1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Catholic Church and the Future of Same-Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Smellincoffee, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    So it is "silly" from the perspective of those who think the Pope is infallible, as well as the text in a 2000+ year old book written by numerous different humans must all be factual? This "argument" is supposed to carry weight in a secular society?

    You are also conflating religious dogma with modern medicine based on science. You don't find that to be "silly"?
     
  2. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,445
    It was more than just strife. It was religious tyranny. Europe was learning that overthrowing a religious tyranny and exchanging it for another religious tyranny was not working. I would call that secular awakening.

    No one had religious freedoms, under law. There was still religious tyranny between the different groups of religious people as one opinion was still at strife with other opinions. People still tolerated each other and there was still room and land to claim as "one's own".

    Spoiler :
    Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.


    It seems they wanted assurance that one's opinion (on religion) was protected. Not religion itself. To most a religion is a body of laws that control how that person carries out their life. They were attempting to set it so that religion was a private matter and not a civil one, as had been carried out since Constantine decided a religious state was necessary.

    Jefferson's reply:

    Spoiler :
    Gentlemen

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    Th Jefferson
    Jan. 1. 1802.

    Is it a natural right that humans be left alone to their own conscious without governmental intervention?

    Why do people serve other people? They have to have pressure put on them to change the status quo.

    Numbers 20:8-12:
    Spoiler :
    “You and Aaron your brother, take the staff and assemble the community. In their presence, tell the rock to provide water. You will produce water from the rock for them and allow the community and their animals to drink.”

    Moses took the staff from the Lord’s presence, as the Lord had commanded him. Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock. He said to them, “Listen, you rebels! Should we produce water from the rock for you?” Then Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice. Out flooded water so that the community and their animals could drink.

    The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you didn’t trust me to show my holiness before the Israelites, you will not bring this assembly into the land that I am giving them.”


    Deuteronomy 32:48-52
    Spoiler :
    The Lord spoke to Moses that very same day: “Hike up the Abarim mountains, to Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab opposite Jericho. Take a good look at the land of Canaan, which I’m giving to the Israelites as their property. You will die on the mountain you have hiked up, and you will be gathered to your people just like your brother Aaron, who died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people, because the two of you were unfaithful toward me in front of the Israelites at the waters of Meribath-kadesh, in the Zin wilderness, because you didn’t treat me with proper respect before the Israelites. You can look at the land from the other side of the river, but you won’t enter there.”


    Rejecting a punishment is not rejecting the law. It is just changing the consequences. He took away the civil penalty. And moved the law into the realm of the conscious where the law became a private matter between man and his creator.

    It would seem that Jesus did not reject it, but claimed it as his own day to do with it as he wished. God said they could not do any labor on the Sabbath. Jesus said they could because it was his day just as much as it was God's day. How can he reject his own command. He just changed the consequences.
     
  3. NBAfan

    NBAfan boss

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,351
    removed
     
  4. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    Why is it so "insulting" to point out what should be obvious?
     
  5. NBAfan

    NBAfan boss

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,351
    removed
     
  6. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    Wow. You got all that from statements that didn't even insinuate any such thing?

    You have heard this is supposedly a secular society instead of a theocracy?

    And I'm sure you can quote me where I said "religion is stupid", that you were "wrong", and now even that you are "stupid". :crazyeye:
     
  7. NBAfan

    NBAfan boss

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,351
    removed damn waste of time
     
  8. Neverwonagame3

    Neverwonagame3 Self-Styled Intellectual

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,549
    JollyRoger/El Machinae- If you don't call yourselves Christians, I don't see the problem with it. For those who do, however, they are morally obliged to take the entire Bible seriously. Those who don't are hypocrites.

    squadbroken- This is a matter of ethics, and ethics is a matter of philosophy. If we don't have our philosophical starting points clear, how are we supposed to argue properly?

    warpus- Taking your analogy further, if somebody claims black mermaids exist but dismisses every single black mermaid tale as superstition, and refuses out of hand to consider the effect of pollution on mermaids, then they're a hypocrite.

    El Machinae(2)- See my analogy with warpus. If a religion was true, it would be factually true.

    Bulldog Bats- By the definitions of their day, the Founding Fathers were not religious. By modern standards, however, they were not entirely athiestic either. That's my point.

    Berzerker- Hmm. Actually, I'm starting to think that a posistion of ALL CHRISTIANS ARE HYPOCRITES could be valid. You do have a point here.
     
  9. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,826
    Location:
    the golf course
    and that secular awakening influenced the Framers

    Danbury Baptists did

    Those verses dont say God killed Moses, at most God predicted his death. Moses' punishment was not entering the promised land, not death. But you might be right on this, it does look like God might have induced Moses' death, maybe.

    The law said kill adulterers. Like I said, Jesus rejected parts of the Bible. You've provided the proof while telling me I'm wrong.
     
  10. Arachnofiend

    Arachnofiend Perturbed Pugilist

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,950
    But there's just so much about the Bible that is really difficult to take seriously. People bring up the supposed evils of shellfish a lot. What about the Song of Solomon? Should a king's erotic poetry truly be considered profound doctrine one should model his/her life on?
     
  11. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    hahahaha nwag in OT?

    aw and it's not even my birthday today

    :popcorn:
     
  12. Neverwonagame3

    Neverwonagame3 Self-Styled Intellectual

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,549
    Dachs- I've improved consierably since the old arguments you beat me in. Why don't you try joining in on a point you object to if you dispute this?

    It's a matter of logical connections. If the Bible is the Word of God, then all of it must be valuable even if it is hard to interpret. This leaves two options- allegory or pretty much literal.

    If it's purely allegory, then it doesn't take a genius to realise that God would be making the Bible so it is misinterpreted by nearly every theologian in history, knowing such to be the case. If it's pretty much literal, then you must accept things such as the evils of shellfish.

    Frankly, this is where Christianity starts to face such logical problems as to metaphorically collapse on itself. But it's far more consistent to believe in a literal Bible than metaphorical.
     
  13. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,383
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    I still don't think that's true. Being a Christian certainly involves certain beliefs about Jesus, but I don't know if that's true about 'the Bible'. People with vastly different attitudes about the Bible can still be Christian. I mean, the TL;DR of Christianity is "Jesus died so that my sins could be forgiven". After that, there're a lot of doctrinal issues. I don't think you need to even believe Jesus was 'raised again' to be Christian, never mind care too deeply about what Paul wrote.
     
  14. Neverwonagame3

    Neverwonagame3 Self-Styled Intellectual

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,549
    On the validity of some of the New Testament, you have a point. But Jesus saw the Old Testament as Scripture. How can his followers refuse to do so?
     
  15. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,383
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Because there's no need to. Jesus apparently thought Adam and Noah actually existed. He thought that Moses lead an Exodus. We don't need to hold to his thinking to be Christian, do we? I mean, there are TONS of non-YEC Christians, even though there's no reason to think Jesus wasn't one. But, they're still Christians. As well, we have a "Bible" compiled for us, so we don't know which of those books Jesus thought were super-important.

    best case: we have an idea of what old scripture the authors of the gospels thought were important with regards to Jesus.
     
  16. Neverwonagame3

    Neverwonagame3 Self-Styled Intellectual

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,549
    First, it's obvious that just because you call yourself a Christian doesn't mean you are one. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    Second, haven't I just explained the problem with believing Adam didn't actually exist whilst still being Christian? It begs the question as to why God made his Bible so it was for all practical purposes a pack of lies.

    Third, I admit there is some room for leeway but many times Jesus acts in a manner as to imply the legitmisation of books of Scripture. He never disputes, for example, the existence of the old Law he comes to 'fullfill', implicitly legitimising Deuteronomy.

    Let's use another analogy here. Say you call yourself a follower of Hitler, but don't believe the Jews are responsible for Germany's ills. Sure that's backed by evidence, but Hitler himself would disavow you. Given that, how can you call yourself his follower? It doesn't matter if you still believe in killing Jews and German greatness- Hitler would not consider you his follower.
     
  17. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    I don't think I've heard a more compelling argument that those who pick and choose what they wish to believe from the Bible have a far better case to call themselves Christians than those who don't.
     
  18. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,383
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Right, which matters if one considers themselves a "Biblilian". You're pre-supposing that God "made the Bible", which I still contend is not essential to being a Christian.
    The fact that every man is a Sinner is completely independent of whether there was an Adam. We don't need Adam to explain why (or that) every man is a sinner.

    To your Hitler analogy, even if you don't consider the Jews responsible for 1930s German suffering, you could still be a Hitlerian if you had different reasons for wanting to exterminate the Jews. You don't need to believe everything the same, there're just essentials. And, to me "Christian" is "believing that Jesus was the sacrifice allowing you to reconcile your sin with God".

    Really, it solves the whole "why does the Bible lie?" question very simply. And so, the Anglican church can perform gay marriages and still be Christian. Why? Because they've got solid theology.
     
  19. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,969
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Have you considered the possibility that both approaches have their place? After all, Jesus spoke both metaphorically and literally.
     
  20. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    The Bible is clear that sin came as a result of Adam's disobedience. If there is no Adam, how did sin come into this world?

    Because in it is written what Jesus says about things. Performing "Gay Marriage" is clearly against the teachings of Christ, when he defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman for life. If you don't follow that, then you clearly aren't a follower of Christ.

    @JR, you can clearly see when Jesus spoke metaphorically and when he didn't.
     

Share This Page