The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

hailskins666 wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:I understand that different people may have different religious beliefs or even none. I respect all positions. But I also expect others to respect mine.

Today is a very sad day in my life due to the loss of the Head of my Church. A man that I admire profoundly and worship with all my heart.

I do not expect you to understand it if you do not feel the same way. I only ask sensitivity and respect towards my feelings and the feelings of many millions of people around the entire world who feel the same way.

Thanks in advance.

RiC

you're welcome in advance.


another bible thumpin priest who lived it up. a man simply good at his job..... passing around the offering plate. all of em make me sick. wonder if he went north or south? hell, i should become a priest, then i could live in a phat house, and do nothing but spout garbage out of my mouth and sit on my fat ass the rest of the time.

Not cool dude. I'm not a catholic, so I don't agree with a lot of their dogma, but the man deserves some respect. And as for insulting preist like that, you have no idea all the work they do behind the seens. Yes they pass the collection plate, but other than a very paultry salery (we all have to live), they money is spent on the same people who donated it. Many preist/ministers/reverends work far longer and harder weeks than people in any other proffession (think Joe Gibbs type of dedication), but make less than a public school teacher. So regaurdless of your religious veiws, show a little respect.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I understand that different people may have different religious beliefs or even none. I respect all positions. But I also expect others to respect mine.

Today is a very sad day in my life due to the loss of the Head of my Church. A man that I admire profoundly and worship with all my heart.

I do not expect you to understand it if you do not feel the same way. I only ask sensitivity and respect towards my feelings and the feelings of many millions of people around the entire world who feel the same way.

Thanks in advance.

RiC

I'm sorry for your loss man, but the Pope was suffering. Try to be happy that he is HOME in Heaven

I can understand how Catholics might be touched by this ocassion, but I wonder why the media feels like it's SOOOOO important to the rest of us. I mean, there are far more Muslims in the world than Catholics, but everything the Muslim leadership does isn't plastered all over the media.

Well, not for nothing, but this whole "jihad" thing gives Muslims a bad name right now.


Note this: I am aware that 90% of all Muslims are very peaceful. They are just getting a bad rap.

I think the media makes such a big deal out of the Pope's death becaues he played such a huge roll in the evolution of politics as we know it now. He always kept a firm line on views such as abortion, wars, America's capitalistic nature, etc. 60 minutes is doing a special tonight about his lasting impact on the world....that should be pretty interesting to watch.

And he did quite a bit for Poland before he was the Pope. I may not give a rat's patoot that a Pope died, but a good guy died too.

Okay, Taz. I see what you mean.

farg the pope.

Personally... I can't understand the sadness... don't the catholics think that the pope is going to a 'far better place' any way?

Doesn't this mean that now you can pray to this man that you're going to 'miss' so much?

I mean I know it's a catholic's job to feel guilt 24/7 but come on...

I agree that Pope John Paul the man did a lot to make his church more unified and to fight atrocities in the world.

My problem is with the position of pope. Whomever is elected to that position is treated as a god, which directly conflicts with the 10 commandments that are the basis of religion.

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:50 am
Post subject:

I can understand how Catholics might be touched by this ocassion, but I wonder why the media feels like it's SOOOOO important to the rest of us. I mean, there are far more Muslims in the world than Catholics, but everything the Muslim leadership does isn't plastered all over the media.

I think the media makes such a big deal out of the Pope's death becaues he played such a huge roll in the evolution of politics as we know it now. He always kept a firm line on views such as abortion, wars, America's capitalistic nature, etc. 60 minutes is doing a special tonight about his lasting impact on the world....that should be pretty interesting to watch.

First off, to those who have felt the loss of the pope's death, my condolensces.

Now, in response to the above quotes...

I couldn't help to think that the intense media coverage of this event plays an important part in the playing out of endtime prophecy.

After all...

Since when is it okay to provide round-the-clock coverage of "religious" occurences?

7 days out of the week, the major networks NEVER EVER utter the word Jesus, yet they'll devote a whole day, and more, to the Pope??

While, yes, Catholicism is one of the major religions and the pope's passing would be of interest to the 60 million+ Catholics in the US, I can't shake the feeling that "Religion" is being brought into the limelight for reasons other than to commemorate the passing of an icon.

The Bible talks about a great leader who will rise up and deceive the masses.

Currently, hundreds of millions of people across the globe are without their "leader", and are looking to fill the vacancy/void.

Could this be the moment were a "religious" leader of great power could rise to power and influence in this world. This leader would have a huge following waiting in the wings.

The Pope left a huge legacy, with all the good social works he did...could someone ride that same way to "gain the trust and admiration" of a huge populace?

"Religion" is being cast out into the limelight through politics and social issues.

Perhaps the media might be a vehicle through which we will witness those things that long ago were prophecied.

Something to think about.

JansenFan wrote:I agree that Pope John Paul the man did a lot to make his church more unified and to fight atrocities in the world.

My problem is with the position of pope. Whomever is elected to that position is treated as a god, which directly conflicts with the 10 commandments that are the basis of religion.

I thought the same thing, that "worship" of the pope breaks the second commandment, so I did a tiny bit of looking around.

According to this entry in the Wikipedia (free online encyclopedia), Catholics understand the second commandment ("You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...") to mean "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

That is to say, they've apparently done away with the whole false idols thing. I suppose that isn't as important in a world where polytheism is rare and Judeo-Christian beliefs are so pervasive.

I'm pretty sure that's the first commandment

cvillehog wrote:

JansenFan wrote:I agree that Pope John Paul the man did a lot to make his church more unified and to fight atrocities in the world.

My problem is with the position of pope. Whomever is elected to that position is treated as a god, which directly conflicts with the 10 commandments that are the basis of religion.

I thought the same thing, that "worship" of the pope breaks the second commandment, so I did a tiny bit of looking around.

According to this entry in the Wikipedia (free online encyclopedia), Catholics understand the second commandment ("You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...") to mean "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

That is to say, they've apparently done away with the whole false idols thing. I suppose that isn't as important in a world where polytheism is rare and Judeo-Christian beliefs are so pervasive.

Wait....you mean they changed the 10 commandments in order to suit their needs?

JansenFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

JansenFan wrote:I agree that Pope John Paul the man did a lot to make his church more unified and to fight atrocities in the world.

My problem is with the position of pope. Whomever is elected to that position is treated as a god, which directly conflicts with the 10 commandments that are the basis of religion.

I thought the same thing, that "worship" of the pope breaks the second commandment, so I did a tiny bit of looking around.

According to this entry in the Wikipedia (free online encyclopedia), Catholics understand the second commandment ("You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...") to mean "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

That is to say, they've apparently done away with the whole false idols thing. I suppose that isn't as important in a world where polytheism is rare and Judeo-Christian beliefs are so pervasive.

Wait....you mean they changed the 10 commandments in order to suit their needs?

Since the Catholic Church has used the same interpretations of the Ten Commandments since long before the Reformation, I'd have to say that it's the Protestants who've changed the Ten Commandments to what you recognize.

Any differences in beliefs regarding the 10 commandments (from Jewish to Catholic / Orthodox to protestant faiths) are (I believe) in interpretation only, and not the text itself. As far as I know, each faith uses the exact same Hebrew text for the 10 commandments, even though they come to different conclusions sometimes about the exact meaning of it. Mostly, like the article cvillehog referenced, the differences in belief have to do with organization (as in, what constitutes a commandment, how many there are, what patterns we see in them, etc.)

So, Catholics haven't changed any commandments (as far as I'm aware). I also don't think that they believe that the Pope is God, or a god, or anything that would rival / be equatable to God. In their belief, he will sometimes speak on behalf of God, but that doesn't make him one. (please correct me if I'm wrong on this. . .I'm just responding to other messages that I saw)

Finally, curveball, as a good protestant I would have to answer that (in general) beliefs from the reformation(s) came about precisely because people (such as Luther) felt that the Catholic church had strayed from doctrine which would have been held by the early church. So, for instance, were the Catholic / Protestant faiths to disagree on something like an interpretation of the 10 commandments, Catholics might say that their beliefs extend from before the reformation; but protestants would just say that they were returning to beliefs that predated Catholic ones in biblical, historical Christianity. Just a point of disagreement, I suppose.

All I am getting at is that the first commandment basically states that....

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Does this strictly pertain to worshipping a statue of god or the heavens as opposed to god himself, or it is interpretted as to not worship anyone or anything other than god himself.

It seems to me that when someone meets the pope, the first thing they do is kneal before him and kiss his ring. The 1st commandments says do not kneal before or worship anyone but me.

Seems like a direct contradiction to me. Am I interpretting this incorrectly?

JansenFan wrote:

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them. . .

Does this strictly pertain to worshipping a statue of god or the heavens as opposed to god himself, or it is interpretted as to not worship anyone or anything other than god himself.

It seems to me that when someone meets the pope, the first thing they do is kneal before him and kiss his ring. The 1st commandments says do not kneal before or worship anyone but me.

Seems like a direct contradiction to me. Am I interpretting this incorrectly?

(general disclaimer)The following is going to be my perspective, so make sure to take it with a shaker full of salt. . .


The 1st commandment often gets expanded in scope by those who are teaching it. For instance, Jesus says that it is the greatest of all commandments (and that the 1st, with the companion statement to love one's neighbor as one's self essentially sum up the entirety of the law. . .). I've heard many that makes statements like "putting anything above God in priority makes it an idol." In that sense, if I (even as a Christian) value my stuff or my desires or my accomplishments more than God, I've essentially broken the 1st commandment. (We see rather quickly that everyone has broken it, and often). That's one interpretation of its scope. . .it tends to go far beyond a strict literal reading of the text. So it's not that I make sure that I'm never literally bowing down to wooden statues, but rather that I'm making sure that I've always got the Lord as the first priority in my life.

As for how this applies to the Pope / believers that see him, I'm not sure. For instance, is bowing down before someone out of respect (and even kissing their ring) literally worshiping them? Can a person simultaneously say that the Lord is God while still paying respect to someone on earth in a religious way?

I've read a few statments in the news of people saying that they worshipped the Pope with all of their heart.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that Catholics don't worship him (because of their beliefs regarding God) as they worship God. It would get into semantics at that point, but I guess what I'm saying is that I'd see the basic difference being (a) worshiping God by acknowledging that He is Lord over everything (and all that this statement entails) on the one hand, and (b) "worshiping" or bowing before the Pope due to respect for who Catholics believe he is (God's mediator and sometimes His spokesperson). So when the commandment says "not to kneel," what God is saying by that is that one should not treat anything else as God. And since the Catholics believe that the Pope is not God, it's not an act of worship in that sense.

That doesn't look like a necessary contradiction to me, JF, (does it to you?), even though the language for each act does get close. . .maybe there are some Catholics on the board that could help clear things up.

I guess I just see all this coverage that his death is getting on the various news networks, and I have yet to find one that has mentioned god other than in passing.

Two million people are expected to go to Rome for the funeral, can someone tell me (and I'm not being a smartie, I just don't know) how many people visited Jesus on the cross?

I understand that we have better modes of transportation, more access, real-time news, etc, etc, etc, just curious about the numbers.

Two million people are expected to go to Rome for the funeral, can someone tell me (and I'm not being a smartie, I just don't know) how many people visited Jesus on the cross?

Not many. . .most of the people present on that day were glad that Jesus was being crucified. His followers had mostly scattered, afraid for their lives.

But, aside from transportation issues, no one really understood at the time that Jesus was being crucified the significance of the event. Catholicism is pretty well established, but I'm willing to be that there are many more people who would (if possible) see Christ being crucified than to visit the Pope in his final hours.

Point taken on the media coverage. . .I think his major political involvements / humanitarian efforts are more the cause for this kind of attention than the fact that he was the Pope.

George Will's column today is a pretty good example (I think) of the kind of attention that John Paul II is getting.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/geor ... 0403.shtml

It talks about religion (mentions God in passing), but the focus is on the Pope being a good man, having firm convictions, and making political progress, etc.

I heard a clip on the news of Bush talking about speaking with the Pope regarding the Iraq war. In that sound clip, he refered to the Pope as the "Holy Father." I thought that was a name for God. Of course, President Bush could've mis-spoke. He was speaking extemporaneously from what I could tell, and was doing his best to give due respect to the deceased Pope. My question is, is that really what they call him? "The Holy Father"? Or was that a slip of the tongue?

I have heard a lot of people, including members of the clergy refer to him by that name, and that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread. Guess I never actually typed it though...

They call him that so you know he's the one in the whole gaggle of them that didn't diddle anybody's kid. The holy one.

Maybe he was really a girl (i.e. an extra hole).

I guess then he woul be the holey father. Nevermind.