Stephen168
New member
Did you read post #4?Ah, come on… try to answer the question.
- Status
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
We did.Ah, come on… try to answer the question.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I would need a much better source (and one better written for that matter). Assistnews is an evangelical ministry project and the “findings” that they are reporting were made by professors at an evangelical college. And they went to this site looking for Sodom (which they have been doing for years).
But lets say that everything it that article is true. It does not mean that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is true. It is very possible that whoever wrote that portion of the Old Testament knew of a city that suffered a violent and sudden destruction, like maybe an earthquake and that was the only way he knew how to explain what he witnessed. Let’s face it, science and technology were in their infancy at that time.
5
5Alive
Guest
it is not right…read what happened in soddom and gom…same sex marriage is not natural at all…but not gonna judge thier actions…its not my job…lol…but i do give prayers to the gay population…everybody will get judged by the maker…no one can hide from him…people might except it…but God will not…i wish people would stop lying to themselves…Gods law is greater than the law of the land…i just pray that God have mercy on their souls…u can lie to the world…but not to him…he knows how many hairs u have on ur head and the time ur here on earth…remember God made time…So God is timeless…he is wisdom…ill give a helping hand to a gay person and love him…he or she is Gods after all…i just try to see Christ in everybody…i might be against their feelings…but not against Gods creations…i just try to pray… they see the truth…De Colores
P
PJM
Guest
THIS IS Satan’s wrok… AVOID completely!
Such a position is “Gravely Sinful”; a mortal sin every time. PERIOD!
When others choose to disobey God; we are not to associate with them. Certianly not emulate or support there efforts. These are Mortal sins agains the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
NOBODY; not even the Pope can alter them. Amen!
L
Lochias
Guest
Re-read post #4.Ah, come on… try to answer the question.
L
Lochias
Guest
I honestly don’t think it’s a statement of fact, unless you change “group all Christians” to “group all nominal Christians.”
Otherwise, you might as well say something like this:
“People on both sides of the issue group all Hamburgers together and that isn’t wise, because there’s a lot of diversity in that group. Some Hamburgers are Lasagna, some Hamburgers are Tacos, and some Hamburgers are Hot Dogs. It’s just a statement of fact.”
It may seem like a small nitpick on my part, but it’s important to realize that many groups calling themselves Christian are, in fact, anything but. Am I running them down for it? Nope, beyond the fact that they’re trying to lump their association in with Christians who actually DO try to do what Christ asked us to.
po18guy
Well-known member
As to the atheist/agnostic/skeptic/pagan/ignositc/secular non-beliefs, I keep getting this mental image of a person plugging their ears and chanting, “Nah nah nah nah nah…”
F
Faithdancer
Guest
The opinion of atheists, Rastafarians, or other Christian denominations is really irrelevant to me, except where that opinion accords with Catholic teaching that same sex “marriage” is wrong, and always will be. Close-minded on the subject? Yup. My mind is closed to debating Catholic teaching.
po18guy
Well-known member
Well, of course you would!
S
surritter
Guest
I’m surprised that no one has brought this up: The definition of marriage need not have anything to do with religion or morality. While it’s perfectly appropriate to discuss it within that realm, we can simply look at biology and the role of a civil government.
First of all, a government should have no interest in “certifying” any love relationship unless there is a need ot protect some element of that relationship that pertains to society as a whole. We obviously don’t certify a relationship between siblings, or friends, or man and dog (OK, dog licenses, I guess). So what type of love would have an impact on a governement or civil society, thus necessitating a certification? Easy – a type of love relationship where new citizens may come into being! That is certainly something which a government cares about and wishes to protect, both for the good of the child and the propogation of the society.
Now, if two men wish to declare their love for one another, there is no need to certify that relationship, because it is biologically impossible for that type of relationship to ever result in children.
We can discuss the immorality of homosexual actions separately, but I’m just trying to find some ground that appeals to people of any faith. So the definition of marriage need not be about what is moral in the strict sense – although that’s a valid approach, it too often leads to the many divisions that we see even within Christianity about this topic. Rather, by analyzing the purpose of marriage from a civil law point of view we can see that homosexual marriage is not even possible. In fact, if the idea of procreation is completely removed from the definition of marriage, then there is no logical reason to limit such a “marriage” to two individuals.
First of all, a government should have no interest in “certifying” any love relationship unless there is a need ot protect some element of that relationship that pertains to society as a whole. We obviously don’t certify a relationship between siblings, or friends, or man and dog (OK, dog licenses, I guess). So what type of love would have an impact on a governement or civil society, thus necessitating a certification? Easy – a type of love relationship where new citizens may come into being! That is certainly something which a government cares about and wishes to protect, both for the good of the child and the propogation of the society.
Now, if two men wish to declare their love for one another, there is no need to certify that relationship, because it is biologically impossible for that type of relationship to ever result in children.
We can discuss the immorality of homosexual actions separately, but I’m just trying to find some ground that appeals to people of any faith. So the definition of marriage need not be about what is moral in the strict sense – although that’s a valid approach, it too often leads to the many divisions that we see even within Christianity about this topic. Rather, by analyzing the purpose of marriage from a civil law point of view we can see that homosexual marriage is not even possible. In fact, if the idea of procreation is completely removed from the definition of marriage, then there is no logical reason to limit such a “marriage” to two individuals.
B
bitznbitez
Guest
To my fuzzy little mind the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the very definition of Christianity. Those “seperated brethren” of which I spent most of my life, are only Christian to the degree to which they agree with the Mother Church. Thus there is no disagreement within Christianity. There is simply much that simply still has some degree of overlap with the Christian faith, and the extent to which what uses the name Christian has lost all commonality with the Christian faith is growing daily.
S
SteveVH
Guest
You are correct, sir.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I guess that what you’re not understanding is that many Christians are trying to do what god asks of them. Its not like all of the Protestants in the world know that Catholicism is the truth and just choose not to follow it. They are doing the absolute best they can to live out their faith and follow god as they were taught to, and as they believe they should. The idea that so many of these extremely devout and religious people are not even trying to do what their god commands of them is nuts.I honestly don’t think it’s a statement of fact, unless you change “group all Christians” to “group all nominal Christians.”
Otherwise, you might as well say something like this:
“People on both sides of the issue group all Hamburgers together and that isn’t wise, because there’s a lot of diversity in that group. Some Hamburgers are Lasagna, some Hamburgers are Tacos, and some Hamburgers are Hot Dogs. It’s just a statement of fact.”
It may seem like a small nitpick on my part, but it’s important to realize that many groups calling themselves Christian are, in fact, anything but. Am I running them down for it? Nope, beyond the fact that they’re trying to lump their association in with Christians who actually DO try to do what Christ asked us to.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Yeah, go figure. I take that with the same grain of salt that you would take me posting a study disproving the existence of god from the Richard Dawkins foundation that was funded by the Center for Inquiry and conducted by a group of atheists who set out to prove that god doesn’t exist.
C
Christian_Unity
Guest
I did read post 4, which is not correct according to Scripture. Put it this way, Augustine would disagree with Catholics that believe marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I wrote post 4. First, show me that it is not 'correct according to Scripture." I posted from the Douay Rheims. What is your ‘source’?
Second, SAINT Augustine was a Catholic. Please show me:
A. Where he stated that marriage could not exclusively be between a man and a woman.
B, Where the Catholic Church itself supported St. Augustine’s PUTATIVE statement that marriage was not between ‘man and woman’ and expressed it as definitive, authoritative, Church teaching.
You know of course that some of the Early Church Fathers like Tertullian could sometimes write correct teachings, but sometimes when they wrote of their PERSONAL OPINIONS could be led astray. Just saying that “So and so said X” doesn’t mean that so-and-so was stating it as authentic Christian teaching or that it was accepted as such. ’
I’ve read through On the Good of Marriage for example and I don’t see anything that indicates that SAINT Augustine thought of marriage as anything but between man and woman, and that from the FIRST (man and woman, Adam and Eve).
So I wonder where you got your ideas from.
C
Christian_Unity
Guest
Saint Augustine did not believe the Bible reveals that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. We can agree that Augustine was a better biblical theologian than all of us combined.
- Status