Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 04:02 PM Feb 2015

Pope Francis Slams 'Prejudiced Mentality' Of Believers Who Fearfully Cling To Religious Laws

Religion News Service | By David Gibson
Posted: 02/15/2015 1:01 pm EST

VATICAN CITY (RNS) In a powerful sermon that signaled his desire to push ahead with historic reforms, Pope Francis on Sunday (Feb. 15) said the Roman Catholic Church must be open and welcoming, whatever the costs.

He also warned the hierarchy not to be “a closed caste” but to lead in reaching out to all who are rejected by society and the church.

“There are two ways of thinking and of having faith: we can fear to lose the saved and we can want to save the lost,” Francis told hundreds of cardinals and bishops arrayed before him in St. Peter’s Basilica at a Mass centered on the story of Jesus healing a leper rather than rejecting him.

“Even today it can happen that we stand at the crossroads of these two ways of thinking,” the pope said as he outlined the current debate in the church between those seen as doctrinal legalists and those, like Francis, who want a more pastoral approach.

“Jesus responds immediately to the leper’s plea, without waiting to study the situation and all its possible consequences,” Francis declared. “For Jesus, what matters above all is reaching out to save those far off, healing the wounds of the sick, restoring everyone to God’s family. And this is scandalous to some people!”

more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/15/pope-francis-homily_n_6687610.html?cps=gravity_2685_6786438305509954919

85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pope Francis Slams 'Prejudiced Mentality' Of Believers Who Fearfully Cling To Religious Laws (Original Post) DonViejo Feb 2015 OP
More BS for the gullible Cartoonist Feb 2015 #1
Are you comparing homosexality to leprosy? rug Feb 2015 #8
You are Cartoonist Feb 2015 #20
Those are your words, Cartoonist. Own them. rug Feb 2015 #21
You own them Cartoonist Feb 2015 #31
Bullshit. It's your comparison. The sermon was about leprosy, not "fishes and loaves". rug Feb 2015 #36
Cartoonist's post was about the superpope's two-facedness. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #37
Have you appointed yourself interpreter of awkward posts? rug Feb 2015 #38
Just trying to help because you obviously missed it. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #40
Help the next poster who brings up homosexuality in a thread about leprosy. rug Feb 2015 #41
Look REAL HARD at the subject line. I'll wait. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #42
It wasn't abot gay people either. rug Feb 2015 #46
PREJUDICED MENTALITY. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #47
There are all kinds of PREJDICED MENTALITY !!1!!1! rug Feb 2015 #48
I read it. That's why your attempt to deflect on the homosexuality issue with 'lepers' is pathetic. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #49
Is that a promise? rug Feb 2015 #50
It is. That issue was a valid topic of the article. You smeared him with that comparison. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #51
You just broke it. rug Feb 2015 #52
Nope. You had your chance. Goodbye. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #53
Adieu. rug Feb 2015 #54
I' sure you're absolutely crushed. okasha Feb 2015 #63
. . . . it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known . . . . rug Feb 2015 #67
This message was self-deleted by its author Cartoonist Feb 2015 #43
The Opinion Post speaks of "all" who are marginalized by the Church Brettongarcia Feb 2015 #85
This Pope reminds me very much of President Obama. Htom Sirveaux Feb 2015 #2
Interesting analysis. cbayer Feb 2015 #6
I disagree--so far, Francis is proving to be the more inspiring leader DerekG Feb 2015 #45
What's always bothered me bvf Feb 2015 #3
What's always bothered ME Cartoonist Feb 2015 #4
Depends on what "Son of God" means, doesn't it? Htom Sirveaux Feb 2015 #5
That would have been asking for bvf Feb 2015 #32
I don't know the answer to your question, but it reminds me of something I've wondered. merrily Feb 2015 #55
Here's some nonsense for you Cartoonist Feb 2015 #57
What do you think that statement means? cbayer Feb 2015 #58
A possible claim of deity, yes. merrily Feb 2015 #59
The most logical explanation seems to be that he is cbayer Feb 2015 #60
I don't know. I know only that there is more than one possible interpretation. merrily Feb 2015 #62
Good points. That is why I find literalism so very objectionable. cbayer Feb 2015 #64
Point was, one is not supposed to converse in a library. merrily Feb 2015 #65
Well, I like the quiet as well, but all that paper makes me sneeze. cbayer Feb 2015 #66
I think he may well have been preaching, in context, a sense of universality. "I am the son of man" pinto Feb 2015 #61
If one takes these stories literally, then I can see why one cbayer Feb 2015 #10
What a ridiculous question. bvf Feb 2015 #11
But are you one of them, because many millions don't. cbayer Feb 2015 #12
Do you think Santa Claus bvf Feb 2015 #13
What's always bothered me cbayer Feb 2015 #14
Do you believe in Santa Claus? bvf Feb 2015 #16
No, do you? cbayer Feb 2015 #17
For your edification. bvf Feb 2015 #23
Yes, dear bvf. I was mocking your response to make a point. cbayer Feb 2015 #24
You just can't keep true to your word, can you? bvf Feb 2015 #25
Of course I can't! You've read the book, I am sure. cbayer Feb 2015 #26
Repeat as necessary. bvf Feb 2015 #33
Obviously okasha Feb 2015 #18
Literalists are killing us... cbayer Feb 2015 #19
Why take anything in the bible literally then? Major Nikon Feb 2015 #75
Why indeed? cbayer Feb 2015 #78
I reckon there's lots of reasons Major Nikon Feb 2015 #80
Not necessary for you to put any stock in them at all. cbayer Feb 2015 #81
You are correct Major Nikon Feb 2015 #82
If fundies believe in talking donkeys and people that live to 900, cbayer Feb 2015 #83
He was speaking about today's Gospel. rug Feb 2015 #7
jesus had the cure and chose not to give it away freely in the name of love...or any other reason nt msongs Feb 2015 #9
Do you know of any incident in the New Testament where he refused anyone? rug Feb 2015 #15
As if the New Testament is a reliable source? phil89 Feb 2015 #27
So, the answer is "no". rug Feb 2015 #28
Way to miss the point. phil89 Feb 2015 #76
the New Testament is a reliable as any documents prior to the Linen paper happyslug Feb 2015 #34
Wrong. okasha Feb 2015 #22
And, it did nothing. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #39
For Jesus did NOT want to be known for his miracles but for his message. happyslug Feb 2015 #29
His messages phil89 Feb 2015 #77
Feel free to ignore all of them. cbayer Feb 2015 #79
Here is the whole Homily, it is to the New Cardinals of the Church. happyslug Feb 2015 #30
"must be open and welcoming, whatever the cost"? skepticscott Feb 2015 #35
Two words: Greg Burke. n/t. bvf Feb 2015 #44
What has a National League Pitcher have to do with this thread? happyslug Feb 2015 #71
Seriously. bvf Feb 2015 #72
Some of us get our news from the net, and the ball player came up first happyslug Feb 2015 #73
When I plugged "Greg Burke" into Google, it returned the journalist first. n/t trotsky Feb 2015 #74
Good talk. bvf Feb 2015 #84
What was this Pope doing in Slovakia? No seriously, he's directly contradicting himself here... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #56
He wasn't in Slovakia. okasha Feb 2015 #68
Good point, but I was talking about his endorsement of the failed... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #69
You'll find there won't be many takers on that subject. trotsky Feb 2015 #70

Cartoonist

(7,298 posts)
1. More BS for the gullible
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 04:11 PM
Feb 2015

Come out and do it, Frank. Accept homosexuals as they are, not trying to perform a miracle cure on their gayness.

Cartoonist

(7,298 posts)
31. You own them
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:45 PM
Feb 2015

You're the one who put homosexuality and leprosy in the same sentence. I didn't even use the word leprosy in my post. I referred to his alleged miracles. That meant curing people of blindness or other ailments, and the fishes and loaves incident. I never made any comparison of homosexuals to anything. You did.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
40. Just trying to help because you obviously missed it.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:50 AM
Feb 2015

Just kidding. I know you didn't *actually* miss it.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
42. Look REAL HARD at the subject line. I'll wait.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:13 AM
Feb 2015

See if you can think of any other topics this pope may have 'prejudiced mentality' about, for laws in the Philippines or Slovakia?
Something recent perhaps?

This thread wasn't specifically and exclusively about lepers.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
47. PREJUDICED MENTALITY.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:12 PM
Feb 2015

I ask you, again, what prejudiced mentalities the pope might have recently displayed.

Because as I pointed out, he's dripping with hypocrisy.


That article is not *about* the treatment of lepers.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
48. There are all kinds of PREJDICED MENTALITY !!1!!1!
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:21 PM
Feb 2015

Why don't you just read the damn post to see what the hell he's talking about before hopping around like there's a wasp in your shorts?

I'll add one thing: the Gospel he was referencing uses leprosy as a symbol of all sorts of prejudice humans exhibit towards each other. It's a well-known exposition of that passage not original to him.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
49. I read it. That's why your attempt to deflect on the homosexuality issue with 'lepers' is pathetic.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:52 PM
Feb 2015
"Since his election almost two years ago, Francis has pushed the church to focus less on denouncing the sins of others — especially on issues of sexual morality — and to instead to reach out more to the poor and social outcasts."


Right there in the article. Quit fucking around trying to provoke Cartoonist with your bullshit about fabricating a comparison between homosexuality and lepers. That was a vile, and disgusting deflection on your part. You should apologize to him.

Throughout his 15-minute homily, Francis repeatedly slammed the “narrow and prejudiced mentality” of believers who cling to religious laws out of fear. They wind up rejecting the very people they should be ministering to, he said, which means anyone on the margins of society “who encounters discrimination.”


And yet this same man expressed 'shock' at the idea of same-sex couples adopting children, in the Philippines, called same-sex couples adopting children a form of "discrimination against the child". Went to Slovakia and expressed support for the local wing of the RCC working to pass a referendum banning same sex marriage and same-sex parental couples adopting, as 'defending the family'.

The pope is a fucking hypocrite. He himself clings to religious laws out of fear and bigotry.

We're done until you apologize to Cartoonist for that ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT you hit him with in post 8.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
51. It is. That issue was a valid topic of the article. You smeared him with that comparison.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:00 PM
Feb 2015

Have you no shame? Look at his post, and look at your post (8) again. Do you have an ounce of conscience in you?


Do the right thing.

Response to rug (Reply #36)

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
85. The Opinion Post speaks of "all" who are marginalized by the Church
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:40 AM
Feb 2015

Among them, lepers are explicitly mentioned. Though among "all" the others who are marginalized would be?

Looks like the Pope is equating homosexuality, among other things, to leprosy. Though he is urging a pastoral approach to both.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
2. This Pope reminds me very much of President Obama.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 04:18 PM
Feb 2015

Knows how to say many of the right things, has a more modest agenda than his most hopeful liberal followers, faces strong conservative opposition.

The difference is that, as the Pope, he doesn't have room to evolve in the areas where he is wrong the way President Obama does because he's the symbol of unity for the Catholic church. I think President Obama wanted to be a symbol of unity as well, but his effectiveness depended on giving up that hope in favor of greater populism.

The Pope can't give up unity because it's the very meaning of his office.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
6. Interesting analysis.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 07:20 PM
Feb 2015

There was an article recently posted about his political skills and they do have some interesting similarities.

DerekG

(2,935 posts)
45. I disagree--so far, Francis is proving to be the more inspiring leader
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:56 AM
Feb 2015

Within a year of the Obama presidency, the expectations of progressives were quashed. The man of hope had revealed himself to be a Clinton Democrat, offering nothing revelatory in regards to economic justice, climate change or the military machine. In the wake of his flaccid, unremarkable tenure, it was left to Occupy Wall Street and the whistleblowers to affect change.

Francis, for all his social conservative failings, has managed to swiftly alter the conversation within the church. Between his confrontations with the Curia, his upcoming climate change actions, and his desperately-needed appointments, his reign could be epoch-making. A genuine light in the darkness.

No one is comparing Obama to John Kennedy, yet many are comparing Francis to John XXIII. That says plenty.

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
3. What's always bothered me
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 04:57 PM
Feb 2015

is that Jesus could have healed all the lepers everywhere, fed everyone (not just those in attendance at his sermon), etc., instead of selectively doling out miracles as he seemed to.

I'm sure religious "scholars" have an answer, though.

As for Frank, fuck him and his noise.


Cartoonist

(7,298 posts)
4. What's always bothered ME
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 05:22 PM
Feb 2015

Is if Jesus was truly the son of God, he could have told us that the Earth orbited the sun and a whole lot of other scientific knowledge instead of the few "miracles" he was alleged to perform.

Htom Sirveaux

(1,242 posts)
5. Depends on what "Son of God" means, doesn't it?
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 06:01 PM
Feb 2015

Used in a political authority sense (as it was by at least one king of Israel, and by Caesar Augustus), it would not necessarily be connected to scientific knowledge, right?

And there is good reason to think that politics is at least part of what they had in mind, given that Jesus engages in repeated conflicts with the rulers of his day, and ends up sharing God's authority (at the right hand of the father, and given the name that is above every name).

Not to mention that in the miracle of stilling the storm, authority is still very much on the minds of the disciples ("who is this, that he commands even the wind and the waves, and they obey him?&quot

John Dominic Crossan's "God and Empire", Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" and Robin Parry's "The Biblical Cosmos" are good books with more on this topic, and the original sources for my own understanding.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
55. I don't know the answer to your question, but it reminds me of something I've wondered.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:17 PM
Feb 2015

I am not a Biblical expert, nor can I compare one translation with another. However, I do know this: nowhere in the King James Version do the words that come out of the mouth of Jesus say, "I am the Son of God." He calls God his father, but he does not say he (Jesus) is the only child of God. He refers to himself as the Son of Man.

At times, he seems to be evading the issue, as when a disciple tells him people are saying he is the Son of God and he responds, "Who do you say I am?" But, he never flat out says he is the son of God.

In Arabic and, I believe Hebrew as well, one way to say "human being" as a species in common conversation is to refer to the offspring of Adam. But the New Testament was not translated from the either of those languages, but from the Greek.

So, given all the above, I wonder if "Son of Man" was not just another way of saying "human being."





Cartoonist

(7,298 posts)
57. Here's some nonsense for you
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:10 PM
Feb 2015

Jesus was said to say, "Before Abraham was, I am."

There's your supposed proof of deity.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
59. A possible claim of deity, yes.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:19 PM
Feb 2015

Only a minute earlier, in the same conversation, he said he was not seeking his own glory, but there was one who would judge. Making a claim of his own deity in the next breath seems rather odd in that context. it may be possible to interpret it in more than one way. In the OT, one of the things that God (the father) calls himself is "I am."

But again, if one is claiming to be God, why not just say so?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
60. The most logical explanation seems to be that he is
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:27 PM
Feb 2015

using "I am" to speak of god, not of himself.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
62. I don't know. I know only that there is more than one possible interpretation.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:44 PM
Feb 2015

Thing is, we tend to see things in the Bible through the prism of how people behave and speak to day, and in English. And also through the prism of many, many years of interpretations and assumptions, often made by people with God sized agendas.

Also, we forget that Jesus spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic but his words came down to us from translations from the Greek. And many translations to boot. Yet, people tend to grab onto one interpretation and some, even atheists, get downright offensive if you even offer an alternative possibility.

I probably was born to sit in a library.

j/k, but not totally.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
64. Good points. That is why I find literalism so very objectionable.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:58 PM
Feb 2015

One can not deny all the politics and language changes and social mores that have had an impact on every version.

Grabbing on to a single interpretation makes no sense to me, but it is very often used as a tool or a weapon.

I'm happy with the library that sits on my lap, lol.

pinto

(106,886 posts)
61. I think he may well have been preaching, in context, a sense of universality. "I am the son of man"
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:32 PM
Feb 2015

I could see that extrapolated to "we are all the son of man" as a simple obvious bond. Stories of Jesus' actions would seem to bear that out.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
10. If one takes these stories literally, then I can see why one
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 07:28 PM
Feb 2015

might be bothered by them.

Do you take them literally?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
12. But are you one of them, because many millions don't.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 07:45 PM
Feb 2015

So which are you? Do you think Jesus performed miracles or not?

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
13. Do you think Santa Claus
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 07:49 PM
Feb 2015

really comes down the chimney, or actually comes in the front door?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
14. What's always bothered me
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 07:52 PM
Feb 2015

is that Santa Claus could go to every house in the world instead of selectively doling out gifts as he seems to.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
17. No, do you?
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 08:01 PM
Feb 2015

Since I don't believe in Santa Claus, it would be pretty silly of me to make a comment about what he does or doesn't do.

That is really what this whole discussion comes down to.

You, sir, may have the last word. I eagerly await it.

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
23. For your edification.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 08:51 PM
Feb 2015

"Since I don't believe in Santa Claus, it would be pretty silly of me to make a comment about what he does or doesn't do."

Funny, because you did exactly that in your previous comment (#14).


cbayer

(146,218 posts)
24. Yes, dear bvf. I was mocking your response to make a point.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 08:55 PM
Feb 2015

I'm sorry you missed that, but I am glad i could provide you with some edification.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
26. Of course I can't! You've read the book, I am sure.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:02 PM
Feb 2015

I am a lying, hypocritical and thoroughly evil person - possibly the worse person on DU or even on earth.

Bless your heart for dealing with me at all.

 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
33. Repeat as necessary.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:07 PM
Feb 2015

And no doubt you will.

To paraphrase a frequent poster here, you don't do sarcastic self-deprecation very well.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
18. Obviously
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 08:28 PM
Feb 2015

he reads the narrative literally, since he seems to believe that it's meant to document every act of Jesus' ministry, and that Jesus never did anything not explicitly cited.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
81. Not necessary for you to put any stock in them at all.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 06:44 PM
Feb 2015

Anybody tells you that you have to, tell them to shove off.

But for those that do find meaning in some or all of the bible, that's ok by me. I see them as historical stories, allegory, parable. There may be some fact in there, but I don't particularly care.

I do, however, object to literalism because it is an untenable position. When you have a book that has contradictions and has stories that contradict what we know to be true at this time, it makes no sense to take it literally.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
82. You are correct
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 06:51 PM
Feb 2015

It makes no sense to take it literally, but that doesn't stop fundies from believing in talking donkeys and people who lived past 900 yrs old.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
83. If fundies believe in talking donkeys and people that live to 900,
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 06:59 PM
Feb 2015

it generally makes no difference in my life at all.

However, if they reject global warming, evolution, think GLBT people are hated by god and insist that abortion is murder, and they want to impose those beliefs on others, we are going to have an issue.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
7. He was speaking about today's Gospel.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 07:21 PM
Feb 2015
Gospel

Mk 1:40-45

A leper came to Jesus and kneeling down begged him and said,
“If you wish, you can make me clean.”
Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand,
touched him, and said to him,
“I do will it. Be made clean.”
The leprosy left him immediately, and he was made clean.
Then, warning the him sternly, he dismissed him at once.

He said to him, “See that you tell no one anything,
but go, show yourself to the priest
and offer for your cleansing what Moses prescribed;
that will be proof for them.”

The man went away and began to publicize the whole matter.
He spread the report abroad
so that it was impossible for Jesus to enter a town openly.
He remained outside in deserted places,
and people kept coming to him from everywhere.

msongs

(67,193 posts)
9. jesus had the cure and chose not to give it away freely in the name of love...or any other reason nt
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 07:27 PM
Feb 2015
 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
76. Way to miss the point.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 01:53 PM
Feb 2015

Why should we care what the New Testament says? Has it been demonstrated to be reliable? True? The answer is no.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
34. the New Testament is a reliable as any documents prior to the Linen paper
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:13 PM
Feb 2015

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Linen paper ONLY came into use in the 1300, prior to that Parchment was the "paper" of choice, but parchment is thin leather. The Egyptian did use Papyrus, but it deteriorated rapidly in the wet climates outside of Egypt and thus only used for message NOT expected to be keeped.

Thus we have questionable sources for any history prior to the 1300s for Parchment was expensive and thus only used if someone wanted something written down for later use AND willing to spend the money to preserve the record. Thus the first report we have of Hannibal was written decades later, by the family of Paulus, one of the Generals in Charge of the Army Hannibal defeated at Carrhae (And historians who examine and the other reports of the other commander, and how Roman Armies were lead, believe that book is lying about Paulus NOT being in command. Paulus is with the light cavalry, the position of the Commander, the other commander survives, for "he ran back to the Camp" which is where the person NOT in command that day should be and several other factors that indicate the report that the battle was lost while true, who was in command was NOT).

General Zukov (The man who defeated the Germans in the Battle for Moscow in 1941 and Stalingrad in 1942-1943) commenting on Alexander's the Great victory in India states that given what Alexander did afterward shows Alexander had been decisively DEFEATED and was forced to retreat to save his army. i.e. the book we have that Alexander won that battle and was forced afterward by his troops to return home is an out and out lie, but it is the only report we have of that battle.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383.html

This is common prior to the 1300s. It is surprising that researchers of the Gospel, actually believe that while the first three Gospels may be based on a earlier gospel, now lost, St Johns, is NOT from that same source. I.e. we do have TWO Independent sources for what Jesus said, St Johns and the other three gospels. Most historians want two independent sources for stories and the New Testament, given the differences between St John an the other three Gospels fulfills that role.

Thus we have a dual independent source, something we do not have for what Alexander the Great did, what Hannibal did, or even what Ceasar did (And we have his Commentaries to go by, but they are clearly propaganda Ceasar mentioned his fight with one Gallic commander, Ambirix, and that Gull's retreat into the Swamps and Ceasar decision NOT to chase him in those swamps. Julius Ceasar next mention Ambirix, in passing, during the siege of Alesia, that the besieged sent a message to Ambirix for help, but no help came. The next time we read of Ambirix is 225 years later when the Historian Florus, who wrote that Ambirix later crossed the Rhine and disappeared into Germany.

http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesar/gallic_e1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiorix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florus

While it appears some people did write of Alexander the Great during his life time, all of those sources are now lost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great

More on the Historical Record on Hannibal (The first six paragraph is on the debate involving the Gospels compared to the record we have on Hannibal, then it goes into details on the history we have on Hannibal and it is that part of that cite I find relevant to this tread):

https://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/godfrey-on-historiography-1-polybius-livy/

http://www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal3.htm

I love people who attack the New Testament for they do NOT want Jesus to be divine and thus the New Testament had to be unreliable. That is NOT the test for reliable source material. what most historians consider reliable source material is two different reports of the same incident from two different people hopeful with two different perspectives. We do have one non Christian, Non Jewish report about early Christians (and how they were blamed for the burning of Rome by Nero) which shows Christians did exist (that is all we can say from that report).

More on the Synoptic gospels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#The_synoptic_problem

My point is the Gospels do meet the minimal requirements for historians. Yes, they are NOT first hand, but most of the history we have prior to 1300 is NOT first hand. We have to make do with what we have and it is very limited, but enough to show someone was telling stories that come down to us as the teachings of Jesus around 30-33 AD.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
22. Wrong.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 08:48 PM
Feb 2015

Go back and read the book. He bestowed the power of healing on all his disciples and sent them out to give it to others just as freely.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
29. For Jesus did NOT want to be known for his miracles but for his message.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:34 PM
Feb 2015

That is why he told the leper NOT to tell anyone, for Jesus did not want people coming to see him to be cured, but to hear what he had to say.

In many ways, what Jesus says in his parables is the message he wanted to spread, any miracles he did or was accused of doing was minor compared to his message.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
79. Feel free to ignore all of them.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 06:38 PM
Feb 2015

Wouldn't want you to be given any bad advice or contradictory information.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
30. Here is the whole Homily, it is to the New Cardinals of the Church.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:43 PM
Feb 2015
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150215_omelia-nuovi-cardinali.html

“Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean”… Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out his hand and touched him, and said: “I do choose. Be made clean!” (Mk 1:40-41). The compassion of Jesus! That com-passion which made him draw near to every person in pain! Jesus does not hold back; instead, he gets involved in people’s pain and their need… for the simple reason that he knows and wants to show com-passion, because he has a heart unashamed to have “compassion”.

“Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed in the country; and people came to him from every quarter” (Mk 1:45). This means that Jesus not only healed the leper but also took upon himself the marginalization enjoined by the law of Moses (cf. Lev 13:1-2, 45-46). Jesus is unafraid to risk sharing in the suffering of others; he pays the price of it in full (cf. Is 53:4).

Compassion leads Jesus to concrete action: he reinstates the marginalized! These are the three key concepts that the Church proposes in today’s liturgy of the word: the compassion of Jesus in the face of marginalization and his desire to reinstate.

Marginalization: Moses, in his legislation regarding lepers, says that they are to be kept alone and apart from the community for the duration of their illness. He declares them: “unclean!” (cf. Lev 13:1-2, 45-46).

Imagine how much suffering and shame lepers must have felt: physically, socially, psychologically and spiritually! They are not only victims of disease, but they feel guilty about it, punished for their sins! Theirs is a living death; they are like someone whose father has spit in his face (cf. Num 12:14).

In addition, lepers inspire fear, contempt and loathing, and so they are abandoned by their families, shunned by other persons, cast out by society. Indeed, society rejects them and forces them to live apart from the healthy. It excludes them. So much so that if a healthy person approached a leper, he would be punished severely, and often be treated as a leper himself.

True, the purpose of this rule was “to safeguard the healthy”, “to protect the righteous”, and, in order to guard them from any risk, to eliminate “the peril” by treating the diseased person harshly. As the high priest Caiaphas exclaimed: “It is better to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (Jn 11:50).

Reinstatement: Jesus revolutionizes and upsets that fearful, narrow and prejudiced mentality. He does not abolish the law of Moses, but rather brings it to fulfillment (cf. Mt 5:17). He does so by stating, for example, that the law of retaliation is counterproductive, that God is not pleased by a Sabbath observance which demeans or condemns a man. He does so by refusing to condemn the sinful woman, but saves her from the blind zeal of those prepared to stone her ruthlessly in the belief that they were applying the law of Moses. Jesus also revolutionizes consciences in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt 5), opening new horizons for humanity and fully revealing God’s “logic”. The logic of love, based not on fear but on freedom and charity, on healthy zeal and the saving will of God. For “God our Saviour desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4). “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Mt 12 ; Hos 6:6).

Jesus, the new Moses, wanted to heal the leper. He wanted to touch him and restore him to the community without being “hemmed in” by prejudice, conformity to the prevailing mindset or worry about becoming infected. Jesus responds immediately to the leper’s plea, without waiting to study the situation and all its possible consequences! For Jesus, what matters above all is reaching out to save those far off, healing the wounds of the sick, restoring everyone to God’s family! And this is scandalous to some people!

Jesus is not afraid of this kind of scandal! He does not think of the closed-minded who are scandalized even by a work of healing, scandalized before any kind of openness, by any action outside of their mental and spiritual boxes, by any caress or sign of tenderness which does not fit into their usual thinking and their ritual purity. He wanted to reinstate the outcast, to save those outside the camp (cf. Jn 10).

There are two ways of thinking and of having faith: we can fear to lose the saved and we can want to save the lost. Even today it can happen that we stand at the crossroads of these two ways of thinking. The thinking of the doctors of the law, which would remove the danger by casting out the diseased person, and the thinking of God, who in his mercy embraces and accepts by reinstating him and turning evil into good, condemnation into salvation and exclusion into proclamation.

These two ways of thinking are present throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. Saint Paul, following the Lord’s command to bring the Gospel message to the ends of the earth (cf. Mt 28:19), caused scandal and met powerful resistance and great hostility, especially from those who demanded unconditional obedience to the Mosaic law, even on the part of converted pagans. Saint Peter, too, was bitterly criticized by the community when he entered the house of the pagan centurion Cornelius (cf. Acts 10).

The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement. This does not mean underestimating the dangers of letting wolves into the fold, but welcoming the repentant prodigal son; healing the wounds of sin with courage and determination; rolling up our sleeves and not standing by and watching passively the suffering of the world. The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for eternity; to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart. The way of the Church is precisely to leave her four walls behind and to go out in search of those who are distant, those essentially on the “outskirts” of life. It is to adopt fully God’s own approach, to follow the Master who said: “Those who are well have no need of the physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call, not the righteous but sinners” (Lk 5:31-32).

In healing the leper, Jesus does not harm the healthy. Rather, he frees them from fear. He does not endanger them, but gives them a brother. He does not devalue the law but instead values those for whom God gave the law. Indeed, Jesus frees the healthy from the temptation of the “older brother” (cf. Lk 15:11-32), the burden of envy and the grumbling of the labourers who bore “the burden of the day and the heat” (cf. Mt 20:1-16).

In a word: charity cannot be neutral, antiseptic, indifferent, lukewarm or impartial! Charity is infectious, it excites, it risks and it engages! For true charity is always unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous! (cf. 1 Cor 13). Charity is creative in finding the right words to speak to all those considered incurable and hence untouchable. Finding the right words… Contact is the language of genuine communication, the same endearing language which brought healing to the leper. How many healings can we perform if only we learn this language of contact! The leper, once cured, became a messenger of God’s love. The Gospel tells us that “he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the word” (cf. Mk 1:45).

Dear new Cardinals, this is the “logic”, the mind of Jesus, and this is the way of the Church. Not only to welcome and reinstate with evangelical courage all those who knock at our door, but to go out and seek, fearlessly and without prejudice, those who are distant, freely sharing what we ourselves freely received. “Whoever says: ‘I abide in [Christ]’, ought to walk just as he walked” (1 Jn 2:6). Total openness to serving others is our hallmark, it alone is our title of honour!

Consider carefully that, in these days when you have become Cardinals, we have asked Mary, Mother of the Church, who herself experienced marginalization as a result of slander (cf. Jn 8:41) and exile (cf. Mt 2:13-23), to intercede for us so that we can be God’s faithful servants. May she - our Mother - teach us to be unafraid of tenderly welcoming the outcast; not to be afraid of tenderness. How often we fear tenderness! May Mary teach us not to be afraid of tenderness and compassion. May she clothe us in patience as we seek to accompany them on their journey, without seeking the benefits of worldly success. May she show us Jesus and help us to walk in his footsteps.

Dear new Cardinals, my brothers, as we look to Jesus and our Mother, I urge you to serve the Church in such a way that Christians - edified by our witness - will not be tempted to turn to Jesus without turning to the outcast, to become a closed caste with nothing authentically ecclesial about it. I urge you to serve Jesus crucified in every person who is emarginated, for whatever reason; to see the Lord in every excluded person who is hungry, thirsty, naked; to see the Lord present even in those who have lost their faith, or turned away from the practice of their faith, or say that they are atheists; to see the Lord who is imprisoned, sick, unemployed, persecuted; to see the Lord in the leper – whether in body or soul - who encounters discrimination! We will not find the Lord unless we truly accept the marginalized! May we always have before us the image of Saint Francis, who was unafraid to embrace the leper and to accept every kind of outcast. Truly, dear brothers, the Gospel of the marginalized is where our credibility is at stake, is discovered and is revealed!
 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
35. "must be open and welcoming, whatever the cost"?
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:35 PM
Feb 2015

Does that mean open to performing same-sex marriages in the Catholic Church, even at the cost of violating church doctrine and pissing off their god? Yeah…right.

More feel-goody PR bullshit that is intended only to sway the gullible into thinking that "change" and "reform" are imminent.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
71. What has a National League Pitcher have to do with this thread?
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:41 PM
Feb 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Burke_%28baseball%29

I did find an actor by that name, but nothing he did would appear to be on this thread:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0121695/
 

bvf

(6,604 posts)
72. Seriously.
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:12 PM
Feb 2015

"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Burke_(journalist)"

The whole link doesn't seem to take here, unfortunately, but just add "Vatican" to your Google whatchamacallit, or strip the quotes before using the URL above.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
73. Some of us get our news from the net, and the ball player came up first
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 11:43 AM
Feb 2015

And you were the one you acted like EVERYONE reads the same news sources as yourself. The days of one or two news sources being what most people read is long gone, so you have to give more details then just one name. That is one of the side product of the age of information,

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
74. When I plugged "Greg Burke" into Google, it returned the journalist first. n/t
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:16 PM
Feb 2015

Perhaps you are a baseball fan, and Google knew that based on your other searches and the info it has collected about you, and put the ball player first in your results?

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
56. What was this Pope doing in Slovakia? No seriously, he's directly contradicting himself here...
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:51 PM
Feb 2015

and it hasn't even been a month.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
70. You'll find there won't be many takers on that subject.
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 03:18 PM
Feb 2015

It exposes the wonderpope for the bigoted homophobe he is, and we can't have that.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Pope Francis Slams 'Preju...