Mankind "groping in the darkness"

dsmythy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17649521

In his Easter address the Pope has said that mankind is "groping in the darkness, unable to distinguish good from evil".

Here's me thinking it was just his priests doing that......

El Weirdo

dsmythy wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17649521

In his Easter address the Pope ...blah, blah, blah, blah...

MEH.

AngryBollix

Another highly original thread

Caraville

I think OP just started a thread cos he thought he had made a funny. He didn't. Yawn.

senorwipesalot

Its more of a fumble in his underpants.

kylith

dsmythy wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17649521

In his Easter address the Pope has said that mankind is "groping in the darkness, unable to distinguish good from evil".

Here's me thinking it was just his priests doing that......

He might not be able to but, me, I'm fairly sure of the morality of hoarding billions of euro in wealth while half the world starves to death.

Immaculate Pasta

The Pope is blatantly on the wind up and you just fell for it :cool:

DrumSteve

AngryBollix wrote: »

Another highly original thread

Caraville wrote: »

I think OP just started a thread cos he thought he had made a funny. He didn't. Yawn.

This Bull**** annoys me.


Almost as much as the Pope does.

interesting that he admits he doesn't know the difference between good and evil

Deus Ex Machina

Shît joke, boring premise.

DEFTLEFTHAND

When Ratzinger dies later this year I have it on good authority that Vatican 3 is coming. Sweeping changes in our lifetime folks.

DrumSteve

bluewolf wrote: »

interesting that he admits he doesn't know the difference between good and evil

If he knew the difference he would probably disband the church.

DrumSteve

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

When Ratzinger dies later this year I have it on good authority that Vatican 3 is coming. Sweeping changes in our lifetime folks.

This time it's personal.

Wild Bill

bluewolf wrote: »

interesting that he admits he doesn't know the difference between good and evil

Is there any? It's obviously true that "mankind groping in the darkness.

I'm just surprised it's also obvious to the Pope.

That's a shocker from someone who traditionally claimed to have the inside track on the truth :eek:!

44leto

AngryBollix wrote: »

Another highly original thread

The OP did come up with an original and witty response or riposte to groping in the dark.

The Church, what a beacon for human rights. Well no. They were the "moral power" from the fourth ? century right up to 19th century to the rise of secularism. After that all they had with-in the powers was nagging rights.

So lets look at the moral causes they championed in that period of that 15 hundred years. Was it slavery, judicial torture, the death penalty, cruel and unusual punishments, injustice, poverty, children's rights, women's rights, democratic rights, animal rights or even basic human rights, did they tackle any moral issue facing society.

The answer is a plain big NO.

What addressed the above was the enlightenment then secularism and democracy. All of a sudden your time on Earth mattered more then your time in death.

The church and organised religion is a very negative force for humanity, they kept us groping in the dark. Their power is waning further in western Europe and good riddance.

My name is URL

Feck off, Pope

Caraville

DrumSteve wrote: »

AngryBollix wrote: »

Another highly original thread

Caraville wrote: »

I think OP just started a thread cos he thought he had made a funny. He didn't. Yawn.

This Bull**** annoys me.


Almost as much as the Pope does.

Fair enough, it's just this topic comes up a lot here, and there are other areas on boards where they can be discussed. I'm not a fan of the pope myself so it wasn't a way of defending him, just a way of saying "not this here again".

Anyhoo, carry on those if ye who want to discuss it, I'm off to gorge on an Easter egg

Kidchameleon

44leto wrote: »

The OP did come up with an original and witty response or riposte to groping in the dark.

The Church, what a beacon for human rights. Well no. They were the "moral power" from the fourth ? century right up to 19th century to the rise of secularism. After that all they had with-in the powers was nagging rights.

So lets look at the moral causes they championed in that period of that 15 hundred years. Was it slavery, judicial torture, the death penalty, cruel and unusual punishments, injustice, poverty, children's rights, women's rights, democratic rights, animal rights or even basic human rights, did they tackle any moral issue facing society.

The answer is a plain big NO.

What addressed the above was the enlightenment then secularism and democracy. All of a sudden your time on Earth mattered more then your time in death.

The church and organised religion is a very negative force for humanity, they kept us groping in the dark. Their power is waning further in western Europe and good riddance.

I'm glad you specified it was the church. Allot of people on here seem to think that believing in God means you follow the church. God, Jesus could not be more removed from the church.

F**k the pope, and f**k the one before him.

Pherekydes

bluewolf wrote: »

interesting that he admits he doesn't know the difference between good and evil

Pffft, he's not part of mankind.

In other news, he clears the way for catholics to leave the church:

In his Easter message, Cardinal O'Brien is expected to refer to remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010 that Christians "need to be free to act in accordance with their own principles".

Logical Fallacy

DrumSteve wrote: »

This time it's biblical.

fyp

the groutch

better be careful what he says, or he might get a visit from Mr Socko

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m08lic64WW1qzjkt8o1_400.jpg

WoollyRedHat

the groutch wrote: »

better be careful what he says, or he might get a visit from Mr Socko

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m08lic64WW1qzjkt8o1_400.jpg

My God, that sock has a menacing face, wouldn't like to run into that in a dark laundrette.

ejmaztec

It's good that he sympathises with people who can't afford to pay their ESB bills.

Dyr

DrumSteve wrote: »

This time it's personal.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into mass...

Flojo

the groutch wrote: »

better be careful what he says, or he might get a visit from Mr Socko

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m08lic64WW1qzjkt8o1_400.jpg

Mick Foley = god.

Dyr

44leto wrote: »

The OP did come up with an original and witty response or riposte to groping in the dark.

The Church, what a beacon for human rights. Well no. They were the "moral power" from the fourth ? century right up to 19th century to the rise of secularism. After that all they had with-in the powers was nagging rights.

So lets look at the moral causes they championed in that period of that 15 hundred years. Was it slavery, judicial torture, the death penalty, cruel and unusual punishments, injustice, poverty, children's rights, women's rights, democratic rights, animal rights or even basic human rights, did they tackle any moral issue facing society.

The answer is a plain big NO.

What addressed the above was the enlightenment then secularism and democracy. All of a sudden your time on Earth mattered more then your time in death.

The church and organised religion is a very negative force for humanity, they kept us groping in the dark. Their power is waning further in western Europe and good riddance.

pretty sure the catholics were vocally against slavery, torture etc

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

pretty sure the catholics were vocally against slavery, torture etc

eh you must be joking

later12

Did anyone hear Fr Colm Kilcoyne on RTE Radio 1 last night talking to Marian Finucane?
It must have been a repeat of a show earlier yesterday.

It was so refreshing (and indeed reassuring) to hear someone in the Roman Catholic clergy speak liberally of a liberal faith, including the ordination of women, homosexuality, celibacy, and disillusionment with the Church leadership.

While reassuring, it's also sad that there are good men who have given their whole lives to that Church, and have been so horribly let down by their peers and their institution, that which Enda Kenny called "the gimlet eye of the canon lawyer".

What was really surprising were some of the negative comments that followed his interview, particularly a couple expressing anger at his criticisms of the Pope asking "where is [the priest's] humility?". Sometimes I really wonder about people.

44leto

Bambi wrote: »

pretty sure the catholics were vocally against slavery, torture etc

Individually maybe but the church, never, in most cases they supported the institutions. It was never the Catholic church that supported a ban on witch burnings, but a ban came from the individual national legislature. Also I take it you heard of the Spanish inquisition.

The only active moral campaigns they ever support are those against abortion, homosexuality, divorce and only recently paedophilia. Anything to do with sex.

Latchy

Good post

44leto wrote: »

The OP did come up with an original and witty response or riposte to groping in the dark.

The Church, what a beacon for human rights. Well no. They were the "moral power" from the fourth ? century right up to 19th century to the rise of secularism. After that all they had with-in the powers was nagging rights.

So lets look at the moral causes they championed in that period of that 15 hundred years. Was it slavery, judicial torture, the death penalty, cruel and unusual punishments, injustice, poverty, children's rights, women's rights, democratic rights, animal rights or even basic human rights, did they tackle any moral issue facing society.

The answer is a plain big NO.

What addressed the above was the enlightenment then secularism and democracy. All of a sudden your time on Earth mattered more then your time in death.

The church and organised religion is a very negative force for humanity, they kept us groping in the dark. Their power is waning further in western Europe and good riddance.

Or the absurdity of war .For an institution who's mantra is all about world peace , when did you ever see a bunch of bishops or priests protesting outside the embassys of countrys who send thousends of soldiers to their deaths as well as the killing of thousends of civillians ? Preaching from the pulpit is the easy and soft way out .

lividduck

Bambi wrote: »

pretty sure the catholics were vocally against slavery, torture etc

Too right, those nice Catholics didn't have an Inquisition and torture/maim/burn alive heretics, Jews etc.
And they certainly had nothing to do with Magdelene Laundries,reform schools etc.
In fact Catholics vocally oppossed them....Didn't they?

biko

dsmythy wrote: »

In his Easter address the Pope has said that mankind is "groping in the darkness, unable to distinguish good from evil".

Here's me thinking it was just his priests doing that......

http://instantrimshot.com/

44leto

Latchy wrote: »

Good post

Or the absurdity of war .For an institution who's mantra is all about world peace , when did you ever see a bunch of bishops or priests protesting outside the embassys of countrys who send thousends of soldiers to their deaths as well as the killing of thousends of civillians ? Preaching from the pulpit is the easy and soft way out .

They usually blessed the troops and sprinkled them with holy water, the Vatican was never a pacifist organisation.

But it could be argued that the Bishops and the priests were dealing with the individual souls of the soldiers and not the army or the armies cause. But there is the whole crusade debacle.

sunflower27

My name is URL wrote: »

Feck off, Pope

:eek:

Something bad is going to happen to you for saying that!!!! :eek:

DrumSteve

sunflower27 wrote: »

:eek:

Something bad is going to happen to you for saying that!!!! :eek:

Unless URL is a kid, I'm not sure what the pope can do to him.

TeddyTedson

I'm pretty sure that that's not the pope the BBC have on their picture.

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

pretty sure the catholics were vocally against slavery, torture etc

.....not really.

Wibbs

Nodin wrote: »

.....not really.

Indeed. The Roman church even made a fair bit of cash running the slave markets of Rome in the early days. Plus they had no great moral issue with virtual enslavement(and decidedly genocidal actions) in South America.

Wild Bill

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. The Roman church even made a fair bit of cash running the slave markets of Rome in the early days. Plus they had no great moral issue with virtual enslavement(and decidedly genocidal actions) in South America.

Did they have any problems with slavery in North America - which persisted much longer in those Southern Protestant states?

I don't recall any condemnations. :cool:

Chuck Stone

Papa don't don't preach
You're in a bubble mate
Papa don't preach
your voice is starting to grate

and I've made up my mind, ooh-ooh
I'm gonna eat some babies, mm-mmm
gonna eat 'em with gravy
ooh-ooh, aah-ahh

Wibbs

Wild Bill wrote: »

Did they have any problems with slavery in North America - which persisted much longer in those Southern Protestant states?

I don't recall any condemnations. :cool:

Actually there were quite a few condemnations from various protestant ministers/churches. Check out the Abolitionists from the early 1800's. But I'd agree that the Protestant churches don't come out of the later connection with slavery too well. While the early Catholic church had plenty of skeletons in their closet by the middle ages Europe was unusual enough in that "classic" slavery of the kind Islam continued(damn near up to the present day) was no longer around and that was largely down to the church and high end church thinkers like Aquinas who came out against it forcefully as immoral.

philologos

It depends. You're right in that many Christians in general weren't vocal enough against slavery. However in the case of the British Empire it was a group of evangelical Christians who campaigned heavily leading to the abolishment of slavery. The Clapham Sect and William Wilberforce are both people I find hugely influential in terms of living for Jesus in this world. The man who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace, John Newton became a Christian after he was convicted of sin after a slave ship he was on crashed off the Donegal coast. Likewise I'm very sure that a number of key reformers and missionaries were for abolition as a result of their belief in the freedom that Jesus achieved for mankind on the cross. John Wesley the Methodist reformer was also strongly against slavery.

Even when slavery persisted in places such as Malawi, there were key missionaries who fought for justice there such as David Livingstone, who was so significant that there was a city named after his hometown. He fought for freedom for the people, and spent a huge amount of time getting to know African languages and immersing himself so widely in the culture. In a sense, he sacrificed his whole life in the hope that they would know God.

Christians also campaigned heavily for prison reform in the 19th century in Britain. Indeed, Christianity is a huge vehicle for the restoration of individual prisoners to this present day. Christians of varying backgrounds visit prisoners to give them the option of coming to know Jesus as the Lord.

It seems to me on looking back through the history of this, it was Christianity that played a huge role in taking away colonial slavery in the world. Indeed, Christianity can take away any kind of slavery, including some of the forms of slavery that we have in the West such as sexual slavery (which goes further than mere trafficking), gambling additions, alcoholism, drug addictions and so on if we are clear and consistent about its goals.

We need to be clear about the history in its fullness.

On the topic: I actually think the Pope is right. If we are accepting relative morality, mankind hasn't a clue about right and wrong. If on the other hand, God is the one who informs us of right and wrong, we have a much better idea since it is objective over all, much as the law is objective over the State.

44leto

You can't separate the institute of slavery along religious lines, all were equally involved, my earlier point was for a supposed moral establishment as the churches claim to be, never opposed it till the abolitionist movement in the 17th century. Christianity and all the major religions were well established by that time and had been for over a millennium.

Although the earlier abolitionists organised themselves around the Anglican church, why then, why so late. The impetus to end that obvious evil was not primarily religiously driven. It was driven by an expansion of human empathy that came from the enlightenment and literature. It is hard to enslave someone who you suddenly see as a fellow human.

It was Abraham Lincoln who said to Beecher Stowe the author of Uncle Toms cabin, "so you are the little lady who started this war". Any moral crusade was never driven by any of the religious doctrines, religion was never about making a better world, but a stronger religion and a more fundamental doctrine. So how can they claim any historical moral high ground. They can't is the answer, but the study of the humanities can. A new humanist religion based around the old -ones.

Mr Benevolent

philologos wrote: »

God is the one who informs us of right and wrong, we have a much better idea since it is objective over all, much as the law is objective over the State.

Did all these concepts come from god by fax? None of the catholic church's teachings come from god, just the men who made them up and wrote them down. Unless god speaks directly to the pope, that is.

philologos

44leto wrote: »

You can't separate the institute of slavery along religious lines, all were equally involved, my earlier point was for a supposed moral establishment as the churches claim to be, never opposed it till the abolitionist movement in the 17th century. Christianity and all the major religions were well established by that time and had been for over a millennium.

Although the earlier abolitionists organised themselves around the Anglican church, why then, why so late. The impetus to end that obvious evil was not primarily religiously driven. It was driven by an expansion of human empathy that came from the enlightenment and literature. It is hard to enslave someone who you suddenly see as a fellow human.

It was Abraham Lincoln who said to Beecher Stowe the author of Uncle Toms cabin, "so you are the little lady who started this war". Any moral crusade was never driven by any of the religious doctrines, religion was never about making a better world, but a stronger religion and a more fundamental doctrine. So how can they claim any historical moral high ground. They can't is the answer, but the study of the humanities can. A new humanist religion based around the old -ones.

Where were all the so-called "freethinkers" / secular humanists out campaigning against slavery in the 18th century? Just curious. (Before you claim that there weren't any in the 18th century, there were a sizeable number in Britain).

The Christian Gospel simply put encourages freedom from slavery. Jesus clearly preaches against mankind being enslaved to sin. The early Christian apostles campaigned for reform in that area. Paul argued that masters should show the respect that is due to their slaves (Colossians 4, Ephesians 6). Paul was speaking into a Roman political context.

Also, what do you mean why so late? - Ultimately colonial slavery was a political move taken in society with little to no consideration of the Christian Gospel. Other people who were actually concerned with the Gospel actually saw the drive for abolition as a huge opportunity. Firstly because the conditions were dyer for those who were enslaved, and secondly because they believed that all were one under Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28), and they believed that all men were called to follow Him (John 3:16-18). Before we talk about "so late", how about you start presenting some dates.

I'm afraid you're factually wrong from a historical perspective. The vast majority of campaigning against slavery from 18th century onwards was specifically Christian. I can list quite a number of other figures who were involved in the abolition movement right across the world who publically did so in the name of Jesus. There are quite a number in the case of the West Indies and Africa.

philologos

Confab wrote: »

Did all these concepts come from god by fax? None of the catholic church's teachings come from god, just the men who made them up and wrote them down. Unless god speaks directly to the pope, that is.

Firstly, I'm never going to be defending anything other that Biblical Christianity on boards.ie. I'm a non-Catholic so I'll allow Roman Catholics to defend that side of it.

Secondly, God informs our consciences. Simply put, if one subscribes to relative morality one must concede that right and wrong can be whatever the heck we want them to be, likewise in terms of States.

However, nobody does this. When one is wronged, one appeals to objective standards. One claims that the other should know better. Why should the other know better unless there is a common standard of behaviour between them? Simply put, we all have a conscience.

God according to Christianity has spoken through the Biblical text to mankind. God has shown us His clear love for mankind by bringing Jesus into the world to rescue us. We have no excuse to run away from it.

44leto

If on the other hand, God is the one who informs us of right and wrong, we have a much better idea since it is objective over all, much as the law is objective over the State.

If what you say is true, he never did or at least "his churches" never did. The churches adapted to the civil rule of law, but they never campaigned for the end of any obvious wrong such as torture, cruel and unusual punishments, prisoner rights, slavery, etc etc etc. Those reforms were driven by the humanists, not initialised by any of the churches.

And it continues today, the churches are still opposed to reforms in the rights revolution, example the position of women, homosexuals, etc etc.

44leto

philologos wrote: »

Where were all the so-called "freethinkers" / secular humanists out campaigning against slavery in the 18th century? Just curious. (Before you claim that there weren't any in the 18th century, there were a sizeable number in Britain).

The Christian Gospel simply put encourages freedom from slavery. Jesus clearly preaches against mankind being enslaved to sin. The early Christian apostles campaigned for reform in that area. Paul argued that masters should show the respect that is due to their slaves (Colossians 4, Ephesians 6). Paul was speaking into a Roman political context.

Also, what do you mean why so late? - Ultimately colonial slavery was a political move taken in society with little to no consideration of the Christian Gospel. Other people who were actually concerned with the Gospel actually saw the drive for abolition as a huge opportunity. Firstly because the conditions were dyer for those who were enslaved, and secondly because they believed that all were one under Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28), and they believed that all men were called to follow Him (John 3:16-18). Before we talk about "so late", how about you start presenting some dates.

I'm afraid you're factually wrong from a historical perspective. The vast majority of campaigning against slavery from 18th century onwards was specifically Christian. I can list quite a number of other figures who were involved in the abolition movement right across the world who publically did so in the name of Jesus. There are quite a number in the case of the West Indies and Africa.

The 18th century, where were they all for the preceding 1500 years, not in the church anyway. The church supported slavery, till they couldn't anymore.

philologos

44leto wrote: »

The 18th century, where were they all for the preceding 1500 years, not in the church anyway. The church supported slavery, till they couldn't anymore.

Which church? To remind you, I'm a Christian simply put and nothing more.

As for why slavery persisted through those ages. Firstly, that slavery originated out of political motives, certainly in the British Empire. Most Biblical justifications that were used to support it were used out of expedience rather than actual consideration of the Christian message itself. I would argue that no matter how "Christian" Europe claimed to be from the Middle Ages through to that present day, ultimately slavery was instituted for pragmatic political motives rather than out of any deep consideration of the Gospel. In a sense, people tried to justify their own wrongdoing.

Personally, I'm not surprised when I see wrongdoing. It's the nature of mans heart to sin, to do what is clearly wrong and what is clearly opposed to God's standards. In the Western world, mankinds sin is enslaving people. Just in a different way than it did before. Indeed, we're all slaves unless we're set free by Jesus. We're either slaves to materialism, money, wealth, success, our egos, sexual sin, lying, corruption, hatred, slander, gambling, alcoholism, drug addictions and so on. Our society isn't any more enlightened than what has gone before it.

Ultimately, Christians stood up and campaigned heavily on Biblical principles against slavery across the world. One can't deny that history. What was imposed as a mere political venture, actually was challenged systematically by the Gospel throughout and even before the 18th century. Indeed, slavery was actually an impediment to the Gospel being proclaimed. Colonial slavery made Christian evangelism more difficult. Both the material welfare, and the spiritual welfare of these people mattered to these individuals, that's why they did what they did. Ultimately people like Wilberforce are heroes to me, simply put because they clearly show what Christianity looks like in action. I can only hope to be a little like what they were in my daily life.

To deny that Christianity was at the forefront of abolition is to deny historical fact.

philologos

44leto wrote: »

If what you say is true, he never did or at least "his churches" never did. The churches adapted to the civil rule of law, but they never campaigned for the end of any obvious wrong such as torture, cruel and unusual punishments, prisoner rights, slavery, etc etc etc. Those reforms were driven by the humanists, not initialised by any of the churches.

Again, that is simply false - Yes, Christians did do this. Christians very clearly campaigned against pretty much all of those things. I've shown you quite a number of people who did those things.

Show me these "humanists" (I don't believe that term is owned by atheists by the by), because I can tell you William Wilberforce and all the other people I have mentioned were Christians. Christians, simply put were the majority in respect to campaigning for these reforms.

44leto wrote: »

And it continues today, the churches are still opposed to reforms in the rights revolution, example the position of women, homosexuals, etc etc.

Elaborate?

44leto

philologos wrote: »

Which church? To remind you, I'm a Christian simply put and nothing more.

As for why slavery persisted through those ages. Firstly, that slavery originated out of political motives, certainly in the British Empire. Most Biblical justifications that were used to support it were used out of expedience rather than actual consideration of the Christian message itself. I would argue that no matter how "Christian" Europe claimed to be from the Middle Ages through to that present day, ultimately slavery was instituted for pragmatic political motives rather than out of any deep consideration of the Gospel. In a sense, people tried to justify their own wrongdoing.

Personally, I'm not surprised when I see wrongdoing. It's the nature of mans heart to sin, to do what is clearly wrong and what is clearly opposed to God's standards. In the Western world, mankinds sin is enslaving people. Just in a different way than it did before. Indeed, we're all slaves unless we're set free by Jesus. We're either slaves to materialism, money, wealth, success, our egos, sexual sin, lying, corruption, hatred, slander, gambling, alcoholism, drug addictions and so on. Our society isn't any more enlightened than what has gone before it.

Ultimately, Christians stood up and campaigned heavily on Biblical principles against slavery across the world. One can't deny that history. What was imposed as a mere political venture, actually was challenged systematically by the Gospel throughout and even before the 18th century. Indeed, slavery was actually an impediment to the Gospel being proclaimed. Colonial slavery made Christian evangelism more difficult. Both the material welfare, and the spiritual welfare of these people mattered to these individuals, that's why they did what they did. Ultimately people like Wilberforce are heroes to me, simply put because they clearly show what Christianity looks like in action. I can only hope to be a little like what they were in my daily life.

To deny that Christianity was at the forefront of abolition is to deny historical fact.

I do deny it and it is so obvious. so are you saying Christianity is only 300 years old. The greatest human reforms came with the rights revolution the churches opposed most of these AND STILL DO. The rights revolution began with secularism and it was primarily driven by the democratisation of the people.

It was only when humanity unshackled itself from the supposed moral authority of the gospels, actual and real life enhancing reforms began in the west and continue.

You only have to look at societies were the rights revolution has not happened to such a degree and ask what religious doctrine are they living by and the degree of their secularism. I give you the Islamic world. Which is what western Europe was before secularism and the enlightenment.