Pope attacks UK equality

blacbird said:

I agree. It's a phony argument, and poor strategy as well. It doesn't matter whether it's a "choice" or not. Toss the ball back into the anti-gay court: So it's a choice. People are free to make choices, are they not?

caw

Click to expand...

Exactly. And if they say, well, it is a bad choice, we ask them how they know and they reference 2 lines out of a book written by a plethora of different writers, all of whom were from a different time and place and likely brought some of their own political and ideological biases into what they interpreted or thought they interpreted as the word of God. Granted, this won't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced, but I always like to point out that the only thing we ever supposedly received direct from God are the ten commandments...not eleven.

Mr. Anonymous said:

Exactly. And if they say, well, it is a bad choice, we ask them how they know and they reference 2 lines out of a book written by a plethora of different writers, all of whom were from a different time and place and likely brought some of their own political and ideological biases into what they interpreted or thought they interpreted as the word of God.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is another poor argument. The premise behind the Bible is that a God powerful enough to create the universe is certainly capable of ensuring that His Bible says what He wants it to say.

I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of this. I'm saying that as an argument to be used with a believer, it is flawed. It will have no more effect than if a believer uses the Bible as a source condemning homosexuality, since you do not accept the basic premise that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

And all these attacks on the Pope for standing up for what he believes are disgusting. Bunch of anti-religious bigots here.

Click to expand...

Yes, well as it so happens, many of the Pope's beliefs cause enormous harm, so it is quite natural for people to attack his reckless words. And we're not just talking about his bigoted views on homosexuality.
Among other things, he's also opposed to:

women priests

in vitro fertilization

stem cell research

birth control, including the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS and other STD's.


If he were to keep his ideas to himself, perhaps he wouldn't be an object of criticism, but as head of a major religion, millions of people listen to--and unfortunately follow his bad advice. So it is up to people of conscience everywhere to challenge him every time he tries to meddle in human nature.

Roger J Carlson said:

Actually, this is another poor argument. The premise behind the Bible is that a God powerful enough to create the universe is certainly capable of ensuring that His Bible says what He wants it to say.

I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of this. I'm saying that as an argument to be used with a believer, it is flawed. It will have no more effect than if a believer uses the Bible as a source condemning homosexuality, since you do not accept the basic premise that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but the bible is not HIS bible. It is OUR bible. We wrote it ABOUT him. We have no way of knowing whether he did in fact INSPIRE us to write about him or not. Neither do we have anyway of knowing for sure that those whom he did inspire (IF he did) didn't inject their own biases into their interpretation of his word.

But I can see how this may not be convincing to a believer , so I will also argue purely from a religious framework.

For the bible to be completely true, the people who heard his word could only have interpreted it ONE way, and that would be a violation of free will, would it not? And didn't God give us all free will? Sure, God COULD have made the Bible say everything he wanted it to (because he is all powerful), but he DIDN'T (just as he could have revealed himself to all of us, but hasn't), because to do so would be to have taken (take) the power of interpretation/choice out of "our" hands. Just as we have the choice of whether or not to believe in him, we also have the choice of HOW to believe in him. The writers of the bible ALSO had that choice.

Woof said:

he's also opposed to:

in vitro fertilization

stem cell research


If he were to keep his ideas to himself, perhaps he wouldn't be an object of criticism, but as head of a major religion, millions of people listen to--and unfortunately follow his bad advice. So it is up to people of conscience everywhere to challenge him every time he tries to meddle in human nature.

Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think he has a problem with all stem cell research, merely the stem cell research that sacrifices (to his mind) a human life in order to sustain an existing human life. In Vitro Fertilization runs into similar problems (Yes, it brings about life, but to get there many embryos that are not deemed as "promising," the ones that are supposed to be likely to miscarry and/or to have some kind of problems if they do survive to birth, are disposed of.)

If you are against abortion, then the quoted stances follow fairly naturally. I am a lefty myself, but I've thought a lot about it and finally decided that I have to side with the conservatives on abortion. I'm not an absolutist, but it does rub me the wrong way when you imply that someone who believes he is speaking out to save human lives (and who, from a biological perspective is doing just that...embryos have human dna, not a fly's, and are a human life in the earliest stages of development) is giving "bad advice."

For the bible to be completely true, the people who heard his word could only have interpreted it ONE way, and that would be a violation of free will, would it not? And didn't God give us all free will? Sure, God COULD have made the Bible say everything he wanted it to (because he is all powerful), but he DIDN'T (just as he could have revealed himself to all of us, but hasn't), because to do so would be to have taken (take) the power of interpretation/choice out of "our" hands. Just as we have the choice of whether or not to believe in him, we also have the choice of HOW to believe in him. The writers of the bible ALSO had that choice.

Click to expand...

Exactly. God can take away our free will or God can let us have free will--but not at the same time. This was an idea discussed in Comparative Religions Class at my university--that God being "all-powerful" mean simply that God can do anything that can be done, not anything that can be imagined.

This was an idea discussed in Comparative Religions Class

Click to expand...

True, and that's probably where this discussion belongs.

We're well off the topic of the OP here.

Williebee said:

True, and that's probably where this discussion belongs.

We're well off the topic of the OP here.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't intend to spark a theological debate.

My point was that if you are going to argue with any hope of convincing (as opposed to just yelling at each other), you have to agree on basic assumptions (at least for the sake of the argument). Thus, if you are debating about homosexuality with someone who believes that the Bible is literally God's Word, you can't use the argument that the Bible was just written by a bunch of men. (Well, you can, but you're not going to convince them.)

DavidZahir said:

Just to be nitpicky, nobody burned anybody at Salem. They were hanged. And it was the Puritans who did it.

On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church did burn other people elsewhere. And--fair is fair--Catholic charities and universities did enormous good. Continues to do so. I say this as a non-Catholic.

Click to expand...

Religious intolerance is not limited to any one denomination. Protestant Oliver Cromwell massacred thousands of Irish Catholics in about 1649; Elizabeth I of England began persecuting and even executing Catholics in a atrocious tit for tat after her half sister Mary burned Protestants at Smithfield.

Roger J Carlson said:

So if this hatred of Catholics (or those who follow the Pope's declared beliefs) leads to violence toward Catholics*, is it okay to hate the Catholic-haters? When does the hatred end?

*If you don't think this can happen, just remember Northern Ireland.

Click to expand...

Some of us with personal ties never forget.

The situation there is as much - if not more - political and cultural as religious. It's not simple to understand and it certainly doesn't boil down to nothing but a Protestant versus Catholic issue. You would have to understand a thousand years of Irish history to even begin to grasp what chasm lies between.

Roger J Carlson said:

Sorry, I didn't intend to spark a theological debate.

My point was that if you are going to argue with any hope of convincing (as opposed to just yelling at each other), you have to agree on basic assumptions (at least for the sake of the argument). Thus, if you are debating about homosexuality with someone who believes that the Bible is literally God's Word, you can't use the argument that the Bible was just written by a bunch of men. (Well, you can, but you're not going to convince them.)

Click to expand...

It'd be interesting to ask them to try to take God out from their arguments. Then it'd be only their own beliefs speaking.

It'd be interesting to ask them to try to take God out from their arguments. Then it'd be only their own beliefs speaking.

Click to expand...

Interesting, but most likely not possible, since it is individual belief in God and what they believe their God stands for, that is at the starting point of the argument. Unless, of course, you argued that it was an individual's fear that is at the starting point. But even that is founded in what the individual has learned to believe.

The link in the OP still begs the question of what about that whole "render unto Caesar", thing, from Matthew, Mark and Luke?

Mr. Anonymous said:

If you are against abortion, then the quoted stances follow fairly naturally. I am a lefty myself, but I've thought a lot about it and finally decided that I have to side with the conservatives on abortion. I'm not an absolutist, but it does rub me the wrong way when you imply that someone who believes he is speaking out to save human lives (and who, from a biological perspective is doing just that...embryos have human dna, not a fly's, and are a human life in the earliest stages of development) is giving "bad advice."

Click to expand...

You will note that I didn't include abortion on the list of things opposed by the Pope. While I am pro-choice myself, I respect those who support a pro-life position based on the sanctity of life. What I do not respect is when someone takes a pro-life position on abortion, and then takes a contradictory position on the use of condoms, warning against their use, when it has been clearly established that the use of condoms helps prevent the spread of AIDS. So yes, in this instance it is outrageously bad advice when the Pope states that condom use in Africa actually increases the spread of HIV, when the reality is the exact opposite.