Another thing about Popes

[GottaBigOne]

This is from that blog I mentioned before.

Straight Sex Good, Gay Sex Bad?
Pope John Paul II wrote quite a few things about sex and sexuality. What's interesting about people's reactions to these writings is that they tended to ignore his pronouncements regarding heterosexual activity but nodded in agreement to his pronouncements regarding homosexual activity. The theological basis for all of it, though, was the same.

Dan Savage writes:

What's maddening about this pope's signature gay bashing is this: When the pope—the dead one, the next one, the one after that—says something stupid about homosexuality, straight folks take it to heart. The church's efforts have helped defeat gay rights bills, led to the omission of gays and lesbians from hate-crime statutes, and helped to pass anti-gay-marriage amendments. But when a pope says something stupid about heterosexuality, straight Americans go deaf.

And this pope had plenty to say about heterosexual sex—no contraceptives, no premarital sex, no blowjobs, no jerkin' off, no divorce, no remarriage, no artificial insemination, no blowjobs, no three-ways, no swinging, no blowjobs, no anal. Did I mention no blowjobs? John Paul II had more "no's" for straight people than he did for gays. But when he tried to meddle in the private lives of straights, the same people who deferred to his delicate sensibilities where my rights were concerned suddenly blew the old asshole off. Gay blowjobs are expendable, it seems; straight ones are sacred.

You can't consistently reject Catholic teachings on contraception but accept the teachings on homosexuality because the arguments for both rely on the same theological premises and ideas. You have to accept both or reject both.

 

[steve319]

I'm replying to your signature rather than your post, GBO, so this might be off-topic.

I have to say that based on your posts (and speaking as a str8 man), I'm far more fascinated with the sharp, incisive thoughts happening in your brain than anything to do with your other head (as impressive as I'm sure it must be).

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by steve319@Apr 25 2005, 12:49 AM
I'm replying to your signature rather than your post, GBO, so this might be off-topic.

I have to say that based on your posts (and speaking as a str8 man), I'm far more fascinated with the sharp, incisive thoughts happening in your brain than anything to do with your other head (as impressive as I'm sure it must be).

[post=304348]Quoted post[/post]​

Oh trust me, his other head is quite impressive, but I have to agree.

GBO, I am unfamiliar with the issues you quoted, would you mind posting a link so I can catch up dear?

 

[GottaBigOne]

What exactly are you having trouble with?

Everything except the first line is from an article about Catholicism.

 

[13788]

hung_big: Man...and I thought the media was having a frenzy over the new Pope.

Nothing against you my good man, GBO. In fact, this is one of the more intillectual threads, but I'm just wondering how long this topic will take to DIE OUT.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Well, tat article is mostly about John Paul II, but since its a pretty big thing to have a new pope its worth disussing. Especially since religion is a big part of world affairs.

 

[madame_zora]

No blow jobs though? That seems inhumane!

GBO, you know I agree with what you're saying, I just didn't know if you'd read something recently that set you off about this. We've both known for a long time that religous groups are more focused on the sins of others than their own shortcomings. That is the main reason for my own personal distancing from organised religion. I know there are those who feel it's better to stay within the system and try to improve it, but I personally find it too flawed and full of bs to even care to try. I have a hard time working up much emotion over it at present, it just seems like a natural step in the current facade of the world. The "election" already shot my balls off, I don't think I can make myself care too much about a pope I won't give a fig about anyway.

I'm sad about the state of the world, very deeply sad. It would be so good to have a world leader who stood for love over segregation and intolerance, but the new pope will not be that man. I hope I live long enough to witness something better.

Gandhi was a humanist, he didn't try to brainwash people into being Hindu before he would support their cause, he fought for what was right just because it was the right thing to do. He instructed Hindus to repect the faith of the Muslims with whom they were fighting, where is a man like that now? My brain is just incapapble of absorbing what is happening to society as a whole, and I need something beautiful, but it is out of my grasp.

If you are trying to get anyone to admit that their own views are self-serving and hippocritical, good luck! I don't think people as a whole are capable of doing that. If they aren't capable of putting more thought and effort into their voting than to just vote for whomever their family or pastor tell them to vote for, why would you think they'd be able to asses with any accuracy thier whole religion? No, these philosophical thoughts are only useful for the ones who ponder philosophy. The world as a whole remains unmoved.



When I need to smile, I look here: http://www.mahatma.org.in/pictures/showpic...37&cat=pictures

 

[jonb]

Not just Catholics. Protestants too. Current Christian emphasis sexual mores above all other moral issues are largely a result of the 17th-century belief that sperm were fully-formed people. They'd discouraged most non-reproductive sex since the beginning, and the Christian world was horribly overpopulated by the 16th century, but with this belief, it became equal to murder.

 

[steve319]

I don't think that this inconsistency in regard to subscribing to the beliefs espoused by a particular faith or church is strictly pope-centric. I think that's a pretty common thing in most faiths, and in society in general in a way.

My mother still attends a fundamentalist baptist church that's as conservative as can be in spite of her pretty liberal (for this area anyway) views. She'll often call me and complain about something their pastor or someone else said that goes against the grain of her own feelings, but she still goes (and still gives them &#036.

One side of my personality is quick to see this as hypocritical, but, to be honest, I wish I had a bit more of that capacity myself. I think I'm too far on the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" side, abandoning church attendance years ago because I can't subscribe to their beliefs.

In most other areas of my life, I can handle personal involvement in a flawed system. I mean, I still vote and serve jury duty and am part of the educational system, each one flawed in big ways and often promoting policies and agendas that inflame me personally. But with religion, I haven't been able to do that. I sometimes wish I could--sort of hoping that I could work to change the system "from the inside," so to speak. But, really, if there are still people who have gay family members or friends and still stick to antiquated condemnations, how much change is going to happen through my participation in organized religion?

I'd love to find a group of like-minded people who share my worldview and aren't hung up with imposing rules on sexuality and with converting the world, but I'm not sure there is one. Maybe that's the way of man.

"Men go crazy in congregations; they only get better one by one." Maybe so?

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by jonb@Apr 24 2005, 10:36 PM
Current Christian emphasis sexual mores above all other moral issues are largely a result of the 17th-century belief that sperm were fully-formed people. They'd discouraged most non-reproductive sex since the beginning,..

[post=304396]Quoted post[/post]​

Interesting. That might be the way it was justified, but I'd be willing to bet that leaders certainly saw the benefits in promoting sex for reproduction and disparaging contraception as a means of simply ensuring growth of their numbers (and thus their monetary support?).

Go forth and be fruitful so we can have lots of laborers, a big army, and tons of discretionary cash. Numbers=power?

 

[Nienna]

Very Interesting threaad. I myself am against organized religion.
I suggest to those of you who haven't, to read "Angels and Demons" and "the Davincci Code"

http://www.danbrown.com/novels/angels_demons/reviews.html

http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/reviews.html

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by jonb@Apr 25 2005, 02:36 AM
Not just Catholics. Protestants too. Current Christian emphasis sexual mores above all other moral issues are largely a result of the 17th-century belief that sperm were fully-formed people. They'd discouraged most non-reproductive sex since the beginning, and the Christian world was horribly overpopulated by the 16th century, but with this belief, it became equal to murder.

[post=304396]Quoted post[/post]​

Sexual mores are so easy to identify and quantify too. It's easy to tell if you're "doing the will of God" and feel good about yourself just by remaining chaste. Now, I'm not doubting the validity of that philosophy and I did remain celibate for five years while contemplating and learning what to do next. I did enjoy the feeling of supremacy I had at being able to overcome my demons, but it was an egotistical feeling that I was somehow above others because of it. I don't want to be separate from other people, and I don't believe that a God who loves me would want that either- and if God doesn't love me, then why would I care?

What I am saying is that I understand why members of various religous faiths truly believe they are better than others, I was there and I know how intoxicating that feeling can be. Belongingness and love are feelings we all crave as human beings, even the KKK knows this and provides a group environment for their "true believers" because they know that if a person looks around and everyone in a fairly large group says "this is right!", then it is. Most people will never look beyond that.

When a religion posts a list of doctrines on "do this and don't do that, feel this and don't feel that" it makes it easy for the majority to feel that they are in the right if they follow those things. What it doesn't allow for is individuality, creativity, or even questioning of why we believe as we do. This becomes a greater tregedy when we realise the motivations for said doctrines are all too often poilitical and monetary in their origins. If leaders are clever enough to disguise these origins, "we the people" become "we the sheep". Don't even get me started on "Do what I say, not what I do".

 

[steve319]

Ugh. Normally I give the benefit of the doubt to anything socking it to the evils done in the name of God, but The DaVinci Code, while engrossing at first, just wore me out with contrivance and bad writing.

I'd certainly recommend everyone read it, though, to see what all the fuss is about. And if you're pressed for time (and have a sense of humor), you can skip it and get a good idea by reading this HILARIOUS little article by Dave Barry:

Dave Barry on The DaVinci Code

"This is incredible! Soon I will say what it is.'' :lol:

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by steve319@Apr 24 2005, 08:38 PM
Ugh. Normally I give the benefit of the doubt to anything socking it to the evils done in the name of God, but The DaVinci Code, while engrossing at first, just wore me out with contrivance and bad writing.

I'd certainly recommend everyone read it, though, to see what all the fuss is about. And if you're pressed for time (and have a sense of humor), you can skip it and get a good idea by reading this HILARIOUS little article by Dave Barry:

Dave Barry on The DaVinci Code

"This is incredible! Soon I will say what it is.'' :lol:

[post=304418]Quoted post[/post]​

I'm pretty sick of hearing about this book. The number of people who mistake a highly self-promoted fictional novel for a cultural watershed is astonishing. Does anyone else think it sounds like a rip-off of The Name of the Rose?

Then again, based on book sales, a lot of people seem to be looking forward to Armageddon too, so maybe intrigue in the Vatican isn't so bad.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by jonb@Apr 24 2005, 07:36 PM
Not just Catholics. Protestants too. Current Christian emphasis sexual mores above all other moral issues are largely a result of the 17th-century belief that sperm were fully-formed people. They'd discouraged most non-reproductive sex since the beginning, and the Christian world was horribly overpopulated by the 16th century, but with this belief, it became equal to murder.

[post=304396]Quoted post[/post]​

How was the Christian world overpopulated? Because they were constantly pushing non-Christians off their land? I kind of doubt that overpopulation would be necessary for that to happen when greed was so abundant.

 

[jonb]

Even with their lebensraumpolitik, overpopulation was apparent. I mean, black plague? In western Europe, there was a time when the lower classes couldn't eat meat. That's the kind of thing we're talking about.

 

[dolf250]

Religion, in my experience usually does not produce a feeling of superiority. Quite the contrary as it shows you the flaws within yourself. I will not argue that it does not produce some self-righteous people, but not everybody who has religion feels superior. Now I’m sure many can cite examples from personal experience of high flouting religious people, but then the same book inspired people such as Mother Teresa. As much as I am not Catholic, I cannot find any fault with her religion (not Catholicism, but rather what she credited for producing the love within her.) Reading “No greater love” (written by mother Teresa,) you cannot find any examples of pride nor hatred for anybody (regardless of their religion or sins.) Would anybody call her a hypocrite if she remained in the church even if she did not agree 100% with their teachings? I think that she recognized that organized religion is lead by people and as such is inherently flawed in some way; so you accept that truth and persevere listening to the teachings of your church and reading the bible and then try to accept that the church is not infallible and your understanding will never be perfect.

Another thought that crossed my mind: We seem to focus quite a bit on the negative aspects of religion. I am presently employed with a non-profit group while I wait for the ground to thaw and I’ll tell you that without the contributions of many people who volunteer with church groups we would sink! These groups are as diverse as Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Jewish groups, and LDS groups. I am not discounting the volunteers who are atheistic and I appreciate their contributions as much as anyone else’s. I am simply stating that there is also good that comes from religion- not just hatred and intolerance.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

*Sigh* Excuse me if I sound pissed off in this post, but 15 PM's telling me how stupid I am for belonging to an organized religion ... especially Catholicism ... is enough. It's all well and good to have your own ideas about what you perceive to be wrong with someone else's religion, but remember that you're on the outside looking in. I've been accused of supporting an evil man as my spiritual leader. I don't agree with Pope Benedict XVI's personal views, but I don't accept the perception of him as evil. If you are not Catholic, you cannot truly understand just how important the position of the Pope is. There is a reason that we must have faith in him. He is the pontiff; how many of you know what that word literally means? Pontifex = 'bridge-builder'. He is the guardian of the bridge to God. It is his job to look after us as we make that journey. He may not agree with things we do along the way, but his job, his sacred responsibility, is to see that we make the effort to cross that bridge whether by his guidance or by our own devices. Much of the garbage that once littered that bridge has been cleared away by the Church; more will undoubtedly be thrown away in the future. Some will possibly be replaced by equally useless garbage. The point is, we are human, the Pope is human, the Church is a congregation of humans ... and humans are not perfect. Even if we believe that God is in each of us, the spirit of Christ guides the Church, and the Pope is ordained by the Holy Spirit, none of those things negates the fact that we are still human. Pope Benedict has vowed to follow the example of John-Paul II and reach out to people of other faiths. We are encouraged to embrace those of other religions, Christian or not, and to accept that those who are atheist or agnostic are children of God as well, and we are to view them as part of God's plan. We have a Pope who has a vision of the brotherhood of man; what is so unacceptable about that? That is his mission. His points of view are not to be interpreted as being declared infallible, and they are not in opposition to that mission. His comments about morality are intended to be ideals, but he realises that humans are imperfect creatures. He seeks to make the straightest path over the bridge apparent, but knows that most of us will follow a more meandering path.

So you (and you know who you are) can continue to hurl epithets like 'ignorant', 'stupid', 'uninformed', 'Nazi sympathizer' at me. The fact is that I am more familiar with the mission and dogmata of the Catholic Church than the average Catholic, and I know what qualities are important in a Pope. I see some of those already, and I'm sure others will reveal themselves in time. I have faith in my Church, and PM's by people here who don't know the first thing about Catholicism are not likely to change that. If you have complaints against the Catholic Church, the solution is simple: don't be a Catholic. For many of us, the Church played an important role in making us who we are today. It's right for us, and that's what counts.

 

[madame_zora]

Okay, well I didn't send any pmms, so I guess it wasn't me, but I do want to clarify a few things.

When I was talking about a feeling of superiority, I meant something very specific- that the views I held as a Christian were "right" because I was a Christian, following the "right" path and suppported by the Bible as illuminated by my pastor. It is easy for me to understand that if a person had lived this way their whole life instead of just for five years, I would not expect that to ever change.

The original topic of this thread, which I have tried to continue on, was about how sex mores are treated differently wrt homos and heteros. When I said you can't expect someone to honestly assess their own culpability, I meant specifically that. A man can be bonking his secretary right after church and still look down his nose at a gay man, and I think that's horrible. I wasn't saying that anyone in an organised religion was stupid. I even said I know that some people prefer to stay on the inside to affect change from within. I am not strong enough to do so, but I do respect those who can.

DMW, I can't possibly know what the Pope means to you as a person, but my mother's family was Catholic and I did attend Catholic mass up to the age of nine. That in no way compares with the comprehensive study and dedication to the church which you have undertaken, but I'm not a complete outsider either. I understand a need for a call to unity, that is obvious. It is my opinion (and only that) that I wish a more open minded person had been chosen for that most delicate roll. I said in an earlier thread how influential the Pope is, even to non-Catholics because I believe it to be true. Unfortunately, only Catholics will be privy to the Catholic traditions and know the differences between Papal infallibility and personal opinions. Non-Catholics will take verything he says as gospel, and I think that was GBO's original point. If we are going to look at his words on homos, why is no one looking at the directions to heteros. I have the same complaint with most pastoral interpretations of the Bible, no one really looks very hard at the things that affect their own lives, because then they personally would have to change. It's far more convenient to rally against those eternally damned queers because then our own sins are less apparent. My complaint is against those who don't look first to themselves, I think this is stupid.

I've attended many different churches and different faiths, and I found the good to outweigh the bad in most of them. That doesn't dismiss the issue of being judgemental- if one must judge, then start with one's own life and see what improvements can be made there. Why sit in judgement of our brothers as if God were not fully capable of handling that job himself? I am not calling the members of any whole group or religion stupid, but I am calling a certain mindset that. I am not calling the Pope evil, although I find some of his word choices to be less than Godly. Once again, only my opinion. The only reason I bothered to state it at all is because of the political climate in which we find ourselves currently. I am deeply in fear for my own rights to live my life, and yes-that makes me angry. I don't feel this Pope will do much to help our situation of hatred here in the states.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 25 2005, 07:17 AM
Okay, well I didn't send any pmms, so I guess it wasn't me, but I do want to clarify a few things.

[post=304475]Quoted post[/post]​

Eventhough I have been very vocal about my doctrinal differences with the Catholic church, I wouldn't go as far to PM someone and say that they were wrong for being a member of it. Saying that they are a nazi supporter or supporting an evil man is just wrong. Anyone who does that needs to sit back and look at themselves...the Bible tells us not to judge lest we be judged.

The original topic of this thread, which I have tried to continue on, was about how sex mores are treated differently wrt homos and heteros. When I said you can't expect someone to honestly assess their own culpability, I meant specifically that. A man can be bonking his secretary right after church and still look down his nose at a gay man, and I think that's horrible. I wasn't saying that anyone in an organised religion was stupid. I even said I know that some people prefer to stay on the inside to affect change from within. I am not strong enough to do so, but I do respect those who can.

This is the reason why Christians have such bad reputations for being hypocrites. The Deacon of the church may be on the front pew during church and after Sunday dinner may being "meeting his friends for a 2:00 tee time at the golf course, when in reality he's got a hotel room booked for an afternoon with his secretary to screw, with just enough time to be back hom by about 5:15 to pick up the family to clean up and change to be back at church for the 6:00 evening service and youth activities. Yet he'll be the first one to condemn anyone who is cheating in business practices, say all gay people are going to hell, and anybody doing anything HE doesn't like will be damned for all eternity. In my book, that's a Sunday Christian and he's just as guilty as anyone else--while he points his finger, he's got got several others in his fist pointing back at him! Just remember that not all Christians are that way--unfortunately, it's usually those type that you see and hear, because they have the biggest mouths. They are trying to cover up other things, so they have to carry on the most. The ones who are quiet and don't say anything are the ones who blend into the woodwork and just go about their business doing good deeds that go unnoticed by most people.

Regarding the Pope, I have many doctrinal discrepancies that are major building blocks of the Catholic faith...Mary as co-redemtrix, transsubstantiation, purgatory, the need for any kind of mediators and intercessors to go to God for me, pedo-baptism--just to name a few. However, I AM glad to see that the church is finally changing it's doctrine that salvation is "sola fides" (salvation by faith alone), although to hear priests teach it in sermons, their twist on it is definitely not correct. I have heard several priests give funeral sermons recently and talk on this subject and they gave differing views on this subject--one said that a person's good works and baptism would get the person into heaven, another said that "loving Jesus and praying to the saints and going to church regularly" would do it (a little closer to the truth--at least faith in Jesus was mentioned&#33 but there is such differing doctrinal standard, that the new Pope will have his work cut out for him, since this is one of his big areas of concern.