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: 3133

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's sad, if true, but only points out what we atheists already know, among humans, unfortunately, all too often, "different" is bad.

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.

"(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.

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.

Ah, Heather... makes me want to 'friend' you all over again :)

And over and over and over?  Sounds kinky, :D

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.]

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.

Yes, I missed a digit. Like I said, it is implicit. Explain how it can not be.

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.

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.

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.


Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 1 Comment

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 7 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service