‘God does not bless any conflict’: pope issues new rebuke over Iran war

Eh, Obama had actual charisma, that's why he won while being black. Yes the right hated him for oftentimes racist reasons, but he actually excited people to come out and vote for him. The DNC candidates since then have been as inspiring as a sack of potatoes.

Actually they're Prostrates because they're so far up Trump's arse.

Yes, there is a group of Catholics that became the b**** of evangelical Baptist. They are conservatives wearing the skin of Catholicism. They like the optics and traditions of the church, not the doctrine. The only catholic teaching they seem to care about is being against abortion. But they support the death penalty. Don't give a f*** about poor, homeless, and hungry and reject the pope's guidance. And the best part is the evangelicals hate them anyway, but count on their votes for whatever insane Christian nationalist they can nominate.

I though he was asking if it would lead to more of those undesirable actions.... But now you just made me throw up in my mouth a lil

For evangelicals, the phrase critical thinking is sinful, because with critical thinking a person may question and eventually disagree with the church and god. That in itself is a big no-no.

Even Buddhists have to deal with this between the Theraveda and Mahayana sects. Theravedans are fundamentalists who believe that the Buddha's word are the Buddha's words and anyone who thinks that teachings can exist outside of them are heretical. But Mahayanists realize that the Buddha used the linguistic tools he had at the time and tailor focused them directly at people that needed to hear them, and therefore all his teachings were upaya (skillful means -- statements made more for their affect than for their truth value). Mahayanists, like Zen Buddhism, believe that you should emulate the Buddha in all aspects instead of just following his teachings. Just like how leftist Christians believe you should emulate Jesus whereas rightist Christians believe you should revere Jesus for having already saved you and that emulating him is wholly unnecessary. The mentality dynamic is the same because the common denominator is the variance in human mentality.

And for the forced expansion of the belief system. Colonization if you’re feeling spicy.

Interestingly, at that time, no one called these wars a ‘crusade’. They were a response to the Arabs conquering 1/2 of the Christian lands from the Byzantines. The Arabs considered the Christian soldiers as trying to recapture lost lands, which was completely normal for them. Supposedly the word ‘crusade’ 1st came into usage in the 18th century, but became popular in the 19th & 20th centuries. In pope Urbana’s papal bull, he never used the word‘crusade.’ The word ‘crusade’ came into use as an easy way to distinguish the various campaigns, especially for history teachers. Anyway, correct me if I’m wrong. This is what I read as I’m a history fan.

>I’m not sure what people like you want the pope to do/say. Advocating for peace is probably in the best interests Sure but let me use a comparison Imagine a made up scenario if the current German Leader said the Following Germany supports peace. Germany has never supported any War. It feel a bit hypocritical. When they could have just said Germany supports Peace. They didnt have to try to whitewash past actions.

Because to anyone who knows even *a little bit* of Catholic history, it vibes like "No one else can do holy war, that's *our* thing." >Besides the Catholic Church doesn’t necessarily strictly adhere to the bible anyway. Ya don't say? They haven't *ever*, it's just their favorite cudgel to use against others. But the fact is, he quoted it as justification for his stance on peace...when the entire first half of the book is a full-on justification *for* holy war, over and over and over. So your argument here is basically: What do we expect? For him to be more familiar with his own religious history and his own *one* holy book, b/c it's not really his holy book anyway? Yes, yes we do. (I'm not sure why "people like you" imagine that anyone outside of Catholicism takes the pope seriously, let alone is willing to do such mental gymnastics for him. Any pope, not just this one.)

> The New Testament generally takes a different approach to this. Does this mean the OT is wrong and that god never ordered conflicts on his behalf? Or does it mean that god changed to become less conflict prone? (If so how does that work when god's supposed to be perfect?) The problem isn't the teachings of Jesus, it's that the Bible clearly shows the nature of god is warlike. (In fact the Abrahamic god is likely an evolution of an older war god in some theories.)

>and the Old Testament is more for context building and to show a journey of change rather than to be taken literally. This is just a sad attempt to cope with the fact they can't justify the incoherences in their holy book.

This is an argument to popularity though, not a response to the logical inconsistencies that the other user presented. Just because a lot of people aren't sensitive to that logical inconsistency doesn't mean it doesn't exist.