While I'll always respect the chair of St. Peter, donating money to "unemployed prostitutes" was a little far

Did this legit happen? Sheesh never know what hes going to say or do next.

Yeah.....I was really surprised to hear about it. They were transgender prostitutes too. He has to realize that he's making himself appear to support two mortal sins at once

Two mortal sins?

Yeah. Transgenderism and prostitution.

They're at least grave matters

Grave in what way?

Grave because they are dangerous to the souls who commit them willingly

That's your belief though, not the belief of those people. In what way does it impact you?

It's my belief because God has revealed it to be the truth.

The point of this meme was me criticizing the pope for donating money to transgender prostitutes. I wasn't even criticizing the actual prostitutes here. It impacts me because the pope is the head of my Church, and it's disturbing to see him financially support such sins

The way you were talking, I wondered if he'd hired transgender prostitutes!

Haha no. If he had.....that would be a problem.

They were "out of work" because no one wanted to have sex with them while coronavirus was going around, so he gave them some money

In the same way that actors are out of work because nobody wants to go to the theatre? Musicians are out of work because nobody wants to hear them play?..

I think rather than nobody wanting these services, people are actually staying home to prevent the virus spreading.

So you're saying because they lost their income, he donated money so they could eat and pay their rent and you think that's a bad thing?

"In the same way that actors are out of work because nobody wants to go to the theatre? Musicians are out of work because nobody wants to hear them play?.."

Yeah. Which makes it even weirder that those were the only unemployed people I'm aware of that he donated to. Why didn't he donate to other types of unemployed people you mentioned? I don't know why.

"I think rather than nobody wanting these services, people are actually staying home to prevent the virus spreading."

Yeah I get that that's why.

"So you're saying because they lost their income, he donated money so they could eat and pay their rent and you think that's a bad thing?"

I think it's a bad thing that he supported their sinful way of life and allowed them to continue it. Had they ran out of money, it likely would have forced them to start some real work. Either that or they would stay unemployed, and then in that case the Church would've helped them anyway if they came to a soup kitchen or something. They'd still be getting money indirectly from the Church, but without being able to continue their current way of life.

Do you not support compassionate, charitable behavior? Doesn't the Bible say not to judge others?
Do you think some people don't deserve support? How does rejection help anyone's soul?

Of course I support it. But the pope simply enabled them to continue a life of sin. That's not what the Church is about.

Indeed the Bible does say not to judge others. However, it doesn't say not to judge actions. Would you consider it wrong if I decided not to give my money to a murder because I didn't want them to buy more weapons? That's not judging a person. That's choosing not to allow my financial resources to be used for more sin.

I do believe everyone should have support, but spiritual support should come before physical and emotional because it's the only one that matters in the end. And this is the pope we're talking about. Surely he could've offered some sort of spiritual support as well. He could've called them to repentance and still given them money to go and start a new life. The problem I have is him just giving them money to continue hurting themselves and others.

Not sure where I mentioned rejection

You're comparing someone expressing their gender and someone practicing sex work to murder.
How is someone stating their gender and someone having sex equivalent to taking a life?

Like I've said before, murder clearly causes harm. In what way does having sex or expressing your gender cause harm?

What's the difference between judging a person and judging their actions? Aren't we defined by our actions?

"You have said that there are only two genders, what gender do you think people born with both a p**is and a va**na are?"

Good question. They are whatever gender their chromosomes show. The presence of a Y chromosome makes you male, and the absence of a Y chromosome makes you female. (So even if you have something like Klinefelter's syndrome [YXX], you're male because of the presence of a Y even though you will exhibit some typically female characteristics.) As for being born with most parts, in virtually all cases, one sex of parts is more prominent at birth, and the doctors can perform surgury removing the barely prominent one.

"According to you, who do they get to have sex with?"

If they have one set of parts removed at birth, then the remaining ones would reflect their actual gender, but I'm not sure, depending on the circumstances, whether or not they'd be sterile.

"What gives you the authority to know what your God has intended for someone? How do you know what gender someone is?"

Not what He has intended for someone. What He has intended for everyone. He doesn't want any of us to sin, so we hold ourselves to moral standards as well. We don't just call people out for fun. And even when someone does something immoral, we'd prefer to discuss it with them in private, but only when an entire society accepts a moral evil such as this do we call it out loudly and publicly. As to how do I know what gender someone is: basic biology (Y vs no Y).

"Oh yeah, your vaccination question. Part of parenting is being put in the position to make decisions on behalf of a child because they are unable to give consent."

Exactly. In the same way an animal is unable to give consent. I asked that question to disprove your statement that inability to give consent always equals harm. Your only proof that bestiality causes harm is that it doesn't involve consent, which I just proved how a lack of consent can't be assumed to cause harm. Therefore, bestiality doesn't necessarily cause harm, which proves that morality isn't determined by harm, that is unless you deem bestiality to be moral, which I doubt you do.

"Oh yeah, your vaccination question. Part of parenting is being put in the position to make decisions on behalf of a child because they are unable to give consent."

"Exactly. In the same way an animal is unable to give consent. I asked that question to disprove your statement that inability to give consent always equals harm. Your only proof that bestiality causes harm is that it doesn't involve consent, which I just proved how a lack of consent can't be assumed to cause harm. Therefore, bestiality doesn't necessarily cause harm, which proves that morality isn't determined by harm, that is unless you deem bestiality to be moral, which I doubt you do."

Sorry, no.

Parents make the decision to vaccinate on behalf of the child to protect the child from harm. Hopefully you are not going to argue that vaccines protect against diseases.

People don't f**k animals for the animal's benefit or to protect the animal from harm.

It's not a fair comparison.

"Good question. They are whatever gender their chromosomes show. The presence of a Y chromosome makes you male, and the absence of a Y chromosome makes you female. (So even if you have something like Klinefelter's syndrome [YXX], you're male because of the presence of a Y even though you will exhibit some typically female characteristics.) As for being born with most parts, in virtually all cases, one sex of parts is more prominent at birth, and the doctors can perform surgury removing the barely prominent one."

You said bodily mutilation was sinful.

"No you didn't, the parent consents on behalf of the child; it's consent by proxy. They are legal representatives."

Yes, but for the sake of this comparison, that's like saying the person consents on behalf of the animal they're having sex with since the animal can't give consent.

And besides, even if a doctor gave a child a vaccine without the parents' consent, that's STILL preventing harm even though there is no consent, further proving my point that not all cases lacking consent cause harm

It's not like saying that at all, a person that wants to commit bestiality is in no position legal or otherwise to consent on behalf of the animal. Much like a pedophile couldn't argue that they were consenting on behalf of a child.
F**king an animal is going to cause it trauma, both physical and psychological.
It's illegal for a reason.

"One does cause harm!"

Since I'm assuming you're not referring to vaccination, what makes bestiality harmful?

And besides, even if bestiality did cause harm, it wouldn't disprove my two points: 1) that a lack of consent doesn't necessarily equal harm, and 2) that morality isn't determined by harm.

Your only evidence that bestiality is harmful is it's lack of consent. I proved that a lack of consent isn't always harmful with vaccination.

"I proved that a lack of consent isn't always harmful with vaccination."

No you didn't, the parent consents on behalf of the child; it's consent by proxy. They are legal representatives.

"Sorry, no."

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I offered a well-reasoned proof.

"Parents make the decision to vaccinate on behalf of the child to protect the child from harm."

Agreed. So you admit that a lack of consent doesn't always equal harm then, correct?

"Hopefully you are not going to argue that vaccines protect against diseases."

Isn't that what they're designed for? Did you word that wrong? I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

"People don't f**k animals for the animal's benefit or to protect the animal from harm."

Indeed not.

"It's not a fair comparison."

It's plenty fair considering the argument I was making, which was simply that a lack of consent doesn't equal harm. I'm aware of the differences between bestiality and vaccination, but both involve a lack of consent, neither causes harm, but only one is immoral. Therefore morality doesn't rely on harm.

One does cause harm!

"We are our minds, what gives you the ability to judge whether or not someone is wrong about their gender?
It isn't what you described, the issue is that their gender does not match their biological sex."

Yes we are in our minds, but that doesn't mean that our minds are always correct and working soundly. If a person has gender dysphoria, their mind is telling them something other than reality, just like a schizophrenic's mind is telling them something other than reality. As to what gives me the ability to judge whether someone with gender dysphoria is right or wrong about their gender: science.

"It's an established fact that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Historically, it was used interchangeably with sex but like everything, language evolves. It has changed as our understanding has changed, we are always moving forwards. I appreciate that that might be difficult for people who base their morality and understanding of the world on an ancient system rather than current experience. If you can adapt to the Earth not being flat or at the centre of the Universe, surely you can adjust to this?"

The current definition you are applying to gender isn't entirely a result of language evolving as you have claimed. It is a result of people inventing a completely new and frankly ridiculous idea (that someone can change their gender) and applying the word gender to it. Gender identity is an anti-scientific idea. Claiming you can change your gender is as ridiculous as claiming you can change your race. It's simply something you're born with.

The Church never claimed the world was flat, so no we never had to adapt to that.

As to the word gender being invented in 1955, I just wanted to clarify that that's when it was first said to be different than biological sex, and it was meant to refer to gender roles specifically.

I just watched the Ted Talk that you said described your beliefs to an extent. It was interesting, and I see no contradiction to it and what I believe. I agree that there is certainly something beyond space-time, perception, and physical objects. I just believe that that ultimate cause is God. Now to claim belief in God isn't to claim that we know everything about reality. There are still many mysteries about God just like there are mysteries in science.

"You said bodily mutilation was sinful."

Correct. But performing a beneficial surgery isn't mutilation, such as removing a limb with cancer. Transition surgery is mutilation because it is the removal of natural, good, beneficial body parts simply because of a mental illness. There is no medical benefit to it. Just like there is no benefit to cutting wrists

But the doctor isn't removing cancerous genitalia, how is it beneficial, isn't it what god intended?
There's no evidence that being transgender is a mental illness, it doesn't cause harm. Forcing someone to behave like the gender they are not instead of recognising the gender they know they are causes harm.

The suicide rate amongst people that have had 'conversion therapy' is really high.

A doctor removing genitals because they don't match the persons gender is what is happening in both the situations we've discussed, there's no difference.

By trying to control what someone does with their own body (I'm obviously not including harmful illegal acts) you are harming the person, not saving their soul.

"That is not the definition of gender dysphoria,

Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity."

That's exactly what I'm describing. There's something in their head that makes them thing they are something they aren't.

"Chromosomes determine biological sex, not gender."

Sex and gender are the same thing. The word gender was only made up in 1955, and it was invented for gender roles, not the silly idea that you can change your sex. Gender identity is a concept made up so that people with gender dysphoria can feel better and think they are what they're not and have other people play along.

We are our minds, what gives you the ability to judge whether or not someone is wrong about their gender?
It isn't what you described, the issue is that their gender does not match their biological sex.

It's an established fact that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Historically, it was used interchangeably with sex but like everything, language evolves. It has changed as our understanding has changed, we are always moving forwards. I appreciate that that might be difficult for people who base their morality and understanding of the world on an ancient system rather than current experience. If you can adapt to the Earth not being flat or at the centre of the Universe, surely you can adjust to this?

gender (n.)
c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).

The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.

"But the doctor isn't removing cancerous genitalia, how is it beneficial, isn't it what god intended?"

Cancer is just one example. Things don't need to be cancerous to be a problem. It's beneficial because double organ systems cause problems because the body was only designed to fit one of the two. It doesn't have room for both, and if it's removed early, it may even leave the patient able to reproduce. The existence of God doesn't mean that everything we brought about on ourselves is what He intended. He never intended us to sin or suffer, but since we sinned, we brought suffering and death upon ourselves.

"There's no evidence that being transgender is a mental illness, it doesn't cause harm."

There is plenty of evidence that transgenderism is a mental illness. The illness is literally called gender dysphoria. And I'll show you the proof that it causes harm in a couple paragraphs.

"Forcing someone to behave like the gender they are not instead of recognising the gender they know they are causes harm."

That's like saying, "Forcing schizophrenics to ignore the voices in their head instead of letting them listen the voices that they know exist causes harm." Clearly if they have gender dysphoria, they DON'T know the gender they are. That's literally the definition of gender dysphoria.

"The suicide rate amongst people that have had 'conversion therapy' is really high."

The suicide rate of people who go through 'transition surgery' is really high.

"A doctor removing genitals because they don't match the persons gender is what is happening in both the situations we've discussed, there's no difference."

There's a huge difference. The body of the person born with both types needs one set to be removed to remain healthy. There's nothing wrong with the bodies of people who transition. The problem is in their head; their genitals match their chromosomes (which are what determine gender). Gender isn't determined by what you "think you are." If I think I'm 12' 9," am I? Nope. Height is determined by measuring, not by what I think.

That is not the definition of gender dysphoria,

Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.

Chromosomes determine biological sex, not gender.

"By trying to control what someone does with their own body (I'm obviously not including harmful illegal acts) you are harming the person, not saving their soul."

So is me telling someone NOT to cut their wrists a form of me harming them?

I literally just said I wasn't including harmful acts.

Le sigh.

"You're comparing someone expressing their gender and someone practicing sex work to murder.
How is someone stating their gender and someone having sex equivalent to taking a life?"

They're not equivalent; murder is certainly a worse sin than impurity, but both are grave matters, meaning they seriously risk the salvation of your soul. And it's not "expressing their gender." It's denying their gender and identity that God gave them. Now transgenderism is a mental illness just like homosexuality, and obviously we should treat anyone affected by it with compassion and therapy, but just like homosexuality, it's acting on those feelings that's sinful, not simply having them. (In this case acting on them means bodily mutilation, hormones, etc.)

"Like I've said before, murder clearly causes harm. In what way does having sex or expressing your gender cause harm?"

Prostitution is emotionally harmful to both people involved. And like I proved yesterday, harm isn't what makes something immoral, and neither is a lack of consent. Like I already asked, is vaccinating children harmful and therefore immoral because it doesn't involve consent?

"What's the difference between judging a person and judging their actions? Aren't we defined by our actions?"

There's a big difference. Would you say that murder is wrong? I'm sure you would. So if someone commits murder, and then you tell them it was wrong to do, is that judging them? Certainly not. It's not judging a person to condemn their evil actions. If we stopped judging actions, there would be no law and no justice. We are in part defined by our actions, but we can change how we think and what we do. If I committed murder then years later felt terrible, apologized, and did everything I could to help the affected people, I wouldn't be judging my soul by judging my previous actions.

You have said that there are only two genders, what gender do you think people born with both a p**is and a va**na are?

According to you, who do they get to have sex with?

What gives you the authority to know what your God has intended for someone? How do you know what gender someone is?

Oh yeah, your vaccination question. Part of parenting is being put in the position to make decisions on behalf of a child because they are unable to give consent.

"I literally just said I wasn't including harmful acts."

You said "harmful illegal" or "illegal harmful" with no comma so it made it appear as though you were describing one category of acts instead of two.

There's still a flaw your argument that it's wrong to tell people not to do things that aren't harmful or illegal. Laws change. So when abortion was illegal, does that mean it was okay to tell people not to do it?

I can work with another example as well. Adultery doesn't cause harm per say, especially if the one being cheated on never finds out, and it's legal, so does that mean it's wrong to tell people cheating is bad and you shouldn't do it?

"It's not like saying that at all, a person that wants to commit bestiality is in no position legal or otherwise to consent on behalf of the animal."

In nature, there is no "legality." Laws are a concept only humans have.

"Much like a pedophile couldn't argue that they were consenting on behalf of a child."

Children aren't animals. Children at that age are more capable of consent than animals can ever be.

"F**king an animal is going to cause it trauma, both physical and psychological."

It's illegal for a reason."

Physical, possibly. Psychologically, maybe for a while. But not nearly as much as for a human, since we have much more complex memories, and we're able to understand things in the future that we didn't understand in the past. That's another thing animals can't do.

Why is unemployed prostitutes in inverted commas?

I wouldn't consider prostitution a legitimate career, so they're never really employed unless people decide to show up

How is that different from any other self-employed job?

It's different in that other self-employed people don't make their wage on a grave sin

"Jesus went out of his way to meet prostitutes; they were part of the humanity he came to save. The Pharisees were scandalized that he should accept invitations to eat with “tax collectors and sinners”, but Jesus said: “It is the sick who need a physician, so I don’t seek the righteous but the sinners” (Mark 2:17). This was a clever answer, but it didn’t deal with the Pharisees’ main problem: Jesus spending his time with sinners was bad enough, but they weren’t just sinners – they were prostitutes. Prostitutes at that time were called “sinners” in polite company, just as they were called “fallen women” by the Victorians. Interestingly, the Gospels never record Jesus using a euphemism for the word prostitute, so when he condemned the Pharisees he said: “Tax collectors and prostitutes will get to the Kingdom of heaven before you” (Matthew 21:32-33)"

Indeed He did spend time with prostitutes, not so he could give them money and let them continue sinning though, but so He could instruct them and inspire them to change.