LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[The Grene Knyght]

People can do that, yes. No matter how much you try to invoke #notruescotsman and other such essentialisms.

Well, not believing in doctrine actually does make you not a "staunch Catholic".

It's basically saying "I believe x, but I really don't"

Well, for one, I didn't say "staunch Catholic," I said "the most staunchly catholic people I know," and secondly, while these people choose to out their own beliefs before that of the church, by and large their beliefs do line up with that of the church. Just not on this particular issue.
The catholic church has done a bunch of fucked up shit in Ireland and as a result even the most catholic people here hold a certain amount of mistrust for the church, especially in the younger generation.

[Philjia]

People can do that, yes. No matter how much you try to invoke #notruescotsman and other such essentialisms.

Well, not believing in doctrine actually does make you not a "staunch Catholic".

It's basically saying "I believe x, but I really don't"

For Catholics it's relatively easy to justify anything if you repent for it.

[The Grene Knyght]

Well, not believing in doctrine actually does make you not a "staunch Catholic".

It's basically saying "I believe x, but I really don't"

For Catholics it's relatively easy to justify anything if you repent for it.

thats.... not really how it works...

[Philjia]

For Catholics it's relatively easy to justify anything if you repent for it.

thats.... not really how it works...

Since when has scrupulous application of theology ever mattered to the devout?

[Divitaen]

People can do that, yes. No matter how much you try to invoke #notruescotsman and other such essentialisms.

Well, not believing in doctrine actually does make you not a "staunch Catholic".

It's basically saying "I believe x, but I really don't"

I actually consider myself a gay Catholic, and honestly I think whether someone is a "staunch Catholic" is better measured by whether someone firmly believes in living out the tenets of faith or how important religion is in your everyday life, rather than mental conformity to arbitrary points of doctrine.

[Threlizdun]

People can do that, yes. No matter how much you try to invoke #notruescotsman and other such essentialisms.

Well, not believing in doctrine actually does make you not a "staunch Catholic".

It's basically saying "I believe x, but I really don't"

There never has been absolutely uniformity of doctrine in any religious organization of sufficient size. Every religion changes with time. Catholics who support a change in attitudes of the Church towards LGBT issues still feel that the Church is an important institution and still adhere to most doctrinal issues, they just feel that just as in the past, it is time for the Church to reform some. It's a natural evolution of religious dogma.

[Divitaen]

Well, not believing in doctrine actually does make you not a "staunch Catholic".

It's basically saying "I believe x, but I really don't"

There never has been absolutely uniformity of doctrine in any religious organization of sufficient size. Every religion changes with time. Catholics who support a change in attitudes of the Church towards LGBT issues still feel that the Church is an important institution and still adhere to most doctrinal issues, they just feel that just as in the past, it is time for the Church to reform some. It's a natural evolution of religious dogma.

Also from what I've seen in most developed countries with big Catholic populations, generally Catholics in some countries don't agree with certain doctrines and dogmas that some deem "essential" to Catholicism, such as the use of contraception, or having women become priests, so its quite a slippery slope when we apply a strict "litmus test" to devoutness of religion based on singular doctrinal ideals.

[United Marxist Nations]

Well, not believing in doctrine actually does make you not a "staunch Catholic".

It's basically saying "I believe x, but I really don't"

There never has been absolutely uniformity of doctrine in any religious organization of sufficient size. Every religion changes with time. Catholics who support a change in attitudes of the Church towards LGBT issues still feel that the Church is an important institution and still adhere to most doctrinal issues, they just feel that just as in the past, it is time for the Church to reform some. It's a natural evolution of religious dogma.

The official position, of all the traditional Churches (but especially of the Orthodox Church) is that doctrine cannot be changed; in other words, it is eternal. To reform is to practice heresy.

[Threlizdun]

There never has been absolutely uniformity of doctrine in any religious organization of sufficient size. Every religion changes with time. Catholics who support a change in attitudes of the Church towards LGBT issues still feel that the Church is an important institution and still adhere to most doctrinal issues, they just feel that just as in the past, it is time for the Church to reform some. It's a natural evolution of religious dogma.

The official position, of all the traditional Churches (but especially of the Orthodox Church) is that doctrine cannot be changed; in other words, it is eternal. To reform is to practice heresy.

The official position is an inaccurate one. Reforms have happened to every church, including the Orthodox Church. To argue that the Church of today behaves exactly the same as it did hundreds of years ago, let alone its inception, is absurd.

[United Marxist Nations]

The official position, of all the traditional Churches (but especially of the Orthodox Church) is that doctrine cannot be changed; in other words, it is eternal. To reform is to practice heresy.

The official position is an inaccurate one. Reforms have happened to every church, including the Orthodox Church. To argue that the Church of today behaves exactly the same as it did hundreds of years ago, let alone its inception, is absurd.

And, tell me, what are these changes in doctrine?

[Philjia]

The official position is an inaccurate one. Reforms have happened to every church, including the Orthodox Church. To argue that the Church of today behaves exactly the same as it did hundreds of years ago, let alone its inception, is absurd.

And, tell me, what are these changes in doctrine?

What's Jesus?

[United Marxist Nations]

And, tell me, what are these changes in doctrine?

What's Jesus?

Christ didn't change doctrine, He established the Church. Before then, there was only Israel. Now there is Israel (now all of humanity) and the Church.

[Philjia]

What's Jesus?

Christ didn't change doctrine, He established the Church. Before then, there was only Israel. Now there is Israel (now all of humanity) and the Church.

I was asking a question. What is Jesus, and who said so?

[United Marxist Nations]

Christ didn't change doctrine, He established the Church. Before then, there was only Israel. Now there is Israel (now all of humanity) and the Church.

I was asking a question. What is Jesus, and who said so?

Christ is God the Son of God the Father. One of the Trinity, One Holy in Three Holys, etc, etc.

These were always Church doctrine, universally acknowledged at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, when the Arians were excommunicated.

[The V O I D]

Guys, take it to the CDT. This is a thread dedicated to discussing LGBT rights issues.

Or, at the very least, try and make it relevant...

[United Marxist Nations]

Guys, take it to the CDT. This is a thread dedicated to discussing LGBT rights issues.

Or, at the very least, try and make it relevant...

Perhaps we could make a thread about religion pertaining to LGBT issues?

[The V O I D]

Guys, take it to the CDT. This is a thread dedicated to discussing LGBT rights issues.

Or, at the very least, try and make it relevant...

Perhaps we could make a thread about religion pertaining to LGBT issues?

I'd ask moderation first.

[Threlizdun]

The official position is an inaccurate one. Reforms have happened to every church, including the Orthodox Church. To argue that the Church of today behaves exactly the same as it did hundreds of years ago, let alone its inception, is absurd.

And, tell me, what are these changes in doctrine?

Edit: We should likely take this to the Christian Discussion Thread

The Ecumenical councils had to be called to address doctrinal disagreements within the Church. Iconoclasm waned and waxed in popularity throughout much of the Byzantine Era, and its influence decidedly affected the presence and use of religious icons at the time. Official positions and relationships with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Oriental Orthodox Christians, and later Russian Orthodox Christians changed with the political forces of the time. Similarly official support of various social and economic structures as the basis of society are of immense practical importance. One cannot posssibly claim that the behavior of the Church is at all the same after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. The Church lost its overwhelming political authority and power over secular rather than just religious matters. Just look at the fact that it, like the Catholic Church, can no longer call for legal sanctions against heretics and non-believers as it once did, and that it has been forced to embrace a religiously pluralistic society. The Church had to contend with the rise of Leninist governments, fascist states, military juntas, and constitutional republics. Attitudes towards women, while still patriarchal, are undoubtedly more progressive than they were in its past. It may not accept women in clergy, but the fact that it will accept the overwhelming increase in political power of women comparative to its earlier eras would of course been inconceivable in said eras. The Church has changed because the world has changed. Churches that don't change cannot possibly survive.

[United Marxist Nations]

Perhaps we could make a thread about religion pertaining to LGBT issues?

I'd ask moderation first.

I don't want to OP it, myself, it had better be one of the other posters.

[United Marxist Nations]

And, tell me, what are these changes in doctrine?

Edit: We should likely take this to the Christian Discussion Thread

The Ecumenical councils had to be called to address doctrinal disagreements within the Church. Iconoclasm waned and waxed in popularity throughout much of the Byzantine Era, and its influence decidedly affected the presence and use of religious icons at the time. Official positions and relationships with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Oriental Orthodox Christians, and later Russian Orthodox Christians changed with the political forces of the time. Similarly official support of various social and economic structures as the basis of society are of immense practical importance. One cannot posssibly claim that the behavior of the Church is at all the same after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. The Church lost its overwhelming political authority and power over secular rather than just religious matters. Just look at the fact that it, like the Catholic Church, can no longer call for legal sanctions against heretics and non-believers as it once did, and that it has been forced to embrace a religiously pluralistic society. The Church had to contend with the rise of Leninist governments, fascist states, military juntas, and constitutional republics. Attitudes towards women, while still patriarchal, are undoubtedly more progressive than they were in its past. It may not accept women in clergy, but the fact that it will accept the overwhelming increase in political power of women comparative to its earlier eras would of course been inconceivable in said eras. The Church has changed because the world has changed. Churches that don't change cannot possibly survive.

The false doctrines were defeated, though. And the other things are not doctrinal changes, merely changes in pious custom.

[Salus Maior]

Attitudes towards women, while still patriarchal, are undoubtedly more progressive than they were in its past. It may not accept women in clergy, but the fact that it will accept the overwhelming increase in political power of women comparative to its earlier eras would of course been inconceivable in said eras. The Church has changed because the world has changed. Churches that don't change cannot possibly survive.

Er, here's where you're wrong.

The Church has most definitely accepted women in powerful non-clergy positions and were quick to recognize their achievements from the very beginning.

For one, Mary 'Mother of God', who's the most highly venerated mortal human being in Christianity (Jesus doesn't count cause he's God). Mary Magdalene bears the title "Equal to the Apostles" (as do other saints, like Saint Olga of Kiev. Who will cut 'chu.)

In fact, two Empresses contributed to the defeat of Iconoclasm, Empress Irene (who led two Church councils), and Empress Theodora (wife of Theophilos, not Justinian) who is credited for finally restoring Icons and is canonized for it. Several other Empresses are revered as Saints for various contributions to the Church, the earliest known female composer is also a Saint in the Church (Saint Kassiani), and it was a woman who preached in the country of Georgia and brought it to Christianity (Saint Nina).

Also, let's not forget the feminist symbol that is Saint Joan of Arc.

Women have always played major roles in the Church, and have always been recognized for it. Them not being clergy doesn't diminish that.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

[United Marxist Nations]

Since no one else wants to OP, and people clearly want to discuss the topic, how about tomorrow, when I've finished everything I have to do, I open us up a thread to discuss religion and how it relates to LGBT issues?

[Seraven]

Since no one else wants to OP, and people clearly want to discuss the topic, how about tomorrow, when I've finished everything I have to do, I open us up a thread to discuss religion and how it relates to LGBT issues?

It will not be solved, though. There will be still, at the end, the very much of a possibility of the same results.

[Oneracon]

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/natio ... El-sKIrJoN

So with the passage of the Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Bill little ol' Malta has become the first European country to ban "conversion therapy". The law includes imposing fines up to €10,000 and up to one year in prison for people found practicing or advertising "therapy" that claims to alter a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

[Divitaen]

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/72331/bill_outlawing_conversion_therapy_approved#.WEl-sKIrJoN

So with the passage of the Affirmation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression Bill little ol' Malta has become the first European country to ban "conversion therapy". The law includes imposing fines up to €10,000 and up to one year in prison for people found practicing or advertising "therapy" that claims to alter a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Wait, wait, wait, FIRST country in Europe to do so? Shit, I always assumed most of the Scandinavian countries had already banned conversion therapy, oh well guess I have an overly-optimistic view of the world then. Hasn't California also banned it or is that my optimism talking again?