Vow of poverty. I’m taking the same one they did!
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Gotcha | There’s A Little Zombie In Everyone Next »
VOW OF POVERTY
» 114 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Life, Liberty, Pursu… on How Far We Haven’t … Teal Deer on THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES waggle237 on Keeping the Internet Hone… waggle237 on Keeping the Internet Hone… waggle237 on Keeping the Internet Hone… Selenis on Royally Busted Selenis on RIP Florence Green, Aged … airkerma on Prop 8 Ruled Unconstituti… neoritter on How Far We Haven’t … neoritter on How Far We Haven’t … 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
GIF: Bunneh Don't Care
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
*HERE'S A THOUGHT: LEMME OUT!*
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Still Too Cute to Eat
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
The Song of Our People
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Oh Peanut Butter, You Crazy
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Reader Squees: Sleepy Netty at Three Months
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
BANJOVI
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Apple Pie
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Mayo You Make An Awesome Sandwich On This Day
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
I Shouldn't Have Gone Back To Burma...
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Katy Perry Totally Looks Like Paula Deen
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Chocolate Spoons
must be the wrong church the caption means
I’m pretty sure that’s monks you’re thinking of; Cardinals don’t take that vow. Besides, all of that stuff belongs to the church, not to them individually. Funny fail.
I thought cardinals started off as priests, then got promoted up the ranks thought it was not possible to enter the elergy as a cardinal.
if so, then that vow of poverty (as well as celibacy) had already been taken at the time they became cardinals.
as far as who or what owns it…
if it is provided for their use, like the CEO’s who drive company-owned porches and live in company-owned Manhattan penthouses, they still enjoy that level of luxury.
We’ve had this discussion before, actually. I had thought as you do, but someone pointed out that I had been misinformed.
Priests don’t take vows of poverty, monks do. So priests can and do own property.
Also, as far as I know, it’s still technically possible to enter the ranks as a cardinal. (It certainly was well into the Renaissance.) You can definitely enter as pope. (There are provisions for that.) That said, it’s not like it’s actually done as far as I’ve ever heard.
Actually, that’s not quite right — the vow of poverty comes from the religious order (e.g. Jesuit, Franciscan), not the ministerial order (i.e. becoming a priest). Monks will have taken vows of poverty, because you have to join a religious order to become a monk, but so will priests, bishops, etc. who’ve joined those same orders.
There are actually a few orders that don’t require vows of poverty, but that’s neither here nor there.
“There are actually a few orders that don’t require vows of poverty, but that’s neither here nor there.”
Well, it is both here and there, because I wanted to point that out after your first paragraph, and adding that caveat ROBBED ME OF MY CHANCE. You have VICTIMESED ME!!!! BOOOHOOO!
Show us on the doll where the bad conservative touched you.
Thanks! This so saves the day.
Now, if you’ll just remind me where you touched me, I’ll mark those regions with this glointhedark pen, and then we can really party!
mainly religious priests take a vow of poverty. secular priests don’t. some of those cardinals may be religious priests and would have taken the vows, however they do not own that building or the things in that room.
Oh yeah, great excuse. I imagine myself sitting in an awesome palace while the majority of the masses lives in slums and declaring “Oh, I am the poorest of all men, actually. These are in fact the riches of the people, I’m just keeping an eye on it.” Funny thing is, other than the cardinals (who receive fat paychecks) the Pope *really* doesn’t have an income because he gets everything granted.
Additionally, Avaritia (Greed), Superbia (Hubris) and Vanagloria (Vanity) are three of the seven Cardinal Vices. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly classifies Modesty as one of the “first fruits of the eternal glory”.
I don’t know about the Pope, but cardinals (in Rome, at least) are paid 4,000 Euros a month, or about $60,000 a year at current exchange rates. Even assuming that’s all untaxed, 60 grand a year is hardly “fat”.
And before anyone asks, as far as I know, the church only covers their housing and their “official” expenses — everything else, including personal expenses and staff, is their responsibility.
In Germany, the child-beating, lies-spreading, atheist-hating and involvement-in-the-holocaust-denying Bishop Mixa was paid 7,900 € a month. That’s more than twice the average gross income of a regular German citizen. And this money is not given by the church, but taken from the taxpayers! Considering that he is not serving the state and additionally enjoying whatever sweets the Catholic Church has to offer him, he basically gets about 8k Euros for doing *nothing* for the taxpayer. That is a fat paycheck in absolute as well as in relative terms.
Read up on the German church tax, please. And tone down the hyperbole if you don’t want to be written off as a crank.
Actually, Cuddlee is absolutely correct. His salary is paid from regular taxpayer money, not out of the church tax.
Cite, please — I’m curious.
Honestly, I have about 2-3 articles but they are all in German.
The clergy here is paid by the state directly – this is on top of the church taxes that the gvmnt collects for the church.
It has been through pretty much all news channels here (regardless of bias).
If you’re interested in the German ones, I can try to find them again.
Yes, please. Let’s see what Google Translate can do.
{http://hamburg.business-on.de/steuermittel-mixa-bischof-gehalt-zahlung-staat-_id25890.html}
{http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2010-04/16673441-panorama-bayern-will-gehalt-fuer-bischof-mixa-weiter-aus-steuermitteln-zahlen-007.htm}
{http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/deutschland/Mixas-Opfer-lehnen-Entschuldigung-ab_aid_847059.html}
{http://www.focus.de/panorama/vermischtes/mixa-bayern-zahlt-weiter-gehalt_aid_500520.html}
They are from a variety of sources, the last one is very right-wing (for Germany).
In the second one, there is this sentence:
“Das Gehalt von Bischof Mixa wird nicht aus Kirchensteuern finanziert, sondern kommt direkt aus dem Bayerischen Staatshaushalt. Dieser Umstand beruht auf Verträgen, deren Ursprung im 19. Jahrhundert liegt. Im Zuge der Säkularisierung wurde die Kirche enteignet, dafür wurden regelmäßige Zahlungen des Staates an die Kirche festgelegt.”
Translated, that means (Roughly): His salary is not financed out of church taxes, it is paid by the bavarian state. This is due to contracts from the 19th century in which the church was disowned as part of secularisation and in return, the state guarantees regular payments to the church.
The guy himself is actually pretty horrible, far far far right wing within the church, beat children, is somewhat crazy in his statements, denies the holocaust etc.
Hence the outrage here in Germany that we still have to pay him. The church parked him somewhere comfy.
Oh and i just read in the last source, he apparently also used 10.000 Euros from an orphans fund to buy antuquities for himself.
Unfortuantely, the statute (sp?) of limitations ran out on that one (legally) so they can’t touch him on that one – but politically they could (but for some reason they didn’t) – the bavarian prime minister could revoke his charter (same contract) but he didn’t so far. Bavaria is run by fairly conservative, religious party (Christian social union) – again the “social” here has nothing to do with socialist, this party is part of our conservative mainstream party.
Hmm, interesting…thanks.
If you have articles, what is the source of the articles – what kind of publication. Nothing says that things printed have to be true or are propaganda free.
Im sure there are ‘articles’ that someone could find that state that Obama isnt just an Illegal Alien, but that he isnt even human (being black etc…) There are probably plenty of racist newspapers and websites that have ‘articles’ along those lines.
Sure, nothing is real, it’s all in your head.
Go back to your bridge.
$60,000 tax-free per year? that’s “hardly ‘fat’ ” ?
I am a retired teacher. never made anywhere near that.
$60,000 per year for one person is hardly poverty!
I’m so glad you said that, because it lets me correct a common misconception on what a vow of poverty actually is. It’s *not* a vow to become poor, but rather to sharing everything communally. Someone who takes a vow of poverty renounces ownership of all his posessions and dedicates everything he has to the common good of the religious order he joins.
Don’t give me that argument until after you’ve worked out the value of your multi-million-dollar pension and your generous public sector benefits. A $40k/yr teacher can easily have a total compensation north of $100k.
Ah, but then the teacher would also have to calculate in the unpaid hours of grading, lesson-planning and reference letter writing, and the un-reimbursed supplies which are necessary for teaching…but somehow never budgeted for by the school systems.
And honestly? I think school teachers SHOULD make $100K. They are that important to society.
Police officers too. A 4 year degree in law would be nice for the people in charge of enforcing it.
You mean that the $25K starting salary for a NYC Cop (btw they have to live within the city limits) isn’t ample? Surely you jest? You know who else deserves more money, the military.
What unpaid hours? Everywhere I’ve ever lived, teachers are salaried — they’re paid to get the job done, not to punch the clock. Un-reimbursed supplies, while regrettable, are a rounding error in total compensation over the course of a career.
I agree — exceptional teachers should have the ability to earn $100K+. The problem is that clueless bureaucrats, overpaid school administrators, and greedy unions have established a system where incompetence is protected and achievement is punished.
you need to check the facts with the federal laws regarding hours and wages.
salaries are supposed to be based on the40-hour work week. any time over that is supposed to be paid extra, even if the employer says it isn’t. most people don’t know about this, and those who do simply don’t pursue it because they need the job. “working off the clock” is a national disgrace.
You are overlooking the Part 541 exemptions from FLSA.
{http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_29/Part_541/toc.htm}
Minimum wage and overtime provisions don’t apply to exempt salaried employees (and there are specific criteria for defining who is exempt).
Typical. You enjoyed a job with practically guaranteed employment, guaranteed above-average raises, generous benefits, a generous pension — all funded by growing chunks of my shrinking paycheck, mind — yet you look down on me.
But they only work about 2/3rds a year.
(Mom and sis are teachers, give them hard time about it)
in Texas, teachers work 190 days a year. that’s 38+ weeks. much more than 2/3 of workdays per year. and if you count by hours, they work more that 40 hours a day, 52 weeks a year. a lot more.
what state do you live in? sounds like some of my friends who are not yet retired might like to move there.
That’s the norm for the several places I’ve lived in the US.
I’m in Texas. no such total compensation here.
what state are you in? I’d like to tell my friends who still are teachers where they can go to get that kind of compensation.
You’re more familiar with the Texas system than I am, so please, break down a typical teacher’s compensation for us.
Sarcasm fail.
But Lachlan, why let facts and logic get in the way of a good Catholic bashing?
Yes! Facts and logic – the church’s two main guiding principles!
But seriously – this thread should be fun to watch. We already have 3 cursaders, now waiting for the atheist contenders.
I am not an atheist, but facts are facts.
I am Protestant, but I know there are many Protestant clericals who also do not follow the teachings that they should.
There are numerous false prophets… living in excessive profits/
Yes, that is actually one of the reasons why Martin Luther broke with the catholic church and lead the protestant movement.
Of course you have facts when it comes to the religous organisations, but not when it comes to religion (it was a jab at that).
I actually agree with you and I have no problem with religion. I do have a problem with the organisations that seek to enrich themselves and to control people through their faith (any religion, I am not making exceptions).
Technically he wasn’t trying to break with the church but to reform the existing church. Also, OOTB, there’s only one way to deal with protestants! *unexpectedly pulls out the Spanish Inquisition!*
Ah please, not the comfy chairs!!
Noone expects a spanish inquisition!
but when that didn’t work, he formed Lutheranism
and was allowed to marry in his new denomination.
Spanish Inquisition… is that when waterboarding started?
*runs away to plot with Paws4thot and Naliord against inquisitions*
I’m an atheist, but this poster is…meh…
Don’t get me wrong, I love bashing religion, just with unassailable facts, not with half-assed assumptions.
That said, why does the catholic church, or any religion need all that finery?
Seems that money could be better spent on feeding the hungry and helping the poor…
The Vatican has an insane amount of wealth – the highest per-capita wealth in the world.
When you think of all the good they could be doing with that money …
I know what they’re doin with all that money, spending it on hush money for pedo-priests.
The idea is that the church, as the house of God, should be resplendent enough to match the majesty of Him, or something along those lines.
Whoever came up with that BS, was pretty shrewd, lol.
IF there is some omnipotent deity out there, you think he/she/it/them, give a flyin’ f*ck about material things, or what happens on this planet?
I’m goin out on a limb here, but I’m thinkin, no, not so much.
People are such sheep.
Shows us on the doll where the bad church touched you.
If that is their reasoning (or the reasoning of any who claim to represent the christian god and then spend money in such a fashion), then they disregard their own manual:
“Heaven is my throne and Earth is my footstool; what house could you build for me?” (Isaiah 66:1)
Pffft, they cherry-pick the parts they want to use, all the inconvenient stuff, forget it, that’s not what jebus really meant.
You do realize that that room was probably built back in the Renisance time period, and the current Chruch hasn’t built anything to that extent in decades if not centuries. But what would facts have to do with your obvious distain for the Catholic Chruch and all to do with it. Go ahead and spout you’re hate, and realize you are no better than “them”. Good day sir.
So you’re saying double standards and wasting money are okay if it sufficiently satisfies the megalomaniac desires of the power elite? And a person who’d rather invest the money and labor in spreading education, improving sanitation and fighting poverty among the people is “no better”?
When did he say anything about double standards and wasting money to build big and shiny things being ok, he simply specified that those things were built eons ago and as such current money donated to the church wasn’t used on their construction. By putting “them” in inverted commas, I assume he was indicating that Blarney’s bigoted, hate mongering rant was equivalent to how Blarney perceives the Catholic church, which isn’t what it’s like in actuality. I rather doubt Blarney has completed any notable humanitarian acts and just feels like ragging on the Catholicism, anyway.
As far as I know, the church has never apologized or regretted what it has ever done (stopping condemning Galilei in 1992 doesn’t count). So it takes full responsibility for its deeds in the past, especially if it uses and profits directly from them nowadays, too. And by making use of it today, they are admitting that the pomp is absolutely ok with them.
As for the aid, you are already superior to the church if you just don’t do any harm at all. And if you actually fight for human rights, you are even out of competition. Hell, terror organizations also take care of the families of homicide bombers. Does that let them become cute selfless humanitarian aid groups? Or are they rather investing a little bit of their money to ensure an endless supply of cheap labor, good PR and political as well as social influence?
Cause if not, then Saddam Hussein was a saint. He paid $10,000 each to relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations, while the family of a Hamas suicide bomber could easily get twice and a half the amount. What a nice chap!
John Paul II spent most of his pontificate apologizing for what the Church had done back in the day. It’s just that no one paid attention to him. Because really, when is the pope paid any attention except when he says comments that taken out of context appear to be controversial. And have you never heard of Archbishop Oscar Romero? He was killed because he was into social justice and spoke out against the authoritites. Obviously the Church isn’t perfect, and some of the people in it are terrible people, but the majority of them aren’t. It just that no one focuses on them
you are so right.
I will never forget I picture of the Pope at the Wailing Wall. very moving.
and I saw the movie “Romero.” at the movie’s end, I just sat there, unable to get up and leave the theater for a full five minutes. it was overwhelming.
and Romero wasn’t/isn’t the only one. my daughter has told me the name of the religious/political movement…. Liberation Theology.
I read somewhere that the reason old churches were decorated so lavishly ws that in those days there were no public museums, art galleries, and such. All the fine artwork was in the hands of nobles. By decorating the churches with such works, it gave even the poorest person a chance to enjoy such beauty for a least a couple hours a week (and also drew the crowds in, and gave them something to look at during the boring latin Masses). Of course, no good deed goes unpunished, and over time this richness became a symbol of the wealth and power of the church on earth over the average peasant. Ergo, the iconoclastic practices of the more radical reformers.
And the vow of celibacy?
Priests do not necessarily take vows of poverty. Some religious orders do, but not all priests.
As was mentioned above, not all RC clergy have to take a vow of poverty, only members of vowed communities do. Secular priests–from whom most of the Cardinals come–do not take vows of poverty.
As for “all that could be used to feed the poor”–if you will check the Gospels, that suggestion was made when the woman anointed Jesus. Consider which of the disciples said that; hint–not one with whom I would care to be identified. And the Roman Catholic Church is one of the largest, if not THE largest, providers of humanitarian aid on the planet.
Who cares about who made what suggestion in the gospels? Though,
I assume you’re referring to Mary Magdalin (sp?) in some sort of creepy way.
The RCC may be the largest provider of humanitarian aid on the planet, they’re also the biggest bunch of hypocrites, pedophiles, and liars.
Blarney, the disciple that said that was obviously Judas Iscariot. Mary Magdalene was not one of the twelve.
The Catholic Church is not perfect since it is full of imperfect humans but her teachings on faith and morals are free from error. Judging by recent media attention, one would think that the Church is full of pedophiles as well but in fact the Church has the lowest rate of child sexual abuse (obviously any is still terrible though) at about 1%. Other Christian churches have rates of 5-10% and even occupations such as teachers, police officers, etc. have higher rates of sexual abuse (the highest rate is still family members and close friends). Statistically speaking, children are safest around Catholic priests.
Thanks for the clarification Brandon.
Excuse me, but that’s the REPORTED rate. Given the documented way the Catholic Church has covered up the pedophilia, why would we accept that as valid?
Given the documented ways you invent, discard, and twist facts to support your point of view, why should we accept your insinuations as valid, either?
Unless you’re arguing with something stronger than “proof by authority”, that is.
I see you’re back to stalking people.
“Excuse me, but that’s the REPORTED rate”
Same goes for all other statistics about any other group you could name.
Well, when you consider that the Catholic Church has been exposed for deliberately concealing so much pedophilia, don’t you think it probably IS under-reported? It’s hardly as transparent as some of the other professions referred to, which have public oversight. That said, I don’t think pedophilia is any more prevalent in the Catholic Church than any other comparable group. I just don’t think it’s any LESS prevalent. There is just a certain percentage of sick people out there, who will, unfortunately, comprise part of any group you pick.
He’s referring to Judas. Judas was the one that complained about the woman pouring perfume on Jesus feet.
And you as well lewie.
Jesus Was Rich
The wise men from the East made Jesus wealthy at his birth. n the book of Matthew in Chapter 2, the kings came to him, and they bought him gold, frankincense and myrrh.”
Jesus wore expensive clothes: In the 19th chapter of John’s Gospel, the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus are depicted gambling for his “seamless” undergarment. If his clothes were a poor man’s clothes, why would centurions gamble for it?
Mark 14:3-7. Jesus is dining in the home of Simon the leper in Bethany when a woman came with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure spikenard and broke the vial and poured the contents over His head. There were some that were indignant and said, “Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred pence, and the money given to the poor”. Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to me. For the poor you always have with you , and whenever you wish, you can do them good: but you do not always have Me.” Jesus did not count Himself among the poor because Jesus was not poor!
The Bible says that He [Jesus] had a treasurer-a treasury (they called it “the bag”); that they had one man who was the treasurer, named Judas Iscariot; and the rascal was stealing out of the bag for three-and-a-half years and nobody knew that he was stealing. You know why? Because there was so much in it, He couldn’t tell.
Jesus had a nice house, a big house big enough to have company stay the night with Him at the house. Let me show YOU His house. G0 over to John the first chapter and I’ll show you His house. Now, child of God, that’s a house big enough to have company stay the night in. There’s His house.
Eccelasties 10:19, “Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and Money answers everything.”
Jesus worked as a carpenter up until the time he was 30 or so. He may have had some money, but I doubt he was exceedingly rich. Also, many things were given to him by rich people who followed him all his life. What would you give someone that raised your daughter from the dead? The key is, he didn’t hang on to these things or seek them. He trusted His Father to care for Him. He was the one that said “And why ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the fields, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.”
Quite possible actually. “Carpenter” didn’t mean the same thing then as it means now. Lower/middle class free-men would have made their own furniture and done their own woodwork. A professional carpenter would have been an artisan crafting high quality, richly designed pieces for nobles and merchant barons. Joseph, and later Jesus himself, may not have been insanely wealthy, but poor? Not likely, and possibly quite comfortable financially.
cite, please
Gardner, 2001, p. 27
Craveri, 1967, p. 6
Starbird, 2003, p. 53
Please note, I’m not suggesting Jesus did not understand poverty. Galilee was a rather poor outlying province and he likely would have been surrounded by it and understood it quite well, but more likely second hand. The term tekton implies a master craftsman or at the very least a middle class artisan.
I am really interested int these cites. I confess I am ignorant of how to find them with the information you supplied.
could you give me full names, and the names of the works?
they sound like very interesting reading.
and, yes, I do agree that he himself could be affluent and still sympathize with poverty. Buddha did.
Carpenters also build buildings and it was a family dbusiness so there were probably uncles who also were part of it.
Big or specialty projects may only come around infrequently and may have required travel to other areas for that work.
Also many people DONT have the skill or the time to do everything themselves and so buy consumer grade items including those carpenters make.
My grandmother had a very modest house. it was about 1700 sq. ft., had 2 bedrooms and one bath. but the family was poor,and visiting relatives couldn’t afford to pay for a hotel; so we put “pallets” of quilts down on the floor, and guests spent the night in a small, modest, inexpensive house.
The Roman Catholic Church is the largest ANTI-humanitarian aid on the planet.
Fixed
Ask yourself, what have you done for humanity? You’re clearly bigoted as what other reason would there be to continuously insult the works of the Catholic Church. Pathetic.
That’s like people saying “DO IT BETTER” if you point out that Iron Maiden tend to lose their rhythm whenever they reach their melody climax. Stop being a fanboy. :p
I don’t protect child molesters, I don’t subjugate women, I don’t keep people poor and ill, I don’t deny humans basic rights and I don’t terrorize men by threatening them with eternal torture if they don’t succumb. I do quite the opposite actually.
Yeah, I know, you think that’s pathetic. Always these annoying liberals planting crazy ideas like “human rights”, “freedom” and “equality” into the vulnerable minds of the subjects. What will we devils come up with next, separation of state and church?
Human rights… to those you agree with. Those evil Conservatives must be silenced because they’re bigoted homophobic haters. Tolerance exists only for those you’re willing to tolerate.
Freedom… to do what you want, when you want, and if anyone says it’s wrong then you “can’t legislate morality”. Laws are there to be bent.
Equality… a lie used to subjugate the majority to the will of the minority. Being a white male makes you guilty of racism. The proof does not matter, the accusation is enough to convict.
The ideals that liberals profess crumble under the weight of human nature, and the above tends to be the result. Human nature is to dominate, control, oppress, and destroy. Christ told his disciples to turn the other cheek when struck, to suffer evil rather than seek revenge, and to be humble before God and men. Sin is the only thing intolerable to God. Can you tolerate your enemies, and forgive them their transgressions against you? Can you live and let live, or do you seek to silence those you disagree with? Do you judge, and demand to not be judged?
“Human rights… to those you agree with.”
That’s your philosophy, yes. And until you are even able to grasp, let alone willing, that not everybody thinks the way you think, you will never understand the liberal concept of freedom. You will rather think it means to do whatever you want and whenever you want, so that you have to pay no regard to the freedom of others.
All in all, there is little use of arguing with people who favor totalitarian systems. The premises and goals are so vastly different to liberalism that there is no common ground. For someone who is driven that much by fear and the lust for power, the freedom of the others is hindering and threatening his strive for putting his lobby in absolute control.
“Human nature is to dominate, control, oppress, and destroy.”
No, that’s Christian philosophy. Human Nature is to pursuit security, wealth and preferably pleasant emotion. Liberals do recognize this common ground and understand that one doesn’t have to hunt down every dissident, and that it’s even harmful, to them as to us. But one has to possess strength and wit for this insight. And it’s easier and – in short term – more effective to suppress or eradicate those who dissent than even defending their right to do so like liberals do. No wonder people rather choose the former path than the latter one.
No actually that’s human nature. Yes, occasionally people within the Church do display it, but that is because they are human and imperfect. Usually you don’t label an institution after seeing the bad one percent of it. And yeah, the Church definitely takes out all opposition. That’s why some albino monks are gonna show up at your door right away. Can’t have anyone diss the Church ever. And what is the liberal concept of freedom? Because as far as I can tell, it seems to be doing whatever you want whenever you want, with no moral compass involved
You know nothing of my philosophy as I have not stated it. You’ve played the classic recrimination game. You’re an admitted liberal, and you behaved exactly the way I expected you to, and exactly the way I’ve observed liberals behave when confronted about the hypocrisy of liberalism in practice vs liberalism’s professed ideals. *sigh* I really wish liberals would engage in introspection instead of projection.
I do agree with you on one thing, though, that there is little point in arguing with people in favor of totalitarian systems. I will also point out that you did not veil your character assassination attempt very well. I do not favor totalitarian forms of human government. That was a rather intolerant assumption on your part. You did leave enough room to wiggle out and deny that you accused me. I’m not ignorant of how the game is played. I am not here to play debate games with you, only to help you understand how you are wrong and why.
Let me explain to you a few things about what I think, since you’re ignorant in this matter. I think people have the right to worship what gods they will, or not, so long as they don’t deny others the same rights. I believe in equal protection for all people under the law, regardless of race, birthplace, gender, sexual orientation, or religious preference. I believe government exists to serve the people and secure the rights of the people that are given to them by their creator. I believe that those who govern must be held to the highest standards by the law, and never be considered above it. I believe that people have the right to live the way they want and be left alone so long as they do nothing to harm or infringe upon the rights of others. I believe that those who do, by deliberate and willful act, infringe upon the rights of others in violation of the law should be prosecuted and punished. I believe people have the right to defend their lives and property and to own the means to do so effectively. If this is what you call intolerance, then I would like to know why you think thus.
As for what Christianity teaches, yes, human nature is to do evil. It is also the truth, for history bears witness to the oppressive and evil nature of man. It is no coincidence that human history is marked by the beginnings and ending of wars, rather than the beginnings and endings of times of peace. When have humans not been warring for one reason or another? Man claims to be higher than animals, yet animals do not harm their own species in the way mankind does. Man is certainly unique, yet I would not take pride in that if I were you. Christianity also teaches that God knows human nature, and knew than man could never crawl out of his own mess on his own, so he stepped in and took the penalty for man’s sins so that man could be redeemed – IF man repented of evil and chose to serve God’s will above his own. What is God’s will? Jesus gave only two commandments – love thy God with all they heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself. THAT is the Christian message. You can bring up anything else in the bible you want and attack Christian belief if you like, but John 3:16 and 3:17 are the entire point of it all. Are Christians perfect in practice? Of course not. Nobody is. I can say this much though. If you consider the Christian message of love and forgiveness to be intolerant, do not worry. I cannot, nor would I even if I could, force you to believe anything that you do not want to. It is entirely up to you to choose what to believe, and I hold that right to be completely sacred, the same as I do for my atheist and agnostic friends.
Arrogance coupled with Ignorance….
With dim brained genes like yours it might be better for humanity if you WERE ‘fixed’.
See too it at you earliest convienence.
The church has killed many people who spoke out against authorities and preached and lived pacifism. That’s
Huh? That wasn’t supposed to be sent. A butthurt rant because I insulted one’s love for totalitarian ideologies by advocating freedom doesn’t deserve any answer at all.
Good to see you are ok and just hit “reply” too quickly.
As any other political organization. Btw those who transformed the Church in such organization were late roman emperors, in particular Theodosius I. The rest is history, as the palace in the picture.
Perhaps is the emperors’ tampering that brought us this troublesome church.
Don’t hope to be able to say anything controversial with your childish views.
OMG they got Cuddlee!
A propos des “rancons”, ils n’ont pas besoin d’argent pour le faire. ils cherchent à récupérer leur parent qui sont en milliers dans les prisons israéliennes . “Ils les tuent”, par contre ils sont bien traités lorsqu’ils les captures(leur religion leur exige cela).(la preuve “Shalite est-il mort?”non, car il vaut plus cher quand il est vivant). Réveilles toi Baby. Je sais que t’es aveugle pour voir la vérité. Mais essaye quand même. Pour Finir, pour toi ce sont des terroristes et “résistants” sa n’existe pas dans ton dictionnaire? Que Dieu te guide vers la lumiere qui va paraitre claire un de ces jours. Il y a difference entre Hezbollah, Hamas(résistants) et AlQaida(terroristes).
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?
Talk English, you cheese eating surrender monkey! I’m guessing you’re talking about racoons (“rancons”), prisons, Israel, a baby, Raptor Jesus, the meme(même), and Alqaida. I’m a multilinguist!
really? you could have fooled me.
Zinageuka alikuwa na kitu cha kufanya na post, funny hiyo.
Quack.
The chickens have left the nest. Repeat: the chickens have left the nest.
Kijk, als iedereen hier z’n eigen taal gaat praten, krijgen we een tweede toren van Babel, en da’s niet goed.
This is an English speaking community. Choosing to post in French makes you either ignorant or arrogant. Whichever it is – feck off, you arsehole.
Not this again…
Usual ignorance and ignorant religious belittlement.
Vow of poverty (actual poverty as in wearing rags and eating trash/begging, cold hermit cells) isnt taken by many in the Church.
Also no one shown there actually owns anything seen in the picture.
well dont happen either at catholic. back then they take money for sin which leads to split
Monks dont live not so! :O
Diocesan priests (most priests) don’t take a vow of poverty. Priests who belong to an order (not very common) may in fact take one though. Nuns and monks do, however, take the vow as well.
1. Only the consecrated religious, i.e. monks and nuns, take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. These are known as the evangelical counsels as the religious seeks to conform to Christ who was poor, chaste, and obedient. Notice ‘counsel’, not ‘law.’ The clergy, on the other hand, who are not members of a religious order are expected to be chaste, obedient and live simply, but may own property.
2. None of those men in the above photo actually own any of the Vatican treasures. Those belong to the Church (including the laity.) Remember it was monasteries which housed libraries during the Dark Ages, thus preserving not only texts but literacy as a whole in the West. It was Church which was responsible for the upkeep of the poor in the days before welfare. (When Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and redistributed their wealth among the nobility, this hurt the poor dearly and ultimately led to the creation of the English “workhouse.”) It was also the Church which commissioned the great artists of the Renaissance.
3. The following is an excerpt from G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy. ” I highly reading the book or any of his books.
“I wished to be quite fair then, and I wish to be quite fair now; and I did not conclude that the attack on Christianity was all wrong. I only concluded that if Christianity was wrong, it was very wrong indeed. Such hostile horrors might be combined in one thing, but that thing must be very strange and solitary. There are men who are misers, and also spendthrifts; but they are rare. There are men sensual and also ascetic; but they are rare. But if this mass of mad contradictions really existed, quakerish and bloodthirsty, too gorgeous and too thread-bare, austere, yet pandering preposterously to the lust of the eye, the enemy of women and their foolish refuge, a solemn pessimist and a silly optimist, if this evil existed, then there was in this evil something quite supreme and unique…Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leaness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has already been admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape.”
Extraordinarily well executed writing…
You could not be more precise!!