Pope Palpatine is a Festering Grab-Ass

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Orual

[looks over thread] It is?

[looks over thread again] Okay, maybe not quite.

That was the gist of the OP, and some people seemed to agree, but… well, I was exaggerating anyway, but I guess too much so.

[Burton]

Protestants came from the Holy Roman Church. Apostolic succession seems much like a marketing concept to me.

[don_t_ask]

It’s OK dude. I polled the planet and the large majority, the REALLY LARGE majority, don’t give a fuck what the Poop thinks or says.

[Anne_Neville]

@Malthus

Judaism does have this concept, though.

In Judaism, you don’t have to be Jewish to be a morally correct person; all you have to do is follow the Noahide commandments.

In Judaism, a “righteous gentile” is considered fully as “good” as a righteous Jew.

What’s more, we say that being a righteous gentile is enough to get into the World to Come, which is the Jewish concept of Heaven. I think it’s rather unfortunate that the Christians and the Muslims, when they were borrowing concepts from Judaism, didn’t get that one too.

[BrainGlutton]

@Anne Neville

What’s more, we say that being a righteous gentile is enough to get into the World to Come, which is the Jewish concept of Heaven. I think it’s rather unfortunate that the Christians and the Muslims, when they were borrowing concepts from Judaism, didn’t get that one too.

Christians can’t accept that without throwing out St. Paul’s unambiguous statement, “By faith alone are we saved.”

[athelas]

Odd, innit, that the outrage comes only when a religious figure states with certainty that his way is right and everyone else’s belief is wrong to a greater or lesser degree. When atheists call theists delusional, not so much.

[miss_elizabeth]

@Der Trihs

< waves hand >

Me ! Me ! Pick me !

This is funny as hell.

[BrainGlutton]

@athelas

Odd, innit, that the outrage comes only when a religious figure states with certainty that his way is right and everyone else’s belief is wrong to a greater or lesser degree. When atheists call theists delusional, not so much.

The difference is, atheists don’t call theists damned. (Actually, “No salvation outside the Church” is not RCC doctrine since Vatican II . . . but I suspect Pope Benny of willingness to roll back that reform.)

[Jodi]

@athelas

Odd, innit, that the outrage comes only when a religious figure states with certainty that his way is right and everyone else’s belief is wrong to a greater or lesser degree. When atheists call theists delusional, not so much.

Not getting the oddity, but then, also not getting the “not so much.” Most theists do not appreciate being told they are “delusional” – which is patently insulting – and most Christians do not appreciate being told their faith is not the “true” one. So what is your complaint, exactly? That we’re not sufficiently outraged when we’re called delusional? We should be more pissed off about that?

[Mr.Moto]

@athelas

Odd, innit, that the outrage comes only when a religious figure states with certainty that his way is right and everyone else’s belief is wrong to a greater or lesser degree. When atheists call theists delusional, not so much.

Many of us are so used to such rude behavior from a certain subset of atheists that it doesn’t rile us up much anymore.

[Jackmannii]

@athelas

Odd, innit, that the outrage comes only when a religious figure states with certainty that his way is right and everyone else’s belief is wrong to a greater or lesser degree. When atheists call theists delusional, not so much.

Durn good point! The average atheist on the Dope has just as much influence as the Pope, so any recreational outrage should be equivalent.

I don’t quite understand this fussin’ over the Vatican anyway. The Pope hasn’t yet dissed Hindus.

There’s always next week though. :dubious:

[Jodi]

@Jackmannii

Durn good point! The average atheist on the Dope has just as much influence as the Pope, so any recreational outrage should be equivalent.

I think the difference is receiving an insult from a person you didn’t expect to hand you one, and receiving an insult from person(s) with a history of insulting you. The RO for Der Trihs and others of his ilk wore out a while ago.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@athelas

Odd, innit, that the outrage comes only when a religious figure states with certainty that his way is right and everyone else’s belief is wrong to a greater or lesser degree. When atheists call theists delusional, not so much.

There’s a slight difference between your average common-or-garden theist and the Pope. He speaks for all Catholicism.

Also I would point out that you can’t really pin this as a theism/atheism issue. The Pope is actually saying all other faiths are wrong, here. The outrage here is down to Catholics and theists of different flavours here, too.

But yes, you do have a point, and I would say anyone who calls all theists delusional is just as worthy of outrage as when a theist calls everyone else wrong, if not more so since it suggests bad faith on their part. So yes, outrage! Grr! There’s one.

[Ludovic]

@don't ask

It’s OK dude. I polled the planet and the large majority, the REALLY LARGE majority, don’t give a fuck what the Poop thinks or says.

Palpatine the Seppo!

[E-Sabbath]

Once again, an example of why the phrase ‘Judeo-Christian values’ pisses me off. Stop lumping us in with those crazy people! We got rules to follow. They’re for us, and they really aren’t any great thing. You guys don’t have to follow those rules, just some normal ones about being decent human beings, and you can get into heaven, too. Being the Chosen People just means someone Above is watching us a bit more closely… and using us as his general tool for amusement. Face it, he’s playing Black and White or Sims up there, and we got the diamond over our heads.

Eh, long as it isn’t game over, it’s a good deal.

[athelas]

I think it’s more an acknowledgment that Christianity basically piggybacked off Jewish theology, borrowing many of its values. It’s not trying to lump together modern Jews and Christians.

[GargoyleWB]

Am I the only one to think “good on ya!”…

The pope simply has the cajones to state what every other religion and sect implicitly assumes…that their particular branch/sect/lodge way is the correct way.

I have yet to see a religion that has the doctrine “Mostly correct, but we are an offshoot branch and not the true path, so you may not get into heaven. But you do get a free frogurt!”

So why does anyone except Roman Catholics care?

[scotandrsn]

@GargoyleWB

…

I have yet to see a religion that has the doctrine “Mostly correct, but we are an offshoot branch and not the true path, so you may not get into heaven. But you do get a free frogurt!”

…

You clearly haven’t been introduced to Unitarian Universalism

[tomndebb]

@BrainGlutton

The difference is, atheists don’t call theists damned. (Actually, “No salvation outside the Church” is not RCC doctrine since Vatican II . . . but I suspect Pope Benny of willingness to roll back that reform.)

Well, the RCC does not make any claim that other people are damned, either.

As to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, it has not really gone anywhere since Vatican II. Here is the current explanation in the current Catechism:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

It has had a pretty spotty record in history, often uttered (a bit too broadly for its narrow intent) in direct chastisement of heretics rather than meaning an absolute declaration and occasionally uttered by popes who actually contradicted it with other statements. Some popes have stated it as an absolute that only Catholics could be saved, others not so much. The concept of the “Baptism of Desire” (in which a person who truly wished to be with God but who was prevented from joining the church through ignorance or some other bar) has been around for a long time. The last Catholic priest who insisted on treating it as literally true wound up getting excommunicated.

While Pope Benedict’s current document is sure to be found insulting by a lot of people (just as its predecessor document that was so thoroughly Pitted a few years ago), the Straight Dope® requires that it be noted that damnation is not part of his claim, here.

[Mr.Moto]

@scotandrsn

You clearly haven’t been introduced to Unitarian Universalism

I have. And given the way it has gone over the last several decades (especially since the merger of the Unitarians and the Universalists) I don’t know if it can be described as a Christian movement or church any longer.

Doubtless, its adherents (if they can be called that) would consider this a virtue. But I personally don’t know. In a quest for moral and spiritual truth, a vigorous debate is to be welcomed. And the Unitarian Universalists duck this entirely by handing a formerly Christian space over to Wiccan meetings, and substituting political action for growth in one particular faith.

While they have an important contribution to make to the American spiritual scene, this is by no means a tradition that appeals to me.