Should God sack the Pope?

Should God sack the Pope?

Only because he's not evil enough, according to OT standards. :(
 
ynot said:
Seems to be enough grounds to justify a sacking (or perhaps a stoning would sufice?).
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that God has anything to do with the Pope? Do you honestly think that the history of Popes would indicate anything other than that this one is far from the worst?
 
Brainache said:
I always thought that line was about the effect that the abuse had on the child, not the punishment for the abuser.
Click to expand...
KJV:
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Click to expand...
I think the implication here is that the punishment, were one to so offend, would be so bad that the person would wish to have drowned self rather than face the punishment.

So maybe I lowballed it.

But let's look at a little more in Luke, to see where the RCC was too lenient, even if in context.

This is New American Bible, which IIRC is the RCC current authorized American English translation, impramatur and all that.
1 He said to his disciples, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur.

2 It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

3 Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the KJV was wrong in its sense, but here we have someone leading others to sin ... a very different problem than simply sinning against the little ones.

This then begins to fit the idea that someone who diddles with the little ones doesn't merely sin against them, he leads them to sin ... a weird version of "but she loved it, Judge, it can't have been sexual assault!" that turns the stomach, in this context.

If we look at verse 3, it appears that the Bishops took that literally ... nice quote mine, Bishops. :p

This takes me to a better piece of guidance:

Matt 25:40

'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

This NAB version is a bit different than "as you have treated the least of my bretheren, so you have treated me" that I was familiar with from the KJV.
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Click to expand...

As you did to the kids, so you did to Christ: you abused Him. :p That's my take on it. There is a parallel set of ideas that come with this, to include "The Church as the Body of Christ" and the holiness of the Eucharist as The Body of Christ. But more to the point, at Matthew 25:45 we find

'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me
Click to expand...

I think pgwenthold raised this a few days ago. Within context, this is a bit more damning of the heirarchy. As you did not do -- protect -- for the least ones, so you did not protect Jesus.

For officers of the Church to so neglect Him is a rather serious matter: it'd be like pissing on the wafers, or letting somebody piss on them, which priests are very serious about not allowing ... abuse of the Blessed Sacrament/wafer (when properly blessed).

An application of that sort of seriousness when it comes to the children of the church would be appropriate, as I see it. Why the Popes didn't see it that way is beyond me. This ain't rocket science.

DR
 
Last edited:
Mirrorglass said:
Only in a metaphorical sense, David. Which I suspect you know.
Click to expand...

How is it metaphorical and what difference would that make. Explain this to me, if you would please.

To be a god means that one places a might upon something or someone which is greater than their own. So to say Lemmy is a god is no more metaphorical than saying Jehovah is a god. It depends upon the person.
 
David Henson said:
How is it metaphorical and what difference would that make. Explain this to me, if you would please.

To be a god means that one places a might upon something or someone which is greater than their own. So to say Lemmy is a god is no more metaphorical than saying Jehovah is a god. It depends upon the person.
Click to expand...

But you see, first you must define the metaphier and the metaphrand, not to mention the paraphiers and paraphrands - which as you may or may not know, can really blanket the issue like white snow on the ground during winter time prior to the springing you intend.
 
cienanos said:
But you see, first you must define the metaphier and the metaphrand, not to mention the paraphiers and paraphrands - which as you may or may not know, can really blanket the issue like white snow on the ground during winter time prior to the springing you intend.
Click to expand...

We must, then, with much haste, run across the snow leaving the indelible footprints of chaos and disorder hither and yon.

Water the magnolias in the southern sector.

Green is the colour.

Shoe box, lightning, bread, foghorn.
 
David Henson said:
We must, then, with much haste, run across the snow leaving the indelible footprints of chaos and disorder hither and yon.

Water the magnolias in the southern sector.

Green is the colour.

Shoe box, lightning, bread, foghorn.
Click to expand...

I like. ;)

But it appears you mistake my words as gimcrack. You posit:

To be a god means that one places a might upon something or someone which is greater than their own. So to say Lemmy is a god is no more metaphorical than saying Jehovah is a god. It depends upon the person
Click to expand...

And I ask of your/the metaphor "Jehovah is a god": what is the metaphier (the thing known) and what is the metaphrand (the thing less known)?

An aid to assist you here - consider the metaphor "the snow blankets the ground." The metaphrand is something about the completeness, thickness with which the ground is covered by snow. The metaphier is a blanket on a bed. The sensual nuances of the metaphor are in the paraphiers of the metaphier (the blanket) ie warmth, slumber.

Still with me?

Those "sensual nuances" (associations of the blanket) are the paraphrands, of the original metaphrand, the thick snow on the ground. Thus, the metaphor creates an idea of the earth sleeping, toasty, safe. This is all done with the use of the word "blanket" as a descriptive for the way the snow covers the ground.

And so my question to you remains, could you define your/the metaphor "Jehovah is a god" in these terms, as it is necessary to do so before we can come to that idea which you intend to spring when you posit:

To be a god means that one places a might upon something or someone which is greater than their own. So to say Lemmy is a god is no more metaphorical than saying Jehovah is a god. It depends upon the person
Click to expand...
 
Twiler said:
I think that in this case, a dismissal would consist of the pope suddenly disappearing in a column of flame.

...


Does anyone here have experience with incendiary devices?
Click to expand...
.
If poor old Onan got his divine smite for not screwing his brother's widow, why shouldn't the Pope get a similar smite for all the little boys his organization -has- screwed?
 
I Ratant said:
If poor old Onan got his divine smite for not screwing his brother's widow, why shouldn't the Pope get a similar smite for all the little boys his organization -has- screwed?
Click to expand...
It's a curious tale, is it not? Onan was slain for not properly rogering his sister-in-law. I suspect that were I to properly roger my sister-in-law, I'd be slain by her husband, not God, or my own wife. I guess they'd be doing God's work.

I hadn't realized this last part, from wiki, so thanks for inspiring a look up:
This view – that wasted seed refers to masturbation – was upheld by many early rabbis. However, the Levitical regulations concerning ejaculation, whether as a result of heterosexual intercourse or not, merely prescribe a ritual washing, and remaining ritually impure until the next day began on the following evening.
Click to expand...
Maybe Onan did something more than simply waste the seed ... since a good scrubbing and then keeping hands away from nether bits was the usual redress for this criminal waste of future prophets.
 
cienanos said:
I like. ;)

But it appears you mistake my words as gimcrack. You posit:



And I ask of your/the metaphor "Jehovah is a god": what is the metaphier (the thing known) and what is the metaphrand (the thing less known)?

An aid to assist you here - consider the metaphor "the snow blankets the ground." The metaphrand is something about the completeness, thickness with which the ground is covered by snow. The metaphier is a blanket on a bed. The sensual nuances of the metaphor are in the paraphiers of the metaphier (the blanket) ie warmth, slumber.

Still with me?

Those "sensual nuances" (associations of the blanket) are the paraphrands, of the original metaphrand, the thick snow on the ground. Thus, the metaphor creates an idea of the earth sleeping, toasty, safe. This is all done with the use of the word "blanket" as a descriptive for the way the snow covers the ground.

And so my question to you remains, could you define your/the metaphor "Jehovah is a god" in these terms, as it is necessary to do so before we can come to that idea which you intend to spring when you posit:
Click to expand...

Uh . . . huh?

All I know is that when I read that I get a dull aching pain behind my right eye.

I don't think it is a metaphor to say that Jehovah is a god, or Lemmy is a god since being a god simply means that there is might or strength attributed to Jehovah or Lemmy by the person who intends to establish them as gods. There is no distinction between the two which negates the fact that they are both gods. Now, Jehovah may not be the god of an atheist but that doesn't change the fact that Jehovah - or Lemmy - is a god. That Jehovah may not exist according to the atheist still doesn't change the fact that Jehovah - or Zeus, or Dagon - are still gods.

The idea of atheism by definition is stupid. Poorly thought out.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
It's a curious tale, is it not? Onan was slain for not properly rogering his sister-in-law. I suspect that were I to properly roger my sister-in-law, I'd be slain by her husband, not God, or my own wife. I guess they'd be doing God's work.

I hadn't realized this last part, from wiki, so thanks for inspiring a look up:

Maybe Onan did something more than simply waste the seed ... since a good scrubbing and then keeping hands away from nether bits was the usual redress for this criminal waste of future prophets.
Click to expand...
.
I believe the poor guy bedded the broad, but pulled out just in time to receive the divine smite.
In reality, this anecdote like so many others sounds like the local crazy man prophet/leader killing someone personally, for two reasons... One, god doesn't get that involved and couldn't be counted on to act, and second, the gal involved may have been his sister, and complained, so the family honor exacted satisfaction, with god getting the credit.
 
David Henson said:
How is it metaphorical and what difference would that make. Explain this to me, if you would please.

To be a god means that one places a might upon something or someone which is greater than their own. So to say Lemmy is a god is no more metaphorical than saying Jehovah is a god. It depends upon the person.
Click to expand...

I have explained it, David. Many times. So have others. Yet here I go again.

AtheismWP means:
Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.
Click to expand...

Not just any "gods"; deities. Now, "god" and "deity" are, in this case, synonymous. The meanings of "god" that are not synonymous to "deity" are not denied by atheism. The definition of godWP relevant here is:
God is the English name given to a singular omnipotent being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a deity in polytheism
Click to expand...

So it's clear that no human being applies.

The mistake you keep making is claiming atheism means disbelief in what the Hebrew word "El" means, when in fact it means disbelief in what the English word "deity" means. None of us atheists are claiming that "mighty ones" don't exist. We're claiming deities don't exist. If you want to talk about atheism, talk about what we actually believe, not about what we would believe if we were a-El-ists.
 
David Henson said:
Uh . . . huh?

All I know is that when I read that I get a dull aching pain behind my right eye.

I don't think it is a metaphor to say that Jehovah is a god, or Lemmy is a god since being a god simply means that there is might or strength attributed to Jehovah or Lemmy by the person who intends to establish them as gods. There is no distinction between the two which negates the fact that they are both gods. Now, Jehovah may not be the god of an atheist but that doesn't change the fact that Jehovah - or Lemmy - is a god. That Jehovah may not exist according to the atheist still doesn't change the fact that Jehovah - or Zeus, or Dagon - are still gods.

The idea of atheism by definition is stupid. Poorly thought out.
Click to expand...

DH my man, you are a hoot!

The bold is the very definition of metaphor. The hi-lite has the words "between" and "two" in it. More than one. That is a distinction. They exist singularly, apart from each other. Lemmy/Jehovah or Lemmy/God or Jehovah/God.

The underline part I never argued. Actually, here you speak in metaphor again.

met·a·phor \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\ noun
Etymology: Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear — more at bear
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare simile
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor

----------- -----------
To the point then, the idea of atheism is just that, an idea. "Stupid" or "poorly thought out" are descriptives, apart from the idea. Do not hesitate, you and I are close in the grasp of what this means. I only ask that you take it a step further and deconstruct what may be your idea of "god". Put it into halves. What do you get?
 
Mirrorglass said:
I have explained it, David. Many times. So have others. Yet here I go again.

AtheismWP means:


Not just any "gods"; deities. Now, "god" and "deity" are, in this case, synonymous. The meanings of "god" that are not synonymous to "deity" are not denied by atheism. The definition of godWP relevant here is:


So it's clear that no human being applies.

The mistake you keep making is claiming atheism means disbelief in what the Hebrew word "El" means, when in fact it means disbelief in what the English word "deity" means. None of us atheists are claiming that "mighty ones" don't exist. We're claiming deities don't exist. If you want to talk about atheism, talk about what we actually believe, not about what we would believe if we were a-El-ists.
Click to expand...

Thats funny because I've read a half dozen definitions from atheists here on this forum alone and all of them say simply that atheism is a disbelief in god(s) without the mental gymnastics you performed above.
 
cienanos said:
DH my man, you are a hoot!

The bold is the very definition of metaphor. The hi-lite has the words "between" and "two" in it. More than one. That is a distinction. They exist singularly, apart from each other. Lemmy/Jehovah or Lemmy/God or Jehovah/God.

The underline part I never argued. Actually, here you speak in metaphor again.

met·a·phor \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\ noun
Etymology: Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear — more at bear
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare simile
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor

----------- -----------
To the point then, the idea of atheism is just that, an idea. "Stupid" or "poorly thought out" are descriptives, apart from the idea. Do not hesitate, you and I are close in the grasp of what this means. I only ask that you take it a step further and deconstruct what may be your idea of "god". Put it into halves. What do you get?
Click to expand...

Uh . . . huh?

I don't know if I'm just getting older or if it has something to do with all of the drugs and alcohol I used in my past, but when I read some of the stuff you guys write (and, I must admit, even some of the stuff I have written) here I just hear the ocean.

If your defense of my criticism of the concept of atheism is that sometimes god(s) are used in a metaphoric sense I respond by saying it doesn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom