Good, that should be the message, now excommunicate anyone off message or tell them they aren't Christians.
If I recall correctly, you are an atheist, not a Christian. Christians don't want or need atheists telling them how to be Christians any more than they want or need Jews telling them how to be Christians.
Yep I'm an atheist, one that has studied not just religious philosophy so I fully grasp the understanding of being an atheist but also studied cults and how insidious they are.
I'll be honest, the institutions at the top of Christian religions, so not the grassroots, have been infected with cults. Ones that want to use the religious authority they've been given to promote their own agenda.
As an atheist, I WANT Christianity to be a strong religion as truth be told, you've had a lot of success keeping people morally in line compared to others and less likely to kill non believers like myself. You not fighting that corruption is what gives me concerns as at least the last time there was corruption at the top, believers had enough strength to break away from the Vatican to prove a point.
As an atheist, I WANT Christianity to be a strong religion as truth be told,
As an atheist, your goals for Christianity differ from the goals of Christians and the goals of Christ Himself. As your comment implies, you see Christianity only as a political tool to achieve your political aims. You see it as a way to enforce your desired moral outcomes, not God's moral outcomes. That is not Christianity.
In contrast, a Christian sees his religion as Truth. Christ is the Son of God. He is Lord and King. We obey Christ becomes it is our duty to so. He has tasked us with loving God and loving our neighbours as well as our enemies. Fundamentally, a Christian's main motivation is to achieve God's will, not the will of humans. Therein is the clear distinction between your goals and my goals.
In some cases, I may be able to work you to achieve particular aims. But I will not apologize for calling out your attempt to tell me how I should be acting as a Christian. If I need guidance, I will turn to prayer and the Holy Spirit, not a random atheist on the internet.
You do, of course, have the free will to become accept Christ in your life as King and Saviour and become Christian. It is my hope that you do so.
Forgiveness and "forgetting pasts entirely" are two different things you literal Somali-brain retard. Not all Christians are 70 year old winsome Evangelical boomers.
Discernment and proper judgement are the cornerstones of Christianity. What Doug Wilson, Michael Knowles, and the rest of the authorized modern public Christian voices peddle is bullshit post-1990 "just be nice" Christianity. It is possible to forgive genuinely repentant whores for their whoring and you can also correctly determine that they are still unfit to be around you and yours.
Christianity has been infiltrated and subverted a long, long time ago. Every branch and denomination. Before you'd have been right: convents and social shaming would have done the work. Now the solution for us moving forward is triage. Forgive the truly repentant whore but give her nothing until she's proven herself time and time again. Give all assistance and resources to the worthy. Gatekeep locally! It's the only thing we can realistically do. Get a core of 10 solid people in your life and weather the storm. Christians and aware-Secularists alike need to batten the fucking hatches and not pretend this is a solveable problem in our lifetimes.
Christianity Inc. is just as pozzed, if not moreso, than Conservative Inc. They're either brainwashed into thinking the problem isn't a problem (Knowles, Wilson, and Walsh, imo), or they're actively subversive and giving bad advice (looking at you, Klaven). All of these idiots need to be told off and mocked. The Pope is a perfect example of modern "Christian" thought and a prime example of what everyone should be skeptical of. Yes Prots, even you, because the heads of your organizations are just as bad, if not worse. They just don't get the publicity the Pope does.
Christians also insist that we forgive the most run-through whores and marry them in their 30s.
Indeed, Christians must be willing to forgive the sins of others, as God forgives our sins. But whether you want to marry is entirely up to you. Everyone has their own calling. I have said so before, on this very forum.
In fact, I'd say if you are searching for true meaning in your life, you will only find in the Christ. You will not find it in marrying or having children, despite anything other Christians may tell you.
Forgiveness, of course, requires true repentance and penance, and righting the wrongs of sin. Your understanding of Christianity appears to be rather incomplete.
You have not sinned against me, so there is no need for me forgive you.
How is this not just good advice despite who says it?
Because there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Because even if sometimes, as a weak human, I may sometimes desire my enemies to be destroyed or harmed, that may not be God's will. In fact, it is probably not His will, as I know He desires all of us people to be brought into His light and be saved.
Because the successor to the chair of Saint Peter, who Christ placed in charge of His Church, has not deemed that this is the correct response to those who spread what I consider falsehoods, so out of obedience and respect, I must be willing to accept that he knows better than me.
Because the successor to the chair of Saint Peter ...
So you're completely helpless against a hostile subversive force undermining your church.
And I'm not saying that's necessarily what's happened: I'm just pointing out that if it is, you've lost your church forever ... unless those subversives are kind enough to give it back to you one day.
So you're completely helpless against a hostile subversive force undermining your church.
No. As a Christian, it is my role follow Christ to the best of my ability. One thing He requires of me is obedience, including obedience to the hierarchy of the Church. Yet this is not blind obedience. You edited out how I phrased my statement of obedience "I must be willing to accept that he knows better than me". The point is that if I am to dissent with the hierarchy of the Church, I must be very sure that this out of love for God, not my own selfishness or because I have been seduced by Satan. The starting point must always be that I am wrong, and the Church is right. After all, Jesus said:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
In any case, the point here is rather moot, because apparently the charge against me is that I am foolish for choosing to obey the Church over some random atheists on the internet. If that makes me foolish in your eyes, then so be it. I'd rather be called foolish then be led astray.
The Vatican on Monday issued a declaration, “Dignitas Infinita,” on human dignity, warning that the practice of surrogacy, transgender surgeries, and gender theory are contrary to human dignity.
[...]
The name of the document translates to “Infinite Dignity,” and it’s a five-year-long product of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith that reaffirms Catholic Church teaching on the topics. It addresses a number of weighty topics that have entered the political sphere, including surrogacy.
So of course, this article doesn't help define "dignity," and it isn't clear how significant it is, if really at all. It's also strange that this apparently took 5 years to work on, but I can also imagine there were several layers of bureaucracy that it had to go through.
When you bolded the name of the office in your quote, I thought you were going to call attention to it. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is the most old school of groups, they despise the Jesuits... oh, and their original name was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. Gentleman, the Inquisition just dropped a gauntlet on the Pope.
So of course, this article doesn't help define "dignity," and it isn't clear how significant it is, if really at all.
No, but the full declaration does. It defines several forms of dignity.
The full declaration is here.
Yet, your comment above indicates you are relying on a report by a journalist to tell you what the declaration says and "how significant it is". The declaration isn't that long, so perhaps it's worth reading rather than relying on a journalist?
Without reading the article, what's wrong with surrogacy? As a man, if I wanted children, this would definitely a way that I would consider going about it. Pay a woman to have my child, likely conceived through in-vitro fertilization, and have her renounce all claims to parentage for it. And then potentially find a long-term girlfriend or wife, now that they would have no claim whatsoever over the child and wouldn't be able to threaten me with taking them away from me for cash and prizes.
I don't care much for Christiano Ronaldo, but I will always respect him for going about it this way. He knew that as a millionaire (or is he a billionaire?), women would try to parasitize him for his money through any means necessary, so he took steps ahead of time to avoid the worst case scenario.
A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract.
This sounds like a rather clear condemnation of abortion and alimony/child support. I wonder why he didn't bother to specify that he was against those practices.
Moreover, acknowledging the dignity of the human person also entails recognizing every dimension of the dignity of the conjugal union and of human procreation.
As long as no-fault divorce exists and there remains no penalties for breaking your holy sworn vows of loyalty and support until death, as long as the union can be freely broken for cash and prizes, there exists no "dignity" in the "conjugal union". It's nothing more than a thin façade, easily ignored when convenient.
Although I tend to have a somewhat dim view of homosexual couples, I don't really have anything against allowing them to make use of a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, in the case of lesbians. I strongly condemn paedophilia, and hope that any "parents" of children who catch monkey pox are flayed and hung in the town square, and I recognize that children raised by homosexual parents will very likely have a far less balanced upbringing than those raised by both a mother and a father, but I still don't overly mind them hiring the services of someone from the opposite sex to enable them to have children who are related by blood. Their children will not necessarily turn into degenerates, as long as the parents aren't too far gone themselves.
And as far as I'm concerned, surrogacy contracts are a legitimate agreement between consenting adults, and a good option for women to earn money when they are not actively working a full-time job. It is up to them to decide whether they are willing to carry a child that they will have no part in raising, along with the restrictions that they will have to impose upon themselves during the duration of the pregnancy, such as no smoking, no alcohol, no drugs, and having a balanced diet. Since the concept of a "holy matrimony" has been extinct from the Western world for so many decades, I disagree with him that surrogacy is a practice that should be banned.
Francis virtue signals the traditional pro-life doctrines, but doesn't actually do anything about it. Joe Biden can still take communion. Pro-life American bishops are censured. We don't want to get too political now.
This shouldn't even be a matter of faith, it should be a matter of nature.
Good, that should be the message, now excommunicate anyone off message or tell them they aren't Christians.
If I recall correctly, you are an atheist, not a Christian. Christians don't want or need atheists telling them how to be Christians any more than they want or need Jews telling them how to be Christians.
Yep I'm an atheist, one that has studied not just religious philosophy so I fully grasp the understanding of being an atheist but also studied cults and how insidious they are.
I'll be honest, the institutions at the top of Christian religions, so not the grassroots, have been infected with cults. Ones that want to use the religious authority they've been given to promote their own agenda.
As an atheist, I WANT Christianity to be a strong religion as truth be told, you've had a lot of success keeping people morally in line compared to others and less likely to kill non believers like myself. You not fighting that corruption is what gives me concerns as at least the last time there was corruption at the top, believers had enough strength to break away from the Vatican to prove a point.
As an atheist, your goals for Christianity differ from the goals of Christians and the goals of Christ Himself. As your comment implies, you see Christianity only as a political tool to achieve your political aims. You see it as a way to enforce your desired moral outcomes, not God's moral outcomes. That is not Christianity.
In contrast, a Christian sees his religion as Truth. Christ is the Son of God. He is Lord and King. We obey Christ becomes it is our duty to so. He has tasked us with loving God and loving our neighbours as well as our enemies. Fundamentally, a Christian's main motivation is to achieve God's will, not the will of humans. Therein is the clear distinction between your goals and my goals.
In some cases, I may be able to work you to achieve particular aims. But I will not apologize for calling out your attempt to tell me how I should be acting as a Christian. If I need guidance, I will turn to prayer and the Holy Spirit, not a random atheist on the internet.
You do, of course, have the free will to become accept Christ in your life as King and Saviour and become Christian. It is my hope that you do so.
Forgiveness and "forgetting pasts entirely" are two different things you literal Somali-brain retard. Not all Christians are 70 year old winsome Evangelical boomers.
Discernment and proper judgement are the cornerstones of Christianity. What Doug Wilson, Michael Knowles, and the rest of the authorized modern public Christian voices peddle is bullshit post-1990 "just be nice" Christianity. It is possible to forgive genuinely repentant whores for their whoring and you can also correctly determine that they are still unfit to be around you and yours.
Christianity has been infiltrated and subverted a long, long time ago. Every branch and denomination. Before you'd have been right: convents and social shaming would have done the work. Now the solution for us moving forward is triage. Forgive the truly repentant whore but give her nothing until she's proven herself time and time again. Give all assistance and resources to the worthy. Gatekeep locally! It's the only thing we can realistically do. Get a core of 10 solid people in your life and weather the storm. Christians and aware-Secularists alike need to batten the fucking hatches and not pretend this is a solveable problem in our lifetimes.
Christianity Inc. is just as pozzed, if not moreso, than Conservative Inc. They're either brainwashed into thinking the problem isn't a problem (Knowles, Wilson, and Walsh, imo), or they're actively subversive and giving bad advice (looking at you, Klaven). All of these idiots need to be told off and mocked. The Pope is a perfect example of modern "Christian" thought and a prime example of what everyone should be skeptical of. Yes Prots, even you, because the heads of your organizations are just as bad, if not worse. They just don't get the publicity the Pope does.
Indeed, Christians must be willing to forgive the sins of others, as God forgives our sins. But whether you want to marry is entirely up to you. Everyone has their own calling. I have said so before, on this very forum.
In fact, I'd say if you are searching for true meaning in your life, you will only find in the Christ. You will not find it in marrying or having children, despite anything other Christians may tell you.
Forgiveness, of course, requires true repentance and penance, and righting the wrongs of sin. Your understanding of Christianity appears to be rather incomplete.
You have not sinned against me, so there is no need for me forgive you.
Christians don't want their own leaders to tell them how to be Christian either (surprise: it means accepting degeneracy)
https://twitter.com/TurnipMerchant/status/1662172265780264979
Also I like how the Episcopalian church sues individual churches after they vote to leave because they can't even vote that Jesus is Lord.
https://virtueonline.org/columbus-oh-episcopalians-refuse-affirmation-christ
You take an issue with:
because the messenger is atheist. How is this not just good advice despite who says it? This just comes off as childish, petulant foot stomping.
And related: why should anyone take the institutions of Christianity seriously when they clearly don't even take themselves seriously?
Because there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Because even if sometimes, as a weak human, I may sometimes desire my enemies to be destroyed or harmed, that may not be God's will. In fact, it is probably not His will, as I know He desires all of us people to be brought into His light and be saved.
Because the successor to the chair of Saint Peter, who Christ placed in charge of His Church, has not deemed that this is the correct response to those who spread what I consider falsehoods, so out of obedience and respect, I must be willing to accept that he knows better than me.
So you're completely helpless against a hostile subversive force undermining your church.
And I'm not saying that's necessarily what's happened: I'm just pointing out that if it is, you've lost your church forever ... unless those subversives are kind enough to give it back to you one day.
No. As a Christian, it is my role follow Christ to the best of my ability. One thing He requires of me is obedience, including obedience to the hierarchy of the Church. Yet this is not blind obedience. You edited out how I phrased my statement of obedience "I must be willing to accept that he knows better than me". The point is that if I am to dissent with the hierarchy of the Church, I must be very sure that this out of love for God, not my own selfishness or because I have been seduced by Satan. The starting point must always be that I am wrong, and the Church is right. After all, Jesus said:
In any case, the point here is rather moot, because apparently the charge against me is that I am foolish for choosing to obey the Church over some random atheists on the internet. If that makes me foolish in your eyes, then so be it. I'd rather be called foolish then be led astray.
Dot org archive link
So of course, this article doesn't help define "dignity," and it isn't clear how significant it is, if really at all. It's also strange that this apparently took 5 years to work on, but I can also imagine there were several layers of bureaucracy that it had to go through.
The full declaration is here.
When you bolded the name of the office in your quote, I thought you were going to call attention to it. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is the most old school of groups, they despise the Jesuits... oh, and their original name was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. Gentleman, the Inquisition just dropped a gauntlet on the Pope.
I have no concept of the office, just noting that this apparently took them 5 years to make (I might hope among other documents).
Oh, trust me, DDF doesn't make a move like this without having planned other moves.
No, but the full declaration does. It defines several forms of dignity.
Yet, your comment above indicates you are relying on a report by a journalist to tell you what the declaration says and "how significant it is". The declaration isn't that long, so perhaps it's worth reading rather than relying on a journalist?
DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY DIGGIDY
It's about time the Catholics woke up.
I'm guessing there's been a Vatican coup because the current Pope is all in on this kind of depravity.
Things are getting interesting.
The group that released this is essentially always acted as an anti-heresy dead man's trigger. No one expects the Roman Inquisition.
How'd they get this past the Woke Pope?
Just like that the proglodytes are back to hating the papacy. I hope the bump in media buzz was worth all the disgusted faithful they drove away.
Without reading the article, what's wrong with surrogacy? As a man, if I wanted children, this would definitely a way that I would consider going about it. Pay a woman to have my child, likely conceived through in-vitro fertilization, and have her renounce all claims to parentage for it. And then potentially find a long-term girlfriend or wife, now that they would have no claim whatsoever over the child and wouldn't be able to threaten me with taking them away from me for cash and prizes.
I don't care much for Christiano Ronaldo, but I will always respect him for going about it this way. He knew that as a millionaire (or is he a billionaire?), women would try to parasitize him for his money through any means necessary, so he took steps ahead of time to avoid the worst case scenario.
This sounds like a rather clear condemnation of abortion and alimony/child support. I wonder why he didn't bother to specify that he was against those practices.
As long as no-fault divorce exists and there remains no penalties for breaking your holy sworn vows of loyalty and support until death, as long as the union can be freely broken for cash and prizes, there exists no "dignity" in the "conjugal union". It's nothing more than a thin façade, easily ignored when convenient.
Although I tend to have a somewhat dim view of homosexual couples, I don't really have anything against allowing them to make use of a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, in the case of lesbians. I strongly condemn paedophilia, and hope that any "parents" of children who catch monkey pox are flayed and hung in the town square, and I recognize that children raised by homosexual parents will very likely have a far less balanced upbringing than those raised by both a mother and a father, but I still don't overly mind them hiring the services of someone from the opposite sex to enable them to have children who are related by blood. Their children will not necessarily turn into degenerates, as long as the parents aren't too far gone themselves.
And as far as I'm concerned, surrogacy contracts are a legitimate agreement between consenting adults, and a good option for women to earn money when they are not actively working a full-time job. It is up to them to decide whether they are willing to carry a child that they will have no part in raising, along with the restrictions that they will have to impose upon themselves during the duration of the pregnancy, such as no smoking, no alcohol, no drugs, and having a balanced diet. Since the concept of a "holy matrimony" has been extinct from the Western world for so many decades, I disagree with him that surrogacy is a practice that should be banned.
Nitpick, but since alimony is spousal support (not child support) it's not related to children or that proclamation one way or the other.
Pretty sure the Church has always condemned abortion.
Well, it's pope Francis. I forget if he was actually against abortion or not. I wouldn't be surprised if he supported it.
Francis virtue signals the traditional pro-life doctrines, but doesn't actually do anything about it. Joe Biden can still take communion. Pro-life American bishops are censured. We don't want to get too political now.
To play the advocate most infernal ...
I have issue with the point as stated in paragraph 48. Was not Mary, in fact, the surrogate of God, the Father?
Is not St. Joseph venerated as the "Holy Stepfather"?
No shit? It's about time.