>Sexually liberal
>Socially/politically conservative
Is there a Church where I would fit in? Or is organized Christianity to remain forever beyond my reach?
>>1191443
Church of England aka Episcopal Church.
>>1191460
My impression is that they've become quite socially and politically liberal, at least here in America.
>>1191443
>>Sexually liberal
>>Socially/politically conservative
That is an oxymoron
>>1191570
Of course I've listened to their arguments. I just find them to be unconvincing; many of them, even from a biblical perspective.
>>1191554
I really don't think contraceptive pre-marital sex, sodomy, or masturbation, when done behind closed doors and without public comment, are inconsistent with a modest and well ordered society.
>>1191586
>I really don't think sin is a sin when done behind closed doors and without public comment
It does not matter what you think, it is about what God wants from you. A sin is a sin, and disobeying God by willfully sinning is a one-way ticket to hell
>>1191443
>Sexually liberal
>organized Christianity
gtfo Protestcuck
>>1191599
Perhaps he disagrees about what God "wants," friend.
>>1191606
>Perhaps he disagrees about what God "wants," friend.
Even if you disagree, it is obvious God knows better than you and therefore you must submit to his will, friend.
To be a Christian means to follow the commandments, whether you like it or not.
>>1191586
>I really don't think contraceptive pre-marital sex, sodomy, or masturbation, when done behind closed doors and without public comment, are inconsistent with a modest and well ordered society.
yeah sex just happens without social consequences am I right
just dicks and vaginas floating around in a void
>>1191443
You're the reason why all those fucking retarded Churches exist in the United States. How about instead of hunting down that one church that believes in your unique bullshit you actually sacrifice something and make a change.
>>1191599
>>1191614
God does not make his condemnation of any of what I listed clear, except arguably sodomy. Even that, however, never comes straight from God, it comes indirectly through the form of an ancient Jewish code of laws and through Paul's letters. Not one page in the bible has God in any form saying "don't put on a condom."
This isn't about what God wants, its about what Churches think God wants.
>>1191721
Mark Chapter 7:
20 And he went on, 'It is what comes out of someone that makes that person unclean.
21 For it is from within, from the heart, that evil intentions emerge: fornication, theft, murder,
22 adultery, avarice, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, pride, folly.
23 All these evil things come from within and make a person unclean.'
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=48&bible_chapter=7
>>1191760
And that is relevant... how? I mean, besides "fornication," which is far too broad (even in Greek) to be read as an indictment of a specific act.
>>1191813
Pre-marital sex counts as fornication.
>>1191632
>>1191599
This.
I'm atheist myself but it seems absolutely ridiculous and dishonest to first find what you believe to be right and true, and then find a matching religion/church. Religion is about believing or accepting certain teachings as absolute truth and living your life accordingly, even if that means self-sacrifice.
What OP is doing is just looking for a social club for like-minded people. Not religion.
>>1191844
And what passage in the Bible makes that clear?
>>1191844
>Pre-marital sex counts as fornication
According to modern Catholics, sure. But I think you'll find the Greek word it is translated from is not so simple, and just means "sexuality with ill intent" (still not a perfect translation).
>>1191847
>Religion is about believing or accepting certain teachings as absolute truth and living your life accordingly, even if that means self-sacrifice.
I think you're confusing Church and Religion. You can accept and believe the absolute truth of the Bible and the divinity of Christ, and thus have religion; and then seek a Church where you don't have a bunch of extra traditions stapled on.
American Protestantism has this, but the conservative sects have swapped catholic traditions (esp sexual morality) for puritain ones, and the liberal sects have swapped catholic traditions for the Democratic party.
>>1191907
I've always taken biblical marriage to be like common law marriage. If a man and a woman are living together in a committed relationship, they don't need a piece of paper from the government saying they are married.
>>1191930
Church and religion are one and the same. Only one church has a true divine mandate. If you go shopping for one based on your own personal preferences, you are not listening to God but playing God.
What does being "sexually liberal" mean? Do you think that trannies are whatever they say they are? Or do you just enjoy sucking dick and eating pussy at the same time and want a church that won't shame you for your degenerate behavior and lead you down the path to salvation?
>all these sinners thinking they know God's Will
Have fun in hell.
>>1191957
>Only one church has a true divine mandate.
Mormons?
>>1191957
Arians?
>>1191967
>implying there is anything wrong with either of those things
>>1191957
How is the Chruch's claim to a divine mandate any less presumptive?
The Bible is vauge, Catholic dogma is more tradition than anything else, and the line of apostolic succession is spotty. To claim absolute knowledge of God's will on every minor topic to the exclusion of competing opinions is absurd.
>>1191967
I listed exactly what I meant earlier. I don't have a problem with premarital, contraceptive, or homosexual sex.
>>1192004
Its entirely 100% presumptive. That's why they call it 'faith' or 'believing'.
If you are not willing to take that leap of faith, you aren't a true believer. Just somebody who wants to see their own values confirmed by a group of likeminded individuals.
>I'm for adultery and sodomy
>but I'm a social conservative
Does not compute
>>1192004
>I listed exactly what I meant earlier. I don't have a problem with premarital, contraceptive, or homosexual sex.
God does. Does that matter to you?
>>1192029
Yes, and by believing in, and having faith in, a man-made church, you assure your own damnation.
>>1192031
He makes money and wants lower taxes. That's all that means.
This thread is fucking stupid. Every Christian church outside of loopy Unitarians who worship Krishna next to Jesus has conservative sexual ethics. Deal with it.
Honestly dude? Most churches would be "right" for you because very few if any of them actually care if anyone follows their rules regarding sex anymore. The xtians on /his/ are a clear minority of contrarians who still cling to a past that is long dead and not coming back.
>>1192029
No, I'm not a believer in the Catholic Church. That was the point. I'm not a believer in sexually *and* socially conservative Churches. The question was, are there any that aren't the first but are the second.
>>1192046
I see no compelling evidence that he does. Except for homosexuality, arguably, but that doesn't change the other two.
>>1192031
Adultery =/= sodomy
As far as social conservatism goes, put it this way: I don't think its a mortal sin if gays have sex, but I don't think they should be allowed marriage or a platform in the media.
>>1192052
No, I'm pretty center-left on economics. I'm not a libertarian.
>>1192071
I refuse to be a part of the watering down of religion. I will join a Church I can believe in 100% or not at all.
>>1192085
>I see no compelling evidence that he does. Except for homosexuality, arguably, but that doesn't change the other two.
He made His opinion quite clear through both His prophets and His Son.
Does that matter to you?
>>1192085
>I refuse to be a part of the watering down of religion. I will join a Church I can believe in 100% or not at all.
That's the only way to be saved. 100% commitment to the risen Jesus Christ.
Which has nothing to do with any man-made church whatsoever, but for the Body of Christ, the collection of all true believers from Pentecost to the Rapture.
>>1192085
I guess church is just not for you friend.
>>1192115
No, he really hasn't. No where in the Bible - categorically, *no where* - does he or anyone else condemn pre marital sex or contraceptives. Sodomy is condemned in an ancient Jewish law code, and in the letters of Paul, both of which are debatable as statements of God's opinion.
>>1192119
*Thank you!* YOU seem to get what I'm saying. A Church I agree with would be nice, but I made it clear in my OP that if *organized* Christianity was beyond my reach then so be it.
>>1192125
None?
Damn.
>>1192133
He does, actually.
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
1 Corinthians 6
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Mark 7:20-22
And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
2 Corinthians 12
For I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I wish, and that I shall be found by you such as you do not wish; lest there be contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits, tumults; lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced.
The bible is silent on contraception.
Does any of this matter to you?
>>1192133
>*organized* Christianity
To me, organized Christianity is a few families, a few people, meeting in their homes and talking about how awesome Jesus is.
Can you imagine actually being a Christ-cuck?
>>1192165
It's pretty awesome to be adopted by the richest being in the universe, yes it is.
>>1192154
All of those rely on a Catholic interpretation of the word "fornication". Like >>1191907 said, the word is actually far less clear. It could mean basically anything.
The 1 Corinthians verse is the only one that uses clear language to condemn homosexuality, but Paul's condemnation of them is not equivalent to God's condemnation. Paul is an important figure in the early Church, but he was not Jesus.
Guys, you are wasting your time.
OP does not love Jesus. He does not give a fuck about God. All he wants is to find a circlejerk that has his same political ideas and that does not judge him for his individual wickedness. If he can find a chick with big boobs to fuck and cum on her face right before mass even better.
He made this whole thread with the sole purpose of finding somone who enables and confirms his delusions, while refusing to acknowledge he is wallowing in mortal sin.
>21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
>>For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables
>>1192183
As the Holy Spirit inspired all of the writings of all of the books of the bible, that would include all of the writings of Paul, the greatest apostle to walk the earth.
I feel you do not have an intellectual problem with saying that the ideal life would not include fornication, but that your own fornication causes you to feel too dirty to approach a holy God.
But what if you realized that God knew everything about you before you were born, knew all of your sins before you committed them, and paid the price for all of them on the cross two thousand years ago?
Would that change your mind?
What if instead of an old judge waiting to convict you of your sins you saw God as a man slightly older than you are with His arms out waiting for you to run over and jump into them?
What if you saw yourself as a small child, and God as your father treading water in the deep end of the pool, encouraging you to jump into His arms? Sure, the pool looks scary, and you could drown, but He is God. Maybe it's safe to jump into His arms, and let Him catch you, and clean you, the way only He can.
I'm not going to lie to you. If you approach the holy God, you will be broken. But you will be in the hands of the great healer, and He will transform you into something you cannot be on your own.
>>1192228
>As the Holy Spirit inspired all of the writings of all of the books of the bible, that would include all of the writings of Paul, the greatest apostle to walk the earth.
Debatable, I think. Historical circumstances need to be taken into account, but *for the sake of argument* I will cede this point. Let us agree that homosexuality is a grave sin.
In that case, I still do not see any problem with the fact that I got a blowjob from my first girlfriend two years ago. It doesn't make me feel dirty or complex in my relationship with God. It just means I don't feel welcome in the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
>>1192278
>I don't feel welcome in the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
I would encourage you to believe that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Both churches are comprised of people who place their faith in their respective church.
Their faith is thus misplaced, and they are as lost as you are. They just have a mob telling them that they're not.
>>1192085
>I refuse to be a part of the watering down of religion. I will join a Church I can believe in 100% or not at all.
But you are watering down religion by desiring this!
You have taken your own personal opinions about truth and right, and desire a church to match them. You are basicly saying that the absolute word of God, has to be YOUR word. You want to see a group of people believe and worship YOUR truths. You desire to have your personal worldview elevated to be the word of God. And if you aren't given this, you refuse to submit to the Lord.
This isn't faith at all. Faith is taking the word of the Lord and acting accordingly, for he is God and knows right and truth better than you do.
I'm an atheist and yet I have a thousand times more respect for true Christians than I have for the likes of you.
>>1192286
I never claimed to see it as a bad thing. I just recognized that it was, and intended to ask around in case anyone knew of an alternative Church (that wasn't the liberal prayer circle the CoE has become).
>>1192302
Christianity is the Bible. That is the Word of God, and that *alone*. So long as the bible does not directly, clearly state that pre-marital and contraceptive sex are bad, then it is not I who am substituting my beliefs for the word of God, but the Church which condemns those acts.
Basically, I'm a sola scriptura protestant that neither condemns the pill nor wants to see it sold on every street corner. I am not adding to the word of God, or equating my views to his. I'm merely not equating the word of Rome to the word of God.
>>1192286
>Catholic and Orthodox faith is misplaced
I want heretics to leave
>>1192327
you are proof that protestants think of themselves as their own Pope, coming up with whatever interpretation suits their wickedness and thinking they are righteous nonetheless.
>>1192329
The orthodoxy is fine but you'd be an idiot if you said the Catholic faith isn't corrupted beyond saving.
>>1192347
whatever makes you sleep at night, heretic.
Remember that your time for repentance is limited. You have a lot of years in this life to leave your heretical ways; you won't have any excuse when you find yourself in front of the Son of Man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyFuaXlYo8Q
>>1192327
You are choosing your own beliefs based on your own personal opinions, and are now looking for a Church to tell you that's the word of God.
>>1192347
The Orthodoxy here is just as lost as the papists. They substitute their patriarchy for the pope, their church for Rome, but suffer from the same works based mentality, blasphemies and abominations.
They truly are two legs on the same statue, each ruling the world for a thousand years.
>>1192373
t.not saved person
>>1192357
I think I'll do fine, man.
>>1192338
Versus the actual pope, who comes up with whatever interpretation suits him and claims its the literal word of god?
>>1192360
Well yeah. The Word of God is limited to 1,000 pages, it cannot conceivably cover every topic. So a bunch are left up to social convention or personal opinion.
I'm not looking for a Church to tell me my opinions are the word of god, just a Church that doesn't add stuff to the Bible that isn't clearly there.
>>1192385
>just a Church that doesn't add stuff to the Bible that isn't clearly there.
That right is only reserved for you, right?
>>1192395
What have I added? As far as I can tell, I've added nothing at all.
>>1192381
>I think I'll do fine, man.
I have no doubts you sleep like a baby. Watch the video.
>12Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.
>>1192385
>Versus the actual pope, who comes up with whatever interpretation suits him and claims its the literal word of god?
ahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah
Man, you guys always crack me up. Aren't you coming with whatever interpretation you want yourself anyway? Do you think God is a matter of opinion? Do you think God accepts flawed interpretations for the sole reason that you reject the authority of the Church he founded? You people are some of the most delusional individuals ever.
The Magisteriu is stopped from teaching heresy by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not talking to you, because all you prottie heretics interpet things differently. The Holy Spirit would never support a "house divided that cannot stand". The only thing you protties can agree on is that you hate the Catholic Church, because the only thing you can agree on is that you hate the truth.
>>1192376
The only logical conclusion you can draw from my post is that I belong neither to Rome nor Istanbul.
I'm very happy to have been saved by my confession of faith in Christ Jesus, knowing that God raised Him from the dead. And then developing a living and working relationship with my Creator.
Very happy indeed.
>>1191443
Whence do you believe these insights of morality you have originate?
A) They have been revealed to you by God.
B) You have divined the true meaning of Scripture through study (and possibly some divine guidance).
C) Anything else.
A: Anabaptism, or various other minor cults. You're a prophet!
B: You're a protestant. There may be a church for you, hell if I know.
C: See you in hell, fellow unbeliever.
>>1192418
>The Magisteriu is stopped from teaching heresy by the Holy Spirit.
Absolute bald faced lie that you believe is true.
>>1192418
>The Magisteriu is stopped from teaching heresy by the Holy Spirit
Can't make this up, people.
>The Holy Spirit is not talking to you
Well of course not. If the Holy Spirit guided people like that, we wouldn't need a Bible. That goes for the Magesterium, the Pope, Martin Luther, and Me.
>>1192432
>Absolute bald faced lie that you believe is true.
Tell me a lie it has taught then. Go on, I will be waiting
>>1192440
>Well of course not. If the Holy Spirit guided people like that, we wouldn't need a Bible. That goes for the Magesterium, the Pope, Martin Luther, and Me.
But you all come up with a different view of what the Bible is teaching. So you are saying that the Bible is useless and that God is incapable of giving us the fullness of truth?
>>1192444
Mary did not die.
Mary went alive into heaven.
Mary was born sinless.
Mary is Co-Mediatrix with Jesus.
There are thousands more.
>>1192444
As to your ridiculous image, there has been a bible for 3500 years:
Acts 17:11
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
>>1192385
>who comes up with whatever interpretation suits him and claims its the literal word of god?
once again protestants revealing how retarded they are
>>1192468
Better than Catholics refusing to think for themselves, I'd say.
>>1192444
>So you are saying that the Bible is useless and that God is incapable of giving us the fullness of truth?
God understands that the Truth is not always clear and obvious, and his word reflects that. It is human fallability that turns a necessarily complex, multi-layered, and opaque truth into a thousand clear cut and absolute statements of contradictory truth.
>>1192475
Jesuit mind control is a real thing.
>>1192456
>Mary went alive into heaven
>Mary was born sinless
Only these two have been declared by the Magisterium. They didn't come from nothing. It's always been believed by the Church throughout the centuries. In fact, even though they don't have it as dogma, The Eastern Orthodox and all other Churches with apostolic succession believe it too, although they have not defined it as a dogma.
>Mary did not die
This has not been declared because we don't know for sure. Catholic mystics have given a very coherent idea about how the whole thing played out. Their private revelation though is not dogma and therefore was not used as evidence. The Magisterium does not define whether she died before being assumed into heaven.
Watch this if you want to learn more about private revelation regarding this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9H-ZVRZhww
>Mary is Co-Mediatrix with Jesus.
Co- simply means "with". It has none of the implications you strawman into it. Either way the Magisterium has not declared it.
>>1192460
>As to your ridiculous image, there has been a bible for 3500 years:
You mean the Old Testament that you butchered because of Luther? Nice hipocrisy ;)
Pic related btw
>>1192478
>God understands that the Truth is not always clear and obvious, and his word reflects that
Top heresy m8
> It is human fallability that turns a necessarily complex, multi-layered, and opaque truth into a thousand clear cut and absolute statements of contradictory truth.
That's the problem. God founded his Church and gave the keys to Peter exactly so that we could have an authority that through the Holy Spirit reveals us the fullness of truth without errors. By refuting this authority you are condemning yourself to lies and deceit. Remember, Jesus didn't say I am the Way, the "partial" Truth and the Life.
>>1192475
>>1192475
>Better than Catholics refusing to think for themselves, I'd say.
Better than religious people refusing to think for themsevles, I'd say. See? You speak like an atheist that rejects authority based on his personal feelings.
Heaven is not a democracy, it is a kingdom. Just like the Kingdom of Israel, the Church is a mirror, an imitation of the Kingdom in Heaven. God does not create anything based on the principles of equality of the French revolution, or on the "don't serve in heaven, rule in hell" principles of the devil. Open your eyes, anon
>>1192498
They are two blasphemies and abominations.
Go ahead and try to defend them, and then try to defend why nobody "knew" this until 1854.
>>1191443
Degenerate, the only true Church is the Catholic Church.
>>1192504
Jesus hates self-righteous religious people.
I'm sure glad I'm not you.
>>1192475
>said the protestant that ruined Europe
>>1192475
making the claim that the pope just say whatever he wants and says the Holy Spirit told him its legit is classic protestant bullshit. It's never happened. Why do you have this idea that everything the pope says falls into the infallibility? It's never been the case.
>>1192504
I would serve heaven. Not in the Church. I follow the words of Christ, and use my God given intellect to do so. I do not rely on others to tell me what to think. Good day, my friend.
>>1192510
>They are two blasphemies and abominations.
are you referring to Mary's sinlessness and assumption to heaven?
>Go ahead and try to defend them, and then try to defend why nobody "knew" this until 1854.
I already explained you that all Churches with apostolic succession KNEW already, since the beginning of the Church. The Magisterium simply defined it as dogma because it is the truth. EO and other Churches with apostolic succession believe it too, although it isn't dogma.
>>1192514
Jesus hates people who reject his Truth in favour of their own lies.
What is more self-righteous of thinking you and only you have final authority on what the Bibles says? What is more self-righteous than rejecting the oldest institution on the planet, founded by Jesus Christ, because you don't like to follow authority and prefer to be your own authority?
>I'm sure glad I'm not you.
There is nothing inherently good in being me as a person. I am just sorry you are not Catholic and you cannot go over the lies and deceit of your false teachers.
>>1192533
I'm absolutely thrilled that I'm not Catholic. Hell is a horrific place to spend eternity.
>>1192498
>God founded his Church and gave the keys to Peter exactly so that we could have an authority that through the Holy Spirit reveals us the fullness of truth without errors.
Once again, you take a passage from the Bible and add a load of mashed potatoes and gravy on top. The interpretation that Peter was chosen to give stability and unity to the early Church is just as reasonable, if not more so.
>Remember, Jesus didn't say I am the Way, the "partial" Truth and the Life.
Just because a truth is complex, multi layered, and opaque, does not make it partial.
>>1192537
>Hell is a horrific place to spend eternity.
Then be a Catholic you self-righteous twat that shitposts about whores in the land formerly known as babylon.
>>1192512
my nigga
>>1192543
Peter opened heaven to the Jews at Pentecost and to the Gentiles after seeing saved Gentiles at Cornelius' house. The keys were used; heaven is open; the notion that the keys were passed to anyone else is pure evil and started things like excommunications and enforced papal bulls.
>>1192560
>anyone else is pure evil and started things like excommunications and enforced papal bulls.
Proofs?
>>1192531
>and use my God given intellect to do so.
Your intellect is corrupted and the result of a fallen nature. God gave intellect so that you would seek truth, not so you would reject it in the name of individualism.
>I do not rely on others to tell me what to think.
Do you rely on geography books to tell you where Berlin is located? Yes
Do you use geography books to tell you how many times you should brush your teeth? No
It is the same thing. All you have to do is trust the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals, respect the Sacraments, interpret the Bible through the Sacred Taditions of the Church.
The rest is up to you and is between you and Jesus.
>Good day, my friend
At least I prompted your good manners, a good day to you to and may God take away the thin veil upon your eyes and bless you
>>1192537
>I'm absolutely thrilled that I'm not Catholic. Hell is a horrific place to spend eternity.
I am asolutely mortified that you are so close-minded and reject to open your heart to the Truth.
>>1192543
> The interpretation that Peter was chosen to give stability and unity to the early Church is just as reasonable, if not more so.
The interpetation that it was a temporary mandate does not stand, because Jesus clearly says the gates of hell would not prevail. It is a clear reference that his mandate lasts until the end of times.
You might want to read on the papacy:
http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
>Just because a truth is complex, multi layered, and opaque, does not make it partial.
It is not the truth in the Bible that is partial, it is your interpretation. You don't have the fullness of Truth that is in the Catholic Church, and this leads to errors and lies. God is not an opinion.
>>1191977
this
how can more than one church have a true divine mandate? to say multiple churches all have a true divine mandate is to acknowledge the mandates are at odds but are still all true anyway.
>>1192578
Mormons aren't Christians, they're heretics of the highest order.
>>1192560
>>1192560
>The keys were used; heaven is open; the notion that the keys were passed to anyone else is pure evil
Nonsense. Read again:
>19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
It is not only about opening heaven, it is about loosing on earth too. It is about exercising the authority given by the keys. In a temporaty mandate that does not give out authority that would not be possible.
>>1192586
*about binding on earth
>>1192586
All of the apostles received that power.
Matthew 18
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
Peter used the keys; heaven is open. To say that your vile antichrist has the power to let people into heaven or keep them out is just another charge against the Whore of Babylon, in whom you are balls deep.
>>1192605
>To say that your vile antichrist has the power to let people into heaven or keep them out is just another charge against the Whore of Babylon, in whom you are balls deep
>still trying to shoehorn his fetishist Babylon shit into this discussion about the Church
What church do you go to? If you say none then you aren't a Christian, reading the bible doesn't automatically make you Christian.
>>1192605
>All of the apostles received that power.
Let's assume that was true. Protestants don't have apostolic succession. Therefore they don't have that power either way.
>“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
Nice try linking two verses that are not close to each other but are used in different contexts. As usual you twist Scripture. Why don't you post the whole thing?
The verse is about correcting a brother who "trespassed". The idea of two or three witnesses is clearly based upon jewish Law. "But if he neglect the Church", not a whatever community of people, but those who are part of the Church. It is a verse about the power of prayer and about the power of those in the Church to stray their brothers away from wickedness and heresy.
>if two on you agree on earth
Protestants don't agree on anything anyway.
I suggest you read this for more scriptural evidence:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-papacy-in-scripture-no-rocks-required
>To say that your vile antichrist has the power to let people into heaven or keep them out is just another charge against the Whore of Babylon, in whom you are balls deep.
So much hate from the devil in your words. The papacy is simply a figure of authority that has the purpose of preserving doctrine and dogma so that nobody tries to divert it from the fullness of truth. People excommunicate themselves when they fall into heresies, without the need of Popes telling them they did.
>>1192665
I will also add that those verses come at a later time than when "binding on earth" etc. is used in relation to Peter. It is used for the first time in Matthew 16:18. So by repeating that part, it is clearly making a reference to the authority bestowed upon the Church of Peter by Jesus. It is not therefore a reference to "anyone who believes", but to those who are part of the Church with the authority to bind and loose
>>1191907
Fornication is more strict than "having sex with someone that is not your wife/husband".
"Sexuality with good intent" means having sex with your wife/husband with the purpose of having kids.
Having sex with your wife for the only sake of pleasure counts as fornication.
>>1192684
>>"Sexuality with good intent" means having sex with your wife/husband with the purpose of having kids.
And the proof of this is your church traditions which are hilariously and obviously subjective.
>>1192706
Are you saying people should fuck like rabbits and have no marriage? What the fuck is wrong with you godless heathen.
>>1192706
>somethins is subjective because I say so
>my opinion is objective though
nice cognitive dissonance
>>1191586
I am pretty sure that having threesomes with your wife, would be against even secular socially conservative laws.
>>1192708
You're trolling right now aren't you?
>>1192717
lol nice try at putting words into my mouth. I never said my opinions were objective. It is however obvious to most people who don't agree with you that your church traditions are not anything remotely akin to objective.
>>1192725
>supporting degeneracy
>claims to "follow the bible" yet wants to do degenerate acts
>>1192731
>Jesus founds Church
>the Church has traditions
>traditions of the Church come from Jesus
I don't see any men in the equation, anon
>>1192619
You honestly cannot imagine a born again Christian who does not advocate for membership in any specific church.
You think I do not exist.
Your spiritual identity is wrapped up in your church, and your church is evil.
>>1192665
>Protestants don't have apostolic succession. Therefore they don't have that power either way.
The true genocidal monster rears its ugly head.
It's all about earthly power.
>>1192748
>You honestly cannot imagine a born again Christian who does not advocate for membership in any specific church.
So then you're just a faggot that reads the bible.
>You think I do not exist.
If you didn't exist we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>Your spiritual identity is wrapped up in your church, and your church is evil.
>said the self-righteous cunt
>>1192752
>>1192752
"power" here simply means authority to bind and loose. It is "power" to uphold and defend doctrine and dogma as passed down by Jesus through Scripture and Tradition. It has nothing to do with "earthly power" the way you are trying to strawman it.
>>1191443
Can a Catholic tell me whether you're allowed to have marital sex for fun if you don't use protection or try to keep your wife from getting pregnant, like sex for fun without impeding reproduction?
Can you fuck your wife while she's already pregnant? Can you fuck your wife after she physically loses the ability to bear children?
>>1192767
If you have fun, it's a sin.
>>1192754
It doesn't take a person filled with the Holy Spirit to know that the spirit in you is evil.
>>1192765
It's the power to murder 68,000,000 Christians and Jews over the past thousand years.
>>1192767
>Can a Catholic tell me whether you're allowed to have marital sex for fun if you don't use protection or try to keep your wife from getting pregnant, like sex for fun without impeding reproduction?
You wanna fuck, you better be doing it to knock her up, I mean if you don't wanna you don't, but that's a sin. And all sins can be forgiven.
>Can you fuck your wife while she's already pregnant?
Why would you?
>Can you fuck your wife after she physically loses the ability to bear children?
Why would you?
>>1192778
>Why would you?
Oh come on man don't play dumb
>>1192773
>It doesn't take a person filled with the Holy Spirit to know that the spirit in you is evil.
>playing the shifting the blame game
Pride is the biggest sin, and all I see is you being a prideful cunt.
>>1192767
Not sure, I am not married so I never looked this up. Here you should find your answer
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm
>>1192775
>muh 68 gorillion
Did your jewish masters teach you how to parrot the same inflated bullshit and play the victim? I think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18EderfKDOM
>>1192743
And you can prove absolutely none of these claims through anything other then references to either your bible or your church.
>>1192733
>supporting degeneracy
Oh look, meme words.
>claims to "follow the bible" yet wants to do degenerate acts
Not the guy who started this thread, and also again with the memes.
>>1192794
>And you can prove absolutely none of these claims through anything other then references to either your bible or your church.
I can prove they are supported by history. What proof do you have though that your beliefs are not traditions of yourself, considering you have been BTFO on scriptural evidence in this very same thread?
>>1192790
>http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm
Thanks m8 found exactly what I was looking for.
>If a husband or wife are infertile, due to old age, or injury, or illness, the natural marital act remains moral because it is still the type of act which is inherently directed toward procreation (even if procreation is not attained).
>>1192802
>It's not sinful according to the CCC to have natural sex if procreation fails for whatever reason.
But you're talking about putting your dick in a pregnant woman.
>>1192798
>muh church is the source of morality.
>most of muh priests are sodomites.
>>1192828
>>most of muh priests are sodomites.
Proofs?
>>1192796
>>I can prove they are supported by history.
Which history is that? The history of your catholic church is chock full of all sorts of what you would call sexual immorality, your church was okay with abortion for a while and then said church changed it's mind.
>>What proof do you have though that your beliefs are not traditions of yourself, considering you have been BTFO on scriptural evidence in this very same thread?
Not the guy who started this thread, and you didn't BTFO anybody. When somebody pointed out to either you or your pals that fornication is not a precise translation of the original greek text you or one of your pals jumped immediately to church traditions. Which are even less important to determining what your "lord and savior" thought about a single fucking thing.
>>So? Why do you wanna be a whore?
I wish women would desire me so much they paid me money for sex, that would be quite an ego boost.
>>1192797
>>So? Why do you wanna be a whore?
I wish women would desire me so much they paid me money for sex, that would be quite an ego boost.
>>1192851
>I wish women would desire me so much they paid me money for sex, that would be quite an ego boost.
Disgusting.
>>1192848
>our church was okay with abortion for a while and then said church changed it's mind.
proofs?
>Not the guy who started this thread
Sure thing OP
> When somebody pointed out to either you or your pals that fornication is not a precise translation of the original greek text
Proofs?
> Which are even less important to determining what your "lord and savior" thought about a single fucking thing.
whatever makes you sleep at night, heretic
>I wish women would desire me so much they paid me money for sex, that would be quite an ego boost.
Enjoy hell, I guess
>>1192830
Yes, many proofs. Many raped little boys. Many hundreds of billions of dollars in hush money and negotiated settlements.
Maybe a trillion by now.
>>1192880
I'm not seeing any proofs.
This whole thread could be summed up in one word:
>protestants
>>1192893
Pretty much.
>>1192858
Cry more, prude.
>>proofs?
>>Between the first and fourth centuries AD, the Didache, Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter strongly condemned and outlawed abortion.[94][95] However, early synods did not term abortion "murder", and imposed specified penalties only on abortions that were combined with some form of sexual crime[5] and on the making of abortion drugs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion
>>The discussion turns on two Greek words—moicheia (μοιχεία, adultery) and porneia (el:πορνεία, from which the word pornography is derived). The first word is restricted to contexts involving sexual betrayal of a spouse; however, the second word is used as a generic term for illegitimate sexual activity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#Abrahamic_religions
>>Enjoy hell, I guess
Scary. See pic related.
>>1192860
>>proofs?
>>Between the first and fourth centuries AD, the Didache, Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter strongly condemned and outlawed abortion.[94][95] However, early synods did not term abortion "murder", and imposed specified penalties only on abortions that were combined with some form of sexual crime[5] and on the making of abortion drugs
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion
>>The discussion turns on two Greek words—moicheia (μοιχεία, adultery) and porneia (el:πορνεία, from which the word pornography is derived). The first word is restricted to contexts involving sexual betrayal of a spouse; however, the second word is used as a generic term for illegitimate sexual activity
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#Abrahamic_religions
>>1191443
You're not meant to find a church that fits you the way you are, you're meant to find the truth and change yourself according to it.
>>1192952
Again, it's fucking immoral. Why are you an immoral faggot?
What aspects do you want liberalizes because a lack of chastisy stops selecting for high investment, economic conservatism you consider. Make motherhood biological choice for women and you leave fatherhood a social choice for men. Without paternity certainty no man would be sound to be economic conservative.
>>1192971
>answering OP question
Anon no, he's a fool.
>>1193013
>Personally, I don't waste my time on xtian sexual morals
Hedonism is wrong, it leads to death of nations.
>>1193013
>morality is subjective
>xtian
>>1192960
Nice job not reading the full quote. Oh yeah, those books that strongly condemn it? Not part of the new testament that most churches (including your own most likely) use.
>>1192962
>>Again, it's fucking immoral. Why are you an immoral faggot?
>>immoral
According to you maybe. Personally, I don't waste my time on xtian sexual morals.
>>1193031
All godless morality is subjective.
>>1193031
>Nice unverifiable claim there.
>supporting hedonism
>>1193040
So is all religious morality. What you consider good is not the same as what was considered good by another believer, or another era
>>1193046
>I can't support my hypothesis so I'll accuse people who ask questions of being immoral
Religious mindset in a nutshell.
>>1193049
Nonsense. Without God, there is no objective basis for morality.
With God, there is an objective basis for morality. Him. What He says, goes.
>>1193050
Senpai I'm sick and not in the mood to argue with a faggot that wants to blow his load in whores.
>>1193025
Of course they aren't part of scripture. Why would they be? Do you understand how the new testament was compiled?
And in any case, why would it matter? Do you think the only source for Christian teaching is scripture? Real Christians aren't sola scriptura nutters
>>1193031
You care more about being contrarian but if you were really contrarian enough you'd understand that a lack of monogamy means hordes of betas who will invariably uprise and its game over. Mohammed was smart enough to observe and exploit it, are you less smart than a Bedouin?
>>1193059
>Real Christians aren't sola scriptura nutters
True. We have the Holy Spirit living in us, and guiding us.
You have the traditions of men, and specifically likely the traditions of Babylon.
>>1193062
Mohammad and his 14 wives typify monogamy.....
kek
>>1192971
Honestly this.
I'm engaged to a pure Christian girl now but before I met her I was a Chad always picking up girls from clubs, tinder, etc. the waiting until marriage thing makes her valuable to me unlike some worthless club bitch anyone can have his way with. It's an investment that makes marriage really worth it. And I was (briefly) married to an easy club ho so it's definitely different.
>>1193067
>You have the traditions of men, and specifically likely the traditions of Babylon.
Oh fuck off.
>>1192752
>>1193067
so you are sola scriptura?
>>1193059
I don't particularly care about your holy text to be honest. I do know that it ultimately came down to a vote and at least one of the books you have now almost didn't make it in. You can claim this process was divinely inspired if you wish, me I'm not nearly so gullible.
>>1193062
Ahh yes, every sexually liberal society ever is like the one we live in now. Lemme ask you something, this horde of betas you speak of, how many of them would remain committed in a society with legal prostitution?
>>1193068
And is there a male to female ratio equal to that I thought so. The surplus males under sharia have nothing better to do than expand sharia. It's like the Borg.
>>1193085
Dude it's the faggot that posts about muh whore. Of course he is.
>>1193087
Legal prostitution is anti-feminist. It undermines the female sexuality by lettng scabs take over. I'm with Aquinas/Augustine where it is a lesser vice when present than absent.
>>1193090
I want to hear what he has to say about it. It is not clear.
>>1193099
>wanting the thread to go to shit
Anon no
>>1193101
it's too late
you tried to warn him but he went and said it
>>1193098
>>Legal prostitution is anti-feminist. It undermines the female sexuality by lettng scabs take over.
This is perspective of some feminists, others say differently.
What's more, sexually liberal does not necessarily mean feminist.
>>I'm with Aquinas/Augustine where it is a lesser vice when present than absent.
Good for you, personally I don't see paying for or selling sex as a vice.
>>1193102
Fuck. I wish that faggot Constantine with his amazing powers of confusing me of what her gender was here.
>>1193117
It doesn't work on the guy. All you have to do is be a brute and attack him.
>>1193117
In general that's a good idea and you should continue using this approach in future, but the response you will get here is literally
>muh whore of babylon
so it's best to not bother
>>1193071
Right down to the hot crossed buns and Yule logs, papist.
>>1193141
>said the "born again Christian"
>>1193085
That's only one of the five solas, none of which any Christian has a problem with. In context. As I stated above, I have both the Word of God and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to guide me.
>>1193088
They have something to do. They detonate suicide belts and think they'll find 72 virgins at the end of the blast.
>>1191443
You're a post-Christian, OP, who does not really believe in Christ but only clings to the Church as a means of identity
Go fuck yourself
>>1193145
Yup.
Unless you are born again, you will in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God.
--Jesus to Nicodemus
>>1193153
You know "sola" means "only", yes?
>>1193160
That's not how it works.
>>1193165
yes
>>1193147
SOLA SCRIPTURA
>Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name John 20:30-31.
What else does this tell us than Jesus did and said other things that were not recorded in Scripture? Are we really to think that anything Jesus did or said that didn't make it into the books of Scripture are false or should not be adhered to?
John 21:25
>But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written
Clearly there are many things Jesus said and did that were passed on as tradition (by word of mouth) and did not make it into the books of Scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:14.
>Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
What else does this tell us than the Apostles spread the word of God not only through Epistles, but also by WORD, and that we should hold to the traditions which we are taught?
1 Corinthians 11:34.
>If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.
This clearly shows St. Paul writing important words to the Corinthians, then stating he will "set the rest in order" when he comes, yet we do not have writing about them elsewhere. What he said then, will it be lost to the Church? No, it has come down through tradition.
2 John 1:12.
>Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full.
St. John had something worthy of being written yet he chose to speak instead. Instead of Scripture, he has made tradition.
[1/2]
So, basically Augustine, Aquinas and the Church fathers were morons that didn't know what Jesus said and OP did?
>>1191443
Kataarian or however you're supposed to spell this clusterfuck
>>1193181
2 Timothy 1:13
>Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.
This is clearly St. Paul recommending to St. Timothy an unwritten Apostolic word. This is tradition!
Timothy 2:2.
>And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. 2
What is this but the Apostle speaking, the witnesses relating, and St. Timothy teaching, followed by these teaching others? This is clearly tradition.
John 16:12.
>I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now
When did He say these things which He had to say? Was it all written? It is also said that He was forty days with them teaching them of the Kingdom of God, but we have neither all of His apparitions nor everything He told them during that time.
Matthew 28:20
>Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ,
Luke 10:16.
>and He that heareth you, heareth me
This clearly shows the Apostles teaching is true revelation.
[2/2]
>>1191443
>I'm a grandstanding /pol/tard that wants to get his dick wet
FTFY
>>1193168
It's God way, so yeah, it works.
>ITT: BTFO protties
>>1193247
No, not really. It refers to baptism senpai.
>>1193181
The pope is not privy to anything Jesus did on earth. Nor would he care.
Those traditions were written down in the bible. If they were not written down in the bible, they were irretrievably lost.
No clue why you have a communion verse in there, as you do not believe in communion but in Eat God, Be God.
What John said to whomever is also lost to time, or it was written down in 3 John, or it was written down in the Gospel of John, or it was written down in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Here's what the bible says about "the traditions of men": Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
You're being cheated, son.
>>1193198
Not tradition at all.
Those things were written down in the scriptures, or lost to time.
He said those things to other people, in other letters, whose ears had not grown dull.
Again, Jesus' commandments are in the scriptures.
When you read the bible, you read what the Holy Spirit inspired.
When you listen to Rome, you lose your soul to the devil.
>>1193258
I'd ask what baptism, but I already know you think that the relevant baptism is by water.
And no, the answer is not "baptism". Nicodemus was not only thoroughly aware of the very Jewish tradition of baptizing people, but he was also very aware of the process of being born again. He was born again as a 13 year old; he was born again as a priest; he was born again to get into the Sanhedrin; he was born again at his wedding, etc., etc., etc. He didn't ask what born again meant; he asked how someone as old as he was, who had already experienced every way to be born again, could possibly be born again.
>>1193280
It's called the truth. I know it annoys you, but so be it.
The fact that Jesus is a Jew bothers you too.
>>1193290
You are going to post those cartoons, aren't you?
>>1193263
>If they were not written down in the bible, they were irretrievably lost.
you have no proof of this other than your bias
> you do not believe in communion but in Eat God, Be God.
To eat the flesh and blood of Christ IS the definition of communion. So yes, we believe in it and you don't
>What John said to whomever is also lost to time, or it was written down in 3 John, or it was written down in the Gospel of John, or it was written down in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
So which one is it? Take a good look in the mirror. I am giving you Scripture, and telling it as it is. Not only you refuse to accept what is written, but you come up with not backed by evidence excuses as to why it is so written. Where is the proof for your statements? My proof is the Bible itself. Your proof? Your own made-up tradition.
Wake up anon
>Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Which is exactly what you are doing. It is not me the one who came up with "sola scriptura". As I have shown you, there is a lot of evidence that such a thing is not only not described in the Bible, but never existed anywhere else until Luther made it up. So whose tradition is from men? ;)
>You're being cheated, son.
Pot calling the kettle black. Wake up anon.
>>1193270
>Those things were written down in the scriptures, or lost to time.
Clearly not written in scripture, it is self-evident. They are not lost to time, they are passed down through apostolic succession. There is much more evidence for my claims than yours. Actually, your claims have no evidence, they are only prejudice, bias and meaningless hate.
>He said those things to other people, in other letters, whose ears had not grown dull.
Yeah? which letters? which people? None of this is true, you are making it up as you go along because your beliefs are a sham
>>1193296
Who's advocating saying "I believe in Jesus"?
The devil believes in Jesus.
>>1193297
That's a different Anon.
>>1193308
>Who's advocating saying "I believe in Jesus"?
You. It's you.
>>1193306
>you have no proof of this other than your bias
I have the fact that there were no recording devices to catch audio before 95 AD, yes. You know, reason and common sense.
Eat God, Be God. It's what every pagan believes.
If it's in the scriptures, it's inspired by God. If not, then not.
I don't care about the Catholic friar Martin Luther at all. He's in hell right now for his anti-semetism, not knowing that Jesus is a Jew.
>>1193313
Not me. I cite Romans 10:9-10.
>>1193318
>Not me
All you spew is bullshit, at this point you must be the devil here.
>>1193324
What is that, you say?
Romans 10
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
>>1193316
>You know, reason and common sense.
If you were using reason and common sense you would believe the evidence and not reject it in favour of your bias. No claim without evidence can be made with reason and common sense. Wake up anon.
>Eat God, Be God. It's what every pagan believes.
The eucharist is what Christians believe. If you don't believe in it, you are not a Christian.
>If it's in the scriptures, it's inspired by God. If not, then not.
The Scripture tell you that sola scriptura is wrong. So why don't you believe them? Seems like you pick and choose what you want to believe, instead of believing what was revealed to us by God.
>I don't care about the Catholic friar Martin Luther at all. He's in hell right now for his anti-semetism, not knowing that Jesus is a Jew.
What denomination are you, anon?
>>1193333
>What is that, you say?
I said you're the devil. I say you're a demon from hell sent here to ruin the discussion of Christ.
>>1193335
Two men had a conversation in 68 AD.
What did they say?
>>1193335
>The eucharist is what Christians believe. If you don't believe in it, you are not a Christian.
It's what pagans believe, not Christians.
>>1193335
>The Scripture tell you that sola scriptura is wrong.
2 Timothy 3
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Yeah, it really doesn't.
>>1193340
Ah, my crazy Spaniard friend looking for miracles.
How goes the search?
>>1193354
I'm an American you demon.
>>1193343
if one of them was an apostle he was passing down Sacred Tradition
>>1193344
>It's what pagans believe, not Christians.
According to whom?
>>1193351
profitable for doctrine =/= exclusive for doctrine
Learn 2 read.
Besides when this written the NT wasn't written down yet. He was referring to the OT.
>>1193356
Sure, sure. We're all American on line, and we're all Canadian overseas.
>>1193360
What did they say, though?
>>1193360
>profitable for doctrine =/= exclusive for doctrine
All. Every. Complete. Thoroughly.
>>1193362
Shut up Semiramis
>>1193369
You should catch up with the times. All the cool kids call her "Mary" now.
>>1193365
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you'll find out
>>1193367
every, complete, throuroughly do not refer to Scripture in that sentence. Stop twisting Sctipture, heretic.
>profitable
Yes, ALL Scripture is profitable. Too bad profitable does not mean exclusive. Tradition is profitable too
>>1193373
No, Semiramis. You're the demon that shitposts here. Mary is in Heaven.
>>1193375
>Read the diary of the Whore of Babylon and you will find out.
No thanks.
You have no profitable traditions. None. Zero. Zilch.
>>1193380
Mary is in heaven, and she has never heard from you, never heard of you, and you will never meet her.
Unless of course you repent.
But I am not holding my breath. You seem very happy to be an unwitting stooge of Babylon.
>>1193393
everytime you insult his Church, you make Jesus sad.
I pray that you may wake up to the truth anon.
>>1193399
>Mary is in heaven, and she has never heard from you, never heard of you, and you will never meet her.
See this shit, this is why I'm calling you a demon.
>>1192582
>heretics
Apostates, just like JW's. Reminder that Joseph Smith was a conman whose deceitful works have been thoroughly debunked.
http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf
>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:8-9
>>1193413
Apostates, Heretics, same shit different meaning. All it means they aren't welcomed.
>>1193406
I have never insulted the Body of Christ, only the Roman Catholic Church (and the other leg, the Orthodox morons).
>>1193407
Yes, you're calling a human being a demon because you are not mentally well, a fact which becomes more and more apparent with time.
>>1192605
Are you kidding me Constantine? I already explained to you that the Authority to bind and loose was given to Peter and to the Church.
We have to look at the context to whom Jesus is speaking. Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16:
>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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.
Matthew 16:18-19
The authority to bind and loose was given to the Church in Matthew 18. The Church is the context:
>If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:17-19
"Binding and loosing" is a phrase which comes from the rabbis. It refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.
This authority includes interpreting and applying the Word of God and admitting people to and excommunicating them from the community of faith. For the Jews this meant the community of Israel. For Christians this means the Church.
>>1193420
>Yes, you're calling a human being a demon because you are not mentally well
>he thinks he's a "human"
>>1193423
Amen brother. Here you will find further scriptural evidence for the papacy:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-papacy-in-scripture-no-rocks-required
>>1193417
Your memes are stale
>>1193423
I'm not Constantine.
The authority to bind and loose was given to the apostles, not to the church.
I'm tired of telling you that Petros is not the petra. You have no ears to hear, nor eyes to see.
Binding and loosing is finding people guilty or innocent.
>>1193427
You got me. I'm a new creation in Christ Jesus, so technically no longer a mere human being.
>>1193437
>The Roman Catholic Church provides the authority for itself.
Wiling stooges.
>>1193448
>You got me. I'm a new creation in Christ Jesus, so technically no longer a mere human being.
So you're subhuman?
>>1193454
That's not the inference, no. But hey, thanks for participating! Here's a trophy!
>>1193444
>Petros is not the petra
It would be true it the Bible was written in Attic greek. But it was written in koinè greek.
In koinè Greek those two words mean the exact same thing, no difference.
>>1193453
>>The Roman Catholic Church provides the authority for itself.
Jesus gives authority to the Catholic Church. Matthew 16:18
>>1193457
>That's not the inference, no.
I wasn't inferring, I was stating the facts. You are less than human, you are scum of the earth.
>>1193461
They're two different words even in common Greek.
Petros is not the petra. In fact, Petros is excluded from being the petra.
Jesus did no such thing, and the Petros, again, is not the petra, again.
>>1192778
Stop teaching lies.
>Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
CCC 2360
>Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.
CCC 2361
>The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
>The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
CCC 2362
>The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
CCC 2363
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
>>1193444
>>1193472
esus refered to Simon as "kepha", which in Aramaic means "rock", is indisputable and confirmed in John 1:42. Christ spoke Aramaic, not koine Greek. Matthew clearly established this by the "petros/ petra" designation. In koine Greek, unlike Attic Greek, there is no distinction between petra (a feminine noun) and Petros (masculine ending). "Petros" is merely the masculine neologism created by Our Lord for Simon. Our Lord was making a pun. Would you have had Jesus name Peter "Petra" or "Petrina"? If Our Lord wanted to make the distinction you Prots require, He would have used the word "lithos", which in koine Greek means "little rock" or "pebble". The conferral of "the keys" and "the binding and loosing" passages have antecedents in the Jewish Scriptures (vide, Isaiah 22) for the notions of bestowing authority and judgement over the community, stewardship. See also John 21:16-17. Here is confirmed the above passages by the clear establishment of Peter as the Shepherd of the flock. A shepherd guides and corrects. Or is Jesus just encouraging Peter to set a good table for the disciples! You Prots have problems with submitting to human authority. It shows a lack of humility, subjectivism, and refusal to accept that Christ established a visible Church complete with governance.. So you scream "Jesus, Jesus", and then oppose His Will. It was to the Peter and the Apostles that he bestowed His authority and the guardianship of His Church, not to a Book.(John 20:22)
>>1193472
he called him Petros because he is a man. To make you understand, it is like calling him Steve instead of Stephanie. Considering he changed his name in that moment, he could not give him a feminine name like "Stephanie" because then everyone would have called him like that.
It is very simple
>>1193472
>They're two different words even in common Greek.
common Greek =/= koinè Greek
Why do protestants still try to debate on /his/ even though they get routinely BTFO?
>>1193444
Cephas is the Cephas. It's a wordplay and you know it.
Admit it already.
ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf
Papacy is biblical, stop being dishonest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
>>1193511
Because most of them are from /pol/ where they can just a Catholic a cuck because of the Pope being a faggot.
>>1193417
>
>>1193520
a couple of days ago the Pope said violence should be used against ISIS in an interview. I tried to look up an article about it in the american media, but none of them reported it.
The world is an enemy of the Church, and those who fall for the lies of the world are the true cucks.
I dislike a lot of what this Pope does too, but the problems in the Church are deeper and he is not the root cause of them.
>>1193533
No, see the point is that the faggots that come from /pol/ get there asses handed to them because they don't have anything to argue.
What I'm getting from this, as an outside observer, is that no one has a clearly definitive and provable "scientific" claim to authority on anything the Bible says. Every argument a Catholic makes, a protestant counters, and is then countered by a Catholic, and so on, and so on, apparently for the last few centuries.
Which seems to favor the Protestant side. If the Church cannot clearly prove with 100% certainty, and axiomatically, that it is the only valid Church, then the mere existence of reasonable doubt implies *there can be* no earthly authority on the word of God. The best we can do is try our best to figure out what works; a more prot position than cath.
>>1193583
No offence but if in this debate you were convinced by the protestant side you are literally mentally disabled.
I can't help but suspect you are a false-flagging prottie.
>If the Church cannot clearly prove with 100% certainty, and axiomatically, that it is the only valid Church, then the mere existence of reasonable doubt implies *there can be* no earthly authority on the word of God.
Plenty of evidence given ITT that the Bible indicates inequivocably the authority of the Church. Considering protties only believe in what the Bible says, and that the Bible gives authority to the Church, they should also believe that the Church has authority.
