Take a good hard look into the life of new pope. To give an overview he thinks that:

Homosexuality is still a sin. He tells people to respect homosexuals, but whent the Argintinian government is going to make sam-sex marriage legal he says, "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

During his early life he gave up all his fancy posetions (personal cook, facy place to live, chauffeured limo) and made a pledge of poverty. This sounds awefully noble right? Wrong, look at why he had those things to start out with (because he was a cardinal). Think about what the Bible verson of Jesus would have done. He probably wouldn't have even considered giving those things out to preachers of his word anyway. So denying riches should be something that cardinals and popes HAVE to do an shouldn't be praised for. By the way, the pledge of poverty meant that he just had to live like everyone else in the community (what a saint -- sarcasm)

Lastly, there was a criminal complaint filed against him by a human rights lawyer for the abduction of two Jesuit priests. However, there was no evidence to prove that he had anything to do with it. :)

Please leave your thoughts and comments on the new pope

Tags: argentina, atheism, catholic, christian, church, corruption, francis, pope, power, religion, More…the, zealots

Views: 3076

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, overall he did claim to be here to 'fulfill' the law - but it's very difficult to determine what that meant when he himself regularly broke Rabbinic law and rarely uttered specific prohibitions.  The obvious meaning is that the various authors weren't well enough acquainted with the concept of literary analysis to keep their stories straight - but from a Christian perspective it really allows for divine justification/prohibition of pretty much whatever they like.

The obvious meaning is that the various authors weren't well enough acquainted with the concept of literary analysis to keep their stories straight...

That's what makes it so great. I mean, so much of of our society is coloured deeply by this hackish writing (by more contemporary standards, at least): it's one of the darkest fucking comedies of all time.

I mean, the writing was so bad that it almost required illiteracy to be appreciated.

I started reading one of the gospels again last year, now that the 'magic' has totally worn off, and it was painful.  So he was walking along and said to two guys, "come with me" and they dropped what they were doing and followed.  Then they went for dinner and listened to all the cool things he said - blah blah blah - it is SOOO obviously written for those already familiar with the cult.

 

Why so angry Heather? ... Why are you on the attack?

Im sure its in the New Testiment - Ill find something for you a little later if you like but please... dont project your dislike for religion on to me ... Settle Down

Thanks

Not angry - just irritated by the sort of misinformation I usually expect to hear from theists.  If you want to say that Jesus said something, then please cite it - because he has to be the most misquoted figure in history.

 

What theist? ... Where????

You do realize that Catholics aren't fundamentalists, right?   We're the ones that wrote and compiled the Bible.  We're very aware that those are human words.  We believe God can inspire and guide humans, but the words are human.  Particularly since they're typically translations of the original!

A pope does not enforce God's laws.  That's God's job.  Churches and priests and popes are just teachers.  They do their best to compile and annotate and teach about God and the universe.  There's no "enforcement".  God and the universe are what they are, and people always have free will to be ignorant, whether it's about climate change or sexual morality.  All churches try to do is teach what is right.

Have you noticed that when you get a doctorate in a science like Physics, you wear monks' robes to your graduation, where you receive a cleric's hood?  That's because the cataloging and teaching of knowledge started with the Church. 

For enforcement, you have to look to the State.

You do realize that Catholics aren't fundamentalists, right?

There are many different Catholic sects, that some would consider to be fundamentalist. At the very least fundamentalism is a matter of degrees..

That's because the cataloging and teaching of knowledge started with the Church. 

So, there were no Universities and Libraries before the Catholic Church existed? Lol.

Don't know if you're trolling, or just ignorant.

@Dr.Grixis, you are correct in that I was speaking of Roman Catholicism, not any of the other Catholic sects, though to my knowledge none would be fundamentalist.  Can you name one that you believe is?

Yes, my language on the second point was unfortunate and unintended.  There were of course bodies of learning and scholarship before Christianity; indeed, Christianity borrowed the scholarship of Judaism.  The point was only that the concept of Western Universities was one that grew out of, and still retains the trappings of, Roman Catholicism.

The Platonic Academy (sometimes referred to as the University of Athens), founded ca. 387 BC in Athens, Greece, by the philosopher Plato, lasted 916 years (until 529 AD) with interruptions.  It was emulated during the Renaissance by the Florentine Platonic Academy, whose members saw themselves as following Plato's tradition. [wikipedia]

I think the Greeks beat them to it.

@ Professor Robert,

Of course, fundamentalism is a term that has a loaded meaning and depending on what kind of characteristics you assign to it, you could argue that certain catholic sects are most likely fundamentalist, while the RCC is considered by some to be fundamentalist based upon their (strict) adherence to dogma/doctrines, many would argue that it's at least a much less fundamentalist version of Christianity than, for instance, the Jehova's Witnesses.

So, before we could argue (if we have to) about which catholic sect is, or is not, fundamentalist we would first have to agree on what is fundamentalism, especially because it's most often taken to mean the protestant flavor of Christianity. 

To be honest, it's not that I really want a debate/discussion about it, I would hope that we can agree that fundamentalism is a matter of degree(s)?

The point was only that the concept of Western Universities was one that grew out of, and still retains the trappings of, Roman Catholicism.

Western civilization has a lot of it's roots in the RCC, which has a lot of it's roots in the Roman Empire/Society, which had a lot of it's roots in Ancient Greece. For sure, a lot of the structure was borrowed/inspired from seminaries etc.

What I mean to say is that Western Civilization (and Universities) were not build or thought of in one day, and for sure the main contributor in regards to religious culture in Western Europe for centuries was the RCC. It is therefor of course very logical to see the RCC's influence in many of today's institutions.

The RCC did quite some good stuff, by preserving a lot of the texts (culture and knowledge) of the ancient world, of course with hindsight I would argue that they could have done a lot better of a job at it, but then again, I've seen religions (and political parties) do a lot worse in a shorter time frame. 

That being said, when you said "All churches try to do is teach what is right." all I could think of is that for me the main reason why I dislike the RCC is because the clergy is so convinced that what they are doing is right, and that the RCC is good, that they are blinded to all evidence to the contrary. 

Their strict belief that the RCC is right and good stops them from being critical towards their religion, and it stops them from improving matters. (I'm thinking of contraception among other subjects).

Also, let me please retract my earlier "Don't know if you're trolling, or just ignorant." remark, thanks for the clarification.

The whole thing about education was that the clergy was to be educated (and the wealthy) to better control the people during the Middle Ages. If no one but the clergy could read scripture, then no one can argue with their lethal dogmas.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service