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

Views: 3500

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Milos, do you mean something like this:

"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"
-- Adolph Hitler --

"I trust God speaks through me."
-- George W. Bush --

Religious and Atheists know that man on man sexual intercourse is not a sickness but a personal choice and thats how it should be treated.

If so, then so is choosing to be heterosexual. Do you remember the day when you checked off the heterosexual box?

You got that backwards, church should no longer be involved in marriage. I know it was originally a religious thing, but times change and so should that.  

Marriage was not originally a religious thing, they stole that too.

Oh you are right! I completely forgot, thanks for that. Either way, I think its reasonable that religion doesn't have anything to do with marriage. It is absurd that a loving God would condemn love between homosexuals.

The issue is not what God would condemn, but what God would choose for us as the best choice for us.

Would a loving God choose "love" between a man and multiple female partners/spouses as the best choice, the one to aspire to, do you think?

Would a loving God condemn "love" between a man and a young teenage boy?

Absent a religious perspective based on a few thousand years of social experimentation and testing, how does one decide which "love" should be pursued, or tolerated, or condemned?

Possibly my own views summarize your statement above - I don't recognize states such as "good" or "bad," "right" or "wrong," as these are indefinable and as such, not quantifiable. I do find that the terms, "helpful" and "harmful" are.

Aside from which god and verifying that such a being exists - if we just shortcut and assume the god of your cult then he/it definitely saw polygamy and incest as viable choices.

RE: "a religious perspective based on a few thousand years of social experimentation and testing" - it has indeed been that, Bob, and overall, unless one is cherry-picking, it must be said that that perspective has been found seriously wanting.

And yet as theories go, remarkably successful.  Far more successful than atheism. 

Because the religious perspective tells us about heart warming love-stories about women marrying their rapists and getting taken as booty after war right? Yeah, atheism lacks that.

Quite likely because unlike religion, atheism neither has or seeks a power-base from which to enforce edicts for 2000 years. But are forced achievements really success?


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service