While there are individual christians who are super dogmatic. Actually christianity had the opposite issue of being hyper tolerant of opposing view points.
Which is why there are:
1. so many different christian denominations.
2. every christian nation allowed non christians to flourish.
Go try opening a church of satanism in Istanbul.
Sounds like you had a personal bad experience with an ultra religious christian family and then decided to blame all of the world's ills on it. Ignoring actual reality.
You are making Christians look bad, and Muslims look good. Letting satanists be out in public is not a good thing.
Ask historians studying Mesopotamian history, or the Buddhists who consider doing too much good wrong for getting in the way of ceasing to exist. There's been lots of times that morality didn't contain a particularly significant "afterlife" imperative. And having literally all the rules set non-negotiably by a single totally unaccountable force with a binary "suffer forever" or "everlasting peace" is decidedly different from the variety of middle-grounds and demand for exceptional character to have the "good" ending, one so emotionally dissonant that the idea of "limbo" was bullshitted into being whole cloth to cover "wait, what about my mother who died just the week before you showed up?"
Yeah you are leaving out a few things out there bud. You are wrong about the Buddhists. SOME Buddhist monastics think getting too involved in doing good is bad for you because it shows attachment to the world, when the way to achieve nirvana is to be disassociated and have no attachments. And even then they say to not do evil and get bad karma. Trying to farm good karma is what they warn about, AND it only applies to monks because the only people that are actively going for nirvana(whether it is becoming a Buddha, or non existance is up for debate) are the monks. Those who aren't monks are not going to become Buddhas so they are simply trying to build up good karma to get a better future life, or get into heaven(it's temporary).
Judaism's legalistic shenanigans are well known and the exclusivity of the Covenant draws a line between "moral person" and "doctrinal adherence" (the usury shenanigans behind the Happy Merchant stereotype are the perfect example), while Islam is much the same sort of attempted "successor" to Christianity that Mormonism is, only formed by syncretizing local popular schismatic veins and working things out as expansion went along instead of one cult leader making shit up in a bulk lot then moving forward with it.
Judaism actually does require "doctrinal adherence" While only Jews have to follow all 600 plus commandments. All other humans must follow the 7 laws of Noah. One of which is to be a monotheist and not do idolotry.
en.wikipedia.org
You consciously understand and bluntly admit that Asian cultures do not suffer these problems because there's no imperative to be a jackass to homosexuals, then immediately state that this is wholly unacceptable to solve the problem solely on the basis of "Because God Said So".
You are perfectly demonstrating what I loath about "singular moral authority" religion as a category. It does not matter to you one wit if I were to directly show to you that proper Christian doctrine being followed directly caused the deaths of millions in materially pointless cruelty, so long as you can be convinced God said so you will accept anything, because you have wholly abandoned your reason and will to blind faith, you totalitarian theocratic piece of shit.
Yes because I trust God the creator of the universe the one who knows all, and the final judge more than some unwashed nerd on the internet. If he says something is banned it is not for us to question why. If we can figure out the reason behind the prohibition great! But if we don't know why he gave it we still follow it as we put our faith in God.
Also you are getting ridiculously angry like I'm the one who imposed these prohibitions, I'm not God, I'm not even Constantine or any other Bishop who had religious and secular power to prosecute gays. What's done is done, western society has this this scenario is analagous to putting a ball with air under water or riding a tiger as long as we hold on everything will be fine. But if we let go the opposite reaction will hit us in the face. What's done is done we can't copy the Asian model unless western civilization falls apart we either let the globohomo get everything they want, OR we have Christians have power and HOLD THE DAMN BALL, and oppress anyone who wants to get rid of Christian power as that would just let the ball hit us in the face.
I think I see part of the root problem here.
You think we believe in a hilariously caricaturized strawman of individualism.
I suppose it's not that surprising.
I mean it seems like you are doing a schrodinger's individualism/collectivism thing. It's the same thing some American fiscal conservatives do when debates about universal healthcare or anything of that nature. They say it's socialism/communism, then they argue that Japan, or Norway or whatever are not communist/socialist whatever. Point I'm saying is you were being all "Yes western society and individualism is great!"
Really? Because the quote I see most often used to support "caring for refugees, strangers and foreigners" is actually talking about how Israelites are about to conquer a foreign land and please do not be asshats to people you are about to conquer.
That is very, very different from allow half the world to settle into your home.
You are trying to live up to the sterotype of a Catholic who doesen't know what's in the Bible are you?
"Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
"Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God."
"The foreigners residing among you must be treated as native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."
"He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing."
"The Lord watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked."
"Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other."
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in."
"Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters. Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers for by doing that some have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it."
Matthew 25:40 - 45
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
"What, you care more about the state of your own soul than about working to make religious leaders richer? How daaare you!"
There is nothing wrong with caring about the state of your own soul, that should be your first priority. Yet as anyone who has read the Bible, and looked at early Church history should know, you are supposed to obey earthly leaders AS well as those who have spiritual authority that was passed down from the apostles of Christ. Bishops and such, if they abuse that authority to amass power and wealth then God will punish them.
On the one hand, a person who strongly desires to obey God, and does not trust the leaders of organized religion to give him proper guidance on that, so he studies the Bible himself.
On the other hand, a person who says "I decide for myself what's right or wrong! I don't need the approval of any god!"
Do you really not understand the difference?
There is a difference of course, if the person is truly the first group and is a hermit that is fine. But unless they are ignorant they should know that God has ordered the Church protestants like to use the Bible a lot and say the Church should not have ranks and anything like that. Yet the Bible itself has one rank in it Bishop it is referred in Timothy. Christians are called to worship together, there is order in how the worship is done, priests to Bishops. Bishops have authority priests have authority. Corrupt priests are a problem yes, but reading about history of the church and the early heresy of donatism should make you realize that that Christians must obey the Church the priest may not be perfect but unless he is ordering you to do something directly against God a heresy he still has a position in the Church unless something happens to remove it from him. Are you saying that the Donatists were right?
en.wikipedia.org
Nobody. That's what Sedevacantism means - that the "chair" is empty. That there is no living pope, and has not been since the death of Pius XII.
For those old-school, pre-Vatican2 Papists who can see that what the RCC now teaches on certain things they regard as very important completely contradicts what it used to teach, but are unwilling to take the full Sedevacantist blackpill, there seems to be a "copium" version according to which there's still a "true" pope hiding somewhere, but he's unable to do his job because of the imposter one. Or something like that.
Doesen't that fuck with apostolic succession? Not the ones who think there is a true pope. But if they think the seat is empty isn't that a big issue? The whole point of apostolic succession is that part of the Church's authority is they have an unbroken chain of laying on hands from the lowest priest to Bishops and it goes on back through history to one of the apostles and the apostles who received their authority from Christ himself.
