Pope Francis ain't messing around

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Actually, you're making my point by refusing to answer the simple question. You insist there are a lot of liberal Christians, and even point to yourself as one. Yet as a self-proclaimed follower of Christ, you are unable to agree that, as a follower, you believe God intended sex to only be between a man and a woman in marriage...with no exceptions.

 

If you believe God is okay with men having sex with men, then it's not difficult to admit you're not near the Christian you want everyone to believe you are. There's more to being a Christian than just saying you believe in God only when it aligns with your views.

 

That's okay, though. God loves you anyway. But you probably already knew that, and figured "Hey, if he loves me anyway, why bother believing everything he says?"

 

I understand the point you're making, but the last sentence is the rub. How do you delineate between what God actually said and what man rewrote in his name? Surely you acknowledge that the "word of God" has been rewritten and rewritten and rewritten by man for many purposes -- not all of them divine -- over the centuries? Isn't one of the Pope's main jobs on Earth to speak for God when there is confusion about such issues?

 

Be of service to others over self, love, forgiveness and compassion are the bedrock principles of Christ's message (and almost every religion that ever existed on Earth), do those things and I think the rest takes care of itself in the eyes of God.

[LeviF]

ba,ha,ha,ha...you as the moral compass? defining what is and isn't Christian? snort, snort, belly laugh! there are millions of Christians that would by any reasonable definition be considered liberal. and with a wave of your hand you deny them the possibility of being legitimate because of their beliefs. such opinions just don't seem very charitable, er,.. Christian... judge not...

 

He's basing it on the Bible, I presume. You know, the bits about how those who practice homosexuality will be denied the kingdom of heaven (that is, they will go to hell). That's all he really commented on.

[IDBillzFan]

ba,ha,ha,ha...you as the moral compass? defining what is and isn't Christian? snort, snort, belly laugh! there are millions of Christians that would by any reasonable definition be considered liberal. and with a wave of your hand you deny them the possibility of being legitimate because of their beliefs. such opinions just don't seem very charitable, er,.. Christian... judge not...

 

Just to be clear, as a follower of Jesus Christ, you believe that sex between two men is not considered a sin.

 

You believe sex between two men is acceptable to God, Christ, and their followers.

 

Am I getting this right? Yes or no. Pretty simple question.

[3rdnlng]

 

Just to be clear, as a follower of Jesus Christ, you believe that sex between two men is not considered a sin.

 

You believe sex between two men is acceptable to God, Christ, and their followers.

 

Am I getting this right? Yes or no. Pretty simple question.

I think he's made it very clear. He either agrees with the Pope or doesn't agree with the Pope.

ba,ha,ha,ha...you as the moral compass? defining what is and isn't Christian? snort, snort, belly laugh! there are millions of Christians that would by any reasonable definition be considered liberal. and with a wave of your hand you deny them the possibility of being legitimate because of their beliefs. such opinions just don't seem very charitable, er,.. Christian... judge not...

Can you be a Christian and be diametrically opposed to the word of God and the teachings of Christ? Can you be a Catholic and fundamentally disagree with your Pope?

[birdog1960]

 

Just to be clear, as a follower of Jesus Christ, you believe that sex between two men is not considered a sin.

 

You believe sex between two men is acceptable to God, Christ, and their followers.

 

Am I getting this right? Yes or no. Pretty simple question.

i don't agree with your assumption that this question is a litmus test to validate one's Christianity. it's that simple. btw, we are all sinners. there would be no Christians if sinners were excluded.

[IDBillzFan]

 

He's basing it on the Bible, I presume. You know, the bits about how those who practice homosexuality will be denied the kingdom of heaven (that is, they will go to hell). That's all he really commented on.

 

Is there another book Christians consider the word of God?

 

 

I understand the point you're making, but the last sentence is the rub. How do you delineate between what God actually said and what man rewrote in his name? Surely you acknowledge that the "word of God" has been rewritten and rewritten and rewritten by man for many purposes -- not all of them divine -- over the centuries? Isn't one of the Pope's main jobs on Earth to speak for God when there is confusion about such issues?

 

Be of service to others over self, love, forgiveness and compassion are the bedrock principles of Christ's message (and almost every religion that ever existed on Earth), do those things and I think the rest takes care of itself in the eyes of God.

 

The word of God has been re-written, but the nuances are such that core of his message remains as brought to the pages by men through the Holy Spirit. I was raised a Catholic, and the idea that all was well so long as you have a chance to ask for forgiveness at the end always seemed ridiculous to me.

 

That said, no matter what version of the Holy Bible you read, it's very clear that homosexual sex is a sin. That said, so is stealing. So is cheating on your spouse.

 

So yes, the bolded part above is very important. But it's simply not a question of "do these few things and nothing else really matters ." If that were the case, Christ probably would have been a union boss.

i don't agree with your assumption that this question is a litmus test to validate one's Christianity. it's that simple. btw, we are all sinners. there would be no Christians if sinners were excluded.

 

Okay, so we're clear; you are a follower of Christ on your terms, not Christ's.

 

Got it.

[LeviF]

 

Is there another book Christians consider the word of God?

 

 

No, which is why I only said that, and why I supposed you were commenting on the Bible and not simply your own personal feelings on the matter, refuting the notion that you are the moral compass you're basing these things on.

 

The Bible unequivocally states that the practice of homosexuality (along with other sexual sin, thievery, and lying) will keep one from getting to heaven. Undoubtedly, you know this, and so does birdog, assuming he's read the book. The Pope knows this as well.

 

The litmus test that I tend to apply is this: "Do you believe that the Bible, in its original writing, is the inerrant word of God?" From what I understand about the Bible, if you don't believe one part the whole thing falls apart because the Bible speaks of and assumes itself as inerrant.

 

Do you, or birdog perhaps, have a better litmus?

[birdog1960]

 

.

 

Okay, so we're clear; you are a follower of Christ on your terms, not Christ's.

 

Got it.

wow. it'sa almost like 3 separate but possibly not separate posters attempted the same weak strategy to invalidate my incluysion in Christianity. i doesn't matter if it one of you or 3 of you. you are not in a position to make the call.

 

No, which is why I only said that, and why I supposed you were commenting on the Bible and not simply your own personal feelings on the matter, refuting the notion that you are the moral compass you're basing these things on.

 

The Bible unequivocally states that the practice of homosexuality (along with other sexual sin, thievery, and lying) will keep one from getting to heaven. Undoubtedly, you know this, and so does birdog, assuming he's read the book. The Pope knows this as well.

 

The litmus test that I tend to apply is this: "Do you believe that the Bible, in its original writing, is the inerrant word of God?" From what I understand about the Bible, if you don't believe one part the whole thing falls apart because the Bible speaks of and assumes itself as inerrant.

 

Do you, or birdog perhaps, have a better litmus?

the litmus test is God as judge. there is no other. and of course i don't believe a literal interpretation of the bible. how old was methusala? does 40 days always actually mean 40 days? was the world created in 6 days? no. this is for people that cannot understand symbolism and ancient literary devices. this is why the Catholic church for centuries interpreted the bible for people.

[LeviF]

 

the litmus test is God as judge. there is no other. and of course i don't believe a literal interpretation of the bible. how old was methusala? does 40 days always actually mean 40 days? was the world created in 6 days? no. this is for people that cannot understand symbolism and ancient literary devices. this is why the Catholic church for centuries interpreted the bible for people.

 

How do we know the basis for God's judgment, then? How many things in the Bible are symbols or literary devices and what's actually true?

[IDBillzFan]

wow. it'sa almost like 3 separate but possibly not separate posters attempted the same weak strategy to invalidate my incluysion in Christianity. i doesn't matter if it one of you or 3 of you. you are not in a position to make the call.

 

It's interesting how every time I give you an opportunity to explain to us how you are a follower of Christ, your only response is to discredit what I write without ever once trying to explain your side.

 

The entire foundation of this discussion between you and me is your insistence that you are a liberal and a follower of Jesus Christ, and yet while you are quick to explain your beliefs as a liberal, you are incapable of explaining some of the basics items that followers of Christ are asked to believe. In fact, you start yapping about everything else except confirmation of the fact that you are a follower of Christ.

[DC Tom]

 

It's interesting how every time I give you an opportunity to explain to us how you are a follower of Christ, your only response is to discredit what I write without ever once trying to explain your side.

 

In his defense, his side hasn't been written in any op-ed pages yet, so he can't provide a link.

[birdog1960]

 

It's interesting how every time I give you an opportunity to explain to us how you are a follower of Christ, your only response is to discredit what I write without ever once trying to explain your side.

 

The entire foundation of this discussion between you and me is your insistence that you are a liberal and a follower of Jesus Christ, and yet while you are quick to explain your beliefs as a liberal, you are incapable of explaining some of the basics items that followers of Christ are asked to believe. In fact, you start yapping about everything else except confirmation of the fact that you are a follower of Christ.

who asks them to believe? you? some conservative bible college graduate preacher? i largely follow the beliefs and doctrine of the Catholic church. in some areas i disagree. So do millions of Catholics and Christians. by your reasoning, anyone using birth control is not a legitimate Catholic. anyone that supports the death penalty is not Christian. it's just not that simple and you are certainly not entitled to decide who is Christian and who is not.

 

How do we know the basis for God's judgment, then? How many things in the Bible are symbols or literary devices and what's actually true?

in Catholicism we have the cathecism. it documents the interpretations of these biblical passages and applies them to everyday life. it's based on tradition in most cases. sometimes the pope speaks ex cathedra on such issues but very rarely. there is much within the history of the church that illustrates the importance of these interpretations and vestiges remain.. Stations of the cross for example. relics. statues. it should be remembered that there were many illiterate believers until very recently.

Edited June 30, 2015 by birdog1960

[LeviF]

 

in Catholicism we have the cathecism. it documents the interpretations of these biblical passages and applies them to everyday life. it's based on tradition in most cases. sometimes the pope speaks ex cathedra on such issues but very rarely. there is much within the history of the church that illustrates the importance of these interpretations and vestiges remain.. Stations of the cross for example. relics. statues. it should be remembered that there were many illiterate believers until very recently.

 

See here's my issue, and maybe it is just me, but if you're going to say, "lots of things in the Bible are subject to interpretation and could be allegory or symbolism but the resurrection and the virgin birth most definitely happened and are literal" then I can't deal. Who's to say that many things in the supposed life of Jesus aren't also symbolism?

[3rdnlng]

wow. it'sa almost like 3 separate but possibly not separate posters attempted the same weak strategy to invalidate my incluysion in Christianity. i doesn't matter if it one of you or 3 of you. you are not in a position to make the call.

the litmus test is God as judge. there is no other. and of course i don't believe a literal interpretation of the bible. how old was methusala? does 40 days always actually mean 40 days? was the world created in 6 days? no. this is for people that cannot understand symbolism and ancient literary devices. this is why the Catholic church for centuries interpreted the bible for people.

I see you are back to your old trick of attempting to claim that all the posters who disagree with you are really just one poster with multiple screen names. Why do you refuse to engage once things get a little "sticky" for you? If you could hit as well as you dodge you'd make one hell of a boxer. It's apparent that discussion with you is fruitless and that you are choosing to follow your own version of Christianity. Why don't you just make a clean break and call it birdogism?

[birdog1960]

I see you are back to your old trick of attempting to claim that all the posters who disagree with you are really just one poster with multiple screen names. Why do you refuse to engage once things get a little "sticky" for you? If you could hit as well as you dodge you'd make one hell of a boxer. It's apparent that discussion with you is fruitless and that you are choosing to follow your own version of Christianity. Why don't you just make a clean break and call it birdogism?

once again, i don't accept your authority to define Christianity. every reformed church, beginning with martin luther, within Christianity has chosen their own version. by your reasoning, they are all illegitimate. some people actually believe that. i don't. i see it as a big tent that can accomodate many different people. i think each flavor likely has gotten some things right and somew things wrong. as pope francis has said, christianity should act as a field hospital for the sick in faith and spirit. it should be inclusive and inviting not exclusive and condemning.

 

“The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds. ... And you have to start from the ground up.

From “A Big Heart Open to God,” America magazine Sept

Edited June 30, 2015 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

 

once again, i don't accept your authority to define Christianity.

You don't accept the Pope's, either. But you claim to be Catholic.

[3rdnlng]

 

once again, i don't accept your authority to define Christianity. every reformed church, beginning with martin luther, within Christianity has chosen their own version. by your reasoning, they are all illegitimate. some people actually believe that. i don't. i see it as a big tent that can accomodate many different people. i think each flavor likely has gotten some things right and somew things wrong. as pope francis has said, christianity should act as a field hospital for the sick in faith and spirit. it should be inclusive and inviting not exclusive and condemning.

 

“The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds. ... And you have to start from the ground up.

From “A Big Heart Open to God,” America magazine Sept

 

Listen, you claimed to be Catholic and a liberal. My contention was/is that it is impossible to be what a liberal is considered today and a Catholic that follows the Church's doctrine faithfully. We've sort of loosely thrown around the words "Catholic" and "Christian" as if they are interchangeable. They are not. You address the different denominations that make up Christianity but do so in trying to defend your personal beliefs that don't lend themselves to Catholicism. It's difficult for me to see the fundamental differences you have with the Church and not wonder why you still call yourself a Catholic.

[birdog1960]

Listen, you claimed to be Catholic and a liberal. My contention was/is that it is impossible to be what a liberal is considered today and a Catholic that follows the Church's doctrine faithfully. We've sort of loosely thrown around the words "Catholic" and "Christian" as if they are interchangeable. They are not. You address the different denominations that make up Christianity but do so in trying to defend your personal beliefs that don't lend themselves to Catholicism. It's difficult for me to see the fundamental differences you have with the Church and not wonder why you still call yourself a Catholic.

i could not care less what you have difficulty seeing. very often it appears you have difficulty recognizing the truth. i'm in good standing within the church. it was recently affirmed formally for a baptism. Catholicism is a galaxy (the largest) within the universe of Christianity. It is the parent to all other forms. in those ways they are related. you all turned this into a defense of my personal beliefs. i'm quite comfortable with them. the Catholic heirarrchy has also become much more tolerant of different opinions since the election of Francis. remember those mouthy liberal American nuns that were brought to heel? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/16/the-vatican-s-rare-nod-to-american-nuns.html# that's over. while they've softened some positions, so has the church. are you Catholic or do you just imagine this extremely rigid and unforgiving institution? your impression seem badly misguided to me. regardless, the discussion originated on the possibilty of the existence of liberal Christians. the argument is ridiculous on its face and should have been left at that.

Edited June 30, 2015 by birdog1960

[IDBillzFan]

i could not care less what you have difficulty seeing.

 

There is no difficulty in seeing that when you say you are a Catholic liberal, what you mean to say is that you're a liberal who attends a special Catholic church which, against all other Catholic churches, believes the act of homosexual sex is not a sin.

 

Or maybe you disagree with the church, and explained to the church that you believe the act of homosexual sex is not a sin, and they affirmed you for baptism anyway. Is that what happened?

 

If not...then just explain to us how your Catholic church was granted special sin waivers.

 

Explain something, because all you've done is use a lot of words to complete stray from the very simple questions we're asking.

[3rdnlng]

i could not care less what you have difficulty seeing. very often it appears you have difficulty recognizing the truth. i'm in good standing within the church. it was recently affirmed formally for a baptism. Catholicism is a galaxy (the largest) within the universe of Christianity. It is the parent to all other forms. in those ways they are related. you all turned this into a defense of my personal beliefs. i'm quite comfortable with them. the Catholic heirarrchy has also become much more tolerant of different opinions since the election of Francis. remember those mouthy liberal American nuns that were brought to heel? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/16/the-vatican-s-rare-nod-to-american-nuns.html# that's over. while they've softened some positions, so has the church. are you Catholic or do you just imagine this extremely rigid and unforgiving institution? your impression seem badly misguided to me. regardless, the discussion originated on the possibilty of the existence of liberal Christians. the argument is ridiculous on its face and should have been left at that.

I think this discussion started with the existence of liberal Catholics as the focal point. Catholicism and Christianity got used interchangeably, which was wrong.