One of the greatest ironies relative to the primitive thinking Catholic mind-set is the recent fact that Pope Francis stated that all Atheists are heaven bound!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html
Yes, we laugh at the primitive faith of Catholicism, and reject their mythical heaven where one is to be confined within a 1400 square mile area with its 60 foot walls, walking and talking with the Jesus character for eternity, and where there will be absolutely no women, period!
BUT, here’s the rub. Think of the poor Catholic that has to hide from the embarrassment of their pedophile priests that buggered innocent children, their subsequent embarrassing coverups, and 5 BILLION paid out thus far in reparations. Then as if this wasn’t enough, the Catholics have to follow their comical pagan rituals like putting 10% in Sunday’s plate offerings, that in part go to pay off their pedophile priest problems, where they metaphorically eat and drink Jesus’ blood and flesh, and all of other pagan stuff the flock has to follow on a weekly basis, and then knowing that the Atheist is heaven bound without having to do these Bronze and Iron Age cultist rituals! LOL!
Barring the fact that Pope Francis is conveniently rewriting the Catholic bible in other areas, if his edict was followed to the letter, then there is no reason to be a Catholic! I wonder if Francis ever thought of this notion as he signaled to the masses that you don’t really have to be a primitive thinking Catholic to meet Jesus in heaven? Probably not.
I’m telling you, Christianity should go on the road as a comedy Vaudeville Act, it would sell out each performance! What member of this site could play Jesus? Is the pseudo-christian Randy Carson still around?
“CRAP, what did I just say?"
Catholisism died off in my family with my grandmother. After giving them thousands of dollars in her life (she lived to 94) when she needed their help the most there was nobody home for her. If memory serves me right she was 90 when she finally gave up on them. Better late than never I guess.
amazing how ignorant people can be.
1. the "post" did not share everything the Pope said.
2. Everyone including huffington just missed Catholic teaching - in order to get to heaven you have to accept God. At death our hearts/intents are judged.
If sin pushes us away from God then how would a sinful person accept God in their final hour or judgement?
That which is the church & it's sacraments is to help maintain a good life. based on this information among other topics - if one were to go up against an obstacle it is better done with right tools. or at least this is concept many Catholics have and there is nothing illogical about wanting or having proper tools for a job.
3. Bible isn't being rewritten by the Pope.
4. Not everything the Pope says is infallible teaching. Catholics are open to consider some things the Pope says as critical thinking.
5. you describe various parts of Catholicism incorrectly. I am not surprised. it is a complex thing.
6. there would be no embarrassment in knowing a body of humans are not immune to doing the wrong thing. that person must attend to their action just as I do.
Sad and unfortunate that a person would take their own path rather our Lord's path when they themselves claimed they would walk the path of our Lord.
However. for a world where God does not exist, even an atheist can be as some may have been a pedo.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on July 10, 2016, 01:07:45 AM
Catholisism died off in my family with my grandmother. After giving them thousands of dollars in her life (she lived to 94) when she needed their help the most there was nobody home for her. If memory serves me right she was 90 when she finally gave up on them. Better late than never I guess.
How unfortunate. what do you mean there was nobody home for her?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Yeah, not everything the pope says is ex-cathedra. So don't get your hopes up on joining their afterlife-club.
Also you got another thing wrong: they don't metaphorically eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, they do it LITERALLY! See the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Quote from: randomvim on September 11, 2016, 03:45:14 AM
How unfortunate. what do you mean there was nobody home for her?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
My church experience correlates ... people go to church for themselves, not for others. Specifically so that they can feel good about themselves, and be entertained by the show. Back in the day, there was no other regular show in town to go to. When it comes to helping others, at least in the US in modern times, church people aren't bad people, but their individualism and parochialism prevents them from actually acting like Jesus in the world. Did you ever see the movie Joshua ... about Jesus coming back to the Southern US ... visiting with the various church folks, and then a surprise visit to the Pope on the way out. At least that time he didn't get crucified for this troubles.
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
My church experience correlates ... people go to church for themselves, not for others. Specifically so that they can feel good about themselves, and be entertained by the show. Back in the day, there was no other regular show in town to go to. When it comes to helping others, at least in the US in modern times, church people aren't bad people, but their individualism and parochialism prevents them from actually acting like Jesus in the world. Did you ever see the movie Joshua ... about Jesus coming back to the Southern US ... visiting with the various church folks, and then a surprise visit to the Pope on the way out. At least that time he didn't get crucified for this troubles.
Sounds like an interesting movie, I'll check it out.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 11, 2016, 10:26:52 AM
Sounds like an interesting movie, I'll check it out.
Yeah, there are definite possibilities with that scenario, but one that can get really stupid very fast. I'm going to check it out also. I might be interested.
Vera Farmiga: The movie has got something of merit.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/joshua
(https://resizing.flixster.com/FxshIQmr8vvpU_f87zhp5XdHPJU=/682x1023/v1.bjs3NjY0OTc7ajsxNzEyMDsyMDQ4OzEwMDA7MTUwMA)
Quote from: Jack89 on September 11, 2016, 10:26:52 AM
Sounds like an interesting movie, I'll check it out.
If there were a Jesus, and he was like in the movie ... he would be awesome! A real uber-mensch ;-)
This was a movie ... made from a series of popular books from the 1980s. In the later books ... he is magically going from Rome to Jerusalem, so sort things out there between the Israelis and Palestinians. I think because the scene shifted from the US to the ME ... it was of less interest and more controversial for US readers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnQP97M1DY
Two different Joshua movies 2002 (yours) and 2007 (the one I reviewed). I don't think the two plots have anything to do with each other. Mine was a horror flick. Yours was, well... I'm still not sure if it's inspirational or interesting.
That's a pretty old article, and what he said is basically Vatican II stuff, circa 1964. Catholic doctrine states that theirs is the best way, but non-Christians can finds salvation if they follow the way of God. To summarize, if you do good, you can find heaven. Nothing wrong with that idea.
Contrary to popular belief, pedophilia has never been condoned by the Catholic Church. People used to turn a blind eye to it, which is unforgiveable, but it's never been accepted. Nowadays you go to jail and your priesthood is stripped from you if you're a priest. To say the Catholic faith is bad because of pedophilia is like saying children's sports or public education is bad because of pedophilia. We need to do whatever we can to prevent it, wherever it may occur.
The Catholic faith is complex and filled with metaphor and allegory, which is something that I quite enjoy. Even those practices that are taken literally, like the Eucharist, have multiple undertones.
If you don't like what you think it represents and don't want to explore further, fine. They're not forcing you. They wont come after you and throw you off a building if you're gay, they wont burn you if you're a witch and they wont throw stones at you if you commit adultery.
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2016, 10:51:27 AM
If there were a Jesus, and he was like in the movie ... he would be awesome! A real uber-mensch ;-)
This was a movie ... made from a series of popular books from the 1980s. In the later books ... he is magically going from Rome to Jerusalem, so sort things out there between the Israelis and Palestinians. I think because the scene shifted from the US to the ME ... it was of less interest and more controversial for US readers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnQP97M1DY
Of course, this Jesus is white. Why am I not surprised? Other than that, it looks really corny, but I'm surprised by some of the recognizable talent in the movie. They even got Michael W. Smith to write music for it.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 11, 2016, 11:28:03 AM
Of course, this Jesus is white. Why am I not surprised? Other than that, it looks really corny, but I'm surprised by some of the recognizable talent in the movie. They even got Michael W. Smith to write music for it.
The critic reviews I seemed to choose out of the lot, seemed to think the movie didn't offer much. Although, I still think the scenario has possibilities. Instead of a kind and well meaning newcomer getting rejected by the town's religious leaders with their own motives, how about an evil Jesus with an entirely different plan, one which reveals itself and startles everyone as God's actual plan that is contrary to what everyone had assumed. Something that points out how little mankind and the great theologians actually know about who God really is. Something that underscores the need to verify things that have no proof, before assuming them to be benevolent.
Quote from: SGOS on September 11, 2016, 11:50:58 AM
The critic reviews I seemed to choose out of the lot, seemed to think the movie didn't offer much. Although, I still think the scenario has possibilities. Instead of a kind and well meaning newcomer getting rejected by the town's religious leaders with their own motives, how about an evil Jesus with an entirely different plan, one which reveals itself and startles everyone as God's actual plan that is contrary to what everyone had assumed. Something that points out how little mankind and the great theologians actually know about who God really is. Something that underscores the need to verify things that have no proof, before assuming them to be benevolent.
Oo! Imagine if that twist was hidden, and it attracts all of the Christian movie-goers to see it. I could imagine their heads exploding in the theater.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 11, 2016, 11:59:39 AM
Oo! Imagine if that twist was hidden, and it attracts all of the Christian movie-goers to see it. I could imagine their heads exploding in the theater.
I imagine Christians pouring out of the theater holding their heads, crying, lamenting, and pleading for forgiveness, while vomiting on the sidewalk, and finally rioting, smashing store fronts, setting fire to parked cars, and stoning strangers.
But turnaround is fair play. I have rented movies more than once or twice after reading the descriptions, only to find out I had rented an advertisement for Jesus. I don't like to be baited and switched, especially when I end up footing the bill and supporting more propaganda. It's unethical, except if you believe Paul's glorifications of bearing false witness in the name of promoting Christianity.
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
My church experience correlates ... people go to church for themselves, not for others. Specifically so that they can feel good about themselves, and be entertained by the show. Back in the day, there was no other regular show in town to go to. When it comes to helping others, at least in the US in modern times, church people aren't bad people, but their individualism and parochialism prevents them from actually acting like Jesus in the world. Did you ever see the movie Joshua ... about Jesus coming back to the Southern US ... visiting with the various church folks, and then a surprise visit to the Pope on the way out. At least that time he didn't get crucified for this troubles.
What a person's intent is during Church is on them. that is part of judgement, in terms of what Catholic teaching expresses.
I would never make that a claim for every church goer who is supposed to be there for their God.
I have been to Catholic Mass before. there is no "show" in regards to how others may perform their services or how any speaker may perform a presentation.
I did not see the movie you speak of. I will look it over perhaps.
My grandparents were Catholic. almost entire parish body came to their funerals. some dedicated a visit to my grandfather when he was in hospice. Yes none of them paid for anything - but the community did help in their own ways and I would never think anyone is obligated to pay for or do things for those they did not know.
Otherwise I know one may work with a parish to do fundraisers to help w/ costs. just depends on situation. like if anyone is asking.
Furthermore. though I have heard these "wrong doings" before I have also heard of great support from a person's Church.
Quote from: SGOS on September 11, 2016, 11:50:58 AM
The critic reviews I seemed to choose out of the lot, seemed to think the movie didn't offer much. Although, I still think the scenario has possibilities. Instead of a kind and well meaning newcomer getting rejected by the town's religious leaders with their own motives, how about an evil Jesus with an entirely different plan, one which reveals itself and startles everyone as God's actual plan that is contrary to what everyone had assumed. Something that points out how little mankind and the great theologians actually know about who God really is. Something that underscores the need to verify things that have no proof, before assuming them to be benevolent.
YES! Jesus is turns out to be the most evil thing of all:
A LIBERAL!I wouldn't have him as truly evil though, I'd have him piss all over the modern church, for their ignorance and intolerance. Treat the evangelicals like the pharisees. Toss the "money-changers" out of the temple. Minister to the suffering. Help the poor. Comfort the fearful. Preach brotherly love. Follow the Golden Rule, etc. Have him be the Ideal Man that everyone wishes he was, instead of constantly worrying, "Who do men say that I am?"
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 12, 2016, 04:30:41 AM
YES! Jesus is turns out to be the most evil thing of all: A LIBERAL!
I wouldn't have him as truly evil though, I'd have him piss all over the modern church, for their ignorance and intolerance. Treat the evangelicals like the pharisees. Toss the "money-changers" out of the temple. Minister to the suffering. Help the poor. Comfort the fearful. Preach brotherly love. Follow the Golden Rule, etc. Have him be the Ideal Man that everyone wishes he was, instead of constantly worrying, "Who do men say that I am?"
how was Jesus constantly worrying?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 12, 2016, 04:30:41 AM
YES! Jesus is turns out to be the most evil thing of all: A LIBERAL!
I wouldn't have him as truly evil though, I'd have him piss all over the modern church, for their ignorance and intolerance. Treat the evangelicals like the pharisees. Toss the "money-changers" out of the temple. Minister to the suffering. Help the poor. Comfort the fearful. Preach brotherly love. Follow the Golden Rule, etc. Have him be the Ideal Man that everyone wishes he was, instead of constantly worrying, "Who do men say that I am?"
Is it ignorance and intolerance because Catholics don't agree with your views? Catholics minister to the suffering, help the poor and comfort the fearful. It's the largest charitable organization in the world. Catholics also teach brotherly love and the golden rule. Since I've returned to the Church I haven't seen any coercion, no pressure to contribute, and have only seen peaceful appeals to those causes the Church supports. Not once have I seen in doctrine, in Mass, in Catechism class, or idle conversation even a hint of violent or coercive methods to push Catholic beliefs. What I have seen are people coming together to volunteer their time, money, and compassion to help people in need.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 12, 2016, 11:17:16 AM
Is it ignorance and intolerance because Catholics don't agree with your views? Catholics minister to the suffering, help the poor and comfort the fearful. It's the largest charitable organization in the world. Catholics also teach brotherly love and the golden rule. Since I've returned to the Church I haven't seen any coercion, no pressure to contribute, and have only seen peaceful appeals to those causes the Church supports. Not once have I seen in doctrine, in Mass, in Catechism class, or idle conversation even a hint of violent or coercive methods to push Catholic beliefs. What I have seen are people coming together to volunteer their time, money, and compassion to help people in need.
I'm pretty sure Catholics do not qualify as evangelicals...
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2016, 04:55:12 PM
I'm pretty sure Catholics do not qualify as evangelicals...
Thank you.
I was talking about evangelicals, specifically. Catholicism seems to be slowly evolving. But when it comes to comforting the fearful, your doctrine of hell is not going away as far as I can see. And do they let divorcees participate in communion now? Or women be priests? Or permit horny people to use rubbers? The evangelicals are the worst, but you fuckers aren't much better.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 12, 2016, 11:17:16 AMNot once have I seen in doctrine, in Mass, in Catechism class, or idle conversation even a hint of violent or coercive methods to push Catholic beliefs. What I have seen are people coming together to volunteer their time, money, and compassion to help people in need.
I'm sure a convert's enthusiasm has a lot to do with what you see.
Quote from: randomvim on September 12, 2016, 10:31:43 AM
how was Jesus constantly worrying?
By constantly asking the apostles, "Who do men say that I am?" He is putting the focus on himself, rather than the merits his teachings. He wants to hear that he is something special. And the apostles are all too happy to oblige him.
He uses faith-healing to "prove" his divinity. It's ludicrous to believe in any of that kind of faith healing crap, when it goes on now, so why is it okay to believe it when it's in an old book? Are those people more or less likely than a modern person, to be fooled by such pseudo miracles? Give your doubts a little validity, for a moment, and see the Bible for what it is. Human bullshit, not divine dogma.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 12, 2016, 05:38:16 PM
By constantly asking the apostles, "Who do men say that I am?" He is putting the focus on himself, rather than the merits his teachings. He wants to hear that he is something special. And the apostles are all too happy to oblige him.
He uses faith-healing to "prove" his divinity. It's ludicrous to believe in any of that kind of faith healing crap, when it goes on now, so why is it okay to believe it when it's in an old book? Are those people more or less likely than a modern person, to be fooled by such pseudo miracles? Give your doubts a little validity, for a moment, and see the Bible for what it is. Human bullshit, not divine dogma.
Maybe he was truly the son of God then. God needs to constantly hear that he is something special and throws a fit and lights you on fire if you don't tell him enough.
But I think I'll still hold of on accepting the "You get to live forever after you die!" claim. Something about that, I'm not
quite sure what, just seems a little off...
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 12, 2016, 04:30:41 AM
YES! Jesus is turns out to be the most evil thing of all: A LIBERAL!
I wouldn't have him as truly evil though, I'd have him piss all over the modern church, for their ignorance and intolerance. Treat the evangelicals like the pharisees. Toss the "money-changers" out of the temple. Minister to the suffering. Help the poor. Comfort the fearful. Preach brotherly love. Follow the Golden Rule, etc. Have him be the Ideal Man that everyone wishes he was, instead of constantly worrying, "Who do men say that I am?"
In Kabbalah, the metaphysical man, the ideal man is Adam Kadmon ... the prototype for the fictional figure of Jesus. Of course, a Kabbalist who knows that, might be distruptively ambitious enough to try to embody that ideal. And any society would try to kill such a person.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 11, 2016, 11:28:03 AM
Of course, this Jesus is white. Why am I not surprised? Other than that, it looks really corny, but I'm surprised by some of the recognizable talent in the movie. They even got Michael W. Smith to write music for it.
There is another second coming movie, where G-d manifests as a human woman. Of course this didn't work out any better ;-(
Quote from: SGOS on September 11, 2016, 11:50:58 AM
The critic reviews I seemed to choose out of the lot, seemed to think the movie didn't offer much. Although, I still think the scenario has possibilities. Instead of a kind and well meaning newcomer getting rejected by the town's religious leaders with their own motives, how about an evil Jesus with an entirely different plan, one which reveals itself and startles everyone as God's actual plan that is contrary to what everyone had assumed. Something that points out how little mankind and the great theologians actually know about who God really is. Something that underscores the need to verify things that have no proof, before assuming them to be benevolent.
People like their apocalypse movies, where their enemies get fried. This is from Zoroaster, 500 years before Jesus. All the Abrahamic faiths took the apocalypse idea into their theology, it was very popular. Eusebius of Caesarea, who worked for Emperor Constantine, smelled a rat however.
Personally I don't think G-d is benevolent. I wish G-d was, but I am not bound by my wishful thinking.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 12, 2016, 05:38:16 PM
By constantly asking the apostles, "Who do men say that I am?" He is putting the focus on himself, rather than the merits his teachings. He wants to hear that he is something special. And the apostles are all too happy to oblige him.
He uses faith-healing to "prove" his divinity. It's ludicrous to believe in any of that kind of faith healing crap, when it goes on now, so why is it okay to believe it when it's in an old book? Are those people more or less likely than a modern person, to be fooled by such pseudo miracles? Give your doubts a little validity, for a moment, and see the Bible for what it is. Human bullshit, not divine dogma.
Jesus didn't "keep on asking" and when He did ask... look at how things are written and consider how things were stated in whole. that wasn't out of concern or worry, it was a question to them so they may think. I do same when kids I watched were done reading books for school. ask so they thought about the book in a critical way instead of just being thoughtless.
I talk to many. Healing occurs more than just physical and that is as they teach. Sadly not all follow in their faith.
Quote from: randomvim on September 12, 2016, 07:31:04 PM
Jesus didn't "keep on asking" and when He did ask... look at how things are written and consider how things were stated in whole. that wasn't out of concern or worry, it was a question to them so they may think. I do same when kids I watched were done reading books for school. ask so they thought about the book in a critical way instead of just being thoughtless.
I talk to many. Healing occurs more than just physical and that is as they teach. Sadly not all follow in their faith.
Or the writer just wanted the reader to think that there was controversy over the true nature of Jesus. Some say he was a wise teacher. Some say he was the second coming of an old prophet. Actually, a lot of people deny that he even existed, but we're not going to acknowledge that theory because we want people to take his existence as a given.
And of course, the author gave us what was the "correct answer" so there would be no ambiguity.
Quote from: randomvim on September 12, 2016, 07:31:04 PM
Jesus didn't "keep on asking" and when He did ask... look at how things are written and consider how things were stated in whole. that wasn't out of concern or worry, it was a question to them so they may think.
He asked them at least twice - after feeding the five thousand, and after feeding the four thousand. It wasn't making them think at all. It was finding out what their opinion was, to see if he was convincing them of his divinity.
Quote from: randomvinI do same when kids I watched were done reading books for school. ask so they thought about the book in a critical way instead of just being thoughtless.
Not the same thing, at all. He didn't ask them to think critically about the "miracle," he asked them to tell him, whom people thought that he was.
Quote from: randomvimI talk to many. Healing occurs more than just physical and that is as they teach. Sadly not all follow in their faith.
Faith healing was as fake back then, as it is today. If the man really existed, and practiced it, then he was a charlatan. Psychosomatic bullshit doesn't count as healing. Neither do anecdotal oddities, where someone gets better unexpectedly. If faith healing worked it would be obvious to all that it worked. It would be consistent, and faith healers would be able to heal actual illnesses. But they are not, and they never have been able to heal a real problem. The "faith as a mustard seed" that Jesus preached, is useless, because it can't move a mustard seed, let alone a mountain.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 13, 2016, 04:14:34 AM
He asked them at least twice - after feeding the five thousand, and after feeding the four thousand. It wasn't making them think at all. It was finding out what their opinion was, to see if he was convincing them of his divinity.
Not the same thing, at all. He didn't ask them to think critically about the "miracle," he asked them to tell him, whom people thought that he was.
Faith healing was as fake back then, as it is today. If the man really existed, and practiced it, then he was a charlatan. Psychosomatic bullshit doesn't count as healing. Neither do anecdotal oddities, where someone gets better unexpectedly. If faith healing worked it would be obvious to all that it worked. It would be consistent, and faith healers would be able to heal actual illnesses. But they are not, and they never have been able to heal a real problem. The "faith as a mustard seed" that Jesus preached, is useless, because it can't move a mustard seed, let alone a mountain.
1.
Jesus spoke in parables and promoted thought just about every time He spoke. I would think this to be evident and be present when Jesus would know what others thought of Him.
your comment on Jesus asking about twice shows it wasn't out of concern for own identity. a person like that would ask often and be expressed in more than one way.
2. Many things count as a Miracle and healing. otherwise on what authority would one have to say a person/being g may not act in a possible way?
regardless of authority why should any one think healing is limited to an obvious out come where they can see it happen in front of them?
depression is an illness.
in such regard why should I ignore incidences where a person is sick and then just better w/o or w/ little explanation?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on September 12, 2016, 05:20:52 PM
Thank you.
I was talking about evangelicals, specifically. Catholicism seems to be slowly evolving. But when it comes to comforting the fearful, your doctrine of hell is not going away as far as I can see. And do they let divorcees participate in communion now? Or women be priests? Or permit horny people to use rubbers? The evangelicals are the worst, but you fuckers aren't much better.
My mistake then. Since this thread is about Catholics, I assumes you were making a blanket statement including them. The issues you bring up are controversial, even among Catholics, but as I said, if you don't want to be a part of it, no one if forcing you to. I personally feel there are good practical reasons behind most of the traditions of the Church, even if they're not readily apparent. And there are those that I'm not too keen on either, but their not deal breakers for me.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on September 12, 2016, 05:27:48 PM
I'm sure a convert's enthusiasm has a lot to do with what you see.
I don't really see myself as a convert. I was baptized Catholic as an infant, went to a couple of years of Catholic school, did the altar boy thing, received First Communion, and so on when I was a kid. I eventually rejected the sky-daddy view of God(s), and still do, which led to my atheist views for so many years. I started seeing things from a different perspective and began understanding the importance of tradition, God as goodness itself, and the unity the Catholic Church, and other religions offer. Is it perfect? Of course not, but I think it's pretty good.
Where is randy Carson when you need him?
Quote from: randomvim on September 13, 2016, 08:03:00 AM
1.
Jesus spoke in parables and promoted thought just about every time He spoke. I would think this to be evident and be present when Jesus would know what others thought of Him.
your comment on Jesus asking about twice shows it wasn't out of concern for own identity. a person like that would ask often and be expressed in more than one way.
There are no parables involved here. It was a simple, straightforward question, showing his concern for whom people thought he was. A similar self-promotion is in the statement, "No man comes to the Father, but by me," and riddled throughout his preaching. The way I see it, 5000 followers will give a faith-healer a big head.
Quote from: randomvim on September 13, 2016, 08:03:00 AM2. Many things count as a Miracle and healing. otherwise on what authority would one have to say a person/being g may not act in a possible way?
The "authority" supposedly proven by the miracles, is just as indefensible as the miracles themselves, and completely unnecessary for moral guidance.
Quote from: randomvimregardless of authority why should any one think healing is limited to an obvious out come where they can see it happen in front of them?
depression is an illness.
Faith-healing depression, is NOT a miracle. And I shouldn't need to explain to you why it's not.
Quote from: randomvimin such regard why should I ignore incidences where a person is sick and then just better w/o or w/ little explanation?
Because there is no consistency. No one can pray for, or lay hands on a person with a physical ailment, and heal it. Neither can anyone heal themselves through faith. Don't commit the Post Hoc fallacy, by claiming that because you prayed, and your mom got better, that the prayer was the cause. If you could pray any time you wanted, for incurable illness to disappear, and it did so with consistency, it might be evidence of something. But that doesn't take place now, and it didn't take place back then. Think of Mother Theresa. She spent an entire lifetime praying over the sick. But when it comes to healing incurable illness, she was only associated with
two instances of unexplained remissions. If there was a consistent pattern to it, you might have a reason to believe she performed miracles. But there is no consistency.
In a world without real doctors, occasional psychosomatic healing (aka salve-ing aka saving) is pretty impressive, even if it is of psychosomatic ailments. The patient or their family would show gratitude. In a corrupt society under Roman occupation, there were lots of psychosomatic ailments, both individual and social.
Being impressed, in the last 100 years, with biochemical medicine ... isn't surprising either. But modern medicine doesn't cure dis-ease ... it is meant to eliminate infection by mold, bacteria and virus. That helps, but it doesn't necessarily put the patient at ease. Curing dis-ease is psychosomatic ... and the only way to cure hypochondriacs. Words are constantly redefined ... for marketing.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2016, 07:31:51 PM
In a world without real doctors, occasional psychosomatic healing (aka salve-ing aka saving) is pretty impressive, even if it is of psychosomatic ailments. The patient or their family would show gratitude. In a corrupt society under Roman occupation, there were lots of psychosomatic ailments, both individual and social.
But I'm sure you'll agree, that curing one isn't a miracle. It should go without saying, that if the problem is all in your mind, then a solution is probably there too. If there is a genuine brain disorder, no faith healer is going to have any success, any more than they could cure a heart defect.
"Genuine" faith healing, if there could be said to be such a thing, is limited entirely to psychosomatic illnesses, and even then, I doubt you could find many cases of lasting change. More likely some kind of hypnotic oratory, followed by some kind of touching, brings a temporary endorphin-euphoria for some easily persuaded people, and they feel better momentarily. But long enough to tell everybody they've been healed. And so witnesses walk away with a story, but most never follow up on the "healed" person.
Then again don't underestimate the human capacity for duplicity, because you might find that the one being healed, has something to gain by faking it. 15 seconds of attention from a celebrity, or getting to tag along with the inner circle.
Quote from: BaruchBeing impressed, in the last 100 years, with biochemical medicine ... isn't surprising either. But modern medicine doesn't cure dis-ease ... it is meant to eliminate infection by mold, bacteria and virus. That helps, but it doesn't necessarily put the patient at ease. Curing dis-ease is psychosomatic ... and the only way to cure hypochondriacs. Words are constantly redefined ... for marketing.
I have medicine for dis-ease as well: :weed:
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 14, 2016, 05:14:44 PM
What color is the sky on your planet?
I don't look thru the red or blue sun glasses ... I can relate to different people, even primitive or pre-modern people, because I focus on what we have in common, not on what makes us different. In that sense, I can understand where they are coming from, even if they aren't around to cross examine. What was psychologically true 2000 years ago, is still going on in some parts. Shamen in Indonesia for example. I don't have to apply the "civilizing mission" of the imperialist to them ... or to medieval or ancient people. Their lives were just as interesting and valuable even if they don't/didn't have iPhones. I have no reason to apply a secular missionary position to any and all folks out there ... so everyone is homogenized to my particular fetish.
I don't judge those who self medicate, though in much of our modern culture this is considered criminal behavior. And of course curing all disease is like curing the dead of death ... can't be done psychosomatically. So? I would rather have a faith healer cure me of something psychosomatic (lets say I live in rural India) than having to pay $1000 per month for crappy Obamacare .. that only lines the pockets of the Drug industry and the Insurance industry.
100 years ago, we didn't worship doctors .. most were considered snake oil salesman and quacks ... and they were. Things are much improved, but the overall thrust of the medical business remains the same. If you can get access to competent medical care, that is actually necessary (and not iatrogenic) ... then go for it. Rob some third world country so you can afford a subsidized price. The ends justifies the means, for First world folks.
I work with doctors ... and they are barely competent gate keepers, that can only handle routine cases. Rare or non-routine cases are beyond them, unless you can get to Mayo Clinic. Most of us can't, and if we could, we can't pay for it. This is a group happy pill trick. If one person you know is a millionaire, then everyone is prosperous or should be. If one person can afford a course of treatment that involves 6 months in intensive care ... then we all can. Meanwhile we drink and smoke on.
Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2016, 07:00:13 PM
I don't judge...Meanwhile we drink and smoke on.
I think this tangent has reached too far from the original post, for me.
Any signs I see of improvement in the practices and teachings of Catholicism, are too quickly shot down by all that is left undone. Francis can't escape the influence of tradition. He will not remove the burdens his pharisee, forefathers have, in their zealousy, mistakenly laid on the human race, instilling the fear of Hell in children, thereby teaching them not respect of God, but utter terror of the fucking
Monster at the End of Your Life. Then they stick you with the only solution from this fate-for-all-sinners: Jesus.
What little kid didn't feel a mixture of sadness, for poor Jesus when they heard about the nails being driven into his hands, and an amazing loss of trust, in the Father who let him die. I remember crying over some old painting in a Bible, when I first was told the story.
What a stupid picture to paint of God. What a truly despicable fuckwad, he would have to be to let his son go through it. Talk about child abuse, how's crucifixion rank?
But here's the punchline:
it's all just a metaphor anyway.
A crucifiction. Interpret the lesson as you see fit.
Quote from: randomvim on September 12, 2016, 10:31:43 AM
how was Jesus constantly worrying?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
I have to break it to you random, or Randy, you will go to hell unless you are a Jew.
Matthew 16:24 "I was sent
ONLY to help God's lost sheep - the people of Israel."
So only a tiny part of God's 'creation' was chosen. 14 million Jews on this planet, out of 7 billion 'creations'. Plus, a little patch of desert was given to them by their imaginary friend. The only place in the ME without oil. Of course this makes all perfect sense - for the flock.
Luke 13:57 "I have come to divide people against each other."
So step aside believers. You are holding us up, we want to move on, explore, invent and discover without interference. You have held us back for 2 millenia but now we have science and with it comes information. Information that exposes religion for what it is. A feeble attempt of our ancestors to explain natural phenomena; a primitive, stone age superstition from the infancy of our species. It's time we shed this ugly vice and start using reason and logic instead of blind faith and self deception.
Quote from: reasonist on September 16, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
I have to break it to you random, or Randy, you will go to hell unless you are a Jew.
Matthew 16:24 "I was sent ONLY to help God's lost sheep - the people of Israel."
So only a tiny part of God's 'creation' was chosen. 14 million Jews on this planet, out of 7 billion 'creations'. Plus, a little patch of desert was given to them by their imaginary friend. The only place in the ME without oil. Of course this makes all perfect sense - for the flock.
Luke 13:57 "I have come to divide people against each other."
So step aside believers. You are holding us up, we want to move on, explore, invent and discover without interference. You have held us back for 2 millenia but now we have science and with it comes information. Information that exposes religion for what it is. A feeble attempt of our ancestors to explain natural phenomena; a primitive, stone age superstition from the infancy of our species. It's time we shed this ugly vice and start using reason and logic instead of blind faith and self deception.
Where are you getting those verses from? The Matthew 16:24 I'm seeing looks completely different, and Luke 13:57 doesn't appear to exist. lol
Regardless, both are in the NT ... conveniently ignored by the faithful.
They're not in the place cited, Baruch.
Just to give it a fair context:
Matthew 15:21-28
Quote21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.â€
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.â€
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.â€
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!†she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.â€
27 “Yes it is, Lord,†she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.â€
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.†And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Mathew 10:34-37
Quote34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-lawâ€"
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
My bad, and apologies. Always in a rush...
Should read Luke 12:51 and Matthew 15:24 NLT
SA ... thanks for the con-text ... they let the cons text from prison these days? ;-)
A bit more context ... the miraculous healing of the Syro-phoenician woman's child is meant to contrast with that done with a similar woman's son, by Elijah. Elijah couldn't do it at a distance however. And of course "dog" is the standard slur used in the ME for any foreigner. Dogs are totally non-kosher there. Also the saying "don't cast your pearls before swine" ... swine being another slur for a foreigner ... among Semites (who don't eat pork).
The second context is people's messianic expectations. And any gynosophist expectations. Jesus isn't the messiah you expect ... a warrior like Joshua or Judah Maccabee. But he isn't all meditative like a gynosophist (a Hindu sadhu or monk). Holy men from India were a familiar sight from 300 years before Jesus. They had been wandering West within 100 years after Alexander got to india. The idea that Jesus as messiah, disturbs the "beit shalom" of the Jewish household ... is very subversive, and enough cause for the Jewish authorities to kill him. Tribal unity was and is everything (much to the chagrin of Gentiles, who never ever behave in a tribal manner). Jesus associating with sinners, would only have disturbed the Saddhucees and Pharisees, who were a clerical and lay elite respectively.
Quote from: widdershins on September 12, 2016, 06:00:03 PM
Maybe he was truly the son of God then. God needs to constantly hear that he is something special and throws a fit and lights you on fire if you don't tell him enough.
But I think I'll still hold of on accepting the "You get to live forever after you die!" claim. Something about that, I'm not quite sure what, just seems a little off...
The story line there is that all the outsiders realise who Jesus is, while his Disciples don't have a clue. The bottom line is that Jesus is either the Messiah or even God himself (depending on the Gospel you read).
Gerard
Quote from: reasonist on September 16, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
I have to break it to you random, or Randy, you will go to hell unless you are a Jew.
Matthew 16:24 "I was sent ONLY to help God's lost sheep - the people of Israel."
So only a tiny part of God's 'creation' was chosen. 14 million Jews on this planet, out of 7 billion 'creations'. Plus, a little patch of desert was given to them by their imaginary friend. The only place in the ME without oil. Of course this makes all perfect sense - for the flock.
Luke 13:57 "I have come to divide people against each other."
So step aside believers. You are holding us up, we want to move on, explore, invent and discover without interference. You have held us back for 2 millenia but now we have science and with it comes information. Information that exposes religion for what it is. A feeble attempt of our ancestors to explain natural phenomena; a primitive, stone age superstition from the infancy of our species. It's time we shed this ugly vice and start using reason and logic instead of blind faith and self deception.
Somewhere in John (I was never any good at quoting chapter and verse) Jesus explains: Before Abraham was, I am. Now "I am" is the way Jahweh introduced himself to Moses at the burning bush incident. He clearly indicates there that he is God. He also says something like, when you have seen me you have seen the Father. Same thing. Stuff like that is nowhere to be found in the other Gospels though....... Bart Ehrman seems to think that Jesus never regarded himself as God, but just as the Messiah, and that different words were attributed to him for different purposes.
Gerard
As a lay Catholic, here's my take on these Bible quotes:
Matthew 15:21-28. Faith overcomes tribal/social boundaries. I expect Jesus is teaching his disciples a lesson here.
Matthew 10:34-37. If you have to choose to be a good person over following the example of bad relatives, do it. Cut loose from toxic familial relationships.
One thing to keep in mind here is that Catholics don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura doctrine and don't teach that the Bible should be interpreted literally. To paraphrase Bishop Robert Barron, the Bible is a library of books that use metaphors, allegory, and sometimes historical fact to convey a message. You've got sagas, poetry, mythology, letters from disciples, and so on, written in different times and places. To get the most out of the Bible you have to take this into consideration, and also look at the very long critical interpretive history around it.
Anyway, to avoid a wall-o-text post, Catholic doctrine is based both on scripture and tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the text to look at if you want to know what Catholics believe.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 18, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
As a lay Catholic, here's my take on these Bible quotes:
Matthew 15:21-28. Faith overcomes tribal/social boundaries. I expect Jesus is teaching his disciples a lesson here.
Matthew 10:34-37. If you have to choose to be a good person over following the example of bad relatives, do it. Cut loose from toxic familial relationships.
One thing to keep in mind here is that Catholics don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura doctrine and don't teach that the Bible should be interpreted literally. To paraphrase Bishop Robert Barron, the Bible is a library of books that use metaphors, allegory, and sometimes historical fact to convey a message. You've got sagas, poetry, mythology, letters from disciples, and so on, written in different times and places. To get the most out of the Bible you have to take this into consideration, and also look at the very long critical interpretive history around it.
Anyway, to avoid a wall-o-text post, Catholic doctrine is based both on scripture and tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the text to look at if you want to know what Catholics believe.
In any practical sense that I can think of that basically goes for other Christian denominations as well. Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy is embraced by almost all Christian denominations, save the Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons and Unitarians for the Nicene Orthodoxy and the Oriental Orthodox (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) for Chalecedonian Christology. Both doctrines decidedly have their origin in tradition rather than in scripture.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on September 18, 2016, 03:25:00 PM
In any practical sense that I can think of that basically goes for other Christian denominations as well. Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy is embraced by almost all Christian denominations, save the Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons and Unitarians for the Nicene Orthodoxy and the Oriental Orthodox (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) for Chalecedonian Christology. Both doctrines decidedly have their origin in tradition rather than in scripture.
Gerard
I'm sure you know more about the one's you've mentioned than I do, but many Protestant Christians, I'm guessing most, hold to sola scriptura and see the Bible as the ultimate authority for their doctrine. Catholics don't, they see Apostolic tradition other than the Bible as equally valid, which was my point. Scripture is seen as part of that tradition. I also didn't mention natural law, divine revelation and the authority of the magisterium as part of the mix as well. All of that plays a part in Catholic theology.
I suppose what I was getting at is that if you (generally speaking) want to specifically criticize the Catholic faith, there's more to it than picking apart the little details of scripture. Like I said, the CCC details what Catholics believe.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 18, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
As a lay Catholic, here's my take on these Bible quotes:
Matthew 15:21-28. Faith overcomes tribal/social boundaries. I expect Jesus is teaching his disciples a lesson here.
Matthew 10:34-37. If you have to choose to be a good person over following the example of bad relatives, do it. Cut loose from toxic familial relationships.
One thing to keep in mind here is that Catholics don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura doctrine and don't teach that the Bible should be interpreted literally. To paraphrase Bishop Robert Barron, the Bible is a library of books that use metaphors, allegory, and sometimes historical fact to convey a message. You've got sagas, poetry, mythology, letters from disciples, and so on, written in different times and places. To get the most out of the Bible you have to take this into consideration, and also look at the very long critical interpretive history around it.
But which parts are to be taken literally and which are metaphors? It is then a completely arbitrary decision and therefore loses it's legitimacy as a divinely inspired scripture.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 18, 2016, 08:20:26 PM
I'm sure you know more about the one's you've mentioned than I do, but many Protestant Christians, I'm guessing most, hold to sola scriptura and see the Bible as the ultimate authority for their doctrine. Catholics don't, they see Apostolic tradition other than the Bible as equally valid, which was my point. Scripture is seen as part of that tradition. I also didn't mention natural law, divine revelation and the authority of the magisterium as part of the mix as well. All of that plays a part in Catholic theology.
I suppose what I was getting at is that if you (generally speaking) want to specifically criticize the Catholic faith, there's more to it than picking apart the little details of scripture. Like I said, the CCC details what Catholics believe.
In my experience with Protestants, most people do not believe that the Bible is infallible or 100% literal. Most don't even read the Bible outside of church, which says a lot about how much confidence they put into its words. There are some denominations that do teach that the Bible is infallible and literal. Southern Baptists and United Pentecostals are among them.
Quote from: reasonist on September 19, 2016, 11:29:31 AM
But which parts are to be taken literally and which are metaphors? It is then a completely arbitrary decision and therefore loses it's legitimacy as a divinely inspired scripture.
That's the problem with Sola Scriptura and why there are 30,000 plus Protestant Christian denominations.
The Catholic Church has the Magisterium, which consists of the Pope and Bishops, as the authority to clarify such matters. If you want clarification they'll help square you away. It keeps Catholics on the same sheet of music, so to speak.
Quote from: Blackleaf on September 19, 2016, 12:35:51 PM
In my experience with Protestants, most people do not believe that the Bible is infallible or 100% literal. Most don't even read the Bible outside of church, which says a lot about how much confidence they put into its words. There are some denominations that do teach that the Bible is infallible and literal. Southern Baptists and United Pentecostals are among them.
You get into a lot of gray area when you talk about what people actually believe so you have to look at their religious doctrine to get a baseline. Sola Scriptura was the one of major doctrines that came out of the Protestant Reformation. Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecost, Calvinists, you name it, all stem from that.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 19, 2016, 01:19:28 PM
That's the problem with Sola Scriptura and why there are 30,000 plus Protestant Christian denominations.
The Catholic Church has the Magisterium, which consists of the Pope and Bishops, as the authority to clarify such matters. If you want clarification they'll help square you away. It keeps Catholics on the same sheet of music, so to speak.
I like how you cite the 30,000 Protestant denominations like the number of them somehow makes them wrong, while yours alone is right. There are different denominations within the Catholic tradition as well, which is why "Roman Catholic" is a term for specificity. But you're acting like Protestants are of an entirely different religion. Those 30,000 denominations are Christian denominations, and Roman Catholicism is one of those denominations. A Baptist could easily flip that logic and claim that that there are over 30,000 denominations because those other Christians don't take the Bible as literally as they do, or else they'd all be united as one denomination. It doesn't prove anything.
Also, the real reason why there are so many denominations is because of the tendency of Christians to fill in the gaps that the Bible leaves open. This is something that you've even admitted to, that the Bible itself is not sufficient enough, but that you rely on tradition as well. What makes your tradition more valid than any other tradition?
Another reason for why so many denominations exist is that some actually
create gaps just to fill them up with tradition. The Catholic church does this too. One easily identifiable example is with Mary, who Catholics claim to have died a virgin despite the Bible clearly saying that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Why would she die a virgin anyway when she was a married woman? Is she supposed to be more holy because she never slept with her husband?
Quote from: Jack89 on September 18, 2016, 08:20:26 PM
I'm sure you know more about the one's you've mentioned than I do, but many Protestant Christians, I'm guessing most, hold to sola scriptura and see the Bible as the ultimate authority for their doctrine. Catholics don't, they see Apostolic tradition other than the Bible as equally valid, which was my point. Scripture is seen as part of that tradition. I also didn't mention natural law, divine revelation and the authority of the magisterium as part of the mix as well. All of that plays a part in Catholic theology.
I suppose what I was getting at is that if you (generally speaking) want to specifically criticize the Catholic faith, there's more to it than picking apart the little details of scripture. Like I said, the CCC details what Catholics believe.
My point is that while many Protestant denominations profess "Sola Scriptura", their doctrines are in fact based on much of the same traditions Catholics believe in. Specially when it comes to the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon that I mentioned, which are part of every Protestant doctrine. Many Calvinists also have a particular appreciation for the works of (St.) Augustine of Hippo. I don't know of any Protestant denomination for instance that doesn't support the Nicene creed of the Triune God, which they all recite and is definitely not "Scriptura" or the Christology professed by the Council of Chalcedon, which isn't either.
Gerard
Quote from: Jack89 on September 19, 2016, 01:19:28 PM
That's the problem with Sola Scriptura and why there are 30,000 plus Protestant Christian denominations.
The Catholic Church has the Magisterium, which consists of the Pope and Bishops, as the authority to clarify such matters. If you want clarification they'll help square you away. It keeps Catholics on the same sheet of music, so to speak.
It's still an arbitrary decision by simple mammals like the rest of us. Neither the Pope nor Bishops know more than we do.
Quote from: reasonist on September 19, 2016, 06:34:03 PM
It's still an arbitrary decision by simple mammals like the rest of us. Neither the Pope nor Bishops know more than we do.
I would argue they do know more about this particular subject, just as a Shakespearean scholar knows more about Shakespearean literature than you or me. Unless of course you're also a Shakespearean Scholar. I also don't think it's arbitrary if you consider the overall theme of Christianity and incorporate that into your interpretation. Knowing the tradition and studying the views of those who've tackled the subject before you will make it anything but arbitrary.
The Pope does know more about Catholicism than I do ... but I don't care. No person, including the Pope, knows more about G-d than any other ape man.
Quote from: Baruch on September 19, 2016, 07:25:54 PM
The Pope does know more about Catholicism than I do ... but I don't care. No person, including the Pope, knows more about G-d than any other ape man.
Since God is ultimately unknowable, I can't really argue with you. But I think there are people who know more about being good and living a fulfilling life than others, which is the objective of Catholicism, and many other religions. And knowing what is good isn't as always easy as it seems. That's where trial and error, and ultimately tradition come into play. Those who study and understand that tradition, what works and what doesn't, should probably be listened to, even if their understanding isn't complete. While I think Catholicism works the best, I still recognize that there are Rabbis, Buddhist Monks and other folks who know more about it than I do.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 19, 2016, 07:11:57 PM
I would argue they do know more about this particular subject, just as a Shakespearean scholar knows more about Shakespearean literature than you or me. Unless of course you're also a Shakespearean Scholar. I also don't think it's arbitrary if you consider the overall theme of Christianity and incorporate that into your interpretation. Knowing the tradition and studying the views of those who've tackled the subject before you will make it anything but arbitrary.
That's not a very good analogy. Shakespeare never intended his poetry being anything else but fiction. And so is the Bible. Some know more about fiction than others but it still doesn't make it true. The Christian dogma is a man made construct, a work of fiction, a combination of plagiarisms from Sumerian, Egyptian, Zoroastrian and many other Pagan cults. Jesus, if he ever existed as told in the Bible, was a illiterate Jewish preacher, preaching Mosaic law to Jews. And the only eye witnesses to A Jesus, the Sanhedrin, declared him to be a fraud and denied any divinity. Other than that, all the Bible stories were written decades after the death of Jesus and relied on hear say only, and no other book would get such a free pass with all it's contradictions and cruelties.
And concerning morals, if the objective of Catholicism is being good and living a fulfilling life, then let's not forget what this very church did when it had the power to get away with it. From the crusades, to the inquisition, witch burning to running a child porn ring for decades, the Catholic church was anything BUT good.
Well, suppose the was no deity. How different would the word look exactly?