Dear David,

Yes, the mind does some very strange things and people truly believe what they are seeing or hearing is real: you seem to love the world so much that your mind makes you believe that it is real.

Since you love the world as perceived by your senses and mind, you worship it through the language of science.

We, religious people, love God more than the empirical world, thus we often speak of Him/Her/It in the language of love, in endearing words that do not and need not make sense in the language of science. While a lover may call their darling better-half "honey", they do not mean that s/he was made by bees...

A claim in the language of love that God is an observation, for example, is just a loose loving speech to mean that one can come close and experience their beloved God. Taken literally without translation as if spoken in the language of science, such a claim would indeed sound nonsensical and schizophrenic, as if some observation created the world... Obviously, God is neither an hypothesis nor an observation.

«If there really was a God who cared for mankind in the way that you all believe»

It is only humans who care for mankind (to some degree or another). To claim that God cares for mankind would reduce Him/Her/It to the position of a human, so no, I do not share that particular belief.

Yes, there is some sense whereby we are cared for by God (I could go deeper into it if you are interested), but the species called "mankind" and the members of that species are only a tool, a vehicle for our spiritual growth: all we need to care for is that they serve their purpose well before they expire: wishing for the welfare of mere objects is mentally unhealthy.

To David. I'm not saying to just believe them because they believe it. But at least listen to them and consider it. Otherwise what are you doing differently except putting forth your own hypothesis and doing nothing to test it's merits.

The claim that all religous people suffer a delusion like schizophrenia Is an irrational claim. Look at the person and see if they fit the discription of being delusional. Do they show any symptoms outside of believing something you don't or say they've experienced something you haven't. If the answer is no, they show no other signs of mental instability then there's a good chance the hypothesis that they are delusional like a schizophrenic is very wrong. Judge what they say they observed as you would judge any other observation given to you by rational people.

Hope that makes more sense. The difference between my understanding and Yuyutsu's understanding are very different concerning God. The difference between my understanding and another Christian's is also likely to show differences. But each of us can teach and refine eachother by letting our lives be a test to any philosophy. I can confirm one person's experiences by having simular ones of my own. I can confirm their beliefs in the same way by lining them up with what I've see in my life. I can also correct them by the same standard that life tests our theories and philosophies.

if you take into consideration what others say they've lived through you might be able to learn from it. that's really all I'm proposing to do. take into consideratiin what peoole say for how they found God, and how they know it was from God.

.

To all and sundry,

.

In addressing 75 newly ordained bishops at the Vatican from 34 countries around the world, Pope Francis ordered them to “just say no to abuse – of power, conscience or any type” while he, himself, faces allegations that he covered up child sexual abuse.

Former Vatican diplomat to the US, Carlo Maria Viganò revealed in a public letter that he told the pontiff in June 2013 that there were numerous concerns and complaints about the former archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, but that the pope did not respond and allowed McCarrick to continue in his prominent role as a public emissary for the church.

He wrote: “In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example to cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.”

The only response from the Pope so far has been :

« I will say sincerely that I must say this, to you, » he said, when asked by a journalist about the letter, « and all of you who are interested: Read the document carefully and judge it for yourselves. I will not say one word on this. I think the statement speaks for itself. »

Silence is golden, so they say – and nobody knows that better than Pope Francis !

.

Not_Now.Soon,

I have tested my hypothesis by observing the lack of response of your God to all the evil in the world in my lifetime and As he has been found wanting, my conclusion is that He doesn't exist.

David

.

To all and sundry,

.

Pope Francis is as smug as a bug in a rug in refusing to respond to the allegations of the former Vatican diplomat to the US, Carlo Maria Viganò, that he covered-up the former archbishop of Washington’s (Theodore McCarrick) sexual abuses.

No doubt he considers that no legal proceedings can be made against him as long as he remains Pope – not because he is head of the Catholic Church, but because he (theoretically) benefits from legal immunity as head of state of the Vatican (the Holy See), a tiny enclave in Italy of 0.17 of a square mile – and, also, because of his immense, world-wide popularity.

Victor Emmanuel II became the first king of a united Italy when he invaded Rome in 1870 when the French withdrew due to the Franco-Prussian war. Before transferring the capital back from Florence to Rome, the Italian parliament passed a law — known as the “Law of Guarantees” — by which the Pope was insured the enjoyment of all his prerogatives and honours as a sovereign, was awarded the palaces of the Vatican and the Lateran, as well as the villa of Castel Gandolfo — all exempt from any tax or duty — and was assigned an annual income of three million two hundred and twenty-five thousand Italian lire.

The Pontiff refused to recognize this law or to accept the allowance, and still persisted in maintaining his un availing protest against the Italian Government.

As a result, what was known as the “papal states” remained extinguished until 1929 when Mussolini endowed the Vatican with "sovereignty in the international field ... in conformity with its traditions and the exigencies of its mission in the world"

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The UN, at its inception, refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. This has involved the UN in blatant discrimination on grounds of religion. Other faiths are unofficially represented, if at all, by NGOs. But it has encouraged the Vatican to claim statehood – and immunity from liability.

This claim could be challenged successfully in the European Court of Human Rights. But in any event, head of state immunity provides no protection for the pope in the international criminal court (see its current indictment of Sudan’s President Bashir). The ICC Statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and sexual slavery etc., committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. It has been held to cover the recruitment of children as soldiers or sex slaves. If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established.

But, given the world-wide popularity of Pope Francs, it is difficult to imagine the ICC indicting him on criminal charges of covering-up sexual abuse within the Catholic Church as long as he remains Pope.

For that reason, he has every interest in not following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Benoît XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) by resigning prematurely. He had better cling to the post for the rest of his life.

His predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger, is condemned to remain for the rest of his life inside the walls of the tiny enclave of the Vatican as he no longer has the benefit of any of his former protections as Pope at all :

http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-benedict-preserve-immunity-security-remaining-vatican-after-resignation-1089612

.