17

Welcome to Hell, Pope Francis

Posted by  $  straightlinelogic 4 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
69 comments | Share | Flag

Liberty, voluntary exchange, mutual consent, and the protection of property and contract rights secure individuals’ sovereignty over their own minds, bodies, and souls, the freedom to pursue their own interests. That is the real crux of the animus directed at capitalism—liberty’s economics—from proponents of both statism and religion. The Pope will never say that his condemnation of capitalism is a condemnation of individual autonomy, nor that it is an embrace of statist collectivism and coercion. Those, however, are the choices. Unfortunately, history has never moved in a straight line forward. A general embrace of his ideology would be a giant step backward. Justice requires accountability for one’s ideas, and Pope Francis is not being held to account. His vision is not the road to salvation, any more than Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Hitler’s, or Mao’s were. It is the road to a not-at-all-subtle dictatorship that will “condemn and enslave men and women.” The Pope would see us in a collectivized hell on earth—a new Dark Ages—and the Catholic Church once again reigning supreme over the misery.

This is an excerpt. Please click the link above for the full article.
SOURCE URL: http://straightlinelogic.com/2015/07/23/welcome-to-hell-pope-francis-by-robert-gore/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
    As StraightLine points out so aptly, the Pope is the absolute ruler and final arbiter of everything Catholic and as such is no different from any dictator, except for the veneer of benevolence. Although, when the control of nations was in the hands of the religion, it could not in any way be considered benevolent. How many times we must learn that when power is centralized, it cannot help but become corrupt? I guess that in that area, humanity is a slow learner.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 4 years, 3 months ago
    Excellent.

    He has no chance at appealing to the educated, affluent populations to support his fairy tales and dogma. That population is leaving him behind, slowly.

    To maintain power (this institution's sole purpose since its beginning), they must find new sheep to be led through life.
    There are many poor and poorly educated.
    People are most easily made comrades by assigning blame to a common foe.
    There is a socialist movement throughout the world, which provides a handhold to the first and second world countries.
    Capitalism is uncontrolled by the church, therefore it is a threat.

    It is all about power, and I don't see the church handing out it's billions to the masses to free them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by krevello 4 years, 3 months ago
    As a nominal Catholic, I've never been able to understand how the Church doesn't connect Jesus' one man crusade against the powers of corruption, evil and dishonesty to individualism. It's the story of individual will and vision against collectivism. Social justice is anathema to that message.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
      In order to do what you describe, the church would have to give up some power. It's not about to do that. The hierarchy of the religion within the confines of the Vatican can be compared very closely to the shenanigans that go on within the beltway of Washington D.C. Where the Vatican is a bit more honest, is that it doesn't even pretend to be in a position to do the bidding of its followers. They claim to answer to a higher power which looks suspiciously like themselves.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
        The evil of the Pope is much deeper than earthly power seeking for its own sake. The force follows faith. It's not that "the Pope ignores capitalism’s history of lifting masses of impoverished people from their poverty", as the article says, he despises human prosperity down to his bones. He doesn't want the masses lifted beyond a minimalist existence. The recent Common Home encyclical is another call for asceticism and groveling before "God's creation". He is "Pope Francis" because he picked the name from Saint Francis of Assisi. He explicitly denounces the economic success of the last 200 years for it's success, right down to an obsessive war against modern improvements like "air conditioning". http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/fran...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
          There are exceptions to his opposition to modern convenience. They consist primarily of himself, the church hierarchy, persons in power, and big donators. Priests, and laity, can pound sand. But, to be fair, most religions are in that position or want to be in that position. Look how many of the Poverty Pimps have the word "Reverend" in front of their names. The good deeds of religion(s) is offset by the evil they perpetrate and the evil is in the majority because it is integral to the religion. One should ask oneself, "Am I doing this because it betters my life or the lives of those around me, or am I doing it as a condition of being part of my religious beliefs?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
            I wonder if Pop's Mercedes limousine has air conditioning.

            It did seem that his alliance co-opting the viros to retrogress to the Christian asceticism of St. Francis of Assisi by endorsing carbon credits was an attempt to get back into the Indulgences racket -- but the ideology prevailed (Marx was wrong again): *Common Home" denounces the "carbon credit" scheme for not being enough -- they demand wallowing in poverty and the retraction of the Industrial Revolution as an absolute, with no loopholes for industry buying its way out of poverty in the shakedown.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by krevello 4 years, 3 months ago
        That's a very apt comparison. I've always liked the federalism of the Catholic Church. Like federalism in government, it should benefit people locally. However, much like federalism in government, it's also corrupt and gone off the rails because, as you say, they've become the higher power.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
      No it isn't. It was a "one man crusade" -- one of thousands of such mystery cults -- that emphasized other-worldliness and grovelling sacrifice to the supernatural, with service to others on earth a distant second. The only "individualism" was for "saving" one's own soul in another dimension.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
    But, but--he's God's representative on Earth, isn't he.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
      Not unless you're a Catholic. He certainly doesn't represent me - I speak for myself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
        OK?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
          Authority matters. Those who accept the Catholic Church accept the Pope as God's representative on earth. But if you are not a Catholic, you don't accept his authority - and that goes for every other Christian denomination, not just the non-Christian ones. So when the Pope speaks, his purported authority extends only so far as the Catholic Church and those who see the Vatican as a political power.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
            You don't accept his authority, why? Because you're a different sect/cult? Or because he's the epitome of blithering idiocy claiming to be guided by some ruler of some spiritual realm, not any different from some backwoods hoodoo preacher on TV claiming the same ruler of the same spiritual realm told him to preach the word and wanting your money so he could buy a plane to spread the word farther, or some story about an ascetic, wandering preacher thinking he's the son of the same ruler of the same spiritual realm here to give you immortality, or for that fact any other schizophrenic claiming the voice of god tells him what to do? It's all nonsense.

            For myself, I accept NO authority. I am a free, individual with a mind that works, living in reality, and I have all I need within myself required to make my way through this life without a bunch of nonsense getting in my way.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
              "You don't accept his authority, why? Because you're a different sect/cult?"

              Yes. Only Catholics view the Pope as authoritative. No other Christian sect recognizes him as anything more than a political figure.

              For example, if you travel to Portland, you are subject to the Portland mayor and police - not the LA versions. Same difference: each sect is equivalent in this example to its own city.

              I was not advocating for the Pope, just trying to clarify that there are hundreds of Christian religions that should not get lumped in just because the Catholic Church's leader becomes a socialist. It doesn't matter whether one ascribes to religion or not, it is important to recognize that there are critical differences that separate the various faiths from one another because their individual principles and doctrines differ. To lump them all in together is like equating libertarians with Objectivists - there is some overlap of principles, but some distinct differences that separate them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 3 months ago
                You claim that authority matters and I disagree. If you're foolish enough to accept someone else's assertion of authority, I guess you deserve the problems you seem to have understanding Objectivism.

                As to Christian religions, there is one Christian religion, there are as you say hundreds of sects and even cults based on that one religion. But it really doesn't matter, any belief/faith system without a means to prove or disprove it, is a path to a wasted life and is of absolutely no credibility or merit for a properly working mind to pay attention to, other than to reject it and the person espousing such as a person not worth listening to.

                As to equating Libertarians with Objectivists, there is no overlap of principles. Libertarians don't seem to have any solid principles other than non-aggression which is probably closer to pacifism than anything else. They as well as christians, operated based on belief in and faith that all people would want to live as they do, if just shown the way.

                Your arguments are simply nonsense and I'm done reading them.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Authority matters to Christians. Your assertion was that the Catholic church is representative of all Christians and I was correcting that. That's ALL. You were equating all religions based on Christianity and I was pointing out that that is a fallacy of association. I wasn't advocating for any Christian faith, just pointing out that just because one of them embraces socialist leaders is not justification to lump all of them in. Good Grief. You're not even reading what I'm writing.

                  "any belief/faith system without a means to prove or disprove it, is a path to a wasted life and is of absolutely no credibility or merit for a properly working mind to pay attention to"

                  I agree. Can you understand that? I AGREE!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
                    The details of different sects of Christianity are irrelevant to rejecting it. They are all Christianity and share the same essential characteristics that are wrong and destructive. That is not a "fallacy of association". They are associated by their own essentials.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
    I actually had respect for John Paul. This guy is just evidence that the Catholic church has been taken over by socialists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
      From Ayn Rand's “Requiem for Man” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

      "Is there any difference between the encyclical’s philosophy and communism? I am perfectly willing, on this matter, to take the word of an eminent Catholic authority. Under the headline: 'Encyclical Termed Rebuff to Marxism,' The New York Times of March 31, 1967, reports: 'The Rev. John Courtney Murray, the prominent Jesuit theologian, described Pope Paul’s newest encyclical yesterday as ‘the church’s definitive answer to Marxism.’ . . . ‘The Marxists have proposed one way, and in pursuing their program they rely on man alone,’ Father Murray said. `Now Pope Paul VI has issued a detailed plan to accomplish the same goal on the basis of true humanism—humanism that recognizes man’s religious nature.’'

      "Amen.

      "So much for those American 'conservatives' claim that religion is the base of capitalism—and who believe that they can have capitalism and eat it, too, as the moral cannibalism of the altruist ethics demands.

      "And so much for those modern 'liberals' who pride themselves on being the champions of reason, science, and progress—and who smear the advocates of capitalism as superstitious, reactionary representatives of a dark past. Move over, comrades, and make room for your latest fellow-travelers, who had always belonged on your side—then take a look, if you dare, at the kind of past they represent."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
        Yes, and the quintessential mistake she makes and so many other Objectivists make is conflating the Catholic Church with Christianity or with "religion" in general. Catholicism is the reason for Ayn Rand's quite logical and completely founded cynicism of religion. The problem is that the Catholic Church - while yes the largest in adherents - is not representative of any "religion" or belief set but their own!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
          You just praised the Pope and now pretend he doesn't matter because it's a different sect. Ayn Rand did not reject religion because of the Catholic Church. She rejected it because it is region.

          The Catholic Church formulated Christian dogma for centuries. It is representative of Christianity in all fundamentals, including its ascetic, other-worldiness, and duty to sacrifice.

          Your religious wars between competing sects are irrelevant, and so is your constant proselytizing for religion and claims that Ayn Rand was "mistaken" for rejecting it. Religious faith is fundamentally antagonistic to a philosophy of reason and egoism and there is no excuse for your obnoxious evangelizing on an Ayn Rand site.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
            What I said was that I could respect John Paul because he honestly appeared to be a decent person. And yes, the sect does matter. If one is not a Catholic, one does not hold Catholicism to be representative of Christianity's true nature nor authoritative. One would not allow a fascist to pretend to speak for Objectivism any more than a Methodist would allow a Catholic Pope to pretend to speak for them!

            "The Catholic Church formulated Christian dogma for centuries. It is representative of Christianity in all fundamentals, including its ascetic, other-worldiness, and duty to sacrifice."

            "This is why you fail." - Yoda.

            You can not separate in your mind one set of beliefs from any other. You just lump them all into the same category irrespective of their competing and often diametrically opposed views on various matters. You fallaciously assert that A = B = C ad infinitum. You more closely represent the very point I make than you could possible know. And yet you do not know it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
              You said in a blanket statement that you respect the Pope, which is praise. You said nothing about his being a "decent person" and nothing separating him from his role as pope. It is clear to the rest of us why he deserves no respect in the essence of his behavior, as Ayn Rand pointed out.

              Your lumping Objectivism with fascism is irrational and dishonest. Christian religious sects are all varieties of the Christian religion based on faith in and duty to a supernatural god. They agree in essentials and are all rejected because of what they are in essence. Variations in dogma between competing sects, no matter their being at each others throats over nonsense claimed to be "diametrically opposed", is irrelevant; differences over what you have faith in are arbitrary and of no concern to the rational.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 3 months ago
          It was no mistake on her part at all. Pick any 'belief system' or set of beliefs you want—they are all based on the idea of the primacy of consciousness; and they will always leave men floundering in a quicksand crowded with the next group climbing on heads to claim that theirs is the 'true' belief.

          Rand explained how existence is primary and, additionally, the logical corollaries of that fact. It's not something you accept because she wrote it; they are concepts you have to understand.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
            And now you make the same mistake. You simply can not conflate any belief set with any other: each must be examined individually as to its values, doctrines, and merits. That is the point I have been trying to make. One can just as easily conflate Objectivism with fascism by saying that they are both constructs of men. It is a fallacy of association.

            I agree with Rand that intelligence and existence are primary. I just disagree that there is an end to that existence as atheism dictates. Rand, in conflating the Catholic Church with "religion" got caught in a fallacy of association that led her to believe that since she couldn't make sense of the Catholic belief system that necessarily all religions were nonsensical. This led her to atheism as the only recourse, but also led her to take positions as mandated by that atheism. I think it was a mistake. She would have been safer to have taken an agnostic view of the matter and simply said "I don't know". That would have allowed for inquiry into either side as long as the position could be explained logically. And no, it wouldn't have been fence-sitting, but rather the avoidance of being pigeon-holed in order to appear to remain consistent with that choice.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  4 years, 3 months ago
              Logically, I do not see how it is possible to say either that there is or is not a god, gods, or some other power not yet fully grasped by human intelligence--thus, my agnosticism rather than atheism.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
                This has been explained to you many times and you continue to ignore it. Ignorance of what is not known does mean you get to tell us what it might be, along with speculations of supernatural "powers". When someone utters an arbitrary assertion on faith it is cognitively meaningless and in logic properly rejected out of hand as not to be taken seriously in any form. Atheism means rejecting belief in the supernatural. Agnosticism, as you have just illustrated, means you aren't sure whether or not to embrace the arbitrary. That is not rational.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
                  You choose to advocate for a cessation of consciousness. I choose not to. Which is more rational: to belief in self-dissolution or to believe in self-preservation?

                  I do ignore you, because you refuse to contemplate the alternatives. You aren't even willing to have an honest thought experiment on the matter and so must resort to serially down-voting my every post simply out of spite. It is wholly unbecoming. One can disagree amiably without being so thoroughly disagreeable, and I will warn you one last time to amend your ways or as a paying member I will seek your censure.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
                    I do not "advocate for a cessation of consciousness". Your comments are increasingly looney and anyone can reject them despite a handful of religious trolls cheering for your nonsense. Religious wishful thinking demanding immortality in the name of faith in "thought experiments" despite all evidence to the contrary is your problem. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. You can't buy turning it into it's opposite.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
              Atheism does not "dictate" anything. It rejects the arbitrary as cognitively worthless.

              Every mystic faith does not have to be examined in detail to know to reject faith in the supernatural for what it is.

              Your claimed history of Ayn Rand's thought process in rejecting religion is false. You are misrepresenting her. You don't dictate what she should have said to be "safe" on behalf of your religion. No "safety" is required in rejecting your irrationalism, whose obnoxious repetition does not belong on this site.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
                Then why don't you request to have me banned? If I have provided so little value to this community, then ask for it. Ask for every single person who is not an atheist to be summarily dismissed.

                You miss the point of these forums entirely. They are to discuss possibilities. They are to exercise the mind. They are to invent and to explore - not mindlessly parrot with a zeal that you claim only possible of the "religious".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
                  This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not for you to "exercise" your mind on religion and personally smear and misrepresent those who reject your obnoxious, inappropriate posts. You know very well the difference between "every other person who is not an atheist" and your militant proselytizing. The only "value" to some of your earlier posts on this topic has been to show how easily they are refuted. Pushing faith and religion has no value especially on an Ayn Rand forum. Don't push your luck. Your militant appeals to religion as you misrepresent Ayn Rand are beyond the standards of rational discussion and the purpose of this forum.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 3 months ago
              Yes, we disagree. But, it is not a mistake to isolate the fundamentals upon which any set of beliefs rest. The source of the beliefs is critical; the "values, doctrines, and merits" are window dressing after you've moved in.

              In this case, you are mistaking logical analysis for conflation. Rand did not imply, "that intelligence and existence are primary." Quite differently, she wrote that "existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness". This is a "crucial distinction" between what goes on inside and outside your head.

              Accepting beliefs attempts to shortcut our ability to identify things that exist by replacing knowledge with thoughts and notions not anchored in reality. Ideas, based on any variant of Existence being created by something outside of Existence, will undercut your ability to understand everything...and that would be hell.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
                "The source of the beliefs is critical; the "values, doctrines, and merits" are window dressing after you've moved in."

                If I've read you correctly, what you are actually saying is that the source of the value is more important than the value itself. I can't have read that correctly because that is the fallacy of appeal to authority. That is the kind of logic that says since so-and-so said A, that A is correct solely because I believe in A's authority. I disagree with this idea and would suggest that it is the other way around entirely - that it is the idea that gives merit and authority to the individual. It is precisely the values, doctrines and merits of a given philosophy that lend credence to its originator! As such we should avoid the trap of appeal to authority by focusing not on who said it, but on the position itself. This further helps us avoid the trap of prejudice as well by uncoupling our preconceptions about the source itself.

                "In this case, you are mistaking logical analysis for conflation. Rand did not imply, "that intelligence and existence are primary." Quite differently, she wrote that "existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness". This is a "crucial distinction" between what goes on inside and outside your head."

                I am not quite sure what your assertion is here. I was restating using your own words. I used intelligence to indicate consciousness separate and apart from the rest of existence. But without consciousness/intelligence, there is no perception of existence separate from the consciousness itself. Thus both must exist for anything to be considered at all. Existence without a consciousness to perceive it precludes this conversation, rendering it null and void.

                "Accepting beliefs attempts to shortcut our ability to identify things that exist by replacing knowledge with thoughts and notions not anchored in reality. Ideas, based on any variant of Existence being created by something outside of Existence, will undercut your ability to understand everything...and that would be hell."

                Not sure what you're trying to say here either. I'm familiar with the statements, just not sure where you are trying to go with them with respect to the sub-thread. I'd appreciate an explanation.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
                  Your mangled reformulations show again that you don't understand Ayn Rand's philosophy. For the basics read her "Faith and Force". For the philosophy listen to Leonard Peikoff's lecture course on Objectivism and the history of Western philosophy, and read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. They will disabuse you of many of your confusions to the extent they are honest.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
                    No, I don't misunderstand, I disagree. You seem to have this idea that anyone who participates in this board should religiously hang on every word written by Rand and stop thinking after that. That seems pretty silly to me. I take it to thought, then decide for myself by weighing all the evidence at hand.

                    Further, I have read Piekoff's work "Objectivism". And again, I take what is said and weigh it against my experience and my knowledge and come to my own conclusions. Independent thought should not be such a crime to an Objectivist.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
                      Independent thought is not a "crime" and no one has ever told you to "religiously" or otherwise "hang on every word written by Ayn Rand and stop thinking after that". Your spewing dishonest crap like that means you don't belong here or in any civil discussion.

                      You are a religionist in fundamental contradiction with Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason that is the purpose of this forum. You can believe whatever you want to by any arbitrary means of "weighing evidence" you feel like, but persistently evangelizing faith while misrepresenting Ayn Rand, as well as others here, does not belong here and you know it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 3 months ago
                  What I wrote was the opposite of an appeal to authority. That fallacy illustrates the flaws found in many beliefs. I didn't propose that anyone accept anything because someone said it.

                  The acceptance of an idea which has no basis in existence, as knowledge, because it is attributed to 'God', a vision, a dream, an infallible pope, or any other floating abstraction is making a similar error.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 3 months ago
                    I would appreciate then if you would clarify for me.

                    Which is more important: the belief or the source of the belief?

                    What you said indicated to me that you placed the origin of the belief of higher importance than the belief itself and I wanted to make sure I wasn't reading you incorrectly.

                    To me, the principle validates and proves the authority of the person presenting it, not the other way around.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 4 years, 3 months ago
    "Welcome to hell" is right.

    I'm unusual in this gathering. I follow Christianity--but not the Roman Catholic faith. The two are very different. (And for me the flowering of the Roman Catholic faith will always be the Papacy of Alexander VI.)

    I also suspect Francis, by conflating the Bible with the Koran, has betrayed an even darker purpose.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 years, 3 months ago
      You're not alone. Other Christians have been drawn into the Gulch. Even one with dino breath.
      The pope's recent poop about the Bible and the Koran plus (the forgiving) God and (the okay with raping and murdering) Allah all being pretty much the same thing gave me the willies.
      I'm also an ex-Catholic, who, while reading the article, wondered if the Pope may sizzle or even melt if sprinkled by holy water.
      Perhaps he should be thus watered down while encircled by renegade priests all raised by capitalist families.
      His last words could be, "Et tu, Padre Brute?"
      Or maybe "Of course, you'd here too, (not "Father" but) Daddy Warbucks!"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
        This is a site for admirers of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. Reason, not a different religious sect, is the alternative to faith. You have not broken from the evil of the church by rejecting Catholicism for another version.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 years, 3 months ago
          Who are you to call me evil?
          You go be you and I'll go bhe me.
          Have a nice day.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
            You have not broken from the evil of the church as you claim to by swapping sects. Any rational person is capable of recognizing and denouncing the evil of faith in the supernatural and its destruction of human life.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -3
              Posted by  $  allosaur 4 years, 3 months ago
              People can be bad for none or perfect. That includes church-goers.
              God is good.
              Jesus is the door to salvation.
              I did not give you that -1 = 0 by the way (as seen at the moment).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 4 years, 3 months ago
    Ah...yes. The Church. Nice. I'll listen to him when every baby raper who works for him is hanging from a tree. Not until then.

    God understands, I'm sure.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 years, 3 months ago
      Their Sins are useful to wallow in as they grovel to the supernatural for forgiveness. Ending it by hanging from a tree would spoil the game.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Tap2Golf 4 years, 3 months ago
    Francis may condemn capitalism and its fruit, money, all he likes, however, as stated in the article money is power and we all know that Popes like power and preaching. What came to mind as I was reading, was St Peter's Basilica and the Vatican museum. Anyone who has been there has seen the incredible wealth that the Catholic church sits on. Francis and the Church could lift up the poor and downtrodden and feed the hungry in the world by selling one or two of those Michelangelo's. With all due respect, put your money where your mouth is, Sir.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 3 months ago
      Michelangelo is just the thinnest surface. The artwork of the Vatican could, if sold carefully would rake in many billions. Whether you are religious or not, the paintings and statuary can only be termed as glorious. If they ever did sell the art there should be a caveat that they could only be sold to museums or on loan to museums rather than squirreled away and never seen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 4 years, 3 months ago
    If money is such a bad thing why the hell does the catholic church beg their followers to give them as much as possible? seems a contradiction to me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DaveM49 4 years, 3 months ago
    Think about it: could this be an attempt to consolidate the power of the Catholic Church? Like the good old days of the Middle Ages?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 years, 3 months ago
    I am in total agreement with this article. The church obliterated the teachings and guiding principals, the results of thousands of years of experience in favor of what was being taught against.
    We could aptly call this Crony Christianity, just like the Crony Capitalism he is against but way too compartmentalized to understand that he, just like governments created this problem. Perhaps, he like the ilk that had proceeded him realized they'd be out of work and would have to create value instead of usurping value in order to survive. He, like those that govern are nothing but humanoids; the only true 'Other Race' on this planet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo