Santorum says Gay Marriage the most important fight of our lifetime

[GunnyFreedom]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/13/santorum_says_gay_marriage_fight_is_most_important .html

LOL :rolleyes:

[sparebulb]

Santorum is so gay.

[ShaneEnochs]

He's probably a single issue voter.

[Origanalist]

Santorum is so gay.

What tipped you off? Was it the sweater vest?

[fr33]

I bet he's a really gross pervert.

[fr33]

I have no desire to fight people over which adult they choose to marry. Only a tyrant would.

[James Madison]

Speaking of caricatures...

Santorum is the classic Dispensationalist, right down to the idiotic obession with gays. No doubt he supports bombing Muslims and worshipping at the alter of Israel.

[pochy1776]

This thread is gay. I support government free marriage.

[AGRP]

Id like Santorum if I watched Faux News all day. Then again, Id be a commie for asking if we should be going to war with every country in the world.

[AGRP]

Wherever there is gay marriage, there is Santorum. One seriously has to wonder if he subconsciously wants to get gay married.

[EBounding]

Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and GOD, not the state. Politicians like Santorum don't mention this and use it to manipulate people for political purposes.

[tsai3904]

To another extreme, here's Lindsey Graham:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU7dsSMcA4s&t=7m58s


Of all the things I worry about, $16 trillion debt, all kind of problems in America, the fiscal cliff, the one I worry the most about is Iran getting a nuclear weapon

[VanBummel]

No big surprise, most every other liberal seems to feel the same way.

[RickyJ]

If he really thinks that then there is no way he can be for Romney. Romney started gay marriage in Massachusetts by executive order violating the Massachusetts Constitution by doing so.

[ShaneEnochs]

Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and GOD, not the state. Politicians like Santorum don't mention this and use it to manipulate people for political purposes.

And parents, land, family, livestock, concubines, power, etc.

[Peace&Freedom]

Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and GOD, not the state. Politicians like Santorum don't mention this and use it to manipulate people for political purposes.

Exactly. But the covenant core of marriage is what makes associating it with sexual immorality repellent to those supporting traditional marriage. God's involvement consecrates the bond, making the marital union sacred and holy. In this light advocating "gay marriage" is code for considering homosexuality sacred and holy. Not gonna happen.

[Carehn]

Marriage is just a word till you apply some kind of action to it.

I dislike social conservatives more then any other political block. And I fear them having power more then any other political block. It is so odd I find myself working along side them in the GOP. I think they are evil to the core.

[GunnyFreedom]

Exactly. But the covenant core of marriage is what makes associating it with sexual immorality repellent to those supporting traditional marriage. God's involvement consecrates the bond, making the marital union sacred and holy. In this light advocating "gay marriage" is code for considering homosexuality sacred and holy. Not gonna happen.

Pretty sure most of us are advocating for God marriage not gay marriage. God does not seek permission from government to do what He wants. When government tries to hold God at gunpoint and dictate to Him how things work, that is blasphemy. When Christians accept this practice it is idolatry. Nearly the entire church is wholly apostate, and as always a bare remnant remains. I would venture that maybe only 3% of churchians are actually Christians, regardless of what they call or think of themselves.

[dbill27]

The scary thing is that santorum is being 100% honest. He really thinks this is the most pressing issue facing our country. Total economic collapse coming, but we better worry about dudes getting married.

[RickyJ]

The scary thing is that santorum is being 100% honest. He really thinks this is the most pressing issue facing our country. Total economic collapse coming, but we better worry about dudes getting married.

I doubt he is being honest. Very few politicians are honest, and I surely don't see Santorum really caring about this issue. He says what he thinks people want to hear that support him. That is the way most politicians work. All except Ron Paul of course. :)

[dbill27]

I doubt he is being honest. Very few politicians are honest, and I surely don't see Santorum really caring about this issue. He says what he thinks people want to hear that support him. That is the way most politicians work. All except Ron Paul of course. :)

I genuinely believe Rick Santorum is one of the few politicians that actually has real beliefs, he has genuine conviction in his voice when he talks about taking out Iran and social issues.

[Smart3]

I'm offensive, and I find this thread gay.

[anaconda]

I bet he's a really gross pervert.

Does this mean he's condoning scatophilia?

[anaconda]

I genuinely believe Rick Santorum is one of the few politicians that actually has real beliefs, he has genuine conviction in his voice when he talks about taking out Iran and social issues.

I can appreciate your theory, but I think it's all an act with him.

[anaconda]

Wherever there is gay marriage, there is Santorum. One seriously has to wonder if he subconsciously wants to get gay married.

Kind of like how Lawrence O'Donnell starts his enraged frothing at the mouth and can't stop ranting when he talks about anything having to do with Rand Paul.

[Origanalist]

Kind of like how Lawrence O'Donnell starts his enraged frothing at the mouth and can't stop ranting when he talks about anything having to do with Rand Paul.

There's that frothy thing again. Bring up little Ricky and froth is soon to follow.

[Dr.3D]

All of this is just a way to keep people from focusing on the real issues. NDAA and the PATRIOT act are the real issues and you won't hear any of them say a word about them.

[cajuncocoa]

Santorum gives me the creeps. David Vitter comes across the same way, and we all know how that turned out.

[amy31416]

Speaking of caricatures...

Santorum is the classic Dispensationalist, right down to the idiotic obession with gays. No doubt he supports bombing Muslims and worshipping at the alter of Israel.

Even worse than that, he looks like one of those fellows who gets lots of spittle built up in the corners of his mouth when he's talking. Ever know one of those people?

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Wherever there is gay marriage, there is Santorum.

Ew. :-)

+rep for lulz

[Chrysamere]

Posting in a gay thread.

Social conservative, best joke ever.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Over abortion?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I genuinely believe Rick Santorum is one of the few politicians that actually has real beliefs, he has genuine conviction in his voice when he talks about taking out Iran and social issues.


I agree. Unfortunately, I believe his real beliefs are real fucked up. Now, given the opportunity, is he also a slimeball politician? I'd imagine so.

He may think gay marriage the most important fight of *his* lifetime, but he's rich, part of the ruling class, doesn't understand economics, and probably doesn't have much to worry about no matter how bad the economy crashes. He should stop confusing *his* life with everyone's, seeing that they are completely different.

[opal]

There's that frothy thing again. Bring up little Ricky and froth is soon to follow.


I've been holding on to this frothy picture for just such an occasion


http://renorealtyblog.com/wp-content/images/photos/membership_froth.jpg

[erowe1]

Speaking of caricatures...

Santorum is the classic Dispensationalist

No he's not. He's a Catholic.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

No he's not. He's a Catholic.

Santorum: "I'm not an evangelical, but I play one on TV."

[James Madison]

No he's not. He's a Catholic.

You can be Catholic and a Dispensationalist.

[Dick Chaney]

I support gay marriage, but It's nowhere near my highest priority.

[amy31416]

Over abortion?

Pro-war people are not genuinely pro-life.

[erowe1]

You can be Catholic and a Dispensationalist.

Really? That's news to me. What do you base that on?

[James Madison]

Really? That's news to me. What do you base that on?

Dispensationalism is built on the belief that history is separated into seven epochs with God's plan changing through each era. Most Catholics don't believe this, but it certainly isn't mutually exclusive.

[erowe1]

Dispensationalism is built on the belief that history is separated into seven epochs with God's plan changing through each era. Most Catholics don't believe this, but it certainly isn't mutually exclusive.

That's not really essential to dispensationalism. More central to it is the belief that God had distinct programs (or dispensations) for the nation of Israel and the Church, and that these include a future fulfillment of many Old Testament promises made to Israel in a millennial kingdom after Christ's return.

I think any given Catholic could accept dispensationalism, since there are Catholics who believe all sorts of things that may or may not agree with the Church. But if they do accept dispensationalism, they disagree with official Church teachings on the subject (which, again, granted, does happen on many issues). But if there are Catholic dispensationalists, I've never heard of them. I really doubt that Santorum is one.

[osan]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/13/santorum_says_gay_marriage_fight_is_most_important .html

LOL :rolleyes:

Why does anyone pay him the least attention?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Speaking of caricatures...

Santorum is the classic Dispensationalist, right down to the idiotic obession with gays. No doubt he supports bombing Muslims and worshipping at the alter of Israel.

Which makes no sense since Catholicism explicitly rejects dispensationalism.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

You can be Catholic and a Dispensationalist.

That's like saying you can be Catholic and support abortion and gay marriage.

[erowe1]

That's like saying you can be Catholic and support abortion and gay marriage.

Many Catholics prove that you can.

But I still don't see any reason to call Santorum a dispensationalist.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Many Catholics prove that you can.

But I still don't see any reason to call Santorum a dispensationalist.

Then you are not Catholic because you reject two fundamental Catholic teachings: sanctity of life and the Sacrament of Marriage.

There certain doctrines of the Catholic Faith (the Dogmas of the Church) that are held to be infallible teachings of the Church are not up for debate, irreversible and must be accepted by all Catholics.


There is, then, no place for "pick and choose" in the truths proposed to the Faith of Christians by the Infallible Teaching Church for they are bound in Heaven by God Himself. If something is decreed on earth and is also bound in Heaven, that thing must be the truth. Otherwise, God is no longer the Truth, which is contrary to the Gospel

[amy31416]

Many Catholics prove that you can.

But I still don't see any reason to call Santorum a dispensationalist.

He could just be a run-of-the-mill neocon, but there's something "off" about him that reminds me of Sarah Palin. That weird religious fervor that directs his urges to get other people killed.

[awake]

It is the most important question of all time; who we associate with and on what terms with in a voluntary basis is none this religious fanatics business. I love all these insane psychopaths that pretend that God gives them his blessing to threaten and kill others. Boy are they going to get a talking to.

[erowe1]

Then you are not Catholic because you reject two fundamental Catholic teachings: sanctity of life and the Sacrament of Marriage.

There certain doctrines of the Catholic Faith (the Dogmas of the Church) that are held to be infallible teachings of the Church are not up for debate, irreversible and must be accepted by all Catholics.

1) I don't think abortion and gay marriage are included in those Dogmas of the Church. At least I don't think there has ever been an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra pronouncement from a pope anathematizing those people.
2) Even if those beliefs are excluded, the Catholic Church has a process of removing people from the Church. Are they excommunicating people for being pro-choice or pro-gay marriage?

[erowe1]

It is the most important question of all time; who we associate with and on what terms with in a voluntary basis is none this religious fanatics business. I love all these insane psychopaths that pretend that God gives them his blessing to threaten and kill others. Boy are they going to get a talking to.

But nothing in the current political debate over gay marriage is about who anybody associates with on a voluntary basis. Gay people are free to have weddings, make vows, live together, sodomize each other, share all their possessions, and do whatever else they think being married is supposed to mean for them, and I don't see Santorum trying to prevent them from doing those things or punish them for them.

[Liberty74]

Yet again, Santorum is a fake and against the Constitution, against freedom and against liberty.

To all the fuck heads on the left (Jesse Jackson crowd) and the right (Santorum crowd)...Have you not read the Constitution lately?

Amendent 14 Section 1 states...


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[erowe1]

Yet again, Santorum is a fake and against the Constitution, against freedom and against liberty.

To all the fuck heads on the left (Jesse Jackson crowd) and the right (Santorum crowd)...Have you not read the Constitution lately?

Amendent 14 Section 1 states...

Don't forget to include Ron Paul in your list.

[James Madison]

Which makes no sense since Catholicism explicitly rejects dispensationalism.

Santorum is involved in Hagee's 'Christians United for Israel'. That's all I need to know.


That's like saying you can be Catholic and support abortion and gay marriage.

I have met Catholics who are pro-choice and open to gay marriage.

[erowe1]

Santorum is involved in Hagee's 'Christians United for Israel'. That's all I need to know.


Hagee is not a dispensationalist. Neither are a lot (most?) of the people in that group.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

1) I don't think abortion and gay marriage are included in those Dogmas of the Church. At least I don't think there has ever been an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra pronouncement from a pope anathematizing those people.

That abortion is an intrinsic evil is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Catholics are not at liberty to dispute infallible Church teachings.

With regards to gay "marriage," the sacrament of marriage is laid out in the Dogmas of the Church.


12) Even if those beliefs are excluded, the Catholic Church has a process of removing people from the Church. Are they excommunicating people for being pro-choice or pro-gay marriage?

Those who are pro-choice or pro-gay marriage have already removed themselves from the Church by debating infallible teachings. As I said above, Catholics are not at liberty to disagree with certain Truths.

Also, there automatic excommunication for those who have an abortion, perform one, or in any way facilitate one. There are also countless politicians and other members of the Church who are denied the Eucharist for having pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage views, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, for example.



I have met Catholics who are pro-choice and open to gay marriage.

Then they are denying infallible Church teachings and are therefore not Catholics, even if they call themselves that.

[James Madison]

Hagee is not a dispensationalist. Neither are a lot (most?) of the people in that group.

...what?

[erowe1]

That abortion is an intrinsic evil is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. Catholics are not at liberty to dispute infallible Church teachings.

With regards to gay "marriage," the sacrament of marriage is laid out in the Dogmas of the Church.
But the political gay marriage debate isn't about the Church sacrament.

Could you explain more about that view of abortion being an infallible teaching of the ordinary and eternal magisterium? Is there an authoritative list somewhere of the infallible teachings of the ordinary and eternal magisterium that includes something about abortion in it? And could I see the exact words it uses?

[erowe1]

...what?

Do you dispute that? At least Hagee for sure is not a dispensationalist. I can't say for sure about the rest of the group.

[erowe1]

..

[Jumbo Shrimp]

But the political gay marriage debate isn't about the Church sacrament.

Could you explain more about that view of abortion being an infallible teaching of the ordinary and eternal magisterium? Is there an authoritative list somewhere of the infallible teachings of the ordinary and eternal magisterium that includes something about abortion in it? And could I see the exact words it uses?

I think this explains it well:


Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Pope Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition [regarding abortion] "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops -- who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine -- I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." (Evangelium Vitae, § 62 Pope John Paul II)

According to Catholic theology, a teaching of the "ordinary and universal magisterium" is infallible if it is taught by all Bishop dispersed throughout the world, as long as they all teach it in a definitive and authoritative manner. Before writing Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II surveyed every Catholic bishop in the world asking whether they agreed that murder, directly-willed abortion, and euthanasia were immoral, and they all agreed that they were. To make this connection clear, the pope concluded each of these passages in Evangelium Vitae with a reference to the "ordinary and universal magisterium" and a footnote that cited Lumen Gentium§ 25.

This explains what the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium means:


The ordinary and universal Episcopal magisterium is infallible as it relates to a teaching concerning a matter of faith and morals that all the Bishops of the Church (including the pope) universally hold as needing to be accepted by all the faithful. It should be noted that this aspect of infallibility only applies to teachings about faith and morals as opposed to customs and prudential practices. Additionally, the ordinary and universal Episcopal magisterium applies to a teaching held by all the bishops at any given moment in history. Thus, even if a teaching on a matter of faith and morals is out of favor among the bishops of a later date, once it has been held by all the bishops to be accepted by the faithful as infallible, then it is considered infallible and unchangeably true.

I'll add this again: Catholics are not at liberty to dispute or disagree with infallible teachings. Accepting them as God's Truth is a prerequisite to being Catholic.

[erowe1]

I think this explains it well:

Thank you. Yes that was good.

I don't think that obligates Catholics to support state-based prohibition of abortion though.

[James Madison]

Do you dispute that? At least Hagee for sure is not a dispensationalist. I can't say for sure about the rest of the group.

Hagee's views on the state of Israel, Dual Covenant theology, and the rapture are fully in line with dispensationalism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs8ruuNU74&feature=g-vrec


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-v2NkoNVg&feature=related

[erowe1]

Hagee's views on the state of Israel, Dual Covenant theology, and the rapture are fully in line with dispensationalism.


Hagee's views on the state of Israel are held by lots of nondispensationalists. And there are and have been through history lots of dispensationalists who repudiate them or never dreamed of them.

Dual covenant theology is absolutely not dispensationalism. That alone should be enough to prove that he isn't one.

[Liberty74]

But nothing in the current political debate over gay marriage is about who anybody associates with on a voluntary basis. Gay people are free to have weddings, make vows, live together, sodomize each other, share all their possessions, and do whatever else they think being married is supposed to mean for them, and I don't see Santorum trying to prevent them from doing those things or punish them for them.

You are absolutely wrong. Having the government "recognize" straight marriages and not so with gays or lesbians deny such people over a 1000 benefits that straight people automatically get because of such recognition via a piece of state paper. Santorum in a sense is "punishing" gay people. Or at the very least, rewarding straight marriages via laws which is unconstitutional via Amendment 14 Section 1.

One example is married couples can add their partners to their health insurance plans. Gays for the most part cannot. Another example is that driving insurance is cheaper for married couples because of the discounts for having a married status. Another example is if a married straight person leaves their assets to their family, that person is tax exempt up to X at the federal level and Y at their state level. Since the state does not recognize gay marriage, a gay person left assets do not get such asset tax exempt status. They have to pay taxes on the full amount.

Here is just a small sample of automatic benefits married couples receive.

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans


Now, one can argue that the state should be out of the business of marriage. But as long as the state IS involved in marriage as Santorum wants which comes with a slew of endless benefits, the state should recognize two consenting adults regardless of whether one is attracted to the same sex or opposite.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Thank you. Yes that was good.

I don't think that obligates Catholics to support state-based prohibition of abortion though.

Catholic doctrine considers it a duty of all Catholics to support Catholic morality in law and politics.

[erowe1]

You are absolutely wrong. Having the government "recognize" straight marriages and not so with gays or lesbians deny such people over a 1000 benefits that straight people automatically get because of such recognition via a piece of state paper.

I don't buy that. But even if it were true, it has nothing to do with what I said.

[erowe1]

Catholic doctrine considers it a duty of all Catholics to support Catholic morality in law and politics.

Does Catholic doctrine insist that supporting Catholic morality in law and politics entails support of laws that prohibit all forms of immorality?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

You are absolutely wrong. Having the government "recognize" straight marriages and not so with gays or lesbians deny such people over a 1000 benefits that straight people automatically get because of such recognition via a piece of state paper. Santorum in a sense is "punishing" gay people. Or at the very least, rewarding straight marriages via laws which is unconstitutional via Amendment 14 Section 1.

One example is married couples can add their partners to their health insurance plans. Gays for the most part cannot. Another example is that driving insurance is cheaper for married couples because of the discounts for having a married status. Another example is if a married straight person leaves their assets to their family, that person is tax exempt up to X at the federal level and Y at their state level. Since the state does not recognize gay marriage, a gay person left assets do not get such asset tax exempt status. They have to pay taxes on the full amount.

Here is just a small sample of automatic benefits married couples receive.

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans


Now, one can argue that the state should be out of the business of marriage. But as long as the state IS involved in marriage as Santorum wants which comes with a slew of endless benefits, the state should recognize two consenting adults regardless of whether one is attracted to the same sex or opposite.

Homosexuals can have all that in the exact same way heterosexuals can: by marrying someone of the opposite sex.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Does Catholic doctrine insist that supporting Catholic morality in law and politics entails support of laws that prohibit all forms of immorality?

I'm not sure, but it certainly applies to murder (of the unborn or those already born).

[erowe1]

But as long as the state IS involved in marriage as Santorum wants which comes with a slew of endless benefits, the state should recognize two consenting adults regardless of whether one is attracted to the same sex or opposite.

I can't accept that. That's saying, as long as the state is doing something wrong, we should want it to do it more, rather than less.

[erowe1]

I'm not sure, but it certainly applies to murder (of the unborn or those already born).

Is there anything official from the Church that says that?

For that matter, is there anything official from the Church that says Catholics must support the existence of a state at all?

[James Madison]

Hagee's views on the state of Israel are held by lots of nondispensationalists. And there are and have been through history lots of dispensationalists who repudiate them or never dreamed of them.

Dual covenant theology is absolutely not dispensationalism. That alone should be enough to prove that he isn't one.

From wiki


Dispensationalism rejects the notion of supersessionism, sees the Jewish people as the true people of God, and sees the modern State of Israel as identical to the Israel of the Bible.

John Nelson Darby taught, and most subsequent dispensationalists have consistently maintained, that God looks upon the Jews as his chosen people even as they remain in rejection of Jesus Christ, and God continues to have a place for them in the dispensational, prophetic scheme of things. Dispensationalists teach that a remnant within the nation of Israel will be born again, called of God, and by grace brought to realize they crucified their Messiah. Dispensationalism is unique in teaching that the Church is a provisional parenthesis, a "mystery" period, meaning that it was not revealed in the Old Testament, directly, which period will end with the rapture of the church and the Jewish remnant entering the Great Tribulation. Israel will finally recognize Jesus as their promised Messiah during the trials that come upon them in this Tribulation. Darby's teachings envision Judaism as continuing to enjoy God's protection literally to the End of Time, and teach that God has a separate 'program', to use J. Dwight Pentecost's term, for each Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists teach that God has eternal covenants with Israel, which cannot be broken.

While stressing that God has not forsaken those physically descended from Abraham through Isaac, dispensationalists do affirm the necessity for Jews to receive Jesus as Messiah. They hold that God made unconditional covenants with Israel as a people and nation in the Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic and the New Covenant. Dispensationalism has had a pronounced effect on Christians' attitude toward Israel; many thousands of Christians are presently lovers of Israel, and Zionists, because they believe that God has not rejected Israel as his people.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

[erowe1]

From wiki


...Dispensationalists teach that a remnant within the nation of Israel will be born again, called of God, and by grace brought to realize they crucified their Messiah. Dispensationalism is unique in teaching that the Church is a provisional parenthesis, a "mystery" period, meaning that it was not revealed in the Old Testament, directly, which period will end with the rapture of the church and the Jewish remnant entering the Great Tribulation....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

That sure doesn't look like two-covenant theology to me. Nor does that doctrine support present-day zionism, since we are still in what dispensationalists consider the church age, or the parenthesis in God's dealings with Israel.

And this line is directly contradictory of what Hagee teaches:

While stressing that God has not forsaken those physically descended from Abraham through Isaac, dispensationalists do affirm the necessity for Jews to receive Jesus as Messiah.

[QuickZ06]

So less than 4% of Americans are homosexuals yet they are 100% the problem and is the most important issue.....stfu frothy.

[James Madison]

[QUOTE]That sure doesn't look like two-covenant theology to me. Nor does that doctrine support present-day zionism, since we are still in what dispensationalists consider the church age, or the parenthesis in God's dealings with Israel.

How so? God's covenant with Abraham, according to dispensationalists, has yet to be fulfilled. Christ established a second covenant. What we have is a toxic hybrid of dual-covenant theology and new covenant theology.


And this line is directly contradictory of what Hagee teaches:[/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFv5ijz6s6A

[erowe1]

How so? God's covenant with Abraham, according to dispensationalists, has yet to be fulfilled. Christ established a second covenant. What we have is a toxic hybrid of dual-covenant theology and new covenant theology.


According to dispensationalism, there are lots of covenants in the Bible. Yes, dispensationalism teaches that God's covenant with Abraham has not been completely fulfilled, but will be in the millennium. Today, Jews must accept Jesus as the Messiah and become part of the church, rather than Israel, in order to be saved. According to Hagee, the Abrahamic covenant is being fulfilled now in the nation-state of Israel, and it includes salvation for Jews without requiring them to accept Jesus as Messiah, while Gentiles, on the other hand, must be saved by a different covenant.

Hagee's view is what two-covenant theology is. Dispensationalism is not. The quote you yourself chose to copy from wikipedia highlights these exact differences.

[James Madison]

According to dispensationalism, there are lots of covenants in the Bible. Yes, dispensationalism teaches that God's covenant with Abraham has not been completely fulfilled, but will be in the millennium. Today, Jews must accept Jesus as the Messiah and become part of the church, rather than Israel, in order to be saved. According to Hagee, the Abrahamic covenant is being fulfilled now in the nation-state of Israel, and it includes salvation for Jews without requiring them to accept Jesus as Messiah, while Gentiles, on the other hand, must be saved by a different covenant.


I never got that for him. Do you have any links of Hagee stating outright that the Jews will not have to accept Christ?

[erowe1]

I never got that for him. Do you have any links of Hagee stating outright that the Jews will not have to accept Christ?

First, that's what two-covenant theology is. So if it's not true that he believes that, then he doesn't advocate two-covenant theology.

But I think he does. People have posted videos here of him saying so. I've seen tons of websites exposing him as believing that based on his own words, which I could find with a little googling. I don't think it comes up in most of his books. But supposedly there's a recent one that clearly says that Jesus did not come as Israel's Messiah, and they have no obligation to believe he did. Looking over his titles on Amazon, there are too many and they all look too much alike for me to know which book it is.

ETA: Here is the first thing that came up when I googled Hagee messiah. This view is definitely not dispensationalist.
http://carm.org/john-hagee-denies-jesus-claimed-to-be-the-messiah

[MelissaWV]

So less than 4% of Americans are homosexuals yet they are 100% the problem and is the most important issue.....stfu frothy.

Nah it's more like... they are a teeny percentage of the population (even teenier if we are talking about homosexuals that are also in favor of special rights and are constantly screeching about it), but the "issue" gets half the nation in a tizzy. See this thread for a start :(

[Origanalist]

Nah it's more like... they are a teeny percentage of the population (even teenier if we are talking about homosexuals that are also in favor of special rights and are constantly screeching about it), but the "issue" gets half the nation in a tizzy. See this thread for a start :(

Maybe that's why ol' frothy keeps harping on it?

[MelissaWV]

Maybe that's why ol' frothy keeps harping on it?
Oh and did I mention it's very difficult for people to think of issues like the national debt, the Federal Reserve, and multiple wars overseas... when they are worrying about catching teh gayz?

*sighs* This country...

:(

[Origanalist]

Oh and did I mention it's very difficult for people to think of issues like the national debt, the Federal Reserve, and multiple wars overseas... when they are worrying about catching teh gayz?

*sighs* This country...

:(

Priorities you know...

[farreri]

The gays!

http://users.commspeed.net/guzzi/images/AAAAAH.gif

[Chrysamere]

Homosexuals can have all that in the exact same way heterosexuals can: by marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Retard.

Posting in a gay thread again. :)

[farreri]

Homosexuals can have all that in the exact same way heterosexuals can: by marrying someone of the opposite sex.
Michelle Bachmann uses that line. Sure you want to be associated with her?

Btw, not too long ago: Blacks can have all that in the exact same way Whites can: by marrying someone of the same race.

[erowe1]

Michelle Bachmann uses that line. Sure you want to be associated with her?
Should we refuse to believe a true statement just because Michelle Bachmann also happens to believe it?

[Chrysamere]

Should we refuse to believe a true statement just because Michelle Bachmann also happens to believe it?

True statement: If Michelle Bachmann happens to believe it, it most likely isn't a true statement.

Aside from that, what he said was true, homosexuals can get all the benefits a hetero married couple does if they marry someone from the other sex, that doesn't make it any less retarded, who would marry someone they don't love.

[erowe1]

True statement: If Michelle Bachmann happens to believe it, it most likely isn't a true statement.


But in this case it is a true statement.

[Chrysamere]

But in this case it is a true statement.

I know, I just said it was in the post you quoted.

Another true statement: If you are a social conservative you are an idiot.

[COpatriot]

People like Santorum piss me off. They claim to be "pro-life" and "pro strong families" and yet are the most rabidly pro-war people around. How are all the wars Santorum wants pro-life or family?

[erowe1]

Another true statement: If you are a social conservative you are an idiot.
So then why are you here? Do you like going to websites for people you disagree with and calling them idiots?

[Chrysamere]

So then why are you here? Do you like going to websites for people you disagree with and calling them idiots?

It's a known fact all social conservatives are idiots.

[erowe1]

It's a known fact all social conservatives are idiots.

Great. You're obviously smarter than us. So why are you here? Just to point that out? Aren't there other websites like this for social liberals?

[Chrysamere]

Great. You're obviously smarter than us. So why are you here? Just to point that out?

Why would I be here to point out a known fact, everyone knows it already.

[erowe1]

Why would I be here to point out a known fact, everyone knows it already.

We idiots might not know it. But let's say we did. Then what? Why be here? How many times do you have to call Ron Paul an idiot before it gets old?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Retard.

Posting in a gay thread again. :)



Another true statement: If you are a social conservative you are an idiot.


It's a known fact all social conservatives are idiots.

Maybe you should read the site rules.



Code of Ethics: Site members are expected to uphold an ethic standard as follows:

+ Be honest and truthful.
+ Respect others life, liberty and property.
+ Respect others copyrights and intellectual property, per legal standards.
+ Work to promote a peaceful, freedom loving, compassionate society.
+ Operate within established morally sound laws.


Treatment of Others: Site members are expected to use the following standards in the treatment of others:

+ Be respectful of others users.
+ No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
+ No posting of anyone's personal contact information.
+ Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.


Content Guidelines: The following guidelines regulate site content:

+ No promoting agendas that counter our Mission Statement.
+ Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
+ Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".
+ No rude, disruptive or disorderly behavior, including excessive low value posting.
+ Posts should not promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals. Such forms of collectivism include sexism, racism, antisemitism; they will not be tolerated here.
+ Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter.
+ No posting of graphically offensive material, use links with warnings.
+ Thread starters who are promoting their own material will be limited to two personal thread bumps.

PS: Reported.

[Chrysamere]

We idiots might not know it. But let's say we did. Then what? Why be here? How many times do you have to call Ron Paul an idiot before it gets old?

I am very disturbed you would attack me like that, and put words in my mouth, good sir. You are way out of line and unable to conduct a civilized debate. Bad.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I am very disturbed you would attack me like that, and put words in my mouth, good sir. You are way out of line and unable to conduct a civilized debate. Bad.

You said social conservatives are idiots. Ron Paul is a social conservative, therefore you called him, and a majority of his supporters, an idiot.

[erowe1]

I am very disturbed you would attack me like that, and put words in my mouth, good sir. You are way out of line and unable to conduct a civilized debate. Bad.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I certainly didn't attack you. But I find it ironic that you would say it's out of line to attack people here. I never called you an idiot, like you called us.

[sailingaway]

Why would I be here to point out a known fact, everyone knows it already.

quit insulting swaths of board members collectivistically or otherwise.

[Chrysamere]

You said social conservatives are idiots. Ron Paul is a social conservative, therefore you called him, and a majority of his supporters, an idiot.

What is wrong with stating a fact?

Ron Paul isn't a social conservative, by the way. It's a known fact he dislikes all social conservatives.

[sailingaway]

What is wrong with stating a fact?

Ron Paul isn't a social conservative, by the way. It's a known fact he dislikes all social conservatives.

Ron Paul is personally pretty much a social conservative. What he isn't is someone who feels others should be forced to his own moral values.

--
edit, to the extent you define social conservative as someone who condemns what others do and the people who do that, I disagree with that definition.

"Judge not that ye shall not be judged" is a very socially conservative viewpoint, imho.

[Carehn]

The problem with this thread is every one seems to have a different definition for 'social conservative'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9Jyz82Ps

[erowe1]

What is wrong with stating a fact?

Ron Paul isn't a social conservative, by the way. It's a known fact he dislikes all social conservatives.

That's not true. The issue you were using to define social conservatives was gay marriage. By that definition Ron Paul is a social conservative, since he's against gay marriage.

[erowe1]

The problem with this thread is every one seems to have a different definition for 'social conservative'


Not really. Chrysamere established what she meant by it in her first post on the subject. By her own definition, Ron Paul qualifies as an idiot.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

What is wrong with stating a fact?

Ron Paul isn't a social conservative, by the way.

Ron Paul is a Christian, he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, he is staunchly pro-life, he opposes eugenics and euthanasia, he opposes drug use...

That makes him a social conservative.


It's a known fact he dislikes all social conservatives.

So he dislikes himself and his son? And the majority of his supporters?

[Carehn]

Not really. Chrysamere established what she meant by it in her first post on the subject. By her own definition, Ron Paul qualifies as an idiot.

Maybe Chrysameres definition for Idiot is different then most???

[erowe1]

Maybe Chrysameres definition for Idiot is different then most???

Obviously. But it's her words on the subject that were being criticized.

[sailingaway]

I edited this into my post above, but it is relevant, imho:

to the extent you define social conservative as someone who condemns what others do and the people who do that, I disagree with that definition.

"Judge not that ye shall not be judged" is a very socially conservative viewpoint, imho.

[Chrysamere]

Maybe Chrysameres definition for Idiot is different then most???

My definition of idiot:

Loving, caring person who values family, life and liberty above all else.


Isn't that the definition? :<

[Carehn]

My definition of idiot:

Loving, caring person who values family, life and liberty above all else.


Isn't that the definition? :<
Im confused, What do you mean by 'Definition'?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

My definition of idiot:

Loving, caring person who values family, life and liberty above all else.


Isn't that the definition? :<

I guess social conservatives are idiots.

Since you're a social liberal does that mean you are unloving, uncaring, and value the state, death, and slavery above all else?

[Chrysamere]

I guess social conservatives are idiots.

Since you're a social liberal does that mean you are unloving, uncaring, and value the state, death, and slavery above all else?

Thats collectivism, and quite mean!! :(

In all seriousness, sucks when someone hates you for your views, calls you names because of who you are, and treats you as less than human because of who you associate with, right? :)

[sailingaway]

Thats collectivism, and quite mean!! :(

In all seriousness, sucks when someone hates you for your views, calls you names because of who you are, and treats you as less than human because of who you associate with, right? :)

right.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Thats collectivism, and quite mean!! :()

It wasn't an accusation or an insult. It was a question.


In all seriousness, sucks when someone hates you for your views, calls you names because of who you are, and treats you as less than human because of who you associate with, right? :)

http://www.lifechoice.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/pot-kettle.jpg

[anaconda]

Santorum: "I'm not an evangelical, but I play one on TV."

^This.

[Ranger29860]

That's not true. The issue you were using to define social conservatives was gay marriage. By that definition Ron Paul is a social conservative, since he's against gay marriage.


Is he really though? Politically he has always said at least from what I have seen is that he is against state marriage. So wouldn't he be against straight state marriage as much as he is against gay state marriage? I know what his personal views are but I have never seen him make his personnel beliefs take precedence over his political stance.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Is he really though? Politically he has always said at least from what I have seen is that he is against state marriage. So wouldn't he be against straight state marriage as much as he is against gay state marriage? I know what his personal views are but I have never seen him make his personnel beliefs take precedence over his political stance.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul thinks homosexual behavior is a sin.

[COpatriot]

Jesus this thread got derailed.

[erowe1]

Is he really though? Politically he has always said at least from what I have seen is that he is against state marriage. So wouldn't he be against straight state marriage as much as he is against gay state marriage? I know what his personal views are but I have never seen him make his personnel beliefs take precedence over his political stance.

He supports getting states out of marriage. But he also supports getting the federal government out of whatever states do in marriage, and as a federal office holder that's the position that has determined his votes. He supports DOMA. He spoke out against the Supreme Court overruling an anti-sodomy law. His We the People Act would prohibit federal courts from ever overturning state laws about same-sex unions and sexual practices. So in effect, he's been a much stronger ally of anti-gay marriage people than Santorum.

[Ranger29860]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul thinks homosexual behavior is a sin.


But I am pretty sure he would never legislate it or give "benefits" to one group over another. He wants states out marriage, and I am pretty sure that means no regulation on what kind of marriages you can have. So bringing his personal beliefs into it is irrelevant if he would never enact laws based on them.

He has his personal beliefs but I was never attracted to all of them. What got me interested in him was his political beliefs.

[Ranger29860]

He supports getting states out of marriage. But he also supports getting the federal government out of whatever states do in marriage, and as a federal office holder that's the position that has determined his votes. He supports DOMA. He spoke out against the Supreme Court overruling an anti-sodomy law. His We the People Act would prohibit federal courts from ever overturning state laws about same-sex unions and sexual practices. So in effect, he's been a much stronger ally of anti-gay marriage people than Santorum.

DOMA was about shrinking the federal government so I see no reason not to support it. He spoke out against he ruling because it uses the right to privacy claim, not because he is for sodomy laws. If I remember right didn't he say sodomy laws were ridiculous? The we the people act is again a way to restrict the federal government by following the constitution. State supreme courts could still easily turn over things that are unconstitutionally enacted in the state and they should. I know straight people who have been charged with sodomy so people need to be real careful what they wish for.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

But I am pretty sure he would never legislate it or give "benefits" to one group over another. He wants states out marriage, and I am pretty sure that means no regulation on what kind of marriages you can have. So bringing his personal beliefs into it is irrelevant if he would never enact laws based on them.

He has his personal beliefs but I was never attracted to all of them. What got me interested in him was his political beliefs.

That hasn't been disputed or even discussed. What chrystname said is social conservatives are idiots. Ron Paul is definitely one, so she called him an idiot.

[Ranger29860]

That hasn't been disputed or even discussed. What chrystname said is social conservatives are idiots. Ron Paul is definitely one, so she called him an idiot.

lol did you negative rep me for having an opinion?

*edit*

whoops wrong thread.

[fr33]

He supports DOMA. He spoke out against the Supreme Court overruling an anti-sodomy law. His We the People Act would prohibit federal courts from ever overturning state laws about same-sex unions and sexual practices. So in effect, he's been a much stronger ally of anti-gay marriage people than Santorum.That's one of the few things I had to overlook to keep on supporting Ron. It's something I point out to the purists that gripe about Rand. Ron was not perfect.

[MelissaWV]

"The straights" seem to get really worked up over this.

[erowe1]

DOMA was about shrinking the federal government so I see no reason not to support it. He spoke out against he ruling because it uses the right to privacy claim, not because he is for sodomy laws. If I remember right didn't he say sodomy laws were ridiculous? The we the people act is again a way to restrict the federal government by following the constitution. State supreme courts could still easily turn over things that are unconstitutionally enacted in the state and they should. I know straight people who have been charged with sodomy so people need to be real careful what they wish for.

Right. All those things are what social conservatives want.

DOMA, incidentally, also does limit marriage to one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.

[alucard13mmfmj]

That's one of the few things I had to overlook to keep on supporting Ron. It's something I point out to the purists that gripe about Rand. Ron was not perfect.

Let's hope Romney loses for "hope" in 2016. Keep monitoring Rand's rhetoric and especially his voting record.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Let's hope Romney loses for "hope" in 2016. Keep monitoring Rand's rhetoric and especially his voting record.

Rand is awesome. Hopefully in 2016 we can get a federal marriage amendment to settle this once and for all.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Hopefully in 2016 we can get a federal marriage amendment to settle this once and for all.

So give the federal government more oversight regarding marriage?

[fr33]

So give the federal government more oversight regarding marriage?I was hoping for a mandate that abolished marriage licensing.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

So give the federal government more oversight regarding marriage?

Is that what I said?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Is that what I said?

Ummm... it had a question mark at the end. Why not just answer it instead of asking another question? Sorry if I sound dumb here, but maybe I am.

[anaconda]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul thinks homosexual behavior is a sin.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. But I doubt that he thinks about it with much graphic detail.

[RickyJ]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

I am sure he does. If you aren't sure, then ask him, he will tell you.

[AFPVet]

Why is frothy so worked up about this? It seems like many of those aggressive homophobes have homosexual tendencies that they find so repulsive that they have to attack it in the world.

... and once again, we have the role of government in our personal lives. The government should have no say in what two consensual people do. If homosexuals want to marry, that is their right... they shouldn't need a permission slip from the state. In fact, rights, unlike privileges, do not require permissions.

[erowe1]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

Of course he does.

[DamianTV]

Great. Spanking 2.0, or which ever thread came first.

[Origanalist]

Great. Spanking 2.0, or which ever thread came first.

Lol... :p

Here's a merger of the two just for ol' frothy,,,,

http://ts1.explicit.bing.net/th?id=H.4908379544027244&pid=15.1

all it needs is a sweater vest.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Is that what I said?

You didn't answer my question. The reason why I asked is because I thought you were referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

[Philhelm]

Not to be vulgar, but I just want to say that "Santorum," as defined as a frothy mixture of cum and fecal matter really does exist! I found out the hard way with my wife, and pointed at the bed sheet and exclaimed, "Santorum!!!"

[dillo]

10 years from now Santorum will be implicated in the Penn State PEDO scandal.

[Origanalist]

Not to be vulgar, but I just want to say that "Santorum," as defined as a frothy mixture of cum and fecal matter really does exist! I found out the hard way with my wife, and pointed at the bed sheet and exclaimed, "Santorum!!!"

STOP!!

yer killin me..

[Philhelm]

10 years from now Santorum will be implicated in the Penn State PEDO scandal.

Or is that the PED State Penn scandal? What is their mascot, the Diddley Lion?

[Sola_Fide]

Rand is awesome. Hopefully in 2016 we can get a federal marriage amendment to settle this once and for all.

Why would you want that?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Why would you want that?

Why wouldn't I?


You didn't answer my question. The reason why I asked is because I thought you were referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

Is that what you think I meant?

[erowe1]

Why wouldn't I?



Is that what you think I meant?

Why don't you just come out and say what you mean, instead of asking others to tell you?

[Sola_Fide]

Why wouldn't I?



Is that what you think I meant?

Why do you want federal legislation for marriage? Why would you want federal legislation for...pretty much anything?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Why do you want federal legislation for marriage? Why would you want federal legislation for...pretty much anything?

I don't think that's what I advocated, is it?

[fr33]

I don't think that's what I advocated, is it?How could we read your mind? Say what you mean.

[DerailingDaTrain]

I don't think that's what I advocated, is it?

Sounds like it


get a federal marriage amendment to settle this once and for all.

[thehungarian]

Santorum is so odd.

[jkob]

I so hope one of Santorum's children turns out gay. He has enough of them so there is a decent chance.

[juleswin]

I know, I just said it was in the post you quoted.

Another true statement: If you are a social conservative you are an idiot.

Truer statement have never been made +rep. I think after we are done kicking the neocons out of the our govt, social conservatives will be next, especially the ones like frothy who insists on tell other adults how to live their lives.

[juleswin]

Great. You're obviously smarter than us. So why are you here? Just to point that out? Aren't there other websites like this for social liberals?

The bigger question is why are YOU here? This is the liberty forest website and how you come to expect that your authoritarian ideas will not be challenged here is a mystery to me. Just because you have conservative at the end of your name doesn't make your anti liberty positions right

[juleswin]

Maybe you should read the site rules.




PS: Reported.

You posted this "+ Be respectful of others users." as part of forum standards. And yet you posted the disrespectful post that a homosexual should marry a straight person if they wanted to receive marriage benefits. What if there was a gay forum member reading it? Do you think that is respectful thing to say to something fighting for fair treatment by a govt that supposed to represent him/her?. Gay people deserve respect too

Give respect and respect will be given to you. I bet nobody would have out of the blues called social conservatives idiots if you have refrained from posting that offensive post.

[juleswin]

Ron Paul is personally pretty much a social conservative. What he isn't is someone who feels others should be forced to his own moral values.

--
edit, to the extent you define social conservative as someone who condemns what others do and the people who do that, I disagree with that definition.

"Judge not that ye shall not be judged" is a very socially conservative viewpoint, imho.

And its obvious the ones Chrysamere was talking about are the ones like Santorum that want to dictate to other how to live their lives. So it is really that disrespectful to call an authoritarian an idiot? And on collectivism, white people are white is a collectivism statement but it is also true

[juleswin]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul thinks homosexual behavior is a sin.

That doesn't make his a politically social conservative. Now if he were to act on that belief then we can agree that puts him squarely in the social conservative camp, but what has he ever done about it? nothing.

Btw just about every human being in this world on a personal level agree with 1 or 2 of the policies social conservatives support but that doesn't make em socially conservative.

[Varin]

"I'm pretty sure Ron Paul thinks homosexual behavior is a sin."


Not really
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

[LibertyEagle]

That's one of the few things I had to overlook to keep on supporting Ron. It's something I point out to the purists that gripe about Rand. Ron was not perfect.

Why wouldn't you agree with him doing this? It's Ron being his constitutionally-consistent self.

[sailingaway]

And its obvious the ones Chrysamere was talking about are the ones like Santorum that want to dictate to other how to live their lives. So it is really that disrespectful to call an authoritarian an idiot? And on collectivism, white people are white is a collectivism statement but it is also true

No, that is a descriptive element, as 'authoritarian' would have been a descriptive element. To say authoritarians are authoritarian is a tautology, not collectivism. Collectivism would be saying 'all authoritarians want to order what tooth paste you should use'. Etc.

[dinosaur]

Why do you want federal legislation for marriage? Why would you want federal legislation for...pretty much anything?

That is the question that so many christians forget to ask. I think that it is probably due to intellectual laziness more than anything else. I'm sure people have seen this video, but Tom Woods does a great job explaining the catholic position on marriage. From the video - "Marriage belongs, properly, to the custodianship of civil society, not to government. And Catholics, especially, should know this. All through the centuries of christendom, it would have been considered an intolerable intrusion into the church's jurisdiction, for the state to take charge of marriage, defining it and codifying it one way or another. This is not the state's area. The french revolution began to insist that the state had to codify and improve marriage for it to be considered legitimate. And, of course, traditionalists thought that this was an appaling development. But, unfortunately some conservatives act like this: if some left-wing innovation goes on long enough, then the conservatives will defend it as something conservative. This is not conservative. So it's much, much, better to think in terms of a ground-up approach to changing the world in ways that you want rather than this top down one that can go the other way, and turn on a dime on you, very quickly."

I'm not permitted to post links yet, but to find the video google: tom-woods-ron-paul-or-rick-santorum-whom-should-catholics-choose

If we got the state out of the business of defining marriage, then people who wanted some sort of legal protection would have to sign a voluntary contract. I guess that would lead to catholic contracts, mormon contracts, evangelical contracts, etc. etc. Each would get to define marriage the way that they pleased and the state would not be empowered to influence the cultural war one way or another.

[sailingaway]

"I'm pretty sure Ron Paul thinks homosexual behavior is a sin."


Not really
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

He refused to condemn it when asked on multiple times. He said why should he be looking at other people for sins, he sins, we all sin.

This really hurt him in Iowa where Caffinieted Conservative blog (well read there) and Deace's folks hated him for it. NOM put ads out against him with almost their entire annual budget in Iowa, NH and SC.

I think Ron IS pure. He thinks EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinions, just not to manipulate the federal government to impose those opinions on others. He is a Consititutionalist and follows the rule of law, however, so if people are able to govern themselves, he wants it at the state level.

But note that as currently postured it is an offense to the religious beliefs of some if churches were forced to marry, which is a sacrament, and they shouldn't be forced to that either, contrary to religious beliefs. That is why Ron thinks the government should be out of the question all together, and people should make their own choices.

I agree with that.

I voted against proposition 8 in CA because I had to stand against government treating citizens differently, but if there were a proposition to say churches never had to perform marriages (or abortions) against their religious conscience, I'd vote for that too.

[armstrong]

Santorum says Gay Marriage the most important fight of our lifetime!!!!!!! Really!!!!! its more like one of the most unimportant things there is.....

[chudrockz]

Don't have time right now to catch up on seventeen pages or whatever this thread is now.

But seriously, Rick Santorum is a fool.

Nevermind that we are being driven to bankruptcy and third-world status by truly evil bastards stealing our money to murder people around the world. It's those damned gay people. They're the REAL threat. Good GOD.

:rolleyes:

[TonySutton]

But note that as currently postured it is an offense to the religious beliefs of some if churches were forced to marry, which is a sacrament, and they shouldn't be forced to that either, contrary to religious beliefs. That is why Ron thinks the government should be out of the question all together, and people should make their own choices.

I agree with that.



Do federal/state/local governments currently force churches to marry every heterosexual couple that shows up at their doors? I am not aware of this.

[erowe1]

The bigger question is why are YOU here? This is the liberty forest website and how you come to expect that your authoritarian ideas will not be challenged here is a mystery to me. Just because you have conservative at the end of your name doesn't make your anti liberty positions right

It's not just liberty forest, its the Ron Paul forums. I'm not the one saying everyone who agrees with Ron Paul about something is an idiot.

And what authoritarian ideas?

[Eagles' Wings]

The marriage amendment vote is coming up in Minnesota. I have declined both the yes and no vote signs at this point as well as one for Romney. We have a pretty visible corner lot with moderate to heavy traffic.

[sailingaway]

Do federal/state/local governments currently force churches to marry every heterosexual couple that shows up at their doors? I am not aware of this.

Heterosexual couples don't go to lawsuits with it, but in government facilities, such as Yosemite, the churches have to allow all faiths to marry there - but they don't have to officiate themselves. But the church wasn't built by the government, it was just given a location on government land, which at the time was never assumed would lead to that.

At this point heterosexual couples can be turned away for equally applied religious reasons (not baptized into the church, etc.), but a huge concern to religious folks, even those who don't see gay marriage as their particular hot button, is the camel's nose under the tent in government forcing churches to conform to government idea of morality. Abortion is a huge issue; Catholic hospitals open for over a hundred years are closing due to the overturn of the conscience provision saying you don't have to perform abortions if your religion forbids it. They see religion as 'under attack' and just as we don't want to see decisions go national/international instead of local/state because we see the individual as having less and less influence over their own lives, they are protecting the church religious autonomy.

The fact is, people like Perez Hilton or sensationalist types WOULD sue for this, saying a church is a 'historic landmark' or something and had to let them marry there. I think it is disingenuous to say those sorts of people wouldn't, to force THEIR views on others. But when it came to prop 8 and I had the issue in front of me, I voted against it. BUT I would enforce religious autonomy as well.

If you can force people to one set of morals and beliefs, others when they have 51% can force you to theirs. The whole idea is illegitimate to me.

[Eagles' Wings]

Do federal/state/local governments currently force churches to marry every heterosexual couple that shows up at their doors? I am not aware of this.Perhaps this possibility would encourage churches/faith orgs to decline 5013c.

[TonySutton]

Heterosexual couples don't go to lawsuits with it, but in government facilities, such as Yosemite, the churches have to allow all faiths to marry there - but they don't have to officiate themselves. But the church wasn't built by the government, it was just given a location on government land, which at the time was never assumed would lead to that.

First, I am sure there have been some lawsuits regarding couples wanting their heterosexual marriage in a certain venue. Recently the black couple in Mississippi quickly comes to mind.

Second, regarding churches on public property or that have become public property. I am sure there are some atheists who are using these churches. There are certainly "non-practicing" people using churches for marrying. I find it hard to believe there could be many things worse than someone who denies the existence of God being married in a church.

Is there currently a problem with this? I do not recall any large groups of people protesting atheists being married in a church.

Certainly there will be some Perez Hilton's running around causing hate and discontent but the world is full of attention seekers and malcontents. They come hand in hand with liberty.

[chudrockz]

The marriage amendment vote is coming up in Minnesota. I have declined both the yes and no vote signs at this point as well as one for Romney. We have a pretty visible corner lot with moderate to heavy traffic.

I intend to vote a hearty "no" on the marriage amendment, and also no on the voter ID one. And kudos to Minnesota "conservatives" for placing to constitutional amendments on the ballot which are virtually guaranteed to fail spectacularly, as well as guarantee Republicans get trounced next month in Minnesota.

[erowe1]

I find it hard to believe there could be many things worse than someone who denies the existence of God being married in a church.

Why is that?

Their sin is denying the existence of God, not getting married, and the marriage is what the church would be participating in.

If I were someone who officiated weddings, I could, as a Christian, see justification for marrying a couple who aren't Christians. But I couldn't, as a Christian, possibly justify marrying two members of the same sex.

[chudrockz]

Why is that?

Their sin is denying the existence of God, not getting married, and the marriage is what the church would be participating in.

If I were someone who officiated weddings, I could see justification for marrying people who aren't Christians. But I couldn't possibly justify marrying two members of the same sex.

Well thank God I got married outdoors then! :) But it was by a pastor who knew I was an atheist.

[sailingaway]

First, I am sure there have been some lawsuits regarding couples wanting their heterosexual marriage in a certain venue. Recently the black couple in Mississippi quickly comes to mind.

Second, regarding churches on public property or that have become public property. I am sure there are some atheists who are using these churches. There are certainly "non-practicing" people using churches for marrying. I find it hard to believe there could be many things worse than someone who denies the existence of God being married in a church.

Is there currently a problem with this? I do not recall any large groups of people protesting atheists being married in a church.

Certainly there will be some Perez Hilton's running around causing hate and discontent but the world is full of attention seekers and malcontents. They come hand in hand with liberty.

But churches don't want to be part of their attention seeking, under governmental intervention, when they just want to be left alone to practice their faith their own way. That is also part of liberty.

[TonySutton]

But churches don't want to be part of their attention seeking, under governmental intervention, when they just want to be left alone to practice their faith their own way. That is also part of liberty.

Churches?? that is pretty broad. There are many UU churches that already marry same-sex couples. I know this is going to sound shocking but even though these UU churches are conducting same sex marriages it has not led to people wanting/demanding to marry their dog, cat, etc.

[erowe1]

Churches?? that is pretty broad. There are many UU churches that already marry same-sex couples. I know this is going to sound shocking but even though these UU churches are conducting same sex marriages it has not led to people wanting/demanding to marry their dog, cat, etc.

Not just UU churches, but Episcopal churches, Presbyterian churches, Methodist churches, and others. And in no state does the government go around to these churches and try to prevent them from doing it or punish them for it. The gay marriage debate isn't about letting people be free to live how they want, it's about giving gay people special benefits.

[TonySutton]

Not just UU churches, but Episcopal churches, Presbyterian churches, Methodist churches, and others. And in no state does the government go around to these churches and try to prevent them from doing it or punish them for it. The gay marriage debate isn't about letting people be free to live how they want, it's about giving gay people special benefits.

That depends on who you are talking to. There are plenty on the no gay marriage side that just think gays are icky and want them to run back to a closet.

I agree the best way is to get government out of marriage. Unfortunately that puts us at odds against both sides :P go figure.

[sailingaway]

Churches?? that is pretty broad. There are many UU churches that already marry same-sex couples. I know this is going to sound shocking but even though these UU churches are conducting same sex marriages it has not led to people wanting/demanding to marry their dog, cat, etc.

I'm speaking only of the churches that don't want this. Those that have no problem with it aren't having their religious nor associational freedoms infringed upon. The fact is the way it is set up where the government intrudes to order or to forbid, is wrong. Government out all together is the answer.

[specsaregood]

Santorum says Gay Marriage the most important fight of our lifetime

So, who thinks Santorum has never gotten into a physical fight in his entire life?

[sailingaway]

That depends on who you are talking to. There are plenty on the no gay marriage side that just think gays are icky and want them to run back to a closet.

I agree the best way is to get government out of marriage. Unfortunately that puts us at odds against both sides :P go figure.

I see it as adding a path to resolution for BOTH sides. There are those, red/blue left/right who profit from the fight continuing to exist. But if the people actually hurt by the government intervention approach really want to solve this, WE offer the SOLUTION. One both sides could find themselves fighting on the SAME side for, so it actually happens.

[TonySutton]

I see it as adding a path to resolution for BOTH sides. There are those, red/blue left/right who profit from the fight continuing to exist. But if the people actually hurt by the government intervention approach really want to solve this, WE offer the SOLUTION. One both sides could find themselves fighting on the SAME side for, so it actually happens.

I agree with you. Getting them to listen is the hard part. Once they listen they generally agree. At least this has been my experience.

[erowe1]

I see it as adding a path to resolution for BOTH sides. There are those, red/blue left/right who profit from the fight continuing to exist. But if the people actually hurt by the government intervention approach really want to solve this, WE offer the SOLUTION. One both sides could find themselves fighting on the SAME side for, so it actually happens.

Christians need to get on the government-out-of-marriage bandwagon quick. They have liked it so far because it's been a winning issue for them in the ballot box most of the time over the past decade or more. But we're fast approaching the time that trend changes. And once gay marriage gets approved around the country, and the Christians decide then that they want to support getting government out of marriage after all, it will be too late. They will be vastly outnumbered and with no allies on the left. Government marriage will have become the gay agenda's biggest prize, and they'll never let it go.

[Sola_Fide]

Christians need to get on the government-out-of-marriage bandwagon quick. They have liked it so far because it's been a winning issue for them in the ballot box most of the time over the past decade or more. But we're fast approaching the time that trend changes. And once gay marriage gets approved around the country, and the Christians decide then that they want to support getting government out of marriage after all, it will be too late. They will be vastly outnumbered and with no allies on the left. Government marriage will have become the gay agenda's biggest prize, and they'll never let it go.

Absolutely. It is ridiculous for Christians to play a majority numbers game with the world, in this country or any country.

And beneath the numbers-game mentality is the statist Romanist/Reconstructionist mentality that sees legislation as a mark of progress for Christianity in the world.

[Eagles' Wings]

Christians need to get on the government-out-of-marriage bandwagon quick. They have liked it so far because it's been a winning issue for them in the ballot box most of the time over the past decade or more. But we're fast approaching the time that trend changes. And once gay marriage gets approved around the country, and the Christians decide then that they want to support getting government out of marriage after all, it will be too late. They will be vastly outnumbered and with no allies on the left. Government marriage will have become the gay agenda's biggest prize, and they'll never let it go.My Christian friends shut me down when I bring this up. Protestant pastors are rallying around the Catholic Church, and the Knights of Columbus are bankrolling the marriage amendment in a big way, although a small part of their overall budget (recent story in the Star Tribune).

[TonySutton]

hahaha Jumbo Shrimp neg rep'd me because he is the all powerful decider of what a real church is.
Those aren't churches, those are heretics ~Jumbo Shrimp

Jumbo Shrimp religious freedom means you do not get to decide which religion everyone chooses and how they worship. Each person chooses how or even if they worship a god(s).

[Jumbo Shrimp]

hahaha Jumbo Shrimp neg rep'd me because he is the all powerful decider of what a real church is.

Jumbo Shrimp religious freedom means you do not get to decide which religion everyone chooses and how they worship. Each person chooses how or even if they worship a god(s).

I never said I don't support religious freedom. But "Christians" marrying two homosexuals automatically makes them non-Christian because they reject what Scripture plainly says.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I probably should clear up what I meant by a federal marriage amendment.

I meant that the amendment should read something like:

"Marriage is a religious sacrament, Congress and the states shall make no law defining marriage or infringe on the right of religious organizations to define and dispense of the sacrament in a manner of their choosing."

[erowe1]

I probably should clear up what I meant by a federal marriage amendment.

I meant that the amendment should read something like:

"Marriage is a religious sacrament, Congress and the states shall make no law defining marriage or infringe on the right of religious organizations to define and dispense of the sacrament in a manner of their choosing."

Would that amendment end with a clause like the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th have?
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

If so, I couldn't support it. If not, it wouldn't have any teeth.

[TonySutton]

I never said I don't support religious freedom. But "Christians" marrying two homosexuals automatically makes them non-Christian because they reject what Scripture plainly says.

So why do you neg rep me for the choices of those churches? I believe we should all have the freedom to make good decisions and bad decisions.

[Sola_Fide]

I never said I don't support religious freedom. But "Christians" marrying two homosexuals automatically makes them non-Christian because they reject what Scripture plainly says.

Roman Catholicism denies justification by faith alone, therefore it is a non-christian religion:

Roman Catholicism's Recent Claim That It Is The True Church
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=248

Let's not get side-tracked by peripheral issues like gay marriage. Let's get to the heart of everything. Christianity isn't decided based on what you think about homosexuals. There are atheists who don't like homosexuals.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Would that amendment end with a clause like the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th have?
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

If so, I couldn't support it. If not, it wouldn't have any teeth.

No, I'm pretty sure the "shall make no law" part clearly says they shall make no law. Just like with the first amendment it would fall on to the courts to enforce it. (Yes, I know the pitfalls of that)

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Roman Catholicism denies justification by faith alone, therefore it is a non-christian religion:

Roman Catholicism's Recent Claim That It Is The True Church
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=248

Let's not get side-tracked by peripheral issues like gay marriage. Let's get to the heart of everything. Christianity isn't decided based on what you think about homosexuals. There are atheists who don't like homosexuals.

One of the doctrines by Luther, the father of the Protestant Deformation, was that salvation could be achieved by faith alone. While of course faith is necessary, it is what you do with that faith that counts. If you believe is it also not true that you follow and obey. To not act in a way dictated by the faith is a clear sign of hypocritical and false faith. Yes, we are saved by faith. But it is not by faith alone.


"Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like." James 1:22-25
It seems pretty clear here that we must do something. It is not just enough to believe, we must act. How can we say we have faith and not live that faith. Remember, even Satan believed that Jesus was the Son of God. We must live out our faith through actions, not just words.

[erowe1]

While of course faith is necessary, it is what you do with that faith that counts.

No. It's what Jesus did that counts. We are reckoned righteous by God solely on account of his righteousness imputed to us, and not a bit on account of anything we bring to the table.

[Sola_Fide]

JumboShrimp,

Who is a doer of the law? And how is it possible since James himself says:




James 2:10 NIV

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Who is a "doer" of the law?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

No. It's what Jesus did that counts. We are reckoned righteous by God solely on account of his righteousness imputed to us, and not a bit on account of anything we bring to the table.



"By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. There is no partiality with God." Romans 2:5-11

Paul is clear on this point. Our salvation comes through our own deeds and merits, as well as how we "live" our faith. This is not the same as saying that we receive salvation through works alone because we all know there is no salvation without Christ. Yes, you must have faith, but it is a "living" faith.

[erowe1]

Paul is clear on this point. Our salvation comes through our own deeds and merits, as well as how we "live" our faith. This is not the same as saying that we receive salvation through works alone because we all know there is no salvation without Christ. Yes, you must have faith, but it is a "living" faith.

I agree that true saving faith is a living faith that brings forth fruit in good works, but it isn't these good works that make a person righteous in God's sight. Our salvation does not come through our deeds. It comes through Christ's deeds and no one else's. If God were to judge us by our own deeds, not a one of us could ever be righteous in his sight.

[sailingaway]

Would that amendment end with a clause like the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th have?
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

If so, I couldn't support it. If not, it wouldn't have any teeth.

the teeth is against the federal government itself -- including EXECUTIVE ORDERS --since it is the one that threatens it.

Then as Ron Paul says, you deal with the tax stuff, etc, by reforming the tax code. Not by meddling where the government doesn't belong.

[erowe1]

the teeth is against the federal government itself -- including EXECUTIVE ORDERS --since it is the one that threatens it.

Right, but the inclusion of something about the states in that amendment is where I see a problem. It looks like it would end up giving Congress more power to dictate to states what they can and can't do.

[Sola_Fide]

Paul is clear on this point. Our salvation comes through our own deeds and merits, as well as how we "live" our faith. This is not the same as saying that we receive salvation through works alone because we all know there is no salvation without Christ. Yes, you must have faith, but it is a "living" faith.

So you dont even understand that Romans chapter 2 is the beginning part of a multi-chapter argument? You can go to the very next chapter to have your point entirely refuted. It's in chapter 3.

Chapter 2 is where Paul lays out the universal principles of the law. The law says, if you do this, you will live...and if you don't do this, you will die. In chapter 2, Paul is laying the groundwork of an argument. The point is that no one can do these things and live. This is why in chapter 3, Paul says that Jew and Gentile are all condemned under the law.

[Brian4Liberty]

Apparently this is the most important topic on RPF for the past week... :o

[erowe1]

So you dont even understand that Romans chapter 2 is the beginning part of a multi-chapter argument? You can go to the very next chapter to have your point entirely refuted. It's in chapter 3.

Chapter 2 is where Paul lays out the universal principles of the law. The law says, if you do this, you will live...and if you don't do this, you will die. In chapter 2, Paul is laying the groundwork of an argument. The point is that no one can do these things and live. This is why in chapter 3, Paul says that Jew and Gentile are all condemned under the law.

That's right. There might appear to be a contradiction between Romans 2:13 and Romans 3:20:

2:13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

But that apparent contradiction is removed when both verses are considered as part of a single coherent argument. In 2:13 Paul is stating the standard that no one ever achieves. In 3:20 he is stating the consequence of the fact that no one ever achieves that standard.

And then he gets to the good news in 3:21 and following:

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

[acptulsa]

I never said I don't support religious freedom. But "Christians" marrying two homosexuals automatically makes them non-Christian because they reject what Scripture plainly says.

And what's Christian about the attitude that gays shouldn't be allowed the same benefits other couples do? I'm talking about benefits like health care for their significant other? Biblical times were simple times. There was no issue of someone not being able to get such benefits--which many now consider necessary for survival in modern society (to the point that they're trying to make it mandatory for people). Such benefits didn't exist yet.

So, we have someone trying to get health care for someone else. Is it the place of Christian churches to deny someone such benefits? Really? Or is that more churlish than Christian?

You can perhaps persuade someone into different lifestyle choices. But not by being childish and denying them the things they need. That just drives them out of your reach, to where they can't even hear your efforts at persuasion.

Ensuring that someone has no health plan when they get sick is not Christian. The proof is in Matthew 25.


"Hunt out and talk about the good that is in the other fellow's church, not the bad, and you will do away with all this religious hatred you hear so much of nowadays."--Will Rogers 1923

We're in, what, six wars because of fundamentalist religious hatred--on both sides? Isn't it time we learned what Jesus taught about tolerance, and take it to heart?


Santorum is so gay.

I can't believe we got the /thread moment in post two, yet here we are on page 21 and counting...

[erowe1]

And what's Christian about the attitude that gays shouldn't be allowed the same benefits other couples do? I'm talking about benefits like health care for their significant other?

Who's talking about anyone not being able to get health care? If a doctor wants to treat a gay person and that gay person wants to give the doctor money, obviously the state should not stand in their way. If a doctor doesn't want to treat a gay person, that's their choice as well.

[erowe1]

We're in, what, six wars because of fundamentalist religious hatred

I don't believe that. Do you?

[acptulsa]

Who's talking about anyone not being able to get health care? If a doctor wants to treat a gay person and that gay person wants to give the doctor money, obviously the state should not stand in their way. If a doctor doesn't want to treat a gay person, that's their choice as well.

Nice attempt at obfuscation. Not real nice, but nice. A heterosexual gets to marry a person, and most employers that provide health care will also provide health care for that spouse. But that person must be a spouse.


I don't believe that. Do you?

Yes and no. The powers that be have their reasons for attacking, and the public has its reasons for not telling their government to knock it off and behave. And for many, that reason is intolerance. Intolerance of which Jesus would not approve.

[bunklocoempire]

http://s6.postimage.org/o3c0z6ir5/santorum_thumbs_up.jpg

"Christian" sez:

"Emperor Nero declared himself a god? huh...

...But this national 'Christian government' goes to eleven"

[dinosaur]

I agree that true saving faith is a living faith that brings forth fruit in good works, but it isn't these good works that make a person righteous in God's sight. Our salvation does not come through our deeds. It comes through Christ's deeds and no one else's. If God were to judge us by our own deeds, not a one of us could ever be righteous in his sight.

Catholics believe in salvation through grace (or by faith through grace) and I don't see anything inconsistent with Catholic teaching in your statement. We can not earn salvation through works, but we can reject it by choosing to remain in sin. We don't choose salvation by a one time declaration only, we believe that we can lose our salvation by sinning..that is where the works part comes in. In other words, we believe in the saving power of faith, we believe that our justification comes from the crucifixion, but we don't believe that means that we are not required to also pick up our cross and follow him...no where in the bible does the stated importance of faith diminish the importance of obedience.

Catholic answers is an orthodox and reliable source on catholic teaching:
"...the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if "works" means purely human efforts to win God's favor"
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/doesnt-john-316-clearly-indicate-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation

[dinosaur]

Christians need to get on the government-out-of-marriage bandwagon quick. They have liked it so far because it's been a winning issue for them in the ballot box most of the time over the past decade or more. But we're fast approaching the time that trend changes. And once gay marriage gets approved around the country, and the Christians decide then that they want to support getting government out of marriage after all, it will be too late. They will be vastly outnumbered and with no allies on the left. Government marriage will have become the gay agenda's biggest prize, and they'll never let it go.

very true

[Sola_Fide]

That's right. There might appear to be a contradiction between Romans 2:13 and Romans 3:20:



But that apparent contradiction is removed when both verses are considered as part of a single coherent argument. In 2:13 Paul is stating the standard that no one ever achieves. In 3:20 he is stating the consequence of the fact that no one ever achieves that standard.

And then he gets to the good news in 3:21 and following:


Yes.

Now can we stop having works-salvationists citing Romans chapter 2 as a support for their argument? That would be nice. Read the chapter as the beginning of an argument that extends for the next few chapters.

But, this complete misunderstanding of law and gospel is the basis of the entire false Roman Catholic soteriology. And the horrible thing is that many Protestant denominations are right in tow with this misunderstanding as well.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I'm surprised Ricky-tikki-tavi hasn't shown up in Minnesota yet to campaign for passing the gay marriage ban state Constitutional amendment.

[Sola_Fide]

Catholics believe in salvation through grace (or by faith through grace) and I don't see anything inconsistent with Catholic teaching in your statement. We can not earn salvation through works, but we can reject it by choosing to remain in sin. We don't choose salvation by a one time declaration only, we believe that we can lose our salvation by sinning..that is where the works part comes in. In other words, we believe in the saving power of faith, we believe that our justification comes from the crucifixion, but we don't believe that means that we are not required to also pick up our cross and follow him...no where in the bible does the stated importance of faith diminish the importance of obedience.

Catholic answers is an orthodox and reliable source on catholic teaching:
"...the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if "works" means purely human efforts to win God's favor"
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/doesnt-john-316-clearly-indicate-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation

The issue that Paul is focused on in Romans and Galatians (and the issue that reasserted itself in the Reformation) was NOT that grace is necessary for salvation. It was: is grace sufficient for salvation.

Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, and false religions of all kinds say that grace is necessary for salvation. The Bible teaches that grace is alone sufficient for salvation.

[TonySutton]

It amazes me how we can turn a thread on gay marriage into a thread about salvation :P

[Sola_Fide]

It amazes me how we can turn a thread on gay marriage into a thread about salvation :P

I would turn every thread in to a thread about salvation if I could.

Is grace necessary for salvation, or is grace alone sufficient for salvation? This is one of the most important questions of all.

[MelissaWV]

I would turn every thread in to a thread about salvation if I could.

Is grace necessary for salvation, or is grace alone sufficient for salvation? This is one of the most important questions of all.

Which is why it currently has its own thread.

I think this error is happening all too often lately. Instead of debating the morality, let's take a step back and realize that this is about Government's role in our lives, not how we choose to view others and their behavior.

[dinosaur]

The issue that Paul is focused on in Romans and Galatians (and the issue that reasserted itself in the Reformation) was NOT that grace is necessary for salvation. It was: is grace sufficient for salvation.

Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, and false religions of all kinds say that grace is necessary for salvation. The Bible teaches that grace is alone sufficient for salvation.


Of Course grace is sufficient. Don't you believe in free will? Don't you believe that a person has to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to cooperate with grace? Does the fact that Catholics believe that it is a choice to cooperate really make them a false religion?

"Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" Thomas Acquinas

[erowe1]

Nice attempt at obfuscation. Not real nice, but nice. A heterosexual gets to marry a person, and most employers that provide health care will also provide health care for that spouse. But that person must be a spouse.
What exactly is the problem with that? Do you want employers to be prohibited from providing healthcare to spouses? Do you want them to be required to provide healthcare to gay partners?

If the problem is the tax code that incentivizes making healthcare a job benefit by not charging income tax for it, then the solution is to get rid of the income tax. And if we can't do that, then to cut it however much we can. Gay marriage doesn't solve that problem.

[Sola_Fide]

Don't you believe in free will?

No. The Bible teaches that man's will is dead in sin and a slave to sin....it is not free at all.



Don't you believe that a person has to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to cooperate with grace?

No. If grace could be "cooperated with", then it would no longer be grace. Paul makes this point in Romans 11:


Romans 11:5-6 NIV

So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.









Does the fact that Catholics believe that it is a choice to cooperate really make them a false religion?

Yes. All false religions deny the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Reformers made this point over and over again. Rome had rejected this central Christian doctrine. The Reformers said that the doctrine of justification was the doctrine on which the Christian church stands or falls.







"Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" Thomas Acquinas

Aquinas was wrong. This verse doesn't teach universal atonement. That would make the Bible teach universalism. 1st John 2:2 is saying that salvation is not just for Jews, but for the entire world (Gentiles as well).

[erowe1]

Catholics believe in salvation through grace (or by faith through grace) and I don't see anything inconsistent with Catholic teaching in your statement. We can not earn salvation through works, but we can reject it by choosing to remain in sin. We don't choose salvation by a one time declaration only, we believe that we can lose our salvation by sinning..that is where the works part comes in. In other words, we believe in the saving power of faith, we believe that our justification comes from the crucifixion, but we don't believe that means that we are not required to also pick up our cross and follow him...no where in the bible does the stated importance of faith diminish the importance of obedience.

Catholic answers is an orthodox and reliable source on catholic teaching:
"...the Catholic view of salvation is not faith plus works, if "works" means purely human efforts to win God's favor"
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/doesnt-john-316-clearly-indicate-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation

But my statement was about works that follow from salvation, not salvation being contingent on works. To say you can lose your salvation by sinning is to make salvation contingent on works. When you say that the Bible nowhere diminishes the importance of works, that's just not true. If you're talking about works as a requirement for salvation, the Bible absolutely does diminish works when it states the importance of faith.

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Works come in, not as a prerequisite for salvation but as an outgrowth of it, as the next verse in Ephesians indicates, and as Romans 4 implies later in v. 20.

I don't see any room for telling someone, "Do this work in order to be saved or stay saved.", unless the point is like Romans 2:13, to show them that they are doomed to fail, which I think was a strategy Jesus sometimes followed.

As a consequence of this, I also don't see any room for the granting of indulgences by the Church, based on some deed performed by a person or donation made.

For these reasons the Council of Trent condemned me with anathema.


CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html


Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

[erowe1]

Don't you believe in free will?

What's free will?

[Sola_Fide]

I don't see any room for telling someone, "Do this work in order to be saved or stay saved.", unless the point is like Romans 2:13, to show them that they are doomed to fail, which I think was a strategy Jesus sometimes followed.

That's right. This is what Jesus did to the rich young ruler who was self-assured in his own righteousness. Jesus brought him to the place where he was very clearly a law-breaker (he loved his wealth more than God).

Over and over again, Jesus was teaching everyone around Him that the law must be followed perfectly and therefore condemns the sinful human race. He was teaching men that they must lean on Him alone for salvation.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Does the fact that Catholics believe that it is a choice to cooperate really make them a false religion?

Anything that isn't "Reformed Christianity" to him is a false religion.

There really is no point debating anything with him, as many other posters will attest to.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

What's free will?

The ability to chose to cooperate with the grace God gives every man and be saved or to chose to turn himself away from God.

[erowe1]

The ability to chose to cooperate with the grace God gives every man and be saved or to chose to turn himself away from God.

Do all people choose the same thing?

[erowe1]

Anything that isn't "Reformed Christianity" to him is a false religion.

There really is no point debating anything with him, as many other posters will attest to.

This is kind of ironic. Don't you say the same thing about anything that isn't Catholic?

[Spikender]

Most important fight of our lifetime?

Maybe for you, Sanatorium, but I somehow think there are more... pressing issues than whether or not two people of the same gender should be able to marry.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

This is kind of ironic. Don't you say the same thing about anything that isn't Catholic?

While I believe that the Catholic Church is the True Church Christ founded, I don't believe that all other Christian sects are "false religions" and neither does the Catholic Church.


Do all people choose the same thing?

No. Many people choose to reject God's grace.

[erowe1]

While I believe that the Catholic Church is the True Church Christ founded, I don't believe that all other Christian sects are "false religions" and neither does the Catholic Church.


But you do believe they are heresies and not real churches.



No. Many people choose to reject God's grace.

So God gives some people free will that will choose to accept God's grace while he gives other people free will that will choose reject his grace. Is that right?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

But you do believe they are heresies and not real churches.

I (and the Church) believe that only those with Apostolic Succession have a valid priesthood and therefore valid sacraments (and are therefore Churches, even if not in communion with Rome), and there are many ecclesial communities which are also Christian but they have very flawed teachings.


So God gives some people free will that will choose to accept God's grace while he gives other people free will that will choose reject his grace. Is that right?

God gives us all free will. We choose sin, God doesn't force us to choose sin, neither does he force us to accept His Grace.

[dinosaur]

No. The Bible teaches that man's will is dead in sin and a slave to sin....it is not free at all.

Aquinas is given Dr. of the Church status as an academic but is not infallable. I actually didn't mean to imply that he was. I've never looked into the predestination debate before. Apparently there is room in Catholic academic circles for debate about predestination on the positive side, but not on the negative side. Catholics do not, should not believe that souls are damned to hell through no fault of their own. We are given sufficient grace at some point in our lives to make a choice. Yes, we are dead in sin and a slave to sin, but didn't Christ die to free us from that?

So is Paul referring to spiritual death (outside of grace), or is he saying that we literally don't have will? It seems pretty obvious that we all have souls, intellects, and wills...even if they are in chains without grace. The idea of free will is a central theme in the scriptures: Seek and you will find....If any man thirst, let him come to me....Chose who you will serve...As for me and my house...

Why all this talk of choice if we have none?




No. If grace could be "cooperated with", then it would no longer be grace. Paul makes this point in Romans 11:
Romans 11:5-6 NIV

So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.


Grace enables us to act above our nature. Actual grace is what enables us to freely accept or reject. So we are chosen by grace, a gift that is not given because of works and is not based on works. Yes, we are not chosen based on works, we are chosen by grace. I suppose that there is some great contradiction that I am supposed to see here but I guess I don't...we are not chosen because we choose, we choose in response to grace.

[dinosaur]

Not really, we view protestants as christians who don't have the benefit of all of the sacraments and the fullness of the truth. We do recognize the baptisms of most of them as valid sacraments.

[erowe1]

God gives us all free will. We choose sin, God doesn't force us to choose sin, neither does he force us to accept His Grace.

I can't tell your answer to my question from this. Do you believe that God gives some people free will that will choose to accept his grace and other people free will that will not?

[erowe1]

Not really, we view protestants as christians who don't have the benefit of all of the sacraments and the fullness of the truth. We do recognize the baptisms of most of them as valid sacraments.

So when the Council of Trent says, "let him be anathema." that's all it means?

Pope Zachary said it means this:

anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

[dinosaur]

But my statement was about works that follow from salvation, not salvation being contingent on works. To say you can lose your salvation by sinning is to make salvation contingent on works. When you say that the Bible nowhere diminishes the importance of works, that's just not true. If you're talking about works as a requirement for salvation, the Bible absolutely does diminish works when it states the importance of faith.

Contingent on choice, not works...and no in neither of those quotes does it say that we don't need to pick up our cross and follow him

Sorry to be short, but I feel a little bit bad about participating in thread hijacking, especially as a newbie. I just meant to correct a mis-stated "fact" about catholicsim. Maybe we can continue this on another thread soon?

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Not really, we view protestants as christians who don't have the benefit of all of the sacraments and the fullness of the truth. We do recognize the baptisms of most of them as valid sacraments.

That's because baptism doesn't require valid Holy Orders to administer. Anyone, even an unbaptized non-Christian, can baptize someone validly.


In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

So when the Council of Trent says, "let him be anathema." that's all it means?


It means excommunicated. It does not mean condemned to hell because the Church does not have that power.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I can't tell your answer to my question from this. Do you believe that God gives some people free will that will choose to accept his grace and other people free will that will not?

Yes, we have the free will to choose to cooperate with His grace or to turn our backs on Him.

[erowe1]

Yes, we have the free will to choose to cooperate with His grace or to turn our backs on Him.

That doesn't help. Your earlier quote was in answer to my question of what free will is. Since that definition is still in question, it needs to be explained without just saying again that we have free will.

God chooses to give some people free will that is going to choose one thing and he gives other people free will that is going to choose another thing. So it still gets back to God deciding beforehand what each person will choose, such that their choice to cooperate with God or not to cooperate with God depends entirely on a prior choice by God. Right? Using the words "free will" doesn't change that fact.

[MelissaWV]

So... gay marriage... wasn't this thread supposed to be about that or something?

[erowe1]

It means excommunicated. It does not mean condemned to hell because the Church does not have that power.

But there are different degrees of excommunication. And anathema is the highest, right? At least that's what that quote from Pope Zachary says in the Catholic Encyclopedia article I linked. And that quote does say that anathema includes condemnation to eternal fire with Satan. If that doesn't put them in the same category as a false religion, then where do false religions fall on the spectrum? Are they somehow even worse off than these anathematized people? Because if they're not, then in effect I don't see the difference between the Catholic Church saying Protestants are anathematized and Sola_Fide saying Catholics are a false religion.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

That doesn't help. Your earlier quote was in answer to my question of what free will is. Since that definition is still in question, it needs to be explained without just saying again that we have free will.

God chooses to give some people free will that is going to choose one thing and he gives other people free will that is going to choose another thing. So it still gets back to God deciding beforehand what each person will choose, such that their choice to cooperate with God or not to cooperate with God depends entirely on a prior choice by God. Right? Using the words "free will" doesn't change that fact.

When God created the world He, being omniscience, foresaw the Reprobate’s rejection to His Grace and let them use their freedom to do so. Yet God still wants them to be saved and still gives them sufficient Grace.

[erowe1]

So... gay marriage... wasn't this thread supposed to be about that or something?

Yeah, I know. Threadjacking.

Were you really hoping to open the thread and read another comment about gay marriage though?

[erowe1]

When God created the world He, being omniscience, foresaw the Reprobate’s rejection to His Grace and let them use their freedom to do so. Yet God still wants them to be saved and still gives them sufficient Grace.

But he doesn't give the reprobate grace that effectually results in them choosing to accept him with their free will. Meanwhile he does give the elect grace that effectually results in them choosing to accept him with their free will. So ultimately, God still chose certain specific people based on nothing they do, will, or choose, to be saved, while everybody else will assuredly not be saved.

Is that right?

[dinosaur]

But he doesn't give the reprobate grace that effectually results in them choosing to accept him with their free will. Meanwhile he does give the elect grace that effectually results in them choosing to accept him with their free will. So ultimately, God still chose certain specific people based on nothing they do, will, or choose, to be saved, while everybody else will assuredly not be saved.

Is that right?

Not true in Catholicism, everyone is given enough grace to choose of their own free will.

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, I know. Threadjacking.

Were you really hoping to open the thread and read another comment about gay marriage though?

Not really, since people have already said "Get Government out of it" a dozen times, which about covers it :p

But still it is a little strange to see the salvation thread eating up other threads like kudzu.

[erowe1]

Not true in Catholicism, everyone is given enough grace to choose of their own free will.

So then, in your understanding of Catholicism, everyone freely chooses to accept Christ? No one chooses not to?

[TonySutton]

Not really, since people have already said "Get Government out of it" a dozen times, which about covers it :p

But still it is a little strange to see the salvation thread eating up other threads like kudzu.

I would take kudzu over this discussion about salvation and I lived in GA for a short time :P

I am surprised a mod has not taken the time to strip out this off topic chatter and make a new thread in Religion Forum

[erowe1]

I would take kudzu over this discussion about salvation and I lived in GA for a short time :P

I am surprised a mod has not taken the time to strip out this off topic chatter and make a new thread in Religion Forum

I wouldn't mind that. I wouldn't want to start a new thread from scratch with stuff that was said here left here.

Frankly, this whole thread could be in the religion subforum.

Then again, the way I view public policy, so could every other thread.

[Karsten]

He added that it is even more important that the movement to block abortion in America because marriage will "disintegrate" along with the American family if same-sex marriage becomes legal.

Shouldn't that argument be discredited now that 6 states plus dc have legalized gay marriage, as other countries?