Kyrie eleison posted:

Dude, this is D&D. People here hate Catholicism and Christianity. I knew this going in. I didn't expect a warm or even-handed response, and it's no surprise that people ended up attacking me. This is entirely what I expected.

What I am interested in doing is gaining practice and skill in arguing for the faith, rebutting common critiques, and also serving as a guideline for others, because face it, fellow Christians, the hippie-dippie approach is not working, nor is it the approach of Christ. Leave the pastoral stuff to the Pope, it's up to us to educate people and hold the line. Educate yourself on orthodox teachings, don't apologize, and speak with the Spirit. These guys and their little theories are no match for the Truth. Atheists love to make fools of themselves, just give them the rope.

I think some people, in realizing that the faith can be competently held and defended, might have their views changed. I am also interested in testing the current tolerance levels of the authorities towards traditional Christian ideas. Honestly, it's more welcoming than I expected on that front.

Timothy 2:24 posted:

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil.

Sharkie posted:

This is, at least partially, one of those things where crazy people get obsessed about somethingawful mods, isn't it?

Kyrie eleison posted:

The sheer lack of self-awareness necessary to post this at somebody else to condemn them. A favorite tactic by your lot, who reject the man's moral authority in the first place.

Do you think Christ would be angry with me for this thread? (Don't answer; of course you do.)

Kyrie eleison posted:

I apologize in advance for this post.

I should just be honest, I am a homosexual. At least in part. I have known since I was young. And I suspect most men are, to some extent, even if they aren't fully aware of it, or don't want to admit it to themselves or to others. I think science such as Kinsey supports this. (This isn't meant to be a challenge to anyone, I just want to establish that I believe it to be a common temptation, despite the popular belief it is something only a small subset of men experience.)

I think homosexuality comes partly out of love, but partly out of sin. It is love that attracts us to someone's heart. It is love that breaks through the fear of betrayal. But my rational mind, which is in tune with truth, which is God, tells me that I should prefer a wife, and to try to have children. If I choose not to procreate, and universalize that principle, then I spell the separation of the sexes and the death of the species. If there is a cultural shift in which good people evade procreation, I believe the results will be nothing less than catastrophic. I can't endorse that. In short, I view it as an obligation to humanity itself, to the future, to harmony with the female sex, and to my family, to keep it going. It is a responsibility. My misgivings with women, born out of experience, will have to be worked through and laid aside in a spirit of humility, honesty, truth, and love, in the hopes of lasting union between the sexes. I know I can fall in love with women, I have done so many times before, I'm just afraid to try because I don't want to be hurt. My preference for men, who share so many of my interests, who are usually much kinder to my heart, must be kept at the boundary of sex. I must work hard and dutifully to achieve a sex life that does not make me feel unholy, and I should resist sex otherwise. I am grateful that my sin is not punishable by the state, or by the church, although I have to admit that would probably make it easier to avoid, but only out of fear, which corrupts the soul. It may be hard to face, but it is the truth, and I trust in God to get me through, and to never fear the truth, but to be humbled by it!

The words and actions of Christ tell us that the only moral alternative to marriage and (attempted) procreation is celibate devotion to God, which is actually held to be an even higher and more spiritual choice than marriage, because romance and sex are sacrificed. In practice, sexual activity is common amongst many supposedly celibate people, to the extent celibacy seems sometimes like a lie, an outer shield used to protect people from criticism rather than a true dedication. I cannot endorse a hypocritical and dishonest "celibacy" that is actually filled with sex, but I greatly respect the discipline of sincere spiritual abstinence, including from pornography and masturbation, in the same sense I respect fasting.

Of course, in these times, I interact with many openly homosexual people and find them to generally be very kind and fun. I am, in a sense, one of them. Some are members of my church community, and everyone gets along great there and supports one another. I support them against those who condemn them, I enjoy their company, and again, this is because of love. I think homosexual monogamy is less sinful than heterosexual promiscuity. So I believe it is a sin, a sin I myself commit, a sin I truly wish I did not, a sin I confess now and in the confessional, and a sin I pray to God to help me with. And I admire those who either commit to true celibacy, or achieve healthy marriages.

Sorry again for talking about myself so much, but homosexuality comes up a lot in relation to Christianity and it seemed appropriate and even necessary that I finally share my experience and thoughts on the issue. I hope my words do not inspire any sadness, that is not my intention. To address the point of your post a bit, I think Paul sometimes got angry with the church community's decadence and tried to keep it in line so it would leave a positive impression on the surrounding community. At times, he could be rough, it is true. My advice is to simply understand how he feels, know he is speaking from his heart, and realize that Paul himself, as I believe most men do, likely struggled with the issue.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Let me remind the thread now, in case anyone missed it earlier, that a lot of Kyrie's lashing out and vitriol come from a freely, and deeply, admitted sense of self-loathing. He is a man at war with himself, and having found in (his own strict, and at times bizarre interpretation of) Catholicism a weapon with which to wage that war it's hardly surprising he chastises us as viciously as he apparently does himself. That's not to excuse it, of course, nor legitimize what (presuming this isn't a very long troll) has frankly led many others in similar circumstances down a self-destructive road.

In case you're all thinking I'm making this up, or exaggerating just how deep goes this particular rabbit hole, let me quote the man himself:


Emphasis mine.

Caros posted:

Aww... well that is just straight up loving sad.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

I don't disagree at all.

Kyrie eleison posted:

From claims of proof of the existence of the deity, yes. Reason is upheld strongly by the Church. (You can't say the same about post-modern philosophy, by the way). And it is also said that having faith is "rational". But reason is not the way to prove the existence of God. That God exists is taken for granted by those who feel His presence.

Caros posted:

That is really the part I don't get. God has created you, and everything he creates is good, but those desires you have are fundamentally flawed and must be utterly surpressed you you will end up suffering for eternity because you didn't obey some very vaguely worded or contradictory passages in a book written two millenia before your birth.

This is why I like the local united church. All of the loving, forgiveness and grace, none of the Eternal Hellfire or endless guilt over impulses that exist from birth.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

I can't explain it either, since I thankfully don't live in such a diametrically opposed headspace. It'd be nice, though, if he could find a way to accept himself, if only so he'd stop calling everyone else who has done so a sociopathic monster.

Kyrie eleison posted:

Being told I'm doing a bad job defending Christianity by anti-Christian people is not convincing. Of course you are going to say that. I don't expect to change your mind. Your heart is hardened to the idea. But what I can do is expose your ignorance of Christian teachings, and your shady debate techniques such as hypocrisy, or intentionally misconstruing me. And that is satisfactory enough for me, because the goal in debate is not to convince your opponent, but rather to convince yourself, and others like you.

Now I have to go take care of an errand.

Kyrie eleison posted:

Who says I am not speaking out of love?

Caros posted:

Aww... well that is just straight up loving sad.

Kyrie eleison posted:

Listen: I have read the entire thing. I said this in the OP.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Let me remind the thread now, in case anyone missed it earlier, that a lot of Kyrie's lashing out and vitriol come from a freely, and deeply, admitted sense of self-loathing. He is a man at war with himself, and having found in (his own strict, and at times bizarre interpretation of) Catholicism a weapon with which to wage that war it's hardly surprising he chastises us as viciously as he apparently does himself. That's not to excuse it, of course, nor legitimize what (presuming this isn't a very long troll) has frankly led many others in similar circumstances down a self-destructive road.

In case you're all thinking I'm making this up, or exaggerating just how deep goes this particular rabbit hole, let me quote the man himself:


Emphasis mine.

CharlestheHammer posted:

If you had a spiritual need, why become an Atheist in the first place?

Kyrie eleison posted:

Being told I'm doing a bad job defending Christianity by anti-Christian people is not convincing. Of course you are going to say that. I don't expect to change your mind. Your heart is hardened to the idea. But what I can do is expose your ignorance of Christian teachings, and your shady debate techniques such as hypocrisy, or intentionally misconstruing me. And that is satisfactory enough for me, because the goal in debate is not to convince your opponent, but rather to convince yourself, and others like you.

Now I have to go take care of an errand.

quote:

But my rational mind, which is in tune with truth, which is God, tells me that I should prefer a wife, and to try to have children. If I choose not to procreate, and universalize that principle, then I spell the separation of the sexes and the death of the species. If there is a cultural shift in which good people evade procreation, I believe the results will be nothing less than catastrophic. I can't endorse that. In short, I view it as an obligation to humanity itself, to the future, to harmony with the female sex, and to my family, to keep it going. It is a responsibility.

OwlFancier posted:

So, how come God is fussy about whether you believe in him or not?

Because, I mean, Jesus had some neat ideas about being good to other people and that, but apparently praising and praying and telling other people that God is really good is more important? Because God will apparently forgive you if you're a horrible person, so long as you are duly regretful and ask Him nicely, but if you're the most upstanding person in the world, if you aren't worshipful of God, you go to hell.

Doesn't that seem a bit off to you? I mean, that's always been a bit off to me. Seems like a hard thing to really justify.

Like this off the front page:


Why is God really hung up on what you think of Him rather than what you do for the cause?

Karia posted:

Kyrie, I'm interested in your perspective on something.

I am agnostic, because I believe that the answer to the whole set of questions about religion is ultimately far less important than the process of trying to find them. I would find less than no comfort in having the right answers (let's assume, for the sake of this argument, they're your particular breed of Catholicism) handed to me on a silver platter, rather, I would find it flat-out insulting. I would be perfectly happy to spend the rest of my years coming to the slow realization that you were completely, totally, and perfectly correct the entire time. I believe you would argue that, if I was honest in my pursuit, I would come to the only correct answer eventually. Given that I would actually be pissed off if you handed me a book containing what was somehow proved to be the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, and that I will inevitably join your beliefs anyway:

Do you attempt to aggressively convert me?

I'm going to establish one bound on here: let's assume that I will not die prematurely. Therefore, it's not correct to convert me on the off-chance that I get hit by a bus two seconds before my epiphany.

Thoughts?

Technogeek posted:

So what the gently caress is the point of this thread? You're not actually debating anything, you're not even pretending that you think you might convert someone. Has this seriously been nothing more than 84 pages of pseudointellectual Onanism?

Kyrie eleison posted:

Who says I am not speaking out of love? What am I doing here? Aren't you the people who say, "if you really believed in Hell you would try to save everyone?" And here I am, trying to save D&D.

I may not take a tone of weakness, or of apology, but neither did Our Blessed Lord, and neither did Paul, even in his loftier passages on love.

Kyrie eleison posted:

Atheists love to make fools of themselves, just give them the rope.

Literally The Worst posted:

I'm 50/50 between TT levels of dedication to his gimmick without a fraction of the skill and just batshit nuts

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Let me remind the thread now, in case anyone missed it earlier, that a lot of Kyrie's lashing out and vitriol come from a freely, and deeply, admitted sense of self-loathing. He is a man at war with himself, and having found in (his own strict, and at times bizarre interpretation of) Catholicism a weapon with which to wage that war it's hardly surprising he chastises us as viciously as he apparently does himself. That's not to excuse it, of course, nor legitimize what (presuming this isn't a very long troll) has frankly led many others in similar circumstances down a self-destructive road.

In case you're all thinking I'm making this up, or exaggerating just how deep goes this particular rabbit hole, let me quote the man himself:


Emphasis mine.

SedanChair posted:

Are you comparing yourself to God?

Kyrie eleison posted:

Dude, this is D&D. People here hate Catholicism and Christianity. I knew this going in. I didn't expect a warm or even-handed response, and it's no surprise that people ended up attacking me. This is entirely what I expected.

What I am interested in doing is gaining practice and skill in arguing for the faith, rebutting common critiques, and also serving as a guideline for others, because face it, fellow Christians, the hippie-dippie approach is not working, nor is it the approach of Christ. Leave the pastoral stuff to the Pope, it's up to us to educate people and hold the line. Educate yourself on orthodox teachings, don't apologize, and speak with the Spirit. These guys and their little theories are no match for the Truth. Atheists love to make fools of themselves, just give them the rope.

I think some people, in realizing that the faith can be competently held and defended, might have their views changed. I am also interested in testing the current tolerance levels of the authorities towards traditional Christian ideas. Honestly, it's more welcoming than I expected on that front.

Kyrie eleison posted:

So, in my heart I am really a healing-type. And although I can do battle, it does weary me.

I know that I have put myself in this situation. And I am wearing this relatively serious avatar compared to my prior silly one. (I might change it back for all of our sakes.)

Here is the thing about debate that I have realized (long ago): debate is not constructive. Debate is destructive. Debate is about taking your opponent down. Two sides take opposing positions and try to destroy one another, and ultimately leave more convinced of their views. Debate is a political act, a warlike act, a battle. The goal is to impose your policy on your opponent. I don't like debate, although I am willing to participate in it. It seems almost violent to me.

The alternative, which philosophers call "dialectic", but could also simply be called a conversation, or a discussion, rather than an argument, has one basic rule: both sides have to be working towards a common goal.

I am interested in pursing this kind of conversation instead of the divisive, ideological approach. I think it is better for everyone and can help us to understand one another better.

Oh dear me posted:

Most Christians see Christ as a model to follow - it's not conceited.

Zodium posted:

rudatron posted:

I don't think either thread has much to do with anything else outside of D&D, let alone society as whole. Kyrie participated in the problematic thread and created this thread for basically the same reason: he's a stubborn ideologue 'waging a war'. Same with Miltank, who's basically just here to cheerlead. But 'the war' doesn't exist outside of SA, and there's no real battlefield - in spite of how thoroughly kyrie has been owned, nothing can compel him to change his closed mind. There's no 'battle' to be won in an environment where you can't force anyone to do anything.

rkajdi posted:

Read his posts in the gamergate thread. 100% different style, (though still toxicly right wing) and shockingly even has a pretty anti-catholic joke thrown in there. The man is an obvious troll.

The only thing that actually concerns me with him is his self-loathing sexual comments. Maybe it's trolling too, but it's something that I can relate to from when I was younger, so I seriously worry for him if it's true.

Nessus posted:

That's interesting.

Kyrie, what does Our Lord think of Gamergate?

Kyrie eleison posted:

It is important to realize that God is sovereign over everything. He has total control over all of us.

The Muslims and the Jews both recognize this, as does Christianity. Islam literally means submission. Basically, it is important to recognize that although God's ways may be mysterious to us, we ultimately have to accept them, even though they seem brutal or strange at times.

I have said before, I think this is actually the hardest pill to swallow when it comes to religion, moreso than issues of the provability of God. The morality of God is the real issue that keeps people away from Him. A believer has faith that God is ultimately acting for a good purpose (as was proven to be the case in Abraham), and a doubter questions everything God does.

OwlFancier posted:

I've gotten that impression, my question is essentially why?

I understand that God will punish you if you don't, and reward you if you do, but that doesn't seem like a very compelling argument.

Assuming I am an ethical person, which I like to think I am, reward and punishment shouldn't really factor into my decision making. An act is good or evil based on its effects on others, not based on how it affects me. If someone gave me a lot of money to kill someone, that doesn't make killing the person right.

So if I don't agree with something God tells me to do, but I do it anyway, what sort of person does that make me? I am doing something I know to be immoral out of fear of punishment or desire for a reward. The ethical choice is to not do the immoral thing and burn forever in hell.

That's sort of my general take on most religions, if God isn't the sort of God who would reward someone for being truly ethical, then I wouldn't deserve paradise if I attained it by blindly following Him, if I have to spend the rest of eternity in hell for living ethically then that's unfortunate, but I don't really see a better option.

That kind of makes God sound a bit unpleasant by the way, never been quite able to get past that.

Kyrie eleison posted:

Dude, this is D&D. People here hate Catholicism and Christianity. I knew this going in. I didn't expect a warm or even-handed response, and it's no surprise that people ended up attacking me. This is entirely what I expected.

What I am interested in doing is gaining practice and skill in arguing for the faith, rebutting common critiques, and also serving as a guideline for others, because face it, fellow Christians, the hippie-dippie approach is not working, nor is it the approach of Christ. Leave the pastoral stuff to the Pope, it's up to us to educate people and hold the line. Educate yourself on orthodox teachings, don't apologize, and speak with the Spirit. These guys and their little theories are no match for the Truth. Atheists love to make fools of themselves, just give them the rope.

I think some people, in realizing that the faith can be competently held and defended, might have their views changed. I am also interested in testing the current tolerance levels of the authorities towards traditional Christian ideas. Honestly, it's more welcoming than I expected on that front.

rkajdi posted:

Read his posts in the gamergate thread. 100% different style, (though still toxicly right wing) and shockingly even has a pretty anti-catholic joke thrown in there. The man is an obvious troll.

The only thing that actually concerns me with him is his self-loathing sexual comments. Maybe it's trolling too, but it's something that I can relate to from when I was younger, so I seriously worry for him if it's true.

Kyrie eleison posted:

Gamergate is the very public, very final death of the Internet left. After this, people will be ashamed to identify as leftists, and leftists will receive constant ridicule outside of their pathetic hugboxes. It is a historic moment, and it is nowhere near over; it is a permanent shift in the discussion. It has been brewing for years, and I'm exceedingly glad to witness it. You could say it was inevitable.

Leftists are on the wrong side of history.

Kyrie eleison posted:

Anti-Gamergate? Instant ignore. No exceptions.

Kyrie eleison posted:

gamergate and sjw are not fighting for the same thing. sjw want to advance an anti-white, anti-male, anti-hetero, anti-cis agenda. gamergate stands for being reasonable and condemns everyone who wants to make that the focus.

Nessus posted:

You could probably make a theory that God does this in order to test the righteous, and the one who acts ethically is the righteous man who will be rewarded, while the one who obeys without question is the one who will be punished.

Part of what Kyrie is saying seems to be that anything God does or that God commands is, by the fact that God (who is axiomatically the author of goodness) commanded it, good. Considering that this isn't a hypothetical, "well yes if God ordered you to gas the children that would be a good act, but that's like asking what we'd call an orange if we renamed it an apple - it's an absurdity" thing, but is explicitly about the various awful things God has directly commanded here and there, it implies that what is moral and virtuous is also essentially arbitrary.

God can change your mind (like Pharaoh), God can destroy your life (Job), God can do whatever he pleases, and the only acceptable outcome is to just keep praising him and accepting that any and all events are from him and therefore good. This is perhaps a way to approach life, and perhaps despite the obvious terrors of being at the mercy of a cruel and arbitrary omnipotent being, it has some success if you internalize it. But so would a heroin addiction or a frontal lobotomy.

CommieGIR posted:

Also: Apparently as soon as we step away from god we have no empathy nor moral inhibitions.