Asklemmy

53700 readers

748 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

How do left-leaning—or not even left-leaning, but pro-choice, pro-life people who don’t care about fornication—who are also Catholics and Christians justify their religion? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 14 hours ago by PixelNomad@sopuli.xyz to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is a genuine question, because one of the reasons I left Christianity (I was raised Christian) was that I didn’t like how they hate gay people, are pro-life, etc., and overall are pretty hypocritical. But as I got older, I realized there are Catholics who are pro-choice, aren’t homophobic, and don’t have an issue with having sex before marriage, etc., and basically are not stereotypical religious people at all. But I have to ask—how do they justify this? I mean, it must be very confusing, because if the Bible does say being gay is a sin and you are not homophobic and are pro-LGBTQ+, then you are basically saying sinning is okay, which goes against their very religion. How about Catholics who swear? Basically, how do liberal Christians/Catholics justify their religion? Why be religious if you aren’t going to go all in?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] artifex@piefed.social 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

With regard to abortion the hard no stance is relatively new - prior to 1869 (which is recent in the eyes of the ~2000 year old church) abortions were permissible before the quickening, or when the mother could first feel the fetus moving. I still think it’s a somewhat elegant compromise to a difficult situation but understandably both the “life starts at conception” people and the “my body is sacrosanct” people hate it.

[–] disregardable@lemmy.zip 3 points 13 hours ago

The reason for the focus on the quickening was that it was how they determined whether the baby was alive. They didn't have ultrasounds, so, until the baby kicked, they had no idea whether it was in fact a healthy baby. I know this because we studied it in crim. That's what got California to update its murder statute from the common law definition.