(May 26, 2013 at 8:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Are atheist not "the lost?"

I know where I am. So no, not lost.

[Edit, I seem to have the same reaction as Rebecca.]

(May 23, 2013 at 6:01 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: This guy is a lot better than Benedict was.

He is exactly the same as Benedict, in terms of faith, moral and world view - the only place he differs is his own personality. (Benedict was shy and reserved and Francis is outgoing and at ease with people).

What Francis has said is nothing new for Catholicism. Catholicism has long recognised that people of other faiths (and none) have good qualities and "do good" also.

It would be absurd to suggest that only Catholics can be good or moral. What all the people who have never encountered, or even heard of, the Catholic Church? We cant just write them off.

What is very disappointing for me as a Catholic is to see how crudely /poorly secular society engages with Catholicism.

Rather: most secular people dont engage at all, rather they react to the soap-opera caricature of Catholicism which the media presents to them.

Its amazing - and laughable - how the media have got so many people thinking Francis represents some "big change" from Benedict.

He is not a big change. Hes not even a little change. As stated, other than their own personal attributes, the men have identical faiths and morals. (thats how they both managed to be elected Pope).

The only change is that the media chose to continually attack benedict, (because thats what suited their agenda at the time), and have (so far) chosen to present Francis in a modestly positive light (because thats what suits them now).

Francis has said and done a great many things - strongly Catholic things - which the media would have fiercely laid into Benedict for. Yet, with Francis, they do not even report these things.

For example:

Benedict was attacked by the media and called a misogynist for wanting to discipline a group of nuns in America (who have lost the Catholic faith and promote many things which are in direct opposition to it).

Since coming to office, Francis has reviewed this situation and re-authorised the action against the nuns, (given it his own seal of approval), which Benedict had put in place. His thoughts here are exactly the same as Benedicts - yet.........where are the media reports about Francis being a misogynist? Nowhere.

The whole situation is a testament to both how powerful and maniupulative the media is, and how gullible most secular people are.

Most secular people seem to view the media as both their friend, but also as a reliable paragon of virtue and truth. To say that was rather naive, would be a massive understatement.

In reality, most secular people are played like fools by the media, every day. This "Francis = Goodie, Benedict = Baddie" nonsense is a really good example of how the media distorts secular peoples understanding of things, and also how secular people do not question the media.

If anyone wants the Vaticans (or any organisations) opinion or account of things, I would advise them to only rely on official statements and communications it issues itself.

If you rely on the media, you are not getting things first hand, rather you are getting things 2nd hand, having being heavily doctored to promote a certain agenda.

You are asking to be misinformed, essentially.

What will probably eventually happen is that the media will eventually turn on Francis - because he isnt going to permit the absurdity of gay marriage for Catholics, or change the Church stance on women priests, or let people wank off their pets, or any of the other stupid stuff which non-Catholic secular people want the Catholic Church to do.

Alternatively, they will continue to misrepresent him, in order to use him as a vehicle for their own agenda.

Remember - how the Catholic Church is presented to you will depend not on it, but on the medias agenda. Do not let yourself be treated like a gullible fool - find things out for yourselves.

The Catholic Church doesnt change - remember that. That is its main strength and why it is the oldest and largest organisation in human history.

The best example of media duplicity is:

Pope John Paul II - he was strongly anti-communist during the Cold War and so it suited the media to be friendly toward him, as they were also anti-commmunist. The Pope was hailed as a defender of the free world, a courageous and principalled leader to be admired by all humanity.

Pope Benedict XVI - during his time, long-standing Catholic morals clashed with new secular ideas (fads) - most notably gay marriage. As the media is secular, it suited them to use Benedict as a target to attack, to promote their own agendas. The Pope was criticised as an outdated bigot, a promoter of hatred and worse.

Given Benedict was JP2s successor, that quite a remarkable institutional change, in just one man, isnt it? Going from defending the free world, to promoting hate against minorities? Seems a bit strange no?

Of course it was strange. The Catholic Church didnt change at all -all that changed was the medias agenda and how they chose to portray the Catholic Church.

It really is disappointing (and more than a little scary) how gullible people are when it comes to the media.

Most secular people are simply drones to be controlled by the media. The media says "jump" and secular society says "how high?".

And who controls the media? I wonder....

Quote:The whole situation is a testament to both how powerful and maniupulative the media is, and how gullible most secular people are.

Says the guy who thinks someone becomes infallible because a committee of old pervert bastards takes a vote!

(May 27, 2013 at 10:59 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The whole situation is a testament to both how powerful and maniupulative the media is, and how gullible most secular people are.

Says the guy who thinks someone becomes infallible because a committee of old pervert bastards takes a vote!

Nice to see your "defence mechanism" still works, Minimalist

All of your posts (to theists) are not an effort to challenge them or engage with them, but to shore up your own atheism - hence "defence mechanism".

To me, that suggests you are not very secure in your atheism.

Given you seem to require regular affirmation in your view, you are a gift to the newspaper editors I mention - you want them to misinform you, you want to be told lies, just as long as the lies can be made to fit in with your atheism.

(May 27, 2013 at 11:10 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Given you seem to require regular affirmation in your view, you are a gift to the newspaper editors I mention - you want them to misinform you, you want to be told lies, just as long as the lies can be made to fit in with your atheism.

Affirmation, huh? Why, you're right! Perhaps we atheists should all gather in a huge, ostentatious building every Sunday, to have quotations from an atheist holy book read to us by a representative of the great Atheismo, and be cajoled to donate to further the cause of atheism, and sing hymns about how great atheism is. And we should appoint a grand council of atheists, with an infallible figurehead atheist at the top, situated in an atheist city filled with great secular riches.

Wait... that sounds somewhat familiar...

Quote:All of your posts (to theists) are not an effort to challenge them or engage with them, but to shore up your own atheism - hence "defence mechanism".

All of my posts to theists are to make fun of them. "Engaging" idiots who believe in ancient fairy tales is a rather pointless exercise. One day, you will either wise up and figure out how badly you have been conned by a bunch of power-hungry motherfuckers or not. Your choice.

My "atheism" needs no shoring up. Your god is just as fucking stupid as every other god invented by the mind of man.

In the meanwhile you might ask yourself why you show up at an atheist forum? Are you here to preach about your bullshit or do you just enjoy being abused? Does it make you feel like a martyr? ( P.S. most of the martyr stories are bullshit, too.)

(May 26, 2013 at 9:25 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 5:02 pm)Drich Wrote: I do not disagree with your assessment IF you completely ignore Satan's stated motive for rebellion. He wanted to be God. He wanted God's power and authority for himself. He has no issue with the power structure itself, just who is at the top of it. He wants creation to bend to His will, and not to have to yield to the will of God... So yeah if you take all of that away and look only at what Satan is doing and not why, I can see a bit of a David and Goliath going on here.

But when you factor in motive, that would be like trying to over throw what you perceive to be an oppressive government to install a more oppressive government.

That's what your super-biased source claims is his stated reason. How do I know it's not unfair scapegoating? After all, Satan's crimes in the Bible never amount to more than "he didn't do what God wanted" while it is God screaming for the blood of infants in order to sate his jealousy.

...but your buddy satan has never done this?

---

(May 26, 2013 at 11:24 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 8:13 pm)Drich Wrote: Are atheist not "the lost?"

I don't feel lost. So, no.

then there is nothing more to discuss. God in the bible identifies you(all who would deny the existence of God) as lost, but you have rejected this identification, then you will not acknowledge what has been done for you as outlined in John 3. Effectively ending the discussion.

Well, you probably don't have back problems, so that's good, but I imagine it's hard to find an extra-extra small hat, isn't it?

Your the one who bailed on the arguement as soon as she was made aware of how it was going to be completed. How has you hitting the panic stop button on the conversation, resulted in me being fitted with a "small hat?"