What was so great about the Pope?

Brought up strict Roman Catholic. Was a serious scientist in a later life. I had many an interesting debate with the more intellectual of the Catholic priests I met, but none of them convinced me. My thoughts on Catholicism and 'belief' in general probably aren't best suited to these forums, though I'd classify them alongside the people who take money from people who are looking for pain relief and remedial therapies to clinically diagnosed death sentences, which seem to come under the cover heading of 'alternative medicine' or 'alternative therapies'
 
no, that isn't true. The Pope gave support to solidarisnosc in Poland, which dramatically increased and changed their press coverage in the west: the pope decodeed who were the "good guys" and with his suport, the communist governments never were, from that moment onwards.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No nothing to with the DaVinci stuff .. thought provoking though it is

[/ QUOTE ]

What surprises me most about the Da Vinci Code is how many people have missed the fact that it clearly states that it is a work of fiction.
 
Interesting question. Which raises another one:

What IS so great about British Monarchy?
I understand that it still draws a lot of attention in the UK.
But also in this case, its main achievement is probably a long-lasting dinasty...
 
The historian Josephus wrote an account of the Crucifixion from the point of view of one of the Jews.

>>>
Antiquities 18: Chapter 3
Josephus mentions the crucifixion of Jesus in passing. The passage is judged authentic by most scholars once the obvious Christian additions (marked here in brackets) are removed:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
>>>
The Crucifixion is, therefore, an established and credible historical event, described by a writer who was not himself sympathetic with Jesus. The Resurrection remains, by contrast, an action which requires faith. Given that one of the central precepts of Christianity, that Jesus was executed by the Romans at the request of the Jewish religious authorities it does not seem unreasonable to infer that many, if not all, of the events related in the Gospels (and logically in Acts as well) have at least an equal level of truth.
 
The Crucifixion is, therefore, an established and credible historical event ....

and Pilate along with lots of other governors had lots of folks crucified - It was a bit like hanging or the electric chair. If you spoke ill of the state you stood a chance of getting sentenced to death along with murderers and some thieves.

That's the problem with the new testament. No media coverage. Nobody who was there wrote about it the day it happened or the next or the next. All the vague reports were written up decades after the event. There is reasonable proof that an evangelist called Jesus was crucified - killed and buried. But that is all there is any proof in order to support Christianity -
 
but its a lot more evidence than anything that supports atheism?

Mind you, Douglas Adams had a few witty things to say about faith and proof.

My own approach takes the tale of the Pharisee in the Temple as a basis. I'm one of the ones at the back saying quietly "Have mercy on me, a sinner".
 
'but its a lot more evidence than anything that supports atheism?'

But that's the problem! All the evidence of this life suggests that when the lights go out it is just dark. Nothing.

I have never, ever seen any evidence that anything else happens.

Not a problem - just need to enjoy every moment of your life - really, really enjoy your sinning unless it damages someone else.

I think you have to decide for yourself what is right or wrong not be preached to by others who may have another agenda.
 
But 'Secret Mark' is merely an early centuries 'Da Vinci Code' without the honesty to say to its readers that it is a work of fiction. Much like the 'Gospel of Thomas'.

The one thing about both that serious biblical scholars will agree on, is that they were neither one written by the person whose names they use. Both are later creations - Secret Mark, in particualr, a fictional work to support the heresy of Gnosticism
 
Perhaps .. and very much like the rest of Mathew,Mark, Luke & John! Lets face it there were scores of gospels etc out there and the churches of the time selected, edited and amended the ones that suited their own personal agendas and got rid of the ones they did'nt like. The net consequence was that Christianity became very different from what it's inspiror intended .. bit like Marx and communism in practice. Does the RC Church still maintain a list of proscribed books?
 
re iangrant

Thanks for the web site - the cardinals quotes made me smile - Silly of the church to take all that so seriously as when they make the argument their own philosophy fails on all points.

I find Dan Brown not to be the best author in the world - struggling to finish the Digital Fortress - like the Vinci code, I suspect it was written with film rights in mind rather than a good novel.
 
Re: re iangrant

I waded through Angel and Demons, probably a better read than the other two..The good old church are up in arms - that site was just the tip of the iceberg..still - bless 'em (oops sorry) I smile every time I drive past the local church -sign outside says "come in for prayer and reflection" I always wonder if they are advertising their new mirror..

Ian
 
Far from it, I abhor sectarianism, religious or racial bigotry of any sort shape or colour. I also abhor mindless eulogising.
 
As an accountant you should appreciate the maxim - follow the money.

I've always thought that false prophets can be spotted by how they die - if they're old, fat, rich and surrounded by lots of women - they're false.

What was in it for the apostles to lie and make up their stories? For the most part they died violent deaths far from their homeland, having left their families and livlihood. They did it to build what their friend and God had founded.

Later pretenders, such as the Gnostics and Arius had good reason to make up pretend Gospels to support their views. But true biblical scholars will tell you that the Gospels we have from Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are pretty damn well assuredly authentic, and what we have is as complete an image of their original texts as is possible. This is what the Church defined in the Council of Laodicea, and no modern rewriting of history is going to change the fact that the Church cared deeply to ensure that what was genuinely inspired was kept wholly intact, and what was falsely fictional was disposed of.

As to your final sentence - possibly, as a piece of history - but who cares? The Church has spoken out against error for 2000 years - this was a clumsy mediaeval way of doing so. Now we'll probably be more subtle, and try and use the media!

As to your penultimate sentence, I would diagree. It does not accord with my faith, but on an intellectual level, I cannot reconcile this popular modern view with John 21:24 or Matthew 28: 18-20.

And where did it profit Matthew or John to lie?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps .. and very much like the rest of Mathew,Mark, Luke & John! Lets face it there were scores of gospels etc out there and the churches of the time selected, edited and amended the ones that suited their own personal agendas and got rid of the ones they did'nt like. The net consequence was that Christianity became very different from what it's inspiror intended .. bit like Marx and communism in practice. Does the RC Church still maintain a list of proscribed books?

[/ QUOTE ]
You know - for someone who claims be abhor bigotry, you give a d**n good impression of a religious bigot yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top