Pope's new message

[floo]

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!

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Hope]

As it has always done!

No it hasn't.  Society has long put community above individualism.

[Hope]

Then that is simply delusional.

Well, I prefer community to individualism.  It tends to provide support and security at times of difficulty.

[ippy]

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

   

[Shaker]

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]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ippy]

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

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[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.

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

[Aruntraveller]

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?

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Rhiannon]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Hope]

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.