historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

It is the homosexual identity, inclination, and acts that are all sinful in an absolute sense. There is no context that can redeem that, and celibacy is only a solution for one of those three things.

On the other hand, heterosexual identity and inclination is not sinful or disordered, and heterosexual acts are only sinful in a contextual sense.

Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, and as the Roman Catholic Catechism states, "intrinsically disordered."

---

Excessive eating and drinking are only sinful in a contextual sense, but the Church still teaches that they are disordered.

Attraction and lust are not the same. As Historian said, temptation is not a sin.

---

Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins in Proverbs

---

yes- Gluttony is defined in the Bible as the overindulgence and excessive desire for food or material pleasures, leading to a lack of self-control and prioritizing these desires over one's relationship with God. It is considered one of the seven deadly sins, reflecting a heart that idolizes consumption rather than the one true God in Heaven.

On the flip side, be careful not to judge somebody on their appearance alone since in the past, they may have been guilty of the sin of gluttony, but are no longer, even though the body reflects the past.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

This is getting really frustrating. You really do have comprehension problems. Read what I said again

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism. So thank you for helping me show him he's wrong. Also, thanks for showing that the article he gave was wrong too, since he said that article expresses his view. Do you finally see why giving links as answers to questions about one's beliefs isn't valid? It turns out that YOU don't believe what that link says, even after you defended it. This demonstrates what I was talking about perfectly.

---

Not so fast. I do not disagree with Sam. You are once again reading more than what was actually said into the words of others. You of all people should never throw the "reading comprehension" accusation at others. A person of good will would recognize that you simply couldn't reconcile your reading of what I am saying with the practice of infant baptism which you know I believe in. A person of good will would stop an ask, "hmm, how does this work?" That seems too much to ask of you.

As the Catholic Church teaches, justification comes from faith (grace) alone. But how is faith conferred by God to His people? In a sacramental church, the obvious answer is through the sacraments. Hence, the Catechism refers to Baptism as the "Sacrament of Faith". How do people continue to perfect that justification? Through their willful cooperating with God's will. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with Sam.

---

Then, you have just circled back to the original problem with Sam's, and now your, view - Scripture clearly says that "with the heart we believe, and are justified". You're now saying that no, justification does NOT come with the heart through faith, but rather through the performance of sacraments since (and this is the wild, incoherent part) -you don't have faith until it is "conferred" upon you through the performance of those sacraments.

That is a very incomprehensible, incoherent view that puts the cart in front of the horse. I've never witnessed a Roman Catholic make this nonsense claim before. Obviously, you have to have faith before performing any sacrament. You don't obtain the faith you need for salvation from the sacraments. You're now in contradiction even with your own Church in addition to Paul in Romans.

---

There are plenty of non-Catholics who don't find it incomprehensible.

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

---

In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree with you. It may be a narrow gate, but there are many paths to it. This nitpicking denominations of believers is ridiculous. I shake my head when we even get into it with Judaism and Islam. All three believe in the same God. So we are of the same DNA. Seems counterproductive to me. We are all different and different paths would appeal to different people, seems to me God knows that and provided enough paths to him. Just my opinion, besides Paul being a dick...

---

on of the end times signs is a great awakening in the Jewish community.


Islam is a false religon. Read the intial accounts of muhammeds encounters with the "angel" in the cave. Judge it against the encounters of those in the bible. In the Koran, it says a false prophet will die exactly as muhammed died.

The bible states any gospel given after this one that teaches anything besides this is a false gospel. The bible says satan likes to masquerade as an angel of light.

Jesus states that I am the truth, the way, and the life and nobody comes to the Father except through me.

One true God. One savior in Christ Jesus. One path to eternal life.

---

And who is to say when they get to the gate they don't agree? There is no time requirement that if you don't agree with 4th and inches and BusyTarp you are done. You are pre-supposing a lot... It is up to God to make those calls.

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

---

In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree with you. It may be a narrow gate, but there are many paths to it. This nitpicking denominations of believers is ridiculous. I shake my head when we even get into it with Judaism and Islam. All three believe in the same God. So we are of the same DNA. Seems counterproductive to me. We are all different and different paths would appeal to different people, seems to me God knows that and provided enough paths to him. Just my opinion, besides Paul being a dick...

---

on of the end times signs is a great awakening in the Jewish community.


Islam is a false religon. Read the intial accounts of muhammeds encounters with the "angel" in the cave. Judge it against the encounters of those in the bible. In the Koran, it says a false prophet will die exactly as muhammed died.

The bible states any gospel given after this one that teaches anything besides this is a false gospel. The bible says satan likes to masquerade as an angel of light.

Jesus states that I am the truth, the way, and the life and nobody comes to the Father except through me.

One true God. One savior in Christ Jesus. One path to eternal life.

---

You see this is where we have an issue. When was the Bible written? What version? Who wrote it? You are quoting a man written document. Is it inspired? Sure, the basic message has stayed consistent, but the details have changed depending on what version and whether Martin Luther was feeling it that day...

Salvation is between the person and God. No one else knows *****..

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Excessive eating and drinking are only sinful in a contextual sense, but the Church still teaches that they are disordered.

Attraction and lust are not the same. As Historian said, temptation is not a sin.

---

To extend your food analogy, heterosexuality is like eating lunch. Fornication is like gluttony. Homosexuality is like cannibalism. One is normal. The other is contextually abnormal. The third is intrinsically disordered and every aspect of it is irredeemable.

Heterosexual attraction is not a sin. Heterosexual lust is. Homosexual attraction and lust are both sinful.

---

I'd be curious to know if that's what the Orthodox Church teaches. I have to say I'm skeptical. Attraction per se is involuntary. In the Catholic view, at least, it's not possible to sin involuntarily.

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

---

In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree with you. It may be a narrow gate, but there are many paths to it. This nitpicking denominations of believers is ridiculous. I shake my head when we even get into it with Judaism and Islam. All three believe in the same God. So we are of the same DNA. Seems counterproductive to me. We are all different and different paths would appeal to different people, seems to me God knows that and provided enough paths to him. Just my opinion, besides Paul being a dick...

---

on of the end times signs is a great awakening in the Jewish community.


Islam is a false religon. Read the intial accounts of muhammeds encounters with the "angel" in the cave. Judge it against the encounters of those in the bible. In the Koran, it says a false prophet will die exactly as muhammed died.

The bible states any gospel given after this one that teaches anything besides this is a false gospel. The bible says satan likes to masquerade as an angel of light.

Jesus states that I am the truth, the way, and the life and nobody comes to the Father except through me.

One true God. One savior in Christ Jesus. One path to eternal life.

---

And who is to say when they get to the gate they don't agree? There is no time requirement that if you don't agree with 4th and inches and BusyTarp you are done. You are pre-supposing a lot... It is up to God to make those calls.

---

plenty of videos of muslims that have had experiences with Jesus and are now Christians.

You dont have to agree with me, they are not my words. I am a glove, useless until directed by the hand of God.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd be curious to know if that's what the Orthodox Church teaches. I have to say I'm skeptical. Attraction per se is involuntary. In the Catholic view, at least, it's not possible to sin involuntarily.

---

As always, the Orthodox view is the patristic view:

"The Fathers of the Church also wrote on this and expressed the same view and teaching that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. The Didache, as well as St. Basil (Canons 35, 77), Sts. John Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, John the Faster (Canons 9, 18) contain some of these writings as well as the 6th century code of Justinian and the Quinisext Synod (Canon 87). In all the writings of the New Testament and of the Fathers, "there is no example ... of approval, acceptance, or even tolerance of homosexuality." In fact, this is one topic that all Orthodox jurisdictions are in agreement on.

"God does not make human beings homosexual; because of the fallen state of humanity some are subject to same-sex desires. In this way one can understand that we are not born homosexual as we are born with a particular skin color or gender."

"As is the case with other sinful acts and the combating of the passions there has to be a sincere acceptance that this is wrong coupled with an equally sincere desire for correction through prayer and repentance. We are reminded of Christ's own words to the paralytic (John 5:6): "Do you wish to be made whole?""

In Orthodoxy, simply continuing to identify as gay while trying to practice celibacy does not equate to being made whole as that identification alone even without the act is an inherent obstacle to theosis.

There is definitely a significant split in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching on this issue, particularly in light of the Fiducia supplicans document from the Vatican.

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'd be curious to know if that's what the Orthodox Church teaches. I have to say I'm skeptical. Attraction per se is involuntary. In the Catholic view, at least, it's not possible to sin involuntarily.

---

"The Fathers of the Church also wrote on this and expressed the same view and teaching that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. The Didache, as well as St. Basil (Canons 35, 77), Sts. John Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, John the Faster (Canons 9, 18) contain some of these writings as well as the 6th century code of Justinian and the Quinisext Synod (Canon 87). In all the writings of the New Testament and of the Fathers, "there is no example ... of approval, acceptance, or even tolerance of homosexuality." In fact, this is one topic that all Orthodox jurisdictions are in agreement on.

"God does not make human beings homosexual; because of the fallen state of humanity some are subject to same-sex desires. In this way one can understand that we are not born homosexual as we are born with a particular skin color or gender."

"As is the case with other sinful acts and the combating of the passions there has to be a sincere acceptance that this is wrong coupled with an equally sincere desire for correction through prayer and repentance. We are reminded of Christ's own words to the paralytic (John 5:6): "Do you wish to be made whole?""

In Orthodoxy, simply continuing to identify as gay while trying to practice celibacy does not equate to being made whole as that identification alone even without practice is an inherent obstacle to theosis.

---

I don't disagree with any of this. You seem to be going a step further and saying that same-sex attraction is sinful in itself, regardless of action, identity, or anything else. Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?

Sam Lowry said:

---

You seem to be going a step further and saying that same-sex attraction is sinful in itself, regardless of action, identity, or anything else. Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?

---

Yes, as it is inherentlly an impediment to theosis among other things. I thought that was clear from what I posted. All aspects of homosexuality are sinful.

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You seem to be going a step further and saying that same-sex attraction is sinful in itself, regardless of action, identity, or anything else. Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?

---

Yes, as it is inherentlly an impediment to theosis among other things. I thought that was clear from what I posted. All aspects of homosexuality are sinful.

---

If I see a woman, I think she's attractive, but I look away and don't engage in lustful thoughts, the Church doesn't consider that a sin. I don't need to go and confess it. You're saying that if you see someone of the same sex and find them attractive, even if the thought is unwelcome and you immediately cast it aside, you've unwillingly committed a sin. I still doubt this is an Orthodox belief, but if you say so.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You seem to be going a step further and saying that same-sex attraction is sinful in itself, regardless of action, identity, or anything else. Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?

---

Yes, as it is inherentlly an impediment to theosis among other things. I thought that was clear from what I posted. All aspects of homosexuality are sinful.

---

If I see a woman, I think she's attractive, but I look away and don't engage in lustful thoughts, the Church doesn't consider that a sin. I don't need to go and confess it. You're saying that if you see someone of the same sex and find them attractive, even if the thought is unwelcome and you immediately cast it aside, you've unwillingly committed a sin. I still doubt this is an Orthodox belief, but if you say so.

---

this is correct, you resisted and rebuked the thought immediately- not a sin.

Sam Lowry said:

---

If I see a woman, I think she's attractive, but I look away and don't engage in lustful thoughts, the Church doesn't consider that a sin. I don't need to go and confess it.

---

Correct.

Quote:

---

You're saying that if you see someone of the same sex and find them attractive, even if the thought is unwelcome and you immediately cast it aside, you've unwillingly committed a sin. I still doubt this is an Orthodox belief, but if you say so.

---

The issue is that you're trying to draw a parallel between homosexuality and heterosexuality and equate the issue of stopping sin at the level of being attracted. The problem for that point of view is that it is inherently disordered for one man to find another attractive, as this runs contrary to the created order, and interferes with theosis.

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You seem to be going a step further and saying that same-sex attraction is sinful in itself, regardless of action, identity, or anything else. Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?

---

Yes, as it is inherentlly an impediment to theosis among other things. I thought that was clear from what I posted. All aspects of homosexuality are sinful.

---

If I see a woman, I think she's attractive, but I look away and don't engage in lustful thoughts, the Church doesn't consider that a sin. I don't need to go and confess it. You're saying that if you see someone of the same sex and find them attractive, even if the thought is unwelcome and you immediately cast it aside, you've unwillingly committed a sin. I still doubt this is an Orthodox belief, but if you say so.

---

this is correct, you resisted and rebuked the thought immediately- not a sin.

---

Is there a clock that comes up in heaven that God is documented? What is the line?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You seem to be going a step further and saying that same-sex attraction is sinful in itself, regardless of action, identity, or anything else. Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?

---

Yes, as it is inherentlly an impediment to theosis among other things. I thought that was clear from what I posted. All aspects of homosexuality are sinful.

---

If I see a woman, I think she's attractive, but I look away and don't engage in lustful thoughts, the Church doesn't consider that a sin. I don't need to go and confess it. You're saying that if you see someone of the same sex and find them attractive, even if the thought is unwelcome and you immediately cast it aside, you've unwillingly committed a sin. I still doubt this is an Orthodox belief, but if you say so.

---

Depends on the clock, if you turn away within the allotted time, you are good. Problem is that it is sort of like "extra time" at the World Cup, you don't know the time.



If you rebuke yourself, you are good. But how much is enough?



Than admit your value



Moment of Truth...



****, not enough or missed the time limit...

FLBear5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You seem to be going a step further and saying that same-sex attraction is sinful in itself, regardless of action, identity, or anything else. Is that what Orthodoxy teaches?

---

Yes, as it is inherentlly an impediment to theosis among other things. I thought that was clear from what I posted. All aspects of homosexuality are sinful.

---

If I see a woman, I think she's attractive, but I look away and don't engage in lustful thoughts, the Church doesn't consider that a sin. I don't need to go and confess it. You're saying that if you see someone of the same sex and find them attractive, even if the thought is unwelcome and you immediately cast it aside, you've unwillingly committed a sin. I still doubt this is an Orthodox belief, but if you say so.

---

this is correct, you resisted and rebuked the thought immediately- not a sin.

---

Is there a clock that comes up in heaven that God is documented? What is the line?

---

the wages of sin is death, repent prior to death which you do not know the day or the hour.

Realitybites said:

---

Homosexual attraction and lust are both sinful.

---

This is completely false.

Historically 2% of the population experiences same-sex attraction. I'm not talking the current 5+% the CDC states because of the normalization of this issue in our society.

This would mean that 2% of the world's population would NEVER enter heaven because they experience a disordered desire.

But when you asked most of them, they do NOT want this desire. It's how they are hard-wired. Science still doesn't know why people have this desire. They don't want to have to live in shame. They don't want to have to adopt babies. This isn't a choice for people. They can't just "pray away the gay."

Your view would say that these people, despite their best efforts to live a chaste life, would go to hell.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does NOT teach this.

Just as several others have stated, having a disordered desire isn't sinful. Acting on it is.

Having sinful desires isn't automatically sinful. Only God knows what is in each person's heart and scripture says that we are all tempted but we can also resist. It's what one does, the actions one takes that matters. We all are capable of resisting sin. Salvation is based on repenting of sin (turning away from it) and believing in Christ which leads to replacing bad habits with good ones. Prayer is part of the process but not a magic potion. It's all about faith.

If someone truly does not want sinful desires then that person can avoid sinful behavior and over time change their nature. God can transform a homosexual into a heterosexual. The key is that he or she must repent (reject the sin) not embrace sin. The person who refuses to repent is choosing not to follow Christ but their own desires. It's still rebellion against God and it's rooted in pride. It's this rebellion that condemns everyone to hell. The only to escape that fate is through faith in Jesus Christ and the grace of God.

Coke Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Homosexual attraction and lust are both sinful.

---

This is completely false.

Historically 2% of the population experiences same-sex attraction. I'm not talking the current 5+% the CDC states because of the normalization of this issue in our society.

This would mean that 2% of the world's population would NEVER enter heaven because they experience a disordered desire.

But when you asked most of them, they do NOT want this desire. It's how they are hard-wired. Science still doesn't know why people have this desire. They don't want to have to live in shame. They don't want to have to adopt babies. This isn't a choice for people. They can't just "pray away the gay."

Your view would say that these people, despite their best efforts to live a chaste life, would go to hell.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does NOT teach this.

Just as several others have stated, having a disordered desire isn't sinful. Acting on it is.

---

The main thing here is that we don't accuse God of being the author of sin. If bare attraction were itself sin, and people didn't choose to have it, God (or nature, post-fall) would be the author of that sin.

The only way to keep God just is to locate sin in the will's consent.

My understanding is there's three stages:

1.) Temptation - totally involuntary .

2.) Entertaining/dwelling - You engage the thought, turn it over, take pleasure in considering it.

3. Lust/Consent - Full assent of the will, desiring to act, or indulging.

If attraction is built around item 2, then it would be a sin. For most people that's probably where they're at and there's some culpability in that. If you conquer #1, then you're not really struggling with it or letting it become a passion.

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

---

In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree with you. It may be a narrow gate, but there are many paths to it. This nitpicking denominations of believers is ridiculous. I shake my head when we even get into it with Judaism and Islam. All three believe in the same God. So we are of the same DNA. Seems counterproductive to me. We are all different and different paths would appeal to different people, seems to me God knows that and provided enough paths to him. Just my opinion, besides Paul being a dick...

---

This is truly a satanic message.

Islam claims to believe in the same God as Christian's and Jews but they don't. Their false god is a hod of hard while we worship the one true God who is love (I John 4:8). Their god condones lies & murder. When one considers who the "Father of lies" is then it makes sense.

Jesus said of Satan:

"He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

---

In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree with you. It may be a narrow gate, but there are many paths to it. This nitpicking denominations of believers is ridiculous. I shake my head when we even get into it with Judaism and Islam. All three believe in the same God. So we are of the same DNA. Seems counterproductive to me. We are all different and different paths would appeal to different people, seems to me God knows that and provided enough paths to him. Just my opinion, besides Paul being a dick...

---

Good evening, FLBear. First, thanks for your post. Since there is at least one Protestant who cannot behave civilly in this debate, I want to apologize for the vitriol you received for your well-intended and honest post. The bitter hate in that attack does not represent the opinion of most Protestant Christians here, let alone all.


With that said, however. I see a strong difference between the Judaism and Islam approaches. While I believe that most Muslims are sincere in their beliefs, the foundation of Islam is the malicious effort by Mohammed to create a political state on stolen foundations, incorporating pagan beliefs like the Kabaah and the idol Allah into his twisted version of God's promise to Abraham. Having read the Quran, I understand that its intent was not to understand Judaism but undermine it and hopefully replace it.

As for Judaism, from the Gospel we believers understand that Jewish followers who do not accept Christ as the Messiah make an error, and a serious one, but the foundation of Judaism is true, being founded on God's promise as recorded in Scripture.

So, from where I sit there are three roads, which may lead to the same gate of decision, but with different perils. I do believe that most people who follow Judaism and Islam do so believing the faith they have chosen, but there are serious perils that even an errant Christian does not face. The problem for Christians, of course, is the risk of believing that because Christ's promise shall not fail, neither will anyone claiming Him as their Lord. We must not forget that there will be those who call Christ 'Lord', who are false and will find disaster when they think they are about to enter the Kingdom. Not for nothing does Scripture warn us to make our way in 'fear and trembling'. We are our own worst danger.


Part of that danger is following a false doctrine. Some things taught are things which would truly grieve the Holy Spirit, and those we must be sure to reject. But there are many other differences which are no danger at all to our souls or spirits, except that the evil one seeks to sow division where we should mint amity.

And to that end, I believe that our right course as Christians when addressing our Jewish and Muslim neighbors, is to treat them with respect and courtesy even where they are wrong, so that our example will cause them to consider our argument and evidence. The Holy Spirit often moves among people when we are still and open to Him.


Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter, and thank you again for your post. PS - Paul is not such a bad guy. He went through a lot before we read even a word of his letters.

Coke Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Homosexual attraction and lust are both sinful.

---

This is completely false.

Historically 2% of the population experiences same-sex attraction. I'm not talking the current 5+% the CDC states because of the normalization of this issue in our society.

This would mean that 2% of the world's population would NEVER enter heaven because they experience a disordered desire.

But when you asked most of them, they do NOT want this desire. It's how they are hard-wired. Science still doesn't know why people have this desire. They don't want to have to live in shame. They don't want to have to adopt babies. This isn't a choice for people. They can't just "pray away the gay."

Your view would say that these people, despite their best efforts to live a chaste life, would go to hell.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does NOT teach this.

Just as several others have stated, having a disordered desire isn't sinful. Acting on it is.

---

Far more than 2% of the population does not enter heaven because of their passions. The use of prayer and fasting to combat the passions is one of the fundamentals of the Christian life. Your assertion that "you can't pray away the gay" and "they don't want to have to live in shame" is really the root of the problem. They need to be ashamed of their sin, but don't want to have to truly repent of their sin. They want validation from the state that God will never give them. It installs homosexuality alongside blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as a second unrepentable sin.

Your assertion of "this is how they are hard-wired" is absolutely not compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy. I suspect that if you go back 100 years or so and look into Roman Catholic teachings, you won't find it either but I'll refrain from saying so because I'm not Roman Catholic so I'll let you speak for that tradition.

Maybe the only Christian teaching that is compatible with the concept of the hard-wired homosexual is Calvinism, which would then classify them as automatically unelect.

I think what you're using here is a modern secular humanist understanding of homosexuality that is at odds with both ancient Christian teaching and modern biological fact.

Two more data points:

(1) When the PM of Greece visited Mt. Athos, the Dochaariou Monastery released this statement: "Our ecclesiastical conscience does not tolerate welcoming with festive bell-ringing the one who through legislation dissolved the foundations of Christian anthropology and family," the statement reads, referencing Greece's legalization of same-sex marriage and adoption:

Greece becomes first Orthodox country to legalize gay marriage
Greek Parliament voted late last night, despite the fierce and persistent resistance from the Church and society, to legalize gay marriage and adoption by gay couples.
.
The monastery explained that it "initially expressed our disagreement and ultimately refused to take part in the ecclesiastical and overall reception of the Prime Minister." The monks emphasized they do not oppose "the institutional sovereignty of the Greek State over the self-governing Athonite peninsula," but could not in good conscience participate in ceremonial aspects of the visit."

As you can see, this is a very different approach from that of the Roman Catholic Church which continues to commune political advocates of both homosexuality and abortion, has pride masses, and in some jurisdictions blesses gay unions.

(2) "MOSCOW, Oct. 9 (UPI) -- A Russian chapel has been demolished by order of the Orthodox Church because a priest married two men there, the London Telegraph reported Thursday.
The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was torn down apparently after local churchmen decided it had been "defiled."

The marriage in Nizhny Novgorod scandalized the Orthodox Church, which defrocked the priest, the Rev. Vladimir Enert.

The two gay men said Enert received a $450 bribe to ignore a ban of same-sex marriages.
A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go, as it had been desecrated."

Between these data points, your point of view, and Fiducia Supplicans, it is pretty clear that there is quite a chasm between modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views of homosexuality. If there was ever to be a restoration of the Roman Patriarchate to the Church, this is one of the things which it would have to correct to come into line with partriarchal teaching.

I get you on this. I went and talked to the Islam priest (whatever they call them) in Saudi and shared an office for 4 years with a devour Moslem from Algeria and one from Iran. Islam is a harsh religion.

I do agree it is the same gate. Will people repent? Only God knows.

I'll take Nascent Schisms for $400. Arex................

- e UF

Pope Leo ain't having none of votre mierda......

D!

>>
The Vatican announced Thursday that priests and members of a breakaway Catholic group that ordained four new bishops in defiance of Pope Leo XIV's wishes are in schism and excommunicated.

The Society of Saint Pius X, an ultra-traditionalist group, went ahead with the ordinations on Wednesday without papal approval and despite appeals from Leo to reverse the decision.

In response, the Vatican's doctrinal office on Thursday published a decree saying that the four bishops are excommunicated, along with the two bishops who participated in the ordination ceremony. Excommunication means they are excluded from the sacraments of the church.

It added in an explanatory note that priests belonging to the society and lay members who "formally adhere" to the group are also in schism and excommunicated.
The decree warns all "clerics and the lay faithful" not to formally follow the society as they will automatically incur the penalty of excommunication.

In a final appeal to the group Monday, Leo had warned that the ordinations would be a "schismatic" act and a "sin of extreme gravity," and the ruling by the Vatican is wide-ranging in clamping down on the group.
<<

william said:

---

I'll take Nascent Schisms for $400. Arex................

- e UF

Pope Leo ain't having none of votre mierda......

D!

>>
The Vatican announced Thursday that priests and members of a breakaway Catholic group that ordained four new bishops in defiance of Pope Leo XIV's wishes are in schism and excommunicated.

The Society of Saint Pius X, an ultra-traditionalist group, went ahead with the ordinations on Wednesday without papal approval and despite appeals from Leo to reverse the decision.

In response, the Vatican's doctrinal office on Thursday published a decree saying that the four bishops are excommunicated, along with the two bishops who participated in the ordination ceremony. Excommunication means they are excluded from the sacraments of the church.

It added in an explanatory note that priests belonging to the society and lay members who "formally adhere" to the group are also in schism and excommunicated.
The decree warns all "clerics and the lay faithful" not to formally follow the society as they will automatically incur the penalty of excommunication.

In a final appeal to the group Monday, Leo had warned that the ordinations would be a "schismatic" act and a "sin of extreme gravity," and the ruling by the Vatican is wide-ranging in clamping down on the group.
<<

---

I saw that. SSPX are TradCats (Traditional Catholic). They don't like all the Vatican II developments and I agree, they're pretty extreme developments.

Who has the canonical authority to rule a papal act illegitimate in Catholicism? nobody. The pope is prima sedes a nemine iudicatur: the first see is judged by no one. it's foundational Roman canon law. So SSPX is doing the one thing their own ecclesiology forbids: judging the unjudgeable see…while still calling themselves loyal to that see. It's a hypocritical position to be in.

That's why they should become Orthodox. We've had many Catholics become Orthodox in our Church mainly because of the modern developments that are leaning into woke/secularism and ecumenism.

I consider Catholics our brothers and they've been put into tough positions.

historian said:

---

Islam claims to believe in the same God as Christian's and Jews but they don't. Their false god is a hod of hard while we worship the one true God who is love (I John 4:8). Their god condones lies & murder. When one considers who the "Father of lies" is then it makes sense.

Jesus said of Satan:

"He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44

---

Islam is the modern incarnation of the worship of Ba'al

That's an interesting take on Islam. I never thought of it that way though it is plausible. I look at many (not all) modern atheists, statists, climate cultists, trans cultists, and other assorted fascists as various manifestations of neopaganism or neo-Baalism. Since some of their ideas, and much of their methodology, greatly resembles radical Islam it is natural that some will find an infinity. Of course, they are also diametrically opposed on some ways too ("queers for Palestine???) so they miss it or gloss over it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

william said:

---

I'll take Nascent Schisms for $400. Arex................

- e UF

Pope Leo ain't having none of votre mierda......

D!

>>
The Vatican announced Thursday that priests and members of a breakaway Catholic group that ordained four new bishops in defiance of Pope Leo XIV's wishes are in schism and excommunicated.

The Society of Saint Pius X, an ultra-traditionalist group, went ahead with the ordinations on Wednesday without papal approval and despite appeals from Leo to reverse the decision.

In response, the Vatican's doctrinal office on Thursday published a decree saying that the four bishops are excommunicated, along with the two bishops who participated in the ordination ceremony. Excommunication means they are excluded from the sacraments of the church.

It added in an explanatory note that priests belonging to the society and lay members who "formally adhere" to the group are also in schism and excommunicated.
The decree warns all "clerics and the lay faithful" not to formally follow the society as they will automatically incur the penalty of excommunication.

In a final appeal to the group Monday, Leo had warned that the ordinations would be a "schismatic" act and a "sin of extreme gravity," and the ruling by the Vatican is wide-ranging in clamping down on the group.
<<

---

I saw that. SSPX are TradCats (Traditional Catholic). They don't like all the Vatican II developments and I agree, they're pretty extreme developments.

Who has the canonical authority to rule a papal act illegitimate in Catholicism? nobody. The pope is prima sedes a nemine iudicatur: the first see is judged by no one. it's foundational Roman canon law. So SSPX is doing the one thing their own ecclesiology forbids: judging the unjudgeable see…while still calling themselves loyal to that see. It's a hypocritical position to be in.

That's why they should become Orthodox. We've had many Catholics become Orthodox in our Church mainly because of the modern developments that are leaning into woke/secularism and ecumenism.

I consider Catholics our brothers and they've been put into tough positions.

---

It would be interesting to see if the SSPX could or would now take a second look at history, restore the Roman Patriarchate, and restore communion with Orthodoxy at an institutional level. It is very difficult to draw a line in the sand 900 years after the Great Schism and say, "No! Vatican 2 takes this too far!"

Good take. I agree with you. I am not sure the Eastern Rite wants them after the decades of grief they gave Rome.

There are many Catholics against a lot of Vatican 2. SSPX took it too far, they created their own denomination. Which is fine, but don't expect Rome's blessing.