Pope Francis Continues His Campaign Against Flamboyancy: Declines Papal Palace Apartment for Simple
126 replies, posted
Christ, people.
Why is tolerance seemingly one-sided when it comes to discussions on homosexuality? You cannot insist that all gays be accepted everywhere while simultaneously saying that the church is an unacceptable organization of pure concentrated hatred that should be destroyed. That isn't tolerance, that's just hatred from the opposite side. You're literally no better. Both sides think that they have a moral high ground. Because you lack the sensibility to be able to understand that freedom of speech and of religion goes both ways, you throw hatred at the opposing side.
To me, hatred is never ever justified. Anger can be - I'll be angry about the actions of the WBC or of rapes in India - but I will never hate another human being for a reason as asinine as having a different or conflicting set of beliefs. Hatred solves absolutely nothing, and people that think talking shit about the church will actually make them accept homosexuality more quickly than if they sat them down and discussed the issue like a mature adult that actually tries to tolerate are immature and incredibly misguided.
Hate leads to hate. If one side stops hating, guess what, you created tolerance.
Well, Gee, If he isn't taking it can I use it?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40063937]great
I don't agree with him at all either, but I don't think someone is a horrible person just because I disagree with them on an issue like that. I think he is misguided. I think the Pope is misguided. (of course, he's religious and I'm not)
Of course it's a completely different thing if he was covering up for pedophilia in the priesthood. (The pope I mean, not my dad) That's something he knows is wrong and is trying to hide[/QUOTE]
Well i believe ratzinger should be prosecuted for his crimes.
I believe your dad is an asshole should be left to it.
Im not saying your dad hurt anyone.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40063970]I don't get it. This is the same thing that Retardation said, and I don't see how the level of respect they command from other people makes their beliefs more or less wrong.
[/QUOTE]
your dad isn't actively harming other people with his shitty opinions. the pope is.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40063225]what
fuck Obama because Nixon was an awful president
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
does he think being black will make me forget about Watergate!?[/QUOTE]
terrible analogy, Barack most likely didnt have anything to do with that scandal, while ALL popes hate homosexuals
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40063988]Christ, people.
Why is tolerance seemingly one-sided when it comes to discussions on homosexuality? You cannot insist that all gays be accepted everywhere while simultaneously saying that the church is an unacceptable organization of pure concentrated hatred that should be destroyed. That isn't tolerance, that's just hatred from the opposite side. You're literally no better. Both sides think that they have a moral high ground. Because you lack the sensibility to be able to understand that freedom of speech and of religion goes both ways, you throw hatred at the opposing side.
To me, hatred is never ever justified. Anger can be - I'll be angry about the actions of the WBC or of rapes in India - but I will never hate another human being for a reason as asinine as having a different or conflicting set of beliefs. Hatred solves absolutely nothing, and people that think talking shit about the church will actually make them accept homosexuality more quickly than if they sat them down and discussed the issue like a mature adult that actually tries to tolerate are immature and incredibly misguided.
Hate leads to hate. If one side stops hating, guess what, you created tolerance.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, gays are not telling the Catholic church what it should be allowed to do except in that they shouldn't be interfering in other people's lives. That kinda definitely gives them the moral high ground.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40063988]Christ, people.
Why is tolerance seemingly one-sided when it comes to discussions on homosexuality? You cannot insist that all gays be accepted everywhere while simultaneously saying that the church is an unacceptable organization of pure concentrated hatred that should be destroyed. That isn't tolerance, that's just hatred from the opposite side. You're literally no better. Both sides think that they have a moral high ground. Because you lack the sensibility to be able to understand that freedom of speech and of religion goes both ways, you throw hatred at the opposing side.
To me, hatred is never ever justified. Anger can be - I'll be angry about the actions of the WBC or of rapes in India - but I will never hate another human being for a reason as asinine as having a different or conflicting set of beliefs. Hatred solves absolutely nothing, and people that think talking shit about the church will actually make them accept homosexuality more quickly than if they sat them down and discussed the issue like a mature adult that actually tries to tolerate are immature and incredibly misguided.
Hate leads to hate. If one side stops hating, guess what, you created tolerance.[/QUOTE]
homosexuals are not actively trying to hurt other people.
the catholic church is.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;40063984]Find me somebody who doesn't hold at least one belief that is generally unfavorable. Nobody is perfect, and refusing to have something to do with somebody over one view they hold is childish. It's possible to acknowledge that somebody is wrong without cutting all ties to them.[/QUOTE]
The distinction is made exactly where, they are included and allowed in our worldview, (meaning a right to be there, not nescessarily hold sway over policy at large), And we are not in theirs.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40063988]Christ, people.
Why is tolerance seemingly one-sided when it comes to discussions on homosexuality? You cannot insist that all gays be accepted everywhere while simultaneously saying that the church is an unacceptable organization of pure concentrated hatred that should be destroyed. That isn't tolerance, that's just hatred from the opposite side. You're literally no better. Both sides think that they have a moral high ground. Because you lack the sensibility to be able to understand that freedom of speech and of religion goes both ways, you throw hatred at the opposing side.
To me, hatred is never ever justified. Anger can be - I'll be angry about the actions of the WBC or of rapes in India - but I will never hate another human being for a reason as asinine as having a different or conflicting set of beliefs. Hatred solves absolutely nothing, and people that think talking shit about the church will actually make them accept homosexuality more quickly than if they sat them down and discussed the issue like a mature adult that actually tries to tolerate are immature and incredibly misguided.
Hate leads to hate. If one side stops hating, guess what, you created tolerance.[/QUOTE]
literally the same? no because the people mad at the church don't have the power or influence actively in normal peoples every day lives...
[QUOTE=sp00ks;40063999]your dad isn't actively harming other people with his shitty opinions. the pope is.[/QUOTE]
I think that's silly
the public gives him the power to enact his beliefs. If I think all Jews should be forced to wear purple hats all day, no one gives a shit. They just call me weird. But if people give me the power to do whatever I want and I demand that Jews all wear purple hats and nobody says, "Woah guys, let's step back with this purple hat thing," it's kind of the public's fault.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40064069]I think that's silly
the public gives him the power to enact his beliefs. If I think all Jews should be forced to wear purple hats all day, no one gives a shit. They just call me weird. But if people give me the power to do whatever I want and I demand that Jews all wear purple hats and nobody says, "Woah guys, let's step back with this purple hat thing," it's kind of the public's fault.[/QUOTE]
the public doesn't elect the pope though?
[QUOTE=Madtoker;40064015]while ALL popes hate homosexuals[/QUOTE]
Really? All? Even if the next Pope came out and said, "Hey guys, I don't think Jesus actually gave as much of a shit about this gay thing as we're claiming?" This is my problem, sp00ks and other seem to be judging the guy before he's actually done anything. (and for the record, that response was mostly directed at the pedophilia remark)
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40064083]the public doesn't elect the pope though?[/QUOTE]
Are the Cardinals not part of the public? They're not church puppets, they are people.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40064063]literally the same? no because the people mad at the church don't have the power or influence actively in normal peoples every day lives...[/QUOTE]
Sure they do. Just because it isn't a single entity doesn't mean that they can't do that.
Just look at how the acceptance of homosexuality has moved across the globe. People mad at the church do have the ability, as a collective rather than an entity, to influence people, and they already have. They've launched campaigns to end the bullying of gays and to change the public perception of homosexuality, which is fucking fantastic. But to say that they don't have influence is ridiculous. The only difference is the existence of a single entity as opposed to a collective. It's easier to direct hatred at a single entity rather than as a group of collective people because you're then able to ignore the fact that they're also human beings that deserve as much compassion as people are demanding gays get.
Either way, if no one listens to the Pope because he says stupid shit they don't agree with, he still has no power.
sp00ks, you're the one glorifying piracy and derogatory term for black people, don't talk about horrible people, it's like pot calling the kettle black, makes me uneasy!
i'll give that the pope is more 'humble' and prefer less luxury, but i dont like he still dislikes homosexuals and have an extremely wrong outlook on it
Ill bet five kiloes of my finest pubic hairs, that this francis guy is not going to apoligize for the vatican's horrid policy during ratzinger.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;40064135]Ill bet five kiloes of my finest pubic hairs, that this francis guy is not going to apoligize for the vatican's horrid policy during ratzinger.[/QUOTE]
Should I apologize for the Dred Scott Decision?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40064091]Really? All? Even if the next Pope came out and said, "Hey guys, I don't think Jesus actually gave as much of a shit about this gay thing as we're claiming?" This is my problem, sp00ks and other seem to be judging the guy before he's actually done anything. (and for the record, that response was mostly directed at the pedophilia remark)
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
Are the Cardinals not part of the public? They're not church puppets, they are people.[/QUOTE]
don't they count as an aspect of the church less so than people that belong entirely to their communities? they're also people, not democratically elected, so I don't feel like the people pick so much.
I feel like the church asks the church
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40064119]Sure they do. Just because it isn't a single entity doesn't mean that they can't do that.
Just look at how the acceptance of homosexuality has moved across the globe. People mad at the church do have the ability, as a collective rather than an entity, to influence people, and they already have. They've launched campaigns to end the bullying of gays and to change the public perception of homosexuality, which is fucking fantastic. But to say that they don't have influence is ridiculous. The only difference is the existence of a single entity as opposed to a collective. It's easier to direct hatred at a single entity rather than as a group of collective people because you're then able to ignore the fact that they're also human beings that deserve as much compassion as people are demanding gays get.[/QUOTE]
but who's causing more harm? not the gays.
Anyway, going aaaaaall the way back to the beginning of this thread, the fact that someone still is doing bad shit does not mean the good shit they do is not good e.g. fighting the decadence of the Papacy.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40064119]Sure they do. Just because it isn't a single entity doesn't mean that they can't do that.
Just look at how the acceptance of homosexuality has moved across the globe. People mad at the church do have the ability, as a collective rather than an entity, to influence people, and they already have. They've launched campaigns to end the bullying of gays and to change the public perception of homosexuality, which is fucking fantastic. But to say that they don't have influence is ridiculous. The only difference is the existence of a single entity as opposed to a collective. It's easier to direct hatred at a single entity rather than as a group of collective people because you're then able to ignore the fact that they're also human beings that deserve as much compassion as people are demanding gays get.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand. The pope [I]literally has the power[/I] to just say "Yeah homosexuality is the work of the devil" and then based on that statement [I]people will be executed[/I]. To even claim anyone else has that level of power or influence is [I]fucking ludicrous[/I].
[QUOTE=Retardation;40064168]what is so difficult about grasping the concept of institutions[/QUOTE]
Despite serving as a senator, Obama is not responsible for the actions of Bush. It's a similar concept here.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40064159]but who's causing more harm? not the gays.[/QUOTE]
Harm is relative. Morality is relative. I don't want to throw another thread off-topic onto the idea of moral relativism, but it's true.
The Church thinks that homosexual groups are doing more harm. We think that the church is doing more harm. Who's to say that we have the moral upper-ground? Both sides think so. It's the typical problem - which side of the war really does have god on it's side?
Since you adopt the perspective of the homosexuality-is-good side, you will obviously believe that your side has the upper ground morally. Someone on the other side might not think so. It's completely relative and it cannot be solved in a debate.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;40064169]I don't think you understand. The pope [I]literally has the power[/I] to just say "Yeah homosexuality is the work of the devil" and then based on that statement [I]people will be executed[/I]. To even claim anyone else has that level of power or influence is [I]fucking ludicrous[/I].[/QUOTE]
To claim that the church has the power to fucking -execute- homosexuals is fucking ludicrous. The pope does not have that much power. He -already fucking thinks- that homosexuality is the work of the devil. Nobody's getting executed by the church.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;40063242]No, fuck all the popes because they've all been assholes.[/QUOTE]
Call John Paul the IInd an asshole again and I'll punch you.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;40063166]Does he really think acting as if he's a simple man will make us forgot the homophobia, sexism and hiding of paedophiles?
Fuck all the popes.[/QUOTE]
A long journey begins with a single step.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40064196]Harm is relative. Morality is relative. I don't want to throw another thread off-topic onto the idea of moral relativism, but it's true.
The Church thinks that homosexual groups are doing more harm. We think that the church is doing more harm. Who's to say that we have the moral upper-ground? Both sides think so. It's the typical problem - which side of the war really does have god on it's side?
Since you adopt the perspective of the homosexuality-is-good side, you will obviously believe that your side has the upper ground morally. Someone on the other side might not think so. It's completely relative and it cannot be solved in a debate.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
To claim that the church has the power to fucking -execute- homosexuals is fucking ludicrous. The pope does not have that much power. He -already fucking thinks- that homosexuality is the work of the devil. Nobody's getting executed by the church.[/QUOTE]
i actually take the simplest view possible on harm
physical or mentally, visible and present
does a gay person cause significant mental, physical, visible/present harm to anyone? no, only in a "moral" sense which doesn't matter
does the churches authority on how gay people are to be treated(See Uganada) harm people in those ways?
quite obviously.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40064196]Harm is relative. Morality is relative. I don't want to throw another thread off-topic onto the idea of moral relativism, but it's true.
The Church thinks that homosexual groups are doing more harm. We think that the church is doing more harm. Who's to say that we have the moral upper-ground? Both sides think so. It's the typical problem - which side of the war really does have god on it's side?
Since you adopt the perspective of the homosexuality-is-good side, you will obviously believe that your side has the upper ground morally. Someone on the other side might not think so. It's completely relative and it cannot be solved in a debate.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
To claim that the church has the power to fucking -execute- homosexuals is fucking ludicrous. The pope does not have that much power. He -already fucking thinks- that homosexuality is the work of the devil. Nobody's getting executed by the church.[/QUOTE]
So Uganadas anti gay policy isn't church influenced?(HINT, it actually is.)
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40064196]Harm is relative. Morality is relative. I don't want to throw another thread off-topic onto the idea of moral relativism, but it's true.
The Church thinks that homosexual groups are doing more harm. We think that the church is doing more harm. Who's to say that we have the moral upper-ground? Both sides think so. It's the typical problem - which side of the war really does have god on it's side?
Since you adopt the perspective of the homosexuality-is-good side, you will obviously believe that your side has the upper ground morally. Someone on the other side might not think so. It's completely relative and it cannot be solved in a debate.
[/QUOTE]
I like concepts like this. It's hardly ever recognized that both sides in a debate, or war, or whatever, all see themselves as right. Where one person sees rights being trampled, others may see their God being threatened. To you and me, the Catholic church seems morally bankrupt and corrupt. They may see it differently though.
Yeah now it just sounds like he's trying to look nice.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40064196]To claim that the church has the power to fucking -execute- homosexuals is fucking ludicrous. The pope does not have that much power. He -already fucking thinks- that homosexuality is the work of the devil. [B]Nobody's getting executed by the church[/B].[/QUOTE]
Oop. Ugandan "Kill The Gays" bill, [I]objectively[/I] wrong.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;40064274]Oop. Ugandan "Kill The Gays" bill, [I]objectively[/I] wrong.[/QUOTE]
The kill-the-gays bill was promoted by evangelical missionaries, not the catholic church. To say otherwise is incorrect.
In fact the Catholic church actually opposes the bill.
Stop mixing up your churches.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.