L
Lutheranteach
Guest
Marriage was a state institution before a church one. Always was. Always will be.
- Status
The_Reginator
Active member
Really? I’ve never heard that.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
True…as far as Christian service. We are called to love our neighbor. But that doesn’t mean that it still isn’t sinful. I don’t believe we look at everyone to determine if they are without sin before we can be nice to them…do you? Just as I would be nice and extend “civil” rights to a man and woman who were not married but living together. But I would still think that was sinful.To me it’s a civil rights issue. And I’m stating my views here not the CC’s. But I figure the CC or any other church or any religious body doesn’t have to perform unions if they choose not to. And for those willing to, that’s their option too.The US is a democracy of plural beliefs not a theocracy. If a loving, committed gay cpl were already living across the street from me in a committed relationship and functioning in my neighborhood and society, it doesn’t affect me to extend the same civil rights I have to them. As a neighbor I might need them someday to come to my aide in Christian service. .
S
seeker57
Guest
I believe you have stated what I have been trying unsuccessfully to say.
You may believe something someone is doing, such as their lifestyle, sex out of marriage, etc., to be sinful. But, that is not a moral judgement.
In other words, you, yourself, are not condemning someone, but simply stating what you think, based on the beliefs which you hold to be true.
At least, that is what I think you are saying.
Someone earlier disagreed with me, using the rather flaccid argument that everyone makes moral judgments all the time.
It is true some people do judge others all the time, but they shouldn’t.
Since people here are always citing their religious text of choice, I will cite one of the religious foundations on which I base my belief on this and other subjects.
I believe in the inherent worth of all human beings. It is one of the seven principles of Unitarian Universalism.
This doesn’t mean I only believe in the inherent worth of those who agree with me, that would be a very small group.
It also means I accept people for who and what they are, regardless of whether I agree with them.
So, based on this, and getting back to the original question posted by the original poster, No, homosexual acts are not sinful and it would not be my place to judge them even if I believed they were.
C
Contarini
Guest
We are using language differently. I would say that it is a moral judgment but not a personal judgment.
I grant you that it was trite, but I’m not sure what was flaccid about it. Again, we are using language differently.
Please note that the OP asked about homosexual acts. There was nothing in the OP about judging whether people are going to hell. You chose to take the conversation in that direction.
Talk about flaccid
What I mean by “judgment” is simply the act of determining that you believe certain acts are sinful. So, for instance, we both agree (I presume) that rape is sinful. That doesn’t mean that we lack compassion for rapists or that we are denying their inherent worth, does it? But don’t you agree that we need to “judge”–we need to be clear as individuals and as a society that these acts are in fact wrong and that they will not be tolerated?
And before you misinterpret me–no, of course I’m not saying that consensual homosexual relationships are equivalent to rape. Quite the reverse–it is only by making “moral judgments” of the kind I’m talking about that we can say with certainty that they are *not.
*Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Depends. I suppose you could say that marriage was a “state institution” in pre-Christian societies.
But marriage predates the state just as it predates the Church of the New Covenant. Marriage is an institution ordained by God at creation.
If you want to talk about the development of marriage as an institution in the Middle Ages, then we need to clarify what we mean by “institution.” The Church traditionally recognized marriage as a sacrament (I would argue that this goes back to Ephesians, but I will be accused of anachronistic interpretation of mysterion), but did not define marriage in terms of an ecclesiastical ceremony. That has caused a lot of confusion among modern people who think that marriage is a public ceremony.
However, given your use of the word “always,” you seem to be talking about ontological priority. And I flatly deny that the state ever takes ontological priority over the Church, in any way whatsoever.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m sure that there were long-lasting, emotionally deep relationships between men involving sexuality at times, sure. But the connotations of the phrase “committed gay relationships” are distinctively modern.
Take ancient Athens, for instance, since we know more about homosexuality there than many other places in the ancient world. Most same-sex relationships involved an adult man and an adolescent boy. Were they “committed”? They seem to have been fairly long-lasting at times and certainly to have had a lot of emotional and cultural weight to them. Of course, today they would be classified as intrinsically abusive by most Americans.
Edwin
C
CMatt25
Guest
No, Anna I don’t believe we do as a whole. Or I hope not. And I’m always reminded of neighborly Christian service when I think of how it is I who might need the gay person to save me in a burning bldg someday.
But it’s a fine line again where some people due to their beliefs cross a line and in the case of homosexuality become homophobic or gay bashers. Or take the abortion issue, another hotly debated topic. Look what has happened when folks take their beliefs to the extreme there. They’ve been known to turn to hatred and doctors are murdered in cold blood. Even one while he was worshiping in his Lutheran church the same God we do. That’s the scary part to me. When people becoming so strident in their beliefs and it leads to the extreme.
L
Lycorth
Guest
It’s amazing how secularized Protestants are.
L
larkin31
Guest
C
CMatt25
Guest
I understand we as a society need some guidelines to distinguish between rights and wrongs.
The problem however occurs when because of their religious beliefs someone says x, y, and z are sinful, then say because I for instance might not agree with you, if I don’t repent according to your beliefs, I am going to die in sin and therefore “could not be saved” or in other words will go to hell.
If someone judges homosexual acts as sinful, and those committing the acts unable to inherit the kingdom unless they become straight or celebate and repent according to someone else’s beliefs, then how is that not the same as someone indeed judging the homosexual as otherwise going to hell?
It’s one thing to say I believe this or that is sin. It’s entirely another to then say because you are in sin based on what I believe, you can not be saved unless you repent according to my beliefs.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Larkin, those might be the ones who understand we must coexist wiith others in a secular society.
Peace.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Just silly questions to throw out there since it’s Friday. So were Adam and Eve married? That would have been the cheapest reception ever with an invite list of only the bride and groom. And I wonder about the legality of the marriage, because if Eve was created from Adam’s rib (cloning?) wouldn’t that be sort of like marrying yourself?
L
larkin31
Guest
to you, as wellLarkin, those might be the ones who understand we must coexist wiith others in a secular society.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
I agree with you completely. I think the state should stay out of the marriage business and stick to contract law.
However I really think that the separation of church and state does more to protect the state from the church. Look at all the headaches in European history when the church was trying to play state. it didn’t work out very well.
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. We can’t judge people’s hearts.
Indeed. However, as I shouldn’t have to tell you, Catholic theology teaches that for a mortal sin you need “full knowledge and consent.” Someone genuinely believing that homosexual relationships are legitimate would not have “full knowledge” and would not be in a state of mortal sin. Another person might think that what they were doing was wrong (indeed, the misery of such people is one of the strongest arguments on the liberal side), but be in a psychological state such that full consent was impossible–or they may have been given a warped version of orthodox Christian sexual morality. There are all sorts of factors that intervene between the judgment “this behavior is objectively sinful” and the judgment “this person is going to hell.” Failure to account for those factors is uncharitable, and constitutes judgment in the sense condemned by Jesus.
As I said in my own original response to the OP, I myself am not convinced that monogamous same-sex relationships are “gravely sinful.” All I’m willing to say for sure is that they can’t quite fit in the Christian model for sexual behavior, and that we should resist cultural constructions of sexuality which define homosexual orientation as some kind of fixed ontological category.
Indeed.
C
Contarini
Guest
I would tend to agree, although I think “trying to play state” is a rather simplistic generalization. (I frequently make such generalizations–I’m just saying that I might be more sympathetic to some of what you mean by this than you are, and we’d have to get into more detail to determine that.) But I think that when we use the phrase “it didn’t work out very well,” we should be careful to define what constitutes “working out well.” It seems to me that often when people say such things, they have already assumed that “working out well” means “looking like a modern secular democracy.” Which obviously is circular and determines the result.
Edwin
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
Yeah, in America we hear about the seperation often in debates like this. Its original intent was to protect the church from the state and keep the government out of religious affairs (ie marriage). Our nation was founded by people who wanted to live Christian values, but were leaving Europe to leave theocracies behind.
C
CMatt25
Guest
:clapping:
C
CMatt25
Guest
Exactly why the state needs protected from the church so theocracies stay behind
- Status