Message from @DannyNC1
Discord ID: 764873622019637249
Yeh... Transgenderism is nothing but garbage and hi-jacked sciences made into some weird shit.
As for the year 606, that is when Emperor Phocas by his authority declared and established the Roman Bishop Boniface III as the 'general head and supreme ruler of the whole church.' He had a beef with the Greek arm and turned on them in preference of Rome. Up to that point all they had at Rome were bishops or overseers for the first three centuries, and then after Constantine to 606 only archbishops and patriarchs.
Yup, and the "i was born this way" and "10 percent" garbage being rammed down our throats by the left is cringeworthy. Transgenderism (including the lgbtq+) is an inclination, just like alcoholics and chocoholics. Why should an inclination get more rights above what we normies get. Everyone gets the same rights to get screwed over fair and square. Lol
Celibacy is an issue for it puts that particular person in an unsafe position. The Lord God created mankind with natural urges to have a mate and for procreation. That goes before the fall into sin of Adam and Eve. If a person can withhold themselves from those desires and concentrate on the Lord, great, and that is entirely commendable. But, it is exceptionally rare!! And, worse, it ought not be required by clergy when God requires completely otherwise. Having these natural desires puts a man who ought be concentrated on the Lord under undue stress if he can't satisfy them. That's why Paul said 1 Cor. 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Marriage is intended to be a safeguard from God from falling into sexual perversion. Thus, celibacy leads to fornication--many popes were fathered by other popes--or sodomy, or pedophilia. So, many problems come from it.
It is a cunning invention of the Devil to keep Catholic clergy bound to the Catholic system, and be basically like slaves to it.
@DannyNC1 what I meant with Wikipedia is that I wouldn't cite it as a main or first source, simply because it can be changed. It's good for getting information about something to start out with, but not to use as definitive fact. The church would "harbor" pedophiles in the sense that there are pedophilic clergymen unbeknownst to higher powers. I am not permissive in any way. As to tradition, it almost has equal footing with the bible. The church wrote the bible, the bible didn't write the church. The Bible is all that we need, but that requires interpretation. That's where Papal teaching comes in. Protecting climate change, which I don't believe to be a big problem. Is still not "leftist". He's simply saying we should defend God's creation.
I was defending transgenderism or saying that trans rights is a thing, it is garbage. I wouldn't say that the passage you quoted means the Bible is pro-life, I would say it means that forced premature birth is wrong.
Ah, so in 606 the Emperor established the Pope. However, the church rejects the secular appointment and invest of power in the church. Before that, the first Pope was Peter and we can trace back all the popes since him.
Priests should be withholding themselves from desires and concentrate on the Lord, no matter how difficult it is. It doesn't matter how rare it is, it's the right thing to do. We can't blame the just laws of the system for the wrongdoings of the people who chose to do them.
Lol, did someone say catholics aren't christians? What does that make us. We got the bible from the catholics, it was them getting thrown to the lions for defending the faith so we can bitch about it in 2020. They brought us what we have today. We showed up fifteen hundred years later.
> Lol, did someone say catholics aren't christians? What does that make us. We got the bible from the catholics, it was them getting thrown to the lions for defending the faith so we can bitch about it in 2020. They brought us what we have today. We showed up fifteen hundred years later.
Thank you!
Jesus didn't leave us a king james bible. Them catholics had to compile it for us.
Woah, what's happening here....
@MKSmash I have other things to do than to keep up with this long drawn out conversation. Catholicism CANNOT and DOES NOT go back to the Apostle Peter. It is a fabrication of many, though early, writers to allege Peter was in Rome. Even if he was in Rome, the church at Rome was not founded by him (it existed before Paul wrote the book of Romans, and Peter was in other places at the time, like Jerusalem, Caesarea, Samaria, and Babylon). You are not reading Matt. 16:18 very well which is NOT promising the Apostle Peter the authority of the Church to be vested in him. If so, why did Paul say otherwise in Eph. 2:20, "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"? Paul was saying it is built on all the apostles and prophets, not on one sole apostle, i.e. Peter. Peter was no higher in authority over any other apostles. Paul even rebuked him in Gal. 2:11, withstanding him. If Peter was higher than Paul, why is there no rebuke from Peter to Paul? Instead, Peter commended Paul (2 Pet. 3:15).
Also, you still don't acknowledge that the requirement of celibacy is not in the Bible, but something extrabiblical--I provided you where they got it, from paganism. Thus, it is antithetical to Christian ministry, especially when there are different provisions and commands in the Bible. Traditions and papal teaching are unsound, and especially not on equal footing with the Bible, the word of God.
You say they were required to become celibate. Can you cite where you got this information from?
@qwerty_😎 @MKSmash Catholics did not give us the Bible. Please do your research. For one, Catholicism is not the church that is the same one found in the 1st century New Testament kind. It has morphed into something else entirely. It can only really be traced back basically to when Constantine approved it, i.e. the 300s, which is what I would call proto-Catholicism since it changed still further. Though there was a church in Rome from the first century, they corrupted over time, and they were a shell of what they should have been Biblically from the beginning of Christianity. They got the sponsorship of Constantine and then touted themselves as 'the real Church,' and their tired claim of going back to Peter is wrong as well as unproveable. I find the history of Catholicism dark and repugnant. They still have to answer for the murders of 50 million people during the Dark Ages they branded as heretics, something they recently have glossed over as 'not that bad.' Sickening!
@MKSmash I already did--although that was for clerics specifically, the 2nd Lateran Council of 1139. There were various leaders that advocated it, even as early as the 4th century, but that's not early enough since it does not come from the Bible. They were only mimicking paganism.
You ought to go read this article for more: https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/former-pope-benedict-writes-paper-blaming-sex-abuse-scandals-on-1960s-but-records-show-catholic-church-was-rotten-from-beginning/
@DannyNC1 we can compare the bible today with the septuagint (lxx), the vulgate, and recently the dead sea scrolls. The bible didn't change. Nothing got corrupted, the manuscripts are in the royal british library.
If the catholics changed the bible, they did a poor job of doing it.
@qwerty_😎 That has nothing to do with "We got the Bible from the Catholics". What are you getting at?
The Bible today is a big issue which I have given many years of study to, basically over a decade.
U said they aren't christians, and most denominations have moved away from that claim. I'm saying they are, they've been for the last two thousand twenty years.
@MKSmash yeah i misworded my original statement, my fault and no offense taken 👍
For one, the Septuagint is a Greek translation (a poor one at that) of what is supposed to be the Hebrew Old Testament. The Vulgate is a revision by Jerome of the prior Vetus Latina, a translation as well of the New Testament into Latin.
> Your statement it comes from the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Dead Sea Scrolls is disingenuous.
@DannyNC1 don't strawman, those are archaelogical evidence of the preservation of the bible.
So, those aren't the original Bible. If you want to talk about Bible, DM and we will talk about it, but this is not the forum.
Ditto--this is not the forum. And don't say it is a strawman when there is a whole lot more to talk about on the issue than what you trot out.
Ur facts are outdated
Catholics are not Christians is what your original problem was. I have met many Catholics that have said that themselves.
Well the majority won't agree with u.
You're arrogant to even allege sight unseen what I have to say that my facts are outdated.
I don't care about appealing to a majority. It is about what is right, not what is popular.
Nope, facts are facts. Calling caths as not christians is arrogance...u a layman just anathemised 1.8billion of our brothers and sisters. @DannyNC1
I'm done with this. Clearly your opinion will not change, nor will mine. Your beliefs seem to come from the 19th century book Catholicism, which is frankly ridiculous with no historical basis.
Good day
I have other things to do and must leave. If you want to ask any questions, send me a DM now and I will get to it later in response to you.
@MKSmash Have patience and hear me out instead of quickly leaving the topic--DM me and we will talk about it.
It's not opinion, it is proveable that Catholics are not Christians, but I don't think you have the patience to hear it out. I know what I am talking about. I have read the Bible scores of times and I have compared it with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and found it does not match. Don't tell me I'm arrogant.
U are arrogant, and ur facts are outdated. Do ur research, don't double down on hearsay. It's not good for our spiritual growth. U have no authority to anathemise any denomination (especially our largest denomination).
