"Who am I to judge gay people?""The problem is not having this orientation," he said. "We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23489702
>>1034468 (OP)>MasonicThe fuck? First off, what is the Vaticans problem with the Masonic lodge, and second off the hell does the Masonic lodge have to do with homosexuality lobbying?
Well, that's nice. I guess.If I actually cared what he thinks.
Everybody hates lobbyists. Even lobbyists hate lobbyists.
>>1034468 (OP)so is he against catholic lobbies as well? like the vatican?
>>1034468 (OP)"Who am I to judge lobbies?"
>>1034474nice reading comprehension man.he didn't link masonic lodges at all with gays.he just said that he doesn't like lobbies at all, and started listing lobbies.he has a problem with gay lobbies because, apparently, there is a lobby of gay bishops and priest inside the church.and what the pope doesn't like is no that they are gay, but the fact they are acting together in the underground of the church, influencing decisions in way that should have nothing to do with theyr religion.you know, because even if you can argue that a priest can like men, he must not have sex/relationships. he should be devoted to god and not a man or a woman, that's the canon catholics choosed, good or bad they must follow that.> what is the Vaticans problem with the Masonic lodgeunification of italy and reclusion of church in the vatican happened thanks to masonry.also a lobby almost crashed vatican bank in the '70.popes don't care about lost territories at all anymore, but you can't complain that they don't like masonry.
>>1034499>vatican >lobbywe might as well say that a nation is a lobby.
>>1034528then the catholic church? it's the same thing, they use their money and social standing to push their agenda on the politics of various countries.
>>1034524Ah right thanks for clearing that up.You know, marriage for Catholic priests was once legal but then the Vatican started to realise they were losing money and assets due to inheritance laws, so they outlawed priests getting married.Also the masons did the world a favour... although I thought it was primarily Mussolini who restricted the powers of the church to the Vatican city.
>>1034538they do it openly and also they are quite open to any democratic view.it's not like a century ago anymore when the pope asked catholics to not vote anymore.in fact you never see the pope really push for any political party in italy.he just whines when the state doesn't defend workers rights.now the bishops in the south italy and how they menage hospitals is quite a bullshit.
>>1034528Well yes, since the vatican is in fact a sovereign nation.
>>1034560>they do it openlyyeah so what? it's still lobbying. >in fact you never see the pope really push for any political party in italy.No, because they control all the major parties.
>>1034468 (OP)Freemasons? Awww! Franciscus is so CUTE! :3>>1034524Are you refering to P2?
>>1034468 (OP)How, this its disgusting... I was abused by a catholic priest while I was a kid and now the pope says that we should be brothers...Why not allowing openly gay people in the church so they dont have to abuse children?
>>1034468 (OP)The Pope's stance is in no way different than the Church's had for long now.They think sex should be a means of reproduction for a man and a woman, and that family should remain a monogamous heterosexual model. But they don't hate homosexuals for who they are, for homosexual desires are not different than any other sexual temptation.
He's okay with men having sex, but at the same time is not okay with hetero couples using contraceptives? I don't understand, isn't every seed sacred or something to that effect?
>>1034788>He's okay with men having sexNo he's not. He's okay with men being attracted to other men.
>>1034700Stopping people being openly gay doesn't make them into paedophiles. Are you fucking insane.
>>1034468 (OP)So no different from what the church has been saying for long. They have nor problems with people who are gay as long as they hide it, stay closeted, try to live life the way the church says god meant them to and don't try to get the same rights and recognition as everyone else.
>>1034788he's ok with men being attracted to men as long as they don't have sex or relationships with men.
>>1034828>mfw nothing really changed
>>1034538The Church doesn't lobby. Individual Catholics lobby. His problem was with people lobbying inside the Church. It's not a real political institution. It has political power, and politics within itself, but it isn't a government. They aren't supposed to work with lobbyists.
>>1034748Yup, but the popes in the past were never quite as public about this issue. Pope Francis has been striving to achieve transparency about the sweeter points of Catholic doctrine, something Benedict was weirdly not doing.
>>1035276Yeah, but more people know that the Church doesn't hate gay people.
>>1034468 (OP)Yes. Based Papa calling out the problem for what it truly is. >>1034474Masons have always been banned from the Catholic Church. People like that are one of the main infiltrators.
>>1035452Wait... the Masons still have power?
>>1035276It is never going to change. It is the Church.
>>1035465And their allies. >>1034825Dat persecution complex
>>1035465As much power as the Catholic Church. Hey-o!
>>1035472..Depends on how big of a change you are expecting. The finer points mold as the world changes, but the core doctrine is as unmovable as God.
>>1035481>Dat persecution complex
>>1034825>as long as they hide it, stay closetedIt has nothing to do with being closeted. It just says, "Don't have sex." You can paint that as oppression all you like, but you'd just be exaggerating to make yourself feel persecuted by a group of people who really are just asking you to use self-restraint/
>>1035481>>1035893>Don't have sexAnd don't have relationships. You can say persecution complex all you want it doesn't make it true. The position of the church is still that god intended for a natural order and in that order a man and a woman love each other, while man and man, and woman and woman, are against god's will. And what are the popeìs actual words? >"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?"A person of good will, and who seeks god, doesn't go against God's will. And it's the same position that the church already had from before. They always said that they have nothing against homosexual people, but against homosexual acts. It's just rhetoric. And what about the gay lobby? Does he mean a secret gay lobby that I am not aware of? Or those who push for equal rights and recognition for homosexual and to fight against homophobia?
He has a problem with the Freemasonry, because many high degree Freemasons practice Thelema.
>>1036053Or because freemasons are a secret club, for boys only outside of the catholic chruches control.
>>1036031>They always said that they have nothing against homosexual people, but against homosexual acts. It's just rhetoric.As ridiculous as it sounds, this attitude holds accurate to scripture. Seeking God and having good will means that they will beg God to forgive them for being a naughty sinner and that they'll promise not to ever be intimate with a man ever again.
>>1036073Yes, and what the pope has said is nothing new and doesn't change anything about the church position on homosexuality, s oI don't get why everyone is making a big deal out of it.
>>1036031Technically they don't want straight couples to have sex either unless for the express purpose of having children.Even then some sects do not pretend there is no lust involved just because they are married and still consider it a sin (albeit a necessary one).
>>1036031>And don't have relationships. So? You weren't saying, "The Church is against gay people having romantic relationships with people of the same sex." You said, "The Church is telling gay Catholics to remain in the closet." One is persecution, the other isn't. >And what about the gay lobby? Does he mean a secret gay lobby that I am not aware of? >Or those who push for equal rights and recognition for homosexual and to fight against homophobia?Do you not know how the Church works? Do you think she works like a government? Do you think she dabbles in political rights? She doesn't. The Church doesn't officiate what a secular institution does. She just says what people /should/ do. She rules on the will of God. Those "equal rights" you argue about are not part of God's will, and, thus, not real. They aren't rights. They're made up. Two men cannot get married, no matter what a piece of paper says. It doesn't mean that those two people are damned to hell. It doesn't mean that they are sub-human. It simply means they cannot be married. It just isn't true. It's not an oppressive stance. It's not a homophobic stance. It's just an acceptance of fact. You want to see persecution, but there isn't any. The moment you stop /trying/ to find fault, you'll realize you're being silly.
>>1036096>unless for the express purpose of having children.That's actually not true. There are two purposes (causes) to sex: an expression of love between a married couple, and the procreation of life. Sex must be opened to both, but is justified in only having one. So a couple can have sex without wanting to have a baby if they love each other and are /open/ to a child (no artificial contraception), and a couple can have sex hoping to conceive as long as they love each other. This, of course, only applies to married couples. "Lust" is sex purely for the purpose of pleasure. Not to say that expressing love isn't pleasurable, but you aren't doing it for the love; you're doing it to get off. Most "sins" are virtuous if performed in the appropriate circumstances.
>>1036093>I don't get why everyone is making a big deal out of it.Because not everyone knew that. As well, the Pope being open about it is a rather new position.
>>1036148you're playing semantics. Nothing has changed about the view of the church regarding homosexuality. They still think it's wrong and a sin. And they still think that someone who is gay but follows their rules is ok. So nothing has changed. >She just says what people /should/ doNo. They say what people must do. They create a series of moral norms and identify those who don't follow them as evil and wrong. This by itself, even without any phisical action taken, creates discrimination against them, due to others shunning you because you're evil and wrong.And then those position reflect on politics, thus they can lead to actual discrimination. And furthermore the church uses their money and social standing to lobby and try to make their norms be imposed in politics as well. >It simply means they cannot be married. It just isn't true. It's not an oppressive stanceDenying the possibility of marriage is discrimination. > It's just an acceptance of factwhat fact? there are many countries where 2 men can get married. You are making no sense.
>>1036197> the Pope being open about it is a rather new positionNot at all. The previous pope also expressed the same stance.
>>1036214>semanticsThe difference between chastity and shame is not mere "semantics." The Church encourages the acceptance and love of gay people in society. It does not want them to remain closeted and ashamed of themselves. It wants them to feel wholly loved, which, for some, requires coming out. That's not just some flattery words to hide the truth; it is the simple truth. >No. They say what people must do. They create a series of moral norms and identify those who don't follow them as evil and wrong. I don't understand why you accuse me of semantics. The difference between saying what should be done and "creating a series of moral norms and identify those who don't follow them as evil and wrong" verges on semantic. The only difference is that one is the action with its meaning, while the other is the means of the action, presented in a way that makes it seem as though it doesn't have the authority which every Catholic believes it has. As well, the Church is against shaming people because they sin. >Denying the possibility of marriage is discrimination. I hope you know there is a such thing as just discrimination. There is a difference between people, and laws should be made to respect those differences. Yes. Saying gay people should not marry or enter priesthood is discrimination. But it's not unjust. We lock up murderers and institutionalize insane people, but we don't do so with average citizens. Why? If we are all equal, then murderers and lunatics should have the same rights as upstanding citizens... unless there's something about those people that justifies removal of those "rights." But that would mean they are not rights, but privileges. You're /allowed/ to be free as long as you don't kill people. You're /allowed/ to live a normal life as long as you're healthy. We discriminate ALL THE TIME. As long it's just, we don't care about it.
>>1036214>>1036350(cont.)So here God comes -- the ultimate authority on justice -- and says, "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Why should the Church violate God's will to avoid differentiating treatment between straight couples and gay couples? Why should to Church allow people to continue a sham of a marriage when the truth is that they're still two separate people? The "discrimination" against gay couples is justified. It's willed by Justice itself. >what fact? there are many countries where 2 men can get married. >You are making no sense.Do you not even know how faith works? Do you really think "fact" is experienced in any way other than "what one firmly believes to be true"? The existence of countries which say that certain couples are married does not make those couples married. It just means people think they are, and those people can be wrong. Marriage is more than a piece of paper. In fact, the paper is meaningless. It can't make a marriage where there is none.
>>1036249I should have said, "so open about it."Benedict was "open" about it, in that he discussed it, but he wasn't quite the public figure as Francis... or, at least, I've never seen him to be. I'm not all over the globe, so I couldn't talk of everyone's reaction, but it certainly seems that people were thinking the pope condemned gay people before, which means Benedict wasn't very public about that matter.
>>1034468 (OP)>but not women, that door is closed
>>1036350>>1036368>The existence of countries which say that certain couples are married does not make those couples married.You have gone full retard. Yeah those people are married, but they are not, because.
>>1036404>Not understanding even the basic concepts of immutable truth
>>1036419>implying that marriage is an immutable truthas I said, full retard. Your posts aren't even congruent with what you're replying to. You just ramble on about your ideas but there's no logical connection with what was said before.
>>1036441The person is claiming that the Church hates gay people. By proving that she preaches acceptance and love of gay people, that she is merely acting out the logical conclusion from what she strongly believes she is commanded to do, fighting for moral action and discipline, and by giving her perspective on the issue I am attempting to prove that the positions of the Church are not rooted in prejudiced discrimination or homophobia. I find that to be quite relevant. If you do that see that, I suggest you continue analyzing. The Church believes marriage to be an immutable truth. As such, she is acting according to her conscience when she states that point. In much the same way, many are acting according to their conscience when they state gays deserve to marry. Neither is evidently correct, so the only judgment which can be passed is that both are attempting to act morally, which is worthy of respect. Any decision to deride or diminish that respect must, therefore, be treated as a prejudiced assault. As well, presenting one's arguments as something they are not is simply false.
>>1036491>>1036441*if you do not see that
>>1036441Stating that marriage is not immutable, which is not the Church's position, in an argument about the Church's positions, is irrelevant, even if it is true.
>>1036505*even if it were true.
>>1036491>Church hates gay people. By proving that she preaches acceptance and love of gay peopleThe church doesn't love and accept gay people .The church accepts and loves gay people who don't live as gay people. Loves gay people who renounce their love life. That is neither love nor acceptance. >The Church believes marriage to be an immutable truth.As such, she is acting according to her conscience when she states that point.Yes, being against gay marriage is on immutable truth for the church. How does that make it alright ?
>>1036658clicked send too soon>>1036491>both are attempting to act morally, which is worthy of respect.Not at all. The intention behind their action doesn't justify their actions. Discriminating against someone because you believe it's the right thing to do doesn't make the discrimination worthy of respect. >Neither is evidently correct,One position limits the opportunities of a group of people, the other doesn't.Unless you want to go full moral relativist you can't argue that they are equal position.
>>1036658The Church loves everyone. Sinners included. It would not be in any way sensible for her to exclude sinners; she was created to help sinners. If she pushed sinners away, she wouldn't be very good at her job. The Church welcomes gay people. It just says, "this is what you should be doing." The Church also says you shouldn't commit murder, but you aren't accusing the Church of hating murderers. >How does that make it alright ?If they're right, then it's the right thing to do. >Discriminating against someone because you believe it's the right thing to do doesn't make the discrimination worthy of respect.Incorrect. A person who gives all they have fighting for what they believe in is worthy of admiration and respect. If they are wrong, then the only caveat is that they deserve our opposition as well. >One position limits the opportunities of a group of people, the other doesn't.You are under the false assumption that "limiting rights" is universally wrong. As I said earlier, there are instances in which it is justified. If marriage between two people of the same sex is impossible, the Church is only pointing that out, and requesting that other people see this fact. It's not taking anything away, it's not presenting the illusion of giving something to people who don't deserve it. My only point was that, if you are elevating yourself to the position of supreme moral arbiter of the universe, then you are guilty of the same crime you accuse the Church of, whereas the Church is not. You are unwilling to understand the Church's position. You want to see them as oppressive, so you interpret everything in a light with permits that end. That behavior is a persecution complex.
>>1035465Depends on the country. They are extremely strong in France for example.
>>1036031>Does he mean a secret gay lobby that I am not aware of?Yes, he does. The very one he has spoken about within the Church before. >Or those who push for equal rights and recognition for homosexual and to fight against homophobia?Anyone trying to "push for equal rights" within the Church should not be there at all.
>mfw people argue that the churches condemnation for homosexuality isn't hate>mfw they say it's a logical conclusion from their beliefs>mfw their beliefs are false>mfw ex falso quodlibet>mfw invidia libet>mfw i don't care about putting on a face
>>1036214>They create a series of moral norms and identify those who don't follow them as evil and wrong.There ARE moral norms - that is, there is the existence of good and evil, no matter how you want to dress that up in your Frankfurt School-type language - and THE ACTS are evil and wrong. Those who do wrong are sinners. We all do wrong. There are only two people without sin in Catholicism, who are Mary the mother of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. >due to others shunning you because you're evil and wrong.You mean like how the Pope has spoken out against in regards to women who are single mothers, and other such outcasts of good society? >And then those position reflect on politics, thus they can lead to actual discrimination. Tumblr screaming about it doesn't make it true. >And furthermore the church uses their money and social standing to lobby and try to make their norms be imposed in politics as well. The Church does what is right. >Denying the possibility of marriage is discrimination. Gay "marriage" does not exist. It is outside of the very definition of marriage. You might as well claim that denying that your two cats are married is discrimination. Cats cannot be married because of various reasons, the primary one being that they are cats, and there is no sense of marriage that allocates for cats within Catholicism, just like homosexuals.
>>1036658>The church accepts and loves gay people who don't live as gay people. Loves gay people who renounce their love life.>That is neither love nor acceptance.So, in your view, a father who says to his drug-addicted son that he must stop doing drugs is neither loving nor accepting of his son? The Church has a moral obligation never to accept or encourage sin. It may never preach that people must sin. A father telling his son that he may continue to do drugs, because he wants to appear loving and accepting in the face of something that is obviously morally destructive, would be as wrong as the Church advocating gay marriage.
>>1037318Are you fucking retarded, equating same-sex romance with something harmful like a drug addiction. Same-sex romance is not harmful you idiot.A more apt comparison would be for the father in the example to oppose the son eating canteloupe. Canteloupe is not bad for you, but it disgusts the father, so he will oppose him eating canteloupe, and give him a hard time over it. To the point of banning canteloupe at his house, and then cutting off all communications with him, until he give up eating canteloupe.
>>1037378Guess what? If you're going to hell for homosexual sex, that's a harmful thing. It's a completely accurate comparison.
>>1037437Dude, do you have any proof that there even is a hell, because otherwise your comparison is not apt, I could also believe that eating cateloupe, or more aptly ham will have you go to hell. But that doesn't make it true. Drug addictions are proven to be harmful.Go troll elsewhere dude.
>>1037500Get back to me when the Church considers melon-eating to be a sin, then perhaps we can have a discussion about your opinions on the fact. >Go troll elsewhere dude.Just die. >hurr if you don't agree with me or if you actually understand the idea of the Church and what sin is, that means you're a troll
>>1037529You are so fucking retarded, even if YOU consider something a sin, not everyone does, and it is not an objective truth. It is NOT AT ALL like a drug addiction, a drug addiction is proven to be bad for someone. You seem to think that your beliefs = truth. And that is objectively WRONG.>Just die. Confirmed troll.Seriously just GO, you're not wanted here.
>>1035465Of course they do. It's an old boys club where you spend lots of money to hobnob with other rich people. Scientology uses the same formula and it works despite the fact that they are openly crazy.
>>1036658The catholic church also loves straight people who renounce their love life, which is why they have such a big emphasis on chastity.
>>1037582Well, at some level, just being an exclusive club, with powerful members makes it desirable, and probably helps keep it going. But it doesn't seem like they have as much power as in the past, granted that is just seemingly, they may just not be so open about it.
>>1037570The Church asserts that an objective truth exists. You are the one who is asserting that it isn't, which is utterly at odds with the Church's position from the very beginning. There is no point in even discussing such a thing with someone who is not even thinking on a level where Hell exists, where God exists, where there is an objective right and wrong as revealed to the Church through various means and which it has the duty to uphold. Your opinion is absolutely worthless on this entire topic.
>>1037636Y-yeah b-but muh oppression!
>>1037651You have to think of the counter party in the whole interaction. Hence the son in the example.You can convince a counter party that they are doing something objectively bad for having same-sex romance just as hard as convincing them that they are doing something objectively bad for eating pork, or whatever your beliefs may be.You have no evidence in either case. For drug addictions that is not the case AT ALL. Think about it. No sane person would look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is a leap of faith to believe that a drug addiction is bad for them.
>>1037651>Your opinion is absolutely worthless on this entire topic.This is why you will never be able to communicate with those of other religions or beliefs, and you will have a hard time getting along with them. I have pity on you.
>>1037500Proven to be harmful?Pray tell, how is something "proven" to be harmful? Something can be shown to affect the body in such a way as to impede its normal functions, but how do you "prove" that is harm?What you're saying here is not, "There's a real difference between these two things," but, "I accept one of these things as true and the other as not, so there's a difference." Just because you don't see a harm doesn't mean there isn't one. Ignorance and lack of proof has no bearing one way or the other on truth. But, alas, right and wrong aren't defined as harm or help. Lying, for example, is usually only harmful if the person finds out -- and even then only to the person's emotions, yet it's wrong either way. What is right is right and is what we should do. Likewise, we should encourage people to do right and discourage them from doing wrong. As well, if you think the arguments as to why the Church is against gay marriage and gay relationships is as simple as, "God doesn't like it," you are woefully ignorant on the matter. That's just the summary; the final point. Saying God doesn't like something is the same thing as saying it's wrong. The argument comes before that, and, as such, is more convoluted.
>>1037689The Church is involved in all forms of the health of its members, but it is primarily concerned with spiritual health. To the Church, this is the most important thing. The Church is not a worldly institution and it is not particularly interested in worldly concerns like happiness through physical relationships. It is concerned with true happiness found through communion with God. A gay Catholic should understand that homosexual relations are immoral for various reasons which can be explained to them by a priest. There are also ways that it can be evident that same-sex relations are spiritually harmful, by looking at one's conscience (if they feel guilt at sinning), and through examining the natural results of homosexual sex, which are obviously not procreation. >>1037696We are literally in a discussion about whether or not the Church is oppressive to gay Catholics. If your entire point is based on, "Yeah but PROVE there's a Hell!" then your point is not worth listening to.
>>1037689>No sane person would look at the evidence.The same point is made by the Church. The only difference is that its evidence is more convoluted and less visible than death and health. As well, people don't want to see the evidence, so they don't.
>>1037570Regardless of what is "proven" to be harmful, The Church believes it to be both harmful and wrong (not necessarily wrong because it is harmful, but harmful because it is wrong). The Church isn't oppressing gay people, they are trying to help them. The problem is that you believe their efforts, if successful, will lead to oppression. While I can concede on the possibility of it being oppressive, you are presenting such action as being prejudicial, discriminating hatred when, in fact, it is, at its worst, misguided love. Your perversion of good intent into something hideous and unconscionable is deception. It is deception of you and/or others. If you conceded that the Church's will is benevolent and reasonable, then there would be no argument. However, you seem to want to perceive the actions of the Church as deliberate, malicious attacks against homosexuality -- which they are not -- and it leads you to see nothing but an enemy in the Church.
>>1037840>>1037755If you cannot see the difference between things that require a leap of faith, and those that don't then you will not be able to communicate with those people that have different beliefs.You are very disrespectful of those that have different beliefs than you. Things that occur in the real world, and are observable are objectively different than things that have no proof, except for what you say you believe is the case, and have no observable proof. Hence why the drug addiction comparison is completely off base. You cannot observe any objective harm from same-sex romance, you are required to take a leap of faith to come to such a conclusion. Drug addiction is not at all like that, to see drug addict suffer is not the same as believing that someone will eventually go to hell. So the thing is similar to someone having the belief that eating pork is a sin, purity of the body is important to many religions, by completely dismissing it you are saying that your beliefs are much more important than the father who believes that eating pork is a sin. This is one reason that Catholics have a lot of problems with people of other religions.If they are going to hell anyway, why not make the best of their life, and yours while they are still around, that is a sunk cost, no? We are only alive for 60-90 years, and a time together with a child is limited to maybe 60 of those, why not make the best of that time?
The one good thing I can say about the Catholic Church is at least it's consistent. Its stance of "no sex unless you're trying to make babies" may be rigid and unrealistic, but at least they apply it to everyone and not just homosexuals. I mean, how many Protestant sects out there preach about how homosexuality is evil because and "unnatural" because it doesn't result in children, only to turn a blind eye to all the married heterosexual couples in their church who pop the pill on the regular. The Church may be repressive as fuck, but at least you can't call them out for hypocrisy.
>>1037840The church wishes to control the lives of those that are not member of the church including gay people. That is why they are opposed to same-sex marriage at the civil level, it is not like gay people will break up if they can't get married, they will just be less happy when the shit hits the fan, and they can't stay in the country they live in because one of the partners is an immigrant, or they can't visit a dying partner at the hospital, or inherit their estate without "his family" getting in the way. Same-sex marriage at the civil level doesn't affect any Catholic's marriage, but there must be a reason that they are opposed to it, no?Objectively one can see that the opposition is hurting gay people, but it gains the church nothing, but perhaps status, or schadenfreude, or perhaps gay people being less happy is part of what they think makes God happy to them?I cannot see how their opposition to gay rights will help gay people at all.
>>1037908If you want to argue about what is and isn't a sin, fine. We can have an entirely fruitful discussion about whether or not dietary restrictions apply to Christians, drawing on various sources. What is not fruitful is demanding "proof" that something is a sin, or that indeed sin as it exists in Christianity is "real" at all, when we are having a discussion about whether or not the Church hates homosexuals: which we can obviously see is false.
>>1037955The Church is not allowed to condone sin.
>>1037908I'm >>1037840Disrespectful to people of different beliefs? I was a gentleman. Nothing I said there derided your beliefs, just pointed to your ignorance on Catholic matters, as well as your poor perception of what's going on. And I did concede that you are not inherently wrong to believe the Church is oppressive. My point was that the ultimate end of their action doesn't justify the condemnation you were lumping on them. >You cannot observe any objective harm from same-sex romanceSo? That doesn't change whether it's harmful. Your perception of morality is that there are degrees of right and wrong. To a Catholic, there isn't. There is only right and wrong. Black and white. There can be degrees of culpability caused by ignorance and graveness, but, in the end, an action is either right or wrong, not "more or less" right. An evil we can all agree on because it manifests physical harm is just as wrong as an evil which not everyone agrees upon because it doesn't manifest any perceivable harm. There's no gradient. And, in fact, this seems to be the general consensus among people, since we all have moral stances on matters which do no harm (e.g. lying and cheating), which are very strong. We just may be more willing to forgive "the little things." It doesn't make them "better." If you are going to accurately understand Catholics, bestowing the same respect you demand from us, you need to forget preconceptions or morality only dealing with harm or help. We are not discussing other faiths. We are discussing Catholics. We are discussing what Catholics believe and what the Church does. You say the Church is a prejudiced, hateful institution. We are giving you doctrine which states otherwise, in an attempt for you to see the reason and calmness of the position.
>>1037636Yeah, because it's an Abrahamic religion. The Abrahamic Semites drove out all expression of human sexuality in religion outside of procreation for the purpose of children in order to solidify their harsh nationalistic propaganda against the more open-ended polytheism of the Mediterranean region.This propaganda has since spread to Christians and Muslims, like a long, elaborate game of telephone, only it's not a game of telephone, it's the doctrine of hating human nature and guilting people into worshiping a big daddy figure who wags the finger at them for whatever reason the powers that be deem appropriate.Thanks Jews.The world would do well to rid itself of the cancer of Abrahamic religion.
>>1037752>As well, if you think the arguments as to why the Church is against gay marriage and gay relationships is as simple as, "God doesn't like it," you are woefully ignorant on the matter.Not really, that's basically what it is. Your god doesn't like it. Because your religion is powerful and manipulates a wide ring of culture, you therefore dictate that it is bad, because those who wrote your scripture that states what your god thinks about humanity disagreed with certain aspects of temple prostitution and the worship of other gods, so the people writing the scripture banned any and all things associated with the worship of other gods.Propaganda masked as philosophy.
>>1038058>>1038089Dat euphoria. I remember well when I was an edgy 15-year-old who thought I understood everything.
>>1038035Reasonably and calmly explaining why it's ok the church has supported some of the most heinous atrocities in human history and how that's all perfectly fine as long as you explain it in a civil fashion and drown the truth in word soup.Spare me.
>>1038122Are you seriously using this as an argument right now you arrogant, prosthelytizing douchebag?
>>1037955>The church wishes to control the lives of those that are not member of the church"Control" is an exaggeration, but yes. This isn't new. It shouldn't be shocking, either. Anybody who strongly believes in truth and justice will fight for those tenants. I could say that gay marriage supporters are trying to control everyone who isn't a member by popularizing the idea that there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. Secular authority does not affect morality. It only affects what happens. Moral authority, however, affects all things. As such, the Church is justified in saying that civil gay marriage should not be supported. Again, "harm" does not dictate morality, especially when the "harm" is simply people not getting what they want. Gay people are not killed by the decision to oppose gay marriage and gay relationships. They are not beaten, or even shunned. It is entirely a stance on moral truth, with no physical repercussions. But, even if there were, it's irrelevant compared to the question, "Is this right?" If the answer is no, then, even if it harms people (though the harm should be avoided), it must be changed.But as it stands, the only harm that would result from acceptance of the Catholic stance is that people would feel they are being kept from something they deserved. However, to Catholics, they don't deserve it. They just believe they do, and people keep telling them they do, and it's causing them to put themselves and their pleasures before God. That's wrong. It's a wrong transcending harm, and the harm is just a symptom of the evil, triggered by the cure. And, to Catholics, following God is the greatest good there is. As such, anyone who is doing that can be helped no further because they have reached human perfection. Anyone attempting to bring someone to that point is attempting to help people.
>>1038134Go cry to Zeus.
>>1038123Like what, exactly?
>>1038136The issue is that you conflate the Catholic Church and the god of Abraham with absolute moral authority and cannot, for a second, see outside of that box, or understand that not everyone buys into the massive pyramid scheme of that particular cultural hegemony.
Fuck this woman-hating pedophile fundie! Fucking old retard can take his oppressive LIES and shove them up his ignorant ass! I fucking hate these fundies so Sagan damn much!
>>1038148Bitch, go cry to your Jesus. You probably can't even name more than four or five religions.
>>1038155Your persecution complex apparently renders you incapable of understanding a point of view that you don't personally hold.
>>1038152Do you want me to walk you through every single Church atrocity so you could hide it in more knee-jerk apologetic word soup?This isn't /RomanCatholicism/ this is /lgbt/. Please stop using this as a baseboard for recruitment and prosthelytizing in such a canned and blatant fashion. It's fucking disgusting. I get enough of this shit in my junk mail and from crazies on the goddam street without coming online and seeing you assholes.
>>1038169Says the Christian. Go fuck a cactus.
>>1038168HinduismIslam (let's be generous and call them all one unified movement, like they Sunnis insist is the case)JainismNorse PaganismHellenic PaganismEgyptian PaganismRoman Catholicism and all its various sub-groupsOrthodox Christianity and all its various sub-groupsProtestant Christianity including Mormonism Wicca and other such special snowflake religionsSatanism (again, let's be generous and put the various branches of such a ridiculous faith under the same name)Baha'iZoroastrianism Daoism Buddhism >durr
>>1038201You certainly proved your ability to comprehend the point someone is making outside of your own opinions and feelings, there.
>>1038169>church spend millions of dollars to deny rights to a group that doesn't even effect their lives>persecution complexRight
>>1038169>implying that everyone who doesn't believe in some Abrahamic doctrine has a persecution complex and simply doesn't understand it enough or is automatically an edgy teenWhat the fuck happened to 4chan? What is this literal moralfaggotry Christ nonsense? Seriously.lol
>>1038191>Do you want me to walk you through every single Church atrocity so you could hide it in more knee-jerk apologetic word soup?You obviously can't even name one that you know isn't inaccurate.
>>1038202>PaganismChristians with their propaganda...
>>1038223Quiet, savage.
>>1038218You obviously have a prepared treatise for everything I have to say because you came to this thread with the sole purpose of recruitment, considering how quickly the propaganda is literally shoveled into this thread by the copypastaload for everything that is said by anyone against the oldest scam in the world, Abrahamism.
>>1038230Someone needs to break out the planks and nails, because this shit has gotten out of hand with you crazed moralfaggots and your shitty Jew religion of self-hatred.
>>1038089>Not really, that's basically what it is.No. It isn't. What is the purpose of sex? Procreation and expression of love.Therefore, both an openness to procreation (since it is never guaranteed) and love must be present in any sexual act in order for it to be its fullest self. I lay this basic idea out so you'll see that, right off the bat, gay sex is disordered. It is forever closed to procreation, and, thus, defeats the purpose of sex. At it's best, it's an expression of love, without the possibility of procreation. As such, it's a perversion of sex. It takes the pure institution and manipulates it so you only get the good you want out of it. It places man's will above God's design, which is the very definition of evil. However, more in-depth. God made man's mate woman. That's not an idle point. It is no mere "social norm." It's what was designed. Man should take woman so that they together may create new life and imitate God as he wanted them to. If a man lies with a man, who cannot create life, he is going against God's design. He is substituting his will for God's, instead of rightfully submitting to him, which is the very definition of evil. God gave us romantic love so we would bond with our future spouses. This bond is meant to develop and grow, both that we may enjoy it and that we may be able to weather the difficulties of raising a family. Two men cannot create a child. They are clearly not designed to be parents. Whether a specific couple could perform the actions of raising a child better than a straight couple is irrelevant to the fact that no gay couple can conceive a child better than a straight couple. If it were God's will that they raise children, they would be capable of all that is involved in the process, conception included.
>>1038238You obviously can't even name a single example.
>>1038136Hating people because a religion says to, versus hating them for personal reasons, it is still hate.Either way, I'm slowly getting my family to change from Catholic to the Episcopal Church, since my family tends to be fairly liberal, and it is tough to support both the Catholic church and liberal social policies. They don't seem to be as strict as you guys anyway.>But as it stands, the only harm that would result from acceptance of the Catholic stance is that people would feel they are being kept from something they deserved.And they are being denied visitation right, immigration rights, inheritance rights, this harms them, since many people, and perhaps you've never been there when a person was dying, but many people would want their loved ones there when they are dying, it does hurt them when they are not there, perhaps you discount such things because it isn't physical, but most don't, sometimes it can't be helped, people live far away, but sometimes it is just a legal distinction that certain people deny others.For immigration rights, being able to live in the country where you made a home is a big thing, again as long as they are not being stabbed I guess it is okay with you, but most disagree with this notion.
>>1035485But what is considered core doctrine can be reconsidered by the Vatican councils.
>>1038253>my opinions are fact you must convert from your evil ways!Whatever you say Torquemada. How about you peddle this bullshit where people actually buy it, like slums and poverty-stricken third-world recruitment nations.
>>1038276Nice reply m8.
>>1038155>cannot, for a second, see outside of that boxWhat do you mean, "outside of the box"?Can I suspend my disbelief for a few moments to weigh the logical conclusions of other people's premises? Yes. But you're not asking me to do that. I understand /why/ some people don't agree with the Church. I understand /why/ people support gay marriage. I understand the arguments behind most things. What you're asking me to do is abandon my beliefs because you... for no reason, really. You just want me to abandon them. I am not going to argue a position that I don't agree with. I'm not going to take up premises I find flawed and contradictory to human nature. Why do you expect me to do that?I understand the arguments against the Church so well that I can almost believe them. Can you say the same about the arguments supporting her?
>>1038266How is legal marriage the only way to get those abilities? They aren't, not in most countries, anyway. What is wrong with civil unions?
>>1038265>pretends that there's not close to two thousand of years of atrocities committed in the name of the Christian God.http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htmYou know, there's a whole internet now. You people can't control the narrative like you used to, with just a mere self-righteous huff and frivolous dismissal of evidence.
>>1037582It's more of a fraternity where you get benefits and shit.If you're into high masonry it's almost like a spiritual alchemy of sorts. It's 2deep4me.
>>1038253>teleological argumentThere's your problem.
>>1038313Why convolute things like that? It is unnecessary, and probably a lot harder to do anyway. Civil marriage is just that, regardless of what you call it, no need to make two different things that you want to be the same thing. Civil marriage is about nothing more than the civil rights tied to it.
>>1038317>15 minutes and some furious Googling later, he returns with... "truthbeknown.com/victims.htm"!How about you actually use one of the examples you CLEARLY had in mind in the first place, when you first made your claim, and in your own words?
>>1038266Hatred isn't an action. It isn't something you can do. It's entirely internal. You feel hatred. You choose to ignore the humanity in others. Just because someone behaves as someone who hates you doesn't mean they hate you. Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy. All of those things are "harms" produced from people wanting things they do not need (i.e. from reality not conforming to their will). But you're misguided in thinking harm == evil. It's true, evil yields harm and good yields help, but how evil yields harm is not definite. When you move away from evil, it stings harder, like your eyes hurting when you see a bright light after being in the dark. But here's the thing... if they never got in those relationships -- if they had never felt they deserved those rights -- they would not be sad not to have them. So the question isn't whether it harms them. The question is whether they truly deserve those rights, and the "harm" has no relevance to /that/ question.
>>1038381are you having a giggle m8?
>>1038276Way to totally miss the point. You sure don't let a little thing like context get in the way of you analyzing an argument. I don't even have to be Catholic for my post to be justified. They're all facts. Anon said the arguments against homosexuality were simple-minded spiels; I was demonstrating a taste of how complicated and intellectual they were. But, yeah, sure. Pretend I was trying to convince anyone on the LGBT board that gay sex is a sin.
>>1038406How is hatred an action? How is emotional "harm" caused by someone's frustration that the word marriage does not apply to them, a harm caused by the Church doing what is right rather than attachment to sin? How is an acceptance of the truth of God not the solution to the problem of such "harm"?
>>1038352You're better off just letting him rant. Since Church authority /has/ actually been used to commit atrocities. The fact that it's utterly irrelevant to today is of no concern to him. That would reduce him to having to actually argue the point, which he knows he cannot.
>>1038312You see, I understand WHY you're a pretentious and self-righteous douchebag, but I'm not asking you to change, because that's probably simply the way you were raised and this cult fell into line with that.For all intents and purposes, someone like you, who is this embroiled within such a continually self-affirming cult as the cult of Abraham, will not change their views from an internet argument, especially if the cult suits your secular prejudices and personal philosophical outlook on the inherent nature of humanity to begin with.But your issue is openly understanding this inherent incompatibility your scripture has (for reasons those in the Abrahamic cult are quick to dismiss and purposely forget) with homosexuality and those who are transgender, yet still coming here to troll for new recruits to the cult by trying to do the old guilt trip method. Then, you respond with harsh judgement and condescending arrogance towards others that disagree with your position. That behavior is fucking annoying, and that's why people immediately respond negatively to it on this board, and negatively to Abrahamic religion in general in intellectual circles. Then you lot always play the victim, like some innocent, beleaguered monks just searching for harmless dialogue!Spare me.
>>1038406>>1038424This person is not >>1038381But, I mean, I agree with his points, ultimately. I just didn't find it worth responding to >are you having a giggle m8?
>>1038352HAH! You figured me out! I didn't mean to show you things you couldn't refute, I meant to show you things you had prepared talking points for.Silly me.
>>1038435>utterly irrelevant>covering up multiple instances of child rape across the globeChrist, you people really are delusional.
>>1038455I am not even looking at your ridiculous website. Imagine a Protestant arguing with you about the virtues of Christianity, making a ridiculous claim that you are most certainly going to hell, and then after avoiding the question of why he is so sure of that for more than ten minutes, pretending his point is proven because he links you to a website along the lines of "christjesusisgod.com/youaregoingtohell.htm". You are the Protestant.
Just another try to get more followers to the church, back in march i believe he said a thing about Atheists, he said that because even Atheists are people who are made from God, they're still able to get to heaven if they convert back, whereas previously they said that if you're an Atheist you're on the black list of the Devil.If you ask me, it's a good thing because he at least gets that the church is losing people and that he should start getting more open towards these matters. GJ.
>>1038381So the church is evil because they're trying to force people to conform to something they don't need: The church.Thanks for telling me something I already knew.
>>1038486>get more followers to the church, back in march i believe he said a thing about Atheists, he said that because even Atheists are people who are made from God, they're still able to get to heaven if they convert back, whereas previously they said that if you're an Atheist you're on the black list of the Devil.There is absolutely no way that the Church would say that anyone is beyond redemption. There is a lot of misinterpretation going on between what the Pope says, what the Church says, and what the Church has always said.
>>1038485>I am not even looking at your ridiculous website.lol of course not
>>1038485Yeah, but these are those scary, heretical things called facts, not religious belief. Fucking idiot.
>>1038503No, of course not. Nor should anyone be expected to subject themselves to "christjesusisgod.com/youaregoingtohell.htm" and to expect another person to do so would be utterly ridiculous.
>>1038442>you're a pretentious and self-righteous douchebag>this cult>the cult of AbrahamName calling. Sigh. And here I though we'd have a reasonable discourse. Your claims about the virtues of open-mindedness really gave me hope. Alas, it is but a facade. Well, since you've made this a personal matter, I'll act accordingly. >condescending arrogance towards others that disagree with your position.I'm neither condescending nor ignorant to those who wish to actually learn about Catholic faith. I'm not even such to people who are earnestly seeking to prove the Catholic Church is unreasonable. I'm just condescending and arrogant towards people who dismiss it wholesale and make judgement about my character. *winkwinknudgenudge*>troll for new recruitsI don't really want new recruits. I don't really care whether people here see the Church as glorious. I just want people to see the Church for what it is. I'm not a big fan of ignorant prejudice, so I get the urge to fight it. At the very least, I put the ideas in people's minds. Just get them to question what they've been taught to believe. I'm no monk. I've probably said some pretty risky doctrinal stuff, but, hey. I'm not perfect. And, if ya'll are going to accuse us of being irrational and unreasonable, then don't refute our arguments and distract the matter, that's on you.
>>1038468See what I mean?
>>1038518You almost certainly hold these beliefs without actually looking into them at all, so for all intents and purposes, they are identical. Let me guess: "The Church ordered the Holocaust!" "Muh Inquisition!" "Muh Crusades!" "The Church was secretly behind the Red Terror all along, those sneaky Jesuits!"
>>1038523>doesn't even look at the site>bases his judgement completely on superficial reasons>uses a hypothetical Protestant website to strawmanTypical Christian, violently allergic to reality.
This thread has pretty much been entirely Catholics saying, these are my beliefs, so I'm right in telling gay people to shut up about marriage and their rights, God says so, see.Others saying, wait a second, no that doesn't make you right, others have different beliefs, and you are hurting gay people.Catholics respond with, those are objectively the truth, and you have no place in this thread, because you have non-Catholic beliefs, so STFU./thread
>>1038492Well people do need it; it gives the the knowledge and grace necessary to avoid evil. But just because you don't need something doesn't make it evil. It just doesn't immediately make it good.
>>1038541>You almost certainly hold these beliefs without actually looking into them at all>implyingYou have no idea what I know or what I don't know, you pretentious idiot. Honestly, you're floundering right now.
>>1034748I think it's important that he said it now and is getting attention for it, though. Too many people I've met have it in their minds that if you're Catholic, then you must hate gays.I suppose, in a way, he is working to dispel the "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude a lot of politically minded groups have.
>>1038549Why are catholics here anyway?
>>1038549This.>We're right cuz we're Catholic>You're wrong cuz ur notAt its core, that's all the religion ever was, considering it is directly descendant from literal Jewish propaganda to begin with.
>>1038549You're re-capping wrong. It's:Catholics say, "Of course the pope says that; the Church has never hated gay people."And someone else says, "No! The Church is still discriminating against gay people!"And Catholics say, "No they don't, look at this doctrine. It says quite clearly that there is a reasonable basis for their positions. It's rooted in logic and faith, not hatred."Others say, "Stop quoting doctrine like it's true; you're not accounting for other people's beliefs."And the Catholics say, "Well that's irrelevant, we're talking about the Church here, not Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or Atheists."
>>1038548>hypotheticalHow about "jesusislord.com"?
>>1038559Recruitment. And to those they can't recruit, they attempt to induce suicide ideation in through guilt tripping, trolls, watered-down and dressed up hate speech, and basic rhetorical propaganda.When it all boils down, it's about numbers to them, and power. The less numbers we (those who are LGBT) have, and the more numbers they have, the more power they retain in society, and the less likely they are to capitulate to the will of the minority (if they retain the majority anyway, which seems thankfully unlikely).
>>1038549Many people just don't seem capable of understanding the difference between stating a doctrine as truth waiting acceptance and presenting an argument from the side of the people who believe it is true. Since, objectively, there would be no inherent verbal difference. But most of these points could do with "Church believe X is true, so..." when they actually say, "X is true, so..." It's one part laziness one part rhetorical strategy; it's weaker to present a doctrine as "one group's opinions on the truth." It makes it seem that the group isn't fully convinced.
>>1038579>Catholics say, "Of course the pope says that; the Church has never hated gay people."And everyone else says that's fair-weather friend recruitment bullshit because it is./thread
>>1038595Wrong thread?
>>1034700Because they take an oath of chastity. This is probably why there is so much homosexual child abuse in the church. Closet gays Christians feel they don't fit with the world, so they go off and join the priesthood and repress their sexuality to the point that they develop sexual interest in children and then some end up acting on it.
>>1038603It's half bullshit. It's true that the Church hasn't always had a stance on homosexuality, but, since she has, it's been that hatred and unjust discrimination against them is wrong.
>>1038549More like: >The Pope is saying something new and radical! Homosex no longer a sin!No, the Church has always spread this message, you just haven't heard about it until now. Homosexual acts are still a sin, and this won't ever change, because morality is absolute.>Well, it's oppressive to act like there's an objectively right and wrong way to live, anyway!Of course there is a right and a wrong way to live, if the Church is right. That's the founding principle of the Church: that morality exists, comes from god, and is absolute. >YOU'RE STUPID AND DO NOT LISTEN TO REASON! I AM A STRONG ARYAN MAN WHO IS PAGAN, HEAR ME ROAR!
>>1038580You're missing the point. You completely ignored a source because you didn't like how the URL sounded, then you said the whole thing was bullshit, having never read a word of the site.Also, what the fuck is it with Christians assuming no one understands their religion(s), or Catholics thinking that no one has read the bible or the CCC?It's like they can't fathom that someone can understand their religion and still call it bullshit. It's almost humorous how clueless they act about this concept.
>>1038618>It's true that the Church hasn't always had a stance on homosexuality, but, since she has, it's been that hatred and unjust discrimination against them is wrong.If you keep repeating it, even you might actually believe it one day.
>>1038559Because your precious echochamber is still 4chan, and so there is still free speech and freedom of opinion.
>>1034468 (OP)How could anyone hate lobbies?
>>1038618You didn't even admit that the stance they had on homosexuality before this very moment was fucking backwards as shit.What a bullshit merchant.
>>1038554>You have no idea what I know or what I don't know, you pretentious idiot. Honestly, you're floundering right now.You have refused to make a single point. This is the conclusion I have been forced to come to and you still refuse to prove it to be false.
>>1038632No repetition required, really. There's documentation to prove it. That's about as convincing as proof can get.
>>1038642>the stance they had on homosexuality before this very momentYou mean the same exact stance they have now?
>>1038641Have you seen the Vatican lobby? No seating areas. It's terrible.
>>1038607>This is probably why there is so much homosexual child abuse in the church.Chastity does not make you a pedophile. Would you think that monks and nuns have a significant proportion of child molesters? Probably not, right? The difference is that positions of power attract those who would exploit those positions of power. Every position of power that comes into contact with children has an enormous problem with child sexual abuse - the Catholic Church is not exempt, but it is more shocking to come from within it, and it was handled poorly. Jewish synagogues would have a similar scandal on their hands if that ever hit the presses, though not on the same level due to the tiny number of Jews in the world.
>>1038637Yes, there is, so you can stick your cross up your self-righteous ass and sell your bullshit elsewhere.Freedom of speech and freedom of opinion means not having to be polite to cult recruiters like you on a board intended for the people your cult has made their enemy for centuries upon centuries. Maybe you should stop crying and playing the victim for a split second to pull your head out of your ass, where the cross is, and see that there are a whole lot of intelligent people who can't be swayed by your pathos, and your avoidance, and your pretentious pussy-footing around the bullshit entity of your female-personified church, you fractured schizo.
>>1038624You still have not provided a single example. I am not replying again to this topic.
>>1038592Man, and I thought /pol/ was paranoid.
>>1038674Because the gay child molester ones probably got in for the wrong reasons and probably don't want to admit to themselves that they are gay.
>>1038664>not sitting in the arms of a marble statue of ZeusDo you even get lifted?
>>1038644>doesn't even look at the site provided>IT'S ALL BULLSHIT BECAUSE I'M A CATHOLIC AND I DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS PROTESTANT RABBLElol Christians.
>>1038624Explain the christian religion to show that you understand.
>>1038698>paranoid>implying you're not literally attempting to recruit cult followers and openly shaming those who don't agree with your doctrineFuck, you people are sickening.
>>1038699Some of them, almost certainly. But if you have an attraction to children, denial of that within or outside of the Church makes no difference, if the assertion that denial inevitably makes someone 'snap' is true. The majority of sex scandals within the Church are not pedophilia but adult women and men.
>>1038710Nice reading comprehension.
>>1038721>JIDF get out>SRS go home>Catholics fuck offAll sounds the same to me. Have you taken your crazy pills today?
>>1038715>explain my entire religion in one post or you're not allowed to commentSure.Pretentious douchebags peddling Jewish fanfiction.Are you happy now?
>>1038715Not him, but I would like to point out that most Christians don't understand the Christian religion. On what basis can you evaluate his answer?
>>1038728Catholic. Fuck off.
>>1038729The central idea of Christianity can be expressed in a sentence or two.
>>1038729Are you incapable of answering a single, simple question, or are you just posting for fun? Really.
>>1038637Well your opinion is literally not respected at all here, so I don't see the point unless it's just to make yourself feel better because you're a miserable fuck.
>>1038592I was already a catholic.Been there, never doing that again.
>>1038747>waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
>>1038753yeahMy respect for you is through the roof now, guy.
>>1038725Listen buddy, if you want to claim that the church never committed atrocities, and ignore anything and everything given to you that shows said atrocities that have been committed, I don't know what to tell you.I guess you're just a typical follower of a cult. Nothing more, nothing less. I think it bothers members of the extensive Abrahamic cult that they are, indeed, members of a cult, and act as members of any cult do, denying anything and everything that besmirches the name of said cult.It's obvious to everyone who isn't embroiled in it I guess.
>>1038751>implying any form of Abrahamism is any different when it comes to recruiting new suckersNah, kid.
>>1038681>Thinking Catholicism is a cult>Thinking every Catholic apologist is a recruiter>Thinking homosexuals are significant to have been an enemy for centuries, and not just a point of contempt for half a century. >Thinking that the Church relies on pathos to any significant degree>Thinking he's talking to >>1038533
>>1038730I'm not christian myself, but I've had an interest in Christian ideas. I've read a decent amount of secondary literature regarding the religion including some work from Augustine and Aquinas, the central thinkers in Catholicism and I am a fan of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Kierekeggard's respective approaches to the religion (I know they aren't Catholics.) There is a thread which runs through it all, which can be expressed simply.
>>1038753That's actually exactly what almost every single Christian man on this site does on a daily basis.
>>1038770You have not given me anything to suggest, and I quote: >the church has supported some of the most heinous atrocities in human history I made this simple request for a single example, and not a link to a page that you found on Google. You have proven yourself unable to fulfill this request, so you obviously don't have a point.
>>1038533>belongs to a cult>doesn't admit its a cult>regards being called a "cult" as an insult>has no issue referring to other religions as cults or generalizing them as "paganism"I don't get you people.
>>1038780>Thinking Catholicism is a cultit is though.
>>1038796Your perception of things is just so amusing.
>>1038645Oh if it's a document then that must prove the church doesn't hate gays. Since it's a piece of paper and all.
>>1038780>Thinking Catholicism is a cultBut... it is a cult.
>>1038780Am I the only one who thinks Renly and his wink are irresistibly cute/hot.
>>1038783The thread is bullshit. It's a stinky thread.
>>1038796a 3,000 year old religion which is practiced by about 50% of the world population can hardly be called a cult
>>1038818Are you twelve?
>>1038807Well it's a document written by the Church, so, yeah. That's about as much proof about what they believe as there can be. Saying otherwise would be like judging LoZ based off the CDI games.
>>1038812Only in the sense that every religion is a cult, which then eliminates the meaning of the word "cult."
>>1038783You ever think of going after C.S. Lewis? His stuff is pretty comprehensive as well. While not Catholic, I'd say he's had about as much success in explaining Christian doctrine as Aquinas and Augustine had in making it.
>>1038533First off, you're in a cult.Secondly, drop the flustered academic act, you're on fucking 4chan you freak.>I'm neither condescending nor ignorant to those who wish to actually learn about Catholic faith.You are being condescending literally as you type this, you hypocrite cultist.I dismiss your religion practically wholesale because I understand it. I was raised Catholic, I have read the bible, and the CCC, and the scriptures of related cults. Its roots are corrupt and nothing has been borne of it but misguided corruption and self-righteous, self-justifying pious nonsense.People need to see the church for what it is, and it is not this caricature of a misunderstood group of well-meaning misfits that people like you keep trying to sell, it is an ancient, monolithic source of dogmatic bullshit dating back to its beginnings in Semitic Polytheism, desperately trying to hold onto the tethers of cultural control it is quickly losing its grip on in any way it can, up to and including daily attempts at recruitment from 4chan's /lgbt/ board.Just fucking stop.
>>1038821It's a cult, you faggot. A big fucking cult.Grow some humility for once in your life, you arrogant fuckbag.
>>1038893>>1038907>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
>>1038893>I dismiss your religion practically wholesale because I understand it. Explain what you understand without throwing out stawmen and substance less insults.
>>1038826If it's a document written by the Church, surely it details all of their absolute beliefs and could never be countermanded or inaccurate, amirite?Not once has the church released documents or statements of its official beliefs that were at all untruthful.
>>1038907>calls me arrogant when he insults the entire religious population by calling them cult membersare you feeling euphoric right now?
>>1038910>mfw this cultist is literally whining like a child in response to the truth
>>1038925He has proven himself unable or unwilling to respond to a simple question. It is pointless.
>>1038926>Not once has the church released documents or statements of its official beliefs that were at all untruthful.Cite an example where it has done so.
>>1038933You are a cult member. You are a member of a cult. This is a fact. If I became euphoric every time I stated uncomfortably true facts to those who are religious, I wouldn't take LSD anymore.
>>1038958But I'm not religious...
>>1038955>ignores literally every change in Catholic doctrine over the course of centuries when the doctrine is supposedly passed down as the absolute will of God
>>1038969>defends the Abrahamic cult tooth and nail>you're a cult member>lel no I'm anonymousAbrahamic cultists.The original faggots.
>>1038830It also eliminates the inherent importance of your cult you take for granted, cultist.Welcome to humility.
>>1038979That isn't what you just claimed at all. A clarification of previously-vague or erroneous doctrines does that make them "untruthful". Cite an example of what you actually implied to have examples of.
>>1038925I just told you I was raised Catholic. I'm not going to sit here and explain the entire religion to you because you demand it to be so.What a bunch of entitled pieces of shit.
>>1039010>no we weren't lying this whole time!>it was just a clarification of previously-vague or erroneous doctrines!Word soup and bullshit.
>>1038893>You are being condescending literally as you type this, you hypocrite cultist.Yes. I created an exclusion clause which covered your response. I was not being hypocritical. My condescension is deliberate. >First off, you're in a cult.Aren't y'all always the ones saying that just stating something doesn't make it true? What was that about me being a hypocrite. Oh. Right. >Secondly, drop the flustered academic act, you're on fucking 4chan you freak.Flustered? I wouldn't describe my reaction as "flustered." I can see "frustrated" and "disappointed," but not "flustered." Anyway, as you said, this is 4chan. I can do what I want. >I dismiss your religion practically wholesale because I understand it. I was raised Catholic, I have read the bible, and the CCC, and the scriptures of related cults.And, yet, you do not understand it. Weird, huh. It's almost like understanding requires more than just knowledge. It's almost as though prejudicial anger and angst can twist raw facts so they paint the wrong picture. >Just fucking stop.No. I don't think so. Religion isn't going to go the way of the buffalo. Christianity isn't going to fade away while people forget about moral rectitude and the importance of honor, loyalty, fidelity, and honesty. Y'all can have your little circle-jerk "urhmergerd Catholics er sho stoopid and curropt kiddy-fiddlers," but more people know the truth. You can either drop your prejudices and see the truth, or you can continue being a jackass. It'll make no difference in my life (though, of course, I'd prefer it if you chose the former). Because if you can't even see the good in an institution which has helped humanity for centuries (and you don't even have to erase the harm to see that), then there's no hope for you to see the good in a stranger whom you know nothing about. And I can't even imagine what it's like to live in a world where everyone who isn't my friend is an enemy.
>>1038926Well I said "documents" not "document." But, yes. When a document is written by the Church it details all of the relevant beliefs on the matter. It could, theoretically, be countermanded, but it hasn't. I don't understand why you think "hypothetically the Church could later say that it hates gay people," means, "The Church hates gay people."
>>10390121. The overall theme is not that complicated.2. If you expect to argue from authority, you must be able to assert your expertise or the authority is invalid. As it stands you're just puffing up your chest and stating that you understand the religion because you grew up catholic, without using any of this knowledge to back your claim. It's not a valid form of argument.
>>1039012>>1039043He's got you there. You say you're Catholic. Prove it. Give us the core doctrines of the Catholic faith as taught by the Church. You should be able to do that if you understand Catholicism.
>>1039058*you've been raised Catholic
>>1039019...Aaaaandddd still no examples.
Interesting point about this thread at the moment:It is the proponents of Christianity who are asking for proof.
>>1039020Your condescension is always deliberate, apparently, not just when you create a pretentious conversational caveat to giggle at your own droll academic navel-gazing.>Aren't y'all always the ones saying that just stating something doesn't make it true? What was that about me being a hypocrite. Oh. Right.You're in a cult. I say you're in a cult because you're in a cult. It doesn't need repetition for most, I just repeat it to you because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that you are, indeed, in a cult.>frustrated and disappointedLike the flustered caricature of an innocent, hapless monk you lot always attempt to affect in your recruitment drives. Typical.>And, yet, you do not understand it. Weird, huh. It's almost like understanding requires more than just knowledge. It's almost as though prejudicial anger and angst can twist raw facts so they paint the wrong picture. It's funny, because I do understand your cult. You insisting that I don't, simply because I disagree with it and think it is bullshit, is actually funny. It's obvious WHY you don't think that someone who understands your cult wouldn't agree with it, because you're in the cult. You drank the kool-aid already, and liked it. I drank the kool-aid, and didn't. You can't fathom this, and think that I must therefore be ignorant.Christianity does not have a monopoly on honor, loyalty, fidelity, and honesty. Christianity does not have a monopoly on charity, or helping your fellow man. Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality, and Christianity does not have a monopoly on my personal beliefs, like it has on yours. It's about time that you open your eyes and see outside of the box your cult has provided for you.The cult is ending with the open spread of information, and all you people can do is stick the tentacles out to suck in as many suckers as you can, and silence as much opposition as you can, before you shrivel into antiquity like your cult should have 3000 years ago.
>>1039068Le epic point, brother or sister.
>>1039068>Prove that the Earth exists>You haven't proved it yet, I win!
>>1039058What? Do you want me to read off from the CCC, or do you want me to rattle off commandments, or prayers, or quote theologians, what the fuck do you cultists want from me?I said I was raised Catholic, do I have to post my Confirmation certificate or something? Geez, you people.
>>1039122You really can't be this stupid.
>>1039127>You really can't be this stupid.I know, I know, I should have never been Confirmed, but what are you gonna do? It's a cult.
>>1039139I feel you man, that happened to me too, and I was late to that being Confirmed at age 15, I should not have done it at all.
>>1039105>academic navel-gazing.Psh! Like academic thought is actually required to respond to you. >You're in a cult. I say you're in a cult because you're in a cult. It doesn't need repetition for most, I just repeat it to you because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that you are, indeed, in a cult.Wait... I've heard something like this before... let me think about this a sec... Yup. That's where I heard it... here we go:You're going to hell. I say you're going to hell because you're going to hell. It doesn't need repetition for most, I just repeat it to you because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that you are, indeed, going to hell.Weird thing is that I was actually able to copypasta the second block. >hapless monkI'm pretty sure a hapless monk would be more graceful in his responses than me. I bet you even think I'm just trolling you.>your recruitment drivesAgain with the delusion of recruitment. You're either paranoid or obsessed. Chillax, bro.>It's obvious WHY you don't think that someone who understands your cult wouldn't agree with itHaha. I know many people who understand Catholicism and don't agree with it. The difference is that they actually do understand it, and aren't just whining about it. But your delusions of grandeur are amusing. Anyway, I anticipate your no-doubt highly intellectual response with bated breath. Sincerely yours, RCB
>>1039152It's alright, I was late to Baptism as well. I had that done in my early teens. It was awkward, standing around all of those babies with my shirt open and some creepy dude slathering oil all over my pubescent chest.I guess they're used to that sort of thing, though.
>>1039122I want you to give a summary of what you've been taught. A comprehensive, analytic summary that demonstrates comprehension above simple memory. It shouldn't be difficult. I could do it in a snap.
>>1039177>barely veiled reference to Church's pedophilia scandal that's totally irrelevant to the discussion>*drink*
>>1039164>RCBAs if we all don't know it's you, you obnoxious faggot.
The amount of butthurt religitards in this thread is insurmountable.What the fuck happened to this website?
>>1039187>As if we all don't know it's you... How do you know it's me? Those are my initials. There's gotta be more than one person in the world with the initials RCB
>>1039178I'm not righting a lengthy essay about the tenets of Catholicism for the personal approval of an anonymous cultist on 4chan, you arrogant moron.
>>1039207Okay, but then you must understand that we aren't going to just take your word that you understand Catholicism, since, based on the evidence so far, you do not. Just letting you know.
>>1039199There was a tripfag who went by that exact name, on this exact board, which did the exact same thing you are doing now, with the same speech patterns, proselytizing, convenient ignorance, and convenient bouts of innocent flustering to add to the image.But sure.Whatever you say.
>>1039220I honestly don't know why he even bothered, all he managed to do was make people dislike Catholics more, make it seem like you can't reason with them.
>>1034468 (OP)Pope seems like a pretty cool guy.
>>1039215>You don't understand Catholicism if you can't rattle off every specific aspect of Catholic belief in an anonymous thread for dissection from swarming cultists who already don't want to agree with youYou barely even understand, let alone accept, the roots of your own cult in Semitic polytheism and how those roots led to the non-inclusion of homosexuals and transgender people, yet you call me ignorant of the cult I was a member of since birth and later left.lol, alright fella.
>>1039220>that exact nameWait. What was his name? It wasn't like a full name like Andrew Barnes Culp (ABC) -- that would have been stupid. Did he actually go after the letters RCB or was it like ReligionCreatesBreath or something... I'm not good with creative names. >convenient ignoranceI assure you, my ignorance is genuine. >innocent flusteringI don't even... what do you mean by "flustering." That actually is starting to get me flustered. >proselytizingFor the love of Odin! I'm not trying to convert you. Sheesh!
>>1039231Actually, no. What he did was attempt to reason with people and get systematically destroyed on a personal level when his reason failed him.A gay Catholic. What a laugh.
>>1039253Just stop.
>>1039253RcBoi, are you new here, or you just pretending not to be RcBoi?
>>1039207Just answer this question then. What is the essential idea in Catholicism, the one that defines it apart from both Judaism and Protestant Christianity? Answer in short form, no more than a couple sentences are required. If you underwent confirmation, you should be able to answer as its supposed to mean that you understand the very basics of the faith.
>>1039262I think it's obvious.
A cult is insular and is organized around one person or group of people. Once you get the upper hierarchy of society involved, some people with intellectual, political, and economic authority, then you're a legit religion. Saying that there's this huge gulf between religious morality and other forms authority is bullshit. Especially when you turn around and say "oh, we're compelled to use the institutions of the state to protect you from the harmful nature of sin. It's not using power to control other people, it's just like,our personal belief that we're doing you guys a big favor. Against your will.We don't have you tho cause we said we don't, so yeah" (by the way, the Islamic nations and the church in Africa are way more successful than you guys are at using the state to police morality right now; look how well that's working out for gay people) And especially when you turn around and claim this position of authority as something that grants your religion validity. It is not. If secular ethics is subjective and has no metaphysical grounding, that's kind of the point. It allows us to dispense with all this bullshit and look at what objectively harms the most people or extends the most freedoms to them. It makes sense.
>>1039243>roots of your own cult in Semitic polytheismWell now you're just getting creative. I once had a teacher who was convinced that the government was enacting policies which were an extension of authorities from long ago. Truth is, that makes no sense, since our government has been changed so many times since then that there's no way it has any real impact on the current issue. Likewise, early Christians /may/ have been influenced by "Semitic polytheism" but the influence on a matter as minimal as homosexuality could not have survived. Especially considered how exhaustive the process of making Church doctrine is. No mere "ancient influence" could make its way through, not without strong backing in reason, especially with social tides pushing against it. Hell, abortion only barely made its way through, and it's backed almost entirely by Catholic doctrine. Your conspiracy theory is interesting, though. Even if it betrays your ignorance.
>>1039262Relatively new. I spent most of my time on /pol/ and /sci/ before. I've been here about a month, give or take a week or two. This is the first Christian thread I've seen though. I take it, from his name and people's reactions to it, that he responded to those (these?) threads a lot?
Does this mean that the Catholic church will stop lobbying or giving to lobbying organizations?
>>1039164So should I convert to be part of your religion even though I'm gay?
>>1039270>following the pope>absolution by priest>"meritorious acts">sins of the father>doctrine in works besides the bible>creepily referring to the church as "her"I could go on. Like I said, I'm not trying to write a treatise.The fact of the matter is, just saying someone is ignorant of the cult, because they don't agree with it and deride it, does not mean they are.
>>1039321Being gay should not be a deterrent to you converting. But if you don't believe in the Catholic Church I wouldn't say you should convert. You should follow your conscience and know the Church loves you either way.
>>1039338Fundamentally the Catholic religion admits that all humans are born into sin and are incapable of living a life free of sin. The sins are however cleansed through Christ usually by the means sacramental rituals, but especially confession once one receives confirmation. Point is, a gay man who has sex with men is no worse than someone who has ever told a lie or masturbated in the eyes of the God and The Church, so long as he seeks forgiveness for his sin (and that means attempting to abstain from the practice). It's a noble and humble religion for those who do wish to practice (I don't think most people who claim to be Catholics practice with earnestness), especially because interpretation and divination is taken out of the hands of the individual believer and put into the hermeneutic think tank that is The Church.
>>1039340If him personally being gay shouldn't be a deterrent, the fact that the church calls him to chastity (and that the long tendrils of RC church reach into conversion therapy and a whole host of anti-ligbt rights efforts, and that the vatican itself was hostile in years past) probably should. FUCK THAT!
>>1039338None of those show any analysis. It's literally just a statements of things that happen. >>1039397 provided better analysis, but I'm sure you'll discount them because they portrayed the faith positively.
>>1039409Well it shouldn't be a deterrent if he believe in the Church.
>>1039340>Being gay should not be a deterrent to you convertingWhy not, could I still date my bf, and get married if I converted? (though I guess I was baptized, got first communion, and confirmed in a Catholic church)
>>1039338How about this; give us a brief over-view of salvation history. That's usually an involved-enough doctrine that you can't cover the material without a high degree of compression, which can only be done if you understand the issue.
>>1034557but it's not outlawed it's simply the Catholic tradition that you don't marry after devoting yourself to the preisthood noticeable exceptions to this tradition are (married) Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism
>/lgbt/>suddenly filled with Christian circlejerking
>>1039436I don't understand why you'd want to convert if you would be a shitty Catholic. Sex without the intent of procreation is sinful.
>>1039466>suddenly
>>1039466Its usually a hugbox for genderqueer transpecies pansexuals, so this is refreshing.
>>1039419>>1039438>>1039397Listen, I am not trying to preach your religion here like you are, you slimy cunts.
>>1039473I didn't say anything about sex, you're the one putting it there. I don't even know why you put it there, are you obsessed with sex? I'm not.
>>1039436>could I still date my bf, and get marriedDifficult to answer. Your ability to do those things would not change before or after "converting" (you wouldn't /technically/ be converting because, from the Catholic perspective, you're still Catholic). So, in that sense, yes. As well, the Church is always very washy about how strictly you must agree with doctrine in order to "be Catholic." You'd be a heretic if you kept dating your bf (assuming you're a dude) and attempted to get married. That being said, the argument can be made that the matter is not grave, and, therefore, you're not committing mortal sin. As well, if you earnestly believed you were in the right (which, again, would make you a heretic), it wouldn't even be a sin, but you'd be excommunicated (which doesn't mean you're not Catholic; it just means you shouldn't take Eucharist). I can't see it ending up any way other than, eventually, leading you to choose between your boyfriend and your religion. Which sucks, but Christianity has never professed being an "easy" religion. So you could start the journey back, and see where it takes you. You are, of course, ostensibly welcome in Mass and any other Catholic gathering (there are Catholics who are assholes, though, so, admittedly, you won't be welcome everywhere yet, but, officially, they /should/ welcome you, and the Church declares them wrong not to) whether or not you would like to take up the mantel of "Catholic."
>>1039484Hostility. Just asking you to back up a claim. Nothing more.
>>1039426Who would want to, is the point. None of this can be confirmed:>Fundamentally the Catholic religion admits that all humans are born into sin and are incapable of living a life free of sin. The sins are however cleansed through Christ usually by the means sacramental rituals, but especially confession once one receives confirmation.It must all be taken on faith. And gay people don't have much reason to put faith in a position that sees our way of living as harmful, not for any legitimate, objective reason, but because the Church proclaimed it so. Why put so much effort into memorizing a bunch of arbitrary bullshit, into fighting your sexuality and abstaining from something that was never inherently harmful to anyone in the first place, when you could enjoy shame-free fucking? How does that benefit anyone? Why oppose it? Why should anyone care about what the Church wants them to do with their naughty bits? Nobody cares, go away
>>1039489Why? Why do people believe this absolute nonsense?
>Pope "supports" women in the church>unless they want to actually have rank>Pope is okay with homosexuals>until they start having sextoday is a good day to not to be chrisitan
>>1039494No, you're moving the goalposts in order to literally have me preach your cult bullshit to "establish credibility" for me daring to own the opinion that your cult is bullshit, without you immediately claiming I am ignorant of a religion I was born into.You people do this stuff with everyone, all the time.
>>1039485Marriage is a holy sacrament within the church with expressed purposes which include childbearing. Secondly it is understood to be between a man and a women, so you could never have sex without it being a sin within the church. No truly Catholic church would marry you. I wouldn't convert.
>>1039501>It must all be taken on faith.>gay people don't have much reason to put faithFaith isn't given for a reason. You don't have faith in someone because you have a reason to trust them. If you had a reason to trust someone, there wouldn't be a need to trust them. Trust comes from relying on a person whose assistance you cannot rationally expect. Likewise, faith is believing in something you have no reason to believe. Like believing that there are certain actions which are wrong, and certain rights which are inviolable. Regardless of whether you agree that gay sex is wrong, you must see that living morally means giving up what you want to do when it conflicts with what you should do. Just because you want to have shame-free sex doesn't mean you shouldn't feel ashamed to be sleeping with the person. If it's wrong, you should feel guilt, because your conscience should tell you, "You fucked up" (no pun intended). Regardless of whether the Church truly has a line to the Arbiter of right and wrong, you must realize that simply taking pleasure in something doesn't make it right. As well, you must see that there are things which can seemingly harm no one but are inherently wrong. Why is lying wrong?
>>1039524I wouldn't want to get married in a church, but civil marriage is important to me for the civil rights involved in it, and it is legal in this state. Anyway I get what you're saying, there would be too much animosity toward me, and the assumption that I'm having sex.
>>1039536>Likewise, faith is believing in something you have no reason to believe.You have officially made yourselves less credible than transsexuals. Good job.
>>1039522You said you understood Catholicism. We're calling you out. If you manage to present the doctrine in a negative light, do so. I think a neutral light would be best, but you're not giving me anything I couldn't find posted by every ignorant (probably vincibly ignorant) schmo who trolls such threads. You have to see how violently you're reacting to a simple request. You've put more effort into saying that you /won't/ prove your comprehension than you would if you just proved it.
>>1039553Please. Everyone believes in things they have no reason to believe. For example, why is murder bad? Why is that bad? [repeat: you'll eventually reach a point of no response, something you cannot justify with reason]
>>1039553I don't mean to be critical, I'm not even religious, but that is what faith is regardless of what you're talking about. If you had physical evidence and logical arguments then it wouldn't be faith.
>>1039489>You'd be a heretic if you kept dating your bf (assuming you're a dude) and attempted to get married. That being said, the argument can be made that the matter is not grave, and, therefore, you're not committing mortal sin.A mortal sin, ie one that condemns you to hell. The argument CAN BE MADE that you're not going to hell if you marry someone of the same sex. Note the slippery, bullshit invocation of the passive voice. I mean it's a roll of the dice. Being gay shouldn't deter you from being Catholic though, rather being catholic should deter you from being gay. Just acting on the fact that you're gay in any way, violates Chruch doctrine. They're totes gay friendly. Just as long as you're only sorta gay!
>>1039539Where the hell are you going to find a man who doesn't ever want to have sex?
>>1039557I'm not preaching your religion for you on /lgbt/, nor do I have the obligation to present it in either a positive nor even a neutral light, you faggot. Do you even know where you are?Get lost with this false olive branch bullshit and crawl back into the cretinous pit you came from.
>>1039577Dude, you leave that up to me, that is what my bf is like already, he never wants to have sex.
>>1039536wise words on a forum too quick to jump to cliches.But what if I don't feel guilt for having sex with my girlfriend? Despite being brought up within the church, I have never felt that it was a moral wrong I was committing. Loving her has always been a culmination of private ideals and morals - it has never made me even feel slightly ashamed. When people try to make me ashamed, thinking that the only reason I appear to flout authority and morality in being together with another woman is for mere pleasure, I more feel affronted and pitying. They are incapable of seeing the love between us - all they see is sexual 'deviancy', yet at every stage the sexuality came as naturally as anything could said to be.
>>1039593You two sound terrible.
>>1039574The thing is, the Church hasn't compiled a list of mortal sins. Still, it's agreed that, if you don't consider an act to be of grave matter, it's not a mortal sin. The reason being that you need to leave God of your own free will.
>>1039597I don't know, but I know plenty of straight Catholics that don't seem to have a problem with having sex without being married. I honestly never hear of anyone giving them a hard time about it, except those who are about to get married.
>>1039600:(, what are you going to do if you love someone, just dump them for not having sex with you? There are people that don't even have sex until marriage.
>>1039568Cooperation instinct, you ponce. Cooperation was, and is, instrumental to our survival, so it is part of our evolutionary nature, and continues to be due to its extreme usefulness. It's why we are such a resourceful species.Saying anything is "bad" is layman shorthand, and infinitely subjective.
>>1039607I guess the mere lack of guilt isn't really enough to say that it's morally wrong - I get what you're saying. I don't really know where to place it, because most of the time lesbians just aren't referred to in the bible or within catholic canon at all because we can be happy without penetrative sex, so we don't really exist. I'm not really complaining about this, if that makes sense, it just kind of leaves me in an unclear moral ground. Not that I'm particularly religious.
>>1039602>2013>believing in "free will"
.gif)
.png "Refresh")