You have no understanding of what he said then

He said that having those desires is not in itself a sin, but if you act on them in any way it becomes a sin

Literally read what he said

I know what he said, I read about my own religion

You clearly do not

And again, read what you just posted, then look at what I just said

Tendencies are not a sin, the desire itself is not a sin, it never has been

It's acting upon it that is a sin

As he said "if you are angry and hurt people, the sin is there"

@Deleted User I read politics more than theology because it's important to my job

Salvation is through works and faith

I didn't say he wasn't cringe politically, I said it doesn't matter

Also I don't have a problem with being leftist, I have a problem with that type of leftism

I myself would probably fall under a leftist category

It's not changing at all, there are just less people in the Church than there were

Sure, people are dumb

That doesn't make the Religion wrong

It means our society in general is just immoral

Regardless of what Church we're talking about that is the case

"You agree with me so stop telling me to not be a sperg in chat"

Well the Popes current opinions on politics only serve to prove my point that the Church and State should remain separate entities

Yeah, a mutually beneficial arrangement

The state should implement social laws based on Catholic morality, but should not take the word of Clergy on political matters

And a man should not be able to be Clergy and Statesman

Only under the condition that they do not form Churches or try to convert people

With the exception of Christianity of course

No, Pagan beliefs are immoral and serve to divide the collective population

I don't believe in State and Church mixing

And I don't believe in economics or state structure based on the Church

@Deleted User Some of those ancestors perhaps believed in the same God I do, I'm not one to say, only God can judge them

Depends on how you mean a Religious state

I believe they should be allowed to exist, but they should not be allowed to divide the population, and the Religion will die a natural death

As it practically has already

Also Religious funding is necessary for the economic model I would support, and the state cannot fund every Religion someone wants to believe in

So they simply wouldn't fund pagans

It means they can't establish Churches

Paganism would die off

Of course they couldn't, where would they do such a thing since most forms of private property would not exist?

That's all I said to take from the Religion

And to take it from one specific Religion

@Maksim You mean if he does it again?

@Maksim

No worries

lmao

Probably a cringe pagan

Like most people who use the term "Christcuck" or call Christianity Jewish

There's little to no Theological arguments that actually prove the existence of Paganism

Most of them don't even bother trying to establish one

Well we could go through them one by one if you'd like

It developed before people had an understanding of Theology, that's why there isn't any that supports it

Because it wasn't needed

No, some are purely based off tradition and faith, and don't have theological arguments supporting it

Which I would argue the majority of Pagans fall into, or at least historically fell into

I think you're missing the point here, it's not that they don't believe in a God, it's that they don't have a logical or philosophical proof for that God

Also a lot are Perennialists

Because it is shitty proof, it has no logical groundwork because such a thing wasn't developed

It's not about choosing to believe one framework over another, it's about proving that one is true by the fact that to deny it would lead to absurdity

Or contradiction

Your opinion is irrelevant as to whether it is logically sound or not

Your opinion might be that 2+2 = 5, but that doesn't make it so

There is a correct logical answer, and it's about discovering what that is

Of course, we can study God through deducing his properties or actions upon this world using reason

No, there are plenty of Religions which use the same basic framework as Christianity but apply it incorrectly

I would say those Religions have a Theology, just that their Theology is wrong

Some of them sure, I never claimed it was stolen from Christianity

None of this changes the point that Pagan Scriptures do not set up a logical or philosophical framework, they simply assert "truths"

At least, the majority don't

I know what you're arguing, I'm saying that you're wrong because they don't set up these frameworks for the most part

There are some that do, and those are Theological

But if you ask a Pagan to justify their beliefs Theologically, the majority will simply assert something as true rather than prove it

Logic is not perspective

We have universal and unchanging laws of logic that almost all humans accept, and that we can prove to be true

You're missing my point here, it's not about what I or you believe

You have to prove that in a logical or philosophical framework

Or at least have one of those frameworks that you can attempt to prove it with

You keep ignoring what I'm saying, whether you think something is logical or not is irrelevant

No, I said you need to have a philosophical or logical framework, by which you can use to at least attempt to prove your belief as correct

The universal laws of logic aren't up for debate here, we can prove them

It's not about scripture, I already said that

Scripture doesn't matter for what I'm talking about here

I'm talking about philosophical and logical frameworks

That question doesn't make sense

The universal laws of logic can be used to prove causality, which I would say proves the existence of Christianity

There are 3 universal laws of logic, which we can prove to be true

Regardless of Religion

What? Of course I do, that's not the same thing as what I'm talking about though

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying

I have said this multiple times now, most Pagans lack a Logical or philosophical framework

"When systematically developed"

Please at least read the whole thing

I have explained it multiple times here already

Christianity for example draws logical conclusions and proofs of the universal laws of logic which are self evident by their very existence

@Maksim Wasn't going to don't worry

Well the law of Identity, Non-Contradiction and excluded middle

These laws cannot be denied by their very nature

Because to deny them would be to forfeit any form of logic or reasoning

So for this particular example, these laws in Christianity can be used to prove causality

Which leads into one of the five ways of Aquinas