Catholicism vs. Christianity

[Unveiled Artist]

Catholicism embraces Christianity. The word Catholicism ends in ism. That means Catholic teachings. A catholic is an individual. Christianity ends in ity. Christians are many. Some Christians believe in gay marriage. Catholics do not and are taught that gay marriage is wrong. Catholics can only be labeled Christian by other religions. Although gay people can be nice people, something is wrong with their thinking. Same sexs cannot reproduce. To label a Catholic as Christian would classify them as believing in gay marriage.

I didn't realize this was interfaith. Just expressing my thoughts about your comment because it's rare that I hear any Christian say this so bluntly. If you want to talk you have my explicit permission to create another thread in another forum. This may be disbanded; but, there it is. Latetr.

This upsets my "eyes" (instead of ears).

Catholic's are Christian because they believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
They (all Catholics and like-minded denominations) are not a part of Christianity (just as JW etc are not) because they separate themselves from the full body of Christ. How? Any Christian should be able to take the Eucharistic mystery. No one should tell any Christian they cannot receive Jesus after repentance, baptism, confirmation, and prayer.

The Church (Body of Christ rather than Roman, Othorodox, etc) is a body of Christians not a body of all people who only take the Eucharistic mystery. It sets Catholics (and like minded people like JW) from the body of Christ that many protestants do not do. A lot of protestant denominations may not agree with the doctrines of other churches (to some, like JW, excluding catholic) but they do say that everyone who professes Jesus as Lord and Savior (is confirmed) and is baptized (born again) is Christian. It is the Church that separates protestants from themselves not the other way around (hence why they protested because of the nature of the church and what they say corrupted it-have no comment on that)

My point. Even though Catholics are Christians, they separate themselves from the rest of the Body of Christ, so how can they be part of Christianity as a whole if they do not accept their brothers into the Church and within the Eucharistic mystery. Regardless of why, the fact is they do not.

As for homosexuality, the Church does not talk to actual people who are gay and take into consideration and accept as fact-and right-that we are not misguided. The Church has a silly presumption that gay people do things in order to be gay and that our corrupted thinking makes us do things that the Church does not except.

Hocky puck (no pun)

I was gay before I did anything. I am gay and I do nothing (well, eat, drink, and go on the computer), I will be gay and still do nothing. I am Catholic by sacrament. Always be Catholic. I have no deluded thinking.

Where in the word does the Church get that conclusion? Do they judge a person's actions as who they are?

A person is Catholic no matter if he goes to confession or doesn't go to Mass for years on end. That is now how he is Catholic. He is Catholic by the sacraments. Likewise, a gay person doesn't have to do anything. Yet he is gay by his sexual orientation not something he thinks wrong (as if we are corrupted in thoughts) and nothing he does (like eat Cheerios) but someone he is.

If the Pope says not to judge others and the Church still holds the position that gay people have corrupted thinking (cause it's in the CCC), then his comment means nothing. God is said to speak for the Church (at least that's how I saw it when I was practicing Catholic) not the Pope. The Pope speaks for the Apostles. If Catholics cannot tell the difference between who speaks for the Apostles (Pope) and who speaks for God (Jesus), I don't know what to say.

In either case, a couple of biggest reasons I left the Church because of comments and logic like this I see many Catholics have about people they do not know. It breaks down the body of Christ by not accepting other Christians into the Eucharistic Mystery without a year long conversion (and conversion? think about it. The Church accepts most baptisms but everything else they don't) into the Church. I feel the conversion is necessary to be part of the Catholic Church but anyone who:

Repents: Confess
Say Jesus is Lord and Savior: Confirms
Is born again by water and spirit (which other churches do): Baptism
Share in communion: Share in the Eucharist

Are Christians. Once you say everything is perfect but one, that's separating that person (gay, straight, bi, transgender, tall, short, medium sized: one's height)) etc from the Church-the Body of Christ.

The Church (Roman, Othorodox, Lutheran, and so forth) need to go beyond do not judge and see people who they are not by what they do and certainly not by how the Bible projects them as the Bible may not be applicable to every person who the Church thinks is corrupted.

It's a sad thing to see in the Church and one of many reasons people leave.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Think it's more along the lines of many non-Catholic Christians ''accuse'' Catholics of not being Christians.

Yeah. It's Protestants accuse people of not being Christians and Catholics say protestants are not full Christians given they haven't receive the Eucharist. They are "Christian" by baptism; but, for some reason, it's not complete without the other sacraments. At least some protestants accept that Catholics are Christians even though they disagree with their doctrine. Catholicism doesn't accept protestant doctrine to consider it (other than baptism) a means for one to be part of the Church.

Gee. I can talk about the Church in a positive and a negative way. I just think there are some things that need to be looked into when seeing who sees the other person as Christian and who does not.

Become one body of Christ not one denomination in Christ.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually the Roman Catholic Church declared Protestants were lost, and killed them. Protestants did the same. Of course, none of this could have been done by Christians. A man can call himself a fence post, but that doesn;t make him one. Declaring yourself a Christian, doesn't mean you are

Christians do silly things. It's whether they repent. Can't loose your salvation. Can't really generalize either. Christians do kill. They may not make it to heaven (only god knows) but they still have a relationship with Jesus nonetheless.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

remember, it was the church that chose the Bible and not the other way around.

I think that says it right there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wait... sorry folks, I'm out.... this is interfaith not religious debate.

Actually, I think this topic would be better placed in religious debates now. My opinion.

 

[jeager106]

Terrywoodenpic says:
"It took the authority of Augustine to establish the the primacy of that church."
Likely more a political move than any "religious" conversion.
Thoughts?
(never mind what the t-v media suggests)

 

[Palehorse]

This upsets my "eyes" (instead of ears).

Catholic's are Christian because they believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
They (all Catholics and like-minded denominations) are not a part of Christianity (just as JW etc are not) because they separate themselves from the full body of Christ. How? Any Christian should be able to take the Eucharistic mystery. No one should tell any Christian they cannot receive Jesus after repentance and prayer.

Sure that didn't upset your heart?

A Christian believes in Christianity. A Catholic believes in Catholicism.

The word Christian can be taken two different ways; I am a Christian...You are all Christian...

The Eucharist is just a ceremony thing. Your stomach has to be empty before church. Put some bread in there, sip some wine(always take extra sip)...conditions the body.
Dip your little pointy finger in the water(just like Michaelangelos painting)...Kneel and cut off the blood to the legs...sing some words and get that heart going...shake hands with fellow neighbors.
Maybe spread some incense around..( I always fart in church and sit in my own pew)... You actually think people can stop Christ. The Catholic church has rules to help condition the body and most importantly the mind.......the tree!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sure that didn't upset your heart?

It does upset my heart as well: to see over hundreds of people with myself being confirmed and the congregation clapping because I became a part of the Church to find out later, only certain people can take the Eucharist. It's a smack to any protestant Christian's face and crushed heart to Jesus' role of saving all who take the sacrament who profess to Christ (confirmed), repent (confession), and baptized.

A Christian believes in Christianity. A Catholic believes in Catholicism.

That is why many protestants say Catholics are not Christian because of this separation. Christians are Christians. What separates them should only not be Jesus.

The Eucharist is just a ceremony thing. Your stomach has to be empty before church. Put some bread in there, sip some wine(always take extra sip)...conditions the body.

Just a ceremonial? Many protestants repent/confess and their stomachs are empty when they come to Christ (in spirit since there is no physical Eucharist, unfortunately). Taking the Eucharist is a very personal and more than ceremonial act that binds the follower to Christ himself in his body both in flesh and in spirit. It's partaking in a meal that isn't just any meal but that of god. It's the partaking of the bread of life as the Israelite; the Mana. It's the physical nourishment that binds all baptized Christians (it shouldn't be all Catholics) to his body.

When a Christian takes the sacrament of Christ, it is very personal. They are not Catholic, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, etc. They are Christian.

I understand intimately (believe me) the role and relationship that a Catholic has when he or she goes to confession. It's a profound experience to be forgiven and I have done that many times. It's sad to say Catholic confession is the only way to confess...

unless you are saying that a person cannot be forgiven without the priest?

That is not how I came to the Church. I was forgiven by god. So repentance is something we do to god not to the priest. I don't know if that is Catholicism; but, how I see it, the priest absolves me, yes but he is not necessary for me to be forgiven by god. He is in the role of Christ just as Jesus is in the role of his father. The priest is not Jesus. Jesus is not god.



That is how I personally feel coming from an interfaith perspective and former experience. As for who is right and who is wrong (which that is what a debate is, I cannot say. I know what I experience was right even though I don't practice. I can't defend it here. If you'd like to talk in another forum, I'd be happy to.)

Emphasizing for outside reasons.

 

[shmogie]

Sure that didn't upset your heart?

A Christian believes in Christianity. A Catholic believes in Catholicism.

The word Christian can be taken two different ways; I am a Christian...You are all Christian...

The Eucharist is just a ceremony thing. Your stomach has to be empty before church. Put some bread in there, sip some wine(always take extra sip)...conditions the body.
Dip your little pointy finger in the water(just like Michaelangelos painting)...Kneel and cut off the blood to the legs...sing some words and get that heart going...shake hands with fellow neighbors.
Maybe spread some incense around..( I always fart in church and sit in my own pew)... You actually think people can stop Christ. The Catholic church has rules to help condition the body and most importantly the mind.......the tree!

Communion is symbolic, not literal. Imagine, a sinful priest that can call up the literal body and blood of Christ, then another sinful human eats and guzzles it. The "eucharist", if true, would mean that the perfect and Godly body and blood of Christ pops up all over the world at anytime at the behest of a priest, then would be totally defiled in the body of a corrupt human. What utter sacrilegious nonsense

 

[shmogie]

I didn't realize this was interfaith. Just expressing my thoughts about your comment because it's rare that I hear any Christian say this so bluntly. If you want to talk you have my explicit permission to create another thread in another forum. This may be disbanded; but, there it is. Latetr.

This upsets my "eyes" (instead of ears).

Catholic's are Christian because they believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
They (all Catholics and like-minded denominations) are not a part of Christianity (just as JW etc are not) because they separate themselves from the full body of Christ. How? Any Christian should be able to take the Eucharistic mystery. No one should tell any Christian they cannot receive Jesus after repentance, baptism, confirmation, and prayer.

The Church (Body of Christ rather than Roman, Othorodox, etc) is a body of Christians not a body of all people who only take the Eucharistic mystery. It sets Catholics (and like minded people like JW) from the body of Christ that many protestants do not do. A lot of protestant denominations may not agree with the doctrines of other churches (to some, like JW, excluding catholic) but they do say that everyone who professes Jesus as Lord and Savior (is confirmed) and is baptized (born again) is Christian. It is the Church that separates protestants from themselves not the other way around (hence why they protested because of the nature of the church and what they say corrupted it-have no comment on that)

My point. Even though Catholics are Christians, they separate themselves from the rest of the Body of Christ, so how can they be part of Christianity as a whole if they do not accept their brothers into the Church and within the Eucharistic mystery. Regardless of why, the fact is they do not.

As for homosexuality, the Church does not talk to actual people who are gay and take into consideration and accept as fact-and right-that we are not misguided. The Church has a silly presumption that gay people do things in order to be gay and that our corrupted thinking makes us do things that the Church does not except.

Hocky puck (no pun)

I was gay before I did anything. I am gay and I do nothing (well, eat, drink, and go on the computer), I will be gay and still do nothing. I am Catholic by sacrament. Always be Catholic. I have no deluded thinking.

Where in the word does the Church get that conclusion? Do they judge a person's actions as who they are?

A person is Catholic no matter if he goes to confession or doesn't go to Mass for years on end. That is now how he is Catholic. He is Catholic by the sacraments. Likewise, a gay person doesn't have to do anything. Yet he is gay by his sexual orientation not something he thinks wrong (as if we are corrupted in thoughts) and nothing he does (like eat Cheerios) but someone he is.

If the Pope says not to judge others and the Church still holds the position that gay people have corrupted thinking (cause it's in the CCC), then his comment means nothing. God is said to speak for the Church (at least that's how I saw it when I was practicing Catholic) not the Pope. The Pope speaks for the Apostles. If Catholics cannot tell the difference between who speaks for the Apostles (Pope) and who speaks for God (Jesus), I don't know what to say.

In either case, a couple of biggest reasons I left the Church because of comments and logic like this I see many Catholics have about people they do not know. It breaks down the body of Christ by not accepting other Christians into the Eucharistic Mystery without a year long conversion (and conversion? think about it. The Church accepts most baptisms but everything else they don't) into the Church. I feel the conversion is necessary to be part of the Catholic Church but anyone who:

Repents: Confess
Say Jesus is Lord and Savior: Confirms
Is born again by water and spirit (which other churches do): Baptism
Share in communion: Share in the Eucharist

Are Christians. Once you say everything is perfect but one, that's separating that person (gay, straight, bi, transgender, tall, short, medium sized: one's height)) etc from the Church-the Body of Christ.

The Church (Roman, Othorodox, Lutheran, and so forth) need to go beyond do not judge and see people who they are not by what they do and certainly not by how the Bible projects them as the Bible may not be applicable to every person who the Church thinks is corrupted.

It's a sad thing to see in the Church and one of many reasons people leave.

As to homosexuality. Paul is perfectly clear, it is a sin, no worse, no better than the sins I commit. Cherished and habitual sin separates one from God. Once again, Paul says those in the world, including homosexuals, are not to be in any way judged by Christians, except as relates to breaking the civil law. People with cherished and habitual sin are welcome, invited, to attend my church. However they cannot be offered membership or participate in communion or baptism. This is pure Biblical teaching, so if it makes you angry, don't be angry with me, in a True Protestant church founded on sola fide, sola scriptura, this is the way it is. I know the "new morality" will soon accept people as perfectly OK who marry goats or have sex with guinea pigs..................................... Spare your breath in trying to tell me that homosexuals "are born" with their "sexual identities". I have debated this ad naseum with a number of people, liberals, homosexuals, and members of the gaystopo. I have studied all the pertinent research that I could find, and the facts are that no "cause" has been genetically identified, and in spite of leads and possibilities, no scientist is willing to announce a physical reason for this. So, Paul is correct. However, no one but God has the responsibility to judge a persons soul. There are churches that choose to not follow clear Biblical instruction in this matter, so there are plenty of churches that will make any practicer of cherished and habitual sin members in good standing, because they "don't judge", on anything.

 

[Palehorse]

Very well, thanxs for the conversation here!...am learning alot about other religions.

tonights snack is...

Communion Wafers!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Think about it. Every verse in the Bible about homosexuality has to do with action. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with a spiritual, god-filled attraction between two people. Only man and female.

The definition of homosexuality in the Bible does not apply to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender who identify as gay/bi/straight today unless they are lusting over each other. There are a lot of gay couples that do not lust; therefore, they are not sinning; they are not homosexuals (according to the bible).

Again, if you'd like to discuss this more give me your permission to create a thread outside of this one. Because, as a homosexual (a person attracted physically, mentally, and spiritually to someone of the same gender), I get offended when I told I am a sinner when I am just typing on the computer or eating Cheerios. Logically, it makes no sense.​

The biblical definition does not match the people who are themselves homosexuals. It is a terrible and very disturbing fact to see and label a person as lust.

As to homosexuality. Paul is perfectly clear, it is a sin, no worse, no better than the sins I commit. Cherished and habitual sin separates one from God.

It isn't a sin unless a straight, gay, lesbian, bi, transgender person engage in those actions. If they do not, they are who they are. Regardless if you don't believe any of these people: straight, gay, lesbian, bi, transgender identify by sexual orientation (straight/gay/bi) or male or female or not, it isn't about you. If you do not accept (accept not agree) people for who they are instead of judging what you think they are and should be how ... well.. anyway,

I just don't understand that logic. I disagree with someone killing another person; and, I don't call that person a sinner when they are just eating Cheerios or watching the ball game. I don't even put that label on them. However, unlike homosexuals, they are only killers once they killed. According to the Bible, straight people become homosexuals once they are engage in homosexual behavior.

If I wanted to know what Catholicism is, I go to the Church or to a Catholic not to my dictionary of the word. If a Catholic wants to know who a homosexual is they go to a homosexual not to their dictionary (bible) of the term.

If they can't do that, they will always see the action as a sin and never ask the person who may identify differently than what their bible says (making the bible inappropriate to determine who they are).

 

[Palehorse]

Think about it. Every verse in the Bible about homosexuality has to do with action. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with a spiritual, god-filled attraction between two people. Only man and female.

male and woman also...

man + male...woman + female

World English Bible
God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.

GOD is not a he. "He" is the name of what GOD created. He looked up to GOD and created them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Communion is symbolic, not literal. Imagine, a sinful priest that can call up the literal body and blood of Christ, then another sinful human eats and guzzles it. The "eucharist", if true, would mean that the perfect and Godly body and blood of Christ pops up all over the world at anytime at the behest of a priest, then would be totally defiled in the body of a corrupt human. What utter sacrilegious nonsense

Can you imagine being at Jesus' supper and telling him "that's okay, I don't want your wine and bread you are passing around. I have it spiritually. It's just a symbol."

I agree with you to an extent about the empty-stomach thing. Even the person who betrayed Jesus sat at his table. On the other hand, what Christian would deny the body and blood of Christ all because Jesus is not physically alive to give it? Priests are supposed to go to confession before giving the Eucharist and they ask blessings from god before receiving it themselves and to others. If it's just a symbol, then you don't need communion. Just say communion in one's heart. Since Jesus sat at a physical table, gave physical bread and wine, to physical people, it is literal.

The issue I have isn't the Eucharist as Jesus. That's common sense. It's the transubstantiation I have issues with. Regardless, symbol is like telling Christ "I don't need what you're giving me. I can imagine it as a symbol instead."

Does that make sense?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

male and woman also...

man + male...woman + female

World English Bible
God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.

GOD is not a he. "He" is the name of what GOD created. He looked up to GOD and created them.

I can't change what the Bible says in content and context. (Also, I don't understand your reply).

From an interfaith perspective, I believe that when I read the Bible, it says that two people who join under god's blessings are man and woman.

I do not agree. I can't change it and have no desire to.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why is this in a question and answer forum? OP?

 

[Glaurung]

Soooooo, it seems the Catholic Church rules that "other" Christian denominations
aren't Christian

No, it says that Protestant orders are not valid. And because their orders are not valid they neither have valid sacraments and hence cannot be churches in the true sense as actually meant by the Creed. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of Protestants, nor is it a claim that they cannot hold the Christian faith. (Albeit an incomplete faith).

So only Baptized Catholics are favored by "god" and go to Catholic "heaven"?
Thoughts?

No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.

 

[Palehorse]

I understand intimately (believe me) the role and relationship that a Catholic has when he or she goes to confession. It's a profound experience to be forgiven and I have done that many times. It's sad to say Catholic confession is the only way to confess...

Catholic confession is like a free psychiatrist. If I am haveing problems or somethings bothering me, bottleing that stuff up isn't very healthy. By going to confession I can let it out. Just the process of talking about the problem relieves stress and keep the mind clean of protestants. But nowadays, that process has been manipulated. Your child cannot go to confession. Your child must see a councellor or psychiatrist. And there is a huge fee attatched. And the councellor or psychiatrist is more than likely a Christian, with Christian values imposed on the patient. Or your child is incompetant to stand trial, and must wait in jail while attending Christian church. Yes~church is huge in corrections. But not the court room. And then your child is sent to a mental health facility where a Christian doctor prescribes Jewish made brain medicine to help them become Christian. And then the child takes a plea bargain and goes to see his/her priest at the Catholic church. Only to find out the priest has been converted to Christianity or worse and has been sent to jail for child molestation, only to start preaching Christianity to another child again.

Christianity and Catholicism must be kept seperate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seriously, no offense. I just never heard any Catholic of the hundreds I have met and ten or so I knew personally (priests at my parish and layman) I have never heard Catholicism put like this from a Catholic? It bothers me.

Catholic confession is like a free psychiatrist.

I won't debate this. I will just give my interfaith opinion* In how I practiced Catholicism and going to confession compared to my going to a psychologist (which I go to), I see them completely different. In confession, god is listening to you and forgiving you of sin. Through the priest absolution, god is the one who listens to repentance and our penitence after confession.

In confession, the psychologist doesn't forgive our "confessions." Instead, if you find a good one, he actually treats symptoms you go through. Most psychologist (unless you go to a religious one) do not really touch on your religion especially if both conflict. The psychologist and psychiatrist treats mental health conditions. Priests and god help with spiritual convictions and sin*. Two different things. When I go out of a psychologist office, I don't feel forgiven. I just feel I learned something new to help with my stress and mental condition. When I came from confession, I felt god was present all around me. It is completely different.

I can't see how you can connect the two.

Only to find out the priest has been converted to Christianity or worse and has been sent to jail for child molestation, only to start preaching Christianity to another child again.

Priests usually go to confession for sins hopefully. Nowadays, you can't be a priest if you have record of molestation and/or identify as homosexual among other things. Its not worse. We all sin. In my opinion, by confession and communion, Id assume most priest would ask for forgiveness. Just because it's on t.v. doesn't mean they can't do the same thing Catholics do all the time in confession. Plus, it does make the Church look bad; and, it shouldn't. Catholics should know that priests are no different than we are in regards to sin. I don't see why we treat humans this way.

Christianity and Catholicism must be kept seperate

That would make one of them no Christian. To be a Christian is to be part of the body of Christ. If you deny other Christians being part of that body, then you (the Church) is denying them Christ. Since the Church recognizes most baptisms, they are not separate in those regards. To keep them separate is tearing Christ.

I don't understand how that makes sense.

*Emphasis unrelated to post.

 

[shmogie]

Can you imagine being at Jesus' supper and telling him "that's okay, I don't want your wine and bread you are passing around. I have it spiritually. It's just a symbol."

I agree with you to an extent about the empty-stomach thing. Even the person who betrayed Jesus sat at his table. On the other hand, what Christian would deny the body and blood of Christ all because Jesus is not physically alive to give it? Priests are supposed to go to confession before giving the Eucharist and they ask blessings from god before receiving it themselves and to others. If it's just a symbol, then you don't need communion. Just say communion in one's heart. Since Jesus sat at a physical table, gave physical bread and wine, to physical people, it is literal.

The issue I have isn't the Eucharist as Jesus. That's common sense. It's the transubstantiation I have issues with. Regardless, symbol is like telling Christ "I don't need what you're giving me. I can imagine it as a symbol instead."

Does that make sense?

Sort of. What is communion about ? It is a public symbolic confession of complete and total faith in what occurred on the Cross, The broken body and shed blood of Christ for humanity. Eating and drinking the emblems represent the internal habitation of that faith in the individual. Recreating the literal blood and flesh recreates endlessly the sacrifice. This is wrong. There was one sacrifice, for all humanity for all sins, past present and future. Christ said on the cross, "it is finished", and it was. It is a grievous error to believe to that the cross wasn't adequete
, and must be repeated

Think about it. Every verse in the Bible about homosexuality has to do with action. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with a spiritual, god-filled attraction between two people. Only man and female.

The definition of homosexuality in the Bible does not apply to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender who identify as gay/bi/straight today unless they are lusting over each other. There are a lot of gay couples that do not lust; therefore, they are not sinning; they are not homosexuals (according to the bible).

Again, if you'd like to discuss this more give me your permission to create a thread outside of this one. Because, as a homosexual (a person attracted physically, mentally, and spiritually to someone of the same gender), I get offended when I told I am a sinner when I am just typing on the computer or eating Cheerios. Logically, it makes no sense.​

The biblical definition does not match the people who are themselves homosexuals. It is a terrible and very disturbing fact to see and label a person as lust.



It isn't a sin unless a straight, gay, lesbian, bi, transgender person engage in those actions. If they do not, they are who they are. Regardless if you don't believe any of these people: straight, gay, lesbian, bi, transgender identify by sexual orientation (straight/gay/bi) or male or female or not, it isn't about you. If you do not accept (accept not agree) people for who they are instead of judging what you think they are and should be how ... well.. anyway,

I just don't understand that logic. I disagree with someone killing another person; and, I don't call that person a sinner when they are just eating Cheerios or watching the ball game. I don't even put that label on them. However, unlike homosexuals, they are only killers once they killed. According to the Bible, straight people become homosexuals once they are engage in homosexual behavior.

If I wanted to know what Catholicism is, I go to the Church or to a Catholic not to my dictionary of the word. If a Catholic wants to know who a homosexual is they go to a homosexual not to their dictionary (bible) of the term.

If they can't do that, they will always see the action as a sin and never ask the person who may identify differently than what their bible says (making the bible inappropriate to determine who they are).

You are right, it is the action that is wrong. We all struggle with thoughts and desires. It takes faith and discipline to not act on these. I know folk with homosexual tendencies who are celibate rather than disobey the commands. The point is, for a true Protestant Christian the Bible is what defines people