Pope Francis, Catholics, and Christians in the news worldwide
"
The seven sayings of Jesus from the Cross…..
- Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
- To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
- Woman, behold, thy son! Behold, thy mother!
- My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
- I thirst.
- It is finished.
- Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.
also recommend watching video included in link—
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/learning-how-to-mourn-again-on-good-friday/
mtierney said:
- Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
- My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
This is the part that is truly heartbreaking. Imagine a father who would stand by and let his child be slaughtered in such a fashion. Shades of Abraham and Issac.
There is much in the teachings of Jesus that is admirable but the Passion of Christ is one of the primary reasons why I could never ever be a Christian.
GoSlugs said:
This is the part that is truly heartbreaking. Imagine a father who would stand by and let his child be slaughtered in such a fashion. Shades of Abraham and Issac.
There is much in the teachings of Jesus that is admirable but the Passion of Christ is one of the primary reasons why I could never ever be a Christian.
Sorry to put it this way, but one has to be very under-informed to think that’s a point.
There are a lot of good resources to learn more about the background and meaning of the events and teachings.
nohero said:
Sorry to put it this way, but one has to be very under-informed to think that’s a point.
There are a lot of good resources to learn more about the background and meaning of the events and teachings.
Sometimes a crucifixion is just a crucifixion. I have heard these arguments about context and what not my whole life and I have to say that I find them utterly unconvincing.
That said, after 2,000 years of the best and brightest in the West polishing this little nugget, having been brought up in a society where a Christian POV is the default, I can see how you might think I am under informed.
I hope that doesn't sound to hostile, while I am appalled by the evil organized religion in general and Christianity in particular have done over the last two millennia, I do understand that many individual Christians, be they folks like you or even Pope Francis himself, are well intentioned. And I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue on a subject that seems to be of the utmost importance to believers while, at the same time, appearing to be utterly absurd and harmful to non believers.
There was a time in my life when I, for various cultural and personal reasons, tried very hard to find some sort of truth in Christianity but, ultimately, the words on the paper just got in the way. Stories like the Flood, the rape of the Midianites, the murder of the Egyptian first born and the Crucifixion were just too much to bear, no matter how much believers tried to wrap them in pleasing metaphor.
ETA: What I probably should have said right at the beginning is that I am not commenting on what you believe about the text, I am commenting on the text.
Even today, I occasionally dip into the subject and I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation on subjects like the Flood and atonement via substitution.
So, a Happy Good Friday to you, sorry for the long winded explanation of my take on the text.
What I probably should have said right at the beginning is that I am not commenting on what you believe about the text, I am commenting on the text.
GoSlugs said:
Sometimes a crucifixion is just a crucifixion. I have heard these arguments about context and what not my whole life and I have to say that I find them utterly unconvincing.
That said, after 2,000 years of the best and brightest in the West polishing this little nugget, having been brought up in a society where a Christian POV is the default, I can see how you might think I am under informed.
No, by "underinformed" I meant that your summary of Christian belief and teachings wasn't an accurate summary of what all Christians believe. By way of example, when I read Christopher Hitchens, and his summary of the God he doesn't believe in, I can say that I don't believe in that God either. Hitchens starts with a fundamentalist reading of scripture, and doesn't move beyond that to understand what any other Christian thought is. So, in the end, he's not critiquing Christianity, he's critiquing his model of what Christianity is.
A writer named Terry Eagleton, who describes himself as an atheist, has a very good book on that type of thinking (he argues against who he calls ""Ditchkins", a combination of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins). This is from the very start of the preface, right at the beginning -
"I therefore have a good deal of sympathy with its rationalist and humanist critics. But it is also the case, as this book argues, that most such critics buy their rejection of religion on the cheap. When it comes to the New Testament, at least, what they usually write off is a worthless caricature of the real thing, rooted in a degree of ignorance and prejudice to match religion's own. It is as though one were to dismiss feminism on the basis of Clint Eastwood's opinion of it. It is with this ignorance and prejudice that I take issue in this book."
nohero said:
No, by "underinformed" I meant that your summary of Christian belief and teachings wasn't an accurate summary of what all Christians believe. By way of example, when I read Christopher Hitchens, and his summary of the God he doesn't believe in, I can say that I don't believe in that God either. Hitchens starts with a fundamentalist reading of scripture, and doesn't move beyond that to understand what any other Christian thought is. So, in the end, he's not critiquing Christianity, he's critiquing his model of what Christianity is.
A writer named Terry Eagleton, who describes himself as an atheist, has a very good book on that type of thinking (he argues against who he calls ""Ditchkins", a combination of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins). This is from the very start of the preface, right at the beginning -
"I therefore have a good deal of sympathy with its rationalist and humanist critics. But it is also the case, as this book argues, that most such critics buy their rejection of religion on the cheap. When it comes to the New Testament, at least, what they usually write off is a worthless caricature of the real thing, rooted in a degree of ignorance and prejudice to match religion's own. It is as though one were to dismiss feminism on the basis of Clint Eastwood's opinion of it. It is with this ignorance and prejudice that I take issue in this book."
Again, I was responding to the text, not to someone else's belief about the text. In that sense, I suppose I am taking a fundamentalist approach to the whole thing (although I am certainly not an adherent to fundamentalist christianity).
That said, when you tell me that there is a detailed and nuanced explanation for this story (Father sends Son to place where Father knows Son will be murdered and then allows Son to be murdered, even though Father is imminently capable of stopping said murder), I don't think "that sounds potentially convincing". In other words, Christians (by which I mean, as a minimum, people who believe in the Nicene Creed) start in a pretty deep hole. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
All of which is not to say that I am challenging you to convert me. This is all just a long winded way of explaining why I find the story of the passion freshly horrifying each time I come across it (usually, once a year).
nohero said:
No, by "underinformed" I meant that your summary of Christian belief and teachings wasn't an accurate summary of what all Christians believe.
Again, I was responding to a text that was posted by mtierney, not what a wide variety of people might (or might not) believe about that text.
There are people who can write eloquently about why they think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a good and meaningful movie. That doesn't mean the movie itself isn't objectively horrible.
GoSlugs said:
That said, when you tell me that there is a detailed and nuanced explanation for this story (Father sends Son to place where Father knows Son will be murdered and then allows Son to be murdered, even though Father is imminently capable of stopping said murder), I don't think "that sounds potentially convincing". In other words, Christians (by which I mean, as a minimum, people who believe in the Nicene Creed) start in a pretty deep hole. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
It's not even that "detailed and nuanced". You reference the Nicene Creed - in the Creed, and in the Gospels, and in the other New Testament writings, there's the important "nuance" that Jesus is God. And Jesus has "full agency" to choose to go forward with what happened.
As for your "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" analogy, you're arguing my point. You would respond to the fan of the movie with a discussion of the ethnic stereotypes that underlie the story - understanding of the "text" which affects your view of it.
nohero said:
It's not even that "detailed and nuanced". You reference the Nicene Creed - in the Creed, and in the Gospels, and in the other New Testament writings, there's the important "nuance" that Jesus is God. And Jesus has "full agency" to choose to go forward with what happened.
I only referenced the Nicene Creed as a way to delineate main stream modern Christians but, in terms of content, I think it is worth noting that the homoousian ideas contained within the Creed were, by no means, universal or even dominant amongst early Christians. The Arians, for example, believed explicitly that Christ was a separate entity from God. While the Arians and a dozen other "heresies" were exterminated by Constantine and his successors, there are still sects today that hold this belief including (so I am told) the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Belief in the Trinity of the Nicene Creed may be dominant today but I don't think you can say that it is the only (or even the most likely) reading of the Gospels without raising a number of objections.
For those unfamiliar with the Creed, as well for those who are so consumed by hatred…
Catholic version
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
My ties to Catholicism are pretty loose at this point, though not cut. I see religion more from a cultural/anthropological viewpoint than as something making truth claims, and I do think that like many cultural systems and practices it can have a lot of value and is important to many people (and of course, like all systems and practices and institutions, can also cause much harm).
But one thing I personally have always really valued about Christianity is this central story of ultimate power voluntarily sacrificing itself. That's the abstract meaning the Crucifixion holds for me, and an important lesson I think. When you consider the way humans tend to pursue power and sacrifice other people in that pursuit -- and we discuss specific instance of this plenty on these threads, from Putin to Musk to Trump (all in very different degrees of course -- burning a social media platform to the ground is obviously not remotely in the same category as invading and occupying a neighboring country) -- the central story of Christianity featuring an omnipotent deity voluntarily becoming mortal and limited, and then further voluntarily accepting death, that's quite something to contemplate.
If the people who make it a point to loudly declare their Christianity took that story more seriously, I probably wouldn't feel the need to keep as much wary distance from the Church as I do.
mtierney said:
For those unfamiliar with the Creed, as well for those who are so consumed by hatred…
That's the Anglican translation ("We believe ...") For those unfamiliar with the Catholic translation ("I believe ...), see: The Nicene Creed (usccb.org)
mtierney said:
For those unfamiliar with the Creed, as well for those who are so consumed by hatred…
There is only one person here who is consumed by hatred and it is you.
But - if we’re all Gd’s children, then how can anyone be angry that Jesus is called son of Gd?? I’ve never understood this point, and got a satisfactory answer from either a philosophical or theological POV.
Also, I’ve never understood how, in John, all this can happen on Erev Pesach when there’s so much to do especially for the Priests and especially in the Temple. This was in a non-automated age on one of the three most important holy days in our calendar - you’re scribe/reporter is telling me the High Priests and most of the city’s men neglected their obligations to dawdle around a legal case, and a rabble rouser, and they’re leaving the city to watch an execution instead of supervising the mandated final searches for for breadcrumbs, mikveh, priestly preparations, high services etc so people can be home by 3pm??? Ridiculous and totally unbelievable.
(Oh, BTW, have I ever mentioned that my Uncle traced our family tree back to these times? We have a lot of prominent teachers and writers in this branch. Yep, we’re related to the daughter of Hillel, therefore to Hillel who has been identified as Jesus’ teacher on his first visit to the Temple with his parents)
GoSlugs said:
mtierney said:
For those unfamiliar with the Creed, as well for those who are so consumed by hatred…
There is only one person here who is consumed by hatred and it is you.
Hmm... Based on some recent posts, I'm not so sure of that. Cut mtierney some slack, guys! I personally don't see the need to attack someone in the middle of one of their biggest holidays no matter what you think of them.
ridski said:
Hmm... Based on some recent posts, I'm not so sure of that. Cut mtierney some slack, guys! I personally don't see the need to attack someone in the middle of one of their biggest holidays no matter what you think of them.
Well, I for one, do not think Nohero is "consumed by hatred". His well reasoned and thought provoking responses to my earnest questions over the last three days about the Flood, the Trinity, and the nature of Christ/God's sacrifices have been a refreshing change from what normally gets posted on this thread.
If you can't talk about theology on a theology thread, what can you talk about?
Oh, this is a slight worry!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-08/pope-francis-misses-night-procession-good-friday/102202150
I do hope the Pope is alright. And this is just a sensible precaution for his health.
joanne said:
Oh, this is a slight worry!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-08/pope-francis-misses-night-procession-good-friday/102202150
I do hope the Pope is alright. And this is just a sensible precaution for his health.
After having bronchitis he’s not going to be out in the cold. It’s been really cold in Rome recently.
Be kind, dear readers, my decision (resolution) some 40 days ago, to post a reading or the daily Gospel for each day has been both rewarding, educational, and frustrating— almost all three at the same time!
I have been a Catholic for a very long time — baptized in 1932! Received Holy Communion some seven years later, and confirmed when I was 12. The ultimate in Catholic ceremonies was my wedding in 1954!
This journey has been a trial for me, a natural born Luddite, who learned to type on an Underwood upright typewriter — and back in the day when “cut and paste” meant exactly that.
mtierney said:
Joanne, the reason CNS has for his absence is “very windy weather” —
Mtierney, they opened the coverage by saying that due to the intense cold temps he would be following the progress from the Vatican. I’ve read elsewhere it’s been down to 4°C at night this week, which is pretty cold. If you add in winds, most people would find it uncomfortable, I suspect… I know my former clients, while quite remarkable and active for people in their 80s and 90s, are quite wary of extreme temperatures and draughty places. I hope your Lent has been spiritually renewing, and Good Friday/Easter brings peace, hope and harmony to your family & community.
After this, Joseph of Arimathea,
secretly a disciple of Jesus for fear of the Jews,
asked Pilate if he could remove the body of Jesus.
And Pilate permitted it.
So he came and took his body.
Nicodemus, the one who had first come to him at night,
also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes
weighing about one hundred pounds.
They took the body of Jesus
and bound it with burial cloths along with the spices,
according to the Jewish burial custom.
Now in the place where he had been crucified there was a garden,
and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been buried.
So they laid Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation day;
for the tomb was close by.
- -