http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...m/pope_book_dc
Frankly, it's thinking like this that halts progress, especially when it comes to gay marriage in my opinion.
Take care all.
Printable View
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...m/pope_book_dc
Frankly, it's thinking like this that halts progress, especially when it comes to gay marriage in my opinion.
Take care all.
. . . you know, he may not agree with it and he may believe they will burn forever in the pits of hell or whatever but how is it a threat? I swear, I dislike the Pope more and more for some reason.Quote:
Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society.
The picture of him with the dove reminded me of this . . .
http://usera.imagecave.com/Fuzakeru/Pope.jpg
I happen to believe staring at doves like they are a form of food is a threat to society so we much legally exterminate him. -.-
This just upsets me. The pope deserves a good swift kick to the head. Tolerance is a good thing.
If there's one topic I've never been able to discuss with my Catholic friends it's homosexuality. Most all of them just hide behind the bible. Now they can just hide behind the Pope. Absolutely ridiculous.
I think that sums things up nicely. Human Rights - I don't think those can go "against" man, by definition. Reading these kinds of ideas always saddens me, but it seems much worse when it comes from someone who has influence over millions of people around the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Pope
Are human rights not more important than a subjective definition of family? I certainly think so.
How the hell is being gay evil? Because it states it in a man-written book. That book is no more trustworthy than my fist. I'm not part of an idealogy of evil because I'm gay, no, I'm part of an idealogy because i want to b-slap all the "morally right" religious zealouts in the world.
"Frankly, it's thinking like this that halts progress, especially when it comes to gay marriage in my opinion."
mmmm.... Who said that social progressivism was a good thing?
Guy Eaton discussed the degradation of morals in favour of personal liberties. With the kind of progressive thinking that liberals endorse it won't be long before all types of insidious, hedonisms are decriminalized and then eventually legalized.
"Are human rights not more important than a subjective definition of family? I certainly think so."
No, the family is the core of civilization. Besides this, Human rights can only be maintained by the state. Family, on the other hand, is maintained by active individuals. Divorce - a growing problem - has produced a whimsical generation of polygamy: in which young women never seem to find 'Mr. Right' and young men take advantage of this ... except in extreme circumstances where the dignified individual values tradition. But wait! Tradition, in the eyes of progressivisms, is merely a back-ward inhibition towards individual progress.
The issues that the Pope addressed seem abrasive to the modern state high school educated; however, deeper philosophical inquiry reveals his devotion to the protection of morals, the maintenance of loving families and the preservation of our wonderful western tradition.
Besides this ... The Dalai Lama spoke on the evils of anal sex: even between married couples; and, I don't hear anyone in hear complaining about his conservatism. I think much of the dissent against the Pope is based unwittingly on the American Protestant inclination.
Anyhow, cheers. ;)
"mmmm.... Who said that social progressivism was a good thing?"
In my opinion, the more liberated we get as a society, the better, because we get closer to who we are and away from the image driven culture that has come to dominate our lives.
"Guy Eaton discussed the degradation of morals in favour of personal liberties. With the kind of progressive thinking that liberals endorse it won't be long before all types of insidious, hedonisms are decriminalized and then eventually legalized."
Such as? Morals, as has been debated, is subjective to each person. What one person may find morally right another might find horrid and vice versa. Also, it seems very unfair to bash the views on the left without taking into account the fact that without liberal progression we would not be living the lives we live now.
There is this growing demonization of "Liberal" that really blows my mind as it's made to seem that conservatism is right and anything aside from that is just dead wrong when in fact, the truth is somewhere in between.
"Besides this ... The Dalai Lama spoke on the evils of anal sex: even between married couples; and, I don't hear anyone in hear complaining about his conservatism. I think much of the dissent against the Pope is based unwittingly on the American Protestant inclination. "
I don't think the Dalai Lama considers his views liberal or conservative, if I've read his work correctly.
I suppose my biggest qualm is the fact that the language is so harsh, saying someone is evil or that what someone represents is evil does not seem like something anyone should say about another, especially when you are representing a great many people's beliefs and have no actual proof. On top of that, some of whom you may be completely "throwing under the bus" so to speak. There ARE Gay Catholics, and it seems beyond me that their beliefs are invalid because of their way of life. If God exists, I don't think he'd really care about whether you sleep with a man or a woman so long as you lead a good life, and calling someone "Evil" seems, for lack of a better word, very much against what religion should represent: bringing people together and uplifting them.
Take care all.
I wouldn't get your panties in a twist over what some decrepit, old Pole said, if I were you. He'll be dead soon anyway.
Word on the grapevine is his successor may be a very hardline Conservative. We shall see.
I suppose, what bothers me is that his words will only add fuel to the fire of people who bash and hate homosexuals when in fact, I think he and those of his ilk should be trying to put fires out, not start them up all over again.
Take care all.
The Pope is irrelevant, or should be irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Agreed.
Times like this I'm glad I'm a Catholic who marches to his own drum, instead of whatever the hell the pope is beating.
Well, the Pope is a strict Catholic, so he would say that, wouldn't he?
I agree with The Captain on everything.
I certainly don't look to the Pope for moral guidance and clarity, but the Pope has had a pretty decent track record of being levelheaded and reasonable. He was able to disapprove of the "Pokemon is evil" craze, the Iraq war, and opposition to evolution; right or wrong is irrelevant, he always spoke out against them with calm nicety and non-virulence. A "fire and brimstone" Pope is a dissapointing turn for the worse.
Actually, the Pope has the power to declare being gay not a sin and it would be so. THe sooner he dies the better because then we might get a pope who would make progress and do things instead of cover ups.
I'm not too fond of many of the things the current pope stands for (these things contributing to my decision to break from the church). This is one of these things.
I do believe that so long as someone is not harming or violating the rights of another person in any way, they should be permitted to do as they wish. Do I support hedonism? Not exactly, I believe in the right but just because someone has the right doesn't mean that they're going to do it. We still possess the ability to choose for ourselves, and thus the mere legality of an issue doesn't mean that everyone will do it.
I dislike much of the way the Conservative part of our nation has handled many of the issues such as this. Really, equal rights should apply to homosexuality as well. I don't believe it evil, I do feel there is a God and I believe that God doesn't care what religion we are or what our sexuality is so long as we lead basically good lives.
im catholic and i dont believe in a lot of the things the pope says, and it is because of people like him that ther is so much homophobia in the world :choc:
That's just stupid. I've never took what the Pope into consideration of my morals and beliefs, and I'm sure not going to start now.
I find religion so ironic sometimes. It's supposed to bring people together yet it starts wars and discriminates. It's happened from the beginning of time and it sure isn't ending any time soon.
since religion doesnt do what it's supposed to do(bring people together like Rye said) then does that make Buddhism the only possible true major religion? :choc:
pope decalres gays wrong shock,
what next? murder is a sin!
Quote:
I agree with The Captain on everything.
I think hes just an old man clinging to an outdated book. In my opinion hes done his time. He was more suited for back when christianity was more strict and fearful, when everyone attended church and you were expected to follow or have your corpse rot in hell. Again, I think hes out of date.Quote:
The Pope is irrelevant, or should be irrelevant.
I agree with The Captain (as usual) and Unne (not so usual).
Yep. And that is what all revolutionary movements are based on, namely, the freeing up of personal privileges. However, the west (Britain, Anglo-America), unlike continental Europe: is a slow delivery of progressivism i.e. it ain't happening overnight but it certainly is happening. In these nations the moral codes are corroded slowly and degenerative laws - especially infanticide - become everyday place in society. The liberalism we have become acquainted with is the comfortable rebel that delivers policy that is well intended but in hindsight produces dire outcomes.Quote:
"In my opinion, the more liberated we get as a society, the better, because we get closer to who we are and away from the image driven culture that has come to dominate our lives."
To contrast, the French experiment with liberalism manifested so rapidly that everything was liberalized to the extreme ... The mentally insane were freed from imprisonment and innocent people were beheaded for the state - many of whom were initial supporters of the liberal movement. Of particular relevance was the fact that the liberalists of then outlawed religion ... just as they slowly denature our traditions in modern liberal movements.
Besides this, people are molded by society not because of the wonders of liberalism. 'Who we are' is significantly based on our influences and denying this would mean that the core flesh i.e. the animal human is truly who we are as this would be all that humans have in common except societal influences.
We are less mobile today than before; the majority of people in the world cannot migrate due to nationalism (also strongly associated with liberalism) and capitalist economy.
We are less mobile due to state-governed education: it was much easier to gain an education in ancient Greece than it is today. Additionally, the Greek education was universal - mathematics, philosophy, music - Today’s academic courses are scrutinized by rationalism (another "benefit of liberal politics) and our universities (once church institutions) have been hijacked by corporate agendas, so called professional learning; hence, the explosion in finance and engineering courses in the past century.
We are less mobile due to social-engineering. The establishment of constitutional government lead to the rapid development of peripheral institutions e.g. comities, agencies, public servants, policing.
Most liberal minds are probably unaware that policing was born from the liberal movement. Montesquieu, a French philosopher - was an avid libertarian and he suggested the separation of powers into branches. Although this system seems 'conservative' it was infact generated via liberal minds. Apparently, the establishment of these separated powers would 'free-up' authorities and end corruption ... nice going Monty!
Religion is mysticism, salvation and understanding ... if 'bringing people together is a consequence well it's only exterior to the former intrinsic role of religion. Anyhow, Buddhism is that main reason that Tibet was invaded by secular China ... is that bringing people together? :eek:Quote:
since religion doesn’t do what it's supposed to do(bring people together like Rye said) then does that make Buddhism the only possible true major religion?
P.S. Catholicism is to only major religion that encourages alcohol and has massive festivals ... does that Catholicism the coolest religion? :p
No. It’s the whole conscience of sex. Sex should be more about man and woman reproducing and developing loving families than just scoring! Our fascination with lesbian, gay, bisexuals, curio, group ... the list goes on, indicates a degenerate appeal to sex that the west has developed. This is not a good thing! I am sure people agree .. sex like any other activity should not be abused.Quote:
im catholic and i dont believe in a lot of the things the pope says, and it is because of people like him that ther is so much homophobia in the world
Homosexuality is much like usury. It is a practice that suits itself, was previously banned and was only accepted after the typical excuse ... well people already do it so we should make it legal.
If people want to be homosexual well there is nothing stopping them ... but the practice should not disintegrate an already dying tradition - marriage.
Firstly, the bible is not Microsoft Office '89, it doesn't go out of date. It manifests our traditions, our morals and ethics, our laws and most importantly our road to salvation.Quote:
I think hes just an old man clinging to an outdated book. In my opinion hes done his time. He was more suited for back when Christianity was more strict and fearful, when everyone attended church and you were expected to follow or have your corpse rot in hell. Again, I think hes out of date.
People followed because they wanted to learn the way to salvation and understand the realms that operate beyond physical experience.
People in the past were not idiots: the academics spoke better than Shakespeare, the craftsmen built utilities to last and please the eye, the peasants produced abundantly without manufactured fertilizers or machinery.
In comparison, modern man is happy to settle as a higher form of ape, embraces mass produced technology but never masters it - by then a new fad is abusing our precious resources, and most of us never find a fulfilling occupation ... quite sad really, especially when we think we are so damn intelligent. This is reminiscent of the Roman ego obsessed with materialism and progress, but then, at least the Romans were intelligent.
Anyhow, cheers. ;)
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"
-Karl Marx-
To quote one of my liberal Catholic friends, "I hate the Pope."
I don't see how you can be Catholic and hate the Pope. I'm pretty sure that a big part of Catholicism is the decent (or supposed decent) of the line of Popes straight from Peter the Apostle, who was appointed by Jesus himself. The Pope isn't always considered right, but I believe he can say "The following comes straight from God: Pink shoes are evil" and then it's considered 100% correct, for all Catholics, for all time, literally. No later Pope could even say that the previous Pope was wrong. Has any Pope ever made that kind of proclamation about homosexuality? I'd be interested to know. Anyways if you say "I hate the Pope" you probably don't have much business calling yourself Catholic, by definition.
The Catholic church isn't completely opposed to common sense and rationality, but they do seem to take hundreds of years to catch up to the rest of the world, when it comes to things like morality and science and reality in general.
I think the idea of Papal Infallibility only applies when the Pope is sitting in his special chair. At least, that's how CNN seemed to word it. Anyway, I think the Pope has every right to publish a book on his views. The book isn't being entered into the church cannon. As the head of the Catholic church, his views shouldn't suprise anyone. I don't agree with the views from the book that were specified in the original post, and I haven't read the book, but I'm sure it isn't a total waste of paper.
Responding to Besimudo, Sorry i meant the pope and not the bible was outdated like I said in the end of that post. Although i do think the bibles full of useful advice and sets the ideas of right and wrong in alot of peoples mind I do think parts of it cant work with modern society and are incorrect. It was written and probably edited by man, right?
I have huge amounts of respect for the current pope. I don't necessarily see eye to eye with him on everything, but he is a great man either way. I am somewhat offended by some of the comments made by people in here.
The fact that the pope is sensible and level headed on MANY issues is why I respect him so much. That's far more than I can say about most Catholics, or Christians in general. Hell, it's more than I can say about most people
Even I find that statement dishearting. Isn't the Catholic faith supposed to be based off the teachings of Jesus? Didn't Jesus teach love and acceptance of others, showing that by going to those outside of the Jewish faith and even dining with those the priest labled as unclean? Even if the church says being gay is a sin, they should not label those who choose that lifestyle as evil. That is just wrong, and really doesn't seem like any form of acceptance to me. You don't have to agree with the lifestyle, but you still should not judge those who choose it. The Pope, of all people should show that, instead of judging.
Sigh.
Notice how it's marriage and not just homosexuality that he condemns.
This is because in Catholic doctrine a marriage MUST be unitive and
procreative in order for it to be a sacrament, thus calling a gay marriage
marriage is untrue in the eyes of the church. The fact that you think that
the pope thinks they will burn in hell shows how much you know about the
actual teachings of Catholicism, Fuz.
The only reason that people see Catholicism as not accepting homosexuality
is because in order to be, by definition, truly homosexual, you must
take part in sexual acts with those of the same gender. Since these
acts can never take place inside of a sacramental marriage for the reason
stated above, it is always premarital.
The pope seems to be a pretty logical guy and while I don't necessarily
agree with him the reasons for his beliefs make sense, it's just a different
way of looking at things. You call the pope a hypocrite for not accepting
others' lifestyles and yet you can't even respect an opinion which he
has based on his own logical ideas and beliefs is pretty hypocritical. It
goes both ways, folks.
.opt
I agree with Optium on this one.
I'm not trying to offend anyone here but I don't understand how it's sinful being gay, it's not something you can help, you don't have a choice of being gay or not. If you are gay are you just expected to live like a straight person and get married to somebody you don't love, which would mean making false vows and living under false pretenses unhappily.
I think everybody in the world should be treat as equal- no one should think they are better than anyone else because they are different.
(Just curious, but where in the bible are things stated about homosexuals being wrong?)
EDIT: after reading Optimum's (sp?) post I understand a little more. Thankyou Optimum and I agree with you on this one :)
There are, but it was nulled when Christ came, if I'm not mistaken.
In the sections of Soddom and Gremora. Also, somewhere it states that it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as he would a woman.
Yay for a man-made book to dictate what God says. Anyone can edit it, and besides, the real bible was oral tradition, it wasn't written down until the about 300 years after the death of jesus. The old testament has been around for a while, but the majority of those were used in the synagogues and old churches, and many were constantly being edited by the clergy.
Most of the quotes in the Bible regarding homosexuals are in the Old
Testament and are used only to show the barbaric nature of Pagans
compared to the civilized nature of Jews. The Old Testament also says
that a man whose wife is kidnapped, upon finding his wife and the kidnapper,
should punish the kidnapper based on how badly the wife was treated.
Something like...lash for lash, toe for toe, and eye for eye.
When Jesus came he said "You have been told 'an eye for an eye' but I
tell you if your enemy strikes your cheek give him the other." This was a
way of saying that the old laws no longer apply. Therefore, any laws the
Old Testament creates should be taken with a grain of salt. Now as I said
before, the church does not have a problem with a man being in love with
another man, what the church has a problem with is premarital sex and
since two men can never take part in a sacramental marriage any sex
between them will be premarital. The pope is simply saying that civil
weddings between two men or two women create a very different
family atmosphere which he sees as social decline. You don't need to
agree with this, and I don't agree completely, but this is how he sees
it. He has a point, but he sees it as worse than others do, which is just
the way of the world.
A good friend of mine is a firm Bush supporter, he's all about national
defense and he likes war when it gets the job done. Many of my other
friends who don't know him well call him an idiot, but I've had countless
debates with him and he always backs his arguments up with facts. He
knows exactly what he's talking about. He simply has a different way of
looking at the world than I or many of my friends do, it is not a wrong
way of looking at the world--which is what some believe--but simply
DIFFERENT.
.opt
PS, the first gospel, Mark's, was written roughly 30 years after Jesus'
death. You were only off by about 270 years, nice try though.
Hmmm....
Perhaps I am mistaken for my angry outlash. I had seen the Pope's comment as one condeming people for their transgressions. After reading your post however, Optium, it does seem to make more sense. Therefore I appologize for my own comments.