Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

[LapsedAtheist]

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?

How about some quotes to justify imposing your will on non-believers? If you read your Bible carefully, you’ll see that virtually all of the Old Testament was directed to the faithful; there are very few commands directed toward non-Jews (or, following the advent of Christianity, to non-Jews and non-Christians).

The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage; so be it. Personally, I think the Bible places a greater emphasis on love than on the genitalia of married couples, but I realize you disagree. Don’t marry same-sex couples if you don’t think it’s the right thing to do.

Why is that any reason to interfere with non-Catholics who do think it’s the right thing to do?

It’s especially puzzling since your choice isn’t between same-sex marriage and no gay couples, it’s between legal recognition or non-recognition of the relationships that are going to happen no matter what you think.

At its core, the same-sex marriage debate is about allowing couples and families to function as couples and families. It’s about making sure that when a person is incapacitated, his or her life partner can make medical decisions for him. It’s to protect the person whose partner dies without a will from suddenly find that half of his home is owned by his partner’s disapproving relative. It’s about making sure that when a person dies, his or her children stay with the only other parent they’ve ever known and not sent off to an uncle or grandparent.

You’re not stopping gay couples from living as married or gay families from living as actual families; what you’re doing is piling more grief and suffering on them at some of the worst points in anyone’s life.

Those of you who want to keep same-sex marriage illegal (or, depending where you are, to make it illegal again), have a look around this forum and read the threads on anti-Catholicism.

Given the misunderstanding, animosity and sometimes outright hatred that exists for your religion, why would you want to go down the road that says one group should be able to impose its views and beliefs on all others?

Can you look around the world and see views that you would find distasteful, or even abhorrent, if they were imposed on you?

 

[fix]

Why is that any reason to interfere with non-Catholics who do think it’s the right thing to do?

The same reason we “interfere” with people who think their desires trump reason and societal good. We are a society. Our legal code affects how we view right and wrong.

At its core, the same-sex marriage debate is about allowing couples and families to function as couples and families. It’s about making sure that when a person is incapacitated, his or her life partner can make medical decisions for him…

Such things may be secured without changing the legal status of marriage.

Given the misunderstanding, animosity and sometimes outright hatred that exists for your religion, why would you want to go down the road that says one group should be able to impose its views and beliefs on all others?

Can you look around the world and see views that you would find distasteful, or even abhorrent, if they were imposed on you?

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Why compromise?

 

[LapsedAtheist]

The same reason we “interfere” with people who think their desires trump reason and societal good. We are a society. Our legal code affects how we view right and wrong.

Why on Earth would you or anyone else take civil and criminal law as your own personal moral compass?

It’s perfectly legal in most places to lie (except for perjury), commit adultery, covet, and any number of things that many, many people find wrong.

By the same token, there are many things that are illegal without being immoral. If the speed limit is 55 mph, does a person become immoral by driving 57?

The law doesn’t determine right and wrong, it only determines a framework that will enable us all to live together generally peacefully, and provide a reasonable degree of benefit for society. Morality is a very different concept from the law. They are not interchangable, and I think it’s ridiculous to claim they are.

Such things may be secured without changing the legal status of marriage.

Some can be… with lots of preparation and deep pockets for lawyers’ fees.

Some, such as survivor benefits for pensions, aren’t always available.

In any case, the current situation, in the United States at least, is inequitable.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Why compromise?

Because your definition of right and wrong is very different from mine.

Because your definition of right and wrong is very different from that of a Belfast Orangeman (though he’ll be just as vehement as you that his morality was given directly by God).

Because your own Bible says to not judge “the servant of another”.

 

[fix]

Why on Earth would you or anyone else take civil and criminal law as your own personal moral compass?

I do not, but others do especially the young. Even if not consciously the law does play a role.

It’s perfectly legal in most places to lie (except for perjury), commit adultery, covet, and any number of things that many, many people find wrong.

Take abortion. It is legal and perceived of as a right. That legalization helped pave the way for people to hold the view it is correct.

By the same token, there are many things that are illegal without being immoral. If the speed limit is 55 mph, does a person become immoral by driving 57?

Actually, speeding is immoral. That may be a separate threat.

The law doesn’t determine right and wrong, it only determines a framework that will enable us all to live together generally peacefully, and provide a reasonable degree of benefit for society. Morality is a very different concept from the law. They are not interchangable, and I think it’s ridiculous to claim they are.

Please do not miss my point.

1. On some level people look to the law for many situations and they come to see that if some thing is allowed it must be moral. That may not be correct, but it is reality
2. The civil law should not contradict the natural moral law.
3. The civil law is not separate from morality. I agree that not everything immoral can be made illegal for certain reasons. But, that does not mean that the law should allow things that contradict right reason and the natural law and would do grave harm to society.

Some can be… with lots of preparation and deep pockets for lawyers’ fees.

Some, such as survivor benefits for pensions, aren’t always available.

In any case, the current situation, in the United States at least, is inequitable.

There are remedies that do not involve violating the definition of marriage. This argument has nothing to do with that. It is an attempt to normalize what is wrong.

Because your definition of right and wrong is very different from mine.

Because your definition of right and wrong is very different from that of a Belfast Orangeman (though he’ll be just as vehement as you that his morality was given directly by God).

Because your own Bible says to not judge “the servant of another”.

Your understanding contradicts reason and centuries of the natural institution of marriage. I do not think we ought to base our law on your whims.

 

[fix]

The law doesn’t determine right and wrong, it only determines a framework that will enable us all to live together generally peacefully, and provide a reasonable degree of benefit for society. Morality is a very different concept from the law. They are not interchangable, and I think it’s ridiculous to claim they are.

I do not want to veer anymore off topic. This requires a new thread. Perhaps you would start one? I find this logic bascially some form of moral relativism. The civil law is about morality, or ethics, or however you want to divide it. It allows things or prohibits things. Those allowable or proscriptions obviously are based on some type of system that sees good and evil.

 

[Steadfast]

How about some quotes to justify imposing your will on non-believers? If you read your Bible carefully, you’ll see that virtually all of the Old Testament was directed to the faithful; there are very few commands directed toward non-Jews (or, following the advent of Christianity, to non-Jews and non-Christians).

The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage; so be it. Personally, I think the Bible places a greater emphasis on love than on the genitalia of married couples, but I realize you disagree. Don’t marry same-sex couples if you don’t think it’s the right thing to do.

Why is that any reason to interfere with non-Catholics who do think it’s the right thing to do?

It’s especially puzzling since your choice isn’t between same-sex marriage and no gay couples, it’s between legal recognition or non-recognition of the relationships that are going to happen no matter what you think.

At its core, the same-sex marriage debate is about allowing couples and families to function as couples and families. It’s about making sure that when a person is incapacitated, his or her life partner can make medical decisions for him. It’s to protect the person whose partner dies without a will from suddenly find that half of his home is owned by his partner’s disapproving relative. It’s about making sure that when a person dies, his or her children stay with the only other parent they’ve ever known and not sent off to an uncle or grandparent.

You’re not stopping gay couples from living as married or gay families from living as actual families; what you’re doing is piling more grief and suffering on them at some of the worst points in anyone’s life.

Those of you who want to keep same-sex marriage illegal (or, depending where you are, to make it illegal again), have a look around this forum and read the threads on anti-Catholicism.

Given the misunderstanding, animosity and sometimes outright hatred that exists for your religion, why would you want to go down the road that says one group should be able to impose its views and beliefs on all others?

Can you look around the world and see views that you would find distasteful, or even abhorrent, if they were imposed on you?

I am not imposing my will on anyone nor is it an imposition of my will on anyone to merely tell them what the Bible says about something.

You act as though there were armies of Catholics prowling the streets looking in peoples windows to make sure they aren’t doing anything illicit.

I don’t know what else to make of your post. It looks like typical emotional reaction to me. Not much I can do with that.

 

[LapsedAtheist]

Your understanding contradicts reason and centuries of the natural institution of marriage. I do not think we ought to base our law on your whims.

Exactly - the proper foundation of the law isn’t my whims, or your whims, or the personal morality of anyone in particular; the proper foundation of the law is in what is necessary to allow societal interaction, and what is needed to prevent harm. Banning same-sex marriage does not work toward any legitimate aim of the law.

I am not imposing my will on anyone nor is it an imposition of my will on anyone to merely tell them what the Bible says about something.

You act as though there were armies of Catholics prowling the streets looking in peoples windows to make sure they aren’t doing anything illicit.

If you aren’t personally trying to impose your will on this issue, then thank you.

It wasn’t that long ago, however, that the local Archdioscese launched a major campaign against same-sex marriage, including a full-page open letter from the Archbishop that called on all “good Catholics” to petition their government representatives to stop same-sex marriage legislation from being passed.

Arrgh. I don’t know why I bothered. What’s the opposite expression to “preaching to the choir”?

 

[Catholic_Mike]

1. To try to see why I was ever illogic enough to be Catholic (use to be catholic and I was just as faithful as most of you however I was younger and didn’t think for myself)

I think there is a big difference between a Catholic who doesn’t think for themself and a Catholic who has thought for themself. I think that is a process everyone goes through regarding the faith of their parents. Not that kids don’t think, or can’t have a real faith, but their ability to think and their knowledge increase as they grow. But if you are trying to imply that because you rejected Catholicism when you got older, anyone who didn’t make the same decision must still be childish in their thinking, I’d say you are mistaken. Some people here are Catholic because they think.

BTW: While there has been some translation, we have manuscripts of most the books of the Bible in the original languages they were written.

 

[Titus]

Civil law and the natural moral law are not the same. But the civil law can never go against the natural moral law. It may move outside morality’s parameters, but it may not contradict it.

While it is the duty of Catholics to love and respect all people, it is also their duty to tell the truth always and admonish sin (as those bishops did in their open letter).

We live in democracies, and if we can explain our view, and convince people, then that’s how democracy works. That’s why the bishops took out their letter- 2 different reasons- to tell God’s truth & to try to defeat whatever bill it was.

To allow same-sex couples to marry goes against God’s laws. But of course they should get legal protection (some of the elements of civil unions).

 

[KarenNC]

To allow same-sex couples to marry goes against God’s laws. But of course they should get legal protection (some of the elements of civil unions).

Which legal protections do you advocate not allowing?

 

[littledogs2424]

Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

This is no suprise. + Williams has always been an “Affirming Catholic” Anglican (a pro-GLBT person, one who accepts Post-Modernism and its premise that ultimate, universal Truth does not exists; and the things considered true for one person may not be true for others, truth being conditional on language, culture, and the state of scientific and psychological knowledge; and one for whom God is a concept - a non-theistic, nonpersonal process or “ground of being” rather than a sentient, supernatural being in any sense; one who denys the objective reality of the supernatural; and who considers the Bible to be just one culture’s religious text - a human book of human origin, and supports the radical de-mythologization of Scripture.)

Accordingly he is viewing Paul’s writings through the lens of post-modernism and the principles of ultra liberal theology, contextual analysis of Scripture, and a demythologized ultra-liberal theology.)

So of course he is going to say St. Paul is mis-read from those perspectives. He could not be more wrong. He is not a heretic. One has to be at least marginally Christian to be a heretic. No. + Williams is an apostate.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

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.

I’m aware of a few.

The earth being flat: People cite the passage where Jesus says that the whole world would see his return as proof that the bible teaches a flat earth. This isn’t true, since we have the techknowedgy to broadcast events around the world via satillite. The earth wouldn’t have to be flat in order for everyone to see Christ’s return. I’m sure that when Jesus returns in the future, we will still have the means to broadcast images around the world so that everyone will see him return.

 

[blessedtoo]

Banning same-sex marriage does not work toward any legitimate aim of the law.

Your argument is predictably flawed. I will assume it is because you are working from the mainstream “talking points” of the homosexual lobby and not from an informed intellect. Because if you understood the true motivation behind this movement you would also understand that the interest in “marriage” they allegedy clamor for is a ruse. The most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage are notoriously anti-marriage and have been for nearly 30 years. The primary goal of gaining access to “marriage” is to de-institutionalize it beyond all recognition. Ask yourself why are the most outspoken proponents curiously also radical feminists (who tossed the idea of traditional marriage 40 years ago), Hollywood elites (who don’t bother to marry, unless they marry many, many times) and far left politicos who see this issue as a way to destroy any semblence of traditional family life. The seek to redefine marriage as such:

“Instead of society’s most pro-child institution, marriage would become a word that we use to name private relationships of commitment that are not really about sex, not about procreation, not about recognizing the male-female origin of each child; that should have nothing to do with religion, should be almost completely open and unstructured, and should have no public goal or purpose that we can collectively specify, other than supporting relationships as such.”

amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4342166-0872050?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177393936&sr=1-1
Because our society has obfuscated the actual purpose of marriage, it has become much more difficult to argue effectively in it’s defense. But the objective for us, as a society, should be to throw our efforts into strengthening the institution of marriage for the good of civilization, not tearing it into unrecognizable shreds by blurring the lines even more with such things as same-sex marriage.

 

[fix]

Exactly - the proper foundation of the law isn’t my whims, or your whims, or the personal morality of anyone in particular; the proper foundation of the law is in what is necessary to allow societal interaction, and what is needed to prevent harm. Banning same-sex marriage does not work toward any legitimate aim of the law.

It is not about so called personal morality. Objectively marriage is between one man and one woman. Artificially altering that to mollify some subset of the population is wrong.

For one thing children have rights. Allowing them to be raised in such a union is violation of those rights. There are other reasons as well.

 

[KarenNC]

For one thing children have rights. Allowing them to be raised in such a union is violation of those rights.

Which particular rights would those be?

 

[fix]

Which particular rights would those be?

The right to complementarity of parents.

 

[Titus]

Which legal protections do you advocate not allowing?

None of them. The elements of civil unions I really cannot support in good conscience are those where it is treated like a marriage. As long it remains within the realm of civil law, I’m all in favour of them! But marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman- the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the current & previous Holy Fathers have said so. *Roma locuta est, causa finita est *for Catholics, I’m afraid.

 

[blessedtoo]

None of them. The elements of civil unions I really cannot support in good conscience are those where it is treated like a marriage. As long it remains within the realm of civil law, I’m all in favour of them! But marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman- the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the current & previous Holy Fathers have said so. *Roma locuta est, causa finita est *for Catholics, I’m afraid.

As well as the majority of current research from secular scholars who study the issue of raising children. It requires very little research to uncover the vast amounts of documentation that supports the right, and indeed the necessity, of children to a mother and a father. But because our culture clearly places the rights of adults (a woman’s right to “choose”) above the rights of children, then it should come as no surprise that the advocates of same-sex marriage would subvert the clear evidence now available after years of rampant divorce and co-habitation, that children do not fare as well in non-traditional households. Shall we just continue to use our children for our adult experiments?

 

[KarenNC]

The right to complementarity of parents.

By this do you mean biological parents? If so, how does one enforce such a right past conception? Barring civil marriage for same sex couples does not guarantee that for any child. In order to enforce such a right, one would do better to focus one’s energy on the millions of children affected by heterosexual divorce, death of a parent due to lack of access to health care or unsafe working or living conditons, etc.

If the only legal marriages were those that at least might reasonably be considered likely to produce children (both adults believed to be fertile, of childbearing age and willing to declare their intention to have children), or those that involved a parent with minor children who had lost a parent to death, then I might be a bit more likely to concede that this is the goal of marriage in the eyes of the state. If the guidelines are not applied to heterosexual couples, there is no logical reason to require them of same sex couples.

 

[KarenNC]

None of them. The elements of civil unions I really cannot support in good conscience are those where it is treated like a marriage. As long it remains within the realm of civil law, I’m all in favour of them! But marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman- the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the current & previous Holy Fathers have said so. *Roma locuta est, causa finita est *for Catholics, I’m afraid.

So, as long as this is a civil legal arrangement rather than a religiously sanctioned one, you have no issue with it? Great, then we are in full agreement. Allowing a civil marriage in no way requires, nor can it require in the US, any religion to consider it religiously binding. The Catholic Church already does this on a daily basis with those who are divorced and remarry in a civil ceremony or one performed by another religion. Why is it not a problem to call such remarriages a “marriage” when they are equally invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

No one is asking Catholic clergy (or any clergy for that matter) to perform religious marriages for same sex couples.