I don't really understand what they're doing. No one thinks lockdowns can stop the Omicron strain. It's just too contagious. — frank

I wish China will be more cooperative in the following weeks... It will be better for all of us. Like it is a country you necessarily depend with. Most of the products and technology industries comes from there... That's the reality. We depend on Chinese enterprises.

Or it could be that naturally acquired immunity is just better for some reason. — frank

It could be. But we suppose to save the most possible lives. If we only use the naturally immunity there would be a lot of weak people dying just for an experiment and I see it unfair... I think everyone deserves to be safe from covid.

In the other hand, China has two main issues related to their current crisis: 1. Opaque data so we don't truly know what is going on there. 2. The Chinese vaccines are not good enough so these are not helping the citizens. I think that with European/American vaccines the context would be different.

Interesting video and analysis. In the description of the video the doctor warned: The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of covid infection. and then he shows some evidences related to the number of taken vaccines and the correlation of percentage of people testing positive.

Well, it is obvious, right? Whenever you put vaccines on the population the people tend to start relaxing towards the precautions. But the vaccines are not there to "prevent" infections but to saves us from death. My parents and I have taken two vaccines and we were infected by Covid. We didn't get close to death thanks to the vaccines but it is obvious that sooner or later we would be infected. It is impossible the opposite.

I respect the analysis and evidences of the doctor of the video. But in my humble opinion, I think they are not related to the main cause of massive vaccination.

Thanks for your analysis and point of view.

Who but a believing Catholic would be interested in this question, though? — Ciceronianus

I am not a believing Catholic and that's why I started this topic. I want to see it in an impartial/objective view but it is difficult because I am aware that the role of the Pope has different perspectives among the Catholics. I am interested in the nature of the power of the Pope and why the believers trust on him.
Nevertheless, as @Gregory explained yesterday, the opinion among all Catholics is not the same and there are discrepancies.

You explained that you see the Pope as the main interpretation of a Roman Emperor. But I guess it is more complex.
In the other hand, it is interesting that Catholics always have debated about Pope's power. Is it a political or religious issue? Because I see him more than just a priest...

It is even difficult to describe the role of the Vatican.

When less solemnity is used, it is not sure whether infallibility is used and if it's not clear then how can it be part of dogma? There are all kinds of Catholics. — Gregory

I see... it is a complex topic.

Any rational organization would first ask itself if past popes had ever spoken ex cathedra but nonetheless been wrong. — Art48

That can rings a bell... I think only a few priests are brave enough to doubt on Pope's decisions or dogmas. As I said previously, I always thought that Pope is seen as the closer person to God (they even believe that the Pope is elected due to God's mercy)
So this brings Catholics to a dilemma: if they question Pope they are also doubting God's decisions and will?

Interesting. Thank you for sharing your knowledge in this matter with us.
I have two questions (if you do not mind):

I. Can you give me an example of papal decrees that are certainly infallible? It sounds interesting because I want to know an example of a statement that Catholics respect and comply without doubting.

II.

Even abortion hasn't been infallibly defined as a sin — Gregory

This was a surprise, indeed. Do you think that abortion was never been infallibly defined as a sin because is a controversial topic? I am not familiar with all Catholic dogmas but I always thought that abortion was condemned by most of them.

Are you human? :grin:

... Or are you the only human in here? — Alkis Piskas

I am just a Rōnin with the aim of loyalty and honesty :smile:

In the other hand, I always read your posts. I like them and I remember that you also take part on mines... I consider you as one of my online friends in this asylum.

Yes, the Proust. It's really, really good. — Pantagruel

Enjoy it! :up:

As it happens I'm just reading one of the longest novels in the world, whose main themes are the ways in which memories extrude themselves into life, and the ways in which things actually become memorable. — Pantagruel

Don Quixote? ... In Search of Lost Time?

Agreed. But I still doubt if an animal (whatever the species) can be aware of a time lapse when he learns something new. I mean: can an animal be aware of how much time did he take to learn a trick?
We are the only ones capable of measuring the circumstances in time.

I understand that time lapse does exist in our awareness and I am agree with your argument. Nevertheless, I was referring to the fact that time only exists in our lifetime. Past, present and future only exists and affects us but I wonder if a stone or a dog care about years passing or even if my dog suffers of nostalgia. It is a very complex thought and this circumstance is only up to the most complex animal in earth: humans.

The past is real — neonspectraltoast

It depends on how you interpret time. According to Kantian theories, time doesn't exist empirically outside our minds. There are even some debates that evolve to time paradoxes when we argue about past, present and future.
So, I am not confident enough to say that the past is "real"

The Protestants have plenty of problems, but at least they don't have a pope. — Bitter Crank

It was a historical change in Europe when Northern European countries broke their relationship with the Vatican, indeed. As I see, it seems that religion always had issues among their believers and priests.

Good example of Papal ex cathedra dogma. It is true that the Vatican always had influence on education. Nowadays this power has being vanished to ashes. Church educational system is no longer powerful as much as old era/days because modern society tend to be more critical.
In the other hand, I was looking for some answers related to the conclave. For me, catholic church seems to be a very complex organisation.

My wish for this place is to continue to be a source of inspiration and intellectual proliferation! — Alkis Piskas

Same here :up:

In the other hand...

Convince the members of this forum that the right path of life is Bushidō.

One must have the right enemies. Or in F's case, enemies in the Right. :wink: — Tom Storm

:up: :100:

. I was referring to their dislike of Ratzinger. — Tom Storm

I am aware that Ratzinger was disliked by a lot of Catholics. His views in the world were not welcomed by the rest of the persons. He was a very controversial figure inside the Vatican.
That's why I started this post. I wanted to know if the priests were "free" to argue against a Pope. I am seeing that they can do it individually. It is something new I learned these days.

Pope Francis — Tom Storm

Despite Pope Francis is more warmly than Ratzinger he receives hard criticism from the conservative wing too.

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.