Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[Rajni]

Read my last post on this. Also, show me where I judged anyone, or did anything more than point out what sin was damnable.

Let me put it this way: When an action is so-called "damnable", what component gets damned (sent to "hell", basically): The action, or the person?

As per my last post, you are essentually saying Paul is wrong for pointing out practicing Homosexuals are damned, snnd that's not good at all.

So, you basically disagree with the bible.

Since I'm no longer a Christian, there's quite a bit in the bible, including things Paul says, that I disagree with. This isn't really noteworthy.


-

 

[SkyWriting]

You skipped the question. And before you ask what question, please reread the post to which you replied, it's in there.

Now, will you please show me where I said I "get to do the damning"?

I did cover that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let me put it this way: When an action is so-called "damnable", what component gets damned (sent to "hell", basically): The action, or the person?

Since I'm no longer a Christian, there's quite a bit in the bible, including things Paul says, that I disagree with. This isn't really noteworthy.


-

Everyone is actually IN hell, but those who trust in Christ are forgiven because they believe in the faith that they are. You can't be forgiven if you don't trust that there is the ability to be forgiven.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let me put it this way: When an action is so-called "damnable", what component gets damned (sent to "hell", basically): The action, or the person?
-

The person who is being judgmental, of course. Our deeds do not determine our destiny with God. It's the ancient bible thumping, foot-stomping, finger-pointing. It hasn't changed since Jesus's day:

- Jesus forgives the woman at the well

- When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.”

 

[Kenny'sID]

I did cover that.

Yet you showed me nothing to even suggest I did as you claim, and since you cannot shown me where I said I "get to do the damning" and unless you can now simply quote my post that states that instead of avoiding it, I'll just assume this is all about you jumping the gun, then not being willing to admit you wrongly accused.

All you state about Jesus and Paul, does not make Paul wrong, yet your idea's here say he was wrong, and that is not biblical.

Next time I suggest you read more carfully what you are about to disagree with, as, evidently, for some, it's much harder to admit you are wrong, than it us not to make the jump the gun charge to begin with.

Since I'm no longer a Christian, there's quite a bit in the bible, including things Paul says, that I disagree with. This isn't really noteworthy.

Then there is no sense in our debating.

 

[Kylie]

It doesnt make a difference to you but it does to Christians and you are asking a Christian.

Only if you are judging others based on your beliefs, and I thought we agreed that doing that was wrong.

But not just that, it does make a difference. Regardless of morality the research shows that having a committed relationship makes a positive difference for a number of outcomes including for sex. The obvious one is falling pregnant as the result of having casual sex without a commitment has more negative consequences such as more likely to have an abortion, fatherless children, economic problems, mental and physical problems ect. Facts show high rates of pregnacies with casual sex and consequently high rates of abortion.

Care to share your source on this?

Ah that is what belief and morality is lol. But thats like saying a persons ethics influences what they think people can and cannot do. An organisations code of conduct influences what people can and cannot do. That stands to reason.

No.

A person's morality influences how that person acts. It does not and should not be used to determine how someone else acts.

I agree. But if a person of belief expresses their belief that they disagree with same sex marriage for example that is not being hateful. Today people interpret this as hateful but it is not under a society that allows the right for people to have the freedom of religion and belief. But even non religious people have the same right to express their personal views on this without being accused of being hateful.

If someone uses their beliefs to deny rights to others, then that most certainly is hateful.

Would you use the same argument for those people back in the 50s and 60s who said that black people couldn't use the same water fountain, or go to the same schools as white people? Will you say those people weren't being hateful, they just had different beliefs and were within their right to express them?

 

[Kylie]

The values reiterated in the New Testament.

But NOT reiterated by Jesus.

And you'd think he would have if it was so important to his teachings.

 

[Kylie]

I'm asking a legitimate question. Believers don't just go around telling everyone what to do in their personal lives. If the door opens to that conversation, that's one thing.

I've seen plenty of believers telling other people how to live their lives. Your argument is not very convincing.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not Steve, but it does not matter what *I* think about other people having sex. It DOES matter what God says to do. And if He has proscribed it, I'm in no position to disagree with Him. Any sexual activity outside of biblical marriage is sexual immorality, according to the Word...not me.

But why should someone who doesn't share your beliefs act according to those beliefs?

If you met someone, and their religion forbade eating ice cream, would you stop eating ice cream? I doubt it. So if someone who doesn't share your beliefs wants to do something that is against your beliefs, why should they listen to you when you tell them that your beliefs say it's wrong?

 

[Kylie]

If you are talking biblical laws against homosexuality, they are still in affect. See the last paragraph of my prior post.

And that was written by Paul, long after the time of Jesus. Why should we be bound by one guy's opinions?

You tell by looking and seeing some are cerimonial, and and some are not. Most people can discern the difference, but if you have trouble with that, by all means post those here and we can probably help.

That leaves it vague, doesn't it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That leaves it vague, doesn't it

Not at all...did you need some help?

And that was written by Paul, long after the time of Jesus. Why should we be bound by one guy's opinions?

Why should we believe what is taught as truth from the bible? No good reason unless we are Christians, and this is after all, a Christian website.

If you don't see the bible as truth, you will have many disagreements here, so many, not sure why you'd even post, however, that is all up to you...it just makes no sense to me.

 

[stevevw]

And that was written by Paul, long after the time of Jesus. Why should we be bound by one guy's opinions?

Pauls letters were written soon after Jesus was crucified. Soon enough to have known many witnesses to jesus and plus Paul had met Jesus after his death. Pauls letters have been verified by most scholars. Paul has written the majority of the New testament which is what Christians use. Rejecting Paul is rejecting the entire New testament.

 

[Rajni]

Then there is no sense in our debating.

Then there's no sense in you engaging in areas of the forum, such as this one, with others here who share my position, as you are continuing to do. The Christians-Only areas might be a better fit for you. But I can see that my previous question to you might have been difficult for you to answer, so my position gave you an 'out'.

 

[stevevw]

Only if you are judging others based on your beliefs, and I thought we agreed that doing that was wrong.

We agreed that denying someone the right to have sex however and with whoever according to secular views is wrong. But that doesn’t mean that Christians don’t have the right to express their belief and to believe that certain things are morally wrong. That doesnt mean they want to make everyone comform to that belief.

But what is happening in modern society and not just with religion is that people are equating opposing views and beliefs as hate and violence. For example if anyone disagrees with same sex marriage they are called hateful and bigoted. This has led to physical reactions from some as we have seen with protests.

Thats because today what is regarded as truth or objective reality is now about looking inside. Its whatever a person percieves, feels or identifies with rather than external facts and science IE reality is what you make it. That is why when someone opposes same sex marriage people will believe they are not only rejecting this idea but the person themselves. That is why people react so much when this happens.

Care to share your source on this?

Yes here are some

Despite the prevalence of positive feelings, hookups can include negative outcomes, such as emotional and psychological injury, sexual violence, sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy.
Sexual hook-up culture.
Out-of-wedlock childbirth has soared worldwide since the 1960s, and many governments struggle to respond
Over the past several decades the incidence of single-parent families has generally increased worldwide, with the largest increases in industrialized countries.
Out-of-Wedlock Births Rise Worldwide | YaleGlobal Online.
Compared with married women, those who were in a de facto relationship, were single, or divorced were more likely to have had an abortion.
Understanding why women have abortions
Why sex is better in a long-term relationship
Why sex is better in a long-term relationship
Benefits of Committed Relationships
* Married people are healthier, happier, and live longer than singles.
* INTIMACY: Emotional closeness, love, trust, mutual support, builds and improves over time in a committed relationship, and is much more difficult to achieve in quality and quantity outside of a committed relationship.
* FAMILY: Both children and adults thrive in an environment of stable, long-term, multi-generational relationships.
* MENTAL/EMOTIONAL/PHYSICAL HEALTH: Married adults live longer and have fewer mental/emotional problems.
Benefits of Committed Relationships.

No.

A person's morality influences how that person acts. It does not and should not be used to determine how someone else acts.

But I didn’t say that. You said
So you admit to allowing your beliefs to influence your judgement over what other people should or should not do?

Judgements are not actions and nor do they equate to making other people conform to those judgemnets. They are just judgemnets. If you go on social media or forums like this people are making judgemnets all the time. But they dont necessarily force others to conform to what they think are right. In western nations religious belief has not forced anyone to do anything for a long time.

Its more likely to be secular influences like the media, big business and tech (social media) and the government that will influence, impose and force people to do things according to their own judgemnet of what is right nowadays. For example they will silence certain views and only allow certain narratives in order to promote their ideologies.

If someone uses their beliefs to deny rights to others, then that most certainly is hateful.

Not necessarily. It just means there is a clash of rights. Allowing one right is going to deny another right one way or another. For example Canada’s C16 law to force people to use gender pronouns. Some may say not using gender pronouns denies some the right to be addressed by the language they want to be addressed by. But others will say that forcing people to use certain language denies free speech. Some say allowing transgender women in women’s sports supports the rights of transgender people. But by doing this it denies women the right to safe and fair sports.

Would you use the same argument for those people back in the 50s and 60s who said that black people couldn't use the same water fountain, or go to the same schools as white people? Will you say those people weren't being hateful, they just had different beliefs and were within their right to express them?

You’re misrepresenting my argument. I am not saying anything about forcing people into any situation. Once again I am talking about views not actions. The right to hold those views even if they oppose other views or may seem wrong to some. We could turn it around and say would you deny cultures their right to hold their beliefs. That could be equated with the same mentality you are alluding to about race in the 50’s and 60’s. A dictatorship like communism that denies people the right to belief and their personal views.

In fact in todays politically correct society if anyone is making people conform to particular views it is how some groups including non-religious like big business and IT (social media) are imposing their ideology onto others by silencing some views and allowing others.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

But why should someone who doesn't share your beliefs act according to those beliefs?

If you met someone, and their religion forbade eating ice cream, would you stop eating ice cream? I doubt it. So if someone who doesn't share your beliefs wants to do something that is against your beliefs, why should they listen to you when you tell them that your beliefs say it's wrong?

No one said anyone else had to listen to me or do what I said.

Your premise does not follow. I'm in no position to tell another what not to do - unless I'm his pastor or parent and he is asking my advice. Even then, I can't make him listen. I CAN share why I believe this action isn't wise, if the person is open or wishes to have that conversation at all. I can share what I believe is truth and why. That is all I can do.

Now, in this new scenario you present, "if you meet someone whose religion forbids ice cream, will you stop eating it." Permanently? No. Why should I? My Bible says that all foods are clean and that anything is fine for me though not all things are profitable (like too much ice cream).

That said, the higher law of love would make me decline to eat ice cream around this person - if he cares at all or it makes him uncomfortable. When I go to the JCC, they don't serve milk and meat together, so you can get a hamburger, but not a cheeseburger. I'm not going to be the jerk who insists on the cheeseburger because I have no convictions in that area. I'm going to accept their restriction. As a believer, I am to walk in love and to prefer the weaker brother (which in this context is someone who is bothered by something that my conscience or faith does not prohibit).

Here's an example: When a relative died, we agreed on all funeral purchases EXCEPT that he was really squeamish about the thought of not sealing the coffin. Now we all know that sealing the coffin is going to do absolutely nothing over time...the body will still deteriorate. But out of love, after gently sharing that it didn't seem like maybe something we needed, he was still upset about it so I immediately agreed. It made him feel better; it was important to him. I knew this was just the shell and it didn't make any difference at all - but it was important to him, so we agreed to it.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I've seen plenty of believers telling other people how to live their lives. Your argument is not very convincing.

I imagine those believers telling others how to live their lives are not successful. No one changes what he does until he sees why he should.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

But NOT reiterated by Jesus.

And you'd think he would have if it was so important to his teachings.

No, no, no. Jesus also didn't say not to participate in gang violence, but that doesn't mean we can do it.

Jesus did NOT reiterate all of the morality of the law because He didn't have to. They already knew what was forbidden in the law, which is why He would constantly ask Pharisees or others what the Law said.

He did directly define marriage as when a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves unto his wife, the two shall be one. If he really meant "any two people", that was the place He would have corrected that.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman. There are other relationships of all kinds. But Jesus defines marriage and He has done so, decidedly. Sexual morality just isn't within the realm of permissiveness, as is whether you drink wine or not or whether you believe in this order of service or that order.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then there's no sense in you engaging in areas of the forum, such as this one, with others here who share my position, as you are continuing to do. The Christians-Only areas might be a better fit for you. But I can see that my previous question to you might have been difficult for you to answer, so my position gave you an 'out'.

If they are Christian, sure there is. If they are Atheist, there is going to be too much disagreement to bother.

Besides, though neither of you would admit it, I was the one called out on something I didnt even do, so naturally someone needed be set straight.

 

[Kylie]

Not at all...did you need some help?

What I meant is that I could ask a bunch of different people and get a different answer from one of them.

Could you tell me which criteria need to be met for one of the rules laid down in Leviticus to be classified as ceremonial and which are not?

Why should we believe what is taught as truth from the bible? No good reason unless we are Christians, and this is after all, a Christian website.

If you don't see the bible as truth, you will have many disagreements here, so many, not sure why you'd even post, however, that is all up to you...it just makes no sense to me.

Are you suggesting you just want an echo chamber?

 

[Kylie]

Pauls letters were written soon after Jesus was crucified. Soon enough to have known many witnesses to jesus and plus Paul had met Jesus after his death. Pauls letters have been verified by most scholars. Paul has written the majority of the New testament which is what Christians use. Rejecting Paul is rejecting the entire New testament.

They were written about 20 years later, were they not? Hardly "soon".