Consume Product

Christianity is not Catholicism, and is certainly not this modern incarnation of Catholicism. The Bible says that a man who wears women's clothes is an abomination and should be excluded from the congregation of believers.

Indeed. All three of those views strike me as laughable. But it is the first that I will focus on here, for I have less to say about the latter two.

This first belief also strikes me as anti-Biblical, since even the prophets and messengers of God are clearly fallible in the Bible. I have observed that some Sunni Muslim commentators consider the following verses concerning the prophets drinking wine as filthy lies and proof of the Bible's corruption. In doing so, they preserve the infallibility of the prophets, which I believe is their intent. However, many Christians (e.g. contemporary philosopher J. P. Moreland) also believe in Biblical inerrancy, in which case this way out is simply closed to them. The Christian - unless he rejects Biblical inerrancy - seems stuck accepting that some of God's prophets drank wine, including, at least in Noah's case, to the point of drunkenness.

> [Genesis 9:20-21] Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. (NASB)

Of 33 translations I have viewed, 32 say that he became 'drunk' and one uses the word 'intoxicated'. Every viewed translation is thus in agreement.

> [Genesis 27:25] Then Isaac said, “Now, my son, bring me the wild game. Let me eat it, and then I will give you my blessing.” So Jacob took the food to his father, and Isaac ate it. He also drank the wine that Jacob served him. (NLT)

Of 33 viewed translations, all 33 use the word 'wine' and all 33 use the word 'drank', 'drink', 'drinks', 'drunk', or 'drinketh'. Every viewed translation is thus in agreement.

> [Luke 7:33-34] For John the Baptist didn’t spend his time eating bread or drinking wine, and you say, ‘He’s possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man, on the other hand, feasts and drinks, and you say, ‘He’s a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and other sinners!’ (NLT)

Of 33 viewed translations, 15 say 'drunkard', five say 'wine-bibber', four say 'wine drinker', three say 'drunk', two say 'drinker of wine', one says 'drinks too much', one says 'given to drinking wine', one says 'heavy drinker', and one says 'overfond of [...] drinking'. Every viewed translation is thus in agreement.

There are only three ways that I can see out of this predicament:

1. Conclude that the Bible is not inerrant, and that the verses above are false verses. This is, as aforementioned, the answer of certain Sunni commentators.

2. Accept that the aforementioned prophets drank wine, and morally excuse it. This is the answer of most or all Christians, with their acceptance of wine but not other alcohols, which I reject as an arbitrary decision unbefitting of God, who, as a perfect Being, possesses all perfections including maximum rationality, and thus, while capable of making irrational decisions, such as forbidding a whole class of item bar one, lacks sufficient reason to make any in practice. It would be like a government criminalizing fentanyl, methamphetimines, and heroin whilst at the same time decriminalizing cocaine. The opponents of said government would rightly label it schizophrenic, senseless, and the like.

3. Accept that the aforementioned prophets drank wine, do not morally excuse it, and accept that they are not omnibenevolent. This is the view that both Christians and Muslims do not wish to accept for various reasons, but I think it to be correct. They were, ultimately, just flawed men like all others.

(The second and third options are compatible with Biblical inerrancy.)

Having accepted the third answer - that the prophets and messengers are fallible - it would be illogical for me to then backflip regarding the Pope and declare him infallible, as though he is above the prophets.

This meeting with filthy 'transsexual Catholic activists' is perhaps the very best confirmation that I have seen so far for the Pope's fallibility. Isn't it increasingly obvious that these past few popes, in particular, are such base, ignoble, unexemplary men that even the average man who frequents this community is quite possibly more exemplary than them?

this would be like me calling you corrupt all the way through because aryan drug gangs in prison also hate niggers.

The pope is only infallible when he is operating ex cathedra, which has only happened twice in history. This does not fall under papal infallibility.

the most jewish thing you can do is reject Christ. Papal infallibility is not the pope being always infallible. And loving the sinner not teh sin is the whole point here. He is reaching out to sinners. It is like reaching out to murderers and telling them to repent and turn away from that life