There are no “chaste gays” there are just chaste people regardless of what desire they are avoiding. If those desires being avoided happen to include homosexual desires that doesn’t automatically doom someone anymore than desires for premarital sex would. My posts is in no way minimize or justify the intensely unclean and disgusting nature of sodomy despite what the illiterate “trad”tard thinks.
There is a kind of "Protestantism" among traders, since they use personal interpretation to define what is right and what is not.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Are they still talking about me? you didn't answer me in the other thread;
If I'm moronic, why? and why continue paying attention to someone who is illiterate?
????
>catechism
why did the pope decide people don't need Jesus to go to heaven? Seems like a complete rejection of God to take that position as a Christian. Vatican 2 seems like a mistake since israelites are obviously damned for rejecting the Christ.
technically speaking the Catechism does not say this. Granted they use a bunch of legalese that accomplishes the same thing without stating it outright, but there official position is that everyone needs Jesus to get into heaven, they just maintain the hope that there are ways to Jesus not immediately visible to us, or something like that.
Only if God gives explicit faith before death otherwise they go to hell.
I've noticed a huge amount of tradcucks will defend being a coomer by saying "At least I'm straight, you degenerate homosexual!" when the bible basically compares lusting after another woman to adultery and says if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, and if your eye causes you to sin gouge it out (ie there's no excuse where you go "I just can't help sinning, dude!", you have to stop b***h)
I was engaging with a Baptist preacher a while ago who told me the same thing. I'm an atheist but I like to listen to and kind of query these people on their religion, I find it interesting and I honestly respect their devotion. Internet Christians and tradtards on the other hand are actual subhumans who should be shoved in a gas chamber.
true answer: the appeal they see in traditionalist fundamentalism is not of rational origin, but rather it is an intense emotional rejection, perhaps rationalIZED but never truly rational, of the modern western world. Therefore, true knowledge and consistency are secondary to the act of lashing out.
Who are these idiots you people are always complaining about? Are the trads mostly a social media thing? Because even the dumbest of /misc/ users knows the difference between homosexual feelings and sodomy.
The trads have the traditional understanding of lust. This is REAL Catholicism below
not the post Vatican II BS
??
same shit
Lol le utube sourzes
It's Sedevacantist Catholic restorationism. It's restoring the original Catholicism that people try to destroy.
"We are all familiar with this line from the movie, Field of Dreams, but are we acquainted with the vision, desire and hard work that is required to make this conversant saying a reality?
The proposed association of Catholic priests, organized under the designation, Priests for the Restoration of Catholic Life (hereafter referred to as the “Restorationists”), envisions a unified Catholic clergy with the singular mission of leading the faithful toward a truly Catholic life. To stay focused on this objective, we are establishing an association of priests trained to teach, practice (liturgical) and live an authentically Catholic existence. To ensure simplicity of purpose, each Chapel or Church founded will operate independently of any institutionalized organization yet remain part of the Church instituted by Christ Jesus. We rely on the spiritual maturity of each priest to conduct the affairs of a parish with humility and uprightness. This may seem like a tall order, considering the depths to which the Modernists have sunk the priesthood, but it is possible for men of good will. Also, autonomous foundations will eliminate the need for extensive fundraising campaigns and corporate share-pooling.
Validly consecrated Bishops will function as the spiritual heads of the associated priests, serving them as spiritual fathers rather than as corporate bosses. With authority based on spiritual jurisdiction, rather than physical jurisdiction, the bishops will counsel and guide the ongoing education and formation of the priests under their charge."
Did you see the last debate you had about gays and gay "desire"?
the catechism is clear about this
and it's wrong because it's lust and if not it's against natural law.
I'm not a Christian my friend.
I'm Muslim, but I'm proud of what your religion founded, you guys created Western civilization.
the "debate" came down to two 15 year old idiots, one was gay who said he was celibate and how that was a good thing and the other was moronic who argued about how celibate isn't everything and that it was still wrong, so a debate ensued between the two idiots for hours. I watched it all hahahaha
I don't know who was right, the gay one on the other hand, used the catechism as evidence, but the other idiot argued well about it didn't confirm much. Anyway, it was a show of diarrhea, but I noticed several Catholics defending the gay position
This is from Vatican II, which I reject. Vatican II was never a valid council and Vatican I was not a finished council. It was halfway done but neglected to say more to keep balance because of turmoil.
catechism 2358 and 2359
How do you define unjust discrimination? According to many people not letting them marry is "discrimination"
2359. >Homosexual people are called to chastity. Through the virtues of self-control, educators of interior freedom, and, sometimes, through the support of disinterested friendship, through prayer and sacramental grace, they can and must approach, gradually and resolutely, Christian perfection.
Validating an urge is the last thing you want to do to someone. It tempts them more.
I'm talking about chaste Christian gays without SSA
If you don't have ssa how are you gay?
There are gays who control their thoughts (which are not sins) and practice celibate.
that's not being gay. gay isn't an identity it's an action.
>If you distinguish between those repentant and unrepentant that means you celebrate gays.
Someone who doesn't have sexual lust towards the same sex isn't gay. You're redefining words.
How is telling someone their urges are never to be acted on validating them?
Telling people not to have a goal of urges going away or telling them to identify as the urges
Homosexuality arises from differences in the brain, its not going to go away, and they will have homosexual desires for as long as they have any sort of sex drive.
ما المتخلفين
Is this really written in the catechism of you Catholic friends? with all due respect, but it sounds like it was written by a right-wing California governor wanting everyone's votes
wow this is really, you know, "strange"
I'm not going to say what happened, because I can "leave" here if you understand me, but when the last homosexual appeared here we used what we called "Persian" punishment on him
No.
They are gays, but chaste
You lost
Then why are more people gay now that the thought is affirmed?
Neurofeedback proves the brain can be changed.
>Then why are more people gay now that the thought is affirmed?
Because before they were at much greater risk of being socially ostracized if not assaulted or even thrown into prison for sodomy laws.
>Neurofeedback proves the brain can be changed.
To a limited extent maybe, attempts to train people to abandon homosexual urges are universally considered abysmal failures by mainstream psychology and no wonder, can you imagine a program training people not to be heterosexual having much success? And if you think that is there bias, there are all sorts of physiological conditions science has been unable to change through therapy, and even drugs often only have a limited effect.
no, the """"""debate"""""" was made by the same person, they were bots, I discovered this by looking at the dates, the op would write something and after a few seconds the opponent would do the same and vice versa . look at the post times, it was the same people probably the same ones who created the thread last week about the God being a Canaanite deity the mods should take a look at this, trolls and spam 2 months ago, Mordvix and friends are gone, now The threads /misc/ are disappearing and becoming increasingly common.
Not sure if it was meant for my post here
, but regardless, thanks for the briefing! The gay kid was obviously right. Just being homosexual isn't a sin in the same way just being an alcoholic isn't. The idea that one could be in sin without actually engaging in any sinful activity is moronic.
Yes
The gay btfo
It's a desire against natural law. The same as desiring a relationship with your brother or sister is against natural law.
Thoughts are not actions.
Yes
Desiring alcohol doesn't break the natural law.
Neither do I as a heterosexual male violate natural law principles by showing strong affection for any of my male friends. What does violate them is disordered *sexual* feelings or intentions, which is a real distinction. But I would add that a homosexual *should* err on the side of extreme caution, given the highly degenerate society we all now share, and that maybe even seemingly innocent feelings should be avoided and relationships with the opposite sex should be cultivated instead if an object for such affection is still desired.
sincerely?
the "tradcoper", was not necessarily wrong, perhaps his problem was not expressed very well and even though his arguments made some sense and I understood what he meant, the gay man focused on something that no one could doubt, the catechism and if picked up on this asking for sources of the same.
not that it's necessarily right, but the other kid should have been more prepared and used more Christian sources but it was a horrible debate, and yes, there were probably a lot of bots
>The idea that one could be in sin without actually engaging in any sinful activity is moronic.
So are you rejecting the notion of original sin? Fair enough, but that's a pretty niche view.
>The trads have the traditional understanding of lust.
And what is this traditional understanding of lust? And how does it differ to a contemporary understanding?
Contemporary theology doesn't talk enough about natural law. Homosexuality is against natural law so any homosexual urge is sinful. It's like how romantic incest urges are sinful because they are against natural law.
Catholicism doesn't say against gays
traditional Catholicism does
No
Did you watch your video?
he is literally talking about MARRIAGE*
These same chaste gays that I mentioned are aware of this, and the church is not against them, it teaches them celibate.
The church is not inherently against gays, especially chaste ones
he himself says "we must bless people"
Answer me dude
I don't believe in gay identity. Either you are indulging in lusts in your heart or not.
Arguments=0