|
OwlFancier posted:My rear end isn't that mysterious and it doesn't want babies in it. No siree. Now let us pray and contemplate that one time Jesus rode that rear end from here to Jerusalem.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Tell that to catholic fascism! It's the exact fusion of all of these ideas! Catholicism is actually rather religious. Moreso than Protestants, anyway, who don't care about observing Jesus's clear rejection of divorce, and have no respect for tradition. quote:There are some reasons to believe that this won't be the case forever. Evangelical movements have always been a politically mixed bag - and in the US example, look at the history of a place like Kansas. Kansas opposed slavery, but they are a red state. Opposing slavery, on largely religious grounds, was the founding purpose of the Republican Party. But they still tend towards nationalism and oppose the socialists, which is why the South ended up joining them. quote:What do you even mean when you say 'controlled by Capital'? In what sense do you mean that? I mean that selfish moneyed interests control the policies of the Democratic Party, and it is no trouble at all for them to get Democratic politicians to engage in imperialistic endeavors. quote:There are lots of reasons to suppose that might not last forever either. The social agenda of a large number of those people is anti-abortion, pro-nuclear family etc. If they were marginally less economically exploited and discriminated against, that could easily swing in your or my lifetime. I'm assuming you mean the Hispanic preference for Democrats. Yes, it is possible they would shift to the Republican party, but only if the Democrats make a real mess of things in their misguided cultural pursuits, which they seem eager to do. Presently, Hispanics support uncontrolled immigration, and that is a Democratic initiative which caters to them, an initiative that Republicans are not willing to stoop to because it is bad for the nation. But socialists regularly underestimate the power and longevity of the Republicans. Socialist hubris and gloating and arrogant certainty about the future ensures Republican victory, which is why the Republicans currently control the House and Senate. Democratic voters mostly hate their party and only vote for them as a means of preventing Republican control, whereas Republicans have a very clear vision of what they will do when in power: bolster and employ the strength of America. quote:The Bourgeoisie aren't just 1%'ers, you know. And I'm not sure what you think the Vatican bank is, if not a bourgeois project... The bourgeoisie refers to the middle class during the time of Catholic control. The top class was the Church hierarchy, monarchies, their feudal lords, etc. The middle class was moneyed interests. And the lower class was the poor. With the downfall of monarchy and Catholicism, the bourgeoisie have become the top class and now run things. And yes, they make up more than just the top 1%. They are every modern liberal capitalist, which is the bulk of the US and European population. quote:If you admit that the Church has made mistakes, then I think you'd have to be understanding of French revolutionary anti-clericalism. Why is there a revolution? Because the ancien regime (which includes the church) has a monopoly on privilege, is making GBS threads all over the poor. Moreover, I think you're relying on a pretty primitive idea of what happened in the French Revolution - ever hear of the Sans-culottes? Much like with Lenin, there was a revolution in France because the existing regime was weakened and a small group of opportunist revolutionaries used violence and terror to kill them all and force the cooperation of the masses. There is no other cause than that. Napoleon was not a failure of the anti-Catholic, bourgeoisie revolution but rather the fulfillment of their imperialist designs, until he lost their war powers with his foolish venture into Russia. France eventually lost their loony revolutionary fervor and mediated a bit, but the bourgeoisie remain decidedly in power, which is all I was trying to demonstrate. From this perspective, the French Revolution was the turning point in the bourgeois revolution. But as I said earlier in this thread, the real beginning of modernity is not the French Revolution or the American Revolution but the Protestant Reformation, which ensured the ultimate victory of Capital by diminishing Catholic control. quote:I'm not sure your crazy Catholic-centric version of history is really all it's cracked up to be. The Catholic Church is the single most important institution to ever exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The Catholic Church is the single most important institution to ever exist. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nope. Then what is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nope. Nah I'd say it is. This isn't to say it's done the most good mind you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The Catholic Church is the single most important institution to ever exist. Sure that's one man's opinion but that doesn't make it true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nah I'd say it is. This isn't to say it's done the most good mind you. Its important to HIM. That is about where its 'single most important' ends. Important? Sure. Old? Hell yes. But far modern younger and modern institutions have done more. The bias is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Then what is? Larry Flynt Publications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Larry Flynt Publications. Yeah I can get behind this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Then what is? The British Empire? Now you could argue that without the Catholic Church, history would have been so different that the British Empire may not have happened or affected the world so much. But by that standard the Catholic Church still isn't history's most important institution because it wouldn't have existed without the Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Yo Kyrie, I've flippantly accused you of bemoaning the end of the divine right of kings, but it occurs to me I may be, though I'm probably not, putting words in your mouth. So let me ask you directly: do you rate the end of absolutist monarchy based on presumptions of divine right to rule among the many things you miss from Old Regime Europe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Then what is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Kansas opposed slavery, but they are a red state. Opposing slavery, on largely religious grounds, was the founding purpose of the Republican Party. But they still tend towards nationalism and oppose the socialists, which is why the South ended up joining them. Southern Strategy? What's that?!  quote:
The serial pedophiles the Catholic Church protects sure think so. Their victims not so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Then what is? Activision-Blizzard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:If infertility is never certain how can we be sure that homosexuality can't produce children? The potential for fertility only exists between a man and a woman. It is clear and obvious to everyone that men and women were designed to go together sexually for the purpose of creating children. Disinterested posted:The Catholic church is notoriously bad at accounting for people who are born intersexed, as it happens. It's a bit of an 'oh gently caress' for traditional doctrine. The Church has so much experience, it is hard to surprise it with something new. Intersex people have one true gender, but also have a medical condition. Al Harrington posted:So? Are we running low on people to rape the earth? I find it interesting that you begin by talking about population control, which Humanae Vitae also begins by addressing. I'll thank you all to stop calling me homosexual and gay now. In context of my statement on it, it is clear that I am not a strict homosexual, but a bisexual. If you fail to recognize this, I will chalk it up as simple schoolyard bullying. Furthermore, I have said that I believe all people to be bisexual. And lastly, I have decided to pursue a chaste lifestyle, which is my right and preference under liberalism, and my duty under Christianity. Nessus posted:More seriously, encouraging gay couples to form and adopt children seems as if it would be a great way to reduce the number of children languishing without families. This is how most gay bird couples obtain the children they rear, so it is not as if the good Lord did not conceive of this eventuality, at least as a factor in a population. (Unless you want to assert that birds have been tempted by Satan.) If you absolutely must, recognize this as a less-bad expedient viz. Paul and the number of unwanted children left littering the streets by Protestants, and there you are! You are trying to compromise on basic moral issues by making a consequentialist argument. quote:e: Really, the abundant examples of homosexual behavior being a common if not universal activity among many families of mammals and birds seems to kind of terminally gently caress this 'it's unnatural' argument y'all have going on. You recognized evolution, just recognize it was an understandable mistake and relax about the gays. You can even distinguish between respectable gays like George Takei and his husband and Strawman McDickpit, if you must. I have consistently argued that I believe homosexual tendencies to be universal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The potential for fertility only exists between a man and a woman. It is clear and obvious to everyone that men and women were designed to go together sexually for the purpose of creating children.  E: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The potential for fertility only exists between a man and a woman. It is clear and obvious to everyone that men and women were designed to go together sexually for the purpose of creating children. But, we can never assume infertility?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The potential for fertility only exists between a man and a woman. It is clear and obvious to everyone that men and women were designed to go together sexually for the purpose of creating children. Are you saying God can't make two men have a natural child? Who are you to say what he can or cannot do? quote:I'll thank you all to stop calling me homosexual and gay now. In context of my statement on it, it is clear that I am not a strict homosexual, but a bisexual. If you fail to recognize this, I will chalk it up as simple schoolyard bullying. Furthermore, I have said that I believe all people to be bisexual. And lastly, I have decided to pursue a chaste lifestyle, which is my right and preference under liberalism, and my duty under Christianity. Wait, I thought your duty as a Christian was to have as many quote:You are trying to compromise on basic moral issues by making a consequentialist argument. There is absolutely nothing immoral about homosexuality. quote:I have consistently argued that I believe homosexual tendencies to be universal. Sorry, broheim, but Kinsey 0s exist, even if no one in this thread is one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The British Empire? The British Empire is itself a mere consequence of the Protestant Reformation and the victory of Capital, and lasted a piddly couple hundred years. Its role will not be as significant as you think in the history books, five hundred years from now. The Roman Empire became Catholic. And the Catholic Church built Europe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
It's weird how many atheist guys out there are, like, wayyyyyyyy better at resisting the universal homosexual urges within us all and only-loving-women than so many pious Christians are. Weird, huh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Then what is? Rome, 20th century superpowers, ancient Sumeria, NASA, ancient China, Nazi Germany, all sorts of things really have probably had more of an impact on the world than the catholic church. VitalSigns posted:It's weird how many atheist guys out there are, like, wayyyyyyyy better at resisting the universal homosexual urges within us all and only-loving-women than so many pious Christians are. We are? I mean, I would think if anything the rate of sexual experimentation is probably higher, it just that 'person unsure about their sexuality tries having sex with men' doesn't really make the news as much as 'person who spends significant portion of their time saying homosexuals are the work of the devil is active homosexual' does. Edit: I do apologise, I keep getting yours and KE's avatars mixed up. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The British Empire is itself a mere consequence of the Protestant Reformation and the victory of Capital, and lasted a piddly couple hundred years. Its role will not be as significant as you think in the history books, five hundred years from now. If the role of Europe in creating the modern world will fade to irrelevance in five hundred years, then so too will the effect of your favorite declining European relic of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, I thought your duty as a Christian was to have as many This is a regular slander and misconception by Protestants, who ironically themselves claim marriage and children are a religious duty. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the Church promotes celibacy as being superior to marriage, as did Christ, which is why the hierarchy is celibate. Anyway, "chaste" does not mean celibate, but rather within the Christian sexual rules. So being chaste means being either celibate or married.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The British Empire is itself a mere consequence of the Protestant Reformation and the victory of Capital, and lasted a piddly couple hundred years. Its role will not be as significant as you think in the history books, five hundred years from now.  You are making too many damned assumptions: That had the Romans, say, kept Paganism or even went for some other religion that Europe would've failed to have formed.The Catholic church helped spurn this, but Civilization would've done it some other way without them. And by YOUR logic, Science is the single most important institution in the world. You cannot touch a single thing that science or technology have not touched. I can touch plenty of things that have zero to minimal connection to the church.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:We are? I mean, I would think if anything the rate of sexual experimentation is probably higher, it just that 'person unsure about their sexuality tries having sex with men' doesn't really make the news as much as 'person who spends significant portion of their time saying homosexuals are the work of the devil is active homosexual' does. What I mean is, homosexual urges are apparently universal according to Kyrie, yet somehow even without the Church there to shame and frighten them, a ton of atheists only ever gently caress the opposite sex and never experiment at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Yahweh truly works in mysterious ways as he puts a pleasure center up a man's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Al Harrington posted:Yahweh truly works in mysterious ways as he puts a pleasure center up a man's rear end. That is why He gave us pegging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Al Harrington posted:Yahweh truly works in mysterious ways as he puts a pleasure center up a man's rear end. When God designed this part of humans, He did it to prove you have to act in accordance with it or you're evil...but when God designed that part of humans it's a temptation that proves He wants you to resist it and to act against it or you're evil. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What I mean is, homosexual urges are apparently universal according to Kyrie, yet somehow even without the Church there to shame and frighten them, a ton of atheists only ever gently caress the opposite sex and never experiment at all. We have help from The Only One Thing That Matters: Bob James posted:Larry Flynt Publications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You are trying to compromise on basic moral issues by making a consequentialist argument. However, all of these things have to do with people behaving morally. The fact that in some cases, they are doing this in the context of a same-sex relationship, is irrelevant to the actual moral issue as I perceive it. As you yourself say, quote:I have consistently argued that I believe homosexual tendencies to be universal. Therefore, while the error is perhaps comprehensible, it would seem that we are faced with a widespread variant on what we might consider the "modal" sexual behavior, which is indeed male/female. If you are genuinely concerned that everyone would just grease up and become a cockrub warrior in preference to any relations with women (or perhaps that all the women would club up and kick out men), I do not believe history bears this out. There is a folk figure among the gay community that one in ten people are gay, and while this may not be entirely accurate, let's use it as an example: One in ten people would have sufficient homosexual inclination to pair up with the same gender. This does not seem like an existential risk to the reproduction of the human race. Indeed, the proportion could probably be much, much higher and could still be borne by the poor embattled followers of the heterosexual death-style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I can even get behind most of the prohibitions on divorce, although I would, were I making the Nessusine Church, obviously allow it for cases of abuse, and with strict and explicit equality for either party's claims. Uh what? What possible good is served by forcing someone to continue in a relationship that they no longer want any part of?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The potential for fertility only exists between a man and a woman. Maybe you've heard of a little guy who was the son of a woman and god, he experienced the weaknesses and trials of mortal life before dying in agony and joining his father in heaven?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh what? What possible good is served by forcing someone to continue in a relationship that they no longer want any part of?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
What the hell is a time-limited marriage. Nobody outside of Heinlein novels (or some religious rules-lawyering to get around bans on extra-marital sex) goes "hey baby, let's get married for a few months then go through the hell of splitting our assets". People generally don't expect their marriages to fail, but if the marriage does fall apart I can't fathom forcing them to remain in the contract or prove they're leaving for a "good reason" to get out of it. What possible benefit is there to this? We don't carry back people who agree with their landlord to end an apartment lease early and go "No! You will stay here for the next nine months like you said!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What the hell is a time-limited marriage. Nobody outside of Heinlein novels (or some religious rules-lawyering to get around bans on extra-marital sex) goes "hey baby, let's get married for a few months then go through the hell of splitting our assets". If you believe that viewing marriage as a serious thing has intrinsic value, then making is a strict contract you can't back out of does help to reinforce that. Though why you would hold that belief about marriage I'm not sure, you can sort of make an argument for it in the 'people have this common irrational sentiment that marriage is sort of magic and serious and will make their relationship magic and serious too so we need to enforce that' kind of sense, but it's not a very good one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What the hell is a time-limited marriage. Nobody outside of Heinlein novels (or some religious rules-lawyering to get around bans on extra-marital sex) goes "hey baby, let's get married for a few months then go through the hell of splitting our assets". There seems to be a lot of room for criticism on the construction of marriage in general. As you put it, it seems to be freaky and weird to consider it as anything other than permanent, except that as we all well know, it very often isn't. This probably goes beyond the context of the Catholic church and Jimmy-C here. OwlFancier posted:If you believe that viewing marriage as a serious thing has intrinsic value, then making is a strict contract you can't back out of does help to reinforce that.  Basically it seems now that, much like most things, if you're a rich rear end in a top hat you can have all the benefits of marriage with none of the difficulties quite easily. It is also a topic fraught with cultural baggage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Kyrie: my intent was not to insult when calling you gay, I may have read wherever that was discussed in this massive thread earlier wrong I was just saying if that's what you happen to be into there's nothing wrong about it, go for it and be in a relationship with a guy and still carry on your religion, what does it matter? Where is Jesus Christ against gays?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
I don't care who gets to marry who and under what conditions or for how long, but I think it's reasonable that religious organisations should be able to deny certain services pertaining to marriage as long as there is a state provided public alternative. I guess VitalSigns posted:Heinlein novels I agree that women should walk around naked to be empowered.  Kyrie eleison posted:The British Empire is itself a mere consequence of the Protestant Reformation and the victory of Capital, and lasted a piddly couple hundred years. Its role will not be as significant as you think in the history books, five hundred years from now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well a lot of gay people seem to hold that belief A lot of all people hold that belief, it's a very culturally ingrained thing, it's also completely wrong and I don't know how people persist in believing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A lot of all people hold that belief, it's a very culturally ingrained thing, it's also completely wrong and I don't know how people persist in believing it. But really, though, it seems as if there is some general consensus that you should not abuse others in your relationships, yes? At least not without explicit and knowing consent to what could be considered 'abuse' i.e. BDSM practices? The question then becomes what those abuses are and how they can be prevented, ideally in a way that doesn't involve contract law, at least in the sense of 'every single relationship needs to be an explicit legal contract drawn up by lawyers.' I guess it would give the lawyers work...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:35
|
|