Christian Discussion Thread V

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Then what about childless marriages? Worthy of condemnation for squandering the gift given to them?

Yes.

Only if they use contraception.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Protestantism is very easy to prove false. Have you never heard the saying "to study history, is to cease being Protestant"?

Considering that I continue to be Protestant despite studying history for years (and yes, including a lot of Christian history), that seems like a bit of a false statement.

Well, it seems rather impossible to me for someone to notice that Protestantism was pulled out of thin air 1500 years after Christ founded the Church and not realize that Protestantism is invalid with just a little critical thought.

[Cannabis Islands]

Yes.

Only if they use contraception.

How about engaging in non-vaginal sex? I know shite loads of straight couples that engage in, mate.

[The Archregimancy]

The constituent members of the Anglican Communion are all entirely self-governing; Canterbury has absolutely no role in their internal governance. This is as true of the Episcopalians in the United States as it is of the Nigerian Anglican Church.

The Anglicans are a loose confederation of fully independent churches who grant the Archbishop of Canterbury a primacy of honour, but the Archbishop is no Anglican Pope, and has no right to set doctrine for other branches of the Anglican Communion.

The real problem for the Anglicans is that while the Communion is ostensibly held together on the basis of shared doctrine, its different components have increasingly diverged from each other, leaving Canterbury as an increasingly impotent centre with few tools to keep the Communion together except a combination of not entirely effective special pleading and historical inertia.

Canterbury can simply say that they are no longer in communion with them, but with this particular issue there is a reluctance but it is certainly being examined. Of course this is really a problem due to imperial collapse, when the majority of these churches were subject to Canterbury. I have the suspicion that there is interest in a more formal structure (as there has been for a while), except that invariably has issues with doctrine (role of clergy, sacrificial priesthood, what is the church and whatnot) - there was certainly calls for it in 2004 with the Windsor Report but the nascent creation (circa 2009; GAFCON should get a mention somewhere as well for the north-south divide) of the Covenent was rejected by the CoE in 2012 (the failure of which led Rowan Williams to resign). However it is still a somewhat voluntary matter, which merely relegates a schismatic church to a lower tier so to speak, points for effort though. More resources (ironically the best compilation I could find) here.

For the record I am tentatively in favour, although I do prefer a more 'roman' structure - but that would figure. I'm sure the whole thing can be cast in terms of the "Tory centralised authority that seeks to preserve tradition and Whiggish local democracy to precipitate radical reform" that is at the heart of so much conflict historically (hence the earlier jab).

Ironically enough this doesn't stop Episcopalians from doing this by trying to punish those who leave despite the fact that Schori is not a metropolitan or archbishop. As well as her attempts to place sanctions on those who reject the ordination of women. I am utterly contemptous of her efforts and I am far from charitably inclined.

For the Orthodox, how would such a scenario be handled?

Also, when was the greatest movement from Anglicanism (specifically CoE) to Orthodoxy, Western-Rite or otherwise? 1992? Does that have much influence intellectually? Any blogs or resources for that sort of thing?

Sorry, I've only just seen the above.

I'm busy this morning, but some quick points in return....

Internal governance of the Anglican Communion is a matter for the Anglican Communion, not for me; that said, I doubt anyone - Anglican or otherwise - would dispute that the situation is currently a bit of a mess. Historically, one of the greatest strengths of the Anglican Communion was its ability to keep a broad range of theological opinions under a single broadly roofed church so long as the strands of opinion accepted the 39 Articles. But the decline of the latitudinarian and Erastian strands of Anglicanism, the decline of the British Empire removing central control over most of the Communion, and the lack of any real central doctrinal authority (the various instruments of communion are almost exclusively adminstrative rather than doctrinal) is making it increasingly difficult to hold the Communion together.

Superficially, the Orthodox Church and Anglican Communion are administratively similar in that they consist of several fully independent churches recognising a senior figure as first among equals, but otherwise taking care of their own business. But the significant difference is that the uniting bonds of the Orthodox Church are primarily doctrinal, the bonds of the Anglicans are primarily administrative, so it would be very difficult for a similar situation to arise in Orthodoxy. Orthodox administrative disputes can be furious (see the recent dispute between Moscow and Constantinople over Estonia), but doctrinal disputes between the 15 autocephalous churches are much more unusual, if only because Orthodox doctrine is sharply defined by a set of shared historical events.

That's not meant to be a negative or pejorative judgement. I merely note that the binding acts of Communion in Anglicanism are the Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council, Primates' Meeting, and the primus inter pares recognition of Canterbury, none of which can set doctrine for the Anglican Communion, and where each of the individual churches are indeed free to choose their own doctrinal statements. The shared bonds of the Orthodox Church, though, are the doctrinal statements of the Ecumenical Councils, with some recognition of subsequent historical doctrinal statements. It's unthinkable that an individual branch of Orthodox could unilaterally rethink those statements and still be considered Orthodox; and the need to get agreement across the Orthodox Church to change doctrine has led, for better or for worse, to a profound doctrinal conservatism.

So both churches have strenuous internal disagreements; but the doctrinal disagreements in the Anglican Communion seem to be more threatening to the integrity of that church than the adminstrative disputes of the Orthodox Church are to the latter.


As to CoE parishes going over to Orthodox jurisdictions, I'm only really aware of the dozen or so parishes that went on to form the Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland (alongside the established Arab parish in London):

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Antiochian_Orth ... nd_Ireland

http://www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk/index.html

I really can't give you much more detail on them.

[The Archregimancy]

Considering that I continue to be Protestant despite studying history for years (and yes, including a lot of Christian history), that seems like a bit of a false statement.

Well, it seems rather impossible to me for someone to notice that Protestantism was pulled out of thin air 1500 years after Christ founded the Church and not realize that Protestantism is invalid with just a little critical thought.

Oh you...

As I've pointed out before, as far as my lot are concerned, 'to study history is to cease being Catholic'.

Any time you want to renounce the false doctrine of Papal primacy and return to the One True Church, we'd be happy to have you

[The Archregimancy]

Well, it seems rather impossible to me for someone to notice that Protestantism was pulled out of thin air 1500 years after Christ founded the Church and not realize that Protestantism is invalid with just a little critical thought.

Oh you...

As I've pointed out before, as far as my lot are concerned, 'to study history is to cease being Catholic'.

Any time you want to renounce the false doctrine of Papal primacy and return to the One True Church, we'd be happy to have you

And you Orthodox at least have stuff together enough to have consistent and reverent liturgies. You can't say the same thing about the Roman Catholic Church, which has such lovely things as Extraordinary eucharistic ministers dressed as Devils and Priests just up as Barney.


ModEdit: Quote tags fixed

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Cardinal Burke is awesome.

Archbishop Cordileone is also coolz. Does not pull punches.

I just wish that Catholics would just come out and say that they believe that I'm danger of going to hell, not be all wishy-washy about it. I won't take offense to it. The reason why I am confrontational it's because I am encouraging them to show their true colors and not be afraid of who they really are.

What if you're encouraging them to show colours that aren't there?

[Cannabis Islands]

I just wish that Catholics would just come out and say that they believe that I'm danger of going to hell, not be all wishy-washy about it. I won't take offense to it. The reason why I am confrontational it's because I am encouraging them to show their true colors and not be afraid of who they really are.

What if you're encouraging them to show colours that aren't there?

It is just many Catholics, even many conservative ones have a hard time accepting the fact that their church's theology inevitably teaches people are hell.

Answer my question about non-vaginal sex. It is a sin for married couples to engage in it?

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Only if they use contraception.

How about engaging in non-vaginal sex? I know shite loads of straight couples that engage in, mate.

That too, if the act does not finish vaginally.

The great percentage of Catholics don't,and perhaps a conservative Catholic on this thread could answer why that is

This comic pretty much explains it.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Well, it seems rather impossible to me for someone to notice that Protestantism was pulled out of thin air 1500 years after Christ founded the Church and not realize that Protestantism is invalid with just a little critical thought.

Oh you...
As I've pointed out before, as far as my lot are concerned, 'to study history is to cease being Catholic'.
Any time you want to renounce the false doctrine of Papal primacy and return to the One True Church, we'd be happy to have you

If I ever convert to a different sect of Christianity, I promise you it'll be Orthodoxy!

There's a better chance of me becoming an atheist than a Protestant.

[Cannabis Islands]

How about engaging in non-vaginal sex? I know shite loads of straight couples that engage in, mate.

That too, if the act does not finish vaginally.

The great percentage of Catholics don't,and perhaps a conservative Catholic on this thread could answer why that is

This comic pretty much explains it.

Eh, as a severed person from the body of Christ, that is not my fight to fight. It is up to you conservative Catholics to fix this. Us apostates will just be drinking our bitter and eating our crisps.

[Risottia]

Not quite accurate. Catechism isn't dogma. Catechism CONTAINS dogmata, but not every part of Catechism is dogma.
The bits about homosexuality and contraception aren't dogma. Those views do descent partially from dogmata, but denying them does not constitute haeresy, although it may lead to excommunication. Denying, let's say, the Trinity would be violating a dogma and a haeresy - that is separation from the Church.

Yeah, I've received catechism and my mother's a catechist, yet I've never heard a word about homosexuals and their tickets to hell. Odd.

Lots of speaking about love for others and tolerance. Maybe our local parish is actually a cult that pretends to be Catholic while spreading a left-wing agenda?

No, it's just that catechism kids receive isn't the full official true complete binding form of the Catechism, which can be found here:

Latin: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/index_lt.htm

English vulgar: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Bit about homosexual attraction and sexual activity outside the sacramental bond of marriage:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Basically, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church considers homosexual acts as a violation of chastity to which all Christians are called.

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. the Christian has "put on Christ," The model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:
There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others.... This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

Then again, the Catechism isn't dogma. Holding and defending publicly opinions contrasting the Catechism can lead up to eventual excommunication, but to escalate to haeresy it takes the rebuttal of dogmatic truths.

[Cannabis Islands]

Yeah, I've received catechism and my mother's a catechist, yet I've never heard a word about homosexuals and their tickets to hell. Odd.

Lots of speaking about love for others and tolerance. Maybe our local parish is actually a cult that pretends to be Catholic while spreading a left-wing agenda?

No, it's just that catechism kids receive isn't the full official true complete binding form of the Catechism, which can be found here:

Latin: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/index_lt.htm

English vulgar: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Bit about homosexual attraction and sexual activity outside the sacramental bond of marriage:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Basically, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church considers homosexual acts as a violation of chastity to which all Christians are called.

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. the Christian has "put on Christ," The model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:
There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others.... This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

Then again, the Catechism isn't dogma. Holding and defending publicly opinions contrasting the Catechism can lead up to eventual excommunication, but to escalate to haeresy it takes the rebuttal of dogmatic truths.

Too the Catholics on this thread: And again, I refuse to believe homosexual love " disordered" or "evil". I can't see how anyone from calls themselves a Catholic not view me as "objectively distorted." I'm going to inform you that my homosexuality is a part of who I am. My homosexuality is as part of me as you believe your Catholicism is part of you.


((Not talking to you Risottia, I just agree with your points))

[Egoman]

so you speak for god, eh

Nope, He speaks for Himself, through His Church.

AKA you speak for Him.

[The Archregimancy]

And again, I refuse to believe homosexual love " disordered" or "evil". I can't see how anyone from calls themselves a Catholic not view me as "objectively distorted." I'm going to inform you that my homosexuality is a part of who I am. My homosexuality is as part of me as you believe your Catholicism is part of you.

For the record, Risottia's an Italian Marxist atheist; he doesn't really need to be lectured on the flaws in 'his' Catholicism.

[Cannabis Islands]

And again, I refuse to believe homosexual love " disordered" or "evil". I can't see how anyone from calls themselves a Catholic not view me as "objectively distorted." I'm going to inform you that my homosexuality is a part of who I am. My homosexuality is as part of me as you believe your Catholicism is part of you.

For the record, Risottia's an Italian Marxist atheist; he doesn't really need to be lectured on the flaws in 'his' Catholicism.

I was speaking to the Catholics on this thread. I should have pointed this out on at the time of posting and I apologize to him.

[Cannabis Islands]

Nope, He speaks for Himself, through His Church.

AKA you speak for Him.

Neptumousian believes what ever the Church of Rome tells him to believe. So, he believes that the church speaks for him.

Sorry if I am incorrect in my assessment of you, Neptumousian.

[Esternial]

Yeah, I've received catechism and my mother's a catechist, yet I've never heard a word about homosexuals and their tickets to hell. Odd.

Lots of speaking about love for others and tolerance. Maybe our local parish is actually a cult that pretends to be Catholic while spreading a left-wing agenda?

No, it's just that catechism kids receive isn't the full official true complete binding form of the Catechism, which can be found here:

Latin: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/index_lt.htm

English vulgar: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Bit about homosexual attraction and sexual activity outside the sacramental bond of marriage:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Basically, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church considers homosexual acts as a violation of chastity to which all Christians are called.

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. the Christian has "put on Christ," The model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:
There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others.... This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

Then again, the Catechism isn't dogma. Holding and defending publicly opinions contrasting the Catechism can lead up to eventual excommunication, but to escalate to haeresy it takes the rebuttal of dogmatic truths.

If not condemning homosexuality is really a deal-breaker it may be convenient if they mentioned it before you join.

I never agreed to these terms! D: I'm going to sue to Catholic church

[Diopolis]

Cardinal Burke is awesome.

Archbishop Cordileone is also coolz. Does not pull punches.

I just wish that Catholics would just come out and say that they believe that I'm danger of going to hell, not be all wishy-washy about it. I won't take offense to it. The reason why I am confrontational it's because I am encouraging them to show their true colors and not be afraid of who they really are.

You are, but the main reason is apostasy, not homosexuality(although that doesn't help, it's no worse than any other mortal sin. *looks sternly at contraceptive users*).

[Diopolis]

What if you're encouraging them to show colours that aren't there?

It is just many Catholics, even many conservative ones have a hard time accepting the fact that their church's theology inevitably teaches people are hell.

Answer my question about non-vaginal sex. It is a sin for married couples to engage in it?

Yes. It is. The same sin as homosexuality, in fact.

[Luminesa]

Yeah, I've received catechism and my mother's a catechist, yet I've never heard a word about homosexuals and their tickets to hell. Odd.

Lots of speaking about love for others and tolerance. Maybe our local parish is actually a cult that pretends to be Catholic while spreading a left-wing agenda?

No, it's just that catechism kids receive isn't the full official true complete binding form of the Catechism, which can be found here:

Latin: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/index_lt.htm

English vulgar: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Bit about homosexual attraction and sexual activity outside the sacramental bond of marriage:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Basically, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church considers homosexual acts as a violation of chastity to which all Christians are called.

2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. the Christian has "put on Christ," The model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:
There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others.... This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

Then again, the Catechism isn't dogma. Holding and defending publicly opinions contrasting the Catechism can lead up to eventual excommunication, but to escalate to haeresy it takes the rebuttal of dogmatic truths.

...Pretty sure the Catechism is dogma. Written record of the Church's teachings on, like, everything...yeah...probably dogma.

[Coulee Croche]

...Pretty sure the Catechism is dogma. Written record of the Church's teachings on, like, everything...yeah...probably dogma.

The subject can be confusing at times but to better explain:
Dogma relates to truth divinely revealed.
Canon Law relates to rules of the Church, because The Church holds the Truth that has been Divinely Revealed.
The Catechism is an aid to knowing what that Divine Truth is, in part.

Edit: Let me further explain:

While the catechism does contain infallible infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils; It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined. Of course, this doesn't mean you can disregard these teachings or ignore them.

[Living Stones]

Considering that I continue to be Protestant despite studying history for years (and yes, including a lot of Christian history), that seems like a bit of a false statement.

Well, it seems rather impossible to me for someone to notice that Protestantism was pulled out of thin air 1500 years after Christ founded the Church and not realize that Protestantism is invalid with just a little critical thought.

Depends how you define Protestantism. If you define it as a certain set of doctrines, then you're correct; I know of no Christian before the 1500s who denied free will, or went on record in favor of usury. But if you define it as non-Catholic Western Christians, then what about the Moravian Brethren? The Hussites? The Lollards? The Waldensians? And how do you define Catholicism? It's practices where developed over centuries, and not without controversy. Claudius, Bishop of Turin (never excommunicated) criticized images and relics in Church, Celestine I (The Pope!)criticized distinctive clerical dress, and Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (venerated as a Saint) criticized all bloodshed, even in war. All are considered Catholics, yet all clearly went against what are now recognized as the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[Cannabis Islands]

I just wish that Catholics would just come out and say that they believe that I'm danger of going to hell, not be all wishy-washy about it. I won't take offense to it. The reason why I am confrontational it's because I am encouraging them to show their true colors and not be afraid of who they really are.

You are, but the main reason is apostasy, not homosexuality(although that doesn't help, it's no worse than any other mortal sin. *looks sternly at contraceptive users*).

I really take no offense to that, since I believe hell is an illusion.

[Byrrazan]

Friends, after a very long time spent as an atheist I have decided to rejoin the faith community as a Roman Catholic. No doubt I'll find a home for discussion here.

That is a good thing to hear! Welcome back!

Should've stayed an Atheist, you'll find more truth there than here. Atheist speaking btw