Pope Francis, Another Zealot?
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…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on -
That's sad, if true, but only points out what we atheists already know, among humans, unfortunately, all too often, "different" is bad.
-
Permalink Reply by Stutz on -
What about ignoring them the same way they ignore the rest of the Levitical proclamations about mixed fibers and shellfish and so forth? All of that is plainly stated, but only the homosexuality thing is harped on in the year of our Lord 2013.
-
Permalink Reply by MikeLong on -
"(atheist) eyes are on them."
As far as I'm concerned, the more conservative the Pope the better. The larger the droves rushing for the exit.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
Oh please, Angela! Where exactly did Jesus say, "Love the person but hate the act"? Furthermore, where did he condemn homosexuality? If you want to pull up old testament shit then explain why Catholics eat pork or wear clothing made of mixed fabric.
In the end, he's the head honcho of the longest running, continuous game of make believe.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
And over and over and over? Sounds kinky, :D
-
Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on -
Jesus said a lot of shit. Matthew 5: 17-48 seems to condemn homosexuality implicitly, yet also commands his followers to love their enemies. I don't think 'enemies' was meant as 'sinners', but you'd have to figure the same principle would apply. Then again, I'm sure I am wrong and there is some clever interpretation whereby Jesus was really just telling us to eat liquorice and scratch behind cats' ears.
Then somewhere in Acts some other dudes were all like, "Naw man, the gentiles can't handle all that. Let's cut 'em some slack on some of this stuff." 'Fornication' was one of the items which remained taboo, but exactly what is meant by 'fornication' in context, I know not.
[edited to insert chapter no.]
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
Do you mean verses 17-48 of chapter 5? Those are the most common verses used to support old testament law - but nothing specific about homosexuality is stated.
-
Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on
-
Yes, I missed a digit. Like I said, it is implicit. Explain how it can not be.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
The general party line amongst Christians is that he was not here to abolish the law but fulfill the law -> meaning he was not absolving any who came before but was, rather, fulfilling the prophecy that a messiah would deliver a new covenant. Don't ask me where that new covenant is referenced because it's been 20 years since I studied that bullshit.
In any event, Christianity, almost in its entirety, believes that the prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus died (even though he didn't) and therefore the new covenant came into effect at that point. They then go on to define that new covenant by denomination -> essentially freelancing their own covenant but none of them conforming to old testament law anymore.
-
Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on
-
Problematically, his command in those lines was for his followers to follow a very rigid version of the law of Moses. What Christianity says is good and fine, but the question asked was what Jesus said.
-
Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on
-
To be clear, it's not my intent to debate the finer points of what Christians should or should not do in accordance with their faith when neither of us advocate Christianity -- personally, I'll sex up as many dudes as I feel like regardless of Christ or Christians --, but the topic of what Jesus said is, from my perspective, a delightfully bizarre thing in itself.
What's new today
Forum
EMPOWERING WOMEN!!!!!!!!
Started by Belle Rose in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Cathy Cooper 23 minutes ago. 115 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 6 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
