Yeah, the Pope babbles dicta against people who are different from him, so what else is new?
In comments at the Vatican that are likely to provoke a furious reaction from homosexual groups, Benedict also warned that blurring the distinction between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.
In his address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration, he described behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work" and said that the Roman Catholic Church had a duty to "protect man from the destruction of himself".
It is not "outmoded metaphysics" to urge respect for the "nature of the human being as man and woman," he added.
"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."
Hang on, wait. So Catholics are like trees, and gay people are like chainsaws, or something? And the gays are engaged in clear-cutting church congregations? Homosexuals are out to EXTERMINATE the whole HUMAN RACE?
Wow.
The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official described homosexuality as "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".
Well, yeah. A chainsaw can do some pretty nasty damage.
People take the pope rather seriously, I hear. I don't know why — the man is a kook.
- Log in to post comments
Didn't god make people gay? So either god isn't omnipotent, which is a requirement for the job, or the Pope is an idiot for not recognizing the handiwork of the omnipotent god.
That kinda depends on what the meaning of "virgin" is.
I'd bet my lil house in the valley against the sistine chapel that Ratzi the Nazi' had his share of tantalizing young male 'members.'
I wonder if - in light of this new wisdom from the robed cleric - the first thing he'll mandate will be the retroactive punishment of all those priests who seemingly had it backwards. They weren't homosexual by any means, but those acts they performed with the altarboys certainly were homosexual acts...
If that is going to bring about the end of the human race, I'd think the Holy See would be able to see the error in his previous sheltering, concealment, and abetting of those child molesters.
I'm not holding my breath.
In another report, I saw that he used the phrase "ecology of man". Possibly not a well-chosen metaphor for his holiness' purposes, since in a true ecology diversity would be preferable to monoculture.
I don't get why a man being consistent with his dogma is a story...and why people are upset by it. This has been the position of the church since the mid 300s.
Great title, made me laugh.
One of my brother's friends used to do a whole comedy thing about the pope in the early 80s. "If the pope ain't gay, then why does he wear a dress?" "If the pope ain't gay, why does he make little boys kiss his ring?" And so on...it was hilarious, I wish I could remember more of it.
And somebody should get a memo to his fraudulence - the human race isn't threatened, except by its own rampant overpopulation.
Posted by: NelC | December 23, 2008 10:43 AM
Indeed, which proves he knows little of either ecology or man.
What's more ridiculous than an abstinent man in a dress telling the world that gays will destroy the human race and must be stopped? billions of people taking him seriously. Teh stupid....
Blurring the distinction between male and female? I'm curious as to where he stands on hermaphrodites. Supposedly created by god, maybe as a sign that the line between male and female isn't as big a deal as he thinks it is.
It may help you to understand if you substitute "dogma" everywhere he says "nature", and insert appropriate references to dogma everywhere nature is implied, as in
This becomes obvious when you've had the following argument about a hundred times:
"Homosexuality is against nature!"
"But what about instances x,y, and z of naturally occurring homosexual behaviours?"
"What? Do you expect us to use animals as a guide to human behaviour?"
Which quickly exposes that when they say "nature", they certainly aren't talking about any kind of reference to the natural world.
When I saw this yesterday on Pam's House Blend, this Jewish joke is the first thing I thought of because like the Jews, if gay folks did one-tenth of what they're accused of doing (or trying to do), they'd be unstoppable.
Joan of Arc was finally killed because she wore men's clothing--blurring the distinction between the sexes. Looks like we're on a collision course with the 15th century again.
It must be a sad life being "infallible". You can never learn from your mistakes.
I wonder if he ever hangs curtains in the nude above a table of potatoes ? Do you think he still wears the hat while he does it ?
inquisitor, everyone knows that hermaphrodites are the unfortunate consequence of the first people eating a piece of fruit given to them by a talking snake. God is not responsible for the consequences of his actions.
It is rather sad to see, isn't it? Poor old guy... so conflicted.
Ratzi, dear, really, it's okay. I mean, you're okay, guy. Really. Or the dress stuff is, anyway. We can get used to the dress. Okay, maybe I'd say your colour choices are... umm... a bit over the top, sure, but whatever floats your boat, man, I guess... And if it matches your flashy red and gold wallpaper, so much the better. More power to you, dude. Kitsch can be cool, we dig. Nothing wrong with expressing yourself.
What I'm trying to say man is: it's okay. What you are is just fine. I mean, sure, if it were me, I'd say maybe you might want to go a little more basic black for less formal functions, maybe learn to let your hair down a bit, now and then, y'know, but hey, again, I'm just talking, here. It's your life...
But whatever you do on the makeover front, you've just got to stop it with the self-hatred, guy. You're going too far, man. Taking it out on everyone else, freaking out, issuing bulls... This just isn't going anywhere good...
The point I'm trying to make is: if it's between cutting loose the Dominicans again, versus frocking up and doing a coupla Doris Day numbers on karaoke night, please, I implore you: go with the Doris Day.
It's just better for everyone, man, I assure you.
"The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful,..."
Because if it were the numbers of priests would be even lower and you would have to kick out about 2/3's of the priests who lead churches now.
And I still like George Carlins joke...I have as much authority as the Pope, Just not as many people believe me.
Pope Ratzi sez Teh Gay is contagious, don'cha know. Once you go queer - you'll never go... near what you are naturally drawn to if you're straight. Riiiiight.
If you are already gay or Bi, teh church sez u mak teh baby Jeebus cri.
Peenies and poompooms must always go together to make babies but only after a priest says a bunch of words and a ring is put on his and her fingers; and no rubbers or "the pill" when doing s-e-x because God says it isn't natural. And don't put this in your mouth or lick that - it's unnatural and a sin! Sex is for making babies only! You must promise to feel very guilty afterwards if you experienced any pleasure during the course of this filthy God ordained act.
Remember sex is a holy sacrament only when we, The Church™, specifically outline when and what you can do with your genitalia!!!
but surely old popey and his transvestite friends not having sex (at least, not having sex with anyone old enough to reproduce) is doing at least as much damage to the numbers of humans on the planet.
Perhaps the catholic clergy and nuns should all start boning urgently to make up for the lack of babies from the gays
I don't get why a man being consistent with his dogma is a story...and why people are upset by it. - PGPWNIT
Because it's an evil dogma, halfwit.
This has been the position of the church since the mid 300s.
So was torturing and murdering anyone who disagrees with its dogma, until they lost the power to do it. I take it you favour that as well.
The Catholic Church is a remarkably resilient institution that moves with glacial slowness (and with just about as much sensitivity as a river of ice). Sure, the pope is just sticking to shopworn dogma (that's his job, after all), but it's fascinating to see his stolid dedication to ancient superstition. It took over three centuries for the Church to officially forgive Galileo (for preaching heliocentrism, that is; he's still not forgiven for his disobedience) and it took over a hundred years for a pope to admit that evolution is "more than a hypothesis" (and even in that case his successor is mincing back from that statement toward the safe harbor of ID).
The Roman Catholic Church has evolved through the unnatural selection of its leaders by the College of Cardinals to ensure preservation of its doctrines. It's worked so far.
I call your attention to the Bill Clinton comment, "I did not have sex with that woman". According to Arkansas law, and her, he didn't. I will also point out the long history of Popes and their predilections.
Now, see, if the Pope understood evolution, he'd realize that homosexuality should be encouraged, at least for the godless. If everybody who wasn't Catholic was busy being a non-reproducing gay, in one generation the whole human race would be Catholic.
#19
"So was torturing and murdering anyone who disagrees with its dogma, until they lost the power to do it. I take it you favour that as well."
Wow, you're aggressive. I never said I was in favour of any dogma....only that it's not a surprise.
I think I see PGPWNIT's point, though. It's evil dogma but we knew full well that Ratzi held it. The story is basically "Pope affirms Catholicism" (although I suppose it is also "and takes a needlessly combative tone about it", but given his previous speeches that's still "Dog bites man").
Note by the way he's not just going after the gheys but also any non-essentialist conception of gender. In light of well-documented anthropology, this is flat-Earth stuff.
Ratzinger is not going to be one of the good Popes (it is all relative).
But not to worry. Really, Catholics stopped paying attention to the leadership a century or two ago.
There is a huge gap between the celibate priests and the members. One notable example, the birth rate of Catholics in the USA is identical to the general population at 2.2 children or so. Of course they use BC and plan their families, just like all sane, responsible adults.
The priests can't say anything. All their members would leave, no members=no money=no religion. It is don't ask, don't tell.
He is just repeating official dogma. OTOH, since it is dogma, he didn't have to. At some point, the RCC is going to have to update itself or one day it will just spiral into irrelevancy.
Clever, Menyambal, but even the pope might see the flaw in the reasoning. My devout Catholic grandparents produced three children who lived to adulthood and spawned fourteen grandchildren, two of whom are gay. Straight people are like hybrids who don't breed true (but don't tell Benny Hex).
The logic of the statement "homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are" is that the Catholic Church should do its utmost to direct homosexuals to the one profession where they can be free from sin.
Namely become celibate priests or nuns. I remember the reaction after one of my classmates made that precise argument to our then religion teacher - a catholic priest in secondary school in 1981 Ireland.
Talk about touching a raw nerve!
"The logic of the statement "homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are" is that the Catholic Church should do its utmost to direct homosexuals to the one profession where they can be free from sin."
or they could just 'forget' that they're gay and marry a woman.
I wonder if that could work. Can we hypnotize people out of gayness? Or maybe hit them on the head to give them amnesia.
If homosexuality is destroying the human race, what's taking so long? After all, homos have been around since before we were able to make up shit like this. What a bunch of slackers.
"What a bunch of slackers." - mialol
Gays have no sense of purpose.
Zoe B had a good post on this as well http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/12/translations-from-vatican.html
Gays in the clergy? The very idea!
As long as they keep clerical celibacy, the RCC has to try to make gayness shameful again, else NOBODY will join the priesthood. Notice how the gay rights movement coincides with a recruitment crisis for the cracker dealers.
The Pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman.
This coming from an organization of celibates. Not exactly a pro-church message if you ask me.
Just what the world needs. Another German who likes standing on balconies spouting sh1t to massive crowds.
Maybe a bit more action on overpopulation and some redistribution of the Vatican Bank's billions will go some way towards making life a little better.
"Without jews, fags and gypsies - there'd be no theatre!" -To Be Or Not To Be, (Mel Brookes remake.)
It's hard to believe there are institutions so backwards in their opinions - and they have a huge influence over the beliefs of billions of people. The Vatican ought to be ashamed at the negative impact it has over the lives of others.
Urban Dictionary was pretty fast putting this one up.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=happy+monkey
And Happy Tip's Eve
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tip%27s%20eve
Remember, better to get married then to burn.
When will the defenders of marriage get off their collectives and get serious. If marriage is for starting the next generation, they should make sure that only people who can reproduce get married. Fertility testes for both the husband and wife in order to make sure she will get pregnant. Who ever cannot reproduce cannot get married. So this also means that post menopausal women cannot get married. This also goes for old men whose sperm count gets too low.
Come on! Nothing but the highest standard in order to stay within the "definition" of marriage!
More than just a kook - he's actively dangerous. Well, maybe there'll be a yule miracle and he'll drop dead tomorrow.
I'd pop open a bottle of champagne if he did, at least.
This is why religion is grossly unequipped to deal with morality.
Posted by: Gary Roberts | December 23, 2008
The Vatican ought to be ashamed at the negative impact it has over the lives of others.
What ought to be and what is are different things. They are quite proud of their inhumane tradition.
This is the language of a genocide. If you call someone a threat to survival of human race, then the elimination of the threat naturally follows. I am afraid that this is just the begin of an all out attack of all religious fundamentalists to undo the last 1000 years of history.
Greg Laden beat you to this one. I have to agree with commenter "dean" who said, "He used to be little Johnny Ratzinger, but now he's Ben-A-Dict to all of us."
Furthermore, I love how he's going on about protecting the environment as if it's completely seporate from protecting humanity. And I'd love to see Popatine's evidence that homosexuality is destructive, but of course he's just cherry picking his book of bronze age myths.
I think this is great news. The more these fools tell the world exactly what they believe, the better. This way people who are trying, desperately, to compartmentalize their belief and their rationality are forced closer to making a decision.
And I wish you damn fence sitters would just get some balls and be honest with yourselves.
Well, that's a pretty fine distinction.
Does that apply to everything? So, if I'm constantly thinking about screwing the neighbor's sheep, that's OK? But if I actually do it, I'm sinning?
Not that I would ever do the neighbor's sheep. It's not my type.
Best. Headline. Ever.
PZ, that was the funniest article title I've seen. I didn't just lol, I rotflmaobbqed. Virgin male in dress.. *tear*
...'the "self-destruction" of the human race.'
All harshness intended- who cares? If we wipe ourselves out, that's the way the evolutionary cookie crumbles. I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen, but...
So... he's against the transvestites and the genderqueer now? What? How is homosexuality blurring the distinction between male and female any more than heterosexuality is? All the gay people I know tend to be very clear about which sex they're interested in and which they aren't. (Now the bisexuals on the other hand...)
The man doesn't even know what he's saying. Again.
Best Dark Comedy - Catholic Church
Runner Up - The Royal Tenenbaums
The "self destruction of the human race" is already being shepherded along very ably by religion, thank you very much.
Just to mention one thing: The Catholic Church's idiot opposition to birth control and sex education has probably doomed us all, and that's just small potatoes.
The chief enemy throughout history to every sort of scientific discovery or advance has been religion.
The problem is, that many believe this guy to be an intellectual. A delusion which is furthered by a lot of bootlicking german journalists.
Now, mainly because I know a lot of fellow german speakers are reading this blog:
The guys wishful thinking and is appropriately exposed in the current issue of "Aufklärung und Kritik", the members journal of the GKPN (Gesellschaft für kritische Philosophie Nürnberg), www.gkpn.de
If interested, please have a look here. The well written and sharp analysis by a Professor Dr. Riessinger is available as a PDF in german here: http://www.gkpn.de/Riessinger_Ratzinger_1.pdf
Pretty sure we won't self-destruct? What, never?
It's fuck all to do with homosexuality but humans (and even any post-human descendents) will be extinct at some point (as eventually will life itself).
What the Pope said is nothing new. What he said was also said by Cicero during the Roman Empire in both his legal commentary and warning about the fall of the Roman Empire. The marriage comments goes back to the Jewish roots of Christianity so that is nothing new. The schism in the Anglican Church and its American branch, the divides in the country on these issues, demonstrates, history erring on the side of religion.
Considering that this particular pope is more in touch with modern culture (granted, with a European view) makes it difficult to argue with him (except in the God issue for some here). He is the most well written, has brought religion and science closer together, praises science as well (look at his former students work: "Chance & Purpose" and for those in biology (astronomer and historian here), look at the recent work on Evolution (focuses on biology) from which the Pope gave an address.
Instead of nit-picking, let here the words and see what can be done to heal the divisions. The Church will not change but it is echoing words of history that proved correct.
Mathi Lusch@%54: LOL wut?
Hate and fear do appear to be a pattern for the religious, don't they? I mean creationists appear here from time to time and claim to have disproven evolution and therefore Christian creationism is better by default. Now the pope is whining about homosexuals. Therefore Christianity (the Catholic breed in particular) is better by default.
And no actual content for why their ideas are good - why is that?
Oh yeah, that hate and fear thing again.
Ever seen the bully on the playground in the final moments before they completely lose their position of power? It may take another century or so but here's to hoping that the day when the pope is crying and having a tantrum arrives sooner rather than later.
'Pretty sure we won't self-destruct? What, never?
It's fuck all to do with homosexuality but humans (and even any post-human descendents) will be extinct at some point (as eventually will life itself).'
Yeah! What you said... better than me. I meant we won't die out because of homosexuality.
They didn't choose Ratzinger dispite his Nazi upbringing, they chose him because of it. The Vatican wanted a pope that could lead a them in a new holocaust. Antisemetism is out of style, so they're focusing on the gays.
The typographer inside of me laughed a little when I noticed Pope speaks using Comic Sans, that hideous font...
On this matter I don't have much to add, but to reaffirm one of the previous comments: Diversity > monoculture, if he wants to keep his analogies "ecology".
No. Irreconcilable. And we don't need more echoes of the distant past. The future accepts homosexuality and rejects all gods. In my most humble opinion of course.
WOW!!! The gays brought down the Roman Empire? Who knew and when? Sorry, Matti, it was way more complicated than that. A lot had to do with large blonde men dressed in leather for sure. They weren't gay though, they were Nordics with horses, swords, spears, and a powerful yen for looting. The Goths, Visigoths, Vandals and so on.
Got a live one here. Someone who is so deluded, he actually takes the ramblings of a Pope living mentally in the medieval ages seriously. Very rare for Catholics who have heard so much wacko nonsense from birth that they are immune.
When all you have is lies and delusions, you got nothing.
"Instead of nit-picking, let here the words and see what can be done to heal the divisions."
Actually I wouldn't call speaking out against the church's homophobia as 'nit-picking'. As was observed above, calling LGBT people a threat to humanity is quite obviously the first step toward attempting to remove that threat. In this Ratzi may be taking a page from the playbook of his former scout leaders when he demonizes gays as threatening the survival of the human race. If you want a solution to a problematic population, the first step is making your followers believe they are a threat.
"The Church will not change but it is echoing words of history that proved correct."
Ah yes, the faggots brought down the Roman Empire. It wasn't the division of the Empire, environmental degradation, Constantine I converting to Christianity, lead, the Vandals and the Huns, or funding an empire based on looting of conquered lands. Nope, it must have been teh gayz.
Honey, if we had that much clout the Mormons wouldn't have been able to buy enough votes to pass Prop H8 last month.
Matt Heath @ 32 "Notice how the gay rights movement coincides with a recruitment crisis for the cracker dealers."
That was spot on.
What the heck is so bad about irregularity or deviation anyway? If taking a lifelong vow of celibacy isn't irregular or deviant, I don't know what is.
So we're to solve the World's ecological problems using a devastating two-pronged attack on contraception and homosexuality. Hmm, Nice one.
Thanks for that, Catholicism, but I think I'll shop around a bit further...!
What he said was also said by Cicero during the Roman Empire in both his legal commentary and warning about the fall of the Roman Empire. - Mathi Lusch the Incredibly Ignorant Bigot
Which empire only lasted another 1500 years or so.
The schism in the Anglican Church and its American branch, the divides in the country on these issues, demonstrates, history erring on the side of religion.
English translation of the phrase I have bolded, please.
Considering that this particular pope is more in touch with modern culture (granted, with a European view)
Ah. You mean his experience in the Hitler Youth, no doubt.
makes it difficult to argue with him
Well admittedly, what he says is so stupid it's impossible to take seriously.
the recent work on Evolution
From an ignoramus who does not know that homosexual behaviour occurs regularly in a wide range of species. He is also utterly dishonest. Here he is on evolution:
'Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmary and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: "There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens."'
(from http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2509
Anyone who has read Szathmary and Maynard Smith (The Major Transitions in Evolution)will recognise the quote-mining going on here; as well as the typical religidiot attempt to drive a non-existent wedge between micro- and macro-evolution.
Instead of nit-picking, let here the words and see what can be done to heal the divisions. The Church will not change but it is echoing words of history that proved correct.
Your church is rapidly rotting from within: running out of priests, unable to coerce the laity into breeding at the required rate, stinking from the scandals of enabling and protecting child-rapists, and lying about condoms being permeable to HIV. While the world is threatened by resource depletion and environmental destruction, bigots like you and Ratzi occupy yourself with hate campaigns against gays. You disgust me. Get lost.
What the pope needs is to see a hot female/female 69. That'll make him see the light.
@ #38
Freudian slip?
"What the Pope said is nothing new."
Thank you Mathi, that's precisely the point. Homophobia has been around a long time. And if by "heal the divisions" you're referring to the divisions within the church, you've come to the wrong forum. If you mean "lets hear from the gay-bashers, and then use that inspiration to befriend gay people, and try to make them into something they aren't", then you're on the wrong planet.
So I'm re-reading the Pope's words on how homosexuality and the blurring of gender roles is going to cause the destruction of the human race. And I keep asking myself one question: What's the mechanism?
I mean, how, exactly, is this supposed to take place? Does he really -- snicker -- think that the human race is going to -- barely suppressed guffaw -- stop having heterosexual sex?
Really? That's what he thinks?
I mean... has he seen the human race?
Or are we talking -- as we so often are in theology -- about an Underpants Gnome causality chain? "Step 1: Homosexuality and the blurring of gender roles. Step 2: ? Step 3: The destruction of the human race."
(And, of course, as others have pointed out but it bears repeating: Homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of non-human animal species. So who exactly is it here who's "disrespecting creation"?)
Razi must be thrilled that brave, decent men and women like these people are doing their best to stem the tide of badness.
But really, why can't we lay off the pope? Why can't we all just get along? Why can't those awful, divisive gays put their hate aside and learn to tolerate people who believe they should be rounded up and killed? What a bunch of bigots.
Religions are stateless political organizations. As such their only purpose is obtaining and maintaining wealth and power for the elites in the organization.
Look at today's BBC photo of the peoop, (Inspector Clouseau pronunciation), in his gold and silver threaded finery, holding aloft a solid gold chalice. What a magnificent sight for the impressionable sheep that follow him!
Defining "the other" (homosexuals)is another time honored, potent way of controlling the flock.
Using profound ignorance, twisted logic, and a fundamentally flawed analogy (ecology of man) this malevolent, ex-nazi, theocrat has just empowered gay bashers world wide.
It is time to treat the Catholic Church for what it is: a bloated parasite on the body of humanity.
The Catholic and Apostolic Church Roman isn't a stateless political organisation. It's an political organisation which owns a country, with full international recognition (the Holy See). When countries sign concordats with the Romans it has the strength of international law.
Yeah, but many people aren't compartmentalising when it comes to homophobia, they're in favour completely, and this adds another layer of legitimacy to them, and breeds more homophobia.
Re: # 73, Point taken.
My intended point however was that religions in general do not derive their power from control of land and land based resources, but from dogmatic control of the masses, irrespective of borders.
The Vatican is no exception.
I call Godwin.
Clearly the Hitler Zombie has had a chomp on this clown's brain.
the pope talks out of his holy ass.....again.
We're supposed to take his word that he's a virgin, right? I have friends who went to Catholic seminary, and they tell me that otherwise is the norm. It's only on ordination that they take the vow of celibacy.
But, but, that would mean the very people the religious trust to tell them what God says are in the habit of violating the very rules they go on to make in God's name.
quote "Considering that this particular pope is more in touch with modern culture (granted, with a European view) makes it difficult to argue with him"
wana bet.
@75: Yeah; I got your point really; I was just feeling pedantic
Hey Greta Christina!
Obviously Pope Ratzi has a distaste for girl parts. I knew a couple of guys who would get oogged out if you said the word "moist" much less "vagina" or "pudenda". Ratzi must think dirty nasty male attraction to females is not as exciting as male to male reeeeaaally dirty sex.
As for the lesbians, the church maintains that virtuous and good women don't like sex anyway - they don't have to as long as they're willing to submit their bodies as a host for a fetus.
Mike Haubrich, FCD 78
only on ordination that they take the vow of celibacy.
Celibate here means renouncing marriage. Not to sex...
continence and chastity are diferent concepts
If I recall correctly, only nuns make a vote of chastity.
Did anyone else have trouble wrapping their mind around this statement?:
"The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are."
So... "It's ok to be gay. But being gay is wrong."
????????????
Bonkers. Goodness, I am so glad I left that child molesting circus years ago.
Lewis Black's Gays vs. American Families Sketch somehow fits this senile frustrated silly hat perfectly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unAVMqRmUNw
Apropos silly hats:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHPVuGBc9jI
And for fellow Germans, two Hagen Rether clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd4frGTooaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k5LbtS4SXM
Posted by: nanahuatzin | December 23, 2008 2:15 PM
No, priests renounce sex when they take their vows - clerical celibacy most certainly does mean priests, along with nuns, are required to remain chaste. (Canon 277.1 in link)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM
And actually, priests were once able to marry, but were required to "abstain from their wives" in service to God.
You can check it here, where Fleury comments on canon 13 of the Council in Trullo:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050720015521/http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/…
So, according to Joe, anyone who doesn't breed is contributing to the extiction of the human species and is a bad person. Let's see who's on the list:
Jesus of Nazareth
Paul of Tarsus
Augustine of Hippo
Joe Ratzinger, currently of Rome
...and a whole slew of people that Joe, his friends, and his predecessors have persuaded to not engage in breeding activities. It's bad enough that Joe's a bigot; when he tries to come up with a science-based justification for his bigotry he just makes himself look stupid.
Seen some very good and balance comments here, even Canon Law! However, I guess my post was too much at the Doctoral level of history for some (sorry I didn't bring it down a notch and this is not a slam directed against anyone, early apology if it sounds like it!). For Nick G at #62/66: Read the document, no where does it state LGBT are a threat, the media stated that, not the document, in both the English and Latin versions. For Matt and Raven #55/61: obvious that I was over your head or you haven't taken a good Western Civilization class, which is the more likely probability. Won't fault you for that but my comment came directly from Cicero's work so I direct your comments to him. Finally, MickyW #69, the Catholic Church has never supported homophobia, in fact, the consistent teaching in its moral theology is that regardless of the sin (that is, the action of homosexuality)all people should be treated with respect. It was a Catholic priest who first spoke out against the beating of Matthew Shepherd. I won't go into the long theological discussion on this as it will take too much time but the Church teachings are clear if you actually look at what is actually written. Your comments about homophobia is right on and it is something that all groups (religious or not) are a part of.
On this blog, I play devil's advocate at times, I also ensure that accuracy comes through as well (whether that be on the science side, history, religion, atheist, pagan, etc). Many comments, and Dr. Myers commented a bit on this recently, use inaccurate sources and if I have some knowledge in that area, I will correct. My reaon for being here is to dialogue and to learn from others, even those who may disagree.
Overall, great comments and discussion on this one. Now to check this flood post Dr. Myers just put it. Even CNN hasn't commented on that one (yet).
In other news, the Pope also announced plans to dig up Galileo's corpse and burn it at the stake "like we ought to have done to that heliocentric heretic in the first place!".
What a raving lunatic. If overt persecution, demonization, and classification of homosexuals as an existential threat and a "wound" to the human race is not homophobia, you obviously believe there is no such thing.
And by the way, Ratzinger himself said that homosexuals are a threat to the human race by plainly outlining that their sexual orientation is an inherent "destruction of God's work," after which he asserted his right to "ask that this order of creation be respected," which is a plain statement saying that homosexuality needs to eventually be removed from the human race. Blaming the media won't work on this one - the RCC has long been phobic of anything that does not line up with their dogma, homosexuals being among the premier of their targets.
That is quite a ridiculous statement, considering that you used every opportunity you could in that post to make it clear that you're here to correct and educate the commenters here.
Ah, the Christian virtue of humility - you're doing it wrong.
If there must be a religion, there is a reason to support the RCC:
I'm pretty sure it wasn't, Mathi. Let's see what you cited in your "Doctoral level" post #54:
Cicero and the fall of the Roman Empire
Christianity's attitude toward marriage goes back its Jewish roots
The Anglican schism shows that history errs on the side of religion [whatever the hell that means]
The German pope is in touch with European culture[!]
He writes well
His students embrace both religion and science [except that "Chance & Purpose" is an ID tract]
Yep, I was right. Nothing to see here.
So let me get this straight. Things the catholic church does not consider a threat to the human race:
1. The spread of HIV through unprotected sex.
2. Glodal warming.
3. Nuclear war?
Things the catholic church does consider a threat to the human race.
1. No moar babies cause of too much fag sex.
Mathi; I'm sure the average follower of the Pope does not have the same grasp of history, theology, astronomy etc. as your good self, and neither do I, but what I can tell you with fair certainty is this: Dress this up however you like, comments such as "self-destruction of the human race" and "protect man from the destruction of himself" adds up to homophobia, ie. fear of homosexuals. This is pretty scary stuff, and the next thug who beats up on a gay person will probably not be inclined to have a discussion with you at the doctoral level of history either.
Mathi,
in spite of apologizing first, you are still a smug, self-aggrandizing pedant who made factual errors and unsupported claims in spite of your "Doctoral level of history".
We'll laugh at you anyway in our woefully non-doctoral level of ignorance, Mr. Pomposity.
BTW, need an extra chair for that ego of yours?
(Heeheeheeheeh, whut a maroon!)
Yes, I said "glodal" warming. It's gonna be a long day.
Earth's population:
6,749,057,887
and increasing by the second.
I'm not sure how the sexuality of a small portion of the human race can be considered so destructive. I consider the Catholic Church's stance on birth control to be infinitely more dangerous.
This, dear boy, is probably beyond your comprehension but I will make an effort to reduce its complexity so that even you might understand it.
Matt, you are fruitbat crazy. No reputable historian has ever said that Rome was pushed over by gays. Cicero lived and died before Christ was even born and centuries before Rome fell. What he said or didn't say has zero to do with why Rome fell.
I haven't had a western civilization course in a while. But I do know what planet I live on and what century this is. Which means I'm far ahead of you.
All you have is lies and you have nothing. I really hope you aren't trying to defend the Pope or the RCC. With defenders like you, instead of slowly spirally into irrelevancy, there would be a mass exodus for more credible religions like scientology, Pastafarianism, Raelians, and Klingon.
What a frakkin' idiot.
CNN has a poll:
Quickvote
Was the pope right to warn against homosexual behavior?
Yes 50% 1314
No 50% 1292
Total Votes: 2606
http://edition.cnn.com/
Let's join Pope Ratzi in St. Peter's Square and all sing Macho Macho Man.
If the Catholic Church gets its way, looks like all you xxy people are toast. Can you say eugenics?
"That kinda depends on what the meaning of "virgin" is.
I'd bet my lil house in the valley against the sistine chapel that Ratzi the Nazi' had his share of tantalizing young male 'members.'"
Not to mention that womanizing popes aren't exactly unheard of, either...
Hell, a couple of them died that way.
"Benedict also warned that blurring the distinction between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race."
You mean like if I put my thingie into my wife's whatsis like gays do I'll destroy the human race? No wonder she won't do it!
Which "whatsis" are you referring to? I have it on good authority that not all gay men do "teh butsecks".
Come on, Grinch, play along. That is the very definition of how we know a men is gay.
And it is not gay when a man does that to a woman.
And it is not gay when a woman straps one on and pegs a man.
But it is gay when a woman straps one on and pegs a woman.
Got that straight?
I wish Pray Away The Gay was here to respond to the claim that the RCC isn't homophobic.
Janine:
Very nice. ;)
It takes a lot of chutzpah for Pope Benny Ratzi to make hyperbolic pronouncements about gays while the RCC has an official policy of protecting pedophiles.
In case anybody's wondering, I'm no longer Catholic, and have now crossed over to agnosticism.
One can only tolerate so much stupidity after all :(
"And it is not gay when a man does that to a woman.
"And it is not gay when a woman straps one on and pegs a man.
"But it is gay when a woman straps one on and pegs a woman."
Oh, great, two more ideas to get rejected...
Just want to add:
There are heterosexual humans who do not want to reproduce.
PZ wrote :
The problem is,that this is really a new quality in confrontation,and social exclusion of homosexuals by the catholic church,and might have severe social consequences.
The bloody senile loon is willfully holding the torch to a social bomb here,and thats just irresponsible.
Nice headline, caption, whatever, PZ.
If they are so for marriage, why don't they make the pope and the priests marry, huh?
Hypocrites.
Check this
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/pope-calls-for-cap-on-ga…
I don't hate catholic clergy. I just think that performing catholic-themed religious functions is evil. MAKES PERFECT FUCKING SENSE.
There actually once was a fairly good pope, Alexander VI.
"He had children by several mistresses, but there is certainty only about the mother of four of his children - Cesare (1475), Giovanni (1476), Lucrezia (1480), and Goffredo (1481); she was Vanozza de' Catanei. Handsome and attractive to women, Borgia was also intelligent, a good public speaker, and popular with the citizens of Rome."
http://www.answers.com/topic/pope-alexander-vi
Presumably xians believe that their god created a perfect human body, so why do they get all uptight about sex organs? Those must be perfect as well, including the pleasure involved. But some of them like to "correct" their god's handiwork by chopping off part of it, foreskins.
Most xians probably like good food, so why don't they like good sex?
bernarda,
it was in one of the threads last week,I really cant remember which one,that some fundie loon answered that question beautifully,by saying and I quote from memory : "we like the booze and sex and dope just like you guys,but we feel bad about it"
From canada
While not Roman catholic, Evangelical protestant, this is a positive thing from the vactican.
Homosexuality is seen by most people in history, Christiandom, and Anglo-American civilization as something innately repulsive, dysfunctional, and immoral, and against god, Christianity, and the identity and nature of mankind. In fact it was totally unacceptable and illegal with dire punishment to make the point.
I should write for the pope.
one can be kind and pity the gay but today there is a gay agenda.
the opposition against homosexuality is not actually from religion but from innate identity.
All people innately understand that homosexuality strikes at their cherished view of man and women in society. A beautiful thing in soul relationship, intimate heart connection with sexual manifestation and later children and extended family.
America was built on profound beliefs of man and woman's important roles in creation and civilization.
America was built on marriage and virginity.
Any tolerance was homosexuality, beyond their privacy, will lose some blessing of God and national character and spirit.
These folks should free themselves of these unnatural obsessions and become true men and women and happy and make others happy.
Just because someone sincerly believes elevators, high places, or crowds are dangerous does not make it so. its a error in deep psychology.
Merry Christmas (and all right CHEERS to the Jewish coincedence holiday).
Now you tell me??? Let me in !!!!
*Irony meter selfdestruct*
Byers,
WTF?!?!?!1exclamtation point1
Again, WTF?!?!?
Wow, that almost makes up for all the anti-Semitic things you've said in the past year.
Seriously Byers, take your medication.
As to the impending destruction of the human race and it's causes, I am reminded of the person who is considered to be the first modern atheist, Baron D'Holbach.
"If we go back to the beginnings of things, we shall always find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that imagination, rapture and deception embellished them; that weakness worships them; that custom spares them; and that tyranny favors them in order to profit from the blindness of men."
(Paul-Henri, baron d'Holbach / 1723-1789 / System of Nature / 1770)
"The Jehovah of the Jews is a suspicious tyrant, who breathes nothing but blood, murder, and carnage, and who demands that they should nourish him with the vapours of animals. The Jupiter of the Pagans is a lascivious monster. The Moloch of the Phoenicians is a cannibal. The pure mind of the Christians resolved, in order to appease his fury, to crucify his own son. The savage god of the Mexicans cannot be satisfied without thousands of mortals which are immolated to his sanguinary appetite."
(Paul-Henri, baron d'Holbach / 1723-1789)
"All religions are ancient monuments to superstition, ignorance, ferocity; and modern religions are only ancient follies."
(Paul-Henri, baron d'Holbach / 1723-1789)
Holbach,
is that you LOL ?
So very true,and way ahead of his time.
400 years later,and we have creationism taught in classrooms across the US...
Catholic points on sexual morality are usually very evident. The rectum was not designed to take the male penis. The vagina was. Point proven...anal intercourse is unnatural. The Church therefore sees it as against the nature of the PERSON, and therefore immoral.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, the only place for sex is within heterosexual marriage because it is the only system which mirrors the Holy Trinity ie a fruitful exclusive union of uninhibited love... Yes, human love should imitate God.
Speak for yourself,you know....
"The pure mind of the Christians resolved, in order to appease his fury, to crucify his own son."
I thought it was the Jews and Romans who crucified him. Anyway atheists have done most of the killing in history. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin,etc...all atheists.
The rectum was not designed.
Oh Nozzzzz,SIWOTI !!!
*SIGH*
ehm,John,no....But its so pointless...*SIGH*
UK cartoonist Steve Bell nails it. (Pope in underpants advisory.)
Huh. I...honestly wouldn't think that a pair of people, one of them female, corresponds terribly well to the Holy Trinity.
So if married love is meant to be uninhibited, are married folks allowed to disregard your prohibition on sodomy?
John, please show us some physical evidence for you imaginary god. Something that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being divine. Then show the bible is divinely inspired (first god, then the bible). Until then take your godbotting back home and quit bothering your betters with your stupidity.
John wrote:
As opposed to it being designed to take the female penis - you fucking idiot.
Pity no-one told all those priests that before they started raping kids. Or the church hierarchy who not only allowed them to keep doing it, but protected them from prosecution for doing it.
If he appeared and showed us his love, sure. Until then, no. Besides, if the bible is anything to go by, I wouldn't want to be around anyone imitating him. Even on his best day he sent his own son to be tortured and murdered for something he a) didn't do (we atheists call this 'injustice'), and b) Yahweh didn't need him to do anyway, since he could have just as easily achieved the same goal by choosing to forgive humanity without anyone having to be nailed to anything.
Oh and one more thing: fuck you, fuck your god and fuck your jesus. In your not-designed-for-it rectum. And almost on his birthday, too. Well, not really; even if he was born it wasn't on December 25. Your people have a real thing for lies, don't they?
Now,now,Wowbagger...
Easy there,nothing wrong with a rectum mate,its a good idea in principle,a place for males to feel safe and secure,without the baby scare,and its warm and tight....Ahem,never mind,i'll be going now.....
Err,well,thats is not entirely impossible....
For the Greek Orthodox Church homosexuality is not a problem, as long as it is practiced by high priests. This was revealed a few years ago when a series of sex "scandals" came into surface. These included a number of bearded priests fondling one another using girly nicknames instead of their usual grandiose priestly ones.
clinteas wrote:
A prosthetic is not the same thing; I don't care how 'natural-looking' it is!
As I said,I be going now LOL....
John- "Catholic points on sexual morality are usually very evident."
Sure they are. All the leaders are in drag. Open your eyes.
The rectum was not designed to take the male penis.
Ever hear of the prostate gland, John? As a gay friend of mine used to say, if it's "unnatural" for men to be buggered, why can they orgasm by stimulation of the prostate via the rectum?
John, you're an ignorant godbotting moron. Piss off.
For Nick G at #62/66 - Mathi Lusch the doctoral level incredibly ignorant bigot@88
Nick G and I are not the same person, cretin. What is the point of citing Cicero when his warning against homosexual behaviour was so obviously wrong, since the Roman Empire lasted about 1500 years after he issued it, moron?
Wowbagger- "Pity no-one told all those priests that before they started raping kids. Or the church hierarchy who not only allowed them to keep doing it, but protected them from prosecution for doing it."
Ugh. It's important to be mindful of the fact that a loyal catholic is essentially an apologist for child rape (among other vile things).
I try not to concentrate on that fact too much, because I like keeping my dinner down.
Anyway atheists have done most of the killing in history. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin,etc...all atheists.
john, you're either culpably ignorant, or a liar. Hitler was a baptised Catholic who never renounced this faith, and considered he was doing "the Lord's work", to quote directly from Mein Kampf. The death toll from Christianity's religious wars, and religiously justified imperialism, vastly exceeds that from the crimes of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.
That group of people did not kill because of atheism. They were all tyrants, and went after people who they perceived as threatening their personal power. They also had a state religion in Communism. In other words, they all showed paranoia unrelated to their atheism. Actually, Stalin was educated in a Georgian Orthodox Seminary.
Well, at least he included the Romans - one small step forward. Really, we're talking about a ridiculous myth to begin with, but a response to this dangerous antisemitism is necessary:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/gibson.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/jesus.html
Posted by: SC, OM | December 24, 2008 5:46 AM
You totally beat me to that one. I always seem to wake up to read a thread and find something I want to respond to, only to find that someone is a bit quicker than I am!
Posted by: john | December 24, 2008
Anyway atheists have done most of the killing in history. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin,etc...all atheists.
You really are the ignorant git. I will tell you the two differences between those tyrants and the many fine bloody christian kings the litter European history. 1)A modern state to field a military force and a population large enough to be slaughtered. 2)The technology and mass production needed to make the weapons to murder vast crowds in a relatively quick manner.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 24, 2008 9:27 AM
IMO, most of the prolific mass murderers, atheist or not, commit their acts of tyranny, oppression, and murder out of a desire to subjugate and control people. The only difference between tyrants like Hitler and the kings who mounted the Crusades, and tyrants like Mao and Pol Pot is that the former used religion as a tool to increase their power by identifying their goals with the people's god, while the latter saw no need to do so.
The plain fact is this - no one has ever raised an army, invaded a foreign land, subjugated its entire population, and looted their country for the purpose of converting them to the belief that there is no God.
I just love it when a moron lectures us about what the body was designed to do. I have a titanium plate and seven screws in my right wrist. I was not "designed" for that but there you go.
Yeah, it's usually quiet in the (our) wee hours here, but I like being a night owl since I overlap with the Aussies.
:)
John (#126):
Actually, neither of them were designed. However, extreme disparities in size notwithstanding, a penis can fit in either quite comfortably. Ditto the mouth and a clasped hand. But neither of them were "designed" for that function, either. So I assume you're against fellatio and masturbation, too? Oh, and tongues weren't "designed" for licking clitorises (or clitorises to be licked), so cunnilingus must be out as well.
Well, that's not true, since anal intercourse has been observed in quite a range of mammalian species, from bonobos to Japanese macaques to European polecats to American bison. Or did you mean something else by "unnatural"?
Setting aside your employment of the Naturalistic Fallacy, why do I get the impression that if you were really applying the terms "nature" and "natural" consistently, you would end up condemning open-heart surgery and playing the piano as being just as immoral as anal sex? But then this isn't really about what's natural or not, is it? It's about the yuck-factor combined with an authoritarian desire for control.
So you're in favour of threesomes, then? Presumably girl-boy-boy, since at least two of the Trinity are normally portrayed in masculine terms.
Nice godwin John. Hitler was a Catholic not an atheist and talked about jesus and god often. More critically his followers were all devout Catholics and Lutherans. Without them, Hitler would just be another loon (like yourself), waiting for the internet to be invented so he could post stupid stuff on message boards.
John knows his religion like he knows anything else, not in the least. In Exodus ca.20, it is quite clear that one may sell their daughters as sex slaves. Concubines, sex slaves were common in the OT. I don't think sex slaves have a whole lot to do with marriage. It may mirror some xians though, they are slaves to delusions and other mental problems....like john.
Actually, they are very evidently incredibly evil in part.
1. The Catholic church is anti-birth control and pro excessive child bearing. None of which has much scriptural basis, this is just nonsense the Popes made up. This may have made sense when the human population was small and infant mortality was 50%. Today with 6.7 billion people, a strong case can be made that it is a genocidal crime against humanity. The long term carrying capacity of the planet in not well known, but there is a number that the planet can support and no more. We may have overshot it already. Some deep time ecologists think a die off is inevitable and billions will die of famine, violence, and disease.
The medieval position of the RCC on birth control is so blatantly anti-human that it is almost universally ignored. The family size of US and European Catholics is identical to the national averages at 2 or so. The priests ignore this because if they tossed every one who planned their families, they wouldn't have any members left.
2. The RCC position on condoms and AIDS prevention while there is an epidemic that has killed tens of millions and will kill tens of millions more is just plain flat out criminally evil.
In any fair court of law, a strong case could be made that the RCC is guilty of facilitating mass murder and genocidal policies directed against the entire human race.
The only saving grace is that the Popes and the RCC long ago started spirally into irrelevancy and the vast majority of Catholics smile and nod and just ignore the kooky stuff. Non catholics just roll their eyes while realizing no one pays much attention or cares any more.
john
By your reasoning, taking multivitamins is also unnatural. As is wearing an artificial prosthetic for amputees, driving (what are them legs for then?), getting haircuts, or even cooking food.
Who are you to assume that gay relationships are not capable of having a fruitful, meaningful relationship that brings out the best in each partner?
The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, the crusades, Black Segregation, etc, etc, all by fanatical Christians.
By your reasoning, taking multivitamins is also unnatural. As is wearing an artificial prosthetic for amputees, driving (what are them legs for then?), getting haircuts, or even cooking food.
@Iain Walker
You forgot to add dolphins
every doomssayer will eventually be proven right. it's only relevant if they predicted both timeframe and cause correctly. neither applies in this case.
well, considering most Jewish Patriarchs were polygynists, and David was in a "loving covenant" with Jonathan, I daresay you don't know what you're talking about
history errs on the side of religion? either this phrase doesn't mean what you think it means, or you just explained 90% of atrocities ever committed by humans on humans.
and in case I guessed correctly at what you THINK that phrase means:
Religion(disc-world) vs. Round Earth 0:1
Religion(gods throwing lightning) vs. Electric discharge 0:1
Religion(geocentrism) vs Heliocentrism 0:1
Religion(submission to inborn inequality) vs. Liberté, égalité, fraternité 0:1
et cetera at nauseam
amazing. not a single correct statement in the bunch. he's not in touch with reality, nevermind modern culture; he's not well written, he is merely another German with the propensity to impress with big words and playing with semantics; he's trying to slowly weasel his way out of the connections between science and religion the last pope has made; as a matter of fact, JPII might have been an intellectual who brought science and the RCC closer together and worked on Interfaith cooperation (and can even boast being part of the fight against oppressive communism in Poland); the current git is the opposite of that, and seems to have made it his goal to undo everything the previous git wrought.
again, you're talking about the wrong pope; and healing divisions cannot come in the face of being compared to a natural disaster; and the church only predicts historical events correctly if they're the ones who wrote it. (and even then they get causality wrong)
you're a condescending fuck with the hubris to talk out of his ass about things he doesn't understand, and claim that it's the rest of the world that gets things wrong. apology not accepted.
case in point re:talking out of your ass. For one, the original on that bit has been released in Italian, not Latin. two, the text clearly and unambiguously states that defying the male/female roles as the Church defines them is something that needs to be protected against lest it cause the destruction of humankind: "Deve proteggere anche l'uomo contro la distruzione di se stesso.È necessario che ci sia qualcosa come una ecologia dell'uomo, intesa nel senso giusto. [...]la Chiesa parla della natura dell'essere umano come uomo e donna e chiede che quest'ordine della creazione venga rispettato."
projection or blind condescension, i can't quite tell.
another case of "do as I say, not as I do. especially not as I do".
IF you have knowledge in an area? as evidenced by all of the above, you seem to pipe in happily on things you have no knowledge of. possibly a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
welcome. it's really not so bad this side of the RCC, heheh. and trust me, if I hadn't been an agnostic by the time the last pope died, I'd have run away screaming from the Church after the current fuckwit got elected :-p
Remind me to nominate Jadehawk when PZ asks for the next Molly Award nominees.
*blush*
Grinch. Molly, Oh, yeah, PZ, this is a gentle reminder that it is time tally up the last month's Molly votes.
Janine @149 - I have a titanium, gold and porcelain tooth that my dentist considered his masterpiece of the year. I wonder how many abominations we're committing with such hardware? Hey! Maybe it makes us 'unclean' - Whoo-ho!
i'm still trying to wrap my head around this one. the trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. that's three males, or two males and a vapor. does this mean sons should be marrying their fathers? or that women are vapors? how is that AT ALL resembling the union of one male and one female?
Nerd, you're due for a nomination too.
What John? Does God like threesies?
Add Iain Walker to the list as well.
a)Jadehawk
b)Nerd of Redhead
c)Iain Walker
(PZ will forget again and come January there will be multiple awardees)
Fly is Gary Busey and John is Jack, the 14th Earl of Gurney. This should clear it all up for you.
John's disgust is suspect. Meltdown in 4...3...2...1...
*blush*
I have nine on my primary Molly nomination list, but one or two will receive receive the latest award, so that number will go down. I have three on my up-and-coming Molly list that I'm keeping an eye on. Plus always on the lookout for someone to start standing out.
A short primer about Jack, the 14th Earl of Gurney. I am the resurrection and the light!
Religion will always be a worse communicable affliction, you cannot be born with it.
I'm gay and I'm out to destroy humanity. I'm coming for you next pope. Your billions of reproducing heteros are no match for my EVIL.
the Holy Trinity ie a fruitful exclusive union of uninhibited love - john
Since the "triune god" of Christianity is said to be one as well as three, I think we can safely conclude that he's a wanker - not that there's anything wrong with that, I hasten to add.
love this quote...
Interesting,
Pope greets Christmas with appeal for abused kids"
Seems like if he really cared about children he would have done something to stop those priest, instead of just dedicating a speech to them.
the trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. that's three males, or two males and a vapor. does this mean sons should be marrying their fathers? or that women are vapors? how is that AT ALL resembling the union of one male and one female?
Maybe The Holy Ghost represents jizz? (The Essence of Man deserves its own symbolic being, you see)
Twin-Skies (#155):
Who, apparently, have also been observed to perform nasal sex - i.e., penetration of the blowhole. I wonder if John can inform us of the Catholic doctrinal position on this.
But,but,the blowhole was not designed for penetration !!!
Dolphins are undoubtedly non-kosher (they live in the sea, but - horror of horrors - don't have scales), so I'd guess they know they are damned already, and have decided they might as well have what fun they can. They also go in for cross-species sex (I'm not sure if you call it bestiality when both parties are beasts). I regret to say males sometimes coerce females into copulation, contrary to their cuddly image.
Eeeeeiiiioiiiiieee means eeeeeiiiioiiiiieee.
Posted by: Iain Walker | December 25, 2008 9:04 AM
Am I the only one who had the old line "Up your nose with a rubber hose" pop into mind upon reading that??
Why to focus on gays and lesbians? I think Noam A. Chomsky statement can answer this question: "The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people." You just exchange gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender for the above labels and now you know what it is all about. The church needs someone to hate in order to maintain control over its flocks. They can no longer go after Jews, Muslims, and other religions (not PC) so what is it left to hate?
Another point is that one of the biggest persecutors of gays in US history was J. Edgar Hoover who was a closeted gay. One can only wonder if the pope is trying to eradicate in the outside something that he struggles in the inside... many psychological theories would have a field day with this possibility.
Jesus is God AND Jesus is the Son of God.
Does that mean he is sitting on his own right hand in eternity?
Adneyel - Your Chomsky quote is right on. Control by use of hate is very real in the church.
Jesus, the Son of God, having sex with God the Father? While a spook who speaks in tongues joins in? Well, that's done it for me. I'm throwing away my rosary beads and sleeping in next Sunday. Thanks Mathi.
John @ #128:
By your logic, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be added to the Christian total of killings, since they were done by an overtly Christian government (the US).
Just out of curiosity, has celibacy been observed in ANY species other than humans?
Hitler was a Christian, albeit a "heretical" one. Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin were Communists, and Communism, while technically atheistic (as in "Dear Leader isn't *technically* a god, though you'd never know it from listening to us") is at least as much of a religion as most forms of Buddhism. Can you point to any atrocity of any vaguely comparable scale committed by humanist freethinkers? I thought not.
Additionally, I suggest you review these estimates, and observe that while Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin's victims add up to 125 million, bubonic plague, the epidemics of which were greatly exacerbated and arguably even caused by the Church's needless retardation of scientific progress in general, and insistence that prayer, not hygiene, was the way to avoid disease in particular, has killed over 200 million, by many estimates, in the course of history. (Also, certain atrocities committed by Christians, specifically the Atlantic Slave Trade, Taiping Rebellion, Holocaust, Napoleonic Wars, French Wars of Religion, and Thirty Years' War, add up to well over 130 million dead.)
You were saying?
Azkyroth,
You've omitted the murders committed in the course of the conquest of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand - although admittedly, since the majority of the deaths were due to diseases to which the indigenous peoples had no resistance, it's difficult to arrive at an accurate figure for deliberate killing. However, we should certainly add in the 10m or so murdered by the Belgians in the "Congo Free State" in the late 19th and early 20th century, and lesser numbers killed by other colonial powers in Africa. Then there's the Indians who died in quite unnecesssary famines under the British Raj - again, the numbers are in millions but difficult to quantify exactly. All justified in the name of bringing Christianity to the benighted heathen.
It'd have to be a bit more difficult to observe in animals because of the specific differences between 'celibate' - abstaining from sex if it's offered - and 'just not getting any'.
Any animal behaviourists out there who can tell us if there've been observations of animals who are turning down all offers?
Huh, so I did.
The link includes them, though.
There's also the point that these people were not killing in the name of atheism. Whereas religious wars of the 16th and 17th Centuries were run by people specifically pushing their particular brand of religion to the exclusion of others. During the Thirty Years War Count Tilly, "the monk in armor," was commander of the Catholic League (Katholische Liga). Tilly was commander at the Sack of Magedeburg, where the city was burned and 25,000 people were killed, all in the name of Catholic Christianity.
"And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited." - Adolf Hitler"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" - Adolf Hitler"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." - Adolf Hitler
Niiiice Kel. Hitler quotin! Dang, I never thought of that. Well done.
There were a few more too, but I think that rammed the point home. Hopefully John now realises that a leader's religion often has nothing to do with the atrocities committed under his stead, that the dogmatism of the system and the drive for power are as good motivators as any for committing mass atrocities. It's that dogmatism and blind devotion that are the problems, and whether the leader is religious or not, whether the system is a theocracy, communism or free-market capitalism, that bad things can and do happen by otherwise ordinary people.
Lonesome George, the last(?) Pinta tortoise, is rather famously recalcitrant.
aren't pandas incredibly hard to breed for that reason? or is this just a problem in captivity...?
Nice one,Kel !
The problem here is really a different one,and therefore my response of "Sigh" upthread,that even if we call Stalin or Mao Atheists(leaving out the discussion whether their personal cults werent a kind of religion in itself,and leaving out, in Stalin's case,his weird mystic beliefs).
It is simply a non-sequitur to say they were Atheists,therefore they were murderers and warmongers.
So the retarded argument goes,Mao and Hitler and Stalin were atheists,and look what happened ,but its just not correct and a fallacy that the one follows from the other.
I think that needs to be pointed out more often,and discussed seperately when we try to tell the religionists that not all world-stage murderers were atheists.
Bush and Blair were Christian, and both prayed to God the night before invading Iraq. Now what does that say about Christianity?
Kel, I think that says a lot more about Bush and Blair than it does about christianity.
Exactly, it's a lame argument to say was an atheist then complain about the problems caused as if there was a causality between their beliefs and the actions they did. Sometimes causes may be true for that person, but to say it offhand is labelling oneself completely ignorant. It's a shame that so many people come on here and try saying something profound, but it ends up amplifying how truly moronic they actually are.
The posts and comments on this site have been making my year, but the title of this one takes the cake!! Love it.
In 1975, Biblical scholar Walter Wink wrote an excellent article debunking the myth that the Bible speaks against homsexuality; differentiating between cultural requirements of a new people in a new land, and demonstrating that the only consistent ethic throughout the Bible is a love ethic. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but did promote a love ethic....
In 2000, then-Cardinal Ratzinger put out the encyclical "Dominus Iesus", in which he said that the rest of us are deficient in our faith, and only come into the true faith if we convert to Catholicism.
I am bemused by a man who thinks of himself as God, who has done nothing to stop the abuse of children - and adults - by priests in his church; who has indeed covered up and turned a blind eye to abuse.
And I have almost lost track of the number of people who have come to my own church as refugees from Catholicism. He is going to find more and more Catholics looking elsewhere.
Using what practical definition of "love"? Love for whom/what?
The only saving grace is that the Popes and the RCC long ago started spirally into irrelevancy and the vast majority of Catholics smile and nod and just ignore the kooky stuff.