/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

They do not care. The moment someone goes against their degeneracy they say "you are not charitable!"

>>536041

>apostolic teachings like protties do.

You mean like all those philosemitic "churches" and ones that have women "preachers?"

Poop can be flung from either direction. Sadly, there are complete heretics in every denom.

>>536041

Are you aware of the Anglican church and northern European sodomite christianity?

>>536287

Leviticus 20:13

>>536291

That affirms Catechism 2357 but it doesn't contradict 2358.

>>536292

Oh, apologies for speaking wrong then on that part, there's still a lot of outdated info online over this. I probably should have know much sooner but I've been deciding to remain closeted to my local church, so I've never discussed it with the father which might be a mistake.

>>536027

I mean, he has a point.

>>536287

Because to be gay is to practice a sin and to identify as a sinner instead of as a Christian struggling with sins is to deny Christ. Thus anyone calling themselves gay is either ignorant or pracitcing sodomite risking hellfire.

If you are able to reject practicing sodomy and disordered love for the same sex then call yourself "struggling with Same sex attraction" the same I would say "I struggle with alcohol" instead of bragging about being a drunkard. This is the only acceptable way to be right with God and deal with your cross.

tl;dr

Gay is embracing sin and SSA is admitting you have a cross to bear but are putting Christ and living as a Christian first instead of submitting to Satan.

>>536293

>Remain closeted

Change your language now. Closets are for sodomites not Christians. If you struggle with SSA and want to genuinly quit being a faggot then speak privately with a trusted advisor about the issue. Telling a crowd is not going to help you overcome it nor is wearing it as a badge a smart move.

>>536013

>>536292

So far, I have witnessed nothing of him - at least on his webpage where the book is described - that is in any form contrary to biblical teaching or Dogma.

Infact he is absolutely right in that we shall accompany, guide and teach homos and trans people, because one group can't really do anything about it, and the other has a severe mental illness.

That doesn't mean, however, that we should enable sodomy and mental illness. Quite the contrary - that says also the Pope.

But we, as catholics, can not say "no f' off you dirty f'in' [insert random anti-lgtb term], we don't want your kind here", because Jesus died for all. Each and every single one. And when gay people want to be catholic, then we better give them chance to live a chaste and sin-free life, just as we do with everyone else. Same goes for trans-people. The damage has been done anyway, but if they can live a holy life, who the f' are you to deny them this ? (I'm speaking generally, not to you guys in particular).

Back to Fr. Martin: So far, I didn't witness anything he did, said or wrote that would go against dogma - but I didn't go further than reading the excerpt from his book anyway. So if he doesn't spout heresy, where's the problem ?

>>536287

Actual catholics aren't. Because it's a condition that is their own personal cross to bear. Fundamentalists and a ton of protties obsess with homos.

I mean I have a problem with fags - the kind parading naked on """pride parades""" and being naked and generally sinful in public and so on and so forth. Has nothing to do with being homo though.

>>536287

>>536544

Addition: That is to say, we shall not normalize the mental illness that is/leads to trans-related issues. Neither shall we normalize "homos doing their thing". But if they ask to come and be a part of the Body of Christ - we cannot deny it from them - when they agree and live a chaste, charitable and good life. Because /We. Are. Not. God./

>>536013

>I do not want to criticise them, not this time, but I am seriously curious: how do you justify that?

ELCAfag here:

the basic idea is that "liberalism" is for the painful exception rather than the norm. It is a "pastoral measure".

For example, let us consider a legally unmarried couple who would deign become christian, but cannot marry due to financial constraints.

Under a conservative paradigm, it would be better to tell this couple to basically fuck off until they're straightened out. In this, you push them away from the means of grace, and thus you push them towards hell rather than a correction of their position and repentance. You deny them to even hear the word, and deny them a chance to reform in community with the church, who could help them.

For gays, I likewise make the same argument. Even if they never reform and go to hell anyway, it is better that a faggot dies a friend to christ rather than opposing him. Following: would you rather a faggot who sides with the atheists to loose slings and arrows at us, or a faggot who, though naturally damned, gives his efforts to the church and her causes? Even better, beyond this utilitarian foolishness, would you rather not a faggot who subjects himself to hear the word, rather than a faggot who vehemently denies it? If god has called him, then hearing the word will reform him regardless, but to not hear the word at all would be certain disaster to him.

Basically, us "liberals" aren't really liberal. We just have loose rules to let in as many people as possible. If people aren't exposed to the means of grace, they're certainly damned, so why not allow to at least make the best effort to expose them? to reform them?

>>536545

>>536544

Part of the problem is not that he is welcoming gays into the Church. In fact by any sense that should be a cause for celebration.

The problem is two-fold - first, he seems to deliberately downplay the command that gays etc. would have to become and remain chaste since their state is disordered, or he completely ignores it to score browny points with the world. Second is the fact that when anyone calls him out on this he harps on about "Alt right catholic homophobes".

The whole thing is based on this erroneous idea (which, as I say, he is either ignorant of (unlikely) or is just brushing over, and deliberately) that you can be a devout Catholic and simultaneously be a practising sodomite. By his ambiguity, he is causing serious confusion and leading many astray with it, and so it needs to be clarified.

>>536556

Most of his folders are progressives who support everything counter to church teachings.

>>536554

>Following: would you rather a faggot who sides with the atheists to loose slings and arrows at us, or a faggot who, though naturally damned, gives his efforts to the church and her causes?

"His efforts" including violating and molesting innocent children and ridiculing and blaspheming the name of the Lord from among us, so, I'll take the former.

>If god has called him,

God gave him up, Romans 1:24-32.

>>536554

LCMSfag here.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/10/fr-martin-does-not-actually-say

The problem with Martin is that he leaves people hanging. His fans want him to choose a side, and even his enemies want him to choose a side. I think some people give him too hard a time, while others (on both sides) put words into his mouth.

His own words:

>Building a Bridge does not challenge any church teaching. Otherwise, it would not have received the formal ecclesial approval (Imprimi Potest) of my Jesuit superiors; nor would it have received the endorsement of two cardinals, including one Vatican official, and several bishops. For that matter, I don't challenge any church teaching either. Nor will I. The book intentionally does not address questions of sexual morality, since I wanted to focus on areas of possible commonality between the institutional church and LGBT Catholics. Why does a book encouraging “respect, compassion and sensitivity,” as the Catechism asks, have to be seen only through the lens of sex? Not everything has to be about sex.

>>536556

I see. Well, that's problematic then - which is why I said, repenting and living chaste is pretty much the requirement (obviously knowing that relapsing can be a thing, as is for literally all of us in this satanic society).

Is there an official statement of the Vatican regarding him ? I'm curious, because if he really somehow advocates for sodomy being ok when you're in the *Church*, then they should be pretty harsh on him.

>>536612

In my opinion, they seem to refuse the "suffering and asceticism" pretty much. It seems they are - as you said - acting a bit similar to those feelgood protties like in the church of Sweden - where they parade gay stuff/marriage and mental illness as good and progressive for the sake of making them feel good, and thus, making it so much more probable at least to make them go to hell. Which is a shame if you ask me.

>>536627

God gives up no one. You're being blasphemic here, so rather stop that, please.

>>536656

That's what I thought tbqh

>>536027

Watch it, p_pist!

>>536700

>You're being blasphemic here, so rather stop that, please.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

>>536275

English here, as bad as you think it is, its much worse.

>>536724

there are several translations of "παραδίδωμι" which that verse commonly translates as "gave up." One, is a purposeful handing over, another is to abandon a thing to something else.

Considering:

James 1:13-14

>Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

>But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

& Romans 7:7

>What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

It is obviously that the connotation is to abandon these people to their sin; God doesn't actively push you there, he just removes his presence from those intent on willfully sinning.

You have to read the bible as a whole, no picking and choosing. What you think is clear as day isn't so clear. The Greek is consistent, the English… well, there's one example.

How do you even deal with these people?

There's one lady at my church (late 40s, early 50s) who thinks that women can be priests and it's just the "backward, old fashioned, patriarchal, bigotted old ways of the church" who are preventing it, which is driven by "old, balding, sexually repressed weirdos who become priests". In regards to the last bit, she has some really nasty things to say about priests in general (although only when none of our parish priests are around).

It makes me wonder why she's even Catholic. How do you even deal with this though? Ok she can have her own opinions but some of what she says contradicts Church dogma and is pretty much heretical.

>>537056

And what about reprobate? If you are given over to a reprobate mind, that means that you will not be coming back. Check Romans 9, 2 Peter 2, and various parts of Hebrews.

>God doesn't actively push you there, he just removes his presence from those intent on willfully sinning.

Yeah, I know. However God does actively prevent people from being sodomite unless He decides to give them up to it. As it says in Romans 1:24, He gave them specifically up to uncleanness through their own lusts. This whole passage following verse 24 isn't talking about mankind generally, it's about sodomites. And in verse 28 it is characterized as "a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." Not convenient referring again to the inhuman sodomite lust.

>>537085

The "gave up" in Romans 1:24 uses the same παραδίδωμι in the Greek that I mentioned in my previous post. Reading in conjunction with the rest of the bible, it's obvious a better translation in both instances would be "abandoned to," which is one meaning of "gave up" as well, the English is just sort of ambiguous.

Again, in chapter 28, same παραδίδωμι. God abandoned them to their depraved minds, he didn't give them depraved minds, they made themselves depraved and he left them to do as they will.

For your other citations (2 Peter, Romans, etc.), you need to be explicit in your point, I'm not going to read a whole chapter and try to make up arguments for a position I don't agree with - but I'll openly consider your point if you state it clearly.

>>537089

>he didn't give them depraved minds,

I said I know that. The English wording is fine, he abandoned them or gave them up. Now tell me how God supposedly didn't know what would happen to them once He did that? He did know, because normally He is preventing it. Hence why we are suppoed to pray "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Because He is the one preventing them, for the Christian. But for the reprobate He gives them up to that temptation which has no escape.

2 Peter 2:9

>The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

1 Corinthians 10:13

>There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

>For your other citations (2 Peter, Romans, etc.), you need to be explicit in your point, I'm not going to read a whole chapter

As for Romans 9, if you don't want to read the whole chapter just consider Romans 9:18-22. Also see John 12:39-40, where it is mentioned that some of the people there "could not believe."

>>537090

>I said I know that. The English wording is fine, he abandoned them or gave them up. Now tell me how God supposedly didn't know what would happen to them once He did that? He did know, because normally He is preventing it. Hence why we are suppoed to pray "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Because He is the one preventing them, for the Christian. But for the reprobate He gives them up to that temptation which has no escape.

Why should God save a person that doesn't want to be saved?

>As for Romans 9, if you don't want to read the whole chapter just consider Romans 9:18-22. Also see John 12:39-40, where it is mentioned that some of the people there "could not believe."

Here, your issue seems to be predestination. In Romans, Paul is positing a very good point of "who are we to judge God." Paul cannot literally mean that a person can't go against God's will, or he would realize the writing of his epistles was a fruitless endeavor. Rather, he was explaining that when we look at the totality of the circumstances of a life, we must accept that it was necessary within God's plan, a plan so complicated we couldn't fathom it. It's about trusting God, not really about free will versus predestination. I agree that you can read it the way you're reading it but that was not the point Paul was trying to make.

As for John 12:39-40. God was hardening heart and blinding eyes through showing them their own sin. The miracles could not change them because accepting the truth of the miracles also required acknowledging their sin. It's a matter of self-will, God hardened their hearts by showing them the truth. It's a catch 22 for God it seems- they'd believe in God if it was just the miracles, but they wouldn't understand God's nature at all- so do they really believe in God? Or Christ, by describing God's nature, causes them not to believe because they cannot bear the weight of their sin. Anyway, that's my take.

>>537093

>It's a matter of self-will, God hardened their hearts by showing them the truth.

It just says he hardened their hearts so that the scripture would be fulfilled. See the preceding two verses.

>It's a catch 22 for God it seems- they'd believe in God if it was just the miracles, but they wouldn't understand God's nature at all- so do they really believe in God?

You're straying from the main point, which is that we've been told that some are rejected (meaning reprobate) and become vessels of destruction unable to believe or be saved. Whether you want to argue that they became that way because of past choices or because of predestination is a side argument. Either way, once they became given over to a reprobate mind, their chance ended. If they "can not believe" then that means they can't be saved.

And according to Romans 1, that includes all individuals who have been "given up to vile affections" which are "against nature" (Romans 1:26). Romans 1:28 says it most plainly, that they had become brute beasts meant to be taken and destroyed.

To support this point, note the equivalence of sodomites as dogs. You will find the definition in Deuteronomy 23:17-18.

>There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. >Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Philippians 3:2

>Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Because of Scripture such as 2 Peter 2:6 and 1 Corinthians 10:13, which is the word of God, I deny that actual sodomites which feel this lust are still human or capable of believing in Christ. They have become murderous beasts. Romans 1:29-32.

>>536013

This is your mind on novos ordo

>>537100

>Philippians 3:2

Here, Paul is calling Jews who demand spiritual purity dogs in of a false circumcision. Nothing to do with sodomites.

Romans 1:23 explains that God gave them over to their shameful lusts not for being a sodomite but because they worshiped idols.

Your scriptures all have to do with people engaging in idol worship, which led to sodomy, not sodomy which led to being unsalvagable.

I don't see how those scriptures support your point.

>>537104

It's another *baptists cherrypick verses which fit their narrative without considering the context* -episode. Annoying but not worrysome.

What worries me though is that those kinda people (not all prots/baptists but certainly those acting like that) run in danger of committing the sin of pride which apparently sometimes leads to blasphemy. That's what really worries me, honestly.

Anyway, back to topic: As much as we should resist and oppose the LGBT-ideology, we shall welcome those that want to repent and live chaste.

Because not even the biggest personal disdain can be reason of rejection, because God doesn't reject them, as when they do the above.

>>537104

>God gave them over to their shameful lusts not for being a sodomite but because they worshiped idols.

I agree. That's exactly right. They still had a hope until they were given over to become a sodomite.

>I don't see how those scriptures support your point.

Then you're willfully blind. It's said they have a reprobate mind and that they are full of murder and haters of God, implacable, unmerciful. Why ignore Romans 1:28-32? First they turned their back on God then he gave them up. Sodomy is just a result of being given up.

>>537108

I've posted at least seven different scriptures to provide context. You can call anything you don't like cherrypicking, it won't bother me.

>because God doesn't reject them,

Jeremiah 6:30

Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.

>>537237

How many quotes you will post, God does not give up upon anyone. Infact you're still committing blasphemy by saying that.

That's quite problematic, frankly speaking.

And even if we put all of that aside, you're being maximum uncharitable, though a big rule of this board is to be charitable. Because you entirely phase out that repentance is a thing. You're like "ah damn fags be goina hell hahahaha" but it ain't so. Infact, that's not how it works. And you know that pretty well.

>>537294

I'm sure you know that pretty well, because you seem to be quite well-read. Or maybe you're just collecting quotes and verses for the sake of arguing your point rather than having a look at the bigger picture.

However, God bless.

>>537296

This guy

>>537237

is just grasping at straws to fuel a hate-filled theology that he probably doesn't even believe. It's like Westboro level pretending to be Christian in order to smear Christians lest anyone actually find the Holy Spirit and his worldly master's plans become undone.

the Spirit of Jesus's religion is not to "prove" or to attain unto "absolute knowledge"

it is to have faith in God and do what is right

those persecuting people up there, elevating their own religion (the Bible) above doing what is right are making it very, VERY DIFFICULT for us who want to love God and do what is right

it is a big problem

>>537339

Do you believe we never used to execute sodomites in the past? I believe it 100%. And they weren't wrong to do so, much less let the beasts run freely in reach of children.

>>537296

>Or maybe you're just collecting quotes and verses for the sake of arguing your point rather than having a look at the bigger picture.

Show us the bigger picture then. I've been waiting. I know about repentance. But I also know about God giving up on people from Romans 1, and how that differs from the facts of 1 Corinthians 10:13 and 2 Peter 2:9. They are the dogs of Revelation 22:15.

And I am sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

>you're being maximum uncharitable

Not if I'm right. Not if the word of God says so.

>>537070

Quote church dogma at her and say you have to accept it or you commit mortal sin

>>536287

I'm really happy for you. But it's incredibly hard to call people who want to love to be celibate or remain completely unfulfilled in their romantic life. It's a hard calling to follow. I'm not even gay and I hate being g single :/

>>537070

Look at all the conservatives who hate pope Francis. It works both ways. It's not just the liberals who have problems with the church.

>>536287

I really like the churches teachings on Homosexuality but Father James Martin has said numerous times that he doesn't think same-sex relations are a sin on podcasts and his appearances on shows.

>>539690

how is he not excommunicated