The unofficial ask a Christian thread

[D7M]

"When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die." (Leviticus, 20:13, http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm)

The verse doesn't intuitively read in the way you are saying. Perhaps Derek can shed some light on it, God-Willing...although I think he wants to stay away from the topic. I certainly did in my thread.

I think my post #91 should have cleared this up for you, let me know.

[skinnykenney]

"When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die." (Leviticus, 20:13, http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm)that is the old testament and writen for those times not the practices of today. we are under diferent guidelines today

The verse doesn't intuitively read in the way you are saying. Perhaps Derek can shed some light on it, God-Willing...although I think he wants to stay away from the topic. I certainly did in my thread.

So....anal sex with a woman is not a sin?So why was the couple in the bible turned into a pillar of salt?
The scripture your speaking of is the old testament and early on. Later Moses wrote the 10 comandments and one is you shall not kill!
So this means there were brutal times in the old testament and that's the way they dealt with people then.
We are now under a new set of guidelines that's where the new testament comes into play.

[*RAGE*]

"When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die." (Leviticus, 20:13, http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm)

The verse doesn't intuitively read in the way you are saying. Perhaps Derek can shed some light on it, God-Willing...although I think he wants to stay away from the topic. I certainly did in my thread.

Why are you answering question in this thread????this is not meant to be hate full!!!

[amcon]

"When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die." (Leviticus, 20:13, http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm)

The verse doesn't intuitively read in the way you are saying. Perhaps Derek can shed some light on it, God-Willing...although I think he wants to stay away from the topic. I certainly did in my thread.

correct... not that God hates the people, he hates the act of the sin

[amcon]

Butt sex is a sin. The two people you speak of were man and woman.
So being gay isn't a sin but butt sex is, weather with a man or woman!
So is birth control and masterbation!
In the scripture it states In so many words that God would rather you spew into the body of a whore than to waste it.

being gay is a sin... just the thoughts of xxxx(any thing you think can be a sin) noah's son Ham did something to his father that caused him and his blood line to be cursed for ever... cursed because Ham sinned

as for [/QUOTE]God would rather you spew into the body of a whore than to waste it.[/QUOTE] get me that vers and i will research it

[D7M]

being gay is a sin... just the thoughts of xxxx(any thing you think can be a sin) noah's son Ham did something to his father that caused him and his blood line to be cursed for ever... cursed because Ham sinned

as for

God would rather you spew into the body of a whore than to waste it.[/QUOTE] get me that vers and i will research it[/QUOTE]

I'll treat the first part later. I have to run to a stupid meeting where nothing happens and people sit around and blah, blah blah...

I think he's talking about the sin of onanism, from Gen. 38. More on this later, too.

Now go research, Amcon!

[D7M]

yes, sodom an gomorrah(if you dont know that story let me know i will post about it tomorrow)... hate the sin love the sinner

(if me this thread is bad let me know - i am passionate about the Lord and have a hard time keeping my mouth(fingers) quite) and if i am wrong let me know too ... but i never am ---)

the catholic church would say homosexuality is a sin, just like they would say adultery, or sex outside marriage is a sin. the point is that being homosexual doesn't make you sinful or dirty, but it is the acting out on those feeling (just like a heterosexual) that makes the act sinful.

skinny Kenny is right in what he said. The story of Sodom and Gommorah refers to the sin of sodomy, not necessarily homosexuality.

[amcon]

the catholic church would say homosexuality is a sin, just like they would say adultery, or sex outside marriage is a sin. the point is that being homosexual doesn't make you sinful or dirty, but it is the acting out on those feeling (just like a heterosexual) that makes the act sinful.

skinny Kenny is right in what he said. The story of Sodom and Gommorah refers to the sin of sodomy, not necessarily homosexuality.

agreed!!! amen (first part)

second part - sodomy comes from where? and what was widely preformed in the cities? and what happened to the cities? who destroyed the cities?

point is that the srory of sodomy and gommorah is relivent to the answer

[BuffedGuy]

agreed!!! amen (first part)

second part - sodomy comes from where? and what was widely preformed in the cities? and what happened to the cities? who destroyed the cities?

point is that the srory of sodomy and gommorah is relivent to the answer

I'm going to have to agree with Amcon on this...I find the 'it's sodomy, not homosexuality' argument to be disingenuous and a form of revisionism.

[gst528i]

is christianity the oldest religion? If not does anyone know which one is the oldest that still being practiced in by large populations?

[BuffedGuy]

is christianity the oldest religion? If not does anyone know which one is the oldest that still being practiced in by large populations?

Peace be unto you, GST.

Of the major world religions, Christianity is second newest. Islam is the newest. The oldest is Hinduism. This depends on what you consider a major world religion though. I just posted in my thread about the number of adherents of each religion.

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, GST.

Of the major world religions, Christianity is second newest. Islam is the newest. The oldest is Hinduism. This depends on what you consider a major world religion though. I just posted in my thread about the number of adherents of each religion.

Buffed is right. Hinduism is the oldest known religion.

[Matt]

Why is the catholic church so rich, yet there is so much poverty in the world?

[D7M]

Why is the catholic church so rich, yet there is so much poverty in the world?

This is a fair question.

But it's also like asking why any wealthy corporation (if you will allow the loose analogy between the church and a corporation) doesn't give all its money to the poor?

Also, the church is not as rich as everyone thinks it is. That's why in the last few years we've seen so many church closing and parish mergers. Church attendance (at least in the Catholic church) has dropped dramatically since 1965, so there's a big loss of contributions, too.

Truth be told, the majority of the money in the church is in the religious orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Benedictines, etc). Since these religious orders are self-operating (according to canon law), the general church has no control over their funds.

Someone did this study a while ago (I'll see if I can dig it up) about this. They found that even if the church gave all its money away to the poor (which of course doesn't really make sense, b/c then they wouldn't even be able to offer services to anyone), poverty would still exist.

[Matt]

This is a fair question.

But it's also like asking why any wealthy corporation (if you will allow the loose analogy between the church and a corporation) doesn't give all its money to the poor?

Also, the church is not as rich as everyone thinks it is. That's why in the last few years we've seen so many church closing and parish mergers. Church attendance (at least in the Catholic church) has dropped dramatically since 1965, so there's a big loss of contributions, too.

Truth be told, the majority of the money in the church is in the religious orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Benedictines, etc). Since these religious orders are self-operating (according to canon law), the general church has no control over their funds.

Someone did this study a while ago (I'll see if I can dig it up) about this. They found that even if the church gave all its money away to the poor (which of course doesn't really make sense, b/c then they wouldn't even be able to offer services to anyone), poverty would still exist.

I understand what you are saying, however lets just look at the vatican. There are hunreds of priceless, artifacts and paintings, now where in the bible does it teach us to hord these things?? Again even if they sold eveything you are right, it wouldnt feed all the starving, but it will feed some. Do you think that if Jesus came back to earth now, walked into the vatican, saw its splendour, saw what was being spent to run the place, saw all those priceless artifact, would he be pleased???

[D7M]

I understand what you are saying, however lets just look at the vatican. There are hunreds of priceless, artifacts and paintings, now where in the bible does it teach us to hord these things?? Again even if they sold eveything you are right, it wouldnt feed all the starving, but it will feed some. Do you think that if Jesus came back to earth now, walked into the vatican, saw its splendour, saw what was being spent to run the place, saw all those priceless artifact, would he be pleased???

yah, well the Vatican isn't really hording them, right? I mean, you can go there and look at them. Like a museum. Which is a good thing. If they gave them away, who would they give them to...a museum?

I don't know what Jesus would think of the Vatican's artifacts. Maybe if he saw how hundreds of thousands of tourists go there and take in its aesthetic quality, and even if only for a second have their hearts and minds lifted to a transcendent reality beyond themselves, He (Jesus) might be ok with it.

[Matt]

yah, well the Vatican isn't really hording them, right? I mean, you can go there and look at them. Like a museum. Which is a good thing. If they gave them away, who would they give them to...a museum?

I don't know what Jesus would think of the Vatican's artifacts. Maybe if he saw how hundreds of thousands of tourists go there and take in its aesthetic quality, and even if only for a second have their hearts and minds lifted to a transcendent reality beyond themselves, He (Jesus) might be ok with it.

You see this is where it all falls down for me, i was raised as a catholic, went to a catholic school, confirmed and all that. You dont give the artifacts away you sell them. I think Jesus would be horrified, he would see the vatican with all its riches, then he would visit those countries where children are starving to death. I am not attacking your religion here im attacking mine lol..

[amcon]

I understand what you are saying, however lets just look at the vatican. There are hunreds of priceless, artifacts and paintings, now where in the bible does it teach us to hord these things?? Again even if they sold eveything you are right, it wouldnt feed all the starving, but it will feed some. Do you think that if Jesus came back to earth now, walked into the vatican, saw its splendour, saw what was being spent to run the place, saw all those priceless artifact, would he be pleased???

good point - he would do what he did to the pharesses and the scribes and the publicans as he flipped the tables over... imo

[amcon]

This is a fair question.

But it's also like asking why any wealthy corporation (if you will allow the loose analogy between the church and a corporation) doesn't give all its money to the poor?

Also, the church is not as rich as everyone thinks it is. That's why in the last few years we've seen so many church closing and parish mergers. Church attendance (at least in the Catholic church) has dropped dramatically since 1965, so there's a big loss of contributions, too.

Truth be told, the majority of the money in the church is in the religious orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Benedictines, etc). Since these religious orders are self-operating (according to canon law), the general church has no control over their funds.

Someone did this study a while ago (I'll see if I can dig it up) about this. They found that even if the church gave all its money away to the poor (which of course doesn't really make sense, b/c then they wouldn't even be able to offer services to anyone), poverty would still exist.

much of the churches assets are not liquid as well... building that would have little or no value 5 million dollar church building on a 70 thousand dollar plot of land = true value of the property less than 70 thousand dollars (the cost of the demolition of the church would be expensive)

[amcon]

Why is the catholic church so rich, yet there is so much poverty in the world?

many many ways to answer this... i would like to point to end times and what part of the church will still be here... when the grooms bride church is raptured

[quarry206]

i heard once (on TLC) that revolations was written by John while on an island with pagons. and that it is strongly believed that the book was never meant to be in the bible but instead his way of converting the people of the island/ region to which he was at the time.. ... and knowledge or thought on that topic?

also the same specail said that it is widely believed that the mark of the beast is not 666 but 616. which would have been the empire at times number.

[D7M]

i heard once (on TLC) that revolations was written by John while on an island with pagons. and that it is strongly believed that the book was never meant to be in the bible but instead his way of converting the people of the island/ region to which he was at the time.. ... and knowledge or thought on that topic?

also the same specail said that it is widely believed that the mark of the beast is not 666 but 616. which would have been the empire at times number.

This is true. John wrote the book of Revelations while in exile on the isle of Patmos. The fact that there were pagans there is true, but really extrinsic. Christians were writing documents all the time around pagans.

As far its inclusion in the canon, yah, it was debated. Alot of church fathers didn't want it included. St. Augustine really pushed for it. He liked it. He said he wanted it in there because it will put the fear of hell into people.

The thing to remember, though, is that that type of writing was a typical genre at the time...namely, apocalyptic (end times) literature. Just today like we have fiction, non-fiction, biographies, etc.

Right. I think most scholars agree that the purpose of Revelations was really to provide hope to persecuted Christians. People read too much into those codes. Ever notice people who do that end up making alot of money of some stupid book? John used numerical codes and sht because at the time Christians were being persecuted, and so he couldn't openly talk about. There's solid evidence for this view, and to me it makes much more sense even as a sort of "common sense" approach.

[amcon]

i heard once (on TLC) that revolations was written by John while on an island with pagons. and that it is strongly believed that the book was never meant to be in the bible but instead his way of converting the people of the island/ region to which he was at the time.. ... and knowledge or thought on that topic?

also the same specail said that it is widely believed that the mark of the beast is not 666 but 616. which would have been the empire at times number.

the REVELATION Jesus Christ was written to reveal the full identiy of Christ and to give warning and hop eto believers, auther was apostle john, it was written to the 7 churches in Asia and all belivers every where, date about a.d. 95 from PATAMOS.

if you heard it on tlc it was most likely something to disprove the bible and cast shadows on the perfect Word.

[FallenWyvern]

Explain the belief of the trinity.

[D7M]

Explain the belief of the trinity.

Buffedguy won't agree with me, but Christians are in fact monotheists. We believe in one God who is three persons.

Each person, as a subsistent relation, is separate from the other persons of the Trinity, and each is truly God. So, the Father is God, the Son is truly God, the Holy Spirit is truly God. Each person, as part of the Godhead, is equally omnipotent and eternal. All attributes of the Godhead can be attributed to each person of the trinity, except their person-hood. So, the Father is *not* the Son, but both are equally God, equally omnipotent, etc.

The Son is the person who is begotten of the Father by an act of eternal generation. The Holy spirit, then, proceeds through an eternal procession from both the Father and the Son.

This is the basic idea. If you have more questions, let me know

[FallenWyvern]

Buffedguy won't agree with me, but Christians are in fact monotheists. We believe in one God who is three persons.

Each person, as a subsistent relation, is separate from the other persons of the Trinity, and each is truly God. So, the Father is God, the Son is truly God, the Holy Spirit is truly God. Each person, as part of the Godhead, is equally omnipotent and eternal. All attributes of the Godhead can be attributed to each person of the trinity, except their person-hood. So, the Father is *not* the Son, but both are equally God, equally omnipotent, etc.

The Son is the person who is begotten of the Father by an act of eternal generation. The Holy spirit, then, proceeds through an eternal procession from both the Father and the Son.

This is the basic idea. If you have more questions, let me know

Is that in the bible? I have read it cover to cover and it seemed very clear.

[Squatman51]

what is the deciding factor of someone going to heaven????


having faith in the lord?

[D7M]

what is the deciding factor of someone going to heaven????


having faith in the lord?

I guess that would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

catholics would say that the sacraments of initiation are absolutely necessary (baptism, confirmation, etc), where the theological virtue of faith is infused into the person. With this virtue of faith, the person would continue through perseverance and good works to advance in holiness.

So, short answer: 1)sacraments + 2)Faith + 3)advancing in holiness=heaven.

Unlike protestants, Catholics would not say that faith alone is enough to merit eternal life.

[D7M]

Is that in the bible? I have read it cover to cover and it seemed very clear.

And it seemed clear that what?

Well, those exact words are not in the bible, but the doctrine of the trinity can be sufficiently inferred from Scriptural passages. I have put it more in terms of the scholastic theology of Thomas Aquinas, b/c that's what I'm most comfortable with.

And while the bible has a formal sufficiency for pronouncing doctrine, Catholics believe that we also have tradition as well that works along side with scripture, and with equal authority.

[amcon]

Explain the belief of the trinity.

i amcon am

a father to my children

a son to my mom

a leader/husband to my wife

God built us with the same foundation - however we lost the Holy Ghost due to sin in the garden of adam and eve. thus, we lost that portion and Jesus came back to provide us with that piece...


short answer

[D7M]

i amcon am

a father to my children

a son to my mom

a leader/husband to my wife

God built us with the same foundation - however we lost the Holy Ghost due to sin in the garden of adam and eve. thus, we lost that portion and Jesus came back to provide us with that piece...


short answer

Ok, now I'm stumped, and very curious.

Which denomination teaches that "we lost the Holy Ghost due to the sin the garden"? I have honestly never heard that one before.

Also, the social analogy for the Trinity is weak at best. This is not a jab at you, just saying the psychological analogy, though not perfect, works better. What you described are just different aspects of a socio-cultural matrix. Transposed into Trinitarian theology, this would boil down into a type of Modalism, where instead of three persons of the trinity, you have one, who is just viewed as operating under different formalities at different times.

[amcon]

Ok, now I'm stumped, and very curious.

Which denomination teaches that "we lost the Holy Ghost due to the sin the garden"? I have honestly never heard that one before.

Also, the social analogy for the Trinity is weak at best. This is not a jab at you, just saying the psychological analogy, though not perfect, works better. What you described are just different aspects of a socio-cultural matrix. Transposed into Trinitarian theology, this would boil down into a type of Modalism, where instead of three persons of the trinity, you have one, who is just viewed as operating under different formalities at different times.

look at it this way... did God fellowship with adam and eve in the garden? did they if they died where would they have gone if they never sinned

denominations mean nothing just read the bible... i am not being sarcastic but have you read the bible the whole way through? did you study the bible or study what people said about the bible? (again not flaming you, just a open question)

the example i gave on the trinity is how i can be different people, yet the same person. that was all that was ment - a simple analogy

[GZA]

look at it this way... did God fellowship with adam and eve in the garden? did they if they died where would they have gone if they never sinned

I think you are refering to what Catholics would call "Original Sin" and our "fall from grace". "Loosing the holy ghost" isn't exactly how we'd put it so, like derek, I didn't follow what you were talking about either until I thought about it a minute.

denominations mean nothing just read the bible... i am not being sarcastic but have you read the bible the whole way through? did you study the bible or study what people said about the bible? (again not flaming you, just a open question)

I can't speak for derek but this is a charge many people attempt to level against Catholics. Most well informed Catholics would answer yes they have read the bible all the way through. A well informed Catholic would generally actually tend to think of your average Protestant as reading their bible for sure, as I'm sure you do, but with a very limited understanding of all the technicalities involved in truly grasping the meaning of the bible. For example, you claim "denominations mean nothing, just read your bible" but where does the bible make that statement? It's nowhere to be found. So your view would therefore be considered "unbiblical" (unless of course you have a verse to show me). Most people at that time didn't even know how to read and you claim Jesus' message was "go and read your bibles"? Printing presses didn't even exist and scrolls of text had to be laboriously hand written so the cost of any such "bible" (which didn't even exist at the time) which they were supposedly supposed to go read would be impossible to afford for most people. So what were the people to do? learn to read, become rich and buy a bible that they recieved from their time machine from hundreds of years in the future? Early Christianity simply didn't work like that. The Church was given authority by Jesus Christ to teach. The Bible was written by the Church for the Church using the authority it was given by Jesus.

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV

Here Jesus is building his church and giving it the authority to teach in his name, he's not sitting around passing out bibles. As a side note, this guy Peter, whom Jesus builds his church upon... history tells us he was the first leader of the Universal Church in Rome... a Church was built upon his tomb, and today that Church (tomb included) can be found in a little known place called The Vatican. Our Pope today, he is the 265th leader of the Universal Church in Rome, directly descended from Peter (in case you didn't know, the word Catholic comes from the greek Katholikos, meaning universal). Don't believe me about Peter being the first Pope or Jesus himself founding the Catholic Church? Just read your encyclopedia, history book, or what have you... It's a historically accepted fact:

"St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)

The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock," (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)


"ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, ...the Roman church owes its existence to the life of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD" (Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995)

"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

"Jesus Christ has founded one only Church, the Catholic hierarchical Church, whose chief pastors are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope," (The Early Church © 1945)

you get the idea...

What does the bible consider the pillar and foundation of the truth? The bible? or the church?

1 Tim 3:15
5 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH.
RSV

and that, my friend, is why a Catholic would dissagree with you on your opinion about not needing to follow any Church and just reading your bible on your own and figuring out what it means based on your own opnions. Jesus Christ specifially founded a Church and gave it the autority to teach his followers and specifially vouched for it's teachings "whatever you bind on earth wil be bound in heaven" "the pillar and foundation of the truth", not to mention the fact that the bible specifally warns against trying to interpret the bible for yourself if you were given no authority to do so. There are some 35,000 different types of Protestant Christianity out there all proclaiming to truly know what the bible is saying and yet they all dissagree with each other. All the while they claim the task of understanding the bible is so easy and apparent but how come, at best, only one out of 35,000 of their denominations could have possibly gotten it all right? A Catholic would choose to follow the Churches authority when it comes to understanding and interpreting the bible, because apparently it can't be that obvious and easy when there's so many differing arguing opinions among Protestants as it relates to what the bible really says, to put it another way here's what the bible has to say about it:

2 Peter 3:16-17
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
RSV

2 Peter 1:19-20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation
RSV

So in other words, you can choose to crown yourself your own personal pope and decide for yourself what the bible says. But a Catholic would choose to listen to the man Jesus Christ specifically vouches for when it comes to correctly teaching the Word of God. Our Pope. That's why we put tradition on equal footing with Scripture, because Jesus Christ himself says BOTH are inerrant. However, I never read in the bible that he vouches for your particular interpretation of scripture (or mine for that matter), so to play it safe, I'll stick with the teachings of the Pope and the Catholic Church, the church Jesus Christ calls his own. ("build MY church") Isn't Jesus God? Isn't God perfect? So who are you to tell him that he made a mistake in choosing Catholicism as his own church? I say all these things respectfully, because I have noted that you seem pretty set against the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It made me wonder if anyone has ever bothered you to inform you as to the imense amount of evidence that you are up against if you claim you can attack it. To attack a teaching of The Church is to attack the teachings of the Pope, to attack a teaching of the Pope is to attack a teaching of Jesus Christ himself.


the example i gave on the trinity is how i can be different people, yet the same person. that was all that was ment - a simple analogy

I'm not sure if derek is planning on getting back to you... I am a fairly informed Catholic and so far have been following this conversation between you and him. Every responce he has given so far I agree with so I could tell you what he probably would have responded and he can further clarify whether my views are in accordance with the views of the Catholic Church if/when he comes back.... my responces are above in bold

[GZA]

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
RSV
lets go king james not some other thing that is just a part of the bible(dont make me pull off tons of proof that what ever bible you use is not the right one- lets quote the real verse - then i will tell you the biblical meaning not what you were told by a man...)
“not what I was told by a man????” Are you a Martian or something??? Or are the translators of the King James Potatoes or something???? What are you talking about???? There are men on my side, men on your side, the only difference is that God himself vouches for the teachings of my men.

Ohhhhh!!! You mean King James… as in the guy who had an affair with the duke of Buckingham and claimed in his “divine right of kings” that he was like God in that he ruled on Gods throne on earth… that King James??? … so are you saying that the “RIGHT BIBLE” didn’t exist until 1611?????? What were those silly Jews and Apostles reading????? You should go school them on the virtues of King James magical authorized version. Even Jesus quoted directly from scriptures and he certainly wasn’t quoting from the King James version seeing as though it didn’t exist for well over 1500 years later (actually, most of the time he quoted from the Septuagint). So I guess Jesus Christ, God himself, got it wrong too????? The ancient Christians never even heard of your silly King James Version of the bible, but I guess the first “real” Christians didn’t exist until blessed King James with all his saintly virtues commissioned his version of the bible huh???? Sorry but I’ll take Jesus and The apostles, Moses and the Prophets, over your silly “most holy saint” King James any day :P So are you saying that magically the King James version is without error???????? How about the one which says "Thou SHALT commit adultery"???? Was that an error???? Any translation is just that, a translation. It’s impossible to fully and perfectly grasp the exact sense of every word which is written in an entirely different language, all we have are approximations of what the text we are translating means, as anyone who knows more than one language can tell you. There are simply some things that can’t be perfectly translated into certain languages. To think otherwise Is pretty much ignorant. You can use the King James all you want for all I care (unless we are referring to the 7 books which are missing from your bible because Martin Luther took them out). The meaning is pretty much the same between most translations most of the time. If there is a dispute, we can always refer to the Greek/Hebrew
mat 16:18 - 19
"and i say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church; adn the gates of hell shal not prevail against it.","and i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: adn whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

the rock upon which jesus would build his church has been identified as: (1) Jesus him self(his work of salvation by dying for us ont he cross)
WHAT????? That’s NOWHERE in this verse. Although, granted, Jesus is our ultimate foundation for everything (and for the Church obviously), The particular verse in question says no such thing. It only refers to Peter as being “the rock”.
(2) peter(teh first great leader in the chruch at jerusalem!!!!!!!!!)

OK

(the confession of faith that peter gave and that all subsequent true believers would give, the rock refers to peter as the leader of the chruch, his function not his personality, function of faith not works... just a peter had revealed the true identiey of Christ, so Jesus is revealing peter identity and role.
“thou art Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church” That’s what the bible says, not all your backpedaling technicalities in order to try to twist the scriptures in to saying something it doesn’t. What is peters name????
John 1:42
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
RSV
Cephas is Aramaic for ROCK… speaking Aramaic, Jesus could only have said one thing “you are Cepha and upon this Cepha I will build my church” who are you to doubt, twist and distort the words of Christ????? If Jesus says Peter is what Jesus will build his Church upon I believe it. Why don’t you?????
LATER PETER REMINDES CHRISTIANS THAT THEY ARE THE CHURCH BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WITH (FOCUS HERE!!!) JESUS CHRIST AS THE CORNER STONE OF THE CHURCH(NOT THE POPE!!!
(that’s an illogical argument known as a false dichotomy my friend)
WANNA VERS TO BACK THAT UP? OK - 1 PETER 2:4-6, all believers are joined into this chruch by faith(not works) faith in Jesus Christ as our go between to God (Jesus is God - wanna vers for that too?) the same faith that is expressed here ephesians 2:20 and 21... about the pope he is a sinner and need salvation just like the rest of us... no disrespect)
Like I said…. OBVIOUSLY Jesus is the foundation for all of Christianity, that doesn’t change the fact that our foundation, Jesus Christ, specifically told one man that he was the foundation upon which he would build his church. Of course the Pope is a sinner and needs salvation, just like all the Apostles did. Paul sinned, do you doubt that God empowered him to write and teach infallibly in Gods name??? Or does the fact that Paul is a sinner automatically mean you are going to rip all of his writings out of the bible???? Obviously you would be arguing against your own faith and bible if you expect me to believe that the mere fact that you are a sinner and need salvation automatically means you can’t be inspired to God to teach the truth. So again… I perfectly agree with any verse you can throw at me (actually because so far I’ve already read and memorized every single one you’ve bothered to list, you’re not telling me anything new) But you have to try to doubt and twist and distort all the verses I come up with. The bible says says Jesus is the foundation and it says Peter is the foundation, I believe they both are, you believe only Jesus is “not the pope” is (that was your exact quote). Which again is an illogical false dichotomy. That’s like if I pointed a verse out that said I’m human and you said NO!!! it says here in the bible that Paul was human “not you!!!!!”. (and of course that doesn’t logically follow) Sorry but we can BOTH be human. Just like in a different sence of the word BOTH Jesus and Peter can be foundations upon which the Church is built. I accept BOTH verses of the bible, but you reject one. Now who is following the bible more faithfully??


Here Jesus is building his church and giving it the authority to teach in his name, he's not sitting around passing out bibles. As a side note, this guy Peter, whom Jesus builds his church upon... history tells us he was the first leader of the Universal Church in Rome... a Church was built upon his tomb, and today that Church (tomb included) can be found in a little known place called The Vatican. Our Pope today, he is the 265th leader of the Universal Church in Rome, directly descended from Peter(
please prove this with any thing in or out of the bible... that could be the craziest thing i have ever heard!!! so the polish pope was to0?

So are you going to doubt that 1+1=2 because it’s not in your bible??? Or that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated because it can’t be proven with your bible???? A historical fact is a historical fact, most rational people care about what history tells us and for them:


ST. IRENAEUS

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies, 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).


Gaius:

"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cata-phrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: 'I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church'" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5).

St. Agustine
In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority,
inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

I really could have gone on and on and on with practically unending historical data vouching for the things I have told you. (if you doubt it, next time I will) But I figured I’d just give you a taste.
(in case you didn't know, the word Catholic comes from the greek Katholikos, meaning universal). Don't believe me about Peter being the first Pope or Jesus himself founding the Catholic Church? Just read your encyclopedia, history book, or what have you... It's a historically accepted fact:
(what? who reports history? man? never rely on man only Christ... you can read that in your bible)
Moses was a man, the apostles were men, every Christian and Jew that ever existed before you was a man… without them to pass down their religious beliefs and writings you’d know absolutely nothing about Christianity. So I’m sorry to say, but everything you ever learned about Christianity was either taught to you directly by a man’s words or writings. Good luck if you think you’re only relying on Christ, you relied on Martin Luther’s decision to throw out 7 books of the bible didn’t you??? You relied on King James translators to correctly translate your bible didn’t you??? Don’t be ridiculous, we both rely on men. The only difference is that the men I choose to rely on were sent by God to teach with Gods promise that they will teach the truth as it is in heaven, the men you choose to follow weren’t sent by God and just simply appointed themselves an authority on Gods Law but God never sent them

Ezek 13:6
6 They have spoken falsehood and divined a lie; they say, `Says the LORD,' when the LORD has not sent them
RSV
2 Cor 11:12-13
12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
RSV
St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock .Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)
what is that crap??? sorry i will just prove you wrong...

with all due respect you now have completly discredited your self (as well as in my last post are not a person to be talking about scripture) you are very wrong...(my appoligies if i have missed something - please provide scripture) (mods please i am not flaming: just pointing out huge false truths )

"john 1: 42 - and he brought him to Jesus. and when jesus beheld him, he said "thou art simon the son of jona: thou shalt be called cephas, which is by interpertation, a stone."
So where is the argument here????? The only thing I can see is that your King James says Cephas means stone and the quote from the National Almanac says Cepha means rock….. I’ll deal with that assuming that’s your issue. Aramaic doesn’t share the same alphabet with English my friend that’s why there’s different spellings, that’s what’s known as a transliteration, attempting to phonetically reproduce the sounds you’d make using the English alphabet, there’s no one right way to do it. Kepha is the actual Aramaic word (or you can use a “c” insteak of a “k” whatever), there is however no “s” at the end. That was simply added at the end of the word Kepha in order for the Greek reader to not read the word Kepha (which ends in an a) as feminine since it is being used as the name of a man. (this would be sort of like calling me “rockeena” instead of “rocky” or “Carla” instead of “Carlos” The Aramaic actually doesn’t concern itself with the genders of words like the Greek language does so therefore the Greek writer decided to add an s at the end of the Aramaic word Kepha in order to have it make sense in the Greek language as a mans name. (there is no such word as “cephaS” in Aramaic so Cephas could not have been Peter’s name) And as it relates to the word which the King James renders “stone”, that’s really not an issue, stone, rock, whatever. The issue at hand is that Jesus could not and did not mean to differentiate the rock Jesus would build his Church upon with the “stone” that Peter was. We know this from the obvious fact that in Aramaic there is only ONE WORD for rock!!!! So Jesus must have said you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church. In the language Jesus was speaking there was no room for making this differentiation. If you want to translate the word Kepha into stone, go ahead, I really don’t care. Then you have Jesus saying “you are stone and on this stone I will build my church”… regardless you can’t get away from the fact that clearly Jesus is saying that Peter is the foundation of his Church. Whether he is a rock or a stone, or a potato, Jesus says on that potato he will build his Church PERIOD.


http://www.pacinst.com/antichri.htm (--- answer to this, i will post more about this later..
So that’s the type of “history” you believe???? Sorry but an actual historian has already dealt with this topic and totally destroyed it. The man who wrote the book which is quoted over and over and over on the link you sent has pretty much been relegated to being a laughable phony and outright liar. NOBODY pays attention to any of his claims because simply put there is NO evidence for any of it. For example where he quotes Abraham Lincoln as saying “the evil Catholic Jesuits are responsible for the Civil War… because the “evil Catholics” want to take over america” which paper that Lincoln wrote is he quoting???? Which book or letter? Where is his evidence???? the only evidence is that he made this claim in his book he made money on, the same goes for every other quote you’ll find in his book. Where’s his documentation???? THE LINCOLN WRITINGS OF CHARLES P.T. CHINIQUY by Joseph George Jr. Ph.D. from the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society February 1976 vol. 69, pp. 17-25 absolutely destroys any of Charles Chiniquy’s credibility. Why is it that historians are always on my side in this debate???? Maybe because you haven’t done your research :P Thanks for the laugh though.
this one should be fun :

the real vers:

1 tim 3: 15 - "but if i terry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth."

not of the pope, or of the just the church - it "is the church of the living God" not a denomination.
That sounds just like the quote I quoted???? Where’s your huge difference except your verse uses more archaic English.
1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
RSV
Sorry to tell you, but the Catholic Church wasn’t a denomination it was the ONLY Christian Church before a bunch of people started making up their own Churches in opposition to the one God established:
Catholic Church:
The largest single Christian body, composed of those Christians who acknowledge the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, the pope, in matters of faith. The word catholic (Greek katholikos) means “universal” and has been used to designate the church since its earliest period, WHEN IT WAS THE ONLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH. (cf. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia)

My verse already said “the Church of the living God” That’s why I was already saying that the Catholic Church was the Church Jesus founded so what’s your point???? You say it’s not of the Pope but where does that verse say that???? Don’t “twist the scriptures to your own destruction”. The bible simply states that this Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth… if you want to claim that statement applies to ALL denominations then you are claiming the bible is lying. Are Mormons, Jehovas witnesses, Catholics, Branch Dividians, Lutherans and Baptists ALL teaching the same “TRUTH”?????? Obviously this statement can only apply to one form of Christianity because they can’t all be equally correct even on issues they disagree upon. It just so happens that NO OTHER FORM OF CHRISTIANITY EVEN EXISTED IN JESUS’ TIME EXCEPT FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. So that pretty much narrows down the form of Christianity the bible is referring to as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” as being the one and only Catholic Church. Heck your beloved King James bible didn’t even exist until 1611 so we know the bible wasn’t referring to your denomination.
to be a chruch leader is a heavy responsiblity because church bleongs to the living God(not the pope).
I never said the church belongs to the pope, I even pointed out in my earlier post that Jesus calls the church he builds upon Peter “MY church”. So the question remains, why aren’t you in the Church Jesus calls his own???? Why aren’t you in the Church whom Peter was chosen the leader of? And why do you reject the man who wields his authority today (the Pope)???
church leaders should not be elected because they are popular, nor shoudl they be allowed to push their way to the top. instead the should be chosen by the church becaus of their respect for truth(the word of God, not tradition
Again, false dichotomy…. I have shown over and over that The Word of God is taught BOTH by Scripture AND oral Tradition according to the bible. Church Leaders aren’t elected because they are popular or anything else, What makes the Pope the Pope, is not any of his virtues, it’s simply because Jesus made a Promise that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. Just like Paul or Moses’ virtues had nothing to do with why they were chosen to write books of the bible. Apostles, Popes, and Prophets, all are sinners. The only reason I’ll follow any of their writings or teachings is because they are inspired by God to teach in his name.
- unless it is in the bible and you are jewish) both in doctrine and in their personal lives!!!

the lis of qualifaications for the chruch office show that living a blameless and pure life requries effort and self-discipline. all belivers, even if they never plan to be church leaders should strive to follow these guidelines because the are consistent with what God says is true and right. the strength to do so comes from what? a priest ? a pope? a confession? NO!!! from Christ and the Grace he allots us.
“For all men have sinned and failed to come close to the glory of God”, NO MAN is “good” enough to be blameless, no man good enough to “earn” the ability to teach correctly with Gods inspiration. It is a Gift from God which he gives to sinners, Popes, Apostles, and Prophets alike. Problem is, Jesus never said he’d be giving this gift to those who reject the authority of the Church he founded, with Bishops and Priests, an entire hierarchy. Where are your Bishops and Priests??? Can’t find any??? Then likely, your Church isn’t the one spoken of in the New Testament.
What does the bible consider the pillar and foundation of the truth? The bible? or the church?
answer ^^^^^ Christ!!!
Did you miss something???????????
1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
RSV
and that, my friend, is why a Catholic would disagree with you on your opinion about not needing to follow any Church and just reading your bible on your own and figuring out what it means based on your own opnions

the holy spirit reveals the scriptures to us... under your system a man does... all men are sinners and as filthy as rags(and those are some filthy rags))
Sinning has nothing to do with it, as stated earlier the apostles sinned too… but they were still able to teach the Word of God faithfully so you have no point. As it relates to your claim that the “holy spirit” reveals the scriptures to you…. That’s what the Mormons claim also… why is the “holy spirit” lying to one group but not the other????? Something tells me that neither of you are in contact with the Holy Spirit when it comes to infallibly interpreting scripture. What… does the Holy Spirit have 35,000 different versions of the truth???? The devil might… but sorry, there is only ONE real TRUTH.

[*RAGE*]

I have noticed some churches taking a different stand on sodomy because of gay couples... is this true?

[D7M]

I have noticed some churches taking a different stand on sodomy because of gay couples... is this true?

Hmm, this is kinda general, but I'll say this much. the catholic church has pretty much held the line on this one.

Some other protestant denominations (no offense intended, its just facts) have completely changed previously held beliefs.

Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists for example, all openly ordain male or female clerics, who are openly homosexual.

At one point in time, there was a common consensus among all Christian denominations (catholic, protestant, whatever) that women could not be ordained, and also that homosexuality was sinful. The denominations mentioned above have just dropped all that years ago.

[*RAGE*]

Hmm, this is kinda general, but I'll say this much. the catholic church has pretty much held the line on this one.

Some other protestant denominations (no offense intended, its just facts) have completely changed previously held beliefs.

Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists for example, all openly ordain male or female clerics, who are openly homosexual.

At one point in time, there was a common consensus among all Christian denominations (catholic, protestant, whatever) that women could not be ordained, and also that homosexuality was sinful. The denominations mentioned above have just dropped all that years ago.

no you hit it on the head....I was raised catholic and keep some of the beliefs, but have some gay friends that feel they are doing nothing more then following there heart.....

[D7M]

no you hit it on the head....I was raised catholic and keep some of the beliefs, but have some gay friends that feel they are doing nothing more then following there heart.....

ah, good.

Yah, surprisingly there has been a couple questions about homosexuality in this thread already.

I was expecting, Idk, doctrinal stuff or 'why is there evil', stuff like that. Still good, though.

[FallenWyvern]

So you are saying that it isn't there? Pretty clear the bible calls Jesus god's son hundreds of times.

[Squatman51]

So what if there is a person who is one of the nicest and kindest people in the world and does all they can to help others, but is not religious at all. They believe that there is no god.

So they cannot be sent to heaven then right? but how could someone like that be sent to hell? Or will they be sent to neither of them since they believe in neither heaven or hell?