Religion
Related: About this forumIs the Pope Catholic?????
Given his various statements today this funny throwaway line now becomes a relevant question, lol.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)For a Pope! Never thought I'd hear words like they come out of a papal mouth.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, he could have said something useful...like "Use a condom"
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Opposes the equality and ordination of women? Check.
Opposes allowing people to make their own reproductive choices? Check.
Opposes human sexuality in any form other than between a married male and female? Check.
Yeah, he's Catholic - officially. And it ain't funny.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Why Yes I guess he is.
Glossary of philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophy?
Neo-Aristotelianism: A view of literature and criticism propagated by the ...... mostly extinct today, a revival has been attempted under the name of Neo-Manichaeism. ... Stalinism, Maoism, and Trotskyism, each hewing to the ideas of a particular ...
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Common mistake.
So - got any factual dispute with what I said? Was I wrong on any point?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)that you would double down and miss the humor of the response was what I was counting on.
Now the fact that you continue to take umbrage every time someone associates your username with the 3rd most important Marxist of all time and not with Joe Trotsky the well known ultra fractal artist, well that is just a special treat. That you seem so surprised every time makes the association is just special, Leon, er Joe.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You take care.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'll give you another chance. Address what I asked instead of flinging attacks.
Here it is again so you don't have to scroll up:
So - got any factual dispute with what I said? Was I wrong on any point?
Let's keep things civil and discuss the topic.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)is self evident.
To the point that you think it was 'personal', it could only be personal if there is something personally revealing about your taking the name "Trotsky" but there isn't.
My OP was civil and humorous, my responses were civil and humorous (Rug got the obscure reference to "Joe Trotsky" . My reference to Trotsky being Neo-Manichaeist was a metaphysical jab at Trotsky and my analysis to your rather black/white good/evil approach to all things religion, which is in fact, rather Manichaeist. I don't engage in your labored humorless desultory responses because I find them to be largely redundant rehash of your attacks on all things religious and find them tedious and soporific attacks on all things religious. In fact because of those responses by you and a couple of others with similar agendas I took the Religion forum off my subscription list and rarely come here despite having a graduate degree in Theology.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I wish you well anyway. Please note, I don't have to insult you to make a point.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)If you despise people who participate in religious traditions (and I don't consider myself in that group) then why do you post 73% of your posts in the Religion Group?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Religious leaders - those of the RCC most notably - support and lobby for public policy changes that I believe are detrimental to the progressive agenda.
Religious thinking - believing things without evidence, or worse: believing things DESPITE evidence - leads us into dangerous territory, and empowers religious assaults on our secular liberties.
Because of this, I have opinions on religious topics and issues. I am sorry if you don't think I have a valid reason to post here. But I will anyway.
I initially posted a reply to your OP because I didn't think it was funny. What the pope said doesn't change or even announce a change in official church dogma, doctrine, or policy. Millions of gay Catholics are still not allowed to live a full human life and love the person they want but remain members of good standing in their church. I find this to be repulsive, and I'm going to comment on it, because again: it affects people I care about.
And no, I don't "despise people who participate in religious traditions." That is a vicious, unwarranted smear. I haven't personally attacked or insulted you once in this thread, yet you have done nothing but that to me. Does it make you feel better?
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Couldn't you find anything useful to do with your time?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)For someone who grew up in a backwater conservative area it was a ticket out, and a chance to live on the East Coast and I leveraged it into a ticket to Asia. It was actually quite interesting as well as the professors were not particularly sympathetic to pedestrian Sunday School "Jesus loves me" approach that most Seminarians brought with them on the first day. If you ever say "Paper Chase" it was actually very similar to that.
rug
(82,333 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)So glad you got my little joke.
Access to his gallery here:
http://www.wack.ch/artis/
okasha
(11,573 posts)on my living room wall.
longship
(40,416 posts)And certainly not the person's DU nom de plume.
Let's make DU a good place to have reasonable discussion.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)I have received many DUmails from others complaining of the same thing.
In fact a number started the Interfaith Group where they could discuss religious views without having certain folks stalk them down with hostility and anger.
I stopped posting in this group altogether but thought that this Pope's recent statements gave life to the funny throw aside line "Is the Pope Catholic".
As to the nom de plume the poster uses one of the most famous names in political history and yet if you make a reference to that he patronizingly remarks that you must be crazy if you think that it had anything to do with THAT Trotsky then there must be something wrong with you.
The only point of the OP is that the Pope's statements are such a change that the phrase "Is the Pope Catholic" which is usually followed by "does the bear shit in the woods?" has a completely different meaning.
As to the remark on the nom de plume, there is nothing mean or degrading about anything I said. In fact making a remark about assuming that he was referring to "Joe Trotsky" rather than "Leon Trotsky" is nothing more than light ribbing. But, not surprisingly, the person replying responds with bitterness and outrage. If you take the name "Abraham Lincoln" then you should expect people are going to make a response to it, and I agree it shouldn't be mean, but if you put it out there then you should expect a response. This fellow is always on maximum outrage and antagonism. He absolutely despises everything religious and yet 73% of his posts are in the Religion group. It has turned the group into a barren island without humor or thoughtful exchange as if some grand metaphysical battle is at stake.
I do find it interesting that those that are so hostile to religiously observant folk (and I don't consider myself to be one of them) have a much more rigid Manaecheistic view of the world than those that participate in religious traditions that have established canons of belief. If you want to have reasonable discussions about religious traditions then you may be interested in the Interfaith Group because I haven't seen any in the dry desert of the Religious Group where combat and scoring points is the raison d'etre.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Talk about needing to argue to the point and not the person.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Be consistent in its application. And you might just find people respond more positively to you.
Yeah, I know, you'll continue to completely shun me for whatever crime you think I've committed, but if you're going to judge me, I'm going to defend myself. You are in no position to judge.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)same question.
I hope he continues in this direction.
While he's not going to get much internal support, he is definitely going to get some from the outside.
Nice to see you here, grantcart!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Anything that allows ordinary Catholics to get away from the scandal and litigation issues by a few will be embraced by millions of hard working Catholics who want to be proud of their Church again.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He is certainly resonating with a log of catholics and non-catholics alike.
I wish him the best of luck.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)his message is shit, sorry, its true, its homophobic and misogynistic, remember this is the same guy who condemned the current president of Argentina while she was a candidate because she's a woman, and they shouldn't lead.
I don't understand this at all, this asshole condemns the "gay lobby" and people on DU cheer him for it? Why?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)for hope are fools.
Thus spake Humanist_Activist.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)onto this guy, setting themselves up for bitter disappointment. He is not changing any church teaching or doctrine on this, that much is clear, hell he hasn't even changed the message of the Catholic Church, just prettied up the words, but just because you can call a lump of shit a candy bar doesn't make it so, and it will still taste like shit.
Not to mention, in the SAME DAMN ARTICLE, he condemns the "gay lobby" I'm assuming he means those who advocate for equal rights. Yet people laud him.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I wouldn't call your POV foolish, though I may call it only your POV.
There was a possibility that the church would take another lurch to the right. I think there are many catholics and non-catholics who are very glad to see something else.
He is changing the tone. While that may not be enough or may not be happening fast enough for some, it is happening.
His gay lobby remark was made previously and it was never clear to many what he was talking about, but it had something to do with internal workings at the vatican.
You can hate on him all you want. That's your right and you are certainly not alone.
But attacking everyone else who may be seeing this differently as fools is, well, foolish.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)This is mind-numbingly hypocritical coming from you, cbayer. Would you like a link?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)he and his church should be MARGINALIZED. Just because the current Pope is a good politician doesn't change the hateful nature of church teaching he supports.
To be honest, I don't care what the fuck he believes, but what he's going to do with those beliefs, generally speaking, his church should have no more influence on public policy than any other church, and all of them, including his, should stick to keeping their shit in their churches, and leave the rest of us alone.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)but not much more.
Since it is highly unlikely that the RCC is going to be marginalized, perhaps we need to look at other possible solutions.
Maybe he is no more than a good politician, but if he is making noise that indicates a potential change in attitude in the church, I see that as a good thing.
Nothing about his recent remarks are intended to influence public policy, imo. They appear to be targeted at catholics and the catholic church.
If you want him to leave you alone, there is the option of hiding each and every thread here that refers to him.
Dorian Gray
(13,499 posts)is a stagnant cesspool of despair.
Of course people are hoping for change. Some are working actively for it.
I don't know that millions of people are pinning their hopes on him, but some change in rhetoric is much appreciated. Hopefully it is a sign of truly internal changes with the Vatican hierarchy.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)of COURSE we hope for change. I think it is unfair and totally inaccurate to portray this as a black-or-white either you think this is a great, wonderful, positive sign OR you are stuck in a "stagnant cesspool of despair."
So far, we haven't seen actual change. This isn't change, it's just better PR.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)hell, its an organization whose primary argumentation when faced with challenges are logical fallacies(argument from tradition and/or age) and whose structure doesn't allow for "changing with the times" in a manner that will be acceptable in the future. I definitely foresee a time when the Catholic Church, in regards to some teachings, is viewed as being as extremist as Westboro Baptist Church is regarded today. Probably before I have kids entering high school, given the rapidly changing attitudes of society.
Given this, its likely the church will be left in the dust, able to hang on, worldwide, by trying to keep followers in nations that aren't as stable as those in Europe or the Americas, but once things improve there, then their numbers will fall. The Church is already a shadow of its former self in so many different countries, eventually the same will hold true worldwide.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That gay Catholics won't be "judged" as long as they aren't part of the "gay lobby" and don't engage in homosexual sex?
I'm glad you can take something positive out of it, but I just don't see it.
Or should I just say - "This is a positive message and reason for hope, and all who don't embrace it are fools." Thus spake cbayer.
longship
(40,416 posts)This pope may not be the bastion of religious liberalism, but he certainly seems to be willing to stir the pot. That's a welcome situation, especially given the previous popes, and most especially the last one.
Rome wasn't built in a day, nor was the Vatican. I see both good and bad in this guy. But the good is better than we've seen in any recent prelate of the Catholic Church.
And I still do not like the whole Catholic thing. But let's see what this guy does before we condemn him. Reform is what the Catholics need. This pope may bring that about. One would hope.
And I agree wholeheartedly with your objections.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The Daily Show did a fantastic bit on this last night. They echoed my position - the policy hasn't changed, but there's a nicer "tone." They then compared it to the signs above segregated drinking fountains - "whites only" vs "coloreds." The "new tone" signs said "whites only - have a nice day " and "coloreds." Perfect analogy IMHO.
Positive message? Sorry, I'm going to laugh at that one.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)He could have said something useful...like "Use a condom".
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)What the fuck is wrong with this picture?
rug
(82,333 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)if he's catholic?
xfundy
(5,105 posts)Just like the repigs. Change the packaging, keep putting the same old shit inside.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Is the Pope Catholic?
by STEVEN MAZIE JULY 31, 2013, 1:08 AM
Everyone is agog about the gay-friendly sentiment Pope Francis expressed on his flight home from Brazil. "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, the pontiff said, who am I to judge? They should not be marginalized. They are our brothers."
Three thoughts.
One: Believe the hype. This is a big deal. Cardinal Timothy Dolan can jump on CBS This Morning and insist that Pope Franciss words represent no switch in Church doctrine that says homosexuals are to be tolerated while homosexual conduct is not. The popes message, says Dolan,
But Andrew Sullivan is on the money with his analysis of why Pope Franciss line is both new and refreshing:
Dolan and Benedict have never, ever spoken of gay people the way Francis did.
Two: This is genuine. The who am I to judge? line appears to have come from Pope Francis in a sincere spirit of toleration for gays and lesbians. The message was delivered off the cuff. It was not a prepared speech. It was not vetted by advisers. Its language was not fussed over and tweaked to prevent misunderstanding. It was an in-the-moment expression of a moral principle: people who are good-faith followers of God are welcome in the Church. Catholic doctrine should not be interpreted to shun gays and lesbians.
more
http://bigthink.com/praxis/is-the-pope-catholic