501–510 of 875 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or that it is empty for eternity for each and all who are there. Endless solitude would be a hellish punishment.
That’s how I’ve read it firstly. Hard to imagine worse hell than this to me. And then I realized the real meaning of the quote. Made me cry a little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> including rightfully limiting the Latin mass Why is that a political thing though? The mass of the roman church was for centuries (almost all it’s history?) in latin.
It's complicated. Few people in the church, including the priests themselves, are fluent in Latin (there's a story told, I think by Francis himself, about an diocese in England that required priests to pass an exam to give a Traditional Latin Mass, and almost none of the requesting priests could pass). The TLM obscures what the mass is about, which creates space for practitioners to substitute in their own things, wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems unlikely that Jesus spoke Latin at the last supper.
Also unlikely that Jesus intended for the ceremony to be conducted at times other than the evening of his death (replacing Passover). Up for interpretation, I suppose.
The Vatican published an interesting document on AI [1], which attributes a number of quotes to Pope Francis: * As Pope Francis noted, the machine “makes a technical choice among several possibilities based either on well-defined criteria or on statistical inferences. Human beings, however, not only choose, but in their hearts are capable of deciding." * In light of this, the use of AI, as Pope Francis said, must be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do! https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/knowledg...
The Cambridge Dictionary has its own internal consensus, true, but there are so many more ways people understand that specific word :) Wikipedia even has it's own page with some of the various definitions people use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_knowledge Then we have implicit/explicit knowledge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_knowledg... ) where some people assume one of them wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please stop talking in such general terms. No Catholics I know have been shaken by anything Pope Francis did. I have been educated in a Catholic school, which also served as a Catholic seminary, and I never heard Pope Francis say anything that was not in line with the catechism that we were taught back then.
Many Catholics I know were absolutely shaken by this Pope, and were absolutely not supporters of the man. They thought he was too liberal and too modern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You cannot insult the faith of others Why not? The concept of proportionality between an “offense” and a response that characterizes the liberal worldview was entirely missing here. If one chooses to take offense about some deeply held personal view, whatever it is, then fine; but let your response be proportional. The music of Beethoven is sacred to me, let’s say, but I’m not prepared to murder you if you mock it,…
> The pope’s threat of physical intervention himself seems at odds with the teachings of his own faith, too, as I understand them. Turn the other cheek, and all. The quote in question talks about your cheek, not your mother's or anyone else's. In many circumstances, you're not as free to forego the defense of others as you are your own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but in their hearts are capable of deciding I question both the organ and the action.
Question, but perhaps, open your heart to recent research... There is neural tissue in and around the heart. There are studies showing personality changes and memory inculcation as a result of heart transplants. Recipients end up with memory and sometimes traits of the donor. Are we sure? No. But neither should you be. Question but be open to answers you may not expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> after all even a firm atheist can't be absolutely sure there is no genuine God Why so? There is no reason for one to exist so not having one is the obvious case. We could of course assume anything, that we are av stylization, that the world is a large ice cream, that what we see is not the reality, whatever If we go for that, sure, we cannot be sure of anything. But we then must also believe that we may live in a l…
>There is no reason for one to exist so not having one is the obvious case. It's a usable supposition, sure, and I agree that being asked to prove a negative is silly, but you can't actually be sure that one doesn't exist. It's not the obvious case at all, it's not even all that obvious as a supposition. What's more, superficially at least, it makes more sense to believe in a supreme, essentially divine creator than…
It can't make more sense to believe in one entirely made up thing vs another since they're both made up.
> I'd say that this more than anything has been responsible for virtually all cultures in history believing in supreme, divine creators of one kind or another vs no historical cultures that I know of believing in the universe springing from random chance and hand-wavey nothingness behind it.
Ascribing rationality to faith is an interesting supposition. It's all based on emotions, such as fear of death, on the side of the believers and greed on the side of belief-providers.
> Though, the idea of being the creations of a tremendously powerful and conscious being that created a universe hospitable to our use and for our potential given by all our evident cognitive and material tools seems to me a lot more plausible than being subject to an accidental existence in a gargantuan ice cream environment.
No, it just seems more comforting to you. That doesn't make it any more plausible.