Again, I think it's funny how FWK is so intolerantly bigoted himself that he cannot see the forest for the trees when name-calling others.

I think when he realizes this part of himself, and works to make himself better at understanding that part of himself, he will feel much more secure in his own and others's identity and "safeness".

jmog If you truly would like to see it you can look for it! I gave a reference if that helps. P.S. I'm not Catholic.

"How then comfort ye me in vain, seeing in your answers there remaineth falsehood?"
Job 21:34

or...

"Make you a new heart and do you beware how you comfort him with an answer of falsehood. Ezekiel 18:31

Rather than wish for a false comfort or happiness a follower of Christ is to let the naked truth "pierce even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow" Hebrews 4:12.

Con_Alma;641520 wrote:Rather than wish for a false comfort or happiness a follower of Christ is to let the naked truth "pierce even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow" Hebrews 4:12.

Oh I don't think OTrap was suggesting that we tell non-believers that homosexuality is "ok" or not a sin. What he is suggesting is that we treat them with the same respect and "rights" as everyone else, even if it makes their lives "easier".

I do not believe he is saying that he'd buy his gay friend a gay porno magazine. Maybe I am wrong though.

jmog;641558 wrote:Oh I don't think OTrap was suggesting that we tell non-believers that homosexuality is "ok" or not a sin. What he is suggesting is that we treat them with the same respect and "rights" as everyone else, even if it makes their lives "easier".

I do not believe he is saying that he'd buy his gay friend a gay porno magazine. Maybe I am wrong though.

I don't believe he was stating anything but that either. He asked me why I felt we should not enable them. I was responding to that.

jmog;641558 wrote:Oh I don't think OTrap was suggesting that we tell non-believers that homosexuality is "ok" or not a sin. What he is suggesting is that we treat them with the same respect and "rights" as everyone else, even if it makes their lives "easier".

I do not believe he is saying that he'd buy his gay friend a gay porno magazine. Maybe I am wrong though.

You would be correct.

I WOULD (and have) sit down with them over a couple nice brews and listen to them tell me about how they were treated at the store last week when someone figured out that they were gay.

Con_Alma;641574 wrote:I don't believe he was stating anything but that either. He asked me why I felt we should not enable them. I was responding to that.

I think the issue we're hung up on is the word "enable."

Exactly, it depends on how you define "enable".

I have a close family member who is gay, I wouldn't take him or her to the gay bar, but I would sure vote for any law that allowed homosexuals to have civil unions/marriages/etc depending on the statutes in the law.

That is not enabling him or her, that is creating an environment where he or she has the same basic rights as I do. Trust me, this person knows my stance on his or her sin, but that doesn't mean I would treat him or her any different than if they were not homosexual.

Hmmmmm. I never expanded on the definition of enable at all. Define it how you wish.

I stated that one can hate the sin and love the sinner but should be very cautious about enabling the sinner to continue to sin.

When Otrap asked why I shared my thoughts on why. I'm not sure we focused on what enabling is at all thus far.

jmog;641658 wrote:...that doesn't mean I would treat him or her any different than if they were not homosexual.

I don't think how enable is defined would suggest any of us three would treat anyone differently...homosexual or not.

jmog;641496 wrote:Sorry, no offense to Catholics or any denomination for that matter, but I'd rather see some scripture that says all this than what one church or another says on it.

So...if the Catolic Church publishes "works of mercy" or whatever...it is bullshit because it's not in the Bible? Do you cringe when people pray with the rosary? After all, the Hail Mary is not verbatim in the Bible.

We are going on our Honeymoon in Key West in July. I will report back if there are any gay concentration camps set up or if I see soldiers rounding up guys running around in speedos.

Footwedge. I don't think he said it was "bullshit" but rather that he was looking for a reference to God's written word as opposed to a particular Church's expanded interpretation.

FWK's rantings are akin to some black person (or some young person ravished with white guilt) saying that if we elect a republican in the white house they would re-institute slavery. It's utter non-sense and signs of someone who is totally bought in to the hysteria that the left feeds them.

No Con Alma...he wasn't looking for an "expanded interpretation".

The point that I was trying to convey is that statements like that drive wedges to all those that are Christians. Pot shooting Catholicism by other Christians gets a little stale after awhile. There are those that actually think that Catholics don't follow the teachings of the Bible.

Footwedge;641670 wrote:So...if the Catolic Church publishes "works of mercy" or whatever...it is bullshit because it's not in the Bible? Do you cringe when people pray with the rosary? After all, the Hail Mary is not verbatim in the Bible.

I wouldn't say its "BS" but I wouldn't necessarily accept it as "gospel truth" or Biblical.

Also, let's not get on the subject of praying to Mary because I know I'll end up offending Catholics if we go down that road.

Footwedge;641716 wrote:No Con Alma...he wasn't looking for an "expanded interpretation".

The point that I was trying to convey is that statements like that drive wedges to all those that are Christians. Pot shooting Catholicism by other Christians gets a little stale after awhile. There are those that actually think that Catholics don't follow the teachings of the Bible.

What "pot shot" did I take at Catholicism?

Con Alma is 100% correct, I was looking for Biblical references, period and I think he gave some pretty good ones that backed up his point.

jmog;641728 wrote:I wouldn't say its "BS" but I wouldn't necessarily accept it as "gospel truth" or Biblical.

Also, let's not get on the subject of praying to Mary because I know I'll end up offending Catholics if we go down that road.

Because you wouldn't know what you're talking about.

Catholics do not worship Mary. I'm sure that's the road you were talking about. They venerate her.

The Bible wasn't written by God either so saying that it is somehow more reliable than other things in Christianity is a bit ridiculous.

I Wear Pants;641779 wrote:Because you wouldn't know what you're talking about.

Catholics do not worship Mary. I'm sure that's the road you were talking about. They venerate her.

The Bible wasn't written by God either so saying that it is somehow more reliable than other things in Christianity is a bit ridiculous.

1. I never said they worship Mary, you made an assumption. I said they pray to Mary, which is very true.
2. According to dictionary.com...

ven·er·ate
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
to regard or treat with reverence; revere.

Origin:
1615–25; < L vener&#257;tus, ptp. of vener&#257;r&#299; to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship, revere,

Synonyms: appreciate, reverence, treasure, cherish, idolize, respect, worship

You aren't exactly making a great point...

People pray to people other than God all the time, relatives, friends who've died, etc.

I made that assumption because as a Catholic I've heard that argument many times. I've also heard many times that Catholics are somehow not Christian.

From someone in high school "I'm going on a mission trip with my church to Poland (think it was Poland) to try to spread Christianity, they're like 90% Catholic there". That might not be the direct quote but it's close. I was flabbergasted.

I Wear Pants;641898 wrote:People pray to people other than God all the time, relatives, friends who've died, etc.

I made that assumption because as a Catholic I've heard that argument many times. I've also heard many times that Catholics are somehow not Christian.

From someone in high school "I'm going on a mission trip with my church to Poland (think it was Poland) to try to spread Christianity, they're like 90% Catholic there". That might not be the direct quote but it's close. I was flabbergasted.

I notice no comment on the definition of venerate.

I don't care what denomination you are if you accepted jesus' sacrifice for your sins and believe he was who he said he was (son of God) then you are a Christian.

It is my opinion that the Catholics have some very big Biblical things wrong about the mother of Jesus ...

Because the definition is the one you choose to use.

I've always been told that we venerate, not worship Mary and the other Saints. The definition of venerate we're using is then obviously not the same word as worship.

I Wear Pants;642029 wrote:Because the definition is the one you choose to use.

I've always been told that we venerate, not worship Mary and the other Saints. The definition of venerate we're using is then obviously not the same word as worship.

I did not "choose" that definition, it was the only definition in the dictionary. That IS the definition of venerate.

Saying we don't worship Mary we venerate her is the same as saying I'm not going to leave this room, I am going to exit the room instead.

Venerate and worship are synonyms.

Heck, the Catholic Church uses Latin to this day and the Latin root of venerate means "to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship".

You aren't making a very good case for the Catholic Church not worshiping, oh sorry venerating, Mary.

jmog;642629 wrote:I did not "choose" that definition, it was the only definition in the dictionary. That IS the definition of venerate.

Saying we don't worship Mary we venerate her is the same as saying I'm not going to leave this room, I am going to exit the room instead.

Venerate and worship are synonyms.

Heck, the Catholic Church uses Latin to this day and the Latin root of venerate means "to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship".

You aren't making a very good case for the Catholic Church not worshiping, oh sorry venerating, Mary.

Well excuse us for thinking the mother of Jesus was a pretty special lady. Do your fellow Baptists think she was chopped liver?

jmog;641729 wrote:What "pot shot" did I take at Catholicism?

Con Alma is 100% correct, I was looking for Biblical references, period and I think he gave some pretty good ones that backed up his point.

You and other "real" Christians have taken many back handed slaps at the Catholic religion. Not all Christians think that only Bible verses are the vehicles to eternal life.

Footwedge;643104 wrote:Well excuse us for thinking the mother of Jesus was a pretty special lady. Do your fellow Baptists think she was chopped liver?

Not a Baptist, but a Protestant (of the Grace Brethren Fellowship), so I'll chime in.

Theologically speaking, it is believed that she was a regular Jewish woman like any other, chosen for a very special responsibility, and who obeyed faithfully when given the task of bearing and raising the incarnate Son. Apart from her responsibility, however, she was a young Jewish girl living in Coele-Syria during the mid-to-late part of the Second Temple Period.

It's not an either or. She was "special" in that she was given a very important, very wonderful gift ... but that was not of her own accord, or because of anything she did. In terms of her fallibility, humanity, sin nature, etc. ... she was just like you and I. Doesn't mean she's chopped liver. Her role was vital, and the fact that she carried it out makes her significant, but she was merely the willing instrument to carry it out. Same as Moses, Avram, Gideon, David, and a host of other Old Testament people ... ordinary people given extraordinary responsibilities and gifts.

Footwedge;643110 wrote:You and other "real" Christians have taken many back handed slaps at the Catholic religion. Not all Christians think that only Bible verses are the vehicles to eternal life.

It's not even the verses themselves. Though inspired by God, the words written down were written within a culture, even down to the dialectical level. The message WITHIN the words is what holds any and all saving power, and many non-Canonical works do express much of the same message.