What "supporting traditional families" really means.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, let’s go. I call your attention to the words “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times” I take it that you are referring to our time been this later times that the Holy Spirit inspired God’s servant Paul to write about to the churches that he founded and in particular to his spiritual son.

I'm doing no such thing. You brought up the verse that refers to "latter times" and tried to apply it to today. I introduced the remainder of the passage in order to see whether your position was consistent.

Do you think that this is addressed to today’s churches?

1Ti 4:2
speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,​

Are you charging the church with speaking lies and hypocrisy?

I have no idea who the original author addressed the verse to, but I do think some churches do speak lies and hypocrisy.

Do I need to point out to you once again that the Lord said that marriage is between a man and a woman that are the offspring’s of a couple, a man (father) and mother (a female)?

So says you. You've done a poor job of showing this, though.

That disqualifies same sex marriages; so forbidding this type of unions in the church is none of above and it show the faithfulness of the RCC to sound doctrine.

Personally, I think that many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church are unsound. At the more trivial end, there's definite inconsistency in holding up the Bible (including Matthew 23:9) as a source of doctrine and authority, and then giving their priests the honorific title "Father". More fundamentally, there's the problem of trying to reconcile certain Church positions, such as their stance against homosexuality, that IMO are hate-filled in their motive and their execution, with the preaching of love, justice, peace and mercy.

1Ti 4:3
forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.​

What marriages does today’s church forbids?

If you're talking about the Catholic Church and what marriages it forbids within itself, there are plenty, though same-sex marriages seem to be the only ones they strive to make illegal under secular law.

What foods do the church forbids?

If you're talking about the Catholic Church, it instructs its followers to practice abstention on Fridays and during Lent. Traditionally, this has meant giving up meat. While they've allowed more freedom about what to abstain from since Vatican II, then command to abstain is still there.

It is clear to me those not sanctified by the word of God and prayer, right?

Nope. Many same-sex marriages are performed in a religious context, sanctified by the word of God and prayer (as much as those things sanctify anything, anyhow). And many opposite-sex marriage are done in a completely non-religious way with no prayer at all.

1Ti 4:16
Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.​

What do you think of people suggesting that the Church should change it sound doctrines to accommodate gays marriages and non-traditional families?

I think their suggestions would bring the Church more in line with the fundamental values of Christianity as I see them. However, the real issue isn't whether the Catholic Church should accommodate same-sex marriage within itself, it's whether the Church should work against legal same-sex marriage in a secular context.

 

[emiliano]

9-10ths_Penguin
I seem that once agin I managed to confuse you, the bit about “Originally Posted by emiliano http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ies-really-means-post1516865.html#post1516865
It is clear to me those not sanctified by the word of God and prayer, right?
Is referring to food not marriage, I thought that you could make the separation.
As for the marriages been forbidden to priest, that is another doctrine that we can study. The scripture is:

Mat 19:12
For there are eunuchs who were born thus from [their] mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept [it], let him accept [it]."
​

This is what a priest does “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake” and is a choice that they should think long and hard and most of them do. Even these individuals thought that it was a hard ask:

Mat 19:10
His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with [his] wife, it is better not to marry."
​

The call to the priesthood is not for everybody:

Mat 19:11
But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only [those] to whom it has been given:
​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

9-10ths_Penguin
I seem that once agin I managed to confuse you, the bit about “Originally Posted by emiliano
It is clear to me those not sanctified by the word of God and prayer, right?
Is referring to food not marriage, I thought that you could make the separation.

Why? You didn't. The structure of your message was ambiguous.

As for the marriages been forbidden to priest, that is another doctrine that we can study. The scripture is:

Mat 19:12
For there are eunuchs who were born thus from [their] mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept [it], let him accept [it]."​

This is what a priest does “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake” and is a choice that they should think long and hard and most of them do. Even these individuals thought that it was a hard ask:

Mat 19:10
His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with [his] wife, it is better not to marry."​

The call to the priesthood is not for everybody:

Mat 19:11
But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only [those] to whom it has been given:​

I wasn't even talking about priests. Generally, the Catholic Church is kinda picky about who it will and will not marry. For example, at my wife's church, they don't even marry couples who have been members less than a year. And I doubt you'd find a Catholic Church anywhere that would agree to marry two unbaptized people.

 

[challupa]

What???????? What are you talking about, I thought that reincarnation happen in a body that is lower or higher in nature, animal or human, I do not believe in any of that anyway, and if a man looks at his body and believe that he is a woman, that individual is mentally ill.

Not talking about reincarnation. I am talking about someone born in a body that does not reflect their sex. There are children born with both the genitalia of man and woman. The doctors decide which one the child will be. How do you reconcile that. How do they know in these cases what the sexual orientation the child will grow up to be? If children are born this way, then why is it so hard for you to understand that it isn't about the physical body but rather the entire gamet of physiological (chemical/hormonal etc.) traits that determine sexual orientation. Besides God makes everyone and God doesn't make mistakes in your estimation so how can you deny what God made and not accept it even when you don't understand it? There are lots of things about God that you don't understand that you accept, why are you singling this particular one out and saying it isn't normal? The Bible is not a book to understand everything because not everything was understood when it was written. Men can only write what they filter with their own understanding and it will never be perfect. You must know that.

 

[J Bryson]

I am not going to waste time trying to explain to you how is it that we know that He did write it, it would be to much to you to tackle the concept of the Trinity, so I just will direct you to the fact that I said that I can only speculate on what Jesus would have answer to those that preach false doctrines of demons. Also I like to point out that the Lord quoted word by word what Moses wrote.

I'm familiar with the concept of the Trinity. Let's say that the "Son" part of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost really did whisper these things in the ears of the various scribes who jotted down the Torah. Jesus himself was not overtly fond of Levitical law.

'3 For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a sabbath to the LORD in all your dwellings.

And what was the punishment for such a thing?

15 Working on the Sabbath Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Harsh! But obviously a fitting punishment for those who would defy the will of The Lord, right? What say you, oh Son of Man?

• 23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

• 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Ah! So you're not really into laws that don't make life better for the followers of the law. Interesting. Anything you do wish to warn us about?

42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you don't see the beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you'll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Wow. This Jesus sounds like someone much more interesting and reasonable than many of his followers would have us believe.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact,
How many times do I have to tell that is clear from scripture that marriage is the union between a man and a woman? The Lord said that this was the way it was from the beginning, the beginning of scriptures is Genesis I directed you to the scriptures that clearly establish this doctrine yet you keep asking “When did Jesus state that only a man and woman can marry? And get on with the same old argument that gay activist use against your constitution, the founding father did not specified this or that, thus it is my right This is odd because you want to change tradition), the Lord couldn’t be more clear on this:

Gen 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become oneflesh.
​

The Lord cited this verse word by word; this makes the issue even clearer:

Mar 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'
​

If this does not answer your question nothing will, but you knew that, didn’t you? I have told you of these scriptures enough times, as for the curse that you pronounced, I won’t be around at that time, I love this country, it agrees quite well with my faith, if it wasn’t so I would leave. This is the traditional family that we support, gay families are not traditional families any way, I thank God that He guided me to a country that agrees with my faith.

Well, you know, it also says that God created them without clothes, but that doesn't mean we can't wear them. The thing that you're not facing, emiliano, (among others) is that this particular God doesn't just hint generally. When He doesn't want you to do something, He says so in no uncertain terms: "Thou shalt not..." Often he specifies the punishment. For example, the punishment for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is death by stoning. He's quite clear about it. There are 613 such commandments in the OT alone. So you can quote these passages that fail to prohibit these actions all day long, they don't address the core issue, which is that God NEVER prohibits lesbianism, NEVER prohibits gay marriage, and that Jesus never saw fit to comment on any of these subjects, ever.

What curse? I don't curse people. I don't believe in magic.

 

[emiliano]

Challupa.

Not talking about reincarnation. I am talking about someone born in a body that does not reflect their sex.

Ah! So it isn’t about reincarnation

There are children born with both the genitalia of man and woman. The doctors decide which one the child will be. How do you reconcile that.

It is about gender re-assignment? First I like to correct you on this “The doctors decide which one the child will be” It is the parent that make the decision not the Doctor, they order a series of tests and advice/recommend, this condition are extremely rare and it can be corrected with the help of science and the surgical abilities of doctors, parent do it because they want these children to grow up to form traditional families that are what we Christian support.

How do they know in these cases what the sexual orientation the child will grow up to be?

This is done at an early age, the earlier the better, BTW I hope that you are not suggesting that that we change our concepts of what a traditional family is, are you? Is this your argument to support same sex marriages?

If children are born this way, then why is it so hard for you to understand that it isn't about the physical body but rather the entire gamet of physiological (chemical/hormonal etc.) traits that determine sexual orientation.

You are putting an apples and oranges argument here (birth defects do not equate sexual orientation), bizarre sexual orientation are nothing like the tragedy that you are putting in same bag , I hope that you are not saying that Homosexuality has a genetic link, that is an old one and it has been effectively discredited.

Besides God makes everyone and God doesn't make mistakes in your estimation so how can you deny what God made and not accept it even when you don't understand it?

The reason for this birth defect are many: The changes of the environment that man has caused is one of the main one, are you saying that you thing that every human being is specially created, what we believe is that God created our race, humans and that he created the environment in which life was possible for us.

There are lots of things about God that you don't understand that you accept, why are you singling this particular one out and saying it isn't normal?

Well these birth defects that you brought into the discussion aren’t normal but they are surgically treatable, gender identity disorder is also treatable by chemical and psychological intervention, so I don’t understand your obstinacy in wanting us to change our concept of what is normal or abnormal, traditional or non-traditional.

The Bible is not a book to understand everything because not everything was understood when it was written. Men can only write what they filter with their own understanding and it will never be perfect. You must know that.

I have said this several time I find all the answers In the Bible, they are expressed in terms that even a simple mind can understand

 

[emiliano]

Why? You didn't. The structure of your message was ambiguous.
I wasn't even talking about priests. Generally, the Catholic Church is kinda picky about who it will and will not marry. For example, at my wife's church, they don't even marry couples who have been members less than a year. And I doubt you'd find a Catholic Church anywhere that would agree to marry two unbaptized people.

So I did confuse you, Just like I said.
The Catholic Church is the last bastion of sound doctrine, and that is due to the fact that they are picky, this is worthy of praise, they have stood firm in the preservation of Christian doctrine that are what lead to Salvation, they stand firm in the sanctity of marriage and life although this causes them to be unpopular, they persevere where other give in.

 

[challupa]

Challupa.

Ah! So it isn’t about reincarnation
No


It is about gender re-assignment? First I like to correct you on this “The doctors decide which one the child will be” It is the parent that make the decision not the Doctor, they order a series of tests and advice/recommend, this condition are extremely rare and it can be corrected with the help of science and the surgical abilities of doctors, parent do it because they want these children to grow up to form traditional families that are what we Christian support.

Yes the parents decide based on what the doctors advise because how else can they make a decision of what sex their child is? So ultimately it is the doctor's advice that determines the sex of the child.

This is done at an early age, the earlier the better, BTW I hope that you are not suggesting that that we change our concepts of what a traditional family is, are you? Is this your argument to support same sex marriages?

Yes it is done at an age that it likely too young. I have watched documentaries on this issue where they interviewed children that have now grown that decidedly were the opposite gender in their makeup than the "chosen" gender determined by family/doctors.

You are putting an apples and oranges argument here (birth defects do not equate sexual orientation), bizarre sexual orientation are nothing like the tragedy that you are putting in same bag , I hope that you are not saying that Homosexuality has a genetic link, that is an old one and it has been effectively discredited.

What you don't seem to be understanding here it that it is the chemical/hormonal makeup of a person that determines sexual identity and it is not a "bizarre sexual orientation". If you are born a certain gender that does not reflect the physical body you are in, that is authentic for that person. Just because you don't understand this, doesn't mean you are right. Genetic links have not been effectively discredited, but rather strengthened recently. Here is an Australian link for you:


Discovery Of Genetic Link To Gender Identity


The reason for this birth defect are many: The changes of the environment that man has caused is one of the main one, are you saying that you thing that every human being is specially created, what we believe is that God created our race, humans and that he created the environment in which life was possible for us.

Okay, some Christians do believe that everything God made is special, but obviously you do not share this belief, so it's a non-issue here. However, I might add that this has been an ongoing phenomenom for a centuries, so it is not "man-made".

Well these birth defects that you brought into the discussion aren’t normal but they are surgically treatable, gender identity disorder is also treatable by chemical and psychological intervention, so I don’t understand your obstinacy in wanting us to change our concept of what is normal or abnormal, traditional or non-traditional.

This is not about it being surgically treatable or the availability of chemical or psychological intervention. This is about letting people live their lives in a way that is best for them without the hassle of having to defend their sexual identities. What you have decided is traditional is very limited. There is a long history of homosexuality and it has been accepted in many cultures. You are not being asked to change your concept as much as you are being asked to not interfere in something that is none of your business.


I have said this several time I find all the answers In the Bible, they are expressed in terms that even a simple mind can understand

Well if you refer to the Bible to find "all" of your answers it explains where you get your divisive, exclusive and downright hostile interpretations of the world you live in. However, I will not blame the Bible completely for your worldview. There are some good things in it that are inclusive etc., you just need to put some weight on those passages!

 

[Smoke]

However, the real issue isn't whether the Catholic Church should accommodate same-sex marriage within itself, it's whether the Church should work against legal same-sex marriage in a secular context.

The Catholic Church has a pretty consistent record of demanding religious freedom at times and places where the Church is at a disadvantage, but working against religious freedom at times and places where the Church has -- or the Vatican thinks it has -- an advantage.

 

[Smoke]

So I did confuse you, Just like I said.
The Catholic Church is the last bastion of sound doctrine

Then why aren't you in it? You can leave the Church, but I, who have never been a Catholic, am expected to abide by its teachings?

 

[J Bryson]

emiliano, I realize that you're responding to about ten people at once whenever you click this thread, but I'm curious about your reaction to my statement that Jesus himself did not follow Levitical law, and did not require his followers to do so, either.

 

[emiliano]

Challupa,

This is not about it being surgically treatable or the availability of chemical or psychological intervention. This is about letting people live their lives in a way that is best for them without the hassle of having to defend their sexual identities. What you have decided is traditional is very limited. There is a long history of homosexuality and it has been accepted in many cultures. You are not being asked to change your concept as much as you are being asked to not interfere in something that is none of your business.

I can say the same to you what I believe and the concepts that I hold are none of your business.

Okay, some Christians do believe that everything God made is special, but obviously you do not share this belief, so it's a non-issue here. However, I might add that this has been an ongoing phenomenom for a centuries, so it is not "man-made".

What scriptures said is:

Gen 1:31
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed [it was] very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. ​

Now all of the creation is physical/material and all matter it corrupt/deteriorate. We don’t know if there have been negative mutations in humans and what could have caused them, but we know with certainty that the environment has changed and is nothing like it was. The food that we eat has been altered substance have been introduced in the food chain and we don’t know what effects they will have on us yet.
ST Augustine said: CHAP. 12.--ALL BEINGS WERE MADE GOOD, BUT NOT BEING MADE PERFECTLY GOOD, ARE LIABLE TO CORRUPTION.

All things that exist, therefore, seeing that the Creator of them all is supremely good, are themselves good. But because they are not, like their Creator, supremely and unchangeably good, their good may be diminished and increased. But for good to be diminished is an evil, although, however much it may be diminished, it is necessary, if the being is to continue, that some good should remain to constitute the being. For however small or of whatever kind the being may be, the good which makes it a being cannot be destroyed without destroying the being itself.
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augenchiridion/enchiridion01-23.html

 

[emiliano]

Then why aren't you in it? You can leave the Church, but I, who have never been a Catholic, am expected to abide by its teachings?

Because you live in a society ( are group of people, families) you are bound by will of the majority, by their definitions, when something is defined by the majority that is what it is, in countries like our where government rule by the will of the majority, they seek to know what that will is through referendums, Christian express their points of view and if they are the majority, that the way thing are, if the will of the majority is that marriage is between a man and a woman that is what it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because you live in a society ( are group of people, families) you are bound by will of the majority, by their definitions, when something is defined by the majority that is what it is, in countries like our where government rule by the will of the majority, they seek to know what that will is through referendums, Christian express their points of view and if they are the majority, that the way thing are, if the will of the majority is that marriage is between a man and a woman that is what it is.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that when push comes to shove, the majority of people in Australia or US would say that the Catholic Church does not follow the teachings of God. Some of them because they're non-Christian theists, some because they're Protestants. If the majority opinion is all that matters, what should we do with that little detail?

 

[challupa]

Challupa,


I can say the same to you what I believe and the concepts that I hold are none of your business.

Yes this is true what you believe is yours to cherish and hold onto as you will. It is also true that what others believe deserves the same rights and respect. This is what I mean. I'm sorry I did not word it very well.


What scriptures said is:

Gen 1:31
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed [it was] very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. ​

Now all of the creation is physical/material and all matter it corrupt/deteriorate. We don’t know if there have been negative mutations in humans and what could have caused them, but we know with certainty that the environment has changed and is nothing like it was. The food that we eat has been altered substance have been introduced in the food chain and we don’t know what effects they will have on us yet.
ST Augustine said: CHAP. 12.--ALL BEINGS WERE MADE GOOD, BUT NOT BEING MADE PERFECTLY GOOD, ARE LIABLE TO CORRUPTION.

All things that exist, therefore, seeing that the Creator of them all is supremely good, are themselves good. But because they are not, like their Creator, supremely and unchangeably good, their good may be diminished and increased. But for good to be diminished is an evil, although, however much it may be diminished, it is necessary, if the being is to continue, that some good should remain to constitute the being. For however small or of whatever kind the being may be, the good which makes it a being cannot be destroyed without destroying the being itself.
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augenchiridion/enchiridion01-23.html

I guess my response to this would be that if we are all are corrupted in unknowable ways and destined for destruction, then is it not in all our best interests to show compassion to everyone?

 

[J Bryson]

Because you live in a society ( are group of people, families) you are bound by will of the majority, by their definitions, when something is defined by the majority that is what it is, in countries like our where government rule by the will of the majority, they seek to know what that will is through referendums, Christian express their points of view and if they are the majority, that the way thing are, if the will of the majority is that marriage is between a man and a woman that is what it is.

Personally, I live in a Constitutional Republic. A Constitution was set up at the beginning of this nation's existence to preserve certain rights from what was termed the "tyranny of the majority". Also, not all Christians believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Autodidact]

Because you live in a society ( are group of people, families) you are bound by will of the majority, by their definitions, when something is defined by the majority that is what it is, in countries like our where government rule by the will of the majority, they seek to know what that will is through referendums, Christian express their points of view and if they are the majority, that the way thing are, if the will of the majority is that marriage is between a man and a woman that is what it is.

Nope. It doesn't matter if 90% of Americans want to kill me; the Constitution protects them from doing it. Good system, IMO.

 

[Autodidact]

emiliano: The majority of Australians are NOT Catholic, correct? Therefore you shouldn't have the right to be Catholic? By your logic?

 

[LuisDantas]

I can say the same to you what I believe and the concepts that I hold are none of your business.

It becomes their business the moment you want to deny them some of their basic citizen rights.