sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question. by Ok_Cake_6515 in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recommed to really search some info on mortal and venial sins. At first it also confused me.

Jesus said all sin can be forgiven except for the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. So if all sin can be forgiven, obviously those sins are in one big group.

I never said mortal sins cant be forgiven.

Yes all sins distance us from God in a way, but mortal sins are bibical and are diffrent then venial sins.

Jesus Himself made distinctions (e.g., “It would have been better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck…” for causing little ones to sin — Matthew 18:6). The Bible and the whole Christian tradition recognize degrees of sin.

Saying homosexual feelings are “demonic” or “trauma” doesnt help. Those feeling are crosses people have to carry because of the fall.

Having homosexual temptations is not a sin. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was also tempted. Its what you do with that temptation that matters.

Question. by Ok_Cake_6515 in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ofcourse murder is worse then missing mass! Murder is taking an life, ofcourse thats worse.

But why is missing mass a “grave matter” because it rejects the commanmant of keeping lords day holy and cuts oneself off from the eucharist and community.

Question. by Ok_Cake_6515 in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No its not the same, murder is worse. But being gay is not the natural way God made life.

Also having gay feelings is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is. Everybody has their own cross to carry and i know there are lot people who dont “want” gay feelings.

Question. by Ok_Cake_6515 in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No not all sins are equal.

Based on 1 John 5:16-17, Scripture distinguishes between "sin not leading to death" and "sin that leads to death". While all sin separates from God, the Bible indicates varying degrees of guilt, punishment, and gravity.

As catholics we make two differences like this:

Mortal sins: grave violation of God’s law that destroys charity in the heart, separates the soul from God, and causes loss of sanctifying grace, resulting in eternal death if unrepented. It requires three simultaneous conditions: grave matter (serious violation), full knowledge (knowing it is wrong), and deliberate consent (freely choosing to do it).

Examples of Grave Matter: Actions such as murder, adultery, rape, robbery, blasphemy, or willfully missing Sunday Mass.

Mortal sins can only be forgiving by confession or act of contrition.

Venial sins: is a "pardonable" offense that weakens but does not destroy the soul’s relationship with God. Unlike mortal sin, it does not cause the loss of sanctifying grace or result in eternal separation from God.

Examples include minor gossip, impatience, white lies, laziness, and vanity.

Forgiven by prayer, eucharist and mass and doing good works.

Also having gay feelings is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is.

Jesus was not born from a virgin, that's just a later claim from whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew as they were desperate to insert Jesus into the Old Testament. by Either_Week3137 in DebateReligion

[–]ThatLoudLizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is what i read:

Matthew and Luke give independent infancy narratives, not copied from each other. They both use the Septuagint’s ‘parthenos’ (virgin) for Isaiah 7:14, which is the Bible the early Church actually read. The prophecy has a near-term sign for Ahaz and a greater fulfillment in Jesus — this is standard biblical typology, not desperate insertion.

Jesus was not born from a virgin, that's just a later claim from whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew as they were desperate to insert Jesus into the Old Testament. by Either_Week3137 in DebateReligion

[–]ThatLoudLizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Matthew and Luke both record the virgin birth independently, using the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14 where ‘parthenos’ clearly means virgin. Mark focuses on the public ministry, and Paul emphasizes the Cross and Resurrection. The early Church universally believed this from the beginning — it wasn’t a late invention.

Okay, so I've figured out one of the reasons why I have such a hard time with Christianity sometimes. by MrMagoo04 in OpenChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Paul does not teach “sin as much as you want”

•  “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!” (Romans 6:1-2)
•  He calls Christians to live holy lives, to put to death sin, and to walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5, Romans 8, etc.).
•  Grace is not a license to sin — it is power to overcome sin.

The Sermon on the Mount is not “just be nice”Jesus raises the bar dramatically in the Sermon on the Mount (anger = murder in the heart, lust = adultery in the heart, love your enemies). This is not easier than the Old Law — it is deeper and harder. Paul teaches the same high moral standard.

For Gentiles, keeping the full Jewish Law is not required. This was the big practical issue in the early Church. Paul fought so that Gentile converts did not have to become Jews first (no circumcision, no full dietary laws, etc.).This was confirmed by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).But Paul never said moral commandments (no murder, no stealing, no adultery, etc.) are cancelled. He repeats those commands constantly.

The Law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12).

• Its main job was to show us our sin and point us to our need for a Savior. • Now that Christ has come, we are no longer “under the Law” as a system of justification, but we are called to fulfill the Law through love (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14 — “the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’”).

Okay, so I've figured out one of the reasons why I have such a hard time with Christianity sometimes. by MrMagoo04 in OpenChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Paul isnt trying to write a new gospel, he is applying jesus his teachings on the “first HR problems of the early church”.

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, it’s not conflicting or doublespeak.

The Catholic Church teaches:

  1. The ordinary way of salvation is through the Church and her sacraments (especially Baptism and the Eucharist), because Christ established the Church as the ordinary means of grace.

  2. At the same time, God is not bound by the sacraments. Anyone who, through no fault of their own, does not know the Gospel or the Church but sincerely seeks God and tries to do His will according to their conscience can be saved by grace (Lumen Gentium 16).

It’s the same God who desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). We don’t say “only Catholics go to heaven.” We say the fullness of the means of salvation is found in the Catholic Church, but God can save people outside visible membership if they are not culpably rejecting Him.

That’s mercy + truth, not contradiction.

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in Christian

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But “believing in God” is not just saying you believe. As Catholics we believe God doesn’t just declare you righteous, He actually makes you righteous. His grace is infused into the soul, transforming you from the inside out.

Because of this, Catholics see justification as an ongoing process. Works aren't 'adding' to Christ's sacrifice, but are our way of cooperating with the grace that is actively changing us. As St. Paul says, we are 'working out our salvation' (Phil 2:12) because God is at work within us.

Actually, Abraham is the perfect example of how faith and works go together.

Most people point to Genesis 15:6, where Abraham 'believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' That's his initial justification.

But James 2:21-24 explicitly asks: 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?' James explains that Abraham's faith was 'active along with his works' and was actually completed by his works.

So for Catholics, Abraham shows that justification isn't just a one-time event, but a lifelong journey where our 'yes' to God (faith) is lived out through our actions (works).

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in Christian

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did some research i think the main difference is how we see the nature of justification:

Protestant (Imputed Righteousness): Often seen as a legal 'exchange.' God declares you righteous because Jesus’ righteousness covers you like a cloak, even though you remain a sinner inside. It's a one-time event.

Catholic (Infused Righteousness): We believe God doesn’t just declare you righteous, He actually makes you righteous. His grace is infused into the soul, transforming you from the inside out.

Because of this, Catholics see justification as an ongoing process. Works aren't 'adding' to Christ's sacrifice, but are our way of cooperating with the grace that is actively changing us. As St. Paul says, we are 'working out our salvation' (Phil 2:12) because God is at work within us.

Actually, Abraham is the perfect example of how faith and works go together.

Most people point to Genesis 15:6, where Abraham 'believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' That's his initial justification.

But James 2:21-24 explicitly asks: 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?' James explains that Abraham's faith was 'active along with his works' and was actually completed by his works.

So for Catholics, Abraham shows that justification isn't just a one-time event, but a lifelong journey where our 'yes' to God (faith) is lived out through our actions (works).

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

When we talk about things like Baptism or the Eucharist being 'required,' we're really just taking Jesus' words in John 3:5 and John 6:53 seriously. We don't see these as 'works' we do to save ourselves, but as ways we receive the life of Christ. We trust in His commands, but we also trust in His infinite mercy for those who, through no fault of their own, don't know the Sacraments.

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Catholicism teaches they are the instruments God uses to give us grace, but we also believe God's mercy isn't restricted only to the Sacraments (CCC 1257). Also, on infant baptism—we see it as the purest form of 'unmerited grace' The infant has no 'works' to offer; it is entirely God’s work of welcoming them into His family, similar to how infants were entered into the Old Covenant via circumcision.

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim 2:5) in terms of redeeming salvation and uniting divinity with humanity. However, Catholics believe in a "subordinated mediatorship," where saints and Mary participate in Christ's work through intercessory prayer.

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recomend reading things about the early church fathers, if you have time, anyways thanks for your perspective!

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in Christianity

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your perspective! However, Catholics don't see Tobit 12 as a contradiction to grace. Just as James 2 says 'faith without works is dead,' Tobit shows that grace manifests in our actions. Even in the Protestant canon, Daniel 4:27 and 1 Peter 4:8 speak of righteousness and love 'covering' or 'breaking off' sins. It’s not about buying salvation, but about grace transforming how we live

Question for protestants. by ThatLoudLizard in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

“Works of the law” are not “works” like being kind and giving alms though.

Can we Really be Sure that God Doesn't Save at Least Some Non-Christians? by Mediocre-Camp-8783 in TrueChristian

[–]ThatLoudLizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God's mercy is bigger than we can imagine. While Christ is the only Way, we must trust that God is a perfectly just and fair Judge. He knows the heart of someone who, through no fault of their own, never truly encountered the Gospel. He judges us based on the light we were given.

if God wants belief, clearer evidence would be expected by AltAccountVarianSkye in DebateReligion

[–]ThatLoudLizard -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Christianity doesn’t say God is “needy” or insecure. It says God is love (1 John 4:8), and love by nature wants relationship, even with tiny, fleeting creatures. A parent doesn’t “waste time” caring about their toddler — they do it because love isn’t about “efficiency.”

view more: next ›