑̃̓̂̐̈́̈́͂̎̎̽̒̎̇̾͋͋̓̂͋̇̿̕͘͘͘͘͜͜͠͠͝͝ͅċ̸̢̨̢̛̗̙̪͖͓̭̠͚̯͉̣̣̪̲͇̠̩̗̞̺͉̦̲͚͔̖̞̳̫͕̠̋̽̽̈́͆̅̈́͂̎͂͗̏͊̄̈́̈́͛̆̀̔̉̀͐̌͊̈͋͆͊̓̇͑̏͗̌͌̏̌̓͌͘͘̕̚͠͝͝͠͠ͅͅä̷̡̡̤̣͍̮͔̠̫̣̜̙̪͓̖͎́̔͛̌̀̍̎̈͛̍̋͋̉̂͌̇͛̒͌̓̓̕͘͝i̶̻͚̲͋̈n̸̨̘̲̲̹̜̘͙̬̝̱̙͍̱͔͍͋͆̈́͛̔̐̓̓́͊̊́̀̃̔̒̋̄̐͌̀̍̅͘͘͠ḯ̸̧͍̥̞̝̲͔͇͔͓͙̳̱̥̖̭͉͓̥̱͓͍͛̎͂̈̄͋͗̈̌̃̑͊̋̓̎̈͘̚͝͠ͅͅẁ̵̛̟̠̳̭͇̮̻̥̱̘̙̬̝͍̞̭̤̻̈́̔̍̐͛̊̈́̿̏̂͌͌̃͂͋͒͋͆͌̓̂̀̌̆̓̾̂́̅͋̅̏͂̑̍̄͌̒̍͜͠͠͝͠o̴̧̫̦̍̓̋͝p̵̢̧̨̨̢̢̢̩͈̺̠̞͍̺̪̦̱͖̬̞̬͔̲̝̞̝̣̫͉̳͎̙̬͖̰̘̀́͆̎̒̈̅̈́̾͊̃͋̊̔̿͒͋̀̐́̊̀̊̃͑̈́̓͗̽̄͆̓͆́́̎̍̋͂͑̃̋́̂̀͂̕͜͝ͅ
As I recall, only the first Crusade was endorsed by a Pope. And no, the teachings don't change, though the way things are phrased varies based on culture.
There is a theological debate happening for the soul of the country happening, and there has been for centuries. You can not want that to be true, but I find the more effective solution is to recognize that it's there and try to empower the good ones to go in and have the conversations I most certainly am not going to have. Let them go argue about it on my behalf. Challenge laws using that strategy. We need the religions that have sway here to be good, friendly, just religions because they have real sway - the catholic schism has not been this pronounced in modern memory and it's good the Vatican is issuing wholehearted decrees about very specific things and people. This comment was about Pete Hegseth, by the way, telling people he prayed to God for the violent destruction of his enemies. Yeah go Mr. Pope, tear that up. I'm here for it.
Being an American and a good Christian is contradictory. Look at how it started in America, forced conversions of native American children and that was just of what we know of it, at least here in America.
Being an American and a good person is contradictory, what with the numerous genocides throughout her history and all, that being one of them.
I get what you're saying but it's hard to lay blame on a modern person for some shit a related group of people did 150 years ago. That's like saying it's impossible to be Irish and a good Catholic, what with the child slavery prisons, which are far more recent. Or that is impossible to be a Muslim and a good person, what with the things other Muslims have done in the name of God.
You're responsible for you. Other people are responsible for themselves. Unless you happen to believe that every person is responsible for the sins of his father. Which, weirdly enough the Catholic Church does, but didn't happen to be involved in that particular genocide.
Also, counterpoint, Mr Rogers. American, Christian, good person. Or Jimmy Carter.
That's just original sin talk. Also, Leo is American. For an American to be a good Christian takes extra work, "it's not my fault but it is my responsibility" and whatnot, but I've met Americans who are good Christians, and yeah they're involved in attempting to right the wrongs that can be righted here
I'll give the orange moron an hour or two to produce an all caps posting on his sewer of a platform, calling Leo a "Fake Pope", claiming the papal election was 'rigged' and threatening to bomb the Vatican unless they offer him the papacy.
Because if it did there wouldn't be a little Catholic club.
I'll be happy to listen to this little pipsqueak moralize when he purges his church of child molesters and makes it mandatory to report and prosecute them. Until then, he's just another wealthy hypocrite.
Yeah, it only takes like six chapters in that book to get to what is very nearly the most complete genocide possible. Has the Pope read his own holy book?
The position of Pope has been used to send many people to their death primarily in the middle ages. Julius II was called the Warrior Pope, he was the first and only pontiff to command and lead a papal army into battle. 1503 - 1513 and then there were the Crusades
Odin might listen, if he’s feeling generous. But even he can’t change fate. Plus he’s notoriously fickle. So since you’re going to die anyway; die on your feet, not your knees.
Was he sitting on his solid gold jewel-encrusted throne when he said this? Just wondering.
Fun factoid: Catholic church owns more land than any other organization on Earth, almost 180 million acres. They acquired unknown thousands of acres through bloody warfare
This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war"
I don't get it
Shouldn't the pope read the Bible? In Revelation, Jesus comes back and murders everybody
So, in USA at least, all of the taxpayers are financing one of the world's richest organizations (tax free, no property taxes and many more benefits that no "non-profit" shares).
Yet, they still must pass that collection plate with every service to fleece their sheep just a tiny bit more. Their treasure horde is never enough.
On April 25, 2019, the Temple announced it had received tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service, being classified as a "church or a convention or association of churches".[40] The Satanic Temple had previously been reluctant to pursue tax-exempt status until the Johnson Amendment was weakened by an executive order "Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty" signed by President Trump in May 2017, which TST viewed as unfairly giving higher status to religious individuals.[41]
Because he's the voice of the largest denomination in the US and he's the head of the vice president's religion and loudly condemning him.
I don't love the church, I left it over the homophobia, misogyny, and transphobia. But I recognize how influential the pope is and that his preaching may be able to reduce how fucked my country is right now.
It is, by a pretty wide margin. While many more people identify as Protestant, they're split among dozens of denominations. I haven't seen recent stats but in 2015 they were about 20% of the US. For comparison, the Southern Baptist Convention was the second largest at about 5.3%
Unless you lump all protestants together it is by a lot at least according to the first link I found. They make up a little over a quarter of American Christians.
He's got a pretty solid basis for that claim.
If those Evangicals could read they'd be very upset.
The Evangelicals Creed
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty maker of heaven and Earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, never did or said anything important, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried..."
Sounds like the opposite might be true, and it's OK to pray for the death of evil men.
This just shows that the bible isn't a coherent story. On many topics it is near impossible to say what position the bible takes, because it was writen by different men in different times with different agendas. Often, as in the present case, positions contradict each other.
Every denomination of christiantv is negotiating with the bible and chooses what to leave out, what to include and what to interpret how. This is driven by their specific dogmas, that are often post biblical.
The Gospels don't even agree on basic details.
"One of his disciples, the one whom Jesus loved (AKA me), was reclining at his side."
-- The Gospel According to John
None of the gospels are thought to even claim to be by an apostle. John was just a common name
Sounds like I need to start praying for Pete Hegseth…
I don't think the evidence is clear that god rejects prayers more for sociopaths than everybody else.
But yes they are probably rejected equally.
Or God simply doesn't exist and we as a species need to deal with our own problems
Yes by rejected equally I mean always rejected, exactly because god doesn't exist.
Some claim that the reason we can't see the effect, is because god doesn't reveal himself.
Funny thing is though, that a study on how prayer works for sick people showed they actually got worse!
So there isn't even a beneficial psychological effect, it's actually negative.
If god was working without revealing himself, there is no reason it should be worse.
So when people claim there is no evidence against the existence of god I disagree.
There is no evidence that a god exist, but there is actually evidence against the existence of the Judaic god.
Also the complete lack of evidence for the existence of a god, is evidence that the existence of a god is highly unlikely.
Uuh, is it because they refuse other types of treatment? That is a pretty important distinction. I don't believe for a second that just praying magically makes you more sick.
Nope exact same treatment, apparently the psychological effect of knowing that people are praying for you makes it worse, all else being equal.
Maybe, but I think sociopaths have a real "ok, well fuck you, too, then. I'll do/get it myself!" mentality when it comes to God.
Evidence based religion 😂. Good one.
I guess that's what we call atheism.
But there has been real studies on the efficacy of prayer, and when it turned out to be negative! Such studies suddenly stopped.
Me when I use empirical studies to understand non empirical phenomenon
US Christian’s don’t give a fuck about the pope. Probably most aren’t Catholic anyway. And even some of US Catholics (likely in the south and midwest) don’t give a fuck what the pope says either.
The more entrenched conservative US christians would undoubtedly dismiss the pope's message, but those who are less affiliated might give it some thought.
I think he knows being from the US himself...
There’s an evolving strain of US Catholicism, exemplified by weirdos like JD Vance, who like the aesthetic of Catholicism (especially the Deus Vult thing) without really caring about any of the actual Catholic beliefs. It’s more like they have a childish misunderstanding of Catholicism as just being a more serious Christian. Which is not uncommon a misunderstanding in the south/Midwest, oddly enough - the desire for fundies to create a coalition to fight abortion in the 70’s/80’s really ended a lot of the more typical anti-Catholicism of the south.
Similar to the “American Orthodox,” which is the same idea with more of a Russian flavor.
Yeah I've noticed this. A lot more "Deus Vult" while also saying "the pope is a communist and the church is a lie"
There’s also an obsession with the Battle of Tours. “Catholic” to them is more the idea of white heritage.
American Protestantism was a huge mistake
I think wha you meant to say is that American conservatism was a mistake. Not like Luther had any idea when was nailing his 99 thesis’s to the door that centuries later American conservatives would be so unscrupulous that they would weaponize the ignorance of the congregations to build an unholy malicious political coalition.
Tbf a lot of that kind of started in England and the Netherlands. But those countries put an end to it real fast, so they went to the US.
Before we go too hard into the "um, actually" responses, this was pretty obviously a reaction to Hegseth's "prayer for violence."
I'll take any sort of help we can get against that idiot and his gang of idiots' illegal war.
Religion can be fine. It is and always has been the idiots who ruin shit, just like with everything. I have churches around me that help the community, are open to all sorts of people. So the leader of one of the largest churches finally doing what he can to denounce nonsense is a step in the right direction for sure.
Unfortunately, the idiots will most certainly be heard.
Lol American Catholics don't listen to the pope
To a degree. When he visits the States, that shit gets wall to wall coverage. It's pathetic.
The only good thing they ever did
It's good that they go to Protestant mega churches with AI Kirk instead.
This comment is entirely clueless to the nature of the American Catholics. The US would be in a much more neutral political position if the American Catholics actually followed the pope’s lead.
Every US president in the last 35 years has bombed the middle east.
Sad-funny part is that it was in the name of "bringing the armageddon" alongside money.
There was decades of propoganda calling all forms of self-defense "just religious extremism" and we find out it was mostly projection.
That only takes us to 1991.
Reagan bombed Libya, and IIUC, Carter tried a rescue mission in Iran.
In the old testament, there were occasions where god supported one side in a war.
God supports atrocities as long as they're perpetrated by followers, rather than against them.
I think my Bible might be faulty
The Israelites were YAHWEH’s special people, so when they are oppressed it’s bad, but they are obligated to genocide anyone that stands in their way. Even babies and animals.
This should sound familiar even you have never read a line of a Bible or Torah.
No no no. That was the Old Testament which doesn't count anymore.
The New Testament is the one that we care about (except we've we don't)
Because God's absolute morality somehow changes over time while still being absolute, because something or other that makes no sense.
I mean, that's not wild on it's face. You can explain shifting morality with respect to changing material conditions and social relationships.
I might argue that the Old Testament God was intended to offer leverage to the intelligencia (priest class) over the military/aristocracy (kings and their courtiers).
Meanwhile, the New Testament was fundamentally describing a God of Slaves, preaching equinimity and grace in the next life for the hardships of the modern day.
And then, when the slave class overthrew and supplanted the Pagan aristocracy, suddenly the Old Testament was back in fashion again.
It makes sense historically
New Testament Jesus comes back from the dead and murders everybody on earth who won't bow to Him.
You're describing Revelations Jesus. And by the time he finally shows up, all the killing's been done by the Fake Jesus that's tricked legions of people into damnation.
This is also the only Gnostic text that made it into the canonical texts. If you get into the actual Gnostic beliefs about Jesus, you're on a rollercoast ride of spiritualist philosophy bordering on the Sci-Fi. Alternate dimensions, shared souls, astral projection, just all sorts of weird goofy shit that the Council of Nicea cut from the program.
Revelations is, at its heart, a story of how Rome and its pagans will all eventually get what's coming to them. That the Christians-Who-Are-Doing-It-Wrong will get what's coming to them. That the Jews will get what's coming to them. It is a story wildly out of line with the prior books, but one that resonated strongly with the post-Constantine neo-Christian order.
Ok based af of him
Also I'm wondering what the bets are like on how long it takes Vance to kill him
He probably knows better than to shake hands with Vance, curse or not.
I love you Leo but these leaders couldn't care less about god. Perhaps a better twist would "Leaders who wage wars are antichrists on Earth"?
The leaders don't care but a lot of the people who voted for them allegedly do.
That word is doing a lot of work.
yea that why I think it is more to the point to equate them with antichrist (or atleast their cult if we wanna give it a lovecraftian twist) rather than just someone whose prayers don't get accepted. Leo is a playa, he should know this.
These guys may not care about God, but they sure do invoke him a lot. Hegseth and other commanders are catching a LOT of complaints from officers and troops about the constant barrage of religious rhetoric coming from the top. And Israel and Iran are doing everything they're doing in the name of the same God as us.
So it's good that Pope Leo is speaking out directly against those hypocrites. I don't believe in any of that hogwash, but Pope Leo has a lot more credibility as a man of God than any of those other psychopaths.
Dunno, Hegseth mentions a lot of God in his speeches about this war
so does that mean Catholic teaching changes over time ? Because to my knowledge, the crusader were motivated by the Pope speeches !
Kind of yeah, one of the reasons for the pope existing. That's why they keep doing the whole voting thing
I still don't understand how you can elect a holy man. All i can think of is Moses creating campaign ads
Not catholic myself so take it with a bucket of salt, but i always figured it was because it was all the holy dudes doing the voting. Sacred by osmosis or something
College of Cardinals gather to vote on who replaces the Pope. No one over 80 is allowed to vote.
Lmfao bring this age restriction everywhere else
So voting puts you in the wrong mindset. Think of it more as consensus decision making of a group of bishops who have the special honor of being the ones who get to vote on this (that's the only official difference between a regular bishop and a cardinal), but with everyone secluded to prevent campaigning or discussing their votes.
Theologically this is supposed to ensure that everyone ignores politics and spends the days praying to try to figure out who their god wants.
Practically this does what good consensus aims to do and generally gets someone everyone can live with. Francis was generally seen as pretty radical, but everyone seemed to understand that Benedict had gone very poorly and that the church needed increased modernization and appeals to the international community. The fear last year was that a far right cardinal would be chosen to try to halt the rising schism in the church, but instead Leo was chosen as someone who had been in Francis's camp but was seen as more moderate.
And yeah, because of the isolation at conclave they're supposed to be incapable of campaigning. In reality, as the pope gets older and sicker you start seeing increased campaigning from cardinals and by the time the pope dies it's known who the main candidates are. Upsets can still happen, especially if the main candidates are all unacceptable to another faction, but we knew Leo was a possibility when Francis died.
It does, and will continue to do so.
The bishops responsible for ejecting the Pope are likely aware of this, and is by in large why Leo was chosen. The church really doesn't get to set the cultural trend as much as nudge it in a particular direction. It's the bumpers in a bowling alley, not the ball.
People are going to find something they don't like,then seek justification for not liking it.
When it looks like 'Christians' cherry pick passages to support whatever nonsense they're on about, that's because they are, always have done so and always will. Because the nonsense was always more important to them than the Bible. It just so happens that the Bible says a lot of shit that's very easy to take out of context to support whatever nonsense you want.
The Pope is reading the room, and providing justification. Or rather, the Cardinals elected a Pope that aligns with the current climate and he's just saying whatever
God tells him tocomes to mind. He might swing a few people but if he pushes too hard what he'll just alienate some Catholics and they might break off and do their own thing, again.I think you meant to say 'electing the pope' instead of 'ejecting the pope'?
I did. But ejecting the Pope is a funny image so it stays.
I move to install an ejection seat in the Popemobile.
Motion carries. All opposed say : ic̷̢̧̡̡̡͉̩̠̤̻̠̠͇̳̝̹͎͚͙̖͉̳͓̦̳̰̳͒̓̐̆͋͒̌̿͒̈̅̾̑͋̂͒͐̇̑̄̄̏͗̃͒̍͂͆̍̈́͗͊̚̚̚͜͝͠͝͝ķ̷̨̨̢̛̻͇͎̰͉̤͇̳͍̫̰̣̘͇̮̱̠̖̞̤̭̩̮͍̬̼̱̝̝͎͕͖͉͎̱͍̣̺̯̣̜̭̝͎̙̞̉̈́̽͌̒͒̑̾̈̾̈́͛́̉̉̄̔̽̍͆̆̏̉̈́̆̽̈́̋̾̊̒̚̕̚̕̕̕͜͜ͅy̶̢̨̡̧̢̧̲̘͎̺̳̘̘͓̟͍̼̬̦̗̜̠̰̖̙̠͕͖̫̪̦͓̖̯̞͌̂͌̐͂̎̏̐͂̓̃͐͑͗̄͌̽̑̒̏̂̌͐̍̔̃̉͜͝i̴̧̡̨̨̢͈͔͖̳̣͙̭͈̖̯̭̬̩̫̼̟̮͍̤͕̫̹̭͔͇̣̥̱̗̩̘̼̖̯͆̾̃̈́̃̒̾͗͒̿̚͜͠c̵̝̞̞͌̾̉́́̏͛͆́̃̈́̒͂͒́͌̐̊͆͂͑̓̈́̄͒̑̽̈́̇̎͂͑̓̽̾̽͋̐̾͗̌̚͝͝͝͝k̸̢̢̡̧̘͕̘͇͔̲̬͓͙̝̺͙͙̩̮̹̼̺͕͓͇̭̣̬̭̫͓͙̞̖̭̱̖̮͓̤͋͊̆͛̃́́̎̉̕͜ͅy̷̨͍̙͓̦̦̳̗̲͇͈̞͙̮͕͎̯̝̼̩̰͔͓͓̥̤͍̤̙͇̣̓͗̽͛̈́͆̈́̍̔́̿͊̈́́̎̀̌̐̿̂͗̐̎͑͝͝ͅͅb̸̢̨̨̨̢̼̮͈̙̟̠̹̞̲̯̳̙̤̮̲͓̹̰̠̬̥̲̟̤̖̳͓͚̻̯̬̤̙̥̘̟̐̓́́̈́̔͌̾͂̒̂̈͒͌̀̌̌̅̂̇̆͑̆̆̑̊͌̕͜͠͠ͅų̸̨̨̨̢̨̡̛̛͇̪̯͙͔̠͕͓̬̳̖͉͙̪̦̤̦̘͕͈̯̣͔̣̱̯̫̳̥̫͔̗̼̼̠̣̳̠̤̫̫̻͚͕̠̘̐̓̃͐̿̇̔̑̒̈́́̓͆̈̄̈̏̆͛̐̾̄͌̀͂̐̓͘͘͝͝͝ͅm̶̨̧̨̡͕͇̜̦͓͈̦̗̘̭͎̪͓͇͎̻̼̰̼͖̰͉̙͎̼̹͉̭͎̫̻̯͕̯͙̭͇̗͔̦̜̼͗͐͛̑̀͊̒̊̃͒̓͐̌͊̿̾̑͆̕͜͜͠ͅp̴̢͒̈́̑̔̈́̒̃͗̾̀̓̀̇́̃̑̌̈́̓́̾̅̃̂͗͗̅̀̐͗̈̃̚͠͝ͅi̷̧̧̨̡̢̡̢̧̛̛̗̲͈̮̬͉̞͉̮͚̱̦̻͙͉̗͈̜͙̦̱̱̱͈̣͕̞̰̮̼̦̯͍̜̭̻͙̩̻̯̠̮̦͑̃̓̂̐̈́̈́͂̎̎̽̒̎̇̾͋͋̓̂͋̇̿̕͘͘͘͘͜͜͠͠͝͝ͅċ̸̢̨̢̛̗̙̪͖͓̭̠͚̯͉̣̣̪̲͇̠̩̗̞̺͉̦̲͚͔̖̞̳̫͕̠̋̽̽̈́͆̅̈́͂̎͂͗̏͊̄̈́̈́͛̆̀̔̉̀͐̌͊̈͋͆͊̓̇͑̏͗̌͌̏̌̓͌͘͘̕̚͠͝͝͠͠ͅͅä̷̡̡̤̣͍̮͔̠̫̣̜̙̪͓̖͎́̔͛̌̀̍̎̈͛̍̋͋̉̂͌̇͛̒͌̓̓̕͘͝i̶̻͚̲͋̈n̸̨̘̲̲̹̜̘͙̬̝̱̙͍̱͔͍͋͆̈́͛̔̐̓̓́͊̊́̀̃̔̒̋̄̐͌̀̍̅͘͘͠ḯ̸̧͍̥̞̝̲͔͇͔͓͙̳̱̥̖̭͉͓̥̱͓͍͛̎͂̈̄͋͗̈̌̃̑͊̋̓̎̈͘̚͝͠ͅͅẁ̵̛̟̠̳̭͇̮̻̥̱̘̙̬̝͍̞̭̤̻̈́̔̍̐͛̊̈́̿̏̂͌͌̃͂͋͒͋͆͌̓̂̀̌̆̓̾̂́̅͋̅̏͂̑̍̄͌̒̍͜͠͠͝͠o̴̧̫̦̍̓̋͝p̵̢̧̨̨̢̢̢̩͈̺̠̞͍̺̪̦̱͖̬̞̬͔̲̝̞̝̣̫͉̳͎̙̬͖̰̘̀́͆̎̒̈̅̈́̾͊̃͋̊̔̿͒͋̀̐́̊̀̊̃͑̈́̓͗̽̄͆̓͆́́̎̍̋͂͑̃̋́̂̀͂̕͜͝ͅ
As I recall, only the first Crusade was endorsed by a Pope. And no, the teachings don't change, though the way things are phrased varies based on culture.
To keep it short: yes. That's the point of a pope and a church.
Remember the ban on ranged weaponry?
Fictional characters don't matter
What are you talking about?
... Leo isn't fictional.
The pope is a hoax and always has been
There is no Easter Bunny, there is no Tooth Fairy, and there is no Pope of Catholicism.
Who CARES what He thinks!
-People who want The Bible to be Put into Law!
There is a theological debate happening for the soul of the country happening, and there has been for centuries. You can not want that to be true, but I find the more effective solution is to recognize that it's there and try to empower the good ones to go in and have the conversations I most certainly am not going to have. Let them go argue about it on my behalf. Challenge laws using that strategy. We need the religions that have sway here to be good, friendly, just religions because they have real sway - the catholic schism has not been this pronounced in modern memory and it's good the Vatican is issuing wholehearted decrees about very specific things and people. This comment was about Pete Hegseth, by the way, telling people he prayed to God for the violent destruction of his enemies. Yeah go Mr. Pope, tear that up. I'm here for it.
Lol, who says the leaders who wage wars even pray?
I think the Pope was responding to this:
Pete Hegseth prays for violence ‘against those who deserve no mercy’ while hosting first Christian service
Peter's no leader. I doubt anyone would willingly follow him for anything.
they are would actually be praying to demonic forces.
Where is he getting that information, exactly? Can this be independently verified?
Big f---ing /s on this one...
Being an American and a good Christian is contradictory. Look at how it started in America, forced conversions of native American children and that was just of what we know of it, at least here in America.
Being an American and a good person is contradictory, what with the numerous genocides throughout her history and all, that being one of them.
I get what you're saying but it's hard to lay blame on a modern person for some shit a related group of people did 150 years ago. That's like saying it's impossible to be Irish and a good Catholic, what with the child slavery prisons, which are far more recent. Or that is impossible to be a Muslim and a good person, what with the things other Muslims have done in the name of God.
You're responsible for you. Other people are responsible for themselves. Unless you happen to believe that every person is responsible for the sins of his father. Which, weirdly enough the Catholic Church does, but didn't happen to be involved in that particular genocide.
Also, counterpoint, Mr Rogers. American, Christian, good person. Or Jimmy Carter.
It's almost like putting general groups of people into stereotypical categories makes it easy to hate and blame and keep us divided.
I wonder who stands to benefit the most from that.
In a manner of speaking, this is correct. A Christian's home is in Heaven, they simply travel here as immigrants.
That's just original sin talk. Also, Leo is American. For an American to be a good Christian takes extra work, "it's not my fault but it is my responsibility" and whatnot, but I've met Americans who are good Christians, and yeah they're involved in attempting to right the wrongs that can be righted here
Congrats on the dumbest thing I've read today, and I've read quotes from Trump today!
"Based on where you are born, you can't be a good person." That's literally what you are saying.
You: "Being Chinese and a good driver is contradictory."
You: "Being African and a smart student is contradictory."
Those 2 words are not synonyms, despite how often people pretend they are.
I'll give the orange moron an hour or two to produce an all caps posting on his sewer of a platform, calling Leo a "Fake Pope", claiming the papal election was 'rigged' and threatening to bomb the Vatican unless they offer him the papacy.
Blasphemy! Trump was saved by God, so obviously what he does is God's will
Blasphor-me, blasphor-you, blasphor-everyone in the room.
For spiritual aches and pains, use All New, Blasphorol.
Blasphor-you, blasphor-your-cow, blasphor-ya-whole-family
God rejects all prayers because they don’t exist.
But not child molesters, apparently.
Because if it did there wouldn't be a little Catholic club.
I'll be happy to listen to this little pipsqueak moralize when he purges his church of child molesters and makes it mandatory to report and prosecute them. Until then, he's just another wealthy hypocrite.
Which one ? Father Son or Spirit ? From the book at least one of them don't mind.
Yeah, it only takes like six chapters in that book to get to what is very nearly the most complete genocide possible. Has the Pope read his own holy book?
Religious doctrine has always been interpreted for convenience.
I wonder what would happen if someone went there on Sunday with big sign "It all started with Pope Urban II so You should stop it"
Who does not mind?
God also rejects prayers of child molesters, Leo.
He's allegedly omniscient and omnipotent, so he must be okay with the needless death and suffering.
The position of Pope has been used to send many people to their death primarily in the middle ages. Julius II was called the Warrior Pope, he was the first and only pontiff to command and lead a papal army into battle. 1503 - 1513 and then there were the Crusades
Odin might listen, if he’s feeling generous. But even he can’t change fate. Plus he’s notoriously fickle. So since you’re going to die anyway; die on your feet, not your knees.
Well ig someone's trying to fix Christianity's image.
He needs to get back to important things like determining what genital conformation people have!
Trying to stop wars is so, like, irrelevant to the worship of the Prince of Peace.
Burn! (In hell)
https://youtu.be/tVD44sE2KGE
Crusaders: Is Deus Vult not the way of our Lord, your holiness?
Hypocrisy? In the Catholic church?! They wouldn't dare...
Was he sitting on his solid gold jewel-encrusted throne when he said this? Just wondering.
Fun factoid: Catholic church owns more land than any other organization on Earth, almost 180 million acres. They acquired unknown thousands of acres through bloody warfare
I don't get it
Shouldn't the pope read the Bible? In Revelation, Jesus comes back and murders everybody
FWIW, 180 million acres is about 728 000 sq km,
which is bigger than Texas.
So, in USA at least, all of the taxpayers are financing one of the world's richest organizations (tax free, no property taxes and many more benefits that no "non-profit" shares).
Yet, they still must pass that collection plate with every service to fleece their sheep just a tiny bit more. Their treasure horde is never enough.
FWIW,
wp:The Satanic Temple
(my bold)
😁🙂
God seems to grant the prayers of pedophiles though, so I guess it cancels out.
Why are you idiots upvoting what the ceo of a bigot and homophobic cult said?
Because he's the voice of the largest denomination in the US and he's the head of the vice president's religion and loudly condemning him.
I don't love the church, I left it over the homophobia, misogyny, and transphobia. But I recognize how influential the pope is and that his preaching may be able to reduce how fucked my country is right now.
I don't believe Catholicism is the biggest denomination in the US
It is, by a pretty wide margin. While many more people identify as Protestant, they're split among dozens of denominations. I haven't seen recent stats but in 2015 they were about 20% of the US. For comparison, the Southern Baptist Convention was the second largest at about 5.3%
Unless you lump all protestants together it is by a lot at least according to the first link I found. They make up a little over a quarter of American Christians.