Why Atheism is Appealing

[Cacotopia]

Take the Catholic Church, playing musical chairs with pedophiles for a few decades. Oh he touched 30 kids too many, time to send him to a different diocese so he can bugger some more kids, oh no, he's buggering those kids too let's move him again, hush hush those kids. Pay em on the side, anything to keep it from going public. Apparently one priest is more important than a few dozen children in the eyes of the church. Compound it dozens of pedo priests doing the same thing and you have potentially ruined 1000's of lives.

The fact that this has happened multiple times and literally every single one that tried to hide/solve in house had no intention of making things right, how could you make it right, you can't unmolest a person to unbreak the psychological trauma. Who gets burned the raped kids do. Not the holy scumbags doing to the deed.


"I didn't know sex with a kid was illegal." a cardinal actually said that.

 

[Cacotopia]

But they still hate the gays, I guess it's not gay if it's a priest and an alter boy right? Kinda like Bacha Bazi right?

 

[sayak83]

Funny. Sex and love are not the same thing.. love is beautiful - sex is ugly.

Both are beautiful.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Both are beautiful.

Not if it's any good.

 

[outlawState]

But they still hate the gays, I guess it's not gay if it's a priest and an alter boy right? Kinda like Bacha Bazi right?

No, you've got that quite wrong. Catholicism officially recognizes homsexuality only as an objective disorder (hardly a sin), but within itself shows a wide divergence of public views and utterances towards homsexuality, even amongst its priests, commensurate with the wide divergence of its membership. The current pope has come very close indeed to the wholesale condoning of "gays."

However what is not so divergent is its refusal to excommunciate gays. In that sense it displays the usual hallmark of equivocation and worldiness that is prevalent in most churches that engage in politics.

The true church of God would excommunicate all gays. (1 Cor 5). The true church of God is probably not denoted by the body politic of any of the worlds's major "Christian" denominations today.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Both are beautiful.

I agree, they are both beautiful but also separate in their nature.

 

[Estro Felino]

The true church of God would excommunicate all gays. (1 Cor 5). The true church of God is probably not denoted by the body politic of any of the worlds's major "Christian" denominations today.

In Italy the number of Catholic priests approving of homosexuality is rising. Among them, there are priests who say that love is universal, and is never a sin; what God condemns is promiscuity and lust, but not monogamous relationships.

And I know it for certain...since my priest told me, during Confession, that love can and does exist between gay people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you've got that quite wrong. Catholicism officially recognizes homsexuality only as an objective disorder (hardly a sin), but within itself shows a wide divergence of public views and utterances towards homsexuality, even amongst its priests, commensurate with the wide divergence of its membership. The current pope has come very close indeed to the wholesale condoning of "gays."

However what is not so divergent is its refusal to excommunciate gays. In that sense it displays the usual hallmark of equivocation and worldiness that is prevalent in most churches that engage in politics.

The true church of God would excommunicate all gays. (1 Cor 5). The true church of God is probably not denoted by the body politic of any of the worlds's major "Christian" denominations today.

Nothing about homosexuality in those verses. Why the homophobia? Jesus said nothing on the topic.

 

[outlawState]

Nothing about homosexuality in those verses. Why the homophobia? Jesus said nothing on the topic.

No? You are determined to see homosexuality as other than sexual immorality? May be there were no homosexuals amongst the Jews in Jesus' day. I would not think so. They would have been packed off and excommunicated to the Greek cities. Jesus would not even speak to the inhabitants of the Greek cities.

Yet he affirmed "his" law (Mat 5:18, Luk 16:17, Lev 20:13), of which in Lev 20:13, "homosexuality = abomination." In Daniel an abomination is said to cause desolation.

Three Hebrew words connote abomination: תּוֹעֵבָה (toʿevah), שֶׁקֶץ (shekeẓ, sheqeẓ) or שִׁקּוּץ (shikkuẓ, shiqquẓ), and פִּגּוּל (piggul); toʿevah is the most important of this group. It appears in the Bible 116 times as a noun and 23 times as a verb and has a wide variety of applications, ranging from food prohibitions (Deut. 14:3), idolatrous practices (Deut. 12:31; 13:15), and magic (Deut. 18:12) to sex offenses (Lev. 18:22 ff.) and ethical wrongs (Deut. 25:14–16; Prov. 6:16–19). Common to all these usages is the notion of irregularity, that which offends the accepted order, ritual, or moral.

 

[outlawState]

And I know it for certain...since my priest told me, during Confession, that love can and does exist between gay people.

The bible knows nothing of it. Your priest is no priest of God.

 

[Cacotopia]

No, you've got that quite wrong. Catholicism officially recognizes homsexuality only as an objective disorder (hardly a sin), but within itself shows a wide divergence of public views and utterances towards homsexuality, even amongst its priests, commensurate with the wide divergence of its membership. The current pope has come very close indeed to the wholesale condoning of "gays."

However what is not so divergent is its refusal to excommunciate gays. In that sense it displays the usual hallmark of equivocation and worldiness that is prevalent in most churches that engage in politics.

The true church of God would excommunicate all gays. (1 Cor 5). The true church of God is probably not denoted by the body politic of any of the worlds's major "Christian" denominations today.

Yeah that's still incredibly insulting, I think it is synonymous saying all believers have neurological disorders, and we can fix you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No? You are determined to see homosexuality as other than sexual immorality? May be there were no homosexuals amongst the Jews in Jesus' day. I would not think so. They would have been packed off and excommunicated to the Greek cities. Jesus would not even speak to the inhabitants of the Greek cities.

Yet he affirmed "his" law (Mat 5:18, Luk 16:17, Lev 20:13), of which in Lev 20:13, "homosexuality = abomination." In Daniel an abomination is said to cause desolation.

Three Hebrew words connote abomination: תּוֹעֵבָה (toʿevah), שֶׁקֶץ (shekeẓ, sheqeẓ) or שִׁקּוּץ (shikkuẓ, shiqquẓ), and פִּגּוּל (piggul); toʿevah is the most important of this group. It appears in the Bible 116 times as a noun and 23 times as a verb and has a wide variety of applications, ranging from food prohibitions (Deut. 14:3), idolatrous practices (Deut. 12:31; 13:15), and magic (Deut. 18:12) to sex offenses (Lev. 18:22 ff.) and ethical wrongs (Deut. 25:14–16; Prov. 6:16–19). Common to all these usages is the notion of irregularity, that which offends the accepted order, ritual, or moral.

I see that since you were wrong you had to try to change your argument. The verse that you cited was specifically about incest.

But yes, much of the Bible is a terribly flawed hate filled book. How is that moral in any sense of the word?

 

[Cacotopia]

"there were no gays in biblical times?" then why have a verse denouncing men laying with other men, surely if there were no gays, there would not be a verse such as this?

 

[Cacotopia]

It's been cataloged so far by biologists that over 300 different species display homosexual behaviors. Yet we seem to be the only species that discriminates against such behaviors. Go read Biological Exuberance, by Bruce Bagemihl to get better acquainted.

 

[ChristineM]

Funny. Sex and love are not the same thing.. love is beautiful - sex is ugly.

Don't know how you do sex but I've never found it ugly.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Don't know how you do sex but I've never found it ugly.

Ta

 

[outlawState]

It's been cataloged so far by biologists that over 300 different species display homosexual behaviors. Yet we seem to be the only species that discriminates against such behaviors. Go read Biological Exuberance, by Bruce Bagemihl to get better acquainted.

If you are reducing yourself to the level of a bilogical species and forgetting that you're made in the image of God, it's your choice, not mine.

 

[outlawState]

I see that since you were wrong you had to try to change your argument. The verse that you cited was specifically about incest.

But yes, much of the Bible is a terribly flawed hate filled book. How is that moral in any sense of the word?

I did not cite any "verse." I cited a whole chapter dealing with the expulsion & excommunication of the "sexually immoral" from the church, not inferring any discrimination between different types of sexual immorality. The particular type was quite immaterial. Elsewhere Paul makes clear than he specifically classifies homosexuals along with the sexually immoral. E.g. 1Co 6:9, as he also does fornicators, adulterers, effeminate.

 

[outlawState]

"there were no gays in biblical times?" then why have a verse denouncing men laying with other men, surely if there were no gays, there would not be a verse such as this?

Did I not refers to Jesus' time, which was circa 1500 years after the law of Moses? By Jesus' day the Jews has learned the lesson of emulating pagan practices. In the time of Moses they had not yet learned that lesson.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not cite any "verse." I cited a whole chapter dealing with the expulsion & excommunication of the "sexually immoral" from the church, not inferring any discrimination between different types of sexual immorality. The particular type was quite immaterial. Elsewhere Paul makes clear than he specifically classifies homosexuals along with the sexually immoral. E.g. 1Co 6:9, as he also does fornicators, adulterers, effeminate.

Fine, a whole chapter. A whole chapter on incest, not homosexuality.

Try again.