This Pope is Special

[Danmark]

I am not a theist, but there is something special about Pope Francis.
We can all learn something from him.
The most important things cannot be put into words.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 40 by marco]

I think we have exhausted the subject of the goodness of Francis. And we have taken some liberties with our remit by descending into Marco's agnosticism. Let's conclude that Francis is special; I am not.

I prefer to conclude you are both special. One of my favorite expressions often used in my Church is “unrepeatable existence� If you think about it – it applies to all of us, is pretty amazing and actually makes all of us special.

[marco]

I prefer to conclude you are both special. One of my favorite expressions often used in my Church is “unrepeatable existence� If you think about it – it applies to all of us, is pretty amazing and actually makes all of us special.

I like to believe that the birds I feed daily on my lawn are rescued from avian atheism because of my divine actions; believers all in the god who provides for them. If we get too carried away by our own importance we should consider the impact a stone makes when it strikes a lake; a moment's splash and lost for ever. And of course the psalmist is there to remind us of our insignificance: "As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth."

Keats was one whose "name was writ in water", according to the inscription he had placed on his tomb. But he's very much alive in his nightingale, his urn and his splendid autumn. Horace seized not just the day but a piece of immortality; he said:
" Exegi monumentum aere perennius " - a monument I have built, more lasting than bronze. Purpose seems bound up with casting a light into centuries we can never see and indubitably Francis will do that.

The atoms that composed Caesar are still around, perhaps recording his horror at the betrayal of Brutus. We live in ignorance and mystery.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

I like to believe that the birds I feed daily on my lawn are rescued from avian atheism because of my divine actions; believers all in the god who provides for them. If we get too carried away by our own importance we should consider the impact a stone makes when it strikes a lake; a moment's splash and lost for ever. And of course the psalmist is there to remind us of our insignificance: "As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth."

Keats was one whose "name was writ in water", according to the inscription he had placed on his tomb. But he's very much alive in his nightingale, his urn and his splendid autumn. Horace seized not just the day but a piece of immortality; he said:
" Exegi monumentum aere perennius " - a monument I have built, more lasting than bronze. Purpose seems bound up with casting a light into centuries we can never see and indubitably Francis will do that.

The atoms that composed Caesar are still around, perhaps recording his horror at the betrayal of Brutus. We live in ignorance and mystery.

Well and beautifully said. Are you a writer? It’s fascinating how man can be both like every man -- live and die and be forgotten and yet his existence also be completely unique – and made even more special (not less) to the fact that it can never be repeated.

I think sometimes we dwell on the tedious similarity of all of our lives, and even forget the awesomeness of tedious similarity. I love this from G.K. Chesterton . . .

“Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.�

[marco]

It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon.

It is the prerogative of writers to glimpse a universe in a grain of sand, as did Blake. I find that we are all too ready to supply our identikit pictures of God and he is invariably unlike the OT version. For the Sun, I like Actaeon driving his dad's chariot; and for the Moon I like Selene wrapping Endymion in a silver sleep.

I think our view of heaven - or of the present Pope - is affected by the conditions of our own life and the teaching we have lived through.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 21 by Kenisaw]

You lost me after telling me that the word of a god needs "interpreting"...

Seriously? If I even type three simple words like, Got the keys

That sentence alone could have quite a few meanings depending on context, language spoken, speaker, audience, etc. The emphasis in the above phrase could be Got the keys (implying someone is stating they are in possession of the keys). It could be Got the keys (indicating emphasis on some specific/special keys). It could be interpreted as Got the keys (signifying the speaker is claiming he has keys and not something else). All of the above phrases could also be a question rather than a statement in case the speaker is actually saying, Got the keys? There might also be different interpretations or understanding based on what the word keys mean. Did keys always mean keys as we understand keys to mean today? Was the speaker speaking literally or metaphorically? What is the significance of those three words?

So, yeah, odd to me that you don’t think Scripture needs interpreting. Everything and Anything needs interpreting because we are human beings and have language barriers, or lack information to make complete or perfect sense out of written words. I can misunderstand what someone 3 feet away from me tells me in my own language. So I find it completely reasonable to think a 2000 year old book written in a foreign language might be something that needs to be interpreted correctly, less a great deal of confusion could ensue.

It's not odd to me. Scripture is, at least to some Christians, THE word of a god. To others it is the divinely INSPIRED word of a god. If an all good, all loving, all powerful, all knowing, etc god creature made a book of directions for people to follow, why does it need "interpreting"? Oh yeah, the all-god also doesn't deceive or lie, or any ambiguity at all in scripture seems to be at odds with the claimed characteristics of this all powerful critter...

The Bible does not tell the reader to "interpret" anything, or where to do this interpreting. There are only three ways to take that dusty tome: literal, parts literal and figurative, and all figurative. If you take it all literal, you run into all manner of problems. Flying creatures before land animals? Iron filled Earth before iron producing stars? Plants before the Sun? That's some of the incorrect claims found in just Genesis 1. No, taking it literal fails quickly and completely. So then it must be, in part or in whole, figurative. Ignoring the facts laid out in the previous paragraph, where and when does the Bible direct readers to apply symbolic meaning to the texts? It doesn't. So you have no clue what should and shouldn't be "interpreted", or how, or to what extent. Maybe the claim that god is alive really means god is alive in people's mind because gods don't exist. How would you know any different?

The only way to take the Bible and avoid that is to take it literally, and we all know that taking it literally is not an option....So yeah, I don't find it odd in the least.

JW’s take said Sacred Scripture and developed or created their own interpretation/understanding of it. It is my opinion that in doing so, they might have gotten some things right, but in other cases got some things very wrong. Once they left the established Church (who Christ said, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “) they were no longer assured they were getting it right. This of course applies to each and every Christian denomination that broke off from Christ’s established Church and why all can believe in the same God, the same book, and yet still have so many very different beliefs.

I don't disagree. I'd only add that the Catholic Church falls into that as well. The various Codex clearly show the development of the Bible via editing, deletions, and insertions started quite early in Church history. The exclusion of gnostic texts like the Gospel of Bartholomew shows man's guiding hand in changing the supposed word of a god into what it is today.

The Church gave us Scripture. It did not fall from the sky! The Church determined what texts made the cut to be considered part of Sacred Scripture and which ones did not. The Church could have included a great many writings from a great many sources but compiled the Bible as determined by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if anyone is going to then take the Bible and go forth to make changes, additions, deletions, or claim they know better than the Church who compiled Scripture what Scripture means that seems extremely illogical.

Very true. The church fought off the gnostics, excluded their texts, and apparently did a little house cleaning between the lines where required (again, based on the codex) even though the original writers did not make the changes, and the Church did not write the original works. So the church monkeyed with the books, we seem to agree on that. Why the divinely inspired word of a god needs monkeying with I can't say personally...

[RightReason]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

The Bible does not tell the reader to "interpret" anything, or where to do this interpreting.

Huh? First, the Bible did not exist when Christ walked the earth and said, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church." "He who hears you, hears me" "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." The first Christians were led by the Church and that same Church gave Christ's followers the Bible. It is pretty evident if we followed the Church until she handed us the Bible, accepted the Bible and her authority in giving us it, then it only logical we trust and accept her authority and ability in interpreting it. Why would anyone have followed Christ's Church in the first place or even accept the Bible if they don't trust and accept the authority of the Church? MAKES NO SENSE. So, yeah, it is pretty clear the Bible needs interpreted and pretty clear who is to do the interpreting. It's clear from logic, reason, history, and Scripture itself.

where and when does the Bible direct readers to apply symbolic meaning to the texts?

Where and when in life when someone is speaking or writing metaphorically is the recipient directed to apply symbolic meaning?

It doesn't. So you have no clue what should and shouldn't be "interpreted", or how, or to what extent.

Exactly as in present day, except that we often do have a clue regarding how or whether to interpret something literally or symbolically. We can know this by knowing context, language usage, reason, or a tip off from the actual author or witness.

Maybe the claim that god is alive really means god is alive in people's mind because gods don't exist. How would you know any different?

If I say, "It's raining cats and dogs", you might conclude my words are to be taken metaphorically, where as someone unfamiliar with our language might not understand this. The point is, simply because different people can arrive at different interpretations or understandings of something does not negate the original speaker/author did not intend one interpretation. The truth is there is a way to know the difference, however it obviously does take proper interpretation.

The Church gave us Scripture. It did not fall from the sky! The Church determined what texts made the cut to be considered part of Sacred Scripture and which ones did not. The Church could have included a great many writings from a great many sources but compiled the Bible as determined by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if anyone is going to then take the Bible and go forth to make changes, additions, deletions, or claim they know better than the Church who compiled Scripture what Scripture means that seems extremely illogical.

Very true. The church fought off the gnostics, excluded their texts, and apparently did a little house cleaning between the lines where required (again, based on the codex) even though the original writers did not make the changes, and the Church did not write the original works. So the church monkeyed with the books, we seem to agree on that. Why the divinely inspired word of a god needs monkeying with I can't say personally...

See my example above. Because words on a page or even words spoken in a conversation often need interpreted, as can be evident in every day life all the time. To pretend they do not is illogical.

[marco]

The truth is there is a way to know the difference, however it obviously does take proper interpretation.

Because words on a page or even words spoken in a conversation often need interpreted,

When Jesus uttered the words: "I AM GOD" there was no ambiguity. There is no need to interpret. Alas, he never used such clear language. "Who do men say that I am?" doesn't quite have the same loud ring.

As for "proper" interpretation - who will judge the interpreters? We are arguing here because each interpreter carries truth - in their own view of things.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

When Jesus uttered the words: "I AM GOD" there was no ambiguity.

Not true. Men have been disagreeing on those three words from the moment they've been spoken. I think JPII in fact spent an entire chapter of one of his books just talking about those 3 words alone.

As for "proper" interpretation - who will judge the interpreters? We are arguing here because each interpreter carries truth - in their own view of things.

Yes, which makes my point that an ultimate interpreter is necessary and requires the same faith that allowed us to believe Jesus walked the earth and died for our sins. That truth does not require any less of an act of faith as believing He established an authoritative earthly Church whom He left in charge.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 47 by marco]

Some claim, "I could never put my faith in men. I only put my faith in God".

Really? Who spread the Gospel? Men. Who wrote the Bible? Men.

How does it require any more faith to believe in an established Church vs. believing in God?

[tam]

[Replying to marco]

Peace to you!

When Jesus uttered the words: "I AM GOD" there was no ambiguity.

Not true. Men have been disagreeing on those three words from the moment they've been spoken. I think JPII in fact spent an entire chapter of one of his books just talking about those 3 words alone.

I'm sorry. But where did He state those three words?



Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy