Benedict condemns gay marriages.
-
But they held on to their outdated values, instead of learning from others. Buddhists are more liberal because their doctrines ARE sort of liberal in some sense. In general, the followers of Buddha have the highest level of tolerance. Very few wars were started by Buddhists. The civil wars in Thailand and Sri Lanka are exceptions because they are more of a national security issue. AFAIK, no Buddhist nation has deliberately started a war with any other sovereign entity.Originally posted by SilverPal:Perhaps many have forgotten how vocal the church was in promoting interreligion talks on an international level. In Sg, the catholic church has held dialogues and talks with muslim leaders, many of which i have attended. Is this how the way a for us against us approach is? -
Agreed. Perhaps many other major religious leaders including Catholic Pope should learn to be as tolerant of other religionOriginally posted by iveco:But they held on to their outdated values, instead of learning from others. Buddhists are more liberal because their doctrines ARE sort of liberal in some sense. In general, the followers of Buddha have the highest level of tolerance. Very few wars were started by Buddhists. The civil wars in Thailand and Sri Lanka are exceptions because they are more of a national security issue. AFAIK, no Buddhist nation has deliberately started a war with any other sovereign entity. -
you should see the decadence and excessiveness of the vatican for yourself, then you'll know why its so easy for them to disregard the interests of the peasantry.
-
Leading a decadant life and advocating it are two different thing. I know that things are far from perfect in the vactican but encouraging, advocating and championing decadance is totally out of the question.
-
Abortion even in the case of rape cannot be accepted.
Is it fair to make the baby pay for the crimes of his/her father? -
Great for you! Frankly I do not understand why people cannot see that this is possible. For everyone's info, I for one am against homosexuality but I am on close terms with a couple of homosexuals. I make my stand clear and these 2 friends are pretty fine with it simply because other than disagreeing on this part of their lifestyle, I treat them like any other friends. I think it is too shallow on anyone's part to say that if we condemn homosexuality, we condemn homosexuals. Cmon, I make friends with a PERSON, not because he is homosexual or he is 'straight'. Loving a person goes beyond what he does. Just look at your own friends and family. We lead different lives but we love each other dun we.Originally posted by SilverPal:An elegant example. I am of course in agreement with you on this point.
To digress somewhat, perhaps the failure of the "condemn the act but love the person" philosophy might be a contributin reason why we need the yellow ribbon campaign.
I used to be a horrid bigot. I feared ex cons, hated gays... But after getting to know a few of them, gays and ex cons, I realised that they are the same as us. There is no reason why we should marginalise or outcast them.
Accepting a person is not tantamount to accepting his/her every actions and attitudes. My mother accepts me as her son, but simply cannot embrace the fact that I am a christian. She does not like it when I go for mission trips or church. But yet, she calls me son.
I think this society need to re-think about their attitudes. I think for homosexuals or ex-criminals, it can be called discrimination only when the society do not give them equal opportunities to excel in work, in life and in their ambitions. If such a person is given equal opportunities by the society, i think it is wrong to say that the society discriminates them just because some of them think that homosexuality is wrong. Lets be fair to everyone, treat everyone fairly because the other party is a PERSON. And also because regardless of your religion, sexual tendencies or attitudes or beliefs, we are all PEOPLE with our own mind, lets agree to disagree. Hate the act, Love the Person. -
My stand on religion has always been simple:
I respect your religious beliefs, whether conservative or liberal- just as long as you feel comfortable with it and you made peace with it and your God as well. But there are boundaries that you and I cannot cross.
1) One of them is religious extremism where either you or I claim that one religion supercedes the others because it's superior. I don't tolerate religious extremism myself and if any fanatic tries to do that- and from any religion I might add- then I will do my best to discredit this fella. He will go to jail if he tries to incite people to riot violently or even worse, kill people(whether locals or foreigners) because of his extremism.
2) No religion is to cross other boundaries of other religions that may advocate something different. It's up to the believers of each and every religion and its priests or mullahs or monks to ensure that differences are respected between each and every different religious groups.
3) Human rights will be ensured even among those who are jailed for suspected terrorism activities. This means that even if people like Osama Bin Laden doesn't respect human rights, that doesn't mean that we will scoop down to their level and do the same and abuse those who are in infinite jail. in addition, their religion(regardless on how much they are faithful in) will be respected. So if any muslim offender is in jail, he will be allowed to pray in the direction of his temples in Macca, observe his Ramadan, read the Koran and the Quran and do things that is generally allowed in the muslim faith.
And if there is any interrogation, then only stated methods mentioned in the Geneva Convention will be used to extract sensitive information- especially info that may cost the prisoner's life and welfare outside. Preferably mind games will be used mostly but nothing of the Koran abuse and insults to his faith or religious beliefs. -
Wonderful. Try telling that to George W Bush.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:My stand on religion has always been simple:
I respect your religious beliefs, whether conservative or liberal- just as long as you feel comfortable with it and you made peace with it and your God as well. But there are boundaries that you and I cannot cross.
1) One of them is religious extremism where either you or I claim that one religion supercedes the others because it's superior. I don't tolerate religious extremism myself and if any fanatic tries to do that- and from any religion I might add- then I will do my best to discredit this fella. He will go to jail if he tries to incite people to riot violently or even worse, kill people(whether locals or foreigners) because of his extremism.
2) No religion is to cross other boundaries of other religions that may advocate something different. It's up to the believers of each and every religion and its priests or mullahs or monks to ensure that differences are respected between each and every different religious groups.
3) Human rights will be ensured even among those who are jailed for suspected terrorism activities. This means that even if people like Osama Bin Laden doesn't respect human rights, that doesn't mean that we will scoop down to their level and do the same and abuse those who are in infinite jail. in addition, their religion(regardless on how much they are faithful in) will be respected. So if any muslim offender is in jail, he will be allowed to pray in the direction of his temples in Macca, observe his Ramadan, read the Koran and the Quran and do things that is generally allowed in the muslim faith.
And if there is any interrogation, then only stated methods mentioned in the Geneva Convention will be used to extract sensitive information- especially info that may cost the prisoner's life and welfare outside. Preferably mind games will be used mostly but nothing of the Koran abuse and insults to his faith or religious beliefs.
-
Hi timothy, I'm glad you have this point of view. I feel this is a sensible approach to take.
Although I have taken up religion, I also share your views. Amazingly, it is interesting to note that those without religion can also be very extreme, a point that vexes me no end. those self declared atheist who add "Religion is for fools" and the such in our discussion, they too should learn to see things the way you outlined.
If only more ppl think the way you do. -
I have seen a lot of religious bigots in many other messagboards, both local and foreign, asian and western. Needless to say, such bigots are of a sad breed.Originally posted by SilverPal:Hi timothy, I'm glad you have this point of view. I feel this is a sensible approach to take.
Although I have taken up religion, I also share your views. Amazingly, it is interesting to note that those without religion can also be very extreme, a point that vexes me no end. those self declared atheist who add "Religion is for fools" and the such in our discussion, they too should learn to see things the way you outlined.
If only more ppl think the way you do.
Whether is it double standards or whatever of that sort, it just displeases me.
That's why we need more pple to think in that way:that religion itself- while different to everybody- needs respect and understanding by all. -
mi not gayOriginally posted by kops21:wonder how many gays are inside his organisation. 
-
hmm i wonder what if the whole church/religion dun like the poope can he be replaced? or he hold position for life and can do what he wants?
-
Yes. He's the Pope so he can hold it for life- at least till the time God calls him back to Heaven.Originally posted by hisoka:hmm i wonder what if the whole church/religion dun like the poope can he be replaced? or he hold position for life and can do what he wants?
In any case, the last I heard about Benedict XIV's health is that he isn't in perfect health so far- it may or may not get serious for the time being. He's 78 though so if anything, it's only natural for him to take longer to recover from any kind of virus attack or disease infection. -
Well said!Originally posted by gasband:Great for you! Frankly I do not understand why people cannot see that this is possible. For everyone's info, I for one am against homosexuality but I am on close terms with a couple of homosexuals. I make my stand clear and these 2 friends are pretty fine with it simply because other than disagreeing on this part of their lifestyle, I treat them like any other friends. I think it is too shallow on anyone's part to say that if we condemn homosexuality, we condemn homosexuals. Cmon, I make friends with a PERSON, not because he is homosexual or he is 'straight'. Loving a person goes beyond what he does. Just look at your own friends and family. We lead different lives but we love each other dun we.
Accepting a person is not tantamount to accepting his/her every actions and attitudes. My mother accepts me as her son, but simply cannot embrace the fact that I am a christian. She does not like it when I go for mission trips or church. But yet, she calls me son.
I think this society need to re-think about their attitudes. I think for homosexuals or ex-criminals, it can be called discrimination only when the society do not give them equal opportunities to excel in work, in life and in their ambitions. If such a person is given equal opportunities by the society, i think it is wrong to say that the society discriminates them just because some of them think that homosexuality is wrong. Lets be fair to everyone, treat everyone fairly because the other party is a PERSON. And also because regardless of your religion, sexual tendencies or attitudes or beliefs, we are all PEOPLE with our own mind, lets agree to disagree. Hate the act, Love the Person. -
In this very ancient book Bible,it says homosex is wrong.Gays,do u know why it say so?
-
i think if you were gay you'd say something very different..Originally posted by PRP:In this very ancient book Bible,it says homosex is wrong.Gays,do u know why it say so? -
maybe because buddism started out as a philosophy and was never meant to become a religion like what people today have manifested it to be?Originally posted by iveco:Very few wars were started by Buddhists. The civil wars in Thailand and Sri Lanka are exceptions because they are more of a national security issue. AFAIK, no Buddhist nation has deliberately started a war with any other sovereign entity. -
ah.. if a gay perform straight acts, will you consider him a gay still?Originally posted by gasband:Seriously, I wun comment on the homosexual issue, but I am a firm believer of condemn the act but love the person. Its possible. its just like what my mother tells me that whatever I do, whether she thinks is right or not, I will always be her son. I have friends who cheated on their girlfriends and wives, of course I do not agree with what they do and I make it known to them that I will not help them cover up their deeds, but they are still my friends. We hang out, we chill out, we share our thoughts and woes.... Seriously does no one here have the - love the person, condemn the act - thinking? Its absolutely fine with me and I think I do it very well.
the point abt condemning the acts but not the people is "hypocritical".. -
ah..Originally posted by SilverPal:Leading a decadant life and advocating it are two different thing. I know that things are far from perfect in the vactican but encouraging, advocating and championing decadance is totally out of the question.
what do u mean decadant?
the only difference between gays and straights is sexual preference..
may i know what do you understand by the term "gays"? -
gay also = happy
-
I think you do not get my point. My emphasis is the PERSON. I dun care what a person call himself, be it gay or homosexual, I am only disagreeing with the act/attitude/belief. Isnt it more shallow to say that I can only be a friend with a self proclaimed gay or homosexual if I agree with his behaviour?Originally posted by earthlings73:ah.. if a gay perform straight acts, will you consider him a gay still?
the point abt condemning the acts but not the people is "hypocritical"..
Isnt it more disturbing if I tell my vegan friend "Hey you are a vegan, I am meat eater, sorry you are not friend anymore." or "Hey you are a vegan, sorry, I condemn you. I cant be your friend because you do not eat meat."
And as I said, You agree with every single of your friend's values/behaviour/attitudes?
Frankly, i think it is more hypocritical to agree with that person just because that person is close to you or because that person is your friend. As I said, this world is made up of people with their own minds and we are all educated/civilised/modern or whatever u wanna call - people - and so surely we understand the need to agree to disagree. -
Originally posted by gasband:
Ah.. but the church never comdemn vegetarians wor..
I think you do not get my point. My emphasis is the PERSON. I dun care what a person call himself, be it gay or homosexual, I am only disagreeing with the act/attitude/belief. Isnt it more shallow to say that I can only be a friend with a self proclaimed gay or homosexual if I agree with his behaviour?
Isnt it more disturbing if I tell my vegan friend "Hey you are a vegan, I am meat eater, sorry you are not friend anymore." or "Hey you are a vegan, sorry, I condemn you. I cant be your friend because you do not eat meat."
[b]And as I said, You agree with every single of your friend's values/behaviour/attitudes?
Frankly, i think it is more hypocritical to agree with that person just because that person is close to you or because that person is your friend. As I said, this world is made up of people with their own minds and we are all educated/civilised/modern or whatever u wanna call - people - and so surely we understand the need to agree to disagree.[/b]
but the church condemns the so-called gay behaviours wor.. just wondering, do you personally have gay friends.. how could u like them when they are commiting sins very regularly?
a better analogy might be: "i like christians, but i hate people who go to church/pray to god."
christians (or gays) is a categorical definition..
And going to church/praying to god is the behaviours the category "christians" engaged in..
For most people, such attitude needs to be consistent with each other.. -
with great power comes greater responsibilities..Originally posted by gasband:I think everyone has the right to voice his opinions, even the pope. I am not his biggest fan but well he has the right to believe in what he believes and voice it out. And you have the right to voice it out if you do not agree with him but it doesnt have to be a personal attack on the person. It should be on the issue. If you attack the person, then any debates or discussions become pointless.
Freedom of choice and free will. He can speak all he wants. Whoever agrees with him will follow him. Whoever doesnt agree will not. But who can say he is right or wrong? It just happen your beliefs and values different from his.
you point is right is only the person uttering such narrow-minded views are ant tom dick or harry on the st..
however, as a leader of a religion with the most believers, he need to think carefully what he said.. -
duplicate post
-
When the bible says homosex is wrong, surely the pope has to advocate the same teaching.Originally posted by earthlings73:with great power comes greater responsibilities..
you point is right is only the person uttering such narrow-minded views are ant tom dick or harry on the st..
however, as a leader of a religion with the most believers, he need to think carefully what he said..