THE Pope: "Let's Review EVERYTHING That JESUS Ever Said About Abortion & Gays & Contraception..."

[kpete]

?1398943654

[Hekate]

1. He had a lot to say about the poor and the rich though, didn't he? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

2. If only this was not just a cruel fantasy. In actual fact, Francis' Bishops in Uganda are supporting

the anti gay laws, encouraging their flocks to turn in gay people including their own children and indulging is language about blood in the streets as part of an eliminationist message. Francis has not managed to say a word against this.
There are some honest people speaking about this.
Offerings: Church’s silence on anti-gay law a sign of complicity
"As a Catholic I am particularly troubled by the silence of the Vatican on this issue. In fact, at the end of March a ceremony was held in Kampala to celebrate the law coming into effect. Catholic Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga of Kampala was part of a group of clergymen (an Anglican bishop, a Muslim sheikh and a Pentecostal bishop) who presented Museveni with a plaque as a gift for signing the bill into law.

Approximately 44 per cent of Uganda’s population is Catholic, meaning the actions of the church hierarchy influence many. Other Ugandan bishops have also come out in support of this draconian law.

On Easter Sunday Bishop Charles Wamika of the Jinja diocese called for “a blessing for Uganda’s Christians who worked so hard to free the land of gays.” He also called for parents to hand over their gay children to the authorities and the parents “would be rewarded in heaven.”
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Offerings+Church+silence+anti+sign+complicity/9801066/story.html

Catholic bishops in Nigeria, in a letter to Mr. Jonathan, heralded the new law as “courageous” and “a clear indication of the ability of our great country to stand shoulders high in the protection of our Nigerian and African most valued cultures of the institution of marriage.”

Why won’t this pope speak out against leaders like the Nigerian president and his own bishops who support draconian treatment of gay people?
"They weren’t the only religious leaders happy with a stepping-up of repression against gay Africans. In February, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed a bill that threatens openly gay Ugandans with lifetime prison sentences. While Catholic leaders rejected the 2009 version of the bill, which contained an infamous death penalty provision, some bishops — as well as Anglican and Orthodox leaders — have been vocal in their support of the most recent measure. (Africa is the Roman Catholic Church’s fastest-growing region in terms of membership.)

In response to the developments in Nigeria and Uganda, the Vatican said nothing. The pope also said nothing publicly on the issue of gay rights during the Nigerian president’s audience. (An official Vatican announcement said the two men talked about “the protection of the dignity of the human person and his or her fundamental rights” but did not specify further. At least one media outlet in Nigeria reported that Mr. Jonathan “justified” his country’s new law in his audience with the pope.)"
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2014/04/06/Francis-keeps-his-distance-MICHAEL-O-LOUGHLIN/stories/201404060013

[MNBrewer]

7. Yes, If only Mr. Bergoglio would do as it is suggested he has done in that cartoon.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. He is being called to account in some places for his tacit support of the pogroms, but on DU folks

keep promoting him as the Second Coming of Harvey Milk and it gets not just old and tiresome, it gets difficult to endure the clear statements that support for LGBT equality here is about as deep as a font of holy water in the August sun.

[MNBrewer]

12. yeah, between them and the Russia Today sockpuppets.

[LadyHawkAZ]

18. [phone]

[jwirr]

3. And he does not have to stop with the New Testament when it comes to the rich. The Old Testament

had plenty to say about them to.

[Igel]

4. Ah.

The nice bit was when he added, impromptu, what Jesus said about pedophilia and incest and polygamy and bestiality. Not to mention what his followers should do to punish people.

Argumentatio ex silentio is a pain. What it gives, it taketh away. Thing is, you don't really notice either because you get pretty much nothing and lose pretty much nothing.

[OldHippieChick]

6. For a non-theist you

certainly have a lot to say about someone else's theology. Many go to school for years to understand and interpret scripture. Tis a shame when all they had to do was ask you.

[MNBrewer]

9. It's well documented that atheists know more about various religions than most believers

[rug]

14. Why did you modify beliers with "most" and left athiests unmodified?

It's well documented that people who uses statistics sloppily get unreliable data.

[MNBrewer]

15. See

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

[rug]

17. I had already read that.

But you didn't answer the question.

As it is now, unmodified, your message is that all atheists know more about various religions than most believers.

Got a link for that?

BTW, the survey you posted shows only a 0.6 difference between Mormons and atheists who were surveyed.

[MNBrewer]

22. B.S.

[xfundy]

30. If I may step in here...

MANY atheists know scripture better than MANY if not MOST Christians, because MANY atheists grew up in Xian families and read the bible for themselves, all the way through, and, finding no sufficient answers to their queries about those scriptures, other than "we'll know when we die," found they couldn't believe in most, if not all of it.

Hope this is helpful. Not meant to be a poke or a thrown rock. It's just a fact.

[Plucketeer]

37. Log me amongst that group

Needing more than the old bumper sticker proclamation: "God said it - I believe it - and that settles it!" I'm unconvinced. Then.... when I learned that their sacred tome was compiled 300 years after the fact - by guys who had divorced themselves from society, well...

[Arugula Latte]

38. My friend who attended divinity school told me that many who were in her program

stopped believing and lost their "faith" because reading "the scriptures" in depth will help do that to a person.

[msanthrope]

65. Indeed---a deeper perusal of the root texts caused me to lose my vocation, and my faith. nt

[rug]

41. You have to be careful about extrapolation.

Last edited Mon May 5, 2014, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)

And if you are indeed an "xfundy", your knowledge is likely limited to fundamentalism.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Mormons are an interesting outlier in that.

And a couple other metrics as well, such as percentage of the prison population. They are our neighbors, at 0.03% to our 0.02%.

I don't know why, but in direct comparisons on a couple aspects of faith/non-faith, Mormons score similar to atheists and I don't understand or speculate why.

[Warpy]

27. We do. We always read widely and in depth to make sure we didn't miss something

Then again, really knowing this stuff might be part of the problem. Reading the bible cover to cover did it for my Irish Catholic mother. She was furious and never set foot in a church again.

Not knowing and never questioning is essential for most people. It's the rare bird like Thomas Merton who asks uncomfortable questions and maintains his faith.

[Brainstormy]

33. That is a VERY important point

Many atheists came to be so exactly by reading the bible thoroughly and also by studying comparative religions. I am one of that group.

[SidDithers]

36. Julia Sweeney did a great one-woman show a few years ago, about that exact topic...

It's called "Letting go of God", and details her journey from Catholic believer to atheist. It's a witty, poignant, charming story and her in-depth reading of the bible is a key part of her transition.

If you haven't seen it, I would highly recommend it. The video of her stage play is great, but the book / audiobook is excellent too.

Edit: here's a youtube of the Audiobook. It's 2 hours well spent.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

46. A hearty agreement Sid, what a great piece that is, the book and the show. Julia is great.

nt

[Warpy]

51. I've seen it, it's hilarious

and if you love Julia Sweeney, check out Dara O'Briain on You Tube.

Nobody does atheism like the Irish.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

40. atheist are unable to reason

I am able to have more reasoned discussions with scholarly Christians than with any atheist I have ever encountered.

Try agnosticism.

[Nevernose]

49. Obviously

If you want to argue with someone on the subject of "Why grown-ups should believe in Santa Claus," you shouldn't be too surprised if the anti-Santa faction doesn't even take the argument very seriously.

If you're truly interested in understanding how an atheist thinks and feels, its a actually a very simple experiment: list, for example, five points you'd like to make in favor of Christianity and against atheism. Now, to see how an atheist hears those arguments, replace "God" with "Santa," "Jesus" with "Reindeer," and ""Holy Ghost" with "Elves." Any reference to the bible can be substituted with the poem "'Twas the Night Before Christmas."

[SoLeftIAmRight]

55. Did you know that b comes before c and after a?

If you can say something about how we think, our understanding of time and space, that fact that a wise person once said "I know nothing" then come and give me some enlightenment. As long as you are struggling at the jesus v. nothing level I would be happy if you would leave me alone.

[Nevernose]

57. So you make a statement

Someone responds to that statement, and you answer with a word salad and "leave me alone?"
Makes perfect sense now.

I'm not sure what got you upset, though. You didn't seem to understand atheists, so I gave you a simple thought experiment with which you could learn some empathy with those who think differently.

I'm also not sure why you think I'm struggling with something?

Welcome to DU, by the way. There's a feature available to you called Ignore, so if you were to find anyone to be obnoxious, you don't have to look at their posts.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

58. I find atheists boring

and even more dogmatic than thoughtful religious people.

[Nevernose]

59. Thanks for the clarification!

Maybe someday you'll be able to try out that little experiment I have you. Until then, have a great day!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

63. Try my experiment.

Go to World Science U dot com.

Work your way through the two courses in relativity. They are free.

Do enough work with quantum theory to get your mind baffled.

Contemplate the following quote -
The nature of 'reality' is not only stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine!

Free yourself from the delusion that the structure of our cognition has any ability to manage the oddities of time, space, and the extremes of scale.

It looks very silly to me when a person argues a jesus v. nothing point of view.

Try agnosticism, unless god herself told you personally that she does not exist.

[phil89]

54. You think people who believe in unproven, unsubstantiated claims

on faith are rational or well reasoned? Please look into logical fallacies, I'd hate to think what you're falling for.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

56. That is a lot of words to put into my mouth - hope you washed your hands.

If you can say something about how we think, our understanding of time and space, that fact that a wise person once said "I know nothing" then come and give me some enlightenment. As long as you are struggling at the jesus v. nothing level I would be happy if you would leave me alone.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Brilliant - your standard response to any reply to your blanket "atheist are unable to reason" claim

is to post a nonsensical "I don't want to talk to anyone who doesn't think like me" reply. Your first claim is, frankly, stupid. All groups are able to reason; you're more likely to to find reason used well in a group that doesn't depend on 'truths' revealed by scriptures that demand they are taken on faith.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

62. Wow!

You prove my point. You are stuck in a jesus v. nothing world. You paint a picture with truths, scripture, and faith as if that is a counterpoint your religion.

Atheist make a simple mistake in their thinking. By definition you make statements about reality that are as silly as the easter bunny.

The nature of 'reality' is not only stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine!

It is for weak minds to argue about things that we have no ability to perceive. The structure of our cognition can not grasp the true nature of time, space, mass, or any of the oddities that show themselves at the extremes of scale.

I suggest that you take a less militant view and acknowledge that "we know nothing."

[Arugula Latte]

66. The burden of proof is on the people asserting that something exists.

If I say leprechauns ride purple unicorns and you say that that doesn't happen in reality because there is no evidence for this, that doesn't make our situation a she said/he said scenario on equal footing, with both perspectives equally valid. The same goes for assertions that there is an invisible being who can manipulate things in the universe.

So far there is no evidence for a deity or an omnipotent or even locally Earth-powerful supernatural creature existing in the universe. If that evidence surfaces, we can reassess.

Scientists assert that things we cannot see or even perceive exist, but they base those assertions on solid evidence. Theists do not.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

68. open your eyes

By definition you do the same thing. Asserting a negative is equally as absurd.

Try agnosticism. You will not look foolish in the eyes of thoughtful people.

[Arugula Latte]

70. By your reasoning it is absurd to assert that there are no unicorns and leprechauns.

I mean, after all, we've never seen one, so how can we say for sure they don't exist? Maybe we just need to open our eyes, huh?

BTW, I'm not taking advice from you about what does and does not look foolish.

Enjoy your stay on DU.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

73. Do you realize how silly you sound?

We have explored the world really well. Yet, there are many, many species yet to be discovered. I will assert that it is very unlikely that we will find many new large species of flora or fauna. So, I feel safe in saying that the probability that unicorns and leprechauns exist is very small. Indeed, I feel foolish even saying something about the existence of mythical creatures.

Now, when it comes to speculating about reality I am of a different mind. When confronted with the mysteries of time and space I see that we are not only clueless, we have brains that are not structured in a manner that will allow us to see what the physics makes clear.

People who have not studied the theories of relativity and looked closely at the oddities presented by quantum mechanics are not serious thinkers.

Are you one of those ?

By the way, I am sure that I have been posting here longer than you - hope you enjoy your stay.

[Arugula Latte]

74. I've been here since 2001, so that's another thing you're wrong about.

See ya.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

78. There you go - working from a lack of information.

How do you know that I was not posting before 2001?

I met Skinner in 2002 in Washington DC at the Bartcop Juliefest. I had been posting here long before that.

You seem to not consider any information not in grasp.

What does that say about your reasoning abilities?

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. You are admitting to signing up to DU more than once

Were you banned before? If so, for what?

I know you were not posting on DU before 2001. Everyone knows that. If you claim you were, then it is you who is "working from a lack of information".

[SoLeftIAmRight]

82. Yes

I was less than civil with a raving atheist.

I proposed and organized and presided at the first gathering of DU folks in Houston Texas.

You will surly remember there was a time when there was a section in the upper right part of the home page that listed these events. Skinner would never sanction these events. It was a concession on his part to even post the events. I had several conversations about this with him.

be well

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Here's a bit of advice:

If you have a track record of being rude to atheists, don't say things like "atheist are unable to reason" now that you've rejoined. People who come back to DU should not dig their hole deeper.

[Arugula Latte]

83. Uhh -- NO ONE was posting before 2001. DU started on January 20, 2001.

[mr blur]

76. Oh! You mentioned "quantum"! You must be a serious thinker!

Do you realize how silly you sound?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

89. As your ball comes bouncing weakly from left field...

A sit calmly in my house build with magical crystals by naked monks, nibbling contentedly on the treats god gave to the easter bunny to bring to me.

I consider taking a swing at the ball...

Well, Yes I Will.

You seem to take issue with the my using the word quantum. Do you have an interest in the subject?

I would prefer a nice exchange of ideas on the relativity theories. They are much more focused and I can do all the mathematics. On the other hand, the diversity of topics related to quantum theory would allow us to share our knowledge on a wide range of ideas.

You game?

[phil89]

90. Atheism makes no assertions.

It is a rejection of a claim.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

91. For years I rejected the following claim:

No three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two.

Wow, don't I look stupid now?

Seems I rejected the wrong claim.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. You've more or less repeated the same thing to me as to others

so I wonder if you're reading any of our posts at all.

This isn't about 'Jesus v. nothing'. I said that everyone can reason (whereas you asserted "atheist are unable to reason&quot , but that you're less likely to find it used in a group that depends on the authority of scripture - ie baldly-asserted 'truths' rather than observations and reasoning about life.

I suggest you stop making hidden insults with phrases like "weak minds" (or "atheist are unable to reason&quot .

"We know nothing" is not true. We do have knowledge. We don't know everything.

"By definition you make statements about reality that are as silly as the easter bunny. "

Please quote these definitions. Don't just come up with your personal opinions; you have claimed there are definitions involved, so you must be able to quote them.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

75. do you really want to do this?

If so, let us do it right.

If you are an atheist, does this definition fit you?

"a person who denies the existence of a supreme being or beings"

If not, please give us a starting point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. OED definitions:

atheist: "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."

disbelieve: "Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to"

So someone who does not believe in a God can be called an atheist. Are you saying that to avoid being 'silly', you must believe in a God?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

79. I do not believe.

Also, I do not assert that their no possibility. In fact, I give little thought to the matter.

I abhor and find dangerous most "religious" people.

I just like the term agnostic. Seem a little less pompous.

[Arugula Latte]

84. That's funny. You exude pomposity in your posts.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

87. Thank you

Is is well earned.

[rug]

8. .

[kpete]

10. thanks

i needed that

peace,
kp

[Initech]

13. Or to quote Stephen Colbert:

"What did Jesus say in the Bible about homosexuality? Oh that's right he didn't say anything. "

[SidDithers]

16. What are "Things you'll never hear Pope Photo-Op say"?...nt

Sid

[blkmusclmachine]

19. ,

,

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. It's like I've said, the Republicans only talk about abortion for ONE reason...

And that's to point at Democrats and call them "Baby Killers".

[DeSwiss]

21. Here's what He said:

Do Not Judge

Love Your Enemies

A Good Tree Bringeth Forth Good Fruit

- That's the core of His message. The rest is mostly filler.

K&R

[NYC Liberal]

23. Guess Francis didn't get the memo. Since he is very much anti-choice, anti-contraception,

and thinks gays can only be good if they deny their sexuality.

[theHandpuppet]

25. Yep. That's why I thought this cartoon was all about Francis' hypocrisy...

... and gave it a rec. If Jesus had nothing to say about gays, contraception and abortion, why does Francis keep opening his mouth about it? Is the fact that he drives and old car and talks about the rich supposed to make us forget everything else?

[Arugula Latte]

39. Oh, but he washes feet and talked smack about rich people

so that makes his hypocrisy, misogyny and homophobia a-okay!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. This Pope (a Latin one, no less - yay!) is pissing off right wingers big time!

It's about time.

[theHandpuppet]

26. Yeah, well he's pissing off a lot of progressives as well.

An anti-gay, anti-woman bigot wouldn't be my first choice for a role model.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. Incorrect. Catholicism, not someone specific, upsets some no matter what. :) Am I right? nt

[theHandpuppet]

29. Is there some part of my post that was unclear?

I'm talking about FRANCIS, the erstwhile DU folk hero for some folks who can ignore his bigotry. Of course, there are some who might claim that having little tolerance for bigotry is in itself bigotry, which is a neat little trick to deflect from the truth.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. Maybe I didn't. Are you saying that you object to FRANCIS, while not objecting to any other popes,

or you just don't want to discuss any other popes right now?

I stand by what I said. You object to Catholicism. Admit it, state it, and get it over with. Heck, if I'm against something I don't pussyfoot around it. I say it out loud.

[theHandpuppet]

45. I'm responding to the OP

You, apparently, prefer to have your own thread.

Do I object to Francis? Yep, and I've objected to Ratzinger, too... as well as to other religious leaders such as Pat Robertson, Scott Lively, Francis Graham, James Dobson et al. Basically I object to any religious leaders who push hateful dogmas of bigotry and oppression against LGBTs and women. The only difference in this case is that Francis is given a pass by some here whereas I don't and won't.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. You should read the entire piece I have excerpted below

Church’s silence on anti-gay law a sign of complicity

"As a Catholic I am particularly troubled by the silence of the Vatican on this issue. In fact, at the end of March a ceremony was held in Kampala to celebrate the law coming into effect. Catholic Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga of Kampala was part of a group of clergymen (an Anglican bishop, a Muslim sheikh and a Pentecostal bishop) who presented Museveni with a plaque as a gift for signing the bill into law.

Approximately 44 per cent of Uganda’s population is Catholic, meaning the actions of the church hierarchy influence many. Other Ugandan bishops have also come out in support of this draconian law.

On Easter Sunday Bishop Charles Wamika of the Jinja diocese called for “a blessing for Uganda’s Christians who worked so hard to free the land of gays.” He also called for parents to hand over their gay children to the authorities and the parents “would be rewarded in heaven.”
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Offerings+Church+silence+anti+sign+complicity/9801066/story.html

Good Catholics are trying to do something about what is being done in their name. Others are out praising Francis while he is contributing to a great wrong.

[trotsky]

32. No, you're wrong.

Instead you could recognize that the parts of Catholicism that, for instance, exclude all women from significant leadership positions, or officially teach that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered," or seek deny birth control and reproductive choice to even non-Catholics, are highly offensive to anyone with a progressive political view.

But if it's easier to just laugh off those objections by declaring that such progressives are just opposed to "Catholicism," go right ahead. I can't stop you.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. But that *IS* Catholicism. Protestantism is where women have leadership. nt

[trotsky]

44. That's also wrong.

In many Protestant sects, women are forbidden from leadership too.

The Missouri and Wisconsin Synods of Lutheranism, for instance.

[SidDithers]

52. He sure is fooling a lot of progressives...nt

Sid

[theHandpuppet]

60. And the circulation of urban legends is something else to look out for

Several months ago someone posted a thread to DU about Francis sneaking out of the Vatican at night to feed the homeless. Well...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/03/05/pope-francis-strikes-back-church-critics-sex-abuse/1AV6WpnxgqVTLN1Cpj09MJ/story.html

On other matters, Pope Francis expressed frustration with “ideological” interpretations of his words and deeds, with depictions of him as “superman” or a “star,” and with some of the urban myths that have grown up around him.

For instance, Francis cited widely circulated reports that he leaves the Vatican at night incognito to distribute food to homeless people in the area around St. Peter’s Square.

“It never entered my mind to do that,” the pope said....

And that isn't/wasn't the first time a thread has been posted reporting something Francis didn't actually do or say.

[PrestonLocke]

31. It's just PR to get more money n/t

[gopiscrap]

34. So far, this Pope has been way better than Benny

hope he modernizes the Church and brings it into the 21st Century

[Bluenorthwest]

48. His Bishops in Uganda are calling for the elimination of gay people and for parents to turn in

their gay children to the prisons. He says nothing. That will be his legacy.

[Nevernose]

50. To be fair

"Best pope in recent history" is a pretty low bar. The lack of birth control alone is responsible for thousands of deaths in a year worldwide. One could conceivably appoint a serial killer as pope, and he would arguably be responsible for less misery than just about every pope.

So "less evil than Benny" is technically true.

[gopiscrap]

88. I agree

[demosincebirth]

53. +1

[msanthrope]

67. How? Can you point a single change of dogma for the better? nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

64. So what's the over-under on the Pope allowing contraception?

Maybe I'm an optimistic fool, but I get the feeling he just might do something. Something more in like with the realities of the 21st century

[theHandpuppet]

69. There’s no need to change Church teaching on contraception, says Pope Francis in new interview

He'll get credit for doing something when he's actually done something and not before.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/03/05/theres-no-need-to-change-church-teaching-on-contraception-says-pope-francis/
There’s no need to change Church teaching on contraception, says Pope Francis in new interview
By Madeleine Teahan and Francis X Rocca on Wednesday, 5 March 2014

[Arugula Latte]

71. Of course not. This guy is all smoke-and-mirrors PR. And people on DU fall for it over and over ...

[Humanist_Activist]

80. What is the point of posting this inaccurate comic again? n/t

[PeaceNikki]

86. *cough* bullshit *cough*

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/12/02/is_pope_francis_really_that_different_from_his_predecessor.html

Francis is, without a doubt, a far better global salesman for his cause. But it does seem like some of the pope’s new non-Catholic fans are both deluding themselves into thinking that the things they don’t like about Catholicism are going to go away, and ignoring the fact that the things they do like aren’t all that new.