Peter Stone
Member
This is distorted. This scripture is about doing the will of God as his mother did it is the first time he revealed his mother is without sin she is the Eve in the new testament.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would you marry a gay couple...
- Thread starter Neo Deist
- Start date
This is distorted. This scripture is about doing the will of God as his mother did it is the first time he revealed his mother is without sin she is the Eve in the new testament.
Peter Stone
Member
Fact is marriage is for family. Observation since our government started a war on poverty and started doing marriage certificates our child birth outside of marriage has went from 7% to 70%.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
We do have different views. I am just going by my experiences in the Church (all positive), conversations about this with the priests, and study of the CCC and Bible. It made more sense when taking it into a cultural and tradition perspective. In protestant Christianity, many denominations do not look at how culture (not spirituality-hence not god) dictates why there is no marriage (as translated from union between two souls and commitment beyond that) between same genders. In my opinion, I don't see the Church looking beyond tradition (the apostles) to understand Jesus never taught that two men or two women cannot love each other until commitment. The context of his and earlier teachings of the prophets was just "marriage is between male and female." Some can say "well, he didn't say only." but culturally, it is between male and female.
It's not a spiritual decision (a decision layed by god) but a cultural/tradition decision that has been embedded as with other religions Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc into the spiritual teachings of their followers. Which is fine. Unless the gay couple is Catholic and sees god's blessings only bestowed in the Catholic Church (I respect that since they are Catholic), but outside of the Church if a gay couple ask god for his blessings, I do not see why the Church should intervene.
I mean, they do in abortion ralleys which makes sense: dont take a life. However, our US laws govern marriage but are influenced by the Church/Christianity. As a result, Catholic/Christian laws are put in people who don't even follow that faith.
I don't know how any Christian (and Muslim and whomever has great influence in the US) can see any logic and reason in that. If it's just within their own religion, that I understand.
It's like telling a Muslim he should go to confession and take the Eucharists and set our laws to make all Muslims become Catholic. Same idea about gay marriage, since marriage is a sacrament in the Church.
Makes me ill.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I dont know about others. I'm just saying, brief note, that marriage (the union between two people) is not between man and woman. It is between two people.
From an Episcopalian view, it is between two people. Universal Unitarian, it's between two people. US Law, states accepting, it's between two people. Catholic and Baptist Church man and woman. US Law states not accepting its between male and female.
There is no right or wrong way to see marriage within your given religion. You can tell me, for example since I am still Catholic, after confession I cannot receive god's blessings through the Church. I would have to accept that because that is my religion. That's how I define marriage.
However, to say marriage as if it is the Church's word, you are putting ownership of a union between two souls Muslim or gay for example, under the Churches definition. That I see is wrong. I will defend that.
I respect the sacrament of marriage and other Church teachings. I do not respect when they are used to limit another person's freedom who do not even share the Church's views on the issue. It's Church politics not spirituality.
Peter Stone
Member
They govern laws to prohibit blacks from marriage to whites in 1914 during the Jim Crow law days this was never permitted to the government by any church but through racial bigotry and the majority of the United States. I welcome you to look into a group called COURAGE started in the Catholic church for gay couples and ran by our Catholic gay community
Peter Stone
Member
My computer is really bugging I tried to put this link into https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...OP7JbossxW8NcfFkBV2TeQ&bvm=bv.122129774,d.eWE
There is no distortion.
Matthew 10:34-37:
Jesus said...."Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me."
Jesus foretold that his disciples would receive opposition, even from their own family members and that loyalty to family over loyalty to him would mean being counted as unworthy to be called his disciple. Satan's greatest weapon is 'divide and conquer'....he has use it since the beginning. It is what separated Adam from his God, mistaken loyalty to his wife cost the whole human race their rightful place in God's original purpose. Jesus came to give us back what Adam lost.
As for the Catholic view of Mary, there is no need to debate that on this thread. Mary and her husband made the necessary sin offering at the temple after Jesus was born. (Leviticus 12:5-8; Luke 2:20-24) There are no scriptural grounds to believe that Mary was sinless, or that she is "the Eve of the NT."
I love how that site has a painting by Caravaggio on its home page, when he painted homoerotic images, was likely bisexual, got it on with hookers, got kicked out of the Order of Malta and was frequently in trouble with the law, including being exiled from Rome.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Slavery was not a bad thing back then. Slaves where usually what we call employees. They were also people who broke the law (like we have prisoners working on the rail road and doing community service). Slave trade wasn't about race.
This was before the Jim Crow laws. Then the Catholic Church (I'd have to look up which pope, I forgot) saw the Africa had a lot of value in their land, wealth, and riches. Africans where already selling their people to other countries and within their country. A gentleman who had some type of relation with the Church was a prisoner. He says to the Church (who was the "government" back then) that he can give the Church a specific part of Africa for his freedom. The Pope agreed, taking advantage of the land and freed the slave. Other countries, Spain etc, started getting slaves from Africa. That same pope was the one that declared slavery as a racial conflict. Slavery was never that. It was "doing your time" no matter what color of skin you are.
When it reached to US (when we broke from the Church) as protestants, the racial/slavery was adopted. That's when the Jim Crow Laws came and so forth. They took advantage of people (just as our government does with every other little thing).
Here is a good video. This isn't meant to be rude but if you are an African American here in the U.S., many African Americans usually are proud with our history. So, if you are like that, I think this would good to watch in addition to the information.
Also COURAGE is for GBLTQA Catholics who are struggling with their attractions they feel is a sin or whatever the case me be.
GBLTQA is not about attractions. So, I am lesbian no matter what I do and when I get of age, regardless if I loose my attraction or not. I am still lesbian. No Church and any other person can change a part of me. If it helps other Catholics, that's fine. To me, it's descriminative. That's like years ago when they thought homosexuality was a mental disorder. Parents are still taking their children to psychiatrists trying to get them to "not be gay." A psychiatrist can't change their orientation. What they and COURAGE can do is help them adapt to their identity or, as the Church defines, desires so they won't harm themselves or others and stay out of depression.
It's not a cure for sexual orientation. If that be the case, maybe there is a COURAGE for straight people?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@Peter Stone
Welp. I'm out. I disagree with the Church. She has no right to govern the definition of marriage on people who do not follow her teachings. She has no right to define people who are only defined by their god. I feel you are mixing Catholicism with Catholic Politics. One is about union with the Church/Eucharist through the sacraments. The other is political control and using the beliefs of the Church to govern people even outside the Church.
The Church and all churches need to keep their beliefs within their own congregation. That, and Jesus Christ never defined homosexuality as a disorder as in the CCC. It's good gradually the priests are beginning to see the difference between behaviors and actions. Not all Catholics are joining the club.
Later folks.
Welp. I'm out. I disagree with the Church. She has no right to govern the definition of marriage on people who do not follow her teachings. She has no right to define people who are only defined by their god. I feel you are mixing Catholicism with Catholic Politics. One is about union with the Church/Eucharist through the sacraments. The other is political control and using the beliefs of the Church to govern people even outside the Church.
The Church and all churches need to keep their beliefs within their own congregation. That, and Jesus Christ never defined homosexuality as a disorder as in the CCC. It's good gradually the priests are beginning to see the difference between behaviors and actions. Not all Catholics are joining the club.
Later folks.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I agree with you...God said no pork people...so if you're going to criticize gays for ungodly behavior, for God's sake stop eating the pork.
no one likes a hypocrite
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I got an alert from you. Are you also talking to me?
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I don't recall commenting to you...Perhaps the alert is simply because I posted a comment on a thread you are watching?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Naw. The alerts are kind of weird on RF. When I create a new thread, I don't get alerts to the first two to three people who reply. So, I don't know. I'm not "watching" this thread; so, don't know what that's about.
No biggieDo you have proof of these statistics and what country are you speaking of here? I find that 70% is a very unbelievable number considering your assertions here. So can you prove this?
1. No, I was not JW but rather Christian and I consider JW to be a subset of that group.My Faith? You were a JW?
We have no problems at all on the role of women in our global family. Our women are very happy actually. Our men treat us with respect.
It is true that times change and human behavior changes with it, but the Bible teaches that the Creator never changes. How do you improve on perfection? His ways are always better than ours....we continue to prove that every day. When everyone knows their assigned role and is happy to stay within the confines of it, that makes for happy co-existence. It is only when people are out of place that problems arise.
Actually as the firstborn male in a Jewish household, he was bound to his mother till the age of 30. It was then that he presented himself for baptism and began his three and a half year ministry as a preacher and teacher. This explains why Jesus gave the care of his mother to the apostle John as he was dying on the execution stake. He had younger siblings, but none of them were yet believers.
Jesus' death did away with the dietary and ceremonial laws, whilst still advocating the basics of the 10 Commandments.
This was because gentiles were now coming into the Christian congregations. These were not Jewish and it was not required of them to keep the Jewish laws. Acts 15:28, 29 listed the "necessary things" that all of Christ's followers had to uphold. All knew that it was wrong to murder, steal, and commit adultery....these were all covered in Jesus' teachings.
2. What assigned roles? Your remarks make me think of 1984 and an Orwellian type of world. No thanks. I have no opinion on whether God is perfect or not as in my faith, God is not a concept that I apply human characteristics to. Perfection is a human trait.
3. Your remarks about Christ and his not being married did not answer me at all. The fact of the matter is that a Jewish man was expected to marry and carry on the family tradition, as in having children for the group. Jesus, according to the Bible, did not do this. There are those who believe that he was married to Mary Magdalene but that is one of those crazy theories that has no proof whatsoever.
4. If Christ did away with the older laws from the Tanach, then he did away with them all which would include homosexuality. Yet, Christians hold onto that one verse like a life vest in the ocean. You say you can eat pork, shellfish, wear mixed fiber clothing, etc but when it come to that one other you hold fast. Why is that? Does being gay seem like a contagion to you? Your argument holds no water when it comes to this. Yet, you will argue forever that you are right.
We are Christians but not a subset of any group.
The assigned roles are set out in the Bible by God, not by George Orwell. Adam was created first and his wife was created as a compliment of him. They each made the other complete....the perfect team. I have no issues with that. Headship is not dictatorship.
Jesus was not married because this was not part of his assignment. To have married and produced children who were the product of a perfect, sinless father would have completely ruined the whole reason for his earthly mission.
His "bride" was not to be a literal physical wife, but a chosen group who would rule with him in heaven. (Revelation 21:2, 9)
Jo, this is one of those times when I have to wonder about your knowledge of the Bible. I thought you said you knew scripture? There is not just one scripture condemning homosexual acts.
Romans 1:24-27:
"So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." (NLT)
"Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (NASB)
There is not just the Torah, but Paul's confirmation that Christianity also rejected homosexual sex.
Jude and Peter also mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:6-7) whose conduct so offended God that he simply erased them from existence.
This is only true if you believe that story. And what is more interesting is that your Adam and Eve story is not original at all. Most of the stories in the Bible come from older sources as well. Furthermore, the story was never meant to be taken literally. It is allegorical. If you had taken even an introductory course in genetics you would understand that two people cannot produce an entire race. It is genetically impossible as mutations would occur between sisters/brothers, etc.
I understand that you truly believe this but you cannot prove it either way. Given Jewish law at the time, it would have been more likely that he would have married but even that is up for debate as there is limited evidence that Jesus existed at all. Anecdotal evidence many years after the fact is all there is. However, most scholars do agree that someone like Christ lived but that his story was, at best, embellished greatly and had added details from Pagan, Sumerian, and so on, sources. One need only read the Epic of Gilgamesh to see the obvious parallels.
Quoting Paul means nothing here. I was speaking of what Christ had to say. He did say that a man should cleave to his wife. Yet, he did not speak at all about other types of relationships. Eunuchs were very common at that time, as were other types of relationships in Roman history. Paul's misogynistic writings very clearly indicate his own issues with women. One need only look at how disparaging Paul is toward women to see that. Make me think of the horse crap that Trump says about women. Where did Christ say that women had to be quiet in church or cover their heads or be subservient to men? No where, that's where. Its only in Paul that one finds that. If you believe Pauline dogma, you are more of a Pauline follower than you are a follower of Christ, whose message was about love and understanding. Its fascinating that most Christians miss that part.
MichelleB
New Member
Actually it is an abomination in the eyes of the men that wrote the various scrolls that would become the Bible. God never came down from the cosmos, sat at a desk and wrote anything. Humans make the claim that God spoke to them and told them to write something.
Well, guess what? God has spoken to me and told me to write something as well. Look for it on Amazon e-books soon...
See the God Almighty knew someone would obviously say that. Yes, Jehovah God didn't write the Bible 'himself' (even though he could have if he wanted to), and got his people to do it for him, but Jehovah stated in the scriptures of 1 Timothy 3:16 , that "All scripture is inspired of God..." meaning that Jehovah used his Holy Spirit to direct them of what to put in there. For example, like a boss and his secretary...he/she might asked their secretary to write a letter or something to give to someone; true, he didn't write the letter himself, but those was his words that was in it, the secretary was just doing what she/he was told to do. Same as the men that helped write the Bible. Also, think about this, how is it fair that you can say that God didn't inspired those men to write the Bible, when you wasn't even there to witness it?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Seems you are merely looking to preach and you care not one bit if your sermon has any truth in it.
Rather difficult to take you seriously.