That idiot, the pope

robindch

doctoremma wrote: »

Didn't realise that. I've always thought it was a letter to a radio station. Maybe the writer was a West Wing fan?

There's more to it than that:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

axer

Ultravid wrote: »

See, this is what happens when you don't have anybody to interpret* the bible for you: you end up with a lot of misguided nonsense and the plethora of protestant sects (over 30,000 at the last count, and many of them, despite their best efforts, coming across as wacky fundamentalists with nothing but bible verses to oppose the evils overcoming this world). The Catholic Church was appointed by God to interpret the bible authoritatively. The Catholic Faith is the faith of the Incarnate Word of God. We are people of the Incarnate Word, not people of the book, which is why we have reason and natural law to back up what God has revealed to us in Scripture, instead of simply bandying about bible verses. I suggest you read the links I gave previously which provide a solid foundation for Catholic teaching.


* http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

If the Catholic Church was appointed by god and priests were also appointed by god then does that mean that god abused and tortured children? or, should we just not believe people who say they are appointed by god? or the catholic church for that matter since they were created by men "appointed" by god?

Please answer this as it is my fundamental problem with organised religion.

Sam Vimes

Ultravid wrote: »

God doesn't make anyone 'gay':

http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

You're absolutely right, god doesn't make anyone but people most certainly are born gay. Unless you think that you could wake up tomorrow morning and decide to find men attractive I don't see how you think anyone else can.


tbh (and this is not directed at you) I often think that religious people who say gayness is a choice are actually gay themselves. They're sexually attracted to men but they choose to ignore their urges because their holy book says it's wrong so they expect everyone else to do the same.

Sam Vimes

Ultravid wrote: »

Yeah wicca. Great. Don't they support child sacrifice?

No idea, didn't your priests rape generations of our children and cover it up, right to the highest level?

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No idea, didn't your priests rape generations of our children and cover it up, right to the highest level?

I wish there was an "oh snap" button, but "thanks" will have to do.

doctoremma

Ultravid wrote: »

God doesn't make anyone 'gay':

http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

I am torn on my answer to this. As someone who has seen male animals daisychain when you mutate a particular gene, I'm never going to rule out a genetic factor.

However, the idea appears to be that if we somehow nail homosexuality down to a genetic factor, this is a valid reason to legislate against discrimination. This doesn't sit well with me as I'd far rather to be living in a society which didn't have to evoke a biological reason to prevent discrimination against anyone's (consensual) sexual activities.

Ultravid

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Citing NARTH automatically discredits anything you have to say.

Why? Because you say so? NARTH promotes the truth about homosexuality whereas the gay rights lobby predominantly promote lies and falsehoods. NARTH was founded by professional psychiatrists who were unhappy at the idealogical decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It was not a decision based on science.

Your mind is already closed so I'll leave you to it.

robindch

Ultravid wrote: »

God doesn't make anyone 'gay':

http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

NARTH, btw, is run by a man named Joseph Nicolosi -- aka Odious Nicolosi in certain quarters -- who showed up in London last year to promote his view that you can convert gay people to straight much as you can convert atheists to christians. There was an article a few weeks back, in the Guardian AFAIR, which showed that Nicolosi's unscientific and nasty views are making headway in the UK.

BTW, I have a recording of one of Nicolosi's conferences from some years back, when he was less famous than he is now. His comments during that are significantly more obnoxious, inflammatory and condemnatory than anything that I've seen on NARTH's website recently.

Ultravid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're absolutely right, god doesn't make anyone but people most certainly are born gay. Unless you think that you could wake up tomorrow morning and decide to find men attractive I don't see how you think anyone else can.


tbh (and this is not directed at you) I often think that religious people who say gayness is a choice are actually gay themselves. They're sexually attracted to men but they choose to ignore their urges because their holy book says it's wrong so they expect everyone else to do the same.

You seem very confident in your assertion.

My own opinion is that gayness (as in the attractions) is not typically consciously chosen. But the decision to act on the desires is certainly chosen, unless one has lost one's mind. The homosexualist lobby, along with the abortion lobby, cloud reality, muddy facts, and distort truth, all in order to peddle their agenda, one which imprisons people in misery and sin, and costs lives, and souls.

iUseVi

Ultravid wrote: »

Yeah wicca. Great. Don't they support child sacrifice?

Sams reply was great, but also no they don't.

Italia

I understand the principle of 'freedom of expression', but I've never seen so much hot-air tripe posted by so many uninformed people.
Folks, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Sheesh....talk about hidden agenda's....

iUseVi

Italia wrote: »

Sheesh....talk about hidden agenda's....

Not exactly hidden is it?

Sam Vimes

Ultravid wrote: »

You seem very confident in your assertion.

My own opinion is that gayness (as in the attractions) is not typically consciously chosen. But the decision to act on the desires is certainly chosen, unless one has lost one's mind. The homosexualist lobby, along with the abortion lobby, cloud reality, muddy facts, and distort truth, all in order to peddle their agenda, one which imprisons people in misery and sin, and costs lives, and souls.

I would be in complete agreement with you here about acting on homosexuality being a choice but the urges themselves not being a choice. The question you should ask yourself is why on earth should someone not act on homosexual urges they may have, other than the fact that a goat herder wrote down in a book 3000 years ago that he disapproved of homosexuality and claimed it was the word of god?

Ultravid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would be in complete agreement with you here. The question you should ask yourself is why on earth should someone not act on homosexual urges they may have, other than the fact that a goat herder wrote down in a book 3000 years ago that he disapproved of homosexuality and claimed it was the word of god?

Because it is wrong, because it is unnatural, because it is a fundamental abuse of the human body and the purpose of the body. Because it damages the individual, society, and offends God. All good reasons.

By the same token, I would ask why would someone not act on any other disordered desire, as in the case of the NAMBLA guys who have just gone a little further along than some other homosexualist campaigners. It's all very sick and very wrong.

Whilst it is sick and wrong, God's forgiveness includes everyone, if only we would forsake our sins and repents, imploring God for forgiveness and mercy.

"Come now, let us reason together,
says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
Isaiah 1:18

Thus there is no need for despair.

I will pray for you, that is all I can do.

Galvasean

Ultravid wrote: »

Yeah wicca. Great. Don't they support child sacrifice?

To follow up on Sam's reply, how many children have been sacrificed by the Catholic church in order to maintain it's public image? Every child that got raped because the church relocated some peedo scum instead of turning him in to 'keep up appearances' was considered 'acceptable loses'. If that's not child sacrifice, I don't know what is.

dvpower

Ultravid wrote: »

I will pray for you, that is all I can do.

You could try reason with Sam; he responds better.

After all;
"Come now, let us reason together,
says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
Isaiah 1:18


(I didn't get the rest of the verse)

Sam Vimes

Ultravid wrote: »

Because it is wrong, because it is unnatural, because it is a fundamental abuse of the human body and the purpose of the body. Because it damages the individual, society, and offends God. All good reasons.

Why is it wrong?

The computer you're typing on is unnatural, as is that medicine that saved your loved one's life.

How is it an abuse of the human body and how does it damage society?

I don't give a crap if it offends a fictional character.

Ultravid wrote: »

By the same token, I would ask why would someone not act on any other disordered desire, as in the case of the NAMBLA guys who have just gone a little further along than some other homosexualist campaigners. It's all very sick and very wrong.

NAMBLA rapes children. A homosexual act is between two consenting adults. The fact that you see no difference between the two goes a long way to explaining how priests managed to bring themselves to rape children.

Ultravid wrote: »

I will pray for you, that is all I can do.

No thanks, do something constructive with your time instead

Ultravid

Galvasean wrote: »

To follow up on Sam's reply, how many children have been sacrificed by the Catholic church in order to maintain it's public image? Every child that got raped because the church relocated some peedo scum instead of turning him in to 'keep up appearances' was considered 'acceptable loses'. If that's not child sacrifice, I don't know what is.

Except nobody of good will would attempt to defend the actions of these priests, whereas some people do defend the killing of unborn babies. Big difference.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why is it wrong?

NAMBLA rapes children. A homosexual act is between two consenting adults. The fact that you see no difference between the two goes a long way to explaining how priests managed to bring themselves to rape children.

No thanks, do something constructive with your time instead

Both the abuse of children and homosexual sex are sick and morally wrong. End of story.

Sam Vimes

Ultravid wrote: »

Both the abuse of children and homosexual sex are sick and morally wrong. End of story.

So it's wrong because it's wrong


Abusing children is wrong because it inflicts harm on another human being. I see no similar reason to say homosexuality is wrong. Do you really have nothing more than "it's wrong because god says so"? Do you have no actual reason to think it's wrong?

Galvasean

Ultravid wrote: »

Except nobody of good will would attempt to defend the actions of these priests,

So... the Pope is bad...
HE ADMITS IT!!!!!

whereas some people do defend the killing of unborn babies. Big difference.

Another red herring? Nah, I'm full after the last one.

Both the abuse of children and homosexual sex are sick and morally wrong. End of story.

Raping an innocent and defenceless child is not the same as two men who love each other expressing their love physically.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So it's wrong because it's wrong [...] Do you really have nothing more than "it's wrong because god says so"? Do you have no actual reason to think it's wrong?

Very hard to get rid of our old friend Euthyphro, innit?

krudler

Ultravid wrote: »

Except nobody of good will would attempt to defend the actions of these priests, whereas some people do defend the killing of unborn babies. Big difference.



Both the abuse of children and homosexual sex are sick and morally wrong. End of story.

So the pope is nobody of good? horray finally a catholic admits it!

Ultravid

Galvasean wrote: »

Raping an innocent and defenceless child is not the same as two men who love each other expressing their love physically.

*sigh*

Both are against nature.

*bangs head on table*

edit: the Pope never said it was ok to abuse children. Never did he say that and never did he seek to defend them or make excuses for them.

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you really have nothing more than "it's wrong because god says so"? Do you have no actual reason to think it's wrong?

Actually I'd like to see where god even says so.

Only places I've seen it mentioned are Sodom and Gamorrah (where it's rape and not consensual sex) and Leviticus which doesn't count to Catholics.

vibe666

Galvasean wrote: »

Even when it was the priests I knew it was them damn homersexuals!

people who are sexually attracted to Bart Simpson's dad?

krudler

Both the abuse of children and homosexual sex are sick and morally wrong. End of story.

doesnt the church apparently have nothing against gays themselves, just "gay acts", pfft thats like saying you're a vegetarian, except for chicken and fish

Sam Vimes

Ultravid wrote: »

*sigh*

Both are against nature.

*bangs head on table*

The table you're banging your head on is against nature mate. How do you decide which things that are against nature are ok and which aren't?


Also, I was adopted because my mother couldn't conceive children. Do you also consider it against nature for her to have raised me?

Ultravid

Ultravid wrote: »

*sigh*

Both are against nature.

*bangs head on table*

And how are they "against nature"?

Computers are "against nature".

Also there are homosexual animals.

You argument is nonsensical.

Sam Vimes

King Mob wrote: »

Actually I'd like to see where god even says so.

Only places I've seen it mentioned are Sodom and Gamorrah (where it's rape and not consensual sex) and Leviticus which doesn't count to Catholics.

Only the parts they still agree with apply

vibe666

Ultravid wrote: »

Peter Tatchel seeks to put young men at risk of sexual predation.

so does the pope (see previous posts about cover-up), what's your point?