• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CNN: Pope held private meeting with same-sex couple in U.S.

Status
Not open for further replies.

remist

Member
Yeah? No thanks. Been down that road before, all it nets me is a few hours arguing with thick-headed people who only want to associate themselves and their causes with with race and racism when it benefits them.

Spend a few hours scouring NeoGAF and compare how often this analogy is applied in the reverse, then tell me how "not dissimilar" they are.

If you aren't going to explain your reasoning then there's no good reason for you to be going around policing analogies.

It's used in one direction instead of another because prejudice based on race is more universally seen as morally reprehensible compared to prejudice against gay people. That's not a reason that it is a faulty analogy, unless you think one is worse than the other.
 
Do you have any examples of when advocating too hard for equality resulted in less equality? Nobody is saying progress is being made in many socities. Can we point to any progress in the church which is used as justification to restrict the freedoms of many minorities?

My comments is on pushback culture, not trying to establish analogies to events that may/may not have the indirect cause (plus an infinite number of other variables).
There is nothing I can say as proof. I'm merely commenting on what I believe to be a basic response when a group of people feel attacked. They just attack right back.

I think that explains the current political climate with borderline insane ring wing Christians being disillusioned on so many subjects, that they even seek extreme now for the vatican. I believe their more and more extreme tone has been sharpened by the pushback from the left, which often has been justified against their insane views, but never the less, it ups the ante and then you're stuck in a stallmate.


You don't have to go all in and ask for reforms immediately, but at least be vocal about wanting these reforms is a good start. This is progress. Talking is talking. The Pope being nice to people isn't going to change the Church's stance on homosexuality or the other backwards ideas they have.

I'm with you on that. I'm not advocating that you don't talk about the issue. I'm only refering to the posters who are completely forgetting what a repulsive piece evil shit his predecessor was.

Francis has done a lot by just talking about reform and his views. His blessing to women who have abortions has been important for religious women being able to receive priests blessings, which is hugely important to them.

He has inspired catholics on many subjects. He Has spoken out on the importance of recognizing climate change (something right wing religious people in the US have been dangerously in denial about for a long time) and about christian homes taking in refugees.
He has acknowledged the horrors of child abuse and asked for forgiveness for what they have done. He has brought to light some of the forgotten horrors committed by the church in the past.


None of these things are not enough, and we should not stop until there is freedom for all, but it seems clear that this popes intentions honestly are good, and that he is trying to walk the paradoxical life between being the head of the most damming and evil institution in the history of the world, while at the same time preaching the love for all people, which is an impossible task.
It's just not realistic that he can just say crazy stuff that goes against everyone of their beliefs just because he is the pope. He has great power as the figurehead, but his power is not absolute.

What makes you say that these thing the pope talks about don't have an effect or causes things to change? A new pope was not elected no matter how people complained, threatened and protested the horrible things they did with the abuse of those children who were molested.
 

Syriel

Member
I can't tell if this is meant to be serious or not.

Replace people that hate homosexuals (homophobes) with racist and homosexuals with the race of your choice and see how you feel.

By that reasoning, it is fair to say that you are Islamophobic then?

Catholic people aren't the only ones affected by religious policy. The Church's influence is massive. Wanting a religion to be more accepting and progressive is something every one should want.

You sound like you're confusing Christians with Catholics.

The Pope is the spiritual leader of Catholics. That's one small subset of Christians.

There's only ever been one Catholic President. And he was assassinated.
 
By that reasoning, it is fair to say that you are Islamophobic then?



You sound like you're confusing Christians with Catholics.

The Pope is the spiritual leader of Catholics. That's one small subset of Christians.

There's only ever been one Catholic President. And he was assassinated.

(at the bolded) Ahem...


main-qimg-b3aa1b7636395531d1d01ac7d4a3e870


It doesn't necessarily change your point, but the Catholic subset of Christianity is certainly not small, proportionately speaking.
 

The Adder

Banned
If you aren't going to explain your reasoning then there's no good reason for you to be going around policing analogies.

I just don't give enough of a shit anymore to go beyond calling out the bullshit. Been here for 3 years now and I've had this same argument at least 4 times, gets tiresome. So beyond voicing my objections, I really don't feel the need to get into full on arguments anymore.

It's used in one direction instead of another because prejudice based on race is more universally seen as morally reprehensible compared to prejudice against gay people. That's not a reason that it is a faulty analogy, unless you think one is worse than the other.

Is it worse to be a racist than a homophobe or vice versa? Nope.

Does one generally have a greater number of negative effects, often with more far reaching consequences and fewer methods of prevention? Yep.
 

Syriel

Member
(at the bolded) Ahem...


main-qimg-b3aa1b7636395531d1d01ac7d4a3e870


It doesn't necessarily change your point, but the Catholic subset of Christianity is certainly not small, proportionately speaking.

You are correct. Strike small from my post. The point was that there are a whole lot of Christians that have nothing to do with Catholicism nor do they follow the Pope.
 

mantidor

Member
(at the bolded) Ahem...


main-qimg-b3aa1b7636395531d1d01ac7d4a3e870


It doesn't necessarily change your point, but the Catholic subset of Christianity is certainly not small, proportionately speaking.

This is exactly why posts like this:

I feel like I'm in bizarro world with everyone caring so much what this man says and does.

are quite something. Do you really have to ask yourself why people care about the Pope?
 
Okay, I forgive you, Chill Pope. I was wrong to lose faith in you and trust the words of False Prophet Kim Davis. Seriously, why did I ever believe a single word out of her? This explains the carefully-worded statement from the Vatican on whether Davis received an audience. "Yes, technically" makes more sense now.
I think a lot of Americans are into that Old Testament wrath-of-god stuff.
This is the extra stupid part. There's a heavy emphasis on the "wrath" part of the Old Testament and a handful of specific quotes on some social issues, but 99.9% willfully ignore all the rules and guidelines decreed in the same text (like the sacrificing, death penalty for minor infractions of all types, women as property, Day Of Rest, etc).
 
How is that different from you lumping everyone into one group?

The 'group' is extremism (in either direction), hyperbole, and knee-jerk reactions. GAF, as a forum, like many forums, can definitely be guilty of this.

That isn't to say that every individual person has extremely one-sided views, but that it is generally the kind of response you'll see here, especially on controversial issues.

Him noting something very obvious and provable about the forum is not the same as being one-sided. There is no other side. You will not find scores of neutral posts about anything on this forum. Granted, not everything needs to be neutral, but the point still stands.

EDIT:

Sorry for the double post.
 
He's very New Testament.

I think a lot of Americans are into that Old Testament wrath-of-god stuff.

Problem is the condemnation of homosexuality is also in the New Testament. Paul, one of the most important saints, says that it's basically a deal-breaker if you're trying to get into heaven. The list probably implicates most of us here, actually. haha

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).
 

riotous

Banned
Are quite something. Do you really have to ask yourself why people care about the Pope?

I never said I don't understand why.

I find it bizarre; it's an opinion.

(I was raised Catholic too; you are barely exposed to the hierarchy above your local church, so it's still even bizarre to me how Catholics make such a big deal about it.. you go to Church, you say the same prayers.. sing the same songs.. and the priest talks, you might interact with that priest for confession, etc., but beyond that your life has little to nothing to do with the Pope, or anyone in the power hierarchy of Catholicism.)
 

The Adder

Banned
Problem is the condemnation of homosexuality is also in the New Testament. Paul, one of the most important saints, says that it's basically a deal-breaker if you're trying to get into heaven. The list probably implicates most of us here, actually. haha

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

Paul said a lot of things. Last I heard Peter was the one upon whom the Church was built.
 
Paul said a lot of things. Last I heard Peter was the one upon whom the Church was built.

Despite Peter supposedly establishing the Papacy, Paul's writings remain extremely influential, composing the bulk of the New Testament. His credentials of having a miraculous vision of Jesus after his death/resurrection put him up there w/ Peter and the rest (at least in the eyes of his early followers).
 

riotous

Banned
yeah, it's probably semantics since using bizarre suggest that is is something uncommon, or rarely observed.

Maybe not the best word; I just don't relate to the worship of figure heads.. even though I rejected Christianity as a child I feel like I understand some of it's tenants better; like for instance not worshiping humans.
 

Mael

Member
Nah, that has nothing to do with this discussion.

He's the head of the Catholic church. Don't whine and say that he should go to every gay wedding so you can ignore that he's the leader of a bigoted organization.
You're saying that the pope should make an infallible encyclical saying that the Church should celebrate gay marriage.
My proposition is slightly more reasonable.
 

Nephtis

Member
Or we could keep voicing our disapproval so that there is pressure on the pope to adapt to modernity. "Keeping the positive ball rolling" is a recipe for status quo.

The thing is that there is no "pressure" on the pope. All it does is come off as whining. With this pope, far more things will be accomplished by "keeping the positive ball rolling" than otherwise.

Look, Republicans "keep voicing their disapproval", and look at how far that's gotten them.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Sad that the world takes a lot of consideration about how a single old virgin thinks about marriage =P

Doubt the guy is virgin, he used to be a bouncer in Argentina.
 

zoozilla

Member
Seems like a lot of the confusion over the Pope's actions come from a belief (or hope) that the Pope can become some kind of liberal figurehead, fighting for social justice everywhere.

The Pope is not a liberal - not by a long shot. He's the head of a religious institution. He lives by the teachings of God as he sees them, and he's been very consistent in his views and actions from that perspective. He's been very charitable to what we might consider liberal causes by coincidence more than anything else. People can disagree with the Pope's interpretations of the Bible (Republican candidates are doing it all the time!) or lament the fact that he's not changing the church in more fundamental ways, but the Pope's just gonna keep on Pope'in. I don't see how he's in any way a "troll," or a "flip flopper" or whatever. I don't even know if it's correct to call him a neutral party. Jesus didn't advocate neutrality; he advocated love for all, even (and maybe especially) for those who you disagree with most.

I never said I don't understand why.

I find it bizarre; it's an opinion.

(I was raised Catholic too; you are barely exposed to the hierarchy above your local church, so it's still even bizarre to me how Catholics make such a big deal about it.. you go to Church, you say the same prayers.. sing the same songs.. and the priest talks, you might interact with that priest for confession, etc., but beyond that your life has little to nothing to do with the Pope, or anyone in the power hierarchy of Catholicism.)

Uh, for Catholics isn't the Pope the closest you can get to God himself? I can see how for a believer that would be a pretty big deal. If you're not a believer, well, he's still the leader of the largest Christian church in the world.
 

RM8

Member
The thing is that there is no "pressure" on the pope. All it does is come off as whining. With this pope, far more things will be accomplished by "keeping the positive ball rolling" than otherwise.

Look, Republicans "keep voicing their disapproval", and look at how far that's gotten them.
I'm pretty sure declining numbers somewhat influenced the superficial change of tone of Catholicism. I doubt this pope is slightly more accepting just because. And really, why should anyone be shielded from criticism?
 

Syriel

Member
Uh, for Catholics isn't the Pope the closest you can get to God himself? I can see how for a believer that would be a pretty big deal. If you're not a believer, well, he's still the leader of the largest Christian church in the world.

The Pope would be the closest thing to a living Apostle. He's not supposed to speak for God or take God's place. And he's not worshiped.

But he's supposed to be living God's teachings and helping to pass them along.

I'm pretty sure declining numbers somewhat influenced the superficial change of tone of Catholicism. I doubt this pope is slightly more accepting just because. And really, why should anyone be shielded from criticism?

Protestants previously claimed that the Catholic Pope (not this one, an earlier one) was the Antichrist.

It's not like the Catholic Church hasn't seen criticism before.
 

Nephtis

Member
I'm pretty sure declining numbers somewhat influenced the superficial change of tone of Catholicism. I doubt this pope is slightly more accepting just because. And really, why should anyone be shielded from criticism?

Criticism is fine, and yeah, it should be done. But to want to constantly criticize without being willing to take in the positives as well will do more harm than good. A lot more harm. As for the pope, I honestly do think he's always been like that. I mean, his idea of an "escapade" is to put on regular priest clothes and go feed the homeless at night when no one's watching.
 
Neutrality on the issue of same sex marriage, how does that work?

It's not about neutrality on dividing issues. Of course division is to be expected in that context. The problem is when you have someone (like the pope) who makes positive comments about people or does positive things for people on both sides of a divisive issue.

The context of neutrality here has nothing to do with being in the middle, but being unobjectionable and inoffensive towards anyone, regardless of what side they're on.

The pope is not neutral on homosexuality or gay marriage, but he is neutral in how he treats people, and this is something this isn't being taken into account when people make comments about him flip-flopping.
 

Clefargle

Member
This doesn't change how I feel about this pope. He's been on a "progressive" kick for months without changing much Catholic policy. He had been paying lip service to these ideals without changing anything of value. Still just more of the same. Hanging out with the bigots and the sinners. Not surprised.
 
This doesn't change how I feel about this pope. He's been on a "progressive" kick for months without changing much Catholic policy. He had been paying lip service to these ideals without changing anything of value. Still just more of the same. Hanging out with the bigots and the sinners. Not surprised.


Exactly. As I said earlier, I feel like a Christ in 2015 would very much be the same way.
 

linsivvi

Member
So the new defense for the church's anti-gay stance is that everything is not black and white? That people's rights being stripped is a complicated matter? That demanding equal rights for everybody is being too absolute?

Okay.
 
So the new defense for the church's anti-gay stance is that everything is not black and white? That people's rights being stripped is a complicated matter? That demanding equal rights for everybody is being too absolute?

Okay.

Not if you've been understanding the discourse in this thread it hasn't.
 
Except that's what some posters are saying so it's you who do not understand the discourse in this thread.

Shrug.


There is no new defense. The pope is still anti-gay, he's just not anti-gay people. He supports their human rights. Similarly, he's still anti-bigot, but he's not anti-bigot people. He supports their human rights. It's that simple.

The discourse in this thread has been about the neutral stance the pope takes in not treating one group of people more favorably than the other, regardless of which side he aligns his views with.

Basically, the pope's just doing his job. People asserting that he's just doing his job is not some new defense. It's stating the obvious.
 

linsivvi

Member
There is no new defense. The pope is still anti-gay, he's just not anti-gay people. He supports their human rights. Similarly, he's still anti-bigot, but he's not anti-bigot people. He supports their human rights. It's that simple.

The discourse in this thread has been about the neutral stance the pope takes in not treating one group of people more favorably than the other, regardless of which side he aligns his views with.

Basically, the pope's just doing his job. People asserting that he's just doing his job is not some new defense. It's stating the obvious.

He is just unable to comply with gay marriage, and that doesn't make him anti gay
Yes it does.
This sort of rhetoric is the exact kind absolutist viewpoint that undermines the progress. No it does not. You cannot pull a blatant "with us or against us" argument. You're a person with infinite variables and complexities, not a Sith that deals in absolutes.

Shrug.
 
Those comments are a huge part of the discourse in this thread, as you denied.

I never once said those things weren't brought up or mentioned in this thread. My entire point was that, had you understood the discourse in this thread (the entirety of everything that was discussed), you would know that the posts that you pointed out did not represent some new defense for the church's anti-gay stance.

To put it more clearly, as the leader of the catholic church, the pope does not express the views of the posts that you pointed out, nor does the catholic church at large. Those are just opinions on a message board. When you said "the new defense for the church's anti-gay stance", I took that to mean the church's explanation/defense for why they're anti-gay.

If by "the new defense", you were not talking about the church's official defense, but merely a defense raised in this thread, then I will say that I did not initially interpret it that way. If that is indeed that case, then while I will agree that it's a defense that was raised in this thread, it's not a new one, and it doesn't represent the official stance of the catholic church, so it's not even a defense worth arguing within the context of criticizing the official stance of the catholic church, IMO.
 

linsivvi

Member
I never once said those things weren't brought up or mentioned in this thread. My entire point was that, had you understood the discourse in this thread (the entirety of everything that was discussed), you would know that the posts that you pointed out did not represent some new defense for the church's anti-gay stance.

To put it more clearly, as the leader of the catholic church, the pope does not express the views of the posts that you pointed out, nor does the catholic church at large. Those are just opinions on a message board. When you said "the new defense for the church's anti-gay stance", I took that to mean the church's explanation/defense for why they're anti-gay.

If by "the new defense", you were not talking about the church's official defense, but merely a defense raised in this thread, then I will say that I did not initially interpret it that way. If that is indeed that case, then while I will agree that it's a defense that was raised in this thread, it's not a new one, and it doesn't represent the official stance of the catholic church, so it's not even a defense worth arguing within the context of criticizing the official stance of the catholic church, IMO.

I think we are in full agreement then.
 

akira28

Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/w...ery-of-papal-meeting-with-kim-davis.html?_r=0

The archbishop, who was exiled to the United States in 2011 after losing a high-altitude Vatican power struggle that became public in an infamous leaks scandal, now finds himself at the center of another papal controversy. This time, the Vatican is suggesting that Archbishop Viganò is responsible for giving papal face time to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk whose refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples has made her a heroine to social conservatives.

So it was a deliberate attempt to make Pope Francis look bad. Man no one is more bitchy than an angry priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom