2021: Vatican Calls Homosexuality a "Sin"

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Much of my Mom's side of the family lives in the Philippines and it's the same BS there. Condoms are completely taboo and it's no wonder each family has like 5+ children. An already severely overpopulated region on tiny spaces of land, but don't you dare use condoms because Jesus says they are so bad. I remember going there and finding it hard to find any in stores. I was told that the only people who use condoms there are foreigners visiting brothels (who usually bring their own) and women who work as prostitutes.

And which one are you?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Thor

The Catholic church not only condemns the use of condoms, in AIDS riddled Africa they have often publically told African's that not only are condoms not ok, but they also fail and are unreliable, even helping propagate the ugly myth that condoms cause all kinds of health problems.

That' my point.

The Church's level of hypocrisy is extreme, although in fairness they have a world class money scam going, the grand daddy of them all.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Almost life as quality of life increases, the need to have a higher meaning diminishes. It isn’t exactly surprising that when life is great, all your needs are met, you’re safe from other members of society, and you don’t risk starvation if the weather sucks,, that you don’t pray for some help.

Isn’t there an actual term for where failures are performed to be unavoidable or no fault of your own, while success is perceived to be the result of to it own actions? When is the last time these nations actually faced real threat en masse? Of course there’s no god, the standard of life we lead is from our own hard work, not divine intervention. We can make the obvious assertion about religious folks, without any of the strife of those who are.

Now if life was relatively hopeless, there was no future to look forward to, we were generally brutally poor and the crops failed again...I can certainly see why someone would need both a higher being to rationalize the sufferings of life with, and something, anything, to keep society from turning into anarchism.

We are living as easy as has ever been known to man. Far and away, the standard of life anyone posting on this message board enjoys is better than all of everyone, ever. It’s insanely easy for us to live. Might be harder for a Nigerian orphan who might get to die at 50 from AIDS to come to terms with that being the sole meaning of existence.

Indoctrination and lack of education are the biggest factors. Don't indoctrinate a person into religion, give them a quality education, and pretty much zero of them will think any religion sounds rational or reasonable if introduced to them at like 25. You have to get them young to steep them in the irrational to get it to take.

Your take is more an explanation of one of the reasons why religion works and not why it's necessary.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That' my point.

The Church's level of hypocrisy is extreme, although in fairness they have a world class money scam going, the grand daddy of them all.

One of the best parts of the IQ Squared debate, is when Fry asks the question, what would the carpenter Jesus have to say about the Catholic church, its riches, its over the top grandeur, wealth, he would be unwelcomed in its holy city and want nothing to do with them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thor

One of the best parts of the IQ Squared debate, is when Fry asks the question, what would the carpenter Jesus have to say about the Catholic church, its riches, its over the top grandeur, wealth, he would be unwelcomed in its holy city and want nothing to do with them.

They quite literally the Pharisees he gets mad at in the Temple.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GGG

They quite literally the Pharisees he gets mad at in the Temple.

False.

The Pharisees were not the source of Jesus's indignation in the Temple-story. Rather, he drove out the merchants who were selling livestock for the purpose of sacrifice during passover week. In the following verses (Mark 11:18; Matt 21:15; Luke 19:47–48) it is clear that the Temple-priests and officials are the ones at loggerheads with Jesus in this story. The poor Pharisees are so misunderstood thanks to the he New Testament. Unlike the priestly class—which was populated by the aristocracy—the Pharisees were religious leaders among the lower and middle classes. They were not power-brokers in the temple and royal establishment, but rather championed a much more practical form of religious observance than the complex and capricious system of sacrifices upon which the temple religion was built. Jesus interacted primarily with Pharisees because he was in the same social circle, but it is important to note that these people were NOT the religious rulers in Palestine.

If we are drawing an analogy from this story to the Catholic Church, they were the angry Zadokite priests who controlled the Jerusalem temple. The Pharisees in this version would be more like the established main-line churches in Europe and North America. Jesus and his followers would then be the Evangelical apocalypticists, who were convinced that the Kingdom of God was at hand. In fact, a number of scholars believe that this story about the Temple was actually an insurrection and attempted coup by Jesus and his followers that ultimately failed, and resulted in his arrest and execution. In this reading Jesus would be a Q-Anon, working his followers up into a frenzy, and then leading them into the Capitol.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

False.

The Pharisees were not the source of Jesus's indignation in the Temple-story. Rather, he drove out the merchants who were selling livestock for the purpose of sacrifice during passover week. In the following verses (Mark 11:18; Matt 21:15; Luke 19:47–48) it is clear that the Temple-priests and officials are the ones at loggerheads with Jesus in this story. The poor Pharisees are so misunderstood thanks to the he New Testament. Unlike the priestly class—which was populated by the aristocracy—the Pharisees were religious leaders among the lower and middle classes. They were not power-brokers in the temple and royal establishment, but rather championed a much more practical form of religious observance than the complex and capricious system of sacrifices upon which the temple religion was built. Jesus interacted primarily with Pharisees because he was in the same social circle, but it is important to note that these people were NOT the religious rulers in Palestine.

If we are drawing an analogy from this story to the Catholic Church, they were the angry Zadokite priests who controlled the Jerusalem temple. The Pharisees in this version would be more like the established main-line churches in Europe and North America. Jesus and his followers would then be the Evangelical apocalypticists, who were convinced that the Kingdom of God was at hand. In fact, a number of scholars believe that this story about the Temple was actually an insurrection and attempted coup by Jesus and his followers that ultimately failed, and resulted in his arrest and execution. In this reading Jesus would be a Q-Anon, working his followers up into a frenzy, and then leading them into the Capitol.

Thanks for this, I was not aware of the role of the Pharisees versus other religious leaders for Judaism as that time. I had always assumed that Pharisees ran everything.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GGG

Thanks for this, I was not aware of the role of the Pharisees versus other religious leaders for Judaism as that time. I had always assumed that Pharisees ran everything.

That is because they did after the Temple was destroyed, and by that time the Christians hated them.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

False.

The Pharisees were not the source of Jesus's indignation in the Temple-story. Rather, he drove out the merchants who were selling livestock for the purpose of sacrifice during passover week. In the following verses (Mark 11:18; Matt 21:15; Luke 19:47–48) it is clear that the Temple-priests and officials are the ones at loggerheads with Jesus in this story. The poor Pharisees are so misunderstood thanks to the he New Testament. Unlike the priestly class—which was populated by the aristocracy—the Pharisees were religious leaders among the lower and middle classes. They were not power-brokers in the temple and royal establishment, but rather championed a much more practical form of religious observance than the complex and capricious system of sacrifices upon which the temple religion was built. Jesus interacted primarily with Pharisees because he was in the same social circle, but it is important to note that these people were NOT the religious rulers in Palestine.

If we are drawing an analogy from this story to the Catholic Church, they were the angry Zadokite priests who controlled the Jerusalem temple. The Pharisees in this version would be more like the established main-line churches in Europe and North America. Jesus and his followers would then be the Evangelical apocalypticists, who were convinced that the Kingdom of God was at hand. In fact, a number of scholars believe that this story about the Temple was actually an insurrection and attempted coup by Jesus and his followers that ultimately failed, and resulted in his arrest and execution. In this reading Jesus would be a Q-Anon, working his followers up into a frenzy, and then leading them into the Capitol.

All I got from this is, Q-Anon is clearly legit and we should all be supporting it.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

All I got from this is, Q-Anon is clearly legit and we should all be supporting it.

Lol that wasnt what I got from that.

[blankall]

Been thinking about this more and more lately, and if you actually read the bible, particularly the old testament, on its surface, the ideal notion of sexuality and marriage is extremely different than our modern day concept of monogamous marriage. Many of the important male biblical figures were polygamists. The texts often use statements like "a wife".

The old testament, in fact, although not necessarily encouraging polygamy, does condone it and provides a set of rules to follow for those who practice it.

The new testament does mention monogamous marriage, it's more in the context of a comment on how people were living their lives (polygamy was illegal in Rome), than strict rules on monogamy. There's really only a few sporadic passages in the bible (for example 1 Corinthians 7:1-7) that can be interpreted to promote the traditional family, and many examples of non-traditional families. Monogamy is very much a Roman idea that was forced on Jews, who were the early Christians.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

All I got from this is, Q-Anon is clearly legit and we should all be supporting it.

What would Jesus do?

[Engine09]

There is nothing more absurd and demeaning to mankind than the very notion of religion. That we even need to discuss the idea of "sin" is humiliating, it's made up nonsense.

It does give me comfort to see fellow nonbelievers comment in this thread and push back at the pure foolishness of it all. I hope those with religious conviction feel shamed. You should feel shame.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by blankall

Been thinking about this more and more lately, and if you actually read the bible, particularly the old testament, on its surface, the ideal notion of sexuality and marriage is extremely different than our modern day concept of monogamous marriage. Many of the important male biblical figures were polygamists. The texts often use statements like "a wife".

The old testament, in fact, although not necessarily encouraging polygamy, does condone it and provides a set of rules to follow for those who practice it.

This is a really important point that I wish everyone, and especially modern Christians understood. In this observation is the recognition that sexuality, coupling and relationships more generally were vastly different in the ancient world. By far the most important unit in ancient Israelite society was the extended family. As long as he lived a man with children was the authority figure over his wives, children, grandchildren, and slaves. He made decisions, and those were binding. Relationships with other families tended to be based on marriage—more than anything, this was an economically beneficial contract by which individual families cooperated in an effort to maintain sustainability.

A couple of things of interest as it pertains to "marriage" in ancient Israel: there is no word in ancient Hebrew for the act of "marrying," and no word for "marriage." Likewise, while there are words specifically for "bride" (כַּלָּה; kalah, which is also translated as "daughter-in-law") and "bridegroom" (חָתָן; ḥatan, which also is translated as "daughter's husband," or "son-in-law"—this further re-enforces the notion that all relationships are defined relative to the patriarch), there is no distinct word for "wife." The word most commonly translated into English as "wife" is אִשָּׁה; ishah, and it's basic meaning is "woman." What this means is that women in ancient Israel appear to have this identity only by virtue of of marriage. If a man divorced his wife, she returned to her father, and was then again a "daughter." If a woman's husband died, she became a "widow."

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, men "take" individual "women" to be theirs: i.e. Gen 26:34, "Esau was forty-years old, and he took a woman, Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basmat, daughter of Elon the Hittite." It is uncertain even whether there was anything in the way of a standard, formal ritual to ratify the relationship, or whether this was transactional: money or goods were exchanged, a document was perhaps signed, and the woman moved from her father's house to her husbands, much like property. I think the key point here being that marriage was not a relationship founded on love or companionship—although those things certainly followed in many instances. It was rather a "covenant": a binding agreement between families, and with the primary purpose of producing children. Men and women did not form friendships. Women did not have relationships with men apart from being a daughter, a sister, a wife, or a slave.

The new testament does mention monogamous marriage, it's more in the context of a comment on how people were living their lives (polygamy was illegal in Rome), than strict rules on monogamy. There's really only a few sporadic passages in the bible (for example 1 Corinthians 7:1-7) that can be interpreted to promote the traditional family, and many examples of non-traditional families. Monogamy is very much a Roman idea that was forced on Jews, who were the early Christians.

Almost, but not quite. By the time the Romans came to control the Mediterranean monogamy was already preferred thanks to hundreds of years of Hellenistic rule and cultural influence. But I am interested in what it is you are getting at with regards to "many examples of non-traditional families."

One of the positive things that the early Christians did was to elevate the status of women. Of course, this was short-lived, as by the second century there was already a strong movement toward reinforcing the authority of men (i.e., the ancient forgeries 1–2 Timothy and Ephesians are good examples of this polemic at work).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Engine09

There is nothing more absurd and demeaning to mankind than the very notion of religion. That we even need to discuss the idea of "sin" is humiliating, it's made up nonsense.

It does give me comfort to see fellow nonbelievers comment in this thread and push back at the pure foolishness of it all. I hope those with religious conviction feel shamed. You should feel shame.

Well, that is rather broad and callous. Especially since so much of Western religion actually survives on the continuous reinforcement of shame. While I was a Christian most of my own behaviour was governed by shame, and overcoming it was absolutely key in reforming my own thinking with regards to religion.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Engine09

There is nothing more absurd and demeaning to mankind than the very notion of religion. That we even need to discuss the idea of "sin" is humiliating, it's made up nonsense.

It does give me comfort to see fellow nonbelievers comment in this thread and push back at the pure foolishness of it all. I hope those with religious conviction feel shamed. You should feel shame.

So the notion of sin is so ridiculous that the people espousing it should feel... shame.

OK

[zamler]

Repent for believing in religion.

[Engine09]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So the notion of sin is so ridiculous that the people espousing it should feel... shame.

OK

They are experts, you got it. Shame, embarrasement, whatever is more effective.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Well, that is rather broad and callous. Especially since so much of Western religion actually survives on the continuous reinforcement of shame. While I was a Christian most of my own behaviour was governed by shame, and overcoming it was absolutely key in reforming my own thinking with regards to religion.

I don't think it's anymore callous than Christians blithely accepting and even celebrating their expected ascension to heaven and the rest of humanity's decent into hell. To worship a god that would allow the majority of people to burn for eternity in hell is as callous and evil as it gets. I understand for those indoctrinated from a young age how that could be "just the way it is," but it's still a brutal and uncaring ideology that never ceases to both amaze me and piss me off.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So the notion of sin is so ridiculous that the people espousing it should feel... shame.

OK

Blinking emoji if you're looking at it through a Christian lens, I suppose, but the feeling of shame can be completely independent of religion.

I get what Engine09 is talking about, though. Younger Sliver enjoyed talking about religion with religious people way more than current Sliver. Now if feels patronizing to even humour the silliness and obvious absurdity of it all. I think it shows all over my face that you may as well be talking to me about the tooth fairy as the one true god that is actually three guys, but it's a monotheistic religion because that all makes perfect sense.