Be gay

Everyone has desires that they should not act on. Everyone commits sin. Even on the issue of sexuality, straight people having sex without being open to procreation is a sin.
You who have said "supposed to keep it in his pants HIS WHOLE FUCKING LIFE" as an impossible thing is as lustful as a gay guy who spends his time on gay saunas.

You don't understand Christianity as well as you think you do.

>HURR

Why should I care what you think? Tell me how I'm wrong, don't waste my time with your dull opinions.

So to you there is no additional burden on the faggot over his identical but straight twin? yeah, no, you're a liar.

Believing in Christ means you try to the very best of your ability to avoid sinning.

Yes. Both are supposed to not go around having sex for the sake of pleasure.
And we are all sinners and we are all inclined to sin.

Yes but if you fall short, what then? Hell? Or does God forgive you, if only you pray to him / tell your priest? It's almost like sinning doesn't actually matter to god, only that you continually re-affirm your devotion to him.

So the fact that the straight man can marry some thot and fuck her every day while the faggot has literally no opportunity to ever have sex, this is perfectly fair in your demented little mind? Imagine you were born into a country where ONLY gay sex was legal, you have the same rights to marry another man and fuck his ass every day, so it's perfectly fair that you can never know a woman, right?

Not him but do you seriously think your question poses any intellectual problem for a religion that has a philosophical tradition that spans two millennia?

>while the faggot has literally no opportunity to ever have sex
He can marry too and have sex, like gay men have done throughout history.

The fact it hasn't been answered in all that time is pretty damning, yes.

Everyone falls short. You ask for forgiveness and try to not to sin again.

So yes, you literally think it would be fine if you were given the opportunity to marry another man, but prohibited from fucking women? no, you don't. You are simply a liar.

The fact that you seriously think your question hasn't been answered, as if it were some complex, deep dilemma, says a lot about how arrogant you are.

That has been answered by the Church. It is not because you are ignorant of it that other people are.

So yes, sinning doesn't matter to god, only that you continually reaffirm your devotion. I mean even if you DON'T sin, you still sin, right? It's inescapable, by design, so that you have to keep going back to your pusher for your fix.

Of course I don't because gay sex is immoral so the comparison doesn't stand.

Okay dimwit, I'm going to strop bothering with you if you're not interested in presenting any case beyond toad-fatuous snark.

You think that sexual pleasure is all important for life. Christianity doesn't.
If you marry a thot and have too much sex for the sole sake of pleasure, you are like to become lustful
Priests are also supposed to be celibate.

Good. I mean, you're shown yourself to be the kind of person who is incredibly arrogant so what would be the point in telling you the answers that have been given given centuries ago to your type of question?

>You have free will
>But I know everything

Lmao sure Christians

>foreknowledge is an issue for free will
t. brainlet

Of course it matters. You do avoid sinning.

>You think that sexual pleasure is all important for life. Christianity doesn't.

Its so unimportant in fact that you will go to hell forever for it.

>If you marry a thot and have too much sex for the sole sake of pleasure, you are like to become lustful
So? As long as you direct your lust at your wife its all fine.

>Priests are also supposed to be celibate.
In some traditions but not in all, but even so if a priest fucks some divorcee he will be shamed and have to publically apologies and ask god for forgiveness but its not going to be a real problem for him.

If everything is destined to happen, what will do I have?

Unless you don't, you mean? Christians don't actually sin any less than non-Christians, by pretty much any metric from divorce rates to criminal behavior. They just think that when they sin, they can just get it "wiped away" by asking Jesus, rather than having to take real responsibility for their behavior.

>If everything is destined to happen
Only calvinists believe that to be the case, and they don't really believe in free will.
Foreknowledge is just knowing something before it happens, it's not the same as knowing everything because every single state of the universe necessarily follows from the previous state of the universe. The two things are different because foreknowledge doesn't block in any way free will if it is obtained the way the god of the christians does, which is by being outside of time, therefore seeing the whole "movie" of the universe "before" it happens. It's not that he knows what you will do because there was no other way for you to act, it's that he knows it because he has literally already seen you do it.

>As long as you direct your lust at your wife its all fine.
No, it won't, you literally don't understand the first thing about traditional christian morality. You shouldn't have sex with your wife for pleasure alone either.

>Its so unimportant in fact that you will go to hell forever for it.

Having sexual pleasure is not considered important. How you deal with your desires for sex is important. In a way, this is similar to Stoicism. For a Stoic, sexual pleasure is zero value. But considering sexual pleasure to be a good thing or to become dependent on sexual pleasure is a bad thing.

>So? As long as you direct your lust at your wife its all fine.
"Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

If you have sex for the sake of pleasure with your wife, this is as bad as the gay guy in a gay sauna.

>In some traditions but not in all, but even so if a priest fucks some divorcee he will be shamed and have to publically apologies and ask god for forgiveness but its not going to be a real problem for him.
A priest who made vows of chastity having sex with a woman is as bad as a priest having sex with a man.

Sounds like a round about answer that answers a question that it asked itself.

>Foreknowledge is just knowing something before it happens, it's not the same as knowing everything because every single state of the universe necessarily follows from the previous state of the universe.

It doesn't mean that for limited being like us, a prophet or seer with foreknowledge doesn't disprove free will, but for a being that knows literally everything, foreknowledge does imply no free will. There is no possibility you can act in a way god did not already know you would "freely choose", even before he created the universe.

>Christians don't actually sin any less than non-Christians
They do, the numbers are just fuzzied up by non-whites of the shitty variety being more likely to be christians than not.
In fact, church attendance is a good predictor of proper civil behavior.

Tell me what sin you commit if you fuck your wide too often. And don't bother with "lust", there's no commandment against lusting after your own wife.

>They just think that when they sin, they can just get it "wiped away" by asking Jesus

If you are supposed to feel bad for sinning and to try your best to avoid sinning again.

>Having sexual pleasure is not considered important. How you deal with your desires for sex is important.

But how is it fair for one man to be born with no sex drive, and therefore no prospect to sin in this way, while another is flaming faggot, with a huge desire for sex but no "unsinful" way to indulge said desires? How is god not setting up the faggot to fail, giving him a burden the wizard doesn't have?

inb4 it's your choice how much sex drive you have

I don't care how it sounds to you.
>but for a being that knows literally everything, foreknowledge does imply no free will
No, I've already explained to you why that's not the case, you haven't addressed anything, you've just restated what you incorrectly believe.
>There is no possibility
Yes, there is, but it's a logical and metaphysical possibility, not a physical one, because as I've said he already has seen it happen. God did not know everything "before" he created the universe, although as I've already said "before" doesn't make sense.

>there's no commandment against it therefore it can't be a sin
Why are all nu-atheists reasoning from a basic bitch protestant perspective?

>A priest who made vows of chastity having sex with a woman is as bad as a priest having sex with a man.

This just isn't true. Even for Catholics, a priest who fucked a divorcee would have to be a real prick to get himself defrocked, if he's contrite and kisses his bishop's rod, he will at worst face being moved to another parish in shame, while one who fucked a man is done as a priest.

>If you have sex for the sake of pleasure with your wife, this is as bad as the gay guy in a gay sauna.
So being gay is literally no big deal? I mean what would the lustful husband have to do, say a few extra "hail marys" once a week? So a guy who goes out every night and fucks dudes, that's all he;d be expected to do, too, in order to remain a good Catholic?

>But how is it fair
Your idea of fairness is a retarded, modern one, which is fundamentally incoherent.

Sorry, go look it up, but this pattern is true irrespective of race. Religious people (of any faith) are no more moral in their actual behavior than avowed atheists are.

>while one who fucked a man is done as a priest
boy, you really don't know anything, do you? The catholic church is full of fags.

Everyone has their burdens and is inclined to sin.

>to indulge said desires
Neither the straight man nor the gay man is supposed to have sex for the sake of pleasure. You are supposed to be able to control your desires.

>Sorry, go look it up
I have, it's not true irrespective of race.
>Religious people (of any faith) are no more moral in their actual behavior than avowed atheists are
If you classify religious people as people who answer "yes I have a religion", sure. If you classify them as people who actually go to church and so on, no.

>This just isn't true. Even for Catholics, a priest who fucked a divorcee would have to be a real prick to get himself defrocked, if he's contrite and kisses his bishop's rod, he will at worst face being moved to another parish in shame, while one who fucked a man is done as a priest.

You have no idea on the state of the Catholic Church.

>So being gay is literally no big deal? I mean what would the lustful husband have to do, say a few extra "hail marys" once a week? So a guy who goes out every night and fucks dudes, that's all he;d be expected to do, too, in order to remain a good Catholic?

They are both supposed to know they did a bad thing, try their best to control their lust and avoid sinning again.

>No, I've already explained to you why that's not the case

You explained nothing, you simply asserted it. If gods knows without possibility of being mistaken everything you will ever do, then you don't have free will, you only have the illusion of free will.

So your answer is "it's fair because god said so"? Great argument.

Not publicly outed ones, dipshit.

Yes, I explained it but you're a brainlet so you don't get the difference between there not being a possible world in which you will differently from what you will actually do (not what christians think) and there not being a chance in this world that you won't act the way you will because from the perspective of god that has already happened (what christians do believe).
Or in yet another way, god's knowledge isn't a cause of your behavior, it's the consequence of it.

lol, keep believing that. In a church not far from here a priest there was a scandal with a priest fucking a male escort.
He's still a priest. Plenty of cases like these.

You have no idea on the state of the Church.

So you think it's fair that people have different inclinations to sin, thus setting them at a greater risk to end up in hell, because everyone has at least some risk? Do you know what humans mean when they use the word fair?

No, my answer is that it's fair because the idea that there's something unfair about the state of affairs you describe is based on an incoherent notion of fairness.

>no true religious person

>They are both supposed to know they did a bad thing, try their best to control their lust and avoid sinning again.

Sure, but what happens when they fail? And they're expected to fail, because they're just wretched sinners, right? The lustful guy will mumble his hail marys, then the flaming boytwink will m utter his, and they're both back in good standing with the church until NEXT Sunday, right?

If what you got out of my post is that, you're unironically a brainlet. I said church attendance. Classify religious people only as people who go to church more often than not and there will be a correlation between that and lower crime. This has already been studied.
In fact, don't even classify "religious people", just plot average amount of crimes committed per person vs average number of times in a year that person has gone to church.

How is it possible that something gods knows from before he creates me is somehow true only because of how I choose to act? This is literal nonsense. And his omniscience doesn't have to be the cause of our lack of free will, it simply proves we cannot have free will IF there is an omniscient god.

Then things have changed. I'd say "for the good" but I honestly don't care about your cult enough to wonder if this move will help or hurt it.

What's incoherent about "someone with an additional burden has a disadvantage compared to someone without that burden"? the incoherence here is all yours, friendo.

>Classify religious people only as people who go to church more often than not and there will be a correlation between that and lower crime. This has already been studied.

Then you should have no trouble proving it.

>How is it possible that something gods knows from before he creates me is somehow true only because of how I choose to act?
Let me try for the last time, but please at least try to understand a little bit. God doesn't know everything about the universe before he creates it, god knows it all the moment he creates it because the moment the universe springs into existence, god, being outside of time, has already witnessed it all. He doesn't act as a cause in you behaving in a certain way, he just knows it because he's privy to all of the universe, spatially and temporally, since he's not bound by either space or time.
Another way of framing this, there's two types of "before" at hand here, one is temporal, as in at t X versus at t x+2, one is logical, in the sense of "needed presmises". Say you bang to rocks and then a sparkle happens. If we remove time out of the equation, the two things happen in the same istant but you still need the rocks banging to have the sparkle happen or the latter doesn't happen. God doesn't know it before "logically" because that WOULD violate free will, he knows it temporally because he already seen the whole universe the moment he created it. Get it now?

>"someone with an additional burden has a disadvantage compared to someone without that burden"
Sure, ceteris paribus. What I'm saying is that a) it's not ceteris paribus, b) the reward isn't the same for the two people.

One example.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/article/?id=11380
Look up the others.

Everyone has inclination to sins. The Pope commits sins. Saints committed sins, when they were alive. And this is expected. That's one of the differences of Christian ethics and Stoic ethics. The Stoic believe God has given you the means to be a perfect person. Christian ethics believe you should try to achieve that, but in the end it is impossible.

They are supposed to make an effort to not sin again, which your examples apparently aren't doing.

>Then things have changed.
Things didn't change in this issue. A priest who made celibacy vows who sleeps with someone was always considered a bad one. And there were always homosexual clergy.

>but I honestly don't care about your cult enough to wonder if this move will help or hurt it.
Given how ignorant you are of it, I imagine you don't care about it.

Jesus says lusting after someone is committing adultery in your heart, so by that logic being attracted to men is as bad as acting on it.

Veeky Forums is actually more of a shitshow then /pol/.. you guys should be ashamed of yourselves you can't have a constructive conversation to save your lives.. literally you are some of the most hateful bigoted people I know. I seriously just want to have constructive conversations about history but every single thread turns into a name calling shit throwing fest.

Can you do gay stuff in heaven? Holding off for a few years in order to spend eternity doing what you really want sounds okay.

Can you people even read?
Did jesus say "lusting after someone is like committing adultery outside of your mind"? No, he didn't, he said it's the same as committing adultery in your heart, which evidently shows it's not the same thing as actually acting on the thought.
Setting that aside, attraction and lust aren't the same things.

>say ignorant shit
>get called on it
"Wow, why is Veeky Forums so mean? Reddit thinks my liberal criticism of Christian ethics is great."

Obviously no two real world examples are identical but identical twins who vary in terms of sex preference is pretty fucking close, wqit being such a pedant.

>b) the reward isn't the same for the two people.

Really? A faggot and a straight, who lead identical lives, follow the same Christian creed, and who never fuck any man in the ass, don't get the same reward? Show me where, in the Bible it spells this out.

So you agree with me yet feel the need not to? Okay. And who gives a shit what the stoics thought? Why do you think this is relevant? Not that you're even close to right, stoics absolutely don't believe whatever nonsense strawman you seem to think they did, they absolutely expected people to fall short of their ideals, they merely expected them to take responsibility for their shortfallings instead of pretending a man space jew had washed it all away.

>Things didn't change in this issue. A priest who made celibacy vows who sleeps with someone was always considered a bad one. And there were always homosexual clergy.
Hahah what a typical lying sack of shit you are. I'm sure, in the 1920's and 30's, a priest who was outed as a sodomite was allowed to stay a priest and was treated just the same as a priest who had sex with a divorcee, there has been absolutely no change int his matter, because change is of the devil!

>HURR how dare you not care about my irrelevant cult!
You have any idea how many christian cults alone there are? Why should I care about your petty differences, when you have such disdain for other views?

So he said "thinking about something is like thinking about that thing"? Wow what a deep and insightful thinker!

Literally my first post in this thread and yet you are still retarded enough to attack me as if I took a side. You are disgusting human trash regardless of your beliefs as I can't even be bothered to learn what kind of delusions float around in your head.

Look at all these NT kiddies ITT, truth is God just likes banter

Then don't believe in him dickhead, fuck me, you cunts are all the same
>Oh God doesn't agree with what I do
>But I really want him too
No one cares

You are uneducated.

>So you agree with me yet feel the need not to?
You said homosexuals are different because they have an inclination to a sin. But everyone has inclination to sin and everyone is a sinner.

>And who gives a shit what the stoics thought? Why do you think this is relevant? Not that you're even close to right, stoics absolutely don't believe whatever nonsense strawman you seem to think they did, they absolutely expected people to fall short of their ideals, they merely expected them to take responsibility for their shortfallings

The Stoics believed the Gods have given man the capability of being completely virtuous by himself. That is different from Christianity, which believes we are all sinners and only God can save us.

Why can't we have a religion containment board?

Gender and sexuality are social constructs and active choices

>Hahah what a typical lying sack of shit you are. I'm sure, in the 1920's and 30's, a priest who was outed as a sodomite was allowed to stay a priest and was treated just the same as a priest who had sex with a divorcee, there has been absolutely no change int his matter, because change is of the devil!

They were both considered corrupt.

>You have any idea how many christian cults alone there are? Why should I care about your petty differences, when you have such disdain for other views?
The Catholic Church has over a billion members.

Still doesn't mean anything teached in these churches is true though.

You mean what did the culture that created Him mean.

>God made me gay.

Are gay people that incapable of being responsible for their own actions?

As if millions of straight people haven't claimed "god made me do it."

>wiring in brain makes you more attracted towards people who there is no reason for you to be attracted to
>God: Literally why?
>why does god hate meeee ;_;?

What next? Rapists are gonna claim their brain is wired to make them act like that?

>the comparison doesn't stand because my biased morals say so.
And Christians like you still wonder why they're being shat on.

And see here is the thing you're struggling to grasp : rape is basically the act of enforcing sexual act on someone, when homosexuality doesn't imply any form of enforcement and like heterosexuals, most gays base their sex lives on consent.
No need to thank me I'm happy to have enlightened you.