What if Christians are Wrong?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< No he just listens to a lot of black preachers. ;)[/quote]Very cute Christopher. =] Like this little guy again. You are correct though.
[/quote]

Like a boss…I have many friends who are the stereotypical black preacher when it comes to vocabulary, tone, cadence, &c. People pick up their way of talking/vocabulary after listening to them for awhile. [/quote]Well actually, my vocabulary and manner of speech and writing were well in place before I was a member of my present church. However my present church is well stocked with rock solid men of the Word who are also extremely capable public communicators.

262

Sure BC, go ahead and talk about it.

I don’t agree much with you guys, but I definitely find Christian and Catholic perspectives interesting.

263

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
She also mentions that she doesn’t understand the CC’s stance on gays. How strange is it that she is drawn to Catholicism for it’s “moral truths” when the CC’s beliefs on LGBT is rotten to the core.[/quote]

I would like to know what you believe the CC says on LGBT. [/quote]

It’s sinful and against natural law? Same-sex attraction however is not sinful.

Now tell me what you think the CC says on LGBT[/quote]

Well, to put it into its proper frame…sexual morality is all about developing a capacity for self-giving/self-sacrificial love so that we do not use each other. When in the proper context sex is a lifelong commitment between husband and wife.

The Church welcomes and embraces gay people. And, many committed Catholics are gay, living faithful and chaste lives. You’ll find homosexual people at Mass and working for the Church.

The Church, however, does reject discrimination and prejudice against homosexual people. Church teaching does not say homosexual people are disordered, but that sex is ordered to marriage and children and that is why homosexual people, like all of us who are unmarried, are called to chastity as the best way of learning self-giving love.

Of course marriage may be closed to homosexual people, as it is to many people. But like everyone else who is not married or cannot marry, homosexual people are called to develop intimate, trusting, and loving (but chaste) relationships.

To reiterate a couple points further, we favor laws which outlaw discrimination against homosexual people, but not laws which undermine the special place of marriage or which are against the best interest of a child. Cohabiting couples may need protection and support in law with regard to inheritance, tax, and other financial issues, but marriage, which can be only between a man and a woman, is a unique institution which deserves special protection, and is the proper place for a child.

The second point, is that the Church does not oppose same-sex marriage and adoption because it is against equality or gay rights, but rather because other interests and rights (especially those of the child) should weigh more heavily in the balance.

I can speak more on the issue if you wish.[/quote]

Serious question. What about transgender subgroups like transvestites, cross dressers, drag queens, bigender, genderqueer, androgyne, tranvestistic fetishists and so on? Wouldn’t that come under “sexual immorality” even if it doesn’t involve a sexual act with someone of the same sex?

264

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
She also mentions that she doesn’t understand the CC’s stance on gays. How strange is it that she is drawn to Catholicism for it’s “moral truths” when the CC’s beliefs on LGBT is rotten to the core.[/quote]

I would like to know what you believe the CC says on LGBT. [/quote]

It’s sinful and against natural law? Same-sex attraction however is not sinful.

Now tell me what you think the CC says on LGBT[/quote]

Well, to put it into its proper frame…sexual morality is all about developing a capacity for self-giving/self-sacrificial love so that we do not use each other. When in the proper context sex is a lifelong commitment between husband and wife.

The Church welcomes and embraces gay people. And, many committed Catholics are gay, living faithful and chaste lives. You’ll find homosexual people at Mass and working for the Church.

The Church, however, does reject discrimination and prejudice against homosexual people. Church teaching does not say homosexual people are disordered, but that sex is ordered to marriage and children and that is why homosexual people, like all of us who are unmarried, are called to chastity as the best way of learning self-giving love.

Of course marriage may be closed to homosexual people, as it is to many people. But like everyone else who is not married or cannot marry, homosexual people are called to develop intimate, trusting, and loving (but chaste) relationships.

To reiterate a couple points further, we favor laws which outlaw discrimination against homosexual people, but not laws which undermine the special place of marriage or which are against the best interest of a child. Cohabiting couples may need protection and support in law with regard to inheritance, tax, and other financial issues, but marriage, which can be only between a man and a woman, is a unique institution which deserves special protection, and is the proper place for a child.

The second point, is that the Church does not oppose same-sex marriage and adoption because it is against equality or gay rights, but rather because other interests and rights (especially those of the child) should weigh more heavily in the balance.

I can speak more on the issue if you wish.[/quote]

Serious question. What about transgender subgroups like transvestites, cross dressers, drag queens, bigender, genderqueer, androgyne, tranvestistic fetishists and so on? Wouldn’t that come under “sexual immorality” even if it doesn’t involve a sexual act with someone of the same sex?[/quote]

I have no clue what in the world half those things are, but I’d suspect no. I’d have to look into what those things actually are to understand more clearly.

265

The positive intention behind the criticism of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and contraception is the concern for people’s welfare and dignity, and an awareness of the wrongness of scapegoating and condemnation. Contraception is seen as protecting people from the consequences of their actions - unplanned pregnancy - which could affect the lives of many.

There is a concern that people are being harmed or sacrificed for the sake of dogmas and principles. We should have compassion for people who are not ready or willing to embrace conjugal love.

266

Yeah I don’t really know what most of them are either. But I think most of them involve some combination of lustfulness, lasciviousness, wantonness, covetousness and sexual immorality.

267

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah I don’t really know what most of them are either. But I think most of them involve some combination of lustfulness, lasciviousness, wantonness, covetousness and sexual immorality.[/quote]Clearly you did not get the memo regarding the many benefits we are now experiencing as a result of having finally adopted these virtues into the mainstream of our society. Geeez, some people.

268

Here is how my friend, Austen put it.

[quote]There are many positive values invoked by advocates of gay marriage. If restricting marriage to a man plus a woman really were discrimination, namely, irrational prejudice against people who don’t conform to the social majority, then it would, of course, be wrong; and gay marriage would be a positive move. Equally, if the purpose of marriage were solely to support and encourage commitment between people, then gay marriage would contribute to that end; and certainly there would be no grounds for excluding gay people from marriage. Nor would there be grounds for excluding any relationship where commitment were involved. If the intention behind gay marriage is to encourage such caring, committed relationships, then that is a good intention.

This is a question about what marriage means and whether the state should support that meaning. Marriage has always and everywhere been understood as a lifelong union between a man and a woman for the sake of their offspring. The state has upheld that meaning and promoted it because of its unique and irreplaceable benefits for children and for society as a whole. If the state now redefines marriage so that it is no longer about a man and a woman, then the state is no longer promoting marriage.

This isn’t about gay rights. It’s about the right of children to have the state protect their best interests, and study after study shows that their best interests lie in being brought up by their biological parents bound to each other for life. If the state creates gay marriage, it is saying the best interests of children and society as a whole no longer matter. The implications of that are very serious indeed.

The Church does not seek to impose a theological view of marriage; it respects civil marriage. But it cannot be silent when the interests of children and the common good of society are discarded under the false pretext of ending discrimination.[/quote]

269

To reiterate, three points:

This is not an issue about equality. To give everyone equal access to marriage would require the state to cease to recognize marriage altogether. This debate is about the purpose of marriage and why the state should promote it.

The demand for gay marriage is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people; it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The idea of marriage as a biological union of a man and a woman for children will be redefined as being for an emotional commitment between two people. Children will be irrelevant. That has consequences for children.

Marriage belongs to neither state nor Church, but is a natural institution which both should recognize. By trying to redefine it, the state is overreaching.

270

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
To reiterate, three points:

This is not an issue about equality. To give everyone equal access to marriage would require the state to cease to recognize marriage altogether. This debate is about the purpose of marriage and why the state should promote it.

The demand for gay marriage is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people; it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The idea of marriage as a biological union of a man and a woman for children will be redefined as being for an emotional commitment between two people. Children will be irrelevant. That has consequences for children.

Marriage belongs to neither state nor Church, but is a natural institution which both should recognize. By trying to redefine it, the state is overreaching.[/quote]

Are you really trying to take love out of the marriage equation? → insert facepalm here ←
Fucks sake, to hear you say it marriage is nothing more than a biological union meant to produce offspring; your “points” above are shit.

No, recognizing marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples does not redefine the institution of marriage, nor will it have “consequences for children”. Production of offspring is NOT the sole purpose of marriage, FYI. What about couples that get married and know from the start that they will never choose to have children? I know couples like that who could have children, but have decided not to for many reasons. Are they violating the spirit of the institution? Should they be required to produce offspring if they’re capable? A good friend of mine knew in his early twenties that he would never want children, and had a vasectomy at the age of 25 when he was married to a women who felt the same way. Sinners they must be, huh?

Was a time when interracial marriage was illegal too; bad for the kiddos they said, bible condemns it they said, not natural they said. They were on the wrong side of right then, and so are folks like you now. congratulation, let me know how that works out for you.

Good grief…

271

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
To reiterate, three points:

This is not an issue about equality. To give everyone equal access to marriage would require the state to cease to recognize marriage altogether. This debate is about the purpose of marriage and why the state should promote it.

The demand for gay marriage is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people; it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The idea of marriage as a biological union of a man and a woman for children will be redefined as being for an emotional commitment between two people. Children will be irrelevant. That has consequences for children.

Marriage belongs to neither state nor Church, but is a natural institution which both should recognize. By trying to redefine it, the state is overreaching.[/quote]

Are you really trying to take love out of the marriage equation? → insert facepalm here ←
Fucks sake, to hear you say it marriage is nothing more than a biological union meant to produce offspring; your “points” above are shit.
[/quote]

Please point where I said that marriage is nothing more than a biological union.

272

[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< to hear you say it marriage is nothing more than a biological union meant to produce offspring; your “points” above are shit. >>>[/quote]I don’t believe he is saying that, but the purpose of marriage is to signify the love of the husbandman Christ Jesus for His glorious Church bride. Just as this love of the church by her head produces His life in her so does the love of a husband for his wife reproduce their life together in Him. ANY other definition, however useful, is a perversion and will result in… well… what we’re seeing today. A deadly debauched degenerate society that is on it’s way out.

273

1024×768 164 KB

Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.

274

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Please point where I said that marriage is nothing more than a biological union. [/quote]

Right here…

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

This is not an issue about equality. To give everyone equal access to marriage would require the state to cease to recognize marriage altogether. This debate is about the purpose of marriage and why the state should promote it.

The demand for gay marriage is not a demand for marriage to be extended to gay people; it is a demand for marriage to be redefined. The idea of marriage as a biological union of a man and a woman for children will be redefined as being for an emotional commitment between two people. Children will be irrelevant. That has consequences for children.

Marriage belongs to neither state nor Church, but is a natural institution which both should recognize. By trying to redefine it, the state is overreaching.[/quote]

You’re clearly talking about how you see the purpose of marriage, and how that purpose is for the production of offspring. You’re claiming that emphasizing the emotional commitment of love between two people, as the sole basis of marriage, is wrong in your opinion.

I say bullshit.

275

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.[/quote]Correction Sparky. You need the redeemed new covenant version. Ephesians 5. Caps indicate a quote from the OT as per the NASB translators. [quote]be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. 22-Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23-For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24-But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25-Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26-so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27-that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28-So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29-for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30-because we are members of His body. 31-FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32-This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33-Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband. [/quote]

276

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
No, recognizing marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples does not redefine the institution of marriage,[/quote]

Actually it does. If marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman…well, having something besides that is redefining it. Unless you have a different definition of redefining than what is in the dictionary. If so please, let the rest of us know so we can play on the same field.

I disagree. So does this study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

[quote]Production of offspring is NOT the sole purpose of marriage, FYI. What about couples that get married and know from the start that they will never choose to have children? I know couples like that who could have children, but have decided not to for many reasons. Are they violating the spirit of the institution? Should they be required to produce offspring if they’re capable? A good friend of mine knew in his early twenties that he would never want children, and had a vasectomy at the age of 25 when he was married to a women who felt the same way. Sinners they must be, huh?

Was a time when interracial marriage was illegal too; bad for the kiddos they said, bible condemns it they said, not natural they said. They were on the wrong side of right then, and so are folks like you now. congratulation, let me know how that works out for you.

Good grief…
[/quote]

It may be my fault, but I wish you would read what I actually write, so as not to argue against straw men. I never said marriage has the sole purpose of procreation. Nevertheless, though procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage, it is one of the purposes of the main or prime dual purpose of marriage.

I won’t take the time to answer the rest of your remarks because it based off the wrongful assumption that I put forth an argument that procreation is the sole purpose. Again, I did not put forth an argument nor did I say that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage.

277

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.[/quote]

Great, reductionism. It’s like I’m talking to a fundamentalist now. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/06/ridicule-reductionism-ridicule-and-red-herrings.html

278

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.[/quote]Correction Sparky. You need the redeemed new covenant version. Ephesians 5. Caps indicate a quote from the OT as per the NASB translators. [quote]be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. 22-Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23-For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24-But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25-Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26-so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27-that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28-So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29-for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30-because we are members of His body. 31-FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32-This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33-Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband. [/quote][/quote]

So, not only one must choose the right flavor of christianity, but one must be reading the correct version of the bible, if one doesn’t want to burn in a lake of fire…for eternity.

LOL…

But seriously, what’s your thoughts on what Deuteronomy instructing a girl to marry her rapist?

279

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

You’re clearly talking about how you see the purpose of marriage, and how that purpose is for the production of offspring. You’re claiming that emphasizing the emotional commitment of love between two people, as the sole basis of marriage, is wrong in your opinion.

I say bullshit.
[/quote]

You said, I said that marriage was nothing more than procreation. That’s not even close to what I have said. You’re throwing the word “sole” around where it was never mentioned. And, no I do not think that nor has anyone (until seemingly the past five years) thought that love between two people is the sole purpose of marriage. There is a dual purpose of marriage. To separate those and eliminate one or the other is the redefine marriage.

280

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ahhhh yes, traditional marriage, as defined by the “good book”.[/quote]

Great, reductionism. It’s like I’m talking to a fundamentalist now. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/06/ridicule-reductionism-ridicule-and-red-herrings.html[/quote]

Hey, I’m just quoting for you what your holy book says. Not my fault that it says the awful shit that it says.

Words mean things, and it says what it says. Christians seem to spend ALOT of time trying to justify and argue away what’s written in the bible.