Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

[Publisher]

Go for it, dude…!

Since you have no clue as to who God is, you are quite correct to despise that “thing”, that god, that has been proposed to you to be God.

But,… God will be infinitely merciful to you,… and once you figure out that the god you hate, which is put in place of the God that is, by the god you serve, then you’ll see the situation you’re in, and get rid of the nonsense.

Best of luck to you…! Prayin’ for you, dude/dudette…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

I can use all the prayers I can get, but I seek to serve the Light, as I’m sure you do…I just find it sad that when some of us disagree with others on the nature of God, the “fear of god” card is pulled…I have no fear of this god…it is self serving and petty…I have confidence in the God revealed through Jesus of Nazareth…not the god revelaed by Keikiolu.

Peace to you friend.

 

[distracted]

**

Thankfully, none of us have to fear your displeasure and your dictations on what “God really hates”…

 

[distracted]

I can use all the prayers I can get, but I seek to serve the Light, as I’m sure you do…I just find it sad that when some of us disagree with others on the nature of God, the “fear of god” card is pulled…I have no fear of this god…it is self serving and petty…I have confidence in the God revealed through Jesus of Nazareth…not the god revelaed by Keikiolu.

Peace to you friend.

You have to know God before you can properly fear him. It is not your fault that knowing God is so difficult - what with all the different so-called Christian religons around… And yet one of them has the whole truth and nothing but the truth (well, in its teachings anyway…).

I pray you find the Truth because truth really does hurt…

And sometimes it kills…

 

[Publisher]

**

No, we are not your judge… but hopefully some day you will fear the God whose displeasure and dictations DO count…

You are right to imply that God hates no one… He doesn’t. and he doesn’t send anyone to Hell.

What God hates and sends to Hell is SIN… and if you are attached to your sins when you die (unrepentant), you will follow your sins to their rightful place…

Spend some time with Jesus in the Church. I dare you to spend an hour in any Catholic Church… and continue in your ways…**

You “dare” LOL…you don’t know me friend…I don’t know you except by your condemnation…that does speak volumes…I listen to the One who calls us peace in Him…I think you should take up your own “dare” and sit with Him and learn mercy, I will follow the counsel I have received at His Table among His people…perhaps you should do the same…and not presume so much.

 

[Publisher]

You have to know God before you can properly fear him. It is not your fault that knowing God is so difficult - what with all the different so-called Christian religons around… And yet one of them has the whole truth and nothing but the truth (well, in its teachings anyway…).

I pray you find the Truth because truth really does hurt…

And sometimes it kills…

No, I choose to follow the one who said “The Truth will set you free.”…so much different is His counsel than I receive in yours as stated above.

 

[fix]

That is SO true!!

i know this guy who converted 2 the Catholic faith because his girlfriend was CAtholic. He fell away when they broke up. While he was with her, he was a devout Catholic (seemingly)… Now, he questions this and questions that… accepts this, rejects that…

True, he could have been taught the faith better, but my point is that he was raised Protestant and Protestant relativism dies hard… They seem to be in a perpetual state of questioning… searching…

The world is just TOO used to all these divisions… I guess it’s hard for some to consider that there actually are answers to all our uncertainties… (well, to all the more important ones anyway…).

Either that… (and/or) people just believe what they want to believe…

Hmmmm…

Do you think…???

Yes, and I am not saying protestants with a valid baptism do not have a tie to the Church or cannot be holy people. I find pretty much everyone, faith or not, seem to buy into some form of moral relativism. The Protestant private judgement issue just strikes me as particularly illogical.

 

[distracted]

distracted;2139313:

You “dare” LOL…you don’t know me friend…I don’t know you except by your condemnation…that does speak volumes…I listen to the One who calls us peace in Him…I think you should take up your own “dare” and sit with Him and learn mercy, I will follow the counsel I have received at His Table among His people…perhaps you should do the same…and not presume so much.

You are telling me not to presume so much?? Hmmm…

Now… WHOm did you say was presuming?? Hmmm…

You presume i condem you. How so? i wonder if you are feeling the condemnation of your sins instead. I said nothing condemnatory…

You say i don’t know you? No kidding…
You don’t know me either…

You talk about following the one of peace? Your words do not impart peace… they appear to display something other than peace… [Even so, Jesus said that he came to bring not peace, but the sword…]

I have spent hours and hours with Jesus in His Church…
(… and He only established one, you know)…

When you have done the same, maybe we can talk… Until then, i’ll say only a few things:

You know less about me than even these simple words I’ve written can BEGIN to tell you…

I don’t even know me… only God does…

The sad thing is, you probably don’t know as well as you think…

I didn’t know him well until i spend a lot of time with him… in the aforementioned place…

Jesus was no “namby-pamby”. He said very hard, troubling things, such as:

“Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of the Father…”

[After turning people away, those who did not help the poor, visit prisoners and the sick, etc., Jesus told them to go off to “ETERNAL punishment”

“Without holiness, it is impossible to please Him (God).”

“The road to eternal life is narrow and there are few who find it.”

You are indignant at what you [seem to say you] perceive as injustices and wrongs in the world… (…either that or you’re just trying to pick fights). Well, if you, as a mere human being, can be so indignant about “wrongs”, how do you think God feels about social injustice, hypocracy, hatred (etc) ??

Here is a question for you: What is the beginning of all wisdom? Is it love? No. Is it peace? No. Is it respect for diversity??
No, the beginning of all wisdom (which leads to holiness) is

Fear of God (Proverbs)

I pray you make it to Heaven, Friend… It’s not so easy getting there as you and others seem to think.

God bless…

 

[Publisher]

Your prayers are always welcome…Let us have peace between us…I do not presume to know you nor your relationship with God…I am not fearful of my eternal destiny…nor do I fear God…for He has not given us the spirit of fear, but of a sound mind. I bow in aweful reverence before the Holy One as I’m sure you do, which is the meaning of “fear” as you used it…not “be very afraid”.

I have been baptized into His church through His Spirit…for me the church is not a building but a people…a royal priesthood. Through Christ he has taught us to call God “Father” and with all the saints I bow my knee before Him seeking to know the depth and breadth and height of the love of God in Christ Jesus.

May God richly bless you as you approach Him boldly as a child dearly loved. Grace, is truly amazing.

 

[KarenNC]

In Massachusetts, where there is gay marriage, the divorce rate between "gay"s is significantly higher than among straights… Of course, even if that weren’t true, there is still no reason to think that homosexuality is natural or normal in the absolute sense…

In other words, just because someone thinks something is right and good and godly, doesn’t necessarily mean it is.

Could you post a link to the source for the statistics showing that divorce rate differential? I would be interested in seeing how it relates to the marriage rate, how those rates compare to the rates in other states, etc.

 

[blessedtoo]

In what way does cohabitation deny a child the opportunity to be raised by his or her mother and father, if those two individuals are the ones cohabiting?

Unwed parenting occurs in a way that undermines the institution of marriage and leaves the children of these unions vulnerable. These kids are more likely to spend at least some of their childhood living apart from one or both parents. Since these two cohabitating parents never made any promise in the first place, their particular arrangement weakens the child’s natural right to his/her two natural parents. In addition, this mode of child rearing is not, by soceities standards, seen as a “good” and in many cases, those who engage in this choice of lifestyle are often compelled and expected by law and custom to care for their offspring. Tolerating unwed childbearing does not require us to renounce the principle that children have a right to be cared for by their two natural parents.

If you believe that cohabitation in and of itself without the legal benefit of marriage is damaging to a child, why would you deny the person in a same sex marriage who has a child the option of legalizing their relationship rather than forcing them to cohabit? Would it not be more logical to say that since this child exists, it is preferable to legally support a stable loving family unit rather than force them to cohabit? It will not prevent children from being born to or adopted or fostered by same sex couples. Would you not instead want to see them have at least as much of an advantage as the child of divorced heterosexual parents where the parent remarries to be raised in a legally sanctioned relationship?

Let’s back up the debate a bit. Society and the state have always recognized that the child, whose rights are at the very least equal to those of the parents, has the right to be raised and cared for by his two biological parents and that marriage is the normal relationship in which this goal is achieved. Therefore, the state, in order to encourage folks to aim for this standard, extends benefits to support and assist them in this goal. It is societies way of saying “good job”. It is a way to recognize that the goal has been achieved and to provide support for families to continue achieving their goals.
When a couple divorces, society recognizes this as a failure. We understand that the child is now in a less than standard environment. It is why those in the pro-marriage camp work tirelessly to help families stay together. When marriages fail, we TOLERATE the lesser good, the concept of children being shuttled between two parents, denied their right to live in the same house with mother and father.

In the case of adoption, society understands that a child who needs adopting has suffered a loss. Something has been taken from them and blessedly there are couples who generously fill the void where the loss once was and adopt these children. This is not the ideal situation because the child is still denied his right to his biological parents, but we understand and applaud those who attempt to right a wrong, in this case.

With same-sex partnerships, the new “norm” is to force society to accept as a “good”, the creation of children who will never be allowed a right to live with and be raised by their two natural parents. What was, in the case of divorce or the other situations, a failure to meet the standard is now an entirely new standard. Same-sex marriage attempts to force society to declare that adults forming their families can get babies any way they choose and to define parentage in any way they choose. In recognizing this as a new “norm” we have done more than weaken the child’s right and weaken the institution of marriage: we have completely overturned it.

Once again I encourage you to read this book. If you are really interested in the facts behind the same-sex marriage movement and want to be fully informed, you should give it a read.
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4342166-0872050?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177480002&sr=1-1

 

[blessedtoo]

And,likewise, there are those of us who would wonder why a Catholic would be surprised to find those who do not agree with the Catholic position on the Non-Catholic Religions board, when the stated purpose of the board is to “compare and contrast beliefs.” One’s presence here by definition indicates that one is interested in discussing opposing views.

“Open-minded” does not equate with “agreement.”

BTW: This post was not meant for you. Our’s has been a very civil and lively discussion.

 

[KarenNC]

Therefore, the state, in order to encourage folks to aim for this standard, extends benefits to support and assist them in this goal. It is societies way of saying “good job”. It is a way to recognize that the goal has been achieved and to provide support for families to continue achieving their goals.

I still do not see any way in which allowing civil marriage to same sex couples undermines this. It would not then deny any of the existing benefits to married heterosexual couples. It would only extend the same legal benefits to those other relationships that meet every existing standard that the state uses to judge whether a relationship is a marriage but the chromosonal one.

**When marriages fail, we TOLERATE the lesser good, the concept of children being shuttled between two parents, denied their right to live in the same house with mother and father.

In the case of adoption, society understands that a child who needs adopting has suffered a loss. Something has been taken from them and blessedly there are couples who generously fill the void where the loss once was and adopt these children. This is not the ideal situation because the child is still denied his right to his biological parents, but we understand and applaud those who attempt to right a wrong, in this case.

With same-sex partnerships, the new “norm” is to force society to accept as a “good”, the creation of children who will never be allowed a right to live with and be raised by their two natural parents. What was, in the case of divorce or the other situations, a failure to meet the standard is now an entirely new standard. Same-sex marriage attempts to force society to declare that adults forming their families can get babies any way they choose and to define parentage in any way they choose. In recognizing this as a new “norm” we have done more than weaken the child’s right and weaken the institution of marriage: we have completely overturned it.**

So the primary issue in your eyes is not really the same sex relationship, nor a same sex relationship that either fosters, adopts or rears a child from a previous heterosexual relationship (ie cares for a child whose parental relationship is already broken), it is rather specifically a same sex relationship that involves a couple who (if lesbian) choose artificial insemination or (if either) surrogacy as a way to have children?

How is it worse then for a same sex couple to pursue artificial insemination or surrogacy than for a heterosexual couple to go into a legal marriage knowing that they also can not have a child who is the biological offspring of both and actively planning to pursue such options? Such does not invalidate their marriage nor do their intentions to do so bar them from a legal marriage. Society already does not put a limit in those terms on ways in which heterosexual couples can obtain babies. Why should the standard be any different for same sex couples?

What percentage of same sex couples indicate that the reason they are pursuing marriage is to be able to have a child and can’t do so until they are legally wed? They are already pursuing these options.

 

[blessedtoo]

It would only extend the same legal benefits to those other relationships that meet every existing standard that the state uses to judge whether a relationship is a marriage** but the chromosonal one**.

Karen,
Same-sex marriage does not meet the existing standards. That is my point. The norm as it has existed since the beginning of the recorded history of marriage has been a man and a woman who engage in sexual intercourse with the probability, possibility, intention or chance that procreation will occur. Marriage’s main purpose is to make sure that any child born of that union has the right to be raised by it’s two natural parents. By extending state benefits which are primarily concerned with supporting this societal good and enouraging more couples to marry and procreate, to any couple who wishes to “legitimize” their intimate romantic relationship, the state has now declared that marriage and procreation are no longer instrinsically related (which they are and always will be) and that any form of adult relationship is a societal good and deserves the right to bring children (either naturally or articifically) into their new form of marriage. This is experimentation on a grand scale. We already see the results of no-fault divorce, the rise of co-habitating couples (who see no value in marriage), the unwed parenting statistics, the single women who purposefully become pregnant and bear children because, in our culture’s view, two parents are not needed. As I said before, the primary purpose of the same-sex marriage advocates is not to gain admission into an established, traditional institution of marriage, but to CHANGE the legal definition of this institution, thereby dismantling it’s very core and purpose, diluting it to the point where it no longer has any benefit to society.

How is it worse then for a same sex couple to pursue artificial insemination or surrogacy than for a heterosexual couple to go into a legal marriage knowing that they also can not have a child who is the biological offspring of both and actively planning to pursue such options? Such does not invalidate their marriage nor do their intentions to do so bar them from a legal marriage.

I already answered this above with my example of cars and driving being instrincically related, regardless of whether one drives his car or not. But to elaborate, it has never been possible, nor would it ever be, for society to require that every married couple bear children. It is not necessary because, by nature, couples, regardless of their feelings at the beginning of their unions, will likely change their perceptions of parenting as the relationship progresses. Those who discover they are infertile may seek treatment to increase their chances of conceiving. Those who can not may adopt. Those who choose to never have children may find themselves “accidentally” pregnant and decide to have the child after all. Those who may have been told they were infertile may find their conditions reversed after a period of time. Infertility in itself is rarely a fixed condition or permament status. The bigger issue is that married couples who engage in sexual intercourse have a greater chance of procreating, regardless of precautions or intentions. It has never been necessary for the state to force procreation because nature itself takes care of this quite well.

continued

 

[blessedtoo]

Society already does not put a limit in those terms on ways in which heterosexual couples can obtain babies. Why should the standard be any different for same sex couples?

As I explained before about adoption, society understands that couples who adopt are correcting a wrong: the child, who has the right to his two natural parents, has survived a loss of one or both of them. The couple who adopts this child and the culture in general understands that the best situation, the normal standard has been removed through the loss of the natural parent, and that we, as a compassionate civilization, wish to replace, to the best of our ability, that tragic loss. This is quite different from intentionally bringing forth children into same-sex unions where the child has absolutely no right and no choice or chance to know or be raised by it’s natural parents. Same-sex marriages will typically avail themselves of current technologies which make it impossible for a child to ever know who it’s natural father or mother is. Instead, we have children born of anonymous donors.

With married opposite sex couples, technology typically employs the use of the the couple’s own biological components to created new life. A child born of these unions may eventually know that their conception occurred in a manner different from the norm, but that it was the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm which created it. As an aside, Catholic’s do not support this type of procreative effort as it separates the sexual act from the procreative act - the primary problem that our culture currently faces.

What percentage of same sex couples indicate that the reason they are pursuing marriage is to be able to have a child and can’t do so until they are legally wed? They are already pursuing these options.

I’m glad you asked that.

"…The principal is of the greatest good for the greatest number. The proportion of homosexuals in society is small. The proportion of homosexuals who would choose to marry is smaller. The proportion of homosexuals who would choose to marry and raise children together is almost certainly smaller. On the one hand, the impact of the right to marry and to form families “of choice” would almost certainly be large and positive for that minority (at least for the adults). On the other hand, changing marriage, regardless of why we do it, changes marriage FOR EVERYONE. In particular, it changes parenthod for everyone."
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4342166-0872050?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177514923&sr=1-1

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is now closed.

Thanks to all who have participated.

God Bless-

Rachel