Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

[KarenNC]

Karen,
I guess you didn’t read any of the responses I posted to answer this question. Perhaps you could go back and read them thoroughly and we can pick up the discussion on another thread, since this one is not about same-sex “marriage”. I would be happy to continue this discussion with you there.

I read them and do not see an answer as to why allowing Ed and Steve, who have been living in a committed, monogamous adult relationship for 15 years to be able to automatically inherit property from each other, visit each other in the hospital, or any of the other legal benefits to a civil (not a religious) marriage as outlined in nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/ is any worse or different than allowing the same things to Mary and Ian, who were both divorced 3 times before they married and have actively chosen not to have children, or to James and Brenda, when they also have chosen not to have children and James has a mistress.

Creating stable, viable family units is of benefit to the state and the state does not consider those to be exclusively a man and a woman and their biological offspring. The state recognizes the value of a variety of family structures–childless couples (by choice or by happenstance), step families, adoptive families, extended families, foster families, etc.–through tax benefits, government subsidies, etc.

The legal benefits are not given to heterosexual couples only if they have either never been married before or else have been widowed, if they promise not to use birth control, can prove they are capable of having children, promise that they can consumate the marriage physically or that if they do so, they will only use certain approved sexual positions and interactions. They are not denied the benefits of civil marriage because they are greedy, drunkards, swindlers, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, or revilers, which are listed as equal sins in Corinthians.

Heterosexual couples who choose to cohabit make a choice to not avail thmeslves of the legal benefits of a civil marriage–same-sex couples are denied the option to do so. The law forces them to cohabit against their will if they desire to create a lifelong committed relationship. There is, therefore, a religious test (not even one necessarily based on the religion that the two people practice) imposed on same sex couples in seeking civil marriage that is not imposed on heterosexual couples.

Denying civil marriage will not make same sex couples stop loving each other, forming committed lifelong relationships or having sex nor will it make them heterosexual. It only denies them equal rights under the law that allow them to care for their families in the same way that other Americans do. What benefit does society gain from denying a couple of legal age who desire to undertake the responsibilities of a legally committed relationship rather than one that has no legal ties that option?

 

[KarenNC]

Because you are some variety of “neo-pagan” you are not held accountable for the Church’s teaching regarding the inherent disorder of homosexual orientation. Homosexual orientation is not inherently sinful, but homosexual genital activity is. Therefore homosexual “marriage” would include homosexual genital activity, rendering the whole mess totally sinful. Call it what you will, it ain’t marriage.

You are exactly right, I am not bound to the Church’s teaching, whether about homosexual orientation nor homosexual genital activity. Neither is the state. Heterosexual marriages do not have to pass a test as to whether they promise they will never engage in any “genital activity” that does not meet with the approval of a specific religion. Why, then, should that be the criteria to deny civil marriage to same sex couples? Any religious body is free to deny religious marriage to anyone they choose and to set the criteria of whom they allow as members of their organization, but that does not mean the state is required to adhere to those guidelines.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Interesting take on this and new to me–so you believe that without the worship of humans, Jesus would not be fully divine,

Honestly, I think it’s much more complex than that. Obviously, since the Church is equal with Christ, She must also be co-eternal. How this works, I don’t profess to know.

 

[KarenNC]

Besides that, both same sex reproduction and oppisite sex reproduction would be possible if homosexual sex was approved of by God.

Why? Again, we are discussing civil marriage, not religious marriage. Reproduction is not a criteria for civil marriage for heterosexual couples, why should it be for same sex couples?

 

[KarenNC]

Honestly, I think it’s much more complex than that. Obviously, since the Church is equal with Christ, She must also be co-eternal. How this works, I don’t profess to know.

Perhaps Tonks40 can flesh it out for us, as s/he says that your position sounds Catholic. I have to admit that the idea that the Church is equal with Christ and/or an inseparable part of the Godhead is not one I have come across before in relation to the Catholic Church (or indeed any other variety of Christianity). I am learning that there are many areas of Catholic theology of which I was not aware and that seem quite different from the Christian teachings I have previously encountered. I would have expected to have encountered such a position at some point along the way in the last 4 months on this forum, though, particularly as I have been engaged in many, many discussions on the nature of God, monotheism, polytheism, the Trinity, etc.

 

[blessedtoo]

Creating stable, viable family units is of benefit to the state **and the state does not consider those to be exclusively a man and a woman and their biological offspring. **The state recognizes the value of a variety of family structures–childless couples (by choice or by happenstance), step families, adoptive families, extended families, foster families, etc.–through tax benefits, government subsidies, etc.

Sorry, but you are wrong, at least until the same-sex marriage manipulators agressively sought to twist the definition of the institution of marriage and the state’s interest in it. The government is not in the least interested in supporting, encouraging or extending benefits to folks who happen to love eachother and wish to dedicate their lives to eachother. This is our culture’s new hallmark card interpretation of marriage. The state is interested in insuring that all future citizens (children) are born into families with a mother and a father who are married to one another, providing a stable home environment in which the future citizen will be raised. Since the government, and most rational individuals (including the majority of experts) have conluded that children thrive best with a mother and a father, it would be pointless to extend such support to unions which will never be procreative, like same-sex unions.

For couples who choose not to have children, or who can’t have children, the state still supports their marriage choice because they are engaging in sexual activity that MAY result in babies. By virtue of their participation in marriage, they also support the entire institution, regardless of whether they procreate. When a person obtains a driver’s license, this does not mean the government will force them to drive. However, having a driver’s license is instrinsically linked to the act of driving, just as a man and a woman having sex is intrinsically linked to procreation.

The primary purpose, both from a cultural and societal perspective, is to insure that any child born has two responsible parents, a mother and a father who are committed to eachother and to the child. Marriage has always been understood this way and by vigorously attempting to deconstruct it’s primary connection to state sanctioned sexual activity which can result in babies, the whole institution begins to collapse. There is nothing to stand in the way of any combination of people that believe they have a right to marriage.

I highly recomment you read the book “The Future of Marriage”, by David Blankenhorn. He is a liberal who argues from a secular platform against the same-sex marriage movement.

Perhaps you will also find it interesting that the true motive of many of the most outspoken advocates of gay marriage is to completely dismantle all remnants of traditional marriage. Their primary goal is not to gain access to marriage as it is currently understood, but rather to remake the definition of marriage to include whatever those involved wish it to be. These facts and citations can all be found in this book.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Honestly, I think it’s much more complex than that. Obviously, since the Church is equal with Christ, She must also be co-eternal. How this works, I don’t profess to know.

Not to get this thread too far off track, but KarenNC’s criticism of your position, Truthinator, is apt. If the Church is equal to the Christ, then you’re positing another hypostasis in the Godhead: Church. I.e., if it is co-eternal with the Son, it is co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit, too. If it is not equalto the Father (or the Spirit), but only equal to the Son, then your implication (through your identification of the Church and the Son) is that the Son is not equal to the Father (or, by extension, the Spirit). Big problem!! To be honest, this makes me think of the multiple Aeons of the gnostic heresies (of which “Church” was one of the primary 8 in the Valentinian cosmology).

The Church may be Christ’s mode of action in the world, may be the symbolic 8th Day, the New Creation ordained to be Christ’s Bride, but the claim of co-eternity, if applied to the Church, may as well apply to all of us as well, seeing as we are members of the Church and thus part of the body of Christ. The logic (on this side of the veil of eternity, at any rate) doesn’t quite work out.

The Son is the Son–he does not require the Church in order to be Himself. In fact, the Church requires the Son in order to be the Church–that in itself (the fact of dependence) would argue against co-eternity.

To be honest, therefore, your assertion is a bit concerning. If it is orthodox, it’s new to me. It sounds like an interesting heresy which just brushes up against orthodoxy due to a piety which, though strong, is nonetheless willing to accept appealing theological conclusions/images which appear to mesh with the faith, but due to their faulty reasoning, are merely imaginary propositions which are dangerously misleading if taken as indicative of reality–in this case, ultimately misleading with regard to the supreme and incomprehensibly holy dignity of the Son. This dignity the Son may choose to impart (through an act of grace/mercy by which it is shared) to another (and He has, through the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension), but that other does not become co-eternal with the Son thereby. For instance, even in the mystical union, the soul is united to God through the Spirit in the will of the creature–were the union accomplished in the being of the creature, the creature would cease to exist, having melted into the being of God. But the distinction between creature and Creator must be maintained. The Assumption of Mary (who is an aspect of the Church–she is the New Creation, she is the work of the 8th Day) is a good image of this union–the creature is assumed into the Godhead through mystical union (“marriage”). But even the Assumption is simply a consequence of Christ’s original assumption of humanity in the Incarnation.

At any rate, Truthinator, I’d urge you to rethink your position in light of orthodox Trinitarian theology/Christology.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[LapsedAtheist]

From the NASB: “1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Same version, Romans 14:1:

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

What gives you or anyone here the right to impose your own views on people who do not share your beliefs?

 

[love4mary]

Romans 1:24-28

24: Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.

25: They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26: Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

27: and the males likewise gabe up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

Without going into the Old Testement, sure seems from Romans that God truly did NOT approve of homosexual activity, whether that word was coined during the time of St. Paul or not.

 

[Publisher]

I see where you’re having difficulty. You need to think “big picture”, not just your own marriage, but the choices your children and their generation will make, as that is the future of society, the same society which rewards marriage for sustaining it. Make any sense?

No, not really. My children will get married to opposite genders because they are heterosexual…if they are homosexual, I would accept their choice of a same sex spouse, and I will seek with every fiber of my being to make sure they have the same opportunity to have a stable same sex marriage as their “het” counterparts.

If we wish to provide stable families, we must provide the means to insure they have to tools to “shore them up”…and if same sex unions provide stablility to homosexual couples…great…in doing so it in no way impedes heterosexual couples from establishing stable marriages…allowing one does not negate the other…allowing easy divorce destroys marriage…not same sex unions.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Why? Again, we are discussing civil marriage, not religious marriage. Reproduction is not a criteria for civil marriage for heterosexual couples, why should it be for same sex couples?

Again, God’s intended purpose for sex is for one man and one woman to procreate children within the marriage arrangement. What’s so complicated about that?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Some context in how the early Church saw homosexuality: catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

 

[Steadfast]

Some context from the Bible on how God sees homosexuality:

Lev. 18:22
You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Lev. 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Cor. 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That seems like a pretty consistent and straightforward perspective to me. How can we have been wrong for 6000 years about it?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Of course, God’s word speaks for itself. Only people who want to justify their son of choice would cast doubt on it.

 

[Publisher]

Some context from the Bible on how God sees homosexuality:

That seems like a pretty consistent and straightforward perspective to me. How can we have been wrong for 6000 years about it?

The biblical writers were wrong about so much when it came to astronomy, psychology, sociology, biology, physics, medicine and a host of other ideologys…that their ideas of sexuality and sexual orientation are so blatantly flawed is no big surprise…the early church still professed belief in a talking snake, a flat earth, demons, monsters and an earth centered universe…why do we think in this matter of science…they had it right?

The understanding of sexual orientatin and its causes and expression was totally unknown to them…can’t build a belief system that requires some psychological and scientific understanding that has any real meaning in today’s world.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

The biblical writers were wrong about so much when it came to astronomy, psychology, sociology, biology, physics, medicine and a host of other ideologys…that their ideas of sexuality and sexual orientation are so blatantly flawed is no big surprise…the early church still professed belief in a talking snake, a flat earth, demons, monsters and an earth centered universe.

Could you cite some passages to support these claims?

 

[Steadfast]

There is a vast difference between moral prescription and scientific perception. The Bible does not pretend to be a Biology or Astronomy textbook but it is God’s instruction to us on what we should believe about Him about His great love for us and about how He expects us to live our lives.

But even so, what you’re saying here is something completely different than what the good Archbishop and other pro-gay Christians say. You’re espousing an essentially secular humanist or materialist approach to the whole text, these others want to preserve that part of it which is congenial to them and still call it the Word of God.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

There is a vast difference between moral prescription and scientific perception. The Bible does not pretend to be a Biology or Astronomy textbook but it is God’s instruction to us on what we should believe about Him about His great love for us and about how He expects us to live our lives.

True, but the Bible does contain many scientific facts that the ancient writers had no logical way of knowing about.

“Scientific Facts in The Bible” By Ray Comfort is a good read.

 

[Steadfast]

Chris,

With all due respect, and I know we’re on the same side morally here, I’m done with prooftexting and mining the Bible for evidences of unbelievable scientific insight.

It just isn’t where I am at.

Dig my new motto below–v

 

[Publisher]

Could you cite some passages to support these claims?

If you’re really interested I could…if you’re intimating that the Bible is correct in all the above areas, it would be a waste of both our time. But I’m sure you’d be able to find them on your own.