How does posting a news article on something the Pope said and did demonize him? If you have info showing that the articles are wrong please post it. Otherwise, all I have done is questioned a metaphysical the Pope made. I don’t question his authority to do that for subscribers. I’m just not a subscriber. I suppose I should add that to some of us, the claim appears ludicrous. I suspect that is hard for you to read, and I apologize for that. But, you should be aware that such is the case. I’d hate to have you hear from someone who isn’t trying to be friendly like I am.
Sorry. I missed it. I was initially surprised at your comments. I was initially struck by the apparent absurdity and seeming throw back to the middle ages the report had on me. After your post about the reasonableness of the Pope trying to keep up with the times, i realized that it is the juxtaposition of social media with a claim to transcendent authority that produced my reaction. I considered following the Pope’s Twitterfeed and posting my responses here. However, on V’s link I read that this is supposed to be a prelude to confession before a Roman catholic priest. thus, I conclude that the Pope’s Twits are for Roman catholics, not the rest of us. I try to be ecumenical, but I’m not ready to bow to a priest.
You made the accusation that “the Pope is making up as he goes along”.
…and of course haven’t the sense to be able to back up the accusation. The article had nothing to do with such an acusation and if it did, did you point it out? You claimed “a thesis”. Since when was a “thesis” merely making an accusation of posting a seemingly unrelated article.
…sorry but you aren’t worthy of this kind of discussion (nor any kind of authority over anyone). It requires intelligence and a balanced and honest perspective.
See if you can connect the dots. The Pope is claiming that he can affect what happens to people in the afterlife based on what they do with his Twitterfeed. Do you have any evidence to support his claim that he can do that? No, you don’t. So you can go on making ad hominems about how I’m personally not worthy, but you can’t back up the Pope’s claims with evidence. So personal attacks are basically all you have.
Personal attacks? I don’t even know why James is supporting this twitter/purgatory thang. Makes me wonder about his own personal investment of some kind in this matter.
I appreciate the new Pope’s evident love of people, his simple lifestyle, his commitment to the poor and his determination to clean up the scandal-plagued, faction-ridden Vatican. I just question his authority to influence the afterlife of his Twitter followers.
The new Pope is a great guy. I’ll take a pound of whatever he’s smokin’.
All religions change and all religions ignore such logical problems.
I do not see a shred of evidence that he loves people, except in the way a parking attendant loves cars: he loves to control them.
Not only has he made it okay to Twitter for those he has under his control, he has condemned me to purgatory for disagreeing with him.
You only go to purgatory if you are a catholic. If you aren’t catholic you go to hell.
And burn there forever!!
Well I would think you would just burn up, and become cremated. But that’s not the traditional conception, that says you burn and burn and never burn up. Funny thing, that conception of hell. Those that believe in it just don’t stop to think about it. They’re Christian, and just love that their neighbors, just Jesus instructs them to love, burn forever and forever. Apparently loving Christians can be hateful … and their God too.
I think the phrase burn eternally comes up once or twice here and there.
Hobbes apologised for this by saying it was a one time deal - hey that’s okay then!
Many in his day had the unfortunate reality of being burned whist still alive, by those loving Christians.
But in bat-shit insane science, anything is possible.
What the Pope is offering is not as radical as changing the criteria for getting out of hell. Sorry guys. Twitter indulgences don’t even become effective until you have confessed your sins and asked for forgiveness on your knees in front of a priest. The idea that the pope can change the qualifications for hell is even more absurd. Now the gates of hell cannot overpower the church according to Matthew 16:18. Peter is mentioned in that verse and the Roman church teaches that what goes for Peter goes for the Pope. But, still you’re asking too much. A revised interpretation, maybe but an actual metaphysical admission policy revision. Those don’t happen in your average millenium.
Pope’s have always changes the qualification for heaven and hell.
It’s what they do.
Yes because they were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever they bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven according to the RC reading of Matthew 16:19. But, to abolish hell altogether? It would be a bit like Rupert Murdoch dissolving 21st century Fox. Still, there is always the power of prayer.
Abolish Hell.
Where would all the Hellers go?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway
Paul, the apostle to the gentiles (us) does not mention hell in any of his letters. It would seem that he would address a matter of such concern as where one would spend eternity if the matter was of any importance. Eternal punishment is an Augustinian invention; it was not the belief of the early Christian church. I think we discussed all this in the Universal Salvation thread, which is now defunct.
In short, hell is remedial punishment, not eternal damnation. In the early church teachings Jesus goes to hell and frees the souls who are there.
Popes follow Augustine, not Paul.
hey the pope is just a guy…
hey paul was a guy…
hey Augustine was a guy…
Where does the idea of Hell come from?