Fox News Goes After Pope

[MisterE]

here's a relevant part for you:

"In Thursday's interview, Francis clarified that those comments [who am i to judge?] were about all gay people and not only priests."

so yeah. remarkably uninformed, it seems.

hmm. ok. but only that's what huffpo says about what the pope said. why didn't you just quote the pope directly from the interview? here's what the pope actually said:

 

“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

 

so he says that the church doesn't want to make gay people feel 'socially wounded' or that they are condemning them. i'm not denying that the guy isn't at all progressive, compared to previous popes. but where in that can you clearly say that he made a statement about ALL gays? he's talking about gays who wrote him, about the church, and how they want to be part of the church. we've already established that he's even ok with gay priests. then he repeats the part about "I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge." so again he's specifically talking about gays and their involvement in the church. it's not a blanket statement about all gays. you could possibly imply that maybe he thinks gays need to go to church to offset their sin of being gay. the huffpo article you quoted said that he was talking about all gays, but he's just simply not. then he follows up with: "Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person." so he's still supporting the church's doctrine that gay sex is a sin. to me, saying that he is somehow talking about all gays and/or making general statements of acceptance/approval of gayness is still entirely dishonest.

 

then he specifically mentions that notion:“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’

 

to me that's dodging the question. he refers to the idea that god loves everyone, which is a cop out. all you've done imo is quote another piece from another article that's mischaracterized his words, even if slightly, it's still important. he's said he doesn't judge gays, and then makes a point to specifically add, IF they are seeking god.

 

IF

 

huffpo left that out entirely, didn't they? why would he bother putting the IF in there if he really said what they said he said? why would he put the IF in there if this is really what he's saying:

"In Thursday's interview, Francis clarified that those comments were about all gay people and not only priests." ok maybe NOT just priests, but that IF still seems to rule out an awful lot of gays, if you ask me. not to huffpo, tho.

[Guest disparaissant]

Christ, dude. You contradicted yourself so many times in that post I don't even know where to begin. I'm getting the impression that if you were any less self-aware you would flunk a Turing test.

[Guest disparaissant]

Like what part of "the church does not want to [socially wound gays]" are you not getting? He's pretty obviously saying that he doesn't think it's the churches place to ostracize based on sexual preference. See also: where he says it's not the church's place to interfere with people spiritually. It takes some pretty twisted logic to cherry pick that to he point you have.

[Guest disparaissant]

Like dude, read and re-read the quote you posted. He's not even making a blanket statement about all gays, he's making a blanket statement about all people. How is it possible for you to miss that?

[MisterE]

it might seem like i'm mincing words but here's the distinction:
the pope is talking about how the church doesn't want to dissuade gay people from going to church, and that he wouldn't even try to stop them from being priests. which huffpo then took and characterized that he 'doesnt judge' gays in any general sense. that's completely just a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. especially since he then immediately goes on to say that the church basically has the right to JUDGE things as being immoral.


he just says that the church's judgement of things like people using contraception/gays/abortion, shouldn't be an obsession with them, and mainly that they shouldn't prevent any people involved in those activities from seeking god through the church. but he expressly stated that the church has a right to still judge those activities as immoral. just that they shouldn't exclude anyone because of them. it's pretty clear. and until he comes out and specifically actually says that being gay is totally OK, then he cannot be said to have said anything at all suggesting that neither he nor the church judges gays in any way at all. and if he did say that, it would be a fundamental break from what has been upheld church doctrine. but the fact is that in that paragraph, he actually supported and upheld that doctrine himself. "Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person." to me it's pretty clear there that he is saying that the church has every right to continue thinking what it does about gays, but that they shouldn't try to prevent them from finding god. this is not me mincing words at all here.

but he made some of these statements as ambiguous as possible so people could take from them whatever they want, as long as they ignore key pieces. if you can explain to me how him saying that the church has a right to have its doctrine, which includes saying that gay sex is immoral, and somehow that's not him judging it or supporting that judgement (i mean, he represents the church for christ's sake), then i'll admit that you win this thread.

[goDel]

Isn't the pope basically saying that the church has a certain opinion? And that it should respect those with other opinions? By talking about this spiritual freedom, it seems like any form of spirituality is kinda like having an opinion. So this doctrine is nothing more than just another opinion based on same ancient texts.

 

Seems like a potentially fundamental shift from the past to me. Instead of the church being closer to God, an even playing field is created where everyone has a right to their own kind of spirituality. So when the church judges some action as immoral, this pope basically admits that it's just an opinion. And it implies that the church doesn't make laws.

 

Sounds like a good antidote to spiritual extremism to me.

 

This pope might actually know where the place of religion is. Outside of science. Outside of law. They're in the business of spiritualism.

[MisterE]

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
1.
a view or ----->judgment <----- formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

francis: we shouldn't exclude, but "Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people"

 

huffpo, etc, etc, etc: new future pope dont judge, yo!

 

 

the guy is clearly in some ways progressive compared to past popes. but imo things he is saying are clearly being warped to exaggerate that. if he is the head rep of the church, and the church thinks this, and he supports the church's right to think that, then he is admitting that the church judges. and as head rep, unless he distances himself from that judgement, you have to assume that on a personal level, he shares it. and i think the 'in service of the people' part is also a bit telling. this is the same church that is amazingly still against contraception, to this day, which is just utterly mind-blowing, and if you look around at what the catholic church's opinion on gay sex has been in the past, you see a lot of talk of homosexual urges not being sinful, but the acts themselves being such. so could it be that his/their idea is to be less up front about their feelings, to get more gays to come into the church so they can try to shame them out of having sex???? like they already do with contraception/heteros/extramarital/non-reproductive sex? how, exactly, would that be super progressive? i'd say that'd actually be the opposite- repressive. personally, i don't think what consenting adults do is anyone's business, but the church thinks it's sinful, and the pope has gone on record as supporting that notion. doesn't that make ME more progressive than this guy?! i actually think condoms are OK too! (where's my person of the yr?) meanwhile the echochamber claims he 'doesn't judge'. like, at all.

 

guess he found some new way to have opinions about things being violations of divine and natural law, without those opinions being judgements. i guess that is p future actually.

[goDel]

...you're just looking for shit to hold against what you consider "leftwing".

 

The fact that you use "huffpo, etc, etc, etc: new future pope dont judge, yo!" basically says it all: conveniently lumping things together to be able to have some kind of argument. While basically agreeing that "the guy is clearly in some ways progressive compared to past popes". Are you sure you need to waste that much thought and text over this 'dispute'?

[triachus]

google "pope gays"

damnit, i was hoping that was a verb

[MisterE]

...you're just looking for shit to hold against what you consider "leftwing".

 

The fact that you use "huffpo, etc, etc, etc: new future pope dont judge, yo!" basically says it all: conveniently lumping things together to be able to have some kind of argument. While basically agreeing that "the guy is clearly in some ways progressive compared to past popes". Are you sure you need to waste that much thought and text over this 'dispute'?

godel i'm going to reply to this in the style of you.

 

...you just want shit to hold against what you consider a misterE.

the fact that you quote things i say, says it all. you just lump things and put them with other things, to make some kind of.. statement. we can both agree that i don't get any of your posts, and i'll probably go back to not paying attention to them, so are you sure you want to waste godel's time directing any of them at me (misterE)?

[goDel]

LOL

 

yeah, i think we can agree you're a waste of my time alright.

 

and thanks for answering! nice of you to at least try giving an answer of sorts.

[SR4]

I go to sleep for 12 hours and this happens?

[goDel]

SR4jesus, our savior!

 

Rejoice!

[SR4]

just SR4 child.

[sheatheman]

Guys, after reading the past two pages, sheathe is either trolling or clinically retarded. I honestly wouldn't bother arguing with him at this point.

 

It's a third option, though I forgive you for only seeing two. It's a myopia that manifests itself in other aspects of your perception.

[sheatheman]

 

 

Oops I guess I made the mistake of trying to explain superstition to a person who embraces their superstition and moreover thinks it's divine or some shit.

 

You should have answered this question:

 

Why do you have the drive to create? What do you believe about what you are creating?

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

Oops I guess I made the mistake of trying to explain superstition to a person who embraces their superstition and moreover thinks it's divine or some shit.

 

You should have answered this question:

 

Why do you have the drive to create? What do you believe about what you are creating?

 

 

My drive to create appears to be an intrinsic part of my personality.

 

I create simply because I am driven to create, but furthermore because I am moved by the work of others (who are also driven to create), so I see that the (bi)product of one's drive to create can have value to others.

 

Don't see the relevance though.

[Guest disparaissant]

oh right this thread

 

well limpyloo obvs it's because god or something. lord knows (get it?) we would be soulless, mindless robots who only consume if it weren't for a literal divine spark.

 

also, mistere, just reread the fuckin thing you quoted again. i'm tired of your shenanigans. if you were wondering why people end up only insulting you in debates, it's because you start off by saying something absurdly wrong, you frame it in an utterly ridiculous way, and then whenever someone calls you out for being absurdly wrong, you inch the goalposts a bit further and keep people running in circles to satisfy your whims. and frankly, fuck that. you've yet to prove anything other than the fact that you can take bits of a quote out of context, and that's really about it. you've moved the goalposts so far from your starting point that it's almost hilarious. have a good one!

[sheatheman]

 

 

 

 

Oops I guess I made the mistake of trying to explain superstition to a person who embraces their superstition and moreover thinks it's divine or some shit.

 

You should have answered this question:

 

Why do you have the drive to create? What do you believe about what you are creating?

 

 

My drive to create appears to be an intrinsic part of my personality.

 

I create simply because I am driven to create, but furthermore because I am moved by the work of others (who are also driven to create), so I see that the (bi)product of one's drive to create can have value to others.

 

Don't see the relevance though.

 

 

No, you don't.

[LimpyLoo]

Right, that's what I said. I don't see the relevance.

[ambermonk]

anal Pope

[gmanyo]

I'm probably going to dip out of this conversation soon, because these things follow me throughout the day and right now that could ruin my vacation in Taiwan. I also don't want anything to get heated, because that makes it worse. But I'll say a couple things.

 

I'm not attempting to prove anything here, merely giving the Christian theology on the Old and New Testament, and how the law plays into them both. SR4, that passage you quoted from Matthew is actually a really good one, I'm glad you brought it up:

 

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Christ came to fulfill the law so we don't have to. The moral code of God is perfect, but to grow by the law one would have to obey every single bit of it for their whole lives, which Christ did (note that this is different from the laws for Israel about punishments and such, which I will explain later). If we relax on just one single tiny law, we're fucked. Christ actually fulfilled the moral law by living a perfect life, and then died as a sacrifice for us* (The theology here is that only a perfect being could take on the punishment of broken laws from every person on earth. This is called penal substitution. I DO NOT want to get into a debate about this AT ALL, and I swear I will ignore all comments about it. Look it up if you're interested.).

 

The reason this passage is extra badass is because Jesus goes into how there is much more to the law of God than just a bunch of rules:

 

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

 

You see, the Pharisees, who were some of the Jewish religious leaders of the day, thought that they could do that; try to obey all of the laws and be better than everyone around them. They went so far as to make tons of extra unnecessary rules (for example, rules about what constituted as "doing work" on the sabbath, like how far you could walk). But Christ was calling them out on their bullshit by telling them that God's moral law extended much farther than just the rules that were written. The religious leaders of the day were hypocrites, who chose to follow rules that were attainable, and covered up the things that weren't (I heard they used to put food stands every so often so their walking didn't count as "work" because it was to buy food, which is a rule they created, so they could still be "good" and walk where they wanted to). But they were all guilty, as is everyone. (check out Romans 2)

 

This is why I say that the law was never meant to be followed, at least in that sense ("the law" can, however, mean God's word, not just the moral code, which includes the New Testament and accepting Christ's forgiveness; this is very much meant to be followed). There are other parts to how the Old Testament harmonizes with the New Testament which I will admit I am less sure of, but I feel that this is an adequate explanation of why Christians don't obey the law.

 

As far as the legal stuff for punishments and weird clothing laws go, those were just for Israel. Many of them were just to make Israel stand out as different, others were specifically for their judicial system, some were a sign for the importance of certain concepts. If you were Jewish 2500 years ago then yeah, you should obey those because they would actually be enforced. But obeying them now as a non-Israelite would just be weird. It would be like obeying old laws from Middle England - yeah, some of them might've made sense at the time, but what's the point now? There are also many parts of the New Testament that specifically say that these are not applicable anymore, like Acts 10:9-30, Colossians 2 (especially verses 16-23),

 

I'm not interested in getting into different branching points here, partially because I'm on vacation and partially because it would just go on ad infinitum. I understand there are other questions brought up by this post, but I just wanted to clear up this one point. I probably will respond if people have questions about how the law works with both of the testaments.

 

 

I'll probably write another post later dealing with the concept of living by the spirit (now) versus living by the law (the Israelites), dealing with 2 Corinthians chapter 3, but I'm done writing for now.

 

 

*On a related point, the Christian views the sacrificial system as being a reference to Christ. The lamb had to be without blemish in sacrifices, just like Christ is perfect. The sacrifices were for the sins of the Jews and worked temporarily, but Christ's death is an eternal sacrifice.

[LimpyLoo]

The moral code of God is perfect,

 

Religion has a way of making decent, intelligent people like yourself believe and do insane things.

 

 

[gmanyo]

One small point - I don't think that morality is supposed to be just defined by whatever God says it to be. God couldn't make rape good just by saying so, because rape is inherently wrong due to the nature of human relationships and sexuality. I'm sure you would say that this is inconsistent with actions taken by God, but that's a different argument; from a Christian (or Jewish) understanding, morality is inherent in the creation of God, it is not applied post-creation. Again, you can say that because God's actions are inconsistent from inherent morality that Christianity is false, but this is a different argument from saying that Christianity is false because morality is arbitrarily defined by God.

 

But like I said, I'm not going to go much outside of harmonizing the Old and New Testament in terms of law. I'm already going too far with this post. My other post was just to explain why following all the little pieces of moral code is not a part of the life of a Christian, which was the main issue that had come up before.

 

I do appreciate, though, that people aren't shying away from calling others out on their beliefs. Like, I really am. It means that people are at least listening to some extent. I'm so tired of hearing shit like "whatever works for you works for you" when I just told someone that I think Christ is the answer to everything.

[LimpyLoo]

The immorality of God doesn't render Christianity false, the lack of evidence supporting its claims does. The only real difference between the God of the Bible and Zeus is that the God of the Bible happens to be more popular at the moment.

 

And Jesus isn't the answer to anything. Jesus said "slaves, obey your masters" when he could have said "slaves, gain your freedom" or "slavemasters, free your slaves." Of course the very obvious reason for this is that the Bible was written by people with stone-age morals and so the Bible also has stone-age morals. It's not a coincidence, and it's not because God is mysterious and we can't understand his ways.