God Loves Homosexuals

[psyche23]

But we never really know what path God wants us to take. Some people are convinced of their vocation, but could be wrong.

What if married life is the calling for a homosexual? Why should his/her lifestyle be a deterrent?

For all those reasons above which everyone has stated already.

 

[buffalo]

Andrew, if today a $10 pill came out that would eliminate a persons homosexuality, what would happen?

 

[AndrewLong]

Because acting in a sinful way cannot be a calling from God.

Then what are your thoughts on a heterosexual couple getting married only because of pre-marital sex and pregnancy? Are they not getting married in sin?

 

[Publisher]

Will you share with me the process?

Friend’s do not vote on issues which relate to the life of the Meeting, be it the Monthly Meeting, Quarterly Meeting or Yearly Meeting. We do not feel the majority is always right, the least of those among us has a voice, and their concerns must be taken into account for decisions we make as a group. Any member can halt the process at any time by “digging their heels” in and saying they do not believe the Light is guiding us in the way we are headed…sometimes a prophetic gift calls a single individual to speak against directions the Meeting is moving…but through prayerful discussion and calling upon the Light to lead us in our decisions, a consensus is usually determined.

Everything is done by consensus as we feel led by the Light. When an issue come us where there is disagreement among Friends, we study the issue, pray and worship together seeking divine guidence. We do not believe just because we can’t make a quick consensus that God is not involved…God moves slowly at times it seems and we are called to patience.

On the issue of whether to accept gay and lesbians into the full fellowship and life of the Meeting, the monthly Meeting I belong to took about 3-4 years to reach a consensus.

We searched scripture, spoke to people, prayed, meditated and discussed within the setting of a Meeting for Worship for Business. We heard Friends on both sides of the fence. We discussed the witness of scripture and what they said about homosexuality and sought to discern the will of God. We meet in small committees discussing the issue and turning again to scripture and prayer. We spoke to psychologists/scientists/sociologiists in our Meeting, we spoke with those Friends who “came out” to the Meeting and listened to their stories and witnessed the lives they lived before us as gay and lesbian men and women of conscience.

After a long process we as a Meeting affirmed the right of gay and lesbian Friends full and unfettered membership in the Meeting with all rights and priveleges given to them as Friends. As I said, it took years for us to reach the consensus through lots of prayer, tears, listening (one of the most difficult things to do by the way) and searching out facts…not representations of ideas, but facts which deal with sexuality and morals.

The North Pacific Yearly Meeting went through a similar process.

It is not a popular stance among many religious people, but following the leading of the Light doesn’t guarantee popularity. We have been richly blessed by our gay and lesbian Friends, some of the most valued ministry has been through our gay Friends…and our Lesbian Clerk in particular.

 

[buffalo]

Then what are your thoughts on a heterosexual couple getting married only because of pre-marital sex and pregnancy? Are they not getting married in sin?

After one confesses their sins they are no longer in sin unless they fall again. So in the case you mention, if they get married they are no longer living in sin. To patch it up with God confession is necessary and a penance to heal the deficiency left by the sin in our relationship with God.

One other thing - these are not my thoughts - I am trying to convey the teachings of Christ as handed down by the Catholic Church as best I can.

 

[buffalo]

Friend’s do not vote on issues which relate to the life of the Meeting, be it the Monthly Meeting, Quarterly Meeting or Yearly Meeting. We do not feel the majority is always right, the least of those among us has a voice, and their concerns must be taken into account for decisions we make as a group. Any member can halt the process at any time by “digging their heels” in and saying they do not believe the Light is guiding us in the way we are headed…sometimes a prophetic gift calls a single individual to speak against directions the Meeting is moving…but through prayerful discussion and calling upon the Light to lead us in our decisions, a consensus is usually determined.

Everything is done by consensus as we feel led by the Light. When an issue come us where there is disagreement among Friends, we study the issue, pray and worship together seeking divine guidence. We do not believe just because we can’t make a quick consensus that God is not involved…God moves slowly at times it seems and we are called to patience.

On the issue of whether to accept gay and lesbians into the full fellowship and life of the Meeting, the monthly Meeting I belong to took about 3-4 years to reach a consensus.

We searched scripture, spoke to people, prayed, meditated and discussed within the setting of a Meeting for Worship for Business. We heard Friends on both sides of the fence. We discussed the witness of scripture and what they said about homosexuality and sought to discern the will of God. We meet in small committees discussing the issue and turning again to scripture and prayer. We spoke to psychologists/scientists/sociologiists in our Meeting, we spoke with those Friends who “came out” to the Meeting and listened to their stories and witnessed the lives they lived before us as gay and lesbian men and women of conscience.

After a long process we as a Meeting affirmed the right of gay and lesbian Friends full and unfettered membership in the Meeting with all rights and priveleges given to them as Friends. As I said, it took years for us to reach the consensus through lots of prayer, tears, listening (one of the most difficult things to do by the way) and searching out facts…not representations of ideas, but facts which deal with sexuality and morals.

The North Pacific Yearly Meeting went through a similar process.

It is not a popular stance among many religious people, but following the leading of the Light doesn’t guarantee popularity. We have been richly blessed by our gay and lesbian Friends, some of the most valued ministry has been through our gay Friends…and our Lesbian Clerk in particular.

The Quakers arrived on the scene roughly 1500 years after Christ walked the earth and the Catholic (universal) Church began. Quakers believe in truth. How can you find the truth? Man cannot find the absolute truth by himself. He must look to the absolute truth - God. The society started with people coming together that had similar beliefs. The issue is that you have lost the Tradition the Catholic Church handed you and moved towards primacy of conscience.

The Catholic Church is like a three legged stool. It needs Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. If it loses one of its legs it will topple.

So esentially you are trying to interpret Scripture without the Tradition that came from the very begining.

 

[Publisher]

The Quakers arrived on the scene roughly 1500 years after Christ walked the earth and the Catholic (universal) Church began. Quakers believe in truth. How can you find the truth? Man cannot find the absolute truth by himself. He must look to the absolute truth - God. The society started with people coming together that had similar beliefs. The issue is that you have lost the Tradition the Catholic Church handed you and moved towards primacy of conscience.

The Catholic Church is like a three legged stool. It needs Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

So esentially you are trying to interpret Scripture without the Tradition that came from the very begining.

We do not believe we “lost” the tradition of the church. We do not believe the CC was started by Christ…so we never “lost” what never occured. Friends as a “movement” with the name “Friends”, you are correct, we began as an orgainized group around four centuries ago, but we share “in the virtue and power of which the apostles lived”…God’s present immediacy among those whom He has called into His service is how we seek to live. Those whom have followed Christ thoroughout the centuries have belonged to various organizations…we follow Christ as He has called us to follow Him.

If you are content with your religious tradition, great…I am content with mine…it is God that I must answer to one day…and I’m ok with that…I will accept anything from His Hand…as Job said…“Though He slay me, still will I trust in Him.”

 

[buffalo]

We do not believe we “lost” the tradition of the church. We do not believe the CC was started by Christ…so we never “lost” what never occured. Friends believe as a “movement” with the name “Friends” you are correct, we began as an orgainized group around four centuries ago, but we share “in the virtue and power of which the apostles lived”…God present immediacy among those whom He has called into His service.

If you are content with your religious tradition, great…I am content with mine…it is God that I must answer to one day…and I’m ok with that…I will accept anything from His Hand…as Job said…“Though He slay me, still will I trust in Him.”

How do you find truth? Simply vote on it?

 

[Publisher]

How do you find truth? Simply vote on it?

Friend’s don’t “vote”. We “live in that virtue of life which the apostles lived.” We have an immediate experiential “experimental” faith. We know God “experimentally” as George Fox stated.

This link might assist you in any questions about Friends…fgcquaker.org/ao/new-quakerism

 

[wanner47]

Perhaps I should say what I just said again - THOSE instances aren’t justified by happiness.

Oh, so *only *homosexuals can commit sin in order to make themselves happy? Why is that, and who gave you the authority to decide so? I don’t see anywhere in the Bible, for example, where Jesus says, “These people must take up their cross and follow me, but these people can sin all they want as long as they’re happy” or “Go and sin no more – except for you; you do whatever makes you happy.”

Plus, there are alternatives to adultery and murder. It was your mother’s choice to pursue that route.

There are alternatives to homosexual behavior (e.g., a chaste lifestyle). It’s the choice of homosexuals to pursue that route.

 

[buffalo]

Friend’s don’t “vote”. We “live in that virtue of life which the apostles lived.” We have an immediate experiential “experimental” faith. We know God “experimentally” as George Fox stated.

I derived from your statements that consensus was reached. Isn’t that the same as informally voting?

From my understanding you are similar to Protestants and Sola Scriptura. Each sect can interpret the Bible as they discern it.

There is no central authority to sanction an interpretation. That means you and I can read the same Bible verse and come to two different truths? One cannot be true. So who is the arbiter?

 

[Publisher]

Oh, so *only *homosexuals can commit sin in order to make themselves happy?

That is where we diverge…not all of us accept homosexuality is a sin.

Why is that, and who gave you the authority to decide so? I don’t see anywhere in the Bible, for example, where Jesus says, “These people must take up their cross and follow me, but these people can sin all they want as long as they’re happy” or “Go and sin no more – except for you; you do whatever makes you happy.”

Neither do we…the subject of homosexuality and sexual ethics is not specifically discussed in scripture…some homosexual behavior is discussed, rape, sexual based idol worship, pedastry…but not committed loving same sex unions…that is not even touched upon nor hinted at.

There are alternatives to homosexual behavior (e.g., a chaste lifestyle). It’s the choice of homosexuals to pursue that route.

And it is also a choice to pursue a whole complete life with a partner.

 

[wanner47]

Originally Posted by wanner47
Oh, so only homosexuals can commit sin in order to make themselves happy?

My mother doesn’t accept adultery as a sin. Does that mean she was justified in doing what she felt she needed to in order to be happy?

By the way, God DOES consider homosexuality a sin (according to Scripture, as well as the teachings of the Church that He established AND according to the early Church fathers as well), so if you don’t… you’re going against God.

Why is that, and who gave you the authority to decide so? I don’t see anywhere in the Bible, for example, where Jesus says, “These people must take up their cross and follow me, but these people can sin all they want as long as they’re happy” or “Go and sin no more – except for you; you do whatever makes you happy.”

Neither do we…the subject of homosexuality and sexual ethics is not specifically discussed in scripture…some homosexual behavior is discussed, rape, sexual based idol worship, pedastry…but not committed loving same sex unions…that is not even touched upon nor hinted at.

Yes, it is. It’s expressly forbidden, “loving” or otherwise.

There are alternatives to homosexual behavior (e.g., a chaste lifestyle). It’s the choice of homosexuals to pursue that route.

And it is also a choice to pursue a whole complete life with a partner.

Yes, it is a choice to commit sin. I fully agree with you. However, if one professes to follow Christ, it’s a bad choice to make.

 

[Publisher]

My mother doesn’t accept adultery as a sin. Does that mean she was justified in doing what she felt she needed to in order to be happy?

Do you actually believe that is a fair comparison? Adultery breaks the marriage bond of fidelity…it betrays the promise of fidelity your mom made to your dad. Those same sex couples who make a lifelong commitment are under the same restrictions…they promised fidelity to one another…the sexual ethic is the same whether gay or straight.

By the way, God DOES consider homosexuality a sin (according to Scripture, as well as the teachings of the Church that He established AND according to the early Church fathers as well), so if you don’t… you’re going against God.

I** am going against what the Catholic church teaches, no doubt…it is a man made organization…it is my firm conviction it is and was not started by God…the early church fathers were the “proto-catholics” of their times to be sure. I view scripture differently than you do, I do not believe anywhere in scripture God specifically calls “homosexuality a sin”…I do not go against God…just because you state that I do does not make it so…it is your religious belief.**

Yes, it is. It’s expressly forbidden, “loving” or otherwise.

I don’t believe so.

Yes, it is a choice to commit sin. I fully agree with you. However, if one professes to follow Christ, it’s a bad choice to make.

I follow the Light of Christ…I am content to put myself in His hands.

 

[Iloveu2]

Tietjen

I’m not sure I can answer your questions intelligently but I will try to explain where I’m coming from just a little bit. It isn’t going to fit in with Catholic theology but I believe we should find it in our hearts to respect each other’s views about the bible even if we don’t agree with each other.

I would ask you perhaps first of all to do some searching on the net regarding the origins of the bible, both the Old and New T. I’ve been reading a great deal about it and I have come to believe that not all of the bible, both Old and New T. is divinely inspired. Parts of both of them are. Do you read on belifenet.com ? There is a treasury of spiritual information, forums, articles etc. on it. Read the old forum which comes up first in yellow pages. Its the best and the easiest ro read.

We say there is one God and yet we all have different opinions about this one God. He isn’t the same in everyone’s eyes. I have varying opinions about God. First of all I would like to say that God is such a huge and immense concept that he, she, or it can never be put into words. God is above words. Men do try in their holy writings to write down what they believe in their own minds that God has spoken to them. They do their best but it still falls short.

In the Old T. in particular I believe much of it is about the tribal wars which were going on and men are attributing winning or losing to God. They inserted God into their stories and beliefs. I do not believe there ever existed such a God as the God who is portrayed in Joshua for example. If so this God is much worse than any conceivable human being could ever be with the exception perhaps of Hitler or Stalin. God is there in the bible but there is much that is not God. There is myth and stories which are not to be taken literally. The morales of the stories are fine.

Also if Jesus is God this means Jesus was with God in the Trinity as these vile horrendous outrageous acts in Joshua and other chapters were being committed. Jesus always existed and so therefore he was with God committing these acts of murder against innocent men, women, children and even animals. I fail to believe this. I am sorry. God didn’t commit these acts and neither did Jesus.

So, this is why its very difficult for me to make myself understood on a basically Catholic forum and I probably shouldn’t even try. Its my mistake. My purpose in coming was simply to give the interpretation of scripture which I gave on the very first post. I am a rather passive personality (believe it or not) not given to arguments and dissension in general. I prefer to step aside and let others argue while I do learn a great deal from those others.

Jesus said it is not what goes into a man that hurts him but it is what comes out of him meaning speech. I really do think that every word we speak if it isn’t spoken in love hurts us ourselves on the inside as well as those we speak to. Jesus also said “judge not so that ye be not judged; with what judgement ye mete to others it shall be meted out to you”. In other words, what goes around comes around. I’m not smart …no…but I also try to be a little bit careful in my speech. I’m not qualified to sit in judgement of others. Others on this board may be. And yet, I know the parodox or contradiction of what I’ve just said because I am judging in saying that homosexuals are like all other people created in the image of God and dearly loved by God. Granted there are extremists and hate mongers among them just as there are among hetrosexuals or any group of people.

O.K. Amen. I do have to stop. My sincere apologies for not answering questions, yours especially Tietjen. You deserve answers. I would have to do some deep thinking and I don’t feel up to it. My mind is in a bit of a whirl. Forgive me. Thank you sincerely to all those who took the time and energy to answer my posts. I appreciate it and I will read your answers over and over again hoping to glean wisdom and truth from them.

Oh…the forum’s wonderful, fantastic. po18guy sent me a prayer for myself and my husband and then he emailed saying he is doing special prayers. How beautiful. His prayer sounds like the voice of God himself and I am highly elated. Perhaps God in his love,mercy, and wisdom has sent me here so that he may speak to me through po18guy. Who knows? I’m off topic, sorry.

Its been worthwhile being here. I don’t believe I’ll return to this thread. Possibly I’ll post on some other threads in the future.

Love Light and Peace to All.

Genevieve

 

[Publisher]

I derived from your statements that consensus was reached. Isn’t that the same as informally voting?

No, no ‘voice’ was silenced nor discounted, we reached Spirit led consensus.

From my understanding you are similar to Protestants and Sola Scriptura. Each sect can interpret the Bible as they discern it.

We do not believe the “inspired” is greater or equal to the Inspirer, we live within the immediate Presence of the Spirit…God among us, present with us, in us, through us. The Bible is simply one source, not the ultimate source for truth. We live in a very complex world, a very finite world, God is infinte, all we know of Him in words are “shadows”…God is known through experience…we all struggle to find His will…some of us better than others…but the Truth is beyond our scope, we haven’t even figured out the material universe let alone the One who called all things into being.

For us, God is best known and understood through His Word…Jesus of Nazareth. He is the best and fullest revelation of God.

There is no central authority to sanction an interpretation. That means you and I can read the same Bible verse and come to two different truths? One cannot be true. So who is the arbiter?

I’m not too concerned with determining the “truth” of a particular relgious body based in words, but living the Truth in my life. My understanding of this Truth is not found in doctrine and dogma…it is found in living it out in the daily of our lives…

From Friends General Conference…**In the middle of the seventeenth century in England, as the availability of printed books increased, the Bible was becoming widely known, and it appeared to many who read it that the early Christian church depended very little on ecclesiastical structure, elaborate ritual, and formal creeds but that it depended greatly on the Spirit in the midst of the worshipping group and on prophetic utterances inspired by the Spirit. Puritans wished to “purify” the Church of accretions since the early days of Christianity. The Anglicans, being the most conservative, took out a few of these elements, the Presbyterians a few more, the Congregationalists a few more, the Baptists a few more, and finally the Quakers, being the most radical of the new sects, took out everything except dependence on the Divine Spirit for guidance and power. Quakerism was therefore a new revival of the old prophetic religion. The Spirit was not for them the third person of a Trinity but God revealed inwardly, as God had been revealed outwardly through Jesus of Nazareth. This is the Word, Light, Life, Truth and Love in the language of John, and “the Spirit” and “the Christ in you” of Paul. . **

 

[wanner47]

Originally Posted by wanner47 View Post
My mother doesn’t accept adultery as a sin. Does that mean she was justified in doing what she felt she needed to in order to be happy?

Yes, I think it’s a very fair comparison.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” **They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. **Under no circumstances can they be approved.

By the way, God DOES consider homosexuality a sin (according to Scripture, as well as the teachings of the Church that He established AND according to the early Church fathers as well), so if you don’t… you’re going against God.

I am going against what the Catholic church teaches, no doubt….it is a man made organization…it is my firm conviction it is and was not started by God…the early church fathers were the “proto-catholics” of their times to be sure. I view scripture differently than you do, I do not believe anywhere in scripture God specifically calls “homosexuality a sin”…I do not go against God…just because you state that I do does not make it so…it is your religious belief.

The Catholic Church is not a man-made organization. It was established by Christ Himself. That is clearly found in Scripture.

You admit that the early Church fathers were “proto-Catholics.” Doesn’t that mean anything to you? Perhaps they were “proto-Catholics” because they held to the beliefs taught by the Apostles, and in turn, taught by Christ.

Do you really think that those who were taught by the Apostles would fall into error so quickly? According to your theory, the Apostles taught that same-sex unions were perfectly okay (even though there is NOTHING in Scripture to back this up – quite the contrary, in fact), but the next generation of teachers quickly turned around and taught, UNANIMOUSLY, that all homosexual behavior was immoral.

If your theory is correct, wouldn’t that make Jesus a liar, since He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church? If His Church fell into error within a generation, that sure seems like the gates of Hell prevailing to me.

Do you also think that Jesus was so short-sighted that he would not leave a teaching authority behind to teach in His stead? Do you believe that He meant for his Church to fall into error so soon after His ascension?

Also, just because you state that homosexuality is NOT a sin doesn’t make it so.

Yes, it is. It’s expressly forbidden, “loving” or otherwise.

I don’t believe so.

And why should I believe you? Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus gave you teaching authority and the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture?

Yes, it is a choice to commit sin. I fully agree with you. However, if one professes to follow Christ, it’s a bad choice to make.

I follow the Light of Christ…I am content to put myself in His hands.

How can you follow the Light of Christ and put yourself in His hands when you reject His teachings, as well as the teachings of His apostles and His Church?

 

[Publisher]

Yes, I think it’s a very fair comparison.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

The Catholic Church is not a man-made organization. It was established by Christ Himself. That is clearly found in Scripture.

If I really thought so I’d probably be Catholic…but I don’t.

You admit that the early Church fathers were “proto-Catholics.” Doesn’t that mean anything to you? Perhaps they were “proto-Catholics” because they held to the beliefs taught by the Apostles, and in turn, taught by Christ.

"Proto-catholic" in that they were a group of early Christians who made claims about their “heritage” that many accepted…those of other Christian groups such as the Gnostics claimed to have received their teaching also from Paul, John, Thomas etc, yet they did not affirm a rigid structure of “sucession” nor did they embrace the hierarchal structure of “deacons, priests and bishops” which the “proto-catholic/orthodox” did…I do not believe the myth that the ECF’s and the Gnostics put forth…but many sure did.

Do you really think that those who were taught by the Apostles would fall into error so quickly? According to your theory, the Apostles taught that same-sex unions were perfectly okay (even though there is NOTHING in Scripture to back this up – quite the contrary, in fact), but the next generation of teachers quickly turned around and taught, UNANIMOUSLY, that all homosexual behavior was immoral.

I do not believe they really “were taught by the apostles”. As far as your assertion that I claim that the apostles taught same sex unions…your statement is patently false…please provide where I said any such thing. What I believe I said is that homosexuality as we understand it today was not even addressed.

If your theory is correct, wouldn’t that make Jesus a liar, since He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church? If His Church fell into error within a generation, that sure seems like the gates of Hell prevailing to me.

Again, disagreeing with the Catholic church and you does not make “Jesus a liar”…I do not believe the gates of hell have ever prevailed against the church…I simply do not believe that the organization claiming to be the “Church” was established by Christ or his apostles…it is a man made organization that gained prominece over all other versions of Christianity by it alliance to the Roman government with the conversion of Constantine and the forming of the ecumenical councils.

Do you also think that Jesus was so short-sighted that he would not leave a teaching authority behind to teach in His stead? Do you believe that He meant for his Church to fall into error so soon after His ascension?

Jesus came to call a People to follow him and be his Body in this world…he did not establish an organization, he called a People.

Also, just because you state that homosexuality is NOT a sin doesn’t make it so.

**And just because you state it is…does NOT make it so. We can go round and round with this one…and have!!! Not getting anywhere though **

And why should I believe you? Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus gave you teaching authority and the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture?

I never asked you to believe me…did I? I don’t use the Bible as a final source of authority either…I don’t believe anyone can “infallibly” interpret scripture…that is one of your beliefs…not mine.

How can you follow the Light of Christ and put yourself in His hands when you reject His teachings, as well as the teachings of His apostles and His Church?

I don’t reject his teachings…I reject what you claim are his teaching and I reject what you claim is the Church…not the same thing at all.

 

[wanner47]

If I really thought so I’d probably be Catholic…but I don’t.

So you reject the Scriptures that clearly establish that Jesus founded the Catholic Church?

“Proto-catholic” in that they were a group of early Christians who made claims about their “heritage” that many accepted…those of other Christian groups such as the Gnostics claimed to have received their teaching also from Paul, John, Thomas etc, yet they did not affirm a rigid structure of “sucession” nor did they embrace the hierarchal structure of “deacons, priests and bishops” which the “proto-catholic/orthodox” did…I do not believe the myth that the ECF’s and the Gnostics put forth…but many sure did.

I’m sorry, but that’s one of the more ridiculous things I’ve ever heard and, to me, also shows an appalling ignorance of both Scripture and history.

So you believe that once the Apostles did, the Church immediately fell into error?

I do not believe they really “were taught by the apostles”. As far as your assertion that I claim that the apostles taught same sex unions…your statement is patently false…please provide where I said any such thing. What I believe I said is that homosexuality as we understand it today was not even addressed.

The early Church fathers WERE taught by the apostles. There is historical proof of this.

And I responded that homosexuality is clearly condemned in Scripture. If the behavior is condemned, it cannot be licit in *any *context – so-called “marriage” or not.

Again, disagreeing with the Catholic church and you does not make “Jesus a liar”…I do not believe the gates of hell have ever prevailed against the church…I simply do not believe that the organization claiming to be the “Church” was established by Christ or his apostles…it is a man made organization that gained prominece over all other versions of Christianity by it alliance to the Roman government with the conversion of Constantine and the forming of the ecumenical councils.

So you think that the early Church fell into error one generation after after Jesus’ ascension, and you DON’T think that would be the gates of Hell prevailing against the Church?

Again, the fact that the Catholic Church was established by Christ is **clearly **stated in Scripture.

Jesus came to call a People to follow him and be his Body in this world…he did not establish an organization, he called a People.

Wrong. He also established a Church, with Peter as her head. This is stated in Scripture.

Also, just because you state that homosexuality is NOT a sin doesn’t make it so.

And just because you state it is…does NOT make it so. We can go round and round with this one…and have!!! Not getting anywhere though

Well, then why did you originally say it to me?

And why should I believe you? Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus gave you teaching authority and the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture?

I never asked you to believe me…did I? I don’t use the Bible as a final source of authority either…I don’t believe anyone can “infallibly” interpret scripture…that is one of your beliefs…not mine.

If I shouldn’t believe you, why the debate? Isn’t the purpose of the debate to disprove the beliefs of the other side?

I’m glad we agree that the Bible isn’t the final source of authority? Tell me, what IS the final source, in your opinion?

Do you believe that Jesus left us Scripture with no means whatsoever to interpret it? Seems kind of dumb for him to do, doesn’t it?

I don’t reject his teachings…I reject what you claim are his teaching and I reject what you claim is the Church…not the same thing at all.

Jesus said, referring to the Church, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). So when you reject the Church that Jesus established, you also reject Him.

 

[Publisher]

So you reject the Scriptures that clearly establish that Jesus founded the Catholic Church?

Again, I do not reject scripture, just your take on it…not the same thing.

I’m sorry, but that’s one of the more ridiculous things I’ve ever heard and, to me, also shows an appalling ignorance of both Scripture and history.

With words like “ridiculous” and “appalling ignorance”, we seem to be going down a road with less that Christian charity…I choose not to go there…Peace be with you.

So you believe that once the Apostles did, the Church immediately fell into error?

No

The early Church fathers WERE taught by the apostles. There is historical proof of this.

There is the claim I guess, but not “historical proof” other than the ECF’s claiming so.

And I responded that homosexuality is clearly condemned in Scripture. If the behavior is condemned, it cannot be licit in *any *context – so-called “marriage” or not.

I don’t believe it is “clearly condemned” or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

So you think that the early Church fell into error one generation after after Jesus’ ascension, and you DON’T think that would be the gates of Hell prevailing against the Church?

Again…No.

Again, the fact that the Catholic Church was established by Christ is **clearly **stated in Scripture.

I** don’t believe the Catholic church was, and it is not clearly stated in scripture…your beliefs claim it to be so…but that is a religious belief I do not hold.**

Wrong. He also established a Church, with Peter as her head. This is stated in Scripture.

Again, that is your religious belief…one I simply don’t hold.

Well, then why did you originally say it to me?

Please offer the quote.

If I shouldn’t believe you, why the debate? Isn’t the purpose of the debate to disprove the beliefs of the other side?

You do not need to believe me…I thought the purpose of exchange of ideas and belief was to help us understand one another and offer a venue of free exchange of ideas. I didn’t realize it was to “disprove” the other side…I hope it offers a mirror to what others believe…but your beliefs are yours…I hope they are tempered with Christian charity and compassion…I hope I exhibit the Spirit of Christ in my posts as well.

I’m glad we agree that the Bible isn’t the final source of authority? Tell me, what IS the final source, in your opinion?

The Light of Christ.

Do you believe that Jesus left us Scripture with no means whatsoever to interpret it? Seems kind of dumb for him to do, doesn’t it?

No, I do not believe Jesus “left us scripture” at all. The scriptures are our response to him, not his response to us. They are a testimony of those first believers in the decades after the apostles as they sought to understand the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. They are a testimony of what a select group of early first/second century Christians had come to believe about this "man from heaven."

Jesus said, referring to the Church, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). So when you reject the Church that Jesus established, you also reject Him.

I don’t reject his teachings…I reject what you claim are his teaching and I reject what you claim is the Church…not the same thing at all.