Pope says Church cannot be obsessed with gays, contraception, abortion

[twomp]

I had my doubts about this Pope but it seems to me like he really is different from his predecessors. Especially when he is saying stuff like this. Kudos to the man! I believe that God loves all his children and not just the heterosexual ones and I think the Pope agrees.


VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis said the Catholic Church should not allow its bans on gay marriage, abortion and contraception to dominate its teachings, but must be a more welcoming Church where priests are understanding pastors and not cold, dogmatic bureaucrats.

In a dramatically blunt interview with Civilta Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit monthly, Francis said the Church had locked itself up in "small things, in small-minded rules". It must find a new balance between upholding rules and demonstrating mercy, "otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards..."

Francis, the first non-European pope in 1,300 years and the first from Latin America, did not hold out the prospect of any changes soon to such moral teachings.

In the long interview with the magazine's director, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, he also said he envisioned a greater role for women in the 1.2 billion member Church but suggested it would not include a change in the current ban on a female priesthood.

In an remarkable change from his predecessor Benedict, who said homosexuality was an intrinsic disorder, Francis said that when homosexuals told him they were always condemned by the Church and felt "socially wounded", he told them "the Church does not want to do this".

He re-stated his comments first made on the plane returning from Brazil in July that he was not in a position to judge gays who are of good will and in search of God.

In the interview released on Thursday, he added: "By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-says-church-cannot-obsessed-gays-contraception-abortion-163220900.html

[Brett85]

That's too bad. Catholicism has never been a very Biblical philosophy to begin with, but with this new pope it will just get even worse.

[twomp]

That's too bad. Catholicism has never been a very Biblical philosophy to begin with, but with this new pope it will just get even worse.

That's a good thing. There are many branches of Christianity with the Catholics being the biggest of the group. Maybe this statement will cause that divide to grow bigger. So the Catholics won't be stuck with the stink of those fringe Christians who believe all gays will go to hell. NEWSFLASH!! God doesn't judge us tilll we die but those fringe Christians seemed to have made that decision for God already.

[cajuncocoa]

In b4 Sola_Fide and the usual Catholic bashing.

[VIDEODROME]

Yeah maybe instead the Church could talk more about the basics like people getting along and being respectful to each other while preaching against needless violence.

[freejack]

Question to you all: Would this have been such a big issue if the LGBT community didn't decide wage war against Christians for simply abiding by the teachings of the Bible?

[jkr]

OBSESSED?

WITH BUTT SEX?

ASK ONE OF YOUR "PRIESTS" ABOUT BEING OBSESSED ...AH NEVER MIND

I DONT LISTEN TO FALSE PROFITS AND BLIND GUIDES ANYWHO



HARLOTS GONNA HARLOT

[Christian Liberty]

In b4 Sola_Fide and the usual Catholic bashing.

You do realize that you're kind of asking for it when you say things like this?:p

The only thing I want to understand is, doesn't the RCC kind of claim that its teachings on these matters can't be claimed?

I've never heard anyone say all "gays" (that's really vague anyway) go to Hell. I've also never heard anyone actually judge whether someone is "elect" or not before they died.

All that said, TC got it right.

[angelatc]

He re-stated his comments first made on the plane returning from Brazil in July that he was not in a position to judge gays who are of good will and in search of God.



Hate the sin, not the sinner. Radical stuff there.

[cajuncocoa]

You do realize that you're kind of asking for it when you say things like this?:p

Doesn't matter; he's going to do it anyway. ;)

[Christian Liberty]

Doesn't matter; he's going to do it anyway. ;)


Yeah, but now he has an excuse:p

That said:


In a dramatically blunt interview with Civilta Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit monthly, Francis said the Church had locked itself up in "small things, in small-minded rules". It must find a new balance between upholding rules and demonstrating mercy, "otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards..."
In a dramatically blunt interview with Civilta Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit monthly, Francis said the Church had locked itself up in "small things, in small-minded rules". It must find a new balance between upholding rules and demonstrating mercy, "otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards..."

I don't think its OK to call prohibitions murder, or even homosexual sex "Small minded rules."

[TaftFan]

This guy concerns me. Conciliatory attitudes never end well.

[cajuncocoa]

Yeah, but now he has an excuse:p


He doesn't need one.

On the subject of what the Pope said, I've never been one to allow a leader to dictate to me what I know is right. I respect the Pope, but I can decide for myself what behavior I should avoid.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Apparently Francis has decided that murder isn't that big of a deal.

[Christian Liberty]

Apparently Francis has decided that murder isn't that big of a deal.

Yeah, this was my issue as well.

[twomp]

I don't think its OK to call prohibitions murder, or even homosexual sex "Small minded rules."

Oh really? Please tell me why you are so bothered by homosexual sex? I'm sure there were thousands of people who had homosexual sex last night, please tell me how that has affected you.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh really? Please tell me why you are so bothered by homosexual sex? I'm sure there were thousands of people who had homosexual sex last night, please tell me how that has affected you.

First of all, to be clear, I'm talking about morality here, not laws. I fully support the legal right for any adult to have consensual sex with any other adult they want.

With that said, its not about how it affects me, its about what God commands, which should be important to any Christian (Although Francis doesn't qualify anyway). The stability of families is also in direct opposition to statism.

[presence]

you two are ridiculous, he calling for mercy for sins not holding



out the prospect of any changes soon to such moral teachings

[twomp]

Apparently Francis has decided that murder isn't that big of a deal.

This was the pope's answer to an abortion question in that same interview:




He raises the example of a woman with a failed marriage behind her who has had an abortion. She remarries, has five children, and is happy. "That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life … We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible … We have to talk about them in a context."

On gay Catholics, he adds flesh to the remarks he made in July when he said he would not judge a gay person seeking God. In the latest interview, the Pope adds that "God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

[A Son of Liberty]

It is the obligation of all decent people, out of respect for human life, to oppose the practice of abortion.

Homosexuality and the use of contraceptives cause no harm in and of themselves to anyone else and thus should be left to the discretion of the individual.

I'm certainly no theologian, but I am a Christian and my understanding of the laws according to which Christ judges human souls are concerned with how people treat one another. To me, it would be just as strange for, say, blonde people, to be so arbitrarily unable to know God's love as it would be for homosexuals.

[GunnyFreedom]

I am not even a little bit Catholic, but I continue to be astonished at how desperately people are taking this man out of context to put words and ideas into his mouth that he never said. Choosing not to obsess over sin != acceptance of sin! SMH some of y'all woulda stoned a murderer by the name of Moses to death rather than listen to the man.

[malkusm]

I am not even a little bit Catholic, but I continue to be astonished at how desperately people are taking this man out of context to put words and ideas into his mouth that he never said. Choosing not to obsess over sin != acceptance of sin! SMH some of y'all woulda stoned a murderer by the name of Moses to death rather than listen to the man.

+rep for being the voice of reason, as you often are around here :)

[cajuncocoa]

I am not even a little bit Catholic, but I continue to be astonished at how desperately people are taking this man out of context to put words and ideas into his mouth that he never said. Choosing not to obsess over sin != acceptance of sin! SMH some of y'all woulda stoned a murderer by the name of Moses to death rather than listen to the man.

what malkusm said. +rep

[Brett85]

That's a good thing. There are many branches of Christianity with the Catholics being the biggest of the group. Maybe this statement will cause that divide to grow bigger. So the Catholics won't be stuck with the stink of those fringe Christians who believe all gays will go to hell. NEWSFLASH!! God doesn't judge us tilll we die but those fringe Christians seemed to have made that decision for God already.

I don't have the power to control who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, but the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin. I don't see why churches should be afraid to preach the word of God simply because they might offend some people.

[twomp]

First of all, to be clear, I'm talking about morality here, not laws. I fully support the legal right for any adult to have consensual sex with any other adult they want.

With that said, its not about how it affects me, its about what God commands, which should be important to any Christian (Although Francis doesn't qualify anyway). The stability of families is also in direct opposition to statism.

Okay then tell me how this "destabilizes" families? Since you bring up "morality", where in the bible does it say it is more immoral to be a homosexual than it is for someone to be a thief or any other "immoral" sins. Why do certain Christians make being gay much more of a "moral" sin then lying, cheating, or any other random sin we all do. We are all sinners yet some of us have decided that certain sins are worse than others. Please show me in the bible where certain sins fit in on the "moral" scale.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't have the power to control who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, but the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin. I don't see why churches should be afraid to preach the word of God simply because they might offend some people.

a LOT of things are sins.


Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

^^^ This, for instance, is a bit higher on the priority list than homosexuality, yet it doesn't even get 1/100th the coverage.

I would beg to offer that obsessing over someone elses sinful nature is in and of itself sinful.

[Brett85]

a LOT of things are sins.



^^^ This, for instance, is a bit higher on the priority list than homosexuality, yet it doesn't even get 1/100th the coverage.

I would beg to offer that obsessing over someone elses sinful nature is in and of itself sinful.

I didn't say that it's any more of a sin than anything else, just that it's a sin. It gets more coverage than anything because it has become a political issue. I don't necessarily think that pastors should focus or "obsess" about the issue, but if someone comes up to them and asks them whether they think homosexuality is a sin, they should be honest and state that the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.

[TER]

Okay then tell me how this "destabilizes" families?

FYI, this is a recent statement by Ecumenical Patriarchate Bartholomew (spiritual head of the Orthodox Church) when he was asked how gay marriage (and not homosexuality itself) threatens the family:

The Church, my beloved parents and children, and subsequently the family, which consists lawfully and by the command of God of men and women, and the children acquired, is not a foundation or association or a simple organization, but a Body, as it is wonderfully depicted by the Apostle Paul. And this parallelism is accurate and true. Church and marriage. Husband and wife. Body and its members.

This community, signified in the Mysteries and in the obedience of Faith, both in the Church and in the family, is sanctified and mystagogued through the Mystery of Marriage, which, according to the Fathers, is a mystery of co-creation, and the ontological link of love with the Head of the Body, to ensure health and life, which is salvation and sanctification.

[Lucille]

I am not even a little bit Catholic, but I continue to be astonished at how desperately people are taking this man out of context to put words and ideas into his mouth that he never said. Choosing not to obsess over sin != acceptance of sin! SMH some of y'all woulda stoned a murderer by the name of Moses to death rather than listen to the man.

Dreher says that's the problem:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-the-era-of-jp2-benedict-is-over/


I love his style — seriously, I do — but I am sure the liberal Pope has been very, very naive in his words here. Look at the weight the media, who amplify his words, put on the homosexuality, contraception, and abortion parts of a very long interview. The world wants to be told, “It’s okay, do what you like.” He no doubt doesn’t mean at all for that to be the lesson of his words, but that’s how they will be received. For liberals and Moralistic Therapeutic Deists within Catholicism, it’s springtime. For traditionalists and conservatives in the Catholic Church, it’s going to be a long winter.

[TER]

Dreher says that's the problem:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-the-era-of-jp2-benedict-is-over/

I like this Pope a lot, but he has these loooong interviews popping up here and there. Sometimes (especially when knowing how the media works) it is best to speak less.

[A Son of Liberty]

I didn't say that it's any more of a sin than anything else, just that it's a sin. It gets more coverage than anything because it has become a political issue. I don't necessarily think that pastors should focus or "obsess" about the issue, but if someone comes up to them and asks them whether they think homosexuality is a sin, they should be honest and state that the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.

Covetousness is a sin that is committed by nearly 100% of the population. There are no laws against it. There is widespread social sanction for it. Where are the fire and brimstone sermons? Where are the cries for its criminalization, let alone the ostracism of those who are guilty of it? Where are the marches on state capitals featuring signs stating, "God hates coveters"?

It has become a political issue... because "conservative" people find it "icky".

[twomp]

FYI, this is a recent statement by Ecumenical Patriarchate Bartholomew (spiritual head of the Orthodox Church) when he was asked how gay marriage (and not homosexuality itself) threatens the family:

The Church, my beloved parents and children, and subsequently the family, which consists lawfully and by the command of God of men and women, and the children acquired, is not a foundation or association or a simple organization, but a Body, as it is wonderfully depicted by the Apostle Paul. And this parallelism is accurate and true. Church and marriage. Husband and wife. Body and its members.

This community, signified in the Mysteries and in the obedience of Faith, both in the Church and in the family, is sanctified and mystagogued through the Mystery of Marriage, which, according to the Fathers, is a mystery of co-creation, and the ontological link of love with the Head of the Body, to ensure health and life, which is salvation and sanctification.

With all due respect, that doesn't really say anything besides reaffirming their faith. I would like something more of like an example. (I.E. I was out eating with my family and we saw a homosexual couple walking by and afterwards my family was "destablized" and we were no longer a family.) Some thing along those lines. I've heard of gambling, cheating, alcohol and drugs tearing up a family but I haven't heard of any story about some gay people doing it. (Although I'm not saying it never happened, I would like to see, hear, read some examples of this "destabilizing of families" by gay people.)

[TER]

With all due respect, that doesn't really say anything besides reaffirming their faith. I would like something more of like an example. (I.E. I was out eating with my family and we saw a homosexual couple walking by and afterwards my family was "destablized" and we were no longer a family). Some thing along those lines. I've heard of gambling, cheating, alcohol and drugs tearing up a family but I haven't heard of any story about some gay people doing it. (Although I'm not saying it never happened, I would like to see, hear, read some examples of this "destabilizing of families" by gay people.

I think what the Patriarche is saying is how the mystical institution of marriage itself (with regards to its ontological link of love with God) is threatened on account of gay marriage. This is not speaking towards homosexual acts, but rather the institute of marriage itself, so it may not be apt with the current discussion.

[GunnyFreedom]

I didn't say that it's any more of a sin than anything else, just that it's a sin. It gets more coverage than anything because it has become a political issue. I don't necessarily think that pastors should focus or "obsess" about the issue, but if someone comes up to them and asks them whether they think homosexuality is a sin, they should be honest and state that the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.

Sure it is, but so is lust, gluttony, greed. The same people who can't stop talking about homosexuality, are the same people who shut their own eyes to the mirror. How many of these people who freak out over gay sex are themselves gluttons?

It's become a political issue because of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy in the Church to divert attention from their own failings onto an issue that is easy to foment outrage, and blowback from a group of sinners who are being singled out.

There is more theft and murder every day than there is gay sex. The irrational obsession is not only unhealthy, it's ungodly. It's actually leading to MORE sin because of alleged "Christians" putting the Name of God to stain by using it to foment hatred, enmity, and strife. These are not the fruits of the Spirit, they are the fruits of the flesh.

[cajuncocoa]

Covetousness is a sin that is committed by nearly 100% of the population. There are no laws against it. There is widespread social sanction for it. Where are the fire and brimstone sermons? Where are the cries for its criminalization, let alone the ostracism of those who are guilty of it? Where are the marches on state capitals featuring signs stating, "God hates coveters"?

It has become a political issue... because "conservative" people find it "icky".Exactly!

[Brett85]

Sure it is, but so is lust, gluttony, greed. The same people who can't stop talking about homosexuality, are the same people who shut their own eyes to the mirror. How many of these people who freak out over gay sex are themselves gluttons?

It's become a political issue because of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy in the Church to divert attention from their own failings onto an issue that is easy to foment outrage, and blowback from a group of sinners who are being singled out.

There is more theft and murder every day than there is gay sex. The irrational obsession is not only unhealthy, it's ungodly. It's actually leading to MORE sin because of alleged "Christians" putting the Name of God to stain by using it to foment hatred, enmity, and strife. These are not the fruits of the Spirit, they are the fruits of the flesh.

How many people are claiming that theft and murder aren't sins? Homosexuality is an issue because you even have Christians within the church who are saying that homosexuality isn't a sin, which directly contradicts the word of God. I don't hear Christians within the church saying that murder, theft, and coveting aren't sins.

[TER]

Sure it is, but so is lust, gluttony, greed. The same people who can't stop talking about homosexuality, are the same people who shut their own eyes to the mirror. How many of these people who freak out over gay sex are themselves gluttons?

It's become a political issue because of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy in the Church to divert attention from their own failings onto an issue that is easy to foment outrage, and blowback from a group of sinners who are being singled out.

There is more theft and murder every day than there is gay sex. The irrational obsession is not only unhealthy, it's ungodly. It's actually leading to MORE sin because of alleged "Christians" putting the Name of God to stain by using it to foment hatred, enmity, and strife. These are not the fruits of the Spirit, they are the fruits of the flesh.

I agree wholeheartedly with you Gunny. But I think you would agree that the amount of gay propaganda on prime time network television and other media outlets are too disproportionate. This may also lead to blowback from those who do not wish to be inundated with such glamorization on a daily basis.

[malkusm]

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/543928_238150956334654_899823153_n.jpg

[cajuncocoa]

a LOT of things are sins.



^^^ This, for instance, is a bit higher on the priority list than homosexuality, yet it doesn't even get 1/100th the coverage.

I would beg to offer that obsessing over someone elses sinful nature is in and of itself sinful.

Gunny's hitting home runs this evening....somebody rep him for me please, I'm out.

[Brett85]

Covetousness is a sin that is committed by nearly 100% of the population. There are no laws against it. There is widespread social sanction for it. Where are the fire and brimstone sermons? Where are the cries for its criminalization, let alone the ostracism of those who are guilty of it? Where are the marches on state capitals featuring signs stating, "God hates coveters"?

It has become a political issue... because "conservative" people find it "icky".

1) I don't know of anyone who is calling for homosexuality to be criminalized.
2) I don't know of anyone who is claiming that coveting isn't a sin, so I don't really think the comparision you're making is a valid comparison.
3) I haven't heard of anyone starting a parade called the "coveter's pride parade." Regardless of what you say, it's definitely not as simple as saying that these culture wars were actually started by social conservatives and Christians.

[69360]

It's very simple. God loves all of us regardless of sin and it is not our place as mortals to judge the fate of others.

[Miss Annie]

Hate the sin, not the sinner. Radical stuff there.

Just maybe, the man is trying to say this...... in a wordy way. And just in my opinion..... I think that this message is so often left out. We debate the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and leave out the fact that no matter what they are...... God loves them. My bible says that God loves sinners..... and he must....... because every single human on the earth sins. My bible also says that the church gossip is just as guilty of sin as the murderer. Sin is sin and no sin has more weight than another.
1 John 2
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Again, in my opinion.... It is one of the greatest misconceptions that we must "clean ourselves up" BEFORE coming to Jesus. We come, and He does the cleaning.... in his power..... not in ours.

[twomp]

It has become a political issue... because "conservative" people find it "icky".

I totally agree. I think that is where the real issue. According to the bible, it's a sin. Because these people find it "icky", they have made it a far greater sin than lying or cheating or any of the other hundreds of sins that are out there. Sins that they are likely committing themselves.

[angelatc]

With all due respect, that doesn't really say anything besides reaffirming their faith. I would like something more of like an example. (I.E. I was out eating with my family and we saw a homosexual couple walking by and afterwards my family was "destablized" and we were no longer a family.) Some thing along those lines. I've heard of gambling, cheating, alcohol and drugs tearing up a family but I haven't heard of any story about some gay people doing it. (Although I'm not saying it never happened, I would like to see, hear, read some examples of this "destabilizing of families" by gay people.)

I can't imagine the Catholics making a bigger deal of gay people than they make of themselves, that's for sure.

[Brett85]

I totally agree. I think that is where the real issue. According to the bible, it's a sin. Because these people find it "icky", they have made it a far greater sin than lying or cheating or any of the other hundreds of sins that are out there. Sins that they are likely committing themselves.

No, it has just become a bigger issue because Christians within the church aren't claiming that lying and cheating aren't sins. They are claiming that homosexuality isn't a sin.

[GunnyFreedom]

How many people are claiming that theft and murder aren't sins?

Nearly every thief and murderer.


Homosexuality is an issue because you even have Christians within the church who are saying that homosexuality isn't a sin, which directly contradicts the word of God. I don't hear Christians within the church saying that murder, theft, and coveting aren't sins.

It is the fallen nature of man to justify their own sin. We are in this predicament in the first place because of the hypocrisy in the Church to scream from the mountaintops about everyone else's sins and act like they themselves can do no wrong. That is how the Kingdom of God operates. Just like we do when the dog craps in the living room, when the church goes to crapping in the sanctuary God is gonna rub their noses in it. It's on account of their hard hearts and stiff necks that they are getting the wrong message from it.

[twomp]

No, it has just become a bigger issue because Christians within the church aren't claiming that lying and cheating aren't sins. They are claiming that homosexuality isn't a sin.

No it has become an issue because Christians are using their religion to get the government to do their bidding (i.e. refusing to hand out a stupid paper that says two gay people can have the same rights as a heterosexual couple).

[Brett85]

No it has become an issue because Christians are using their religion to get the government to do their bidding (i.e. refusing to hand out a stupid paper that says two gay people can have the same rights as a heterosexual couple).

I thought that libertarians were against "papers" in regards to marriage?

[A Son of Liberty]

1) I don't know of anyone who is calling for homosexuality to be criminalized.
2) I don't know of anyone who is claiming that coveting isn't a sin, so I don't really think the comparision you're making is a valid comparison.
3) I haven't heard of anyone starting a parade called the "coveter's pride parade." Regardless of what you say, it's definitely not as simple as saying that these culture wars were actually started by social conservatives and Christians.

Sodomy laws still exist, and there are quite a few "conservative" politicians who want them to stay on the books.

Marriage, of course, is a religious matter, but when it comes to a private contract between two people of the same sex, there is no reason that they should not be able to willfully enter into agreement; the call effort to prevent such contracts is effectively a call for criminalization.

Covetousness is a sin, according to the Bible; it is far, far, FAR more widely practiced than homosexuality, yet there is no uproar over the plague of covetousness... there is no furor over what covetousness is doing to the family... there is no clamor over what covetousness does to children. I'd say you're right, indeed - covetousness is a far more widespread and dangerous sin than homosexuality and as such there really is no comparison. For pity's sake, no one needs to claim that covetousness isn't a sin - it's so widely practiced that it's nearly a social institution! As for whether or not there are "coveter's pride parades", since they would nearly involve everyone in society, it would seem everyday is a parade!

The so-called culture war of homosexuality was indeed instigated by social conservatives. Take a look back at the laws against sodomy, etc.

I question - again - why homosexuality holds a special place amongst Christians when it seems to me that the laws that Christ gave us concerned how we should treat other human beings.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I'm worried about the effects of normalization of homosexual behavior. In Canada you can't publicly speak out against it. It's being portrayed as the next Civil Rights movement and Conservative Christians are the evil KKK monsters that cannot be tolerated. Free Speech and Freedom of Religion will be deemed irrelevant when they offend someone.

[cajuncocoa]

1) I don't know of anyone who is calling for homosexuality to be criminalized.
2) I don't know of anyone who is claiming that coveting isn't a sin, so I don't really think the comparision you're making is a valid comparison.
3) I haven't heard of anyone starting a parade called the "coveter's pride parade." Regardless of what you say, it's definitely not as simple as saying that these culture wars were actually started by social conservatives and Christians.Criminalized? No. But I DO know of a lot of people who would deny homosexuals of the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy.

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Gunny. But I think you would agree that the amount of gay propaganda on prime time network television and other media outlets are too disproportionate. This may also lead to blowback from those who do not wish to be inundated with such glamorization on a daily basis.

ALL blowback works that way. We depose the President of Iran, Iran takes hostages. We attack. People get angry and attack the Beirut embassy. America retaliates. They retaliate. We start kicking over countries. 9/11. GWoT.

ALL blowback cycles over and feeds back on itself. That's the very nature of blowback. SOMEONE has to be the adults in the room. You can't expect the lost to do it, that's what the Church is here for -- to turn the other cheek and stop the cycle. The Church is not doing it's job.

[Brett85]

I'm worried about the effects of normalization of homosexual behavior. In Canada you can't publicly speak out against it. It's being portrayed as the next Civil Rights movement and Conservative Christians are the evil KKK monsters that cannot be tolerated. Free Speech and Freedom of Religion will be deemed irrelevant when they offend someone.

That doesn't matter to some people who post here. They care more about social liberalism than liberty.

[Brett85]

Criminalized? No. But I DO know of a lot of people who would deny homosexuals of the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy.

Probably, and I know a lot of people who would deny polygamists and NAMBLA types the same rights that heterosexuals and homosexuals enjoy.

[cajuncocoa]

That doesn't matter to some people who post here. They care more about social liberalism than liberty.

:rolleyes: Can you even post that with a straight face as social conservatives strive to deprive homosexuals of the same rights heterosexuals enjoy?

[twomp]

I thought that libertarians were against "papers" in regards to marriage?

Are we talking about libertarians now or are we talking about the fringe Christians? If the government didn't give out "papers" to anyone then I doubt there would be much of an issue now would there? The issue is the fringe Christians holding their bibles demanding that the government only give out these papers to a certain group of people.

[Brett85]

Are we talking about libertarians now or are we talking about the fringe Christians? If the government didn't give out "papers" to anyone then I doubt there would be much of an issue now would there? The issue is the fringe Christians holding their bibles demanding that the government only give out these papers to a certain group of people.

Well, a lot of the people who post here even though they might want to get the government out of marriage as an ultimate goal, still don't think it's a good idea to have even more government involvement in marriage then there is already and allow the government to redefine the definition of marriage.

[cajuncocoa]

Probably, and I know a lot of people who would deny polygamists and NAMBLA types the same rights that heterosexuals and homosexuals enjoy.

Leaving NAMBLA out of it because I'm speaking of consensual behavior between (or among) adults...I would ask those people, what business is it of yours and/or the state's that these people engage in such behavior?

[twomp]

That doesn't matter to some people who post here. They care more about social liberalism than liberty.

So your definition of "liberty" is denying a certain group of people a government issued piece of paper because the bible told you to?

[Brett85]

Marriage, of course, is a religious matter, but when it comes to a private contract between two people of the same sex, there is no reason that they should not be able to willfully enter into agreement; the call effort to prevent such contracts is effectively a call for criminalization.

In what way? The word "criminalized" means that people get prosecuted and thrown in prison for something. What does refusing to enforce a contract have to do with throwing someone in prison for a certain activity?

[Brett85]

So your definition of "liberty" is denying a certain group of people a government issued piece of paper because the bible told you to?

I'm not in favor of living in a society where it's illegal to speak out against homosexuality, illegal for a church not to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and illegal for a photographer to refuse to photograph a gay marriage ceremony. All of those things are currently happening.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/august/nm-supreme-court-photographers-cant-refuse-gay-weddings.html

[twomp]

Well, a lot of the people who post here even though they might want to get the government out of marriage as an ultimate goal, still don't think it's a good idea to have even more government involvement in marriage then there is already and allow the government to redefine the definition of marriage.

"Redefining" the definition of marriage. "Destabilizing" the traditional family. All the same talking points over and over again. The issue is will the government give the piece of paper to gay couples or not. If the government doesn't give that paper to anyone, then its fair. No one should have an issue and they should get married in their own church according to their own religion and it's laws.

If the government decides to give out these papers to people, they should give it to EVERYONE. It's only fair. The issue we have is the bible thumpers have decided to get government to enforce their bible's laws.

[I<3Liberty]

I love this pope; he's exactly what the Catholic church needed.

I'm protestant and am somewhat turned off by the Catholic church (at least the ones I know of) because of their rhetoric and tendency to be either nutty democrats or hardcore republicans. Ugh! they annoy me to no end. Of course, there's some protestant churches that are just as bad.

I always find it ironic that while some Catholics (mostly the extremists, definitely not the majority) are the first ones to carry on about abortion, yet they also oppose contraceptives, contraceptive research, comprehensive sex ed, and safe sex public health campaigns. :rolleyes: It's also ironic when they kick homosexuals out of services, yet they complain about how they're so sinful and in need of God.

[twomp]

I'm not in favor of living in a society where it's illegal to speak out against homosexuality, illegal for a church not to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and illegal for a photographer to refuse to photograph a gay marriage ceremony. All of those things are currently happening.

Really? link please. I would like to know where the the government forced a church to perform gay ceremonies. Or where it is illegal to speak out against homosexuality. Is war equal to peace to?

Which society are you living in. In the United States, homosexuals are currently the underdog not the Christians.

[A Son of Liberty]

In what way? The word "criminalized" means that people get prosecuted and thrown in prison for something. What does refusing to enforce a contract have to do with throwing someone in prison for a certain activity?

The state has a monopoly on the issuance of marriage certificates, and therefore the protection of certain contractual rights. If a man wishes to bestow upon another man certain contractual rights and the state refuses to recognize that contract, the state has effectively criminalized their free association.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm not in favor of living in a society where it's illegal to speak out against homosexuality, illegal for a church not to perform gay marriage ceremonies, and illegal for a photographer to refuse to photograph a gay marriage ceremony. All of those things are currently happening.

Hold on. You would deny homosexuals certain rights because you're worried that your right to speak freely will be in jeopardy if that happens? Are you serious??

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, a lot of the people who post here even though they might want to get the government out of marriage as an ultimate goal, still don't think it's a good idea to have even more government involvement in marriage then there is already and allow the government to redefine the definition of marriage.

That's close to my position. I don't take up the "redefine" rhetoric because it was never on government to define it in the first place. All government interaction on marriage is illegitimate. To increase government action on marriage is to increase the illegitimacy.


So your definition of "liberty" is denying a certain group of people a government issued piece of paper because the bible told you to?

Government is wrong, therefore let's expand government? I rather take Ron Paul's line of thought when he was asked in a debate about the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes. "Great! We're halfway there!" The solution is not to make the 47% pay taxes, the solution is to stop assessing taxes for the 53%.

In the same way the solution to get government out of marriage is NOT to expand government's role in marriage.

Why the heck would you want to subjugate gays to the whim of government authority in the first place? They aren't enslaved enough now that you want to go begging government for more chains and more prison bars?

Expanding the role of government in marriage is the dead-opposite to the goal of getting government out of marriage altogether. Right now, gays in re marriage are like the guy who is free and out in the field full of wheat, but rather than thresh the wheat to make bread himself he'd rather go stand in a government bread-line and claim that without the government he'd starve.

[Brett85]

Really? link please. I would like to know where the the government forced a church to perform gay ceremonies. Or where it is illegal to speak out against homosexuality. Is war equal to peace to?

Which society are you living in. In the United States, homosexuals are currently the underdog not the Christians.

http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/

"Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree."

[eduardo89]

No, it has just become a bigger issue because Christians within the church aren't claiming that lying and cheating aren't sins. They are claiming that homosexuality isn't a sin.

Which the Pope has never said. What he said about homosexuals is those homosexuals who are actively seeking God and trying to live a moral life (meaning refraining from homosexual acts and praying to God to help them with their temptations) shouldn't be judged. I agree with him, I don't believe homosexual attractions are any more a choice than a straight man lusting after a woman. It's what we do about those temptations that should be judged, not the fact that we are all sinners and have temptations to sin.

With regards to abortion and contraception, the Catholic teaching is that they are both grave sins. The Pope cannot change that doctrine. No one within the Catholic Church can change doctrines, so abortion and contraception will ALWAYS be seen as immoral. What the Pope is saying is we should have mercy on those who fall into these sins and be more compassionate. I believe that all abortions are wrong and abortion should always be illegal and that contraceptives are always immoral, that said, I understand that we are fallible, fallen beings and there are times that we fall into temptation to take the easy way out or to put pleasure ahead of serving God. I think the sins should be judged harshly, but we must have compassion for other sinners for we are just as guilty of sin as they are. That is what the Pope is saying.

I'm still uncertain of my opinion of Pope Francis, I wish he would take some harder line stances, but I understand he's always been a man of mercy and compassion which I do admire. That said, I do hope in the future he will understand that the secular media will do everything possible to discredit him and quote him out of context to try and dilute the message of the Faith.

[Brett85]

Hold on. You would deny homosexuals certain rights because you're worried that your right to speak freely will be in jeopardy if that happens? Are you serious??

It's already happening all across America. I've already provided two links.

[Brett85]

Which the Pope has never said. What he said about homosexuals is those homosexuals who are actively seeking God and trying to live a moral life (meaning refraining from homosexual acts and praying to God to help them with their temptations) shouldn't be judged. I agree with him, I don't believe homosexual attractions are any more a choice than a straight man lusting after a woman. It's what we do about those temptations that should be judged, not the fact that we are all sinners and have temptations to sin.

With regards to abortion and contraception, the Catholic teaching is that they are both grave sins. The Pope cannot change that doctrine. No one within the Catholic Church can change doctrines, so abortion and contraception will ALWAYS be seen as immoral. What the Pope is saying is we should have mercy on those who fall into these sins and be more compassionate. I believe that all abortions are wrong and abortion should always be illegal and that contraceptives are always immoral, that said, I understand that we are fallible, fallen beings and there are times that we fall into temptation to take the easy way out or to put pleasure ahead of serving God. I think the sins should be judged harshly, but we must have compassion for other sinners for we are just as guilty of sin as they are. That is what the Pope is saying.

I'm still uncertain of my opinion of Pope Francis, I wish he would take some harder line stances, but I understand he's always been a man of mercy and compassion which I do admire. That said, I do hope in the future he will understand that the secular media will do everything possible to discredit him and quote him out of context to try and dilute the message of the Faith.

Yeah, maybe I misunderstood what he was saying. I also don't personally believe that contraception is immoral. We disagree on that.

[eduardo89]

I love this pope; he's exactly what the Catholic church needed.

I'm protestant and am somewhat turned off by the Catholic church (at least the ones I know of) because of their rhetoric and tendency to be either nutty democrats or hardcore republicans. Ugh! they annoy me to no end. Of course, there's some protestant churches that are just as bad.

I always find it ironic that while some Catholics (mostly the extremists, definitely not the majority) are the first ones to carry on about abortion, yet they also oppose contraceptives, contraceptive research, comprehensive sex ed, and safe sex public health campaigns. :rolleyes: It's also ironic when they kick homosexuals out of services, yet they complain about how they're so sinful and in need of God.

Contraception is immoral and that has been the teaching of the Christian Church since day one. The fact that Protestants abandoned that teaching in 1930 does not make contraception moral. Contraception leads to promiscuity, pre-marital sex, and ALWAYS will lead to higher abortion rates. When you devalue the conjugal act by places artificial barriers you are destroying the beauty of the act. You are destroying its true intentions, which first and foremost is procreation. You're destroying the beauty by telling the woman that you hate her femininity, that you hate that she can be a mother, that you only want her physically. You're telling God that conception is up to you, instead of leaving the decision to create life to Him.

[twomp]

http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/

"Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree."

You didn't even have to put in homosexual couple for me to be on your side of that argument. The government shouldn't be able to force churches to marry gay couples or even force churches to let this couple marry on their church grounds. It's private property after all.

But your problem should be with the government and not the gay couple.

[cajuncocoa]

It's already happening all across America. I've already provided two links.

Didn't your Mom teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

[Brett85]

You didn't even have to put in homosexual couple for me to be on your side of that argument. The government shouldn't be able to force churches to marry gay couples or even force churches to let this couple marry on their church grounds. It's private property after all.

But your problem should be with the government and not the gay couple.

The "gay rights movement" is pushing for a policy in which churches are sued for not marrying gay couples, pushing for a policy where photographers are forced to photograph gay marriage ceremonies, etc. The gay rights movement is pushing an agenda that is the antithesis to liberty, which is why I don't understand why any libertarian would support it.

[Brett85]

Didn't your Mom teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Why is having the government recognize gay marriages "right" when it simply expands the size of government and leads to the loss of religious liberty?

[GunnyFreedom]

Hold on. You would deny homosexuals certain rights because you're worried that your right to speak freely will be in jeopardy if that happens? Are you serious??

This is not actually a good argument. A marriage license is not a right, it is a mark of slavery. "Hey, you guys are in chains and I am not, that's not fair. I want to be in chains too."

I don't care what some random black-robed oligarch says, it's not up to government to decide who is or is not married. Gays should not be jealous because someone else is subjected to a given tyranny so they seek to subject themselves to the same tyranny. Instead, they should be working to remove the other people from that tyranny.

"But what about the tax benefits?" Back in the days of chattel slavery, sometimes a slave got to eat cake while the free Black did not. That's not reason to put more people into slavery just because some of the slaves got to eat cake.

[A Son of Liberty]

The "gay rights movement" is pushing for a policy in which churches are sued for not marrying gay couples, pushing for a policy where photographers are forced to photograph gay marriage ceremonies, etc. The gay rights movement is pushing an agenda that is the antithesis to liberty, which is why I don't understand why any libertarian would support it.

"The gay rights movement" != gay people. Speaking personally, I think there is no logical argument against the enforcement of mutually-agreed-to contracts.

[A Son of Liberty]

This is not actually a good argument. A marriage license is not a right, it is a mark of slavery. "Hey, you guys are in chains and I am not, that's not fair. I want to be in chains too."

I don't care what some random black-robed oligarch says, it's not up to government to decide who is or is not married. Gays should not be jealous because someone else is subjected to a given tyranny so they seek to subject themselves to the same tyranny. Instead, they should be working to remove the other people from that tyranny.

"But what about the tax benefits?" Back in the days of chattel slavery, sometimes a slave got to eat cake while the free Black did not. That's not reason to put more people into slavery just because some of the slaves got to eat cake.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

//

[AuH20]

A typical Jesuit. This confirms it. Sneaky soldiers of God and corrupt to boot.


“The goal of every pope has been to make the entire world Catholic. They’re into world dominion. … Their eschatology is that Jesus won’t return until the world is Roman Catholic.” ~Mike Gendron, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries

[Antischism]

It sounds to me like he's just talking about being compassionate and accepting of others instead of spewing hatred and bile or shunning those who are sinners according to biblical law. I'm not sure how that's controversial or wrong.

[A Son of Liberty]

Well, I'll tell you what I've found to be confirmed... those who call themselves protestants have certainly replaced Catholics for the lead in the "smug, condescending and self-assured" category.

Let's see how Christendom rates you after two millenia of determining exactly what it is God meant by "that".

[AuH20]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XDq_373Qk

[cajuncocoa]

Why is having the government recognize gay marriages "right" when it simply expands the size of government and leads to the loss of religious liberty?
:rolleyes: You're pretty good at logical fallacies, aren't ya?

Marriage is not the only thing that social conservatives would deny to homosexuals. SoCons would also like to see LGBTs prohibited from having careers as educators, just to use another example. On the subject of marriage, I would like to government out of that business altogether. There is no reason to assume that equal rights among all people makes for bigger government.

Oh, and it would only lead to the loss of religious liberty if we let it.

[eduardo89]

A typical Jesuit. This confirms it. Sneaky soldiers of God and corrupt to boot.


“The goal of every pope has been to make the entire world Catholic. They’re into world dominion. …

The part in bold: No shit! Obviously what the Church wants is to help bring every soul to God! What else is the Church there for?! Isn't that what every Christian who evangelises wants; to make everyone a member of their faith? What a stupid thing to condemn.


“Their eschatology is that Jesus won’t return until the world is Roman Catholic.” ~Mike Gendron, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries

Wow, that could not be more wrong. The Church teaches that no one but God, not even the angels in Heaven, know when Jesus will return. Most Catholic theologians will tell you that it's a silly thing to even ponder, since we do not know and there is nothing we can do to affect God's decision on when Christ will return. There is no point even speculating on such a thing. If our Blessed Lord returns tomorrow that is a splendid thing since our work on earth will be done and we can look forward to eternal life, if he doesn't return tomorrow (or the next day, or the one after that) it is just as great as we can continue to preach and try to carry out God's commandments as best we can.

[I<3Liberty]

Contraception is immoral and that has been the teaching of the Christian Church since day one. The fact that Protestants abandoned that teaching in 1930 does not make contraception moral. Contraception leads to promiscuity, pre-marital sex, and ALWAYS will lead to higher abortion rates. When you devalue the conjugal act by places artificial barriers you are destroying the beauty of the act. You are destroying its true intentions, which first and foremost is procreation. You're destroying the beauty by telling the woman that you hate her femininity, that you hate that she can be a mother, that you only want her physically. You're telling God that conception is up to you, instead of leaving the decision to create life to Him.


I'm well aware that there's a minority of Catholics that think this way, but there's no biblical basis for it. The opposition to it stemmed from culture rather than religion.

You can believe whatever you wish, but I'm going to have to disagree. Not everyone using contraceptives is unwed, so no it does not lead to promiscuity or pre-marital sex for these individuals. The newer methods (especially gel injections like Vasalgel that will make it to the American market around 2015) are said to be 100% effective. The majority of abortions are from failed/;ack of contraception; increased compliance, but 100% effective options would eliminate the majority of these abortions.

I disagree that it destroys femininity or appreciation for motherhood. You're making some wacky conclusions.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Which society are you living in. In the United States, homosexuals are currently the underdog not the Christians.

One side has all the funding, the support from corporations, the media, celebrities. This side has the support of most of the Democratic Party and a sizable portion of the GOP as well. The media always portrays this side as the heirs of MLK jr. and drive home the message. They will be portrayed only as victims of an intolerant, bigoted culture. Their coverage of the other side will usually include the loony fringe. In education, the same message is forced on young people in the history textbooks. Thus a whole new generation of people are raised to believe the other side is evil and are like Hitler. They also have the advantage of a favorable judicial system that they can rely on to make favorable decisions for them if the legislators or people aren't on board.

Then there's the other side. They have less money, support of a handful of celebrities and a few media pundits, little support from corporations. Being abandoned by the GOP, which never really liked them much. The only way this side could ever win is because of public opinion, usually winning the popular vote and being denied victory by activist judges. Even though they have been portrayed as monsters by the other side, they rarely respond in kind.

Guess which side is which.

[bunklocoempire]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis said the Catholic Church should not allow its bans on gay marriage, abortion and contraception to dominate its teachings, but must be a more welcoming Church where priests are understanding pastors and not cold, dogmatic bureaucrats.

In a dramatically blunt interview with Civilta Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit monthly, Francis said the Church had locked itself up in "small things, in small-minded rules". It must find a new balance between upholding rules and demonstrating mercy, "otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards..."

Francis, the first non-European pope in 1,300 years and the first from Latin America, did not hold out the prospect of any changes soon to such moral teachings.

In the long interview with the magazine's director, Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, he also said he envisioned a greater role for women in the 1.2 billion member Church but suggested it would not include a change in the current ban on a female priesthood.

In an remarkable change from his predecessor Benedict, who said homosexuality was an intrinsic disorder, Francis said that when homosexuals told him they were always condemned by the Church and felt "socially wounded", he told them "the Church does not want to do this".

He re-stated his comments first made on the plane returning from Brazil in July that he was not in a position to judge gays who are of good will and in search of God.

In the interview released on Thursday, he added: "By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."

"where priests are understanding pastors and not cold, dogmatic bureaucrats"
"more welcoming"
"small-minded"
"balance"
"felt"
"express its opinion"
"good will"

This uppity W.E.L.S. Lutheran doesn't buy into anything vague, warm, or fuzzy when it comes to talking about sin and dealing with a Holy God.

And THIS:
"otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards...":eek:

Why the fear mongering from a man of God!? I swear with the ego strokes and fear/doubt it's like listening to a friggin' politician. Dangerous. :mad:

Remember -I'm uppity when it comes to talking about sin and dealing with a Holy God.:);)

[eduardo89]

I'm well aware that there's a minority of Catholics that think this way, but there's no biblical basis for it. The opposition to it stemmed from culture rather than religion.

The fact that it is a minority of American Catholics who actually accept a a de fide declaration by the Church means that they are not Catholics in good standing. A Catholic may not reject the Church's teaching on contraceptives.

There is also a lot of Biblical basis for condemnation of birth control, which is why it was universally condemned within Christianity until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 where Protestants decided that, once again, they believed in moral relativism.

1) Married couples are to "be fruitful and multiply"; this is a blessing (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7; 28:3; 35:11; Dt. 7:13-14; Ps. 107:38; 115:14; 128:1-4; Prov. 17:6; Ecc. 6:3).

2) Barrenness is contrary to blessing and "glory" (Ex. 23:25-26; Jer. 18:21; Hos. 9:11).

3) Procreation is central to marriage (Mal. 2:14-15).

4) Childbearing is so sacred that women are even said to be "saved" by it (1 Tim. 2:15).

5) It is God Who opens and closes wombs and causes a conception to occur (Gen. 20:17-18; 29:31; 30:2,22; Josh. 24:3-4; Ruth 4:13; Ps. 113:9).

6) Children are a gift from God (Gen. 17:16,20; 29:32-33; 33:5; Ps. 127:3).



You can believe whatever you wish, but I'm going to have to disagree. Not everyone using contraceptives is unwed, so no it does not lead to promiscuity or pre-marital sex for these individuals. The newer methods (especially gel injections like Vasalgel that will make it to the American market around 2015) are said to be 100% effective. The majority of abortions are from failed/;ack of contraception; increased compliance, but 100% effective options would eliminate the majority of these abortions.

Wrong. Study after study has shown that increase use of contraceptives leads to more promiscuity and a more abortions.

In Sweden, between 1995 and 2001, teen abortion rates grew 32% during a period of low-cost condoms, oral contraceptives and over-the-counter emergency contraception.
http://sti.bmj.com/content/78/5/352.full

A recent ten-year study in Spain was reported to have found the same thing:

Contraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there weren’t fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/01/study-spain-contraception-use-up-abortions-double-researchers-cant-figure-out-why/

Another study:

In fact, while contraceptive use among these women went up significantly over that period—from 49.1% to 79.9%—the abortion rate rose even more dramatically—from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

In other words, a 63% increase in contraception use was accompanied by a 108% increase in abortions.
http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824%2810%2900327-6/abstract

And another:

THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED ACCESS TO EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION ON SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE AND ABORTION RATES

The results indicate that while county-level access to emergency contraception was unrelated to trends in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and abortions before access changed, access afterwards led to a statistically significant increase in STD rates (gonorrhea rates), both overall and for females as well as abortions.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00498.x/abstract

and another:

Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence

The reason for the confusion stems from the observation that, within particular populations, contraceptive prevalence and the incidence of induced abortion can and, indeed, often do rise in parallel, contrary to what one would expect.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html (Guttmacher is a Planned Parenthood affiliated 'research' institute)

and another:

A high correlation between abortion experience and contraceptive experience can be expected in populations to which both contraception and abortion are available. ... women who have practiced contraception are more likely to have had abortions than those who have not practiced contraception, and women who have had abortions are more likely to have been contraceptors than women without a history of abortion.

— Christopher Tietze, "Abortion and Contraception." In Abortion: Readings and Research [Toronto: Butterworth & Co., 1981]
http://www.hli.org/cloning/578?task=view

[TonySutton]

http://www.redstatereport.com/2012/01/gay-marriage-forced-on-churchs/

"Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds. The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies. Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree."

This example is totally false. The church in question received a tax abatement from the State of New Jersey in trade for allowing the land in question to be treated as public. Under the law the church could not refuse to offer use of the land to anyone on religious grounds. There was an exception in the law but the church failed to file the proper paperwork. After they lost this lawsuit the church filed the proper paperwork and is no longer required to allow usage of the property for purposes they might be opposed to.

[A Son of Liberty]

There is also a lot of Biblical basis for condemnation of birth control, which is why it was universally condemned within Christianity until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 where Protestants decided that, once again, they believed in moral relativism.

1) Married couples are to "be fruitful and multiply"; this is a blessing (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7; 28:3; 35:11; Dt. 7:13-14; Ps. 107:38; 115:14; 128:1-4; Prov. 17:6; Ecc. 6:3).

2) Barrenness is contrary to blessing and "glory" (Ex. 23:25-26; Jer. 18:21; Hos. 9:11).

3) Procreation is central to marriage (Mal. 2:14-15).

4) Childbearing is so sacred that women are even said to be "saved" by it (1 Tim. 2:15).

5) It is God Who opens and closes wombs and causes a conception to occur (Gen. 20:17-18; 29:31; 30:2,22; Josh. 24:3-4; Ruth 4:13; Ps. 113:9).

6) Children are a gift from God (Gen. 17:16,20; 29:32-33; 33:5; Ps. 127:3).

This is what I think God means by this; if you disagree with me, I think you're going to hell.

"Helluva" thing to consider about a fellow sinner, ain't it?

[phill4paul]

When the Pope holds an international auction for The Ring of the Fisherman and uses the proceeds to feed the poor I'll start paying attention to the re-branding.

[eduardo89]

This is what I think God means by this; if you disagree with me, I think you're going to hell.

"Helluva" thing to consider about a fellow sinner, ain't it?

It's not "if you disagree with me." It's if you consciously and unrepentantly defy and sin against God you will go to Hell. That much is clear. It is not up to me to judge whether you will be going to Heaven or Hell, only God knows that and only God will can decide that. However, it is clear from what God has revealed to us what is sinful and what is not.

The great thing is, God knows we are all sinners, God knows we will never lead perfect lives, that's why God forgives! He forgives ALL sins, but we must confess, repent, and seek to be reconciled with Him.

[A Son of Liberty]

It's not "if you disagree with me."

Oh, yes it is. You and those you disagree with hold much the same view. What comes before "if you disagree with me" is, "this is what I think God means by this". Which precisely leads to:


It's if you consciously and unrepentantly defy and sin against God you will go to Hell. That much is clear.

God gave us his Word. It's up to us to interpret his word, and live according to it. You are not God. You are not entitled to determine what and/or who consciously and unrepentantly defies and sins against God. That is not up to you, sir. You have NOTHING to say about it, whatsoever.

Care for your own soul. Look humbly within your own failings before God. You nor anyone else on earth has any place to be casting stones.


It is not up to me to judge whether you will be going to Heaven or Hell, only God knows that and only God will can decide that. However, it is clear from what God has revealed to us what is sinful and what is not.

Agreed. Yet you and others feel perfectly entitled to be telling us what you think of our sins. Again - concern yourself with your own sins.


The great thing is, God knows we are all sinners, God knows we will never lead perfect lives, that's why God forgives! He forgives ALL sins, but we must confess, repent, and seek to be reconciled with Him.

You have no business telling me to repent. Repent yourself. I'll take care of my own soul.

[eduardo89]

When the Pope holds an international auction for The Ring of the Fisherman and uses the proceeds to feed the poor I'll start paying attention to the re-branding.


He rides the bus, visits the poor, lives in a simple apartment and cooks his own meals.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301114.htm

POPE FRANCIS REJECTS APOSTOLIC PALACE, WILL LIVE IN GUEST APARTMENT (http://millennialjournal.com/2013/03/26/breaking-news-pope-francis-rejects-apostolic-palace-will-live-in-guest-apartment/)

Pope Francis to live in Vatican guesthouse, not papal apartments (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301387.htm)

The Economist Estimates the Catholic Church Spent $171,600,000,000 in 2010 (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/17/the-economist-estimates-the-catholic-church-spent-171600000000-in-2010/)

Catholic Charities USA makes top 10 in Philanthropy 400 (http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/catholic-charities-usa-makes-top-10-in-philanthropy-400/)

Ranking of US charities by expenditures:

10. Catholic Charities USA, $793,815,584
15. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities/St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, $659,370,821
51. Catholic Relief Services, $294,287,000
78. University of Notre Dame, 221,615,902
110. Catholic Medical Mission Board, $177,207,054
144. Christian Appalachian Project, (Ky.), $131,586,590
147. Father Flanagan Boys’ Home (Neb.), $130,737,000
159. Boston College, $120,537,000
160. St. Mary’s Food Bank (Ariz.), $119,703,302
214. Georgetown University, $90,858,000
221. Catholic Healthcare West (Calif.), $86,286,000
288. Marquette University, $60,461,194
340. Covenant House, $51,195,438
394. Villanova University, $43,483,000

[eduardo89]

It's up to us to interpret his word, and live according to it. You are not God. You are not entitled to determine what and/or who consciously and unrepentantly defies and sins against God. That is not up to you, sir. You have NOTHING to say about it, whatsoever.

I do not claim to interpret Scripture and Scripture is not up for personal interpretation. That is the Church's job.

[Brett85]

People take the verse about "not judging" others out of context. That verse isn't saying that none of us can ever criticize someone else for doing something that is wrong. That verse is saying that if you criticize someone for doing something that's wrong, don't do it yourself. For example, if you criticize someone for going out and getting drunk, and you yourself go out and get drunk, that is hypocritical and sinful.

[Antischism]

http://i.imgur.com/VLVIr.gif

[phill4paul]

It's not "if you disagree with me." It's if you consciously and unrepentantly defy and sin against God you will go to Hell. That much is clear. It is not up to me to judge whether you will be going to Heaven or Hell, only God knows that and only God will can decide that. However, it is clear from what God has revealed to us what is sinful and what is not.

The great thing is, God knows we are all sinners, God knows we will never lead perfect lives, that's why God forgives! He forgives ALL sins, but we must confess, repent, and seek to be reconciled with Him.

Woo-hoo. What a religion. It's kinda like playing the lottery against Sunday before you can get absolution, and the lottery against being on the deathbed before you can get absolution and the lottery against being hit by a cops bullet without absolution and exclaiming you're ending the relationship with your wife after 10 yrs. of marriage and banging your 19 yr. old, gullible, secretary in the right here and now. Lol.

[A Son of Liberty]

I do not claim to interpret Scripture and Scripture is not up for personal interpretation. That is the Church's job.

No, it's not the Church's job. God created man, in his image. God created a relationship between himself and each individual.

If you do not claim to interpret Scripture, then you would do well to hold your tongue as to who is and who is not saved. Who is and who is not saved is up to God Himself.

[eduardo89]

No, it's not the Church's job. God created man, in his image. God created a relationship between himself and each individual.

Yes, God created a relationship with each man, but He also founded His Church! The Church compiled the Biblical Canon, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church is tasked with interpreting Scripture, not fallible men.


If you do not claim to interpret Scripture, then you would do well to hold your tongue as to who is and who is not saved. Who is and who is not saved is up to God Himself.

Go back and read my post:


It is not up to me to judge whether you will be going to Heaven or Hell, only God knows that and only God will can decide

[A Son of Liberty]

People take the verse about "not judging" others out of context. That verse isn't saying that none of us can ever criticize someone else for doing something that is wrong. That verse is saying that if you criticize someone for doing something that's wrong, don't do it yourself. For example, if you criticize someone for going out and getting drunk, and you yourself go out and get drunk, that is hypocritical and sinful.

God alone is the final Judge of who is and who is not saved. People like you and eduardo and Sola Fide and anyone else expressing your own opinions about who is and who is not saved are awfully presumptuous, in my opinion. God created each of us, and has a relationship with each of us individually; it is absurd for you or anyone else to be making declarations about the state of other peoples' souls.

[eduardo89]

God alone is the final Judge of who is and who is not saved. People like you and eduardo and Sola Fide and anyone else expressing your own opinions about who is and who is not saved are awfully presumptuous, in my opinion. God created each of us, and has a relationship with each of us individually; it is absurd for you or anyone else to be making declarations about the state of other peoples' souls.

Again, go back and read my post. I have never claimed to know who is saved and unsaved unlike FreedomFanatic and Sola_Fide. We are not saved until we die, salvation is not a one time event. We are initially saved by baptism, but salvation is a process. We continually sin throughout our lives, every single one of us does and every single one of us needs to repent and ask God for His forgiveness.

Go back and read my post on this page, you seem to have missed this:


It is not up to me to judge whether you will be going to Heaven or Hell, only God knows that and only God will can decide

I am in no position to judge who will go to Heaven or Hell. I do not know what is in anyone else's heart, heck, I don't even fully know what is in my heart. Only God knows. That does not, however, mean that we do not know what is sinful behavior and what is not and that does not mean we do not have the responsibility as Christians to rebuke sin!


Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Better is open rebuke than hidden love.

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

This is exactly what the Pope is saying. We should rebuke sin, we should speak out against sin, but we should do so in a way that is loving and compassionate! It is completely unChristian to simply tolerate sin, to let your brothers and sisters fall into sin! We are to lovingly correct each other, you do not let someone you love stray or stay on the path to damnation!

[A Son of Liberty]

Yes, God created a relationship with each man, but He also founded His Church! The Church compiled the Biblical Canon, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church is tasked with interpreting Scripture, not fallible men.

This is exactly where I had my split with the Church. God made me in his image, on the sixth day. I do not recall from my reading of the Bible on which day it was exactly when he created this class of being on earth who had the ability to interpret His Word for the rest of humanity. Just as I do not recall on which day it was that he created this class of being with the authority and supremacy to govern other men.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That means I take it upon myself to understand His Word and my relationship with It. It is to me to determine my fate in relation to Jesus Christ. You have nothing to say about it. I don't care what you have to say about homosexuality (I'm not gay), monogomy (I'm married), alcohol (I drink), or anything else (I'm a sinner in other regards, as well, I'm sure). We are tasked by Jesus Christ to "love one another" as He has loved us. That is, effectively, all we are ordered to do. We are not ordered to tell each other what we think about the way others live their lives. We are certainly not ordered to dictate how everyone around us may live their lives.

[eduardo89]

This is exactly where I had my split with the Church. God made me in his image, on the sixth day. I do not recall from my reading of the Bible on which day it was exactly when he created this class of being on earth who had the ability to interpret His Word for the rest of humanity. Just as I do not recall on which day it was that he created this class of being with the authority and supremacy to govern other men.

In I Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church – that is, the living community of believers founded upon St. Peter and the Apostles and headed by their successors – called "the pillar and ground of the truth." Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the Bible, but it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative and teaching Church which was commissioned to teach "all nations." (Matt. 28:19). Elsewhere this same Church received Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that He would always be with it (Matt. 28:20), and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth. (John 16:13). To the visible head of His Church, St. Peter, Our Lord said: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.

In Matthew 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. 18:17) – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group (7) rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18).



We are tasked by Jesus Christ to "love one another" as He has loved us. That is, effectively, all we are ordered to do. We are not ordered to tell each other what we think about the way others live their lives. We are certainly not ordered to dictate how everyone around us may live their lives.

What is loving about allowing someone to fall into sin? What is loving about not correcting another when he is wrong? (Titus 2:5) What is loving about knowing someone is putting their salvation in jeopardy and remaining silent? (Proverbs 27:5) To love someone is to wish for them to be saved, and that means correcting them and rebuking them with love and compassion! (2 Timothy 4:2) It means forgiving those who sin against you, but letting them know they have sinned against you! (Luke 17:3)

[twomp]

That's close to my position. I don't take up the "redefine" rhetoric because it was never on government to define it in the first place. All government interaction on marriage is illegitimate. To increase government action on marriage is to increase the illegitimacy.



Government is wrong, therefore let's expand government? I rather take Ron Paul's line of thought when he was asked in a debate about the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes. "Great! We're halfway there!" The solution is not to make the 47% pay taxes, the solution is to stop assessing taxes for the 53%.

In the same way the solution to get government out of marriage is NOT to expand government's role in marriage.

Why the heck would you want to subjugate gays to the whim of government authority in the first place? They aren't enslaved enough now that you want to go begging government for more chains and more prison bars?

Expanding the role of government in marriage is the dead-opposite to the goal of getting government out of marriage altogether. Right now, gays in re marriage are like the guy who is free and out in the field full of wheat, but rather than thresh the wheat to make bread himself he'd rather go stand in a government bread-line and claim that without the government he'd starve.

In certain states, there are actual tax benefits from that piece of paper called a marriage license. So its okay with you that they get taxed more than regular heterosexual couples? Why should they get taxed more simply because the bible said it was a sin to be gay.

[A Son of Liberty]

Again, go back and read my post. I have never claimed to know who is saved and unsaved unlike FreedomFanatic and Sola_Fide. We are not saved until we die, salvation is not a one time event. We are initially saved by baptism, but salvation is a process. We continually sin throughout our lives, every single one of us does and every single one of us needs to repent and ask God for His forgiveness.

:thumbs: I agree with every bit of this.

[Christian Liberty]

God alone is the final Judge of who is and who is not saved. People like you and eduardo and Sola Fide and anyone else expressing your own opinions about who is and who is not saved are awfully presumptuous, in my opinion. God created each of us, and has a relationship with each of us individually; it is absurd for you or anyone else to be making declarations about the state of other peoples' souls.

Galatians 1:8

The Bible is clear that those who teach a false gospel are not saved.

[eduardo89]

:thumbs: I agree with every bit of this.

I'm glad, because that has always been my position so I don't know why you were accusing me of judging people as saved and unsaved.

[twomp]

Again, go back and read my post. I have never claimed to know who is saved and unsaved unlike FreedomFanatic and Sola_Fide. We are not saved until we die, salvation is not a one time event. We are initially saved by baptism, but salvation is a process. We continually sin throughout our lives, every single one of us does and every single one of us needs to repent and ask God for His forgiveness.



You say that then you also say that the U.S. government shouldn't give a marriage license to gay people because the bible said it was a "sin." Yet all the other sinners can get marriage licenses and you don't seem to mind that at all.

[eduardo89]

You say that then you also say that the U.S. government shouldn't give a marriage license to gay people because the bible said it was a "sin." Yet all the other sinners can get marriage licenses and you don't seem to mind that at all.

I think that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Government has no authority to redefine marriage. Two men cannot be married, two women cannot be married, it defied the very definition of marriage.

I believe marriage is a Sacrament, not a contract and I do not think the government has any role in it. Government also should not be condoning or promoting sexual deviancy and morally destructive behaviour, which it does by recognising homosexual unions are normal or acceptable.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm glad, because that has always been my position so I don't know why you were accusing me of judging people as saved and unsaved.

I explained where I got that idea in post #94.

[twomp]

I think that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Government has no authority to redefine marriage. Two men cannot be married, two women cannot be married, it defied the very definition of marriage.

I believe marriage is a Sacrament, not a contract and I do not think the government has any role in it. Government also should not be condoning or promoting sexual deviancy and morally destructive behaviour, which it does by recognising homosexual unions are normal or acceptable.

So your answer is don't let gay people get married.

[eduardo89]

So your answer is don't let gay people get married.

Homosexuals cannot get married. They can pretend to be married, but that does not make them married. It is impossible for two men to marry each other, it is impossible for two women to marry each other. It contradicts what marriage is.

I'm not saying don't let them, I'm saying it is impossible.

[Icymudpuppy]

I don't have the power to control who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, but the Bible clearly says that Homosexuality Drunkeness is a sin. I don't see why churches should be afraid to preach the word of God simply because they might offend some people.

BTW. Homosexuality is listed in the same line in the new testament as Drunkeness, Greed, Adultery, and a few others. Why condemn gays with hard hearts while welcoming alcoholics? Their sin is on equal footing.

[A Son of Liberty]

BTW. Homosexuality is listed in the same line in the new testament as Drunkeness, Greed, Adultery, and a few others. Why condemn gays with hard hearts while welcoming alcoholics? Their sin is on equal footing.

I've been drinking hard liquor all night. I'm a sinner, before God. But, my birthday is tomorrow, so I hope He forgives me. :D

[twomp]

Homosexuals cannot get married. They can pretend to be married, but that does not make them married. It is impossible for two men to marry each other, it is impossible for two women to marry each other. It contradicts what marriage is.

I'm not saying don't let them, I'm saying it is impossible.

Every time you oppose a bill that allows the government to give a piece of paper to gay couples, you are saying "don't let them get married"

[twomp]

I've been drinking hard liquor all night. I'm a sinner, before God. But, my birthday is tomorrow, so I hope He forgives me. :D

He'll forgive you. God loves and forgives all his children. Except for the gay ones....

[eduardo89]

Every time you oppose a bill that allows the government to give a piece of paper to gay couples, you are saying "don't let them get married"

Government has no right or authority to redefine marriage. Even if the government does give pieces of paper to homosexual couples saying they are 'married' it does not make them married. Marriage between two men cannot exist. It is impossible. It makes no sense. It contradicts the very definition of marriage.

[69360]

I do not claim to interpret Scripture and Scripture is not up for personal interpretation. That is the Church's job.

But you do.

You judge the fate of your fellow mortal man when only God can.

[twomp]

Government has no right or authority to redefine marriage. Even if the government does give pieces of paper to homosexual couples saying they are 'married' it does not make them married. Marriage between two men cannot exist. It is impossible. It makes no sense. It contradicts the very definition of marriage.

You and I both agree that government doesn't have that right. The difference is you are okay with the government giving it to straight couples and not to gay couples.

[eduardo89]

But you do.

You judge the fate of your fellow mortal man when on God can.

No I do not. I have never claimed anyone to be saved or unsaved. I do not claim that only Catholics go to Heaven. I do, however, speak about sins which Scripture is very clear lead to eternal damnation. That doesn't mean I claim to know anyone who is a homosexual, fornicator, murderer, adulterer, drunk, etc is in hell or will go to hell. Only God knows that. Only God knows if we truly repent of our sins and seek forgiveness. Only God knows what is in our hearts and only He knows where we will end up for eternity.

To say that sins lead to eternal damnation is not judging anyone, it is stating what Scripture says. Saying "Sinner X is going to hell" is judging, which I have not done.

[eduardo89]

You and I both agree that government doesn't have that right. The difference is you are okay with the government giving it to straight couples and not to gay couples.

Absolutely. I do not believe government should give an official recognition to or sanction of sexual deviancy and morally destructive behaviour.

[twomp]

Absolutely. I do not believe government should give an official recognition to or sanction of sexual deviancy and morally destructive behaviour.
But you are okay with the other sinners getting it.

[eduardo89]

But you are okay with the other sinners getting it.

I'm against government recognising and sanctioning sinful behaviour. Marriage between a man and a woman is not sinful. I don't think there should be some sort of government license to commit adultery and I don't think adulterers should get some sort of tax credit.

I don't really understand what you're accusing me of, though.

[twomp]

I'm against government recognising and sanctioning sinful behaviour. Marriage between a man and a woman is not sinful. I don't think there should be some sort of government license to commit adultery and I don't think adulterers should get some sort of tax credit.

I don't really understand what you're accusing me of, though.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I just don't see the logic in your argument that gay couples shouldn't get a marriage license simply because the bible says it's a sin. Yet in that same breath you say we are all sinners and you are okay with straight couples who are also "sinners" getting it.

It seems to me you don't have an issue with the sin, just an issue with the people committing it. Since you know, we are all sinners.

[69360]

No I do not. I have never claimed anyone to be saved or unsaved. I do not claim that only Catholics go to Heaven. I do, however, speak about sins which Scripture is very clear lead to eternal damnation. That doesn't mean I claim to know anyone who is a homosexual, fornicator, murderer, adulterer, drunk, etc is in hell or will go to hell. Only God knows that. Only God knows if we truly repent of our sins and seek forgiveness. Only God knows what is in our hearts and only He knows where we will end up for eternity.

To say that sins lead to eternal damnation is not judging anyone, it is stating what Scripture says. Saying "Sinner X is going to hell" is judging, which I have not done.

But you are basing that on the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. What about other religions? What about religions that do not use the Bible? Who are you to judge their fate based upon your interpretation.

I'm not against the Catholic church, just pointing out a huge flaw in your logic.

[Brett85]

BTW. Homosexuality is listed in the same line in the new testament as Drunkeness, Greed, Adultery, and a few others. Why condemn gays with hard hearts while welcoming alcoholics? Their sin is on equal footing.

Hmmm. When exactly did I say that alcoholics should be "welcomed," or that drunkenness shouldn't be condemned?

[Brett85]

You and I both agree that government doesn't have that right. The difference is you are okay with the government giving it to straight couples and not to gay couples.

And you're ok with the government giving it to gay couples but not to polygamists, 1st cousins, brothers and sisters, Nambla types, and every other group that isn't currently given a marriage license.

[eduardo89]

But you are basing that on the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. What about other religions? What about religions that do not use the Bible? Who are you to judge their fate based upon your interpretation.

I'm not against the Catholic church, just pointing out a huge flaw in your logic.

Those of other faiths who know Christ and reject Him are damned, that is not my interpretation that is what is clearly said in Scripture. Those who have never heard of Christ and the Gospel and through no fault of their own are unable to accept Him as their Lord in this life I trust in the infinite mercy of God.

To say "doing x condemns you to hell unless you repent" does not mean I am judging anyone as damned. I do not know who is saved or unsaved, I do not know who will repent and who will not, I do not know who truly accepts God and who doesn't, I do not know what is on anyone's heart. Only God knows any of that.

[69360]

And you're ok with the government giving it to gay couples but not to polygamists, 1st cousins, brothers and sisters, Nambla types, and every other group that isn't currently given a marriage license.

Can't speak for him, but if we can't get the government out of marriage altogether, I'm ok with giving it to any consenting non-related adults that want it. That rules out inbreeding and child abusers, but not polygamists.

[twomp]

And you're ok with the government giving it to gay couples but not to polygamists, 1st cousins, brothers and sisters, Nambla types, and every other group that isn't currently given a marriage license.

We'll take it on a case by case basis and see what their argument for it is. Just because I support the government giving gay couples a marriage license, it doesn't mean, I support all those other things. I don't support the government listening in to all our peoples phone calls either. It doesn't mean I support terrorism. Good try at fear mongering though.

[Brett85]

Can't speak for him, but if we can't get the government out of marriage altogether, I'm ok with giving it to any consenting non-related adults that want it. That rules out inbreeding and child abusers, but not polygamists.

Why not give it to a brother and sister or 1st cousins if they love each other? Why do you want the government to legislate morality?

[Brett85]

We'll take it on a case by case basis and see what their argument for it is. Just because I support the government giving gay couples a marriage license, it doesn't mean, I support all those other things. I don't support the government listening in to all our peoples phone calls either. It doesn't mean I support terrorism. Good try at fear mongering though.

Their argument would be the same argument that homosexuals have, that they're being discriminated against.

[69360]

Those of other faiths who know Christ and reject Him are damned, that is not my interpretation that is what is clearly said in Scripture. Those who have never heard of Christ and the Gospel and through no fault of their own are unable to accept Him as their Lord in this life I trust in the infinite mercy of God.

To say "doing x condemns you to hell unless you repent" does not mean I am judging anyone as damned. I do not know who is saved or unsaved, I do not know who will repent and who will not, I do not know who truly accepts God and who doesn't, I do not know what is on anyone's heart. Only God knows any of that.

The Catholic church doesn't let you pick and chose which teachings you like. It's all or nothing.

If you reject the dogma of the Catholic church's teaching that the scripture says people in other religions who don't accept Jesus Christ are damned, then you are a heretic in the eyes of the church.

Are you a heretic?

You might think I'm bashing the Catholic Church, but I'm not. I think they do a lot of good in the world.

[69360]

Why not give it to a brother and sister or 1st cousins if they love each other? Why do you want the government to legislate morality?

Purely medical reasons. Inbreeding causes genetic problems that are a detriment and burden on society.

[Brett85]

Purely medical reasons. Inbreeding causes genetic problems that are a detriment and burden on society.

Homosexuality also causes problems that are a burden on society, such as the spread of AIDS.

[cajuncocoa]

Homosexuality also causes problems that are a burden on society, such as the spread of AIDS.Again, that doesn't have to be a burden on "society"....but where did you get the idea that only homosexuals can spread AIDS?

[eduardo89]

The Catholic church doesn't let you pick and chose which teachings you like. It's all or nothing.

I accept every single one of the Church's dogmas and doctrines.


If you reject the dogma of the Catholic church's teaching that the scripture says people in other religions who don't accept Jesus Christ are damned, then you are a heretic in the eyes of the church.

Are you a heretic?

I agree, those who know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church and reject Her are damned. That is exactly what I said:


Those of other faiths who know Christ and reject Him are damned, that is not my interpretation that is what is clearly said in Scripture.

To reject the Catholic Church knowing it is Christ's Church is to reject Christ.


846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

However, I the Church does not teach that every non-Catholic is damned:


847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm



You might think I'm bashing the Catholic Church, but I'm not. I think they do a lot of good in the world.

No, I just don't think you know what the Church actually teaches.

[Brett85]

Again, that doesn't have to be a burden on "society"....but where did you get the idea that only homosexuals can spread AIDS?

AIDS is mostly spread through anal sex, and gay couples are much more likely to have anal sex than straight couples.

[Brett85]

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuality should be illegal in any way, just that it shouldn't be recognized by the government.

[cajuncocoa]

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuality should be illegal in any way, just that it shouldn't be recognized by the government.

Watch out, you're starting to sound like a libertarian. :rolleyes:

[cajuncocoa]

AIDS is mostly spread through anal sex, and gay couples are much more likely to have anal sex than straight couples.

Solution: safe sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex).

[69360]

Homosexuality also causes problems that are a burden on society, such as the spread of AIDS.

Any sexuality causes aids, that's not a valid argument.

[69360]

No, I just don't think you know what the Church actually teaches.

I have a good idea.

You said you accept the church teaching. If a Muslim or a Jew knows of Christ's existence are they damned? If you accept the teachings of the church you judge them as damned. If you don't judge them damned you are a heretic.

[Brett85]

Any sexuality causes aids, that's not a valid argument.

You're 18 times more likely to get AIDS with anal sex than with vaginal sex.

http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/

[cajuncocoa]

You're 18 times more likely to get AIDS with anal sex than with vaginal sex.

http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/If you're not homosexual and practicing unsafe sex, what business is it of yours?

You do know, don't you, that homosexuality isn't going to go away just because SoCons want to block gays from marrying...right?

[eduardo89]

I have a good idea.

You said you accept the church teaching. If a Muslim or a Jew knows of Christ's existence are they damned? If you accept the teachings of the church you judge them as damned. If you don't judge them damned you are a heretic.

Yes, if a non-Christian knows that Jesus is the Son of God and that salvation is only by and through Him but reject that they certainly are damned.

The thing is, I will never know if someone truly accepts it or rejects it. I will never know whether anyone else truly has faith in Christ. I will never know what is really in another's heart. I will never know whether someone repents and accepts Christ on their deathbed. Only God knows that. It is not for me to judge any individual and determine in my fallible mind whether they are saved or not.

I know what causes us to be damned, but I do not know if anyone is damned. I do not know who the Elect are, I do not know who will persevere to the end. That is what the Church teaches. It shows us the Truth, it denounces heretical views which tarnish or destroy the Truth, but it teaches that no one on earth knows whether a person is saved or not. As no man knows what is in another's heart, we cannot know whether a person is saved or not.

[Brett85]

If you're not homosexual and practicing unsafe sex, what business is it of yours?

You do know, don't you, that homosexuality isn't going to go away just because SoCons want to block gays from marrying...right?

It isn't any business of mine. I was just responding to 69360's statement that he is opposed to giving a marriage license to a brother and sister or to first cousins because of "medical reasons," because it's detrimental to society. I was just pointing out that that doesn't seem to be a valid reason to deny a marriage license to a brother and sister but give a marriage license to a gay couple, considering that homosexuality is also a medical issue due to the spread of AIDS.

[69360]

You're 18 times more likely to get AIDS with anal sex than with vaginal sex.

http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/


How do you know gays are having anal sex? What about lesbians?

We know as an absolute fact inbreeding causes genetic disorders.

[I<3Liberty]

The fact that it is a minority of American Catholics who actually accept a a de fide declaration by the Church means that they are not Catholics in good standing. A Catholic may not reject the Church's teaching on contraceptives.

There is also a lot of Biblical basis for condemnation of birth control, which is why it was universally condemned within Christianity until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 where Protestants decided that, once again, they believed in moral relativism.

1) Married couples are to "be fruitful and multiply"; this is a blessing (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7; 28:3; 35:11; Dt. 7:13-14; Ps. 107:38; 115:14; 128:1-4; Prov. 17:6; Ecc. 6:3).

2) Barrenness is contrary to blessing and "glory" (Ex. 23:25-26; Jer. 18:21; Hos. 9:11).

3) Procreation is central to marriage (Mal. 2:14-15).

4) Childbearing is so sacred that women are even said to be "saved" by it (1 Tim. 2:15).

5) It is God Who opens and closes wombs and causes a conception to occur (Gen. 20:17-18; 29:31; 30:2,22; Josh. 24:3-4; Ruth 4:13; Ps. 113:9).

6) Children are a gift from God (Gen. 17:16,20; 29:32-33; 33:5; Ps. 127:3).




Wrong. Study after study has shown that increase use of contraceptives leads to more promiscuity and a more abortions.

In Sweden, between 1995 and 2001, teen abortion rates grew 32% during a period of low-cost condoms, oral contraceptives and over-the-counter emergency contraception.
http://sti.bmj.com/content/78/5/352.full

A recent ten-year study in Spain was reported to have found the same thing:


Another study:


And another:


and another:


and another:

...and you put your own spin on each of those verses. Be fruitful and multiply is 1) numerically subjective, and 2) the population continues to grow at exponential rates even with contraceptives. Also, God isn't always behind every conception 100% (ahem, cloning, IVF, and other artifical means.)

I said 100% effective contraceptives meaning there would be no chance of pregnancy therefore, no abortions due to failed contraceptives. As for promiscuity, yes some people might be more promiscuous, but does that mean married couples shouldn't be able to make use of contraceptives? That's like saying people should not be allowed to have prescription pain killers because a few addicts abused them.

Family planning allows for individual liberty (on both the man and woman's behalf.) In some professions, you have a contract that says you cannot go on maternity or paternity leave until after x amount of time. Planning also is important for protection of the woman's life. I know some people with Marfan's syndrome or cancer that could not either physically carry a baby to term, or they are undergoing treatment that would pose risks (including death) for the child. That's not prolife, eduardo, but I know you'll just continue to make some sexist remark and slam Protestants.

[Brett85]

...

[twomp]

Their argument would be the same argument that homosexuals have, that they're being discriminated against.

Now you're just lying. When 2 related family members have sex, there is a chance their offspring will have a genetic mutation. You are just using the typical fanatic Christian argument. "If you give the gays a marriage license, soon people will be having sex with animals. And after that, people will want to get married to cows, trees, fire hydrants, and park benches. Are you FOR people marrying park benches???" Kind of like how those people who say that I support terrorism because I don't want the NSA spying on me. Fear mongering.

[jonhowe]

a LOT of things are sins.



^^^ This, for instance, is a bit higher on the priority list than homosexuality, yet it doesn't even get 1/100th the coverage.

I would beg to offer that obsessing over someone elses sinful nature is in and of itself sinful.


If more Christians were like this, I'd have no qualms with them.

[jtstellar]

not obsessed.. those that respect life maintain that people are murdering their own offspring and it is indeed life,

but there are also a lot of other important issues that affect those right here already living. if there are things you can accomplish right here and now, start with the low hanging fruit first while making it known you disagree with the other participating factions

[Brett85]

You are just using the typical fanatic Christian argument. "If you give the gays a marriage license, soon people will be having sex with animals. And after that, people will want to get married to cows, trees, fire hydrants, and park benches. Are you FOR people marrying park benches???"

I'm not arguing that will happen, I'm arguing that should happen. That is the logical extension of your argument. If you believe that the definition of marriage should be extended for homosexuals, it has to be extended for everyone, or else you still have government discrimination against certain groups of people.

[twomp]

I'm not arguing that will happen, I'm arguing that should happen. That is the logical extension of your argument. If you believe that the definition of marriage should be extended for homosexuals, it has to be extended for everyone, or else you still have government discrimination against certain groups of people.

So are you then also a supporter of terrorism because you don't want the NSA spying on you? Just because I support and believe one thing for gays, doesn't mean I support marriage for everyone with anything.

[Brett85]

So are you then also a supporter of terrorism because you don't want the NSA spying on you? Just because I support and believe one thing for gays, doesn't mean I support marriage for everyone with anything.

But you should, because your position would then be much more consistent.

[Christian Liberty]

And you're ok with the government giving it to gay couples but not to polygamists, 1st cousins, brothers and sisters, Nambla types, and every other group that isn't currently given a marriage license.

"NAMBLA types" really doesn't belong on the same list as the rest of that. What homosexuals, polygamists, and (at least some) incestuous couples are not actually committing aggression against anyone else. Having sex with a child would be aggression. At least, I think so, and I know you agree with me (If you were someone like Mary Ruwart, who did NOT accept this conclusion, than that might belong on the list.)

And for the record, I think my stance is the same as yours. Any sexual activity between consenting adults, even relatives, should not be illegal. Its evil, its offensive to God, but that's no excuse for making it illegal. That an activity disgusts you is not an excuse for making it illegal. A radical "Christian" (I say that he isn't because of who he is in particular, not just because of his viewpoint on this issue) conservative/dominionist on another forum tried to pin me with being a hypocrite because I was defending homosexuality remaining legal with the NAP but I supposedly wouldn't be consistennt enough to say the same thing for incest or bestiality. When I actually consistently defended my position, he then tried to pin the "pervert who supports incest" label on me, which of course is a ridiculous strawman anyway.

I do not, however, support gay, incestuous, or polygamous "marriages". I support contractual rights, yes, but I don't support expanding statist marriages to include them. Although, part of me hopes they actually do, if nothing else than in hopes it will show some of the flag-wavers that their country and government is NOT godly or moral.

[otherone]

Government also should not be condoning or promoting sexual deviancy and morally destructive behaviour,

Leviathan loves being the Morality Police.

[Christian Liberty]

Leviathan loves being the Morality Police.

Where did he advocate "Morality police" in that post? I agree with him that government should not condone or advocate sexual deviancy. That doesn't mean I want to use violence against those who are sexual deviants (As long as its a consensual action between adults) either.

[Sola_Fide]

Leviathan loves being the Morality Police.

Absolutely agree.

[eduardo89]

Leviathan loves being the Morality Police.

So government not doing something (promoting sexual deviancy) is a bad thing?

[Brett85]

And for the record, I think my stance is the same as yours. Any sexual activity between consenting adults, even relatives, should not be illegal. Its evil, its offensive to God, but that's no excuse for making it illegal. That an activity disgusts you is not an excuse for making it illegal.

I agree. I'm not advocating the criminalization of any activity.

[Christian Liberty]

I agree. I'm not advocating the criminalization of any activity.

Would you also agree with me that putting NAMBLA people (pedophiles) on the same list as homosexuality, polygamy, and incest is unjustified?

The logical conclusion of gay marriage is indeed polygamous and incestuous marriage. And my stance on them is the same as gay marriage, get the government out of it.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, should actually be criminalized regardless. As long as government's exist, they should criminalize it, and if we ever get to a point where they don't exist, the laws established on the free market should criminalize it. That's a different issue entirely since its an NAP violation.

[Brett85]

Would you also agree with me that putting NAMBLA people (pedophiles) on the same list as homosexuality, polygamy, and incest is unjustified?

The logical conclusion of gay marriage is indeed polygamous and incestuous marriage. And my stance on them is the same as gay marriage, get the government out of it.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, should actually be criminalized regardless. As long as government's exist, they should criminalize it, and if we ever get to a point where they don't exist, the laws established on the free market should criminalize it. That's a different issue entirely since its an NAP violation.

Yeah, you're probably right. I should've just mentioned polygamous and incestuous marriage. Pedophilia should remain illegal.

[Ender]

Back to the topic:


In a dramatically blunt interview with an Italian Jesuit journal, Francis said the Church had "locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules" and should not be so prone to condemn.

Its priests should be more welcoming and not cold, dogmatic bureaucrats. The confessional, he said, "is not a torture chamber but the place in which the Lord's mercy motivates us to do better."

I agree.

I think Pope Francis is displaying a Christ-like attitude.

[James Madison]

Yeah, you're probably right. I should've just mentioned polygamous and incestuous marriage.

The Bible doesn't denounce either of these. What's the problem?

[Christian Liberty]

Now you're just lying. When 2 related family members have sex, there is a chance their offspring will have a genetic mutation.

I can't even believe I'm seeing this statist argument on RPF. You're seriously arguing for a law banning an activity because the child that may come from that activity may have a genetic mutation?

This is stupid. First of all, you can't logically have any rights until you exist. This is why I don't condone banning birth control that might prevent implantation, even though I believe that type of birth control to be immoral, because the unborn child doesn't obtain any rights until he actually begins to exist. And second of all, the child in question wouldn't have existed AT ALL had the incestuous sex not occurred.

Don't miusnderstand, incest is highly immoral. It should be socially unacceptable. Christians should not eat with "anyone called a brother" who is living in an incestuous relationship. But it shouldn't be illegal because of what MIGHT happen. That's stupid.


Yeah, you're probably right. I should've just mentioned polygamous and incestuous marriage. Pedophilia should remain illegal.

Thank goodness, I was getting worried:)

(not really:p)

[Christian Liberty]

The Bible doesn't denounce either of these. What's the problem?

I'm not sure if "first cousin marriage" is actually mentioned. But I know marriages/sex between siblings is condemned in the Mosaic Law. Polygamy is proven wrong by Genesis 2:24.

(to be perfectly clear to anyone who's not paying attention, I do believe all of these things should be ​legal.)

[Brett85]

The Bible doesn't denounce either of these. What's the problem?

God allowed polygamist marriages during certain points of the Old Testament, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he approved of it.

[Ender]

I'm not sure if "first cousin marriage" is actually mentioned. But I know marriages/sex between siblings is condemned in the Mosaic Law. Polygamy is proven wrong by Genesis 2:24.

(to be perfectly clear to anyone who's not paying attention, I do believe all of these things should be ​legal.)

So, Abraham was a bad guy?

[James Madison]

I'm not sure if "first cousin marriage" is actually mentioned. But I know marriages/sex between siblings is condemned in the Mosaic Law. Polygamy is proven wrong by Genesis 2:24.

(to be perfectly clear to anyone who's not paying attention, I do believe all of these things should be ​legal.)

Not seeing anything that proves polygamy is 'wrong' in Genesis 2:24.


God allowed polygamist marriages during certain points of the Old Testament, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he approved of it.

I still haven't been shown anything that says it is wrong.

[twomp]

I can't even believe I'm seeing this statist argument on RPF. You're seriously arguing for a law banning an activity because the child that may come from that activity may have a genetic mutation?

This is stupid. First of all, you can't logically have any rights until you exist. This is why I don't condone banning birth control that might prevent implantation, even though I believe that type of birth control to be immoral, because the unborn child doesn't obtain any rights until he actually begins to exist. And second of all, the child in question wouldn't have existed AT ALL had the incestuous sex not occurred.

Don't miusnderstand, incest is highly immoral. It should be socially unacceptable. Christians should not eat with "anyone called a brother" who is living in an incestuous relationship. But it shouldn't be illegal because of what MIGHT happen. That's stupid.



What "might" happen is just one of the reasons, it's not the ONLY one. There is scientific evidence of this. As for polygamists, if they are all consenting adults, I don't see what the problem is or how it will affect me in any way.

If Traditional Conservative wants to discuss all these other marriage issues, he should start a new thread called "Do you support Polygamists, family members, nambla members getting marriage licenses?" Then I'm sure he could start a discussion there. What he is trying to do now is derail this subject by throwing in "what ifs" and "if X were to happen then Y will be next" as if he could read the future. It's the same thing the tyrants say when you talk about decriminalizing weed. They say if you decriminalize weed, everyone will be heroin addicts.

[Brett85]

It's the same thing the tyrants say when you talk about decriminalizing weed. They say if you decriminalize weed, everyone will be heroin addicts.

Except that in this case, gay marriage is already "legal." Gay couples don't get thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony. No one is advocating making gay marriage "illegal."

[twomp]

Except that in this case, gay marriage is already "legal." Gay couples don't get thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony. No one is advocating making gay marriage "illegal."

Okay you are saying that if we give gay couples a marriage license, then we should give it to the relatives that wanna get married and the polygamists, and the nambla people. In doing that, you are using the same argument that the tyrants make when they say if you legalize weed, everyone will be heroin addicts. You are taking a separate issue and throwing it in to help you make your argument. If you want to talk about polygamists, family members and nambla people getting a marriage license, go ahead and start a new topic though I suspect you will see less support for that then you would for gay couples getting married.

[Christian Liberty]

So, Abraham was a bad guy?

"Bad guy" is a weird way of putting it. We're all totally depraved, and Abraham was saved by Christ's blood. But he was sinning when he took Hagar, yes. In fact, that seems pretty clear to me from the text.


Except that in this case, gay marriage is already "legal." Gay couples don't get thrown in prison for having their own private marriage ceremony. No one is advocating making gay marriage "illegal."

Well, nobody here, at any rate:)

[Christian Liberty]

Okay you are saying that if we give gay couples a marriage license, then we should give it to the relatives that wanna get married and the polygamists, and the nambla people. In doing that, you are using the same argument that the tyrants make when they say if you legalize weed, everyone will be heroin addicts. You are taking a separate issue and throwing it in to help you make your argument. If you want to talk about polygamists, family members and nambla people getting a marriage license, go ahead and start a new topic though I suspect you will see less support for that than you would for gay couples getting married.

The problem is there's no logical consistency behind the gay marriage movement, otherwise they would support the things TC mentioned (Except for NAMBLA marriages, obviously, and he himself recognized that it was stupid to put that in as well.)

And don't get me wrong, I'd vote for pot legalization by itself, but its not really logically consistent to support legalizing pot without supporting the same for heroin either.

The difference is, drug legalization is clearly a libertarian position. "Gay marriage" really isn't.

[twomp]

The problem is there's no logical consistency behind the gay marriage movement, otherwise they would support the things TC mentioned (Except for NAMBLA marriages, obviously, and he himself recognized that it was stupid to put that in as well.)

And don't get me wrong, I'd vote for pot legalization by itself, but its not really logically consistent to support legalizing pot without supporting the same for heroin either.

The difference is, drug legalization is clearly a libertarian position. "Gay marriage" really isn't.

It doesn't really matter to me what the libertarian "position" is on things. I'm not one to hold my political beliefs like a flag or something. The argument TC is bringing up is a topic for another thread but he is using it to support his argument knowing full well that people are less likely to support those other things. Around here, if we see the media doing it, we call it fear mongering.

[Sola_Fide]

This thread....

This thread is scary....in the OP, and in the responses...

I don't even know how to respond.

[Christian Liberty]

This thread....

This thread is scary....in the OP, and in the responses...

I don't even know how to respond.

Have I said anything that's scared you? If so, what?

[GunnyFreedom]

In certain states, there are actual tax benefits from that piece of paper called a marriage license. So its okay with you that they get taxed more than regular heterosexual couples? Why should they get taxed more simply because the bible said it was a sin to be gay.

In the 1840's, most chattel slaves ate better than Native Americans. You would not have found me advocating the expansion of chattel slavery to Native Americans in order to make up for that disparity, instead, you would have found me working to abolish chattel slavery altogether.

[GunnyFreedom]

If more Christians were like this, I'd have no qualms with them.

The Gospel is supposed to be the good news. All too often Christians today forget that. Yes, recognition and repentance is a part of the Gospel, but it's not men who convict men of sin, it is God alone through His Spirit that reveals our flaws and imperfections and makes us aware of the need to seek perfection and turn away from that which is wrong. The most that we should do in terms of the nature of sin, is to discuss it in a theological context. When we try to convince a non-Christian of their sinfulness, we are playing God, and inevitably calling out the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the plank in our own.

[Sola_Fide]

It's interesting too, that this thread is left in General Politics, as if the Roman Catholic Church's satanic ministers speak for any Christian. I reject that.

This is like when Fox News (which is Roman Catholic-central) has "breaking" news about the Pope. And then the whole network is stopped so that we get informed.

WAKE UP. Rome does not have the gospel. Rome and all its statism is what Christianity has been fighting since the beginning.

[eduardo89]

I as if the Roman Catholic Church's satanic ministers speak for any Christian.

:rolleyes:

[MRK]

There's a lot of stupid comments on this thread. Not to be outdone, I'll add another by not specifying which ones I think are stupid.

[69360]

may have a genetic mutation?

Not may, will.

[Origanalist]

There's a lot of stupid comments on this thread. Not to be outdone, I'll add another by not specifying which ones I think are stupid.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/762469632/h14B51537/

[cajuncocoa]

This thread....

This thread is scary....in the OP, and in the responses...

I don't even know how to respond.

Oh well...we'll miss you. (Not)

[cajuncocoa]

My two cents after a night's sleep:

I think most people are missing the whole point of what the Pope said. He didn't say it's cool to go out and have a homosexual relationship or to have 5 abortions. He said the Church should stop obsessing about this stuff. I've thought the same thing over the years. The Catholic Church really has obsessed over those 2 issues almost to the exclusion of everything else....for example, there has been little negative discussion about the wars in which this country has been involved for 12+ years (other than to almost glorify the military and the flag). There are other issues that need our attention as Catholics and as other believers. A rather large majority of us have never engaged in either of those two behaviors, yet we are all sinners. We need more focus on things we can do to improve our own lives and the lives of our brothers and sisters on this planet.

Amen to Pope Francis!

[Christian Liberty]

It's interesting too, that this thread is left in General Politics, as if the Roman Catholic Church's satanic ministers speak for any Christian. I reject that.

This is like when Fox News (which is Roman Catholic-central) has "breaking" news about the Pope. And then the whole network is stopped so that we get informed.

WAKE UP. Rome does not have the gospel. Rome and all its statism is what Christianity has been fighting since the beginning.

Tom Woods, Tim Lahaye.

"Nuff said:p

[otherone]

Where did he advocate "Morality police" in that post? I agree with him that government should not condone or advocate sexual deviancy. That doesn't mean I want to use violence against those who are sexual deviants (As long as its a consensual action between adults) either.


Government also should not be condoning or promoting sexual deviancy and morally destructive behaviour


CONDONE: accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.


Eduardo is stating that government should not be allowing morally destructive behavior to continue.
I reply, "Leviathan loves being the Morality Police".
Clear?

[Brett85]

CONDONE: accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.


Eduardo is stating that government should not be allowing morally destructive behavior to continue.
I reply, "Leviathan loves being the Morality Police".
Clear?

In this thread Eduardo was simply saying that the government shouldn't promote immoral behavior. The government would be promoting and condoning immoral behavior if it were to recognize same sex relationships.

[otherone]

In this thread Eduardo was simply saying that the government shouldn't promote immoral behavior. The government would be promoting and condoning immoral behavior if it were to recognize same sex relationships.

Do you believe it's government's role to promote heterosexual relationships by allowing them?

[Brett85]

Do you believe it's government's role to promote heterosexual relationships by allowing them?

No one is saying that the government is promoting homosexual relationships by "allowing them." All of us think that homosexuality should be "allowed." But, the government is certainly promoting homosexuality by giving it legal recognition.

[Brett85]

I'm done with this thread, because I don't want to make it seem like this is a major issue. Issues like this are fun to debate, but there are a lot more important things to focus on at the moment.

[MelissaWV]

Kind of wish Ron Paul would come out with the statement that the Liberty Movement should consider not being obsessed with peripheral conspiracy issues, rather than the actual goings on that are robbing us of our rights, livelihoods, and lives.

[cajuncocoa]

Kind of wish Ron Paul would come out with the statement that the Liberty Movement should consider not being obsessed with peripheral conspiracy issues, rather than the actual goings on that are robbing us of our rights, livelihoods, and lives.

Let me know when you wake up and realize that those things are not mutually exclusive.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm done with this thread, because I don't want to make it seem like this is a major issue. Issues like this are fun to debate, but there are a lot more important things to focus on at the moment.

Congratulations! That's exactly the same thing the Pope is saying! :)

[MelissaWV]

Congratulations! That's exactly the same thing the Pope is saying! :)

It's kind of weird the way I say that there are more important things to worry about in the Liberty Movement, and you say people can multitask, but the Pope saying that Christians should focus on being more inclusive and not obsessing about these "petty rules" is a good thing.

[cajuncocoa]

It's kind of weird the way I say that there are more important things to worry about in the Liberty Movement, and you say people can multitask, but the Pope saying that Christians should focus on being more inclusive and not obsessing about these "petty rules" is a good thing.How is it weird? Multitasking is possible in both of these situations.

[Christian Liberty]

:rolleyes:

Sola_Fide, as far as I know, you're my brother in Christ, and as such, I'm going to have to call you out on this one. Everyone here knows you don't speak peace to Catholics or consider them your Christian brothers. Unless they disagree with Catholic doctrines of salvation, I even agree with you on this. I consider Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity to be distinct. I am not defending the Catholic faith when I make this statement.

This is still over the top. Seriously. Yes, in a sense I guess you could argue that any religious figure that isn't regenerated is a "minister of Satan" in a sense. But we all know you just mean this as a personal attack. And this isn't helping anyone to see your side on these issues.

And while its true that God opens eyes, he may well use you and your combative style to close theirs, and yet still hold you responsible. Just think about that.

I mostly agree with your message, except when we get into the nuances of just how "Calvinistic" we want to be. But I don't, cannot, agree with your method.

[Christian Liberty]

Sola_Fide, as far as I know, you're my brother in Christ, and as such, I'm going to have to call you out on this one. Everyone here knows you don't speak peace to Catholics or consider them your Christian brothers. Unless they disagree with Catholic doctrines of salvation, I even agree with you on this. I consider Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity to be distinct. I am not defending the Catholic faith when I make this statement.

This is still over the top. Seriously. Yes, in a sense I guess you could argue that any religious figure that isn't regenerated is a "minister of Satan" in a sense. But we all know you just mean this as a personal attack. And this isn't helping anyone to see your side on these issues.

And while its true that God opens eyes, he may well use you and your combative style to close theirs, and yet still hold you responsible. Just think about that.

I mostly agree with your message, except when we get into the nuances of just how "Calvinistic" we want to be. But I don't, cannot, agree with your method.

I'm also going to request that Catholics please not respond to this post. I know there's a lot that you could disagree with or argue with here, and I know we're going to have those arguments again, but the point of my post was to criticize Sola_Fide's method, not to start another religion argument.

[otherone]

I'm also going to request that Catholics please not respond to this post. I know there's a lot that you could disagree with or argue with here, and I know we're going to have those arguments again, but the point of my post was to criticize Sola_Fide's method, not to start another religion argument.

You should PM him if you wish your communication to be exclusive.

[otherone]

Kind of wish Ron Paul would come out with the statement that the Liberty Movement should consider not being obsessed with peripheral conspiracy issues, rather than the actual goings on that are robbing us of our rights, livelihoods, and lives.

That the monolithic federal government controls every aspect of our lives, that the sheep turn to Washington as if it has Solomon-like wisdom to be arbiter of both relationships and morality, is a symptom of what a dystopia this country has become. I'm surprised that no one has challenged state-sanctioned marriage as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

[Christian Liberty]

You should PM him if you wish your communication to be exclusive.

First of all, I'm pretty sure his PM box is still full.

Second of all, its not that I want it to be exclusive. Its just that the point of my post was to criticize a certain method of preaching. I'd really rather not have people undermine that by criticizing the areas I did agree with him.

That said, they can respond if they want. I'll just ignore them if they decide to criticize me for my comments on Catholicism or something like that.

[heavenlyboy34]

That the monolithic federal government controls every aspect of our lives, that the sheep turn to Washington as if it has Solomon-like wisdom to be arbiter of both relationships and morality, is a symptom of what a dystopia this country has become. I'm surprised that no one has challenged state-sanctioned marriage as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
I'm not. It's been an industry almost since its inception (lawyers of all sorts, etc). Marriage Industrial Complex...or something like that.

[Lucille]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-game-changer/


I think this episode gives us a sense of how the Pope’s interview is going to be used, both by the media and by many liberals, both within the Catholic church and outside of it: to suppress any narrative with which they disagree. Hey, the Pope told you to shut up about these things, didn’t he? Well, no, he didn’t. Bill Donohue is right. But the indignant Cuomo would rather Catholics like Bill Donohue shut up about these things, and now they are going to claim papal warrant for it. If you dissent from the liberal line, you are disobeying the pope, they will say.

[PaleoPaul]

Wow, a religious leader actually living out the Gospel and Christ's message of love. Who'da thunk it.

He could sure show the American Pharisees a thing or two.

[Sola_Fide]

Wow, a religious leader actually living out the Gospel and Christ's message of love. Who'da thunk it.

He could sure show the American Pharisees a thing or two.

Where do you see Jesus not caring about sexual immorality or murder? Where do you see the Pharisees ever following God's law?

[Ender]

Where do you see Jesus not caring about sexual immorality or murder? Where do you see the Pharisees ever following God's law?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

When you get that one down, we'll talk. ;)

[Christian Liberty]

Where do you see Jesus not caring about sexual immorality or murder? Where do you see the Pharisees ever following God's law?

I do find it a little annoying to see "sexual immorality" and "murder" in the same sentence in most cases, since in most cases the person in question is presuming that both should be handled by governing authorities.

I know you're not saying that, but I just wanted to point it out. Sexual immorality isn't the business of any governing authority. That makes it a different kind of sin than murder, which should be a legal matter, even though both are immoral and offensive to God.

[Sola_Fide]

I do find it a little annoying to see "sexual immorality" and "murder" in the same sentence in most cases, since in most cases the person in question is presuming that both should be handled by governing authorities.

I know you're not saying that, but I just wanted to point it out. Sexual immorality isn't the business of any governing authority. That makes it a different kind of sin than murder, which should be a legal matter, even though both are immoral and offensive to God.

That goes without saying. We all know that here. We are talking about morality, not legislation. Most people here are falling into the same error of Rome: that morality must be enforced. And not caring about it means not legislating it. That is not the Christian position.

[Christian Liberty]

That goes without saying. We all know that here. We are talking about morality, not legislation. Most people here are falling into the same error of Rome: that morality must be enforced. And not caring about it means not legislating it. That is not the Christian position.

I agree with you, and I'm sure you've seen the same thing, but I can't tell you how many professing Christians have put abortion and homosexuality in the same sentence as if they should be handled in a similar manner.

[AuH20]

Wow, a religious leader actually living out the Gospel and Christ's message of love. Who'da thunk it.

He could sure show the American Pharisees a thing or two.

He's a Jesuit. The Jesuits are incompatible with Jesus on every level, despite falsely carrying his name.

[Primbs]

Best interpretation by a very smart priest. JAMES V. SCHALL
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/schallj/ http://www.morec.com/schall/
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/a-god-and-a-pope-who-is-always-a-surprise/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz2fStxvTJe

The Holy Father’s new interview is actually a guide for what really is basic in our lives — getting rid of our sins and worshipping God.

All the way through the interview, we find a conscious effort to teach and live the life of Christ. Some remarked, about earlier interviews that seem to make him seem ready to approve everything hitherto frowned upon, that sinners of various types, including homosexuals and abortionists, should be very careful when they read this Pope as if he is approving everything they are doing. What he seems, rather, to be doing is to lead them to the confessional, of which he speaks often. The Pope seems to have a wide-ranging pastoral experience that he is striving to make central in the Church: The confessional box is not a torture chamber, but, rather, a place where one can finally reconcile himself with God. The Pope’s openness to everyone seems to be designed in this context to create a world wherein we are also aware of God’s pursuit of us. He looks upon the Church rather as a “field hospital,” so aware is he of the deep sins and disorders in so many lives.

[Smart3]

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

When you get that one down, we'll talk. ;)

The problem, my Elvish friend, is that's not in the Bible. Jesus doesn't take a liberal approach to sin. He gets right in your face.

[Ender]

The problem, my Elvish friend, is that's not in the Bible. Jesus doesn't take a liberal approach to sin. He gets right in your face.

Uh....what Bible are we talking about, exactly?


John 8
King James Version (KJV)
8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[Smart3]

Uh....what Bible are we talking about, exactly?

While that story (completely different in Theology from the author of John's Gospel) is nice, it doesn't originally belong in that Gospel. It's one of the few additions to the New Testament where even the defenders usually concede the argument, and say that it was inserted during an edit by the author of John, perhaps when he wrote 1 John. (ironically, they've got the same amount of evidence for this conclusion as those scholars I follow who postulate the Catholic editor of John changed the Gospel and then wrote 1 John)

To put it simply - John 7:53-8:11 never happened, it has the same credibility as the other stories of Jesus - such as Jesus turning clay pigeons into real pigeons.

[A Son of Liberty]

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

When you get that one down, we'll talk. ;)

No, no. Jesus taught that we should be rude to other people, and criticize their faithfulness. You know, beat them over the head with one's own interpretation of the Bible, etc.

I never in my life - even when I was a Catholic - understood such barbarism. History is littered with bodies, piled up by that kind of thinking. How very "Christian".

[Ender]

While that story (completely different in Theology from the author of John's Gospel) is nice, it doesn't originally belong in that Gospel. It's one of the few additions to the New Testament where even the defenders usually concede the argument, and say that it was inserted during an edit by the author of John, perhaps when he wrote 1 John. (ironically, they've got the same amount of evidence for this conclusion as those scholars I follow who postulate the Catholic editor of John changed the Gospel and then wrote 1 John)

To put it simply - John 7:53-8:11 never happened, it has the same credibility as the other stories of Jesus - such as Jesus turning clay pigeons into real pigeons.

Yes, it did happen.

It was taken out by presiding authorities who did not like the message and reinstated later, as with much of the Bible. Many scriptures have never been put back because of their controversy.

It is also directly in line with what Jesus taught: "Judge not" and all that.


An Adulteress Faces Jesus;
a Christian forgery?

by Guy Cramer

The following passage from John is usually accompanied with the footnote that most scholars believe that this verse was added to John hundreds of years after the book of John was completed. The reasoning is that in the earliest manuscripts of John these verses cannot be found. It is not until the 5th century manuscripts in which this passage can be found. Does this passage belong in the Bible?

(John 7:53-8:11) And everyone went to his own house.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down, and taught them.
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they say unto Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
"Now Moses, in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"
This they said, testing Him, that they might have something to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with His finger , as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up, and said to them, "He who without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."
And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had raised himself up, and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
(NKJV))

This passage is not a forgery, what really happened was that some of the early manuscripts omitted this passage because the passage was misinterpreted as false doctrine.

This passage can be found in translations that date from the second century. This can be confirmed by the comments on this passage by the Early Church teachers which range from Didascalia (third century) to Saint Augustine (430 AD). Saint Augustine gives us a little more insight into the problems of this passage by many of his time:

This proceeding, however, shocks the minds of some weak believers, or rather unbelievers and enemies of the Christian faith: inasmuch that, after (I suppose) of its giving their wives impunity of sinning, they struck out from their copies of the Gospel this that our Lord did in pardoning the woman taken in adultery: as if He granted leave of sinning, Who said, Go and sin no more! (Saint Augustine, De Conjug. Adult., II:6.).

Note from The Student Bible on this passage; "The Pharisees trying to trap Jesus were not following the Law which required the woman's partner in crime to also appear."

I found another interesting aspect about this passage is that in the original Greek version of this passage Jesus says to the men "The sinless one among you let him cast the first stone at her."

Of course if He had said, "if anyone here is sinless then let them cast the first stone" he himself would have to cast the first stone because he was sinless. This is one aspect I love about Jesus teachings, He does not contradict these situations with errors in his speech.

Was it not Christ that said;
(Luke 6:37-42) "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."
And He spoke a parable to them: "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye." (NKJV)

Presented by Trinity Consulting

[Smart3]

Yes, it did happen.

It was taken out by presiding authorities who did not like the message and reinstated later, as with much of the Bible. Many scriptures have never been put back because of their controversy.

It is also directly in line with what Jesus taught: "Judge not" and all that.
Utterly impossible to prove that conclusion. We don't have any such manuscripts.

What we do have, as I said before - points to the conclusion that the author of John's Gospel did not write that story. It is not consistent theologically with the rest of the Gospel, as I also pointed out before. "Go and sin no more" is a Jewish response, not a Christian one. It assumes that woman is capable of not sinning. (as a non-believer in Jesus)

[Feeding the Abscess]

The Catholic church shouldn't focus on those issues, but you know who should?

RPF.