![]()
Not quite.
Although I'm sure some denominations would say that Christian deists aren't real Christians.
Those people should read up on what Samaritans are. These days, the word is practically synonymous with "kind stranger", but back in Jesus' day, Jews and Samaritans were like Sunni and Shia. (Also like Catholics and Protestants when they were ya know... killing each other cause they just couldn't agree to disagree.)
Anyway, the Parable of the Good Samaritan basically states that even people who don't share the same (exact) religious beliefs as you can still be good people and may even be better neighbours.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.Dogma: Jesus Saves.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.While the "dictionary definition" of Christian Deist would exclude all supernatural beliefs, historically Christian Deism included a wide range of beliefs and practices
(scroll down to the second italicized header), and some accepted the possibility of a divine Jesus. None of them were Catholic, though.
Logically, Jesus could also be the savior without being divine, although I cant think of an historical figure who proposed such an approach, off the top of my head.
edited 8th Jul '14 4:30:44 AM by demarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
Actually... there have been a few
...
That page does quick highlights of their various beliefs in handy-dandy table formats.
You can quickly spot them, mate.
edited 8th Jul '14 10:09:09 AM by Euodiachloris
It's precisely defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is what this particular thread is about. Virtually the whole point of the Magisterium is that RCC dogma doesn't leave its individual members free to interpret matters in any way that suits them.
That depends on whether the denomination has rigorous theological criteria and what they are. This thread is about the Catholic Church, though, and its teaching is unambiguous on issues like that.
![]()
Hardly. Jesus is super-duper important in Islam. He'll bring forth the Kingdom of Heaven during the Apocalypse, or something like that. He's the savior of humanity, just not through crucifixion. That bit is Dis Continuity.
Link is in Portuguese
. Basically, the Vatican Bank wants to get rid of the investments area and will focus on its original mission (namely to manage the accounts of religious institutions and to send money for various missions and dioceses around the world.
Jean-Baptiste de Franssu will be the new president.
If they're doing away with investment than that's the part that does things like loans (often via proxy due to investing in a company that does loans) right?
I think everyone knows where I'm going with this...
No, Investments=/=Loans. Two different aspects of financial transaction.
Generally a bank has to do some investing — after all, it has to have someway of paying its own expenses, while still safeguarding the money in its clients' accounts. so investing won't go away entirely. But in general, when a financial institution says it's getting out of the investment business, it means that it's not going to handle investment services for people who don't have accounts or loans with it anymore. It will still make investments for itself, and probably for account holders, although it may farm out things like money market and mutual fund management to an outside investment firm.
edited 11th Jul '14 3:05:10 PM by Madrugada
I know they're to different parts of finance trading, but I'm assuming that at least a few of the groups the Vatican Bank has invested in have been groups that carry out loans, thus the Vatican Bank has been carrying out loans via proxy.
Um...that quote isn't Biblical. It's Shakespeare.
There's no religious ban on moneylending. Judaism and Islam have explicit bans against lending with interest, and instead often promote shared-profit investment.
Christianity sort of waffles about that, both historically and in the text. The NT obviously condemns abusive userers, and there are all those parts about how lending without expecting repayment is good. But interest as a concept is regarded pretty neutrally (parable of the talents, etc), and would probably be acceptable as long as it defers to decency and sensitivity to extenuating circumstances — don't extort people, be ready to forgive debts if something goes wrong, and keep it the hell out of temple operations.
edited 13th Jul '14 8:55:55 AM by Pykrete
The pope has stated that 2% of priests are pedophiles according to the BBC. I'll try and source once I'm off my phone.
Edit: And source.[1]
Though apparently even more than tht are involved in coverups.
edited 13th Jul '14 9:12:25 AM by SilasW
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOne out of every fifty? On the other hand, the chances that your priest fancies your kids are pretty slim.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

A lot of Christian Dogma (all of it?) is very general and ambiguous. An example might be that Jesus is the Savior. You really cant disagree with that and still be a Christian. But what does that statement really mean? It isn't precisely defined anywhere, leaving Christians free to interpret this "dogma" in whatever way seems most true to themselves.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.