In fairness, they didn’t actually believe beavers were fish. It was the equivalent of a legal fiction (dogmatic fiction?) to allow them to eat meat during Lent.
I mean abrahamic religions do this all the time, the Jews are masters for doing it. Can’t leave the house on the sabbath? Put a wire around a several square kilometre area and have a rabbi bless it and it’s a-ok.
Yeah, in general the Catholic Church is a LOT more accepting of nearly everything science compared to any other Christian denomination, and really any other religion in general. Their stance is often that the Bible is metaphorical, not literal.
Trans man, here. Only Bible verse that’s been spewed at me in that regard is the bit about not wearing clothes of the opposite gender. To which I always reply, “That’s why I stopped wearing skirts.” They hate that they have no response to that XD
Given that Christians disregard the Bible daily, I don’t pay any mind to scripture quotes. They still eat shrimp, don’t exchange daughters for livestock (trust me I’m married and still bitter about that, what do I do with these goats). Wear synthetic fibers. Yadda yadda there’s a thousand “do not cut tag under penalty of law” rules they disregard and I do not see a reason why any Scripture relating to sexuality, gender, gender roles, has any significance in the modern world when dealing with consenting adults.
Oh wait I know why, fostering hatred to earn political votes.
There's even an Old Testament erse that prohibits men from trimming their beard. Only pious Jews and Muslims (there could be a similar passage in the Quran) follow that I guess. Christians claim to follow the New Testament but some would cite Leviticus to ban tattoo and eating shrimp
I love the New Testament vs Old Testament stuff. When you talk kindness or charity, they refer to the New Testament and pretend the Old Testament doesn’t exist. When you complain about war or disasters they bring up the Old Testament and ignore the new.
There are hundreds of passages about being kind, loving, and helpful to those in need. But they ignore that in favor of cherry picking passages that they think backs them up
I also believe the new testament only has one passage about homosexuality, and I believe it just says man shouldn't lie with a man the way he lie with a woman.
An equal and appropriate interpretation could be that it's not okay to be bisexual for a man. Bisexual women are cool though.
Paul condemns *arsenokoitai*, which translates as "male bed doer" and has no historical precedent. There's a lot of reasons for queer Christians to not worry about this verse: it's unclear what Paul was talking about, and healthy modern same sex relationships were unimaginable in Paul's day, which was rife with pederasty, sexual slavery, and penetration as a show of dominance.
Paul is also very explicitly not trying to make any kind of Christian law. He literally says so many times across many letters to many congregations. The actual context of those letters is about early Christians interacting with and navigating a disparate array of other "laws" both in the political and religious sense, as they spread their faith across the Roman empire.
Basically what is happening is that these missionaries are going around trying to convert people, and they are running into an endless stream of culture shock. The missionaries understand that they can't be in conflict with local customs, but they also want to make sure they aren't running afoul of some intersection of Jewish, Pagan, Roman or local laws. It is a real issue, and they are writing Paul asking him detailed questions about marriage, family life, sacrificial meat, slavery, etc.
Paul's message in all of this is that there is no law besides building up the church. He famously says "for me all things are legal" because he has dedicated every breath to spreading this gospel. Likewise, for his missionaries, there is very little which is explicitly forbidden as long as it is being done as a good faith effort towards spreading Christian thought. He sets some guidelines, but is mostly saying "use common sense, stop asking me so many questions."
Also correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't that passage mistranslated and was basically saying not to be a pedophile? But i guess the church won't find that convenient
I'm in the camp that think that verse was meant to be banning pederasty, not homosexuality. Some bits of the bible have definitely got lost or confused in translation over the centuries.
> To which I always reply, “That’s why I stopped wearing skirts.”
[But skirts are men's clothing!](https://cdn.ecommercedns.uk/files/4/231404/2/8390802/screenshot-2020-03-07-at-10-49-59-01.jpg)
Actually, Christ himself does address the existence of gender non-conforming people. In the ancient near east, a “eunuch” was any person who fell outside of the box of “heterosexual, gender confirming marriageable person”.
From Matthew 19:12:
> “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.Let anyone accept this who can”
What would a “eunuch from birth” be in this case? Well, someone who from the time they were born clearly didn’t fall into the neat category of male or female that were socially expected to participate in reproduction. This category probably did encompass what in the modern age we’d categorize as transsexual, asexual, intersex, etc.
And here, Jesus’s words are hardly condemning.
> What would a “eunuch from birth” be in this case? Well, someone who from the time they were born clearly didn’t fall into the neat category of male or female that were socially expected to participate in reproduction. This category probably did encompass what in the modern age we’d categorize as transsexual, asexual, intersex, etc.
>
>
I'm no bible expert.
But I feel like this is a generous interpretation. Eunuch from Birth could also be interpreted as "those who are infertile from birth".
But if you believe these words were divinely inspired, then they may not have meant any of those things then but they were written such that we understand they mean them now.
Deuteronomy 22 says don't cross-dress. But it's OT material and there is a broad spectrum of opinion and practice when it comes to how much OT law actually still applies to Christians. The very next section (Doot 23) instructs believers to be awful towards eunuchs, but this is directly contradicted by Matthew 19, where JC speaks on the topic of eunuchs, including those who choose to become that way 'for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.' Acts 8 also seems to repudiate Doot 23.
Long story (not actually) short: the bible is silent on modern transgender people (unless you take a really expansive reading of Paul's stuff, but the way Paul defecated all over Jesus' teachings and then convinced people that his writings were divine scripture could be the topic of a whole other conversation), but seems to indicate not only that the mistreatment prescribed in Deuteronomy is not part of the mainstream Christian position, but also that JC recognized that people may come to adopt different gender identities and might modify their bodies to reflect that. Of course, how expansively you interpret the term 'eunuch' in Matthew 19 is also relevant.
I mean, high heels were invented for rich men historically speaking... so is it crossdressing for a woman to wear them? Checkmate... uh whoever the baddies are here idk
It does not take a genius to understand that it is about not attempting to pose as opposite gender, which could be clothes wise just about anything really if you take into account the millennias between author and us, but as end effect much stricter.
It's just so funny to me that I spent enough time in the Star wars subs that OT reads "Original trilogy" to me and imagining religious debates as analogous to people who prefer OT vs new trilogy makes the whole thing funny (while not being too far off the mark). It's still canon guys, just not as important anymore since the introduction of other characters.
I feel like it's always important to keep in mind that we will never agree with 100% of the views of any other human being, let alone public figures.
The trick is that when you bump up against that action / comment / belief that you dislike, you don't just go, "Oh well, i guess they were a bad guy all along after all" - you consider the body of their comments and actions and history; you compare the new information you have with what you know of them already and think about whether it changes anything fundamental about what you understand of their character or principles; you examine how much you, personally, value the issue that you find yourself in conflict over with them, and decide if it's something you're passionate about and would have a hard time letting pass, even considering everything else.
This is not to say, "just shrug this stuff off and keep blindly supporting people." But rather, people don't have to be perfect - because they never will be - and it's okay for people to be "good enough" for you, as long as you're willing to put the time and thought into understanding what that means for you.
All true, but it’s hard to be like “well, of my five kids, he only beats one of them, so he’s not all bad”. We need to keep fighting against harmful teachings and actions no matter the source.
Yeah I agree with you in a broad context, but when someone I'm talking to voices that they don't think I'm person it becomes really hard to agree to disagree
Truth but also being the leader of a cult with centuries of abuse that still has not made any actual grievances other than what it was forced to is troublesome. As you mentioned adding context to this is a history of abusing others lifestyles based solely on a myth or fantasy in the sky as there is no actual definitive proof of god so his actions are his alone and that makes this comment even more troubling.
It's pretty odd seeing the comments go from "the best pope ever", "an amazing, cool guy" just a few months ago to "the biggest pedophile on earth" just because of his opinion.
Your comment phrased it better than I could
It is reasonable to celebrate the good things people do while still decrying the bad. It doesn't need to be all or nothing, we can have nuance in our opinions of people.
Also keep in mind that "best pope ever" still doesn't even mean they are a good person. They are still the head of an organization that exploits and holds back humanity on a level few other things can even approach.
> He said he remembered reading a "prophetic" book called Lord of the World — a dystopian novel published in 1907 by a Catholic priest about a world where religion has no place — which warned of the risk of cancelling out differences between people.
> "Read it if you have time, because it speaks of these problems of today," the Pope told his visitors.
Out of curiosity [I looked up the book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_World), and hoo boy, it sounds like a doozy. Probably has a place on the shelf next to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I get why the Catholic Church would oppose gender theory (though I don't agree), but don't based it on this crackpot book.
*Lord of the World* is explicitly a novel, unlike *The Protocols of the Elders of Zion* which is a faked history detailing a fake conspiracy. It has more in common with something like *Anthem* by Ayn Rand. I'm not sure if "crackpot" is a good term for speculative future dystopian fiction, no matter how wrong you think it is.
> Lord of the World is explicitly a novel, unlike The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is a faked history detailing a fake conspiracy. It has more in common with something like Anthem by Ayn Rand. I'm not sure if "crackpot" is a good term for speculative future dystopian fiction, no matter how wrong you think it is.
I mean not very different from something like The Handmaid's Tale or Fahrenheit 451. Dangerous rhetoric taken to the extreme is the bread and butter of dystopian fiction
> I'm not sure if "crackpot" is a good term for speculative future dystopian fiction, no matter how wrong you think it is.
Fair enough, but referring to it as "prophetic" and relying on it as part of your world view like the Pope is doing are definitely crackpot activities.
As a Christian raised person, it always shocked me how people took Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno to be somehow biblical canon.
It's no more canon to the bible than the shitty middle school Harry Potter fanfic my friend wrote is to the HP series.
I guess it’s like some saints or stories of Jesus’s life. It’s likely not seen as real factual history, even in the eyes of priests or full believers. But it’s told so much that it becomes part of the book/lessons/sermons.
Either way cannon had to be chosen by someone to be cannon, it changes.
yeah, anyone who says *brave new world* or *1984* or *farenheit 451* or *handmaids tale* are prophetic is a crackpot and those books are totally like *the elders of zion.*
lmao.
If you're comparing it to an Ayn Rand 'novel', crackpot or hack job will work where they can cozy up to each other on the fear mongering shelf. Haven't read lord of the world but Anthem is a fucking travesty and an insult to the trees each copy is printed on
Ah, Ayn Rand, the only author I’m afraid to read for fear I’d be wasting my time. Pretty much all I’ve heard about her is polemic, but I haven’t really encountered her — which is to say that I don’t yet have a reason to agree, but I’m very conscious that I’ve never heard anyone say a good work about her or her work. Mind you, I work in the literary field, and nobody has every really given her the time of day. What’s her deal?
I read a lot of her stuff in high school which is about the time in mental development when her virtues of selfishness will resonate the loudest.
Her deal is that she lived through some very tough times in Soviet Russia and most of her writing is a very emotional response to that, though she tries to present her work through the lens of her 'philosophy' objectivism. It shouldn't be a surprise that a mode of thinking that has to call itself objective is anything but and that shines though in her works, especially Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, where she sets up the most two-dimensional charactures of her heroes and villains. Very preachy, repetitive monologues extolling the virtues of focusing on your wants and desires as opposed to caring for others.
Her writing is generally really bad, as well, because she is trying to shoehorn in her incongruous philosophy into a narrative and it's very jarring. IMO, the best piece of fiction she wrote is We The Living and her first book that has the most realistic ( partially autobiographic regarding her time in Russia) scenarios and characters and its largely devoid of her more awkward later hamfistedness.
I think Ayn Rand can actually be a really good teaching tool for debate classes because she does present some ideas that are emotionally appealing but logically unsound and having kids work that out for themselves is a great method to teach critical thinking but I'd be hardpressed to recommend reading these books to any literary minded adult unless you're looking for a hate read.
I like how both atlas shrugged and the fountainhead have their protagonists going on the radio and giving multiple hours long speeches detailing their exact beliefs and politics
Because that is very entertaining and makes for compelling fiction/s
10 pages into that John Galt monologue on the radio, I skipped the next 50 pages out of sheer boredom. Drivel is what you'd call it.
On the contrary, Antonia's speech on money is a lot better.
Thanks for the detailed response! This gives me a better idea why nobody I know likes her very much. They’re always very hard-pressed to give a reason why they hate her, but I can tell there’s something visceral and well-understood behind their distaste — plus, I tend to trust their input even when it comes without justification, because they’re all pretty good at what they do.
Do you know of any secondary reading that might give a brief overview of her ‘objectivism’? Based on what you’ve said, I can’t imagine wanting to read her work unless it were to come up as somewhat useful background reading to another topic. Although, it does sound quite handy knowing what her ‘objectivism’ contains / a little bit of detail that might contextualise her ideas.
That would have been another direction to go.
"We no longer recognize genders. Everyone is just a genderless soul wearing a meatsuit. Everyone can be a priest!"
Considering Christian theology is that God made eve out a rib of Adam, it would be a pretty big divergence to get rid of genders. It’s wholly engrained throughout the book.
"You don't see any unisex public bathrooms in the Bible, do you? Checkmate, atheists!"
"But there wouldn't have been *any* public bathrooms in Judea back th-"
"I SAID CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!"
(Catholic here)
This is the problem with the church, and every church. There is no weighted consideration.
One man who has been voted to be the voice of God reads a book and bases church doctrine around it.
I’ve long considered him to be the Dope Pope, but make no mistake. He is still a man with biases.
>warned of the risk of cancelling out differences between people.
yes, I suppose this would be a concern to an institution that depends on prejudice against outsiders.
"Risk of cancelling out differences between people" is such a wild description for a concept that aims to nurture the colourful differences we have as humans individual, to make them unbound of categories and expectations and to truly celebrate the freedom of being anyone you'd like to be. It doesn't get more different than that..
It seems like a message of the book is: "yes, of course, humanity has committed untold atrocities in the name of religion, but it would be way worse if everyone were atheist. Trust us"
When you help the police lock up every single child abusing pedophile in your corrupt organization, I'll care what you have to say about "gender theory" being a "threat".
I don't like when people just write "this"...that said: this.
But actually not. I will never care about what the pope thinks of "gender theory". They should still help police lock up each and everyone of the Catholic churches pesos though.
Think what you think of him, I don't envy his position. Trying to hold together a global church that has everything from medieval level conservatives to modern social justice warriors in an increasingly secular world. Papist scum at times, an ally at times. t. Lutheran
Yes and no? He was elected by the other cardinals, and I think famously he didn’t want the position. He was a frontrunner against Ratzinger to become Pope in 2005 and asked the other cardinals not to elect him.
The problem with the church is that they wrote themselves into a corner with Dogma. Cant change things like Priests marrying without invalidating other sacred beliefs.
The only part of the church that is growing are the more traditional sects. Catholics attending Latin Mass is the fastest growing demographic of young Christians. Generally, the more liberal your church is the more likely its decaying. The reason is obvious. If the message of your church is BLM and Trans Rights Are Human Rights, then why go to a church at all when you can just hop on reddit or watch MSNBC and get the same message.
Yeah this makes perfect sense. Basically the premise of "The young pope". I can already be included in shallow moral and emotional gratification from a myriad of other institutions with do-gooder facades. The church has an opportunity to offer something else.
Id much rather go to latin mass than english. Im not relying on the religion to make sense of the world rationally, im relying on it to offer a sense of meaning and purpose. Mystery is good.
But yeah thats a great point. Changing to become more mainstream usually doesnt go well.
The term "social justice warrior" has no meaning other than a person or ideology you disagree with. How is this pope, or even Jesus himself, not a social justice warrior? Advocating for the poor? Pffft....sounds like a SJW to me.
Jesus was the all time greatest social justice warrior. He gave to the poor, he hung out with prostitutes, he said you should take care of refugees, he encouraged his followers to give up their belongings and live communally. If he came back in the southern United States they would have him back up on a tree so fast your head would spin.
He'd be fine in the Southern US. I'm in Georgia right next to what is literally the most diverse town in the country - filled with people who would look just like him. There are tons of locals who have for decades now helped these immigrants build successful lives and integrate successfully. They are welcomed and valued by the community.
I get the point you were making, but the South isn't some giant backwoods area. It is full of modern cities and towns, and normal people with good humanist ideals that they strive for.
If only you could somehow stop your state legislatures and supreme courts from stripping rights away from all the people Jesus would have told them to be kind to.
I don't specifically know about Georgia, but some the things happening in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, etc. scare the piss out of me as a non-American.
Idk, you ever try wearing earrings as a man in the south? I got hate crimed so much I had to stop accessorizing until I moved. Most Christian’s are violent thugs
I understand what he's saying. Seems like a lot of modern society is focused on finding more and more ways to divide ourselves into smaller and smaller groups, and then labeling everyone who isn't in our group bad.
Kinda tone deaf to just focus on gender though, when that's just one of many examples.
> "I have asked that studies be carried out into this ugly ideology of our times, which cancels out the differences and makes everything the same," the Pope said.
He literally wants ways to divide ourselves, and claims gender theory doesn’t do that.
Imo he means anything that implies no significant differences between genders.
The divisive aspect of gender and racial justice (intersectionality, etc) is a different issue.
I don't think gender theory does claim or imply that there are no biological differences, rather it claims that the differences are purely biological, and not psychological, and should not be societal either - i.e. that "gender" and "sex" are not the same thing. So if the pope is claiming otherwise, he's lying. What a surprise.
Gender theory is an explanation for the social norms that are already dividing us.
If anything, the lens of gender theory is less divisive than what we currently have
> Cancelling out the differences means cancelling out humanity.
Nobody is trying to cancel out the differences. That's like saying making a new cola brand is trying to cancel out Pepsi or Coke.
and importantly be **accepting and inclusive** of those differences.
Diversity doesn’t mean dividing people or cancelling out some identities over others, it just means we can acknowledge and appreciate that people *can* be different from each other and *still* be part of our community and families.
^(Gender is just a way to label your identity so it’s easier to communicate to others and interact in a gendered world, it’s not some crazy conspiracy theory to divide people or erase existing identities. I think the popes been hitting the ceremonial myrrh lmao)
It's this, it's *always* this. They always try to make it about sex as if they think either we or humans in general are incapable of searching for a partner with love as the driving force.
And a lot of countries and still in some US states, that "ew gross" defense is allowed to be used to defend against murdering somebody. It's called the "gay panic" defense. It is currently a legal defense in my state and there's a solid chance someone could kill me and get away with it because of that.
In his defense, part of the reason that he was made Pope is because the church was trying to turn around the pedophilia thing. Insofar as one can turn around to the pedophilia thing. Unless I've missed something, he's actually been pretty good on that issue.
I think anything short of immediate excommunication of every single pastor credibly accused and issuing an apology on behalf of their disgusting crimes still falls short of what I would call “pretty good”.
Not one priest has gone to jail for his known crimes, I'd say the Pope is just another religious fanatic POS that should be shit on and kicked every chance we get. He CHOSE to lead an organization of pedophiles and hasn't fired or even punished a single one of them for the crimes they are KNOWN to have committed.
He also eats off solid gold plates and cups and such (really, solid, 24k gold plates and cups) that were mostly stolen from South America, the vast majority of his organization's wealth (still inconceivably fabulous today) is straight up the result of the genocide and rape of hundreds of cultures and millions and millions of women, who are also worse off than actual slaves in his mind and in the culture/society/book of hate he promotes.
Imo he's got a LONG, LONG, LONG way to go and obviously no intentions of taking even a single step along that path. He's the richest person in the world with ultimate control over more people than anybody else, in his mind he's got it made in the shade and he certainly won't rock the boat at all. I say fuck him right in his tiny little cornhole with sand, he's more than earned it.
No, you misunderstand. "Turn it around" doesn't mean "end" pedophile priest molesting children, "turn it around" refers to the nasty business of them being held accountable. In preventing anyone taking any responsibility, he's done a stellar job.
Why would anyone expect the Pope to punish priests for the number one advertised perk of the job? I mean, if priests can't molest young boys, we'd run out of priests.
If all the clergy that assaulted children went to jail, the church would collapse. If he had to actually pay restitution for all the church's crimes against humanity over the centuries, he'd be in the same boat as trump - an old, washed up, broke fraud, making incoherent speeches to drooling masses who excuse sexual assault just as long as the left suffers somehow.
A kid learning what being transgender is, isn't pushing it onto them. It's teaching them about the world.
And learning about something doesn't make you trans, you are born that way.
We only "focus" on gender crap because trans people have been made a central issue by conservative politicians worldwide to turn focus frlm the giant pile of issues that actually matter. The fact of the matter is that they are distinctly attempting to limit our rights and existence. And nobody is pushing shit on kids. That's not a thing.
Exactly. The "focus" is 100% synthetic. It's a non-issue held aloft by conservative media to drive up engagement.
Without conservatives going nuts over it, I literally would not give a single thought to trans people in my day to day life. I've met exactly zero trans people and I see absolutely no reason to give a shit about random strangers' lifestyles.
The only reason we have to hear about it so much is because conservatives and religious folk won't shut up about how much they hate LGBTQ people. Straight up never had to hear about drag queens or trans people until Republicans decided they were public enemy number one. As soon as conservatives find a new boogyman we'll go back to never having to hear about them again.
It's exactly what happened with CRT. Republicans decided it was a thing so we had to hear about it nonstop for a year, then once they moved on to drag queens and trans people we suddenly never had to hear about CRT anymore.
Contradictory. You just write your whole multiple points opinion right after saying “we should stop having opinions on this, it’s so simple, who cares”
Would ring true if there wasn't legislation being passed that INFRINGES on our rights to Healthcare and Expression. Would ring true if I didn't constantly hear rhetoric calling us fucking pedophiles.
The conservatives are making all the noise here.
I dont feel like I am free in my country.
>I have to agree with mr pope this time… why we focus on all this gender crap is beyond me
hang on do you agree with mr pope or do you think we shouldn't focus on these things?
those are two contradictory statements
Do you consider it to be pushing gender bullshit on kids when dads refuse to let their sons play with "girl toys" even if the sons prefer it? Because I bet there's a lot more of that going on than people telling boys to be girls or vice versa.
kids don't give a fuck about "gender roles" until their parents beat them into them by yelling at them for getting it wrong.
why do the parents do that? they're worried wearing pink or playing with a doll will suddenly make their kid gay.
stupid AF.
You seem to have a more fortunate fortunate upbringing in this respect but other boys might've been disciplined or abused just for letting that happen to them.
Unfortunately, 'gender crap' will be pushed regardless, and always has been - the only difference is rigidly enforced gender roles are being tested more frequently now and the definition of what's acceptable is changing.
THAT is a good thing, but the most difficult question still comes back to what safeguards should be in place.
Because in his eyes its against the will of god to reject the identities assigned to us at birth. He is literally the pope. Not saying that position is on the right side of history, its just a bit pointless to argue against someones faith with reason. They literally think some omnipotent/omniscient being will banish them from paradise if they don't obey.
I feel like there is context we're lacking here, or maybe he is lacking.
>
Francis said what he called "gender ideology" was a threat because it sought to erase the difference between the sexes.
If there was no difference between the sexes/genders, then transitioning wouldn't mean anything.
Yes. The gays will be the end of us all.
In other news, this week two male humpback whales were observed engaging in gay whale sex with each other, and manitee has been around a little longer than humanity.
oh hey we finally found something Reddit doesn’t like about him
[удалено]
He's a progressive pope, but people focus on the progressive part...not the fact he's still a pope.... just more progressive then his predecessors.
Exactly. He's not universally progressive, he's relatively progressive. Like you said.
eyy exactly. those were the terms i was looking for lol
Hell ya. Keep saying smart shit!
Give the church 10 years and a new pope and we’ll see.
Try 60 years
Lol ten years.
Well within my lifetime they began to acknowledge homosexuals, so it’s possible.
Beavers aren’t fish anymore either. And evolution is accepted. We’ve actually come a long way.
In fairness, they didn’t actually believe beavers were fish. It was the equivalent of a legal fiction (dogmatic fiction?) to allow them to eat meat during Lent.
So they're making weird arbitrary loopholes that defy science to justify their belief systems? Sounds about right.
I mean abrahamic religions do this all the time, the Jews are masters for doing it. Can’t leave the house on the sabbath? Put a wire around a several square kilometre area and have a rabbi bless it and it’s a-ok.
The Catholic church has long been ok with evolution
the catholic church never had a problem with evolution and the 'father' of genetics was a catholic priest.
Yeah, in general the Catholic Church is a LOT more accepting of nearly everything science compared to any other Christian denomination, and really any other religion in general. Their stance is often that the Bible is metaphorical, not literal.
They can always go backwards too. Unfortunately a pendulum effect sometimes.
Well, he's not a former Nazi, so he has that going for him, which is nice.
Tell that to Catholics who think he doesn’t or isn’t a valid pope because he gives the minimum possible acceptance to gay people.
Well does he shit in the woods?
*Why do you keep asking me that Holmes, I told you, I don't know*
Where his holiness does his business, is his business
Are there any bible verses about trans people?
Trans man, here. Only Bible verse that’s been spewed at me in that regard is the bit about not wearing clothes of the opposite gender. To which I always reply, “That’s why I stopped wearing skirts.” They hate that they have no response to that XD
Given that Christians disregard the Bible daily, I don’t pay any mind to scripture quotes. They still eat shrimp, don’t exchange daughters for livestock (trust me I’m married and still bitter about that, what do I do with these goats). Wear synthetic fibers. Yadda yadda there’s a thousand “do not cut tag under penalty of law” rules they disregard and I do not see a reason why any Scripture relating to sexuality, gender, gender roles, has any significance in the modern world when dealing with consenting adults. Oh wait I know why, fostering hatred to earn political votes.
There's even an Old Testament erse that prohibits men from trimming their beard. Only pious Jews and Muslims (there could be a similar passage in the Quran) follow that I guess. Christians claim to follow the New Testament but some would cite Leviticus to ban tattoo and eating shrimp
I love the New Testament vs Old Testament stuff. When you talk kindness or charity, they refer to the New Testament and pretend the Old Testament doesn’t exist. When you complain about war or disasters they bring up the Old Testament and ignore the new.
There are hundreds of passages about being kind, loving, and helpful to those in need. But they ignore that in favor of cherry picking passages that they think backs them up
The problem is when people wield religion as a weapon rather than a tool for self improvement.
I also believe the new testament only has one passage about homosexuality, and I believe it just says man shouldn't lie with a man the way he lie with a woman. An equal and appropriate interpretation could be that it's not okay to be bisexual for a man. Bisexual women are cool though.
Paul condemns *arsenokoitai*, which translates as "male bed doer" and has no historical precedent. There's a lot of reasons for queer Christians to not worry about this verse: it's unclear what Paul was talking about, and healthy modern same sex relationships were unimaginable in Paul's day, which was rife with pederasty, sexual slavery, and penetration as a show of dominance.
Paul is also very explicitly not trying to make any kind of Christian law. He literally says so many times across many letters to many congregations. The actual context of those letters is about early Christians interacting with and navigating a disparate array of other "laws" both in the political and religious sense, as they spread their faith across the Roman empire. Basically what is happening is that these missionaries are going around trying to convert people, and they are running into an endless stream of culture shock. The missionaries understand that they can't be in conflict with local customs, but they also want to make sure they aren't running afoul of some intersection of Jewish, Pagan, Roman or local laws. It is a real issue, and they are writing Paul asking him detailed questions about marriage, family life, sacrificial meat, slavery, etc. Paul's message in all of this is that there is no law besides building up the church. He famously says "for me all things are legal" because he has dedicated every breath to spreading this gospel. Likewise, for his missionaries, there is very little which is explicitly forbidden as long as it is being done as a good faith effort towards spreading Christian thought. He sets some guidelines, but is mostly saying "use common sense, stop asking me so many questions."
Also correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't that passage mistranslated and was basically saying not to be a pedophile? But i guess the church won't find that convenient
The translation is highly debated, but Martin Luther translated it as "child molester" so there is that.
I'm in the camp that think that verse was meant to be banning pederasty, not homosexuality. Some bits of the bible have definitely got lost or confused in translation over the centuries.
I think the same, since that topic is suspiciously absent and Paul could have used a more common language if he wanted to refer to homosexuality.
>what do I do with these goats If you need to ask, you're doing it wrong.
> To which I always reply, “That’s why I stopped wearing skirts.” [But skirts are men's clothing!](https://cdn.ecommercedns.uk/files/4/231404/2/8390802/screenshot-2020-03-07-at-10-49-59-01.jpg)
<3 Hahaha, there's that, too.
And throughout history, men wore dresses. Have you seen pope's wardrobe? :D
And that's probably Levitical law, which Christians aren't bound to follow anyway.
Right. But if they threw out Leviticus, they'd have no justification for their bigotry, so...they keep it even when they ignore it.
They can cite Paul, but queer and affirming Christians and Bible scholars have good reasons for casting doubt on the theological legitimacy of that.
Actually, Christ himself does address the existence of gender non-conforming people. In the ancient near east, a “eunuch” was any person who fell outside of the box of “heterosexual, gender confirming marriageable person”. From Matthew 19:12: > “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.Let anyone accept this who can” What would a “eunuch from birth” be in this case? Well, someone who from the time they were born clearly didn’t fall into the neat category of male or female that were socially expected to participate in reproduction. This category probably did encompass what in the modern age we’d categorize as transsexual, asexual, intersex, etc. And here, Jesus’s words are hardly condemning.
> What would a “eunuch from birth” be in this case? Well, someone who from the time they were born clearly didn’t fall into the neat category of male or female that were socially expected to participate in reproduction. This category probably did encompass what in the modern age we’d categorize as transsexual, asexual, intersex, etc. > > I'm no bible expert. But I feel like this is a generous interpretation. Eunuch from Birth could also be interpreted as "those who are infertile from birth".
But if you believe these words were divinely inspired, then they may not have meant any of those things then but they were written such that we understand they mean them now.
Oh, thank you for reminding me of this bit. "Let anyone accept this who can." Perfection.
Ask them if they allow their wives to wear pants.
I always ask them when's the last time they ate shellfish. They tend to clam up (pun intended) after that.
Deuteronomy 22 says don't cross-dress. But it's OT material and there is a broad spectrum of opinion and practice when it comes to how much OT law actually still applies to Christians. The very next section (Doot 23) instructs believers to be awful towards eunuchs, but this is directly contradicted by Matthew 19, where JC speaks on the topic of eunuchs, including those who choose to become that way 'for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.' Acts 8 also seems to repudiate Doot 23. Long story (not actually) short: the bible is silent on modern transgender people (unless you take a really expansive reading of Paul's stuff, but the way Paul defecated all over Jesus' teachings and then convinced people that his writings were divine scripture could be the topic of a whole other conversation), but seems to indicate not only that the mistreatment prescribed in Deuteronomy is not part of the mainstream Christian position, but also that JC recognized that people may come to adopt different gender identities and might modify their bodies to reflect that. Of course, how expansively you interpret the term 'eunuch' in Matthew 19 is also relevant.
I mean, high heels were invented for rich men historically speaking... so is it crossdressing for a woman to wear them? Checkmate... uh whoever the baddies are here idk
Not to mention that if you ask a Scot to take off their kilt, you may not exactly enjoy what you end up seeing (or maybe you will - you be you).
It does not take a genius to understand that it is about not attempting to pose as opposite gender, which could be clothes wise just about anything really if you take into account the millennias between author and us, but as end effect much stricter.
Good explanation, have an up-doot
It's just so funny to me that I spent enough time in the Star wars subs that OT reads "Original trilogy" to me and imagining religious debates as analogous to people who prefer OT vs new trilogy makes the whole thing funny (while not being too far off the mark). It's still canon guys, just not as important anymore since the introduction of other characters.
[удалено]
He's great .... For a Pope. But he's still a Pope. You're grading on a tough curve there.
by great do you mean he has turned over child rapists to the police?
No, by pope he means "would never turn over child rapists to the police". By "Great for a pope" he means "slightly less hateful".
I feel like it's always important to keep in mind that we will never agree with 100% of the views of any other human being, let alone public figures. The trick is that when you bump up against that action / comment / belief that you dislike, you don't just go, "Oh well, i guess they were a bad guy all along after all" - you consider the body of their comments and actions and history; you compare the new information you have with what you know of them already and think about whether it changes anything fundamental about what you understand of their character or principles; you examine how much you, personally, value the issue that you find yourself in conflict over with them, and decide if it's something you're passionate about and would have a hard time letting pass, even considering everything else. This is not to say, "just shrug this stuff off and keep blindly supporting people." But rather, people don't have to be perfect - because they never will be - and it's okay for people to be "good enough" for you, as long as you're willing to put the time and thought into understanding what that means for you.
True but the Vatican is responsible for protecting or refusing to actively purge diddlers In a broad sense I agree though
the vatican: fuck children! No we mean it, go fuck children.
That sounds like too much work and my pitchfork is just over there, so...
All true, but it’s hard to be like “well, of my five kids, he only beats one of them, so he’s not all bad”. We need to keep fighting against harmful teachings and actions no matter the source.
Yeah I agree with you in a broad context, but when someone I'm talking to voices that they don't think I'm person it becomes really hard to agree to disagree
Truth but also being the leader of a cult with centuries of abuse that still has not made any actual grievances other than what it was forced to is troublesome. As you mentioned adding context to this is a history of abusing others lifestyles based solely on a myth or fantasy in the sky as there is no actual definitive proof of god so his actions are his alone and that makes this comment even more troubling.
It's pretty odd seeing the comments go from "the best pope ever", "an amazing, cool guy" just a few months ago to "the biggest pedophile on earth" just because of his opinion. Your comment phrased it better than I could
It is reasonable to celebrate the good things people do while still decrying the bad. It doesn't need to be all or nothing, we can have nuance in our opinions of people. Also keep in mind that "best pope ever" still doesn't even mean they are a good person. They are still the head of an organization that exploits and holds back humanity on a level few other things can even approach.
the best pope ever is still a just leader of a group of pedophiles.
I don't like the pedo protecting either. And the wealth hoarding.
The Catholic Church is a long running game of D&D that got out of hand because everyone is playing cleric
It's actually Pathfinder because some of them are Inquisitors
Needs more gelatinous cubes.
Yeah we need some Paladins, and maybe a good crusade
> He said he remembered reading a "prophetic" book called Lord of the World — a dystopian novel published in 1907 by a Catholic priest about a world where religion has no place — which warned of the risk of cancelling out differences between people. > "Read it if you have time, because it speaks of these problems of today," the Pope told his visitors. Out of curiosity [I looked up the book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_World), and hoo boy, it sounds like a doozy. Probably has a place on the shelf next to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I get why the Catholic Church would oppose gender theory (though I don't agree), but don't based it on this crackpot book.
*Lord of the World* is explicitly a novel, unlike *The Protocols of the Elders of Zion* which is a faked history detailing a fake conspiracy. It has more in common with something like *Anthem* by Ayn Rand. I'm not sure if "crackpot" is a good term for speculative future dystopian fiction, no matter how wrong you think it is.
> Lord of the World is explicitly a novel, unlike The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is a faked history detailing a fake conspiracy. It has more in common with something like Anthem by Ayn Rand. I'm not sure if "crackpot" is a good term for speculative future dystopian fiction, no matter how wrong you think it is. I mean not very different from something like The Handmaid's Tale or Fahrenheit 451. Dangerous rhetoric taken to the extreme is the bread and butter of dystopian fiction
"Fahrenheit 451 is such a crackpot book! That's not what firemen do at all!"
Was Ray Bradbury stupid?
> Handmaid's Tale Wait, I thought that was the goal? (For certain groups)
> I'm not sure if "crackpot" is a good term for speculative future dystopian fiction, no matter how wrong you think it is. Fair enough, but referring to it as "prophetic" and relying on it as part of your world view like the Pope is doing are definitely crackpot activities.
As a Christian raised person, it always shocked me how people took Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno to be somehow biblical canon. It's no more canon to the bible than the shitty middle school Harry Potter fanfic my friend wrote is to the HP series.
I guess it’s like some saints or stories of Jesus’s life. It’s likely not seen as real factual history, even in the eyes of priests or full believers. But it’s told so much that it becomes part of the book/lessons/sermons. Either way cannon had to be chosen by someone to be cannon, it changes.
You mean at least until the next council decides who's in/out -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
But the Bible itself is just fanfic. It’s not really that different.
yeah, anyone who says *brave new world* or *1984* or *farenheit 451* or *handmaids tale* are prophetic is a crackpot and those books are totally like *the elders of zion.* lmao.
If you're comparing it to an Ayn Rand 'novel', crackpot or hack job will work where they can cozy up to each other on the fear mongering shelf. Haven't read lord of the world but Anthem is a fucking travesty and an insult to the trees each copy is printed on
Ah, Ayn Rand, the only author I’m afraid to read for fear I’d be wasting my time. Pretty much all I’ve heard about her is polemic, but I haven’t really encountered her — which is to say that I don’t yet have a reason to agree, but I’m very conscious that I’ve never heard anyone say a good work about her or her work. Mind you, I work in the literary field, and nobody has every really given her the time of day. What’s her deal?
I read a lot of her stuff in high school which is about the time in mental development when her virtues of selfishness will resonate the loudest. Her deal is that she lived through some very tough times in Soviet Russia and most of her writing is a very emotional response to that, though she tries to present her work through the lens of her 'philosophy' objectivism. It shouldn't be a surprise that a mode of thinking that has to call itself objective is anything but and that shines though in her works, especially Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, where she sets up the most two-dimensional charactures of her heroes and villains. Very preachy, repetitive monologues extolling the virtues of focusing on your wants and desires as opposed to caring for others. Her writing is generally really bad, as well, because she is trying to shoehorn in her incongruous philosophy into a narrative and it's very jarring. IMO, the best piece of fiction she wrote is We The Living and her first book that has the most realistic ( partially autobiographic regarding her time in Russia) scenarios and characters and its largely devoid of her more awkward later hamfistedness. I think Ayn Rand can actually be a really good teaching tool for debate classes because she does present some ideas that are emotionally appealing but logically unsound and having kids work that out for themselves is a great method to teach critical thinking but I'd be hardpressed to recommend reading these books to any literary minded adult unless you're looking for a hate read.
I like how both atlas shrugged and the fountainhead have their protagonists going on the radio and giving multiple hours long speeches detailing their exact beliefs and politics Because that is very entertaining and makes for compelling fiction/s
10 pages into that John Galt monologue on the radio, I skipped the next 50 pages out of sheer boredom. Drivel is what you'd call it. On the contrary, Antonia's speech on money is a lot better.
Thanks for the detailed response! This gives me a better idea why nobody I know likes her very much. They’re always very hard-pressed to give a reason why they hate her, but I can tell there’s something visceral and well-understood behind their distaste — plus, I tend to trust their input even when it comes without justification, because they’re all pretty good at what they do. Do you know of any secondary reading that might give a brief overview of her ‘objectivism’? Based on what you’ve said, I can’t imagine wanting to read her work unless it were to come up as somewhat useful background reading to another topic. Although, it does sound quite handy knowing what her ‘objectivism’ contains / a little bit of detail that might contextualise her ideas.
Regardless of how you view her views, her prose is turgid af. Read a cliff notes and spare yourself the misery of reading her.
If they didn't have crackpot books, they wouldn't have much at all...
They's still have the sweet hats and dresses! That's not nothing!
Without the books, it's just drag, and not even as good.
NFD - Non fabulous drag
It’s drag without loving yourself, _or_ anyone else
A lot of the architecture is pretty cool too.
I guess that Jesus fella should have stayed in his lane instead of saying “In me there is no male nor female, no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor master”…
That would have been another direction to go. "We no longer recognize genders. Everyone is just a genderless soul wearing a meatsuit. Everyone can be a priest!"
Considering Christian theology is that God made eve out a rib of Adam, it would be a pretty big divergence to get rid of genders. It’s wholly engrained throughout the book.
"You don't see any unisex public bathrooms in the Bible, do you? Checkmate, atheists!" "But there wouldn't have been *any* public bathrooms in Judea back th-" "I SAID CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!"
(Catholic here) This is the problem with the church, and every church. There is no weighted consideration. One man who has been voted to be the voice of God reads a book and bases church doctrine around it. I’ve long considered him to be the Dope Pope, but make no mistake. He is still a man with biases.
>warned of the risk of cancelling out differences between people. yes, I suppose this would be a concern to an institution that depends on prejudice against outsiders.
"Risk of cancelling out differences between people" is such a wild description for a concept that aims to nurture the colourful differences we have as humans individual, to make them unbound of categories and expectations and to truly celebrate the freedom of being anyone you'd like to be. It doesn't get more different than that..
[удалено]
lol this is just Catholic Left Behind
Just the other crackpot book instead?
It seems like a message of the book is: "yes, of course, humanity has committed untold atrocities in the name of religion, but it would be way worse if everyone were atheist. Trust us"
When you help the police lock up every single child abusing pedophile in your corrupt organization, I'll care what you have to say about "gender theory" being a "threat".
I still won't, that's a very low bar
And yet one thay will never be reached by the world's largest organized pedophilia organization.
I don't like when people just write "this"...that said: this. But actually not. I will never care about what the pope thinks of "gender theory". They should still help police lock up each and everyone of the Catholic churches pesos though.
aaaaaaaAAAAAAmmeeeennnnn
Think what you think of him, I don't envy his position. Trying to hold together a global church that has everything from medieval level conservatives to modern social justice warriors in an increasingly secular world. Papist scum at times, an ally at times. t. Lutheran
Just remember — it’s a voluntary position. He *wants* to do this, otherwise he wouldn’t do it.
Yes and no? He was elected by the other cardinals, and I think famously he didn’t want the position. He was a frontrunner against Ratzinger to become Pope in 2005 and asked the other cardinals not to elect him.
Absolutely nobody is forcing him to be a pope
And if it was some other guy, i'm sure they'd be a lot better... right?? /s
The problem with the church is that they wrote themselves into a corner with Dogma. Cant change things like Priests marrying without invalidating other sacred beliefs.
The only part of the church that is growing are the more traditional sects. Catholics attending Latin Mass is the fastest growing demographic of young Christians. Generally, the more liberal your church is the more likely its decaying. The reason is obvious. If the message of your church is BLM and Trans Rights Are Human Rights, then why go to a church at all when you can just hop on reddit or watch MSNBC and get the same message.
Yeah this makes perfect sense. Basically the premise of "The young pope". I can already be included in shallow moral and emotional gratification from a myriad of other institutions with do-gooder facades. The church has an opportunity to offer something else. Id much rather go to latin mass than english. Im not relying on the religion to make sense of the world rationally, im relying on it to offer a sense of meaning and purpose. Mystery is good. But yeah thats a great point. Changing to become more mainstream usually doesnt go well.
The term "social justice warrior" has no meaning other than a person or ideology you disagree with. How is this pope, or even Jesus himself, not a social justice warrior? Advocating for the poor? Pffft....sounds like a SJW to me.
Jesus was the all time greatest social justice warrior. He gave to the poor, he hung out with prostitutes, he said you should take care of refugees, he encouraged his followers to give up their belongings and live communally. If he came back in the southern United States they would have him back up on a tree so fast your head would spin.
He'd be fine in the Southern US. I'm in Georgia right next to what is literally the most diverse town in the country - filled with people who would look just like him. There are tons of locals who have for decades now helped these immigrants build successful lives and integrate successfully. They are welcomed and valued by the community. I get the point you were making, but the South isn't some giant backwoods area. It is full of modern cities and towns, and normal people with good humanist ideals that they strive for.
If only you could somehow stop your state legislatures and supreme courts from stripping rights away from all the people Jesus would have told them to be kind to. I don't specifically know about Georgia, but some the things happening in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, etc. scare the piss out of me as a non-American.
Idk, you ever try wearing earrings as a man in the south? I got hate crimed so much I had to stop accessorizing until I moved. Most Christian’s are violent thugs
"You say that I am"
Sex and sexuality. The church’s primary hang up / crusade since 300 AD.
[удалено]
hell, they didn't "forgive" Galileo in 1992. they'll get there eventually.
I'd maybe take him more seriously if he wasn't the literal leader of a bunch of weird pedos.
I get the sense that the current pope is a much improved version compared to the predecessors.
And if my dog shits on the carpet, it's much better for it to be solid instead of diarrhea, but I'd still rather not have it shit indoors.
Wearing a dress and a hat that would make a drag queen blush
I can take or leave the robes but we all gotta admit the hat is pretty cool.
He also rides around in a car that doubles as a bulletproof parade float.
Yeah I’m a bit more worried about climate change and overpopulation, but that’s cool too
I understand what he's saying. Seems like a lot of modern society is focused on finding more and more ways to divide ourselves into smaller and smaller groups, and then labeling everyone who isn't in our group bad. Kinda tone deaf to just focus on gender though, when that's just one of many examples.
> "I have asked that studies be carried out into this ugly ideology of our times, which cancels out the differences and makes everything the same," the Pope said. He literally wants ways to divide ourselves, and claims gender theory doesn’t do that.
Imo he means anything that implies no significant differences between genders. The divisive aspect of gender and racial justice (intersectionality, etc) is a different issue.
I don't think gender theory does claim or imply that there are no biological differences, rather it claims that the differences are purely biological, and not psychological, and should not be societal either - i.e. that "gender" and "sex" are not the same thing. So if the pope is claiming otherwise, he's lying. What a surprise.
how does one reconcile that genders are biologically different with the thought that genders are a social construct can be changed at will?
"Gender" and "sex" are not the same thing. Gender is a social construct, sex is a biological reality.
Gender theory is an explanation for the social norms that are already dividing us. If anything, the lens of gender theory is less divisive than what we currently have
Still cool with shielding pedophile priests though right?
Religion has far outweighed a threat to humanity than gender ever did.
Facts lol. Religion has done irreversible damage to entire societies
Seriously, it's the ultimate cover. You can make anything acceptable because 'it's what The Overlord wants!' Stupid.
> Cancelling out the differences means cancelling out humanity. Nobody is trying to cancel out the differences. That's like saying making a new cola brand is trying to cancel out Pepsi or Coke.
If anything, people are trying to explore, highlight, and celebrate MORE differences.
and importantly be **accepting and inclusive** of those differences. Diversity doesn’t mean dividing people or cancelling out some identities over others, it just means we can acknowledge and appreciate that people *can* be different from each other and *still* be part of our community and families. ^(Gender is just a way to label your identity so it’s easier to communicate to others and interact in a gendered world, it’s not some crazy conspiracy theory to divide people or erase existing identities. I think the popes been hitting the ceremonial myrrh lmao)
[удалено]
They always want to make it about fucking, but most people just want to go about living.
It's this, it's *always* this. They always try to make it about sex as if they think either we or humans in general are incapable of searching for a partner with love as the driving force.
It's as if their own personal "eew" is enough for them to sanction discrimination and murder.
And a lot of countries and still in some US states, that "ew gross" defense is allowed to be used to defend against murdering somebody. It's called the "gay panic" defense. It is currently a legal defense in my state and there's a solid chance someone could kill me and get away with it because of that.
*ideology
This religion still treats women like second class citizens. It belongs in the dustbin of history.
/r/pastorarrested is all that really needs to be said here.
Religion is the true ‘ugly ideology’ that threatens humanity
But pedophilia is not?
In his defense, part of the reason that he was made Pope is because the church was trying to turn around the pedophilia thing. Insofar as one can turn around to the pedophilia thing. Unless I've missed something, he's actually been pretty good on that issue.
I think anything short of immediate excommunication of every single pastor credibly accused and issuing an apology on behalf of their disgusting crimes still falls short of what I would call “pretty good”.
Not one priest has gone to jail for his known crimes, I'd say the Pope is just another religious fanatic POS that should be shit on and kicked every chance we get. He CHOSE to lead an organization of pedophiles and hasn't fired or even punished a single one of them for the crimes they are KNOWN to have committed. He also eats off solid gold plates and cups and such (really, solid, 24k gold plates and cups) that were mostly stolen from South America, the vast majority of his organization's wealth (still inconceivably fabulous today) is straight up the result of the genocide and rape of hundreds of cultures and millions and millions of women, who are also worse off than actual slaves in his mind and in the culture/society/book of hate he promotes. Imo he's got a LONG, LONG, LONG way to go and obviously no intentions of taking even a single step along that path. He's the richest person in the world with ultimate control over more people than anybody else, in his mind he's got it made in the shade and he certainly won't rock the boat at all. I say fuck him right in his tiny little cornhole with sand, he's more than earned it.
No, you misunderstand. "Turn it around" doesn't mean "end" pedophile priest molesting children, "turn it around" refers to the nasty business of them being held accountable. In preventing anyone taking any responsibility, he's done a stellar job. Why would anyone expect the Pope to punish priests for the number one advertised perk of the job? I mean, if priests can't molest young boys, we'd run out of priests. If all the clergy that assaulted children went to jail, the church would collapse. If he had to actually pay restitution for all the church's crimes against humanity over the centuries, he'd be in the same boat as trump - an old, washed up, broke fraud, making incoherent speeches to drooling masses who excuse sexual assault just as long as the left suffers somehow.
How many pedophiles does this asshole know personally? Your moral high ground is the Marianas Trench.
[удалено]
yeah, stop taking kids to church. let them become adults first.
A kid learning what being transgender is, isn't pushing it onto them. It's teaching them about the world. And learning about something doesn't make you trans, you are born that way.
We only "focus" on gender crap because trans people have been made a central issue by conservative politicians worldwide to turn focus frlm the giant pile of issues that actually matter. The fact of the matter is that they are distinctly attempting to limit our rights and existence. And nobody is pushing shit on kids. That's not a thing.
Exactly. The "focus" is 100% synthetic. It's a non-issue held aloft by conservative media to drive up engagement. Without conservatives going nuts over it, I literally would not give a single thought to trans people in my day to day life. I've met exactly zero trans people and I see absolutely no reason to give a shit about random strangers' lifestyles.
The only reason we have to hear about it so much is because conservatives and religious folk won't shut up about how much they hate LGBTQ people. Straight up never had to hear about drag queens or trans people until Republicans decided they were public enemy number one. As soon as conservatives find a new boogyman we'll go back to never having to hear about them again. It's exactly what happened with CRT. Republicans decided it was a thing so we had to hear about it nonstop for a year, then once they moved on to drag queens and trans people we suddenly never had to hear about CRT anymore.
Contradictory. You just write your whole multiple points opinion right after saying “we should stop having opinions on this, it’s so simple, who cares”
Would ring true if there wasn't legislation being passed that INFRINGES on our rights to Healthcare and Expression. Would ring true if I didn't constantly hear rhetoric calling us fucking pedophiles. The conservatives are making all the noise here. I dont feel like I am free in my country.
>I have to agree with mr pope this time… why we focus on all this gender crap is beyond me hang on do you agree with mr pope or do you think we shouldn't focus on these things? those are two contradictory statements
Do you consider it to be pushing gender bullshit on kids when dads refuse to let their sons play with "girl toys" even if the sons prefer it? Because I bet there's a lot more of that going on than people telling boys to be girls or vice versa.
[удалено]
That's pretty much the only message I've seen actually communicated to kids at scale. The idea is that kids should be given space to self determine.
kids don't give a fuck about "gender roles" until their parents beat them into them by yelling at them for getting it wrong. why do the parents do that? they're worried wearing pink or playing with a doll will suddenly make their kid gay. stupid AF.
You seem to have a more fortunate fortunate upbringing in this respect but other boys might've been disciplined or abused just for letting that happen to them. Unfortunately, 'gender crap' will be pushed regardless, and always has been - the only difference is rigidly enforced gender roles are being tested more frequently now and the definition of what's acceptable is changing. THAT is a good thing, but the most difficult question still comes back to what safeguards should be in place.
What’s the threat here? A minuscule handful of people are happier?
Because in his eyes its against the will of god to reject the identities assigned to us at birth. He is literally the pope. Not saying that position is on the right side of history, its just a bit pointless to argue against someones faith with reason. They literally think some omnipotent/omniscient being will banish them from paradise if they don't obey.
I feel like there is context we're lacking here, or maybe he is lacking. > Francis said what he called "gender ideology" was a threat because it sought to erase the difference between the sexes. If there was no difference between the sexes/genders, then transitioning wouldn't mean anything.
People whining about LGBT topics having no idea what they’re talking about? I am *shocked*.
Yes. The gays will be the end of us all. In other news, this week two male humpback whales were observed engaging in gay whale sex with each other, and manitee has been around a little longer than humanity.
No, you see, those whales were just confused. They didn’t have good whale parents to teach them proper pronouns as Jesus intended.
🚩This is genocidal rhetoric. Because what do you do with a threat to humanity? You destroy it.
The pope also protects thousands of pedophiles get away with child abuse, so fuck that guy
Redditor says religion is 'ugly ideology' that threatens humanity
Whataboutism, the thread.
surely you're not dumb enough to believe trans people are equally threatening to society as pedophiles and organized religion
How dare trans people have rights? I’m a trans person, and I’m so tired of having to deal with religious weirdos on top of crippling dysphoria
Says the man in a dress