• Pope Francis Continues His Campaign Against Flamboyancy: Declines Papal Palace Apartment for Simple
    126 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40064151]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] I agree to an extent but my point is that if all cardinals thought gay's should be able to marry then the church probably wouldn't be preaching against it. It's ultimately the responsibility of the public for endorsing the idea as a whole and not really one person, regardless of how much authority that one person seems to have. If people all disagreed with the authority vehemently the authority would likely not actually have any power.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;40064263]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.[/QUOTE] really? you don't think people think about this? I always think about this when arguing, it doesn't change the world or shock us into intelligence. Yeah, no one on earth views themselves as evil, why is this a shock? Everyone thinks what they do is for the best, this is a shock? It doesn't change when people are hurt just to say there's an other side of the argument killing gays can be seen as murder or as a god send of an act, but would you argue that each are equally valid views? [editline]27th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;40064291]The kill-the-gays bill was promoted by evangelical missionaries, not the catholic church. To say otherwise is incorrect.[/QUOTE] to say categorically, that there's no catholic influence in uganada is wrong
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40064291]The kill-the-gays bill was promoted by evangelical missionaries, not the catholic church. To say otherwise is incorrect.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uPt1Uaa.jpg[/IMG] So I guess this image of Ratzinger blessing Rebecca Kadaga never happened then.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40064298]really? you don't think people think about this? I always think about this when arguing, it doesn't change the world or shock us into intelligence. Yeah, no one on earth views themselves as evil, why is this a shock? Everyone thinks what they do is for the best, this is a shock? It doesn't change when people are hurt just to say there's an other side of the argument killing gays can be seen as murder or as a god send of an act, but would you argue that each are equally valid views? [editline]27th March 2013[/editline] to say categorically, that there's no catholic influence in uganada is wrong[/QUOTE] There is no Catholic-church-supported influence in Uganda. They may have taken the words of the Catholic church to an extreme degree, but the prominent religious groups there are evangelical christians, which have a totally different view on homosexuality than the catholic church. Apologies - incorrect, the archbishop from Uganda has spoken out in support of the bill. The Catholic church as a whole is still opposed to the bill.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40064298]really? you don't think people think about this? I always think about this when arguing, it doesn't change the world or shock us into intelligence. Yeah, no one on earth views themselves as evil, why is this a shock? Everyone thinks what they do is for the best, this is a shock? It doesn't change when people are hurt just to say there's an other side of the argument killing gays can be seen as murder or as a god send of an act, but would you argue that each are equally valid views?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying nobody thinks about it, just that they never outwardly seem to recognize it and it's usually very easy to gloss over. I'm also not saying it justifies anything. Recognizing that somebody sees themselves as right does not mean that what they are doing is justified.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40064293]I agree to an extent but my point is that if all cardinals thought gay's should be able to marry then the church probably wouldn't be preaching against it. It's ultimately the responsibility of the public for endorsing the idea as a whole and not really one person, regardless of how much authority that one person seems to have. If people all disagreed with the authority vehemently the authority would likely not actually have any power.[/QUOTE] well i doubt the idea that the church will move forward. individually a cardinal has his own views, but again, those views are drawn from one source, the religion, and though it can be viewed so many different way, that will always be tempered by being a part of a system that doesn't view foreign(as in new and different) ideas and thoughts as good or valid. if we scale this up to apply to all cardinals and start thinking about it, the Pope will usually end up being elected to hold the same values as last time. Of course we can historically look back and see radically different popes from pope to pope, but some details are unlikely to change i think.
As a side note, There's huge regional disparities between the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and the catholic churches of certain areas. The fact that a Ugandan archbishop publicly supported Uganda's actions is, well, expected. For example, the US Catholic Church has pretty much no problem with gays and is actually very progressive in comparison to any other major church. There's major differences based on the location of the national catholic churches compared to the Vatican. And on that note, I'm off, things to do.
[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] By calling homosexuals the work of the devil, he would be dehumanising millions of humans all across the globe in the eyes of Catholics. By virtue of their existence, homosexual people are delegitimising the church (which is an institution, not a person). To me at least, moral relativism plays no role in deciding which of those is ultimately more harmful in real terms.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;40064315][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uPt1Uaa.jpg[/IMG] So I guess this image of Ratzinger blessing Rebecca Kadaga never happened then.[/QUOTE] that image doesnt prove the pope implication in the kill-the-gays bill.
[QUOTE=Gate;40064435]that image doesnt prove the pope implication in the kill-the-gays bill.[/QUOTE] no just him as a person having the influence he had NOT saying anything is enough to implicate him. also, you have Rebecca Kadaga is, a woman and lawyer who vowed to pass the Kill the Gays bill if she's getting blessed, and she's done this i think we can safely say what we have to say and stop pussy footing around the issue.
That's a nice looking house.
By sp00ks logic, we should count all Germans as being Nazis and hold every 10th generation White American for war crimes committed against Natives.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40064861]By sp00ks logic, we should count all Germans as being Nazis and hold every 10th generation White American for war crimes committed against Natives.[/QUOTE] you're not using his logic... just what you assume it is which it isn't.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40064906]you're not using his logic... just what you assume it is which it isn't.[/QUOTE] [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] He literally just said 'fuck francis' and claims his modesty is a mask to hide atrocities committed by the Catholic Church. The pope is barely a pope for a week and we're already putting him on a stake? He holds followers accountable for other followers' actions.
Hey guys has anyone thought of the consequences of what would happen if the pope were to stand up and renounce homophobia, accept gay priests and women priests and support gay marriage and contraception? He'd be deposed pretty much overnight. So to come into every pope thread and say "he's just as disgusting as every other pope, he ain't fooling me!!" is literally the stupidest thing I mean seriously, why does everyone get so personally offended by the fact that the pope hasn't announced a revolution for the church? You'd have to be idiotic to expect that. His personal views are not reflected in what he says to the public in the slightest anymore. What he says and does will be a reflection of what his followers believe - which is great, because it means that if he doesn't support homophobia, he'll still have to officially support it in the end if the majority of the church want it to go through. You want the pope to change the church? It's not going to happen unless the people of the church change first. You think the pope can lead by example? He can, but if you expect such big changes which literally go against centuries of Catholic policy, then you're really expecting too much. Baby steps. That's why what Francis is doing is so great - it shows that noone, not even the leader of the most powerful religion in the world, deserves special treatment. How is that a bad thing in any way? How does that make him horrible? As far as I'm concerned its a great step for the church to be taking, because its a step, however small, towards equality between all people. So my question is why do people still come in here and act like it's all a big trick to hide pedophilia and shit as far as I'm concerned the sooner we realise that religious figures don't get special treatment, which is exactly what his actions are implying, the better off everyone will be in the world
I think homosexuality is ok.
He's a Jesuit. Stances on homosexuality and contraception aside, they're not going to be big, glitzy and shiny Catholics, that's just not how it works. The Jesuits are pretty much the hardcorest Catholics you could get, which surprisingly can make them pretty grounded because they work more often than not with the poor and encouraging all forms of education including science (which I didn't know until recently) to provide sort of an equal opportunity for everyone. I actually heard he still wears a tin cross someone gave him in the 50's rather than Benedict's bling. I'm kind of hoping he does a good job for once. I don't really know if this tells me much about his decision making but from his wikipedia page he seems like a pretty moderate guy.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40063456]man fuck john paul ii I heard that there was a pope 400 years before him that killed people with the inquisiotn so he's evil bam morality win man fuck the whites they enslaved the blacks what tools fuck 'em all they're disgusting man fuck the military they kill people and they definitely didn't bring us nasa and the entire space program and a metric fuckton of technology that you use daily Do you see why your logic is nonexistent yet? Who gives a damn what he thinks? You realize that hating people who are anti-gay is about as hypocritical as you can get? Hating people because of beliefs is no different than christians hating atheists or vice-versa. You're literally no better. It's fucking obnoxious to go into every good-news Pope thread and have someone tear into a religious leader for upholding his religious values. What the fuck else did you expect? You have a choice between another Benedict who flaunts his riches or a Francis who acts humble and tries to help the poor. This is absolutely nothing but good. Sorry, but you won't get a pope who suddenly decides "hey gays ur cool and women can be priests k!" It's incremental steps like this that are what will bring about change in a slow-moving institution like the church.[/QUOTE] I haven't actually seen him do anything yet. Nothing good or bad. There's only been these 'news' stories about how humble he is or whatever.
[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] this analogy doesnt follow because being black isnt really a positive trait. Unless you are a racist. Wheres th89 when you need him
I don't fear him for having those beliefs, I fear him for inspiring potential individuals to display acts of hatred against homosexuals since they view Francis as a morally-sound person. I hate to use Godwin's law here, but I remember Hitler repaired Germany's economy in a few weeks. While it was morally sound, many people followed his atrocities because they were indebted to him.
francis has a better PR manager than benedict i'll give him that much.
Meanwhile the pope's traditional apartments still need to be maintained in addition to his new apartment. Gold star for managing to take up two places and never actually using one. I'm sure that deserves the humble pope of the year award and isn't at all completely ridiculous and utterly pointless.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;40063242]No, fuck all the popes because they've all been assholes.[/QUOTE] You could say the exact same thing about every single president we've had. They've all been assholes in one way or another.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40064196] 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] Nonsense. It can be easily proven in debate that the church has caused more damaged than homosexuals. I don't personally know why it is one would ever want to make such a stupid comparison, but if one had the will to do so it could easily be done. Morality is found wronged by those in favor of homosexual rights through the history of abuse and oppression so many human beings have been forced under due to their sexual preferences. The Church finds an abuse of morality in relation to homosexuals through the word of "God". It is wrong because God says so and God says so because it is wrong. Respecting the idea that one can inflict restrictions on somebodies lifestyle based solely on this sort of logic is harmful and immoral. The Church needs to be able to back up an argument of morals with more than that sort of circular logic. The Church has been unable to do this. Religion in general can be attributed for many atrocities in the history of the world. Homosexuality cannot take similar responsibility unless one is able to prove that something can be immoral simply because "God" deems it so. One should have no respect for anybody's beliefs that inflict restrictions on the lifestyles of other people when they cannot prove this is immoral beyond their beliefs. Anybody who says that people fighting for homosexual rights have the moral upper ground, do in fact have the moral upper ground. The only reason the Church has is belief, and that's no way to prove something is wrong. Side note: The implications of saying "which side of the war really does have god on it's side?" are a touch rude to anyone who thinks morals should be based upon the general wellbeing of people as opposed to the opinions of a "higher being".
Fair is fair, that 2 bedroom place still looks pretty sweet.
[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] Why should you be tolerant of hurtful and bigoted beliefs? Maybe the side that's actively trying to oppress people should be the side that stops hating. Would you so quick to justify a 1950s America segregation policy with "guys we need to tolerate their beliefs"? Fuck no. If their beliefs are actively causing people to DIE and be unequal to everyone else then they can get fucked.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;40064976]Hey guys has anyone thought of the consequences of what would happen if the pope were to stand up and renounce homophobia, accept gay priests and women priests and support gay marriage and contraception? He'd be deposed pretty much overnight. So to come into every pope thread and say "he's just as disgusting as every other pope, he ain't fooling me!!" is literally the stupidest thing I mean seriously, why does everyone get so personally offended by the fact that the pope hasn't announced a revolution for the church? You'd have to be idiotic to expect that. His personal views are not reflected in what he says to the public in the slightest anymore. What he says and does will be a reflection of what his followers believe - which is great, because it means that if he doesn't support homophobia, he'll still have to officially support it in the end if the majority of the church want it to go through. You want the pope to change the church? It's not going to happen unless the people of the church change first. You think the pope can lead by example? He can, but if you expect such big changes which literally go against centuries of Catholic policy, then you're really expecting too much. Baby steps. That's why what Francis is doing is so great - it shows that noone, not even the leader of the most powerful religion in the world, deserves special treatment. How is that a bad thing in any way? How does that make him horrible? As far as I'm concerned its a great step for the church to be taking, because its a step, however small, towards equality between all people. So my question is why do people still come in here and act like it's all a big trick to hide pedophilia and shit as far as I'm concerned the sooner we realise that religious figures don't get special treatment, which is exactly what his actions are implying, the better off everyone will be in the world[/QUOTE] 10/10 post. Post of the year, all years, etc. The Pope can't just come out and flip thousands of years of Catholic belief on a dime.
Just because the pope will get backlash for supporting homosexuals doesn't make it not the right thing to do. If he's more worried about doing his job than helping spread equality among humans then yes I'm going to hold that against him. Sure, he won't change those beliefs on a dime, but he sure as hell can TRY. [editline]28th March 2013[/editline] Not to mention popes are elected for life. What are they gonna do? Impeach him?
Two bedrooms? God he's so damn needy and he's showing off to all those people that live in one bedroom flats. What a flamboyant ass.
"I'm Pope Francis and this is my crib." I really like his choice, the palace one seems almost scary looking.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.