Jesus, the Vatican, and gay marriage rights

[Lochias]

So how is rejecting the rights of gays to marry:

Please prove that gays have an intrinsic right to marry.

 

[CaliLobo]

CopticChristian:

Outline for mutual understanding the gospel that you believe should be preached.

The Sermon on the Mount, John 3:16, Paul’s letters in the New Testament, Jesus’ first and second commandment (especially the second, which is relevant to this topic), et cetera.

CopticChristian:

How is it you can contrast this with…

Go and make disciples of all nations…how is it you expect to do this?

Since I said that there are no rights with God, why should the Church care about how secular governments define civil rights?

How can we make disciples of the gays, if gays think Jesus hates them because of the actions of the Church? Those that follow the Church follow Jesus, but is the Church really representing Jesus here?

 

[CaliLobo]

MarkInOregon:

I can imagine Jesus calling us all to repentance, to take up our cross, to follow him and to do the will of his Father. I didn’t see Jesus preventing the suffering of Christians in the early Church. I didn’t see his disciples telling the early Christians–hey jetison those beliefts so you won’t be persecuted and can avoid suffering. Gay people are being called to live a chaste life - as are we all. I don’t see anyone here advocating that gay people be denied jobs, housing, food, clothing, etc.–I thnk everyone acknowledges that all humans are entitled to that. They have been asked not to redefine what marriage is.

Where does this idea that Jesus was just a good guy accepting and affirming everyone come from? Does it come from anyone who has actually read the Gospel? Jesus ministry is a continual call to the sick and the down trodden, the lost and the sinner–it is a call to repentance, to doing the will of his Father, to taking up our cross.

Jesus called us to repent. He forgave the sins of those who asked. He had harsh words for towns who ignored his call. I think he would call for them to repent and follow him doing the will of his Father–just as he calls you and I to do the same.

Like you said, Jesus called for a PERSONAL response to REPENT. I’m not saying the Church should stop preaching that being gay is a sin, or that Jesus is just a good guy that accepted and affirmed everyone.

MarkInOregon:

Yes but they lived under a different political system–one where they had no (name removed by moderator)ut. Today we live in a society that grants us (name removed by moderator)ut into the kind of society we will live under. Are you suggesting that we can follow Christ without voting? Without voting in accordance with what we believe is best for society? Are we truly living our faith if we don’t vote at all or don’t vote in accordance with it? It was these early Christians living their faith and going joyfully to their martyrdom that transformed society. We gained a say in our society–and now it is as if we are not supposed to use it. If we truly lived our faith–our society wouldn’t not be devolving as it is today. I am afraid because so many Christians have jetisoned much of their faith and fail to live it–that we will shortly find ourselves in the very position of those first Christians.

Since the NT was written when there were no voting rights, why does Jesus care about our voting rights today, which postdate his time on earth?

Once again, where does Jesus call for us to get involved in the political system and define civil rights for society? What Jesus calls for is personal repentance.

Sadly, the Church has confused the Great Commission with political involvement, and by doing so, it has perverted Jesus’ mission and is a symbol of hate in modern society. Nonbelievers see Jesus as loving, compassionate, and accepting. But they see the Church as hateful, judgmental, and hypocritical.

Did Jesus tell the prostitute that what she did is illegal, and she is a sinner and less equal than the rest of society? Imagine.

 

[Lochias]

Since I said that there are no rights with God, why should the Church care about how secular governments define civil rights?

Pardon my bluntness here, but what makes you the great authority on God?

How can we make disciples of the gays, if gays think Jesus hates them because of the actions of the Church? Those that follow the Church follow Jesus, but is the Church really representing Jesus here?

The gay folks will either choose to hate, despite the evidence, or else actually decide to learn more. All we can do is prove the example that we love them dearly and wish the best for them, and are there to help them and hold them and do anything in our power for them, EVEN while we cannot love any sinful acts they perform, like homosexual sex.

 

[pete_29]

Like you said, Jesus called for a PERSONAL response to REPENT. I’m not saying the Church should stop preaching that being gay is a sin, or that Jesus is just a good guy that accepted and affirmed everyone.

Since the NT was written when there were no voting rights, why does Jesus care about our voting rights today, which postdate his time on earth?

Once again, where does Jesus call for us to get involved in the political system and define civil rights for society? What Jesus calls for is personal repentance.

Sadly, the Church has confused the Great Commission with political involvement, and by doing so, it has perverted Jesus’ mission and is a symbol of hate in modern society. Nonbelievers see Jesus as loving, compassionate, and accepting. But they see the Church as hateful, judgmental, and hypocritical.

Did Jesus tell the prostitute that what she did is illegal, and she is a sinner and less equal than the rest of society? Imagine.

Imagine what Jesus will tell you when you die. You probably won’t like it.

 

[CaliLobo]

Please prove that gays have an intrinsic right to marry.

As far as secular government goes, there is no intrinsic right to anything. Rights are recognized because they are seen as necessary to the well-being of humanity and society.

But ironically, recognition of gay marriage rights has not been as destructive as the Christians have feared.

Despite fears, same-sex marriage will boost American marriages

Why is it that the US states that have allowed for SSM have stronger economies, less divorces, and more marriages per capita (among straight people)?

Where are the dire consequences to the society of the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico City, Uruguay, and so on, that Christian people have greatly feared?

 

[Lochias]

As far as secular government goes, there is no intrinsic right to anything. Rights are recognized because they are seen as necessary to the well-being of humanity and society.

But ironically, recognition of gay marriage rights has not been as destructive as the Christians have feared.

Despite fears, same-sex marriage will boost American marriages

Why is it that the US states that have allowed for SSM have stronger economies, less divorces, and more marriages per capita (among straight people)?

Where are the dire consequences to the society of the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico City, Uruguay, and so on, that Christian people have greatly feared?

Without the ability to prove that gay marriage is an intrinsic right, your argument falls apart. Just because something may seem to feel good does not make it right.

 

[CaliLobo]

Without the ability to prove that gay marriage is an intrinsic right, your argument falls apart. Just because something may seem to feel good does not make it right.

A right may be intrinsic or non-intrinsic for Catholics, but not everyone is Catholic. Does that negate the rights of non-Catholics?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A right may be intrinsic or non-intrinsic for Catholics, but not everyone is Catholic. Does that negate the rights of non-Catholics?

Why didn’t Jesus teach that marriage was for ‘two people who LOVE each other’ instead of stating specifically that it was for one man and one woman?

And puh-leese, none of the "It was a different SOCIETY and Jesus could not have ‘bucked the law’. Right, the God-man who had ‘bucked the law’ by being incarnate of a virgin, and who died for humanity, and was able to RISE AGAIN, was ‘powerless’ in the face of ‘society’ of AD 30 in Jerusalem, and was completely unable to put forth a message of ‘rights’ while at the same time teaching that He was to be eaten in the form of consecrated bread and wine which would become His BODY AND BLOOD, a message that was totally horrifying to society of AD 30 Jerusalem but which was successfully taught and proclaimed by all His followers since.

They could teach THAT message of Jesus but somehow couldn’t teach that Jesus ‘supported’ gay marriage?

 

[ahs]

As far as secular government goes, there is no intrinsic right to anything. Rights are recognized because they are seen as necessary to the well-being of humanity and society.

But ironically, recognition of gay marriage rights has not been as destructive as the Christians have feared.

Despite fears, same-sex marriage will boost American marriages

Why is it that the US states that have allowed for SSM have stronger economies, less divorces, and more marriages per capita (among straight people)?

Where are the dire consequences to the society of the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico City, Uruguay, and so on, that Christian people have greatly feared?

Despite the fantasy speculation which that article is based, the facts show the contrary.

osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral and religious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage threatens religious freedom. (Brandon Vogt, source linked)

When marriage revolves around procreation, it makes sense to restrict it to one man and one woman. That’s the only relationship capable of producing children. But if we redefine marriage as simply a loving, romantic union between committed adults, what principled reason would we have for rejecting polygamist or polyamorous — that is, multiple-person — relationships as marriages?

Thomas Peters, cultural director at the National Organization for Marriage, doesn’t see one. “Once you sever the institution of marriage from its biological roots, there is little reason to cease redefining it to suit the demands of various interest groups,” Peters said.

This isn’t just scaremongering or a hypothetical slippery slope. These aftereffects have already been observed in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. For example, in Brazil and the Netherlands, three-way relationships were recently granted the full rights of marriage. After marriage was redefined in Canada, a polygamist man launched legal action to have his relationships recognized by law. Even in our own country, the California Legislature passed a bill to legalize families of three or more parents.

Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to two people. When sexual love replaces children as the primary purpose of marriage, restricting it to just two people no longer makes sense. (Brandon Vogt, source linked)

 

[ahs]

A right may be intrinsic or non-intrinsic for Catholics, but not everyone is Catholic. Does that negate the rights of non-Catholics?

This is not an issue about equality , but rather about the purpose/meaning of Marriage and why the state should promote it. It’s not about extending Marriage to same-sex partners, rather it’s a demand to redefine Marriage. The idea of Marriage that has always and everywhere been understood as being a biological union of a man and woman for children…will be redefined as an emotional commitment between “two people”. It becomes an issue of the state no longer promoting Marriage, which has supported and built our societies, but rather supporting “emotional commitments”, regardless of what is in the best interest of the children. The state cannot take a neutral stance… it must promote Marriage as either a conjugal relationship or not. And if it’s not conjugal in nature, then there is no reason for the state to promote any set of relationships over another…and the battle to redefine Marriage is a moot point because Marriage then has no true meaning aside from how one feels for another…and then why should the state bother to promote it?

 

[CopticChristian]

CaliLobo:
Cali,

The Sermon on the Mount, John 3:16, Paul’s letters in the New Testament, Jesus’ first and second commandment (especially the second, which is relevant to this topic), et cetera.

This is data…outline for me your understanding of the gospel…because I need to know your understanding so I may understand what it is you believe it to be…I am cautioned that should there be some other gospel other than the one I know I must reject it…

The gospel is that Jesus…
God wants…
Because…
so that we can…
and that is why…

Just spell it out for me…

Since I said that there are no rights with God, why should the Church care about how secular governments define civil rights?

I cannot understand your proposition that there are no rights with God. The Church is the body of Christ through which the manifold wisdom of God is known and through the Church we know that God cares about the rights of all to seek glory and not to sin.

How can we make disciples of the gays, if gays think Jesus hates them because of the actions of the Church? Those that follow the Church follow Jesus, but is the Church really representing Jesus here?

I don’t hate anyone. I hate sodomy, oral gratification, manual stimulation by same sex people…these actions I hate and I pity those that do these things and pray for the redemption of their souls and correction in their life…I hate what they do…but since we are not our behavior…how is it you see that I or the Church hates anyone…?

 

[CopticChristian]

Let’s paste it here!

So how is rejecting the rights of gays to marry:
Patient, kind, not envious, not boastful, not arrogant, not rude, not insistent on its own way, not irritable or resentful, rejoicing with the truth, bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things, never ending?

I see the Christian anti-gay movement as the opposite of many of these attributes.

Cali,

I certainly understand how you might visualize things and see things and in the belief cast apsersions on those that disagree with you however in the context of Corinthians I find your understanding lacking and I refer you to an understanding that is over 1600 years old…

What then, says one, if they be enemies and heathens, must one hate them? One must hate, not them but their doctrine: not the man, but the wicked conduct, the corrupt mind. For the man is God’s work, but the deceit is the devil’s work. Do thou not therefore confound the things of God and the things of the devil. Since the Jews were both blasphemers, and persecutors, and injurious, and spoke ten thousand evil things of Christ. Did Paul then hate them, he who of all men most loved Christ? In no wise, but he both loved them, and did everything for their sakes: and at one time he says, My heart’s desire and my supplication to God is for them that they may be saved: Romans 10:1; 9:3 and at another, I could wish that myself were anathema from Christ for their sakes. Thus also Ezekiel seeing them slain says, Alas, O Lord, dost Thou blot out the remnant of Israel? Ezekiel 9:8 And Moses, If You will forgive their sin, forgive. Exodus 32:32

Why then says David, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate You, and against Your enemies did I not pine away? I hate them with perfect hatred. Psalm 139:21-22

Now, in the first place, not all things spoken in the Psalms by David, are spoken in the person of David. For it is he himself who says, I have dwelt in the tents of Kedar; Psalm 120:5 and, By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept: Psalm 137:1 yet he neither saw Babylon, nor the tents of Kedar.

But besides this, we require now a completer self-command. Wherefore also when the disciples besought that fire might come down, even as in the case of Elias, You know not, says Christ, what manner of spirit you are of. Luke 9:55 For at that time not the ungodliness only, but also the ungodly themselves, they were commanded to hate, in order that their friendship might not prove an occasion of transgression unto them. Therefore he severed their connections, both by blood and marriage, and on every side he fenced them off.

But now because he has brought us to a more entire self-command and set us on high above that mischief, he bids us rather admit and soothe them. For we get no harm from them, but they get good by us. What then does he say? We must not hate, but pity. Since if you shall hate, how will you easily convert him that is in error? How will you pray for the unbeliever? For that one ought to pray, hear what Paul says: I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayer, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men. 1 Timothy 2:1 But that all were not then believers, is, I suppose, evident unto every one. And again, for kings and all that are in high place. But that these were ungodly and transgressors, this also is equally manifest. Further, mentioning also the reason for the prayer, he adds, for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who wills that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

I see the Christian anti-gay movement as hating the sin, not the sinner and as Chrysostom says to pity them and pray that they may come to the knowledge of the truth…

Saying, I love you…sodomize your partner, I love you…manipulate your partner…fondle your partner…use your same sex bodies to pleasure yourself…is this love…by no means, shall it never be for to those that wish to come to God, must come absent their sin and to condone the sin, elevating that sin to some sort of grand union that further perpetuates it is not love…

Your understanding is supreseded by John Chrysostom and you should rethink this…

 

[Lochias]

A right may be intrinsic or non-intrinsic for Catholics, but not everyone is Catholic. Does that negate the rights of non-Catholics?

Straw man. You cannot prove that gays have the intrinsic right to marry other gays. Your argument is null.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Perhaps you should spend sometime with the families of drug addicts–and observe how their lives have been turned upside down. Perhaps you should talk to the children of drug additcts who fail to support their children because they are always out in seach of their next fix. Perhaps you should speak to those who have been robbed by the drug addict trying to get enough money to score his next fix? Yes – it is a victimless crime. Have you ever know a drug addict and their family? Ever seen the emotional, psychological and financial toll?

I am not calling for child porn to be legalized! Once again, sex acts involving children cannot be analogized to SSM. SSM is between consenting adults

.

First, I don’t think anyone is using this as an argument against same sex marriage and I don’t know if they’re analogizing or not but many of you just seem to think it is impossible that anyone will push for the normalization of these behaviors. It is already starting to happen. There are those who argue it is only your bigotry and narrowmindedness that prevent you from seeing how normal these relationships are–after all these people were born that way. Its natural. It is only society in its backwardness, its uptight morality that has made these relationships harmful Remove the restrictions and we’d all grow up to be happy well adjusted people and children. It wasn’t that long ago and no one would have said such garbage–that some people actually feel free enough to give life to such a thought is troubling. That so many can’t even see this coming is sad. You can’t fight what you don’t see–and by the time you do–it will be too late.

Peace,
Mark

 

[CaliLobo]

I see the Christian anti-gay movement as hating the sin, not the sinner and as Chrysostom says to pity them and pray that they may come to the knowledge of the truth…

Saying, I love you…sodomize your partner, I love you…manipulate your partner…fondle your partner…use your same sex bodies to pleasure yourself…is this love…by no means, shall it never be for to those that wish to come to God, must come absent their sin and to condone the sin, elevating that sin to some sort of grand union that further perpetuates it is not love…

Your understanding is supreseded by John Chrysostom and you should rethink this…

Once again, I’m not saying that the Church should stop preaching that gay sex is a sin. What I’m saying is, it is uncompassionate, and hateful, for the Church to stand against what is a secular civil rights issue for gay people. It will NOT help the Church make disciples among the gays to be obstinately against their civil rights.

Lochias:

Straw man. You cannot prove that gays have the intrinsic right to marry other gays. Your argument is null.

I don’t see why a right has to be “intrinsic” to you to be valid. What’s so difficult to understand? We now know, scientifically (despite CopticChristian’s opposition), that it is normal and natural for 2-5% of the population to be gay. Therefore, for the benefit and furthering of society, they should have the equal right to form intimate partnerships and raise families with those of the same sex, because that is the way God created them.

ahs:

The idea of Marriage that has always and everywhere been understood as being a biological union of a man and woman for children…will be redefined as an emotional commitment between “two people”. It becomes an issue of the state no longer promoting Marriage, which has supported and built our societies, but rather supporting “emotional commitments”, regardless of what is in the best interest of the children.

Wrong. I read the article you posted. The definition of marriage really has evolved. If we want “traditional marriage”, why don’t we go back to polygamy and treating women as property?

Also don’t trivialize gay relationships. The love among gays can be genuine and lasting, and stable enough for raising children.

In a way, gays have shown more love to me than Catholics. Gays have offered me jobs and friendships, invited me into their homes, played classical piano for me, and welcomed me to xenophobic Kansas. I go to a parish, and does anyone bother to say hi to me, chat it up, and make me feel welcome (besides “peace to you”)?

ahs:

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage…

Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to two people. When sexual love replaces children as the primary purpose of marriage, restricting it to just two people no longer makes sense.

Wrong again. The decline of marriage is due to the economic barriers to having marriage, the increased time for young people to be economically stable, and the fact that it is no longer an economic advantage to marry–it is possible to have a lot of money and be single.

So what if public education changes? Once again, we now know, scientifically, that it is normal and natural for 2-5% of the population to be gay. Therefore, for the benefit and furthering of society, they should have the equal right to form intimate partnerships and raise families with those of the same sex, because that is the way God created them.

Procreation USED to be the main reason for civil marriage. But we now know that children are an economic burden according to Wikipedia. Easily six figures to raise a child. We also know that the world is overpopulated and economic resources are being depleted, and the population is still growing in developing countries. We’re not exactly in need of more procreation in today’s world.

And “be fruitful and multiply” is not a command, but a blessing:
christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/november12/4.58.html

 

[CaliLobo]

This is data…outline for me your understanding of the gospel…because I need to know your understanding so I may understand what it is you believe it to be…I am cautioned that should there be some other gospel other than the one I know I must reject it…

The gospel is that Jesus…
God wants…
Because…
so that we can…
and that is why…

Just spell it out for me…

I cannot understand your proposition that there are no rights with God. The Church is the body of Christ through which the manifold wisdom of God is known and through the Church we know that God cares about the rights of all to seek glory and not to sin.

I don’t hate anyone. I hate sodomy, oral gratification, manual stimulation by same sex people…these actions I hate and I pity those that do these things and pray for the redemption of their souls and correction in their life…I hate what they do…but since we are not our behavior…how is it you see that I or the Church hates anyone…?

The Gospel is that God created the world to have humans abide with Him, but humans sinned and turned against him, but God sent His Son Jesus Christ to come down to the world, and whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life in heaven, abiding with Him. Believing in Him consists of following His teachings, which are laid out in the Bible (and perhaps Holy Tradition, but that’s the essence of the Catholic-Protestant debate).

His teachings can be summarized in two commandments: Love your God will all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself. (The latter is relevant to this thread.)

For the Christian, there are no rights with God, because a Christian surrenders his will to God’s will, and it may be God’s will that the Christian gets incredible blessing, or faces tragic loss, even loss of life. When you’re a Christian, nothing is about you.

 

[Slaney]

can you imagine Jesus preaching on the streets of Jerusalem that gays have to suffer and not have equal civil rights?

Yes I can imagine, most living creatures suffer, Jesus obviously thought more of men than fish…Jesus never attended a gay wedding, and I doubt if He would approve of gay unions considering Leviticus…

 

[ahs]

Wrong. I read the article you posted. The definition of marriage really has evolved. If we want “traditional marriage”, why don’t we go back to polygamy and treating women as property?

Polygamy, in this case, is only a strawman argument for you. “Marriage” has always and everywhere been a heterosexual conjugal union. That’s the point made by my argument. No great civilization of society has been built upon homosexual “marriage”.

But since you bring it up, do you believe we should allow polygamy? Or what about incestual relationships?

Also don’t trivialize gay relationships. The love among gays can be genuine and lasting, and stable enough for raising children.

I don’t trivialize it and I don’t see why love shared between them necessitates a redefining of marriage. Why should we redefine marriage so that same-sex-attracted persons can live the way that they already have the legal protection to live?

In a way, gays have shown more love to me than Catholics. Gays have offered me jobs and friendships, invited me into their homes, played classical piano for me, and welcomed me to xenophobic Kansas. I go to a parish, and does anyone bother to say hi to me, chat it up, and make me feel welcome (besides “peace to you”)?

What has that got to do with redefining “marriage”?

Wrong again. The decline of marriage is due to the economic barriers to having marriage, the increased time for young people to be economically stable, and the fact that it is no longer an economic advantage to marry–it is possible to have a lot of money and be single.

There are many reasons that Marriage has declined. In countries where “gay marriage” has become legal, there is a string correlation between that and further decline. But if it is as you say, only because of the reasons you claim, then why bother redefining marriage in the first place. If its already a failed institution, why not throw it out completely? Why should the state promote marriage?

So what if public education changes? Once again, we now know, scientifically, that it is normal and natural for 2-5% of the population to be gay. Therefore, for the benefit and furthering of society, they should have the equal right to form intimate partnerships and raise families with those of the same sex, because that is the way God created them.

It’s my right, however, to not let my children be exposed to certain things that are contrary to my religious views. The “so-what” is that with a legally defined “gay marriage”, I no longer have legal protection from you forcing you views on me or my children.

Procreation USED to be the main reason for civil marriage. But we now know that children are an economic burden according to Wikipedia. Easily six figures to raise a child. We also know that the world is overpopulated and economic resources are being depleted, and the population is still growing in developing countries. We’re not exactly in need of more procreation in today’s world.

I make far less than 6 figures and raise 4 children quite well, so your claim there, as well as wiki’s, is laughable. Your claim about overpopulation is has been debunked already as far as I’m concerned (in other thread, books, etc…) and is off topic.

If you really want to have a good discussion, do the following.

1. Explain why the state supports marriage in the first place.
2. Fill in the following blank for me:
   Marriage (noun): ___________________________________________________.

Please be prepared to accept all the logical consequences of your definition.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Since the NT was written when there were no voting rights, why does Jesus care about our voting rights today, which postdate his time on earth?

Once again, where does Jesus call for us to get involved in the political system and define civil rights for society? What Jesus calls for is personal repentance.

Sadly, the Church has confused the Great Commission with political involvement, and by doing so, it has perverted Jesus’ mission and is a symbol of hate in modern society. Nonbelievers see Jesus as loving, compassionate, and accepting. But they see the Church as hateful, judgmental, and hypocritical.

Did Jesus tell the prostitute that what she did is illegal, and she is a sinner and less equal than the rest of society? Imagine.

Why do you think Jesus would not want us to excercise the voting rights that we have in a way that is consistent with our belief? When we vote in accordance with our beliefs–we are witnessing to our faith. Jesus sent us out to the world to witness yet you ask us to check our faith at the door of the society in which we live–as if somehow our religious belief disqualifies us from participation. Jesus calls for us to be salt and light to the world, he call for us to preach his message to the ends of the earth. Jesus didn’t command his apostles to write anything down–you don’t seem to object to them doing that. I don’t see you railing against the use the written word. What about TV–should Christians be able to use the TV to spread the Gospel? We were not called only to a personal repentance but also to spread the word.

I think perhaps you are the one who is confused. The Church has not confused the great commission with a political movement. They are two different things. The Church is not part of a political movement. It voices its opinion on social issues affecting the society it members live in. As any Catholic can attest neither political party aligns very well Catholic teaching–and voting almost always leaves one feeling sick. The Chuches primary role is to administer the sacraments, teach the faithful and proclaim the truth–and this she does–and it is for this she is hated.

As long as the Church proclaims the truth–it will be hated–Christ told us as much. You clearly state the problem–“nonbelievers see Jesus as loving, compassionate, and accepting.” Jesus was not accepting of sinful behavior–he called us all to repent–and here is the root of the problem. Too many do not know Jesus message of repentance–they think he just accepted everyone as they were and they forget he was calling us to repentance. If Christ walked down Madison Avenue today with his message of Repentance–just how well do you think he’d be accepted? I can hear a lot of people now questioning who is he to forgive sins. Who is he to call us to repentance–repent from what?

Jesus didn’t have to tell the prostitute what she did was illegal–she knew it–the situation in which she was brought to him said that it was. Why would he say it? He didn’t need to call her a sinner–everyone knew it. He did forgive her her sin–you didn’t miss that did you? He charged her to go and sin no more. (and in a way isn’t that calling her a sinner?) He didn’t send her off saying go do whatever you want. How does being a sinner make anyone less equal than the rest of society? We are all sinners. What is it you think this story teaches us?

Peace,
Mark