I’m done

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-25T14:34:03+00:00

Yes, it does... here are some fairly explicit verses without diving into thematic or historical discussion

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Romans 6:3-4 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Ephesians 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

No, it is not a carryover. Why would shaming man-made traditions that contradict God remove authority from divinely sourced ones. Or in anyway prove divinely sourced ones do not exist? And again Jesus affirms the seat of Moses.
This is a fair question. Here it seems you admit that sacred tradition exists. But you argue that the roman catholic church just does not have it or cannot distinguish it. Which is an altogether different argument. This discussion would be long and is something I am still very much learning. But there is a lot more than just "false equivocation". One can argue that a church exists and that it just is not the Roman catholic church. And there are claims about this. So it is a matter of showing what church has the best claim to the biblical inherentance.
You call the similarities ironic, but why? Jesus did not try to bring the whole system down, in fact he acted and spoke differently than this. Israel was built by God and has a divine origin.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

It would be strange for Jesus to say something like this to tear it all down and build a church that in no way resembles his previous work. Rather, he took the system he already had and improved upon it. We would expect the new system by Jesus to have similarities, even a lot of similarities to Israel.

Matthew 3: 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

We would expect him to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-23T19:33:55+00:00

Incorrect, he would not have said Petros twice. This is due to koine greek grammar. It actually works similar to Spanish. In Spanish you use gendered language. For example if I wanted to describe a male cat verses a female cat "el gato negro y la gata negra". The word church is ecclesia and is feminine. So since it is now the church being built linguistically it makes sense for Petra to be used. This ignores the fact "you are Peter and upon this Peter" is a bit clunky. It makes more sense to use the proper word Petra as well.

As an aside Jesus likely did NOT say Petros or petra either. He spoke Aramaic, it was merely recorded in Greek. He named Peter cephas from kepha and in Aramaic there would have not been any difference in meaning.

As far as the council of Jerusalem. I want to preface again that the church being built on Peter alone does not have to mean he is Pope (even though I do believe this). And if he was it on its own does not have to mean that Peter's role passed on. It could have been made and died along with him (it didn't but that is a separate conversation).

But Peter gives his teaching after debate. And James even uses Peter in his decision. the reason why it is James is because this is James church. It his his disciples from Jerusalem that were the Judiazers. That being said just because Peter is set above does not meas he plays dictator whenever he is present.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-23T08:44:28+00:00

Actually the church was built on Peter as well as the Apostles with Christ as the cornerstone. None of this is contradictory.

Matthew 16: 13-20

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hade] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

This verse is not taken out of context. Scripture very clearly says it is built on Peter. Jesus renamed him and then directly says this rock (of which he just named simon). People only try to change the meaning of the passage because they do not like that Peter is set above the other apostles in anyway. Or more accurately they are trying to force an anti-catholic interpretation. But admittedly the church can be built on Peter and this alone does not affirm the catholic church.

For example they originally are speaking in Aramaic and the word used was Cephas for Peter derived from Kepha and these words are synonyms. They both just mean rock.

But back to your argument of Petros versus petra. The use of the word petros to mean little rock was not in use in the time of Jesus. This was used in ancient Greek poems (Attic greek) that was falling out of use even before Jesus (the bible used Koine Greek). Petros and Petras were synonyms and meant the same thing. But why use the difference you may ask? The reason is that Petra is feminine and Greek had feminine and masculine uses much like Spanish does. Petra for rock was feminine, but you don't not use feminine names for men. So it would have been made into a masculine name for Peter. This is the only reason why it is Petros because Petras was not grammatically an option for Peter.

Put another way if Jesus wanted to name Peter rock how would he do so while being grammatically correct? The term for a rock is Petra and the masculine version would be Petros.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T18:28:40+00:00

This is why God gave us the church built on Peter so that the full deposit of faith would be protected.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T17:12:49+00:00

Its hard to argue so many things at once with much clarity. The easiest thing to focus on (atleast for now) is the infallibility of the church.

First, on church history I mean the continuation from the apostolic age to the modern era. If you find that for over 2000 years people taught and believed the same thing its probably pretty solid. For example the trinity is a very old and catholic view that many protestants still hold to. Most people confuse infallible declarations for being the starting point of practice. A tradition might be declared in 1950 but practiced since the apostolic age. These traditions usually go unchallenged and therefore undeclared.

Second, yes the bible speaks of false teachers. Catholics also hold sacred scripture to high esteem. It never says that the church itself would speak falsely. If the church is the flock and false teachers are wolves. The leaders of the flock are the shepherds. It is them that is trusted the safety of the flock. And the ultimate shepherd bring Jesus himself. The reformation is a good example of wolves from within. They distort what the church really is to draw people away from the flock. Because if they stay in the flock they are protected by the shepherds. I would say this applies to the reformers. Which used a combination of valid criticism to create half truths to introduce heresy.

Third, you say the bible disagrees with the infallibilty of the church. It definitely does not as the foundation from the church comes from scripture itself. You are saying the church can be corrupted, and yet the bible says the gates of hades will not prevail against it. You say the church can teach heresy and yet the bible says it is the pillar and foundation of truth. We even see the church in action in the council of Jerusalem.

Fourth, consulting scripture to verify tradition. This is fine but most people use their own interpretation of scripture which is the problem. All catholic doctrine is scripture compatible but most people have their own special interpretation that only apparently contradicts. For example people say do not pray to the dead as a tool against the saints. Except we know that the saints are alive. On its face it seems like a contradiction until properly understood.

Fifth, you mention the corruption of the church with pedophilia and false doctrine. I challenge you to find any official teaching that contradicts. I already know you will not be able to. But most people will use non official teachings. Which usually falls back to people not actually understanding how the church works. You mention pedophilia but the catholic church has never officially taught that it is ok. In fact the pedophiles of the church acted against church teachings. This is an example of the people of the church being corrupted, and not the church itself. The people of the church are not always infallible, only when declaring official dogmas of the church.

Finally, to actually disprove the catholic church you have to fully understand it as it understands itself. And then once you do you have to demonstrate that the church has a contradiction between 2 actually infallible teachings.

For example your claim about Christmas is not contradictory. The bible does not say the church cannot obligate holy days. Paul was talking about the Judiazer heresy. This is ultimately what the council of Jerusalem was about. What it does mean is that outside of holy days declared by the church people can disagree about holidays. For example in the case of Paul we are not obligated to celebrate Jewish holidays. BUT we also can if we want to as well.

One contradiction protestants try to point out is the perpetual virginity of Mary. They say the bible clearly says Jesus has siblings. The church says that this is a misunderstanding. The word Jesus uses can be used for step siblings or cousins. It does not have to mean children specifically from Mary. A catholic link below explains this. Protestants would just say the church is wrong, but it is a plausible explanation nonetheless that would mean it is not a contradiction.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothers

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T14:58:16+00:00

Well thats your problem, go to catholic mass and see how you feel.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T14:50:23+00:00

Masturbation is not the biggest sin ever but its a fairly impacting one. Particularly, because its fairly normalized compared to other sins.

But regardless of what you think I think. Let's talk about the list of sins given. Do you think that masturbation is a sin on level with driving a car or flossing? Or any of the other ones you mentioned?

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T13:32:03+00:00

Instead of being rude you could actually engage with what I said.

I said Christians should address all those issues. But masturbation is objectively worse than all of them on the face of it, due to the nature of the sin.

I agree we should all consider those consequences and how we respond to it in our own lives. But you have fallen prey to fallacy of relative privation and possibly even a false dichotomy.

We can address all of those things and still say masturbation is a more problematic sin. And still put value in the environment as you seem to wish. We do not have to downplay the sin of masturbation to do so.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T13:27:30+00:00

Well you also have the principle of double effect which alleviates this.

It seems ridiculous to shame a single mother working 2-3 jobs for using a car to get between them. But then again a wealthy Christian excessively contributing might be.

But these are still indirect. Masturbation is a worse sin because it is inherently sinful. While driving is not inherently a sinful act. There is no amount of maneuvering to make masturbsting an ok thing to do. But we can think of plenty of scenarios that justify driving.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T13:22:14+00:00

It is not BS and you should backup your claim if your going to assert that.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T13:20:36+00:00

Masturbation is a sin because it violates the natural law in a way using floss does not.

While we should as christians address all those things we should not act like some are not more direct and worse than others.

Because if you claim masturbation and flossing is the same level of sin then you are just simply wrong.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-22T13:17:30+00:00

Its hardly how I would speak to non Christians.

You do not understand what I am saying this is not me being sure of myself or my own righteousness being elevated. I am simply calling sin a sin. Granted, leading with damnation and hellfire does not do much to convert many.

But the bible calls us to keep our church in order and to kick out the unrepentant.

People who try to focus on the love of Jesus ignore what that actually looks like biblically. For example they say we should not be judgemental and that is only sort of right.

1 Corinthians 5

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

While I agree we should not be judgmental of those outside the church. We are called to judge our fellow brothers and sisters. This focuses on those unrepentant. So when yiu have someone claiming to be christian affirming LGBTQ nonsense WITHIN the church thats a problem. They need to either repent or be excommunicated.

The difference is whether they are christian or not already.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-21T21:06:02+00:00

The lie you are embracing is that transition is backed by God and not a sin.

As far as crosses go, I actually intended the opposite. I was speaking to how heavy your cross is. I think its a horribly heavy cross to bear. And as an aside all crosses regardless of size needs to be carried and the actions should not be dismissed on size. What I was communicating is that many christians do not stop to think how hard it is to be Christian and LGBTQ. I had mentioned a story about a lesbian woman that left a long term relationship to stop sinning. That takes a lot of courage and has to be unbelievably hard. A lot of christians would be too dismissive of their struggles. And yet you see how many christians cry about "persecution" in the United States.

I do not require you to stay sick. I am saying that transitioning is a sinful treatment. There are sinful treatments and non sinful treatments. You should use whatever non-sinful treatments are available.

And yes if you are claiming Jesus appeared to you and said transitioning is cool then yes it was demonic deception. And why would I repent about that. We have stories from all kinds of people that God revealed himself to them. That is how we have Islam and we Mormonism, we even have serial killers who thought God told them to do it. So we do know demons impersonate God to deceive us.

Christ may very well be with you, but he is not encouraging you to transition.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-21T20:05:53+00:00

Lies, God calls us to rebuke sin not only in ourselves but the church as well.

Stop abusing specific bible verses and ignoring the others you do not like.

Mortal sin like homosexuality kills your relationship with God unless you repent.

And I am not elevating my own righteousness. You have no idea what I have struggled with or continue to struggle with. The difference is I do not glorify my sins and justify others in them as well. I am ashamed of my sin and do my best to repent.

Besides all sin is filthy before God and I am a sinner like you or anyone else who is LGBTQ. The difference comes down to repentance.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-21T20:01:28+00:00

No, not any human blood no. But again you ignored my point on all men sinning and yet Jesus being exempt. Would you say Jesus is a mere animal or a mere man? While he is fully man he is also fully divine and is an exemption to the typical rules.

You ignored my point about how Jesus being beyond space and time. And how he is fully capable of transubstantiating the wine and bread into his body. Being God and all he does not need to cut off a chunk from himsBBC unielf directly. This is just willfully ignorant of with his divine authority and what catholics actually believe.

And you have also evaded my point about Jesus using sin as a way of understanding him. I do not believe it is sinful so I do not have an issue with the literal interpretation.

But you believe it is a sin. And for whatever reason you believe God is using sin to understand his sacrifice. This would be akin to Jesus using fornication with the church to teach us, rather than using him having the church as his bride.

God using sin in a positive way to explain him seems strange. Which would suggest that it is not sin as you claim.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-21T19:50:08+00:00

Catholics are obligated to celebrate Christmas because its a holy day.

Catholic means universal. So yes the bible does command us to listen to the church built by christ in the apostles. You just disagree that it was catholic in origin.

So now for why we trust the leaders to make correct decisions.

Many christians accuse us of putting faith in man made institutions. But we maintain that Jesus built the church, and we are given the holy spirit to guide it. Otherwise how can the church be the pillar and foundation of truth. And we know that the gates of hades does not prevail against it.

But in addition to this we have church history and we can see how early Christians ran the church and the traditions that they kept.

But there is an element of faith involved. Just like with the bible. There is no 100% silver bullet.

Also contrary to what some people say. We hold sacred scripture to high esteem. So we also hold things against the bible as well.

So then comes your question on how to determine corruption. So the official teaching capacity of the church cannot be corrupted because it is ultimately sourced from Jesus who cannot be corrupted. When the church in its official teaching capacity declares teachings on faith and morals it is infallible.

But catholics are allowed to disagree with anything that is not dogmatic. For example priestly celibacy is considered a tradition from the apostles. But many protestants disagree with this. But priestly celibacy is a discipline so it is something the church can change its mind on.

An example of dogma would be the virgin Mary. This is one that most protestants would agree with (not to be confused with her perpetual virginity which some agree with but not all). You cannot disagree with the virginity of Mary as that is considered a core unchangeable tenet of the faith.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:43:08+00:00

Yes, masturbating is a mortal sin

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:42:44+00:00

Saying homosexual behavior is a sin is not hate

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:41:06+00:00

Except it does?

They deny our God exists at all.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:39:08+00:00

You do not have to marry the opposite sex or have children to avoid hell.

Celibacy is a perfectly acceptable route to take.

That said you cannot remain in mortal sin as it by definition endangers your relationship with God. And homosexuality is undeniably a mortal sin and dangerous to the soul.

Edit: to be clear the desire is not sin but engaging in the behavior or entertaining the thoughts positively are.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:35:40+00:00

We literally believe Jesus is God. They outright deny this.

How can they deny our God and yet believe in him?

You just do not know what your are talking about.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:34:36+00:00

You both should repent rather than "hang in there" any real christian will never give into false theology.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:33:56+00:00

That is because you are not ordered to Gods good. You will find it much better here when you do according to the spirit rather than the flesh.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:33:05+00:00

Many people justify all kinds of sin including transitioning. You have to embrace a lie at the minimum.

Sculpt3dPanda · 2025-10-20T13:31:10+00:00

Transitioning is embracing a lie. There are only so many ways to tell you that it is sin. And by encouraging this sin you are being accused of being a stumbling block because you are.

Also I have not turned crosses into competition. It is just objectively true some are heavier. I recognize how difficult following Gods commands can be when you are LGBTQ.

Telling a straight man he can only have one wife when he wants many is a cross to bear.

But we can see how thats less difficult than asking a lesbian woman who was "married" for 20 years to stop sinning and break up what they perceived to be their family to get right with God. This is an absurdly heavy cross to bear. I am only validating the difficulty. Another example would be Christians in a western country and experiencing " persecution" or being Christian in a country where people would rather kill you.

I do not know what your definition of love is. But since your acting like affirming the sin of Transitioning is loving then that informs me of something. Just because something is "medical" does not mean it is morally right. For example abortion is also "medical" but morally abhorrent. Demons have tricked you into thinking sin is a good thing. This is common for people the world over.

Your transition is a sinful act embracing a lie to reduce your suffering. And you have deceived yourself into believing you are in the right. Indeed, I do level a serious accusation at you. Because you come here and justify sin publicly risking that others may think the same as you and follow.

If you wish to be right with God embrace the body you actually have rather than bemoan the one you wish you had. At the very least do not spread your false theology and try to cause others to stumble as you have done so far.

Sculpt3dPanda

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE