same sex marriage question for all faiths.

[PbloPicasso]

The world YOU live in makes me an antinomian…

In the Didache I see early Christian practice in Antioch…however it does not reflect Catholic belief…especially the eucharist…read the meaning of the wine and bread given in the Didache…doesn’t reflect Catholic teaching in any special way…also the ritual of baptism…seems the Catholic church moved away from “living water” to “baptismal font”.

As educated as you present yourself (and you seem to have read quite a bit), you still do not understand the true meaning of all that is said there. Your looking at it through the eyes of someone that has rejected the ancient teachings of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is far more important than you seem to realize. It’s not the only location of the meaning. The early Christians also referred to it as a “love feast”. NO. It’s not an orgy, but a celebration of the Eucharist and all that it stands for, Christ. We also need to ask the question, “Why were Christians accused of being cannibals?” It’s not just St. Ignatius of Antioch, but also many other fathers of the church and scripture. The meaning of John 6 should be enough to beg the question. Then the other passages in scripture speak enough about it to explain.

Look at the practices of the Jews for the Passover. Once you study the Passover in more depth, it becomes more obvious to Christians that the portion of the “unleavened bread” saved in the form of a host size represents the lamb of God. We eat the lamb of God. It was required in order to save the first born. Christians are adopted, but by Christ’s death burial and resurrectiong we share in His ministry as prophet, priest and king. That’s an amazing gift. He even tells us that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we can not have life within us. This has always stuck me interesting because I was not always Catholic. I secretly began to understand this fact the more I studied scripture.

 

[rinnie]

The world YOU live in makes me an antinomian…

In the Didache I see early Christian practice in Antioch…however it does not reflect Catholic belief…especially the eucharist…read the meaning of the wine and bread given in the Didache…doesn’t reflect Catholic teaching in any special way…also the ritual of baptism…seems the Catholic church moved away from “living water” to “baptismal font”.

But here is where the problem comes into play for your to explain away Pub. The CC can prove Apostolic Succession from the day of Peter.

They teach the scripture as the Apostles taught simply because they can prove it was handed down. Now you would have to prove that the scripture was not handed down from St Peter to the next Pope in line.

Now if you can do that you have a ligit case. But history proves you wrong. Now you have another problem. Jesus said the CC is protected by the HS to lead us into all truth. Now if the CC is not teaching scripture true according to the word of God then Jesus is made out to be a liar. That means the Advocate the Holy Spirit never came to the Church at Pentecost.

Now how can I prove that my Church is the true Church at Pentecost. Simple Peter is still buried under it to this day. If the truth is not enough go with DNA. It could be proved.

Now let me be clear on something when I say my Church I mean my Church’s teaching. Peter indeed taught the word of God in the Roman Catholic Church where the Pope is at to this day.

 

[Publisher]

But here is where the problem comes into play for your to explain away Pub. The CC can prove Apostolic Succession from the day of Peter.

They teach the scripture as the Apostles taught simply because they can prove it was handed down. Now you would have to prove that the scripture was not handed down from St Peter to the next Pope in line.

Now if you can do that you have a ligit case. But history proves you wrong. Now you have another problem. Jesus said the CC is protected by the HS to lead us into all truth. Now if the CC is not teaching scripture true according to the word of God then Jesus is made out to be a liar. That means the Advocate the Holy Spirit never came to the Church at Pentecost.

Now how can I prove that my Church is the true Church at Pentecost. Simple Peter is still buried under it to this day. If the truth is not enough go with DNA. It could be proved.

Now let me be clear on something when I say my Church I mean my Church’s teaching. Peter indeed taught the word of God in the Roman Catholic Church where the Pope is at to this day.

The Didache gives us a glimpse into an early Christian community. My response had nothing to do with whether the church at Antioch’s “hand book for new Christians” was linked to the CC…my point is that the Catholic/Orthodox reflect none of the eucharistic teachings that the Didache contain…there is no mention of sacrifice…instead

"We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…"

The methods and mode of baptism which was practiced at the community are not necessarily today in too many church communities…my point was that these first communities weren’t aware of the doctrinal distinctions and pronouncements which later centuries would define in the creeds.

There was no “established church” to define such things yet in existence. I think some if the ECF’s wanted to include the Didache into the canon…and some communities believed it to be scripture and used it in their regions…Not a lot is known of the Didache and it’s history…the Didache communities theology didn’t necessarily reflect what was to later become “Christianity”…there definitely are components with the Orthodox and Catholic communities…but the Didache reflects practice in any number of Protestant communities as well.

 

[CMatt25]

The CC can prove Apostolic Succession from the day of Peter.

Jesus said the CC is protected by the HS to lead us into all truth.

I know it is used a lot but I never have understood why this claim of succession would matter to someone who does not maintain a faith and belief in the Catholic Church and Her interpretations as reflecting the earliest Christian church or who holds to a faith and belief that She has strayed or that the ECFs might have even gotten something wrong, or what have you.

Rinnie, assuming by CC you meant Catholic Church and not Christian Church, Jesus only said such a thing about the Catholic Church if one believes and has faith in the big “C” Catholic Church. Jesus didn’t use the term Catholic with the big “C”.

But indeed Christians and others seek to be led into the truth.

Peace to all who journey in faith.

 

[minkymurph]

As far as homosexuality is concerned, I don’t believe it is natural. I don’t want to be too graphic, but certain parts of the body were not designed for sexual intercourse. That would be my problem with homosexuality. Yes, two men can love each other, and two women can love each other. This love can be a wholesome love. But to take it to carnal love to me, is a step too far. However, carnal love between the two sexes is not God’s design of sexuality. A man and a woman are physically designed to fit together and certain parts of their body were designed to unite and produce a child.

After having said that, my understanding of homosexuality has changed from I know more. I now do think that psychological/biological/biochemical differences between ‘gays’ and ‘straights’ happen. There are also very sad cases of young boys prostituted by their own fathers who will always struggle with sexuality even they get out that. Therefore, I would not say it’s a very complex issue and telling people ‘don’t be gay’ is cold comfort.

 

[amber_lux]

Your true will is the law. Not the will of your ego. Not the will of your desires. Not the will of your wishes. Your true will.

Not the will inflicted by advertising. Not the will inflicted by being drunk, high, or on medications prescribed by drug pushers who don’t have the desire to treat people.

Not the will that is the result of the seduction of TV, radio, or other forms entertainment.

It probably is easiest described as being the surrender of yourself, to yourself.

How is harm measured or known with regards to the Wiccan rede?

Do you recognize the harm you do, before you do it?

Let us start with a simple commandment: “Thy shalt not kill”.

Stage one is recognizing that that means you do not murder people.
Stage two is recognizing that war requires one to murder people.
Stage three is recognizing that capital punishment is murder.
Stage four is recognizing that it prohibits causing the accidental death of a person.
Stage five is recognizing that it applies to animals.
Stage six is recognizing it applies to psychologically, but not physically killing people.
Stage seven is recognizing how your speech psychologically kills both yourself, and others.

This set of stages can be repeated with the Ten Commandments, the Five Precepts of Buddhism, The Yama and Niyama of Hinduism, etc.

Crowley’s essay on the Rede is a valid criticism of it, as a moral premise.

However ultimately homosexual ‘marriage’

Historically, the primary function of marriage has been an economic union. The sex is secondary — usually, but not always mandatory. Offspring are desirable, as they preserve the control of the wealth of the economic union, to those within the economic union prior to the marriage.

is an institution which DOES do harm,

Does homosexual ‘marriage’ harm society?

There is no doubt that widespread institutionalization of homosexual marriage will affect society as a whole. Historically, same sex couples, married in all but name, have not been detrimental to society. That data suggests that homosexual marriage, per se, won’t be harmful to society.

What is known to be harmful to society is parents that are too concerned with themselves,and only themselves, to be bothered with their partner, much less their offspring.

Likewise, divorce is harmful to society. It disrupts the economic union. Furthermore, marriage is not the time, nor the place, for a couple to learn that they don’t like each other.

it harms the body of society as a whole by sowing discord and overthrowing the family.

The discord that is sown is the objections of a group that preaches one thing, and practices another. (If Christians really practised their faith, they would lead by quiet example. None of this bleating about changing the law. Consider Paul’s writing on being in the world, but not of the world. )

If homosexual marriage overthrows the family, consider the consequences of divorce.

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

It would appear then without a marriage, it really is a legal minefield.

The bizarre thing about marriage is that originally it was a social thing, then it became a religious thing, then it became a matter of the state. And now it is purely a legal thing.

That road is also why it started out as a semi-public thing, then became a quasi-private thing, and then became a completely public thing.

I’m not sure whether to blame Martin Luther, or Pope Nicholas 1 for that road.

Amber

 

[SteveGC]

The bizarre thing about marriage is that originally it was a social thing

Marriage was not “originally a social thing”. Originally it was a God thing. It still is. Man has convoluted it into a legal/economic/social thing that slowly is losing much of it’s God thing.

I acknowledge that one must first concede that God exists before agreeing to this premise. But, I only state it here because your comment about it’s origins was stated as a matter of historical fact, which is false - unless of course your concept of “history” does not date back to the origin of the world itself.

 

[minkymurph]

The bizarre thing about marriage is that originally it was a social thing, then it became a religious thing, then it became a matter of the state. And now it is purely a legal thing.

That road is also why it started out as a semi-public thing, then became a quasi-private thing, and then became a completely public thing.

I’m not sure whether to blame Martin Luther, or Pope Nicholas 1 for that road.

Amber

Well, given that Martin Luther and Pope Nicholas 1 have been dead for hundreds of years, we can’t really hold either of them accountable for the state of marriage today. Besides that’s the ‘blame game.’ We are all responsible for the way we live our individual lives and how that contributes to society. I feel in this modern age that on one side of the coin, marriage, and more to the point sticking together and working out you’re difficulties has come to be viewed as ridiculous. There are people today who change ‘partners’ as often as they change their socks, have several children to different ‘partners’, and those who despite setting up home together and having a family see no need to get married, and claim they don’t need legal document to prove they are committed to each other. However, they want the same rights as married couples. On the other side of the coin, people are screaming about the fact the law doesn’t permit them to marry.

Will you all make up your minds about what you want! kpeople:

What a strange world we live in! :whacky:

 

[amber_lux]

Marriage was not “originally a social thing”. Originally it was a God thing. It still is.

If you read Genesis, you’ll discover that God created Eve as a companion for Adam. That implies a social thing.

When you study the Torah, you learn that God as far as God was concerned, a couple was married to each other, the first time they had sex with each other. This is as much a social thing, as it is an economic thing.

Man has convoluted it into a legal/economic/social thing that slowly is losing much of it’s God thing.

Marriage as an economic item is present in the Torah. God’s commandment that a man marry his deceased brother’s spouse reinforces that it is an economic thing.

In the west, the legal thing came about due to the catholic church. Whether you want to blame it on either Martin Luther, or Pope Leo 1,or both is irrelevant.

it’s origins was stated as a matter of historical fact, which is false - unless of course your concept of “history” does not date back to the origin of the world itself.

Look at marriage in any culture that has a history that is more than two millennia old. It always is an economic union. It was always celebrated as a social thing. Not a religious thing. Not a legal thing.

Well, given that Martin Luther and Pope Nicholas 1 have been dead for hundreds of years, we can’t really hold either of them accountable for the state of marriage today.

Pope Nicholas 1 ruled that marriages had to have a religious blessing, to be sacred.
Martin Luther said that marriage was a matter of concern to the state, and not the church.

Without either of those positions, same-sex couples could be married today.

As it is, a marriage license is required only for those times when a marriage is, under existing law, illegal. Which is why, if it weren’t for the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, a same-sex couple could be legally married in all fifty states, today.

Now how many you realize that marriage licenses were first issued in the United States as a result of Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws were enacted precisely because of alleged biblical prohibitions against marriage between people whose skin pigmentation didn’t contain the same amount of melanin.

Amber

 

[SteveGC]

If you read Genesis, you’ll discover that God created Eve as a companion for Adam. That implies a social thing.

When you study the Torah, you learn that God as far as God was concerned, a couple was married to each other, the first time they had sex with each other. This is as much a social thing, as it is an economic thing.

Marriage as an economic item is present in the Torah. God’s commandment that a man marry his deceased brother’s spouse reinforces that it is an economic thing.

In the west, the legal thing came about due to the catholic church. Whether you want to blame it on either Martin Luther, or Pope Leo 1,or both is irrelevant.

Look at marriage in any culture that has a history that is more than two millennia old. It always is an economic union. It was always celebrated as a social thing. Not a religious thing. Not a legal thing.

Pope Nicholas 1 ruled that marriages had to have a religious blessing, to be sacred.
Martin Luther said that marriage was a matter of concern to the state, and not the church.

Without either of those positions, same-sex couples could be married today.

As it is, a marriage license is required only for those times when a marriage is, under existing law, illegal. Which is why, if it weren’t for the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, a same-sex couple could be legally married in all fifty states, today.

Now how many you realize that marriage licenses were first issued in the United States as a result of Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws were enacted precisely because of alleged biblical prohibitions against marriage between people whose skin pigmentation didn’t contain the same amount of melanin.

Amber

Perhaps I should restate my objection. The original and primary purpose of marriage is not social/economic in and of itself. Agreed that it’s expression has been social/economic among God’s people. But it’s purpose was to be unitive and procreative. Two become one flesh, help bring life into the world, and assist one another in holiness.

Looks like we may share the same position, but in a somewhat different form. My intent was to highlight that the origin (invention, if you will) of marriage is not possessed by society, but by God. Perhaps I was objecting to something you never claimed. If so, my apologies.

 

[minkymurph]

Pope Nicholas 1 ruled that marriages had to have a religious blessing, to be sacred.
Martin Luther said that marriage was a matter of concern to the state, and not the church.

Without either of those positions, same-sex couples could be married today.

As it is, a marriage license is required only for those times when a marriage is, under existing law, illegal. Which is why, if it weren’t for the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, a same-sex couple could be legally married in all fifty states, today.

Now how many you realize that marriage licenses were first issued in the United States as a result of Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws were enacted precisely because of alleged biblical prohibitions against marriage between people whose skin pigmentation didn’t contain the same amount of melanin.

Amber

I think you’ll find that way before either Luther or Pope Nicholas I, marriages had both a religious dimension and were a matter for the state; for example Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. There are many other examples of African/South American tribes and Asian peoples were marriage had both a religious and a political (state) matter. So, the concept that marriage had a religious dimension or was a matter for the state is not unique to Pope Nicholas I and Luther and was not a new concept on their part. So, I don’t think you can say if it were not for either of these positions, same sex couples could be married today. In addition, I don’t know how much influence Pope Nicholas I or Luther had over American politics past or present, but I think I can safely say that their respective positions on marriage have no bearing on the fact that countries such as Saudi Arabia not only do not permit same sex marriage, homosexuality is punishable by death.

 

[rinnie]

The bizarre thing about marriage is that originally it was a social thing, then it became a religious thing, then it became a matter of the state. And now it is purely a legal thing.

That road is also why it started out as a semi-public thing, then became a quasi-private thing, and then became a completely public thing.

I’m not sure whether to blame Martin Luther, or Pope Nicholas 1 for that road.

Amber

Why blame ML or PN why not BLAME as you put it God then. Because if you read in the first book God is who BLESSED them and told them to be fertile and multiply,

And God also is who said It is not good for man to be alone I WILL MAKE a SUITABLE partner for him. So he took out one of mans ribs and said bone of my bones flesh of my flesh shall be called WOMEN for out of HER MAN this one has been taken.

This is why a MAN leaves his father and mother and CLINGS to his wife and the 2 become ONE BODY.

Thats seems more then just as social thing would you not agree.

And when 2 become one that seems more of a religious thing to me. According to the book of Gen. One body literally means one flesh which the writer STRESSES the fact that Conjugal union is WILLED BY GOD.

 

[jessiepie]

My question is this. If you support same sex marriage no matter what faith you are, would that not be the same as supporting a sin?

Same sex marriage will never exsist because God defined marriage as being between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Any other union will NEVER be recognized by God as a marriage.

 

[rinnie]

Same sex marriage will never exsist because God defined marriage as being between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Any other union will NEVER be recognized by God as a marriage.

That is the word of God correct. But that is not the quetstion.

What I am asking is what is your ROLE in this world to defend Gods Law or to just look the other way.

 

[Publisher]

That is the word of God correct. But that is not the quetstion.

What I am asking is what is your ROLE in this world to defend Gods Law or to just look the other way.

Not to imply of course that those of us who accept same sex marriage as a viable and honorable expression of human sexuality “look the other way”…we may disagree with you about whether your understanding of the “word of God” is correct or not…but we do not “look the other way”…there is no other direction to “look”.

 

[rinnie]

Not to imply of course that those of us who accept same sex marriage as a viable and honorable expression of human sexuality “look the other way”…we may disagree with you about whether your understanding of the “word of God” is correct or not…but we do not “look the other way”…there is no other direction to “look”.

Pub remember that is not what I am asking. I said you could use ANY SIN. The question was more of what do you feel your role is about sin standing up to it or looking the other way.

Now just for the sake of arguing if you do not feel that same sex marriage and that would mean sexual acts with the same sex is a sin, then why does the word of God say it is a abomination? Are you denying that scripture? Or are you saying that is not saying it is a sin?

If that is not saying it is indeed a sin what do you claim it is saying?

 

[PbloPicasso]

Same sex marriage will never exsist because God defined marriage as being between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Any other union will NEVER be recognized by God as a marriage.

This is true. However, the community will insist on using the same terminology to smother the minds of young people for future acceptance of this vile sinful behavior. The scriptures say that God hates sin. And we, as followers of Him are also to hate sin as God hates sin. So, as a follower of God, Christ Jesus, I hate sin and homosexuality is sinful. I hate pedophilea, fornication, all sins of the flesh. It’s not an option to accept it. Those who accept it accept Satan’s lies. It’s pretty much that simple from what I understand. Not standing for truth is standing for lies. Satan is the father of lies. It sort of falls into place like that from my studies.

My concern is not whether its okay or what other people think but how to teach the truth in the days of the coming persecution of Christians that hold fa st to truth about this subject. Like abortion, we’ll endure even more suffering for Christ. Will you endure? (You, meaning everyone who stands for the truth, that deviant behavior, including homosexual acts, is wrong in the eyes of God and punishable by death (BCV it to death here if I wanted)). Point being is that the scriptures don’t lie or misguide us. Only those refusing to do the Will of the Father in heaven will fail to see the light on this issue. Whether they mean to or not, they will progress the evil one’s agenda according to what I’ve learned, read and understand. I pray for their salvation by way of invincible ignorance, but I know that if they know what they are truly doing they will no doubt be in danger of losing their eternal soul. Please show you rebuttle to these statements by using BCV.

 

[Publisher]

Pub remember that is not what I am asking. I said you could use ANY SIN. The question was more of what do you feel your role is about sin standing up to it or looking the other way.

Now just for the sake of arguing if you do not feel that same sex marriage and that would mean sexual acts with the same sex is a sin, then why does the word of God say it is a abomination? Are you denying that scripture? Or are you saying that is not saying it is a sin?

If that is not saying it is indeed a sin what do you claim it is saying?

“God’s word” as understood by you says that…I disagree with your understanding…I do not deny the scriptures state such…for me, it is an injunction for Israel not to participate in those sexual rituals that their pagan neighbors conducted…later on in Israel’s history…male cult prostitution was condemend as it took hold.

I do not deny it’s scriptural…I deny it addresses human sexuality and loving same sex relationships in any way…it is not speaking of “homosexual people” but “homosexual practices” within the context of religuous worship…Leviticus was written to separate Israel from their pagan neighbors…qquestion…what verse preceeds the infamous Lev. 18:22? What is the preceeding verses deal with?..what does the balance of the chapter deal with?

What was the purpose of Leviticus in Israel’s history and scripture?

 

[rinnie]

“God’s word” as understood by you says that…I disagree with your understanding…I do not deny the scriptures state such…for me, it is an injunction for Israel not to participate in those sexual rituals that their pagan neighbors conducted…later on in Israel’s history…male cult prostitution was condemend as it took hold.

I do not deny it’s scriptural…I deny it addresses human sexuality and loving same sex relationships in any way…it is not speaking of “homosexual people” but “homosexual practices” within the context of religuous worship…Leviticus was written to separate Israel from their pagan neighbors…qquestion…what verse preceeds the infamous Lev. 18:22? What is the preceeding verses deal with?..what does the balance of the chapter deal with?

What was the purpose of Leviticus in Israel’s history and scripture?

Okay now hold on here. You are saying its indeed scriptual but it only means that engaging in the act is the sin. Okay now lets hold on right there.

So do you feel it is your duty towards GOD now to partake in this sin or speak out against it? Lets stick with this not the scripture and the rest of the chapter, We can but lets do that on another thread.

The point is what is your call to speak UP for the word of God or just worry about yourself and let others do whatever they want and not tell them that the word of God forbids this.

Lets stick to the question instead of talking about everythink else but the question. Again we can discuss the chapter no problem but lets move on. This is not about that chapter its about the sticking up for the word of God or not.

And no matter what you believe as long as it is the truth as you believe it to be what is your duty to God?