Leaving the decision up to God to see IF there would be donors? Reminder: there are 4 places in the Gospels where Jesus PROMISED that if anyone prays with faith, that person's prayer requests WILL be granted. Mt.21, Mt.18, Mk,11, Jn.14. These promises are some of the most unambiguous things that Jesus ever reportedly said. Remember that Jesus is the way, the TRUTH and the life. He was also a good teacher. And, a good teacher says what he means and means what he says.
Well, we have to remember that it is His will be done, not ours. St. Paul said as much when prayed three times to have a thorn removed and got a different answer than what he thought:
Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Hey Scott! In Maine, Maryland and Washington, voters recently approved same sex marriage for their respective states. In Minnesota, they tried to put it in the state's constitution that marriage was between one man and one woman. However, the voters rejected that. So here you have three states with many many many religous people, including priests, bishops, archbishops, clergy, pastors, preachers, nuns, rabbis, deacons, lay people, etc... all praying with faith to God that gay marriage would be rejected by voters. But guess what? Their prayers weren't answered and thus, gay marriage passed in three states. And, lol, for the cherry on the top, Minnesota rejected the constitutional amendment question!!! So.......was all of that God's will? So by the way you are speaking, I believe it to be God's will! So guess what Fr. Hollowell and Scott? God approves of Gay marriage! His will was done on election night! So that means, Fr. Hollowell, you are wasting a lot of time and money to show what the church teaches about homosexuality....it doesn't matter cause God ignored the faithful's prayers for no gay marriage.....but he very much so answered the gay people's prayers!
Let's try it this way. Many prayed night and day that they would not be a victim of the Nazi Holocaust, yet they died all the same. Does it follow that the God approves of gassing Jews? Of course not.
But you're not answering the question at hand. Was it God's will that gay marriage passed in 3 states and in 1 state the constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman failed? If it wasn't, please explain in great detail why that wasn't God's will....and how you know for a fact that it wasn't. Same thing with the gassing of the Jews. Was that God's will? The Jews killed Jesus on the cross and that WAS God's will.
Yes I am answering it by analogy. While God will not prevent humans from choosing evil, He is not the author of evil and it is never his wish that humans do evil. Gassing Jews is evil. Sodomy is evil. Voting to legally recognize sodomy as something good is evil.
So then why did the prayers from the faithful to God(for no gay marriage) before election never answered? Why Scott? Why oh why?? His will NOT to????? I'd say that if it were that huge of a deal, then God surely would have granted the prayer requests. But he did not. So, if God refuses to do something for you after you have prayed with faith to do so, IT IS HIS WILL that the prayer doesn't get answered. Just like in Fr. Hollowell's Unnatural Law documentary. It will be God's will IF the documentary should receve enough money to go ahead with the making of it. Correct Fr. Hollwell? Btw....gay marriage doesn't equal recognizing sodomy.
Again God allows humans to be free moral agents. That is they can choose to freely do what is right or wrong. People are under the misapprehension that God is some wish-granting machine and that the Bible is the owner's manual. So if you push x prayer-button on the machine, then y effect happens, and when that doesn't happen, people assume that either the machine doesn't exist or is broken, or that whoever wrote the owner's manual is off his rocker. Rather, prayer is entering into an intimate personal relationship with our Father who has promised that no matter how bad this fallen world gets, in the end His will is done and as long as we didn't stand up to be counted with His enemies, He will bring us safely home.
So it was God's will not to answer the prayers of the faithful in those 4 states. Gotcha. Hmmmmm......me thinks there is more going on here with gay marriage than what some people with blinders on can see.......
I think I've amply demonstrated the absurdity of the idea that when people do evil things that God somehow approves, so I won't keep repeating myself and will leave to other readers to decide.
It was God's will not to answer the prayers Scott. Get over it. They would have been answered had it been in accordance with His plan. God loves gay people more that you or anybody else is willing to admit. Not gay are you Scott? GOOD FOR YOU. But remember this, until you have walked a mile in a gay guy's shoes and felt how he feels(which can include but not just limited to anger, jealousy, sadness and LONELINESS) I would suggest you not talk about gay people who marry each other as EVIL PEOPLE. A LOT of straight people need to quit looking down their long holier than thou goody two shoe noses at gay people and tell them how EVIL they are.
It was God's will not to answer the prayers Scott. Get over it. They would have been answered had it been in accordance with His plan.
Even if we grant this, it does not follow that God approves of homosexual acts. He does not which is attested to by Scripture, tradition, reason, history, and simple apprehension. It is only sustainable in the modern self-refuting philosophy of moral relativism.
God loves gay people more that you or anybody else is willing to admit
As we often say, God loves the sinner but hates the sin and call us all to repentance.
Not gay are you Scott? GOOD FOR YOU
This is like saying, "Not a shoplifter are you Scott? GOOD FOR YOU." True as far as it goes, but in the end stealing is always wrong just like homosexual acts are.
But remember this, until you have walked a mile in a gay guy's shoes and felt how he feels(which can include but not just limited to anger, jealousy, sadness and LONELINESS) I would suggest you not talk about gay people who marry each other as EVIL PEOPLE.
a). I'm saying (along with God, the Church, reason, etc) that homosexual acts are evil acts, the people who do this are doing an evil act. Whether they are themselves evil and whether they are culpable enough to warrant eternal punishment I leave to God's judgment.
b). Going back to my shoplifting example, I don't actually have to shoplift to know that shoplifting is wrong.
A LOT of straight people need to quit looking down their long holier than thou goody two shoe noses at gay people and tell them how EVIL they are
I've never said or even remotely implied that I am not a sinner. You are making up a position and putting my name on it. There is only really a problem if I pretend that any sin I commit is not really a sin. That's what is going on with homosexual acts--people pretending they are not sins. They are.
You make yourself out to be holier than thou, Scott. I can't believe you can't see that. There is nothing worse in this world than a person who thinks they are pretty darn holy. You kept talking about homosexual acts....What is the Church's definition of "homosexual acts"? How does that compare to the definition of lets say the Merriam Webster Dictionary? Is it even in the dictionary? Better yet what does "acts" mean? How about the church's OFFICIAL definition of "homosexual acts???" Where can I find that? CCC or the Code of Canon Law? Written underneath the Pope's Zucchetto? Now, on to a bigger question..... Why is it that when YOU and every other stuck up straight person sees a gay couple you automatically think they are HAVING SEX with each other when they are not in view?????? Do all of you have a ONE TRACK MIND??? NEWSFLASH----Not every gay couple has done something sexual!!!! You see two guys holding hands walking down a path in a park. What is the first thing that comes to your mind Scott? Inquiring minds want to know.
You make yourself out to be holier than thou, Scott. I can't believe you can't see that.
I can't believe you are still accusing me of that when I told you point-blank that I am a sinner. Does anyone call those who condemn the shootings in Connecticut holier-than-thou? Of course not. If I say "John did x, which is wrong." that is not holier-than-thou. If I say, "I'm better or holier than John", only then would a holier-than-thou accusation hold water. But this is all desperate ad hominem, so let's move on.
What is the Church's definition of "homosexual acts"?
I think you are being coy here, but I will make it very plain: human sexual contact is morally acceptable in one place and one place alone: between a man and a women married to each other. Anything else is an offense against chastity. This of course covers a whole range of sins and not just homosex including fornication, contraception, masturbation, and things that may not even involve direct physical contact including viewing pornography. Now usually someone determined to defend the indefensible usually blusters at this point: "So if there are so many sexual sins, why obsess over homosex?" That's an easy one--there is no cultural onslaught to coerce others into approving of such acts. There are no Adulterer's Pride Parades because there is still (thankfully) some semblance of shame about it (granted, lessened through the evil of no-fault divorce.) If there is ever a Thieves' Pride Parade, I assure you I will generate a lot more commentary about the wrongness of stealing.
Now, on to a bigger question..... Why is it that when YOU and every other stuck up straight person sees a gay couple you automatically think they are HAVING SEX with each other when they are not in view??????
That sounds like a tacit admission that if they are having sex it is wrong. Perhaps we are making progress.
Do all of you have a ONE TRACK MIND??? NEWSFLASH----Not every gay couple has done something sexual!!!! You see two guys holding hands walking down a path in a park. What is the first thing that comes to your mind Scott? Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, I wouldn't necessarily assume that two guys holding hands are in a sexual relationship. But that is irrelevant to the fact that homosex is wrong. I think you know this, but don't like it and instead of dealing with the truth, are trying to distract by talking about my motives.
I simply asked you where I can find the exact church definition of "homosexual acts" are. I could care less what your personal interpretation of it is. As a gay guy, I would like the following answered by you. Play multiple choice. I don't want a philosophical explanation for your answers while dodging the questions.
1) If I go out on a date with another guy, is this a a) Mortal Sin b) Venial Sin c) None at all d) I don't know
2) If I hold hands with him in the theater is this a a) Mortal Sin b) Venial Sin c) None at all d) I don't know
3) If I kiss another guy is this a a) Mortal Sin b) Venial Sin c) None at all d) I don't know
4) If I officially become involved in a relationship with a guy but we do NOT HAVE SEX PERIOD is this a a) Mortal Sin b) Venial Sin c) None at all d) I don't know
5) Gay people are a) Going to destroy humanity as Pope Benedict XVI clams b) Destroying the very essence of the human creature C) destroying humanity like humans are destroying rainforests D) Going to burn in hell E) All the above F) None of the above
Go for it Scott! I anxiously await your answers to this multiple choice quiz!
#5 - The Church always distinguishes between people with SSA and people who are having homosexual sex, so your question, using the phrase "gay people" needs to be reworded before a proper answer can be given
I don't think your bishop would agree with you....nor would Pope Benedict either for that matter. Their answers would be a,a,a,a and the last one E. You don't want me to use the word "gay" so how about the word "homosexual" instead. This also begs the question on what St. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians about " practicing homosexuals" not being able to inherit the kingdom of God. Don't know what the definition of "practicing" means to be exact but that's what it says in my Catholic Bible. The word Homosexual was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karl Maria Benkert. 1868 to be exact. So before 1868 what did the Corinthians passage REALLY say? Like what would the passage say in a 1568 Catholic Bible? Who ADDED the word "homosexual" into the bible to begin with? Why was that? Inquiring minds want to know that one too.
I won't dodge the questions if you don't ascribe or imply bad motives or emotions on my part. Deal?
The Church's teaching on Chastity begins at 2331 and no, the Church does not provide a definitional laundry list of every act with sexual undertones and the implications of doing them. I remember this when I was trying to argue against torture and people for some strange reason would go, "Well of course torture is wrong, but the Church hasn't defined which particular acts are torture." It's what I call an appeal to finer detail, and the problem with that is that there is always one more finer detail, so even if the Church said, "Waterboarding is torture", torture apologists would go, "Yes, but what kind of waterboarding?" It's filibustering.
Anyway, as far as the questions, my answer is that I agree with Fr. Hollowell's answers with a few quibbles. For instance, if in the relationship with another guy it was made clear from the very beginning that it was always going to be celibate and platonic, that is less of a problem, but not entirely because of temptation. We have to remember that this other guy is made in the image of God and is entitled to the truth. If the dating, hand-holding, kissing, etc is a mimicry of modern heterosexual dating with the implication of it all as a prelude to a sexual relationship (the infamous "three dates means sex", which is of course unacceptable for heterosexual couples unless they got married first after that third date), then these are particularly dangerous venial sins because it is leading someone else down an evil road. While mortal sins are more serious, venial sins are no shrug off because they are destructive, so it is not a case that we can say, "Well, it's a venial sin, so no big deal."
Jesus never said that prayers would be answered only IF it was God's will in those passages. Mt. 21:22 "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive."
Mt. 18:19 "Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything fir which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly father."
Mk. 11:24 "Therefore I tell you, all you ask for in prayer, believe you will receive it and it will be yours." Jn. 14:14 "If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it."
I can't help but see a contradiction with the 2nd Corinthians 12 passage and the 4 passages I mentioned above. So in this case is it: A) Jesus lied about those promises? B) Jesus never made such promises to begin with? C) The Bible authors forgot to mention that Jesus said the prayers would be answered only if it were God's will? D) St. Paul lied in his letter to the Corinthians? E) You have no idea....
F). The contradiction is only apparent. Surely no one believes God will grant a prayer that God stop being God, or that God should grant me an exemption from the commandment Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery, right?
Leaving the decision up to God to see IF there would be donors? Reminder: there are 4 places in the Gospels where Jesus PROMISED that if anyone prays with faith, that person's prayer requests WILL be granted. Mt.21, Mt.18, Mk,11, Jn.14. These promises are some of the most unambiguous things that Jesus ever reportedly said. Remember that Jesus is the way, the TRUTH and the life. He was also a good teacher. And, a good teacher says what he means and means what he says.
ReplyDeleteWell, we have to remember that it is His will be done, not ours. St. Paul said as much when prayed three times to have a thorn removed and got a different answer than what he thought:
ReplyDeleteThree times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
2nd Corinthians 12
Hey Scott! In Maine, Maryland and Washington, voters recently approved same sex marriage for their respective states. In Minnesota, they tried to put it in the state's constitution that marriage was between one man and one woman. However, the voters rejected that. So here you have three states with many many many religous people, including priests, bishops, archbishops, clergy, pastors, preachers, nuns, rabbis, deacons, lay people, etc... all praying with faith to God that gay marriage would be rejected by voters. But guess what? Their prayers weren't answered and thus, gay marriage passed in three states. And, lol, for the cherry on the top, Minnesota rejected the constitutional amendment question!!! So.......was all of that God's will? So by the way you are speaking, I believe it to be God's will! So guess what Fr. Hollowell and Scott? God approves of Gay marriage! His will was done on election night! So that means, Fr. Hollowell, you are wasting a lot of time and money to show what the church teaches about homosexuality....it doesn't matter cause God ignored the faithful's prayers for no gay marriage.....but he very much so answered the gay people's prayers!
DeleteLet's try it this way. Many prayed night and day that they would not be a victim of the Nazi Holocaust, yet they died all the same. Does it follow that the God approves of gassing Jews? Of course not.
DeleteBut you're not answering the question at hand. Was it God's will that gay marriage passed in 3 states and in 1 state the constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman failed? If it wasn't, please explain in great detail why that wasn't God's will....and how you know for a fact that it wasn't. Same thing with the gassing of the Jews. Was that God's will? The Jews killed Jesus on the cross and that WAS God's will.
DeleteYes I am answering it by analogy. While God will not prevent humans from choosing evil, He is not the author of evil and it is never his wish that humans do evil. Gassing Jews is evil. Sodomy is evil. Voting to legally recognize sodomy as something good is evil.
DeleteSo then why did the prayers from the faithful to God(for no gay marriage) before election never answered? Why Scott? Why oh why?? His will NOT to????? I'd say that if it were that huge of a deal, then God surely would have granted the prayer requests. But he did not. So, if God refuses to do something for you after you have prayed with faith to do so, IT IS HIS WILL that the prayer doesn't get answered. Just like in Fr. Hollowell's Unnatural Law documentary. It will be God's will IF the documentary should receve enough money to go ahead with the making of it. Correct Fr. Hollwell? Btw....gay marriage doesn't equal recognizing sodomy.
DeleteAgain God allows humans to be free moral agents. That is they can choose to freely do what is right or wrong. People are under the misapprehension that God is some wish-granting machine and that the Bible is the owner's manual. So if you push x prayer-button on the machine, then y effect happens, and when that doesn't happen, people assume that either the machine doesn't exist or is broken, or that whoever wrote the owner's manual is off his rocker. Rather, prayer is entering into an intimate personal relationship with our Father who has promised that no matter how bad this fallen world gets, in the end His will is done and as long as we didn't stand up to be counted with His enemies, He will bring us safely home.
DeleteSo it was God's will not to answer the prayers of the faithful in those 4 states. Gotcha. Hmmmmm......me thinks there is more going on here with gay marriage than what some people with blinders on can see.......
DeleteI think I've amply demonstrated the absurdity of the idea that when people do evil things that God somehow approves, so I won't keep repeating myself and will leave to other readers to decide.
DeleteIt was God's will not to answer the prayers Scott. Get over it. They would have been answered had it been in accordance with His plan. God loves gay people more that you or anybody else is willing to admit. Not gay are you Scott? GOOD FOR YOU. But remember this, until you have walked a mile in a gay guy's shoes and felt how he feels(which can include but not just limited to anger, jealousy, sadness and LONELINESS) I would suggest you not talk about gay people who marry each other as EVIL PEOPLE. A LOT of straight people need to quit looking down their long holier than thou goody two shoe noses at gay people and tell them how EVIL they are.
DeleteIt was God's will not to answer the prayers Scott. Get over it. They would have been answered had it been in accordance with His plan.
DeleteEven if we grant this, it does not follow that God approves of homosexual acts. He does not which is attested to by Scripture, tradition, reason, history, and simple apprehension. It is only sustainable in the modern self-refuting philosophy of moral relativism.
God loves gay people more that you or anybody else is willing to admit
As we often say, God loves the sinner but hates the sin and call us all to repentance.
Not gay are you Scott? GOOD FOR YOU
This is like saying, "Not a shoplifter are you Scott? GOOD FOR YOU." True as far as it goes, but in the end stealing is always wrong just like homosexual acts are.
But remember this, until you have walked a mile in a gay guy's shoes and felt how he feels(which can include but not just limited to anger, jealousy, sadness and LONELINESS) I would suggest you not talk about gay people who marry each other as EVIL PEOPLE.
a). I'm saying (along with God, the Church, reason, etc) that homosexual acts are evil acts, the people who do this are doing an evil act. Whether they are themselves evil and whether they are culpable enough to warrant eternal punishment I leave to God's judgment.
b). Going back to my shoplifting example, I don't actually have to shoplift to know that shoplifting is wrong.
A LOT of straight people need to quit looking down their long holier than thou goody two shoe noses at gay people and tell them how EVIL they are
I've never said or even remotely implied that I am not a sinner. You are making up a position and putting my name on it. There is only really a problem if I pretend that any sin I commit is not really a sin. That's what is going on with homosexual acts--people pretending they are not sins. They are.
You make yourself out to be holier than thou, Scott. I can't believe you can't see that. There is nothing worse in this world than a person who thinks they are pretty darn holy. You kept talking about homosexual acts....What is the Church's definition of "homosexual acts"? How does that compare to the definition of lets say the Merriam Webster Dictionary? Is it even in the dictionary? Better yet what does "acts" mean? How about the church's OFFICIAL definition of "homosexual acts???" Where can I find that? CCC or the Code of Canon Law? Written underneath the Pope's Zucchetto?
DeleteNow, on to a bigger question..... Why is it that when YOU and every other stuck up straight person sees a gay couple you automatically think they are HAVING SEX with each other when they are not in view?????? Do all of you have a ONE TRACK MIND??? NEWSFLASH----Not every gay couple has done something sexual!!!! You see two guys holding hands walking down a path in a park. What is the first thing that comes to your mind Scott? Inquiring minds want to know.
You make yourself out to be holier than thou, Scott. I can't believe you can't see that.
DeleteI can't believe you are still accusing me of that when I told you point-blank that I am a sinner. Does anyone call those who condemn the shootings in Connecticut holier-than-thou? Of course not. If I say "John did x, which is wrong." that is not holier-than-thou. If I say, "I'm better or holier than John", only then would a holier-than-thou accusation hold water. But this is all desperate ad hominem, so let's move on.
What is the Church's definition of "homosexual acts"?
I think you are being coy here, but I will make it very plain: human sexual contact is morally acceptable in one place and one place alone: between a man and a women married to each other. Anything else is an offense against chastity. This of course covers a whole range of sins and not just homosex including fornication, contraception, masturbation, and things that may not even involve direct physical contact including viewing pornography. Now usually someone determined to defend the indefensible usually blusters at this point: "So if there are so many sexual sins, why obsess over homosex?" That's an easy one--there is no cultural onslaught to coerce others into approving of such acts. There are no Adulterer's Pride Parades because there is still (thankfully) some semblance of shame about it (granted, lessened through the evil of no-fault divorce.) If there is ever a Thieves' Pride Parade, I assure you I will generate a lot more commentary about the wrongness of stealing.
Now, on to a bigger question..... Why is it that when YOU and every other stuck up straight person sees a gay couple you automatically think they are HAVING SEX with each other when they are not in view??????
That sounds like a tacit admission that if they are having sex it is wrong. Perhaps we are making progress.
Do all of you have a ONE TRACK MIND??? NEWSFLASH----Not every gay couple has done something sexual!!!! You see two guys holding hands walking down a path in a park. What is the first thing that comes to your mind Scott? Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, I wouldn't necessarily assume that two guys holding hands are in a sexual relationship. But that is irrelevant to the fact that homosex is wrong. I think you know this, but don't like it and instead of dealing with the truth, are trying to distract by talking about my motives.
I simply asked you where I can find the exact church definition of "homosexual acts" are. I could care less what your personal interpretation of it is. As a gay guy, I would like the following answered by you. Play multiple choice. I don't want a philosophical explanation for your answers while dodging the questions.
Delete1) If I go out on a date with another guy, is this a
a) Mortal Sin
b) Venial Sin
c) None at all
d) I don't know
2) If I hold hands with him in the theater is this a
a) Mortal Sin
b) Venial Sin
c) None at all
d) I don't know
3) If I kiss another guy is this a
a) Mortal Sin
b) Venial Sin
c) None at all
d) I don't know
4) If I officially become involved in a relationship with a guy but we do NOT HAVE SEX PERIOD is this a
a) Mortal Sin
b) Venial Sin
c) None at all
d) I don't know
5) Gay people are
a) Going to destroy humanity as Pope Benedict XVI clams
b) Destroying the very essence of the human creature
C) destroying humanity like humans are destroying rainforests
D) Going to burn in hell
E) All the above
F) None of the above
Go for it Scott! I anxiously await your answers to this multiple choice quiz!
b, b, b, b,
Delete#5 - The Church always distinguishes between people with SSA and people who are having homosexual sex, so your question, using the phrase "gay people" needs to be reworded before a proper answer can be given
I don't think your bishop would agree with you....nor would Pope Benedict either for that matter. Their answers would be a,a,a,a and the last one E. You don't want me to use the word "gay" so how about the word "homosexual" instead. This also begs the question on what St. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians about " practicing homosexuals" not being able to inherit the kingdom of God. Don't know what the definition of "practicing" means to be exact but that's what it says in my Catholic Bible. The word Homosexual was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karl Maria Benkert. 1868 to be exact. So before 1868 what did the Corinthians passage REALLY say? Like what would the passage say in a 1568 Catholic Bible? Who ADDED the word "homosexual" into the bible to begin with? Why was that? Inquiring minds want to know that one too.
Deletedodging the questions
DeleteI won't dodge the questions if you don't ascribe or imply bad motives or emotions on my part. Deal?
The Church's teaching on Chastity begins at 2331 and no, the Church does not provide a definitional laundry list of every act with sexual undertones and the implications of doing them. I remember this when I was trying to argue against torture and people for some strange reason would go, "Well of course torture is wrong, but the Church hasn't defined which particular acts are torture." It's what I call an appeal to finer detail, and the problem with that is that there is always one more finer detail, so even if the Church said, "Waterboarding is torture", torture apologists would go, "Yes, but what kind of waterboarding?" It's filibustering.
Anyway, as far as the questions, my answer is that I agree with Fr. Hollowell's answers with a few quibbles. For instance, if in the relationship with another guy it was made clear from the very beginning that it was always going to be celibate and platonic, that is less of a problem, but not entirely because of temptation. We have to remember that this other guy is made in the image of God and is entitled to the truth. If the dating, hand-holding, kissing, etc is a mimicry of modern heterosexual dating with the implication of it all as a prelude to a sexual relationship (the infamous "three dates means sex", which is of course unacceptable for heterosexual couples unless they got married first after that third date), then these are particularly dangerous venial sins because it is leading someone else down an evil road. While mortal sins are more serious, venial sins are no shrug off because they are destructive, so it is not a case that we can say, "Well, it's a venial sin, so no big deal."
Scott,
ReplyDeleteJesus never said that prayers would be answered only IF it was God's will in those passages.
Mt. 21:22 "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive."
Mt. 18:19 "Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything fir which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly father."
Mk. 11:24 "Therefore I tell you, all you ask for in prayer, believe you will receive it and it will be yours." Jn. 14:14 "If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it."
I can't help but see a contradiction with the 2nd Corinthians 12 passage and the 4 passages I mentioned above. So in this case is it:
A) Jesus lied about those promises?
B) Jesus never made such promises to begin with?
C) The Bible authors forgot to mention that Jesus said the prayers would be answered only if it were God's will?
D) St. Paul lied in his letter to the Corinthians?
E) You have no idea....
I'm quite anxious to know what the deal is here.
F). The contradiction is only apparent. Surely no one believes God will grant a prayer that God stop being God, or that God should grant me an exemption from the commandment Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery, right?
Delete