WATCH: Ted Cruz tells Iowa group that gays are waging ‘jihad’ against Christians

a reply to: TheJourney

It is not even true to boot.
It was homosexual pedophilia plain and simple.

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: TheJourney

To characterize it as a pedophilia problem is an agenda-driven fallacy.

It was not.

It was a homosexual clergy problem.

You're literally saying you think homosexuality is worse than an adult raping a child...you're sick, and are really making your religion look bad.

a reply to: Seamrog

Hence the 'wasted effort' comment.

Typical non-responsive post from you.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

No, it was a direct response to you.

I won't waste my time or efforts to explain in depth what you reject even in the most simple of terms.

a reply to: Seamrog

Did I say that I reject it? No.

You didn't respond to my post about many ATS members being Christians, ex-Christians and even ex-pastors.

So yes many do understand Christian theology and doctrines plenty. So your point is moot.

You just don't want to respond to posters because you know you are wrong. Instead you resort to ad hominem posts claiming that no one understands Christian theology.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

So yes many do understand Christian theology and doctrines plenty. So your point is moot.

Then perhaps they'll start sharing their wisdom - other than ad hominem attacks.

Because so far, the number who have shared has been a whopping [0.0].

It is off topic to the thread, lest the moderating armada descend, so maybe the ex-pastors, ex-Christians, turbo Christians and educated Christians will start a thread about the blessing God bestowed upon homosexual encounters and love affairs.

What has been shown throughout this thread is that Ted Cruz correctly assessed the climate.

a reply to: Seamrog

Then perhaps they'll start sharing their wisdom - other than ad hominem attacks.

What attacks? You are the ONE who shut the discussion off by claiming that no one understands Christian theology. It's a wasted effort on our part to explain and discuss with you.

What has been shown throughout this thread is that Ted Cruz correctly assessed the climate.

In your delusional worldview.

He has the right to free speech but he but he is wrong. Period. He is so uneducated that it isn't even funny.

originally posted by: Seamrog
What has been shown throughout this thread is that Ted Cruz correctly assessed the climate.

Yea, look at all the corpses and severed heads in here. He sure got it right.



More and more hyperbole from you every single time.

a reply to: Seamrog

You are arguing that all of Christianity is described and defined by Roman Catholicism.

You are about 500 years out of date (or 1600 depending on how one looks at it).

In fact, your assertion is defeated by the very existence of the Protestant Reformation and modern Christianity.

Any ordinary person can read the bible and understand it's meaning; it doesn't have to be filtered through the labyrinthine posturings of Holy Mother Church.

Enjoy the 16th Century now, ya hear?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Evidently, all of these alleged "True Scotsmen" intellectually expired with the passing of the Great Plague.

Guess there just wasn't enough unicorn horn and virginia snake root to go around.

a reply to: Seamrog
Donno man...your bottom line seems to be that the Word of God is firm until you don't want it to be anymore. So the flex factor lies in you, not the scriptures. Nowhere have I seen a opt-out phrase that says 'We're not being literal here, so feel free to cherry pick'. So it's being neither glib nor hateful for pointing out the inconsistencies.

Cruz is pandering to the ignorant on this issue...armed with the Good Book.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Seamrog

You are arguing that all of Christianity is described and defined by Roman Catholicism.

You are about 500 years out of date (or 1600 depending on how one looks at it).

No - I was stating that a line pulled from scripture does not contain, capture or adequately express the theology behind a religious principal.

I correctly pointed out that most people are not sufficiently knowledgeable of Christian faith to understand that, and therefore to understand authentic Christian theology - in this case, as it relates to same-sex attractions, behaviors, and lifestyles.

The Roman Catholic Church does profess that Jesus Christ founded a visible Church which subsists in the Catholic Church. Guided by Christ, the Church has for two millenia, protected Christian doctrine from error. She possesses - through her Tradition, the Magisterium and through the Sacraments, the fullness of Christian faith.

The protestant view is that no man is infallible, and as scripture is to be individually examined, interpreted and accepted, there is no way to determine, or know with certainty if your interpretation is merely human opinion, or divine revelation. Considering same-sex 'marriage,' until only recently, all protestant denominations proclaimed that a marriage is comprised of the union of one man and one woman. Now, many of these denominations have completely reversed this position. Did God change? Did their doctrine change? Or, was their doctrine an error of human opinion? I think the answer is self evident.

Where a protestant can only rely on his own judgement regarding matters of faith - which he knows is inherently fallible - the Catholic can completely rely on the teachings of the visible Church that Jesus founded and still guides - the Church speaks with the voice of Christ, who cannot lie or deceive. A Catholic therefore, can know divine revelation with certainty.

In the midst of the fractured 'modern' Christian church you describe, stands the One Catholic Church, as it has for two thousand years.

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.

More answer than you were looking for, or even remotely care about, but you raised it.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: Seamrog

Donno man...your bottom line seems to be that the Word of God is firm until you don't want it to be anymore. So the flex factor lies in you, not the scriptures.

I think what I just posted above is that there is no flex factor in matters of faith.

For Catholics, the faith is what it is - you either accept it, or you don't.

a reply to: Seamrog

No - I was stating that a line pulled from scripture does not contain, capture or adequately express the theology behind a religious principal.

Ah so brilliant minds depend on scripture?

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Seamrog

You are arguing that all of Christianity is described and defined by Roman Catholicism.

You are about 500 years out of date (or 1600 depending on how one looks at it).

No - I was stating that a line pulled from scripture does not contain, capture or adequately express the theology behind a religious principal.

I correctly pointed out that most people are not sufficiently knowledgeable of Christian faith to understand that, and therefore to understand authentic Christian theology - in this case, as it relates to same-sex attractions, behaviors, and lifestyles.

The Roman Catholic Church does profess that Jesus Christ founded a visible Church which subsists in the Catholic Church. Guided by Christ, the Church has for two millenia, protected Christian doctrine from error. She possesses - through her Tradition, the Magisterium and through the Sacraments, the fullness of Christian faith.

The protestant view is that no man is infallible, and as scripture is to be individually examined, interpreted and accepted, there is no way to determine, or know with certainty if your interpretation is merely human opinion, or divine revelation. Considering same-sex 'marriage,' until only recently, all protestant denominations proclaimed that a marriage is comprised of the union of one man and one woman. Now, many of these denominations have completely reversed this position. Did God change? Did their doctrine change? Or, was their doctrine an error of human opinion? I think the answer is self evident.

Where a protestant can only rely on his own judgement regarding matters of faith - which he knows is inherently fallible - the Catholic can completely rely on the teachings of the visible Church that Jesus founded and still guides - the Church speaks with the voice of Christ, who cannot lie or deceive. A Catholic therefore, can know divine revelation with certainty.

In the midst of the fractured 'modern' Christian church you describe, stands the One Catholic Church, as it has for two thousand years.

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.

More answer than you were looking for, or even remotely care about, but you raised it.

Seriously? You're saying that only the Roman Catholic church can be trusted with doctrinal truth? I think that the various Orthodox churches in the East would disagree with you - as would the Copts. And the RCC is still dealing with the aftermath of its attempts to hide the fact that it protected paedophile priests for decades.

And the truth of the matter is that we have no idea what the early Christian church was like, other than to speculate that it was a branch of Rabbinical Judaism which became headless after the fall of Jerusalem and which was radically changed by Saul of Tarsus.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: Seamrog

Donno man...your bottom line seems to be that the Word of God is firm until you don't want it to be anymore. So the flex factor lies in you, not the scriptures.

I think what I just posted above is that there is no flex factor in matters of faith. For Catholics, the faith is what it is - you either accept it, or you don't.

The Catholic Church has its failures. It has had its re-writes. It changes its tune. What did George Carlin say about those 'doing eternity for eating meat on a Friday'?
No flex? Nonsense.

a reply to: Seamrog

The Catholic Church was okay with slavery..... until it wasn't. Did God change?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Seriously? You're saying that only the Roman Catholic church can be trusted with doctrinal truth? I think that the various Orthodox churches in the East would disagree with you - as would the Copts. And the RCC is still dealing with the aftermath of its attempts to hide the fact that it protected paedophile priests for decades.

The Eastern Church does disagree, albeit mostly on the matter of leaven in the bread, and that is why it split from Rome. Interestingly, It is slowly returning to unity. But yes, I am stating that the Roman Catholic Church professes that She is the only authentic interpreter of matters of Christian faith. I am also saying that I believe that to be true.

The fact that the fallible members of the Church - namely her Bishops - committed the crime of covering up the abuses of homosexual priests and moving them around so they could abuse others - is still impacting the Church today, and will continue for some time to come. In no way does that effect doctrine.

And the truth of the matter is that we have no idea what the early Christian church was like, other than to speculate that it was a branch of Rabbinical Judaism which became headless after the fall of Jerusalem and which was radically changed by Saul of Tarsus.

The truth of the matter is that we know quite a lot of what the early Church was like - you are just not aware of it.

a reply to: Seamrog

You are losing a battle with your tail between your legs.

Just give it up or make a good replies to us.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck


The Catholic Church has its failures. It has had its re-writes. It changes its tune. What did George Carlin say about those 'doing eternity for eating meat on a Friday'?

Of course it has - but in matters of faith, it has never changed. It cannot change, and it will never change.

No flex? Nonsense.

For Catholics, it is not nonsense - it is the bedrock of our faith. Jesus Christ founded and guides his Church. He is eternal - read unchangable. There is absolutely no flex in that.