If your concept of a religious institution that has more than a billion people listening to it is reduced to “homophobic cult”, how does that differ from being part of a “bigoted cult” because you condemn people based on your simplistic understanding of their religion?
The catholic church is indeed a homophobic cult that condemns homophobia as a sins for which you get punished in hell, having million of followers or being popular doesn’t change the fact. Scientology has millions of followers are we going to give them any credibility because of that?
How does your sentiment differ from someone who would say:
The catholic church LGBT is indeed a homophobic sinful cult that condemns homophobia as a sins for which you get punished in hell religion as being a homophobic cult, having million of followers or being popular doesn’t change the fact.
You take the broadest brush and just stroke over everything, instead of being willing to accept any nuance.
Pope Francis declared it possible for Priests to bless same-sex marriages.
If the supposed cult leader of a supposed homophobic cult is allowing for the supposed cult to bless same-sex marriages, how is that consistent with the notion of a supposedly homophobic cult?
He’s the internally appointed CEO of a cult persuading people to believe that ghosts are real. The blessing of same-sex couples is a stunt the catholic church pulled to save face in 21st century, their different treatment of homosexual couples still speak loud about their cult homophobia.
You are hard pressed to be more of an atheist than I am.
You expect dogma to be nullified with a snap of finger? Even more when that same dogma is taken from the book on which the creed is built upon?
As if people require any sort of excuse to shun and persecute those who are different.
I find it more important countries to codify into law the right for anyone, regardless gender or sexual orientation, to enjoy the same rights, including marriage if so they choose but like it or not, a man forcing that small change into a monolithic, organized, religion is something to be recognized.
Those can be some of the worst individuals in the church, and some of the best, at the same time.
There are incredibly forward thinking, humanist and humane individuals acting as local parish priests, individuals that entered the ranks for personal calling and devotion, doing their best to push back on backwards thought and belief on “pious” communities. Those should garner wide support, when it is the exact opposite that happens, with usually the most reprobate and closed minded individuals being seen as “good” priest and thus rising in the ranks, to keep the status quo, one generation after the other.
Institutions are made of people. That man did little but achieved something to move the creed in a better direction. Most just tend to small affairs or outright go for even more dogmatic understandings of outdated subjects, which by itself drives away more people.
Now that I think about it, as reading or being knowledgeable of what any “holy” book holds is the best way to create atheists, maybe those are doing the best job.
Even the “best” individuals in the catholic church are still the members of a homophobic and misogynist cult persuading people to believe that ghosts are real. catholic church bending and changing its own sacred holy laws as it suit them is more proof of their bullshits.
There is being atheist and there is being anti-theist.
The way you express yourself, it seems you lean more into the second. Which I find intriguing because in order to be anti-theist, you first need to give any value to the theist claims.
As you do seem very invested in supporting and uplifting those that are wronged by a creed, why do you opt to attack any and all believer, by default, instead of trying to find people that share your exact concerns?
It doesn’t matter if someone takes Santa Claus, the Krampus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy as real or if they hold the hope of meeting again their loved ones after they die. People are here, today, living, breathing, suffering.
The bending and changing of those same “holy” precepts is what allows people to diverge abd evolve the way they understand others and the world.
Anti-theism fell out of favour in the 2010’s. Too much vitriol. Reason does not cancel hope and dreams but it should cancel hollow arguments, including those reason itself raises.
This comment proves the church’s PR experiment worked. The lies worked.
He wasn’t progressive, he was a hard conservative, homophonic, misogynist who defended pedos and spewed hollow platitudes while sitting on a trillion dollars. But the church put him in place and threw a huge propaganda machine behind him and you bought it
Edit: to the pedo lovers in this thread who are gonna miss king pedo
This comment proves the church’s PR experiment worked.
Conspiracy theorists are so weird… Like do you imagine a smokey room with the pope and a group of cardinals talking about how they want to represent the church in a completely opposite way to how they want it to be? Or is there a “shadow church” that controls it all and the pope is unaware?
Which marvel movie best reflects the situation do you think?
I mean, the Catholic Church is a political organization that has global reach, I don’t think it’s a wild conspiracy that they carefully consider their appearance.
This comment proves the church’s PR experiment worked. The lies worked. He wasn’t progressive, he was a hard conservative,
This phrase, right here, sounds like it came from a conspiracy theorist. Because that’s exactly how conspiracy theorists rationalize things. Anything that counters my belief is “lies” and it’s just a “PR experiment”. It can’t possibly be that the pope is, like most people, complex with varied beliefs and potentially even contradictory beliefs.
But they do have a pr department. The holy see is a political organization. They are an internationally recognized government with diplomatic relationships. While not a member state of the UN they are permanent observers and influence decision making on a worldwide scale, and it’s not a secret that the church, which is run by the same person as the holy see (the Pope) has had its fair share of controversy.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to think the holy see spends time and effort in order to make their appearance, and the appearance of the church, look better.
Did you even see the earlier Popes? He did everything you say and yet this guy was liberal by every definition compared to the guy he replaced. Benedict was nasty and he knew it.
He said a lot. Did the opposite and continued the church’s status quo, you’re a fool if you think his pro lgbt talk was sincere, actions speak louder than words
I’m actually sad about this one. He was by far the best pope of my lifetime.
I feel depressed watching someones last days no matter who they are. R.i.p. I think it was brave of him to be in public for so long.
Don’t be sad, he was as just bad as any of his colleagues.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/world/europe/pope-francis-homophobic-slur.html
I have terrible news for you if you think using a homophobic slur is as bad as anything the previous popes and cardinals have been doing.
The homophobic slurs should also be a reminder that the catholic church is a homophobic cult.
If your concept of a religious institution that has more than a billion people listening to it is reduced to “homophobic cult”, how does that differ from being part of a “bigoted cult” because you condemn people based on your simplistic understanding of their religion?
The catholic church is indeed a homophobic cult that condemns homophobia as a sins for which you get punished in hell, having million of followers or being popular doesn’t change the fact. Scientology has millions of followers are we going to give them any credibility because of that?
How does your sentiment differ from someone who would say:
You take the broadest brush and just stroke over everything, instead of being willing to accept any nuance.
Probably because one is founded on evidence and the other one is founded on a made up concept by the institution in question.
Pope Francis declared it possible for Priests to bless same-sex marriages.
If the supposed cult leader of a supposed homophobic cult is allowing for the supposed cult to bless same-sex marriages, how is that consistent with the notion of a supposedly homophobic cult?
Isn’t this ‘whataboutism’?
This was tbe same man that said being homosexual isn’t a crime and doesn’t merit persecution for it, albeit by the catholic creed being a sin.
An insult is only as long someone allows it to be.
Downvote away.
He’s the internally appointed CEO of a cult persuading people to believe that ghosts are real. The blessing of same-sex couples is a stunt the catholic church pulled to save face in 21st century, their different treatment of homosexual couples still speak loud about their cult homophobia.
You are hard pressed to be more of an atheist than I am.
You expect dogma to be nullified with a snap of finger? Even more when that same dogma is taken from the book on which the creed is built upon?
As if people require any sort of excuse to shun and persecute those who are different.
I find it more important countries to codify into law the right for anyone, regardless gender or sexual orientation, to enjoy the same rights, including marriage if so they choose but like it or not, a man forcing that small change into a monolithic, organized, religion is something to be recognized.
I expect homophobic cult leaders to be called out for what they are and not praised or defended
Then start by the first line priests.
Those can be some of the worst individuals in the church, and some of the best, at the same time.
There are incredibly forward thinking, humanist and humane individuals acting as local parish priests, individuals that entered the ranks for personal calling and devotion, doing their best to push back on backwards thought and belief on “pious” communities. Those should garner wide support, when it is the exact opposite that happens, with usually the most reprobate and closed minded individuals being seen as “good” priest and thus rising in the ranks, to keep the status quo, one generation after the other.
Institutions are made of people. That man did little but achieved something to move the creed in a better direction. Most just tend to small affairs or outright go for even more dogmatic understandings of outdated subjects, which by itself drives away more people.
Now that I think about it, as reading or being knowledgeable of what any “holy” book holds is the best way to create atheists, maybe those are doing the best job.
Even the “best” individuals in the catholic church are still the members of a homophobic and misogynist cult persuading people to believe that ghosts are real. catholic church bending and changing its own sacred holy laws as it suit them is more proof of their bullshits.
There is being atheist and there is being anti-theist.
The way you express yourself, it seems you lean more into the second. Which I find intriguing because in order to be anti-theist, you first need to give any value to the theist claims.
As you do seem very invested in supporting and uplifting those that are wronged by a creed, why do you opt to attack any and all believer, by default, instead of trying to find people that share your exact concerns?
It doesn’t matter if someone takes Santa Claus, the Krampus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy as real or if they hold the hope of meeting again their loved ones after they die. People are here, today, living, breathing, suffering.
The bending and changing of those same “holy” precepts is what allows people to diverge abd evolve the way they understand others and the world.
Anti-theism fell out of favour in the 2010’s. Too much vitriol. Reason does not cancel hope and dreams but it should cancel hollow arguments, including those reason itself raises.
He was the best child rapist out of the lot of them 😢
I hope his religion is real so he can burn in hell with his predecessors.
Spokesperson of the biggest pedophile ring dies, and that makes me sad.
This comment proves the church’s PR experiment worked. The lies worked. He wasn’t progressive, he was a hard conservative, homophonic, misogynist who defended pedos and spewed hollow platitudes while sitting on a trillion dollars. But the church put him in place and threw a huge propaganda machine behind him and you bought it
Edit: to the pedo lovers in this thread who are gonna miss king pedo
https://youtu.be/DUlj48Rvp1c
I think he was the first Pope Francis. But even if he were the second, that wouldn’t make him a homophone.
I guess all popes are homophonic in some languages, like in Spanish “la papa” is potato and “el papa” is pope.
You win the award for funniest spelling pedantry of the month.
Conspiracy theorists are so weird… Like do you imagine a smokey room with the pope and a group of cardinals talking about how they want to represent the church in a completely opposite way to how they want it to be? Or is there a “shadow church” that controls it all and the pope is unaware?
Which marvel movie best reflects the situation do you think?
I mean, the Catholic Church is a political organization that has global reach, I don’t think it’s a wild conspiracy that they carefully consider their appearance.
This phrase, right here, sounds like it came from a conspiracy theorist. Because that’s exactly how conspiracy theorists rationalize things. Anything that counters my belief is “lies” and it’s just a “PR experiment”. It can’t possibly be that the pope is, like most people, complex with varied beliefs and potentially even contradictory beliefs.
No. It’s “lies from a PR department”. 🙄
But they do have a pr department. The holy see is a political organization. They are an internationally recognized government with diplomatic relationships. While not a member state of the UN they are permanent observers and influence decision making on a worldwide scale, and it’s not a secret that the church, which is run by the same person as the holy see (the Pope) has had its fair share of controversy.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to think the holy see spends time and effort in order to make their appearance, and the appearance of the church, look better.
“I don’t think it’s a stretch” and “they have a PR department” are not “evidence”.
lol we have proof of these people causing genocides and raping children but sure that’s far fetched
Proof of things “A” is not proof of things “B”
Did you even see the earlier Popes? He did everything you say and yet this guy was liberal by every definition compared to the guy he replaced. Benedict was nasty and he knew it.
He said a lot. Did the opposite and continued the church’s status quo, you’re a fool if you think his pro lgbt talk was sincere, actions speak louder than words
He had the dopest pope rock album too, I imagine that record will stand
deleted by creator
52