Culture

Bad News: Doctors Say Synodality Raging Out Of Control Among German Priests

It’s their own fault. There they were, accompanying Others (a fine ecumenical activity) on their Spiritual Journeys, when a large group of German priests wandered, surely by accident, onto the felt-banner-strewn Synodal Path. Is it any surprise, then, that many developed a raging case of synodality?

You might laugh, but just you try genuflecting with inflamed synods. Ouch isn’t in it.

Instead of treating this dread disease early, as the best Doctors of the Church advise, they exacerbated it by trying to do theology. In German.

In this theology, the very first word they started with was the 25-letter monstrosity—ladies, avert your eyes—Geschlechtergerechtigkeit, which means gender equality or justice.

This word began a thirty-page marathon on the subject of “Women in Ministries and Offices in the Church“, issued by the German Synodal Assembly, which is, as this source says, “the supreme decision-making body of the Synodal Way”. This is the place where folks not only suffer from synodality, they practice it. In public.

Apparently, these synodalians are unhappy the Catholic Church, even after so much progress since Vatican II, still will not allow men to become nuns.

Discriminatory you say? Well, it sure is. Not only are men denied (good) habits, but Muslims can’t be priests. Children are barred from becoming bishops. And there can still can be only one Pope at a time—even though folks can disagree on who this might be.

This blatant dogmatic behavior irks the synodalians. They want the Church to abandon its old ways and become fully Synodal, a term “for which there ain’t no English word” (to quote Little Big Man). Their synods being saturated with Synodalic Spirit, which, as we’ll see, causes a swelling in the loins, the Germans insist on Geschlechtergerechtigkeit.

It’s not clear what Geschlechtergerechtigkeit will do for the Church, beyond increasing gendertheoretische Reflexionen (don’t be lazy: sound it out). They see this as a good thing. But many are concerned too much gendertheoretische Reflexionen would lead to a tremendous boost in academic German theological theory. If there is one lesson History has taught us, it’s the nobody needs more academic German theological theory.

As you know, if synodality is not treated it becomes chronic. It can then lead sufferers to an abnormal fascination with the human anus. Scientists are not sure why this is so, but it is a well documented symptom of the disease.

As one medical professional reported on the Synod of Synodality:

The German Synod voted on Saturday (161 yes, 34 no, 11 abstentions) to concoct a rite of “blessing” for homosexuals and adulterers and to allow these groups to do paid work for the Church.

It’s not exactly clear what “paid work” these homosexuals and adulterers will do for the Church, but as that subject is rather frightening to contemplate, we’ll let it pass. I can in my role of Statistician to the Stars! verify that 34 out of 206 is only 17%, a very low number.

One of the chief synodaliticians and architects of the Synodal Way is Cardinal Reinhard Marx. He said there needs to be a “re-evaluation” in what the Church thinks about men masturbating into the rectums of other men. Right now, the Church is against it, and explains its opposition in the Catechism.

Yet “the Catechism,” synodulated Marx, “is not the Koran. It is always being changed.”

Constancy is one thing the Muslims have up on the Church, I suppose.

Marx has successfully synodalized others, such as Stuttgart City Dean Christian Hermes. He’s also for increasing the number of men who explore other men’s anuses. And he professes to find Biblical support for this idea, too. He said, “Jesus, when asked about the most important commandment, referred to love and not to the sixth commandment.”

It’s not clear to Yours Truly, or presumably to the 17%, what love has to do with anal prolapses and AIDS. But then I have never been down the Synodal Path.

One man who apparently has is Robert Mickens, who is positively gushing with, well, synodality that the Church is going to abandon its dogma, fath, and traditions and become full blown Episcopalians, only gayer.

He synodulated, “The Roman Church, despite the major doctrinal shifts that resulted from the Second Vatican Council, continues to be hampered by the anachronistic structure and ethos of monarchism” which “will eventually collapse if it is not reformed.”

Where by reformed he meant synodalized.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Culture

56 replies »

  1. Good article, but I keep stumbling over the various placements of the letter y in synodality, snyodality, etc. Is there hidden meaning?

  2. TL;DR: The Church, especially in hard-left Germany, is Leftist converged, and now follows the prince of this world and all his “useful idiots”.

  3. This one made me laugh out loud numerous times, especially:

    “But many are concerned too much gendertheoretische Reflexionen would lead to a tremendous boost in academic German theological theory. ”

    and

    “One man who apparently has is Robert Mickens, who is positively gushing with, well, synodality that the Church is going to abandon its dogma, fath, and traditions and become full blown Episcopalians, only gayer.”

    HA HA HA HA

  4. ”Instead of treating this dread disease early, as the best Doctors of the Church advise, they exacerbated it by trying to do theology. In German.”

    That “theology” is the usual tortured verbiage — effeminate, obfuscatory, and duplicitous (verweichlichtverschleierndheuchlerisch) — rationalizing a cowardly compliance with sin.

    Example:

    ”The sexual morality of the Church has not yet absorbed decisive insights from theology and human sciences. The personal meaning of sexuality does not receive sufficient attention. The result: the proclamation of morality does not give orientation to the vast majority of the baptized. It leads a niche existence. We sense how often we are not able to speak when it comes to questions about today’s sexual behavior”.

    Translation:

    Let’s swing, boys!

  5. McJagger Gathers No Mosque: ”The Synodal Way is more comforting than the road to perdition.”

    True.

    And our big fat asses hardly fit through the narrow gate.

  6. Lutherans in Germany have been going down the Synodal Path as well. Not much hope there.

    The only large Christian group that appears to be holding on to the tenets of their faith is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

  7. Given the track record of the church and all the law suits around child sexual abuse and
    scandals of homosexuality in the ranks it’s a wonder you’re not all Gnostics by now.
    The only true upholder of heterosexual fealty the Church of England’s valiant attempt
    to cleanse the corrupt leadership of the Catholic church has been greeted with nothing but
    historical infamy. Henry should be thanked for cutting the lion’s head off of the snake
    which unfortunately has grown back. Only kidding the laity are the true martyrs of the
    church’s corrupt leadership historically comprised of the second and third sons of the
    prince.

  8. Beep-*beep*-*doot*-*doot*-*beep**beep*-*doot*-*doot*-*beep*-*doot*-*beep*-*doot*-*doot*-*beep*-*doot*-*doot*-*beep*

    (Ring-ring) (Ring-ring) (Ring-ring) (Ring-ring) (Ring-ring)

    *t-chk* “Da, allo?”

    “Mr. Putin…? Please, cut off the gas.”

  9. The catechism is always changing? I’ll bet the Arians are kinda miffed unnecessarily. Bless and approve the rupturing of a colon and the mommy fixation? Sure, that’s what blessings are for, don’t cha know. A plenary indulgence for leaving the bedroom window open to the fire escape? (Wouldn’t want a dead body on one’s conscience because of an irate husband.)

  10. holding on to the tenets of their faith is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

    True dat; just not the Faith.

    I ‘spose us Catholics could point out that any change in doctrine is a novelty/heresy and, thus, not binding but too many have already swallowed the proddy error that whatever a pope says goes. Papal Positivism is progressivism.

  11. If the Roman Catholic Church would teach the whole truth ….. As is In Genesis and in the Gospel of Mark, God’s creation of human beings is clearly stated that each person is created either male or female. Genesis says it and Jesus Christ confirms this in Mark’s Gospel.

    “27And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.” Genesis 1: 27.

    “1This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Genesis 5: 1.

    “2And the Pharisees coming to him asked him, tempting him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? 3But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? 4Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce and to put her away. 5To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you that precept. 6But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. 8And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” Mark 10″ 2-9

    That confirmation in both Genesis and the Gospel of Mark, if taught without equivocation by the RC Church, would dead-end all of the controversy concerning each person’s sex, male or female. All LBGT and transgenderism and more, ideas and propaganda would be clearly demolished by the Truth, even though some would still live the above.

    No more would the “blathering” of “accompany” carry any weight. The public knowledge of the truth of God’s creation would then outweigh all of the lies and deceits being spread as in “I was made this way, etc.”, “love your children as they are in their sexual expression”. No more would the faithful and the children be taught deceptions as they are now by some of the hierarchy. Parents would be beautifully strengthened in the Truth with the fullness of support by the Holy Spirit, as would children, young people, and old people. Confusion would reign no longer.

    The Truth is that LGBT, Transgenderism, and more, are counterfeits of God’s creation, which counterfeits are believed by many to be true. The Truth is, that those who believe and live this, can be freed by Jesus Christ from living these lies.

    What is needed are Bishops and priests demanding that the JPII Catechism be reformulated concerning the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning people suffering from believing these falsehoods, these counterfeits. This Catechism ought instead to teach that no one has to remain believing and living this falsehood. The JPII Catechism ought to teach Genesis and Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.

    How did the RC Church teachings on this, get away from the Truth regarding this? At some time, over time, on this matter, some of those with the charge of Christ’s Church, stopped listening to the Holy Spirit of God, and started listening to the prince of this world, for he is out to destroy humanity in any way that he can. The Holy Spirit of God would never teach that people are conceived or born as LGBT or …. Never would He do so, for He is the Spirit of Truth. He is God.

    God bless, C-Marie

  12. “Synodality” is just a reverse of the tactics they used on the secular side.

    It’s easy to forget now, but same-sex gmarriage was originally advanced via votes, such as referendums. And it failed again, and again, and again, while efforts to oppose it succeeded. In 2008 California outright banned gmarriage through proposition 8. Gmarriages only resumed after a state court decision in 2013, and the Supreme Court decision in 2015. On the secular side the path through voting did not work, and so they attacked things through the courts instead.

    In the Church they have the reverse problem. If the pope would just sign off on gmarriage, then they would be done. But this has not happened, even with a pope that shares much of their temperament (almost as if their is a Holy Spirit guiding his most essential decisions.) If they could get a large number of bishops on their side they might be able to do something through a ecumenical council, but while most bishops are squishy on the subject only a fringe minority are willing to actually attack established Church teaching to the amount required. So we get a sudden push towards “synodality.” It of course means no more than “our other efforts failed, so we will try to turn Doctrine into a matter of democracy to see if that works.” Rest assured that if the laity respond that they do not want gmarriage in the Church then they will shamelessly abandon this “synodality” talk and instead attack with a different approach, perhaps by trying to find theologians to claim that gmarriage was endorsed in the early Church.

  13. Briggs,

    This is one of your best posts ever, which is no doubt why your enemies worked extra hard and inserted statistically significantly more typos in it than they would on average.

  14. Have to agree with Gail, this is pretty funny writing. You ever think of trying stand-up comedy, Doc? I’m picturing the scene, a stage, Briggs comes out in a white lab coat, slide rule in pocket protecter, chalk board, proceeds to slay ’em. Funny stuff.

  15. Or maybe half-hour internet video whodunnit episodes; Briggs is Inspector Doctor Professor Sargent Briggs, a sort of noir Sam Spade/Sherlock Holmes/Richard Feynman/Chesty Puller/Joe Friday /Owen Benjamin character solving various “crimes”. Scene: — phone rings (bakelite rotary phone) in Briggs’ wood paneled study, fire flickering in fireplace, bookshelf background — Briggs picks up phone, “Sarge, Detective Trask here, we got a new study at 33rd and 3rd (toidy-toid n’ toid) bleeding wee P-values!” Briggs grills inspector, gets pertinent info, hangs up, puts down pipe, oils slide rule, proceeds to solve case, on blackboard, with much hilarity.

    I do sets and lighting, need a video/editing guy, a digital dude handling uploads, and a marketing mofo selling it. Half million dollar shoestring budget gets us a pilot and six episodes. Contact my agent.

  16. “…tag-team podcast.” …no sleazy t-shirt meth-head trailer park juke-box-jazz headphone podcast stuff. I’m talking double-breasted, bourbon-slurping, string-quartette-crushing, late empire rococo-baroque, half-million dollar dish; scripted, rehearsed, and performed in the Archduke’s ballroom… or soundstage. By serious jokers. Like white people used to do.

  17. Thank you for making me laugh. We Catholics used to be good at laughing at ourselves. What happened to that? “Episcopalians, only gayer.” ? It’s so funny because it’s true!!

  18. C-Marie,

    How does the claim that God created ‘either male or female’ say anything against gay people?

  19. Teresa Grande,

    ‘We Catholics used to be good at laughing at ourselves’ – Was that before or after the Inquisition?

  20. Swordfishtrombone:

    Definitely after. You must have gotten teased a lot in school with that name.

  21. How does the claim that God created ‘either male or female’ say anything against gay people?

    Because “be fruitful and multiply.”

    Was that before or after the Inquisition?

    Both!

    God bless our Holy Inquisitors! Godly faithful and scientific men, whose work has largely gone unappreciated, who were the foundation for our best judicial systems, and whom we would welcome today during such modernist Germanic barbarian times.

    REFUND THE INQUISITION!

  22. “How does the claim that God created ‘either male or female’ say anything against gay people?”

    No people are “gay people.” All people are heterosexual. Modern day DNA tests prove this also. Same sex beliefs and practices are counterfeits of God’s creation of human sexuality.

    This misnomer, “gay people” is used by the world and by much of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to either name or describe people who are same sex attracted, whether from childhood or later on in life, and then in misguided compassion, they seek to “accompany” those so attracted, instead of setting them free from these counterfeits, by the Holy Spirit, using the healing gifts for healing of emotions and mental stability as needed, and more, given to Christ’s Church by the Holy Spirit.

    The gifts given are enumerated by St. Paul in the Bible:
    “28And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.” 1 Corinthians 12: 28.

    The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church must become en masse for setting people so suffering, free, so they can live the heterosexuality in which they were created.

    The choice to believe God our Father, is one’s own choice. Choose Him and live in His Son, Jesus Christ!

    God bless, C-Marie

  23. Outstanding piece! Glad I wasn’t sipping on anything!

    >> In this theology, the very first word they started with was the 25-letter monstrosity—ladies, avert your eyes . . .

    I peeked!

    But I was, indeed, too lazy to sound it out, so all is well!

  24. C-Marie,

    No people are “gay people.” All people are heterosexual. Modern day DNA tests prove this also. Same sex beliefs and practices are counterfeits of God’s creation of human sexuality.

    There are gay people, just as there are shy people and bad-tempered people. DNA tests do not prove that all people are hetereosexual, but so what if they did? That is just the naturalistic fallacy. It doesn’t matter from a moral perspective whether there is a biological basis for anything. The majority of people, once freed from the primitive ‘gay bad / slavery good’ morality of the Bible, realise that there is no rational argument against same sex attraction.

    Genesis says Eve was created as a companion for Adam, implying that:

    1. God’s genius plan didn’t originally include sexuality at all.
    2. God was too dumb to realise that Adam would be lonely.

    In any case, why does God need you to speak for him?

  25. Johnno,

    If God commands people to ‘multiply’, why does he complain about a tiny percentage of gay people (whom he has created), and not about the 50% infant mortality that existed in Biblical times, the nearly 50% of pregnancies which end in miscarriage, or the 14% of couples who can’t have children, even today?

    Also, does God’s ‘multiply’ command apply to twelve year olds? After all, he has designed them to be capable of getting pregnant.

  26. Come now Briggs, this is a moment to exercise charity to a little lost lamb… ugly and disfigured though it may be…

    If God commands people to ‘multiply’, why does he complain about a tiny percentage of gay people

    Because he wants them to multiply and use sexuality responsibly and not engage in actions that hurt and psychologically damage them, usually because someone else did unto them.

    (whom he has created)

    Created WITH the AWESOME ability to overcome their failings through repentance and grace, and with Balboa-like training over their passions, become more strongly based! God is so awesome!

    and not about the 50% infant mortality that existed in Biblical times, the nearly 50% of pregnancies which end in miscarriage, or the 14% of couples who can’t have children, even today?

    He didn’t do that. We did! Those are called consequences. Something soooo many people want to live without, so they can do whatever they please and get away with it! That is why we created atheistic socialism! Look at all the children that saved! Heck, even when God gave man something awesome, called Science, we still refuse to use it to get out of the mess we created for ourselves… even today! Now there is just THE SCIENCE ™, and look at how many children that is attempting to save even though they suffer no statistical threat!

    Also, does God’s ‘multiply’ command apply to twelve year olds? After all, he has designed them to be capable of getting pregnant.

    Yes.

    Oh, if only the average adult today possessed a fraction of the survival skills and responsibilities that 12 year olds back in 1000 BC had, things would be so different…

    Most 12 year olds then could go into battle and kill a lion or gut another man who so much as approached them for an extramarital affair. I’d caution you if you got any funny ideas about propositioning any one of these classical-era 12 year old girls while they still possessed a knife and were found skinning some game by the waterside; carefully guarded their honor because that could be literally life or death survival to them and their clan.

    Please only do so honorably, by first proving your worth to her high-achiever father and her 10 warrior-class brothers, by presenting to them your skills as a hunter and your ability to survive on your own for months in the desert, and/or other military accomplishments that distinguished you in battle back when you were 12-14, as would’ve been expected of you, because it’s unlikely you’ll make it past 30, old man, and there is no shortage of other younger boys to please her. By the time you’ve assembled a dowry, you’d be spending a lifetime’s wages. So these 12 year olds don’t come cheap!

    But well, you are most likely too late and her marriage to another responsible 12 year old boy was already arranged… Today, blessed by centuries of human achievement to grow old and play soldier and hunter/farmer video games, we now focus on being more learned and responsible and have culturally set up sensible boundaries to match our modern states of life. So you have to get with the times, graduate basic schooling, demonstrate that you can operate basic machinery so that you can successfully do a check out at the grocery store with a scan-gun, and earn an income so that your multiplier-capable mate is looked after when she is pregnant and of equally useful competence to raise that child together. We figure the speed limit is best set at around 18, give-or-take.

    Remember! It’s not your fault if, when glancing at a 12 year old you should find yourself attracted, any more than if you happened to stare at the same sex, any more than at a multiplying-capable red-head. But what happens next will be your fault! And you’ll find out right fast that there is still some 1000 BC hunter left in all men, just waiting there for his chance to kill and gut some prey! We tend to outsource this to some agency, but there are still some based places where these agencies will happily look the other way.

  27. All,

    A reminder not to feed the trolls. All good zoos insist on this.

    Thank you, Briggs. If one choses to not accept the truth, ever, there will be difficulties at the end of life here, as One did rise from the dead, and God did say that His thoughts and His ways …….. look it up at biblehub.com.

    God bless, C-Marie

  28. Because he wants them to multiply and use sexuality responsibly and not engage in actions that hurt and psychologically damage them, usually because someone else did unto them.

    You’re evading the point. If the issue is increasing the population, as you claimed, then why doesn’t God do something about the main causes of infertility and infant mortality, rather than the least significant? Instead of addressing this, you’ve moved the goalposts to the issues of (alleged) ‘sexual responsibility’ and (alleged) ‘psychological damage’, whilst also (bizarrely) advocating for child marriages, which cause genuine psychological damage. Incidentally, if there’s psychological damage being done to gay people, it’s homophobes that cause most of it, not other gay people.

    Created WITH the AWESOME ability to overcome their failings through repentance and grace, and with Balboa-like training over their passions, become more strongly based!

    Created with an ability to overcome failings, but also created with those failings in the first place. (Not that being gay is a failing.) Fact is, if God has created us, then he’s responsible for our suffering. There’s no way out of this. You can’t get from ‘all-powerful creator of everything’ to ‘but not responsible for this bit’.

    God is so awesome!

    In which ‘awesome’ is indistinguishable from not existing.

    He didn’t do that. We did!

    Are you referring to the Fall?

    Analogy: In a WWII POW camp, a newly arrived prisoner breaks a rule. As a consequence of this, all prisoners are severely punished, to the extent that many of them die. You are saying that the prisoners who didn’t break the rule (that’s us) are 100% responsible for their own suffering, while the people who set up the camp (that’s God) are 0% responsible. That makes no sense.

    Yes

    You’re in favour of 12 year olds getting married. Why am I not surprised?

    Oh, if only the average adult today possessed a fraction of the survival skills and responsibilities that 12 year olds back in 1000 BC had, things would be so different…

    There follows several paragraphs of what could be described as some kind of ‘Emerald Forest goes pedo’ fan-fiction. Disturbing.

  29. If the issue is increasing the population, as you claimed, then why doesn’t God do something about the main causes of infertility and infant mortality, rather than the least significant?

    Because of sin and the Fall.

    Don’t pretend you don’t know why. See:

    “Are you referring to the Fall?”

    This has been explained to you several times by several people more than once.

    Is your strategy to conveniently forget about all this every time so as to try and exhaust our patience? Tsk… tsk…

    also (bizarrely) advocating for child marriages, which cause genuine psychological damage.

    You got any… evidence… that 12-14 year olds, largely married off to other 12-14 year olds, who would already be instructed and learned in carrying out full adult lives in earlier historic times sufferred any od this… ‘psychological damage’?

    Considering all that people back then managed to live through and achieve, I’d say they were doing pretty good! Today, on the other hand, we can see “grown-ups” suffer PTSD because Trump became president or someone called them a faggot out of road rage on the highway. Are you making the classic mistake of applying “muh modern standards of living” on the past again? Do you still think they could solve almost everything by making a simple trip to Wal-Mart?

    Incidentally, if there’s psychological damage being done to gay people, it’s homophobes that cause most of it, not other gay people.

    That’s right… all prostate problems and AIDS and anal bleeding and health issues by scat-play and sado-masochism and preying on the under-aged by older partners, and unaddressed parental neglect, or deep-rooted maecissistic tendencies are all someone else’s fault for warning them about all of the above. We are just trying to spoil all the “luv” up there. I guess they need more corporate and big tech and coercive government protection and men raping women in women’s washrooms and prisons and explicit sexual materials for children to solve all of that… so sad… so tragic…

    Created with an ability to overcome failings, but also created with those failings in the first place.

    Nope, we chose to fail. You do that too by returning here every time with some new nonsense before eventually running away. That our fault too?

    (Not that being gay is a failing.)

    It is!

    But I recall that you are the guy who tried to make sticking a dick in the bum an achievement in human innovation since using our feet on the accelerator of an automobile. Did you ever consider its more like sticking your dick into the ignition and expecting the car to start? Then when someone tells you it js designed for your key you scream, “HELP ME GOVERNMENT! A PHOBIA IS ATTACKING ME!!! PLEASE TEACH CHILDREN THAT THIS IS AKSHULLY ANOTHER WAY TO DRIVE A CAR!!!”

    Fact is, if God has created us, then he’s responsible for our suffering.

    Not when He has given you free will. You forget? Or pretending to?

    There’s no way out of this. You can’t get from ‘all-powerful creator of everything’ to ‘but not responsible for this bit’.

    What bit? You willfully choosing to screw things up? Don’t worry though, He’ll fix it permanently someday. It does require sending the problematic element somewhere where they can exercise their ability to screw-up to their heart’s content. The ones who remain will at least understand how human anatomy works and how to properly operate it.

    In a WWII POW camp, a newly arrived prisoner breaks a rule. As a consequence of this, all prisoners are severely punished, to the extent that many of them die. You are saying that the prisoners who didn’t break the rule (that’s us) are 100% responsible for their own suffering, while the people who set up the camp (that’s God) are 0% responsible. That makes no sense.

    If that prisoner decided to poison the only source of their water supply, then yes, they are all screwed and the Nazi camp guards can do nothing to help them. One guy ruined it for everyone. That as how colossal a deliberate screw-up he made.

    But fair is fair. It also only took one Guy to take on the punishment and solve the issue for everyone too! So there is Good News! It does require cooperation on your part to make it work. So why are you being so stubborn? Get withbthe program here! Your stubborn scepticism is what is making everyone unhappy and you are encouraging others to keep shitting in the water supply which is counter-productive! Why are you doing that? Are you just deliberately evil? Can’t you think for yourself and examine the cause and effects? Are you waiting for Facebook to provide you with a fak-chak before you adjust your programming?

    You’re in favour of 12 year olds getting married. Why am I not surprised?

    I’m not opposed to the rationale of 12-year olds getting married in past times under prior circumstances. Today’s 12-year-olds are incompetent and not at all capable of raising themselves, much less children. I alsi suspect that anyone looking to marry one today is not at all concerned with running a responsible household, so if he/she is older, they are most likely looking to satiate their lust on a victim they can overpower, and considering a statistically significant number of those perpetrators are same-sex attracted, they DEFINITELY aren’t interested in reproduction or reliable life partners!

    There follows several paragraphs of what could be described as some kind of ‘Emerald Forest goes pedo’ fan-fiction. Disturbing.

    I have read and understood history which I have outlined in those paragraphs, which you are too scared to confront because it paints much different picture than the straw-stories you are used to and you seem unable to find any fak-chaker or atheist-rule! website to copy and paste a rebuttal from.

    I’ve never read that work that you cite. But you sure seem intimately familiar with it! Was it part of the same cirriculum which thaught you that anything between consenting people in the privacy of the bedroom was okay? Anything!

    And when I pointed out to you that by offering children sex-ed knowledge and the rights to come out as a fag or trans and twerk in public parades and access abortion facilities without parental oversight, that this is paving the way for them to consent to sex by having met all of the necessary criteria? And when I confronted you in what you are advocating, you then up and ran away? You got any explanation for what you are helping to bring about fishy?

    You notice how there’s a pro-pedophile movement in your holy places of learning lately? Who is doing this? The Christian homophobes?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ScTXbF-sjJs

    How are you going to stop them fish’n’chips? THE SCIENCE ™? I notice the LGBTees ate being very very quiet about all this! Are you going to put your allyhood to the test?

  30. Is your strategy to conveniently forget about all this every time so as to try and exhaust our patience?

    (I love the ‘our’ here, as if you speak for everyone, or need support.)

    I respond to what people say. C-Marie said God created men and women, which (as I said to her) doesn’t actually say anything against gay people. You piped-in with ‘Because go forth and multiply’, which is a non-sequiter, but I took it to mean that God’s problem with gay people is a lack of ‘multiplication’. I’m well aware that the Old Testament condemns gay sex, but that has nothing to do with either C-Marie’s or your ‘arguments’. That is all I was saying.

    You got any… evidence… that 12-14 year olds, largely married off to other 12-14 year olds, who would already be instructed and learned in carrying out full adult lives in earlier historic times sufferred any od this… ‘psychological damage’?

    1. The fact that you even contest this.
    2. Sex with 12 year olds is rape. Rape causes psychological damage.
    3. You’ve moved the goalposts from 12 years to 12-14 years. What about 12 year olds married to 40 year olds?
    4. Where was *your* evidence that gay people suffer psychological damage?

    Considering all that people back then managed to live through and achieve, I’d say they were doing pretty good!

    People also did pretty good when slavery was commonplace, but the slaves weren’t doing ‘pretty good’.

    Are you making the classic mistake of applying “muh modern standards of living” on the past again?

    No. Why would it be a mistake, when you believe in fixed moral standards from God? Oh wait! I know why: because God’s moral standards as exemplified in the Bible are really janky, with child marriage, slavery, conquest rape, racism, etc.

    That’s right… all prostate problems and AIDS and anal bleeding and health issues by scat-play and sado-masochism and preying on the under-aged by older partners, and unaddressed parental neglect, or deep-rooted maecissistic tendencies are all someone else’s fault for warning them about all of the above.

    This is just you flinging as much mud (or poo) as you can in the hope that some of it will stick. It isn’t a rational argument against gay sex, as most of it applies equally to straight sex, while almost none of it applies to lesbian sex. If you want to be rational, you need an argument that applies to all gay people but doesn’t apply to straight people.

    men raping women in women’s washrooms

    I hate to break this to you, but men can already rape women in women’s washrooms. Rapists don’t stand outside thinking “I’d really like to go in and rape someone, only I’m dressed like a man!” Women being raped by straight men is a far greater problem than women being raped by trans women.

    prisons

    A male prisoner coming out as trans would be under far more danger of being raped in a male prison than they would of raping a woman in a woman’s prison. Why don’t you focus on real problems in society rather than irrelevant, made-up issues involving trans people?

    explicit sexual materials for children

    Probably refers to a drawing of a couple kissing, or a biology textbook.

    Nope, we chose to fail.

    I chose that Eve eat an apple thousands of years ago? The Amazing Adventures Of Backwards-In-Time Causation Man! (In 10 parts, with the last part coming out first.)

    Not when He has given you free will. You forget?

    Sorry, but free will isn’t a magic get-out-of-jail free card.

    1. Free will explains suffering caused by humans, such as rape. It doesn’t explain suffering caused by natural causes like earthquakes.
    2. We can only choose things if is within our nature to do so. God created our nature.
    3. Why does God value the free will of a rapist more than the free will of his victim?

    [You can’t get from ‘all-powerful creator of everything’ to ‘but not responsible for this bit’.]

    What bit?

    Suffering, specifically, but could apply to anything. God can’t create something but not be responsible for it. He chose to create it. He could have made it differently. He’s responsible for it. End of debate.

    If that prisoner decided to poison the only source of their water supply, then yes, they are all screwed and the Nazi camp guards can do nothing to help them. One guy ruined it for everyone. That as how colossal a deliberate screw-up he made.

    False analogy.

    1. Eve didn’t deliberately set out to hurt anyone, let alone everyone. She didn’t even know it was wrong to be disobedient, as she had no knowledge of good or evil before she eat the fruit.
    2. The guards couldn’t do anything about the poisoning, but God could.

    Are you just deliberately evil? Can’t you think for yourself and examine the cause and effects? Are you waiting for Facebook to provide you with a fak-chak before you adjust your programming?

    I was ‘programmed’ to be a Christian. This is me breaking from my programming, fool. I think Christianity is false, hence I contest it, and judging from people like you, Christian belief encourages homophobia, transphobia, wholesale denial of scientific evidence, acceptance of conspiracy theories, and poor political choices.

    And you really hate fact-checking sites, don’t you? Maybe that’s because the facts are all against you.

    I’m not opposed to the rationale of 12-year olds getting married in past times under prior circumstances.

    Then you’re a moral relativist.

    I have read and understood history which I have outlined in those paragraphs, which you are too scared to confront because it paints much different picture than the straw-stories you are used to and you seem unable to find any fak-chaker or atheist-rule! website to copy and paste a rebuttal from.

    I’m not a moral relativist.

    You notice how there’s a pro-pedophile movement in your holy places of learning lately?

    How is this relevant to anything?

  31. “?Eve didn’t deliberately set out to hurt anyone, let alone everyone. She didn’t even know it was wrong to be disobedient, as she had no knowledge of good or evil before she eat the fruit.”

    15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gensis 1: 15-17.

    “I respond to what people say. C-Marie said God created men and women, which (as I said to her) doesn’t actually say anything against gay people. You piped-in with ‘Because go forth and multiply’, which is a non-sequiter, but I took it to mean that God’s problem with gay people is a lack of ‘multiplication’. I’m well aware that the Old Testament condemns gay sex, but that has nothing to do with either C-Marie’s or your ‘arguments’. That is all I was saying.”

    (As well as does the New Testament … 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10; Romans 1: 26)

    See Genesis for God’ law concerning that which He does allow: “24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

    “I was ‘programmed’ to be a Christian. This is me breaking from my programming, fool. I think Christianity is false, ….”

    Do you believe then, that Jesus Christ was and is false?

    God bless, C-Marie

  32. (I love the ‘our’ here, as if you speak for everyone, or need support.)

    Given various opinions aired about you, I do believe I do! Wanna take a vote?

    C-Marie said God created men and women, which (as I said to her) doesn’t actually say anything against gay people. You piped-in with ‘Because go forth and multiply’, which is a non-sequiter

    BZZZT! Wrong! Those are the words that follow in the context of C-Marie quoting Scripture. Read the source brah, don’t just make up your own! The context was always reproduction. Those familiar with the text know the opening lines of the whole quotation. It is so common that ine need only quote the intro.

    1. The fact that you even contest this.
    2. Sex with 12 year olds is rape. Rape causes psychological damage.
    3. You’ve moved the goalposts from 12 years to 12-14 years. What about 12 year olds married to 40 year olds?
    4. Where was *your* evidence that gay people suffer psychological damage?

    1. Go on…

    2. By being a qualified adult in her time period in a consensual marriage vetted by all family members with another man around her age? You projecting 22nd Century standards back in BC times again? Do you… do you… think she should have tried calling 9-1-1…?

    3. What about it? Let’s test your deficient knowledge of the past:
    a) How many lived to be 40?
    b) Why would any patriarch give his young daughter to someone of such an advanced age, unless they be extraordinarily wealthy and be able to lift their poverty and status?
    c) What percentage of these 40+ individuals
    had such wealth measured in land/animals/slaves compared to the wealth-earning capacity of the average young man?
    d) How many of that meagre percentage of wealthy 40+ men would be sexually attracted to poor 12-year olds that they would pay the dowry for, versus all the other older women and widows who would be more sexually attractive and to whom they inherit all her ex-husbands property and wealth and potential status versus that of the average farm-hand’s daughter?
    e)Keep in mind that these rare men also had plenty of concubines too. What is the economic benefit then, to pursue the majority of these 12 year olds and all the legal and cultural complications involved?
    f) When you close your eyes and imagine what the old world was like, what do you see? Some Hollywoodized fiction that caters to your a-priori prejudices?

    4. Testimonies of gay people, gay publications, honest psychological literature throughout the decades, and most especially the campaigns to make them all feel better and cater to their needs all the time, like some rare fish unable to take the normal atmospheric pressure above their original sea level, usually by waging war against the ‘haytars’. Then there are the suicide rates, higher than average drug abuse, multiple partners with very low rates of maintaining longevity in relationships, etc.

    Are you listening to them? Or are you waiting for the right corporate marketing campaign to motivate you into caring?

    People also did pretty good when slavery was commonplace, but the slaves weren’t doing ‘pretty good’.

    Akshully… a decent number of slaves were happy, considering the circumstances of their era. Not all slavery was forced. A good number entered into it voluntarily, or to escape debt. Some liked it so much that even when their time came to be freed, they decided to remain, because that life guaranteed them food, shelter and safety. Not everywhere on Earth was revolutionary America or the Hebrew experience under the Pharoah’s.

    No. Why would it be a mistake, when you believe in fixed moral standards from God? Oh wait! I know why: because God’s moral standards as exemplified in the Bible are really janky, with child marriage, slavery, conquest rape, racism, etc.

    Because one general universal standard came from God and passes scrutiny in all times and all places. Whereas yours come from your feelings and emotions. Again you are conveniently pretending we’ve never addressed you about Biblical topics relating to “child marriage, slavery, conquest rape, racism, etc.” that you then ran away from… Is your strategy to conveniently forget about all this every time so as to try and exhaust our patience?

    This is just you flinging as much mud (or poo) as you can in the hope that some of it will stick. It isn’t a rational argument against gay sex, as most of it applies equally to straight sex, while almost none of it applies to lesbian sex. If you want to be rational, you need an argument that applies to all gay people but doesn’t apply to straight people.

    You’re right! Faggot-behavior is just as bad when opposite sexes do it to each other! *Clap*Clap*Clap* And they also suffer the consequences for their peversions too! Like abusive relationships, unhappiness, inability to maintain relationships, suicide etc.

    So will you now apologize to your grandmother for implying it would have been better for grandpapa to sodomize her rather than risking pregnancy?

    Lesbians do have it easier… but also doesn’t seem very satisfied emotionally or sexually, which is why many admit to seeking out male partners on the side, falling more categorically ‘bi’. This has not led to the medical problems of their male counterparts, but it has led to more toxic and abusive and tumultous relationships due to lack of natural compatibility, which adds to the emotional issues and unhappiness, which adds to the drugs and the suicide, which instead is blamed on those lousy Christians!

    I hate to break this to you, but men can already rape women in women’s washrooms.

    And you’re making it easier by facilitating them!

    Rapists don’t stand outside thinking “I’d really like to go in and rape someone, only I’m dressed like a man!”

    Instead they are clearly thinking,”Hmmm… wouldn’t it be easier to slip past security this way and wait inside for her in a confined space instead?”

    Women being raped by straight men is a far greater problem than women being raped by trans women.

    And now those men are playing dress-up! And EXCUSE ME! Are you just presuming trans-people’s sexual preferences? Ever try thinking about how normal women feel, or are you soooo progressive that their concerns don’t matter when they stand in the way of your faulty arguments so you can cast their value aside, just like Grandma?

    A male prisoner coming out as trans would be under far more danger of being raped in a male prison than they would of raping a woman in a woman’s prison. Why don’t you focus on real problems in society rather than irrelevant, made-up issues involving trans people?

    “Women being raped by dress-up men in women’s prisons is made up and doesn’t exist and never happens! It is a conspiracy theory! Even if it does happen, too bad because it is sooooo much worse when it happens by homosexuals in men’s prisons. So instead of these men being raped by men in men’s prisons, better they rape women in women’s prisons. Trans-safety comes first! So get down on your knees and suck it ladies!”
    – SoFishTootboob

    Probably refers to a drawing of a couple kissing, or a biology textbook.

    Nope!

    The content in many of these books is graphic, and the language so obscene that when parents read passages aloud at a recent school board meeting, board member Joy Maloney, who supported the books, protested that the meeting wasn’t an “appropriate setting” to hear such language.

    Parents and even the board chairman were quick to point out the irony in this sentiment.
    https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/02/sexually-explicit-books-were-put-in-these-virginia-classrooms-parents-want-answers/

    You want some pictures? Look here:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Nicoletta0602/status/1444437131032662016

    Do you support this, fishy? You support this being shown to children?

    I chose that Eve eat an apple thousands of years ago?

    You are living under the consequences of her and Adam’s actions. And many more generations will be living under the consequences of yours, just as you do unser the decisions of your ancestors! Such as when you lie about and encourage trans rape of women in prison and showing children naughty books because you are both ideoloically driven to support degenerate sex and can’t do basic research about what you are blissfully promoting.

    1. Free will explains suffering caused by humans, such as rape. It doesn’t explain suffering caused by natural causes like earthquakes.
    2. We can only choose things if is within our nature to do so. God created our nature.
    3. Why does God value the free will of a rapist more than the free will of his victim?

    1. It does because original sin is what destroyed the stability of Creation by severing man from God Who alone upholds creation. Why is God obligated to keep creation from shaking under the weight of calamity when man chooses that God not have anything to do with him? You sure are an entitled and privileged little fella, aren’t ya? So you want God to intervene to stop earthquakes, but not the consequences of you sticking your dick in a bum to cum? Especially when you are already feature-complete to not go down that path with multiple branching options. Why not? Could you make up your mind?

    2. And you chose poorly.

    3. More elaboration needed: what makes you believe that God is doing this in your mind? Because those sure are some words you put together there!

    [You can’t get from ‘all-powerful creator of everything’ to ‘but not responsible for this bit’.]

    Following this logic, why doesn’t God come down to wipe my bottom when I’m finished going potty? No… I can’t accept that… surely being all powerful means God MUST cater to my every need and whim, because I’m ah babey! I shat all over myself! God, please clean up my mess I made, or I’ll tell everyone how mean you are!!!

    Suffering, specifically, but could apply to anything. God can’t create something but not be responsible for it. He chose to create it. He could have made it differently. He’s responsible for it. End of debate.

    “End. Of. DEBATE!”, said the HomoFish as he dusted his hands, feeling very pleased with himself. “Yes,” he thought, “To be God means that everything must be designed for maximum safety that precognitively sees every silly action one does next.”

    “If I were God,” the Fish said, “Every asshole and mouth would double as a vagina! Every mountain and hard surface would inflate with built-in natural air bags should one happen to trip and fall over. Every mosquito would distribute vexxines for free to keep us healthy at all times and food would magically materialize in our stomachs and be stored in our humps rather than depend on racist misogynist truckers! Punish them Trudeau! PUNISH THEM!!! How dare they! WHEN I AM GOD – NO MORE FREE WILL! JUST MECHANICAL DETERMINISM! ALL OF NATURE AND NATURAL LAW SHOULD CHANGE TO ACCOMODATE MEEEE! I WANT TO MARRY MY CLONE! I WANT TO CHANGE MY SEX AS EASY AS A LIGHTSWITCH! WHEN I JUMP FROM A CLIFF, I WANT WINGS TO SPROUT OUT OF MY ASS! If none of those things can happen… then that means God is responsible for whatever tragedy happens next! END. OF. DEBATE!!!!

    1. Eve didn’t deliberately set out to hurt anyone, let alone everyone. She didn’t even know it was wrong to be disobedient, as she had no knowledge of good or evil before she eat the fruit.
    2. The guards couldn’t do anything about the poisoning, but God could.

    1. She knew what she wasn’t supposed to do and that something bad and deathly would happen if she did. Try reading the actual story instead of the version you made up. She had knowledge of good and evil consequences, that is why she was hesitant. The serpant put it in her head that she would be like God and know (determine) good and evil for herself. But the irony was that she already set herself up in her own mind before even eating the fruit. The eating was the commitment to the thought.

    2. “End. Of. DEBATE!”, said the HomoFish as he dusted his hands, feeling very pleased with himself. “Yes,” he thought, “To be God means that everything must be designed for maximum safety that precognitively sees every silly action one does next.”

    “If I were God,” the Fish said, “Every asshole and mouth would double as a vagina! Every mountain and hard surface would inflate with built-in natural air bags should one happen to trip and fall over. Every mosquito would distribute vexxines for free to keep us healthy at all times and food would magically materialize in our stomachs and be stored in our humps rather than depend on racist misogynist truckers! Punish them Trudeau! PUNISH THEM!!! How dare they! WHEN I AM GOD – NO MORE FREE WILL! JUST MECHANICAL DETERMINISM! ALL OF NATURE AND NATURAL LAW SHOULD CHANGE TO ACCOMODATE MEEEE! I WANT TO MARRY MY CLONE! I WANT TO CHANGE MY SEX AS EASY AS A LIGHTSWITCH! WHEN I JUMP FROM A CLIFF, I WANT WINGS TO SPROUT OUT OF MY ASS! If none of those things can happen… then that means God is responsible for whatever tragedy happens next! END. OF. DEBATE!!!!

    I was ‘programmed’ to be a Christian. This is me breaking from my programming, fool.

    You were? But… then… why do you always get so many easy and elementary details so wrong all the time? I mean… you don’t exhibit an understanding of the most basic stuff… Are you sure you were programmed correctly? I mean… you got the story of Eve wrong… EVE! Not to mention you didn’t recognize the significance of C-Marie abbreviating the meaning contained by God making men and women… That’s like… the first lines of the programming dude…. Bro, I’m calling you out! You don’t even know the basics, bro! Bro, why you lying like that?

    I think Christianity is false, hence I contest it, and judging from people like you, Christian belief encourages homophobia, transphobia, wholesale denial of scientific evidence, acceptance of conspiracy theories, and poor political choices.

    You think…? You don’t sound very sure… I guess I would too if I lost and ran away from as many conversations as you do. You have never been able to defend any of them… Could you explain again how the female placenta remotely locomotes the blood in an isolated lab cultured embryo observed to be moving underneath a microscope without the presence of a heart?

    And you really hate fact-checking sites, don’t you? Maybe that’s because the facts are all against you.

    But the ones you posted agreed with me, and you clearly never even read them. You just posted the link and then left. Nowadays you just quote some parts of what you find, but hide the links from us so that they can’t be scrutinized… Why are you doing that?

    Then you’re a moral relativist.

    How? Explain how people of the same age being sexually compatible and reproductive capable, then marrying and raising children and running a household as was expected of them and appropriate to their era is somehow inconsistent.

    I’m not a moral relativist.

    I agree! You are morally inconsistent!

    How is this relevant to anything?

    Explain, according to your personal moral paradigm, why the professor is wrong. We want to see your framework in action.

  33. Why would any patriarch give his young daughter to someone of such an advanced age, unless they be extraordinarily wealthy and be able to lift their poverty and status?

    I’m guessing you are not familiar with the story of Lot and the Sodomites. Women in those days were a commodity.

  34. I’m guessing you are not familiar with the story of Lot and the Sodomites. Women in those days were a commodity.

    I am. And that is true. But even back then, this was considered abhorrent and immoral, hence the account and condemnation and judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were exceptional in their debauchery.

    Women were not free to do as they liked, but that also means that anyone trying to access them illegitimately had a lot of hoops to jump through, which included the men who guarded her as a possession, and to whom any violation was considered destruction of their property, for which they would extract just re-compensation even unto indebted slavery and death of the perpetrator.

  35. I’m guessing you are not familiar with the story of Lot and the Sodomites. … even back then, this was considered abhorrent and immoral, hence the account and condemnation and judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah,

    We seem to have different takes of the story or perhaps we are referring to different ones. The actions of the mob perhaps but not Lot offering them his daughters.

  36. Are you under the impression that Lot was some upstanding citizen? The only reason God spared him was as a favor to Abraham.

    Lot, fearing for his honor, considering his obligation to his highly esteemed guests that he recognized, cast his (already-bethrowed) virgin daughters at the mob’s feet hoping that would satisfy them.

    Considering his daughters had no issue screwing their own pop, they were hardly paragons of virtue either, and their Moabite and Ammonite offspring were eventual thorns in Israel’s side.

    It was likely that Lot himself, was trying to please the angels so that they might not destroy the cities, which in those times pretty much were a country unto themselves. The devastation was such that his daughters feared there was no man left for them. Otherwise most other people, like Abraham were nomads and always on the move and stuck together in caravans.

    In any case, while women were a commodity and considered property of their father or husband, they were still valuable property, worth at least a few cattle in exchange as a dowry price, and therefore not insignificant. For both reasons of honor and value thet were generally protected, especially their virginity.

    Lot weighed their value against what he stood to lose if God destroyed the cities – which was everything. In the end he was left destitute with only his daughters.

  37. I had no idea you are a biblical expert. You appear to have concentrated on the Hollywood edition. You might want to look into the non-cimematic version next.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.