Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The bible condemns men who have sex with men

Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
tarantula
Posts: 866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 4:09:17 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, using the not so good book as an excuse for bigotry is horrible!
missmedic
Posts: 390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 4:25:30 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:


First off the bible does not meet the criteria for a credible source.
Second, who follows the commandments of the bible, all 1050 in the NT and 613 in the OT, and you pick one because it makes you feel yucky.
Nowhere in the bible does god say you can pick the commandments you want to follow and neglect the rest, and nowhere in the bible does god say you can reduce the punishment he has imposed for breaking them.
So if you follow the bible (and you don't) a person would have to kill in gods name.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,396
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 5:06:47 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 4:09:17 PM, tarantula wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, using the not so good book as an excuse for bigotry is horrible!

If I told you that eating donuts all day is unhealthy for you, you could still do it. But that doesn't mean you're going to live a fulfilling life until the life of the diet of the donuts becomes the norm. This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 6:02:24 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 6:40:37 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
The general hermeneutics behind the idea of homosexuality not being a sin is based on the references to sexual perversion (sex for the sake of personal gratification), as opposed to a love, or even monogamous relationship. There were activities like the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, soldiers committing sodomy, and temple male prostitution. The basic idea is that since the law of God is love, then love between 2 men (or 2 women) are not a violation.

The problem here of course is that it brings up the question as to what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation where 2 people of the same gender are attracted to each other. As MasonicSlayer said:

This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.

Adultery is also considered sin. If 2 heterosexual people fall in love with someone other than their spouse, what's the right thing for them to do? Would they really be showing each other love by leaving their spouses, probably causing much pain for family members? (Putting aside things like physical abuse where leaving a violent spouse is the right thing to do).

Let me ask you a question.

Is someone a homosexual only if they are actively engaging in the lifestyle? Or, are they still a homosexual if they merely have mental fantasies, but not active in the lifestyle?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 7:37:46 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 6:02:24 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Talk about bending scripture. Those arguments are simply people saying what they would like to see in the new testament and ignoring what is very clearly stated, that men having sex with other men will not inherit the kingdom of God.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 7:39:09 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 4:09:17 PM, tarantula wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, using the not so good book as an excuse for bigotry is horrible!

Completely agree. Im pointing out Christianity is a bigoted homophobic religion with no place in the 21st century.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 7:45:38 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 6:40:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
The general hermeneutics behind the idea of homosexuality not being a sin is based on the references to sexual perversion (sex for the sake of personal gratification), as opposed to a love, or even monogamous relationship. There were activities like the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, soldiers committing sodomy, and temple male prostitution. The basic idea is that since the law of God is love, then love between 2 men (or 2 women) are not a violation.

The problem here of course is that it brings up the question as to what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation where 2 people of the same gender are attracted to each other. As MasonicSlayer said:

This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.


Adultery is also considered sin. If 2 heterosexual people fall in love with someone other than their spouse, what's the right thing for them to do? Would they really be showing each other love by leaving their spouses, probably causing much pain for family members? (Putting aside things like physical abuse where leaving a violent spouse is the right thing to do).

Let me ask you a question.

Is someone a homosexual only if they are actively engaging in the lifestyle? Or, are they still a homosexual if they merely have mental fantasies, but not active in the lifestyle?

Someone is a homosexual if they are attracted to someone of the same gender in a sexual manner or desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender. Whether they choose to act on those desires is up to them. As I understand the bible Yawheh is ok with people having homosexual fantasies but against people committing homosexual acts so I understand how you and other Christians may only classify people as homosexual if the actually engage in homosexual acts. That does not excuse the position though, it's a denial of reality.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 7:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 7:45:38 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/13/2016 6:40:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
The general hermeneutics behind the idea of homosexuality not being a sin is based on the references to sexual perversion (sex for the sake of personal gratification), as opposed to a love, or even monogamous relationship. There were activities like the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, soldiers committing sodomy, and temple male prostitution. The basic idea is that since the law of God is love, then love between 2 men (or 2 women) are not a violation.

The problem here of course is that it brings up the question as to what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation where 2 people of the same gender are attracted to each other. As MasonicSlayer said:

This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.


Adultery is also considered sin. If 2 heterosexual people fall in love with someone other than their spouse, what's the right thing for them to do? Would they really be showing each other love by leaving their spouses, probably causing much pain for family members? (Putting aside things like physical abuse where leaving a violent spouse is the right thing to do).

Let me ask you a question.

Is someone a homosexual only if they are actively engaging in the lifestyle? Or, are they still a homosexual if they merely have mental fantasies, but not active in the lifestyle?

Someone is a homosexual if they are attracted to someone of the same gender in a sexual manner or desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender. Whether they choose to act on those desires is up to them. As I understand the bible Yawheh is ok with people having homosexual fantasies but against people committing homosexual acts so I understand how you and other Christians may only classify people as homosexual if the actually engage in homosexual acts. That does not excuse the position though, it's a denial of reality.
I didn't make that claim. I was asking for your opinion. I didn't say anything on what I thought on that matter.

Whatever gave you the idea that Yawheh is okay with homosexual fantasies? is that in the Bible?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 8:16:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 7:56:19 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 7:45:38 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/13/2016 6:40:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
The general hermeneutics behind the idea of homosexuality not being a sin is based on the references to sexual perversion (sex for the sake of personal gratification), as opposed to a love, or even monogamous relationship. There were activities like the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, soldiers committing sodomy, and temple male prostitution. The basic idea is that since the law of God is love, then love between 2 men (or 2 women) are not a violation.

The problem here of course is that it brings up the question as to what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation where 2 people of the same gender are attracted to each other. As MasonicSlayer said:

This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.


Adultery is also considered sin. If 2 heterosexual people fall in love with someone other than their spouse, what's the right thing for them to do? Would they really be showing each other love by leaving their spouses, probably causing much pain for family members? (Putting aside things like physical abuse where leaving a violent spouse is the right thing to do).

Let me ask you a question.

Is someone a homosexual only if they are actively engaging in the lifestyle? Or, are they still a homosexual if they merely have mental fantasies, but not active in the lifestyle?

Someone is a homosexual if they are attracted to someone of the same gender in a sexual manner or desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender. Whether they choose to act on those desires is up to them. As I understand the bible Yawheh is ok with people having homosexual fantasies but against people committing homosexual acts so I understand how you and other Christians may only classify people as homosexual if the actually engage in homosexual acts. That does not excuse the position though, it's a denial of reality.
I didn't make that claim. I was asking for your opinion. I didn't say anything on what I thought on that matter.

Fair enough. Remember I said "you may" so I was not implying you would definitely think that, just acknowledging it's a possibility.

Whatever gave you the idea that Yawheh is okay with homosexual fantasies? is that in the Bible?

The bible condemns people for homosexual acts not thoughts. I can understand how you would think Yawheh would not like people having homosexual fantasies but the scriptures talk about acts not thoughts so it's a case of the lack of scripture about the sin of homosexual thoughts rather then scripture saying they are ok.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 9:20:52 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 8:16:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/13/2016 7:56:19 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 7:45:38 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/13/2016 6:40:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
The general hermeneutics behind the idea of homosexuality not being a sin is based on the references to sexual perversion (sex for the sake of personal gratification), as opposed to a love, or even monogamous relationship. There were activities like the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, soldiers committing sodomy, and temple male prostitution. The basic idea is that since the law of God is love, then love between 2 men (or 2 women) are not a violation.

The problem here of course is that it brings up the question as to what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation where 2 people of the same gender are attracted to each other. As MasonicSlayer said:

This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.


Adultery is also considered sin. If 2 heterosexual people fall in love with someone other than their spouse, what's the right thing for them to do? Would they really be showing each other love by leaving their spouses, probably causing much pain for family members? (Putting aside things like physical abuse where leaving a violent spouse is the right thing to do).

Let me ask you a question.

Is someone a homosexual only if they are actively engaging in the lifestyle? Or, are they still a homosexual if they merely have mental fantasies, but not active in the lifestyle?

Someone is a homosexual if they are attracted to someone of the same gender in a sexual manner or desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender. Whether they choose to act on those desires is up to them. As I understand the bible Yawheh is ok with people having homosexual fantasies but against people committing homosexual acts so I understand how you and other Christians may only classify people as homosexual if the actually engage in homosexual acts. That does not excuse the position though, it's a denial of reality.
I didn't make that claim. I was asking for your opinion. I didn't say anything on what I thought on that matter.

Fair enough. Remember I said "you may" so I was not implying you would definitely think that, just acknowledging it's a possibility.

Whatever gave you the idea that Yawheh is okay with homosexual fantasies? is that in the Bible?

The bible condemns people for homosexual acts not thoughts. I can understand how you would think Yawheh would not like people having homosexual fantasies but the scriptures talk about acts not thoughts so it's a case of the lack of scripture about the sin of homosexual thoughts rather then scripture saying they are ok.
The Bible talks about thoughts, but you're correct that the Bible doesn't talk about homosexual thoughts specifically.

The reason I asked that specific question is because I think the idea of gay marriage suggests monogamy. The act of monogamy in any marriage is one of the greater acts of love. Some people feel that sex outside of marriage is healthy, but I think most understand that unconditional monogamy is a greater sign/act of love than having extramarital affairs to supposedly spice up a marriage. And this unconditional monogamy could involve an end to sexual activity due to one of the partners becoming disabled, and not being able to have sex.

Would you agree that in a marriage where one partner becomes disabled, the greater act of love by the other member would be to remain monogamous, basically celibate?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 9:53:08 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 9:20:52 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 8:16:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/13/2016 7:56:19 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 7:45:38 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/13/2016 6:40:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
The general hermeneutics behind the idea of homosexuality not being a sin is based on the references to sexual perversion (sex for the sake of personal gratification), as opposed to a love, or even monogamous relationship. There were activities like the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, soldiers committing sodomy, and temple male prostitution. The basic idea is that since the law of God is love, then love between 2 men (or 2 women) are not a violation.

The problem here of course is that it brings up the question as to what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation where 2 people of the same gender are attracted to each other. As MasonicSlayer said:

This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.


Adultery is also considered sin. If 2 heterosexual people fall in love with someone other than their spouse, what's the right thing for them to do? Would they really be showing each other love by leaving their spouses, probably causing much pain for family members? (Putting aside things like physical abuse where leaving a violent spouse is the right thing to do).

Let me ask you a question.

Is someone a homosexual only if they are actively engaging in the lifestyle? Or, are they still a homosexual if they merely have mental fantasies, but not active in the lifestyle?

Someone is a homosexual if they are attracted to someone of the same gender in a sexual manner or desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender. Whether they choose to act on those desires is up to them. As I understand the bible Yawheh is ok with people having homosexual fantasies but against people committing homosexual acts so I understand how you and other Christians may only classify people as homosexual if the actually engage in homosexual acts. That does not excuse the position though, it's a denial of reality.
I didn't make that claim. I was asking for your opinion. I didn't say anything on what I thought on that matter.

Fair enough. Remember I said "you may" so I was not implying you would definitely think that, just acknowledging it's a possibility.

Whatever gave you the idea that Yawheh is okay with homosexual fantasies? is that in the Bible?

The bible condemns people for homosexual acts not thoughts. I can understand how you would think Yawheh would not like people having homosexual fantasies but the scriptures talk about acts not thoughts so it's a case of the lack of scripture about the sin of homosexual thoughts rather then scripture saying they are ok.
The Bible talks about thoughts, but you're correct that the Bible doesn't talk about homosexual thoughts specifically.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

The reason I asked that specific question is because I think the idea of gay marriage suggests monogamy. The act of monogamy in any marriage is one of the greater acts of love. Some people feel that sex outside of marriage is healthy, but I think most understand that unconditional monogamy is a greater sign/act of love than having extramarital affairs to supposedly spice up a marriage. And this unconditional monogamy could involve an end to sexual activity due to one of the partners becoming disabled, and not being able to have sex.

Yes being committed to a relationship is obviously a greater show of love and commitment than cheating on your partner or asking them permission to have sexual relations with other people.

Would you agree that in a marriage where one partner becomes disabled, the greater act of love by the other member would be to remain monogamous, basically celibate?

Absolutely 100%.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 2:30:26 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 9:53:08 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
The general hermeneutics behind the idea of homosexuality not being a sin is based on the references to sexual perversion (sex for the sake of personal gratification), as opposed to a love, or even monogamous relationship. There were activities like the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, soldiers committing sodomy, and temple male prostitution. The basic idea is that since the law of God is love, then love between 2 men (or 2 women) are not a violation.

The problem here of course is that it brings up the question as to what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation where 2 people of the same gender are attracted to each other. As MasonicSlayer said:

This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.


Adultery is also considered sin. If 2 heterosexual people fall in love with someone other than their spouse, what's the right thing for them to do? Would they really be showing each other love by leaving their spouses, probably causing much pain for family members? (Putting aside things like physical abuse where leaving a violent spouse is the right thing to do).

Let me ask you a question.

Is someone a homosexual only if they are actively engaging in the lifestyle? Or, are they still a homosexual if they merely have mental fantasies, but not active in the lifestyle?

Someone is a homosexual if they are attracted to someone of the same gender in a sexual manner or desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender. Whether they choose to act on those desires is up to them. As I understand the bible Yawheh is ok with people having homosexual fantasies but against people committing homosexual acts so I understand how you and other Christians may only classify people as homosexual if the actually engage in homosexual acts. That does not excuse the position though, it's a denial of reality.
I didn't make that claim. I was asking for your opinion. I didn't say anything on what I thought on that matter.

Fair enough. Remember I said "you may" so I was not implying you would definitely think that, just acknowledging it's a possibility.

Whatever gave you the idea that Yawheh is okay with homosexual fantasies? is that in the Bible?

The bible condemns people for homosexual acts not thoughts. I can understand how you would think Yawheh would not like people having homosexual fantasies but the scriptures talk about acts not thoughts so it's a case of the lack of scripture about the sin of homosexual thoughts rather then scripture saying they are ok.
The Bible talks about thoughts, but you're correct that the Bible doesn't talk about homosexual thoughts specifically.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

The reason I asked that specific question is because I think the idea of gay marriage suggests monogamy. The act of monogamy in any marriage is one of the greater acts of love. Some people feel that sex outside of marriage is healthy, but I think most understand that unconditional monogamy is a greater sign/act of love than having extramarital affairs to supposedly spice up a marriage. And this unconditional monogamy could involve an end to sexual activity due to one of the partners becoming disabled, and not being able to have sex.

Yes being committed to a relationship is obviously a greater show of love and commitment than cheating on your partner or asking them permission to have sexual relations with other people.

Would you agree that in a marriage where one partner becomes disabled, the greater act of love by the other member would be to remain monogamous, basically celibate?

Absolutely 100%.
This scenario would be where a liberal Christian might say that the Bible condones homosexuality since at this point the gay life style is non-existent, and per your definition of a homosexual. If being in the gay lifestyle is not a prerequisite for being homosexual (if it was this couple would no longer be homosexual), then the argument would be their whole relationship was based on genuine love to begin with. And when you think about it, there's nothing sinful per the Bible with a man or woman living with a person of the same gender (many of us have had roommates of the same gender). And nothing wrong with taking care of someone of the same gender. Taking care of someone in itself is a genuine act of pure love.

Now what a Christian who has homosexual tendencies sometimes has to struggle with is whether or not going into a romantic union with one of the same gender to begin with is the ultimate act of love. If it's not right in the eyes of God, then the ultimate act of love (from that perspective of a believer) would be to refrain from a romantic relationship, just like a heterosexual would refrain from a romantic relationship with a married person they may feel love for. It's not in the best interest for that married person to be involved with the break up of that existing union.

I know you're not a believer, and wouldn't see the issue that way. But I mention it because the issue is not quite as cut and dry as some may think. The Bible doesn't specifically mention gay marriage, or even a monogamous type of gay relationship. But, this falls into the if you can at least entertain the idea that God may exist category. There are a number of Christians that either struggle with the tendency/preference, or simply profess themselves to be gay Christians. And the reason there are gay churches, is because these individuals know that God exists, and that God is love.

Non-believers may wonder why there are gay individuals that bother to go to church, since it's believed that they are not accepted. But they're not in the same realm of thought in that they know that God exists. All that God requires is that an individual come to Him in the state they are in, and God does not turn anyone away. And there are a number of gay individuals that know that. And when someone turns to God, God deals with them very gently. We all have sin, and are in need of that gentle nurturing from the creator. Once one finds out that God actually exists, their perspective on many things change.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 12:42:03 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

I don't know a single Christian who would think the bible condones homosexuality!!!
Escobar
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 2:14:03 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality. : :

A book doesn't condemn anyone but God will kill all the inhabitants on earth to get rid of them forever.

Deuteronomy 32
39: "`See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Zephaniah 1
18: Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the LORD. In the fire of his jealous wrath, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full, yea, sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 7:09:11 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 12:42:03 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

I don't know a single Christian who would think the bible condones homosexuality!!!

I know a lot of Christians in real life who condone homosexuality. Many of them are fairly ignorant of scripture which I think is often the reason for Christians thinking the bible condones homosexuality although some people bend scripture to try and claim homosexuality is ok.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 7:24:48 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:30:26 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/13/2016 9:53:08 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.
The general hermeneutics behind the idea of homosexuality not being a sin is based on the references to sexual perversion (sex for the sake of personal gratification), as opposed to a love, or even monogamous relationship. There were activities like the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, soldiers committing sodomy, and temple male prostitution. The basic idea is that since the law of God is love, then love between 2 men (or 2 women) are not a violation.

The problem here of course is that it brings up the question as to what would be the most loving thing to do in a situation where 2 people of the same gender are attracted to each other. As MasonicSlayer said:

This normality now becomes accepted as everyone can relate, but it doesn't mean there wasn't a better way to live.


Adultery is also considered sin. If 2 heterosexual people fall in love with someone other than their spouse, what's the right thing for them to do? Would they really be showing each other love by leaving their spouses, probably causing much pain for family members? (Putting aside things like physical abuse where leaving a violent spouse is the right thing to do).

Let me ask you a question.

Is someone a homosexual only if they are actively engaging in the lifestyle? Or, are they still a homosexual if they merely have mental fantasies, but not active in the lifestyle?

Someone is a homosexual if they are attracted to someone of the same gender in a sexual manner or desire romantic relationships with people of the same gender. Whether they choose to act on those desires is up to them. As I understand the bible Yawheh is ok with people having homosexual fantasies but against people committing homosexual acts so I understand how you and other Christians may only classify people as homosexual if the actually engage in homosexual acts. That does not excuse the position though, it's a denial of reality.
I didn't make that claim. I was asking for your opinion. I didn't say anything on what I thought on that matter.

Fair enough. Remember I said "you may" so I was not implying you would definitely think that, just acknowledging it's a possibility.

Whatever gave you the idea that Yawheh is okay with homosexual fantasies? is that in the Bible?

The bible condemns people for homosexual acts not thoughts. I can understand how you would think Yawheh would not like people having homosexual fantasies but the scriptures talk about acts not thoughts so it's a case of the lack of scripture about the sin of homosexual thoughts rather then scripture saying they are ok.
The Bible talks about thoughts, but you're correct that the Bible doesn't talk about homosexual thoughts specifically.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

The reason I asked that specific question is because I think the idea of gay marriage suggests monogamy. The act of monogamy in any marriage is one of the greater acts of love. Some people feel that sex outside of marriage is healthy, but I think most understand that unconditional monogamy is a greater sign/act of love than having extramarital affairs to supposedly spice up a marriage. And this unconditional monogamy could involve an end to sexual activity due to one of the partners becoming disabled, and not being able to have sex.

Yes being committed to a relationship is obviously a greater show of love and commitment than cheating on your partner or asking them permission to have sexual relations with other people.

Would you agree that in a marriage where one partner becomes disabled, the greater act of love by the other member would be to remain monogamous, basically celibate?

Absolutely 100%.
This scenario would be where a liberal Christian might say that the Bible condones homosexuality since at this point the gay life style is non-existent, and per your definition of a homosexual. If being in the gay lifestyle is not a prerequisite for being homosexual (if it was this couple would no longer be homosexual), then the argument would be their whole relationship was based on genuine love to begin with. And when you think about it, there's nothing sinful per the Bible with a man or woman living with a person of the same gender (many of us have had roommates of the same gender). And nothing wrong with taking care of someone of the same gender. Taking care of someone in itself is a genuine act of pure love.

Many disabled people are able to have sexual relations of some type with their partner. I assume though you are talking about severe disability? Even then the other person in the relationship could demonstrate their love in a sexual manner that would not be expected in a normal relationship where the two people were not in love such as intimate touching, cuddling, kissing and exposure of their body.

Now what a Christian who has homosexual tendencies sometimes has to struggle with is whether or not going into a romantic union with one of the same gender to begin with is the ultimate act of love. If it's not right in the eyes of God, then the ultimate act of love (from that perspective of a believer) would be to refrain from a romantic relationship, just like a heterosexual would refrain from a romantic relationship with a married person they may feel love for. It's not in the best interest for that married person to be involved with the break up of that existing union.

Yes I would say that if Christianity was true it would be in the best interests of homosexual people to abstain from sexual relations for life.

I know you're not a believer, and wouldn't see the issue that way. But I mention it because the issue is not quite as cut and dry as some may think. The Bible doesn't specifically mention gay marriage, or even a monogamous type of gay relationship. But, this falls into the if you can at least entertain the idea that God may exist category. There are a number of Christians that either struggle with the tendency/preference, or simply profess themselves to be gay Christians. And the reason there are gay churches, is because these individuals know that God exists, and that God is love.

These people either bend scripture to try and pretend to themselves and others homosexuality is ok according to the bible or may accept they sin and beg for forgiveness from Yawheh hoping he will excuse them despite biblical evidence he will not.

Non-believers may wonder why there are gay individuals that bother to go to church, since it's believed that they are not accepted. But they're not in the same realm of thought in that they know that God exists. All that God requires is that an individual come to Him in the state they are in, and God does not turn anyone away. And there are a number of gay individuals that know that. And when someone turns to God, God deals with them very gently. We all have sin, and are in need of that gentle nurturing from the creator. Once one finds out that God actually exists, their perspective on many things change.

People find comfort in the perceived existence of all types of god's including the god of Christianity, Yawheh. It is not at all surprising to me that many homosexual people believe in Christianity.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 7:36:42 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

That is the 'gift' of the protestant revolt. Everybody gets to twist the scripture to be what they want instead of knowing and following the truths that have always been taught.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 8:13:00 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 7:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

That is the 'gift' of the protestant revolt. Everybody gets to twist the scripture to be what they want instead of knowing and following the truths that have always been taught.

All denominations bend scripture to varying degrees to support their view on the meaning of various parts of the bible. So do individual Christians and non Christians. It's no secret.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 8:30:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 8:13:00 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 7:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

That is the 'gift' of the protestant revolt. Everybody gets to twist the scripture to be what they want instead of knowing and following the truths that have always been taught.

All denominations bend scripture to varying degrees to support their view on the meaning of various parts of the bible. So do individual Christians and non Christians. It's no secret.

Not true. There is one denomination that has consistently interpreted the Gospel from the time of Jesus.

Here's a clue. Look at artificial contraception. Up until the 20th century every Christian denomination was against it saying that it is wrong and immoral. Now there is only one major denomination that has held the traditional teaching that it is wrong and sinful.

2000 years of consistent teachings.
Escobar
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 8:34:15 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 8:30:12 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/14/2016 8:13:00 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 7:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

That is the 'gift' of the protestant revolt. Everybody gets to twist the scripture to be what they want instead of knowing and following the truths that have always been taught.

All denominations bend scripture to varying degrees to support their view on the meaning of various parts of the bible. So do individual Christians and non Christians. It's no secret.

Not true. There is one denomination that has consistently interpreted the Gospel from the time of Jesus.

Here's a clue. Look at artificial contraception. Up until the 20th century every Christian denomination was against it saying that it is wrong and immoral. Now there is only one major denomination that has held the traditional teaching that it is wrong and sinful.

2000 years of consistent teachings. : :

Not ONE Christian understands what the Beast of Daniel is and why God created it.

Not ONE Christian knows what the Tree of Life is and why God used it.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 10:35:11 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 8:30:12 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/14/2016 8:13:00 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 7:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

That is the 'gift' of the protestant revolt. Everybody gets to twist the scripture to be what they want instead of knowing and following the truths that have always been taught.

All denominations bend scripture to varying degrees to support their view on the meaning of various parts of the bible. So do individual Christians and non Christians. It's no secret.

Not true. There is one denomination that has consistently interpreted the Gospel from the time of Jesus.

Until 1943 Catholics were not even allowed to study scripture! They just accepted Christianity in blind faith.

I could think of many changes in Catholic positions. The early church condoned slavery and outlawed the use of interest on loans.

1864 Pope Pius IX issued a document called the Syllabus of Errors that listed a number of statements that were to be "condemned." Among the ideas to be condemned were religious liberty and separation of Church and State (two principles of a "heresy" called Americanism) and that "The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization." Oh, the horror!

It's clear the Catholic church is just as confused about what the bible means as every other denomination.

Here's a clue. Look at artificial contraception. Up until the 20th century every Christian denomination was against it saying that it is wrong and immoral. Now there is only one major denomination that has held the traditional teaching that it is wrong and sinful.

Yes it's true that was traditionally the position of nearly every denomination until the 20th century. There is no scriptural evidence for a position opposing contraception though although I know you disagree.

2000 years of consistent teachings.

Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam issued in 1302:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denz. 469) [note: This definition (de fide definita) seems unanswerable, but the liberals boldly claim that this is not a definition intended for the universal Church, but only a pronouncement meant to deal with the local problem of Philip the Fair. But when Philip demanded of Pope Clement V, the first Avignon Pope, that he withdraw Unam Sanctam, Pope Clement did not do so, but issued the Brief Meruit February 1, 1306, which despite its extremely conciliatory tone, clearly states that Unam Sanctam contains a "definition":] "That is why we do not wish or intend that any prejudice be engendered for that king and kingdom by the definition and declaration of our predecessor Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which began by the words Unam Sanctam." (51 Corpus Juris Canonici, (Extravag. commun., lib. V, tit. VII, cap. 2) ed. Freiburg, Vol. II, p. 1300.)

So you agree with everything said by pope Boniface III?

Until 1965 your church was very clear only Catholics could achieve salvation yet now it teaches it is possible for non Catholic Christians to achieve salvation.

How do you explain that change in position?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 11:03:10 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 10:35:11 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 8:30:12 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/14/2016 8:13:00 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 7:36:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

That is the 'gift' of the protestant revolt. Everybody gets to twist the scripture to be what they want instead of knowing and following the truths that have always been taught.

All denominations bend scripture to varying degrees to support their view on the meaning of various parts of the bible. So do individual Christians and non Christians. It's no secret.

Not true. There is one denomination that has consistently interpreted the Gospel from the time of Jesus.

Until 1943 Catholics were not even allowed to study scripture! They just accepted Christianity in blind faith.

That's pure BS. Please provide a papal bull or something to the effect. The Church has been worried about people making erroneous interpretations when reading on their own, but this was an artifact of the protestant revolution. The faithful have never been forbidden from the scriptures.

I could think of many changes in Catholic positions. The early church condoned slavery and outlawed the use of interest on loans.

Slavery - there is a difference between just title slavery and chattel slavery.

http://www.crisismagazine.com...

1864 Pope Pius IX issued a document called the Syllabus of Errors that listed a number of statements that were to be "condemned." Among the ideas to be condemned were religious liberty and separation of Church and State (two principles of a "heresy" called Americanism) and that "The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization." Oh, the horror!

And he was right. There can only be one (or no) true religion. Anything else is including falsehood into its system. He is telling politicians that they have a calling from God in their office. You cannot go to Church on Sunday and pass abortion enabling bills on Monday. The Church was actually the one to pass true separation of Church and State. The clergy is not to hold political office. That does not mean that the state is not to be guided by the truths that the Church teaches.

It's clear the Catholic church is just as confused about what the bible means as every other denomination.

You have yet to show it.

Here's a clue. Look at artificial contraception. Up until the 20th century every Christian denomination was against it saying that it is wrong and immoral. Now there is only one major denomination that has held the traditional teaching that it is wrong and sinful.

Yes it's true that was traditionally the position of nearly every denomination until the 20th century. There is no scriptural evidence for a position opposing contraception though although I know you disagree.

Sin of Onan. The incarnation. And a smattering of others.

2000 years of consistent teachings.

Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam issued in 1302:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denz. 469) [note: This definition (de fide definita) seems unanswerable, but the liberals boldly claim that this is not a definition intended for the universal Church, but only a pronouncement meant to deal with the local problem of Philip the Fair. But when Philip demanded of Pope Clement V, the first Avignon Pope, that he withdraw Unam Sanctam, Pope Clement did not do so, but issued the Brief Meruit February 1, 1306, which despite its extremely conciliatory tone, clearly states that Unam Sanctam contains a "definition":] "That is why we do not wish or intend that any prejudice be engendered for that king and kingdom by the definition and declaration of our predecessor Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which began by the words Unam Sanctam." (51 Corpus Juris Canonici, (Extravag. commun., lib. V, tit. VII, cap. 2) ed. Freiburg, Vol. II, p. 1300.)

So you agree with everything said by pope Boniface III?

Until 1965 your church was very clear only Catholics could achieve salvation yet now it teaches it is possible for non Catholic Christians to achieve salvation.

How do you explain that change in position?

http://www.staycatholic.com...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 5:44:19 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 7:09:11 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 12:42:03 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

I don't know a single Christian who would think the bible condones homosexuality!!!

I know a lot of Christians in real life who condone homosexuality. Many of them are fairly ignorant of scripture which I think is often the reason for Christians thinking the bible condones homosexuality although some people bend scripture to try and claim homosexuality is ok.

that is true some people do bend scripture to change what it says, the truth is scripture is supported by other scripture, this keeps things in context..

As I said I do not personally know any Christian who claim the bible condones homosexuality...
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 7:08:20 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Modern Christians are not ancient Jews, and ancient Jews were not modern nor Christian. So I don't see how ancient Judaic scripture about homosexuality have any bearing on how modern Christians should perceive homosexuality.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 7:29:32 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 7:08:20 PM, PureX wrote:
Modern Christians are not ancient Jews, and ancient Jews were not modern nor Christian. So I don't see how ancient Judaic scripture about homosexuality have any bearing on how modern Christians should perceive homosexuality.

Cause it's in the book?
Never mind me though, i don't believe it either.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 7:51:41 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 7:08:20 PM, PureX wrote:
Modern Christians are not ancient Jews, and ancient Jews were not modern nor Christian. So I don't see how ancient Judaic scripture about homosexuality have any bearing on how modern Christians should perceive homosexuality.

Christianity is simply incompatible with 21st century morals, ethics, knowledge and values. It should be consigned to the history books. If you accept that a god would not condemn homosexual people then you must accept Christianity is false because the bible clearly states that the god of Christianity condemns homosexuality.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 7:53:53 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 5:44:19 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/14/2016 7:09:11 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 12:42:03 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/13/2016 3:49:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers"and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I can't see how any liberal Christians can possibly argue anything different when the bible could not be more clear. It would be interesting though to see some attempts at doing so as many Christians seem to think the bible condones homosexuality.

I don't know a single Christian who would think the bible condones homosexuality!!!

I know a lot of Christians in real life who condone homosexuality. Many of them are fairly ignorant of scripture which I think is often the reason for Christians thinking the bible condones homosexuality although some people bend scripture to try and claim homosexuality is ok.

that is true some people do bend scripture to change what it says, the truth is scripture is supported by other scripture, this keeps things in context..

There is great debate over the meaning of scripture even among Christians.

As I said I do not personally know any Christian who claim the bible condones homosexuality...

Fair enough.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 8:48:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Until 1943 Catholics were not even allowed to study scripture! They just accepted Christianity in blind faith.

That's pure BS. Please provide a papal bull or something to the effect. The Church has been worried about people making erroneous interpretations when reading on their own, but this was an artifact of the protestant revolution. The faithful have never been forbidden from the scriptures.

I'm surprised you actually believe that. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

The efforts of the Catholic church to keep scripture away from the eyes of ordinary people have continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue." Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

To me it's obvious why the Catholic church feared giving ordinary people the opportunity to study scripture. They knew how weak it actually would be when subjected to scrutiny by ordinary people such as myself. They knew it would lead to a loss of power and influence for the church and a reduction in the percentage of the population who believe in what they regarded as the truth. They believed keeping people in the dark about what was actually in the bible would increase the likelihood of them achieving salvation.

I could think of many changes in Catholic positions. The early church condoned slavery and outlawed the use of interest on loans.

Slavery - there is a difference between just title slavery and chattel slavery.

Genesis 17:12

"And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised".

In this passage God understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves.

Exodus 12:43

"The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it".

God again shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment.

Exodus 21:1

"Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life".

Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation.

http://www.crisismagazine.com...

Very clever attempt to get round a problem but it's simply impossible to do so. The author of the article actually admits that the Catholic church initially had an erroneous position on interest and his attempts to excuse it are clever but it cannot be denied it's a doctrinal change. The Catholic church no longer condemns people for using interest as it used to years ago when it used verses such as Luke 6:34-35:

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."

To condemn interest such as this encyclinical by Pope Benedict XIV:

"The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious".

Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam issued in 1302:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denz. 469) [note: This definition (de fide definita) seems unanswerable, but the liberals boldly claim that this is not a definition intended for the universal Church, but only a pronouncement meant to deal with the local problem of Philip the Fair. But when Philip demanded of Pope Clement V, the first Avignon Pope, that he withdraw Unam Sanctam, Pope Clement did not do so, but issued the Brief Meruit February 1, 1306, which despite its extremely conciliatory tone, clearly states that Unam Sanctam contains a "definition":] "That is why we do not wish or intend that any prejudice be engendered for that king and kingdom by the definition and declaration of our predecessor Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which began by the words Unam Sanctam." (51 Corpus Juris Canonici, (Extravag. commun., lib. V, tit. VII, cap. 2) ed. Freiburg, Vol. II, p. 1300.)

So you agree with everything said by pope Boniface III?

Until 1965 your church was very clear only Catholics could achieve salvation yet now it teaches it is possible for non Catholic Christians to achieve salvation.

How do you explain that change in position?

http://www.staycatholic.com...

Another well written attempt to disguise the contradictory statements by various Pontiffs about what is necessary to achieve salvation. The reality is pointing out changes in the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic church is incredibly easy. I could simply point to its opposition to people claiming that the earth orbited the sun or the earth is round!
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.