In just the last hour it’s been announced that Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, a German, will be the 265th inheritor of the Apostolic See, and that he’ll adopt the title of Benedict - “partron of Europe”.
Benedict XVI has been received to a rapturous reception in St. Peter’s Square, which certainly bodes well for the future. I hope that everyone will pray for his success as Pope and steward of the Church. And, in setting himelf against the debilitating secularism and dictatorship of relativism that cripples the continent. it’ll be a Papacy that needs vigour and determination.
The last pope was conservative too. That’s one thing I don’t understand about a lot of people who are liberals. They claim to be accepting of people no matter what race, religion, nationality, or sexual preference you are and are supposed to be the group that understands people…but that’s not the same when it comes to conservatives… (Sad Picaso Face) %(
That speculation’sfrom some America priest.For me they clearly aimed at experience so that the new Pope would have what it takes to live up to John Paul’s legacy.
The last pope was conservative too. That’s one thing I don’t understand about a lot of people who are liberals. They claim to be accepting of people no matter what race, religion, nationality, or sexual preference you are and are supposed to be the group that understands people…but that’s not the same when it comes to conservatives… (Sad Picaso Face) %([/quote]
Oh a certain amount of conservatism is certainly needed, let’s not swipe away the very foundations of our society, in itself, I don’t mind conservative people, it’s the ones who push the issue that I can mind a bit. =D (Like Dabuya)
That’s a common comment I hear about liberals, though not entirely fair, I think. Something that both conservatives and liberals alike are guilty of is broad-brush generalizing of the opposite side… which leads to knee-jerk reactions when someone says, “He/She is a conservative/liberal.”
That being said, I think the reason why a lot of liberals have a negative reaction toward any conservative leader figure is that conservativism has a tendency (particularly on the extreme ends) of restricting various aspects of culture (whether or not it is good or bad is a separate argument). Liberals feel that if conservatives want to live their life conservatively, they can do so on their own accord… however, they do not wish to be bound by the same “arbitrary” moral codes.
For example: the gay marriage issue in the US. Many liberals understand why a lot of Christian conservatives are against it, as it says in the Bible that it is “an abomination before God” (let’s forget, for a moment, that in the same book within the Bible, it also states that a man should be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath, that a woman is not to enter the house while menstruating, and that it is okay for a man to sell his daughter into slavery, but that is, again, another argument). However, the liberal thinking is, “Hey, if you don’t like it, then simply don’t marry someone of the same sex.” However, many (not all) conservatives wish to have it outlawed right out… to force their beliefs upon the rest of the nation.
Now, you might argue that the liberals are doing the same, but not quite. The liberal view gives people the freedom to do as they wish, without forcing people to change their own lives.
See the difference? Again, not all liberals follow this mindset, but it is generally what being a liberal is supposed to mean. Nowadays, the media has twisted everything into black & white, right vs. left, so it’s difficult for people to sometimes remember what they’re actually arguing about…
Do we even need to bring the Bible into this? For example, abortion is actively promoted in our societies for almost no other reason than to lift the heavy burden of potential unwanted teenage pregnancies from the shoulders of an ailing/thriving economy.
In the same vein, why shouldn’t any government overtly seek to promote heterosexual bondings when considering the fact that they are the cornerstone of any given society?
i think a lot of people who accuse the church for being out of touch and not modernising are forgetting the principles it’s been built on.
They suppose to reflect the ideal morals of man. It’s understandable that condoms would not be approved because essentially they don’t condone sex before marriage. A person technically should follow this example of this belif of the catholic church. People can’t then scream at them because they choose to not follow this standpoint and then they end upcatching something. however i don’t see anything wrong with women being cardinals as there is no reason why they should n’t.Also it need s to face up to those kiddie molesters that they have in their and clean house as this is an evil that has inflitrated the insituation and must be dealt with before it consumes it. But in the case of accepting homosexual pratices that is specifically pointed out in their doctrine as being a sin and evil. In this decadent society that we live in I wouldn’t want any church to condone things like that because essentially one of the reasons why the church existed today is because back in the old days, ancient societies was basically destroyed by their decandence and selfishness and they had to create a system that maintained moral values to protect society from their own desires.
The church has never been a liberal equal politically correct insituation and i would n’t expect it to be. but it does need a few changes but in keeping with the teachings.
Yes, this is true, but it’s a matter of where that bar is placed. The word “liberal” implies that the bar is set at a level that is less restrictive to the people in general.
At least in America, when dealing with gay marriage, it is the only argument used in opposition of it, so yes, we do.
Not entirely. Many people (particularly the feminists that I know) are pro-choice simply because it is their body that is being legislated. There is a fuzzy line of where the mother ends and the fetus begins, and it’s impossible to make that call.
[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]In the same vein, why shouldn’t any government overtly seek to promote heterosexual bondings when considering the fact that they are the cornerstone of any given society?
Why the double standard?[/quote]
This implies that the moment they allow gay marriage, a large portion of the population will suddenly “get the gay” and start dating/marrying the same sex. Do you believe this to be true? Heterosexuals will continue to do what they do (i.e. breed), and gays will continue to do what they do (i.e. date each other), and the only difference would be that the government would recognize the legal bond between two people of the same sex.
I take back my earlier statement about religion being the only argument against gay marriage. There is the argument that it would “destroy the family unit.” Again, I ask, would legalizing gay marriage really endanger heterosexual families? Are we that afraid of gays that we think our fathers/husbands/whatever will suddenly begin to look at other guys in the locker room differently because it’s now legal to marry them?
This brings us back to an earlier thread about morality. Just remember, the morals of the Church are not the same morals of everyone in the world. I consider myself an upstanding citizen: I don’t steal, I don’t cheat, I help old ladies cross the road, or get up out of my seat on the bus when someone elderly boards… Yet, I don’t follow the same moral code that the Church does. They are not the “morals of man.” They are simply the morals of the Church.
And what about married couples that simply can’t afford to have more children? Are they supposed to not have any sex at all, since they’re not allowed to use birth control? What about the poor countries in the world that follow the Catholic faith… are they simply to keep breeding, thus keeping themselves in poverty?
Word.
…Guh?
First, again, I ask you to re-read Leviticus. Why is it the anti-homosexuality quote is the only one people seem to adhere to these days? Why the selective following of what is written in the Bible? And again, it’s the Old Testament… I thought the coming of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament was supposed to correct all that and teach a message of love, not the message of wrath and vengeance that was the old God?
And how is homosexuality “decadence”? Do heterosexuals not partake in the same levels of this “decadence” that you speak of? Head to any singles’ bar on a Friday night. Now tell me they all have pure intentions at heart.
And how is it that homosexuality was the cause of the fall of ancient Rome (which is when the Catholic Church was established)? The fall of Rome came about through corrupt politics, over-expansion of the Empire, and ultimately, through military defeat at the hands of the Germanic tribes to the north. So, Unless the Germanic tribes came to inflict mad, homosexual orgies upon the people of Rome, I’m going to have to politely disagree with you on that one
Decadence and selfishness isn’t just exclusive to gays and i would have thought that people would know that. I didn’t in any way make any link that they themselves are the only ones doing it it’s just a symptom of the overall
decadence of any society in the terms that you have just described. So don’t try to make out like i did, I said decadence and the church shouldn’t condone things like that. which by that very word covers anything of immoral behavior.
That was the part that I was talking about… If that wasn’t your intent, I apologize, but you sure make it sound like you feel that the Church shouldn’t condone homosexuality because it is a major contributor to our decadent society.
But, again, if I misconstrued your point, I apologize.
You could argue that the pro-abortion/pro-choice movement is a smokescreen camouflaging another agenda: reducing teenage pregnancies that would otherwise put a drain on the economy. Now if this all was propaganda “encouraged” by government officials to keep teenage pregnancies in check, wouldn’t you find that the least bit cold-hearted?
What’s next? Stem cell researchers funding pro-choice abortion campaigns? How about teaching children that a fetus is nothing more than a parasitic clump of cells growing out of control like a cancer which is in urgent need of termination (that’s a nice little euphemism there)?
As for the issue of abortion itself, have you seen a fetus at 12 weeks? Pro-abortion campaigners have always emphasized the supposed “fact” that a fetus simply isn’t human during the first few months of growth when the truth of the matter is just by looking at a 12 week old fetus, which bears all the hallmarks of a growing human being (with arms, eyes etc), it has simply become impossible to dehumanize him/her. Abortions are still being carried out at 22-24 weeks despite this new evidence coming to light. Some of the more radical feminists still wouldn’t hesitate even for a second to terminate unwanted pregnancies, even if that unborn child was almost fully grown from the moment of conception. They won’t allow anything to stand between them and their precious independence. Pro-life campaigners seek to protect the lives of unborn children from mothers, who more often than not, put their lives before the life of their child. Abortion is even being used as a form of contraception in this day and age without consequences. How can anyone possibly condone that in good conscience?
I guess we’ll know just as soon as religion is abolished. If the whole world starts swinging both ways, then we’ll know for certain that something isn’t quite right. I mean, look at ancient Greece: men were taught that women were incomplete men, and laws had to be passed forcing men to breed with women. Ultimately, the ancient caucasian Greeks were bred out of existence. Putting ideas into people’s heads can be far more damaging in the long-run than you might initially realise.
Here’s what Jesus had to say on the matter: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Mark, chapter 10, verse 9.
If heterosexual bondings are vital to the survival of our species, why encourage anything else? That’s one of the reasons behind giving married couples TAX privileges etc etc. Don’t we want more people to breed in order to bring the next generation of worker drones into the world? Doesn’t a workforce make the world go round, or am I just being too cynical in this den of capitalism?
What about them? Is it actually a child? Or is it less than a child? Is not a sperm, then, an unborn child? How about an egg? Should those have rights, too? Where do you draw the line? That’s exactly my point.
Considering that most of the people that I know that are pro-choice are either feminists or actual scientists/doctors, I highly doubt they’ve been influenced by government propaganda to discourage teen pregnancy.
Why not just teach the children that the fetus is a part of their body, and that their body is their temple?
Yes I have. And does having arms and legs classify something as human? So, if you were to remove a fetus from the mother’s womb at 12 weeks, it could function as a being capable of surviving without the mother’s body? Again, I ask, where does the mother end, and where does the fetus begin? They share the same blood… the same food… everything. How do you determine where she ends, and the unborn fetus begins?
I do not begin to pretend to know where that line is. Are 22-24 week abortions acceptable? I don’t know. Nobody knows. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and that’s where they determined to do it. Does that mean we should outlaw abortions outright? I don’t think so.
Let’s not even begin to talk about the propaganda against partial birth abortions…
Please show me where “caucasian Greeks” were bred out of existence due to the rampant homosexuality…
And do you honestly honestly believe that the moment they legalize gay marriage (we’re simply talking about marriage, now… being gay is legal, last time I checked), that suddenly the entire population of heterosexual men will prefer other men? So, why is it that gay bars and such aren’t completely full to capacity across the nation right now? I’ve got plenty of gay friends who are very open about it… never once have I been tempted to play for the other team.
You are using that quote out of context. Mark, chapter 10, verse 2 proposes the question to which verse 9 is the answer: “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.”
It speaks only about divorce, not about gay marriage. And if you are against gay marriage, and if gay marriage is illegal, then why isn’t divorce? Jesus is plainly against that.
Correction: married couples do NOT get tax priveleges. Married couples have tax INCREASES (I should know… I just got engaged and have been looking into it). The recent tax reform has lessened this burden, but it is a common misconception that married couples get tax benefits, but it is only if they have children.
And as for “why encourage anything else,” I go back to my earlier statement. Heterosexual couples will continue to do what they do. And besides, gay couples can adopt, right? So, all those poor children who were abandoned by their hetersexual parents, or lost their parents in tragedy can grow up within a family unit and become active members in society. Gay couples can also have children with in vitro fertilization or through surrogate mothers. The government already supports those… That makes the whole gay issue rather moot, doesn’t it?
And on a final note, and this isn’t directed at you Geoffrey, but I see my questions about Leviticus have gone unanswered :(. There are two passages that speak out against homosexuality in the Bible: Leviticus 18, 22 and Leviticus 20, 13. But why are those the only ones people seem to remember? Even in the same chapter, it clearly states that a man should be put to death for commiting adultery (Leviticus 20, 10), or even if you curse your father or mother, you should be put to death (Leviticus 20, 9). Should people stop eating pork rinds or playing football, because touching a dead pig’s skin is “unclean.”
It’s these inconsistencies that I don’t understand…
[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]
What about the rights of the unborn children?
What’s next? Stem cell researchers funding pro-choice abortion campaigns? How about teaching children that a fetus is nothing more than a parasitic clump of cells growing out of control like a cancer which is in urgent need of termination (that’s a nice little euphemism there)?[/quote]
Ok, first of all, “unborn children” is an oxymoron. A human being who has just been born is a child, an infant, a baby. If the child hasn’t been born it isn’t a child, it’s a fetus. If it’s at 36 weeks and has consciousness then you could argue it is a child, but at 12 weeks, it is just as you say: a lump of cells.
It’s got arms and legs, yeah. So do Gorillas. So do monkeys. So do Meercats. Having arms and legs isn’t a totally “human” thing, it applies across the spectrum. And the point is that it is not a human being until it gains consciousness, which, based on my knowledge is past the 20 week point.
The catholic church does not condone contraception of any sort other than withdrawal and calendar watching, and even then it’s rather downtrodding on those things. Of course it doesn’t condone abortion either.
You could argue that this is because the Catholic church is ran by MEN who back when MEN had all the power, MEN made the rules. Notice here that abortion, contraception etc all has to do with childbirth, which is monopolised by the female gender? What rights has the female got in regards to childbirth under catholic doctrine? Not a lot. If she wants to have a good sex life with her husband and not have any kids, she is almost totally screwed.
Also, Geoffrey, you’ve forgotten one thing about abortion that everyone forgets. The world at last count has approximately 6 billion people, the majority of those people in the developing countries. And yet, 60% of the world’s resources are used by 6% of the world’s population (the U.S.A.). The population of the world isn’t slowing either, it’s still growing at the rate of 1 person per second (3 births, 2 deaths). Only in an advanced stage of a society (stage 4) does population growth start to decrease, and most developing countries aren’t on stage 2 yet! So we have a shitload of people in developing countries who are already completely mismanaged and broke, and the population of those countries is still growing!
So, how else do you stop this mess other than abortions? Try teaching them about condoms to prevent births AND aids, and the Vatican say condoms don’t stop aids! They tried giving free radios out in exchange for you getting a vasectomy, but of course they stopped that because it was inhumane. And until a much larger amount of the G8’s profit goes towards developing countries, this situation is going to continue. I hate to sound so cold about it, but it is simply something we cannot ignore.
We don’t. I don’t. Most people don’t. Liberal governments just giving free passes and, as Prince Philip put it, “promoting buggery” are doing it. The sight of two men kissing absolutely sickens me. There are women on this earth who are far more beautiful than any man, so why the **** are they being gay? I don’t know!
Sorry if this has been nothing but a right winged rant, but I’m tired. kthxbye
