I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
Even ignoring your anti-gay prejudices, this means that you would have to prohibit single parenthood. Also, as soon as someone's husband/wife died or they were divorced, their kids would have to be taken away for adoption. You would have to enforce marriage (or the equivalent legally binding contract) on would-be parents, or else they would just be single parents who happened to live with someone else.
Even if there were no gay people in the world, your idea is full of problems.
Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
What about being so humble that one doesn't even consider one's own views on how people should live, and simply accepts the long accepted wisdom of the church as being greater than your own.
Sorry, we can argue that it may be 'stupid' or 'wrong' but its definitely not mutually exclusive with 'humility'.
Presumably anyone who believes in God must be humble? The incorrect assumption is that humility is inherently a good thing. I think of it more as a quality like courage: if you're a brave terrorist or Nazi, you're still a terrorist or Nazi.
Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting
on
New Pope Selected
·
· Score: 1
But once you acknowledge that most of the Bible is not actually true from a scientific point of view, why should anyone then have faith that the remaining bits are true? Or that there is a God who created the universe at all?
There are plenty of homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic and racist posters on slashdot too, so an article on the Pope should suit quite a lot of readers.
Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
I'm gonna bet its because they think that government is the "supreme being", not God.
Despite what the libertarians on slashdot think, "the government" is just an expression of the will of the people in a democratic society. A source of power outside the will of the people is an anti-democratic influence on society. Religion is thus on a par with the military-industrial complex in being inherently elitist, reactionary and undemocratic.
Either Leviticus is obsolete, in which case the Pope can wear glasses and christians can have gay sex, or it still applies, and both gay sex and a pope with poor eyesight are abominations.
You must have missed the memo: whatever Christians want to be literally true in the Bible is literally true, the rest is metaphors/parables/poetry/mythology/inspiring fiction. Obviously, this varies over time.
In trinity, it is one person, therefore monotheistic. That one person is just represented by multiple entities. They are not in conflict.
You're just proving Heinlein's point. Jesus cannot be both the Son of God and God, unless you beg the question by saying that God can do anything He chooses, regardless of the laws of physics or logic (an argument which is irrefutable, in a bad way).
Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic. Why do so many liberals feel
threatened by any source of power outside of government?
Because it's a source of power outside any democratic oversight by the people, unlike the government?
People need to improve their reading comprehension.
It's always meant not "news exclusively on nerdy topics that matters" but "news on nerdy topics (and/or) stuff that matters generally".
Apart from anything else, there is not a simple black and white definition of what a nerd-related topic might be. Despite what some people here seem to think, not every story has to be about Computer Science.
Came here to check this. It's the only thing about the pope worth caring about, is he still going to support bigotry and overpopulation (as in the creation of the very same starving kids he will later cry about) or not?
Aaaand the answer's yes:-(
He'll be carrying on the fine work of Mother Theresa.
Cue the "but the Catholic Church hasn't taught that the world was flat since the 16th Century and they now acknowledge relativity and the Big Bang" posts from anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights apologists.
Not consuming blood is in the Bible (Acts 15:29), and theoretically, it applies to all Christians.
So wouldn't Christians have to be vegetarian? I don't see how you can eat meat without consuming some blood, however it's been slaughtered and drained in a kosher/halal style.
Also, since when is having a blood transfusion the same thing as eating blood?
The whole thing is just another ridiculous hangover from dietary laws dreamed up in a hot, desert society. I wouldn't want to eat shellfish if I lived in the middle of the Sinai either.
The world really is a much more tolerable place, when people can disagree without the vitriol and anger.
If nothing at all gets fills you with virtiol or joy, or makes you angry or sad, it just means you're either very stupid or indifferent to the point of psychopathy.
Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
I know Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus (and New Agers, Hippies, Communists, Anarchists, Monarchists, Capitalists, Atheists and Agnostics). They can't all be right about everything. But they're all human beings.
Since advertising necessarily involves speech, how do you remove sexist advertising without restricting speech?
Since TV necessarily involves speech, how do you remove hard core porn from TV?
Since newspapers necessarily involve speech, how do you stop them from libelling anyone they feel like?
Mass media are subject to certain rules, however much people here like to think of the internet as some special anarchic part of reality fenced off from the real world.
Freedom of speech is not some wild, precious thing like a snowflake in the wind that vanishes when you dare to touch it. It is a series of compromises agreed over the centuries in civilised society
Slashdot Mirror
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
Even ignoring your anti-gay prejudices, this means that you would have to prohibit single parenthood. Also, as soon as someone's husband/wife died or they were divorced, their kids would have to be taken away for adoption. You would have to enforce marriage (or the equivalent legally binding contract) on would-be parents, or else they would just be single parents who happened to live with someone else.
Even if there were no gay people in the world, your idea is full of problems.
Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
What about being so humble that one doesn't even consider one's own views on how people should live, and simply accepts the long accepted wisdom of the church as being greater than your own.
Sorry, we can argue that it may be 'stupid' or 'wrong' but its definitely not mutually exclusive with 'humility'.
Presumably anyone who believes in God must be humble? The incorrect assumption is that humility is inherently a good thing. I think of it more as a quality like courage: if you're a brave terrorist or Nazi, you're still a terrorist or Nazi.
But once you acknowledge that most of the Bible is not actually true from a scientific point of view, why should anyone then have faith that the remaining bits are true? Or that there is a God who created the universe at all?
Anyway, in world that increasingly tries to tear things down, at least the Catholics know where he stands on some issues.
Big deal. We know where the Taliban stand on many issues. That doesn't make them right.
As an atheist I can't be theophobic, since it's illogical to be afraid of (or hate) something imaginary.
There are plenty of homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic and racist posters on slashdot too, so an article on the Pope should suit quite a lot of readers.
The Jesuits are like the Spanish Inquisition, but without their fanatical devotion to the Pope, oddly enough.
Because it has a substantial impact on the world.
Nerds != The World.
Nerds are a subset of the world, genius.
I'm Argentine and proud that the first non-european pope is from Argentina!!! congratulations Bergolio!!
Soy argentino y es un orgullo que el primer papa no europeo sea argentino!!! felicidades Bergolio!!
Yes, it's nice of the Catholics to let a third world country have a go.
Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
I'm gonna bet its because they think that government is the "supreme being", not God.
Despite what the libertarians on slashdot think, "the government" is just an expression of the will of the people in a democratic society. A source of power outside the will of the people is an anti-democratic influence on society. Religion is thus on a par with the military-industrial complex in being inherently elitist, reactionary and undemocratic.
Hmmm. Where is the hate? According to this everything except for sex inside a marriage without artificial contraception is the same sin.
That's like saying that Hitler didn't particularly hate Jews because he also exterminated Roma, communists, gays, trade unionists and Slavs.
Either Leviticus is obsolete, in which case the Pope can wear glasses and christians can have gay sex, or it still applies, and both gay sex and a pope with poor eyesight are abominations.
You must have missed the memo: whatever Christians want to be literally true in the Bible is literally true, the rest is metaphors/parables/poetry/mythology/inspiring fiction. Obviously, this varies over time.
In trinity, it is one person, therefore monotheistic. That one person is just represented by multiple entities. They are not in conflict.
You're just proving Heinlein's point. Jesus cannot be both the Son of God and God, unless you beg the question by saying that God can do anything He chooses, regardless of the laws of physics or logic (an argument which is irrefutable, in a bad way).
You truly do learn something new every day.
Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic. Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
Because it's a source of power outside any democratic oversight by the people, unlike the government?
It's always meant not "news exclusively on nerdy topics that matters" but "news on nerdy topics (and/or) stuff that matters generally".
Apart from anything else, there is not a simple black and white definition of what a nerd-related topic might be. Despite what some people here seem to think, not every story has to be about Computer Science.
Came here to check this. It's the only thing about the pope worth caring about, is he still going to support bigotry and overpopulation (as in the creation of the very same starving kids he will later cry about) or not?
Aaaand the answer's yes :-(
He'll be carrying on the fine work of Mother Theresa.
Cue the "but the Catholic Church hasn't taught that the world was flat since the 16th Century and they now acknowledge relativity and the Big Bang" posts from anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights apologists.
Not consuming blood is in the Bible (Acts 15:29), and theoretically, it applies to all Christians.
So wouldn't Christians have to be vegetarian? I don't see how you can eat meat without consuming some blood, however it's been slaughtered and drained in a kosher/halal style.
Also, since when is having a blood transfusion the same thing as eating blood?
The whole thing is just another ridiculous hangover from dietary laws dreamed up in a hot, desert society. I wouldn't want to eat shellfish if I lived in the middle of the Sinai either.
I like the "he has no previous experience" thing they mentioned. I don't think "have you ever been a pope before?" was part of the the interview...
So, whatever its faults, at least the Catholic church isn't run by HR people.
The world really is a much more tolerable place, when people can disagree without the vitriol and anger.
If nothing at all gets fills you with virtiol or joy, or makes you angry or sad, it just means you're either very stupid or indifferent to the point of psychopathy.
Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
I know Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus (and New Agers, Hippies, Communists, Anarchists, Monarchists, Capitalists, Atheists and Agnostics). They can't all be right about everything. But they're all human beings.
Again - everybody does that, and atheists not the least of them. That is a description that you could apply to any strawman you choose.
You seem to have missed the phrase "no demonstrable basis in reality."
All statements are not equally true, or else we might as well give up on logic and communication entirely and go back to being animals.
The first few posts contain no references to paedophile priests.
Since advertising necessarily involves speech, how do you remove sexist advertising without restricting speech?
Since TV necessarily involves speech, how do you remove hard core porn from TV?
Since newspapers necessarily involve speech, how do you stop them from libelling anyone they feel like?
Mass media are subject to certain rules, however much people here like to think of the internet as some special anarchic part of reality fenced off from the real world.
Freedom of speech is not some wild, precious thing like a snowflake in the wind that vanishes when you dare to touch it. It is a series of compromises agreed over the centuries in civilised society