The way Christians behave can either help and inspire others, or turn them away from ever following Jesus, Pope Francis said Wednesday.

"How many times we've heard in our neighborhoods, 'Oh that person over there always goes to church, but he badmouths everyone, skins them alive.' What a bad example to badmouth other people. This is not Christian," the pope said at his weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square.

Causing scandal and being a bad example turn people off, making them think, "Hey, if that is being Christian, I'll be an atheist.' That's because our witness is what makes people see what it is to be a Christian," he said.

Usually, even a heathen knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Spearthrower wrote:Between this and the recent embracing of evolution, it looks like the Pope's been reading Augustine!

Usually, even a heathen knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

JVRaines wrote:Bergoglio is about nothing if not PR and appearances.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Between this and the recent embracing of evolution, it looks like the Pope's been reading Augustine!

Usually, even a heathen knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Now ther's some words that hold up rather well to the test of time! Way to go, St. Augustine!

And ummmm. Spearthrower, please do remember to adequately reference your quotes.

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Between this and the recent embracing of evolution, it looks like the Pope's been reading Augustine!

Usually, even a heathen knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Now ther's some words that hold up rather well to the test of time! Way to go, St. Augustine!

And ummmm. Spearthrower, please do remember to adequately reference your quotes.

I did adequately reference my quote, Platko.

They do indeed hold up well, Platko, and the fact that they do shows that Christians are still using stupid argumentation to propound their beliefs. Those Christians would do well to contemplate these words. You would do well to contemplate these words.

"... For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Between this and the recent embracing of evolution, it looks like the Pope's been reading Augustine!

Now ther's some words that hold up rather well to the test of time! Way to go, St. Augustine!

And ummmm. Spearthrower, please do remember to adequately reference your quotes.

I did adequately reference my quote, Platko.

Since Saints like Thomas and Augustine had a tendency to write on at length it would be most helpful if you
reference the particular stream of consciousness you are quoting from.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:They do indeed hold up well, Platko, and the fact that they do shows that Christians are still using stupid argumentation to propound their beliefs. Those Christians would do well to contemplate these words. You would do well to contemplate these words.

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems like a pretty cogent statement to me.

John Platko wrote:Take this part for example:

"... For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they (the reckless, incompetent expounders of scripture) will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Spearthrower wrote:Ahh, now that's a completely different form of request. If you want me to cite it to help you, then fine!

De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis), Chapter 19, book 1.

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:


Now ther's some words that hold up rather well to the test of time! Way to go, St. Augustine!

And ummmm. Spearthrower, please do remember to adequately reference your quotes.

I did adequately reference my quote, Platko.

Since Saints like Thomas and Augustine had a tendency to write on at length it would be most helpful if you
reference the particular stream of consciousness you are quoting from.

Ahh, now that's a completely different form of request. If you want me to cite it to help you, then fine!

De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis), Chapter 19, book 1.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we may find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. We should not battle for our own interpretation but for the teaching of Holy Scripture. We should not wish to conform the meaning of Holy Scripture to our interpretation, but our interpretation to the meaning of Holy Scripture."

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:They do indeed hold up well, Platko, and the fact that they do shows that Christians are still using stupid argumentation to propound their beliefs. Those Christians would do well to contemplate these words. You would do well to contemplate these words.

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems like a pretty cogent statement to me.

The reader will note that I have not claimed the text lacked cogency, but rather that Christians still employ stupid arguments, and Platko is a good example of this, so he would potentially benefit from contemplating on the merit of this excerpt.

John Platko wrote:Take this part for example:

"... For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Precisely, I do indeed 'take that part', and it very much supports what I said; you might want to allow your brain to dwell on it prior to typing more words.

While doing that, I'd also suggest including the sentence prior to it which provides the context and the target for that particular accusation:

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they (the reckless, incompetent expounders of scripture) will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Don't worry - there's plenty written by Augustine to console you too. It's not like he actually values the thoughts of a non-believer, just seeks to stop Christians from making idiotic arguments and absurd exegesis.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

I did adequately reference my quote, Platko.

Since Saints like Thomas and Augustine had a tendency to write on at length it would be most helpful if you
reference the particular stream of consciousness you are quoting from.

Ahh, now that's a completely different form of request. If you want me to cite it to help you, then fine!

De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis), Chapter 19, book 1.

Thankyou, I was completely unfamiliar with the piece.

I find this part most agreeable.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we may find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. We should not battle for our own interpretation but for the teaching of Holy Scripture. We should not wish to conform the meaning of Holy Scripture to our interpretation, but our interpretation to the meaning of Holy Scripture."

(which I got from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/na ... stine.html but the whole can be found
in pdf: http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/al ... nesis1.pdf

Most enjoyable, but perhaps St. A was a bit obsessive compulsive.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:They do indeed hold up well, Platko, and the fact that they do shows that Christians are still using stupid argumentation to propound their beliefs. Those Christians would do well to contemplate these words. You would do well to contemplate these words.

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems like a pretty cogent statement to me.

The reader will note that I have not claimed the text lacked cogency, but rather that Christians still employ stupid arguments, and Platko is a good example of this, so he would potentially benefit from contemplating on the merit of this excerpt.

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems like a pretty cogent intelligent statement to me.

John Platko wrote:Take this part for example:

"... For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Precisely, I do indeed 'take that part', and it very much supports what I said; you might want to allow your brain to dwell on it prior to typing more words.

While doing that, I'd also suggest including the sentence prior to it which provides the context and the target for that particular accusation:

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they (the reckless, incompetent expounders of scripture) will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Don't worry - there's plenty written by Augustine to console you too. It's not like he actually values the thoughts of a non-believer, just seeks to stop Christians from making idiotic arguments and absurd exegesis.

Well I can't usually speak for St Augustine, but I value the thoughts of non-believers - of course, some are given more value ...

SafeAsMilk wrote:And here I thought people turned to atheism because they didn't believe in any gods. It's about as silly as turning Christian because you don't like the way atheists act...which a forum member did once, if I recall.

Fallible wrote:I do love the way Christians continue to see becoming atheist as some kind of choice made because one does not like some aspect of Christianity. It's rather funny.