On a slightly separate note, anyone, Catholic or no, want to share their thoughts on this Pope Francis fellow. I find him quite interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-presides-over-trimmed-easter-vigil-200621332.html
The main paragraphs of the article is not the point, but rather the supplemental stuff pointing out how he's made some waves.
It reminds me of the sort of ta'do that happens when someone changes or neglects to remember one of the artifacts of a classic telly show or a comic book.
The Doctor never snogs his companions. Batman doesn't shoot people. Sherlock Holmes wouldn't fall in love with anyone let alone a woman who isn't Irene Adler.
The Pope doesn't wash women's feet, Jesus only washed men's feet.
The Doctor wouldn't wear a leather jacket, Superman wouldn't grow a beard. The Pope has to wear his ruby slippers and his fur hat or he isn't a proper Pope.
He has some funny ideas though.
On the Falkland Islands 3 people when polled wanted to be Argentine.
That's 3 people to 1500.
Yet he sees the 1983 invasion at the fag end of the Dirty War, as Argentine's defending their mother and the forced removal of the Argentines as a usurpation.
In with those invaders were colourful characters like this chap responsible for pushing people (including famously two French Catholic nuns) alive out of airplanes.
I have no doubt that the reason Westminster and and Buenos Aires are so keen to fight over the islands is more to do with mineral rights than human rights but when the majority population don't want to be Argentine with good reason it's wrong to force them especially as they have never been Argentine.
Cristina Fernández de Kircher calls this British Colonialism. She is president of a country which has a mostly latin/ Catholic identity. Yet the land was once owned by indigenous peoples with cultures of their own.
The indigenous peoples of the Falklands are penguins, seals and gulls.
If I were Prime Minister of Great Britain I would call their bluff and say have the mineral rights but leave the population alone.
That way we would know what the Argentines really want but for obvious reasons they will never do that.
darth_ender said:
Happy Easter! Warb, if you're the only one who reads this and cares, I hope you enjoy a wonderful holiday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord and Savior :)
Thanks Ender. Happy Easter to everyone on the forum.
And now to honor what used to be the tradition my church choir on Easter Sunder, I link to what my church choir would always sing at the end of the Easter church service. The Hallelujah Chorus.
HE HAS RISEN!
HE HAS RISEN INDEED!!
Who the hell is that Nordic superman in contravention of Exodus 20:4 supposed to be, James Hetfield?
Happy Vasanthotsavam everybody.
Although I'm not religious, thanks for the Easter wishes. We hosted a big family gathering at our house, and had a wonderful time surrounded by loved ones.
Regarding warb's singing - I wasn't trying to deflate him. He said it was "proof", and I didn't say it wasn't true. I think I was actually more conciliatory than most religious people would allow for, since the existence of Jesus and God are considered "truth", and anything that contradicts that would be discounted. Yes I did say that I thought it was improbable, but didn't discount the possibility.
To be more specific, I actually think it is a bit odd that people think that God intervenes on their behalf over relatively minor things like winning a tennis game, or doing well at a singing recital. Because you know there are probably hundreds or thousands of less fortunate Christians praying for considerably more important things, like rent money, or relief from an illness, or to not get beaten this time by her drunk husband, etc., whose prayers go unanswered.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
that's alright, I really didn't expect anyone else to accept it as proof. But Puggo, if you don't think I have sympathy for the people going through the things you listed, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't know why God answers some prayers and not others. I have been taught that God works in mysterious ways, but that answer doesn't satisfy me. But odd or not, if one honestly thinks God helped one do something, wouldn't it be wrong not to acknowledge that and instead take all the credit for yourself?
If God exists and is the Prime Mover then all things stem from his actions, that would mean nobody would be able to pat themselves on the back for anything.
I think any God worth your worship is big enough to allow you take a little bit of pride and satisfaction in your achievements even if they do ultimately stem from Him.
To clarify, my comment was directed at Leo. I was trying to determine what made a comment seem more bothersome or less, and I do think it comes down to simple phrasing. When one says, "I think maybe God wasn't helping you," or, "Maybe you just have more natural talent than you realize," I guess I don't don't see it as condescending, but merely expressing a different point of view. But when one says, "No, you did that completely on your own," with simple matter-of-factness, it seems more demeaning. Really, I guess it comes down to whether one precedes his comment with a phrase noting the subjectivity of his perspective. When Leo made his comment, I don't believe he made any such note, which is why I commented as I did. But I do believe he meant it in genuine kindness.
I want to be clear, I like everyone I've disagreed with in here: Leonardo, CP3S, Bingowings, TV's Frink, TheBoost, and even walkingdork, despite a few previous run-ins. I appreciate it when you guys are willing to accept the validity of our points of view, which really does include not simply stating yours as the only perspective worth considering.
That said, I feel your comments are quite valid, Puggo. It certainly is difficult to think that God helps us poor, wealthy Americans who misplace our Ipods, while others in this world suffer. I saw this picture once, and it is a firm reminder of appropriate perspective:
I think people sometimes forget that God answers prayers in various manners. Even we can be answers to prayers. We can serve others, send money to or volunteer in poor countries, etc. There are people in need, but often they are far more appreciative of the little God gives them than the affluent are of his far more abundant blessings. In the end, God can do anything, but he seldom chooses to directly intervene when others make poor choices. People starve in Africa because of evil dictators who misuse the generous donations of wealthier nations. God will not take away the agency of this evil men, but he can influence others for good. Sometimes even the toppling of a regime is an answer to many prayers.
Okay, I'll stop before my religious point drifts too far into the political.
As for your thoughts, Bingo, clearly God wants us to be proud of ourselves. It's when our pride in our own achievement exceeds our humility for his blessings that he becomes annoyed.
Bingowings said:
Who the hell is that Nordic superman in contravention of Exodus 20:4 supposed to be, James Hetfield?
It's a Jewish superman with a European model, no doubt. And the interpretation of Exodus 20:4 is extremely varied, and many commentators have spoken on that point. Muslims will not have any paintings of any animals or people in their possession, while Catholics have statues of saints and Christ himself. Protestants will usually have paintings, at least of Christ on earth. Usually the common consensus is that it is a commandment forbidding the construction of idols in place of worshiping the true God.
BTW, for one who doesn't believe in the devil, you sure spend a lot of time playing as his advocate ;)
darth_ender said:
BTW, for one who doesn't believe in the devil, you sure spend a lot of time playing as his advocate ;)
QFT :D
It's the beard right?
I've never been one for Dutch alcoholic drinks made from eggs.
Especially those drank by mythical beings invented by medieval Christians to explain why their God does wacky things like the plague.
darth_ender said:
When one says, "I think maybe God wasn't helping you," or, "Maybe you just have more natural talent than you realize," I guess I don't don't see it as condescending, but merely expressing a different point of view. But when one says, "No, you did that completely on your own," with simple matter-of-factness, it seems more demeaning. Really, I guess it comes down to whether one precedes his comment with a phrase noting the subjectivity of his perspective. When Leo made his comment, I don't believe he made any such note, which is why I commented as I did. But I do believe he meant it in genuine kindness.
I feel like you hold a pretty tight double standard here. You get offended when an atheist boldly claims, "There is no God", but you wouldn't hesitate to even more boldly claim there is a God, and not only that, but claim you have a relationship with him and know what he wants or what things annoy him.
An example from the same post:
It's when our pride in our own achievement exceeds our humility for his blessings that he becomes annoyed.
In both cases of, "I think maybe God wasn't helping you" and, "No, you did that completely on your own", it is merely a different point of view being expressed, and neither are intended as condescension.
Warbler is a talented signer, clearly. I must admit it saddens me a little bit that he can't accept that and take pride in it (which he has every right to do), but instead feels the need to give all credit to some supernatural force and continue to consider himself worthless and talentless, which is clearly far, far from the truth.
You have non believers who get really nervous before some public performance and end up nailing it when it comes time to perform all the time, Warb is telling himself they are much better than him, when in reality, he may be just as good or better than a lot of them.
There is nothing in the above paragraph meant as condescension, it is Warbler's story filtered through my godless worldview. Likewise, when Leo says he knows God doesn't exist, once filtered through your theistic worldview, it is offensive because it is pretty much slapping God in the face (you mentioned something before along the lines of feeling that we were disrespecting God with some of the stuff we are saying).
I for one love it! I like trying to see different worldviews, and hearing the perspective of different people as seen through their own particular color sunglass lens shade.
CP3S said:Warbler is a talented signer, clearly.
How do you know that? You've never heard me sing.
I knew someone would call DOUBLE STANDARDS on that one. :)
Try to see it how I see it.
A: "I believe in God because of such and such."
B: "That wasn't God. That was a purely a natural phenomenon."
Shoe on the other foot.
B: "I don't believe in God because of such and such."
A: "That was God who created that phenomenon."
I don't believe I ever phrase it that way. Bingo raised a point and I offered a counter point. Look at my phrasing, which can be summarized thusly:
B: "I don't believe in God because of such and such."
A: "I think that God created that phenomenon
That is the exact phrasing I ask of you:
A: "I believe in God because of such and such."
B: "I think that wasn't God, but rather a natural phenomenon."
Reread my last post and you will see my attempted sensitive phrasing. But to be clear, I truthfully enjoy these conversations, and I don't even mind the phrasing in itself. It's likely misinterpretation on my part, but what bugs me is the intent of comments. Is that intent to challenge ideas, perhaps get a little more thinking, and at minimum just sharing a different perspective? Or is it intended to just say I'm dumb for believing in God, and if I could wrap my around the facts, I'd know the truth. When phrased without the "I thinks," it appears I'm more likely to interpret things differently. That is the inherent disadvantage of electronic communication and the sensitive tendencies of those (like myself) who feel that sometimes others are indeed slapping our God in the face. I believe I am better getting where Leo is coming from, I know that (usually) Bingo is just trying to point out some historical or cultural influence and wants to be a bit of a smarty pants ;), I know you are very scientific in your thought process and therefore do not feel God fits in the equation. But take Boost's most recent comment. He too may have meant it merely as a point to think about, but in context, and with several similar comments already being made, I became annoyed because I felt like the intent was, "Look here, ignoramus..." That is why I am advocating slightly more cautious phrasing. I apologize if I am coming off as pushy.
Warbler said:
CP3S said:Warbler is a talented signer, clearly.
How do you know that? You've never heard me sing.
With a name like Warbler, of course you can sing, probably with great talent!
Tim Tebow isn't getting his prayers answered anymore. ;-)
God isn't a Jets fan. Although that might change. He wasn't a 49ers fan for a while, but now he seems to be.
Seriously, I've never understood athletes thanking God when they win. Does Serena Williams really believe that God wants her to win over Sharapova? Does God love her more than her opponents? Maybe along the way she beat someone who could have used that prize money to help a dying family member?
And what's with God needing to be praised all the time? Is He that insecure?
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
God doesn't need our praise. We need to praise him...I believe ;)
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
God isn't a Jets fan. Although that might change. He wasn't a 49ers fan for a while, but now he seems to be.
He was a HUGE fan of the 49ers till Steve Young retired. He is a little biased towards the Mormons, you know? ;)
darth_ender said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
God isn't a Jets fan. Although that might change. He wasn't a 49ers fan for a while, but now he seems to be.
He was a HUGE fan of the 49ers till Steve Young retired. He is a little biased towards the Mormons, you know? ;)
I'm still trying to figure out what He's up to with Alex Smith. If I were Alex, I'd be like - dude, can you make up your mind?
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
I was at the tattoo parlor this weekend, and honestly considered getting "LEVITICUS 19:28" in Olde English letters on my bicep.
That's pretty funny actually.
darth_ender said:
Happy Easter! Warb, if you're the only one who reads this and cares, I hope you enjoy a wonderful holiday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord and Savior :)
I care.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
Warbler said:
CP3S said:Warbler is a talented signer, clearly.
How do you know that? You've never heard me sing.
Because they asked you to do a solo at least twice now, and you said they seemed to enjoy it. Nobody has ever asked me to do a solo, and if they did they sure wouldn't enjoy it. I imagine this means you're not half bad of a singer. Plus, you totally nailed it on Good Friday. Sounds to me like you've got some talent there.
darth_ender said:
I don't believe I ever phrase it that way. Bingo raised a point and I offered a counter point. Look at my phrasing, which can be summarized thusly:
B: "I don't believe in God because of such and such."
A: "I think that God created that phenomenon
Impossible as I've repeatedly said I'm not an atheist.
It amused me when Warb smiled at the prospect of me playing devil's advocate because that means I can hold in my mind and explain things I don't necessarily believe in.
If I couldn't do this I would be a lousy God father to two Catholic children.
Because I don't believe in the Devil and I really don't like the God of the Old Testament.
The phrasing was meant to generically apply across a number of situations. No worries, I understood what you meant. And honestly I think the ability to simultaneously hold ideas in your mind that you don't necessarily believe is a valuable trait.
