T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
I’m sorry if I confused anyone.
- Status
L
Lochias
Guest
It’s ok.
As to your evidence: Not one person here, whom you’re trying to debate with, has seen anything amounting to evidence that supports your claims. Maybe you could take a fresh start and present it again, so that we all have a clear idea of what you’re trying to get across?
All we’ve got from you so far is: You think the Church is wrong, you’re aghast at the stances the Church takes, and some small pieces of philosophy that have, frankly, been shot down pretty quick.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
L
Lochias
Guest
All I see is what you believe, not why **we **should believe it.
We’ve pointed at Scriptural, historical, logical, theological and Church-based evidence to show you why we believe what we believe.
All I see from you is “We’ll have to agree to disagree, because I believe what I believe.”
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
I’m not doubting inspiration, but people still make mistakes, inspired or not.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
I think I’ve presented many reasons why you should believe it. I’ve pointed at scriptural, historical, logical and theological evidence to show why I believe what I believe.All I see is what you believe, not why **we **should believe it.
We’ve pointed at Scriptural, historical, logical, theological and Church-based evidence to show you why we believe what we believe.
All I see from you is “We’ll have to agree to disagree, because I believe what I believe.”
Indeed I have written we’ll have to agree to disagree, but if you look back you’ll find that’s not my only argument.
B
buffalo
Guest
To be clear - who made the mistakes? The inspired authors?
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
God and His religion do not evolve. God is the same yesterday, today and always. Man did not write the Bible. The Holy Spirit wrote the bible through man. It does not get updated. God does not get updated. True wisdom comes from God, not from this world.
God is only after our peace and fulfillment. We can’t always understand why he says something is wrong but he, as our heavenly Father, cares for us and knows what is good for us and what isn’t. Just like any child doesn’t always understand when a parent says no to something harmful, we aren’t always going to understand the why’s. Just trust and obey. Choosing sin always leads to suffering.
Stephen168
New member
Lets first remove the false dilemma:
So you’re arguing that an infertile couples should marry,-] not out of love, but/-] because parts of their body have a set purpose?
Marriage is not a requirement so we need to change that:
So you’re arguing that an infertile couples can marry, because parts of their body have a set purpose?
Not exactly, but the right parts enables the right act of marital intercourse which is the first step in fulfilling the purpose of marriage.
Sodomy are sexual acts that are not intercourse; this is the definition we all know as english speakers.
Homosexuals are using their reproductive organs for non-reproduction acts (sodomy).
These acts are contrary to God’s design.
Therefore these acts are sins.
This is not an argument. Arguments usually end with a ‘therefore’ statement at the end. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard an Anglican reject the Bible. Odd for people claiming to be Christian.
D
Diana_Catherine
Guest
(I haven’t read through all the posts so this may have been said already)
The American Psychology Association has recently come out and stated that there is no gay gene and that homosexuality is part nurture and nature.
People are sometimes born with characteristics that may predispose them to that way but also the nurturing they receive in life plays a major role. I am positive that the collapse of marriage and family after no fault divorce has played a major role in causing such gender identity confusion. Children are being raised today without mothers at home or fathers anywhere around. Both genders are totally confused as to what it even means to be that gender.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
Indeed. Human mistakes.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
TKOG,
They key point you are missing is not the one about what drives relationships. Neither the Catholic Church nor the U.S. government is so naive as to believe that they can control relationships.
We do not insititutionalize every attraction known to man. Otherwise, human relationships with pets would be institutionalized by the state, and in fact recently some people have tried to do just that, nonjokingly. We are not a collection of communities organized by emotion. Our institutions exist for non-emotional purposes. They exist for higher purposes and only those purposes.
Thus, education is my profession. I happen to love it, and lots of students love to learn. But it wasn’t institutionalized in this country because of my private love for education or the private love of my students for it. Note that it wasn’t always institutionalized, either. Public education began in the 19th century. Before that it was the privilege of the more wealthy and those with enough leisure (not engaged in exhausting manual labor) to indulge a private motivation. Eventually leaders began to realize a national purpose to education, which then became public and offered to all, with a seal of approval by the government.
We have freedom in this country, as well as licence to indulge both healthy and unhealthy attractions to the extent that they are not expressly forbidden by law, such as an unhealthy attraction to legal activity. No one is preventing any heterosexual from fornicating with another heterosexual, and cohabiting if they choose. But there are no government privileges granted to them because of their “emotional purposes.” If they wanted to marry the government would grant them that because they are a complementary, two-sex household with an opportunity to raise children should they choose, and that’s the purpose of the govermment’s approval. The government approves utilitarian arrangements for heterosexual couples merely because it serves the health of the state to encourage an actual mother + an actual father. It has proven to be the best arrangement for raising an integrated child with a balanced self-concept for society overall.
The government does not marry them “because” they love each other. It marries them because their marriage serves the higher purpose of the common societal good.
They key point you are missing is not the one about what drives relationships. Neither the Catholic Church nor the U.S. government is so naive as to believe that they can control relationships.
We do not insititutionalize every attraction known to man. Otherwise, human relationships with pets would be institutionalized by the state, and in fact recently some people have tried to do just that, nonjokingly. We are not a collection of communities organized by emotion. Our institutions exist for non-emotional purposes. They exist for higher purposes and only those purposes.
Thus, education is my profession. I happen to love it, and lots of students love to learn. But it wasn’t institutionalized in this country because of my private love for education or the private love of my students for it. Note that it wasn’t always institutionalized, either. Public education began in the 19th century. Before that it was the privilege of the more wealthy and those with enough leisure (not engaged in exhausting manual labor) to indulge a private motivation. Eventually leaders began to realize a national purpose to education, which then became public and offered to all, with a seal of approval by the government.
We have freedom in this country, as well as licence to indulge both healthy and unhealthy attractions to the extent that they are not expressly forbidden by law, such as an unhealthy attraction to legal activity. No one is preventing any heterosexual from fornicating with another heterosexual, and cohabiting if they choose. But there are no government privileges granted to them because of their “emotional purposes.” If they wanted to marry the government would grant them that because they are a complementary, two-sex household with an opportunity to raise children should they choose, and that’s the purpose of the govermment’s approval. The government approves utilitarian arrangements for heterosexual couples merely because it serves the health of the state to encourage an actual mother + an actual father. It has proven to be the best arrangement for raising an integrated child with a balanced self-concept for society overall.
The government does not marry them “because” they love each other. It marries them because their marriage serves the higher purpose of the common societal good.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
The argument against so-called “gay marriage” largely stems from natural law and economics.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
Stephen168
New member
You reject scripture, you have not used logic or history or Christian theology.
Historically marriage is that human condition where children are created and raised by their parents until adulthood. It predates the state and the Church. In fact the state is very new to the marriage game. So new I would question its right to change the historic definition. The Church accepts that historic definition because it is by God’s design.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
Of course. But that’s not why individuals choose to marry.
T
TheKingdomOfGod
Guest
It’s not changing the Church’s definition, it’s changing the civil definition.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Again, you miss the point: The government does not carry about their private emotions. It cares about public purposes, because that is the purpose of government.
- Status