Well, so much for separation of Church and State

This is abusing faith and using religion as a cudgel to beat the masses.

adjensen, Jesus, gave us the earth,,,,,,, Really,,,, I was told he was a Carpenter or something,,, OK, put I don't believe anyway,,,,,
  

I've always understood Jesus to be the Son of God. I can't say I've ever heard it suggested Jesus Christ, to refer to the man of that name in scripture, actually *WAS* God.

Specifically, I've understood Jesus to have been sent as the only begotten son, for the sins of mankind and to bring forgiveness ....not to suggest some Roman punks, let alone Cain with the pig sticker..were actually poking and torturing God himself.

That would have likely changed the whole context and outcome, wouldn't it? God just turned people to pillars of Salt and flooded the Known World for a reboot option. Jesus was the kind, understanding one to show the mercy, at least by Faith and how its taught.

Really?

The Doctrine of the Incarnation and the Doctrine of the Trinity are central to Christianity. Yes, Christians believe that Jesus is God. The Romans tortured and crucified God.

Neither the Jews nor the Muslims believe that Jesus was God, which is why they are Muslims and Jews, not Christians. There was an ancient heresy called Arianism that taught that Jesus was just a guy, but the Church rejected that in 325AD at the famous Council of Nicaea. Arians still come around once in a while, but Christianity has the divinity of Christ at its core and pretty much all of our theology depends on it.

I rarely discuss matters of religion, but sometimes circumstances demand that a fella not hold his tongue.

Twas 3 fine, upstanding Christian sorts of the Catholic persuasion at TOS who gave me to understand in no uncertain terms that I am not, nor ever can be a Christian. They won't let me into the club, and that is just as well with me.

The problem seems to be that I follow Jesus, believe him, and hang onto his every word as if my life depended on it, which I believe it does. I do NOT believe anyone who would have the temerity to speak for him, without ever even having known him, and who thinks thy can write policy for God - or even Jesus for that matter - contradictory to what God and Jesus have already explicitly said. For that, I am barred from the club. S'ok by me - I'll take my chances with God rather than what strange men have to say about It.

Not a single soul in the Council of Nicea ever walked with Jesus, and I have my doubts that they ever had an encounter with God, either. I cannot, therefore, take to heart anything they have to say that contradicts what God and Jesus themselves had to say in the council's attempts to write policy for God.

Jesus never, EVER, claimed to BE God. Never. As a matter of fact, he explicitly rejected the idea that he should be worshiped like God. The Council of Nicea decided they knew better than Jesus himself in that matter.

Who do you suppose is right - Jesus himself, or strangers attempting to write policy for him?

Let's examine it from a standpoint of logic, then. If the dead know nothing, as the Bible explicitly states, how can the dead DO anything at all, much less raise themselves from the dead? It seems raising the dead would take some degree of power, and knowledge - at least enough knowledge to know there are dead in need of raising. How could a dead god then raise himself, if he were dead and lacked even the knowledge that he needed raising?

To claim that the dead can raise themselves contradicts what God itself had to say, and so the policy that Jesus WAS God, and raised himself from the dead, cannot be correct.

Likewise the policy of a trinity. Either God died, or it did not. If any member of an alleged trinity remained alive, then God did not die. If my arm is cut off, that does not mean I died. Romans emphatically did NOT "torture and kill God on the cross".

Jesus was the Messiah, the Savior, but was NOT God - he was the son of God, the only begotten, firstborn brother of many. To make a god of him belittles not only God, but ignores his mission altogther, and makes nought of him.

To make a god of Jesus is a rejection of his actual, claimed role.

A rejection of the messiah, no different from the Jews, who reject him outright, or the Muslims who claim he was "massih" without even knowing what that title actually means, relegating him to mere "prophet" status instead.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank those Christians of the Catholic persuasion at TOS for letting me know I can't be one of their number - because their number appears to me to be in grievous error, and I wouldn't want to be among them come Judgement Day. I'll take my chances with God, and with Jesus, thanks, rather than with Christians, Jews, or Muslims - who really DON'T appear to be all that different from on another in the final analysis, from the outside looking in.

adjensen,

I'd like your comments on something brought up a little earlier:

The problem that non-Catholics (okay, uninformed Catholics, as well,) is that they would rather hear the mainstream media spin of what Pope Francis says, rather than what he actually says.

All of this crazy liberal interpretation of Francis' statements (theoretical statements, in the case of this article,) is the result of the media, not of the Church, which does not change its doctrine based of society's whims.

In the film Major League 2, the announcer (Bob Uecker) is discussing on the air a decision made by the Indians' manager:
"They're going to walk Beck to get to Parkman." (The Indians' need one out, Beck is so-so and Parkman is a power hitter who is very successful against the pitcher) "Obviously, Taylor is thinking . . . I don't know what the hell he's thinking."

And that's where my problem comes in. I've read some of the Pope's speeches and parts of his encyclicals, as well as news reports from several sources. I know that many of the teachings of the Church are taught infallibly, even if they aren't Ex Cathedra, and the Pope won't go around changing doctrine, but to paraphrase Uecker, "I don't know what the hell he wants."

Agreed, completely uncontrolled capitalism is very easily perverted, but you're not going to find uncontrolled capitalism in the US or anywhere else. (Maybe Singapore?) So what does he recommend, don't be so greedy? Fine, I accept that and so does everybody else, but what system or changes is he asking us to make? Does he want government funded housing, food, clothing healthcare, education and employment at a living wage? I could understand him if he called for it. I might or might not agree, but at least I'd understand it.

Is he recommending fully open borders? I don't think so, but I haven't heard him suggest any limits to it. Is it a call for every country to allow unlimited immigration? Got me.

There is some real question, even in climatological circles, whether the Earth is facing catastrophe in the relatively near future due to the effect of humanity on weather. I've even started hearing little whispers hinting that we may be entering a period of global cooling. But whether that's all true or not, I don't think it helps His Holiness to come out as absolutely convinced that there aren't any remaining questions and that "things" have to be done now. Does he want a world wide limit of so many micro cubic seconds of bad stuff per person (or however it's measured)? Or only a limit on developed countries? Or what?

But he speaks from his heart and sometimes his words don't convey the meaning he wants them to:

In his encyclical Laudato Si’, published today, the pope (sic) lambasts (sic) wasteful consumerism and unchecked human economic activity as a root of climate change, singling out one product in particular for censure: the air conditioner. “A simple example [of harmful habits of consumption] is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning,” Francis writes. “The markets, which immediately benefit from sales, stimulate ever greater demand. An outsider looking at our world would be amazed at such behavior, which at times appears self-destructive.”

www.nationalreview.com/article/pope-francis-air-conditioning-climate-change-encyclical

Is he calling for eliminating air conditioning except in special circumstances such as hospitals or museums?

My problem, again, is that I'm not hearing his clear calls or teaching. Every two or three months the Holy See has to issue a "clarification" of something he's said. My opinion is that we need clear words and teachings but I haven't seen them. How can I solve my problem of lack of understanding? Or is it perhaps something that I don't need to solve.

adjensen,

Excellent article, thanks. I also appreciate the idea that his principle purpose is to draw people to Christ and away from their sinful habits (some new, most old). As an individual, I appreciate that he goes into the world with the message of Christ, the Church, and love. I fervently wish to be made better my meditating on his words and examples.

This is a difficult time for the US, and, indeed, the whole world. Americans have become distrustful and fearful of a government which appears to overstep it's bounds regularly. I have to admit that I understand that. I think they see a difference between the Pope following his namesake's example and calling on the people of the world to judge more carefully their use of nature, and the pope telling the UN that he supports a climate program (the 2030 agenda) that commits the nations of the world to reducing resource consumption in their countries.

A nation, as a nation, can't be saved, only individuals can be. Some, myself included, wonder if he shouldn't be speaking to individuals instead of encouraging nations to order their citizens what to use and how to use it. First, as I said, the majority of Americans don't trust their government to do the right thing. Second, the atmospheric science is definitely not settled. The real possibility exists that we have spent billions on a non-existent problem. (The world is currently spending a billion a day on climate change.)

Pollution? US air quality has been improving steadily for decades in all six areas the EPA tests.
www3.epa.gov/airtrends/index.html
But everything can always be cleaner, the question is when is it no longer reasonable to spend increasing accounts of money for diminishing amounts of purity.

Now all of that, is to point out only that many are afraid that the Pope is pushing for the global community (or the UN) to come up with solutions to these problems. That doesn't sit well with some people. At the same time, the Pope seems reluctant to be very specific. That leaves it up to individuals with agendas to take the Pope's words and make them fit their preconceived notions.

It is the uncertainty and confusion which seems to come from the Pope so far, that worries me. I will follow his direction to be more hospitable, but when people claim "The Pope says everyone has a right to migrate and our country has a duty to assist them in their migration," I get nervous. Not as a Christian, but as an American. My fear is that doing the "right" thing may be suicidal in the end.

Oh, Adjensen, this is only a small fraction of what I want to say and I'm saying it badly. Do we owe it to the world and Christianity to remain prosperous and free? Or are we called, as St. Francis was, to give away everything and roam the world living on nature, God, and donations from the kindly?

In Love,
Charles