Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[PRmerger]

As opposed to loving a giant man in the sky who loves us so much that unless we love him back he will torture us forever in hell.

This is an inutile description of God. It does not resemble any representation of the God we worship.

As atheist BC Johnson acknowledges: “Such a God, if not dead, is the next thing to it. And a person who believes in such a ghost of a god is practically an atheist. To call such a thing a god would be to strain the meaning of the word.”

 

[PRmerger]

I actually subscribe to Rahner’s idea of the “anonymous christians.”, and that salvation is open to any who practice Christian values, whether they call themselves Christians or not.

That is very Catholic of you to believe.

 

[tomberg]

Yes incest was bad, but again there is some dodging going on. Polygamy clearly is not listed as being wrong or immoral in the OT. I thought if something was immoral, it has always been immoral? God clearly did not condemn Polygamy in the OT, so it was not wrong then, it was moral. All laws were viewed as being moral, dietary laws, circumcision, dress codes, haircuts, everything was inextricably tied with being Moral because god ordered it. God was not being arbitrary. The Jews of that time were incredibly serious about following The Law, and making sure they were being as moral as god demanded of them.
there is simply no way of justifying that polygamy used to be acceptable to God and was moral, but God later decided it was immoral and banned it. According to everyone on here who keep wanting to state that morality is permanent and true for all time, please explain to me why polygamy used to be acceptable and then became unacceptable to god?
Also if you take a literal reading of Adam and Eve, at one point incest was absolutely necessary and not immoral and only became immoral later as the population increased. Of course I do not read Genesis literally so this is no problem for me.

 

[cena]

A. Are we (Men) Not made in God’s Image? So how else is GOd supposed to look? I use man- the term- in this way, but for clarity’s sake we can use the term. Being who looks like a man yet is not a man. Honestly the terminology is of little importance for me.

B. You can be not present for an act yet still be responsible for the act. Hitler was not present at Auschwitz for each and every murder yet we hold him responsible for creating a system that slaughtered millions of people. Similarly, the Christian depiction of a God is one who constructs a system where those who will not love him/follow his peculiar commandments end up tortured for eternity.

Heaven and earth combined can’t contain God. God is literally everywhere

God is the source of happiness and love. The greatest torture in hell isn’t the fire it’s the fact that they don’t have God, they have rejected Him they have no one to blame but themselves and in doing so they , through their own choices, have rejected love itself for all eternity and they can’t change that. We need God (from whom love, goodness, etc. comes from)to be happy; to be completely cut off from him and be happy is impossible. Also, no one complains that the people get to blissfully happy for all eternity even after all the shortcomings and bad stuff people do (it doesn’t have to be something as bad as murder, it can be something like cheating).

Also, if someone repents any time before they die they can still go to heaven. Even if it’s on their death bed. No matter what a person does, it’s not unforgivable if they are truly sorry.

When you decide to not obeyGod (in a big way) and not change your mind for a very short time on earth that shows you don’t want to be in his presence for all eternity.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes incest was bad, but again there is some dodging going on. Polygamy clearly is not listed as being wrong or immoral in the OT.

That’s why we don’t get our morality from the Bible, tomberg.

You are operating under some misapprehension that the Bible is our list of rules.

It is not.

Perhaps if you were in dialogue on a Bible Alone Christian forum your point would be well taken.

 

[PRmerger]

not just christian’s, today’s jewish people don’t believe in any of those things either.

Again, bisco, I am appealing to you to learn how to use the QUOTE feature. No one knows to whom you are responding.

Have you noticed that no one has responded to any of your posts here?

There are numerous threads here that detail how to post correctly.

Then it would be nice to engage with you in dialogue!

 

[tomberg]

Which religion is that?

I guess again what we are defining by marriage. If you mean marriage between one man and one woman this was predominantly a christian idea that developed out of Jewish culture. If we are defining marriage as being between one man and various women, well this definition is much more ancient and can be found in almost every society through out the world irregardless of religious tradition. So I answered your question, now answer mine.

 

[Birdpreacher]

‘If’ God gave man free-will to rise above his animal impulses and achieve union with the divine Godhead and life itself through that union into immortality and life eternal, who are you to condemn it? Because this divine way is ignored or passed over by many for more temporary pursuits should not condemn the giver of such a gift.

Stockholm’s syndrome at its finest.

Who are we, the imperfect- the wretched- the ill, to question a system created by a being, called the Creator no less, that demands love. Give me a break!

Your argument boils down to “Well, he’s not mean, he’s just empowers us to use freewill to avoid the eternity of suffering he has instore for people who do not love him” WHy would a loving God create such a system in the first place!

Think about it, friend. The Christian God is a god who demands love or else he will make you suffer. How is that, in anyway, a good/loving thing?

As one who progresses agnosticism and I’m guessing a denial of anything more than the material realm. How can you see this as anything but a gift for those who transcend the limits of their mortality?

Lol its not the gift part that worries me. Its the existence of a Being who will throw you in hell for eterninty if you do not follow all the instructions written in a little book thousands of years ago, a book full of claims that are made by other religions, a book full of claims that can never be truly tested for accuracy.

So if I don’t buy into what THIS one holy book says I am damned for hell?! What a silly and evil notion.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Heaven and earth combined can’t contain God. God is literally everywhere

God is the source of happiness and love. The greatest torture in hell isn’t the fire it’s the fact that they don’t have God, they have rejected Him they have no one to blame but themselves and in doing so they , through their own choices, have rejected love itself for all eternity and they can’t change that. We need God (from whom love, goodness, etc. comes from)to be happy; to be completely cut off from him and be happy is impossible. Also, no one complains that the people get to blissfully happy for all eternity even after all the shortcomings and bad stuff people do (it doesn’t have to be something as bad as murder, it can be something like cheating).

Also, if someone repents any time before they die they can still go to heaven. Even if it’s on their death bed. No matter what a person does, it’s not unforgivable if they are truly sorry.

When you decide to not obeyGod (in a big way) and not change your mind for a very short time on earth that shows you don’t want to be in his presence for all eternity.

Why would the Christian God create people he knows are going to choose not to love him?
The moment the Christian God creates those people he knows exactly how they will live their lives. He is making living things for the sole purpose of suffering. What a meanie!

 

[PRmerger]

I guess again what we are defining by marriage. If you mean marriage between one man and one woman this was predominantly a christian idea that developed out of Jewish culture. If we are defining marriage as being between one man and various women, well this definition is much more ancient and can be found in almost every society through out the world irregardless of religious tradition.

So pagans had marriage, even without religion.

I think it’s been proven quite nicely that marriage is NOT a religious concept.

Every single society has had the concept of marriage, without the Judeo-Christian ethos.

So I answered your question, now answer mine.

Already did.

Twice.

Now I am still waiting for your response to my question where the Bible condemns the making of images, which you asserted, despite my example of God commanding the making of images.

Do you wish to retract your statement?

I assure you have I have numerous more examples in Scripture of God commanding the making of images.

Now, if you mean that God prohibits the worship of images (i.e. idols), then that is indeed in the Bible.

And it is something that the CC proclaims. Idolatry is indeed prohibited by the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Why would the Christian God create people he knows are going to choose not to love him?

There is no such thing as “going to” with God.

All things are in the Eternal Now.

 

[cena]

Yes incest was bad, but again there is some dodging going on. Polygamy clearly is not listed as being wrong or immoral in the OT. I thought if something was immoral, it has always been immoral? God clearly did not condemn Polygamy in the OT, so it was not wrong then, it was moral. All laws were viewed as being moral, dietary laws, circumcision, dress codes, haircuts, everything was inextricably tied with being Moral because god ordered it. God was not being arbitrary. The Jews of that time were incredibly serious about following The Law, and making sure they were being as moral as god demanded of them.
there is simply no way of justifying that polygamy used to be acceptable to God and was moral, but God later decided it was immoral and banned it. According to everyone on here who keep wanting to state that morality is permanent and true for all time, please explain to me why polygamy used to be acceptable and then became unacceptable to god?
Also if you take a literal reading of Adam and Eve, at one point incest was absolutely necessary and not immoral and only became immoral later as the population increased. Of course I do not read Genesis literally so this is no problem for me.

Divorce was widely practiced, but that doesn’t mean God was okay with it.
6 - Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
7 - They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
8 - He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 - And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

If divorce and remarrying is adultery and immoral, how is polygamy alright? Please explain the distinction

Your argument is that moral laws and practical laws were not separated. St. Paul and the apostles decided circumcision and the old dietary laws was not necessary. Yet they still said sexual immorality like homosexual actions, adultery, etc. would keep one out of heaven. Why should we believe this law no longer applies?

1 Corinthians 6
9* Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomitesc
10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.d

 

[tomberg]

That’s why we don’t get our morality from the Bible, tomberg.

You are operating under some misapprehension that the Bible is our list of rules.

It is not.

Perhaps if you were in dialogue on a Bible Alone Christian forum your point would be well taken.

I don’t believe the Bible is the source of our rules, I understand that we take our rules as established by the Catholic Church and how they interpret those scriptures. My argument is with the people who are saying that what is moral never changes, from the beginning of time, until the end of time. maybe this is absolutely true in some transcendental way and I am sure that it is, but our ability to establish what that ultimate truth is, is incredibly limited by the time in which we live, the culture in which we live, the current level of scientific understanding etc… Truth may be eternal, but our understanding of what that truth is absolutely changes. People on this forum consistently keep stating that God’s law is eternal and unchanging and what is moral is always and forever moral, and then when someone points out absolutely atrocious conduct that was previously considered to be perfectly moral and acceptable which today is considered immoral and downright evil, they immediately respond that we can not apply today’s moral standards to an ancient culture much different that our culture today. Seriously, WTF? This is just craziness. I am in complete agreement, we can not apply todays moral standards to people then and we should not use ancient moral standards to determine what is moral today because what is considered moral and immoral by society is completely contingent upon our time and culture. I don’t know why I have to keep bringing this up.

 

[Birdpreacher]

There is no such thing as “going to” with God.

All things are in the Eternal Now.

Lol what is this eternal now? Either God is omniscient or he is not! Don’t go making up concepts to avoid the dilemma of a god who creates people he knows are going to suffer both in the real world and his spirtual world

 

[tomberg]

Divorce was widely practiced, but that doesn’t mean God was okay with it.
6 - Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
7 - They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
8 - He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 - And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

If divorce and remarrying is adultery and immoral, how is polygamy alright? Please explain the distinction

Your argument is that moral laws and practical laws were not separated. St. Paul and the apostles decided circumcision and the old dietary laws was not necessary. Yet they still said sexual immorality like homosexual actions, adultery, etc. would keep one out of heaven. Why should we believe this law no longer applies?

1 Corinthians 6
9* Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomitesc
10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.d

Because no where in your post does Jesus say that Polygamy is immoral or unlawful. He says that divorce is allowed but only for certain reasons. He does not say anything about polygamy. You are imposing ideas onto the sayings of Jesus that he clearly does intend. Jesus also specifically uses the words “WIVES” which can have two possible meanings, that he was talking about polygamy and choose to say nothing about it, or that he was speaking to many people and meant “Wives” as in the wives of the people present, but again, Jesus states nothing about Polygamy.

 

[Rau]

Yes incest was bad, but again there is some dodging going on. Polygamy clearly is not listed as being wrong or immoral in the OT. I thought if something was immoral, it has always been immoral? God clearly did not condemn Polygamy in the OT, so it was not wrong then, it was moral. All laws were viewed as being moral, dietary laws, circumcision, dress codes, haircuts, everything was inextricably tied with being Moral because god ordered it. God was not being arbitrary. The Jews of that time were incredibly serious about following The Law, and making sure they were being as moral as god demanded of them.
there is simply no way of justifying that polygamy used to be acceptable to God and was moral, but God later decided it was immoral and banned it. According to everyone on here who keep wanting to state that morality is permanent and true for all time, please explain to me why polygamy used to be acceptable and then became unacceptable to god?
Also if you take a literal reading of Adam and Eve, at one point incest was absolutely necessary and not immoral and only became immoral later as the population increased. Of course I do not read Genesis literally so this is no problem for me.

I don’t think a lot can be learned about morality by noting what went on in Old Testament times. God was in the process of drawing a people together and teaching them how to live better. He did not drop the totality of that on them at once, but progressively. That the people were not living perfect lives would seem obvious, from the fact that God found a need to draw them to him, reaching a crescendo in the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[cena]

Why would the Christian God create people he knows are going to choose not to love him?
The moment the Christian God creates those people he knows exactly how they will live their lives. He is making living things for the sole purpose of suffering. What a meanie!

God creates people who make their own choices. He is outside of time so he knows what those people will choose. He isn’t creating people that he makes bad so he can torture them.

Those people are choosing to do those bad things despite sending the prophets, the Church, etc. to tell them not to do so. God gives us a lot of chances to repent.

Trees, animals, etc. don’t go to hell. They don’t go to heaven either. Why? Because they had no choice at all. In order to be able to choose good the option to choose bad has to be there as well. The people in heaven and hell chose to be where they are through their choices.

 

[tomberg]

So pagans had marriage, even without religion.

I think it’s been proven quite nicely that marriage is NOT a religious concept.

Every single society has had the concept of marriage, without the Judeo-Christian ethos.

Already did.

Twice.

Now I am still waiting for your response to my question where the Bible condemns the making of images, which you asserted, despite my example of God commanding the making of images.

Do you wish to retract your statement?

I assure you have I have numerous more examples in Scripture of God commanding the making of images.

Now, if you mean that God prohibits the worship of images (i.e. idols), then that is indeed in the Bible.

And it is something that the CC proclaims. Idolatry is indeed prohibited by the Catholic Church.

First you did not answer my question, you kept adding additional variables into idolatry and not just idolatry itself.

Actually the 2nd commandment does indeed prohibit the procedure of making any graven image. It does not state the worship of any graven image. “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4)
I know there are numerous examples of God commanding the jews to make images of all kinds of things, and I just happen to believe that the OT is hopelessly convoluted and contradicts itself numerous times and is just about worthless in establishing any type of acceptable or moral behavior.

Well guys got to run again, off to church for the next couple of hours. Yes, I am being absolutely serious, my wife loves going to church and Eucharistic adoration and we are there all the time.

 

[edwest2]

That’s why we don’t get our morality from the Bible, tomberg.

You are operating under some misapprehension that the Bible is our list of rules.

It is not.

Perhaps if you were in dialogue on a Bible Alone Christian forum your point would be well taken.

Papal encyclicals quote the Bible, as well as other Church documents.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed

 

[chrisb]

Stockholm’s syndrome at its finest.

Who are we, the imperfect- the wretched- the ill, to question a system created by a being, called the Creator no less, that demands love. Give me a break!

Your argument boils down to “Well, he’s not mean, he’s just empowers us to use freewill to avoid the eternity of suffering he has instore for people who do not love him” WHy would a loving God create such a system in the first place!

Think about it, friend. The Christian God is a god who demands love or else he will make you suffer. How is that, in anyway, a good/loving thing?

So in your reasoning life itself is slavery because we must eat and breath?

God ‘invites’ His creation into direct participation, into His family through adoption. Why would a loving God create such a system in the first place? Because such is agape. You attempt to focus on the fact that all creation isn’t guaranteed such closeness with the Godhead but I would contend that for those who are not purified from earthly attachments and freedom from the bounds of this reality that such closeness ‘is’ hell.

Lol its not the gift part that worries me. Its the existence of a Being who will throw you in hell for eternity if you do not follow all the instructions written in a little book thousands of years ago, a book full of claims that are made by other religions, a book full of claims that can never be truly tested for accuracy.

So if I don’t buy into what THIS one holy book says I am damned for hell?! What a silly and evil notion.

You seem to think Hell is a physical place. Hell is a state devoid of union with the Godhead. You should read what the Saints and True Theologians actual say about Heaven and Hell before you assume you understand what they mean before you condemn them.

For those who are prepared standing in the eternal brilliance of heaven is edifying and for those who are not it’s brilliance burns. Whither this fire is ultimately to our benefit and thus purgative or punitive and an eternal misery is not the whim of God but ultimately up to us. Are we bound to our passions of the flesh and of earthly temporarily or are we open to transcend such notions of self? That is a question that everyone should ponder because death is something we all must face. I know no religion that doesn’t address this human ultimatum.

Whither the atheist or the theist is right I believe my Faith prepares me to look at life for what it is… a brief period in which I struggle to cling to or prepare to let go of.

One trusts the Saints or in the novelties of modern argument. I am one who trusts in the Saints and seek to follow them into the same state of bliss in the knowledge and experience of the divine.