God

[qizmoduis]

PAUL,

Good responses there. Even though I'm no longer Catholic, I have often taken a stand against Catholic haters and have explained things the same way you did.

I do have to disagree about separating the church from it's people. In Catholic school, they teach that the church IS it's people. Without the people, there is no church. There can be no separation.

There is no personal responsibility upon churchgoers shoulders for past atrocities. That's silly. A lot of people on MY side try to do that, but not me. I certainly don't intend to give that impression, because such a stance is nonsense, and I think I've made clear in past posts how I feel about nonsense.

However, I do think its important for people of today to understand the root causes of all that nastiness in the past, and even the nastiness happening right now.

Oh, and you're absolutely right, that relgion ALONE isn't the whole problem, but I contend that it is one of the major root causes of most of our problems. Just ONE out of many. I think the world would be better off without religions, but only a little bit.

 

[Cruentus]

O.K....

I did some research on the Inquisition as an institution before it became “The Spanish Inquisition.” I’ll give a brief synopsis:

Before the Inquisition, some of the things that went on leading to the use of “force” in the name of religion:

- Empress Theodora had put to death multitudes of Paulicians: 10th Century
- Emporor Alexius Commenus put to death Bogomilists: year 1118
- Louis VIII of France delegated “punishment” to those excommunicated: King Louis was decreed the year 1226.
- Louis IX of France had fully ordered the burning of “heretics” at the stake: 1249
- In Germany, the “Mirror of Saxon Laws” compiled around 1235 embodied as a law to execute unbelievers “at the stake.”

It is also important to note that in Italy under Emperor Frederick II, at least up until 1224, there was NO imperial law in Italy that mandated torture or stake burning for heretics. This was inspired by writings from Pope Innocent III, and Pope Honorius III.

Right around 1231, the “Inquisition” came to being. This was under Pope Gregory IX, who was elected in 1227 at the ripe age of 80. How and why the inquisition came to being is actually not verified in history, and historians and theologians have different theories regarding the matter.

One thing that is historically verifiable, though, is that during the middle ages there was a constant struggle between the Church trying to maintain control over herself, and rulers and emperors trying to gain control over the church. These emperors wanted to have free reign and wanted to change church doctrine to do so. Due to the heresies that were flourishing in Europe at the time, one theory was that the Inquisition was instituted to curb not just the heresies that the people believed, but heresies that were propagated by the rulers themselves as a means to try to overthrow the Church to hoard power for themselves. This would also explain why Pope Gregory IX excommunicated Frederick II twice, AFTER 1224 when Frederick had instituted his torture and execution of “heretics” policy.

Now was Pope Gregory IX a softy to heretics? No. Records show that he knew of the evils that were going on with the persecution of heretics, but being imperfect and human he was focused on other things. He never mandaded that these evils be stopped like other Popes before and after him. This was his mistake, and no human is perfect. To his defense, though, he was 80 years old and basically having to fight a war, more or less, with certain rulers of states that wanted to overthrow the church. On top of that, death and torture for any crime was the norm in the middle ages.

So, it is important to reinerate that the “torture and death” penalties for heretics were instituted BEFORE the inquisition, and these policies where instituted by the GOVERNMENT who were the emperors of these countries.

It is also important to note that historically for its beginning decades the Inquisition did not prescribe or even allow torture and death penalties for heretics. The Franciscan and Dominican orders were placed in charge of the Inquisition because the hope was that they wouldn’t be politically influenced by the worldly leaders and worldly laws. When the death and torture policies began, they were implemented by the government of the countries in where the heresies occurred. The Persecutions where carried out by the laws of the land, not by the Church itself.

As early as 1254, with Pope Innocent IV, the Church in fact prohibited perpetual imprisonment, torture, or death by the stake from the inquisitions. Similar mandates where given, in writing, by the proceeding Popes (Urban IV, Clement IV, Gregory X, Boniface VIII, etc.). The Laws of the Lands where the Inquisitons where occurring, however, would not allow these mandates to be implemented. The death and torture continued throughout the middle ages, but not by approval of the church.


So….what did we learn?

Although I oversimplified the argument before, the point still stands, and now I am bringing proof to the table. These sins where escalated by mixing Church and State, not by Church alone.

It is important that I clarify that no, Pope Gregory IX was not perfect. Neither was the Inquisitors who, at least after the first Century of the inquisition, probably knew that even though the church wouldn’t be punishing the people who were on trial, that the government of the land would torture and kill those convicted after they had left. Some of these people didn’t just make “mistakes” but they sinned very gravely indeed (in my opinion).

But it stands that these evils were in the hands of the people, and never once was it condoned by the religious doctrines of the Catholic Church. You will find no historical proof or doctrinal statements to prove me wrong on this point.

Once again, you can’t blame the religion for the human pursuit of greed and power. If religion wasn’t used as a vehicle or reasoning for these rulers to pursue greed and power, then something else would have been used instead.

 

[Cruentus]

Thanks for your response. I respect your point of view, even though I (of course) disagree.

Where you think the world would have been better without religion, I feel that the world would have been much, much worse.

But that is just my humble opinion....

:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Paul et al,

Good post on the Inquisition. And when I mentioned it I did not mean that the Church was the only 'evil' of the days. I also did not mention the crusade on purpose for many of the points you mentioned.

Yet, my Question still stands.

Why does the Church think it can decide matters of science?

I mean Galileo was convicted of Heresy only because he wrote and published data from his research, that showed Copernicus's Theories to be accurate or at least to be the best model to date.

So, excluding the human factor of Pope Gregory IX and those that execute the orders of the Church on their own or with the support of the Church, why would the theologians of the day think they were better scientists? I admit that many a school / university was funded in full or partially by the Church, and so being could limit what was taught on those campuses. Yet, they saw fit to prosecute someone for having a different opinion themselves.

So, Let me ask you a question, were not the Romans and Jews the just as 'bad' for prosecuting Christ and the Apostles and Christians for their belief that was different from the norm of the day.


Let me ask another question of you Paul and the others.

Paul you posted that if you put a bunch of people of different beliefs in the same room and ask them questions would not the core be really close to each other?

I continue this thought with the following:

As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?

Could not God in his infinite wisdom wish to tell people his message, and the human in each case that was delivered the message did their best with what they had?

Now for the Atheists, could not they also be on the right track? I mean assuming a normal person of course. I mean if they just live their lives as productive members of society and are good neighbors are they not also on the right path???

Usually they just do not want to be told they are wrong or need to be saved because they have not performed some ritual.

Here is a prime data point I use. Everyone asks me on St. Patrick's Day, where is my Green. Now if you are of Irish Decent and have done your history you would know that the Irish flag has three colors. Green, White and Orange. Green for the Catholics. Orange for the Protestants and White for the Truce between the two. Being on non Catholic Irish Decent I resent the fact that everyone assumes I should wear Green, when the color my family should wear is Orange. So, you see no matter how well mannered you and others are here on this board, every day we Atheists and agnostics run into people who condemn us with the comments and there words all because we do not believe as they do.

Well, that then leads to me stating I am bigger than you prove I am wrong by force, since I am too stupid to understand your way. This leads you to go get friends, and then I get friends with weapons and then your friends get bigger weapons and wars begin. All for the individuals involved yes, but all in the name of someone trying to convince others that they are right and that the others are wrong.


So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.

Now do I think that religion was a completely bad idea? No. Religion was a way to get society to adopt ways and laws that were beneficial to the survival of the whole. Yes many people took advantage of this. The Church did not have a celibacy vow until about 800 AD. The date is rough sorry. The reason was that there had become in existence dynasties of Bishops and Cardinals. The Church took measures here to correct an injustice. Fine, yet this vow was a MAN MADE vow, not a rule of the gospel.

Good Discussion
:asian:

 

[white belt]

Three questions to put things in perspective.

1) When is now?


white belt

 

[Nightingale]

quote: Now, let me look at history, in the Name of God the Copernicus was killed for his science about the world being round and that the earth rotated around the sun. Yes at one time this belief was a crime that the CHURCH required him to be imprisoned. He was slipped Hemlock to allow himself to kill himself and die and not live in jail for the rest of his life.

Galileo was the one imprisoned (he was sentenced to life in prison, but because of his age and ill health, it was commuted to house arrest) for giving more publicity to and expanding upon Copernicus's theory. Socrates was the one who drank hemlock. Copernicus himself seemed to be pretty much ignored. He died at a ripe old age of a cerebral hemorage, and never knew what a stir his theories had really caused.

 

[Nightingale]

I don't believe in organized religion because:

churches are run by human beings, not gods.

human beings have their own personal feelings and agendas, and are inherently imperfect (if there's anyone out there who's never screwed up somewhere along the way, speak up now, cause I'd love to talk to you and see how you do it).

The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves.

I was raised catholic. A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years. He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well). I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor. To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.

 

[Kirk]

I agree. Aside from the history of greed associated with
organized religion, the individual parishes (churches) themselves
are nothing but "club God" where people constantly violate the
"judge not lest ye be judged" phrase of wisdom. Even the
"progressive" churches are cliquish, and make others feel
welcome.

Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
change anything to sit in the house of God.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
I don't believe in organized religion because:

churches are run by human beings, not gods.

human beings have their own personal feelings and agendas, and are inherently imperfect (if there's anyone out there who's never screwed up somewhere along the way, speak up now, cause I'd love to talk to you and see how you do it).

The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves.

I was raised catholic. A close family member of mine was a catholic priest for ten years. He told me many things that went on behind closed doors of the rectory, and these things weren't just happening with a few priests, but the majority (and he was a world lecturer and traveled quite a bit, so he did see a large portion of the catholic church, not just in the USA, but rome and south america and europe and asia as well). I find it hard to sit and listen to a priest giving "moral guidence" when I'm wondering if he's touching the altar boys or f-ing the pastor. To be a moral leader, you must first have morals yourself, and that doesn't seem to be a criteria for a lot of churches, and its very difficult to tell the bad from the good until its too late, so I've decided to muddle through on my own with the help of a few good friends and my own conscience.

None of the problems has anything to do with the teaching of Christianity. The problems lie in the human factor, as you said it yourself. "..The problems I have with religions all seem to stem from the PEOPLE following them rather than the religions themselves..". But nonetheless, you tossed out Christianity alltogether? Not that it is my place to judge you, except that I find your logic illogical

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Kirk
I agree. Aside from the history of greed associated with
organized religion....

Oh really.. Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?

Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
change anything to sit in the house of God

Oh really.... Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him? Please do tell.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There is a saying "God please save me from your followers".

I think that sums things up nicely.

Alot of folks have died over religion. More so have died due to greed and political ambitions.

Witchcraft was an excuse in the 1600's to get rid of those you didn't like, or whose property you wanted.

It was used to remove groups that caused problems for the favored.

Buffalo just dealt with a 'visit' from a group called the 'Army of God'. They hung out in front of a local womans center waving signs that said 'Call a Kopp'. James Kopp is an individual accused of murdering a doctor (who performed abortions) while he was at his home, with his family. He was shot to death in front of his children. These are 'Christians'.

BS.

Folks like that use the idea of a religion to justify their own twisted grabs for a moment of fame. David Koresh and Jim Jones used the system of religion to feed their own greed and desires for sex, power and wealth. There was no 'God' involved.

Just simple human greed.

I've read the christian bible heavily. Its a very good book. Theres a lot of guidelines for living based on the conditions of the day it was writen, and some very basic ideas that seem to be universal.

The Wiccans have a universal rule "Do as ye wish, but Harm None".

Christians and Jews have the 10 commandments.

Similar rules exist in Islam and the other religions and belief systems of the world.

There are certain 'Universal Concepts' that tie them all together.

Jesus Christ is a revered figure in Islam.

Muslims believe that Jesus (also known as Isa'l-Masih, Isa bin Maryam or simply Isa) was born from a virgin named Mary by the power of Allah. He was one of the great prophets of Allah, like Moses, and the last one before Muhammad. He was not the son of Allah, but he was Allah's Messiah, and he will eventually return.

Hindus believe he was an avatar.

Some Hindus go so far as to consider Jesus an avatar of God. (An avatar is an incarnation of God on earth, but not a unique one; Rama, Krishna, and Buddha are tradionally considered avatars. Some say Gandhi was one

Another source states:

Jesus or Jesus Christ , 1st-century Jewish teacher and prophet in whom Christians have traditionally seen the Messiah [Heb.,=annointed one, whence Christ from the Greek] and whom they have characterized as Son of God and as Word or Wisdom of God incarnate. Muslims acknowledge him as a prophet, and Hindus as an avatar (see avatara). He was born just before the death of King Herod the Great (37 B.C.–4 B.C.) and was crucified after a brief public ministry during Pontius Pilate's term as prefect of Judaea (A.D. 26–36).

I disagree with Paul on a few points, but the only one that matters is this:
I think we are all right...or at least, most of us. You can call it heaven, Elesium, Summerlands, etc. You can talk of being 'born again' or 'reincarnated'. There is a truth in there somewhere that is universal...we just get so hung up on finding that 'Right Thing' that we often times blind ourselves to the truth which is in plain view.

There is nothing wrong with Christianity...just the warped perceptions and actions of some of its followers...same is true of most religions. Islam is a fairly non-violent religion....its just that certain groups have warped things based on greed, power, fear or wealth to fan the flames of hate. Both sides are guilty of this. All in the name of a God who I'm certain wishes we could all just get along.

I see good things in alot of the religions...but, I'm happily pagan. One of the perks is Halloween is a major holiday, and, well, we got a heck of a lot of em....over 200+ to be certain. Now...if I could just get paid on those days.

Peace all.
:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh really.. Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1518/13271

Pope John Paul has declared the year 2000 a Holy Year and with that Catholics can once again "earn" indulgences in order to get into heaven faster. Catholics believe they must suffer, to attain a spot in heaven, and by suffering they earn indulgences which leads to a faster trip. ....... Last Sunday the Pope issued what is known as a Papal Bull (ahem!) This Bull contained the provision that indulgences may once again be "earned" (as opposed to bought as they were in the 16th century).

Back in the 16th century, the Catholic Church actually sold indulgences to people hoping to either get into heaven sooner themselves, or get loved ones who had died, out of purgatory. It was the German monk Martin Luther who took exception to this and on October 31, 1517 nailed a copy of his 95 Theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. He chose this day, in part, because November 1 was All Saints Day and he knew that the church would be packed. Martin Luther was opposed to the act of granting (much less selling!) indulgences because he was convinced that the Bible stated clearly that the earning/buying of indulgences was not necessary to attain a place in heaven. It was this act that touched off what we now know as the Lutheran Reformation. As you can imagine the Catholics were pissed. They wanted Luther's head on a platter and he was decreed a heretic. However, this non-suffering, Protestant, way of entering the pearly gates appealed to many people, and they told the Pope what he could do with his indulgences.

Theres more...its a tad sarcastic, and I have to verify a few points, but this basically agrees with what I learned in history class 15+ years ago.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
.....Yet, my Question still stands.

Why does the Church think it can decide matters of science?

I mean Galileo was convicted of Heresy only because he wrote and published data from his research, that showed Copernicus's Theories to be accurate or at least to be the best model to date.

So, excluding the human factor of Pope Gregory IX and those that execute the orders of the Church on their own or with the support of the Church, why would the theologians of the day think they were better scientists? I admit that many a school / university was funded in full or partially by the Church, and so being could limit what was taught on those campuses. Yet, they saw fit to prosecute someone for having a different opinion themselves.

So, Let me ask you a question, were not the Romans and Jews the just as 'bad' for prosecuting Christ and the Apostles and Christians for their belief that was different from the norm of the day.


Let me ask another question of you Paul and the others.

Paul you posted that if you put a bunch of people of different beliefs in the same room and ask them questions would not the core be really close to each other?

I continue this thought with the following:

As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?

Could not God in his infinite wisdom wish to tell people his message, and the human in each case that was delivered the message did their best with what they had?

Now for the Atheists, could not they also be on the right track? I mean assuming a normal person of course. I mean if they just live their lives as productive members of society and are good neighbors are they not also on the right path???

Usually they just do not want to be told they are wrong or need to be saved because they have not performed some ritual.

Here is a prime data point I use. Everyone asks me on St. Patrick's Day, where is my Green. Now if you are of Irish Decent and have done your history you would know that the Irish flag has three colors. Green, White and Orange. Green for the Catholics. Orange for the Protestants and White for the Truce between the two. Being on non Catholic Irish Decent I resent the fact that everyone assumes I should wear Green, when the color my family should wear is Orange. So, you see no matter how well mannered you and others are here on this board, every day we Atheists and agnostics run into people who condemn us with the comments and there words all because we do not believe as they do.

Well, that then leads to me stating I am bigger than you prove I am wrong by force, since I am too stupid to understand your way. This leads you to go get friends, and then I get friends with weapons and then your friends get bigger weapons and wars begin. All for the individuals involved yes, but all in the name of someone trying to convince others that they are right and that the others are wrong.


So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.

Now do I think that religion was a completely bad idea? No. Religion was a way to get society to adopt ways and laws that were beneficial to the survival of the whole. Yes many people took advantage of this. The Church did not have a celibacy vow until about 800 AD. The date is rough sorry. The reason was that there had become in existence dynasties of Bishops and Cardinals. The Church took measures here to correct an injustice. Fine, yet this vow was a MAN MADE vow, not a rule of the gospel.

I will just touch on a few points.

1. Try to separate the things that relate to the human factor. You only need to ask yourself if the issue at hand is what Jesus had taught us or it is the people running the church who created it. Jesus said Love thy Father and love thy neighbors. He didn't teach about Inquisition, witch hunt nor crusade.

This is like if you practice Hapkido. But your instructor happens to be a crook with poor ethic and molests teenagers. You don't ditch Hapkido. You ditch the instructor and his school. Blaming Hapkido would be illogical. But that is EXACTLY what people typically do when it comes to Christianity.


2. Some religious people are judgemental. Some are not. Some martial art people look at non-martial people with contempt. But not all are that way.

There are honest, decent and honourable buddhists, muslims, atheists, wiccams (sp) etc. There are crooked and deceitful Catholics (although we are sure these are not true Catholics )

Religious affiliation is like Mcdojo blackbelt. Anyone can have one for the asking. It says nothing about the character of the person.


Do I have special respect for truly religious people? Yes, for those who do not flaunt it but rather practice it out of their own heart. Just like I have special respect for martial art practitioners who practice the art quitely and do not flaunt their blackbelt or credential. For when people do something out of their hearts, they have to be true to themselves. Every religion teaches us to be a kind and compassionate person. Just like no martial art teaches us to assault and maim people.


3. Ezekiel 25:17 "..Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...." I find this reflects the essence of martial art practicing.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1518/13271

Theres more...its a tad sarcastic, and I have to verify a few points, but this basically agrees with what I learned in history class 15+ years ago.

Shame on you Bob. Talk about selective retention! You conveniently left out what this "indulgence" is about.

Here is what you left out. "....As a Catholic you are encouraged to avoid smoking and drinking, give to charity (the Catholic Church?)[sarcastics remark is from the author], visit people in the hospital or in prison and you too can earn your way into heaven..."

There is this severe distortion of the intent of the Catholic church in this regard. The idea is that we must follow the steps of Christ in action, not in lip service. You must do your share to live up to "... shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.." to be "... his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children...".

The non Catholic christians believe in redemption by your own acceptance of Jesus as your personal saviour, ie redemption by grace. The Catholics emphasize redemption by deed. In their truest sense, both routes are two sides of the same coin, for Jesus said, "carry my cross and follow my steps" and He tended to the poors, the sick, and rejected the rich but greedy etc. He set the example of what to do. He also said "The Father and I are ONE. No one comes to the Father but through me."

As for what the Church did back then that caused the great schism that resulted in the rise of all other denominations, LMAO, that is EXACTLY like what has caused martial arts to branch off into different branches and styles!! Politics, ego, and money!! LOL

 

[Bob Hubbard]

by Johnathan Napalm
Shame on you Bob. Talk about selective retention! You conveniently left out what this "indulgence" is about.

The author seemed a bit 'hostile', and I was focusing more on the 16th century versions, rather than the new 21st century versions, which I had hoped PAUL would clarify after reviewing the link as you did.

I'm not anywhere near to knowing whats what in the current catholic church as the last time I was in one was at my sons christening 11+ years ago.


:asian:

 

[white belt]

Originally posted by white belt
Three questions to put things in perspective.

1) When is now?


white belt

?

white belt

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
The author seemed a bit 'hostile', and I was focusing more on the 16th century versions, rather than the new 21st century versions, which I had hoped PAUL would clarify after reviewing the link as you did.

I'm not anywhere near to knowing whats what in the current catholic church as the last time I was in one was at my sons christening 11+ years ago.

Understood.

Now look at the Jubilee Indulgence that the contemptuous author so objected to and see what basis his contempt is based on.

Quoted from the Papal Bull he cited. http://www.catholic.net/linksframe.phtml?link=http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pope/y2k-uk.html

"...Likewise confirmed for the coming Jubilee is the norm whereby confessors can commute, on behalf of those legitimately impeded, both the work prescribed and the conditions required.(24) Cloistered men and women religious, the infirm and all those who for whatever reason are not able to leave their own house, can carry out, in lieu of a visit to a certain Church, a visit to the chapel of their house; should even this be impossible for them, they can gain the indulgence by spiritually uniting themselves with those carrying out the prescribed work in the ordinary manner and by offering to God their prayers, sufferings and discomforts. With regard to the required conditions, the faithful can gain the Jubilee indulgence:

1) In Rome, if they make a pious pilgrimage to one of the Patriarchal Basilicas, namely, the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, the Archbasilica of the Most Holy Saviour at the Lateran, the Basilica of Saint Mary Major and the Basilica of Saint Paul on the Ostian Way, and there take part devoutly in Holy Mass or another liturgical celebration such as Lauds or Vespers, or some pious exercise (e.g., the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the recitation of the Akathistos Hymn in honour of the Mother of God); furthermore, if they visit, as a group or individually, one of the four Patriarchal Basilicas and there spend some time in Eucharistic adoration and pious mediations, ending with the “Our Father”, the profession of faith in any approved form, and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. To the four Patriarchal Basilicas are added, on this special occasion of the Great Jubilee, the following further places, under the same conditions: the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, the Basilica of Saint Lawrence in Campo Verano, the Shrine of Our Lady of Divine Love, and the Christian Catacombs.(25)

2) In the Holy Land, if, keeping the same conditions, they visit the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, or the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem or the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth.

3) In other ecclesiastical territories, if they make a sacred pilgrimage to the Cathedral Church or to other Churches or places designated by the Ordinary, and there assist devoutly at a liturgical celebration or other pious exercise, such as those mentioned above for the City of Rome; in addition, if they visit, in a group or individually, the Cathedral Church or a Shrine designated by the Ordinary, and there spend some time in pious meditation, ending with the “Our Father”, the profession of faith in any approved form, and prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

4) In any place, if they visit for a suitable time their brothers and sisters in need or in difficulty (the sick, the imprisoned, the elderly living alone, the handicapped, etc.), as if making a pilgrimage to Christ present in them (cf. Mt 25:34-36), and fulfilling the usual spiritual and sacramental conditions and saying the usual prayers. The faithful will certainly wish to repeat these visits throughout the Holy Year, since on each occasion they can gain the plenary indulgence, although obviously not more than once a day.

The plenary indulgence of the Jubilee can also be gained through actions which express in a practical and generous way the penitential spirit which is, as it were, the heart of the Jubilee. This would include abstaining for at least one whole day from unnecessary consumption (e.g., from smoking or alcohol, or fasting or practising abstinence according to the general rules of the Church and the norms laid down by the Bishops' Conferences) and donating a proportionate sum of money to the poor; supporting by a significant contribution works of a religious or social nature (especially for the benefit of abandoned children, young people in trouble, the elderly in need, foreigners in various countries seeking better living conditions); devoting a suitable portion of personal free time to activities benefitting the community, or other similar forms of personal sacrifice......"


LMAO! Yeah, HOW GREED FILLED, EVIL this Indulgence is! How can any sane person find this Indulgence morally objectionable?

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Kirk
I agree. Aside from the history of greed associated with
organized religion....

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Oh really.. Care to elaborate on that and share with us some examples that are uniquely related to organized religion and not related to any other organization?

The "Holy" Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition to be specific.

And on a broader scale, the religions (i'll finger point and say
Southern Baptists, Mormons, and Jehova's Witnesses) that say
"to earn passage to heaven you must go forth and witness".
Translation: Go get more people to join us, so they can pay their
tithings on Sunday.

Where I live, in South Texas, and ALL of Mexico was occupied by
Spain, by order of the Pope to convert the "heathens" to
Catholicism. Mexico was RIPE with gold.

Originally posted by Kirk
Jesus himself hung with lepors, hookers, theives and the like.
He never told anyone he was above them, or that they had to
change anything to sit in the house of God

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Oh really.... Did he just tell people to keep on going on their merry way and all would be cool at the end just because they hung with Him? Please do tell.

Jesus hung with THEM was the point I was trying to make. But
since you asked, no he didn't tell them that (as if you didn't know.
your patronizing attitude is just being ignored). But he also did
NOT tell them "you must go to church and put your money in the
plate, and turn your nose up to those that wear jeans in church,
or the man that's not freshly shaved, or the man that has a bit
of b.o. ", and so on.

 

[fist of fury]

Well I was attempting to saty out of this thread but it's still going on and I can't resist.

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz

Christians and Jews have the 10 commandments.

What I always find funny is that most do follow the 10 commandments. You know there are actually 613 commandments ment to be followed. But the western church only focuses on the 10 of them LOLOL

 

[fist of fury]

Ok then everybody let me ask this what makes somebody a christian? Belief in the christian God? going to church? following the 10 commandments?