4 ms·

> You can disagree with it but being Catholic doesn’t make you crazy. Yes it does. Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does no

by fs111 4y ago

> You can disagree with it but being Catholic doesn’t make you crazy. Yes it does. Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does not make them any less crazy. There is no provable god. Any of their beliefs are just that, beliefs. Nothing they "teach" can be verified or measured. It is all made up nonsense and you might as well call it crazy. People do not raise from the dead. We die, that's it.

maxbond 4y ago
I don't think it's necessary to denounce religion to criticize these views, and that's usually viewed as flamebait.
mindslight 4y ago
> Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does not make them any less crazy. I agree with this, for provably wrong, generally accepted as wrong, or blatantly contradictory statements. But from a secular perspective, believing in god(s) is just an approximation or heuristic. Some people need or want that. For my own thinking I've judged it as an questionable axiom that creates a logic hole large enough to drive a bulldozer through, but to each their own. What actually matters is the conclusions and behaviors a person builds on top of it.
anon291 4y ago
Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality does not require there to be a God. In fact the reasoning is entirely secular. You may disagree with it, but that is the case. Catholic moral teaching on slavery is based on there being a God. When it comes to marriage, the church believes that relations between men and women that can result in the generation of a child are worthy of special privileges. Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage. If you can find two men or two women who produced a child, the church would change its beliefs, but no one has been able to do so. Note that there's no dependence on their being a god for this one. The fact that heterosexual couplings produce children is an observation. That this relationship should come with societal privilege is a statement one can come to through reason.
- pmarreck 4y ago
  > Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage Is this indeed so?
  - anon291 4y ago
    Yes, men who cannot have erections due to permanent disability or women without vaginas (whether due to surgery or existing disability) cannot marry in the church. It's always been the case.
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      I thought I heard about all the dumb things in the church, but I thought wrong

by fs111 4y ago

maxbond 4y ago

I don't think it's necessary to denounce religion to criticize these views, and that's usually viewed as flamebait.

mindslight 4y ago

> Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does not make them any less crazy. I agree with this, for provably wrong, generally accepted as wrong, or blatantly contradictory statements. But from a secular perspective, believing in god(s) is just an approximation or heuristic. Some people need or want that. For my own thinking I've judged it as an questionable axiom that creates a logic hole large enough to drive a bulldozer through, but to each their own. What actually matters is the conclusions and behaviors a person builds on top of it.

anon291 4y ago

Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality does not require there to be a God. In fact the reasoning is entirely secular. You may disagree with it, but that is the case. Catholic moral teaching on slavery is based on there being a God. When it comes to marriage, the church believes that relations between men and women that can result in the generation of a child are worthy of special privileges. Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage. If you can find two men or two women who produced a child, the church would change its beliefs, but no one has been able to do so. Note that there's no dependence on their being a god for this one. The fact that heterosexual couplings produce children is an observation. That this relationship should come with societal privilege is a statement one can come to through reason.

pmarreck 4y ago
> Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage Is this indeed so?
- anon291 4y ago
  Yes, men who cannot have erections due to permanent disability or women without vaginas (whether due to surgery or existing disability) cannot marry in the church. It's always been the case.
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    I thought I heard about all the dumb things in the church, but I thought wrong