Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sriram on April 08, 2016, 03:57:07 PM
-
HI everyone,
Here is a CNN report about the Pope's new message.
http://us.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html
**************
Pope Francis put his shoulder to the doors of the Catholic Church and shoved them open a little wider Friday, calling for the church to be more tolerant in practice while not changing any official doctrines.
He urged priests around the world to be more accepting of gays and lesbians, divorced Catholics and other people living in what the church considers "irregular" situations.
"A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws ... as if they were stones to throw at people's lives," Francis writes in a sweeping paper outlining his stance on family matters.
He urges more common sense and less unthinking following of rules.
"By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and growth," he writes.
***************
Cheers.
Sriram
-
HI everyone,
Here is a CNN report about the Pope's new message.
http://us.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html
**************
Pope Francis put his shoulder to the doors of the Catholic Church and shoved them open a little wider Friday, calling for the church to be more tolerant in practice while not changing any official doctrines.
He urged priests around the world to be more accepting of gays and lesbians, divorced Catholics and other people living in what the church considers "irregular" situations.
"A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws ... as if they were stones to throw at people's lives," Francis writes in a sweeping paper outlining his stance on family matters.
He urges more common sense and less unthinking following of rules.
"By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and growth," he writes.
***************
Cheers.
Sriram
Words, words, words. We've heard them all before but they mean nothing without action.
-
Words, words, words. We've heard them all before but they mean nothing without action.
Quite right, action speaks much louder than mere words.
-
"Pope talks a good game but doesn't actually get down to introducing any actual change" shocker.
-
My thoughts exactly.
-
Thanks for posting this Sririam.
I do understand the scepticism of others here, don't expect anything different and I admit to feeling the same myself.
I am a Catholic, quite liberal and many on forums have told me that I am ''not a real Catholic''; fair enough but when I became a Catholic, in 1992, I joined a church that was progressive and liberal. That is enough about all that, please don't ask anything about it because I have nothing to add, except that I have lapsed.
I've not taken a great deal of notice of the Popes in recent times but I really like what little I know of Pope Frrancis.
Quote from: ProfessorDavey on Today at 04:25:59 PM
Words, words, words. We've heard them all before but they mean nothing without action.
I certainly understand what Prof Davey says, feel much the same, but Pope Francis does seem like a breath of fresh air. Let's see him in the same way as we see politicians or would be politicians; they have ideals, some of which fall by the wayside, others do flourish.
-
My initial thoughts on the Pope's message are summed up in the phrase, "Move Along, nothing much to see here".
-
Dear Sriram,
He urged priests around the world to be more accepting of gays and lesbians, divorced Catholics and other people living in what the church considers "irregular" situations.
What's a regular situation, married couple two point five children ???
Anyway, a spokesman for the RC Church on the radio yesterday said, it is now down to the foot soldiers, the conservative priests will think, business as usual, lets hope the more liberal will think, open door, come one come all.
Gonnagle.
-
There's abundant evidence that one a one-to-one level he's a humble, personable and even engaging man.
But I suspect that, as with Rowan Williams (of whom exactly the same can be said), his position means that he has to and has to be seen to hold his organisation together and value unity over pretty well anything and everything else. That's an unenviable position to be in, I admit, but comes at a great cost.
-
There's abundant evidence that one a one-to-one level he's a humble, personable and even engaging man.
But I suspect that, as with Rowan Williams (of whom exactly the same can be said), his position means that he has to and has to be seen to hold his organisation together and value unity over pretty well anything and everything else. That's an unenviable position to be in, I admit, but comes at a great cost.
I think you are wrong to see the RC's as the ''great ready to fall apart''...and I ain't an RC.
I think that's a bit of a straw clutch based on the changes in UK society.....some of which seem to favour you although the church attendance drop isn't all it's cracked up to be if you take the Paxman line that the English have never been big on the church.
What he is saying is that those with unconventional life styles in terms of traditional values are not necessarily living in mortal sin............I guess I can sort of get what he means in terms of a more protestant theology.
-
Yeah, I get that too. He is saying there's much more to a person than what is obvious. A person should not be defined by their sexual orientation. Well at least that's what I think he is saying.
-
Yeah, I get that too. He is saying there's much more to a person than what is obvious. A person should not be defined by their sexual orientation. Well at least that's what I think he is saying.
Does that mean that those of the homosexual orientation will no longer be defined as 'sinners'?
-
Does that mean that those of the homosexual orientation will no longer be defined as 'sinners'?
We are all sinners in Christian theology rather than being perfectly perfect in everyway la la la............... in the secular humanist thinking.....you know the old Disney adage we're the bad guys but we're the good guys really.
-
Does that mean that those of the homosexual orientation will no longer be defined as 'sinners'?
I didn't realise they were defined as sinners now. The anti-gay Christians always say it is the practice, not the orientation. Grossly unfair coming from people who are able to have happy marriages etc but there it is.
The way I see it, the Pope has nothing against gay partnerships, he can't change church policy so is going as far as he can whilst staying within the rules.
-
I didn't realise they were defined as sinners now. The anti-gay Christians always say it is the practice, not the orientation. Grossly unfair coming from people who are able to have happy marriages etc but there it is.
The way I see it, the Pope has nothing against gay partnerships, he can't change church policy so is going as far as he can whilst staying within the rules.
The Catholic dogma needs to be thrown into the dustbin, and reinvented in a way which suits 21st century perceptions.
-
What's a regular situation, married couple two point five children ???
As far as relationships are concerned, the number of children is irrelevant, Gonners. Its the nature of the relationship of the adults that is important. One man, one woman is regarded as the regular situation by Catholics, and many others - both religious and non-religious people.
-
Does that mean that those of the homosexual orientation will no longer be defined as 'sinners'?
No, because the area of sexuality isn't the only aspect of our lives where we can, and do, do wrong.
At the same time, because we are all sinners, we should treat others as humans - no greater or lesser than ourselves. That isn't to say that we should ignore wrongdoing, but accept that, ultimately, we are no different. I think one of the problems that this can cause is that some here believe that Christians believe that they are without sin, something that all Christias would adamantly deny.
-
The Catholic dogma needs to be thrown into the dustbin, and reinvented in a way which suits 21st century perceptions.
So, the Church has to deny the nature of its existence, and take on modern social mores which might change tomorrow? What's the point in that? I'm not saying that the Church has always followed Christ's teachings, but nor has society. Re-inventing something 'in a way which suits 21st century perceptions' could well end up with the Church becoming even less true to Christ's teaching.
-
So, the Church has to deny the nature of its existence, and take on modern social mores which might change tomorrow? What's the point in that? I'm not saying that the Church has always followed Christ's teachings, but nor has society. Re-inventing something 'in a way which suits 21st century perceptions' could well end up with the Church becoming even less true to Christ's teaching.
And would that be a bad thing?
-
So, the Church has to deny the nature of its existence, and take on modern social mores which might change tomorrow? What's the point in that?
Having a framework of values predicated on the happiness and well-being of real human beings rather than the appeasement of entirely unevidenced alleged supernatural figures, perhaps?
-
At the same time, because we are all sinners, we should treat others as humans - no greater or lesser than ourselves.
But you believe that homosexual people are damaged. That they should not be treated equally in society, people should be able discriminated against them.
-
Having a framework of values predicated on the happiness and well-being of real human beings rather than the appeasement of entirely unevidenced alleged supernatural figures, perhaps?
Predicated on the happiness of which real human beings? The ones who can afford to ignore those values? Or the ones who can't even hope to enjoy the fruits of that framework?
-
But you believe that homosexual people are damaged. That they should not be treated equally in society, people should be able discriminated against them.
Hope certainly doesn't believe homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal.
-
Predicated on the happiness of which real human beings?
All of them.
-
And would that be a bad thing?
In my view, yes it would. As I've said here and elsewhere several times, I believe that modern society is increasingly divided and increasingly fragmented. Individual happiness seems to have taken precedence over social cohesion.
-
In my view, yes it would. As I've said here and elsewhere several times, I believe that modern society is increasingly divided and increasingly fragmented. Individual happiness seems to have taken precedence over social cohesion.
As it has always done!
-
All of them.
Sadly, I'd suggest that social development over the last few decades have been very much centred on the benefit of either the poor or the rich, never both. That is why I prefer the idea that there is no man or woman, rich or poor, slave or free, etc.
-
In my view, yes it would. As I've said here and elsewhere several times, I believe that modern society is increasingly divided and increasingly fragmented. Individual happiness seems to have taken precedence over social cohesion.
We've seen societies where social cohesion takes precedence over individual happiness. The latter - individual happiness - is the superior option.
-
Sadly, I'd suggest that social development over the last few decades have been very much centred on the benefit of either the poor or the rich, never both. That is why I prefer the idea that there is no man or woman, rich or poor, slave or free, etc.
Then that is simply delusional.
-
As it has always done!
No it hasn't. Society has long put community above individualism.
-
Then that is simply delusional.
Well, I prefer community to individualism. It tends to provide support and security at times of difficulty.
-
Try YouTube: "Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World", produced by Intelligence Squared, I was there and at one part of this Oxford type debate a sizeable section of the audience walked out, the debaters were Stephen Fry, Chris Hitchens Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdicombe, It summed up the Catholic Church in a Nutshell, nothing has changed and nor will this quite affable Pope change anything.
It's particularly interesting where the detailed behaviour and attitudes of Catholicism are exposed, telling a lot of the history of this organisation, from the ancient right up to the time of this debate in 2013.
Surprisingly, this Church organisation hasn't changed much if at all between 2013 and now.
I would say absolutely in a nutshell this debate's enough to make it obvious this Pope, however affable, you might just as well ignore anything he says.
ippy
-
I've seen that
bloodbath debate many, many times - Hitchens and Fry were on top form that night and by their usual standards that's saying something. I was almost tempted to feel slightly sorry for Widdicombe and the bishop, but I resisted.
-
Hope certainly doesn't believe homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal.
Wrong, Floo. I believe that homosexual relationships and non-monogamous - be that serial or in parallel - and unmarried heterosexual relationships are equal. The only form of relationship I'd regard as being in any way better than any of the above is one man/one woman 'for life' marriage.
-
Try YouTube: "Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World", produced by Intelligence Squared, I was there and at one part of this Oxford type debate a sizeable section of the audience walked out, the debaters were Stephen Fry, Chris Hitchens Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdicombe, It summed up the Catholic Church in a Nutshell, nothing has changed and nor will this quit affable Pope change anything.
History has often shown that the Roman Catholic Church (note that the 'catholic church' refers to the church that exists across the globe) is seriously flawed.
-
We've seen societies where social cohesion takes precedence over individual happiness. The latter - individual happiness - is the superior option.
As I've said, individualism is often the way in which society disintegrates.
-
As I've said, individualism is often the way in which society disintegrates.
You may well have said it but true to form you haven't substantiated it. Examples?
-
Wrong, Floo. I believe that homosexual relationships and non-monogamous - be that serial or in parallel - and unmarried heterosexual relationships are equal. The only form of relationship I'd regard as being in any way better than any of the above is one man/one woman 'for life' marriage.
Ha ha ha.
How the hell is that regarding heterosexual and homosexual relationships as equal.
You support laws that allow discrimination against people based on their sexuality.
You might be able to fool yourself into thinking you treat people as equal, but I suggest you are not fooling anyone around here.
-
Wrong, Floo. I believe that homosexual relationships and non-monogamous - be that serial or in parallel - and unmarried heterosexual relationships are equal. The only form of relationship I'd regard as being in any way better than any of the above is one man/one woman 'for life' marriage.
Which means that you don't see homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships as equal as in your opinion only the latter should be allowed to attain the exulted status of marriage.
Now that marriage can be either for homosexual and heterosexual couples surely you should see the pinnacle as being married couples (whether gay or straight) if you are claiming that Floo is wrong in suggesting that 'Hope certainly doesn't believe homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal'.
Frankly the veracity of Floo's claim is obvious on the basis of your many posts here.
-
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on Today at 12:48:00 PM
Does that mean that those of the homosexual orientation will no longer be defined as 'sinners'?
No, because the area of sexuality isn't the only aspect of our lives where we can, and do, do wrong.
At the same time, because we are all sinners, we should treat others as humans - no greater or lesser than ourselves. That isn't to say that we should ignore wrongdoing, but accept that, ultimately, we are no different. I think one of the problems that this can cause is that some here believe that Christians believe that they are without sin, something that all Christias would adamantly deny.
Hope, I find it difficult to believe there are still people with views like the ones you have expressed above are still about and not locked up for their own safety.
(Note) I didn't pick out any parts of your post, it's all there and not quoted out of context.
With thoughts like yours what would be the point discussing anything with you?
ippy
-
The only form of relationship I'd regard as being in any way better than any of the above is one man/one woman 'for life' marriage.
Is a one man/another man or a one woman/another woman 'for life' marriage not equal to that then?
-
I've seen that bloodbath debate many, many times - Hitchens and Fry were on top form that night and by their usual standards that's saying something. I was almost tempted to feel slightly sorry for Widdicombe and the bishop, but I resisted.
The filmed debate doesn't show the face of Ann she was absolutely devastated, you could see the Bishop could hardly believe the irreverence he was exposed to and Steve shouted out really loudly at the opposition on something they had said to him about homosexuals, these things were somehow not included on the final production of the debate, Steve was furious with them you could almost see their hair move caught in the blast of Steve's shouting at them.
There was a blast of an atmosphere on that night.
Oh by the way the Catholics lost the debate, now there's a surprise for you Shakes.
ippy
-
Wrong, Floo. I believe that homosexual relationships and non-monogamous - be that serial or in parallel - and unmarried heterosexual relationships are equal. The only form of relationship I'd regard as being in any way better than any of the above is one man/one woman 'for life' marriage.
And are you in any way able to substantiate this - other than by resorting to your usual range of anecdotal, totally true examples, that is?
-
We've seen societies where social cohesion takes precedence over individual happiness. The latter - individual happiness - is the superior option.
The problem with making that argument to someone like Hope is that he confuses happiness with selfishness and unbridled hedonism. He doesn't join up his thinking enough to realise that individual happiness includes adopting a set of personal boundaries and involves feeling ok with how we treat others.
And of course non-believers manage this without relying on the Bible or Church teaching. To many believers that's just incomprehensible.
-
The problem with making that argument to someone like Hope is that he confuses happiness with selfishness and unbridled hedonism. He doesn't join up his thinking enough to realise that individual happiness includes adopting a set of personal boundaries and involves feeling ok with how we treat others.
Indeed.
And of course non-believers manage this without relying on the Bible or Church teaching. To many believers that's just incomprehensible.
And yet they do it and it can be seen to be done. Why incomprehensible?
-
And yet they do it and it can be seen to be done. Why incomprehensible?
Apparently because we're all rotten with the sin of Adam and need Jesus as personified by the church to reconcile us to God and save us.
So no matter how honestly and well non-believers lead their lives, it can only ever be seen as inferior.
-
Apparently because we're all rotten with the sin of Adam and need Jesus as personified by the church to reconcile us to God and save us.
So no matter how honestly and well non-believers lead their lives, it can only ever be seen as inferior.
Which is crazy if that were to be the case. Many non believers lead exemplary lives, whilst many believers are far from decent people. We have had a few examples of that on this forum. >:(
-
The problem with making that argument to someone like Hope is that he confuses happiness with selfishness and unbridled hedonism. He doesn't join up his thinking enough to realise that individual happiness includes adopting a set of personal boundaries and involves feeling ok with how we treat others.
Except that I don't confuse the two. What I understand by individual happiness is that the individual comes first with themselves. We see this in the context of such things as the Panama Papers, where the individual is primary whilst society is relegated to the back burner or even further than that. Such people still adopt sets of personal boundaries and fel perfectly OK with how they treat others.
Unfortunately, in such cases each individual set those boundaries for themselves - and they sometimes feel that they aren't obliged to respect the boundaries that society has set around itself.
And of course non-believers manage this without relying on the Bible or Church teaching. To many believers that's just incomprehensible.
They believe that they do, and they have every right to do so, but it can be asked whether they really do experience the full extent of happiness that they - as humans - can experience.
-
They believe that they do, and they have every right to do so, but it can be asked whether they really do experience the full extent of happiness that they - as humans - can experience.
Why wouldn't they?
-
Which is crazy if that were to be the case. Many non believers lead exemplary lives, whilst many believers are far from decent people. We have had a few examples of that on this forum. >:(
Floo, I doubt whether anyone lives an exemplary life. For instance, can you honestly say that you never took a pencil or some other item of 'company' property whilst working for a firm or other organisation? Can you categorically state that you have never driven at a speed in excess of the speed limit that applied in any given circummstance? Can you say that you never got angry with your children for a reason that was not justified - such as because you were tired or under pressure at work and you took it out on them?
The difference between non-believers and believers is often simply that believers have accepted that they are flawed humanity, whilst un-believers haven't.
-
Why wouldn't they?
OK, let's give you an example that is unrelated to the issue under discussion. You use the railways regularly and on turning 60 you continue to do so. For whatever reason, you don't obtain a Senior Railcard, which cuts what you pay for tickets by about 1/3. It may be that you don't want to accept that you have reached such an age; perhaps you feel that you are too busy to send the time getting one - online it takes about 10 minutes, in person probably 15/20 mins; it might simply be that - for all the adverts and publicity around their availability - you simply haven't heard about them.
You feel perfectly comfortable/happy paying full-price but aren't actually enjoying the fullness of the law.
-
OK, let's give you an example that is unrelated to the issue under discussion.
So not a related example then: that'll be useful (not)!
You use the railways regularly and on turning 60 you continue to do so. For whatever reason, you don't obtain a Senior Railcard, which cuts what you pay for tickets by about 1/3. It may be that you don't want to accept that you have reached such an age; perhaps you feel that you are too busy to send the time getting one - online it takes about 10 minutes, in person probably 15/20 mins; it might simply be that - for all the adverts and publicity around their availability - you simply haven't heard about them.
You feel perfectly comfortable/happy paying full-price but aren't actually enjoying the fullness of the law.
So, what we have here is in effect a 'relationships are just like train-tickets' analogy/sermon - sounds a bit pyhtonesque to me.
-
Except that I don't confuse the two. What I understand by individual happiness is that the individual comes first with themselves. We see this in the context of such things as the Panama Papers, where the individual is primary whilst society is relegated to the back burner or even further than that. Such people still adopt sets of personal boundaries and fel perfectly OK with how they treat others.
Unfortunately, in such cases each individual set those boundaries for themselves - and they sometimes feel that they aren't obliged to respect the boundaries that society has set around itself.
They believe that they do, and they have every right to do so, but it can be asked whether they really do experience the full extent of happiness that they - as humans - can experience.
Oh for goodness' sake, Hope! So no Christians go for tax avoidance schemes?
And why are society's boundaries superior to any that I might have? It wasn't so long ago that society said that single parenthood was shameful, that gay relationships were criminal, that a man couldn't rape his wife. Thank goodness people have seen fit to challenge society over those boundaries.
Hard though it may be for you to accept, I'm happier since deciding that Jesus doesn't want me for a sunbeam. Not least because I had to come out of my smug little Christian bubble and see the person it had made me into - not one I feel proud of being, if I'm honest. I don't know if I'm a better one now but I think I'm probably nicer to be around.
-
OK, let's give you an example that is unrelated to the issue under discussion.
Why? Why can't you give an example that's related to the issue under discussion? Any reason in particular?
-
Hard though it may be for you to accept, I'm happier since deciding that Jesus doesn't want me for a sunbeam. Not least because I had to come out of my smug little Christian bubble and see the person it had made me into - not one I feel proud of being, if I'm honest. I don't know if I'm a better one now but I think I'm probably nicer to be around.
... which certainly counts as better in practically anybody's book :)
-
The difference between non-believers and believers is often simply that believers have accepted that they are flawed humanity, whilst un-believers haven't.
Do any un-believers (I'll assume that you mean 'not Christians', for now) here think that they are not flawed in some way?
I'll start - no.
-
Do any un-believers (I'll assume that you mean 'not Christians', for now) here think that they are not flawed in some way?
I'll start - no.
And hands up those who think that their flaw really matters?
-
Do any un-believers (I'll assume that you mean 'not Christians', for now) here think that they are not flawed in some way?
I'll start - no.
Only an idiot would think they were perfect.
-
And hands up those who think that their flaw really matters?
Mine does when I mop it.
-
And hands up those who think that their flaw really matters?
I'll be interested to see what Hope has to say on that.
BTW do you?
-
And hands up those who think that their flaw really matters?
Of course our flaws matter; they are a part of who we are and whilst we can't change who we are we can change what we do, if necessary - it isn't always. What is a flaw to us - perhaps because of cultural conditioning - can be an asset or attribute in the eyes of others.
Whatever, few of us - any of us - have flaws that render us unacceptable - 'miserable sinners' in your parlance.
-
Of course our flaws matter; they are a part of who we are and whilst we can't change who we are we can change what we do, if necessary - it isn't always. What is a flaw to us - perhaps because of cultural conditioning - can be an asset or attribute in the eyes of others.
Whatever, few of us - any of us - have flaws that render us unacceptable - 'miserable sinners' in your parlance.
Paedophiles have flaws which render them totally unacceptable. >:(
-
Paedophiles have flaws which render them totally unacceptable. >:(
Well yeah, so do murders and rapists.
And?
-
Paedophiles have flaws which render them totally unacceptable. >:(
Acting on that particular flaw is entirely unacceptable, certainly. But self-awareness of the flaw is key. Although it was said here recently that paedophiles are in effect delusional about their sexual orientation and incapable of change, I'm not sure that that's always true. I've heard of some men who are aware of their attraction to minors, are horrified by it and have voluntarily sought treatment for it.
-
And in context my 'any of us' refers to believer or non-believer alike. It was a response to the tendency here to divide us into sheep and goats.
-
Paedophiles have flaws which render them totally unacceptable. >:(
IMO it's not the flaw that makes them unacceptable, but the acting on it.