The Ten Commandments and the changed Roman Catholic version

[Byrd]

Interestingly, Jesus—whom the Pope claims to represent—was despised and ultimately put to death by the world. In stark contrast, the Pope is adorned in scarlet robes and gold, lives in luxury, and speaks the very things the world wants to hear.

Not true for many popes, including Pope Francis.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis

And Pope Leo follows this tradition in a number of ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCfA1iKuf7s&t=325s

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Many historians believe the Book of Job may have been written as early as 1500 BC, or even earlier in approximately 2000–1500 BC. 

Yeah, no... Are they honest historians? Bad lead-in. Only a very specific type of historian is saying that.

Hebrews were still called Canaanites in 1500. Hebrew didnt exist yet. The Paleo Hebrew/Phoenician/Philistine linguistic split is still 500-800 years away. There is also the 300 years The New Kingdom of Egypt controlled The Levant and Jerusalem to consider. 

But you dont want to hear archeological evidence says The Exodus is reversed. Would you like me go through the layers at the Temple Mount or Mt. Megiddo? I can cite Israel Finklestein too. (Who is much better than Norman Finklestein)

Myopic (mostly protestant) christians preoccupied with pope hatred are the worst theologians, as evidenced here.

REAL theologians would say The Book of Job bears distinctions of being written shortly after the exilic period - late 6th century BCE. After the Son of Dawn (King of Babylon) was laid low and his tower fell. 

But, Im feeling a little lazy, so here is AI to do my job for me...

"Oh Skynet, What evidence dates the composition to the Book of Job?"

• Linguistic Features and Aramaic Influence: The book's language exhibits characteristics that suggest a post-exilic (after the Babylonian exile) or Persian period setting. The Hebrew prose, for example, is considered to be of a later variety (post-Babylonian exile), according to Yale University Press. The presence of Aramaic words and grammatical influences throughout the predominantly Hebrew text also strongly suggests composition during the Persian era (approximately 540-330 BCE), when Aramaic became a significant language in the Levant.

• Theological Themes and Context: The Book of Job explores theological questions, particularly the problem of suffering (theodicy) and the concept of divine justice, which may have resonated strongly with Judean communities during the Babylonian exile and the period following their return. Some scholars view the book as a critical commentary on the traditional dogma of divine retribution prevalent during that time.

• The Character of "the Satan": The mention of "the Satan" as a distinct character who interacts with God in the heavenly court is found primarily in post-exilic literature. This aligns with a later dating for Job, placing it alongside texts like the Book of Daniel, which also features a developed angelology.

• Wisdom Literature: The Book of Job is a prime example of Old Testament wisdom literature, which also includes Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. This genre flourished in the post-exilic period, further suggesting a Second Temple era dating for Job's composition. 

Are you cetain what you say isn't just a bunch of confirmation you pulled from bias sources that care only about being right too? For having a slightly different version of the same thing? 

Seems ridiculous to be that driven by MINOR idealogical differences in interpretation it clouds all the secular "love thy neighbor" stuff Jesus preached? A bit? 

This holy roller shit is rather dated, and failed the world empathy test. In this interconnected world, where expanding your view to other versions of divinity is only a click away, this "MY WAY, BECAUSE I SAY ITS GOD'S WAY, IS THE ONLY WAY!" Seems too geared for blind angry preaching and confrontation, and all leads to the opposite of Jesus - over something as silly as how the commandments are numbered.

Why cant it be an endless progression of people contemplating the nature of god and writing it down as they go?

Maybe a little? 

A heart full of The Jesus has no room left to be angry, at least in theory. 

"Forgive them, for they know not what they do..." and also lack the ability to turn it around and view themselves objectively!

[TheWay]

Not true for many popes, including Pope Francis.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis

And Pope Leo follows this tradition in a number of ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCfA1iKuf7s&t=325s

Pope Francis is a clear example of this. Here he tells a young boy in front of the world that his deceased father, who was an unbeliever, was good and is in heaven. 12 million views on this video, with millions on other copies of this video on YouTube.




This is Satan speaking, the one who was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Now look at the comments:



What does the Scripture say?

He who overcomes, I will give him these things. I will be his God, and he will be my son. But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:7-8)

I hope you can see what I can see.

[quintessentone]

Pope Francis is a clear example of this. Here he tells a young boy in front of the world that his deceased father, who was an unbeliever, was good and is in heaven. 12 million views on this video, with millions on other copies of this video on YouTube.

[Video: https://youtu.be/bRbUTfSds0U?si=f2dZq3S66yw_A17C]

This is Satan speaking, the one who was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Now look at the comments:

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/AokKsLI.jpeg]

What does the Scripture say?

He who overcomes, I will give him these things. I will be his God, and he will be my son. But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:7-8)

I hope you can see what I can see.

We do not know the afterlife and whether or not judgement (I believe it will be a self-judgement and assessment of one's mortal life guided by God/all/force) is immediate or a loving force/God guides us along to ascension or back to a mortal life to continue learning (by choice). If not, perhaps purgatory awaits those who can't move backwards or forwards - we just don't know.

The fact of the matter is, if there is an afterlife or a heaven or middle ground where God assists us in judging our mortal deeds, you can be sure atheists will certainly become believers and so Pope Francis was revealing a truth. Perhaps the second death in the lake of fire will be a cleansing fire, but we really don't know, now do we?

[Bootless]

Pope Francis is a clear example of this. Here he tells a young boy in front of the world that his deceased father, who was an unbeliever, was good and is in heaven.

No. He didn't say that. He said:
"Do you think that God
would be able to leave a man like him far from Him? Do you think that?
...
Does God abandon His children?
No! "
He did not say that the dad was in heaven. Whoever put that title on the video was misrepresenting.

-------
Now as for when you threw the book at me:
I found myself not able to respond adequately so I read an article written by a French pastor of your own faith. He pointed something out.

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.… Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” see Matthew 25:31-46

 According to what is written that's the judgment that will take place upon his return. The Sabbath or Sunday is not mentioned as a criteria.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

This is Satan speaking, the one who was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Jesus, Sinead, and you know what Satan speaking sounds like? Even with that return to the Catholic hating hamster wheel? 

Yes... THE VATICAN IS THE DEVIL!

And Foosball is the devil! 

But I can help but seeing the Tao of Satan speak when someone turns:

"Pope Francis consoles a boy who asked if his non-believing Father is in heaven."

Into an example of evil after he gives the boy a hug and  speaks of forgiveness.

Are you serious? 

Like, what do you want him to say? Is the proper evangelical Pope telling the poor boy (who lost his father) to fuck off and saying, "You're daddy's in hell now for being a wicked non-believer, bitch!"

That was absolutely beautiful... unless you're of a Church of religious zealots that should probably stop preaching on what's godly or satanic. At least until they through a stone at their own behavior first. 

It's such an inspiration for the ways I will never ever choose to be.

[UltraBudgie]

Hey let's ask Claud AI 3.5, who very well may be Satin too!

I understand you're discussing a specific interaction Pope Francis had with a young boy about his deceased father. The quote you've highlighted shows the Pope expressing a message of hope and divine mercy, rather than making a definitive statement about the father's salvation.

The Pope's words suggest a compassionate theological perspective that emphasizes God's potential for mercy and love, even towards those who may not have explicitly professed faith. By posing the question to the boy, he seems to be encouraging the child to consider the possibility of God's expansive grace, rather than making a categorical declaration about the father's eternal fate.

This approach is consistent with more progressive interpretations of Catholic theology, which emphasize God's mercy and the possibility of salvation beyond traditional religious boundaries. The Pope appears to be offering comfort to the grieving child while also inviting reflection on the nature of divine love.

Would you like to discuss the theological implications of this interaction further?

>> of course! there's two perspectives there that i pasted. explain both of them.

Let me break down the two perspectives:

Perspective 1 (Original Claim):

Suggests Pope Francis directly told the boy his unbelieving father is in heaven
Implies a definitive statement of salvation for a non-believer
Suggests an unconditional guarantee of eternal salvation regardless of religious belief

Perspective 2 (Actual Quote):

Pope Francis asks a rhetorical question: "Do you think that God would be able to leave a man like him far from Him? Do you think that?"
This is a nuanced, compassionate approach
He's not making a definitive statement, but:
Comforting the grieving child
Suggesting God's mercy might be broader than strict doctrinal interpretations
Inviting reflection on divine love and grace
Leaving room for hope without making an absolute theological declaration

The key difference is between:

A definitive claim of salvation
An open-ended invitation to consider God's potential mercy

This approach is characteristic of Pope Francis's more inclusive theological style, which emphasizes compassion, mercy, and the possibility of God's love extending beyond traditional religious boundaries, without negating established Catholic doctrine.

Would you like me to elaborate on any part of this explanation?

>> yes. it was noted "This is Satan speaking, the one who was a liar and murderer from the beginning."

This additional comment introduces a critical theological interpretation from a more conservative or traditional Christian perspective:

Perspective of the Critical Comment:

Interprets the Pope's statement as a dangerous theological deviation
Sees the Pope's words as potentially misleading or heretical
Directly attributes the sentiment to Satan, referencing John 8:44 where Jesus describes Satan as "a liar and a murderer from the beginning"
Suggests that suggesting universal salvation or God's mercy beyond traditional understanding is a form of spiritual deception

The underlying theological tension is about:

The nature of salvation
The requirements for eternal life
The boundaries of God's mercy

Conservative theological perspectives typically argue that:

Explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation
Unbelief separates a person from God
Suggesting otherwise is a dangerous "false teaching"

Liberal/Progressive theological perspectives (more aligned with Pope Francis) argue that:

God's mercy is broader than human understanding
Divine love can transcend human-defined religious boundaries
Salvation might be more inclusive than strict doctrinal interpretations

The quote "Satan... a liar and murderer from the beginning" implies that suggesting universal hope is actually a demonic strategy to mislead people from "true" salvation.

Would you like me to elaborate on these theological perspectives?

>> oh yes give more

Let's dive deeper into the theological perspectives:

Conservative/Traditional View:

Salvation is exclusive: John 14:6 - "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
Emphasizes personal faith and explicit acceptance of Christ
Believes in a clear distinction between saved and unsaved
Views mercy as conditional on repentance and faith
Sees universal salvation ideas as a dangerous dilution of biblical truth
Interprets passages like Matthew 7:21-23 as proof that not everyone who claims to know God will be saved

Progressive/Inclusive View (Pope Francis's approach):

Emphasizes God's universal love and mercy
Believes divine grace can work in ways humans cannot fully comprehend
Sees salvation as potentially broader than explicit religious profession
Focuses on God's ability to reach people beyond traditional religious boundaries
Interprets passages like Romans 2:14-16 as suggesting God judges hearts, not just formal religious adherence
Believes in the possibility of "anonymous Christians" (a concept developed by theologian Karl Rahner)

Scriptural Tension Points:

Exclusive passages: John 3:16-18 (belief is crucial)
Inclusive passages: 1 Timothy 2:4 (God desires all to be saved)
Romans 8:38-39 (nothing can separate us from God's love)

The debate essentially centers on:

The nature of God's justice
The meaning of salvation
The scope of divine mercy
The role of human free will

The "Satan" accusation reflects a view that any softening of traditional doctrine is a spiritual attack, while the Pope's approach sees it as a deeper understanding of divine love.

Would you like me to elaborate on any of these points further?

>> you've queued it up, now quote the actual scripture

Here are the key scriptural references I mentioned, directly quoted from the public domain King James Version (KJV):

Exclusive Salvation Passages:

John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Matthew 7:21-23: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Inclusive/Mercy Passages:

1 Timothy 2:4: "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Romans 8:38-39: "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Would you like me to provide context or theological interpretation for these passages?

[Byrd]

Pope Francis is a clear example of this. Here he tells a young boy in front of the world that his deceased father, who was an unbeliever, was good and is in heaven. 12 million views on this video, with millions on other copies of this video on YouTube.

[Video: https://youtu.be/bRbUTfSds0U?si=f2dZq3S66yw_A17C]

This is Satan speaking, the one who was a liar and murderer from the beginning.
...

I hope you can see what I can see.

Oh yes.  I can see what you see because I've seen it in action -- a Catholic woman whose teenaged son drowned who was told basically what you advocate --that because the son died a Catholic, he's now in hell, but she could save the rest of her family if she joined the One True Religion.

I honestly thought she was going to try to kill him -- and if looks could kill and if screams of grief could kill, this "Christian" would have been quite dead within seconds...not only from her, but from the onlookers.  The only reason he wasn't harmed is that it was a funeral.

I can tell you that he made NO converts that day and anyone who heard him was immediately turned off to his brand of religion.

If I was Christian, I'd worship the deity of Pope Francis.

[chr0naut]

There are 613 laws in the Old Testament.

However, Jesus said that all the law and the prophets are encompassed in these two laws:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Easy and clear to follow!

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Hey let's ask Claud AI 3.5, who very well may be Satin too!

Naw, in this case Claude AI is playing Eris... or at least subtly telling me to shut up. Two-sides point acknowledged. 

But i cant help it when secular interpretations of divinity are turned into the head of a needle to pierce with a very narrow thread of applicability.

You dont get to say the 90% of the people on earth who don't believe in the Red Word Version you do are of Satan, simply because its not your narrow interpretation.

I feel the impulse to call that out, because It's a millenia old behavior than needs to be rolled into the soil by compassion, as ironic as that sounds to say like this. 

We need the set-up for a bar joke.  We need a Pope, a Grand Mufti, a high ranking Rabbi, and the Dali Lama to walk into a sanctuary.  We need more of all world religious leaders to keep coming together in name of secularism to declare all a path to god, in whatever form it may take, under the global ideals of togetherness. 

Even superficial photo op versions are beneficial because they spread the secular meme.

The Catholic Church didnt used to do that, they use to just kill you, so it's definitely the change i want to see that they no longer burn you for heresy.  

And when that is considered "of Satan..." If religious leaders coming together to embrace what they share rather than disagree with, is evil, then Hail the Apostate Church of The Devil.

But not really... I really just see the divine arrow of the naturally occurring god in these bemoaned secular ideals.