S
spedteacherita
Guest
I think there are many of us out here in Protestant land that still stands strongly on the issues of morality, too.
- Status
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
"Thorolfr:
In that same light, why would we deny gay marriage in todayâs society even if it appears to be a prohibition to it contained within Scripture (as the meaning for the Jews/early Christians (lost to us today) may have made sense at that time)?
Thorolfrâs pondering here seems to be the crux of the matter. I donât think it is so much Thorolfr has crossed it off as flat out wrong (as the meaning for the Jews (lost to us today) may have made sense at that time), but that because we wouldnât in todayâs society wipe our an entire society including infants, etc. in todayâs world. Correct me if Iâm wrong, but wiping out an entire group of people seems very unlikely to be an edict passed along by the Pope.And yet earlier, it was you who argued that Scripture can be hard to understand simply because it relates to times long past. Apparently, you understand this item clearly, youâve decided it does not sit right, and so youâve crossed it outâŚdeclared it as âa mistakeâ.It seems you have multiple means with which to discard Scripture.
In that same light, why would we deny gay marriage in todayâs society even if it appears to be a prohibition to it contained within Scripture (as the meaning for the Jews/early Christians (lost to us today) may have made sense at that time)?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
And who are you to determine which parts are and are not inspired by God? Upon what authority does man judge the truth given to us by revelation? The fact of the matter is, if not all of it is inspired, then none of it is, because you have no way to know which is and isnât. Inspiration isnât determined by what you like and what you donât like.
They canât. Full stop. Theyâll go into how scholars interpret this or how this Greek phrase means that in Hebrew⌠the plain, simple Scriptural text forbids such behavior and even calls such behavior an abomination. The Bible doesnât go into SS marriage because such a thing was simply unthinkable.
A oxymoron. A contradiction in terms. Even the 2011 ELCA church-wide assembly didnât turn to the terminology of âsame gender marriageâ. They spoke of a "committed relationship
" for gays who want to be clergy (but continued to require marriage for heterosexuals).
Jon
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
This right here is why I could not join the Protestant ranks.
C
commenter
Guest
The Catholic Church is guided by the Magisterium in interpreting Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium, including Pope Francis, identify âgay marriageâ as wrong. It does 2 kinds of evil; it facilitates, or makes it harder for someone to avoid, actions that are objectively immoral. And by misleadingly calling it âmarriageâ it cheapens societyâs understanding of marriage. Again, this in no way means gay people are âbadâ it means certain policies, certain lies by the media, make it harder for them to become the saints they are meant to be. A gay âmarriageâ status makes it somewhat harder for someone to get out of a situation if for spiritual reasons, they felt it was time to. Calling it âmarriageâ undermines Christian teaching on what marriage is (yes, I know most attacks and cheapening of marriage has been done by heterosexuals).
The Church does not focus just on the morality of the person in the situation, as it does on the morality of the politician or media mogul who facilitates - in exchange for votes, popularity or financial power - what the church considers a ânear occasion of sinâ. And yes, the Pope says we should love the persons in the situation, no matter what.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Perhaps you could address the apparent contradiction that someone with same sex attraction faces when faced with this scenario:
(1) Scripture says homosexual acts are immoral.
(2) Scripture says that killing infants is okay in certain circumstances.
(3) Todayâs Christians does not condone killing of infants in any circumstance.
(4) Therefore, todayâs Christians ought to look at itâs stance that homosexual acts are immoral since there appears to be an inconsistency to how todayâs Christians view other Biblical premises.
C
commenter
Guest
Actually I disagree with your point #3. Many of todayâs Christians support the right to kill infants before birth, and there is a growing movement to allow infants with a disability to die (not just those who need âextraordinaryâ medical treatment); sometimes condoned by Christians. (I donât mean I condone, I mean other of âtodayâs Christiansâ do).
I realize this thread is about Presbyterians, so I hope people with more knowledge can shed light from that direction. But speaking about the Catholic Church, it is guided by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. What you refer to as âtodayâs Christiansâ are deeply influenced by the secular culture, especially the media. Thus, the need for the Magisterium.
Even if 99% of Christians, or Catholics, supported legal abortion, that would not change the reality of what it is. The fact that the secular culture opposes, or forgot the âNatural Lawâ doesnât abolish it, and ignorance of the Natural Law has an impact beyond abortion and homosexuality. Abortion is still murder. I donât know if âtodayâs Christiansâ are holier than âyesterdayâs Christiansâ; not sure why the reference to âtodayâs Christiansâ. The important thing is what is true and right.
The other important thing is the gospel command to love individual persons. The Magisterium is a reliable guide to both of these. Christians are sometimes accused of failing to love. This Christian is sometimes guilty of that, of judging others, and lots of other things. Unfortunately.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does take into account new insights into Scripture, social science, psychology, and different circumstances that were not envisioned at the time of the New Testament, or at earlier times in the Church.
R
Rau
Guest
No, Thor was clear that not all Scripture is inspired by God. That was the second of his reasons for selective denial of it. The first was that itâs meaning may be lost with time.
If you can explain why two men joining in a sexual relationship makes sense, quite apart from any biblical references, Iâll be listening.
R
Rau
Guest
Weâre God to command something, it would be right to do it.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Good point.
The reason for the reference to âtodayâs Christiansâ is an attempt to explain the idea that somehow we have lost the true meaning of what Christians in the era of Christ (âyesterdayâs Christiansâ) were taught regarding homosexual acts and whether they would have been considered morally damaging (i.e. sinful) to partake in. The premise Thorolfr seemed to be going on was that Christians in the 1st century may have been just fine with homosexuals being involved in homosexual acts (or perhaps not - thus the reason itâs been âlostâ to history).
Fair enough.
It doesnât make sense to me either.
With that said, I can see a person with a homosexual proclivity having it somehow make sense to them. Although someone with such a proclivity would need to respond to that so I really couldnât say.
The justification for allowing homosexual acts (as already shown by reference by Thorolfr) is that there are other passages in the Bible (i,e, Godâs command to kill infants in the Book of Samuel) that we would not condone today (the idea being that if there are acts we wouldnât condone today that were condoned then, conversely there could be acts that we could condone today that werenât condoned then).
I admit though, as commenter pointed out, that the killing of infants is already being justified by many Christians through their acceptance of elective abortion.
R
Rau
Guest
If God commands the death of a child, it would be right to comply, in any age. An act at our initiative to murder a child would be wrong now as it was wrong 2000+ years ago. Apples need to be compared with apples.
God has never commanded homosexual acts. The rationale to pursue them is that they are desired.
K
Koineman
Guest
Sin is not rational. Thus, the ârationale,â if any, necessarily involves the attempt to explain away the clear meaning of the relevant biblical textsâan irrational act in itself.
Itâs what happens when people are determined to disobey what they know they should obey. So, to use a mundane example, a stop sign doesnât really mean âstopâ but rather âslow down,â i.e., itâs just a guideline rather than a rule.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
This is not quite true: âdo not believe the Scriptures have absolute authorityâ does not mean âdo not believe the Scriptures have any authorityâ, and âdo not not believe you are under total and unquestionable obligation to obey its dictatesâ does not mean âdo not believe that you are under any obligation to obey its dictatesâ. There is an enormous amount of space between those extremes.
This is not at all true: the degrees of authority imputed to Scripture vary by passage within one denomination, as well as between denominations, but that does not stop churches from being Christian.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Do you mean that you find it strange that someone feels a need to specify the skin colour of the congregants? If you do, I am totally with you, but we are talking about a country in which someone can use the horrible expression âperson of colorâ with a straight face.I donât know what is stranger⌠same sex unions, or âblack churchesâ
M
Mystophilus
Guest
M
Mystophilus
Guest
From what Iâve seen looking on the web just now, âsola scripturaâ is not an accurate description of PCUSA theology. Assuming that their ecclesiology is typically Presbyterian, i.e. conciliar, this is hardly surprising.
C
commenter
Guest
Every description of âSola Scripturaâ I have seen is qualified by some condition. For instance, some will say they believe in the Bible alone ârightly dividedâ, meaning interpreted along some pre-given template; and their template varies from other Sola Scriptura churchesâ templates. Others will say the Bible alone, but read in light of their denominationâs classic documents. I suspect when Luther said âSola Scripturaâ he took for granted some of the philosophical structure of Augustine, and early Church Fathers; not just the Bible.
Others will say Sola Scriptura, but considered in light of current church councils, which may shed âmore lightâ on the Scriptura; I have seen this phrase in Presbyterian literature, though I gladly seek correction by a genuine Presbyterian.
Since Sola Scriptura can be (and has been) stretched to cover almost any possible meaning, many of which reach mutually exclusive conclusions, itâs hard to say what Sola Scriptura would NOT include.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Well, obviously, it excludes all of those *bad *traditions which other, less enlightened churches have!
We Anglicans have a curious variant of this, in which we commonly acknowledge Reason, Scripture, and Tradition as factors for determining theology, whilst our clergy also traditionally adhere to a set of declarations which claim sola scriptura (#6) and which condemn certain other traditions (see #22, especially). So, we have a tradition of claiming that we have no tradition, and certainly not your tradition, but adherence to this tradition is modified by a tradition of recognising that tradition is only part of the picture.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
And we can see, clearly, that this was the principle that Christ and the apostles operated under.
- Status