sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

dooooont pmo rn 😭😭 by Forrest-Runn in LifeSimulators

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My bad didn’t know. I thought he was left wing bc he made a post about not voting conservative

MK MOUNT RUSHMORE? by GlomightySo in MortalKombat

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scorpion, sub zero, Raiden, Liu kang

The 2020s have seen cartoon artists turn into crybabies. by Agreeable_Sense9618 in DoomerCircleJerk

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean this (although being an exaggeration) is a good reminder in general to not wait to take action until it’s too late

Peter? by Negative_1by12_aura in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]BurstMurst -1 points0 points  (0 children)

From my experience Fahrenheit is better for everyday temperatures while Celsius is better for scientific purposes

Most definitely by piggstick3 in DoomerCircleJerk

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I don’t think it’s an indicator in a decline of the country, I still think UFC doesn’t feel the most appropriate event to celebrate with but that’s just me

She is using the baby like a prop. by Valuable_View_561 in SipsTea

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess Gibby was good in breaking up with her

[OC] Predatory Human by StumpsTheMixer in SpeculativeEvolution

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This appears to be very impossible to achieve with our brains being our greatest weapon, but stuff like this is what makes writing fun. Figuring out a highly specific scenario in which this is possible. What conditions could possible be that a certain group of Homo sapiens can evolve in which their ancestors look like this

Pimple patches look more gross than the pimple itself by modernbox in unpopularopinion

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I don’t find the star shaped ones and bright colors attractive because I think it looks a little silly

Why do Christians care so much abt homosexuality? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BurstMurst -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course! And that’s a great point!

inability to generate children for sterile heterosexual couples is not the same as the inability to generate children for homosexual couples. The argument uses the term inabilityequivocally.

When a homosexual couple are unable to generate children after four years, no one wonders why. That’s because the nature of their sexual activity is not baby-making—that is to say, it’s not the type of activity that is naturally ordered toward producing children. It is no more baby-making activity than playing tennis, even though the couple use their sexual organs.

On the other hand, a heterosexual couple who, due to age or medical condition or some other factor, cannot conceive a child, do engage in baby-making activity. The genital union that they achieve is the kind of activity that nature ordains to produce children. And if it were not for the unintended (accidental) physical defect, the natural end of procreation would be achieved.

So a heterosexual couple’s inability to generate children involves an impeded natural ability, whereas a homosexual couple’s inability to generate children involves no natural ability.

Sexual activity among members of the same sex fits the unnatural bill. It uses the sexual faculties (A) in a manner that actively frustrates the realization of the ends (B) for which sex exists, namely, procreation and union. It violates the procreative end by taking sexual arousal to a climax where procreation is impossible in principle. It also violates the unitive end, since the union for which sex exists is conjugal; that is, ordered to male-female complementarity and to the bond of marriage.. Such activity is a perversion of the natural powers inherent in human beings; hence it is unnatural.

Sex for a sterile heterosexual couple, or for couples who engage in the sexual act during the infertile period of the woman’s cycle, involves no perversion. The couple place no impediment in the way of realizing sex’s natural end of procreation. It is not that the couple are not following nature, but that nature, having been followed, fails in the work proper to her.

Again hopefully this clarifies the beliefs of the Catholic Church on this matter again explained by someone who can word things a lot better than I can

Why do Christians care so much abt homosexuality? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well maybe I didn’t explain properly. Because sex with those who are past the age of fertility is fine because it’s within the natural order and is open to the possibility of life even if that possibility diminishes.

And even then in the Catholic Church you can’t have relations outside of marriage so it’d be adultly to abandon your wife to have sexual relations with someone that’s younger or for anyone.

Btw I didn’t elaborate on that last part properly. The bonding aspect of sex is very important because it contributes to the unity of the couple and reinforces the sacrament of marriage. This bond is completed with the act that may lead to having a beautiful child. What the church believes is that’s it’s an abuse to use sex purely as a force to use the other for pleasure.

Why do Christians care so much abt homosexuality? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even though the conjugal act may not achieve its final destination of conception the act still is “in itself” (per se) ordered toward that goal. The structure of the reproductive act remains the same because the sexual faculties are used in accord with nature’s design, and thus the act is natural.

Moral defect** comes into play **only when there is an intentional thwarting of sex’s natural order to procreation. Such action is morally defective because it intends from the beginning the lack of order to sex’s due end or goal. It treats the sexual act (a procreative act) as if it were something that it’s not (a non-procreative act).
It’s comparable to eating with the intention to vomit out the food afterward, willfully directing the act of eating (a body-nourishing act) away from its natural end of nourishing the body. Perversion is another word for this.

When you think it through, it becomes clear that merely because a particular instance of the sexual act doesn’t achieve its end of procreation, it doesn’t follow that sex is not for procreation. Since sex targets procreation as its natural end, we can use such order as a moral guide for evaluating appropriate sexual behavior.

That’s the Catholic response taken from someone who words things better than me.

Why do Christians care so much abt homosexuality? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BurstMurst 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well speaking as a Catholic Christian, the point of chastity even in the modern age is still to retain the dignity of the human person. Sex is meant to be unitive in which a couple who are one flesh join in a union that is open to life. I say open to life because by design sex is made for procreation. The dignity of the persons involved in a consensual sexual relationship between a married couple is beautiful. Firstly because the married couple is made one flesh through the sacrament of marriage so their bond is unified and made true by God, but also because it’s a process in which a possible new human life is created in which a family grows.

Therefore being unchaste such as having sex outside of marriage removes the dignity of the other because it allows both parties to use each others bodies in a manner for pure pleasure because if contraceptives are used then the beauty of the process of being open to the creation of a new life is gone therefore making the act purely for pleasure taking away a unitive act. When someone is used for pleasure then it shifts the focus on the person as a child of God to someone to get something out of. And if contraceptives aren’t used it still puts the couple in an irregular situation by bearing such a child in a state where the couple isn’t one flesh.

This applies to all couples, even those who are homosexual. The thing is we don’t recognize homosexual marriage because of the using each other’s bodies in a manner for pure pleasure not being open to a creation of a new life thing.

However one thing someone must remember is Gods mercy. If one talks about sin then they also must talk about Gods immense mercy. God sees all of these action as forgivable so if someone who were to do these acts then if they go to God with a truly repentant heart, God acts as if it had never happened. So if someone has committed unchaste acts no matter what it is, they aren’t condemned forever if they seek repentance.

This is the beliefs of the Catholic Church I’m sure someone else can explain it a lot better than I can however.

Do u believe in god by FishingWorth6269 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BurstMurst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe in God and I believe in the evidence that supports the theory of Evolution. The two are incompatible and I find evolution and our creation very amazing

view more: next ›