The Gay Denomination?

[99percentatheism]

The Gay Denomination.

For those people that desire same gender sexual behavior or thoughts, AND that claim to be a Christian and claim that their beliefs and theology can fit the New Testament witness, instead of waging an endless, fruitless and vicious war on other Christians - that will NEVER accept their gay doctrines and dogmas . . ., - why won't they just declare a new and alternative denomination, just like Watch Tower theological adherants and Mormons?

Why the need to join forces with anti-Christian and secularist movements to attack "Bible believing" Christians?

Afterall, in referencing the New Testament, there is no justifiable comparison of sex acts to being a slave (slavery), or the charge of bigotry and hatefulness in holding that marriage is a man and a woman.

Why not just start an "Out and Proud" Gay Denomination?

[Filthy Tugboat]

- and BTW, the roman catholic church does not claim it is infallible. In fact it insists it is not. Only the Pope, and only when speaking RARELY ex cathedra, is said, controversially and recently, to be infallible. Again, the church does not claim it is infallible.

You have your answers, now stand down.

Lol, the Church doesn't insist that it is not infallible. Wherever or whoever told you that told you a lie. It is one of the foundational aspects of the Church, and there is even a vast explanation as to why it is infallible even if you exclude the literal and explicit statement in the Bible that it cannot in fact be prevailed by Hell.

Infallibility doesn't necessarily mean 'inerrant'. It simply means that it will always stand. That is probably where your confusion comes from, hearing something of the like explained by your priest or at mass.
No, wait, you must be Anglican or something close to it, because the Roman Church would not allow the woman you speak of as having any part of clergy.

in·fal·li·ble   /ɪnˈfæləbəl/ Show Spelled[in-fal-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
4. Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.
noun
5. an infallible person or thing. ref

Incorrect, the definition of infallible, especially in relation to the catholic church, is that it cannot be false, it cannot make error. Infallible can mean that something can never fail which can imply that it will always stand but still maintains that it can never be wrong.

The denomination or religious position of anyone you speak to here should be irrelevant. Debate the content, not the debator.

[kayky]

Peter was the first bishop of Rome. The first Pope.
To deny that is to put prejudice over reason. The people who oppose it are from the same circle of people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Fundies.
Good luck with that.

Well, I am no fundamentalist, and I believe in evolution. But I don't think Peter was ever pope of anything.

[Slopeshoulder]

- and BTW, the roman catholic church does not claim it is infallible. In fact it insists it is not. Only the Pope, and only when speaking RARELY ex cathedra, is said, controversially and recently, to be infallible. Again, the church does not claim it is infallible.

You have your answers, now stand down.

Lol,

LOL,

the Church doesn't insist that it is not infallible.

You are mistaken.

Wherever or whoever told you that told you a lie.

Now you are telling fibs.

Wanna see who has better catholic ed cred?

It is one of the foundational aspects of the Church,

Nope. You've been lied to. or perhaps misunderstood wat you read or trusted an extremist source? . It doesn't even say there's no salvation outside anymore. What century are you in?

and there is even a vast explanation as to why it is infallible even if you exclude the literal and explicit statement in the Bible that it cannot in fact be prevailed by Hell.

Do tell! Where?

Infallibility doesn't necessarily mean 'inerrant'.

That may be true, we may agree here. But you use it as if it means inerrant.
But it is neither.

It simply means that it will always stand.

You may be right. Can you show me where the word is used with definition?
But what would letting in 2-3% of gay folks have to do with no longer standing? Or why can't they admit they're wrong?

That is probably where your confusion comes from, hearing something of the like explained by your priest or at mass.

Guess again. I am a graduate of the best seminary in the country at the time I attended, and my advisor was a catholic. In addition, my undergrad degree in religion is from a catholic university. BAM.
I submit that you give every sign of being indoctrinated by misinformed and lying catholic fringe extremist groups.

No, wait, you must be Anglican or something close to it,

No wait, I'm a Roman Catholic in good standing: born, raised, educated, baptised, confirmed, enformed, informed.
That's 0 for 2.

because the Roman Church would not allow the woman you speak of as having any part of clergy.

That was a UU church I was hanging out in during the pedophile priest scandal wen I got really angry. The pastor was a christian-buddhist from harvard divinity school, which granted her a leadership award. Cool place, but more of a book club, and they lack deep spirituality and theology. I wanted to do sort of a leveraged buy out of them at one time and met with their two past presidents (UU popes), and decided that the ocean liner would be too hard to turn due to their internal fractiousness and radically decentralized democracy. And they weren't selling.

[KCKID]

Kayky:
It is the utmost of ignorance to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

99:
ReallY???

How many tens of millions of dollars has the RCC paid out because of it?

And you look to be in the lost generation failing to learn from history. Look up PEDERASTY.

Your lack of knowledge about human sexuality is astounding. Homosexuality occurs between adults. Pedophiles prefer children to adults. It makes no difference to the definition if the preference is for boys or girls. So pederasty has nothing to do with it. Men who are sexually attracted to young boys do not want to have sex with other adult men. Get it?

When someone is as hell-bent on demonizing homosexuals as is 99percent, they will stop at nothing to do so. The more serious is that they do so under the cloak of 'Christianity'.

It's important (to me anyway) to try to evaluate what is going on in the minds of such people. What exactly IS IT that drives them? What is it about this particular topic that raises such ire within them to the point where logic and reason and 'love' are nowhere to be found? Do they REALLY care what the Bible might say on this subject? They don't seem to care too much about what the Bible has to say on other subjects that affect the Church much more so. So why the huge focus on THIS particular subject? WHY do they ignore other, just as valid, interpretations of the 'clobber' scriptures? It's as though they DON'T WANT those scriptures to read in any other way since doing so would disarm as well as disempower them. Yes, the problem isn't with the homosexual. The problem is with THEM.

I once thought that I knew what Christianity meant. These days I honestly have no idea.

[SilenceInMotion]

- and BTW, the roman catholic church does not claim it is infallible. In fact it insists it is not. Only the Pope, and only when speaking RARELY ex cathedra, is said, controversially and recently, to be infallible. Again, the church does not claim it is infallible.

You have your answers, now stand down.

Lol, the Church doesn't insist that it is not infallible. Wherever or whoever told you that told you a lie. It is one of the foundational aspects of the Church, and there is even a vast explanation as to why it is infallible even if you exclude the literal and explicit statement in the Bible that it cannot in fact be prevailed by Hell.

Infallibility doesn't necessarily mean 'inerrant'. It simply means that it will always stand. That is probably where your confusion comes from, hearing something of the like explained by your priest or at mass.
No, wait, you must be Anglican or something close to it, because the Roman Church would not allow the woman you speak of as having any part of clergy.

in·fal·li·ble   /ɪnˈfæləbəl/ Show Spelled[in-fal-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
4. Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.
noun
5. an infallible person or thing. ref

Incorrect, the definition of infallible, especially in relation to the catholic church, is that it cannot be false, it cannot make error. Infallible can mean that something can never fail which can imply that it will always stand but still maintains that it can never be wrong.

The denomination or religious position of anyone you speak to here should be irrelevant. Debate the content, not the debator.

The Church is infallible, not necessarily the people within it. You are treading on a very profound ideology of the Church. Semantics are not going to propel your argument.
*Though it may give an illusion of such. God forbid someone actually wants to stand to reason and not technical bias*

I gave the verse which tells of Peter's Church. If the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it, how is it not infallible? It's been nearly 2000 years and it is still as prevalent as it always has been. Seriously, what argument can you produce against an active *to this day* charge by Christ?

[Filthy Tugboat]

- and BTW, the roman catholic church does not claim it is infallible. In fact it insists it is not. Only the Pope, and only when speaking RARELY ex cathedra, is said, controversially and recently, to be infallible. Again, the church does not claim it is infallible.

You have your answers, now stand down.

Lol, the Church doesn't insist that it is not infallible. Wherever or whoever told you that told you a lie. It is one of the foundational aspects of the Church, and there is even a vast explanation as to why it is infallible even if you exclude the literal and explicit statement in the Bible that it cannot in fact be prevailed by Hell.

Infallibility doesn't necessarily mean 'inerrant'. It simply means that it will always stand. That is probably where your confusion comes from, hearing something of the like explained by your priest or at mass.
No, wait, you must be Anglican or something close to it, because the Roman Church would not allow the woman you speak of as having any part of clergy.

in·fal·li·ble   /ɪnˈfæləbəl/ Show Spelled[in-fal-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
4. Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.
noun
5. an infallible person or thing. ref

Incorrect, the definition of infallible, especially in relation to the catholic church, is that it cannot be false, it cannot make error. Infallible can mean that something can never fail which can imply that it will always stand but still maintains that it can never be wrong.

The denomination or religious position of anyone you speak to here should be irrelevant. Debate the content, not the debator.

The Church is infallible, not necessarily the people within it. You are treading on a very profound ideology of the Church. Semantics are not going to propel your argument.

But the church is considered to be infallible and innerrant. I didn't mean it's followers were, I meant to correct you when you said that infallible in the case of the church doesn't necessarily mean innerant.

I gave the verse which tells of Peter's Church. If the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it, how is it not infallible? It's been nearly 2000 years and it is still as prevalent as it always has been.

Before this could be considered evidence you would have to show that the Gates of Hell are real, that the Gates of Hell can prevail against anything, that the Gates of Hell's inability to prevail against something proves that that thing is infallible. You might also have to show that 2000 years is a meaningful expanse of time in this matter.

Seriously, what argument can you produce against an active *to this day* charge by Christ?

I don't have to supply any arguments, it's an unverified, unsupported claim. The Bible claims Peter started a church, the Catholics claim their church was the church started by Peter, there is no evidece to support either claim. Only tradition.

[Haven]

Agreed. The anti-homosexual Christian is often raging in his disregard of homosexuality; one wonders what Jesus would do to such religious bigots to get them to turn the other cheek, tend their own gardens, and quit throwing stones of judgement upon their neighbors.

Yep. The very vocal anti-gay element within Christianity (I'm not implying that all, or even most, Christians are anti-gay, only that a significant portion are) has really soured me on the faith. I really don't think I can be associated with it anymore, despite my Christian upbringing and appreciation for Biblical themes / non-theistic theology / non-realist faith. The fact that a religious movement originally based around love, tolerance, and social justice has become a conduit for bigotry, prejudice, greed, and right-wing extremism is both ironic and sad. If Jesus could see what has become of the movement he started, he would probably be sick.

[SilenceInMotion]

- and BTW, the roman catholic church does not claim it is infallible. In fact it insists it is not. Only the Pope, and only when speaking RARELY ex cathedra, is said, controversially and recently, to be infallible. Again, the church does not claim it is infallible.

You have your answers, now stand down.

Lol, the Church doesn't insist that it is not infallible. Wherever or whoever told you that told you a lie. It is one of the foundational aspects of the Church, and there is even a vast explanation as to why it is infallible even if you exclude the literal and explicit statement in the Bible that it cannot in fact be prevailed by Hell.

Infallibility doesn't necessarily mean 'inerrant'. It simply means that it will always stand. That is probably where your confusion comes from, hearing something of the like explained by your priest or at mass.
No, wait, you must be Anglican or something close to it, because the Roman Church would not allow the woman you speak of as having any part of clergy.

in·fal·li·ble   /ɪnˈfæləbəl/ Show Spelled[in-fal-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.
2. unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3. not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
4. Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.
noun
5. an infallible person or thing. ref

Incorrect, the definition of infallible, especially in relation to the catholic church, is that it cannot be false, it cannot make error. Infallible can mean that something can never fail which can imply that it will always stand but still maintains that it can never be wrong.

The denomination or religious position of anyone you speak to here should be irrelevant. Debate the content, not the debator.

The Church is infallible, not necessarily the people within it. You are treading on a very profound ideology of the Church. Semantics are not going to propel your argument.

But the church is considered to be infallible and innerrant. I didn't mean it's followers were, I meant to correct you when you said that infallible in the case of the church doesn't necessarily mean innerant.

I gave the verse which tells of Peter's Church. If the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it, how is it not infallible? It's been nearly 2000 years and it is still as prevalent as it always has been.

Before this could be considered evidence you would have to show that the Gates of Hell are real, that the Gates of Hell can prevail against anything, that the Gates of Hell's inability to prevail against something proves that that thing is infallible. You might also have to show that 2000 years is a meaningful expanse of time in this matter.

Seriously, what argument can you produce against an active *to this day* charge by Christ?

I don't have to supply any arguments, it's an unverified, unsupported claim. The Bible claims Peter started a church, the Catholics claim their church was the church started by Peter, there is no evidece to support either claim. Only tradition.

*Weeds will be weeded out*. This is also a biblical truth. The Church can and has stumbled, but it will never be prevailed by Hell.
If I had a nickel..
The Church cannot be breached. You know (or should know) the Church's history. Why is it still there? All other churches have deviated. Do you not understand the significance of that? Peter's Church has not accepted gays and it never will because it is THE CHURCH. That is how alien homosexuality is to holiness., it's not even given in canonical history.


The evidence is in what you witness.

[Filthy Tugboat]

The Church is infallible, not necessarily the people within it. You are treading on a very profound ideology of the Church. Semantics are not going to propel your argument.

But the church is considered to be infallible and innerrant. I didn't mean it's followers were, I meant to correct you when you said that infallible in the case of the church doesn't necessarily mean innerant.

I gave the verse which tells of Peter's Church. If the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it, how is it not infallible? It's been nearly 2000 years and it is still as prevalent as it always has been.

Before this could be considered evidence you would have to show that the Gates of Hell are real, that the Gates of Hell can prevail against anything, that the Gates of Hell's inability to prevail against something proves that that thing is infallible. You might also have to show that 2000 years is a meaningful expanse of time in this matter.

Seriously, what argument can you produce against an active *to this day* charge by Christ?

I don't have to supply any arguments, it's an unverified, unsupported claim. The Bible claims Peter started a church, the Catholics claim their church was the church started by Peter, there is no evidece to support either claim. Only tradition.

*Weeds will be weeded out*. This is also a biblical truth.

I find "Biblical Truth's" and "actual truth's" to often be quite different.

The Church can and has stumbled, but it will never be prevailed by Hell.

I don't really know what "prevailed by Hell" means or if it is even an actual thing but if the Church has "stumbled" does that not mean that it is in fact fallible?

If I had a nickel..
The Church cannot be breached. You know (or should know) the Church's history.

Some of it, i do not claim to be an expert on the subject.

Why is it still there?

Because it has followers? As far as I'm aware, the Church hasn't really come under hardship until the last century when people have actually investigated the things it and it's members have done. Prior to this century it appears to have been exempt from scrutiny probably due to the fear it inspires in so many. The church has been known to use it's influence to quell those that disagree with it or shine it in a negative light, take Galileo for example and he didn't even do anything to the church, he just proposed an alternative theory to how the world works. If this is how the Church is willing to act in regards to science, how strongly has it acted in the past to matters of faith? The Crusades are a good example. My point is that the RCC's flippant use of force and destruction on anything that opposes or even presents an alternative is a good answer to why it still exists.

All other churches have deviated.

Many Churches think the RCC has deviated.

Do you not understand the significance of that? Peter's Church has not accepted gays and it never will because it is THE CHURCH.

This is still an unsupported claim.

That is how alien homosexuality is to holiness.,

Your interpretation of Holiness*

it's not even given in canonical history.

The evidence is in what you witness.

The evidence is flimsy at best, perhaps entirely non-existent.

[SilenceInMotion]

The Church is infallible, not necessarily the people within it. You are treading on a very profound ideology of the Church. Semantics are not going to propel your argument.

But the church is considered to be infallible and innerrant. I didn't mean it's followers were, I meant to correct you when you said that infallible in the case of the church doesn't necessarily mean innerant.

I gave the verse which tells of Peter's Church. If the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it, how is it not infallible? It's been nearly 2000 years and it is still as prevalent as it always has been.

Before this could be considered evidence you would have to show that the Gates of Hell are real, that the Gates of Hell can prevail against anything, that the Gates of Hell's inability to prevail against something proves that that thing is infallible. You might also have to show that 2000 years is a meaningful expanse of time in this matter.

Seriously, what argument can you produce against an active *to this day* charge by Christ?

I don't have to supply any arguments, it's an unverified, unsupported claim. The Bible claims Peter started a church, the Catholics claim their church was the church started by Peter, there is no evidece to support either claim. Only tradition.

*Weeds will be weeded out*. This is also a biblical truth.

I find "Biblical Truth's" and "actual truth's" to often be quite different.

The Church can and has stumbled, but it will never be prevailed by Hell.

I don't really know what "prevailed by Hell" means or if it is even an actual thing but if the Church has "stumbled" does that not mean that it is in fact fallible?

If I had a nickel..
The Church cannot be breached. You know (or should know) the Church's history.

Some of it, i do not claim to be an expert on the subject.

Why is it still there?

Because it has followers? As far as I'm aware, the Church hasn't really come under hardship until the last century when people have actually investigated the things it and it's members have done. Prior to this century it appears to have been exempt from scrutiny probably due to the fear it inspires in so many. The church has been known to use it's influence to quell those that disagree with it or shine it in a negative light, take Galileo for example and he didn't even do anything to the church, he just proposed an alternative theory to how the world works. If this is how the Church is willing to act in regards to science, how strongly has it acted in the past to matters of faith? The Crusades are a good example. My point is that the RCC's flippant use of force and destruction on anything that opposes or even presents an alternative is a good answer to why it still exists.

All other churches have deviated.

Many Churches think the RCC has deviated.

Do you not understand the significance of that? Peter's Church has not accepted gays and it never will because it is THE CHURCH.

This is still an unsupported claim.

That is how alien homosexuality is to holiness.,

Your interpretation of Holiness*

it's not even given in canonical history.

The evidence is in what you witness.

The evidence is flimsy at best, perhaps entirely non-existent.

This conversation is not about your personal worldview. Quite frankly, I could care less about the atheist inquisition. I personally find it to be vain and otherwise stupid. Your life is not affected by religion, you are as atheist as a rock and your life mimics that standing., don't pretend as if your inquiry is pertaining to anything more then deep seeded selfish agendas.

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Looky, the Bible comes right out and says it (for the hundredth time posting it). Therefore, the true church is the Catholic Church. There is simply no way around that fact.