Don't be silly...
God created MALE and FEMALE, that's all that matters in this context.
The Pope on 'Gay Marriage.'
- Thread starter Newluke
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Don't be silly...
God created MALE and FEMALE, that's all that matters in this context.
Maybe you are right, according to Paul we should always 'be subject unto the higher powers.' (Romans 13:1-2). The founding fathers didn't follow that rule though. If they had taken Paul seriously we would all still be british subjects. I think I'm going to study the relation between God's will and secular authority some more first. I mean, how could God command us to this, and let (His) government ordain that?
Don't even begin about homosexuality in nature. It's an aberration, just as it is with humans. God has created MALE and FEMALE, and He did so for a reason.
C
Custos_Clavium
Guest
... UNBELIEVABLE!!!
but true...: I'm in agreement with what the POPE said on 'gay marriage' (quoting a RABBI) in his XMAS address!!!
The Pope has pressed his opposition to gay marriage today saying the future of mankind is at stake.
Pope Benedict XVI denounced what he described as people manipulating their God-given identities to suit their sexual choices - and destroying the very 'essence of the human creature' in the process.
He made the comments in his annual Christmas address to the Vatican bureaucracy, one of his most important speeches of the year.
He dedicated it this year to promoting traditional family values in the face of vocal campaigns in France, the U.S., Britain and elsewhere to legalise same-sex marriage.
In his remarks, Pope Benedict quoted the chief rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, in saying the campaign for granting gays the right to marry and adopt children was an 'attack' on the traditional family made up of a father, mother and children.
'People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being,' he said. 'They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.'
'The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man's fundamental choice where he himself is concerned,' he said.
It was the second time in a week that Pope Benedict has taken on the question of gay marriage, which is dividing France, and which scored big electoral wins in the U.S. last month. In his recently released annual peace message, Pope Benedict said gay marriage, like abortion and euthanasia, was a threat to world peace.
source:
Pope Benedict XVI denounces gay marriage in Christmas message | Mail Online
Ignoring all the deviations from the topic and red herrings about the sex abuse scandal and how much everyone likes to poop on Catholicism, I'm going to comment on this original post
Great! You have here, the visible pastor of the largest single group of Christians living on earth denouncing the popular movement within the West that is trying to re-shape how our society, which itself gains most of its cultural and legal heritage by the Roman and Holy Roman empires (ie, Christianity), views marriage.
It is a movement that does not care how it offends your religious sensibilities. It is a movement that is not satisfied with the seperation of church and state allowing anyone of any religion to be ''married'' however their group chooses...it is a movement that demands not only tolerance, but acceptance and conformity to it's will.
The serious issue is that, loooong (or maybe even soon) down the road, it won't be enough for people in our free society to say ''Well, I believe same sex mariage is wrong, and my church condemns it and will not do it, but if you guys belong to some group that will declare you united in some way, well, I guess that's your business.'' No, it is coming to the point to where one day, it will be the norm that when a gay couple ask for marriage within a church, synagogue, or mosque and are denied that marriage for relgious reasons, they'll cry discrimination, win a lawsuit, and such places will be forced to perform or allow said ceremony and/or face a hefty fine.
You stop this future from coming to be by popular opinion, because the movement itself is fueled by popular opinion. Democracy is not fueled by reason or timeless truths, but how everyone ''feels''. So, it is the pope's very job, as pastor of 1 billion souls in the Catholic Church and recognizable expert authority and council by thousands of other Christians as, at a minimum, a peer and ally, to vocally speak out to Christians living in these ''progressive'' nations to remind them that this movement is contrary to the Christian faith and human nature.
Why?
Because, in ''progressive'' nations, you have individuals who have been so conditioned by their society to see themselves, not as American Christians, but as Christian Americans...or as Christian Brittians, or Christian Canadians, and so on. Their Christianity is second place to their nationality. The needs and opinions of their society are the priority. These are the kind that say things like ''Well, my church teaches _______ , but I believe ________.'' They don't understand their folly, because their society has taught them that this is what it means to be free: not to ask questions about their religion, but to blatantly ignore tenants of it when they make them feel unhappy.
So, thank God. The more Christian leaders we have speaking out against popular movements like this, the better. When someone is right, they are right, and who cares what group they belong to. Truth is Truth, no matter who's mouth is comes out of.
B
BarlyGurl
Guest
Newluke... You are making a mistake in understanding "higher-powers" which is NOT to be interpreted as the "ruling government" as you have used it here. Studying this topic is a very good idea... let us know how you are doing.
I found this link on civil disobedience. One of the conclusions is that civil disobedience is permitted when the government’s laws or commands are in direct violation of God’s laws and commands.
Source:
When is civil disobedience allowed for a Christian?
I also read somewhere that God appoints a nation’s leaders, but not always to bless the people. Sometimes it is to judge the people or to ripen the nation for judgment.
That would make perfect sense when you look at the current government.
Source:
Romans 13 - A Christian’s Obligation to Government
I also read a long tedious article that I won't post here, but one of the interesting things I read was that Romans 13:1-7 may be a later addition. Paul talks about a man's moral obligations, but then start to talk about goverment all of a sudden. Just skip that passage while you are reading, and Paul's letter will still make perfect sense. From vers 8 on the topic again is a the moral obligations of a man.
Maybe they put vers 1 to 7 in later to please the roman government, I don't know. I tend to take the Bible quite literally, and am kind of hesitant to study it from the historical-critical persepective. We can't just call everything a later addition if it doesn't suit our purpose.
Q
quakerzen
Guest
That's all that matters for YOUR argument, but when I bring up incest, suddenly it's not important?
Hmm... Sounds like you like to pick and choose what's in your Bible.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
Well, this depends on how you define "marriage." A "wedding" can be legally performed in a church without the license. The state will not recognize that marriage, but the church can perform any ceremony it wants.
Actually, I know several couples who have been married in a church but are not legally married. In one case, the couple specifically asked not to be legally married, because the Bride was receiving pension benefits that she would lose if she married. In another case, the couple could not afford the $150 state license fee, and they decided to do the church ceremony first, and worry about the license later.
But your point stands: without the state-issued married license, a church wedding has no legal standing.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
Bullony.
Churches are NOT required to follow anti-discrimination laws. If a church does not want to allow gays to marry, it does not have to, and will not ever be forced to, unless the first amendment of this nation's constitution is overturned. And as long as I -- and millions of other Americans who share my view -- are alive, that will NOT happen.
LONG before this would be in danger of happening, the Catholic Church (and a handful of other denominations) would be sued for discrimination against women, not allowing them to be ordained.
A church has always been allowed to deny the rite of marriage to any couple according to whatever rules it wanted to make. In some churches, they will not marry a couple if one or both partners were ever divorced. In some, they will not marry a couple if they are not both members in good standing of that particular church.
What would happen today, if an inter-racial couple wanted to be married, and some church said they wouldn't do it? The couple could try to sue, but the court would find in the church's favor, for the reasons stated. The church might become very unpopular, and lose a lot of its members, but that is their choice.
And that is exactly what is going to happen 100 years from now, with gay marriage. Some churches will start to offer it, and some will remain adamant against it, and that it their right.
You can make your decision now which side you'll be on. Or you can wait. Either way.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
C
Custos_Clavium
Guest
Umm...I'm really confused. You appear to have said exactly what I said, and have somehow manage to call my statement baloney (or bullony, as you put it).
That's my point: right now, religious institutions have the freedom to do as they wish...but in the future, you can watch that go right down the tubes. Once popular opinion shifts to the point that people no longer feel that religious institutions ought to be protected/exempt from discrimination lawsuits, all it takes is a majority vote, and it will be so. The constitution can be ''reinterpreted'' or simply done away with if/when our society decides it is no longer relevant.
If you pay attention to the Law in the U.S. you will see that the meaning of religion has began to slowly take a different meaning in the courts. And that the lawsuits you said have been happening and are happening as we speak.
You do know the Health Care which is coming to law makes it even easier for woman to have abortions right. Many religious lawsuits have emerged opposing this mandate. Some stores like Hobby Lobby have also placed lawsuits against this. It is kind of a big deal for Christians who understand abortion is murder. But go to the White House website and it is very difficult to find what the government thinks of this, you need to get it from other sources. Religious Freedom which is being attacked is not even on the issues link of the white house.
C
Custos_Clavium
Guest
Rock022 is right.
I went to a Catholic College. As per the HSS mandate, the college would be required, by law, to provide for abortions and contraceptive. Some thought ''Well, we're a religious institution, and this is against our religion, so we're alright.''
False.
The Government's definition of a religious institution exempt from the HSS mandate insists that, in order to be recognized as a religious institution, such a place must employ and service those who, by majority, are of the religion claiming the institution.
Since my college had numerous professors who were of Protestant background, and since half of the students were not Catholic, it was not considered a Catholic institution. So, it was not exempt. This also applies to Catholic hospitals. It could also apply to Jewish schools and hospitals, or Evangelical schools.
It isn't a far leap of thought to see how the government could further dictate, not only who is or is not a religious entity, but how such an entity should operate.
I went to a Catholic College. As per the HSS mandate, the college would be required, by law, to provide for abortions and contraceptive. Some thought ''Well, we're a religious institution, and this is against our religion, so we're alright.''
False.
The Government's definition of a religious institution exempt from the HSS mandate insists that, in order to be recognized as a religious institution, such a place must employ and service those who, by majority, are of the religion claiming the institution.
Since my college had numerous professors who were of Protestant background, and since half of the students were not Catholic, it was not considered a Catholic institution. So, it was not exempt. This also applies to Catholic hospitals. It could also apply to Jewish schools and hospitals, or Evangelical schools.
It isn't a far leap of thought to see how the government could further dictate, not only who is or is not a religious entity, but how such an entity should operate.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
Yes, you are confused.
This far we do agree.
This is where we disagree. Granted, no one can predict the future. But based on past experience, there is no reason to believe that the first amendment will be overturned.
.
I don't know what makes you think this will ever happen.
The "popular opinion" today is certainly that women should have equal rights, in the workplace, to men. This is an established and overwhelmingly popular idea. And yet no one (to my knowledge) has made any serious attempt to challenge the Catholic church or any of the other denominations on these grounds.
"Popular opinion" is extremely in favor of, for example, divorce. More than half of those who marry these days get divorced. And yet no couple who has been turned down by a church and told they can't get married because they were divorced has ever pushed it. They either try to get an annulment (which may or may not work) or go to a different church.
Despite "popular opinion" changing radically over the years, swinging this way and that on all sorts of issues, Americans have been pretty consistent about being in favor of separation of Church and State. In fact, if anything, Americans have become more adamant in favor of separation.
So my question to you is, on what, exactly, are you basing your hypothesis, that "popular opinion" will ever shift to the point where Americans will no longer feel the First Amendment is worth maintaining?
If Americans were going to overturn the separation of Church and State, they would have done it a long time ago.
Last edited:
C
Custos_Clavium
Guest
My contention is that the engine of democracy is powered by popular opinion.
If religious freedom will never be removed, why can't we pray in schools. That was a very important part of school in the past. But if you believe in this separation of church and state, which side are you on? the state or the church?
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
Students CAN and DO pray in schools. Any child may pray silently at any time, and in any way that is not disruptive to other students. The ACLU -- that heathen organization -- has fought for and won cases where schools have wrongly curtailed students' religious freedoms, including the right to pray and the right to read the Bible. >>>READ MORE HERE<<<
That question only shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. Under separation, there are no "sides." Neither side gets to take control of the other, and that's the whole point of separation.
Without separation, then you're going to start having competing sides. Church might start telling the government what to do, or the government might start telling the church what to do. As Americans, we don't want either one of those, so we draw that wall of separation.
So, I take it you think the church should tell the government what to do? My question is this: which church? The Roman Catholic Church? The Baptist Church? Who gets to decide which church is in charge? How is that decision made? Is it based on whatever the majority religion is at the time? So if a majority of this country becomes Muslim, you're okay with us switching to Sharia law?
If not, why should anyone from any other religion other than yours have to conform to your religion?
And it IS the most important argument. I don't understand why you're so OBSESSED with incest in the first place. Incest is condemned in the Bible, that's all I know.
Leviticus 18:6
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
What about Cain then? Cain had a wife, but the Bible doesn't say tell us anything about her. Just because there were no other parents available than Adam and Eve, doesn't make her Cain's sister. There's just no information given about where she came from. Maybe God just provided Cain with a wife, like He did with Adam. I mean, Eve didn't have parents too, right?
Genesis 4:17
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
And you may accuse me of picking and chosing from the Bible, but at least I get my facts rights. You said Abel had a wife too, but clearly that isn't mentioned in the Bible.
Q
quakerzen
Guest
Q
quakerzen
Guest
And come on. Cain's wife HAD to be his sister if there were no other people around, only Adam and Eve's kids.
And if we can't use Genesis to defend incest, because Cain obviously married and mated with his sister, you can't use it to defend the fact that God intended it to be one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) since clearly Genesis is not the basis of sexual morality.
I think I explained it well enough. Adam and Eve had no daughters, so God must have provided Cain with a wife. There's nothing OBVIOUS about what you're saying, you're just reading things into the text that aren't there. Your 'logic' about 'defending incest' eludes me btw.
It doesn't matter... the topic of this thread is the pope's stance on homosexuality. So back to the topic, please.
Last edited: