Posted on 10/23/2014 4:31:04 PM PDT by detective
“Your Holiness, I could go to Hell for doing this.”
“Well, don’t do that.”
“Time to start sending missionaries to Rome to distribute Bibles?”
Get in line and take a number:
http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=54858
True. No pronouncements can save you. Prayer, repentance, and the Grace of God can.
Ezekiel 18:30b-32 Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
Frances has no intention of doing that. Frances and Obola are peas in a pod. Their agenda is the same.
And I spelled "Frances" that way on purpose.
It's not God sending them to hell. . .it's not because we say it's "sin".. ..it is ONLY because it violates the laws of nature (and of nature's God) which were put in place so that we could find the surest path to lasting happiness.
For better or worse, Pope Francis deserves a respectful title. Obama not so much.
The church does not decide who goes to hell.
Satan doesn’t want his own church, he wants The Church.
True.
Satan already has the muzzies, can't he just be satisfied with that?
That is true, and thank you.
I ceased using terms like “gay”, “homophobia”, and “homosexuality” (except in quotation marks or with so-called) long ago. That is allowing the opposition to define the terms of the debate to their advantage, something leftists aggressively rely upon doing.
Such conduct is homoeroticism: erotically stimulating behavior that has no direct relationship to actual sexual relations.
In short, it is a fetish.
While I loathe him, Clinton was technically right (although making the argument to serve his unethical purposes) that “oral sex” is not sex, either: It is certainly very intimate and highly erotic, but no woman ever became pregnant from so-called oral sex: Neither the stomach (nor the rectum, as in above) is directly involved in sexual reproduction. It exists for its inherent pleasure apart from sex and/or as excitatory foreplay before sex and/or precisely as a substitute for sex (to avoid the natural result of true sex: pregnancy).
Haven’t finished reading, but that writer is so deluded, I can’t believe they actually expected the Catholic Church to deny G-d & call homosexuality normal. I didn’t realize homosexuality assaulted their brains like that. Should have figured.
How does it differ from all the other sins that everyone commits on a daily basis? Is not the wages of all sin death? Did God send Jesus to die for all our sins? Has anyone ever stopped all sinning once saved by the Blood of Jesus or do we all reside under His continuing Grace? How are the sins in your own life superior to the sins of homosexuality? Do you detect/suspect any hypocrisy in those who make simple blanket statements because they somehow construe their own sins to be either nonexistent or somehow less than the sins of others?
I don’t understand these people. Do they actually believe in God and believe that the Bible is His word? If not, why would they care what Catholics believe? If so, why would they continue to disobey God? My suspicion is that they are merely thugs, indifferent to God, joyfully bullying Christians, and reveling in the power of victimhood and government overreach.
How does it differ from all the other sins that everyone commits on a daily basis?
A good question, which has a good answer. Some sins are more serious than others in kind. This makes intuitive sense. But you are correct in saying that all sin is sin, and no one should feel safe or smug, since all sin is a rejection of God—and also, we are all in danger of falling into sins to which we might have thought ourselves immune.
There isn't any sin that doesn't need to be brought to Jesus for forgiveness, and there's no sin He won't forgive, if we are sincere and firm in our intention not to sin again. In that context, Catholic teaching identifies "Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance." They are:
1) Willful murder;
2) The Sin of Sodom;
3) Oppression of the Poor;
4) Defrauding the Laborer of his Wages.
Well, no. He already has EVERYONE who does not accept Jesus as Lord. That’s a bunch of folks, but Satan is ambitious to spoil as much as possible.
He wants to be recognized as God, it’s been his ambition all along. So what better way to infiltrate the church than with a minority group of sinners, now found to be without sin by secular society, being accepted into The Church as not in need of repentance? He’s been successful here in the U.S. in that openly pro-abortion politicians receive communion, and THAT is not enough either. He wants it ALL!
And the worst part of it all, if it were not so tragic it would be laughable, is people think that if The Church is dumb enough to accept baby killers and homosexuals, that they will not be on the Hell Bound Express.
Lefties have a hard time with the concept of objective reality and truth.
Fine, the Catholic Church can stop “calling” it a sin, if that’s what this guy wants,
but that doesn’t change it. It’s not defined by “the church”.
IIRC, the Church used to burn people for doing that.
Somehow, the Word of God was a “heresy”. Go figure.
Sin is sin. The agenda addressed in this thread, is to establish homosexual sin as NOT a sin, therefore the sinner not being in need of repentance. We all sin, and must acknowledge it, turn away from it and let the Lord help us resist the temptation to commit sins. So far, we all still sin again, acknowledge it, repent, rinse, repeat.
In Romans 6:1 it wraps up the pattern in that if we truly have our hearts set for the Lord, we will stop a particular sin habit in the course of our Christian walk so as to discontinue grieving the Holy Spirit. Of course then we move on to another one of our sin habits that need to change, etc.
The Catholic Church recognizes deliberate sin as “mortal”, needing confession and communion to establish, and re-establish, one’s being saved by grace (at least that’s what I remember from lessons in my childhood) and incidental or non deliberate sin, as “venial”, not requiring immediate confession, but causing damage to our souls none the less, and thusly repaired by confession and communion.
The Protestant position, at least in the Baptist churches I have been a part of, have a similar belief in that if one continues to deliberately sin, he probably has not accepted Jesus as Lord of his life and is still in need of His Salvation. That precludes the acceptance of homosexuals being members of The Church not being in need of repentance of that particular sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.