Anomaly Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Expecting a NYT writer to grasp the totality of your post is akin to asking a t-baller to hit for the cycle.... What? I'm grasping your analogy like a worm trying to juggle flaming swordfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 That made me laugh right there!!! like a tuna BBQ-ing a volleyball on Sunday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Point is I don't trust NY times. The devil agrees with me I get scared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 Point is I don't trust NY times. The devil agrees with me I get scared. IF you don't trust the NYT, don't read it. I gather that you don't trust the pope, either. I think that the article, and definitely the forthcoming encyclical, are saying is that the pope has his priorities, and, fortunately, they are not the same as this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 IF you don't trust the NYT, don't read it. I gather that you don't trust the pope, either. I think that the article, and definitely the forthcoming encyclical, are saying is that the pope has his priorities, and, fortunately, they are not the same as this forum. You don't like my posts, then don't read them. You see, it is not that simple. I normally do not read NY Times, or any other newspaper. It is always entertaining to see how pope's encyclicals are misinterpreted. Can you please elaborate on "pope has his priorities" and "they are not the same as this forum"? What are the pope's priorities and how do they differ from this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Point is I don't trust NY times. The devil agrees with me I get scared. Maybe you should change your point? It does not seem to leave room for God to work or for repentance nor conversion to take place. But I certainly agree with you about the NYT on the whole!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 IF you don't trust the NYT, don't read it. I gather that you don't trust the pope, either. I think that's a rather large, and unfair leap in "logic". I think that the article, and definitely the forthcoming encyclical, are saying is that the pope has his priorities, and, fortunately, they are not the same as this forum. huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Maybe you should change your point? It does not seem to leave room for God to work or for repentance nor conversion to take place. But I certainly agree with you about the NYT on the whole!! I will not change my point as an effort towards them repenting. I will change my point, when they repent. I cannot know of their repentance until they reveal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I will not change my point as an effort towards them repenting. Interesting... but point well taken.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 Well, as of this AM there is a new long 184 page papal encyclical to be misinterpreted. But it will be hard to misinterpret this one. The pope's priorities would appear to include poverty and inequality, consumerism and capitalism, the human agency in climate change and its imminant disaster for the planet, especially the poor. Not much mention of freemasonry or "artificial" contraception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 "artificial" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) So God somehow wrote straight with crooked lines? A staunch, liberal nincompoop does something other than smash the pope....and it elicits an 'ouch'? I see your point and pretty much agree with everything your post above. IMO, so what if the writer doesn't see him as a 'man who practices religion'? He sees the Vicar of Christ as a human who he can identify with. (even if that identification is misconstrued) It's a starting point. It's hope. Granted, thin hope.. but hope nonetheless. Perhaps the part that the writer misses out on...the "it is Francis' Catholic Faith and the living of that Faith which makes him who he is" is a more learned "step". But perhaps his mind is open, or more open to faith than he was before. Expecting a NYT writer to grasp the totality of your post is akin to asking a t-baller to hit for the cycle.... I just find hope in these small... sometimes infinitesimally small steps... May they be used to His Glory. Sorry for being a hippie..... I have hope in Jesus and that He can use even an article which puts down one Pope while praising another as a means of hopefully touching people's hearts. Yet this hope does not mean I have to like an article which praises Francis while putting down Benedict. Nor does it mean I have to like an article which favors humanism over the Catholic Faith and presents humanist agendas as being more important than the Faith and the well being of souls not just bodies. But this article is nothing new on the world stage. The first Catholic was greeted with 'hosannas' before being battered with 'crucify him!' IMO, it's just a matter of time until Francis, as being the Vicar of Christ, will share the same fate. Edited June 18, 2015 by Credo in Deum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I can agree with that! And heck, with his newest encyclical, your words are prophetic as the left and right are tearing him down.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StMichael Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 So since when is recognizing climate change anti-faith? When is save the planet anti-faith? Jesus was very clear about stewardship. He was also very clear about feeding the poor, recognizing women, and acknowledging (and curing) lepers, then the most despised and feared, like muslims today. Global Cooling, Global Warming, whatever the flavor of the day (the movement has decided that they can't keep up with their own nonsense, so now it is called climate change.) is a "religion." Pope Francis has a religion, so why empower this new pagan religion? And that is exactly what he has done. He is allowed his opinion and all I hear from his flock, myself included, is that he is absolutely baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaatee Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 It's not a pagan religion. That is one of Francis' points, a major point. Climate change is a fact. I don't think that anyone debates this. Some don't want to attribute it to human activity. I find this remarkable in view of the "coincidence" that this is happening at an unprecedented rate just when there are seven billion people on the planet and greenhouse gases are at an all-time high. My impression of Catholicism is that the pope is supposed to be divinely ordained, and that his opinions, written in his encyclicals, are to be taken very seriously, at the very least. To airily dismiss the opinions of Pope Francis, in his first encyclical, strikes me as bordering on heresy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now