Pope gives his view on lots of stuff he's sick of people talking about

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I presume you mean "against". Lots of people are against gay marriage. It is a very distinct novelty and an important redefinition of the western notion of marriage.

And yet if you look at those lots of people, how many come from a religious upbringing? Hmm I guess it was by chance they were against gay marriage and nothing to do with religious teachings that told them to be against it.

We'll all look back in 10-20 years from now and be ashamed at all those ignorant, homophobic people that were against gay marriage.

I welcome the vote being put to the people, it'll allow us to see who the people are that we should be ashamed of our country are, history will also see in this way.

Just like we can look back on these ignorant gob****es

Turtwig

Regarding OP,

The media tends to be poor at actual research before publishing stuff. So generally there seems to be pre-formed narratives or concept skeletons that stories get pigeon holed into it e.g The Dalai Lama is a western like hipster, a murder trial (which they shouldn't even be discussing) is suggesting guilt of the defendant by these tiny few quotes here. The current Pope is being portrayed as some sort of reform pushing media friendly Dalai Lama* like guy because well, that's what everyone wants. The narrative gets run with even though there's little evidence to support it. Maybe Pope Francis is making more soundbytes, maybe! But he's still saying the same old Catholic teachings. No change and I wouldn't hold my breath for anything markedly different either.

*Who's also not generally represented accurately in the media.

I Heart Internet

gaynorvader wrote: »

Wow. That's insulting, "novelty"? I can only hope it was just a poor choice of words on your part. Western marriage has changed many times over the centuries, where once it was used to cement alliances between families or to gain a dowry, it's now taken on a strange role of child raising (often done primarily by a nanny or nurse or granny in the past).

No. It was a perfect choice of word. The idea that two people of the same gender can get married is a very new, novel (get it?) idea. It's an idea that would have been laughed at (becasue it seemed so unlikely) even by gay people only a few decades ago.

The idea to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners is a very novel idea. It is a novelty.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here?

Sex-selective abortion - the church is against it. As am I.

Cabaal

Jernal wrote: »

Regarding OP,

The media tends to be poor at actual research before publishing stuff. So generally there seems to be pre-formed narratives or concept skeletons that stories get pigeon holed into it e.g The Dalai Lama is a western like hipster, a murder trial (which they shouldn't even be discussing) is suggesting guilt of the defendant by these tiny few quotes here. The current Pope is being portrayed as some sort of reform pushing media friendly Dalai Lama* like guy because well, that's what everyone wants. The narrative gets run with even though there's little evidence to support it. Maybe Pope Francis is making more soundbytes, maybe! But he's still saying the same old Catholic teachings. No change and I wouldn't hold my breath for anything markedly different either.

*Who's also not generally represented accurately in the media.

Funny enough, some viewed the last pope as progressive

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2098

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. It was a perfect choice of word. The idea that two people of the same gender can get married is a very new, novel (get it?) idea. It's an idea that would have been laughed at (becasue it seemed so unlikely) even by gay people only a few decades ago.
.

New?

"cough"

While it is relatively new to modern history that same-sex couples are widely being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions and marriages around the world.

We know it atleast went on as far back as 1st century BC in ancient Mesopotamia, sure I guess that means its "new", right?

Oh look

increasingly influential Christianity promoted marriage for procreative purposes. The teachings of the Talmud and Torah, and the Bible, were seen as specifically prohibiting the practices as contrary to nature and the will of the Creator, and a moral shortcoming.

Even after the passing of the Theodosian code the Christian emperors continued to collect taxes on male prostitutes until the reign of Anastasius (491–518). In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Just because the catholic church is against it and claim its "new" now, does not make it new. They were well aware of it throughout the last 2000 years and as we can see the even benefited from gays when it came to tax, handy that.

So, it is insulting to call it new. Its not new and infact its been happening before the catholic church existed. That makes it more of our history and of human existance then anything the catholic church has ever spouted throughout its existence,

ShooterSF

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Sex-selective abortion - the church is against it. As am I.

They're against it by chance. As they are against abortions in all cases including say when a father rapes his daughter in oh I dunno Brazil?

Way to try and colour their argument.

Sarky

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Sex is an action.

Marriage is a legal institution.

If you want to change the legal definition of a marriage, go right ahead - it'll surely go before the people soon enough.

Pope Soter did exactly that way back in the day. Amazing how the church used NOT butt in on other peoples' marriages...

robindch

Jernal wrote: »

Maybe Pope Francis is making more soundbytes, maybe! But he's still saying the same old Catholic teachings. No change and I wouldn't hold my breath for anything markedly different either.

Most religions have a collection of beliefs, many of them contradictory and mutually exclusive, and from this multitude of thoughtbites, people pick and choose what suits and legitimizes their preconceived ideas and morals.

Ratzinger was, and no doubt remains, a nasty old man and he picked out the bits that suited and legitimized this nastiness - control, authority, legalism, hatred, coldness and not a little bit of fear. Fanny's a much nicer, more touchy-feely guy and he's picked out the bits that suit his point of view - be nice to people, try not to judge them, go easy on the abortion palaver and so on. No doubt soon (and it couldn't be too soon for me), he might even tell his flock to go out and do some nice things.

But still, yeah, both of them are picking whatever "teachings" suit them. And it'll be the same for the next guy, and all his flock too. Pick and choose and pick and choose. That's all religion is really - the ultimate "whatever yer havin' yerself".

PopePalpatine

Benny didn't have the PR pizzazz of JP2. Can anyone tell me of any significant differences between their ideologies?

ardle1

I cant say I'm the perfect practising catholic, but I am a decent Irish Catholic, and I stand by 'most' of what the Catholic Church stands for and 'most' of what the Pope preaches and does... And to be honest I only read the first few posts in this thread, and I couldn't be bothered to read any more,am sick off all this anti Catholic anti Pope bashing.... Are you Irish at-all!!!!!!

PopePalpatine

Ah, not this "CATHOLIC = IRISH" bollocks you'd expect in Alive!

Pherekydes

ardle1 wrote: »

Are you Irish at-all!!!!!!

I am Irish.

Why would any Irish person support an organisation that enslaved many Irish women, stealing their babies to give to "good catholic families"?

Shall we move swiftly on to child molestation and sexual assault covered up by the Irish catholic church and the mother church in Rome?

Why would anyone, much less an Irish person, support such an organisation?

robindch

ardle1 wrote: »

[...] I stand by 'most' of what the Catholic Church stands for [...] I couldn't be bothered [...]

Eloquently put.

VeryOwl

ardle1 wrote: »

Are you Irish at-all!!!!!!

Why is that even relevant?

TwoShedsJackson

ardle1 wrote: »

I cant say I'm the perfect practising catholic, but I am a decent Irish Catholic, and I stand by 'most' of what the Catholic Church stands for and 'most' of what the Pope preaches and does... And to be honest I only read the first few posts in this thread, and I couldn't be bothered to read any more,am sick off all this anti Catholic anti Pope bashing.... Are you Irish at-all!!!!!!

What don't you stand by, and why?

PopePalpatine

If he's so upset about us expressing our opinion, why doesn't he invoke the blasphemy laws?

smacl

ardle1 wrote: »

I cant say I'm the perfect practising catholic, but I am a decent Irish Catholic, and I stand by 'most' of what the Catholic Church stands for and 'most' of what the Pope preaches and does... And to be honest I only read the first few posts in this thread, and I couldn't be bothered to read any more,am sick off all this anti Catholic anti Pope bashing.... Are you Irish at-all!!!!!!

I'm a decent Irish atheist. What's your point? Are you suggesting that people are any less Irish or any less decent because they're not Catholic?

Kivaro

ardle1 wrote: »

Are you Irish at-all!!!!!!

My great hope for the future of Ireland is that it will eventually become a secular society, and I've no doubt that the Irish who still believe in superstition will finally realize that religion is indeed just that.

Brian Shanahan

Lucy8080 wrote: »

It is possibly more aware of ( and willing to acknowledge, as an organised identity) its past ignorance in comparison to Atheism.

I'm amazed that Atheism in its "organised forms" refuses to acknowledge other forms of destructive Atheism in the history books.

It seems to me that the "Democratic Umbrella" saved both Theist identities and Atheist identities from their worst excesses!

Atheism has had its Political theocracy in communist societies.We are just primed to see the evils of one side of the theocratic coin!Theistic theocracy is bad....Atheistic theocracy...well lets just bury our heads on that one!

Two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do you practise being this funny Lucy or does it come naturally?

Geomy

robindch wrote: »

Most religions have a collection of beliefs, many of them contradictory and mutually exclusive, and from this multitude of thoughtbites, people pick and choose what suits and legitimizes their preconceived ideas and morals.

Ratzinger was, and no doubt remains, a nasty old man and he picked out the bits that suited and legitimized this nastiness - control, authority, legalism, hatred, coldness and not a little bit of fear. Fanny's a much nicer, more touchy-feely guy and he's picked out the bits that suit his point of view - be nice to people, try not to judge them, go easy on the abortion palaver and so on. No doubt soon (and it couldn't be too soon for me), he might even tell his flock to go out and do some nice things.

But still, yeah, both of them are picking whatever "teachings" suit them. And it'll be the same for the next guy, and all his flock too. Pick and choose and pick and choose. That's all religion is really - the ultimate "whatever yer havin' yerself".

New age spirituality is way cooler than religion :-)

legspin

Geomy wrote: »

New age spirituality is way cooler than religion :-)

Same bull****, slightly different smell.

smacl

Geomy wrote: »

New age spirituality is way cooler than religion :-)

Catholicism does nothing for me, but dancing naked around a bonfire with a bunch of beautiful hippy white witch type chicks off me head on purple mushrooms on the summer solstice I could probably live with. Mind you, I'd never let my daughter marry one of them

Geomy

smacl wrote: »

Catholicism does nothing for me, but dancing naked around a bonfire with a bunch of beautiful hippy white witch type chicks off me head on purple mushrooms on the summer solstice I could probably live with. Mind you, I'd never let my daughter marry one of them

Lol ill send you a pm if I hear anything. ..

Geomy

legspin wrote: »

Same bull****, slightly different smell.

Aw shucks are you afraid of us harmless hippies too, oh deary me....

legspin

Geomy wrote: »

Aw shucks are you afraid of us harmless hippies too, oh deary me....

You think fear is what I feel about you? You'd be so lucky.

Nodin

ardle1 wrote: »

I cant say I'm the perfect practising catholic, but I am a decent Irish Catholic, and I stand by 'most' of what the Catholic Church stands for and 'most' of what the Pope preaches and does... And to be honest I only read the first few posts in this thread, and I couldn't be bothered to read any more,am sick off all this anti Catholic anti Pope bashing.... Are you Irish at-all!!!!!!

I'm a Republican. This 'have to be catholic to be Irish' cack is best flushed down the toilet of history.

Geomy

legspin wrote: »

You think fear is what I feel about you? You'd be so lucky.

Well at least you feel something that's the main thing.

Channel those feelings, feel the vibes of the universal cosmos. ...

Direct your thoughts, to the universal hypnotic state. ...

Lol

Im off out for organic soup with a nice hippy drummer lady,hope you have a nice weekend legspin....

Nodin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The church isn't "against gay people", it feels that gay sex is a sin, akin to sex outside marriage. A subtle difference, but an important one. The church is very much against hatred towards any person.

....actually the church is against any sex that isn't 'pro-creative', thus casting the gay community outside the pale regardless of marital status.

Brian Shanahan

ardle1 wrote: »

Are you Irish at-all!!!!!!

A lot more Irish than you are.

Nonoperational

Lol at this thread.

Nodin

Nonoperational wrote: »

Lol at this thread.

and what has you 'loling'?

gaynorvader

Nodin wrote: »

and what has you 'loling'?

I'd guess it's the "You're not Irish!" "Am too! More Irish than you anyway!"

joseph brand

Only last week I was told that my friends and I weren't Irish, since we don't go to mass and we think the pope wears a silly hat. Now I don't know what nationality I am, it's almost like I'm in a sort of nationality 'limbo'.

It's a point rarely mentioned in religious debates. The idea that in order to be Irish, one must:
a) Acknowledge the Vatican as the key masters to my 'salvation'.
b) Attend the weekly cult gathering, to worship god and eat his flesh and drink his blood (literally not metaphorically)
c) Follow the teachings of a guy who lived in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago.

All I have to do is swear my allegiance to King Joffrey the Pope and all will be well again.
What has Rome or Israel got to do with being Irish? Reasonably speaking, nothing!

gaynorvader

joseph brand wrote: »

Only last week I was told that my friends and I weren't Irish, since we don't go to mass and we think the pope wears a silly hat. Now I don't know what nationality I am, it's almost like I'm in a sort of nationality 'limbo'.

It's a point rarely mentioned in religious debates. The idea that in order to be Irish, one must:
a) Acknowledge the Vatican as the key masters to my 'salvation'.
b) Attend the weekly cult gathering, to worship god and eat his flesh and drink his blood (literally not metaphorically)
c) Follow the teachings of a guy who lived in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago.

All I have to do is swear my allegiance to King Joffrey the Pope and all will be well again.
What has Rome or Israel got to do with being Irish? Reasonably speaking, nothing!

We should all go back to worshipping The Dagda. That's what a true Irish person does!

I Heart Internet

Only a fool thinks religion and nationality should be mixed.

Catholicism, by it's very name and nature, is the ultimate internationalist credo.

Nodin

gaynorvader wrote: »

We should all go back to worshipping The Dagda. That's what a true Irish person does!

Bollocks. Crom FTW.

Brian Shanahan

joseph brand wrote: »

Only last week I was told that my friends and I weren't Irish, since we don't go to mass and we think the pope wears a silly hat. Now I don't know what nationality I am, it's almost like I'm in a sort of nationality 'limbo'.

You're a Nansenian!

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Only a fool thinks religion and nationality should be mixed.

Agreed,
But its no different to the fools that think you need religion to have morals in society,

Bannasidhe

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. It was a perfect choice of word. The idea that two people of the same gender can get married is a very new, novel (get it?) idea. It's an idea that would have been laughed at (becasue it seemed so unlikely) even by gay people only a few decades ago.

The idea to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners is a very novel idea. It is a novelty.



Sex-selective abortion - the church is against it. As am I.

Novel? New? Wrong.

In ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp

A thousand years ago the church was performing same sex unions so the argument can be made that it was the church which changed it's position...like it did with divorce - it had no problem granting Margaret Tudor an official dissolution of her marriage to James Steward (pre Frenchyfied 'Stuart' spelling) but when her brother Henry wanted one...:rolleyes:

If you are going to try and use the 'its always been x way and now people want to change to to y way' argument then do yourself a favour and research properly - we do.

The RCC is against abortion - it is not extra specially against sex-selective abortion so do stop trying to muddy the waters and portray the church as being super duper protective of little unborn baby girls.

Little girls don't have a soul until many many days so it's ok to abort them. Boys not unless it's really early
Good work church

Lucy8080

robindch wrote: »

"To somebody with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"

- Abraham Maslow, et al.

I think the thread turned after this post.

I agree with rob here...

Who are the people picking up the hammer in this thread?

It ain't me babe...it ain't me you're looking for.....babe!

Brian Shanahan

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Who are the people picking up the hammer in this thread?

It ain't me babe...it ain't me you're looking for.....babe!

The lady doth protest too much.

Lucy, face facts, every time you enter A&A you pick up a hammer and squarely aim for you own thumb. And trying to take the high ground here is a prime example of this.

wp_rathead