Religion and LGBT Issues

[Pasong Tirad]

1. Not necessarily.

2. As do I. I'm just more vocal about my defense of secularism than most.

3. You presume a lot about me. And my stances are defended by many theologians.

4. But it doesn't, and neither does the basic definition of transgender.

5. Deuteronomy, invalid because Christ has already fulfilled the Old Testament Law. 1 Corinthians, has no relevance to the topic.

Can you care to cite these theologians, and why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches disagree with them?

Christ fulfilled the law, but that does not imply he abolished it. He directly states the opposite in Matthew 5:17–18 ("Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished"). Corinthians is more indirect, but enforces gender roles and clothing differences between man and women. Logically too, it makes no sense for crossdressing to somehow become okay to God after ordering people who did it stoned to death.

The vast majority of transgender people (outside the ones who are closeted or non-binary) wear the clothes of the opposite sex. That is literally the definition of crossdressing.

Hmm. Strange, because the Philippines here just elected its first transgender/transexual politician, Geraldine Roman, and when she talks about her journey to being a woman, she mentions consulting with Jesuits about whether this was the right thing to do. They didn't outright agree to it, but they said that "the body is just a shell. If you think by modifying the outside, you can become a more loving, more generous, and happier person, go ahead, because what is important is the heart, and God looks at the heart and not what you have in between your legs.”.

[Lavan Tiri]

1. Demonstrably false.
2. Meaningless buzzword is meaningless.
3. An outright lie.

I didn't mean to say all homosexuals are pedophiles.

1: Just that it's common among them. For reasons often pertaining to it being something 2: sexually abused people sometimes use to manifest anti-social behavior. It would probably explain the 3: high infidelity rate and mental instability records among the promiscuous. 4: Which is apparently most of them at this point.

5: Which is too bad. I imagine it makes the well meaning among them look bad. I know how that is.

1: False. Most male child predators/pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relationships.

2: If you're parroting the old argument that gayness is a result of sexual abuse, that's also false

3: Provide a source for this, please.

4: This, too.

5: You've found a whole new level of condescension, which is admirable.

[Diopolis]

I also love people without marrying them. Marriage is about the bringing of children first and foremost in the opinion of the church; hence how contraceptives are so poisonous to it. The love between man and woman is also important, of course.

So your logic is that love comes secondary to rearing children.

Yes.

1) and this situation doesn't have any. You agree with the church, or you don't.
2) conscience does not override the dictates of the church. It is our guide; to view it as more powerful than the church is to reveal your conscience to be profoundly malformed.

Again with the absolutes. I agree on some things and on others I don't. That shouldn't make me any less Catholic in the same way that being able to go to mass every Sunday doesn't make you any more Christian.

I never said conscience was more powerful. Conscience is the "power" (for lack of a better term) with which people are able to understand for themselves whether or not they believe that what they are doing is the right thing to do. Nobody has a conscience that 100% agrees with the Church in the same way that nobody 100% agrees with all the laws of your state. When Martin Luther was asked to recant his beliefs, he replied thus: "I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

And, in this case, call into question my Catholicism or my "heretical" beliefs all you want, but I cannot go against my conscience. The LGBT are full persons and should be able to enjoy every right non-LGBT persons enjoy - including the right to marry and have sex with whoever they want without judgment from their peers. Take it up with God if you don't agree with what they're doing.

1) Going to mass on Sunday generally does make a person more Christian.
2) Conscience that goes up against the rulings of the church is malformed; Luther, a condemned heretic, is an especially egregious example.
3) I'll note that, like most devout Christians, I don't think anyone should have some sort of right to have sex with anyone they want.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yes.

That just doesn't make sense, man. But, okay, I guess. If you truly believe that, in marriage, love comes secondary to rearing children in an already overpopulated world with limited resources, then okay.

1) Going to mass on Sunday generally does make a person more Christian.
2) Conscience that goes up against the rulings of the church is malformed; Luther, a condemned heretic, is an especially egregious example.
3) I'll note that, like most devout Christians, I don't think anyone should have some sort of right to have sex with anyone they want.

1) So going to mass every Sunday while being a total dick on every other day makes you more Christian than the guy that isn't a total dick on every other day but doesn't go to mass on Sunday?
2) Conscience that goes up against the rulings of the church is malformed according to the Church. And that, I think, is the very point of all this because even if your conscience goes against God Himself (which I find improbable, but not impossible), there's no arguing with your conscience whether you're Christ or the Pope or Martin Luther.
3) Okay there's no arguing with this because there really isn't anything to argue with here.

So everybody who isn't a Catholic is a heretic to you? But, then again, we're probably heretics to every other religious belief, Christian or otherwise.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So your logic is that love comes secondary to rearing children.

Yes.

As far as my experience with that logic has been, it hasn't worked out well for those who have tried.

I'd say both priorities are important.

[Diopolis]

[quote="Pasong Tirad";p="30761308"][quote="Diopolis";p="30761260"]Yes.[/quote]
That just doesn't make sense, man. But, okay, I guess. If you truly believe that, in marriage, love comes secondary to rearing children in an already overpopulated world with limited resources, then okay.
[/quote]
Overpopulation is a satanic lie.
[quote]
[quote]
1) Going to mass on Sunday generally does make a person more Christian.
2) Conscience that goes up against the rulings of the church is malformed; Luther, a condemned heretic, is an especially egregious example.
3) I'll note that, like most devout Christians, I don't think [i]anyone[/i] should have some sort of right to have sex with anyone they want.[/quote]

1) So going to mass every Sunday while being a total dick on every other day makes you more Christian than the guy that isn't a total dick on every other day but doesn't go to mass on Sunday?
2) Conscience that goes up against the rulings of the church is malformed [i]according to the Church[/i]. And that, I think, is the very point of all this because even if your conscience goes against God Himself (which I find improbable, but not impossible), there's no arguing with your conscience whether you're Christ or the Pope or Martin Luther.
3) Okay there's no arguing with this because there really isn't anything to argue with here.

So everybody who isn't a Catholic is a heretic to you? But, then again, we're probably heretics to every other religious belief, Christian or otherwise.[/quote]
1) No. That is not what I meant. Nor is it a reasonable interpretation of what I said. But mass attendance is a foundation of Christian life, and without either mass attendance or a very good reason for not going one can't really call themself a Christian.
2) If your conscience tells you God is wrong, then listen to God, not your conscience. Do as Abraham did in this scenario. Similarly, we must always obey and support the church, even if we cannot understand why it's rulings are correct.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Do as Abraham did in this scenario.

...try to kill a kid?

[Luminesa]

Do as Abraham did in this scenario.

...try to kill a kid?

No, trust that God is correct and that he will not actually allow you to kill the kid. It was a test of faith-God wouldn't have told him to stop if it wasn't. But you seem more interested in mocking the Faith, so if you don't listen that's fine. But don't take the story out of context.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

...try to kill a kid?

No, trust that God is correct and that he will not actually allow you to kill the kid. It was a test of faith-God wouldn't have told him to stop if it wasn't. But you seem more interested in mocking the Faith, so if you don't listen that's fine. But don't take the story out of context.

And if god doesn't stop you, is he still "correct"?

[Luminesa]

No, trust that God is correct and that he will not actually allow you to kill the kid. It was a test of faith-God wouldn't have told him to stop if it wasn't. But you seem more interested in mocking the Faith, so if you don't listen that's fine. But don't take the story out of context.

And if god doesn't stop you, is he still "correct"?

That's not the point. You're missing the point of the story entirely. It serves four points:
A.) To establish that God often asks a lot of people who he wants to be His followers, even leaving behind one's family and friends sometimes.
B.) That God is not going to ask of someone things they cannot handle, as He does not take Isaac.
C.) To establish Abraham as the founding father of Judaism.
D.) To establish Isaac as a "type" of Jesus. "Type" meaning here that Jesus's role as an innocent person sacrificed for someone's sins reflects back to Isaac.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

And if god doesn't stop you, is he still "correct"?

That's not the point. You're missing the point of the story entirely. It serves four points:
A.) To establish that God often asks a lot of people who he wants to be His followers.
B.) That God is not going to ask of someone things they cannot handle.
C.) To establish Abraham as the founding father of Judaism.
D.) To establish Isaac as a "type" of Jesus. "Type" meaning here that Jesus's role as an innocent person sacrificed for someone's sins reflects back to Isaac.

A. Okay?
B. The existence of this thread is a testament to the falsity of this statement.
C. And that required almost sacrificing (and, one would think, mentally scarring) a child because...? Could he not just say, "You're the founding father of Judaism now; let's not do anything morally repugnant to prove that, not least because I'm omniscient and already know you're loyal."?
D. Sounds pretty awful. Why are you worshipping this guy again?

[Farnhamia]

That's not the point. You're missing the point of the story entirely. It serves four points:
A.) To establish that God often asks a lot of people who he wants to be His followers.
B.) That God is not going to ask of someone things they cannot handle.
C.) To establish Abraham as the founding father of Judaism.
D.) To establish Isaac as a "type" of Jesus. "Type" meaning here that Jesus's role as an innocent person sacrificed for someone's sins reflects back to Isaac.

A. Okay?
B. The existence of this thread is a testament to the falsity of this statement.
C. And that required almost sacrificing (and, one would think, mentally scarring) a child because...? Could he not just say, "You're the founding father of Judaism now; let's not do anything morally repugnant to prove that, not least because I'm omniscient and already know you're loyal."?
D. Sounds pretty awful. Why are you worshipping this guy again?

C. Isaac was 37, according to most Jewish scholars.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

A. Okay?
B. The existence of this thread is a testament to the falsity of this statement.
C. And that required almost sacrificing (and, one would think, mentally scarring) a child because...? Could he not just say, "You're the founding father of Judaism now; let's not do anything morally repugnant to prove that, not least because I'm omniscient and already know you're loyal."?
D. Sounds pretty awful. Why are you worshipping this guy again?

C. Isaac was 37, according to most Jewish scholars.

Huh. I didn't know that. I still expect it might have been a rather harrowing experience, though.

[Genivaria]

...try to kill a kid?

No, trust that God is correct and that he will not actually allow you to kill the kid. It was a test of faith-God wouldn't have told him to stop if it wasn't. But you seem more interested in mocking the Faith, so if you don't listen that's fine. But don't take the story out of context.

How was what he said mockery when that's exactly what happened?
All Abraham showed was his obedience and lack of any humanity.
A sociopath and a loyal slave.

And this story is used as an example of what a good Christian should be?
That in itself is terrifying.

[Genivaria]

And if god doesn't stop you, is he still "correct"?

That's not the point. You're missing the point of the story entirely. It serves four points:
A.) To establish that God often asks a lot of people who he wants to be His followers, even leaving behind one's family and friends sometimes.
B.) That God is not going to ask of someone things they cannot handle, as He does not take Isaac.
C.) To establish Abraham as the founding father of Judaism.
D.) To establish Isaac as a "type" of Jesus. "Type" meaning here that Jesus's role as an innocent person sacrificed for someone's sins reflects back to Isaac.

1. Textbook cult behavior.
2. And yet Abraham WAS going to kill his son before an angel stopped him.
3. Not a founder I'd want.
4. A truly sick lesson.

[Pasong Tirad]

Overpopulation is a satanic lie.

Living jn America, where space is abundant and the resources seem plenty, I can understand why you would think it a lie - but to call it Satanic might be going overboard.

1) No. That is not what I meant. Nor is it a reasonable interpretation of what I said. But mass attendance is a foundation of Christian life, and without either mass attendance or a very good reason for not going one can't really call themself a Christian.
2) If your conscience tells you God is wrong, then listen to God, not your conscience. Do as Abraham did in this scenario. Similarly, we must always obey and support the church, even if we cannot understand why it's rulings are correct.

1. I don't mean to be rude, but this seems like quite a narrow understanding of a Church that calls itself universal. Yes, mass attendance is a good thing and I do agree that it is an aspect of Christian life but I highly doubt your interpretation - that is, however, not the topic of this thread.
2. Okay yeah a god telling his father to kill his own son doesn't add up as a good example of blindly following God rather than your own conscience. And to question Church ruling shouldn't be considered sinful or heretical or what have you. It is human nature to question and to demand answers. Blindly following like sheep just doesn't add up for me, sorry.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's not the point. You're missing the point of the story entirely. It serves four points:
A.) To establish that God often asks a lot of people who he wants to be His followers, even leaving behind one's family and friends sometimes.
B.) That God is not going to ask of someone things they cannot handle, as He does not take Isaac.
C.) To establish Abraham as the founding father of Judaism.
D.) To establish Isaac as a "type" of Jesus. "Type" meaning here that Jesus's role as an innocent person sacrificed for someone's sins reflects back to Isaac.

1. Textbook cult behavior.
2. And yet Abraham WAS going to kill his son before an angel stopped him.
3. Not a founder I'd want.
4. A truly sick lesson.

How is it "sick"?

How do you even establish something as bad in the absence of God?

[Genivaria]

Overpopulation is a satanic lie.

Living jn America, where space is abundant and the resources seem plenty, I can understand why you would think it a lie - but to call it Satanic might be going overboard.

1) No. That is not what I meant. Nor is it a reasonable interpretation of what I said. But mass attendance is a foundation of Christian life, and without either mass attendance or a very good reason for not going one can't really call themself a Christian.
2) If your conscience tells you God is wrong, then listen to God, not your conscience. Do as Abraham did in this scenario. Similarly, we must always obey and support the church, even if we cannot understand why it's rulings are correct.

1. I don't mean to be rude, but this seems like quite a narrow understanding of a Church that calls itself universal. Yes, mass attendance is a good thing and I do agree that it is an aspect of Christian life but I highly doubt your interpretation - that is, however, not the topic of this thread.
2. Okay yeah a god telling his father to kill his own son doesn't add up as a good example of blindly following God rather than your own conscience. And to question Church ruling shouldn't be considered sinful or heretical or what have you. It is human nature to question and to demand answers. Blindly following like sheep just doesn't add up for me, sorry.

What happens to the sheep who follow blindly?
Either they're eaten, fleeced, or if in Scotland fucked.

[Genivaria]

1. Textbook cult behavior.
2. And yet Abraham WAS going to kill his son before an angel stopped him.
3. Not a founder I'd want.
4. A truly sick lesson.

How is it "sick"?

How do you even establish something as bad in the absence of God?

How do you establish something as bad WITH God?

[United Marxist Nations]

How is it "sick"?

How do you even establish something as bad in the absence of God?

How do you establish something as bad WITH God?

That God is against it.

[Pasong Tirad]

Living jn America, where space is abundant and the resources seem plenty, I can understand why you would think it a lie - but to call it Satanic might be going overboard.


1. I don't mean to be rude, but this seems like quite a narrow understanding of a Church that calls itself universal. Yes, mass attendance is a good thing and I do agree that it is an aspect of Christian life but I highly doubt your interpretation - that is, however, not the topic of this thread.
2. Okay yeah a god telling his father to kill his own son doesn't add up as a good example of blindly following God rather than your own conscience. And to question Church ruling shouldn't be considered sinful or heretical or what have you. It is human nature to question and to demand answers. Blindly following like sheep just doesn't add up for me, sorry.

What happens to the sheep who follow blindly?
Either they're eaten, fleeced, or if in Scotland fucked.

I would just like to mention that I am a devout Catholic, although some may question this because I consider myself a liberal Catholic in that I believe LGBTs should be given equal rights to marry and fuck as much as non-LGBT persons do.

[Genivaria]

How do you establish something as bad WITH God?

That God is against it.

Why does that matter?

[United Marxist Nations]

What happens to the sheep who follow blindly?
Either they're eaten, fleeced, or if in Scotland fucked.

I would just like to mention that I am a devout Catholic, although some may question this because I consider myself a liberal Catholic in that I believe LGBTs should be given equal rights to marry and fuck as much as non-LGBT persons do.

The Latin Church does not agree with that position, which, in Roman Catholicism, makes that opinion wrong.

[United Marxist Nations]

That God is against it.

Why does that matter?

Because God is all-knowing, and all-present. The universe itself is defined by Him. It then makes sense that, to act in accordance to His will, is to act correctly.

[Genivaria]

Why does that matter?

Because God is all-knowing, and all-present. The universe itself is defined by Him. It then makes sense that, to act in accordance to His will, is to act correctly.

And you know this how?