The Evil Pope is at it again

[torontoguy22]

And this is why I'm no longer a practicing catholic! Well done, you hypocritical turds.

"Do unto others as you should have them do unto you" should form the cornerstone of any society IMHO. Yet the church continues to do everything in its power to discriminate against gays. These people have absolutely no credibility and are worthy of no authority or respect.

 

[irydion]

How does one act like an atheist? What's a gay fundamentalist?Yeah. Ain't it grand?

it was ment as atheist & gay fundamentalist = atheist fundamentalist & gay fundamentalist,
but bigot is more proper word I guess.

I've ment someone who is so sure he is right that he has no respect for other beliefs,
and does not even try to understand it, but answers to them with insults.

As to someone claiming it is unproper for the celibate to deal with sex: no, it's completely logical if You try to understand: celibate is the best, but since not all are able to stay celibate, and, anyway, God has sent people to procreate, 1x1 marriage is the best sollution for the masses while those who are able to stay celibate and devote all of their life to God, should go to clergy.

 

[thewiz]

it was ment as atheist & gay fundamentalist = atheist fundamentalist & gay fundamentalist,
but bigot is more proper word I guess.

As to someone claiming it is unproper for the celibate to deal with sex: no, it's completely logical if You try to understand: celibate is the best, but since not all are able to stay celibate, and, anyway, God has sent people to procreate, 1x1 marriage is the best sollution for the masses while those who are able to stay celibate and devote all of their life to God, should go to clergy.

There is something wrong when someone preaches that sex is a gift from God. The basis of the Catholic Church's teaching on sex has its roots in Judaism which thought all sex was to be procreative; after all they were building a people "chosen by God." One did not convert to Judaism, one was born into it and so the more that were born, the larger the nation.

I find it hypocritical that someone who tells all his congregation that sex should only be for "procreation" while at the same time largely ignoring and trying to pretend that his priests, bishops and cardinals are not actively engaged in a variety of illegal sex acts or covering up the same acts. Celibacy is not the natural; even the apostle Paul recognized this and the only reason he was celibate is that no one wanted to have sex with him because of his temperment along with the fact he was sick. He told people to go ahead and do it if they couldn't control themselves.

While the church has changed on persecuting those who thought the world was round along with various others (but it took hundreds of years), they have not come to reconcile that sexual orientation is creative and not learned. To deny that fact and the idea that love is part of sex and a relationship, the church denies the teaching of Christ: love your God and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus' teaching was simple: Love. All the other issues fall away if everyone totally loved themselves and everyone else. You'd not have the fundamentalists judging; the conservatives, etc. Instead, you'd not be able to hate, to curse, to speak ill about anyone because Love would supercede it all....

 

[RationalLunacy]

The Pope isn't guided by his own personal ideas or agenda's, he is Guide by none other than the Holy Spirit himself.

The holy spirit told me to tell you something:

 

[UnderBiCover]

... Except they're actually not real priests: The photographer admitted that he had employed models.

where was that? the promo literature for the calendar says they're priests or seminarians

 

[thermodynamics]

Fuck the pope! I may be a devout Lutheran, but he gets absolutely no respect from me.

 

[bluepheonix]

it was ment as atheist & gay fundamentalist = atheist fundamentalist & gay fundamentalist,
but bigot is more proper word I guess.

I've ment someone who is so sure he is right that he has no respect for other beliefs,
and does not even try to understand it, but answers to them with insults.

I beg your pardon but I am not a biggot, and you would do well to take your own advice in relation to understanding other peoples viewpoints. I understand the churches position very well, unfortunately I admit of late I have been resorting to insults out of sheer frustration, but please to not presume that I do not know what I am talking about.

Do you really mean you are unaware of the totalitarian nature of the catholic church? They seek to dictate the most intimate spheres of peoples lives according to their own beliefs, and historically have been no less restrained in persecuting those who go against them than the nazi's ever were.

The catholic church always seems to assume it has some special status, tell me, why is it that they can denounce me and my actions quite freely, but as soon as I criticize I am suddenly intolerate and hateful? It would seem from posts that you subscribe to the notion that their scripture and tradition is justification of the validity of their beliefs, as I have already said the ignorance inherent in that viewpoint makes it impossible for me to criticise without being labelled a bigot, what if I do not believe in their God, in such a circumstance all that justification goes out the window, because that would mean the scriptures aren't real.

RELIGION IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SHIELD FOR PREJUDICE, their views are not sacred, they should be open to criticism, and I shouldn't be labelled a bigot for criticising them.

oh and by the way, I'm not an atheist, believe it or not the world is not divided into institutional believers and atheists.

 

[belamy]

RELIGION IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SHIELD FOR PREJUDICE.

But that's precisely what religion is all about. When philosophies or moral codes or whatever are not dogmatic and sanctimonious enough they are not thought of as religions, they are considered inferior to say the least.

 

[bluepheonix]

But that's precisely what religion is all about. When philosophies or moral codes or whatever are not dogmatic and sanctimonious enough they are not thought of as religions, they are considered inferior to say the least.

This I know, and yet when someone calls religion out on this, they are harpooned as a bigot, its freaking ridiculous. Blatant double standards.

 

[belamy]

This I know, and yet when someone calls religion out on this, they are harpooned as a bigot, its freaking ridiculous. Blatant double standards.

You are right, but still a dogmatic non-religious person is a dogmatic person and a dogmatic religious person is a bigot.

Bigotry is referred to partisanship, and people who oppose religious bigots don't represent a real party but a counter-party. They don't actually hold and defend beliefs , they just oppose other people's beliefs. (I mean as far as they are opposing religious bigots, of course there are beliefs, and healthier ones, outside organized religion). That's why the religious always have a stronger ground: at least they are organized and recognized as a definite party, not just as a mere opposing movement.

Religion always gives easy definite answers; everything is absolute and eternally black or white, not caring about nuances or particular cases: from a religious perspective the world is not religious, but religion IS the world: let the law be and the whole universe (men included) perish. It doesn't matter if you call it christianism [sic], communism, socialism, liberalism or emo-ism: the whole universe, all a man can be and do is reduced to a few maxims and everything outside them is evil.

But as long as you are caught in the trap of reducing everything to "good" and "evil", you are right, there's not that much of a difference between both parties. Either of them may use the same vague arguments with even the exact same words to give proof of their higher moral grounds, and sometimes even pick very specific cases to make bold and wild general inferences, and in fact they are nott talking of concepts (love, justice, whatever) but of the good feeling they have about themselves and the despise they hold for the others.

 

[irydion]

I beg your pardon but I am not a biggot,

Like any bigot would admit he is one.

Do you really mean you are unaware of the totalitarian nature of the catholic church? They seek to dictate the most intimate spheres of peoples lives according to their own beliefs, and historically have been no less restrained in persecuting those who go against them than the nazi's ever were.

That is a couple of fallacies. First, you say "they" about RCC. Who is "they"? The clergy? No, RCC is clergy and the laics. If You say it about the clergy, You are wrong, because if someone claims he is a catholic, he accepts the fact that the clergy is responsible for saying what is that church's doctrine. If You claim it about entire church, as you should, what's the problem? No-one's being forced to conform to catholic standarts except perhaps for a couple of cases.

You know well that comparison to nazis is offensive. Catholic church, even during the times of harshest persecution of heretics, didn't pursue anyone for his mere existance, or didn't claim entire races should be slaves. It only condemned some views that it found unacceptable, just like today people are pursued for claiming holocaust didn't happen, for screaming "fire" in a crowded space, for starting riots, for publicly offending someone, giving misleading information, forging science results, for fraud etc.
You will not like these comparisons, but during these times science wasn't yet able to explain the world, so it was explained by the church's teachings and its authority was as obvious as today that of science.

Anyway, the clergy doesn't make up the church's teachings, but is bound by the word of the bible and the tradition.

The catholic church always seems to assume it has some special status, tell me, why is it that they can denounce me and my actions quite freely, but as soon as I criticize I am suddenly intolerate and hateful? It would seem from posts that you subscribe to the notion that their scripture and tradition is justification of the validity of their beliefs, as I have already said the ignorance inherent in that viewpoint makes it impossible for me to criticise without being labelled a bigot, what if I do not believe in their God, in such a circumstance all that justification goes out the window, because that would mean the scriptures aren't real.

Oh, I do find them wrong and misguided, and sometimes hateful. I only tell you you are even more hateful than they are.
You must understand that they are bound by the Bible and the tradition. They condemn homosexuality - they can't say 'fuck that, the bible and the tradition is wrong". Not from day to day. You must appreciate the fact that they are teaching now that homosexualism is not wrong per se, because for milions of people that is not yet obvious.

You are fundamentalistic in the sense that you not only expect them to conform to your views, but expect that NOW, NOW, NOW, and hurl insults at them for not doing so.

oh and by the way, I'm not an atheist, believe it or not the world is not divided into institutional believers and atheists.

Rants against organised religion are imo silly. Without organised religion there wouldn't be religion nor society as we know it. It brought some problems, but also allowed society to grow up.

 

[bluepheonix]

That is a couple of fallacies. First, you say "they" about RCC. Who is "they"? The clergy? No, RCC is clergy and the laics. If You say it about the clergy, You are wrong, because if someone claims he is a catholic, he accepts the fact that the clergy is responsible for saying what is that church's doctrine. If You claim it about entire church, as you should, what's the problem? No-one's being forced to conform to catholic standarts except perhaps for a couple of cases.

I use "they" in reference to the entire RCC as a contiguous personified body. Many people are forced to conform to catholic (and wider christian) standards, right now in california people are being forced to comply with a definition of marriage rooted in judeo-christian tradition.

You know well that comparison to nazis is offensive. Catholic church, even during the times of harshest persecution of heretics, didn't pursue anyone for his mere existance, or didn't claim entire races should be slaves. It only condemned some views that it found unacceptable, just like today people are pursued for claiming holocaust didn't happen, for screaming "fire" in a crowded space, for starting riots, for publicly offending someone, giving misleading information, forging science results, for fraud etc.
You will not like these comparisons, but during these times science wasn't yet able to explain the world, so it was explained by the church's teachings and its authority was as obvious as today that of science.

The systematic elimination of paganism throughout europe and the america's would seem to run counter to your argument. Not to mention the deliberate targeting of jews during the crusades. St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but a few examples, we can look further into witchhunts of the catholic church if you like.

Oh, I do find them wrong and misguided, and sometimes hateful. I only tell you you are even more hateful than they are.
You must understand that they are bound by the Bible and the tradition. They condemn homosexuality - they can't say 'fuck that, the bible and the tradition is wrong". Not from day to day. You must appreciate the fact that they are teaching now that homosexualism is not wrong per se, because for milions of people that is not yet obvious.

I'm sorry, explain to me how they 'cant', or how they are 'bound', as you clearly stated above, one is not forced to be religious. They choose to support those viewpoints because they are a part of their CHOSEN religion. They condemn me because I was born gay, I attempt to counter that 'sacred' belief and I am the hateful one? Tell me, why is it that their religion is so incontrovertible?

Rants against organised religion are imo silly. Without organised religion there wouldn't be religion nor society as we know it. It brought some problems, but also allowed society to grow up.

There was civilisation before the RCC, there will be civilisation after, just because something was doesnt mean it always must be.

 

[belamy]

That is a couple of fallacies. First, you say "they" about RCC. Who is "they"? The clergy? No, RCC is clergy and the laics. If You say it about the clergy, You are wrong, because if someone claims he is a catholic, he accepts the fact that the clergy is responsible for saying what is that church's doctrine. If You claim it about entire church, as you should, what's the problem? No-one's being forced to conform to catholic standarts except perhaps for a couple of cases.

You are right there. If only it were that simple, since you are a Catholic from the moment you are baptized, and you can't leave that sect if as an adult you decide to do so. The clever Catholic church uses their historical registers of baptism (nothing wrong about that except the fact that it is a register of imposed brain-washing -pun intended- on babies) as proof (a fallacy) of the actual number of their faithful, that is, of members of the church. The only sort of apostasy you are allowed to is a note in that register, and since there is not a separate register of those people, everyone having ever been christened in a Catholic church is considered a Caholic for everyday purposes (like political lobbying, for example) by The Church, no matter what they actually think about it or what The Church has noted on the original register.
The Catholic church is a political force, that's why you have to be a declared enemy of them for them to admittedly expell you from their ranks. That's also the reason why they never got hold in China: not because the emperor or the communist party are evil, atheist, but because the Catholic church tends naturally to become, wherever it roots, a social and political power beyond pure spiritual beliefs.

You know well that comparison to nazis is offensive. Catholic church, even during the times of harshest persecution of heretics, didn't pursue anyone for his mere existance, or didn't claim entire races should be slaves. It only condemned some views that it found unacceptable, just like today people are pursued for claiming holocaust didn't happen, for screaming "fire" in a crowded space, for starting riots, for publicly offending someone, giving misleading information, forging science results, for fraud etc.
You will not like these comparisons, but during these times science wasn't yet able to explain the world, so it was explained by the church's teachings and its authority was as obvious as today that of science.

Please have another look at the definition of genocide: gen·o·cide (j

n

-s

d

)n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
Being persecuted as a group, for whatever reason, is genocide: it's not any more or less horrible if it is done by nazis or in the name of God.
You seem to hold the same hypocritical, superficial and totally frivolous distinction that million of Spaniards still make today between the genocide led by the Franquist regime and, say, the Armenian genocide.

Anyway, the clergy doesn't make up the church's teachings, but is bound by the word of the bible and the tradition.

Give-me-a-break. I'm a translator and interpreter, I make a living on words and messages, and I know what a lot about the tricky and fallacious use of concepts like "truth", "objectivity", "interpretation", "original message", "fundamentals" or even claims to "common sense".

Rants against organised religion are imo silly. Without organised religion there wouldn't be religion nor society as we know it.

That's right, but that doesn't mean it is the best possible. It's acceptable as a necessary evil that brings people together and overall social stability, just like military dictatorships (very Catholic by the way) in South America or Spain, and that's that. The existence of a popular and stable organized pagan religion didn't prevent the Christianism from developing and rooting...

 

[Telstra]

here's some pictures of real priests selected by the holy father to serve at the vatican (source)

makes you kinda wonder if they're keeping these boys close to home so they don't get into trouble out in the remote parishes

or maybe a whole other reason

wow, they look like porn stars or male escorts.

Looks like old priests have so much fun with these hot priests.

 

[irydion]

I use "they" in reference to the entire RCC as a contiguous personified body. Many people are forced to conform to catholic (and wider christian) standards, right now in california people are being forced to comply with a definition of marriage rooted in judeo-christian tradition.

Not quite. No-one's forcing them to stop being a couple. RCC is against changing the traditional meaning of word marriage to suit gays. I don't like that, but you're trying to force your way of understanding marriage on others just the same as they do, except for that they do not come up with some their, new, idea, just defend status quo.

The systematic elimination of paganism throughout europe and the america's would seem to run counter to your argument. Not to mention the deliberate targeting of jews during the crusades. St Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but a few examples, we can look further into witchhunts of the catholic church if you like.

You fail to get my point. There is a difference between physical extermination of a group and pressuring it to conform to some idea. Both are wrong, but physical extermination is worse.

When it comes to paganism in Europe, until some point it was elimination of paganic cult only. Later yes, there were forcible conversions, but not extermination of pagans.

Jews were targeted during the crusades AGAINST the will of pope and bishops.

St Bartholomew was as much a political act as religious, and it doesn't change the fact that ultimate goal of catholic church was conversion, not extermination.

Witchhunt was mostly spread in protestant countries, not catholic!

I'm sorry, explain to me how they 'cant', or how they are 'bound', as you clearly stated above, one is not forced to be religious. They choose to support those viewpoints because they are a part of their CHOSEN religion. They condemn me because I was born gay, I attempt to counter that 'sacred' belief and I am the hateful one? Tell me, why is it that their religion is so incontrovertible?

huh? They don't condemn you because you were borned gay, but because you engage in homosexual acts, that's one.
So You expect a religion to stop to exist all of a sudden because it holds certain positions on homosexuality?
You are not hateful because you counter their beliefs, but because you are hurl insults at them and apparently can't understand that homosexuality is not the most important thing in the world for a bilion of catholics.

 

[belamy]

You fail to get my point. There is a difference between physical extermination of a group and pressuring it to conform to some idea. Both are wrong, but physical extermination is worse.

Look who just wrought a fine casuistic fallacy: you are making a distinguo between the vague psychological will to exterminate a group of people who only exist as an idea in your mind, and the dirty, bloody, actual fact of extermination of smaller groups of real people.
The Catholic were no less systematic, the only difference is that they didn't develop a name like "Final Solution" for their evil criminal plans and actions. Nor did the American government in relation to the American native, but that would be another thread.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how you can make genocide in Argentina, Chile or Spain more palatable to so-called civilized and religious people inside those countries and abroad.

 

[irydion]

You are right there. If only it were that simple, since you are a Catholic from the moment you are baptized,

there's no other possibility here. You have to bring up a child in some beliefs

and you can't leave that sect if as an adult you decide to do so. The clever Catholic church uses their historical registers of baptism (nothing wrong about that except the fact that it is a register of imposed brain-washing -pun intended- on babies) as proof (a fallacy) of the actual number of their faithful, that is, of members of the church. The only sort of apostasy you are allowed to is a note in that register, and since there is not a separate register of those people, everyone having ever been christened in a Catholic church is considered a Caholic for everyday purposes (like political lobbying, for example) by The Church, no matter what they actually think about it or what The Church has noted on the original register.

Oh c-mon. That only means that you are still counted as a catholic, not that catholic rules are forced upon you. Of course, they can be forced upon you by the society you live in, but they always will.

The Catholic church is a political force, that's why you have to be a declared enemy of them for them to admittedly expell you from their ranks. That's also the reason why they never got hold in China: not because the emperor or the communist party are evil, atheist, but because the Catholic church tends naturally to become, wherever it roots, a social and political power beyond pure spiritual beliefs.

Because politics do deal with beliefs. Questions like abortion are definitely moral ones.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Again, the church never intended extermination of any group, at best forceful conversion. It's a difference.



Being persecuted as a group, for whatever reason, is genocide:

No, my dear: SYSTEMATIC and PLANNED EXTERMINATION of an ENTIRE NATIONAL, RACIAL, POLITICAL or ETHNIC group is genocide. Not persecution of any group.
And that is according to your quoted definition. I have doubts about this political group part.

You seem to hold the same hypocritical, superficial and totally frivolous distinction that million of Spaniards still make today between the genocide led by the Franquist regime and, say, the Armenian genocide.

Huh? What genocide by Franco regime? Which ethnic or national group did they intend to annihilate?

Give-me-a-break. I'm a translator and interpreter, I make a living on words and messages, and I know what a lot about the tricky and fallacious use of concepts like "truth", "objectivity", "interpretation", "original message", "fundamentals" or even claims to "common sense".

Of course, but there is STILL a difference between translating a text and inventing one. You can change much, but not everything. I would see religion as translation through the centuries; some wish to translate the text to the language of new generation using the translation of the last generation as the basis, but others want to translate using the original document from 2000 years ago... But all are sort of bound by the original text, just more or less. You can not translate a theological dispute into a gay pride manifest so easily.

That's right, but that doesn't mean it is the best possible. It's acceptable as a necessary evil that brings people together and overall social stability, just like military dictatorships (very Catholic by the way) in South America or Spain, and that's that. The existence of a popular and stable organized pagan religion didn't prevent the Christianism from developing and rooting...

That's why I do not claim RCC will stand forever and ever amen, and was the only possible one, but that it's hard to imagine world without any organised religion, and that it brought many benefits. I do not think of it as of "necessary evil" more than about existance of army, existance of states, existance of social systems: perhaps there will be a world without them, but it's hard to imagine, unlike what Lennon sings, and, anyway, they were necessary.

 

[bluepheonix]

Not quite. No-one's forcing them to stop being a couple.

I didnt say they were, I said they were enforcing their view of marriage on others, thus preventing gay people from marrying.

You fail to get my point. There is a difference between physical extermination of a group and pressuring it to conform to some idea. Both are wrong, but physical extermination is worse.

When it comes to paganism in Europe, until some point it was elimination of paganic cult only. Later yes, there were forcible conversions, but not extermination of pagans.

Jews were targeted during the crusades AGAINST the will of pope and bishops.

St Bartholomew was as much a political act as religious, and it doesn't change the fact that ultimate goal of catholic church was conversion, not extermination.

Witchhunt was mostly spread in protestant countries, not catholic!

Oh please, the history of the church is riddled with pressure and physical extermination, the latter being the result in cases where the former failed, I'm sorry, but I agree with belamy, saying "if you conform we wont kill you" doesnt make it any less atrocious than what the nazi's did, genocide is genocide. In relation to part 2, Muslims were targeting in conformance to the will of the pope and bishops. In relation to part 4, witchhunts are as much a part of the catholic church as the protestant church, particularly if one looks at the witchhunts occuring in the 1980's in subsaharan africa, not only as a result of church doctrine concerning heresy and witchcraft, but also because of the spread of gonorrhea facilitated by the anti-contraception doctrine of the church.

huh? They don't condemn you because you were borned gay, but because you engage in homosexual acts, that's one.
So You expect a religion to stop to exist all of a sudden because it holds certain positions on homosexuality?
You are not hateful because you counter their beliefs, but because you are hurl insults at them and apparently can't understand that homosexuality is not the most important thing in the world for a bilion of catholics.

I believe you will find that the 'homosexual acts' shift is only a very recent one in reaction to growing public acceptance of homosexuality. I did not say i expect it to cease to exist, I asked you quite explicitly how they 'cant' or how they are 'bound' as religion is clearly a choice.

Again you fail to understand my argument, I admit I hurled insults in my earlier post, and also admitted this was unacceptably due to my severe frustration with the stubborness of religious argument to concede any ground, or to recognise the fact that theirs is an inherently circular and invalid argument.

I don't expect homosexuality to be the most important thing to catholics, however at the very least I would expect recognition of the harm their political maneuvering does to hundreds of millions of gay people to fall under the somewhat umbrella term of COMPASSION, I was under the impression that that was rather important to them.

 

[bluepheonix]

No, my dear: SYSTEMATIC and PLANNED EXTERMINATION of an ENTIRE NATIONAL, RACIAL, POLITICAL or ETHNIC group is genocide. Not persecution of any group.
And that is according to your quoted definition. I have doubts about this political group part.

I challenge your competency to define genocide, and in particular point you to the UN convention on Genocide, with particular reference to "IN WHOLE OR IN PART"

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I daresay things are looking down for the catholic church under such a definition.

 

[irydion]

Look who just wrought a fine casuistic fallacy: you are making a distinguo between the vague psychological will to exterminate a mental idea of a group of people and the dirty, bloody, actual fact of extermination of smaller groups of real people.

Don't you think it's different?
Anyway, you want to exterminate the idea that being gay, or having gay sex, is wrong. Me too, btw. Does that make us genocidial maniacs?

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how you can make genocide in Argentina, Chile or Spain more palatable to so-called civilized and religious people inside those countries and abroad.

Genocide...?
Soon every mass murder will be called a genocide.