The Pope's death

Nope, I didn't study the church too well - like I say, I lost interest when I was 10 (I certainly wouldn't call it "faith", not at 10 years old). I basically gave up at around the same time as I stopped believing in Santa Claus (sorry if that causes offence to any believers).

Big families tend to be the Catholic way; my brother must not be doing ANY business now as his wife's had 4 CS's (and 4 kids is a LOT of mouths to feed!).

To be honest, I don't think it's big or clever to have that many kids, let alone more, and for that reason alone I think the Catholic stance on "every sperm is sacred" should be condemned as an anti-life rule, since, at the current rate of expansion, we'll all be starving to death by 2023 (where did I read that?? can't remember??).

Whoever got the original copyright on the Bible was onto a winner - the world's best group acid trip ever, written from four peoples' perspectives. All IMHO of course! Oh - and wasn't the Turin Shroud proved to be a fake, or is that another hoax I heard of?

Seriously, if God exists, s/he can strike me down, but I'll still repent (and mean it) to prevent needing asbestos underpants in the afterlife...

 

Four?????

 

With virtually all the heads of state there can you imagine what the security will be like on Friday. Shouldn't be surprised if they have to make the whole of Italy a no fly zone!

Bob

 

I'm interested to see the number of people here who are "ex" religion, and/or rejected religious belief. Perhaps a reflection of the increasingly secular nature of society.

My father often says to me "The problem with Christians is that there aren't any". The principles which christianity is supposed to stand for (love thy neighbour, etc) seem laudable, but in my experience (as a former pupil of the cathedral school in Canterbury) there is not one branch of the church that extends tolerance in the way the bible teaches. And, of course, there are no end of atrocities that have been carried out in the name of religion.

Perhaps we may see the catholic church dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century?

 

Isaac
for 'Christian' values consider the Ba'haii faith.
I once took a lodger who was an asylum seeker from Iran who was a member of this faith. It was, (and still is as far as I know), a capital ofence to follow this faith in Iran.
Bob

 

This not unique to Christianity.

As far as I can see, at least Christianity is starting to discuss certain issues which are still taboo with other faiths.

 

Hence why I said "religion" rather than "Christianity".

To a point. There are sections of the church that refuse to discuss these issues and threaten the sections that do. The sections that won't discuss the issues are akin to many other faiths that will not discuss the issues.

As demands of a faith become outmoded it is the faith that suffers. Either the faith must develop to take modern life into account or face a decline.

 

Dear Tones: About Liberation theology. The Pope was for it, but the way it is written, but not actually carried. What the Liberation theologists say is to disobey, not exactly to fight back. Well, there are extremists, too, who prone that.

Concerning the Gospels. I have been reading them (way before the pope died) because I am interested in the figure of Christ. From what I read, his message is very unclear. Yes, Luke's Gospel is very humane, almost franciscan, John's is a marvel of elaboration, but them Mark, the earliest, just says he said: Leave everything and follow me: you'll be rewarded. And, of course, Jesus is presented as a kind of Shaman, a medicine man (I won't even mention the 'Secret Mark' bit!).

So, in my yet rather uninformed opinion, what we call christianity is really St. Paul's doing. He was the one who made the ekklesia available to everyone (and against the opinion of Peter, who wanted it just for Jewish people).

After that, the Church eventually emmerged and a lot of new stories and theories consolidated to form something I think is rather loosely related to the Gospels. Luther, although he was a ruffian, was quite right (of course, only at the beginning: when he asked for the extermination of the anabaptists he was being plain murderous), and, in a way, St. Francis (who was very lucky not to be burnt!) was also right.

By the way, the problem with christianity is the one Tones put so well: christianity is against power and for the poor. Now, in historical terms, religion is *always* the support of State. And State is, almost by definition, ruled by a class of priviliged people. Now no church will be able to survive if it goes against the state: as Marx said, religion tends to be the justification of the way society is working. Therefore, the Church had to go *against* christianity. That is really why there are so many schisms and 'heresies': christianity is rather revolutionary... So it had to be tamed. The Roman and Avignon Popes clearly understood that, and Luther (and, chiefly, Melanchton) understood it only too well: at the first he did not want a church... then, fearing for his life, he granted the existence of one trading it for protection by the German Landowners (this is oversimplified, of course).

So we can well forget about a big change in whatever church or christian faith we consider. It just has to support the state. That is its anthropological function. Why should Europe and the Middle East be different?

 

The classic formulation was, I believe, G.K. Chesterton's: "Nobody knows whether Christianity works because nobody has ever bothered to try it". Regretfully, there's a lot of truth in this. The greatest moral teaching ever delivered is The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7). On reading it, Mahatma Gandhi said, "If Christians practised that, Christianty would be invincible." Jesus's teaching was all about the love of God. Anything - anything - that got in the way of that was kicked very hard into touch. Alas, the churches (and the individuals that make them up) haven't followed the Master too well.

Religion, yes, Christianity (the real McCoy), no. The Church became like any other large body, defending what it saw as its turf. However, I think its undisputed (and unjustifiable) bad behaviour fade into insignificance against the fact that Genghis Khan is said to have rubbed out something like one-tenth of the world's population, and of course it can't (if you'll pardon the expression) hold a candle to the works of the secular religions Naziism and Marxism-Leninism.

 

There are examples from christianity's past also. The crusades is clearly the biggest. Closer to home was the Clifford's Tower massacre. The same scale as the holocaust or Ghengis? No. But not pleasant, and clearly falling into the "Atrocity" bracket along with events in Rwanda, the Balkans, etc. Secular outfits are equally capable of horrific acts.

Basically, people are a nasty bunch, and will look for a reason for a punch-up.

Oi, Tones, outside, now.

 

I wouldn't care but one of my all time favourite jokes was about the pope...sigh...

 

This is a popular view, RdS, yet it is incorrect and a reading of both The Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul make this quite clear. The Church was indeed originally Jewish - Jesus was a Jew as were the Apostles. But Jesus reached out to outsiders (such as the Samaritans and the centurion with the sick servant). It took the Apostles a while to cotton on to this idea (read the story of Cornelius, again a centurion, in Acts, when Peter's nose is basically rubbed in the idea of Gentile Christians. The great irony is that Paul, the most Jewish of all (a Pharisee, trained by Gamaliel, the greatest rabbinical teacher of the age), was the one who took the Gospel to the Gentile world. Paul took Jesus's basic ideas and, brilliant theologian that he was, expanded on them, but never deviated from them. Even in the Old Testament there are clear statements that God wasn't only for the Jews*. Christianity made it happen. It moved from Israel the physical nation to Israel the spiritual nation, where there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, slave and free. men and women, all united by belief. Sadly, we have lost a lot of that freedom.

* Remember also that Jesus's family tree includes a Gentile whore (Rahab) and a Moabitess (Ruth)!

 

Never mind, there'll be another one along shortly...

 

Religion is the oldest used justification going, nothing changes, sadly Isaac is right, human nature isnt pretty. Even our own leaders are guilty, how many times do we hear Bush and Blair mention god when they talk about conflicts "god is on our side" oh really, thats very strange considering what we're taught god to be.

 

Good posts from tones. It reads that you view the new testament to be literal, is that correct??

 

I'm aware of that...but it would be in bad taste to go around and tell people it....

 

But that's basically what I said, Tones! And should you want a contradition to the non Universal reach of Jesus' creed, there is an example (in Luke, I think) where, when asked for help by a gentile, he told her that he should tend to his flock first. She gave him a very good answer (even the dogs eat the crumbles after the a human meal) and he gave her what she wanted.

Anyway, I hope I have not offended you or anyone else. I have a very unusual idea about Jesus, but that is off topic and anyway it hardly matters. Christianity is a beautiful faith, but it is impossible to reconcile with a state, I mean a social organization based on hierarchies. So it can only be professed by singl persons, trying to do good.

In that sense I feel Luther was quite right: religion is a personal matter, an inner communion with God, and there ought not to be a Church at all.

I am sorry if I offended you and I do apologize if I did.

 

If by "literal" you mean "it happened this way", yes.

 

Personal matter, yes, certainly and not to be foisted on others. However, a church you also need, simply to teach things adequately.

No, not at all, so no apology is necessary. These things can and should be reasonably discussed, and they can be. I have my particular views, and like His Holiness, I have no doubts about my infallibility - he thinks he is, I know I'm not.

 

It actually isn't a contradiction. Jesus's mission (and those of the Apostles) was first "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel", hence the comment. They were first in line, but not the only ones. You'll notice that Paul always went first to a synagogue in a new place, assuming a large enough Jewish population (there had to be ten men to form a synagogue). In addition, the Jews had the Old Testament, from which he could show the texts relating to the coming Messiah. It was tougher for the Gentiles, but the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament, translated by Jewish scholars in Alexandria) was available.