• Pope proclaims all redeemed, even atheists
    264 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Doodle313;40746907]I gave him all the info he could possibly want that proves my point on same-sex parents having benefits over straight parents. at that point I could only assume that he is either trolling/lazy/mentally challenged What I did was not ad hominem because it was the obvious reflection of what he was doing. I can't believe I need to explain these kind of things. The level here is below 4chan/hackforums.[/QUOTE] Still waiting.... No, what you did was not ad hominem, was just name-calling.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;40746920]Still waiting.... No, what you did was not ad hominem, was just name-calling.[/QUOTE] Name-calling without providing any kind of proof to your claim is what ad-hominem is. I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on me being wrong.
[QUOTE=Doodle313;40746959]Name-calling without providing any kind of proof to your claim is what ad-hominem is. I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on me being wrong.[/QUOTE] Why should I elaborate on you being wrong when what you stated was just a empty commentary not backed up by any reasoning? Its not necessary for you to elaborate on why it was Ad hominem...seems you realized why it was not an ad hominem. Just in case somebody else reads this: Ad hominem is "Hey, you're stupid, therefore you're wrong", not "Hey, your argument is wrong" nor "you're stupid" which are totally different.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;40747009]Why should I elaborate on you being wrong when what you stated was just a empty commentary not backed up by any reasoning? Its not necessary for you to elaborate on why it was Ad hominem...seems you realized why it was not an ad hominem. Just in case somebody else reads this: Ad hominem is "Hey, you're stupid, therefore you're wrong", not "Hey, your argument is wrong" neither "you're stupid" which are totally different.[/QUOTE] If you look at your response to my post, you first laughed at my reasoning and then you asked if I'm a marxist or Posivist, if that's not ad-hominem, I don't know what is. You didn't elaborate on why you think that I'm wrong. Now please, elaborate on your point.
[QUOTE=Doodle313;40746839]wow, do I really need to explain what is ... I'm done.[/QUOTE] I don't know what a ad hominem is but it's a word I've seen used by a lot of idiots who think it's apparently a magic word that makes them right all the time.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;40747057]I don't know what a ad hominem is but it's a word I've seen used by a lot of idiots who think it's apparently a magic word that makes them right all the time.[/QUOTE] ad hominem is like when an argument gets so heated that one side starts to throw personal insults.
[QUOTE]If you look at your response to my post, you first laughed at my reasoning and then you asked if I'm a marxist or Posivist, if that's not ad-hominem, I don't know what is. You didn't elaborate on why you think that I'm wrong. Now please, elaborate on your point.[/QUOTE] 1-I laughed at your reasoning because it is fucking wrong. Wrong to the core. 2-If you think that asking someone if he is positivist or marxism is an insult....well, good for you then O.o No, I asked you that because that's what would a positivist or marxist think. 3-You stated that for something nice to happen, religion has to die altogether. I mean, really, nothing nice has happened? Things will start to get better when religion fades away? Should I have said "LOL, you're marxist/whateverthecrap, your reasoning is stupid", it would have been something completely different. Oh, by the way, I dont pick up what I like and do a mess of other's arguments: [QUOTE]Please read what you posted. Neither of those articles has evidence (and there's not really anything scientific, which is what you claimed) of anything except gay parents being about equal to straight parents (which no one is arguing against). What happened to all the "major benefits"?[/QUOTE] So that's being an "ignorant troll". Fuck logic.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;40747092]1-I laughed at your reasoning because it is fucking wrong. Wrong to the core. 2-If you think that asking someone if he is positivist or marxism is an insult....well, good for you then O.o No, I asked you that because that's what would a positivist or marxist think. 3-You stated that for something nice to happen, religion has to die altogether. I mean, really, nothing nice has happened? Things will start to get better when religion fades away? Should I have said "LOL, you're marxist/whateverthecrap, your reasoning is stupid", it would have been something completely different. Oh, by the way, I dont pick up what I like and do a mess of other's arguments: So that's being an "ignorant troll". Fuck logic.[/QUOTE] You laughed at my reasoning because it was wrong in your opinion, you didn't provide any kind of explanation as to why you think I'm wrong. I've never said that he's an Ignorant troll, I've first thought that he's ignorant and then that he's a troll The articles that I've provided him, contain all the necessary scientific proof that he could desire to verify my point for himself. If that's not enough, the articles also link to the core articles that are from [url]http://www.aaas.org/[/url] You can't get more scientific than that. As for your third point, you're taking what I've said out of context. If you didn't realize what the context was, you could've easily asked. Religion dying wont solve everything, but it will not cause anything but good. That's the context if you wanted to know.
[QUOTE]You laughed at my reasoning because it was wrong in your opinion, you didn't provide any kind of explanation as to why you think I'm wrong. I've never said that he's an Ignorant troll, I've first thought that he's ignorant and then that he's a troll The articles that I've provided him, contain all the necessary scientific proof that he could desire to verify my point for himself. If that's not enough, the articles also link to the core articles that are from [url]http://www.aaas.org/[/url] You can't get more scientific than that. As for your third point, you're taking what I've said out of context. If you didn't realize what the context was, you could've easily asked. Religion dying wont solve everything, but it will not cause anything but good. That's the context if you wanted to know.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Are you serious?, [B][I]you can't be this ignorant[/I][/B], you must be a troll, [B][I]you are a troll.[/I][/B][/QUOTE] If I say "Hey man, you're an idiot bla bla bla bla bla you're an ignorant"....then I have called you an "ignorant idiot". You were trolling fine, but with this, oh man, you do suck at trolling. You should have told him what you just told me instead of calling him names. [QUOTE]Religion has to die altogether [B][I]for something nice to happen.[/I][/B][/QUOTE] Context has nothing to do with this. Maybe you want to check your semantics, because what you said, means that religion dies first, something nices comes then. And no, that's not the context, that's what you wanted to say.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;40747259]If I say "Hey man, you're an idiot bla bla bla bla bla you're an ignorant"....then I have called you an "ignorant idiot". You were trolling fine, but with this, oh man, you do suck at trolling. You should have told him what you just told me instead of calling him names. Context has nothing to do with this. Maybe you want to check your semantics, because what you said, means that religion dies first, something nices comes then. And no, that's not the context, that's what you wanted to say.[/QUOTE] Ok man, you're right, I'm wrong.
[quote= Reddit poster]so, this may be buried in the wave of "this means everyone goes to heaven!" and "yay, the catholic church is changing", but this is not a new teaching, in the least. Like The Anglican Church, The Catholic Church has held the teaching of "the good pagan" for centuries. The Idea of needing to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church to be saved is something that some Catholics (I'd venture a small percentage) incorrectly believe, and something that has been pushed against regularly by Rome. A good example of this (although from an Anglican), is the scene near the end of C.S. Lewis' book, The Last Battle. In this scene, a young man is killed, who has worshipped the pagan god Tash for all his life. He meets Aslan (Christ) and is ashamed to find that he has wasted his life in worship of a false god. Aslan comforts him, saying "The good that you did in the name of Tash, was done for me." However, this does not, in any way invalidate the existence of the RCC, or the practice of prosletizing. One of the basic tenets of faith is that if you are aware of the teachings of Christ and The Church, then you should wish to praise Him in worship, and that you should wish to know Him better. You should also wish to share His message with others, as awareness of His teachings will help you to follow His path more closely. Also, it does not invalidate the existence of sin, as an obstacle between a person and salvation. After all, redemption is the commuting of the consequence of original sin, that allows us to fall upon God's mercy. Sin and offenses still separate us from Him, but we all have the ability to come back to him. so, this may be buried in the wave of "this means everyone goes to heaven!" and "yay, the catholic church is changing", but this is not a new teaching, in the least. Like The Anglican Church, The Catholic Church has held the teaching of "the good pagan" for centuries. The Idea of needing to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church to be saved is something that some Catholics (I'd venture a small percentage) incorrectly believe, and something that has been pushed against regularly by Rome. A good example of this (although from an Anglican), is the scene near the end of C.S. Lewis' book, The Last Battle. In this scene, a young man is killed, who has worshipped the pagan god Tash for all his life. He meets Aslan (Christ) and is ashamed to find that he has wasted his life in worship of a false god. Aslan comforts him, saying "The good that you did in the name of Tash, was done for me." However, this does not, in any way invalidate the existence of the RCC, or the practice of prosletizing. One of the basic tenets of faith is that if you are aware of the teachings of Christ and The Church, then you should wish to praise Him in worship, and that you should wish to know Him better. You should also wish to share His message with others, as awareness of His teachings will help you to follow His path more closely. Also, it does not invalidate the existence of sin, as an obstacle between a person and salvation. After all, redemption is the commuting of the consequence of original sin, that allows us to fall upon God's mercy. Sin and offenses still separate us from Him, but we all have the ability to come back to him. [B] TL;DR, This is NOT a new teaching. JP2 preached the same message, as did many popes before[/B][/quote]
[QUOTE=Dori;40745914]popes have always been said to be in direct contact with god, so the word of the pope can override the word of the bible. with that in mind it's obvious why they exist[/QUOTE] So they can change the policies of the church based only on the will of those who subscribe to the catholic faith ie concrete changes in the church are almost always a reflection of changing attitudes across the whole church and aren't really radical reform (as far as I know) [QUOTE=Dori;40746303]he could start by disavowing homophobic doctrine telling me that I might go to heaven isn't going to help when I'm still on earth and I can't marry or can't receive full marriage benefits because I'm treated as a subhuman[/QUOTE] He could, but it would create massive backlash amongst worshippers and the college of cardinals and he'd have to shore up his position before doing anything too drastic - and if he did it too suddenly chances are noone would accept it I don't want to be too optimistic about it though because the views on homosexuality in the church are archaic and horrible and need radical change and it's homophobic to support civil union and not proper marriage but at the same time Francis definitely seems a much better candidate than Benedict for the open-minded award so if he pushes the church in a direction where full acceptance of homosexual marriage is feasible in the future, then that's something to look forward to
[QUOTE=Retardation;40745328]also which gays oppose gay marriage i really want to meet these gay friends of yours, because that sounds infinitely silly to me. are you sure you're not confusing gays rejecting gay marriage with gays rejecting marriage in general?[/QUOTE] The fucking weird guys that don't want equality just so that they can play the victim card
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;40747375]The fucking weird guys that don't want equality just so that they can play the victim card[/QUOTE] I explained why they disagree on gay marriage, don't be an idiot.
[QUOTE=zerothefallen;40747308][quote=random person on reddit]so, this may be buried in the wave of "this means everyone goes to heaven!" and "yay, the catholic church is changing", but this is not a new teaching, in the least. Like The Anglican Church, The Catholic Church has held the teaching of "the good pagan" for centuries. The Idea of needing to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church to be saved is something that some Catholics (I'd venture a small percentage) incorrectly believe, and something that has been pushed against regularly by Rome. A good example of this (although from an Anglican), is the scene near the end of C.S. Lewis' book, The Last Battle. In this scene, a young man is killed, who has worshipped the pagan god Tash for all his life. He meets Aslan (Christ) and is ashamed to find that he has wasted his life in worship of a false god. Aslan comforts him, saying "The good that you did in the name of Tash, was done for me." However, this does not, in any way invalidate the existence of the RCC, or the practice of prosletizing. One of the basic tenets of faith is that if you are aware of the teachings of Christ and The Church, then you should wish to praise Him in worship, and that you should wish to know Him better. You should also wish to share His message with others, as awareness of His teachings will help you to follow His path more closely. Also, it does not invalidate the existence of sin, as an obstacle between a person and salvation. After all, redemption is the commuting of the consequence of original sin, that allows us to fall upon God's mercy. Sin and offenses still separate us from Him, but we all have the ability to come back to him. TL;DR, This is NOT a new teaching. JP2 preached the same message, as did many popes before[/quote][/QUOTE] Yes, it's not a new idea, it's a new clarification of an old idea, a reminder if you will, intended to dispel preconceived notions about who goes to Heaven and who doesn't. Nobody made any mention of the invalidation of sin, rather the forgiveness of trite sins that are overshadowed by a person's self-worth in terms of goodness and kindness. What was the point of quoting that exactly?
Next thing we'll see is a crackdown on pedophile priests. I'm liking this Pope more and more each day.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;40747379]I explained why they disagree on gay marriage, don't be an idiot.[/QUOTE] exceptions etc don't be rude [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;40747386]Next thing we'll see is a crackdown on pedophile priests. I'm liking this Pope more and more each day.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/pope-francis-act-decisive_n_3218983.html]We've already seen some of this[/url], to an extent, but it's still in its early phases
[QUOTE]ie concrete changes in the church are almost always a reflection of changing attitudes across the whole church and aren't really radical reform (as far as I know)[/QUOTE] Mostly yes and mostly no. Some things do not depend on what people think (Trinity, virgin Mary, Jesus divinity) while some others/actions do. For example, the explicit stand of the Church on the "workers issue"/Capitalism came out in 1898 (!). They had been "unofficially" preaching the same, but just to clear any confussion, Leo came out and said it aloud. If you don't find the example enough, then you can look how the Church dealed with "Tercermundismo" in LatAm. Basically, some Bishops/Priests were waaaaay too swayed by marxism and came up with some fucked up theology (Teologia de la liberacion) which is basically a mix of christianism and marxism (WAY too fucked up). The Church answers? Even if they were popular among people here? GTFO.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;40746451] Homosexuality IS a mental and/or genetic disorder[/QUOTE] said no reputable psychologist or geneticist ever
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;40747424]Mostly yes and mostly no. Some things do not depend on what people think (Trinity, virgin Mary, Jesus divinity) while some others/actions do. For example, the explicit stand of the Church on the "workers issue"/Capitalism came out in 1898 (!). They had been "unofficially" preaching the same, but just to clear any confussion, Leo came out and said it aloud. If you don't find the example enough, then you can look how the Church dealed with "Tercermundismo" in LatAm. Basically, some Bishops/Priests were waaaaay too swayed by marxism and came up with some fucked up theology (Teologia de la liberacion) which is basically a mix of christianism and marxism (WAY too fucked up). The Church answers? Even if they were popular among people here? GTFO.[/QUOTE] the examples you gave are foundations of the faith and not political or social policies of the institution which is what i am referring to Furthermore the examples you gave were popular by minority and not majority amongst the entire sphere of the church so obviously they are not going to accept it [QUOTE=thisispain;40747431]said no reputable psychologist or geneticist ever[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter what it is in the end it should be accepted no matter what reasoning the person gives, whether they say homosexuality is a choice or whether they were born that way should be irrelevant in context
[QUOTE]the examples you gave are foundations of the faith and not political or social policies of the institution which is what i am referring to Furthermore the examples you gave were popular by minority and not majority amongst the entire sphere of the church so obviously they are not going to accept it[/QUOTE] The foundations of faith give place to political/social policies. Really, abortion is forbidden because humans have souls given by God, homosexuality marriage is bad viewed upon because God instituted marriage only between men and women, exploiting workers is forbidden because work is a fundamental dimension of human dignity and nobody should attempt agaisnt it...etc etc.
Oh yay we've all been redeemed by the Blood of Christ that's exactly what I wanted which is clearly why I'm an atheist.
Can I just say that not agreeing to allow same sex couples to marry in your church doesn't strictly imply hatred of homosexuals. Sure, the effects of it may seem homophobic, but it doesn't necessarily mean homophobia on the pope's end of things
Well, that's very nice of him to say. A Christian religious leader extending kindness and goodwill to Atheists everywhere. Maybe some of them will stop being such pretentious assholes about religion and how "all of it is bad" and be okay with what people choose to believe in. [SUB][SUB]But they probably won't. It's very sad.[/SUB][/SUB]
What a friendly guy. I think he forgot a couple points along the line of "being good" though.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;40751351]Well, that's very nice of him to say. A Christian religious leader extending kindness and goodwill to Atheists everywhere. Maybe some of them will stop being such pretentious assholes about religion and how "all of it is bad" and be okay with what people choose to believe in. [SUB][SUB]But they probably won't. It's very sad.[/SUB][/SUB][/QUOTE] This thread alone convinced me that the hardass atheists/anti-theists won't stop for shit.
[QUOTE=Furioso;40745930]Letter of the law < Spirit of the law The bible is supposed to be a guidebook of sorts, not a rule book. It isn't something to take at face value, or worse, literally. People who do this aren't getting the message[/QUOTE] Which is also the opposite of what the Bible says. The spirit and letter are equal because they are supposed to go hand in hand. According to it, you can't have one without the other. That's why I say people just change Christianity because they don't like what the Bible says, but they want an afterlife. I could be wrong but that's my theory at least.
In other news: [url="http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ro&u=http://www.timesnewroman.ro/life-death/8218-patriarhul-daniel-romanii-cu-nume-de-sfinti-vor-plati-o-taxa-pentru-a-le-folosi-in-continuare&prev=/search%3Fq%3DPatriarhul%2BDaniel:%2BRom%25C3%25A2nii%2Bcu%2Bnume%2Bde%2Bsfin%25C5%25A3i%2Bvor%2Bpl%25C4%2583ti%2Bo%2Btax%25C4%2583%2Bpentru%2Ba%2Ble%2Bfolosi%2B%25C3%25AEn%2Bcontinuare%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1C1GGGE_enCA360CA371"]Romanian Orthodox Christians bearing the names of Saints will have to pay a tax starting in a few days[/url] What are you doing!?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40757706]In other news: [url="http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ro&u=http://www.timesnewroman.ro/life-death/8218-patriarhul-daniel-romanii-cu-nume-de-sfinti-vor-plati-o-taxa-pentru-a-le-folosi-in-continuare&prev=/search%3Fq%3DPatriarhul%2BDaniel:%2BRom%25C3%25A2nii%2Bcu%2Bnume%2Bde%2Bsfin%25C5%25A3i%2Bvor%2Bpl%25C4%2583ti%2Bo%2Btax%25C4%2583%2Bpentru%2Ba%2Ble%2Bfolosi%2B%25C3%25AEn%2Bcontinuare%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1C1GGGE_enCA360CA371"]Romanian Orthodox Christians bearing the names of Saints will have to pay a tax starting in a few days[/url] What are you doing!?[/QUOTE] This is very irrelevant. The Pope has no control over the Orthodox Churches.
[QUOTE=Kirbunny431;40741194]I'm not quite sure how that works.[/QUOTE] Well, technically in catholicism, the pope is God's chosen vicar on earth, his word should be law. an official papal bull on this would obligate all catholics on earth to consider infidels, heathens and unbelievers to be redeemed
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.