I don’t think he meant to say that all atheists are necessarily opposed to altruism, he was just hypothetically talking about someone who happened to hold both those views.
Fair enough. But he seemed to infer that an atheist would more likely to be against altruism than someone who is religiously inclined.
Miller already answered the question so I’ll just throw in quote from Jimmy Snow a few years ago: “I don’t care what you believe but rather how you treat people.”
I think this harkens back to my much contested post that good and evil are matters of opinion.
Again, backwards. If the Pope does a good thing because his religion calls for it, and he also does a very bad thing because the same religion also calls for that, he doesn’t have good intentions.
~Max
Well, yeah. Nobody’s the villain of his own story.
Not at all
~Max
Yeah, I think we needed pseudotriton ruber ruber here to set this all straight.
Excellent point!
Surely you wouldn’t like an umpire whose rulebook is fair when it comes to calling balls and strikes, but which considers a slight turn of the pitcher’s head a violation of the balk rule.
It seems to me the Pope’s rulebook calls for fighting poverty but also pushing people to have or adopt children, and denying same-sex marriage. It isn’t exactly a secret where the Catholic Church stands on these issues. The rulebook is out in the open, even when the Pope makes speeches about fighting poverty it is always clear that he is following the same rulebook.
So while you are free to be happy when the Pope uses his position to support things you like, and you can be unhappy when he says things you don’t like, if you were to come out and say you thought you liked the Pope, but now all of a sudden he’s a misogynistic scumbag with outdated beliefs… it’s seems to me that you never truly liked him at all. If he’s a misogynistic scumbag with outdated beliefs, he was a misogynistic scumbag acting on outdated beliefs when he made the speech about fighting poverty.
~Max
As i said above, the pope picks and chooses his issues from among the vast playbook. You can like or dislike his choices.
I think the media portrayals of Pope Francis are part of this too. The media’s main take on him from the beginning has been, “Look how wonderful this new Pope is! He’s modest, he’s kindly, he’s progressive, he’s compassionate. Yes, it’s a new Pope for a new Catholicism! Righteousness for all!”
There is a very big thing in Catholic doctrine about raising and educating children. You have to make that promise to get married (in the eyes of the Church) to begin with - something not apparent just from reading the CNN article in the OP. See also my post #76.
The issue of the day was Saint Joseph (who adopted Jesus) and the meaning of parenthood - it’s not totally out of left field when the Pope says pets don’t count as children.
~Max
It pretty much is out of left field. Who the hell thinks pets count as children? Especially for religious purposes?
I think you’re missing the point. A couple that married Catholic is supposed to be open to having children, God permitting. They made a promise to each other, to the Church, and to God do so when they took the sacrament of marriage. Pets don’t count as children = Having pets doesn’t diminish their (religious) responsibility to raise children.
The Pope says it’s selfish for said couple to go with only one child, or no children, because they do not want more children, but have many pets. He says, quote, “dogs and cats take the place of children”. This seems to apply to a case where a couple is deciding on whether to have more kids or more pets, for whatever reason (eg: only has time for one or the other). It especially applies when the couple agrees that they don’t want more kids. That’s who the Pope is speaking to, primarily. He’s a religious authority, speaking to his religious community, saying it is wrong to choose having pets instead of kids just because you don’t want kids.
It makes sense to me, from what I understand of Catholicism, although I’m neither Catholic nor married. It doesn’t strike me as coming out of left field and seems consistent with Catholic theology.
~Max
And have you ever met such a person? Not someone joking about it, but serious? I have not. It’s a bizarre spin.
What? Of course I have. You haven’t?
A newlywed couple that after some deliberation over having a baby versus puppies, adopts three puppies, for example. “There’s no way in hell I’m raising three puppies and a baby” is reasonable and wouldn’t be out of place at Thanksgiving dinner or something.
ETA: Or someone with a kid already might say something like “one is enough for me, but he wants more. So we decided to adopt puppies as a compromise”.
You’ve never met people like this?
~Max
If you took this literally you are beyond hope. But I guess judging by you contributions here, I am not surprised. You are fucking tone deaf in the most staggering way.
No you idiot, these people are joking. No one but the seriously mentally ill equates puppies and babies in the way these people are joking about.
They may be joking about equating puppies and babies, but the fact remains that someone wanted a baby and settled for puppies instead. (In the context of Catholicism all couples are supposed to want to raise children, since that is the point of marriage.)
~Max
I don’t see anything about having children in the traditional wedding vows.
No they didn’t you fucking loon. I suspect you misunderstood what they said and are inserting your own understanding just like you are in over and over and over again in this very thread.
I mean I do have a relative who does think her cats are actually equivalent to children and should be treated as grandchildren by her parents. But she is actually mentally ill. And only a truly fucked up person would want her to have children.
But I guess the Holy Father would, so there’s that.