|
However, I also have a serious thought about the subject: they should give the award to the new pope. I don't care about religion and I have no idea if he is a good pope in the eyes of the church, but I know that his liberal views and friendly, cooperative disposition is doing good all across the world. If the very pope is saying that there's nothing wrong with being gay...It's all just talk, as near as I can tell. "Oh, there's nothing wrong with being gay -- but you're still going to Hell and we still won't marry you" isn't much better than just saying "it's still not OK with us."
Likewise, he pulled the "atheists can be good people, too! (But are still going to Hell anyway, and deserve it!)" thing.
And he's still backing the "condoms cause AIDS" propoganda in Africa, not to mention encouraging belief in witchcraft.
And training more exorcists than his predecessors.
The guy is wacko benighted superstitious, but at least knows how to talk like a nice person.
You must be watching news stories I have not.
Honestly nothing has changed since the last two Papacies. The opinion has always been that there is nothing wrong with being gay. No one has ever said that you will go to hell for it, or really anything else. Marriage is and was always for one man and one woman. That belief wont change. It is tradition and biblical. Specifically new testament biblical.
Never once has the church said condoms cause aids, rather promiscuity does. Condoms in the churches view promotes promiscuity. 1 + 1 = 2. Encouraging belief in witchcraft?? Um sure whatever, not sure where that came from, so can't begin to respond to it.
Training more exorcists, yes. Giving them more training is psychology as well a sociology to weed out other causes so when an exorcism is warranted (whether you believe it would ever be or not is as irrelevant you choosing to think calculus is not factual). So yeah a more educated priest hood.
|
|
Can't believe this isn't a YellowDingo thread, after seeing the title (although I wouldn't be shocked at all to find that he had something to do with the nomination itself...).
However, I also have a serious thought about the subject: they should give the award to the new pope. I don't care about religion and I have no idea if he is a good pope in the eyes of the church, but I know that his liberal views and friendly, cooperative disposition is doing good all across the world. If the very pope is saying that there's nothing wrong with being gay, and that gay people should be allowed to get married... that carries some weight. His attitude is similar on a plethora of other such subjects. He is uniting believers the world over in their shared faith. It's impressive.
Just an FYI, he is not a Liberal. Nor are his views. He is Catholic. He essentially holds the same views as his predecessors, it is the slant of the media that has changed.
There is one major difference, talked about this last weekend over beers with Houstonderek, this Pope does things out in the open and not behind closed doors. This is why he is shown as a liberal, not a conservative like Benedict XVI was. As he did everything behind closed doors. Like excommunicating a lot of priests and removing Bishops from influential posts, more than any other Papacy in a long time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should have figured the guy who denied the child abuse cover-up would be here to continue claiming the church can do no wrong. (Don't get me wrong; I like you, CJ, but just don't share your faith in the Church's benevolence.)
The opinion has always been that there is nothing wrong with being gay. No one has ever said that you will go to hell for it, or really anything else.
Yeah. "They don't go to hell if they're 100% celibate and repent their urges" is a long way from "there is nothing wrong with it."
Never once has the church said condoms cause aids, rather promiscuity does.
Encouraging belief in witchcraft?? Um sure whatever, not sure where that came from, so can't begin to respond to it.
Training more exorcists, yes. Giving them more training is psychology as well a sociology to weed out other causes so when an exorcism is warranted (whether you believe it would ever be or not is as irrelevant you choosing to think calculus is not factual). So yeah a more educated priest hood.
I think I've got a bit more evidence supporting that calculus works than you have evidence that exorcism does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, you two have been watching different news stories.
I should have figured the guy who denied the child abuse cover-up would be here to continue claiming the church can do no wrong. (Don't get me wrong; I like you, CJ, but just don't share your faith in the Church's benevolence.)
The opinion has always been that there is nothing wrong with being gay. No one has ever said that you will go to hell for it, or really anything else.Yeah. "They don't go to hell if they're 100% celibate and repent their urges" is a long way from "there is nothing wrong with it."
Never once has the church said condoms cause aids, rather promiscuity does.Encouraging belief in witchcraft?? Um sure whatever, not sure where that came from, so can't begin to respond to it.Training more exorcists, yes. Giving them more training is psychology as well a sociology to weed out other causes so when an exorcism is warranted (whether you believe it would ever be or not is as irrelevant you choosing to think calculus is not factual). So yeah a more educated priest hood.I think I've got a bit more evidence supporting that calculus works than you have evidence that exorcism does.
You might want to reread that article about witchcraft, since there is no mention of the Catholic Church spreading the belief. Not all Christians are Catholic.
The Archbishop said that infected condoms are spreading AIDS, not the condoms themselves. To be honest it wouldn't be the first time that Europeans spread disease.
|
|
However, I also have a serious thought about the subject: they should give the award to the new pope. I don't care about religion and I have no idea if he is a good pope in the eyes of the church, but I know that his liberal views and friendly, cooperative disposition is doing good all across the world. If the very pope is saying that there's nothing wrong with being gay...It's all just talk, as near as I can tell. "Oh, there's nothing wrong with being gay -- but you're still going to Hell and we still won't marry you" isn't much better than just saying "it's still not OK with us."
Likewise, he pulled the "atheists can be good people, too! (But are still going to Hell anyway, and deserve it!)" thing.
And he's still backing the "condoms cause AIDS" propoganda in Africa, not to mention encouraging belief in witchcraft.
And training more exorcists than his predecessors.
The guy is wacko benighted superstitious, but at least knows how to talk like a nice person.
Thing is (at least from what it seems - I admit to not being incredibly knowledgeable in the subject matter), the context of his disposition towards these subjects is a lot more positive. The blind masses who take the pope's words seriously are far less likely to find justification for violence in them. Hence, peace prize.
I don't care if the Christian church believes homosexuality leads to hell and refuses to marry homosexuals - so long as they don't interfere with homosexuals living like they chose to, and getting married in some non christian way. So I view the current Pope's stances as very good for the world.
I mean, look, you can't fault the friggin pope for adhering to the tenants of his faith - and the whole "going to hell if you're different than us" thing is pretty important in that faith. You have to be realistic about such things, and a "I still think you are wrong but acknowledge you as a human being the rights to make your own decisions" is as good as we are likely to get in the foreseeable future.
about the bold part: I don't mean to insinuate that taking the pope seriously as being blind or anything, I'm saying that there ARE many people who blindly accept the pope's words in the most literal sense and use them as an excuse to some very unpleasant behavior. It's obviously possible to be both intelligent and a believer at the same time. It's just that many aren't, and they have shown themselves to be dangerous over time.
|
|
Can't believe this isn't a YellowDingo thread, after seeing the title (although I wouldn't be shocked at all to find that he had something to do with the nomination itself...).
However, I also have a serious thought about the subject: they should give the award to the new pope. I don't care about religion and I have no idea if he is a good pope in the eyes of the church, but I know that his liberal views and friendly, cooperative disposition is doing good all across the world. If the very pope is saying that there's nothing wrong with being gay, and that gay people should be allowed to get married... that carries some weight. His attitude is similar on a plethora of other such subjects. He is uniting believers the world over in their shared faith. It's impressive.
Just an FYI, he is not a Liberal. Nor are his views. He is Catholic. He essentially holds the same views as his predecessors, it is the slant of the media that has changed.
There is one major difference, talked about this last weekend over beers with Houstonderek, this Pope does things out in the open and not behind closed doors. This is why he is shown as a liberal, not a conservative like Benedict XVI was. As he did everything behind closed doors. Like excommunicating a lot of priests and removing Bishops from influential posts, more than any other Papacy in a long time.
Alas, my only knowledge of the current pope is what I learned through the media. So if the media is skewed, my information is skewed as well. I was making a suggestion based on the information I had, and have no intention of really investigating the matter much further.
I will say though that I consider what quotes I read from the current Pope to show a FAR more liberal stance on many issues than that of his predecessor. And when I say liberal here I don't mean the pope is going to vote for the democrats on the new U.S elections, I'm saying that given his Catholic faith he appears to be very tolerant, uncommonly so among most high ranking priests and cardinals I heard of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... DESPITE his faith, he is tolerant. That sure says something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You might want to reread that article about witchcraft, since there is no mention of the Catholic Church spreading the belief. Not all Christians are Catholic.
The Archbishop said that infected condoms are spreading AIDS, not the condoms themselves. To be honest it wouldn't be the first time that Europeans spread disease.
You're just being disingenuous now. First off, the missionaries being talked about are indeed catholic, not some other mysterious denomination of christianity. Catholicism accounts for about half of christians worldwide.
I guess I'd consider ANY belief in demon possession and exorcism to be akin to witchcraft, and when you use your supposed magical powers over the supernatural to keep the ignorant in line, you're a petty tyrant not a good priest.
As for the AIDS thing, I'm not sure why you're making a distinction between crazy and lunacy here. The idea that condom manufacturers are intentionally or accidentally infecting condoms with AIDS is absurd and would fail to transmit the disease at any rate. Refusing to repudiate such ludicrous claims has the effect of reducing condom usage among a population that could benefit from them to prevent the actual spread of AIDS.
You're right, it wouldn't be the first time Europeans spread disease, but the supposed agent (infected condoms) is so beyond ludicrous that I have to assume an educated bishop or cardinal knows precisely what he's doing when he spreads that misinformation: playing on the superstition and mistrust of an unsophisticated audience to advance the church's stance against prophylactics at the expense of human lives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No abortions, no preventatives, no sex ed makes for lots of babies. In most countries where this has happened, a large part of those babies make for a new truly impoverished underclass - an underclass that, interestingly enough, has nowhere else to go than to the same church that pushed these laws through............ If the church loses influence in relatively prosperous societies, all they have to do is produce more poor.
|
|
Yeah... DESPITE his faith, he is tolerant. That sure says something.
I'm no fan of any kind of faith or religion, I would have thought that was established in earlier discussions.
I do think that things can improve and I view the current pope as a step in the right direction. Enough people behaving "despite" their faith will just alter the faith over time. Hopefully.
The current batch of wonky dogma is not overly ancient. Just a few hundred years old. Sure, it will change.
You might want to reread that article about witchcraft, since there is no mention of the Catholic Church spreading the belief. Not all Christians are Catholic.
The Archbishop said that infected condoms are spreading AIDS, not the condoms themselves. To be honest it wouldn't be the first time that Europeans spread disease.
You're just being disingenuous now. First off, the missionaries being talked about are indeed catholic, not some other mysterious denomination of christianity. Catholicism accounts for about half of christians worldwide.
I guess I'd consider ANY belief in demon possession and exorcism to be akin to witchcraft, and when you use your supposed magical powers over the supernatural to keep the ignorant in line, you're a petty tyrant not a good priest.
As for the AIDS thing, I'm not sure why you're making a distinction between crazy and lunacy here. The idea that condom manufacturers are intentionally or accidentally infecting condoms with AIDS is absurd and would fail to transmit the disease at any rate. Refusing to repudiate such ludicrous claims has the effect of reducing condom usage among a population that could benefit from them to prevent the actual spread of AIDS.
You're right, it wouldn't be the first time Europeans spread disease, but the supposed agent (infected condoms) is so beyond ludicrous that I have to assume an educated bishop or cardinal knows precisely what he's doing when he spreads that misinformation: playing on the superstition and mistrust of an unsophisticated audience to advance the church's stance against prophylactics at the expense of human lives.
This belief in possession by evil spirits has been promulgated in Africa by western missionaries of fundamentalist, particularly Pentecostal, Christian beliefs. It has enabled Africans to retain a modified version of their former beliefs in witchcraft, obtaining the approval and support of Satan-hunting Christians whose life is dedicated to the pursuit of evil. New churches, started by Africans with a self-proclaimed "divine mission", have sprung up everywhere.
Which part of Pentecostal is Catholic? Which part of new churches is Catholic?
Yes because of course, abstinence will never prevent the spread of AIDS.
And abstinence is the only 100% sure method of not spreading AIDS through sex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And humans don't function that way. Hate to break it to you, but abstinence on a large scale just doesn't happen. The harder you try to indoctrinate kids about it (abstinence only sex ed, purity rings and other putrid stuff), the higher the teen pregnancy numbers in that area. So, yes, if followed, it will 100% prevent HIV spread. You can't have that on anything but an individual level - so which is more important?
We are talking about two different things, AIDS prevention and sex education. I find it funny that I often here complaints about abstinence only sex ed, when people complaining about it, dismiss it as unworkable, or want to remove it from those same sex ed classes. Not saying that you do, but it is what I have experienced. People will push condoms, the pill, and other birth control methods, but if you ask them about abstinence, they say it doesn't work.
Humans can work that work that way, but society treats it as if it wrong. People that aren't having sex are ridiculed and made fun of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sex education, to be effective, requires a rather broad coverage of what human sexuality is and can be. What you do not want is someone being lost in this area, because it's a very risky situation. You need to know how all of it works to deal with it safely, and if you then want to practice abstinence, that is your choice. See, it isn't just you. It is the people around you that you discuss sex with, it is your partners. One day, it will be your children who need guidance in the area, and even if you choose abstinence and monogamy, you have no right to demand that they do as well. Abstinence-only sex ed is not getting sex ed, which is dangerous. The best defense against the spread of STDs is a well educated population. Ever heard the nice myth that if you have sex with a virgin, you can get rid of HIV? Yeah.
Certainly, there is nothing wrong with time being given to someone talking about abstinence during sex ed, as long as you still get through all the other parts of the vibrant field of human sexuality. That isn't what is meant by abstinence-ONLY sex ed, though. And of course, nobody should be ridiculed for not wanting to have sex.
We are talking about two different things, AIDS prevention and sex education. I find it funny that I often here complaints about abstinence only sex ed, when people complaining about it, dismiss it as unworkable, or want to remove it from those same sex ed classes. Not saying that you do, but it is what I have experienced. People will push condoms, the pill, and other birth control methods, but if you ask them about abstinence, they say it doesn't work.
Humans can work that work that way, but society treats it as if it wrong. People that aren't having sex are ridiculed and made fun of.
no, it's because it is fun an our primary biological imperitive.
Sex is a cornerstone of human existence, shaping central areas like identity and family life. It is a biological imperative, and can't be shut out. If someone's sexuality is illegal, people will still practice it (Uganda etc etc etc), even if it is a capital crime. Intolerance toward someone's sexuality can make people leave their families, take lethal risks, and so on. The only real process that can prevent a sexual drive is sublimation, devised by the catholic church... But the results of that are poor indeed, considering too many cases to mention where priests have fallen to temptation. It is also still a debate whether religious extacy is a sexual experience. There are some people who do not have a sexual drive, but this is rare, and with a good sex ed, there is no reason why quashing your sex drive should be a goal for anyone other than a very few, very disturbed people.