2021: Vatican Calls Homosexuality a "Sin"

[CliffFletcher]

People realize that even those of us who are irreligious operate under a Judeo-Christian moral framework, right? Our notions of guilt, shame, the moral elevation of the weak and downtrodden, etc. - all legacies of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People realize that even those of us who are irreligious operate under a Judeo-Christian moral framework, right? Our notions of guilt, shame, the moral elevation of the weak and downtrodden, etc. - all legacies of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

You don't think people raised completely apart from a Judeo-Christian-influenced society can feel shame?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Two Fivenagame

The Catholic Church is also #1 in child rape.

I definitely understand the rage against the Catholic Church because of the abuse scandals and the cover ups. It's completely inexcusable and they should be held to the absolute highest standard. Unfortunately though, a child is much more likely to be abused by family member or anyone close to the child, whether it be a teacher, coach, clergy, or whoever. It's a huge problem everywhere. The cover ups are the worst part because to know about it and to let them continue working and not turn them over to the police is next level for sure. Every Catholic should feel shame and disgust about it, just like every human male should feel shame and disgust that their gender is the one responsible for the vast majority of sexual offenses.

It also seems to be a cultural thing as some parts of the world where the Catholic Church is prevalent, have not seen the same abuse scandals.

[CliffFletcher]

People in different cultures experience shame (and guilt) in different ways and about different things. In the pre-Christian classical world, for example, nobody thought it immoral to keep slaves and use them for labour or sex. They would have been baffled if you even presented it as a moral issue. Non-Western cultures today typically don’t share our belief that a disabled person confined to a wheelchair has gained moral stature or insight relative to the abled and strong. The very ideal of universal equality sprang from Christianity. It originated as a religion of slaves, of the weak, and that permeates Western culture to its bones.

Do you think you’ve totally broken away from Christian morality, even though it permeates our politics, education, entertainment, and social movements?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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).

I think my post got a bit muddled in my editing. What I meant was that overall in the bible, there are very few examples of rules concerning what a family should look like, and many examples of non-traditional families (multiples wives, slaves, servants, etc..) But yes, those all seem to exist in the old testament.

My overall point is that there is no Judeo-Christian standard for a traditional family. The old testament actively tolerates and even supports non-traditional families. The new testament seems to just comment on existing family structures, which, as you point out, are largely Hellenistic, not religious, in origin. The new testament speaks about right and respect between husband and wife, which was the norm in that region at that time, but at no point does it forbade or alter the rules on polygamy from the old testament.

Another interesting question is the one of celibacy for the clergy. The new testament seems to explicitly state that you should use marriage as a way to avoid temptation. Jewish priests all traditionally married.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It also seems to be a cultural thing as some parts of the world where the Catholic Church is prevalent, have not seen the same abuse scandals.

What.

Where?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...ngle%20diocese.

Everywhere the Catholic Church is, there are sexual abuse scandals. The reporting seems to break open more in countries where there is a solid division of church and state, not an overwhelming majority of catholic population, and a strong press. Naturally places like Mexico, the Philippines, and Nigeria would have far less reporting, more covering up, or just straight up not even registering compared to some other things ongoing in communities there. But they still come up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2116154.stm
The vatican admitted to over 200 priests doing this and various other things over just a 20 year span in 2002 in the phillippines.

So unless the culture you're referring to is the catholic clergy, then I believe you are mistaken.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Every Catholic should feel shame and disgust about it, just like every human male should feel shame and disgust that their gender is the one responsible for the vast majority of sexual offenses.
.

What the hell is this, too? You can choose to be Catholic or donate money to the catholic church and perpetuate this culture of child rape and sexual abuse. You cannot choose whether you are born Male.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

How surprising that you missed the point, which is that shaming Christians for being Christians is not what anyone should be doing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

I suppose it is natural for us to become more sedentary in our beliefs as we get older, but I don't think this is something about which anyone should be proud. Conversations with others is how we fix the problem; not by dismissing them as absurd.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

What the hell is this, too? You can choose to be Catholic or donate money to the catholic church and perpetuate this culture of child rape and sexual abuse. You cannot choose whether you are born Male.

For most Catholics, the decision is made for them the moment they are born. It's like saying that you can choose to be a Canadian after you are born here. Sure, technically that is true, but the paperwork is filed as soon as you are born. To make the choice requires a path that doesn't always present itself and converting someone from a religion is probably at least as difficult as converting someone to one. Could someone easily convince you to become a Catholic/Muslim/Tengrilist?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think my post got a bit muddled in my editing. What I meant was that overall in the bible, there are very few examples of rules concerning what a family should look like, and many examples of non-traditional families (multiples wives, slaves, servants, etc..) But yes, those all seem to exist in the old testament.

My overall point is that there is no Judeo-Christian standard for a traditional family. The old testament actively tolerates and even supports non-traditional families. The new testament seems to just comment on existing family structures, which, as you point out, are largely Hellenistic, not religious, in origin. The new testament speaks about right and respect between husband and wife, which was the norm in that region at that time, but at no point does it forbade or alter the rules on polygamy from the old testament.

I think I am getting tripped up by your use of "traditional." It seems backwards since it presumes maintaining something from the distant past—adhering to the way things were always meant to be. It's weird, because in this sense, "traditional family" is much more innovative than ancient concepts of "family."

As to your point about there being no rules, I think that is because these are the sorts of things which did not happen to survive in the texts that we have, or rather, that they were so ubiquitous as to not require any specific legislation in the first place. There is so much of this affecting the texts that we do have, and this has rather contributed to the ways in which the Church ultimately decided to read and interpret the Bible in the first place. Description becomes prescription and proscription.

An important clarifying note: there are no OT rules for polygyny (the more appropriate term, since in the ancient world the custom extended only as far as a man having multiple wives, and not the other way around). There are descriptions of polygynous families as part of the narrative structure of the text, but where family relationships and behaviours are legislated there is never any indication that polygyny is what is preferred. By the time the Hebrew Bible texts were written these sorts of relationships were very much not the norm, and were exclusively practiced only among the upper classes.

Another interesting question is the one of celibacy for the clergy. The new testament seems to explicitly state that you should use marriage as a way to avoid temptation. Jewish priests all traditionally married.

I don't know the history, but it seems to me that this stemmed from Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7, but especially in v.8. Also, there is no record of Jesus having been married, so I think this is another case of description becoming prescription.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How surprising that you missed the point, which is that shaming Christians for being Christians is not what anyone should be doing.

I don't see why not. Christians think I'm going to hell, so that sort of drags me into the debate. I think if you think I'm going to hell, you should be shamed for such an outrageous, antagonistic and deplorable belief.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I suppose it is natural for us to become more sedentary in our beliefs as we get older, but I don't think this is something about which anyone should be proud. Conversations with others is how we fix the problem; not by dismissing them as absurd.

But beliefs can be absurd. And Jesus being the son of God while also his own father is actually absurd, is it not? Belief in literal heaven and hell is absurd too, no? Believing you can crouch beside your bed and have god's ear to ask for his help so you get a good grade on your test is absurd, too, isn't it? I do have trouble seeing how any of the supernatural elements of Christian teachings aren't absurd by definition.

I do recognize and am sensitive to the distinction between the absurdity of the beliefs and the reason for the beliefs (indoctrination). I don't doubt had I been indoctrinated into these beliefs from a young age that I'd struggle now to get out from under that albatross. As fiery as I am on here about religion, when talking to a religious person IRL I tend to be much softer as people feel personally attacked when you question their religion too much. Here we can talk in general terms and you know it's not personal since I don't know any of you. I'm not trying to hurt anybody's feelings, but if they get hurt by counter points to your beliefs, I can live with that because it's not like we have a relationship beyond talking on here that I need/want to preserve.

And I'm not proud of being tired of having the same conversations with religious people. I wish I found it as interesting as I used to, but now it's often boring to me because arguments for religion boil down to faith (believing something in opposition to logic) since there is obviously no evidence for the wild/absurd claims Christians make about the universe, their history, or their gods.

I am also tired of the lack of evolution in thought for typical Christians. The ones I'm sick of talking to IRL are the ones who believe the same exact hogwash they've believed since they were five years old. Some of these people have degrees and decades of life experience, yet everything related to their religion was bang on correct somehow? That's crazy and so tribal. I've made efforts to educate myself on religions. Even have a minor in religious studies, which isn't much to a scholar like yourself, but it's more educated on various religions than most people on earth, I would think. To believe so strongly in your own religion is so weird...why not head over to a Buddhist Temple, a Mosque, or a Synagogue to see what they're teaching if you need religion so bad? Why put all your faith in the religion you happened into? It bothers me when people claim to have all these answers and know the truth, but they've asked too few questions. How am I supposed to respect that perspective when it was arrived at in such a weak way?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People in different cultures experience shame (and guilt) in different ways and about different things. In the pre-Christian classical world, for example, nobody thought it immoral to keep slaves and use them for labour or sex. They would have been baffled if you even presented it as a moral issue. Non-Western cultures today typically don’t share our belief that a disabled person confined to a wheelchair has gained moral stature or insight relative to the abled and strong. The very ideal of universal equality sprang from Christianity. It originated as a religion of slaves, of the weak, and that permeates Western culture to its bones.

Do you think you’ve totally broken away from Christian morality, even though it permeates our politics, education, entertainment, and social movements?

I understand your question, and the easy answer is no, I know I'm bound by the ideology, morals, etc. of where I'm from and how/when I was raised.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

For most Catholics, the decision is made for them the moment they are born. It's like saying that you can choose to be a Canadian after you are born here. Sure, technically that is true, but the paperwork is filed as soon as you are born. To make the choice requires a path that doesn't always present itself and converting someone from a religion is probably at least as difficult as converting someone to one. Could someone easily convince you to become a Catholic/Muslim/Tengrilist?

That's not true, you're not a catholic until you're baptized. And then again you have to pass through the sacraments as you age until you are finally confirmed.

I was a catholic. I quit. I suppose i could quit being a physical male, but my ultimate gender wouldn't change. I don't understand how you believe these to be the same, even under the rigid lense of Catholicism. In fact, the religion is entirely based on constantly choosing to be catholic in the form of the creed.

[Wastedyouth]

Edit: Nevermind, not the place.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't see why not. Christians think I'm going to hell, so that sort of drags me into the debate. I think if you think I'm going to hell, you should be shamed for such an outrageous, antagonistic and deplorable belief.

Speaking as a former Christian I would have found this entire premise very confusing. Stepping back into who that person was, while I believed unbelievers would be going to hell, this was not in any way the central tenet of my faith— the word "Hell" does not even appear at any point in the Apostle's creed, which is accepted by-and-large as the primary expression of all Christian belief. From my perspective, being a Christian is not something that makes me any better, or more deserving, or even any different than you or anyone else. The vast majority of Christians feel incredibly fortunate, thankful, and fairly desperate about their situation because they are not avoiding hell by any merit, but rather only by the divine loophole of grace. Christians don't tend to see a belief in Hell or the fact that people will go there as antagonistic. It is rather more of a terrifying tragedy—something awful that is avoidable.

If Christians—speaking broadly—should feel any shame, then it should be for their evaluation of "humanity" as corrupt. But then, I also don't see that much differently than thinking in fairly general terms that "people are terrible." It is a gross oversimplification, but in any given context I don't think this is a judgment that you or anyone else would disagree with. Should I feel shame for thinking from time to time that people are terrible?

But beliefs can be absurd. And Jesus being the son of God while also his own father is actually absurd, is it not? Belief in literal heaven and hell is absurd too, no? Believing you can crouch beside your bed and have god's ear to ask for his help so you get a good grade on your test is absurd, too, isn't it? I do have trouble seeing how any of the supernatural elements of Christian teachings aren't absurd by definition.

I do recognize and am sensitive to the distinction between the absurdity of the beliefs and the reason for the beliefs (indoctrination). I don't doubt had I been indoctrinated into these beliefs from a young age that I'd struggle now to get out from under that albatross. As fiery as I am on here about religion, when talking to a religious person IRL I tend to be much softer as people feel personally attacked when you question their religion too much. Here we can talk in general terms and you know it's not personal since I don't know any of you. I'm not trying to hurt anybody's feelings, but if they get hurt by counter points to your beliefs, I can live with that because it's not like we have a relationship beyond talking on here that I need/want to preserve.

That's fair. I am probably overly sensitive to it because almost my entire family and most of my friends are still extremely devout Christians. My dad still ends every conversation we have with the assurance that he is praying for me and my family. Ugh. I have yet to "come out" to most of my family because I am a blithering coward; but more recently I have been wondering if the reason my dad is so persistent in his prayers—and in letting me know that he is praying—is because he has already figured it out.

And I'm not proud of being tired of having the same conversations with religious people. I wish I found it as interesting as I used to, but now it's often boring to me because arguments for religion boil down to faith (believing something in opposition to logic) since there is obviously no evidence for the wild/absurd claims Christians make about the universe, their history, or their gods.

I am also tired of the lack of evolution in thought for typical Christians. The ones I'm sick of talking to IRL are the ones who believe the same exact hogwash they've believed since they were five years old. Some of these people have degrees and decades of life experience, yet everything related to their religion was bang on correct somehow? That's crazy and so tribal. I've made efforts to educate myself on religions. Even have a minor in religious studies, which isn't much to a scholar like yourself, but it's more educated on various religions than most people on earth, I would think. To believe so strongly in your own religion is so weird...why not head over to a Buddhist Temple, a Mosque, or a Synagogue to see what they're teaching if you need religion so bad? Why put all your faith in the religion you happened into? It bothers me when people claim to have all these answers and know the truth, but they've asked too few questions. How am I supposed to respect that perspective when it was arrived at in such a weak way?

I hear you. But isn't this more than just a religious problem? In my experience, we as humans are collectively just incredibly bad at being curious, inquisitive, or legitimately sceptical. Stumbling into our beliefs without ever asking any questions is just how we are wired, and it is really hard work to overcome.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

My dad still ends every conversation we have with the assurance that he is praying for us. Ugh.
.

My Mother does this for us too. I tell her thanks, because at least someone is doing it for us just in case . She usually doesnt like that response.

At least she has stopped asking when she can give my son his baptismal gift.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

.

At least she has stopped asking when she can give my son his baptismal gift.

My response to this was that my mom could give her grandchildren presents anytime she wanted, but that ours & their love wasn't contingent on receiving presents.

The topic was dead after that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

My Mother does this for us too. I tell her thanks, because at least someone is doing it for us just in case . She usually doesnt like that response.

I edited my post in case you missed it:

I have yet to "come out" to most of my family because I am a blithering coward; but more recently I have been wondering if the reason my dad is so persistent in his prayers—and in letting me know that he is praying—is because he has already figured it out.

I still respond only by saying "Thank you," and that I appreciate it. I continue to avoid letting him know because I am so afraid of hurting him—it will devastate him. But even this is weird, because all of his step-children are non-believers, as are several of his siblings. Why is this so hard for me?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I edited my post in case you missed it:


I still respond only by saying "Thank you," and that I appreciate it. I continue to avoid letting him know because I am so afraid of hurting him—it will devastate him. But even this is weird, because all of his step-children are non-believers, as are several of his siblings. Why is this so hard for me?

I appreciate this sentiment.

It's odd. I think that I exist in a gray zone here. It should be abundantly clear given my actions (and lack thereof) that I am no longer a catholic, but I have never sat down with mom and dad to tell them firmly I don't believe in god, think the church is a terrible organization to support, and the rest. I am not sure it would serve anything than causing all involved pain; it's not going to change their position on religion. And so I truly believe my mom has convinced herself that though I don't act like it outwardly, I do believe, and I pray, and I'm just waiting for a good opportunity to go back to confession, and maybe when I'm less busy with life I'll return to mass, etc.

Is it healthy? Probably not. But everyone is currently happy so why upset the balance for some arcane sense of needing to level with them?

We have had family discussions about sexual abuse scandals and other unsavory elements of the church, but it hasn't progressed to the point of anyone laying bare their cards so to speak.