gay christians?

[L.A.M.B.]

Calm down. Type more slowly. Don’t let your emotions run away with your soul.

Baloney is sufficient. Why waste words when one will do?

If I danced for a blind man, would he even appreciate it?

Isn't that what we are doing when we use the word of God to correct those in error whom refuse the word. Being blind they cannot see, rather clinging to man made doctrines of any institute?

Blind leaders lead blind followers into the ditch and off the path of God!

 

[Marymog]

You may find the following of interest as to the RCC ever changing doctrine in 2000 years.

Which Roman Catholic Church are we referring to? In which century, and with what new invention. The list starts on page 3: https://www.tlchrist.info/keithgreen/boettner_romancatholocism.pdf

I have done research on some of these inventions in other reference works and found this to be accurate, as far as I checked.

SOME ROMAN CATHOLIC HERESIES AND INVENTIONS
and the dates of their adoption over a period of 1,650 years
1. Prayers for the dead: began about A.D. 300.
2. Making the sign of the cross: A.D. 300.
3. Wax candles: about A.D. 320.
4. Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images: A.D. 375.
5. The Mass, as a daily celebration: A.D. 394.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, the term “Mother of God” first applied to her by
the Council of Ephesus: A.D. 431.
7. Priests began to dress differently from laymen: A.D. 500.
8. Extreme Unction: A.D. 526.
9. The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I: A.D. 593.
10. Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I: A.D. 600.
11. Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels: about A.D. 600.
12. Title of pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas: A.D. 607
13. Kissing the pope’s foot, began with Pope Constantine: A.D. 709.
14. Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks: A.D. 750.
15. Worship of the cross, images, and relics: authorized in A.D. 786.
16. Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest: A.D. 850.
17. Worship of St. Joseph: A.D. 890.
18. College of Cardinals established: A.D. 927.
19. Baptism of bells, instituted by pope John XIII: A.D. 965.
20. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV: A.D. 995.
21. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent: A.D. 998.
22. The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11
th
century.
23. Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand): A.D. 1079.
24. The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit: A.D. 1090.
25. The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona: A.D. 1184.
26. Sale of Indulgences: A.D. 1190.
27. Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III: A.D. 1215.
28. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted by Pope Innocent
III, in Lateran Council: A.D. 1215.
29. Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by Pope Honorius III: A.D. 1220.
30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of
Toulouse: A.D. 1229.
31. The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, an English monk: A.D. 1251.
32. Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance: A.D. 1414.
33. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence: A.D. 1439.
34. The doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed: A.D. 1439.
35. The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years later and approved by
Pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16
th
century): A.D. 1508.
36. Jesuit order founded by Loyola: A.D. 1534.
37. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent: A.D.
1545.
38. Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent: A.D. 1546.
39. Creed of pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed: A.D. 1560.
40. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX: A.D. 1854.
41. Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council;
condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries
which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope’s temporal authority over
all civil rulers: A.D. 1864.
42. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican
Council: A.D. 1870.
43. Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XI: A.D. 1930.
44. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death),
proclaimed by Pope Pius XII: A.D. 1950.
45. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church by Pope Paul VI: A.D. 1965.
Add to these many others: monks, nuns, monasteries, convents, forty days Lent, holy
week, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, All Saints day, Candlemas day, fish day, meat
days, incense, holy oil, holy palms, Christopher medals, charms, novenas, and still others.

1. Prayers for the dead is written in Maccabees which was written around 40AD....which is before some NT letters.
2. Making the sign of the cross is first referenced by Origin who lived until about 253AD soooo you got that one wrong also.
5 and 22. The first record of a "mass", is from Justin Martyr and around the year 152AD. What he wrote is what The Church still does today. Also, the Didache, written in 80AD speaks of how Christians gathered every Lords day to break bread, give thanks and confess transgressions. That is what is still done in The Church today, 2,000 years later sooooo you got that one wrong also.

You really don't know your own Christian history...Do you Arthur?

How do you eat His body and drink His blood like He told you to do Arthur?

 

[Athanasius377]

No - you won't

The Catholic Church has NEVER done an about-face onn a SINGLE doctrinal matte in 2000 years - unlike viurtuakky EVERY Protestant faction has.

How do you like them apples?

Rome changes positions all the time.

Capital Punishment for one.


2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor


Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 546). United States Catholic Conference.

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Original found here

Gotta say, its kinda weird reading this know that the Pope had his own executioner. Maybe doctrinal deveoplemt? Kinda crappy move for those who were executed by the Papal Government. Wait. I know what you can do Bread, you can slap some Newman on it just like those Flex tape commercials.

 

[amigo de christo]

You know the ideology….for every claim that is not true, back-tracking, is built upon a claim that is not true…

Speaking to the dead, is NOT Gods Teaching. Oh…then claim speaking to Mary is okay, Because she is not dead. See how that works?

Except that; Mary Had a natural born Earthly Body, Naturally Born in sin and her Body IS Bodily Dead, buried, and returning to Dust, just as Scripture teaches IS required for Every Earthly Body.

what is the title of this thread . gay christains . talk about an oxymoron . SINCE WHEN DO TRUE CHRISTIANS
IDENTIFY WITH SIN and not rather WITH JESUS CHRIST . aint no such thing as a gay christain .
its no different than if i were to stand up and say hey i am a PORNO CHRISTAIN , or a MURDERING CHRISTAIN .
WE DONT identify WITH SIN . rather we ought to have repented of it and even hate the evils of our flesh , NOT JUSTIFY evil .
ANY who stand and embrace their sin and holler GOD understands or Tries to make their sin into THIS IS HOW GOD MADE ME .
THEY DONT KNOW JESUS , THEY DONT KNOW GOD . that is a fact . CAUSE WHERE THE HECK IS THE CONVICTION of sin .
I mean THE SPIRIT actually would convict us of error . NOT HAVE US JUSTIFYING IT .

 

[Gabriel _Arch]

Sparky?

Not trying to be insulting, are we? Great testimony there!

Much love!

I had to take a look see to read to whom you were speaking.

Yes,I agree with you. That's their faith life example though isn't it? They're not ever civil when defending their understanding of Catholics faith. Which actually,as you observed,is their strongest testimony.

No good comes from reading such darkness.

 

[Philip James]

No, because you claim things against Scripture as if your church leaders are authorative over Scripture. For myself I've concluded that I should believe the plain sayings of the Bible regardless of what some men teach.

hmmm...

Scripture plainly teaches that:

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

What truly astonishes me, however, is that so many here accuse Catholics of having no faith when we actually believe Jesus' words while so many others seek to explain them away with various sophistries..

Merry Christmas!

 

[Taken]

Nobody on this form – and I mean NOBODY vomits out as many words without actually saying ANYTHIING more than YOU do.

You STILL haven’t answered my question:
When were Mary and the saints in Heaven kicked OUT of the Body of Christ? [/QUOTE]

When did anyone make that claim besides you in the form of a question?

WHERE

does the Bible say that you can’t ask them to pray for you.

No where in Scripture is an embodied spirit prohibited from praying TO: anything; FOR: anything.
statues, rocks, the moon, money, men, shrines, a slot machine, disembodied spirits….whatever trips your trigger.

Human men who desire to follow Gods teaching; while alive in their flesh, become embodied saints and pray TO God;
FOR their brethren embodied saints,
and
FOR their non-brethren embodied non-saints.


Isa 45:
[11] Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

John 16:
[23] And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Uh hem…Mary is Not the LORD, Not the Father, Not The Holy One, Not the Maker.
Uh hem…Mary is a disembodied human spirit.
Uh hem…No where in Scripture does God approve of embodied human spirits to PRAY TO disembodied human spirits….FOR anything.
Again reminding you, you have FREEWILL to reject Gods Word and do as YOU WILL.

 

[Taken]

hmmm...

Scripture plainly teaches that:

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

What truly astonishes me, however, is that so many here accuse Catholics of having no faith when we actually believe Jesus' words while so many others seek to explain them away with various sophistries..

Merry Christmas!

Philip James ~ While I do not agree with a bulk of Catholic teaching, doctrine and rituals, I do respect your testimony of standing with and in Christ Jesus and manner in delivery of your standing.

Blessings to you and yours,
Taken

 

[Marymog]

No, because you claim things against Scripture as if your church leaders are authorative over Scripture. For myself I've concluded that I should believe the plain sayings of the Bible regardless of what some men teach.

Much love!

You (a man) interpret the plain sayings of the bible and you (a man) disregard what other men teach which means you accept what only what you (a man) teach yourself? That makes you (a man) "authoritative over Scripture"! You practice what Scripture tells you not to do:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

[Marymog]

Learn the difference between an accusation and evidence of proof.

I accused you of twisting Scripture. The evidence is in your post. YOU provided the evidence!

It's not that hard to figure out kiddo......

 

[Marymog]

Rome changes positions all the time.

Capital Punishment for one.


2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor


Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 546). United States Catholic Conference.

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Original found here

Gotta say, its kinda weird reading this know that the Pope had his own executioner. Maybe doctrinal deveoplemt? Kinda crappy move for those who were executed by the Papal Government. Wait. I know what you can do Bread, you can slap some Newman on it just like those Flex tape commercials.

I was not aware if this change. That's a good change.

I THINK @BreadOfLife meant that The Church doesn't change Dogma, which is different than doctrine. He can correct me if I am wrong....

Mary

 

[Mink57]

marks said:
No, because you claim things against Scripture as if your church leaders are authorative over Scripture. For myself I've concluded that I should believe the plain sayings of the Bible regardless of what some men teach.

Much love!

Nope. Our church leaders use Scripture as their authority. With LOTS of citations of bible passages to support their claims to boot.

By your own 'logic', everyone should disregard what *YOU* say about Scripture because hey...what *you* say isn't 'biblical'. Heck, by your 'logic', NONE of us should be using computers...or cars... or cell phones because it's "not biblical."

For that matter, there's nothing in the bible -- ANY bible -- that says that Revelation is the 'end' of Christs revelations to us...or that the 66 or 72 or 80+ books are ALL there is to knowing about Jesus and well...LIFE. You can believe until the cows come home that Jesus would NEVER come and sit on your nose...and tell you the truth about life.

What if he did?

What if Mary was like you...and didn't believe what the angel Gabriel TOLD her?

She COULD have said, "Hey, no thanks..." because HEY...it wasn't "biblical..."

You (a man) interpret the plain sayings of the bible and you (a man) disregard what other men teach which means you accept what only what you (a man) teach yourself? That makes you (a man) "authoritative over Scripture"! You practice what Scripture tells you not to do:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Exactly!

 

[Arthur81]

Lorraine Boettner??? Seriously? You call that "research"?

When one reads enough of this material, one becomes aware they all fall back on one source, Loraine Boettner’s work, Roman Catholicism, published in 1962 by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company of Philadelphia and reprinted many times since.
This book is the origin of much of what professional anti-Catholics distribute. It can be called the “bible” of the anti-Catholic movement.
At first glance Roman Catholicism seems impressive. Its 460 large pages of text are closely packed with quotations. The table of contents is broken down into dozens of categories, and the indices, though skimpy, at least are there. But a careful reading makes it clear that the author’s antagonism toward the Catholic Church has gravely compromised his intellectual objectivity.

Boettner accepts at face value virtually any claim made by an opponent of the Church. Even when verification of a charge is easy, he does not bother to check it out. If he finds something unflattering to Catholicism, he prints it.

The Anti-Catholic Bible

Loraine Boettner’s work, Roman Catholicism, is the source of many modern anti-Catholic claims, but the book is fraught with problems.

www.catholic.com

There was the saying "Trust but verify" but online it is best termed "Do NOT trust and do verify". As an example, #24 on the Rosary. Is the date of 1090 AD wrong? Was the Rosary invented prior to that date? Here is a quick research to verify -

This list of inventions and heresies is to point out the date they were invented. The Wikipedia gives the date as 1090 "invented by Peter the Hermit". The statement with the references are as follow:

"There is also a strong and old tradition that Peter the Hermit was the first to introduce the use of the Rosary.[19][20] It follows that he began this tradition in about 1090.[26]"

(19)Thomas Dudley Fosbroke, British Monachism; Or, Manners and Customs of the Monks and Nuns of England (etc.) 3. Ed (John Bowyer Nichols, 1843)p 317.

(20)William Hurd, A New Universal History of the Religious Rites, Ceremonies, and Customs of the Whole World: Or, A Complete and Impartial View of All the Religions in the Various Nations of the Universe Both Ancient and Modern, from the Creation Down to the Present Time: To which is Added, a Geographical Description of the Various Parts, the Religious Rites and Ceremonies of Whose Inhabitants are Described, (J. Hemingway, 1799) p255.

(26) Peter the Hermit at Britanica online.

I do not find the Roman Catholic articles online give any evidence that the Rosary existed prior to 1090 AD. Here are a couple web sites by Roman Catholics about the Rosary -

The Rosary & St. Dominic

In Defense of A Tradition

rosarycenter.org

St. Dominic and the Rosary

The gift of the Rosary has been traditionally attributed to St. Dominic. The meditation and promises attached to the prayers have perduring and everlasting graces for all of Mary's children.

www.catholic365.com

The list I posted referred to the dates of invention and I find no evidence that he was wrong about the Rosary, #24. I've looked at more than the two Roman Catholic links above and do not find any dates for the Rosary in the earlier centuries, or earlier than 1090 AD.

It takes time to research online, but this is just one example to illustrate the accuracy of the list. I encourage the reader to do his own research on various issues in the list. It is odd this discussion came about in a thread about gay Christians.

 

[Arthur81]

Since all sins are already forgiven past present and future, why do so many Christians say people that are gay cannot be saved?

I went to school with a few people that were gay and they said they were Christians.

There may be those who read this thread for whom the topic concerns themselves, a family member or friend. The Bible condemns loose words that slander or condemn unjustly. On homosexuality, there are two passages where many modern translations render it "practicing homosexuals" or something similar. Yet, the NRSV Updated Edition of 2021 states in the footnote, on the words involved: "6.9 Meaning of Gk uncertain". A passage in James comes to mind when we are dealing with Bible words that are "uncertain":

Jas 3:10 KJVA "Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be."

That word "cursing" is not what we think of as "cussing". It has a different meaning. The LXX uses this word to mean "vilification". The Expositor's Bible Commentary truly gets into the meaning here:

"One reckless word may blight a whole life. "Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue" (Sir 28:18). And there are persons who habitually pour forth such things, who never pass a day without uttering what is unkind, or false, or impure. When we look around us and see the moral ruin which in every class of society can be traced to reckless language-lives embittered, and blighted, and brutalized by words spoken and heard-can we wonder at the severe words of St. James, whose experience was not very different from our own? Violent and uncharitable language had become one of the besetting sins of the Jews, and no doubt Jewish Christians were by no means free from it. "Curse the whisperer and the double-tongued," says the son of Sirach, "for such have destroyed many that were at peace" (Sir 28:13). To which the Syriac Version adds a clause not given in the Greek, nor in our Bibles: "Also the third tongue, let it be cursed; for it has laid low many corpses." This expression, "third tongue," seems to have come into use among the Jews in the period between the Old and New Testament. It means a slanderous tongue, and it is called "third" because it is fatal to three sets of people-to the person who utters the slander, to those who listen to it, and to those about whom it is uttered. "A third tongue hath tossed many to and fro, and driven them from nation to nation; and strong cities hath it pulled down, and houses of great men hath it overthrown" (Sir 28:14); where not only the Syriac, but the Greek, has the interesting expression "third tongue," a fact obscured in our version." *I'll listen to the wisdom of men in the apocrypha over the "wisdom" of ignorant, unknown Internet posters.

"The "third tongue" is as common and as destructive now as when the son of Sirach denounced it, or St. James wrote against it with still greater authority; and we all of us can do a great deal to check the mischief, not merely by taking care that we keep our own tongues from originating evil, but by refusing to repeat, or if possible even to listen to, what the third tongue says. Our unwillingness to hear may be a discouragement to the speaker, and our refusal to repeat will at least lessen the evil of his tale. We shall have saved ourselves from becoming links in the chain of destruction." James 3 - The Expositor's Bible Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

James in the next chapter is clear: "There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?"

Suppose we look at the last sentence of the OP to get the true meaning of the OP Title: "a few people that were gay and they said they were Christians". A passage from Paul comes to mind as well: "Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand." (Rom 14:4 NRSV)

An article on homosexuality in a certain Bible dictionary gets to the core issue:

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

Let that sink in "Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much."

 

[marks]

I had to take a look see to read to whom you were speaking.

Yes,I agree with you. That's their faith life example though isn't it? They're not ever civil when defending their understanding of Catholics faith. Which actually,as you observed,is their strongest testimony.

No good comes from reading such darkness.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. There are many mouths here speaking many fleshy things, showing the fleshiness of the heart.

Much love!

 

[Marymog]

There was the saying "Trust but verify" but online it is best termed "Do NOT trust and do verify". As an example, #24 on the Rosary. Is the date of 1090 AD wrong? Was the Rosary invented prior to that date? Here is a quick research to verify -

There is that saying by man. And then there is this saying from Scripture:

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

 

[marks]

You (a man) interpret the plain sayings of the bible and you (a man) disregard what other men teach which means you accept what only what you (a man) teach yourself? That makes you (a man) "authoritative over Scripture"! You practice what Scripture tells you not to do:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Really.

I'm not seeing that you understand what Peter wrote there, no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. It seems to be a common misunderstanding, I ran into this just the other day.

But the bottom line, you are just throwing out an accusation of Scriptures twisting, and you don't even understand a passage you are using for you accusation! Good show there!

What am I supposed to respond to here? Mount a personal defence? Try to instruct you more correctly on what Peter wrote? Neither seem fruitful. What would you suggest?

I think we should study Peter together, how about it?

Much love!

 

[Marymog]

Isn't that what we are doing when we use the word of God to correct those in error whom refuse the word. Being blind they cannot see, rather clinging to man made doctrines of any institute?

Blind leaders lead blind followers into the ditch and off the path of God!

You create your own doctrines based on YOUR interpretation of Scripture. You are a man (human) so are not your doctrines "man-made"?

 

[Marymog]

Really.

I'm not seeing that you understand what Peter wrote there, no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. It seems to be a common misunderstanding, I ran into this just the other day.



Much love!

.It's a common misunderstanding.....According to your man-made interpretation of that passage.

 

[Marymog]

Really.

I'm not seeing that you understand what Peter wrote there, no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. It seems to be a common misunderstanding, I ran into this just the other day.

But the bottom line, you are just throwing out an accusation of Scriptures twisting, and you don't even understand a passage you are using for you accusation! Good show there!

What am I supposed to respond to here? Mount a personal defence? Try to instruct you more correctly on what Peter wrote? Neither seem fruitful. What would you suggest?

I think we should study Peter together, how about it?

Much love!

YOU keep the FUN in funny!

Yes, YOU should instruct ME "more correctly on what Peter wrote" because YOU know better than ME or any other man!