Sigh. Pope Leo’s first sermon…

[CurlewKate]

“"A lack of faith is often tragically accompanied by the loss of meaning in life, the neglect of mercy, appalling violations of human dignity, the crisis of the family and so many other wounds that afflict our society,"

I don’t know why I expected anything different. Maybe because he likes Wordle?

And you've decided to interpret lack of faith to mean he is referring to atheists. You are twisting his words because you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Atheists can have faith, just because they don't believe in God does not make atheists automatically faithless. This was your own interpretation.

@EspressosummerSo what do you think His Holiness meant by “lack of faith?”

Am I missing a group that the pope specified, or is the pope missing a group (which is whatevs, really)?

What do you mean positions of the people on this thread? Which group they are in?

Some people are clearly pissed off because they think that the Pope has put them in group 1, but have edited out the existence of group 2.

When the Pope talks about a "lack of faith", what faith is he talking about?

When one hears the Pope talking about a lack of faith, you tend to think that would be thinking about not believing in God.

You have missed a group.

I think he was talking about people who lack faith.

I think he then put those people in the same group as other people who are those who seek power, money etc.

He then says that people in both these groups are people who lack faith, and are more likely to behave as the original OP states - the loss of meaning in life, the neglect of mercy, appalling violations of human dignity, the crisis of the family and so many other wounds that afflict our society"

From what I understand, I think you are saying that he is only talking about those people who seek power, money and those are the people whose lack of faith leads to those things.

It’s not lack of faith-it’s too much faith - and each faith thinks THEY are the one - Israel/ Palestine,India/Pakistan, Trumps Christian superiority ….

They're not faith based wars, they are land/resource based wars

I wasn’t talking about the pope, I was talking about the pp you replied to.

Of Course they are faith based wars. If they were all of the same faith there wild be no fighting.

That's an analysis that took a seriously wrong turn at the point where conflicting parties were first identified.

Some people are determined to be offended.

He literally talks about the two groups the whole way through. Why would he suddenly mix up the groups with a third group? The two groups are clearly delineated in his speech, and the 'lack of faith leading to appalling violations of human dignity...' etc are part of the first group description and is given as the reason why outreach is desperately needed there, despite the mocking and despising.

Could you look at what I've said and see if you agree with the different ways that people are seeing this?

It’s a statement of observation and logic. Both parties see the land as theirs on the grounds of historical claim

Look, he clearly delineates the two groups throughout and if you want to pretend that what he said about the first group then suddenly applies to part of the second group without him saying that at all, and with him having made a clear delineation between the two groups, there's no helping you

Other people have a different interpretation of your view.

I would have thought you could express what you think other people are saying, even if you may not agree with their view.

I think other people have taken a bit out of context in order to take offence at it.

That's not really expressing someone else's interpretation, is it....

I am sure there are enough posts on here for you to articulate the way others have interpreted it, even if you don't agree with it.

But I know you don't care about this though.......

So which group are you in? 1 or 2?

I've explained what I think he is saying and what I think you think he is saying.

You are free to read my explanation and take it from there.

The thing is, I've posted what he did say.

And so have I.
Along with my interpretation - which differs from your interpretation.

We may not agree with each other's interpretation.

But we should at least be able to explain what we think each other's interpretations, even if we don't agree with them.

One of us could have the correct interpretation. Or neither of us.

I think my interpretation lies with how the Vatican reported it.

But I don't think your mind will change if you don't understand the interpretation other people have put on it. Even if you don't agree with it.

I don’t fit into any of the 2 groups and lots of people won’t.

You say that despite him having two clearly delineated groups, he wants you to think that something he says about the first group applies to some people in the second group, despite him not actually saying that.

You haven't provided any reason as to why that would be the case given the two groups being clearly delineated.

He talks about the two groups earlier too

"First, there is the world’s response. Matthew tells us that this conversation between Jesus and his disciples takes place in the beautiful town of Caesarea Philippi, filled with luxurious palaces, set in a magnificent natural landscape at the foot of Mount Hermon, but also a place of cruel power plays and the scene of betrayals and infidelity. This setting speaks to us of a world that considers Jesus a completely insignificant person, at best someone with an unusual and striking way of speaking and acting. And so, once his presence becomes irksome because of his demands for honesty and his stern moral requirements, this “world” will not hesitate to reject and eliminate him.

Then there is the other possible response to Jesus’ question: that of ordinary people. For them, the Nazarene is not a charlatan, but an upright man, one who has courage, who speaks well and says the right things, like other great prophets in the history of Israel. That is why they follow him, at least for as long as they can do so without too much risk or inconvenience. Yet to them he is only a man, and therefore, in times of danger, during his passion, they too abandon him and depart disappointed."

You'll notice that the first group is a 'place of cruel power plays and the scene of betrayals and infidelity'. Your interpretation requires that he actually means that some people in the second group are actually doing the power plays, betrayals and infidelities in the first group. But they are clearly meant to be two separate groups of people.

But that doesn't matter in the slightest to an atheist. If hell doesn't exist it doesn't matter if someone thinks I will be going there any more than if they say Father Christmas won't bring me any presents if I'm naughty.