- cross-posted to:
- nut@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- nut@lemmygrad.ml
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.
Religion, at its core, is basically rules that state “don’t be a dick.” Unfortunately, all of the dicks didn’t get the message.
It’s not "don’t be a dick’.
It’s “do as we want you to do”
Plenty of the rules are “be a dick, like this:”
Plenty of the rules are “don’t do this objectively harmless thing”
Plenty of the rulez are “do this ridiculously pointless thing”
Yes, modern religion has many rules made by the dicks once they took over. Before the dicks rules were things like don’t steal shit, don’t fuck your neighbor’s wife, don’t murder people, don’t lie about shit, etc. The dicks were so bad that some other guy had to come along and say “seriously guys, stop being dicks”. But the dicks didn’t like that so they killed him.
Phallus 6:9 - And lo’ the Lord said unto Clitoris, “Be thou not a dick by thine actions, nor by thy words, nor by thy thoughts.”
Amen!
Most declarations of what religions do and don’t don’t do miss Discordianism pretty hard, but you got us on those.
Exhibits: A) Don’t eat hotdog buns. B) Go off alone on a Friday and eat a hotdog with a bun.
Good looking out for us religious minorities.
All of culture is “do as we want you to do.” We’re hierarchical animals.
Ish.
Many religions are more “don’t be a dick to your fellow brothers in faith, but feel free to be a dick to others”. In-group out-group dynamics were historically quite important.
You know - “don’t murder”, but at the same time Deuteronomy says
Also
If you take each verse at face value, this is a problem and what you imply is true.
But the thing you quoted from Deuteronomy were instructions to the Israelites. It’s recorded history, not instruction. You can’t just point to a verse in the Bible (like Acts 8:8 "Saul, for his part, approved of his murder") and say “see? The Bible says to do bad things!”
And going deeper shows that the Mosaic Law (the laws in the old testament, excluding the ten commandments), part of which is in your second block quote, was superceded by the Law Covenant when Jesus died. Again, it was a law directed specifically at Jews of the time.
You can kinda think of the first five Bible books (called the Torah in Judaism) as a speed run of history. So much happens in terms of time covered in those five books.
Not everyone who considers Deuteronomy to be scripture is Christian. For example, basically any rabbi would disagree with you.
The Deuteronomic code is literally presented as instruction from Moses to Israel as a normative set of rules for israel to follow. Many of the rules in it are included in the traditional lists of the Torah’s 613 commandments.
I don’t know of similar commandments in the new testament, but it’s had its fair share of religious leaders inciting sectarian wars, pogroms, persecution, etc. For example, Pope Paul IV wrote a decree that forced the Jews of Rome into a ghetto in 1555, prevented them from owning property or working most skilled jobs. The Spanish Inquisition primarily targeted Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity under threat of exile.
Sure, but this thread is mostly about Christianity (the post is about the Pope and the Catholic Church).
Yes. I said basically this. I wrote: But the thing you quoted from Deuteronomy were instructions to the Israelites.
Because there aren’t any like that.
And? Your next door neighbour can be a “Christian”, go to church every week, etc, but then find out he’s a regular thief and had murdered someone. Would you then conclude there must be a commandment somewhere in the Bible that condones stealing and murder? Or would you conclude that he didn’t follow the principles of the Bible he proclaimed to believe in?
Examples of people doing bad things in the name of the Bible is not evidence of anything against the Bible. It’s just an example of terrible people being manipulative, exploitative, and ultimately evil. Many people throughout history (and many alive today) have realized that many people are more willing to listen to and accept what you say when you claim it’s from the Bible. These people don’t care about the Bible, they just care that it’s a tool they can use for manipulation.
Have even met a single rabbi, no two rabbi’s agree on anything.
While rabbis don’t agree on much, the official line of all the denominations is that messianic Jews are Christians, not Jews.
Every “rabbi” that accepts that the Torah was superceded by Jesus is a messianic Jew, basically by definition. That makes them not a rabbi, but a Christian minister in cosplay.
I don’t disagree with you entirely I was pointing out that using absolutes with Jews is fraught with contradictions. I wasn’t necessarily trying to support the person you responded to. Even within the framework that they were rules to follow there is an extremely wide variety of interpretation. And while I agree with your messianic assessment, as an atheist Jew that remember a tiny amount, I also think gatekeeping a religion is sketchy territory. Most fundamentalists don’t believe any other sect is truly part of their religion, hard to draw lines using the perspectives of people that have a clear in group mentality. To me, if you say you’re a Jew, you’re a Jew, I have no reason to challenge the claim.
And yet the golden rule usually doesn’t get written down until multiple generations after the religion is formed. Took almost a century for Christianity to bother.
The problem is “don’t be a dick” meant different things in different points in time. Now, enough time has elapsed that there are a huge amount of different iterations of “don’t be a dick” rules and people just pick and choose which rules suits them.
If you’re talking about all religions, I can’t speak to that. But if we’re talking about “Christians”, then that’s not the case. “Love your neighbour” and “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you” are pretty hard to interpret “differently”. There’s no excuse.
It’s not about interpreting things differently and more about picking and choosing what to believe.
This is true also
When the rules are laws, lawyers argue in front of judges and define the grey areas. They change the grey areas from time to time. We as a society have agreed to have a single interpretation of those rules.
In religion, when people don’t agree on the rules or how they should be interpreted, they can break apart and form their own religion. There is no governing body with the power to enforce the single interpretation.
Thus, people who missed the dont be a dick memo just find each other and pretend their interpretation of the thousands of years old text is more valid than the don’t be a dick crowd.
Some dicks created religion.