The Orwellian Sexual Revolution

  • Registration closed, comedy forum, Internet drama, Sneed, etc.
M

MW 590

Guest
kiwifarms.net
Check that crusade against sexual abuse link I posted before. The Catholic Church at no point in its history whatsoever has ever managed to get the clergy or the laity to actually follow the rules on sexuality; if anything it's actually doing better today considering clerics aren't openly fathering children or keeping concubines in the western rite as historically has been the norm.
Fornication is one of the most common sins but one that is easy to do penance for. Many clerics and Catholic monarchs and nobility fathered children with concubines because they didn’t use birth control which as I said is a greater sin, and what many clerics use today in order to keep their fornication a secret. King David had concubines but he was still a man after God’s own heart.
It said a man has a right to demand sex and compared it to doing chores. That's fucking sick man,
It is Catholic doctrine that it is a sacred duty for married couples to procreate which is what they meant by chore. A women is allowed to abstain in the short term but not long term. How is it sick to say that women should not violate their wedding vows? It is just as bad when a husband denies his wife sex.
So it's totally fine to scream at your wife and bully her into offering sex. Like I said, Catholics have a very low sexual standard compared to westerners because here in the western world; we call bulling a woman into offering sex rape.
I did not say that it is fine, I in fact said that a husband who does it is an asshole. However, it falls short of rape because the wife still makes a choice. If a wife bullies her husband into offering sex, is it rape?

If you say it is because the spouse doesn’t want to have sex, here is an important analogy. Some leftists support legalizing prostitution(which I as a Christian thought should be illegal until I discovered that it was actually legal in Medieval England with certain restrictions). However under the flawed definition of rape you gave, prostitution is rape because the prostitute has sex not because she wants to, but because she wants money.
Not gonna happen.
What? Did Pomme send you a message saying she broke up with me?! Tell me the truth!
15 is low (far too low in my opinion), however this is still higher than the Catholic south and the official Catholic age of marriageability.

It doesn't matter if she "looks older", a fourteen year old girl is still a child. This is still church endorsed pedophilia, even if it's higher than it used to be.

Again, Catholics have very low sexual standards.
I am not justifying the age of consent laws in Southern Europe, I am saying that it is caused by the darker skin and hair color of Southern Europeans, not by Catholicism.

And I also said that I believe that either 16 or 18 should be the age of consent and men who marry 14 year old girls should WAIT until she turns 16-18 before having sex.
I'm picking on Catholics because you're a Catholic. Please don't think I think any higher of Protestants, I have the same level of respect for them as I do all theists; that is to say none at all.

Considering that most of the UK now identifies as "No Religion" versus a then previous Anglican majority prior to the date you list what you said just proves my point; Christians have lower sexual standards than Western Secularists.
But in atheist Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein and others raped many women and boys. The popular atheist YouTuber, The Amazing Atheist made fun of a rape victim on reddit.
I'm sure the pedocows listed on these forums would be delighted to hear they're in line with Catholic morality to inflict "very mild" child abuse on babies.
What they mean by very mild is that the babies simply don’t get to have beatific vision. So their beliefs did not differ much from the idea of Limbo except that in Limbo, the babies are neither rewarded nor punished.
It's the most "Greek" of the Gospels; in that it's the one that introduces the mystical elements such as the logos and focuses on God as an entity of love rather than the father as the embodiment of law and wrath. It's also the only one with a specifically anti-Jewish bent. There's a lot to go through, but for a very brief introduction..... https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.html
The concept of the logos was introduced by diaspora Jews living in Greece showing that some Jews had a divinely inspired understanding of the Son of God even before the Son of God came.

It is true that Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t mention the Pharisees as much as John, but that is because as the article said, they are from a Galilean perspective while John is from a Judean perspective.
Uh huh, and that really flies in the high reneissance where Popes like Julius II openly kept male concubines and the Borgias who fathered children every other five minutes.

The fucking Vatican today still owns gay brothels and saunas https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lours-where-priests-pay-for-sex-a6729251.html

TL;DR: The Catholic Church endorses pedophilia and rape at an official level and you still haven't proven otherwise.
According to Wikipedia Pope Julius III had a relationship with Inmocenzo Ciochii Del Monte who’s age was unknown but declared by the Pope to be in 1532 which would make him 18 by the time he had relations with the Pope. Pope Alexander VI was promiscuous but the women he had sex with seem to have consented.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

MW 590

Guest
kiwifarms.net
When is Jacob Harrison going to start E. Micheal Jones posting? The slaughter of cities and the jewish revolutionary spirit were good, for a papist.
Because I am wise enough to know not to solely blame the Jews for the Church’s problems. Martin Luther was actually an antisemite, and the French Revolution was inspired by European Freemasons. George Soros is actually working against his own people’s best interests, because the open borders in Europe has caused many Jews to be vulnerable to Islamic terrorist attacks.
 

Vitoze

Autism Fo Am Byth
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Because I am wise enough to know not to solely blame the Jews for the Church’s problems. Martin Luther was actually an antisemite, and the French Revolution was inspired by European Freemasons. George Soros is actually working against his own people’s best interests, because the open borders in Europe has caused many Jews to be vulnerable to Islamic terrorist attacks.
If you'd read his books, you'd realize that's not all what he's about.

I was really wondering when the invocation of logos would start.
 
Last edited:
M

MW 590

Guest
kiwifarms.net
If you'd read his books, you'd realize that's not all what he's about.

I was really wondering when the invocation of logos would start.
This is a review of his book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
What is the thesis that has gotten Jones in all this hot water? He says that throughout the past two thousand years, whenever there has been a major movement opposed to the Catholic Church, the Jews have tended to side with those movements, whether religious, social or political.
There is some truth to that but it is not fully the case. While they did side with the French Republic during the French Revolution, they did not take a part in the Protestant Reformation. In fact Martin Luther’s writings on the Jews inspired the Nazis. Jews didn’t become aligned with Protestants until Evangelicals started supporting Israel and those Jews tend to be specifically Israelis.

While there were many Communist Jews, they were atheist Jews instead of religious Jews who were persecuted by the Communists along with Christians.

While many liberal and secular Jews support abortion and same sex marriage, the more conservative religious Jews oppose it.
 

Vitoze

Autism Fo Am Byth
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
This is a review of his book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.

There is some truth to that but it is not fully the case. While they did side with the French Republic during the French Revolution, they did not take a part in the Protestant Reformation. In fact Martin Luther’s writings on the Jews inspired the Nazis. Jews didn’t become aligned with Protestants until Evangelicals started supporting Israel and those Jews tend to be specifically Israelis.
Well, the protestant reformation didn't start anti-Catholic. Furthermore, Christian zionism started in the US with dispensationalism and the Scofield bible, a commentary whose history is worth looking into.

While there were many Communist Jews, they were atheist Jews instead of religious Jews who were persecuted by the Communists along with Christians.
Fair enough, but persecution of Jews and antisemitism is not a blanket, nor is it a uniform issue under communist occupation. We can also observe organized Jewry's reaction to the communist revolutions. Russian orthodox christians, for example, received it worse, and did not have 3 orders of magnitude more over-representation within the Soviet government (which tended to be heavily jewish, with other ethnic minorities of the former Russian empire being represented as well).

While many liberal and secular Jews support abortion and same sex marriage, the more conservative religious Jews oppose it.
Certainly, but the Jewish community as a collective entity as expressed by their organizations does seem to have a revealed preference. Furthermore, it is worth noting the remarkable uniformity of Jewish opinion on immigration and ethnic issues. If you can find the most recent Mark Collet debate, it's certainly worth watching. If there exists an anti-migrant version of IsraAid, I'm all ears.
 

Queen Elizabeth II

Majesty/Your Majesty/Her Majesty
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Fornication is one of the most common sins but one that is easy to do penance for. Many clerics and Catholic monarchs and nobility fathered children with concubines because they didn’t use birth control which as I said is a greater sin, and what many clerics use today in order to keep their fornication a secret.

So basically it was just a thing to accept. M'Kay.

The simple truth is if these men actually thought God would roast them for having sex outside of wedlock they wouldn't be doing it. What a joke.

King David had concubines but he was still a man after God’s own heart.

Basically, God gave him a free pass. It's amazing how an unchanging just deity can flip when he is and isn't offended by fornication on and off.

It is Catholic doctrine that it is a sacred duty for married couples to procreate which is what they meant by chore. A women is allowed to abstain in the short term but not long term. How is it sick to say that women should not violate their wedding vows? It is just as bad when a husband denies his wife sex.

The point is there's a range of scenarios where it would be very reasonable to deny sex; say if the husband had cheated with other women and the woman is scared of picking up STD's from him or simply feels betrayed, that the Catholic Church denies is just cause for denying sex.


I did not say that it is fine, I in fact said that a husband who does it is an asshole. However, it falls short of rape because the wife still makes a choice.

Coercion is not consent. I understand priests have a very difficult time understanding that bullying children into sex is not the child offering consent but this is why they've been getting assailed with lawsuits for literal centuries at this point.
If a wife bullies her husband into offering sex, is it rape?
Yes. Yes it is.
If you say it is because the spouse doesn’t want to have sex, here is an important analogy. Some leftists support legalizing prostitution(which I as a Christian thought should be illegal until I discovered that it was actually legal in Medieval England with certain restrictions). However under the flawed definition of rape you gave, prostitution is rape because the prostitute has sex not because she wants to, but because she wants money.

The prostitute is performing a financial exchange. She's providing a service just like a hairdresser or a masseuse.

Now if we're discussing how people end up in that field of work I would agree it's probably not something most sign up for willingly, but in the western world at least there are many other options (European benefits, state back to work schemes etc). It's a different story elsewhere in the world but considering we were talking about non-believers who tend to be First Worlders, that doesn't seem applicable in this case.

What? Did Pomme send you a message saying she broke up with me?! Tell me the truth!

Nobody on this forum is going to marry you Jacob.

I am not justifying the age of consent laws in Southern Europe, I am saying that it is caused by the darker skin and hair color of Southern Europeans, not by Catholicism.
The Catholic Church does not have to endorse it, but it facilitates it.

I appreciate there are, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, parts of the world with lower life expectancies where people do start their families younger but as the Catholic Church is so fond of squawking about when it comes to gays or divorce "Public sin must be condemned". Marrying a child is very public, and yet they have no qualms about doing so.

The Church could choose to be a moral exemplar in this regard and encourage a higher standard, and it continues to be the exact opposite.

And I also said that I believe that either 16 or 18 should be the age of consent and men who marry 14 year old girls should WAIT until she turns 16-18 before having sex.

What you think they should do is not what your Church teaches. According to the Catholic Church it is perfectly fine to have sex with 14 year old girls.

Your idea of waiting wouldn't be allowed anyway, as Catholics are encouraged to consummate the marriage as swiftly as possible (as the case for annulment is stronger unless done so straight away).
But in atheist Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein and others raped many women and boys. The popular atheist YouTuber, The Amazing Atheist made fun of a rape victim on reddit.

Okay.

1. Hollywood is far from "Atheist"; Kaba'lla, Scientology and a myriad of other supernatural cults are very influential there. Catholicism too is well represented among actors (even if they don't follow the doctrine).
2. You are picking out individuals who are condemned by the state they live in for doing these things, whereas you follow a Church that protects and fully endorses the things I am criticizing it for.

Weinstein does not enjoy the protection of a worldwide mega corporation that not only pays for his protection but shrieks about how he is being persecuted for doing nothing wrong unlike sexual predators in the Catholic hierarchy.
What they mean by very mild is that the babies simply don’t get to have beatific vision. So their beliefs did not differ much from the idea of Limbo except that in Limbo, the babies are neither rewarded nor punished.

They're in hell. The realm of torment. Even if they're not tormented at all, they're still eternally seperated from their families because they were miscarried.

Worse than that, their families that made it to heaven won't care they're in hell because they lose the ability to question God at death and their will become subsumed by his.

The concept of the logos was introduced by diaspora Jews living in Greece showing that some Jews had a divinely inspired understanding of the Son of God even before the Son of God came.

The Jews had a concept about a Messiah; they didn't see the "Son of God" as literally being the son of God. Jews used "Son of God" to describe observant Jews not infrequently.

It is true that Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t mention the Pharisees as much as John, but that is because as the article said, they are from a Galilean perspective while John is from a Judean perspective.

Or, John was written as Biblical Scholarship suggests much latter and with a specific agenda the other three didn't have; to paint Jesus as a mystical divine being.

According to Wikipedia Pope Julius III had a relationship with Inmocenzo Ciochii Del Monte who’s age was unknown but declared by the Pope to be in 1532 which would make him 18 by the time he had relations with the Pope. Pope Alexander VI was promiscuous but the women he had sex with seem to have consented.

I never called Julius a pedophile, I said he kept male concubines which he did. I never called Alexander a rapist, merely that he fathered many children with both mistresses and whores which he did.

Both of these men ironically both claimed to be the voice of God on Earth and the ultimate arbiters of faith and morals. Which again says nothing positive about Catholic sexual ethics at any point in your history.
 
M

MW 590

Guest
kiwifarms.net
Well, the protestant reformation didn't start anti-Catholic. Furthermore, Christian zionism started in the US with dispensationalism and the Scofield bible, a commentary whose history is worth looking into.
Uh the Protestant reformation did start anti Catholic. Martin Luther’s 95 thesis was against the Catholic Church and he caused all Northern Europe to leave Catholicism. And I know about the dispensationalist movement and Scofield’s flawed commentary.
Fair enough, but persecution of Jews and antisemitism is not a blanket, nor is it a uniform issue under communist occupation. We can also observe organized Jewry's reaction to the communist revolutions. Russian orthodox christians, for example, received it worse, and did not have 3 orders of magnitude more over-representation within the Soviet government (which tended to be heavily jewish, with other ethnic minorities of the former Russian empire being represented as well).
Wikipedia shows that Jews were only a minority in the USSR government.
According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total, and in the 1920s of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the People's Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jews.[19]Between 1936 and 1940, during the Great Purge, Yezhovshchina and after the rapprochement with Nazi Germany, Stalin had largely eliminated Jews from senior party, government, diplomatic, security and military positions.[20]
Certainly, but the Jewish community as a collective entity as expressed by their organizations does seem to have a revealed preference. Furthermore, it is worth noting the remarkable uniformity of Jewish opinion on immigration and ethnic issues. If you can find the most recent Mark Collet debate, it's certainly worth watching. If there exists an anti-migrant version of IsraAid, I'm all ears.
Breitbart News has many Jewish staff who are anti open borders.
So basically it was just a thing to accept. M'Kay.

The simple truth is if these men actually thought God would roast them for having sex outside of wedlock they wouldn't be doing it. What a joke.
They knew it was sinful but frequently confessed to their priests. However as you said, many Catholics today do not believe that contraception is sinful.
Basically, God gave him a free pass. It's amazing how an unchanging just deity can flip when he is and isn't offended by fornication on and off.
God did intervene when David committed adultery with Bathsheba.
The point is there's a range of scenarios where it would be very reasonable to deny sex; say if the husband had cheated with other women and the woman is scared of picking up STD's from him or simply feels betrayed, that the Catholic Church denies is just cause for denying sex.
I already addressed the case of STDs and how Catholics advise abstinence in that case. However feeling betrayed is a petty reason to refuse sex because God commands people to forgive those who trespass against them.
Coercion is not consent. I understand priests have a very difficult time understanding that bullying children into sex is not the child offering consent but this is why they've been getting assailed with lawsuits for literal centuries at this point.
I asked my mom about this and she said that reluctantly agreeing to have sex after being yelled at isn’t full consent and is therefore rape(don’t worry this never happened to her). But do you have proof that this happens more often in Christian marriages? Here is a study that Christian marriages are generally happy. www.christianpost.com/amp/do-religious-couples-have-happier-marriages-multi-nation-reports-finds-its-complicated.html
Nobody on this forum is going to marry you Jacob.
So Pomme was trolling me when she offered herself in marriage? Looking at her posts, she doesn’t seem like a troll.
The Catholic Church does not have to endorse it, but it facilitates it.

I appreciate there are, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, parts of the world with lower life expectancies where people do start their families younger but as the Catholic Church is so fond of squawking about when it comes to gays or divorce "Public sin must be condemned". Marrying a child is very public, and yet they have no qualms about doing so.

The Church could choose to be a moral exemplar in this regard and encourage a higher standard, and it continues to be the exact opposite.

What you think they should do is not what your Church teaches. According to the Catholic Church it is perfectly fine to have sex with 14 year old girls.

Your idea of waiting wouldn't be allowed anyway, as Catholics are encouraged to consummate the marriage as swiftly as possible (as the case for annulment is stronger unless done so straight away).
Waiting is allowed. In 1396 Richard II of England married the 7 year old Isabella of Valois, planning to wait until she was much older to produce heirs. Unfortunately he was overthrown and murdered before he could produce an heir. Though the age of marriage has been raised to 14, this shows that the age of marriage is not the same as the age of procreation.
Okay.

1. Hollywood is far from "Atheist"; Kaba'lla, Scientology and a myriad of other supernatural cults are very influential there. Catholicism too is well represented among actors (even if they don't follow the doctrine).
2. You are picking out individuals who are condemned by the state they live in for doing these things, whereas you follow a Church that protects and fully endorses the things I am criticizing it for.

Weinstein does not enjoy the protection of a worldwide mega corporation that not only pays for his protection but shrieks about how he is being persecuted for doing nothing wrong unlike sexual predators in the Catholic hierarchy.
1. But most of the Hollywood actors that have been exposed as sex offenders are not practicing Christians. I can’t think of a practicing Catholic actor on the top of my head who was hit by #MeToo.
2. Hollywood allowing the sex offenders to get away with it for so long shows that they were protected by the corporation.
They're in hell. The realm of torment. Even if they're not tormented at all, they're still eternally seperated from their families because they were miscarried.

Worse than that, their families that made it to heaven won't care they're in hell because they lose the ability to question God at death and their will become subsumed by his.
The Church never infallibly declared that they are in hell. I think that the later Medieval theologians who came up with Limbo have a greater understanding of God’s justice. The babies will get used to the separation but the saints might be able to see visions of their babies in Limbo.
I never called Julius a pedophile, I said he kept male concubines which he did. I never called Alexander a rapist, merely that he fathered many children with both mistresses and whores which he did.

Both of these men ironically both claimed to be the voice of God on Earth and the ultimate arbiters of faith and morals. Which again says nothing positive about Catholic sexual ethics at any point in your history.
Infallibility does not mean impeccability. God gives free will so he allows the Popes to sin but prevents them from defining erroneous doctrine concerning faith and morals.
 

Dorcas

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
The sexual revolution is simply part of the divine plan; the end times are approaching and as our beloved mother at Fatima warned us most of humanity would fall into hell for carnal sins of the flesh and sinful fashions.

Humanity is depraved, and the sexual revolution is but one flare of an evil that the Church could once keep a lid on before the Godless sodomite hordes invaded.
 

ProgKing of the North

^^^^FUCKTARD^^^^
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
The sexual revolution is simply part of the divine plan; the end times are approaching and as our beloved mother at Fatima warned us most of humanity would fall into hell for carnal sins of the flesh and sinful fashions.

Humanity is depraved, and the sexual revolution is but one flare of an evil that the Church could once keep a lid on before the Godless sodomite hordes invaded.
So God planned for the sexual revolution to happen but also wanted to keep a lid on it? Dude needs to make up His mind.
 

Dorcas

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
So God planned for the sexual revolution to happen but also wanted to keep a lid on it? Dude needs to make up His mind.

We were told that the Church would shrink and that the world would fall into ever greater sin. But I take solace and rejoice in the knowledge that the return of the Lord is upon us and the heathen and pagan shall be cut down and cast into the hellfire that awaits those who hate the Lord.
 

Queen Elizabeth II

Majesty/Your Majesty/Her Majesty
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
The sexual revolution is simply part of the divine plan; the end times are approaching and as our beloved mother at Fatima warned us most of humanity would fall into hell for carnal sins of the flesh and sinful fashions.

Humanity is depraved, and the sexual revolution is but one flare of an evil that the Church could once keep a lid on before the Godless sodomite hordes invaded.

Yes Daddy

831923
 

Attachments

  • 1562609305229.png
    1562609305229.png
    476 KB · Views: 73
Last edited:

ProgKing of the North

^^^^FUCKTARD^^^^
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
We were told that the Church would shrink and that the world would fall into ever greater sin. But I take solace and rejoice in the knowledge that the return of the Lord is upon us and the heathen and pagan shall be cut down and cast into the hellfire that awaits those who hate the Lord.
Sounds fun, feel free to visit us if you wanna roast some marshmallows

Although I don’t hate the Lord, if he exists I just have some issues with his governing style.
 

Dorcas

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 8, 2019

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
View attachment 830794

We may be headed back fairly soon. (source is limits to growth).

The Limits to Growth had a highly questionable methodology. It was based on a computer model that was done in the early 1970s, and the projections it generated are arguably discredited by the rigidity of it's assumptions (it seemed to grant little consideration to the potential impact of technological innovation, while assuming all other growth values to be exponential until collapse).

The reality of the last 45 years is that humans haven't just been sitting around using up resources until they eventually dwindle away; we've also been working on finding new, more efficient ways of using them along the way. For one thing, the advent of smart automation will increasingly allow economic growth to be decoupled from population growth, meaning that the former will be able to continue long after the latter has gone into decline. Secondly, the assumption that we are anywhere near full energy capacity is highly dubious when you take into account the potential of solar energy.

For instance: the Sun bombards the Earth with more joules of energy in a single hour than all of humanity uses in a whole year. That's a lot of energy we haven't found a way to tap into yet.

It is good to know you think you know better than the Lord of all creation that predates time and existence.

What terrible pride and arrogance to behold.

Are skeptics really claiming to be better than the creator of the universe, or are we merely questioning and rejecting the claims of those who presume to speak on their behalf? Who is really more arrogant here: those of us who have the humility to admit that we do not know the nature of any divine purpose, or those of us who not only claim to be it's sole representatives, but also demand that any detractors must accept such claims on faith alone?

Hey @Jacob Harrison, I think there’s a new potential girlfriend for you, buddy!

I don't think it's possible for someone to date one of their sock accounts.
 

IAmNotAlpharius

Nothing to see here. Move along citizen.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
The Limits to Growth had a highly questionable methodology. It was based on a computer model that was done in the early 1970s, and the projections it generated are arguably discredited by the rigidity of it's assumptions (it seemed to grant little consideration to the potential impact of technological innovation, while assuming all other growth values to be exponential until collapse).

The reality of the last 45 years is that humans haven't just been sitting around using up resources until they eventually dwindle away; we've also been working on finding new, more efficient ways of using them along the way. For one thing, the advent of smart automation will increasingly allow economic growth to be decoupled from population growth, meaning that the former will be able to continue long after the latter has gone into decline. Secondly, the assumption that we are anywhere near full energy capacity is highly dubious when you take into account the potential of solar energy.

For instance: the Sun bombards the Earth with more joules of energy in a single hour than all of humanity uses in a whole year. That's a lot of energy we haven't found a way to tap into yet.



Are skeptics really claiming to be better than the creator of the universe, or are we merely questioning and rejecting the claims of those who presume to speak on their behalf? Who is really more arrogant here: those of us who have the humility to admit that we do not know the nature of any divine purpose, or those of us who not only claim to be it's sole representatives, but also demand that any detractors must accept such claims on faith alone?



I don't think it's possible for someone to date one of their sock accounts.

If it wasn’t a sock, it could be a different dude. Not sure if Jacob roles that way...