Church def. of marriage and gov't

[rossum]

Here it is: First mass gay wedding in Canada draws couples from around the world

news.nationalpost.com/2014/06…und-the-world/

This link should work: First mass gay wedding in Canada draws couples from around the world

What I cannot fathom is how does a Protestant Pastor expect God to feel about his or her condoning something that is very clearly spelled out in our Bible as an abomination in God’s sight?

And what else is also an abomination in God’s sight? Eating shellfish:

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. (emphases added)

– Leviticus 11:9-12

Since the rules on shellfish were only temporary, we can see that the rules on SSM are also temporary. There are other things in the Bible that Christians have agreed to be temporary, things like “You shall not allow a witch to live”. That is very clear in the Bible and yet modern Christians completely ignore it.

Parts of the Bible are ignored and other parts are followed. Sometimes the boundary between the parts moved. On Witches the boundary moved around 1700. On slavery the boundary moved in 1865 (in America anyway). What we are seeing now is the boundary moving on SSM.

rossum

 

[One_point]

This link should work: First mass gay wedding in Canada draws couples from around the world

And what else is also an abomination in God’s sight? Eating shellfish:

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. (emphases added)

– Leviticus 11:9-12

Since the rules on shellfish were only temporary, we can see that the rules on SSM are also temporary. There are other things in the Bible that Christians have agreed to be temporary, things like “You shall not allow a witch to live”. That is very clear in the Bible and yet modern Christians completely ignore it.

Parts of the Bible are ignored and other parts are followed. Sometimes the boundary between the parts moved. On Witches the boundary moved around 1700. On slavery the boundary moved in 1865 (in America anyway). What we are seeing now is the boundary moving on SSM.

rossum

total misinterpretation! “SHALL be an abomination UNTO YOU”…that is a commandment that henceforth such things are forbidden not that they are always an abomination in themselves. Sodomy IS an abomination period. It is not one by simply being commanded so at a certain time but it is so per God’s creation of nature so it is abomination in itself always everywhere in this God’s creation. You SHALL not allow a witch to live, that is another thing directly commanded, killing a witch is not a law of nature made into creation but a law commanded directly by God to Israelites in divine intervention at a certain time.

Parts of the bible are never ignored. you just don’t know how to interpret the holy bible. The law on food and killing witches is not part of the new covenant of Christians but the old covenant of jews. WE ARE NOT JEWS. the new testament clearly removes these obligations for the new covenant. they are unnecessary for salvation, they ae temporary for the old covenant. Jesus refused the adulterous woman to be killed and he said ALL food is clean and paul says no keeping of the old feasts is necessary for Christians and Peter says no circumcision is required! This is in the bible. The apostles removed all these laws of the old covenant after God told Peter he truth in visions.

But the new testament says adulterers and murderes and homosexuals shall not go to heaven! This is universal law FOREVER. THAT is why the diet laws and criminal law of and other temporary laws of old testament is not applicable to Christians today but the eternal laws of all mankind go on forever. Please stop giving wrong interpretations with outright contradictions of our bible. Otherwise show us where in the new testament adultery or homosexuality or others said will deny heaven to people, where they were said to be temporary as you say???

killing witches in 1700 was never pat of our faith. it was the decision of those in power those days who applied Christian morals in criminal law. it is not an has never been part of new covenant faith to kill witches in 1700 or before. the line of SSM shall never move. it is God’s law, not the creation of men. You are wrong.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hello folks, prepare to be outraged. You’ve probably already heard about it by now, but in Toronto, Canada, there was a Grand Pride Wedding for LGBT couples

Didn’t know about that. But I was in Toronto a few weeks ago and the city and various stores in the city had very colorful rainbow colored displays. Later some one told me there was a guy rights celebration occurring on some set of dates around the world. They may be related.

Thursday and the article I’m attaching the link to says 12 different denominations participated. 108 “couples” participated all told and some of the photos might turn your stomach a bit as they did mine, but there it is.

It had people kissing. I personally prefer not to see other people kiss, but it doesn’t turn my stomach.

What I cannot fathom is how does a Protestant Pastor expect God to feel about his or her condoning something that is very clearly spelled out in our Bible as an abomination in God’s sight?

Different denominations have different positions on homosexuality. Also a lot of people pretty much ignore the old testament as not applicable to us. In the western world I don’t think many people advocate killing men that lay with men, disrespectful children, witches, or unmarried couples that are securely active.

BTW:

Presbyterians vote to allow same-sex marriage
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/20/presbyterians-vote-to-allow-same-sex-marriage-2/

Pastor who officiated son’s same-sex wedding reinstated
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/25/methodist-pastor-who-officiated-sons-same-sex-wedding-is-reinstated/

Western society’s opposition to homosexuality is softening, changing, evolving. On that note, the Civil and Human Rights museum opened in Atlanta last week in the same plaza as the Georgia Aquarium and The World of Coke. I made my visit to it today (riding in a car back from it now). In the top floor human rights exhibit displays for LGBT rights were distributed about the floor.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device while riding on the highway.

 

[rossum]

total misinterpretation!

No. There are Christian churches which have a different interpretation to yours.

“SHALL be an abomination UNTO YOU”…that is a commandment that henceforth such things are forbidden not that they are always an abomination in themselves.

Erm… The original was in Hebrew, so the exact expression used by the English translators is a very insecure basis to rest upon. You need to go back to the original Hebrew, and the grammar of the Hebrew, to justify your interpretation.

You SHALL not allow a witch to live, that is another thing directly commanded, killing a witch is not a law of nature made into creation but a law commanded directly by God to Israelites in divine intervention at a certain time.

And the specific Bible verse which underlies your interpretation is? You are saying things here, without quoting a Bible authority for it. We can see Jesus saying not to stone the adultress. Where is the equivalent passage for witches? Or are you saying that many Christians up to about 1700 were in error?

Parts of the bible are never ignored. you just don’t know how to interpret the holy bible. The law on food and killing witches is not part of the new covenant of Christians but the old covenant of jews.

Then why did Christians kill witches for so long? 1700 years killing witches, 300 years not killing witches. How many Popes were there in that 1700 years? What steps did they take to stop it?

Jesus refused the adulterous woman to be killed and he said ALL food is clean and paul says no keeping of the old feasts is necessary for Christians and Peter says no circumcision is required! This is in the bible. The apostles removed all these laws of the old covenant after God told Peter he truth in visions.

Not all laws, just certain specific laws on circumcision, kosher etc. Where specifically in the New Testament is the rule on killing witches removed? Early Christians certainly appeared not to know of any such removal, and carried on killing for a long time.

rossum

 

[One_point]

Different denominations have different positions on homosexuality. Also a lot of people pretty much ignore the old testament as not applicable to us. In the western world I don’t think many people advocate killing men that lay with men, disrespectful children, witches, or unmarried couples that are securely active.
.

Homosexuality like adultery and murder are part of the old AND the new testament. The old testament is not ignored. It has eternal truths and it has the stsory of Gods covenant with Jews and contains the terms of that covenants or rules. Some are not applicable because we are not part of that covenant and that covenant no longer continues but is replaced by new covenant. But the eternal truths of the old testaments are forever.

 

[One_point]

No. There are Christian churches which have a different interpretation to yours.

Erm… The original was in Hebrew, so the exact expression used by the English translators is a very insecure basis to rest upon. You need to go back to the original Hebrew, and the grammar of the Hebrew, to justify your interpretation.

And which Hebrew words did you use to justify your own interpretation? I don’t need Hebrew. GOD gave all foods to Adam and then to Noah to eat loooong before the diet laws of the Jews. THAT is in the bible. Foods were only declared bad to eat at certain points, only a few in the covenant with noah and more in the covenant with Jews. Then jesus came and said ALL food is clean. You cannot twist that with talk of Hebrew. It’s plain. Foods were not universally declared abominable by God and in fact were later declared universally GOOD by that same God.

And the specific Bible verse which underlies your interpretation is? You are saying things here, without quoting a Bible authority for it. We can see Jesus saying not to stone the adultress. Where is the equivalent passage for witches? Or are you saying that many Christians up to about 1700 were in error?

Jesus said “LET HIM WHO HAS NOT SINNED THROW THE FIRST STONE!!!” How does this mean that he remove ONLY the criminal law of adultery alone? Witchcraft is a sin and the PUNISHMENT of sin as Jesus shows is meted by those who are sinless. there is no sinless Christian except mary and truly sinless Christians will never stone anyone but imitate Jesus. when did Jesus kill any sinner? Also, these other churches you say you are following their interpretation, please show me any ONE of them who interret that Jesus only removed the punishment of adultery and did not lay down a principle for ALL the criminal punishments for sins? Which church says that? I would like to know, please.

Then why did Christians kill witches for so long? 1700 years killing witches, 300 years not killing witches. How many Popes were there in that 1700 years? What steps did they take to stop it?

What do you mean “For so long”? Please show me which of the early Christian fathers killed a witch??? Do you think the middle ages of Europe stand for all Christianity???

Not all laws, just certain specific laws on circumcision, kosher etc. Where specifically in the New Testament is the rule on killing witches removed? Early Christians certainly appeared not to know of any such removal, and carried on killing for a long time.

rossum

The apostles said in Acs that the ONLY burdens to be placed on gentile converts to Christianity were only four, and no other burdens. There are over 600 laws. You waiting for the apostles to go through each one? No way. They said no jewish laws to be placed on Christians except the four they placed on them in acts and paul took these instructions to the whole rome world to other Christians. I will find the verse in acts and present here.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Erm… The original was in Hebrew, so the exact expression used by the English translators is a very insecure basis to rest upon. You need to go back to the original Hebrew, and the grammar of the Hebrew, to justify your interpretation.

And the specific Bible verse which underlies your interpretation is? You are saying things here, without quoting a Bible authority for it.
…

rossum

Translation: The words in the original biblical Hebrew, although loosely translated by some as “abomination,” are completely different and linguistically unrelated: toeivah for homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22) and sheketz for shrimp/shellfish and kosher food (Leviticus 11:10). Since these words are completely different in derivation, there is no linguistic basis for direct comparison, much less religious equivalence.

Abomination to whom? With shrimp (Leviticus 11:10), the full phrase is “they shall be a detestable thing to you.” The description of homosexual behavior as an “abomination” excludes any reference “to you.” For shrimp, this might be interpreted as “detestable to the Jewish people,” but for homosexual activity, there is an implied “abomination to God,” not “to you” - a major difference.

Another interpretation of the lack of “to you” for homosexual activity points to the universality of this prohibition, compared to the laws of kosher food, which are applicable only to “you,” the Jewish people. Judaism considers homosexual behavior a universal prohibition for all mankind as one of The Seven Noahide Laws.

One point is right, therefore.

The above interpretation is by Samuel Silver, an Orthodox Jew. You are not one and don’t even cite the authority on which you base your pro-gay, revisionist view of Scripture.
,

 

[One_point]

Here is the Acts

Acts 15 New International Version (NIV)

The Council at Jerusalem

15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16
“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,

17
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**—

18
things known from long ago.[c]

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.**

Farewell.

30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.The apostles did not regard the rules of the old covenant as automatically applying to believers. This was very early in the church. They gave these simple instructions and letter more teachings in the letters of the apostles contained in the new testament on Christian life and holiness. Other teachings are in the tradition of the church. you are free to read all the letters in the new testament and find if any of them require Christians to follow the punishments of the jewish law or the diet. If you want to know the law of Christians, read these letters and you will find the morality of Christians. there homosexuality is a sin that leads one to lose heaven just like adultery.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Homosexuality like adultery and murder are part of the old AND the new testament. The old testament is not ignored.

Okay, though a lot of people do pretty much ignore the old testament. There are some stories and sections here and there that have been expressed through movies that tend to be remembered more often and a few parts that are said to be of some special importance (ex: one of the sets of ten commandments)

It has eternal truths

I don’t want to get into it here, but I will for now simply avoid agreeing or disagreeing on this statement because some that I’ve encountered in these forums use “truth” to mean many other things in addition to “a factual proposition.” Perhaps another day…

and it has the [story] of Gods covenant with Jews and contains the terms of that covenants or rules. Some are not applicable because we are not part of that covenant…

That’s one of the reasons I’ve heard stated on why that part of the book can be mostly ignored.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

No. There are Christian churches which have a different interpretation to yours.

…

rossum

Yeah, Christian churches like that headed by Bishop Gene Robinson, who had to dignify and justify his own homosexual proclivity. Kinda like Judge Vaughan who ruled on Prop 8 in California.

No, they did not have personal and self serving motivation in their interpretation of Scripture and judicial ruling, respectively. Fer sure!

,

 

[glendab]

Hello Rossum.

This link should work: First mass gay wedding in Canada draws couples from around the world

And what else is also an abomination in God’s sight? Eating shellfish:

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. (emphases added)

– Leviticus 11:9-12

Since the rules on shellfish were only temporary, we can see that the rules on SSM are also temporary. There are other things in the Bible that Christians have agreed to be temporary, things like “You shall not allow a witch to live”. That is very clear in the Bible and yet modern Christians completely ignore it.

Parts of the Bible are ignored and other parts are followed. Sometimes the boundary between the parts moved. On Witches the boundary moved around 1700. On slavery the boundary moved in 1865 (in America anyway). What we are seeing now is the boundary moving on SSM.

rossum

I understand your confusion as you aren’t Christian. Comparing SSM to a shellfish dinner isn’t exactly a healthy comparison. We as Catholics have a simple standard: we know the difference between mortal sin and venial sin. Venial sin is something we all have to struggle with, the shells in the fish dinner if you will. But mortal sin kills the life to grace in the soul and offends God Who is infinitely Great and worthy of praise and honor, etc, and that is why we fear to commit them. Mortal sins have no justification or excuse; venial sins can be simplified and dealt with but rarely is anyone entirely freed of them for any length of time. But God can and does get around them to come to us. The cost of mortal sin is Hell. The cost of venial sins is Purgatory whose end is Heaven. Do the math. It is that simple.

It probably is unwise to estimate the worthiness of being Christian by the examples of Christians you have in your midst or to use secular media as a means of getting to know our religion. If you are a practicing Buddhist, then there are things we share in common regarding this issue that you could draw upon to reject it as a viable life option and that is the disturbance of peace around the matter and the common good of all that is ignored for the need for attention. There are other ways in which you as a Buddhist could stand on our side of this issue. Perhaps you’d like to share some of that with us? I’d be interested to hear about it.

Glenda

 

[DrTaffy]

No.The whole point was they were telling us we had gayism in our own culture therefore should not oppose it.

No, that would be making the same “Argument from Tradition” fallacy that many here made - but I have yet to see the pro-gay marriage side make it. Those tribes (do I understand that you are member?) did have same sex marriages, even if modern christian sensibilities make them want to repudiate it, but that does not mean that they have to have them today.

Just we do not have to have slavery today, just because the Romans had it.

Just as the argument that no culture ever anywhere has ever had same sex marriage would prove that we should not have same sex marriage, even if the premise were true.

Ive given you a link to a scholarly work explaining there’s absolutely nothing at all sexual about these woman-woman arrangements.

A) It didn’t actually show that
B) Even if it did, so what? That would not prevent this being same sex marriage, and would only highlight how ‘marriage’ has meant many different things in different societies.

Ask yourself why there aren’t any men to men “marriages” in these same tribes,

There are in many tribes. See the links I gave earlier.

 

[DrTaffy]

Translation: The words in the original biblical Hebrew, although loosely translated by some as “abomination,” are completely different and linguistically unrelated: toeivah for homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22) and sheketz for shrimp/shellfish and kosher food (Leviticus 11:10). Since these words are completely different in derivation, there is no linguistic basis for direct comparison, much less religious equivalence.

Deuteronomy 14 is where shellfish are referred to as Toevah.

 

[DrTaffy]

If you wish to make it, in detail, I will certainly consider it.

But I assume that I would be allowed to make my own argument against it? **So far you seem to be assuming that my argument against the stronger assertion is also my argument against this new assertion.

Specifically, what society or societies are you asserting did not treat same sex marriages the same as opposite sex ones, what evidence do you have for that assertion, and what logical argument do you use to get from that to (I assume) the conclusion that we, today, should discriminate against same sex couples?**

Yes, please do.

After you address all the bits you edited out and did not answer.

This is a new argument. If you want to make it, make it explicitly, answering the points above, and I will deal with it.

Or else admit that same sex relationships were never treated the same as hetero marriages by society.

Argument from ignorance again.

You have to prove your premise, not just assert them and demand that I disprove them.

Otherwise my ‘counterproof’ could just be to assert that you are wrong and demand that you disprove me. And your ‘countercounterproof’ could just be to assert that I am wrong and demand that I disprove you. And my ‘countercountercounterproof’ could just be to assert that you are wrong and demand that you disprove me. And your ‘countercountercountercounterproof’ could just be to assert that I am wrong and demand that I disprove you. And so on ad infinitum

No, but I’m not asking you to be happy about the converse either.

Well, the converse would be that you do have to give objective proof, which is what I am arguing. Or do you just mean that you are not asking me to be happy about you oppressing homosexual couples? Since the gay-marriage lobby is winning pretty much everywhere in the western world, that also seems to make no sense.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Or do you just mean that you are not asking me to be happy about you oppressing homosexual couples?

You asked if I would be happy about laws against Catholics. I said that I would not. I wasn’t sure what point you were making by that. So I made a guess and supposed that you were implying that since I would not be happy about laws against Catholics, I should not promote laws that might make someone else unhappy. If there was some other point, please correct me. But any controversial law is bound to make someone unhappy. That should not the sole criterion on which to decide policy. It should be a factor, certainly, but not the only one.

 

[glendab]

Hello Leaf.

… supposed that you were implying that since I would not be happy about laws against Catholics, I should not promote laws that might make someone else unhappy…

I smell some moral relativisms. Shellfish is shellfish and homosexuality is homosexuality. We can eat shrimp today thanks to a vision St. Peter had, but we still can’t engage in disordered sexual behaviors. The shellfish example shows discipline, the homosexual stuff is doctrinal. Discipline can change, Doctrine cannot.

Glenda