It's the condemnation of life style choices IN GENERAL* that is Snapper's crime, not his condemnation of sexual mores per se.

If we replace "Gay sex" or "Pre marital sex" with "riding motorcycles" or it doesn't get any better.


* with the assumption that said life style choices are not actually harming others.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"... is that the correct quote?

Does Libertarian count as a religion?

Well, it certainly doesn't count as a philosophy.

#181 on the previous page:

I would not have objection to being a teammate in any of these scenarios. If any caused me discomfort, it would be 4 and possibly 3, more than 5.

Of course, I suppose I could have subdivided case 5 according to which heterosexual behavior in 1-4 he most closely resembled; all are possible. I even wonder if case #1 (faithful to the one woman back home) might be thought of by his teammates as No Fun. (I have read Ball Four, of course.)

Christianity's history during WW II is problematic because the Vatican never saw fit to condemn Hitler.

They were just thinking ahead. If they'd distanced themselves from Nazism, it would've made it a lot harder for them to pick a former member of the Hitler Youth as Pope.

188-########. Hitler the man hated Christianity, because it came from the Jews. Hitler the politician, of course sang a different song for a while.

Hitler on Christianity and its Jewish roots:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

Again, what a sad little twerp you are

Yap yap yap. Keep flexing those e-muscles tough guy.

I accepted it after living the secular position and finding it wanting, studying the Catholic position, studying the teachings of the great theologians, and finding it the only coherent theory of sexuality.

That you came to this position AFTER applying critical thinking is jaw-droppingly awful. That your theory also depends on ruining sex for millions and damaging psyches around the world by telling people how terrible they are for enjoying it except within your very narrow schema makes it that much worse.

Sure sex is fun, but it causes as much misery as it does happiness.

You're doing it really, really wrong.

Think of all the ridiculous behavior people engage in to get sex.

Think of all the ridiculous behavior people engage in to get married, particularly when you try to make marriage the only source of sex, and to stay married. If you're making a utilitarian argument here, it's failing badly.

We need not be slaves to our animal instincts.

Just as we need not be slaves to exploitative hierarchies, destructive doctrine, and foolish sexual codes that lead to misery.

Also, thanks to snapper for expressing his views so well in this thread. I'm with you, my Catholic brother.

You should know that sounds pretty darned gay.

(Although in the abstract both the Catholic Church and Christianity are empty suits as far as I can tell, but then so are all other religions and churches--Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, you name it--again, as far as I can tell.)

The difference is, at their best, Buddhists are thoroughly awesome, while even the best mainstream Christians will apologetically inform you that you're still going to hell if you don't believe as they do.

Yap yap yap. Keep flexing those e-muscles tough guy.

The internet would be a much better place if it was known we could each get the true name and address of one poster per year.

Why? You want some of me? YOU WANT SOME OF ME?

(please don't want some of me)

?

Nah--actually, I was thinking of someone else. I don't have a problem with you. That I know of. Do I?

You totally missed your chance, YR.

Again, what a sad little twerp you are

I am not sad!

Just as we need not be slaves to exploitative hierarchies, destructive doctrine, and foolish sexual codes that lead to misery.

Affirmative.

To snapper: There's an old Japanese saying- "The frog in the well does not know the sea.".

I don't think frogs do very well in saltwater, but I'm prepared to be wrong about that.

Osmosis is a harsh mistress.

It's the condemnation of life style choices IN GENERAL* that is Snapper's crime, not his condemnation of sexual mores per se.

If I'm reading him correctly, snapper believes that people are harming themselves (and perhaps other members of society) through their actions, and that's why he's condemning that particular behavior. I don't think it's a very logically sound view without a host of unsupported assumptions, but that's a different sort of issue than "being a judgmental prick."

I strongly disagree with a lot of snapper's positions, but I don't dislike him; I think his heart is in the right place even if his head isn't.

I don't think it's a very logically sound view without a host of unsupported assumptions,

So if he included a host of unsupported assumptions, then you would be with him?