C
CaliLobo
Guest
Yes. It is possible that the Bible only forbade pederasty and temple prostitution, not gay relationships between two consenting adults.
Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
CaliLobo
The USA is roughly divided 50/50 between people that vote Republican vs. Democrat. I wouldn’t pigeon hole everybody into “liberal” and “conservative”, as though their beliefs fall into ‘job lots’. They don’t.
How incredibly sad that you view the right to life as being gifted solely by the operation of the US Constitution. The debate is not about the legal status of unborn babies in the US - the law is clear - the born have rights, the unborn do not. The question is - is that position moral? The answer cannot be found in the Constitution Cali.
The Law says that the unborn have no Civil Rights (at all) - consequently, it would seem that anything can be done to them. So a Civil Rights argument to support abortion makes no sense, since your premise is that the unborn have no right, not even to exist in peace.
You seem focussed on bedding women, but you are having no success in that aim. Why is that? Is it because you’re not liberal enough? Another reason(s) ?
Perhaps it is time for you to take more responsibility for the progress of your life, and make some changes?
I’m astounded that you argue that you must adopt a set of beliefs that align with what you perceive to be the beliefs of the marriageable women in your demography.
The USA is roughly divided 50/50 between people that vote Republican vs. Democrat. I wouldn’t pigeon hole everybody into “liberal” and “conservative”, as though their beliefs fall into ‘job lots’. They don’t.
How incredibly sad that you view the right to life as being gifted solely by the operation of the US Constitution. The debate is not about the legal status of unborn babies in the US - the law is clear - the born have rights, the unborn do not. The question is - is that position moral? The answer cannot be found in the Constitution Cali.
The Law says that the unborn have no Civil Rights (at all) - consequently, it would seem that anything can be done to them. So a Civil Rights argument to support abortion makes no sense, since your premise is that the unborn have no right, not even to exist in peace.
Rarely have I come across someone with this much self-pity. 50% of the world is male Cali - perhaps you need to discuss your fears in person with a few of them and see if your perspective is commonly held. What would you like God to do? Or, here’s a thought - what could you do?
You seem focussed on bedding women, but you are having no success in that aim. Why is that? Is it because you’re not liberal enough? Another reason(s) ?
I’ve no problem with the State providing a legal framework that meets the needs of same sex couples for their on-going mutual care and comfort. I believe that marriage relationships are “special” and it makes sense for the State to specially recognise them, notwithstanding that most if not all of the legal rights & obligations flowing from marriage would logically flow from the recognition of a same-sex union. But Marriage is special - it is an intrinsically sexual relationship (our very biology provides for it) - it is the basis of the society growing and renewing itself. Same sex unions can be loving and caring, but they are not that. A business partnership is not that either.
OK, so you don’t just believe in it to appear “acceptable” to women? But - why can’t the right to abortion be unfettered? What right does the State have to limit the civil rights of women (noting that unborn babies have no rights in your country)?
Fortunately, I never found myself in a (work) environment where my politics needed to be public, and where my job was at risk if anyone found out I wasn’t sufficiently conservative or liberal, or where I needed to support abortion and gay ‘marriage’ to be seen by women as an acceptable man. I guess my wife must have seen something else in me, because those subjects were not the subject of our conversations when we were dating!
Perhaps it is time for you to take more responsibility for the progress of your life, and make some changes?
R
Rau
Guest
Cali - if you are open to question the translation of a word in the Bible, then you are open to challenge the translation of every piece of Scripture. This opens up lots of opportunity to make your own version of Scripture. If I recall, UnCatholicBride describes herself as “Cateteria Catholic” - you can understand why.
J
josh987654321
Guest
What is it that you want when it comes to homosexuality and same sex marriage CaliLobo?
P
PRmerger
Guest
That is why Catholics do not use the Bible Alone to profess the moral law.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Are you familiar with the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, Cali?
What you are proposing above reminds me of that.
The Emperor was parading around butt naked, happy as a clam, believing in the lies that some folks told him.
He was a fool. He believed a lie, but he was quite happy.
I don’t think being happy while steeped in lies is a good model for life.
Rather, truth is of supreme import. And if one conforms himself to truth, he will end up happy.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This would be odd, since in the case of meat offered to idols, the Apostles were specific, and did not prohibit meat generally:
It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell. Acts 15:28-29
“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave 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. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.” Rom. 1:26-27
I don’t see how you read the Romans passage as merely condemning the context of the acts, and not the acts themselves, particularly when the Romans passage took place at a time in history when homosexual acts and liaisons were permitted in the larger society and when Christians were allowing themselves behaviors that most Jewish authorities rejected. More to the point, it is clear in Acts that when a question came up the Apostles got together and decided how the questions ought to be answered. Yet never in the history of the Church, even up until the present day, has the Church ever had a word to say in favor of same-sex passions, let alone same-sex passionate acts. The impossibility of same-sex marriage has been universal and unstinting.
No, the only way to claim that the Bible is silent on same-sex marriage is have muzzled it first. (Romans is also among the New Testament epistles believed most certainly to have been written by Paul’s own hand, and not by a disciple in his tradition.)
H
holyrood
Guest
You personally can’t imagine that, is how you decide what is moral and what God thinks?
L
Lochias
Guest
Absolutely. Jesus would say so in love, not in hate or wish to see others hurt. He would know what more grievous, eternal hurt would come to them, and to society at large, by letting them live a lie.
There isn’t a human-filled institution alive that hasn’t committed sins of some sort, so that line doesn’t fly (and I really think you know that). Our own government effectively exterminated the Native Americans of this land, just to take it away from them; so in your view, why should we follow the government?
The Church isn’t a democracy. It’s a hospital for sinners, and the seat of Christian Truth. Jesus never promised us a rose garden, you know; indeed, he told us that we are to take up our crosses and follow him, just as he took up his cross for love of us all.
Sure he does. I think you just wish that he didn’t.
Let me ask you a question in turn: Imagine Jesus, standing there, drenched in blood, beaten within an inch of his life, swaying from pain, his flesh ripped open from the scourge being spit upon and shouted at and jeered by the crowd, completely alone, the weight of the cross bearing down on him with all of the cruel weight in the world.
Do you really think he’d say: “…it’s too much, Father. You may think I can carry this weight and responsibility, this horror and pain and fear and uncertainty and loneliness, but you’re wrong. I give up. Let someone else be the sacrifice. You were wrong. Smite them all. Make it all stop.”
Are you going to follow him, Cali, or not? You can’t have two masters. Which will it be: Jesus, or the world? Remember that Jesus wasn’t wrong, so if you choose the world, you choose knowing that you are embracing a lie, a falsehood, and are effectively slapping Jesus in the face as he stands there on the road to Golgotha.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Why do you say that? Jesus did “care one way or another” about whether the religious authorities were granting divorces. He warned people that sins of lust put them in danger of Hell. Why can’t you imagine that he’d preach against people pretending that they could change natural law? I think he’d get up and speak the truth, even though people might stone him for saying that their morals were insufficient.
Read the New Testament. When believers fall away in great numbers, the Bible does not imply that they are “voting with their consciences” because their teachers are failing. The New Testament implies they will leave because false prophets will lure them away and their willingness to sacrifice in order to remain within the laws of God will grow cold. The parable of the seeds teaches that many things might lure believers away from the Gospel. Nowhere does it say that “voting with the feet” implies that the message is to blame!
R
Rau
Guest
Cali, why the emphasis in the above on the “secular” context? It’s as though your thinking is that God doesn’t mind at all what the “secular” authorities do, as though somehow that’s a different jurisdiction!
Jesus came to save all and he taught us how we should live. If the secular authorities allow for the opposite, can you imagine Jesus saying, “Oh, that’s alright then!”?
C
CaliLobo
Guest
Jesus cared about the wrongdoings of religious leaders back then, but not secular leaders. He frequently condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, for example. From reading the Gospels, it is clear that he was asked many questions about what the Scripture said, and provided answers that were different from the conventional wisdom of the religious leaders of the time.
But one thing he did not do is call for changes in Roman government or Roman law, or start up a revolution to overthrow Rome. That is what the conquered Jews wanted. But the Bible is clear–Jesus did none of that. It is clear that he cared more about the spiritual battle within.
Therefore from the Bible we can find no precedent for the idea that we must hold certain political positions, or vote a certain way politically, or even be involved in politics at all. Rather, preaching the Gospel and evangelizing is of primary importance.
This article may prove relevant:
redletterchristians.org/death-dynasty/
Since her inception, American Christians have had a hard time resisting the temptation to confuse our particular and fallible set of political and economic ideologies with the cause of Christ, justifying the use of power and cultural dominance to coerce cultural morality. Generation after generation of evangelical Americans believe that America is great because America is good, leading to the false assumption that insofar as The United States is a capitalistic democracy, she is Christian, and that supporting democracy is a means to support Christianity and vice versa. The first step in shedding this over lording past is to confess our national sin of compromising the lordship of Christ by identifying God’s kingdom with the American establishment, creating a dangerous patriotic fervor promoting the sweeping sanctification of American political, economic, social and foreign policy. But thankfully, as religious pluralism expands in the U.S. and the fallacies of Christendom are unmasked, this era of Christian cultural dominance is finally coming to an end. Rising up in her place is the existence of a peripheral, multi-cultural church living as seeds scattered in the global diaspora, prevailing as witness against the poverty of our accommodating civic religion. As Stanley Hauerwas states, “Christians would be more relaxed and less compulsive about running the world if we made our peace with our minority situation.” As citizens of heaven, living in pluralistic communities here on earth, the church must re-educate her residents for a brave new world where she no longer has the power and authority to bend society to her will. Perhaps the toughest habit to break deriving from our privileged past is the assumption that if Christians do not rule society, it will surely slide down the slippery slope to anarchy and chaos.
R
Rau
Guest
So, Cali, do you believe Jesus was OK with people doing wrong, so long as the secular law permitted it? Or do you believe people of God should take no interest in the secular law, eg. perhaps they should not bother voting?
Jesus may not have advocated anarchy, or rioting in the streets, or uprising against the State. But given we have free will, and we live in a democracy, we should feel bound to use those tools to teach and to persuade our brothers to what is right. This is not forcing our beliefs on anyone - it is a proper exercise of our rights as citizens and our duty as Christians. We cannot do that through ambivalence and acquiescence, or worse, by encouraging the secular authorities to legislate for what we know to be wrong.
Jesus may not have advocated anarchy, or rioting in the streets, or uprising against the State. But given we have free will, and we live in a democracy, we should feel bound to use those tools to teach and to persuade our brothers to what is right. This is not forcing our beliefs on anyone - it is a proper exercise of our rights as citizens and our duty as Christians. We cannot do that through ambivalence and acquiescence, or worse, by encouraging the secular authorities to legislate for what we know to be wrong.
D
doglover2
Guest
I think God accepts gay marriage. In the Bible Paul condemned the coercive homosexual stuff by the Romans, but it was not about it being gay but about the fact that they were coercive. He has not said that gayness ITSELF is wrong but was making a point about something else.
H
holyrood
Guest
Your evidence for this? What source tells you so?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
No. There were professional male prostitutes in Rome who were not coerced into their “line of work”. There were consensual homosexual acts in Rome, although the status of the two actors differed according to how they acted in the relationship.
St. Paul, like the Jews of his time and unlike the Romans and the Greeks, took the gender of the “object” of sex very seriously. Outside Judaism, the idea of being “homosexual” was foreign–Latin doesn’t even have a word for homosexuality and heterosexuality. In Rome, the idea was that one was “masculine” or “feminine.” Men who took the feminine role in sex were considered unmanly, and looked down upon. Within Judaism, however, both parties to homosexual acts were counted as having committed abominable acts, as having violated God’s plan for sexual relations between humans.
When you say you think God accepts gay marriage, you might be fairly asked: where did this revelation come from? How do you know what God accepts or does not accepts? Considering the serious warnings contained in the New Testament about false teachers, this is a question that must be asked. We can’t just choose the teacher we like and feel safe about it, because we have been warned that false teaches will lead the faithful astray. We have been warned very clearly that if we are not careful our consciences can be warped by those claiming revelations that change the Gospel, and we are duty-bound to take those warnings seriously.
Did this change you accept come from the Gospel or the Epistles, as with the case of relaxed food prohibitions? No. There is nowhere in the Gospel where the deep repugnance for homosexual acts is revisited and amended. There is nowhere in the Gospel where the faithful are told: Even though the Apostles teach X, you can decide to do Y, instead. No, when St. Paul took the topic of circumcision to the Apostles in Jerusalem, this was their answer: ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell." Acts 15:28-29
Gay marriage was not lawful for Christians then. It is not lawful now. It is not going to become lawful. It is among the necessities of Judaism that the Apostles preserved at a time when they were not adverse to welcoming Gentiles without putting the other requirements of Judaism onto them. This was a requirement that Gentiles who converted to Christianity had to accept, and where Christianity is truly taught, it still is.
U
UnCatholicBride
Guest
Leviticus is not even applicable to us. It was written to the Jews in the Old Testament. It was before Jesus laid down his life so that we could be free of the curse of the law. Paul said that these laws were the yoke of slavery in Galatians 5:1
P
PRmerger
Guest
Hi, UnCatholicBride. Do you mind answering the above question?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
You have been misinformed. It is the ritual laws of Leviticus (such as those having to do with ritual cleanliness and the prescriptions of temple sacrifice) and the manner of dealing with sinners that St. Paul was referring to, not the morality laws. At any rate, since St. Paul said that it was an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, you’re on thin ice using him as your Scriptural defender of homosexual acts, to say the very least!
Really, are you saying that we are “free” of all these “enslaving” rules?
“You shall not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife, defiling yourself with her. You shall not offer any of your offspring for immolation to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have sexual relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; that is perverse.” Lev. 18:20-23
Look at the rest of Chapter 18…save the law having to do with ritual uncleanliness, which of the other laws do you think are no longer applicable?
U
UnCatholicBride
Guest
Paul did not make a distinction between moral and ritual law, and James went so far as to specifically use the phrase the whole law when referring to these rules (James 2:10). The phrase the whole law is used multiple times throughout the whole Bible. Please, show me where the Bible ever makes a distinction between between the moral and the ritual law.You have been misinformed. It is the ritual laws of Leviticus (such as those having to do with ritual cleanliness and the prescriptions of temple sacrifice) and the manner of dealing with sinners that St. Paul was referring to, not the morality laws. At any rate, since St. Paul said that it was an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, you’re on thin ice using him as your Scriptural defender of homosexual acts, to say the very least!
Really, are you saying that we are “free” of all these “enslaving” rules?
“You shall not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife, defiling yourself with her. You shall not offer any of your offspring for immolation to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have sexual relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; that is perverse.” Lev. 18:20-23
Look at the rest of Chapter 18…save the law having to do with ritual uncleanliness, which of the other laws do you think are no longer applicable?
- Status