Christian Discussion: No more Fun with Pope Puns

[Salus Maior]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

[Sordhau]

To disregard the right to one's life, liberty and justly gained property such that one cares so little of that person so as to allow them to be murdered, enslaved, defrauded, robbed, or lied about is a form of hate for one's fellow human being.

Pretty broad brush there, covering just about everyone

Hate can be impassioned or dispassionate.

Pretty sure it definitionally can’t be dispassionate.

This is hate in the sense of not caring enough to treat someone in the manner fittingly due to another human being based one's common humanity, all of whom are image bearers of the Divine. Those who hate in this manner cannot and do not know God.

Perhaps true, but as before your definition covers basically everyone, which is a rather pessimistic way to view the state of humanity.

You're beginning to understand why I find his theology to be so offensive.

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

I believe it.

[The Archregimancy]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

I have no objective means of measuring this, but I do know that when I spent three years living in Jerry Falwell's home town of Lynchburg, Virginia back in the 1990s, a couple of born-again married Baptist women insisted on telling me in more than slightly uncomfortable detail just how amazing their sex life was.

It was, frankly, both weird and unsettling.

[HISPIDA]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

i'm not surprised. the more you shy away from something the more intense it is when you return to it. not that i'm equating it with religion, but a large reason why heroin overdoses are so common is that people who have been clean for, say, a year will use the same dose they used a year ago. their body's tolerance has gone down drastically, and even though they're probably having the best high of their life they're also nearly guaranteed to die.

[Sordhau]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

I have no objective means of measuring this, but I do know that when I spent three years living in Jerry Falwell's home town of Lynchburg, Virginia back in the 1990s, a couple of born-again married Baptist women insisted on telling me in more than slightly uncomfortable detail just how amazing their sex life was.

It was, frankly, both weird and unsettling.

Wild. You go, girls.

[Deblar]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

Checks out

[Prima Scriptura]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

Eh, I wouldn't know. How can this even be measured? What constitutes "satisfying sex" varies greatly person to person.

[Prima Scriptura]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

I have no objective means of measuring this, but I do know that when I spent three years living in Jerry Falwell's home town of Lynchburg, Virginia back in the 1990s, a couple of born-again married Baptist women insisted on telling me in more than slightly uncomfortable detail just how amazing their sex life was.

It was, frankly, both weird and unsettling.

Now that is just degeneracy, the fact that it was a women telling a man about her great her sex life is raises serious red flags.

[The Archregimancy]

I have no objective means of measuring this, but I do know that when I spent three years living in Jerry Falwell's home town of Lynchburg, Virginia back in the 1990s, a couple of born-again married Baptist women insisted on telling me in more than slightly uncomfortable detail just how amazing their sex life was.

It was, frankly, both weird and unsettling.

Wild. You go, girls.

Oh, look, I had absolutely no objection to them having amazing sex lives. I had no particular objection to them telling me in passing that they had amazing sex lives. But I did find it weird and unsettling to have them tell me in graphic detail about the specifics of their amazing sex lives in a workplace environment.

Because this wasn't a social discussion; this was them insisting on sharing specific details while we were at work. Surely I can't be the only person who finds that odd?

This is nearly 30 years ago, so I'm struggling to remember the precise context, but I think it was to prove that married Baptist couples weren't sexually repressed, and were happy to explore their sexuality. Which again, is absolutely fine; but from what I remember, I'd never brought it up - they just insisted on sharing to make the point.

[Tarsonis]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

Repression does some wild things to the psyche. There's a causal correlation between how restrictive one's religious views are on sex, and how "intense" one's proclivities tend to be.

[Sordhau]

Wild. You go, girls.

Oh, look, I had absolutely no objection to them having amazing sex lives. I had no particular objection to them telling me in passing that they had amazing sex lives. But I did find it weird and unsettling to have them tell me in graphic detail about the specifics of their amazing sex lives in a workplace environment.

Because this wasn't a social discussion; this was them insisting on sharing specific details while we were at work. Surely I can't be the only person who finds that odd?

This is nearly 30 years ago, so I'm struggling to remember the precise context, but I think it was to prove that married Baptist couples weren't sexually repressed, and were happy to explore their sexuality. Which again, is absolutely fine; but from what I remember, I'd never brought it up - they just insisted on sharing to make the point.

Oh yeah going into graphic detail is definitely weird but at work even more so.

[Tarsonis]

Oh, look, I had absolutely no objection to them having amazing sex lives. I had no particular objection to them telling me in passing that they had amazing sex lives. But I did find it weird and unsettling to have them tell me in graphic detail about the specifics of their amazing sex lives in a workplace environment.

Because this wasn't a social discussion; this was them insisting on sharing specific details while we were at work. Surely I can't be the only person who finds that odd?

This is nearly 30 years ago, so I'm struggling to remember the precise context, but I think it was to prove that married Baptist couples weren't sexually repressed, and were happy to explore their sexuality. Which again, is absolutely fine; but from what I remember, I'd never brought it up - they just insisted on sharing to make the point.

Oh yeah going into graphic detail is definitely weird but at work even more so.

Still I'm cackling over the thought of freshly minted Dr. Arch bright eyed and eager to start off his academic career in the Colonies, and just "HI, I'm Abigail and I do *insert graphic sex act here*" when he asks where the toner for the copier is

[The Archregimancy]

Oh yeah going into graphic detail is definitely weird but at work even more so.

Still I'm cackling over the thought of freshly minted Dr. Arch bright eyed and eager to start off his academic career in the Colonies, and just "HI, I'm Abigail and I do *insert graphic sex act here*" when he asks where the toner for the copier is

You've left out a crucial part of the conversation.

It was more "Hi, I'm Abigail, I've taken the lord Jesus Christ as my personal saviour, and incidentally have I mentioned that my husband and I do *insert graphic sex act here*"

[Tarsonis]

Still I'm cackling over the thought of freshly minted Dr. Arch bright eyed and eager to start off his academic career in the Colonies, and just "HI, I'm Abigail and I do *insert graphic sex act here*" when he asks where the toner for the copier is

You've left out a crucial part of the conversation.

It was more "Hi, I'm Abigail, I've taken the lord Jesus Christ as my personal saviour, and incidentally have I mentioned that my husband and I do *insert graphic sex act here*"

[Salus Maior]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

Repression does some wild things to the psyche. There's a causal correlation between how restrictive one's religious views are on sex, and how "intense" one's proclivities tend to be.

Yeah that's not the point of the article.

It's more that loving, monogamous relationships have more satisfying sex lives.

[Salus Maior]

Apparently the devoutly religious have more satisfying sex than those that do it more casually.

Eh, I wouldn't know. How can this even be measured? What constitutes "satisfying sex" varies greatly person to person.

You could read the article and see how they came to that conclusion.

[Dylar]

Oh, look, I had absolutely no objection to them having amazing sex lives. I had no particular objection to them telling me in passing that they had amazing sex lives. But I did find it weird and unsettling to have them tell me in graphic detail about the specifics of their amazing sex lives in a workplace environment.

Because this wasn't a social discussion; this was them insisting on sharing specific details while we were at work. Surely I can't be the only person who finds that odd?

This is nearly 30 years ago, so I'm struggling to remember the precise context, but I think it was to prove that married Baptist couples weren't sexually repressed, and were happy to explore their sexuality. Which again, is absolutely fine; but from what I remember, I'd never brought it up - they just insisted on sharing to make the point.

Oh yeah going into graphic detail is definitely weird but at work even more so.

clearly you havent worked the night shift at factories yet

[Prima Scriptura]

Oh yeah going into graphic detail is definitely weird but at work even more so.

clearly you havent worked the night shift at factories yet

This is sexist AF, but there is a difference between people of the same gender talking graphically about their sex life and a person going into graphic detail about their sex life to another person of the opposite gender.

[Dylar]

clearly you havent worked the night shift at factories yet

This is sexist AF, but there is a difference between people of the same gender talking graphically about their sex life and a person going into graphic detail about their sex life to another person of the opposite gender.

....um im just commenting on the fact that people working the night shift, in my experience, tend to be a little more open and explicit with their personal lives. i dont see how that is sexist at all tbh

still i guess my experiemce is more of a unique one considering I told people at the time that I was discerning to be a priest. which offended just about everyone to the point where they shared too mucj info on their sex lives and I even had one guy threaten to hire a hooker to have her way with me

yea theres i reason i dont work nights anymore and why i always carry a knife on my person everyday

[Prima Scriptura]

This is sexist AF, but there is a difference between people of the same gender talking graphically about their sex life and a person going into graphic detail about their sex life to another person of the opposite gender.

....um im just commenting on the fact that people working the night shift, in my experoence, tend to be a little more open and explicit with their personal lives. i dont see how that is sexist at all tbh

My point is is that there is a difference between men discussing their sex lives with other men and women discussing their sex life with other women.

[Prima Scriptura]

In our Bible study, we are currently going over the epistle of James. I really like it because it's a humbling message to those with money and/or power. It also has been described as the most Jewish book in the New Testament by some, and I would love to hear from our Jewish-Christian converts if they agree or disagree.

[Sordhau]

Oh yeah going into graphic detail is definitely weird but at work even more so.

clearly you havent worked the night shift at factories yet

...He says to the girl on her lunch break at 7:46 PM lmao

[Sordhau]

This is sexist AF, but there is a difference between people of the same gender talking graphically about their sex life and a person going into graphic detail about their sex life to another person of the opposite gender.

....um im just commenting on the fact that people working the night shift, in my experience, tend to be a little more open and explicit with their personal lives. i dont see how that is sexist at all tbh

still i guess my experiemce is more of a unique one considering I told people at the time that I was discerning to be a priest. which offended just about everyone to the point where they shared too mucj info on their sex lives and I even had one guy threaten to hire a hooker to have her way with me

yea theres i reason i dont work nights anymore and why i always carry a knife on my person everyday

Damn bro that's crazy. All the people that work nights here are pretty chill and don't judge people at all. Night shift gets the more fun people where I am. Less assholes, too.

[Prima Scriptura]

Conservative cardinal calls for conclaves to be limited to Rome-based cardinals

This is racism, pure and simple. This is deserving of a public reprimand and if he doesn’t recant, pope Francis to remove his cardinalship. There is no room for racism in the Church. This is just disgusting.

Given his advanced age, he probably isn’t cognitive enough to realize what the fuck he saying.

[Salus Maior]

Conservative cardinal calls for conclaves to be limited to Rome-based cardinals

This is racism, pure and simple. This is deserving of a public reprimand and if he doesn’t recant, pope Francis to remove his cardinalship. There is no room for racism in the Church. This is just disgusting.

Given his advanced age, he probably isn’t cognitive enough to realize what the fuck he saying.

That's certainly a take worthy of the worst sorts of media talking heads, but a cursory read of the actual article shows that race has nothing to do with the reasoning of his request.

He says that Cardinals who reside in Rome are familiar with the curial processes and with their fellow cardinals. That is a fair observation. Whether his conclusion that these more isolated cardinals will more likely be swayed by lobbyists is true is debatable but also not impossible. At any rate "race" has nothing to do with it, and not all of the new Cardinals are people of color.