Post: #51

^ MAGE

You are missing the point, I've mentioned this in other threads. In a worldly sense, you are correct, but Christianity's focus is not on this world, so the choice is a false one. Also, it is refreshing that you are honest, if you don't do Christian things or even strive to do them --- but you shouldn't mix all these concepts up.

The problem with Roman Catholicism is that it has always been about "The Institution", the top-down creation of political type states, subconsciously if not overtly held by the Pope of Rome (he is currently a head of state). So it should be criticized for this type of innovative, anti-christian ecclesiology. Its followers love its simplicity and appeal to authority, but they soon will realize that it has been so thoroughly corrupted and changed that it can't possibly be, and never was, the true faith. Just look at how many social justice types it has produced just in America in the last 50 years. Now it has a "social justice" pope, a real former marxist/leninist from his youth.

Sadly, my feeling is that the intentionally uneducated "catholics" of the future will just lose their "faith" entirely as opposed to seeking out what true christianity is. Ironically, they were always close to it, they just failed to see how corrupt and political they became especially when they broke away in the early 2nd millenium. And now most all of them will be lost, precisely because they have had such a political connection to "this world" for so long ...

Post: #52

The pictures circulating of the pope kissing the invaders feet is all you need to know about this man.

Post: #53

Sorry OP but he 'destroyed' the Catholic Church many months back.

Post: #54

(05-15-2016 04:42 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  ^ MAGE

You are missing the point, I've mentioned this in other threads. In a worldly sense, you are correct, but Christianity's focus is not on this world, so the choice is a false one. Also, it is refreshing that you are honest, if you don't do Christian things or even strive to do them --- but you shouldn't mix all these concepts up.

The problem with Roman Catholicism is that it has always been about "The Institution", the top-down creation of political type states, subconsciously if not overtly held by the Pope of Rome (he is currently a head of state). So it should be criticized for this type of innovative, anti-christian ecclesiology. Its followers love its simplicity and appeal to authority, but they soon will realize that it has been so thoroughly corrupted and changed that it can't possibly be, and never was, the true faith. Just look at how many social justice types it has produced just in America in the last 50 years. Now it has a "social justice" pope, a real former marxist/leninist from his youth.

Sadly, my feeling is that the intentionally uneducated "catholics" of the future will just lose their "faith" entirely as opposed to seeking out what true christianity is. Ironically, they were always close to it, they just failed to see how corrupt and political they became especially when they broke away in the early 2nd millenium. And now most all of them will be lost, precisely because they have had such a political connection to "this world" for so long ...

I grew up Catholic and briefly went to Catholic school (I didn't last).

The "social justice" I witnessed in the Catholic church VERY closely resembles what we see now on Tumblr, Feministing.com, and in other liberal places. I've mentioned this before but I can't repeat it enough.

What I saw in Catholic school:

1). Angry, hateful, lesbian nuns who despised heterosexuality in general and straight men specifically.

2). Lasciviously gay priests who were at least amusing (unlike the sour nuns -- I'll give them that) but had no problem abusing the authority they were given.

3). Nuns, priests, and layteachers all dedicated to misguided concepts of social justice. Name a group undeserving of charity and these people we right behind it. They LOVED alcoholics, prisoners, and people who blew their minds out on drugs -- all things that could be avoided. Even as a kid this bewildered me.

What I see today:

1). The exact same thing, except now these archetypes (i.e. the angry lesbian and the pervy gay man) have moved into the secular realm.

Conclusion: While I don't like the anti-Catholic bias I get from today's idiot media (which falls under the umbrella of anti-Christianity), I now COMPLETELY understand the anti-Catholic bigotry of the 20th century in the U.S.

I think they had a point about Catholic citizens and politicians answering to the pope instead of the government and I don't think Catholics were a particularly good fit for America. Metaphorically speaking, it's the welfare state vs. the Protestant work ethic, the latter of which built the country.

Finally, just in case anyone didn't read my opening sentence, I was born and raised Catholic (in an Italian-American family), so this ain't prejudice. It's an honest self-examination the subculture my own religion and my own people have helped create in the U.S. In my opinion, no Catholics yesterday would have meant fewer blue-haired freaks today.

Post: #55

(05-15-2016 04:42 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  ^ MAGE

You are missing the point, I've mentioned this in other threads. In a worldly sense, you are correct, but Christianity's focus is not on this world, so the choice is a false one. Also, it is refreshing that you are honest, if you don't do Christian things or even strive to do them --- but you shouldn't mix all these concepts up.

Please don't give me this shit. There is not much otherworldy about Christianity especially protestantism. For all it's faults Catholicism at least has some mystical component to it. Orthodoxy has it too. Protestantism is so mundane it makes me vomit. I have yet to see a protestant gathering that would not be covertly about bragging how the Lord has "blessed" you with wealth and social status over your neighbour. What otherworldniness Christianity has comes from Old testment, but since Chritians are so busy proving that New testament is superior to the Old Testament they don't get much of it. One must first realise it is the other way around to seriously benefit from the otherworldy part.

Also why would I hide that I don't strive to do Christian things in a non-Christian forum? That doesn't means I don't stive to do good/moral things. But as is often the problem with christians they have made "Christian" synonimous with "moral" in their minds so denial of one of them also sounds like denial of other one to them, which is very far from truth.
I am pretty used to hear that Christians say something like: "So you don't go to church - it's back to drugs, alcohol and the easy liberal path for you!" which is pretty insulting because I am more sober and conservative then they ever ware.

Post: #56

(05-15-2016 07:59 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 04:42 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  ^ MAGE

You are missing the point, I've mentioned this in other threads. In a worldly sense, you are correct, but Christianity's focus is not on this world, so the choice is a false one. Also, it is refreshing that you are honest, if you don't do Christian things or even strive to do them --- but you shouldn't mix all these concepts up.

Please don't give me this shit. There is not much otherworldy about Christianity especially protestantism. For all it's faults Catholicism at least has some mystical component to it. Orthodoxy has it too. Protestantism is so mundane it makes me vomit. I have yet to see a protestant gathering that would not be covertly about bragging how the Lord has "blessed" you with wealth and social status over your neighbour.

Also why would I hide that I don't strive to do Christian things in a non-Christian forum? That doesn't means I don't stive to do good/moral things. But as is often the problem with christians they have made "Christian" synonimous with "moral" in their minds so denial of one of them also sounds like denial of other one to them, which is very far from truth.
I am pretty used to hear that Christians say something like: "So you don't go to church - it's back to drugs, alcohol and the easy liberal path for you!" which is pretty insulting because I am more sober and conservative then they ever ware.

You might be surprised to find that I agree with every last sentiment or point you have here. You are honest, that's why I pointed out the bolded above.

You are missing my point. You are the one that brought up worldly topics and relate them to Christianity, not me. I'm just telling you that they are not the motive of christianity or its way of life.

It seems again, you've rightly understood another thing --- the RC church and what it spawned (protestantism) have rudimentary teachings based on simplicity if not silly literalism meant to lock people into their "structure".

This is not so for the easterners. While they have problems, they will be the last stand for Christianity --- oddly ironic since they were run over by muslims.

EXCEPT:

The Russians ... (to be continued)

Post: #57

(05-15-2016 08:13 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  You are missing my point. You are the one that brought up worldly topics and relate them to Christianity, not me. I'm just telling you that they are not the motive of christianity or its way of life.

This is not so for the easterners. While they have problems, they will be the last stand for Christianity --- oddly ironic since they were run over by muslims.

EXCEPT:

The Russians ... (to be continued)

Did you mean that it's not the task of religion to display a correct family model? Implying family is is a lowly and worldly topic? I will have to disagree here - the image of God is revealed in a proper family model and it is very important.

So anyway which is the correct form of Christianity according to you? Some non-Russian orthodoc church?

Post: #58

(05-15-2016 08:29 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 08:13 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  You are missing my point. You are the one that brought up worldly topics and relate them to Christianity, not me. I'm just telling you that they are not the motive of christianity or its way of life.

This is not so for the easterners. While they have problems, they will be the last stand for Christianity --- oddly ironic since they were run over by muslims.

EXCEPT:

The Russians ... (to be continued)

Did you mean that it's not the task of religion to display a correct family model? Implying family is is a lowly and worldly topic? I will have to disagree here - the image of God is revealed in a proper family model and it is very important.

So anyway which is the correct form of Christianity according to you? Some non-Russian orthodoc church?

No, I like and respect the Russians and Russia for all its faults. Orthodox Christianity is true, yes. It has always held your family model, so I dispute your former characterization at least for these peoples.

Post: #59

(05-15-2016 08:42 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  No, I like and respect the Russians and Russia for all its faults. Orthodox Christianity is true, yes. It has always held your family model, so I dispute your former characterization at least for these peoples.

Do you know much about European and Russian pre-Christian beliefs? I suppose not. Before I learned about them I also had to think that traditional family values = Christain values, but after learning about the ancient beliefs of our ancestors I realised that the traditional family did not begin with Christianity, which is actually only logical otherwise our species would not even reach that point of civilisation where writing and therefore Christianity even become possible.

My point is that traditional family values that are deeply embedded in our value system do not come fom Christianity. They predate Christianity and are preimordial. Christianity is only a step-mother to these values and it even has done a few things to weaken these values if compared to pre-Christian era. Only compared to todays liberal degeneracy does Christianity seems like a bastion of traditional values. It had merely usurped these values and sold as it's own to sell it's idea of savior and it has weakened these values to push people from an independant tribal worldview into a domisticated increasingly centralised lifestyle (more globalised if you will) , which is why Constantine and later European kings were happy to switch the official religion of state from traditional religions to Christianity - it gave more power to the King.

You have probably heard about Christianty unheriting pagan pagan holidays. Well actually it inharited much more including traditional family values. The only major change was a shift from associating divinity with tribal nationalistic lifestyle close to nature to associating it with Monarch's rule and feodal lifestyle.

Post: #60

(05-12-2016 01:04 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 12:36 PM)Hannibal Wrote:  I think the Pope "crossed the Rubicon" when he welcomed the crossing of millions of Muslims across the Mediterranean.

And condoning homosexuality

Yeah, like 90% of the Catholic priests weren't already flaming homosexuals and pedophiles raping the altar boys.

Post: #61

(05-16-2016 01:11 AM)eradicator Wrote:  Yeah, like 90% of the Catholic priests weren't already flaming homosexuals and pedophiles raping the altar boys.

This is a pretty exaggerated statement, sure there are perverted priests but 90% is an obvious exaggeration that only someone who has no direct experience with Catholic Church would believe.

I believe around 10% is a more realistic number for priests that break celibacy laws and I think most of them do this with adult prostitutes or each other or female members of congregation who have the tendency to fall in love to the unavailable man.

Post: #62

(05-13-2016 11:43 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  ^^^ +1 Rep point to Mage for a stellar post.

Catholicism, and more broadly Christianity (and really to a certain extent all religion) seeks to make betas of us all. It's goal is to make us subservient and obedient; to follow commandments, and to bow and beseech before an omnipotent power beyond our ability to comprehend.

Whatever can be said about its promotion of "traditional" values and male/female relationships, the basic belief of every major religion is that God exists as the ultimate Alpha. Man's relationship to God is essentially that of subject to master. God decrees, man has no choice but to fall in line — or perish.

I've long held that religion is OK for women, and the poor & uneducated, but is unbecoming in everyone else. (Incidentally, I've never met a man who is fervently religious whom I didn't find to be effeminate and/or crazy.)

Men should be focused on conquering the natural world — and one does that by mastering science and learning to think rationally, not by putting one's faith in the so-called "supernatural."

I grew up Catholic, and attended Catholic schools. I'm old enough to have had nuns as teachers in grade school. If I had to express my overwhelming impression of Catholic clergy in a word, it would be: sexless. Remember that the Church requires its priests & nuns to essentially swear off sex permanently. The Pope is a celibate man. Perhaps there is some sensible justification for this requirement — I've never heard it.

Both your and Mage's posts are thought provoking. And for sure I'm not a very good Catholic. But religion does not necessarily seek to make betas and docile men. Perhaps the fiercest warriors in history were the Knights Templar and other knighthood orders.

To me, as a convert in the Easter Rite, I had a hard time with the bowing down part. It is more than the Roman kneel. I came to understand, and my priest approved of my words, that I "bow down to God, and no one else."

Through force and fear, anyone can be made to bow down and submit. I think it was Plato who said "courage is knowing what to fear."

When you fear God, you need not fear any earthly power. When you bow down to God, you need not bow down to any other.

I can find some stuff on how the Knights interpreted their religion to be warriors. I don't think they had a secret, separate religion.

Post: #63

(05-15-2016 10:06 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 08:42 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  No, I like and respect the Russians and Russia for all its faults. Orthodox Christianity is true, yes. It has always held your family model, so I dispute your former characterization at least for these peoples.

Do you know much about European and Russian pre-Christian beliefs? I suppose not. Before I learned about them I also had to think that traditional family values = Christain values, but after learning about the ancient beliefs of our ancestors I realised that the traditional family did not begin with Christianity, which is actually only logical otherwise our species would not even reach that point of civilisation where writing and therefore Christianity even become possible.

My point is that traditional family values that are deeply embedded in our value system do not come fom Christianity. They predate Christianity and are preimordial. Christianity is only a step-mother to these values and it even has done a few things to weaken these values if compared to pre-Christian era. Only compared to todays liberal degeneracy does Christianity seems like a bastion of traditional values. It had merely usurped these values and sold as it's own to sell it's idea of savior and it has weakened these values to push people from an independant tribal worldview into a domisticated increasingly centralised lifestyle (more globalised if you will) , which is why Constantine and later European kings were happy to switch the official religion of state from traditional religions to Christianity - it gave more power to the King.

You have probably heard about Christianty unheriting pagan pagan holidays. Well actually it inharited much more including traditional family values. The only major change was a shift from associating divinity with tribal nationalistic lifestyle close to nature to associating it with Monarch's rule and feodal lifestyle.

Again, I don't dispute many of these points either. Since my claim is that you are looking for the "worldly" biological basis for everything, of course I agree with you when you say that male/female things are ordered from the beginning.

Your point on Constantine is speculation, irrelevant for the topic of this conversation, and not something he would claim (or even close to it --- see Chi-Ro symbol).

The point of Christianity, whether we want to incorporate it or not, is that there is a right (orthodox) way to understand human biology and its nature, as well as family structure. Have these things been corrupted over time? Of course. Has Christianity been changed and perverted over time? Yes, look at the West.

You keep insisting that I disagree with you --- I don't --- we are just talking about nuances and rightly understanding what our discussion presents. That's all.

Post: #64

^^^

This is why Moto realized that at least "Eastern Rite" is getting closer, and he understands that those people are Orthodox but with historical political affiliations. There's nothing "roman" about them, in the modern way of understanding Rome. At all. They don't even believe in [all] catholic dogma but are ok for whatever reason of being under the yoke, and the pope was always happy about that. That's why their priests are "allowed" to be married (again, orthodox). Their services are the same as the orthodox. I could go into more detail but it's not necessary at this time. I would be surprised if they changed the creed [filioque] too, but I haven't been in an eastern rite church in a long time, so maybe moto could tell me.

Post: #65

(05-18-2016 09:41 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  ^^^

This is why Moto realized that at least "Eastern Rite" is getting closer, and he understands that those people are Orthodox but with historical political affiliations. There's nothing "roman" about them, in the modern way of understanding Rome. At all. They don't even believe in [all] catholic dogma but are ok for whatever reason of being under the yoke, and the pope was always happy about that. That's why their priests are "allowed" to be married (again, orthodox). Their services are the same as the orthodox. I could go into more detail but it's not necessary at this time. I would be surprised if they changed the creed [filioque] too, but I haven't been in an eastern rite church in a long time, so maybe moto could tell me.

The eastern rite churches I attended in the states (I won't be too specific) left out the "and the son." In one of them, the English liturgy was somewhat shortened to about an hour, which I really liked. The eastern european language liturgy was "full orthodox length."

Post: #66

I've spoken at some length before about issues affecting the Catholic Church. It's time to break out the knowledge bomb once again so pull up a chair and grab yourselves a cup of coffee. We're going in.

Here's the tl;dr version: Francis has indeed done a great deal of damage and gone a long way towards wrecking the Catholic Church.
But, there is hope.

On a historical level, there is evidence of this. The policies of Popes throughout the ages have always swung from left to right. Those of you who might recall the actions of John Paul II and Benedict will no doubt be aware that they held several conservative positions (this is further echoed by the statement of Paul VI) most notably that women would never becomes priests in the church.
Francis' behaviour is the counter to this position.

In order for Francis to to create a commission to study whether women can be deacons in the Catholic Church, he would have to hold a vote on the matter. The Synod of Bishops (formed in 1965) has defeated Francis' attempts to liberalize in the past, most notably demonstrated when they voted against the decision to offer communion to those who previously would not be afforded it.

Now, you may ask, why does he not simply issue an order to allow it if he in indeed such a liberal who is committed to the cause of feminization in the church?
1 word - Precedent.
By doing so, he would be directly overturning the wills of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict. And as a matter of succession, Popes don't like to contradict their predecessors because it means that they themselves may be contradicted after they have passed. Each likes to leave a legacy of achievement from their tenure and doing so would basically be like calling 'Do Over' each time a new Pope is elected.

When Francis steps down/passes away (for these are the only 2 methods by which a Pope can be removed) his successor will be able to repair the damage in one of 3 ways:

-Issuing an Apostolic Exhortation. In laymen's terms, this is a declaration of his intentions. A kind of wishlist for what he wants to get done. It is also the most mild.
-Issuing an Apostolic Constitution. This is the process by which a Pope intends to alter a legal structure within the church. It is then handed down to the Synod of Bishops who are tasked with enacting it. The best example of this would be when the Odinariate was created to accommodate disenfranchised members of the Church of England.
-Issuing a Papal Bull. Insomuch as the word of the Pope is law within the Catholic Church, this could most succinctly be considered a blanket command. No ands, ifs or buts. When one of these comes down, you follow it.

So, you see now how it is indeed possible and indeed probable that the Church will correct itself in due course. It will not happen quickly, by any stretch of the imagination, but it will swing back to a conservative position in time.

Post: #67

(05-18-2016 10:49 AM)Moto Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:41 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  ^^^

This is why Moto realized that at least "Eastern Rite" is getting closer, and he understands that those people are Orthodox but with historical political affiliations. There's nothing "roman" about them, in the modern way of understanding Rome. At all. They don't even believe in [all] catholic dogma but are ok for whatever reason of being under the yoke, and the pope was always happy about that. That's why their priests are "allowed" to be married (again, orthodox). Their services are the same as the orthodox. I could go into more detail but it's not necessary at this time. I would be surprised if they changed the creed [filioque] too, but I haven't been in an eastern rite church in a long time, so maybe moto could tell me.

The eastern rite churches I attended in the states (I won't be too specific) left out the "and the son." In one of them, the English liturgy was somewhat shortened to about an hour, which I really liked. The eastern european language liturgy was "full orthodox length."

Thank you for further confirming that they are orthodox, just have been steamrolled by historically political ecclesiology. They even agree with the Orthodox on essence and energies of God, distancing themselves from what is now called Rome on several theological levels (rejecting Aquinas Aristotelian rationalism). That there are some that remain "Roman Catholic" befuddles me. But they call themselves eastern rite or byzantine ... which is amusing. Why? The Orthodox Church calls itself the one holy catholic and apostolic church ... because it is the real one.

Post: #68

(05-18-2016 03:06 PM)Hardy Daytona Wrote:  I've spoken at some length before about issues affecting the Catholic Church. It's time to break out the knowledge bomb once again so pull up a chair and grab yourselves a cup of coffee. We're going in.

Here's the tl;dr version: Francis has indeed done a great deal of damage and gone a long way towards wrecking the Catholic Church.
But, there is hope.

On a historical level, there is evidence of this. The policies of Popes throughout the ages have always swung from left to right. Those of you who might recall the actions of John Paul II and Benedict will no doubt be aware that they held several conservative positions (this is further echoed by the statement of Paul VI) most notably that women would never becomes priests in the church.
Francis' behaviour is the counter to this position.

In order for Francis to to create a commission to study whether women can be deacons in the Catholic Church, he would have to hold a vote on the matter. The Synod of Bishops (formed in 1965) has defeated Francis' attempts to liberalize in the past, most notably demonstrated when they voted against the decision to offer communion to those who previously would not be afforded it.

Now, you may ask, why does he not simply issue an order to allow it if he in indeed such a liberal who is committed to the cause of feminization in the church?
1 word - Precedent.
By doing so, he would be directly overturning the wills of Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict. And as a matter of succession, Popes don't like to contradict their predecessors because it means that they themselves may be contradicted after they have passed. Each likes to leave a legacy of achievement from their tenure and doing so would basically be like calling 'Do Over' each time a new Pope is elected.

When Francis steps down/passes away (for these are the only 2 methods by which a Pope can be removed) his successor will be able to repair the damage in one of 3 ways:

-Issuing an Apostolic Exhortation. In laymen's terms, this is a declaration of his intentions. A kind of wishlist for what he wants to get done. It is also the most mild.
-Issuing an Apostolic Constitution. This is the process by which a Pope intends to alter a legal structure within the church. It is then handed down to the Synod of Bishops who are tasked with enacting it. The best example of this would be when the Odinariate was created to accommodate disenfranchised members of the Church of England.
-Issuing a Papal Bull. Insomuch as the word of the Pope is law within the Catholic Church, this could most succinctly be considered a blanket command. No ands, ifs or buts. When one of these comes down, you follow it.

So, you see now how it is indeed possible and indeed probable that the Church will correct itself in due course. It will not happen quickly, by any stretch of the imagination, but it will swing back to a conservative position in time.

Apart from scandalizing current believers by confusing them, from age to age, cycle to cycle, your post proves the point why it cannot possibly have ever been the true church --- when things become cyclical there is no bedrock or foundation that you can look to in order to ground yourself.

You become another institution, pushed and pulled by the whims of the current culture and its pressures ...

Post: #69

(05-18-2016 06:45 AM)Moto Wrote:  [R]eligion does not necessarily seek to make betas and docile men. . . . To me, as a convert in the Easter Rite, I had a hard time with the bowing down part. It is more than the Roman kneel. I came to understand, and my priest approved of my words, that I "bow down to God, and no one else."

With all due respect, this is a little like saying, "I bow down to no one — except Barack Obama. He is, after all, the president."

Any idea about God necessarily carries implications for man and how he is to view himself. There's no escaping this. If God is Alpha, man is beta. If God is the omnipotent creator of the universe, then man by definition exists as God's subordinate.

I don't believe in God, and thus I don't ever think of myself in this way. I bow down to no one — because I do not bow.

Post: #70

Alpha and Beta are human constructs; I'm not saying they aren't real, I'm accurately describing them.

As such, and this is what is so frustrating about it, they have nothing to do with the conversation at least regard christianity.

If you already presume it is false, why even talk about it --- you are talking about it as a man-made thing.

It's just the wrong approach entirely. Solomon banged lots of women and found he was always left wanting more ... The topics are all covered

Post: #71

(05-18-2016 09:29 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  You keep insisting that I disagree with you --- I don't --- we are just talking about nuances and rightly understanding what our discussion presents. That's all.

Not insisting that you disagree with me any more! I was just enjoying a good discussion.

Post: #72

(05-18-2016 06:56 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 06:45 AM)Moto Wrote:  [R]eligion does not necessarily seek to make betas and docile men. . . . To me, as a convert in the Easter Rite, I had a hard time with the bowing down part. It is more than the Roman kneel. I came to understand, and my priest approved of my words, that I "bow down to God, and no one else."

With all due respect, this is a little like saying, "I bow down to no one — except Barack Obama. He is, after all, the president."

Any idea about God necessarily carries implications for man and how he is to view himself. There's no escaping this. If God is Alpha, man is beta. If God is the omnipotent creator of the universe, then man by definition exists as God's subordinate.

I don't believe in God, and thus I don't ever think of myself in this way. I bow down to no one — because I do not bow.

Scoundrel and Moto -

I believe the best answer to this dilemma is to not view God as a dictator of the universe, but rather to view God as your benevolent teacher and to give him respect and acknowledge his superiority in this way. You must view your potential as being like him one day by becoming as saint as him, but now you must give your respects to your teacher and to his wisdom as you discover the meaning, beauty and purpose in the life. If you cannot acknowledge another person as your superior then you cannot learn from him and thus you inhibit your own growth out of pride - that is the mystical meaning of humility and why it is exalted in religions.

This is a little harder to do in afterlife paradigms where God is always separate from Creation, but is easier to do in reincarnation paradigms where you realize there is an infinite cycle of consciousnesses circulation between God, humans, animals and everything exiting.

Whether do you physically do bow or not depends solely on how you feel about it and if your can manage to handle the dissonance between mind and body. For most effective results the mind and body must be united, but if you consciousness is very sharp then any spiritual activity can be performed independently form the state of your body. Again - it is important to be humble and realistic about your ability.

Post: #73

Great video by Paul Watson dismantling Cuck Pope Francis

Post: #74

More industrial-strength cucking from Pope Francis:

Quote:Pope Says Church Must Apologize To LGBT Community

On his return trip from Armenia, as has become custom, Pope Francis answered questions from the press aboard the papal plane. He answered a handful of questions concerning his trip to Armenia, its impacts on relations with Turkey, Pope Emeritus Benedict, the Pan-Orthodox council, the Brexit, and more.

The second to last question he was asked concerned German Cardinal Marx and his statement that the Catholic Church must “ask forgiveness from the gay community” for having marginalised these people.

In the official translation of his comments from the Vatican, Pope Francis answered:

“I will repeat what I said on my first trip. I repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: that they must not be discriminated against, that they must be respected and accompanied pastorally. One may condemn, not for theological reasons, but for reasons of, let’s say, political behaviour – certain manifestations are a little too offensive to others. But these things have nothing to do with the problem. The problem is that if a person in this condition has good will and seeks God, who are we to judge? And we must accompany them well. … Then there are traditions in some countries, in some cultures that have a different mentality on this problem. I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness from the gay person who is offended, but she must also ask for forgiveness from the poor too, from women who are exploited, from children who are exploited for labour. She must ask forgiveness for having blessed so many weapons. The Church must ask forgiveness for often not behaving well – when I say the Church, I mean Christians. The Church is holy, we are sinners. Christians must ask forgiveness for having not accompanied so many choices, and so many families. …I remember from my childhood, the culture in Buenos Aires, the closed Catholic culture. I come from there. You couldn’t enter the house of a divorced family; I’m speaking of 80 years ago. The culture has changed, thanks be to God. Christians must apologise for many things, and not just this: they must ask for forgiveness, not just offer apologies. Forgive me, Lord: words we often forget”.

http://ucatholic.com/news/pope-says-chur...community/

Even the firm Catholics that I know who fervently support the Pope are shocked by how brazen this is. This is full-on Year Zero statement from the head of a supposedly traditional institution. Unbelievable!

Post: #75