Video: A pastor asks a politician why he supports gay marriage, it seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply

[Zachary]

Unfortunately, this has dominated my Facebook this week. Anyone else see it? Any advice on a “sensitive” reply? I have to admit that I’ve not watched it because I assume it’s some rehash of the same old faux-bible remix (“Jesus says to love and don’t judge”) and the pastor is schooled because he doesn’t know scripture other than the regurgitated out-of-context watered-down theology he blindly accepted. (Grrr…these Facebook/internet folk heroics that are hailed as genius drive me crazy, especially when my wife is suckered in!!)

upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-politician-why-he-supports-gay-marriage-it-seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply

 

[GaryTaylor]

Old story, nothing brilliant occurred. “Vanity of vanities said the preacher, all in life is vanity. Nothing new under the sun, a chase of the wind.” Ecclesiastes

Point as far as I can determine is the Lords laws are not up for debate, doesn’t matter if keeping them results in happiness or sorrow.

 

[ronaldmiller]

Unfortunately, this has dominated my Facebook this week. Anyone else see it? Any advice on a “sensitive” reply? I have to admit that I’ve not watched it because I assume it’s some rehash of the same old faux-bible remix (“Jesus says to love and don’t judge”) and the pastor is schooled because he doesn’t know scripture other than the regurgitated out-of-context watered-down theology he blindly accepted. (Grrr…these Facebook/internet folk heroics that are hailed as genius drive me crazy, especially when my wife is suckered in!!)

upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-politician-why-he-supports-gay-marriage-it-seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply

I saw the video on Facebook this morning and Rudd who probably subscribes to the same type of Christianity as Pelosi said that the Bible and Jesus supported slavery.

 

[tile_nipper]

I just watched it.

The pastor is a Christian, but not a Catholic, so he only quotes St. Paul, “and that is why a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh,” as the foundation of the proper nature of marriage between a man and a woman. That is part of the picture, but not all.

He does not say anything about humans being made from the beginning 1) in the image of God and 2) as male and female and that these two foundational realities point to the Unitive AND Creative nature of marriage - that it exists for the primary purpose of creating children and raising a family. The pleasure aspect of that union is a secondary good that flows from the true meaning and purpose of marriage. Our physical bodies speak a truth about our spiritual reality. This is what Blessed John Paul II was speaking about when he taught the “Theology of the Body.”

All children deserve to be raised by their biological mother and father in a stable loving family. It is best for the children, it strengthens and matures the love of the parents, and it strengthens and benefits society. No, this ideal does not always happen in our fallen world, but it is the ideal designed by God in our very being. True marriage leads to our greatest good as individuals and as communities, and that is what we should strive for and that is why it has been protected by all human cultures and enshrined in civil law.

 

[Suudy]

Point as far as I can determine is the Lords laws are not up for debate, doesn’t matter if keeping them results in happiness or sorrow.

Reminds me of a book about marriage (no kidding!) called Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy. Seems the same about God’s laws. They are there to make us holy.

(I know there is the distinction that we are to be holy and happy. But the point is that everyone seems to focus on the happy part, forgetting or neglecting the holy part.)

 

[Trigonometric]

so he only quotes St. Paul, "and that is why a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh

Actually, those were Jesus’ words.

 

[holyrood]

As is typical, the article/headline/video have created the world they want. “It seems he wasn’t prepared for his reply” based on…what? That headline implies that somehow the poor stupid pastor was stumped. This was a Q&A, not a debate, not an equal give and take.

The video further attempted to ‘create’ this impression by deciding what the pastor was thinking, and posting captions such as, “If the pastor stares hard enough, he thinks God will smite the politician.” REALLY??? That’s what the pastor is thinking? Based on what?

Maybe the pastor was listening to the politicians’ basis for his claims–that people are born that way, they either are or they aren’t–and thinking, “This poor guy is basing his entire philosophy on a false premise, and that’s sad.” But as it wasn’t a two-way conversation sort of venue, he couldn’t say it.

The politician’s argument was basically that people are either gay or straight, born that way, no changing the SSA, sort of an unstated assumption that if you’re attracted to the same sex, you apparently lose control over your actions? and therefore marriage should be redefined.

 

[InNomineDomini]

“The Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition.”

Hm. It does?! Where does it say that?

Let’s just set aside the question of why the Scriptures regulate slavery in an ancient culture, and whether or not this man grossly misrepresented the Scriptural teaching in order to make his “natural condition” claim. Let’s set aside the fact that, of all the people who applauded this claim, most probably have close to zero Biblical literacy.

His basic tactic is to try to show a way in which he thinks the Scriptures err in a moral teaching, and to then apply this to all Scriptural references condemning homosexuality.

Where he gets the “correct” moral teaching from, with which he judges Scripture, I cannot say. “Cultural norms” springs to mind as an explanation. In which case, following this presupposition, we very well could have supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War. Slavery is not objectively evil, is it? How do you know? Who told you that? Your own invention? Hm

I like how, in the link, this man is described as a “devout Christian”. Is that what Christians do, then? Assume the Bible errs, thereby doubting its inspiration?

 

[TK421]

And this is why protestantism is a bad thing. If Catholicism contained the whole of Christianity, there would be a correct answer to this question, and if the priest didn’t know the answer, he could get back to him. Instead we’re living in a world that is a diaspora of confusion. One pastor says this, another says that, and they have no authority beyond themselves. The world laughs and jeers.

 

[holyrood]

And this is why protestantism is a bad thing…they have no authority beyond themselves.

Exactly. Didn’t Martin Luther himself eventually lament that ‘every cowherd thinks he knows the Bible,’ or something to that effect.

Over and over, people decide that they, personally, have a more direct line to God than anyone else ever did, in the history of mankind, and start a new denomination, new church, new sect. It’s what eventually led to all we’re seeing today, this idea that ‘what I believe and feel’ is really all the authority anyone needs. Clearly, that’s not working.

 

[St_Stoli]

Unfortunately, this has dominated my Facebook this week. Anyone else see it? Any advice on a “sensitive” reply? I have to admit that I’ve not watched it because I assume it’s some rehash of the same old faux-bible remix (“Jesus says to love and don’t judge”) and the pastor is schooled because he doesn’t know scripture other than the regurgitated out-of-context watered-down theology he blindly accepted. (Grrr…these Facebook/internet folk heroics that are hailed as genius drive me crazy, especially when my wife is suckered in!!)

upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-politician-why-he-supports-gay-marriage-it-seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply

Someone previously posted about this, and discussion began here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=820811

 

[Zachary]

Thank you all.

Such a blessing to have such a great resource that I can use to be talked of the ledge.

It breaks my heart that my wife finds this propaganda acceptable and doesn’t realize the lies that are told. Of all our families and friends, I’m the only point of light in all the noise and lies. I hope I don’t lose her to this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Unfortunately, this has dominated my Facebook this week. Anyone else see it? Any advice on a “sensitive” reply? I have to admit that I’ve not watched it because I assume it’s some rehash of the same old faux-bible remix (“Jesus says to love and don’t judge”) and the pastor is schooled because he doesn’t know scripture other than the regurgitated out-of-context watered-down theology he blindly accepted. (Grrr…these Facebook/internet folk heroics that are hailed as genius drive me crazy, especially when my wife is suckered in!!)

upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-politician-why-he-supports-gay-marriage-it-seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply

You’re right, same old " faux-bible " mix. The politician made one blunder the pastor didn’t pick up on. Contrary to what the politicain said, the Bible does not condone slavery. The explanation is that Paul and the Chruch were faced with a culture that accepted it. So he advised slaves to be obedient to their masters and to God and he advised masters to treat their slaves as brothers.

The pastor should have told the politicain that if God had intended to approve of gay " marriages " he would have made men and women with dual sexual " tools " . But he didn’t, so the logical assumption is that he intended that only men and women were to marry. Besides the Bible condemns unnatural sex in many places. I guess the politician hasn’t read those parts.

Linus2nd .

 

[Neildown]

Anyone have a written transcript of this? Youtube kills my internet, ha ha.

 

[tile_nipper]

Actually, those were Jesus’ words.

That’s true.

For some reason I thought the pastor in the video was quoting St. Paul in his lettter to the Ephesians (5:31), who was quoting Jesus, who was quoting Genesis.

I really don’t want to watch it again to make sure!

 

[Robert_Sock]

I would have responded that homosexuality is disordered. But I fully agree that they ought to be treated with dignity and respect, and given certain rights, such as cohabitation. I do not, however, believe that marriage should be included as one of these rights.

 

[Bluefish]

Had the politician wanted to make a point about slavery from the New Testament, he could have looked no futher than Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s servant (slave…). Jesus did not support slavery by healing that servant.

Slavery as such is not evil. What is evil is the lack of humane treatment; the denial of property rights etc. Those are the things that made slavery evil. To the extent that a slave was treated fairly and with human compassion in every way there was no difference between that and what I had as an employee of a fair employer. Slaves should obey their masters in the same way as I as an employee was required to obey my employer’s just demands.

When it comes to homosexual sex though–and that’s what gay rights boils down to–correct?–there is in fact no equality as there is between a slave and his/her master. Both a slave and a master are created equal as human beings. Gay sex and heterosexual sex are ontologically different things. One is complementary in many ways; the other is not. How can there be equal rights between two biologically different actions?

Love by itself is not an equalizer. If it was, I could marry my mother or my dog. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Slavery as such is not evil.

If you ever go into politics might I suggest avoiding making this statement. Not sure that it would/could be received as you intend it to be.

…there was no difference between that and what I had as an employee of a fair employer. Slaves should obey their masters in the same way as I as an employee was required to obey my employer’s just demands.

Hmmm…that’s interesting. That is a different type of employment than I’m used to. My current and past employers make request or express requirements for a need. I can accept the request or communicate what changes need to be done before I accept the request. And either one of us can at will decide to terminate our relationship without prior notice. I suppose employment agreements differ among different employers and states.

Gay sex and heterosexual sex are ontologically different things. One is complementary in many ways; the other is not. How can there be equal rights between two biologically different actions?

While there had been states that made laws against homosexual acts these acts were found to be protected by the fourth amendment rights and considered an unenumerated right. But don’t conflate sexual acts (whether among homosexuals, bisexuals, or some other sexuality) with the civil contract of marriage.

Love by itself is not an equalizer. If it was, I could marry my mother or my dog. Absolutely ridiculous.

It’s nice to have Love as a part of a relationship between two people. But love isn’t a requirement for the civil contract of marriage.

In the case of a dog that couldn’t happen in western law because dogs are not considered competent (which entails a collection of capabilities required to engage in contracts. Some humans are not considered competent either). There’s no known way to communicate the terms of a marriage contract to a dog and no known way of determining whether or not those terms (if they could be communicated) are accepted or rejected by the dog. They are also haven’t been granted citizenship or person-hood.There are other obstacles; I once asked a legal professional about this and she informed me of the obstacles to such a thing.

Now if you go to regions that are not part of western culture you may find the rules are different. I found a case of a girl in India that married a dog to appease some spirit and a man in some other country (I can’t remember which) that was sentenced to marrying a goat that he was caught having sex with.

 

[Bluefish]

Granted–not a good political statement, but that’s because the word slavery is equated with unjust treatment–automatically. I’m using the word in the sense of servanthood–and translators of the NT use the words slave and servant interchangeably in the gospel I referred to about the centurion’s servant.

What do any state’s laws have to do with sexual acts and their nature? The south had laws about slavery–didn’t mean the laws were just or in conformance with the natural law.

Also granted, marriage is a contract. Question then is what is the consideration in a marriage contract? The consideration in marriage always has been grounded in fidelity in the goods exchanged in marriage–the unique goods implicit in biologically complementary sexual relations, which by the way, are unique in the potential product of those acts–i.e., natural families. Nothing else is equal to that, whatever a law or “right” may be concocted in the process to make those relationships equal. You say I shouldn’t conflate sexual acts with the civil contract of marriage. I say to you please don’t redefine the consideration that is essential to the marriage contract with goods (if one can say they are good) that are ontologically different. Call a gay relationship what you will, but it’s not anything like the relationship between a man and a woman.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What do any state’s laws have to do with sexual acts and their nature?

You had asked “How can there be equal rights between two biologically different actions?” The point of my response on this is that these acts have been removed from the scope of the laws of prohibition so long as one is talking about consenting adults. Ones legal right to engage in homosexual or heterosexual acts among other consenting adults is legally equally protected (at least within the USA).

Question then is what is the consideration in a marriage contract?

Not quite sure what this question is asking. If you are asking about one’s motivation for getting married I’ve discussed that with others here before (like here in the 5th section).

The consideration in marriage always has been grounded in fidelity in the goods exchanged in marriage

Coincidentally the first time I read this I thought “goods” was referring to property, money, or services. After reading a later comment I realized that is not what was being referenced. Coincidentally goods as in the exchange of property had at times been the part of a marriage agreement. I had a roommate whose father negotiated an arranged marriage for her while I was in college in exchange for some payment. But that’s another story…

You say I shouldn’t conflate sexual acts with the civil contract of marriage.

More specifically that performing a sexual act is neither necessary nor sufficient for the establishment of the civil contract of marriage.

I say to you please don’t redefine the consideration that is essential to the marriage contract with goods (if one can say they are good) that are ontologically different. Call a gay relationship what you will, but it’s not anything like the relationship between a man and a woman.

I’m not 100% sure what is being requested of me here beyond being asked that I not use the term “marriage” to refer to certain types of civil contracts between same sex individuals which grant them the rights of married couples. If I’ve interpreted it correctly then I think that’s an odd request, as I’m not aware of what impact with any that my term usage would have on others. If you are talking about me redefining the legal term then no worries there, I’m not defining terms that are being used in state or federal law.