|
Post by dmclayton on May 3, 2006 17:38:22 GMT -5
haha. president bush is more likely the anti-christ than any pope.
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on May 6, 2006 8:39:50 GMT -5
Tell me bible thumper..why is the gospel of thomas not in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 6, 2006 9:56:26 GMT -5
the gospel of thomas is not in the bible because of its 'sayings of christ.' the verse(s) most controversial attribute to pantheism, meaning, that god is in everything, i.e. rocks, trees, etc.
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on May 7, 2006 5:10:18 GMT -5
the gospel of thomas is not in the bible because of its 'sayings of christ.' the verse(s) most controversial attribute to pantheism, meaning, that god is in everything, i.e. rocks, trees, etc. Ok but who deemed it unworty and removed it from the bible
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 7, 2006 8:15:07 GMT -5
catholics.
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on May 7, 2006 16:06:57 GMT -5
very true, you and I understand this, but bible thumper is claiming the pope and the church (founded by Jesus himself), are from the devil, yet he uses a bible that was put together by catholics for catholics. Hes stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 7, 2006 16:40:32 GMT -5
I was in the Catholic Church for 15 years. I can tell you first hand that the Catholic Church is the largest counterfiet the devil has ever made.
Jesus did not start the Catholic Church. The Church Jesus founded was a spiritual body of born again believers, not a physical institution.
The Catholic Church claims Jesus founded the church upon Peter, who was the "first pope" they claim. It should be noted that Peter had a wife, though they claim he was a "pope". But the Church was not founded upon Peter at all. After Peter had said, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus proclaimed, "upon this rock will I build My Church". Jesus was referring to himself as the rock in which the Church was build upon, after Peter rightly recognized and pronounced who Jesus was. Remember it wasn't long after Jesus said that He would build His Church upon Himself that He said to Peter "Get ye behind my Satan!"
The Catholic Church is not the Church of God, never was and never will be. The Church of God is a spiritual body of born again believers and will never be a physical, political institution. If those in this physical, political institution wrongfully called "The Church" actually forsake their heresy and become born again, then they too will become part of the Church and will be sons of God rather then sons of the devil.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 7, 2006 17:19:15 GMT -5
Jesus did not start the Catholic Church. The Church Jesus founded was a spiritual body of born again believers, not a physical institution. point for jesse. even i knew that. however, i do want to ask, when you said that 'the catholic church will never be the church of god' are you implying that no catholic is a christian, or are you only making reference to the institution?
|
|
|
Post by salvationisnow on May 7, 2006 17:27:55 GMT -5
I was in the Catholic Church for 15 years. I can tell you first hand that the Catholic Church is the largest counterfiet the devil has ever made. Jesus did not start the Catholic Church. The Church Jesus founded was a spiritual body of born again believers, not a physical institution. The Catholic Church claims Jesus founded the church upon Peter, who was the "first pope" they claim. It should be noted that Peter had a wife, though they claim he was a "pope". But the Church was not founded upon Peter at all. After Peter had said, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus proclaimed, "upon this rock will I build My Church". Jesus was referring to himself as the rock in which the Church was build upon, after Peter rightly recognized and pronounced who Jesus was. Remember it wasn't long after Jesus said that He would build His Church upon Himself that He said to Peter "Get ye behind my Satan!" The Catholic Church is not the Church of God, never was and never will be. The Church of God is a spiritual body of born again believers and will never be a physical, political institution. If those in this physical, political institution wrongfully called "The Church" actually forsake their heresy and become born again, then they too will become part of the Church and will be sons of God rather then sons of the devil. Let us for a moment assume you are correct (which I say is not true, but lets leave that for now) Do you or do you not agree that you are reading a bibke that was put together by the catholics?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 7, 2006 17:30:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on May 7, 2006 17:40:31 GMT -5
Isn't there a thread in the Theology section devoted to Catholics being from Satan. Perhaps you should move this debate over there and let this one get back on it's homophobic topic.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 7, 2006 17:49:19 GMT -5
I was asked a question and posted VERY briefly.... however, homosexuality and the RCC are bed-fellows as far as even HEATHENS are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 7, 2006 18:00:35 GMT -5
hitler's youth were brainwashed. the roman catholic church is not in league with satan because someone makes a mistake. hell, if that were the case with any church or christian...then your religion would be in chaos, null and void, and dead. fortunately, christianity believes in repentance...so, stop copying/pasting such hateful remarks biblethumper. you are making a heathen like me look good. heh.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 7, 2006 20:43:10 GMT -5
Like I said, and as the photos show; the youth were a MINOR part; the LEADERS of the RCC condoned the war against the Jews.
Oh...and PJP2 apologized FOR it, so don;t tell me it's not true when the RCC admits it
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 21:15:05 GMT -5
Isn't there a thread in the Theology section devoted to Catholics being from Satan. Perhaps you should move this debate over there and let this one get back on it's homophobic topic. I agree. So, being gay is a choice? Like it's my choice to have dark brown hair! Sure right now it looks kinda blonde, but in truth I am still a brunette. I can dye it, bleach it, shave it, but that's all a fascade.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 7, 2006 21:22:27 GMT -5
homosexuality IS a choice, a sinful one
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 21:26:56 GMT -5
Lemme ask you BT, what do you look for in a gal? What things stand out to you more then anything? Do you think red heads are cuter then blondes? (sorry for the continued hair refences, it's on my mind (pun intended))
What about people make you like them more? Or what about one person appeals to you more then another trait?
You can generalize or not answer specifically if you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 7, 2006 21:33:28 GMT -5
I can't answer that question, because it would lead me to sin as I'd have to sit here and dwell on some females and how they "appeal" to me and I'm not going to start thinking in that way about anyone simply because it wouldn't be right or godly for me to think on someone who isn't mine, regardless of the appearnce of being an "innocent" question
Hope that helps
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 21:45:42 GMT -5
That thought had crossed my mind. Sorry, I wouldn't want any more sinning in the world.
Well, lemme tell you about me. Even if I do sin ...
I dabble in drawing, I suck, but, I still do it. Since I started drawing I've noticed one thing, I have a much bigger appreciation for a shapely female leg. After drawing it many times, I have realized that shapely legs are a thing of artistsic beauty (and yes here I am sinning, I know it)
But what's my point you should be asking instead gasping at my sinning? I can't help it, but a good pair of legs I could draw all night long (draw, nothing dirty) is very APEALING. I can't help it that I want a girl with nice legs. It's a turn-on. It's something that has developed through experiences and my raising. I've been bombarted by enough TV to know that the kind of girl a red-blooded American like myself should want has the body of Barbie. That's played into it too.
Also, beyond body, I like a girl who's smart. Believe it or not. I'd like to one day find a wife who can accomidate for my forgetfullness and utter "blonde" moments. I'd like someone who I can turn too, when I am confused beyond reason. So, coincidently, brains turn me on too!! (two sins for the price of one post).
Someone with these two qualities alone, I could fall in love with them I bet you what!!! I can't choose to like someone who's not what I like.
Its the same thing for someone who's gay. They find what they like in someone and predominetly that's another guy. They go for smarts too, if that's what they like.
When I look at myself and, I can't see me choosing to suddenly like someone utterly incompetant. It just doesn't turn me on. Meaning, if all the smart girls died, I just might just become celibate. You can't reproduce when you're not turned on enough to procede.
I tried to put that last sentence as tame as possible! I hope I succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 7, 2006 21:55:57 GMT -5
It souns like you, along with homosexuals, need to repent of lust.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on May 7, 2006 21:56:37 GMT -5
if legs, intelligence and pencil crayons turn you on, well....
Naw, I know what you're saying :-)
I believe a desire for someone of the same gender or even a hetrosexual desire for sexual fulfillment outside of marriage is sinful.
I believe it IS in man to WANT those things.
That's why Jesus came; to forgive our sin and give us a NEW heart with NEW motives and desires
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 21:57:23 GMT -5
Get rid of my hormones and I'd be on the right track to a lust-free life!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 7, 2006 22:00:32 GMT -5
Natural attraction is like natural appetite, it is only sin when it is not controlled.
Lust is the wilful submission of the heart to desire that which is forbidden.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 22:02:18 GMT -5
I believe it IS in man to WANT those things. Well if you do say you understand what i'm saying (a miracle in and of itself) and still disagree, then okay. At least I was able to articulate it well. But ultimate-final-"I want to marry you and spend the rest of my life with you" love is not something I can choose who to give it to. it's something I feel deep down. If I can't choose, then how come it's a choice for gays? (If you can't tell I'm also a hopeless romantic in addition to being a sinner)
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 22:07:01 GMT -5
Natural attraction is like natural appetite, it is only sin when it is not controlled. Lust is the wilful submission of the heart to desire that which is forbidden. Me being me will answer that which was written last. I kinda agree with that ... mostly. But ya, lust = bad. And as to the first, hey at least I'm not out fornicating with all the nice legged brainiac chicks on campus. Still anbd proudly a virgin. I will though admit what I like and am not ashamed for being who God made me to be.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 7, 2006 22:10:43 GMT -5
I would strongly argue that love is not a feeling but love is a choice. Likewise lust is also a choice.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 22:20:13 GMT -5
Saying you love someone is a choice. Like "Jess, I love like Jesus commands even if I disagree with you." But, even that's kinda a lie.
I can't choose who I love. I love my advisor, professor and boss because she is the nicest person ever as far as I am concerned. I didn't choose to love her, it's just because I like the way she does things.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on May 7, 2006 22:45:48 GMT -5
Meaning, if all the smart girls died, I just might just become celibate. I think I love you. ;D Three cheers for cervyy!
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 7, 2006 22:47:48 GMT -5
Meaning, if all the smart girls died, I just might just become celibate. I think I love you. ;D Three cheers for cervyy! Awww, thankies! Now that's gonna go to my head.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on May 7, 2006 22:54:48 GMT -5
Never fear, my head is quite big enough for the both of us. Sin of pride all over the place, w00t!
|
|