I'm not Catholic, but I deeply and most sincerely hope that the Pope is entirely different from God. As I understand it (several times removed from a catechism class) is that the Pope is, at most, the on-site human representative of Jesus -- the vicar, — Bitter Crank

Yes, you are right Crank. Nevertheless, there are some doctrines and dogmas who see the Pope "above" of Jesus. I mean, as a pure representation of God. This theory was established by Pius IX: There was discussion and approval of only two constitutions: the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Dei Filius) and the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor aeternus), the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome [...] Another main goal of the council was to definitively define the powers and role of the pope.

Whether one is a Catholic, a Protestant, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Moslem, Hindu, or Zoroastrian, animist or atheist, in the end the individual has to personally decide what to do. — Bitter Crank

I guess it could be difficult to them... we have to keep in mind that those Catholics or Protestants follow a dogma and a hierarchical group. Being individual/independent can be seen as an act of criticism against the dogmas.

I see. Pope Francis is a very controversial figure in both inside and outside of the Church and Vatican. I am aware that he receives some criticism due to his actions but as much as the other Popes. They always have had some controversies in their backs.
Your testimony is interesting because it shows that priests and nuns are "free" to critique the Pope. I always thought that they were forced to venerated him whatever the circumstances...

Yes, there are a lot of differences among all Catholics. I see it interesting because I wasn't aware about the "importance" of papal authority until today.
I always see him as a prophet not as a "Leviathan" or someone with a lot of power in his hands.

A creator is merely a personification of "a fluke", no? — 180 Proof

The humanity is obsessed with humanized whatever when we don't have to. For me a creator is not necessarily pictured. It could be whatever you believe... If I don't believe in anything there is not a creator at all...
I think flukes don't exist. It is just a reference to whatever happens and we cannot explain the cause.

It is true that the only way to understand the role of the Pope is from a Catholic perspective because his institution is based on canons and faith. Even is a religious debate I think it is interesting how his power can be more or less estimated.
A Pope doesn't have any influence on me but there are millions of believers and I understand that the Pope is important to them. But how important? Do they see him as the image of God or even supreme?

I think this issue makes me wonder a lot of questions because my failure is see the Pope as someone different from God but probably a Catholic sees him as the pure representation of the idea of God.

It seems Catholics want some sense of divinity to emanate from their leader, so democratizing his powers, setting checks and balances, and having strict oversight aren't what they want because that might overly humanize him. — Hanover

I see it as you do. But this premise could end up in an argument where the Pope is above God. Catholics don't want to humanize the Pope but I understand that, at the same time, no one is divine as much as God.
So, they will always have this debate. Are the faculties of the Pope object of criticism? If we critize him, are we arguing against God's mercy?

2022 may have been a turning point for action on climate change. It was hard fought, and much less than needed to be done, but it was something. — Mikie

:up: :100:

:up: :sparkle:

I don't want anything from him. I don't even pray...

What do you expect from God?

Any lines in Nietzsche's books/essays that could be read as humans having, well, consumed God? — Agent Smith

Yes. What I meant is that we humans can eat God if we see our life as a anthropocentric scenario. Nothing and no one is above us. I think is better for the world to see in such way. But I respect all views and opinions of course

Inside Japanese mythology, kamis can interact with humans.

We ate God when Nietzsche said: God is dead. :eyes:

My 2022 list of Japanese books I read:

Yukio Mishima:

Confessions of a Mask.
Thirst for Love
The Age of Blue
The Sound of Waves
The Temple of the Golden Pavilion
After the Banquet
Runaway Horses
The Decay of the Angel.

Yasunari Kawabata:

The Dancing Girl of Izu
The Scarlet Gang of Asakusa
Snow Country
Thousand Cranes
The Lake
The House of the Sleeping Beauties
The Old Capital
Beauty and Sadness
Palm-of-the-Hand Stories.

Jun'ichirō Tanizaki:

Some Prefer Nettles
In Praise of Shadows
Seven Japanese Tales

Haruki Murakami:

Hear the Wind Sing
Pinball, 1973
A Wild Sheep Chase
Sputnik Sweetheart

Kenzaburo Oē:

A Personal Matter
Nip the Buds, Shoot the Kids
Rouse Up O Young Men of the New Age!

Seicho Matsumoto:

Far Approach

Shintaro Ishihara:

Season of the Sun
The Eclipse of Yukio Mishima,

Teru Miyamoto:

Muddy River

Looking for reading even more Japanese works in 2023.

Killing Commendatore Part I and II, Haruki Murakami.

Fully agree with you, friend. Lexical analysis is very complex but interesting. I am not confident enough to debate on it... I don't have such criteria or knowledge.
Probably in the future!

Pain, unhappy, sad, sorrow, anguish, agony, grief, loss, glum, gloom, doom, excruciate, torment, angst, the blues, the doldrums, hell/ish, nightmare, etc. — Agent Smith

It is interesting because all of those words, despite of being related to sadness, tend to be the most influential towards writers and philosophers.

There are quite a few events antinatalists can choose to celebrate — Agent Smith

Is birthday one of them?

An afterlife makes sense only in Buddhism (reincarnation, determined by karma). — Agent Smith

:up: :sparkle:

Agreed. But I think is not about "sense" but just faith. Buddhism doctrines promote reincarnation and afterlife as one of the main points of their faith.

Because you dislike life? — Andrew4Handel

No, because I don't have any hope in future.

Many things are drugs: coffee (caffeine) , chocolate (theobromine, methylxanthine), alcohol, MSG (umami flavour which is broken down into a neurotransmitter) and many more. — Benj96

To be honest, I don't see coffee or chocolate as painful as cannabis or alcohol would be.

Rather then considering how they can be used better? — Benj96

Absolutely. I wasn't complaining about psychedelics themselves but the role of the public administration in this issue. I am complaining about the possible taxation in this issue, not the effect of a correct use of those drugs.

Is the apotheosis of Bentham-Mill-ianism Kantianism, ethically that is? — Agent Smith

It is a good question, indeed. But I am not able to answer you because I don't have deep knowledge in German philosophy. Sorry, friend!

What exactly is wrong/right about cannabis anyway? — Agent Smith

It is still be a drug. It doesn't matter if cannabis is "soft" compared to cocaine or heroine. The only problem I see regarding the legalisation of drugs, more specifically psychedelics, is that the State is acting as a hypocrite. There were always been tons of advertisements against drug use. Now, it seems to be "ok" to consume them because the State sees it as profitable. As I said: it is wrong because it is full of hypocrisy.
The real aim of a public administration is to promote the health care of the citizens. You would not reach that if you decide to legalised psychedelics. If someone says those drugs are not painful to you, they are clearly lying.

How would you feel or respond if it was proven conclusively that there is an afterlife? — Andrew4Handel

Disappointed.

I'm sure the FDA has already asked marijuana companies to stick a MARIJUANA KILLS sticker on their products. — Agent Smith

Exactly! They are hypocrites as much as when they sell tobacco packets

. Expect to see novel modes of delivery and safety + quality control. Isn't that awesome? — Agent Smith

It would be awesome for the state, for sure. They now want to make it legal because they will earn a lot of profits through the taxes implemented on marijuana lots. Unless it's free...

:up:
My purpose in this OP was trying to understand what Mishima was referring to. I am bif fan of his books but I don't have a clue inside German philosophy :rofl: so... I thought: I guess somone can help me here! I think a good idea would be give a chance on Kant or Wittgenstein books!

I haven't read Mishima — Moliere

Please let me recommend you some of his important works to introduce you in Mishima's world:
The Temple of the Golden Pavilion, The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea, The Sea of Fertility tetralogy: Spring Snow, Runaway Horses, The Temple of Dawn and The Decay of the Angel

If you have time and you are interested on new original books, Mishima would not disappoint you.

Cheers! :sparkle:

Santa isn't an individual and yet is in the domain of discourse — Shawn

What do you mean when you say Santa is not an individual? you want to say that Santa is a common subterfuge.

how subjective is pain & pleasure? — Agent Smith

Good question :up:

Gothic Kabuki Theater — Nils Loc

Japanese Print Autumn — Nils Loc

So awesome!

Good points both of you. But understanding is not necessarily based in logic and mathematics. You used Gödel's theorems but we can also quote Confucianism or Aristotle's anima in terms of basic knowledge.

By imposition vis-à-vis life do you mean no one was/is/will be asked whether s/he wishes to be born? — Agent Smith

It is impossible indeed.

It is always a pleasure to debate with you, friend :sparkle: :up:

Could it be that, as someone once said to me, the point is to unlearn ununderstand or at the very least, refuse to understand? — Agent Smith

I am agree. But one of the main problems is that our awareness is difficult to understand. So I will not be able to say: I understand you! while it is hard to understand myself. It is a paradox, if you think it deeply. We try to debate about metaphysical with the aim of reaching significance meanwhile we are not really sure if we understand ourselves at all.

from (god's) nihilistic and ambiguity perspective, human thinking and human affairs must appear to be infinitely trivial and inconsequential and, quite probably, of no logical value whatsoever. — alan1000

:sparkle: :up:

And yes I think any god that creates/created humanity (flawed beings) would have to give them free will, uncertainty, a lack of omniscience so that they might learn. So if one was an omniscient god it seems to allow for free will they would have to appear absent, illusive, a non existent parent departed from what they created. To allow for true independence. — Benj96

Interesting view but that can create a paradox: A God can be illusive and non existent but at the same time it needs to be believed by somone. Otherwise, the existence and omnipotence of God would be useless. What would be the point of a God's mercy if nobody is seeing around?

Well, I guess you don't care much for ethics. — ToothyMaw

I do not even care about living... everything is full-filled by ambiguities.

You choose how to be. If you want to be non-interfering and simply observing that's your perogative. Who are we - any mere human, to question your authority? — Benj96

It is interesting that you see God as an authority. I just see it as pure escapism. I cannot figure out all the problems and uncertainties of the people because that's would be being against the nature of humanity. If you want to question my authority, please go ahead. Isn't it a real act of freedom?

Damn dude. You don't think you would do anything good if you could? — ToothyMaw

No, because I do not know what is the meaning of "good"

, what would you do with your time as this entity? — Benj96

Nothing. Why the people should expect something from me for being God?