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: 3062

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you look at christianity, to commit a crime (sin) you dont need to perform that action you only need to think of doing it. Christians also realise that they are held accountable for all their "sins" including the ones they thought of but havent actioned.

Thought crime. Which means a crime impossible not to commit. Which means all of you are guilty. And guilt is the warm glue that binds religion together.

If you think about it, the only thing stopping someone from committing homicide that is contemplating on doing so is the law.

If you think about it, the only thing stopping a dog from shitting on the floor is punishment. So essentially, your religious system of reward-and-punishment has reduced you to nothing but a canine.

RE: "Yes I like the opposite sex, but I cant say I wouldnt enjoy same sex" - I'm not sure that's the issue here J Mc - the question is, do you feel attracted to members of the same sex? I personally, am not, and I don't consider that to be a conscious choice on my part.

For example if Halle Berry and - hell, I can't even think of any handsome guys, that's how much attention I pay - OK, say John Stamos, were standing side by side, I might look at Stamos and think, "that's a good looking guy," but I would look at Halle, and go, "Hamna, hamna, hamna --!" - there would be no "choice" involved, my attraction to Halle would be instant and automatic, and I would have to assume that the same is true of one attracted to a member of their own sex.

Personally, I can't imagine waking up every morning and asking myself, "Hm, what sex do I want to be attracted to today?" Can you?

lololol likewise but its still a choice. Personal preference can always change. I used to hate avocados with a passion. People would say here try it? Id shudder and say yuck that tastes like shit. Then one day I had guacamole and I couldnt get enough of it and I didnt care it was avocado. Now I LOVEE avocados. So it still falls under personal choice, some males are just attracted to males. Hell some males are more attracted to sheep than their wives. Personal choice haha.

RE: "some males are just attracted to males" - and this, J Mc, is exactly what we've been saying --

Yah its what Ive been saying using different words lol

Sorry, I didn't recognize them.

Unfortunately those words you (J Mc) have been using are also used by the idiots who insist it is a personal choice (in the "I feel like being gay today" camp) and they will argue it is some sort of thing you can be cured of, an illness, etc.  This is why Strega's big alarm went off when she read them; it sounded homophobic on your part, to her and to a lot of us.  Now when I read the rest of the things you wrote I kind of suspected what you were trying to say and I am happy to see I was right.  You were using "choice" more as if it were "something you should be and are allowed to do."

Were it not for the rednecks running around bashing "fags" on a daily basis (mostly but not entirely on theocratic grounds) it really wouldn't matter whether it was genetic, environmental in the womb, environmental in early, early childhood, or a "what the hell" choice five minutes before the clothes come off as to whether you were going to go after men or women, as what you do with the parts would be no one's business but your own and that of the other adults whose consent you need for whatever it is you plan to do.

But unfortunately we don't live in such a world, and we do have people trying to call it a neurosis and a mental illness and a sin, so please (as a favor to our friends who chase people with the same plumbing they themselves have) don't phrase it that way.

J Mc, you have some points upon which I agree, some on which I don't, and a couple I would have to question.

First, I absolutely agree that government and religion don't mix, which is why our Founding Fathers sought to separate Church and State.

I also agree that churches should be allowed to decline religious marriages under any of their own regulations as they wish, because the government, if it continues to maintain its separation, has no right to set religious rules, quite unlike America's Religious Right, which is trying to influence the rules that the US government makes.

On the other hand, I believe one can find many reasons as to why the government got into the marriage business, and while I can't discount that one of them might be a form of control, I also can't say that it is actually a reason, or if it is, that it is the only one. Another possible reason could well be that the government wanted to allow people the opportunity to marry without affiliating that marriage with any particular religious institution.

I also know, that while churches may well be exempt from most civil rights obligations, governments, however, are not, in fact, they are obligated to enforce them, and if the law of the land permits gay marriage, government institutions, such as Justices of the Peace, Judges, and other civil servants authorized to do so, are required to facilitate those marriages.

As for homosexuality being a sin, that is purely a religious concept, and since, as an atheist, I reject ALL religious concepts, I do not recognize the concept you label as, "sin."

Further, the causes of homosexuality are still not firmly decided. There is one school that maintains that the tendency for a person to be attracted exclusively to members of their own sex is hardwired into them at birth. There are others who believe that in every instance of Human behavior, one can never totally separate heredity from environment.

What is NOT agreed upon by any school of thought with which I'm familiar, is that homosexuality is a clear and conscious "choice." I suppose that COULD be said of ONE given instance - the decision to be sexual or to remain celibate - a homosexual person could conceivably choose to remain celibate, but assuming they have a normal, healthy sex drive, I see no reason why they would be inclined to do so.

But as for clearly and consciously choosing with which sex one would become sexual, that choice, according to all serious scientific research - whether of the heredity or the environment school of thought - would appear to be out of everyone's hands.

Yes, I agree it might be nice and tidy if everyone preferred vanilla ice cream, but that is simply not the case, which is what keeps Baskin Robbins in business --

Agree with most of what you say. One thing I do notice is that atheist do seem to look at science alot. The first lesson I learnt in science was this "Science is theory not truth or fact, this is why we call it theory" Theres no reason to look for answers as to why someone would prefer man on man or girl on girl because they still have no idea how thought comes to be. Now that Im starting to think of Quantum physics I think I better stop there lol. 

On a side note, why do they never talk about how men might not like man on man but have no issues with girl on girl lolol.

@J Mc, RE: "Science is theory not truth or fact, this is why we call it theory" - where did you learn your science, "Answers In Genesis"? As many here can explain to you much better than I, in REAL science, the term, theory, means a great more than simply an educated guess.

Uhm, I can only assume you were home-schooled by semi-illiterate parents.  Scientific theories are not called 'theories' because they lack truth or fact, but because they describe natural phenomenon and allow one to predict other natural phenomena.  Music 'theory' doesn't mean music isn't 'true' or a 'fact' - it is called music theory because it is a collection of the observed phenomenon that allow one to predict how certain notes will fit together.

I learnt my science in the same place Earnest Rutherford was born. The person who gave birth to Nuclear Physics the person who split the atom. It doesnt matter where I learnt my science what matters is that there is a movement now where science has suddenly changed by people to say it is the opposite to religion when in fact it isnt, its far from it. Its a study not truth or fact and alot of people turn to it because they need something to believe in even though it isnt truth nor fact but a study lol.

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 Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service