Is the pope a Christian?

[Zhade]

This is a serious question. I know the answer, you know the answer, but the question illustrates a point.

Pretty much everyone here would say that yes, Ratzinger is a Christian. I think we can agree on that much, right?

Okay.

But his actions are sometimes the opposite in spirit of those attributed to Jesus - love thy neighbor (Ratzinger has said gays are living "evil" lives), feed the hungry/clothe the naked (how many currently-starving children could be fed on the accumulated wealth of the Catholic Church? How many homeless in rags could be clothed?), etc.

How about the Catholic bishops in Africa who lie about AIDS passing through condoms to discourage their use? Isn't lying "unChristian", to those who believe they can judge others' professed Christianity?

On the flip side, look at a scumbag like Robertson. Even he, at times, must exhibit "Christian love", even if only toward those who agree with him. Does Robertson become Christian in those moments?

JFK. Good Catholic boy, right? Oops, he slept around. So, to remain consistent with the "no true Christian" meme, was he not a true Christian?

What about you? If Christian, do you ever lie? Fail to turn the other cheek? Hate someone? Are you thus not a true Christian?

Do you now see how quickly the waters are muddied when the "no True Christian Scotsman" fallacy is thrown around?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. The Pope is a Christian

How GOOD a Christian he is is between him and his maker. We can't evaluate his faith but we can evaluate his actions.

[davidinalameda]

17. amen Grannie

couldn't have said it better myself

[JerseygirlCT]

18. I blather on for paragraphs and you get it in two sentences! nt

[SPKrazy]

2. Does A Bear Shit In The Woods?

or is that the Pope?

Yes the Pope is a Christian, as the head of one of the "original" large movements of Christianity I find it hard to believe that there are people around that say Catholics aren't Christians but there are (not the OP)

Some of the fundie religions in America have preachers who proclaim the Catholics not to be Christian

And yet they still find a way to align theselves with each other on issues like abortion etc.

[Zhade]

4. I know!

It's crazy.

(Btw, I've been reading your interactions with BMUS and kwassa recently, and how you've rightly argued against kwassa's intolerant defintion of Christian, and I have to say, I'm impressed. Any friend of BMUS is a friend of mine.)

[SPKrazy]

5. Thanks

I just see no room for intolerance if I am to follow the teachings of Christ.

And it is just personally offensive to me to not be tolerant, and when I'm not it bothers me.

[kwassa]

21. "Intolerant" definition of Christian?

oh, please, are you buying that line, too?

or can you think for yourself?

It is about politics, not tolerance.

[Zhade]

34. Just acknowledging a great argument on her behalf.

NT!

[beam me up scottie]

38. Thanks, Zhade.

But I had a lot of help.


I feel we've had some real breakthroughs this week.

For instance, kwassa has now declared that he doesn't have the right to exclude other christians and that his opinion about Hitler is nothing more than just his opinion.


I'm not exactly sure why anyone would spend countless hours, days and weeks posting in this forum just to back up their opinion that Hitler lied about his christianity, but hey, it's not my place to judge others.



I'm just looking forward to never again having to hear the claim that Hitler wasn't a christian presented as fact.

[SPKrazy]

37. I'm Talking About Tolerance

and I can and do think for myself thank you very much

[Proud_Democratt]

3. He claims to be...so he is. Do we question Muslims or Jews?

Bad Christians, Muslims, Jews exists, but they are what they claim. We like to pick and choose who is Christian or not. There are horrible people that are of one faith or another.

[SPKrazy]

6. Exactly!

people are what they are, and if they profess to believe a certain way, then that is what it is.

[Gregorian]

7. I am not qualified to answer.

But I want to.

Remember, the story of the good Samaritan. One of those who walked by that man was a religious figure.

Actions speak louder than words.

We cannot judge who is and who isn't a Christian. We could never know. Although when we see extremes, we have a very good idea. Mother Teresa. Hitler.

I would guess that a man who commits murder, but who truely realizes the full extent of his deed, and who has begged for forgiveness in a sincere attempt to communicate his act, could still be a Christian. As opposed to someone who didn't care that he had killed someone.

Just because someone sits in a high position of religious stature does not automatically make them a Christian.

Being a Christian, from my experience, is not something a human being can actually attain. I think it's something we strive to be. Love thy enemy? That is as close to impossible as flying without wings.

I think it's pretty obvious that there are many religious figures who claim to be Christians who are not. You don't advocate assasination and hate. Those are the opposite of love. And swinging an incense around is just that. It may represent something, but it's not something Christ would deem neccisary in order to be a Christian. There are really two commandments. The first. And love they neighbor. At least that is my limited understanding.

So to be a Christian means to love. And I am a near total failure. But at least I know it. I hate the loggers who are vandalizing the forest behind me. And I know it's wrong, and perhaps worse to hate them than to have the forest gone. I don't know.

As for me. I do not lie. I never have. And that's what makes this administration so difficult for me to tolerate.

The way I see it is, the bottom line is whether there is goodness in our hearts. And I really believe that no matter what we've done, if we have love in our hearts, we are being Christian. Also, I think we can fall from Christianity. If we grow, like I am beginning to do, into hateful beings we part ways with being a Christian.

I see it as something we cannot know in others, but we can know only for ourselves. And regardless of how confused we may be by our world, if we stive to find the answer based on love, we will do what is Christian. And that means using the commandments and scriptures as guidance. Just reading the words that Jesus spoke in his life would be about all anyone would need. Just those silly little red letters. Those are some amazing words.

I'm not sure I've accomplished a thing in this post. It all seems so simple to me. Even so, I am failing. I find myself hating. But as I spend more time with groups like this one, I believe I'm growing. Maybe I'm failing less as time goes on.

Something I wrote about on another post was how I experienced something very powerful recently. Two enemies who became friends. That's all.

[Zhade]

8. Sometimes, that's the most powerful thing around.

I know - my best friend and I used to HATE each other. Vehemently. To the point of seething.

Now we'd walk through fire for each other.

You're right, that's very powerful. And wonderful.

[Warpy]

9. Well, they've slightly moderated their condom idiocy

to the point of saying infected spouses should protect the uninfected spouse by using a condom. But you can tell their hearts aren't in it.

I think celibate old men would serve their church and their god much better if they'd refrain from yammering about a subject they have based their lives on avoiding first hand knowledge of.

[Zhade]

10. Agreed!

:)

[Shipwack]

11. Well, assuming that we're defining "Christian" as someone that...

...tries to follow Christ teachings (as opposed to being a cookbook Christian, who is one because he got baptized, etc at all the right places), the answer is...

We really don't know. I don't interact with the man, and while he says a lot I disagree with, I don't -think- it is with malice in his heart. Then again, I could be wrong. I don't commute to Vatican City, nor have I endlessly pored over his life and writings. I have enough trouble with the boards in my own eyes without looking for the specks in the eyes of others.

I -believe- that the answer is probably yes, he is a Christian, albeit a flawed one, as most of us are, in one way or another.

[Zhade]

12. Ah, but Robertson and Ratzinger interpret those teachings differently.

Although they do seem to share an antipathy toward queers like myself...!

[Goblinmonger]

25. oh, man, you're a queer?

Shit. And I thought you weren't at the root of all our countries problems. Damn you.

[Hoping4Change]

13. A Christian is anyone who has been baptized a Christian.

As to whether one is a true Christian or not is up to God.

[Zhade]

14. Good answer, I think.

NT!

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Here are where I see the problems with all that

First, as hard as it can be to accept, "Christian" is a term that can only be self-applied. I cannot judge whether someone else is a "Christian". It is a name that one takes on oneself. Of course, this means some pretty odious people (see Bush, Falwell, Robertson, et al) get to call themselves Christian, and I have to just take it.

But only so far with the taking it part. I can call them on their behavior. And I think it's fair to point out where their behavior diverges from at least the pretty widely accepted idea of Christian behavior.

The bigger part of the question comes down to what calling oneself a Christian means. I don't necessarily mean by that what beliefs it means a person holds. I mean, why does someone call themselves Christian? God doesn't give a whit about what a person calls themselves. Of this, I'm sure. And I'm also sure Falwell and company would strongly disagree. I don't believe any particular profession is of substance to God. I think God cares about: love one another. The rest, as Rabbi Hillel said, is commentary. So "Christian" is a a human construct. It's a self-identifier. But what it means can be so broad as to almost negate it as an identifier. The only reason to use the term is to set a bar that you would have to meet. It shouldn't be something done to make you look better, but to force you to act better. Am I making sense?

To some, it means a particular profession of faith. To some, it means trying to follow the teachings of Christ. Some would be horrified if a person who was uncertain of Jesus's divinity maintained that they were Christian. Others would not. Do you see what I mean?

And the final problem here is the idea that because someone wishes to follow a set of beliefs that their behavior is always perfectly in sync with those beliefs. Impossible, as we're human. So every single self-professed Christian, alive or dead, has fallen from the ideal. Every single one. Being fallible, making mistakes, missing the mark (the real definition of "sin") is absolutely part of being a Christian. It's the striving that matters.

And I have just unwittingly written a novel. My apologies to all if you've gotten this far.

[NMMNG]

16. The Pope is a Christian

Is he a stellar example of Christianity? IMO he is not, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is a Christian.


Christians exist on a continuum just like everybody. Some will follow Christ's teachings 5%, others follow them 10% or 30%, and so on, way up to the people who follow them 90% or even 95%. It's not a strict dichotomy of "true Christians" vs. "fake Christians".

[trotsky]

19. A very good question, Zhade.

We know that some Christians flee in horror from any suggestion that Hitler, or even Bush are Christians. "Why not?" we ask them. "Because they do not follow the teachings of Christ!" we are told. Well here you go, the leader of the largest Christian church in the world. Does he follow those teachings enough?

As you note, the final destination of this line of argumentation is that no one, not one person, is a Christian.

[kwassa]

22. Not true

trotsky:
"As you note, the final destination of this line of argumentation is that no one, not one person, is a Christian."

Not really. The final destination is really that there is a wide variety of opinions among humans as to what constitutes a Christian. The other agreed-upon idea is that it is really up to God to decide who is a proper Christian or not.

You attempt to turn it into an all-or-nothing proposition.

[trotsky]

23. Oh kwassa, you have proven yourself willing to be that judge.

You wanna talk about all-or-nothing, just go back and read your posts. Oy.

[kwassa]

24. Sure I am that judge, and so are many others.

I never said that mine was the only opinion.

[trotsky]

26. No, but you broadcast your opinion as if it were fact.

And only back off when called on it.

[kwassa]

28. How does one broadcast one's opinion? AM, FM, or satellite?

How is me stating my opinion any different than anyone else?

And how many here state their opinion as if it were fact, trotsky? Their names are legion. We all do it, including you.

[trotsky]

29. The difference is,

you only admit it when challenged. You whine louder than most when someone offers their opinion (especially on what it means to be a Christian OR an atheist), yet you act surprised when others call you on yours.

A lot of us are just trying to figure out the hypocrisy.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. And one isn't a Christian when one becomes perfect

Christians are supposed to understand that they are far from perfect.

There's a difference between attaining the goals set out by the faith and striving for them.

[kwassa]

20. I have no idea if the Pope is a Christian

Zhade:
"Pretty much everyone here would say that yes, Ratzinger is a Christian. I think we can agree on that much, right?"

We have no way of knowing. That is between him and God, in my opinion.

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply, as I pointed out before.

I would also point out the that Catholic Church does a huge amount of charitable work around the world, including the US. I simply say this because you point out what you see as all the failures of the church.

[Hoping4Change]

30. Anyone who is baptized is Christian therefore the Pope is Christian.

[GreenArrow]

31. "Anyone who is baptized is Christian "

in which case "Christian" is a fairly meaningless appellation.

[Hoping4Change]

39. Why does it make it meaningless?

[Goblinmonger]

27. A very good example to point out

the often idiocy of comments made on here about X not being a real christian.

The obvious problem is that there are sooooo many sects of Christianity and they each have their views on what is right. They each have support from the bible for those views. And since religion is not a rational endeavor, there is no way to prove which interpretation is correct. Libs say religious right is crazy and the religious right counters with the same argument. Once you start eliminating people from the club due to interpretation, there is very quickly no longer a club.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. And the real point is that there really isn't supposed to be a "club"

that is, something to which some belong and some don't.

As I said above, plenty of people attach the name to themselves, hoping it will make them appear to be better people. In reality, taking that name only means you're supposed to strive for some pretty high standards. It's about what you do for others, not what it can do for you.

I think that gets lost, often.

[Zhade]

35. "hoping it will make them appear to be better people"

Again, though, you have absolutely no way to KNOW that this is why people call themselves Christian, as you can't read minds.

"In reality, taking that name only means you're supposed to strive for some pretty high standards. It's about what you do for others, not what it can do for you."

And that's fine, for you. It's your interpretation. But many Christians (I've known a few from my own Christian days) believe very differently than you, and also cherry-pick their bible to support their view.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. Ah, well, the bible can really only be cherry-picked. And I do believe

that's its best use. Interpretation is all. In fact, what we have is the product of centuries old interpretive choices. And there's certainly plenty of contradictory things in there if you look at it literally. So even those literalists cherry-pick. They just don't admit it!

And I don't read minds. (Shame, that.) But I also didn't say that all Christians call themselves that for in order to insure they appear members of the club. That's most certainly not the case. In fact, I'd say many do not. I'm thinking more along the lines of the type of people who voted for Bush because he was a "good Christian man". He was quite happy to take advantage of what the term implied to these folks. But I think we here can all agree on his level of commitment to the idea of loving your neighbor, don't you think?

[moobu2]

40. He's a paulinian who just uses Jesus for political purposes.

[Proud_Democratt]

41. True.