Pope Francis Describes Internet as "A Gift From God"

ForumSafari

New member
Sep 25, 2012
572
0
0
>God did the Internet

Yeah nah fuck him. Fuck the pope and fuck God, neither one of them threw in and took any notice of the Internet, neither helped build it or contributed to it but now that it's in a state where normal people can use it it's as if the very people that actually built the fucking thing are being pushed to one side. I guess no one likes nerds, no matter how much they give and give to society.

God didn't give us the Internet, people built it and people are still building it.

You damn right I mad!

1337mokro said:
The pope's passing them by the nose and handing the 1st prize for the most revolutionary idea in human history to the man in the sky. Aren't you at least going to stand up for those people?
Exactly this. I guess now the Internet is done Nerdlinger should be quietly moved out of shot. Can't have the people who actually made it taking credit can we? Far better it be a political football.

AsurasEyes said:
On 4chan, we have a saying for people like you. I tip my fedora to you, sir, clearly, this warranted such a response. Obviously, you are enlightened by your own intelligence, not the phony blessing of some false god
/pol/ pls.
 

Murais

New member
Sep 11, 2007
366
0
0
I'll never be a Catholic again, but this guy definitely makes the faith look good.

Which is about gods damned time. I hope we get more Jesuit popes after him.
 

Gabanuka

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,372
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Just for the record I don't actually believe in God, I just believe there's more to humanity and creativity than chemicals running through out brains. Catholics just call that thing God.

I guess I should have made that clear, I don't think 'God' is a sentient being which actively creates things. So when I read the Pope saying a 'gift from God' I think of it in my terms, the thing that sets humans apart, which makes us interesting and unique.

I completely get your point and agree with it to some extent; humans are fucking amazing and deserve all the praise. However I feel there is something more to humans than just the physical thing, honestly I think spark is the best way to describe it. It's that thing which pushes us to be amazing. The Pope calls it God, I call it a spark, I'd image you'd call it humanity being awesome. Either way saying its a 'gift from God' is the Popes way of saying how wonderful it is to him, to the point where it seems divine. He doesn't dismiss the people who made it happen he just sees something higher in their work.



TL;DR
People are fucking awesome, everyone has a different way of seeing how fucking awesome they are.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
God damn there's a lot of really hostile people in this thread.

Speaking as a fairly vehement atheist, has it ever occurred to you guys that someone making a statement of faith rooted in their religion is not a personal attack against you and your worldview?
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
What I think people (atheists and even secular minded catholics) need to understand is that the Pope basically believes God is everywhere and in everything. He doesn't see god as being some dude in the sky separate from the world, but as being a part of everything that happens, including the behavior and action of humans.

It's not like he's saying God came down from heaven and literally engineered the internet himself and then handed it to us, I mean... please.

Regardless of whether that makes sense to you or not, don't think that he's trying to discredit the actual people who created the technology that went into the internet, that's clearly not the intention here.

Vigormortis said:
hermes200 said:
You guys do know that "gift from god" is a figure of speech, right?

It means something that is, in general, a good thing for people. It doesn't mean that God literally came down from the heavens to bestow the Internet to us...
It's a figure of speech in reference to the idea that a divine force bestowed a thing onto the lowly masses as a gift.

Being a common phrase does not diminish the core implications of the phrase.
The core implications of the phrase are up for interpretation, yours being more literal than I think was his intent. The Pope didn't mention a "divine force" or any "lowly masses". He's not saying that the internet is one of god's "miracles". What he's saying here is no different than a family thanking god for the food at their dinner table.
 

Bruenin

New member
Nov 9, 2011
766
0
0
Everything this pope seems to do is a PR stunt. What do kids like these days? Gay people? I'll go make a comment that could be misinterpreted as me accepting homosexuals. What else do kids like? Internet? Alright, time to go make a public statement about that too, I have to look 'modern'. I just don't like how overblown the tiny actions of celebrities become. He's the Pope, okay, so why is everything he does apparently a paragon of justice and virtue just because you wouldn't expect such statements. Everything just seems really over hyped whenever I see the sheer number of people praising him and it always throws me off. Especially when half of it is practically false.

His statement about gay priests: ?If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them? They shouldn?t be marginalized,?

Accepting God means following his rules. As long as a Gay person abstains from actual homosexual acts and follows God as the bible asks then they shouldn't be marginalized. So they can be gay but the lifestyle itself still isn't accepted. Just the idea that some people may have different inclinations than others.

For interest, when the country Argentina was debating on passing a law that would allow homosexual couples to adopt, these were his words:

"At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children," said Cardinal Bergoglio. "At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God?s law engraved in our hearts.?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/no-pope-francis-is-not-th_b_4466325.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pope-francis-same-sex-marriage-move-father-lies-total-rejection-gods-law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9jxgL_uKNM

*Sidenote* I'm glad there was finally a pope named after Saint Francis. The patron saint of animals and the environment deserves some love too. I also took 15 minutes writing this post to make sure it wasn't too terrible and i'm still not happy with it, but if I don't post it now I never will.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Vigormortis said:
hermes200 said:
You guys do know that "gift from god" is a figure of speech, right?

It means something that is, in general, a good thing for people. It doesn't mean that God literally came down from the heavens to bestow the Internet to us...
It's a figure of speech in reference to the idea that a divine force bestowed a thing onto the lowly masses as a gift.

Being a common phrase does not diminish the core implications of the phrase.
Considering the non-measurable qualities of inspiration and creativity, whose to say it's not?
 

Gaianus

New member
Oct 3, 2012
14
0
0
Oh goodness. People. Calm down.

Pope Francis isn't claiming God descended from on high, smote the first servers with magical lightning, and the internet sprung forth, fully formed. As a Christian, allow me to explain what Christian leaders mean when they say so-and-so is a "Gift from God"

First of all, they are not dismissing the hard work of the people who made the thing. They aren't even saying that those people were divinely inspired.

They are saying that all things that come to pass, good and bad, God is aware of, and allows to happen. It is a concept that people merely believe as part of their faith.

And if that still has your knickers in a twist, perhaps the fault lies not in the Pope's choice of words, but in your own tolerance for people who believe things you do not.
 

furai47

New member
Nov 18, 2009
61
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Besides, just because the vast majority of people use a word incorrectly, it doesn't mean we need to change the meaning of the word. It means we need to educate people on the true meaning. Popular opinion does not necessarily equate to truth.

Gnostic is derived from the Greek word gnosis, which means "to know" or "knowledge". Before the term was usurped by the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish faiths, a gnostic was someone who claimed knowledge of something; usually in reference to the ethereal or the supernatural, but not always. An agnostic was someone who had no such knowledge, or rather had no claim to absolute certainty of such knowledge.
Again, that's not how a dictionary works. If the vast majority of people use a word to mean X, then X will be added to the list of definitions in a dictionary, regardless if previously that same word was used to mean Y or Z.
In the case of definitions, the popular opinion is the "true" meaning of the word so to say. That's how dictionaries and definitions came to be. I'm sorry but if today 80% of the Earth's population decide that the word atheist means someone who's committed multiple robberies, murders and raped a set number of people then that's how the word is going to be used and it's what is going to be written down in a dictionary as the most common meaning of the word. That's the system.

It's a bit like evolution. You don't remove the old stuff, you just add new stuff and create new routes around the previously existing stuff, in essence patching. Dictionaries are living documents.

And to adress the "repugnant and insulting" dictionary that dared offend the master race: if by The Year Of Our Lord And Saviour Jesus O'Malley O'Connor O'Riley O'Brian O'Sullivan Who Is Also Italian Christ 2000+10+4 you still aren't using multiple dictionaries (or for that matter sources) to cross reference your shit then I can't help you. You aren't the target audience? Don't use the damn thing.

Vigormortis said:
Theism is simply the belief in the existence of a deity.
That would be deism, theism is a bit more specific with it's deities.

Vigormortis said:
Atheism is the non-acceptance of Theistic claims.
Yes, that is one way of defining the word and is the specific one you've chosen to adopt. Nothing more.

Vigormortis said:
It has nothing to do with ones claim to certainty or knowledge therein. Someone can believe there are deities but can also claim to have no definitive knowledge or proof of their existence. This is what an Agnostic Theist would be. Whereas someone who claims deities exist and that they have definitive knowledge of their existence is a Gnostic Theist and someone who is uncertain of the exist of deities and claims no knowledge either way is an Agnostic Atheist.
And if definitions were so clear-cut we wouldn't have a problem. Thing is, it's not black and white but rather gray with all shades of colours mixed in. This is why labels are such a big problem, with one word you can give the person you're having the conversation with a completely different picture of the situation or your beliefs simply because his definition of X isn't exactly like yours. And with most words having multiple definitions in any given situation it's no wonder conflict arises. But I digress.

Vigormortis said:
The fact is Gnosticism, in the modern sense, refers to a persons claim to a level of knowledge. Agnosticism is the absences of such a claim. So when someone calls his-or-herself an Agnostic, they're basically just saying, "I'm someone who doesn't know."

You need the Theist or Atheist moniker added in for the statement to make sense. Otherwise you're just telling us you don't know anything.
You can repeat that as much as you like, but it won...actually no, it will become truth, because that's how things work in this case. The word agnosticism today is used so often to mean a person who doesn't believe in deities that it can in any situation mean exactly that, it doesn't need your theist or atheist moniker to go along with it. And to be honest, any person who's not the figurative grammatik national sozialist is going to pick up on that.

Definitions. Definitions always change. It is not black and white and it is not that simple. To know what a word means it is not enough to know the translation of the original greek/latin word you've read on the internet. You have to take into account how people have used it past that initial stage, how usage has evolved and how it branched out to mean different things. And then when you're going to use that word, you have to know if it's appropriate and if it is going to safely convey you message.

Unless you know, you're arguing about religious beliefs on the internet.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
Agayek said:
God damn there's a lot of really hostile people in this thread.

Speaking as a fairly vehement atheist, has it ever occurred to you guys that someone making a statement of faith rooted in their religion is not a personal attack against you and your worldview?
How dare you say that!? Don't you know that I am right all the time and those of faith are always wrong and evil people who do horrible things? What's wrong with you!?
/sarcasm

Yeah, honestly, I feel the same way. It seems that some have such deep rooted hatred that they can't let it go even for a little bit. The hilarious part is how many of them claim that hatred is rooted in some fact. Really makes you think, don't it? And draw some comparisons that are not flattering to those people.

For the record, I have no real opinion on religion or God whatsoever. I'm not even an atheist or anything. I just don't care. Still, I have respect for this Pope and what he is trying to say. And my grandparents are Catholic. (I should really ask them what they think of this Pope.)
 

EightGaugeHippo

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,076
0
0
bazaalmon said:
EightGaugeHippo said:
I believe Christianity lite is know as Unitarian! *Rim shot*
But seriously, I am a Unitarian myself, and I have no belief in some sort of higher deity. The minister at my meeting house is a great guy, and combines teachings from all faiths and beliefs from Islam to Christianity to Wicca. He's even done a sermon made almost entirely of Monty Python references. There's no religious requirements or prayer or anything required. The only real teaching is that life is a gift from whatever source you choose, and we shouldn't waste it being hateful and bigoted. No funny mixed messages, just do more good than harm and you win at religion.
Wow, that sounds fantastic. You would never find a Catholic priest dipping into Islam's teachings during a mass. I feel the religions of the world have a lot to teach each other, but instead they shut themselves in and bury their heads in the sand. Just the fact that this group exists put a smile on my face.

Although I've never heard of Unitarians before, you guys seem to have your heads screwed on.
Two thumbs up to you my friend.
 

Animyr

New member
Jan 11, 2011
385
0
0
I see that the Church's rebranding campaign is proceeding apace. But he didn't answer the question we were all thinking; when will the Buddy Christ arrive?
 

AsurasEyes

New member
Sep 12, 2012
288
0
0
I'll reply to this in order, because it's a Friday night and Skyrim is being a pain.

AsurasEyes said:
1337mokro said:
The reason people hate atheists is because they are an affront to their own ego's. Also known as their gods. Not to mention the many commands in their holy books to kill all unbelievers, which to the atheist basically means 80% of the world thinks a voice in their head is telling them to kill this guy that doesn't think the voice is real.
Yeah. Kill all the unbelievers. And as we know, this is a doctrine that is adhered to rigidly by all followers of Catholicism and Islam in particular. Literally every Christian and Muslim is ready and willing to kill someone based on religious beliefs based on books written thousands of years ago during one of the most violent times in human history, when human life was insanely cheap. Well-thought out argument, especially since I've never heard this same argument from anyone in my life.

If the reason that you don't want to be an atheist is because you'd be associated with people that can take a joke I can totally understand that. No you just keep calling yourself an agnostic snowflake because if you don't you might offend someone somewhere.
"Agnostic snowflake"? I identify as an atheist; I don't believe anything written in the Bible, Talmund, or Quaran, I just have the common decency to respect people no matter what they believe. I just don't like saying I'm an atheist because then I'm compared to fedora-tipping pricks who have become worse than the people that they stand against.

I spend most of my internet time on 4chan, so the idea that I'm afraid of offending people was sodomized and burned years ago when I started regularly going to that wonderful place.

I mean it's not like you are saying that it's totally okay for the pope to walk on stage and claim his homeboy Yahweh as the arbiter of the internet, basically reaffirming a long held belief by many religious folk around the world that basically their deity is the engine that powers human ingenuity so whatever comes out of science is only here because their special subconscious friend wanted it to be here, but that I can't go up on that same stage, well a slightly less fancy stage after all I don't take in several billion dollars a year, and remind everyone of reality as a counter quip.
Here's my issue with that statement. First off, run on sentences. Holy shit man, semicolons. They'll save your life. Second: Why do you have such a problem with some old guy's personal opinion? If he thinks that the almighty creator of the universe and all life within it has personally insulted you, grow a thicker skin. If he hasn't insulted you, why do you care? The internet was built by people, but these people were of countless different faiths and creeds. "A gift from god" implies that this amazing invention was something that the benevolent creator of the universe would see fit to give to his favored children. It doesn't detract from the personal sacrifices and struggles of the people who made it, it means that what they did was something really really good.

I think your right in that your stage is significantly less kickass than the Vatican Palace. Well, until Pope Francis removed a lot of the really decadent crap that had been cluttering up the place because he seems to get that a Pope should live like a monk, not a Hollywood celebrity.


I mean did you even consider the feelings of the people that spent years of their lives creating the basic web?
I'm sorry, I thought I was afraid of offending people with my beliefs.

If you created the fucking Internet and the Pope went on to say that he thought that what you built was fit for the creator of existence, and you get angry about that, there are two scenarios. Either you're an egotistical shit who believes that the creation of the web of information that binds all humanity together is too good for the creator of existence, or you need to grow up and realize that people have different viewpoints; and that thinking these people are lower than you because of it is just about the definition of fascism.

The pope's passing them by the nose and handing the 1st prize for the most revolutionary idea in human history to the man in the sky. Aren't you at least going to stand up for those people? Well seeing as you are to afraid to stand up to the pope because you might hurt someone's feelings somewhere you don't have to worry at all! I have the internet after all thanks to Leonard Kleinrock, Robert E Khan and Vincent Cerf and a whole host of other people, none of them named Yahweh, so I can stand up and tell a few quips in your place.
I don't need to stand up for billionaires who frankly don't give a fuck about my life. They're off doing what billionares do, content in the knowledge that they have created the one thing that just might bring peace to the human race. They don't care, so why should you? I'll stand up to the Pope when he starts molesting children or killing people, but so far, he hasn't done that. Pope Palpatine, yeah, but not Pope Francis. A devout man expressing his opinion? I'm not too bothered by that.

No you just go back in your recliner, switch on the TV that was also a gift from god and ignore the fact that your kids would be still be learning that Gawd and the Jeebus together on the 6th day made the Hoomans 6000 years ago if we were all like you.
I don't watch TV, I play video games and watch films. I have no children (at least I hope so), and my apartment is too small for my recliner. Also, Jesus never entered the picture until a long ass time after the Sixth day, and according to Genesis, the Earth was created 3000 years ago. But I suppose you're too busy being a crusader for rationality (through undignified rage) and understanding (through hatred) to worry about being factually accurate. Or, you know, a decent fucking human being.
 

Animyr

New member
Jan 11, 2011
385
0
0
furai47 said:
Vigormortis said:
Theism is simply the belief in the existence of a deity.
That would be deism, theism is a bit more specific with it's deities.
Technically untrue. Theism simply means belief in god, any god, and from what I cantell, at least among theological and philosophical circles, that isn't up for debate. Deism, meanwhile, is a belief in a specific type of god(Though it is true that any theistic belief is commonly assumed to be non-deistic unless otherwise specified.)

furai47 said:
Vigormortis said:
Atheism is the non-acceptance of Theistic claims.
Yes, that is one way of defining the word and is the specific one you've chosen to adopt. Nothing more.
Vigor's definition is in fact the literal meaning. Greek and latin roots and all that. Atheism literally means without belief in god (distinct from, though required for, belief that there are no gods). The nuances of the meaning may not be popularly known or cared about, as you point out repeatedly, but it is not in fact some personal definition Vigor chose to adopt because it suited him personally.

Vigormortis said:
Definitions always change.
But ideas do not.

For instance, the word "evolution" is often taken to refer to the idea that life happened by chance. This misunderstanding is prevalent among laypeople and the religious. Now you can say all you want that if enough people think evolution means that, then that's what it means, and thus it is no misunderstanding at all. But the fact remains that the scientific theory Darwin originally formulated refers to a certain idea, and "that it all came about by chance" is not that idea, and no popular vote or social consensus can change that.

Hell, here's an even better example: the word "theory." In popular culture, it roughly means a guess. But in science, theory is an important term with a very specific meaning within the discipline, and it's not a guess. So even if the popular definition of the word theory became official, it still wouldn't change that scientists were talking about when they said "theory of evolution" or "theory of relativity" and anyone who didn't recognize this would be misunderstanding them.

So it is with the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. Whatever the definition of a word, the fact remains that many people misunderstand what self-described atheists actually believe in. So really, even if you don't think that Vigor has the right to "set straight" what the word "atheist" means for all time for all people, he can very well define what people who actually consider themselves atheists actually mean when they use that word. What the word means inside the "discipline" so to speak.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Gabanuka said:
Fair 'nough, though I think you and I will still disagree on a few things.

Which is just another thing that makes humans both great and aggravating. ;)

Ultratwinkie said:
Pretty sure my "chart" wasn't simplified, given I have four subcategories. And yes, I am aware of Deism.

Your definition seems to stem primarily from the Abrahamic view of a god, though, given you've brought up Revelations. Regardless, it's still a good point.

I didn't include Deism because the conversation was primarily concentrating on a theistic statement. As such, theistic and atheistic views are the more pertinent to the topic.

If I'd thought a Deistic point of view was pertinent to the particular topic, believe me, I would have brought it up. I don't exclude anyone's point of view arbitrarily nor condescendingly.

furai47 said:
By this logic, all verbal communication is meaningless as anyone can use any word for any idea.

I'm well aware that languages "evolve". We wouldn't have the myriad of languages and dialects we have today if they didn't. However, that doesn't dismiss the fact that people misuse certain words. We may eventually adopt the new meanings, but those new meanings still stemmed from incorrect usages.

I'm of the mind that it is far better to teach people the true meanings of a word than to just let it turn into a clusterfuck of disjointed, unrelated definitions that further complicate our already limited vocabularies.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Olas said:
The core implications of the phrase are up for interpretation, yours being more literal than I think was his intent. The Pope didn't mention a "divine force" or any "lowly masses". He's not saying that the internet is one of god's "miracles". What he's saying here is no different than a family thanking god for the food at their dinner table.
Perhaps, but even in giving thanks at the dinner table those giving prayer are still attributing what's present as something brought on by divine will.

Regardless, I didn't really take the pope's statement as purely literal, nor did I take it personally. It just bothered me that he effectively undermined much of his own inspirational statement. He talked of the great ingenuity, fairness, and power of humanity, than essentially attributed it to God.

Even if I were Catholic that would have bothered me.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Animyr said:
Just wanted to say thank you. I think you may have portrayed my thoughts on the matter more succinctly than I did. Though, Deism is the belief in a non-interfering god. A god or gods that do not influence daily events.

Basically, a "creator" or "creators" made the universe and defined the rules by which it operates, but had nor have any further involvement.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
irishda said:
Considering the non-measurable qualities of inspiration and creativity, whose to say it's not?
Because the default position is to not believe it is so until evidence is shown to prove that it is.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Strazdas said:
Actually Pope Francis recently came out and officialy proclaimed that Christian church should accept homosexuals as any other "children of god" and should stop this nonesensical war. in fact he was throw away from his birthcountry for supporting gay rights while the local president didnt.
Er...he did?

The only thing I can find about that is when he claimed that gay marriage was an attack by Satan on god's children while he was in Argentina.

Admittedly, he did say that the church shouldn't focus on being homophobic and attacking women's rights to abortion as much as they have been, which makes him a great guy, or something.

Oh, goddamnit...said much better before I could hit the post button:

Zachary Amaranth said:
I agree. Thanks to the internet, it's incredibly easy to find all the things Pope Francis has done both before and after becoming the Pope that were anti-gay (such as attributing gay marriage to Satan) despite his rep as the "cool Pope."
hmm i heard complete opposite. interesting.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/popes-inclusive-remarks-on-homosexuality-surprise-many/article5541767.ece
The Pope who has steadily conquered hearts and minds across the world declared last July: ?If someone who is gay and is sincerely seeking God who am I to judge??

In 2013, the magazine The Advocate that defends gay rights, had declared Pope Francis its Man of the Year for everything he?s done for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-sexual) community.
i think even escapist had a news article about it when it happened but i CBA to find it now.

Lets just my my views on him is: hes not some sort of messiah or something, but compared to the way christian religion dealth with issues before, id take Francis every day. Christianity is not easily changed and he is already taking steps so big there are plenty of christian communities getting angry at him being too liberal. If he does o though and implement his ideas for the whole faith then we may just have less reason to hate christianity after all. and thats a good thing.

Nokturos said:
Hey look, a homophobic, child molesting fuckwit who made a positive comment about the internet. What a swell guy!
[citation needed]