What's your opinion on religions that don't think you, if single, should have a 'love life' even with yourself?

[porridgeisbae]

Just that really.

I converted to Catholicism but I think that bit's a bit harsh.

But “Natural Law” is just a thing that someone has made up. It’s entirely arbitrary. There’s no reason to believe their view on human sexuality has any more validity than mine or yours.

@MasterBeth There is no reason to be Roman Catholic, or Christian, or Hindu or an atheist or a Labour party supporter either. Natural Law is central to Roman Catholicism. When you convert to a religion you generally do so because you believe in its central teachings and are willing to sign up to them. Someone who accepts Christianity in the sense that they believe Jesus was God incarnate and that the New Testament reveals this, but does not accept Natural Law would be more likely to be drawn to Reformed / Protestant / Evangelical church denominations. Pretty much all formal religions tend to have quite traditional approaches to sex and marriage, so that wouldn't necessarily mean that to OP's concerns are met, but the fundamental philosophical basis for the Roman Catholic argument on this matter would not be a barrier. Instead, it is a matter of interpretation of scripture, which can be open to debate (both meaning and how literally it should be taken).

Instead, it is a matter of interpretation of scripture, which can be open to debate (both meaning and how literally it should be taken).

Tell that to OP, she seems to think her interpretation is the only one.

@crushercreel Ah well. It is her journey, not mine. She will have to grapple with that for herself.

Yes OP signed up to this. But she says she'd pass her homophobia on to her children so it's not like it doesn't impact other people.

There’s every reason for being an atheist (i.e. someone who has not been convinced of the existence of a supernatural god or gods) until someone provides good evidence of the existence of the supernatural.

There are plenty of reasons to be a supporter of (any) political party. These reasons can be debated and disagreed about, because they are open to opinion and interpretation. But no political party claims it knows the objective truth about reality.

Religions do claim this. They are different in essence. Catholicism makes extraordinary claims about the nature of reality, like the dead can come to life, wine can turn into blood when you drink it, men shouldn’t have sex with men. But they don’t give reasons why this is the case, other than the circular reason that it is God’s will. Says who? How do they know?

@MasterBeth
Catholics follow the word of Christ as written in the New Testament which were written by disciples of Christ who were present when these miracles were performed. That is says who

@Molly70 so still written by people for people in order to control people then. Not arguing about the existence of Christ, there's enough evidence there, but no evidence at all of the supernatural side of it.

I think Christ performed miracles to prove the supernatural side of it.

That only holds water if you believe in miracles. Which are described in the Bible. Which was written by people. So we're back to the circular argument of the Bible says it's true and the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. Which is nonsense.

Nobody has to believe these things. It is a personal choice or “calling” in some cases. In this day and age we have the right to believe and practice a religion or not believe and not practice a religion

No, even Catholic Biblical scholars don’t claim that: https://www.beginningcatholic.com/when-was-the-bible-written.

The evidence says that the earliest writings of the New Testament were written at least 50-100 years later by people who weren’t there.

So Catholics follow the hearsay testimony of pre-scientific peasants who say they saw a man rise from the dead, but as recorded two or three generations after they say it happened. Like if your great-grandma said she saw a unicorn as a little girl, you wrote that down somewhere and two thousand years later someone thinks that’s good evidence that unicorns exist.

Exactly. So the answer to the OP’s original question is: you don’t have to believe this nonsense if you think it’s weird. It is weird.

50 years after Christ died isn’t 2 or 3 generations. Yes, if you think it’s weird then you are free to think that and say it thank goodness.

25 years is the accepted historical definition of a generation.

So 50-100 years is 2 or 3 generations, as Biblical scholars disagree about exactly how long after Christ died that the first New Testament books were written.

Bible scholars absolutely agree that the Bible was not written by anyone who was there. You are incorrect to suggest otherwise.

There is no reason, literally no reason whatsoever, for anyone to give a flying fuck about gay paople. They're people, boring people like anyone else, just people!

John the Apostle is believed to have died 100 AD

We do, but I would argue that we don't have the right to impose that on our children. I think children should not be raised in any faith until they are old enough to make their own choices.

So he would have been a baby at best when Christ was around.

His older brother was a disciple and his mother was Mary’s sister. I’m trying to convey they were not just random people with no connection to Jesus

Sounds like op isn’t allowed to grapple with things for herself 😂

So the bible is basically olden days Harry Potter then?

@Molly70 that's still hearsay then.

@MasterBeth I actually agree with you on all of that. My point was a more general one about concepts and patterns of arguments being constructs of the mind. Within Aquinas’s philosophy Natural law sits alongside Human Law, Divine Law and Eternal Law. Together these create a comprehensive world view with an internal logic that made sense of the world at a time when there was no separation between theology and natural sciences.

@pointythings
John the Apostle was born around 5 AD and died around 100 AD. Jesus was born in 1AD and died in 33 AD. Therefore John wax 5 years younger than Jesus and lived for many years afterwards so no, not hearsay