Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[SilverBear]

I didn't mean like that, but of course it's damaging towards Christianity.



You are the one claiming that people can use the Bible for racial prejudiced, so its up to you to show where and how.

Its called history. Go look into it sometime

 

[Robban]

Its called history. Go look into it sometime

Or is it the time of year, Christmas cracker jokes and all that?

And games, you know,
"O'Grady said sit, O'Grady said stand,

sit, stand, you are out."

 

[HIM]

Again, that makes no sense. You can't change your orientation at will. All you can do is refuse to act on it.
.

No we can't. With man this impossible but with God all things are possible.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. HAVE FAITH.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience (our inner person, who we were before Christ) from dead works (sin, acts that cause death) to serve the living God?

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
By His will we are sanctified (made holy) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof (in regards to this perfectness) the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; For the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word (God's laws) is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.



Matt 19:26; 2Cor 5:17,18; Heb 9:13,14; Heb 10:1-4; 1John 3:5; 1Pet 2:24; Heb 10:10 Heb 10:14-16; Rom 10:6-8

Merry Christmas!

 

[hedrick]

I didn't mean like that, but of course it's damaging towards Christianity.



You are the one claiming that people can use the Bible for racial prejudiced, so its up to you to show where and how.

Finis Dake on Racial Segregation | Faith & Heritage

The Dake study Bible is still used.

Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Slavery

The people involved, eg Hodges, are still recognized as theologians. These were not fringe figures. See the next article,

Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Apartheid

for the Biblical case for Apartheid. In the US context A Christian View on Segregation | Faith & Heritage

The point is not that God actually approves of these things. I don’t think he does. But it’s worth looking at how Christians justified them. This was a basic feature of conservative Christianity. The same kind of exegesis is being used now for other purposes.

 

[Strathos]

No we can't. With man this impossible but with God all things are possible.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. HAVE FAITH.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience (our inner person, who we were before Christ) from dead works (sin, acts that cause death) to serve the living God?

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
By His will we are sanctified (made holy) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof (in regards to this perfectness) the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; For the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word (God's laws) is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach.



Matt 19:26; 2Cor 5:17,18; Heb 9:13,14; Heb 10:1-4; 1John 3:5; 1Pet 2:24; Heb 10:10 Heb 10:14-16; Rom 10:6-8

Merry Christmas!

God could perform a miracle to change someone's orientation, but why would that be necessary if they keep to the commandments?

 

[HIM]

God could perform a miracle to change someone's orientation, but why would that be necessary if they keep to the commandments?

Did you read the post or just part of it

 

[Strathos]

Did you read the post or just part of it

I've read the passages in question.

 

[hedrick]

Finis Dake on Racial Segregation | Faith & Heritage

The Dake study Bible is still used.

Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Slavery

The people involved, eg Hodges, are still recognized as theologians. These were not fringe figures. See the next article,

Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Apartheid

for the Biblical case for Apartheid. In the US context A Christian View on Segregation | Faith & Heritage

The point is not that God actually approves of these things. I don’t think he does. But it’s worth looking at how Christians justified them. This was a basic feature of conservative Christianity. The same kind of exegesis is being used now for other purposes.

So did the conservative community end up rejecting these arguments? As far as I can tell, they did not. Once the culture reached the point where even conservatives found slavery and segregation repulsive, they were just swept under the rug. Because the approaches that led to them were never rejected, the same type of argument was available for the next set of social issues.

 

[HIM]

I've read the passages in question.

Take care then

 

[Robban]

Not likely, since Catholics in the US and Europe support gay marriage more than mainline Protestants do.

Most likely this is about the Pope being sensitive to the genuine sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful).

What is marriage?

Marriage is the natural order of creation.
Not as a law or legal sanction,

but a blessing from God.

Just as woman was created as a seperate being a"helpmeet
opposite" man,


"It is not good for man to be alone."

Marriage was created at the beginning, at the same time the principals of marriage were created.

It was not an afterthought designed to control their passions,
but part of the natural order of human society.

Anything else are reckoned as "sins of spite".

One who transgresses God's command not for pleasure or for benefits,
but simply to demonstrate indifference for God's words,

has desecrated God's name having displayed open disregard for His wishes.

Do not place a stumbling block before a blind.

 

[coffee4u]

Its called history. Go look into it sometime

If you claim something in a debate it's up to you to show the proof of your claim. Not for the opposing side to go dig it up. So your claim is empty.

 

[coffee4u]

Finis Dake on Racial Segregation | Faith & Heritage

The Dake study Bible is still used.

Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Slavery

The people involved, eg Hodges, are still recognized as theologians. These were not fringe figures. See the next article,

Justifying Injustice with the Bible: Apartheid

for the Biblical case for Apartheid. In the US context A Christian View on Segregation | Faith & Heritage

The point is not that God actually approves of these things. I don’t think he does. But it’s worth looking at how Christians justified them. This was a basic feature of conservative Christianity. The same kind of exegesis is being used now for other purposes.

Thank you for taking the time to get me some links. I will look at each one.

One Finis Dake. Is again a perfect example of someone who had an opinion and wanted to find justification for it. He then went to the Bible hoping to have it backed up.
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; (KJV)
Nothing there about skin colour. In fact if all men are one blood it is stating the very opposite of what he claimed. All Men included ALL people. Because if we are one blood then we are one kind.

God made everything to reproduce “After his own kind” (Genesis 1:11-12, 21-25; 6:20; 7:14).
Kind means type and color
Lol, again this is his mind that came up with this because nowhere in that verse does God say that kind is linked to 'type' (whatever that means) or skin colour.

If people were truly different kinds then a black person and a white person or a black and an Asian person would not be able to have children together, it would be as impossible as a cat and dog reproducing. Only the same kind can produce offspring together. The fact that humans of any nationality can produce offspring is a 100% solid guarantee that we are all all the exact same kind.

Since I can see the man is in error from his very first sentence I have read enough about him.

two
Well there certainly was a curse of slavery placed on Ham.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”


26 He also said,

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

3 times God says that Canaan will be a slave. So that is true. If that translates to the transatlantic slave trade is another thing altogether. No proof that it is connected, but I can see how people may have used that to say it was. That still doesn't excuse it and also has nothing to do with Biblical slavery. Most times slavery was within the people group itself and was often to do with paying off debt.
As to history, all people groups have been slaves at some point including white people.

Let's pretend those verses about Canaan truly were advocating for African slavery.
If it's biblical then these same people would also be advocating for just and fair treatment and also against going in and kidnapping people.
Colossians 4:1
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Exodus 21:16
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

These two verses mandated not only good treatment but also that slaves could not be kidnapped. If they weren't following these verses while laying claim to Genesis 9 then they were hypocrites. Can't use one verse without the others because it stops being a Biblical teaching. Just so we are clear: I don't think those verses about Canaan have anything to do with the transatlantic slave trade. It was a convenient excuse used by people who believed something and then had to find something to back it up with. There is a huge difference to opening the Bible and letting the Holy Spirit tell us what God wants verses coming to the Bible with a preconceived idea and trying to make it fit our mindset.

The Old testament supported taking people in war as slaves/servants -and they were basically the same racial type. They weren't 'white' people enslaving 'black' people. They were all Arab/Middle Eastern people.
Then there is the issue of what exactly is a slave. The Hebrew word ebed can be translated as either slave or servant. Now we in the 21st century have quite different things in mind for those two English words.
People are 'reading into it' They look at the transatlantic slave trade and this forms in their mind, what they believe slavery to be. But that wasn't Biblical slavery. If a slave is also a servant than even someone being paid to clean your house could be called a ebed/slave/servant in Biblical times. There is nothing wrong with being paid to clean houses, I did it myself for awhile.

Three
The Bible teaches that God has created different races. The story of Babel tells us that the separation of people into different races with different languages is God's will.
The Bible says that there were different people groups speaking different languages, it doesn't use the word 'race' There are many European countries and they all speak a different language, it doesn't make them all different races. Same way there are many Asian and African countries speaking a huge variety of languages. A different language does not have to indicate a different race.
If these people are so gungho for 'racial purity' then it should be aimed at not only 'white' and 'black' but also at 'white' and 'white', 'black' and 'black', 'Asian and Asian'
At least have some consistency with your own prejudice if language is the indicator.

Then this
"From our one ancestor God made all nations (Greek ethnoi) to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the time of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live.
If people truly believed that people should remain each in their own geographical locations then this would negate the Transatlantic slave trade because moving Africans to the America's literally goes against that. Also negates white colonialism of America for that matter. Guess they had all had better go back to whatever European countries they came from since America is not where they originated from.
If this is only about South Africa and Apartheid (which I don't know a whole lot about) then the same goes for them. They had all better go back to their countries of origin.
Of course the Bible does not teach Apartheid.


Four
Rev. James Henley Thornwell was again a product of his time. This was something he grew up believing because society around him believed it.
If a person truly wants to know what the Bible says on a topic, all the verses are looked at. Then they may delve further into who it was written for as well as the Greek or Hebrew not just the English translation.

"What does God teach about the races of the world? If you will go to the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, you will find where Paul preached a special sermon on Mars Hill. . . .


Now, notice – this is an important verse – the twenty-sixth verse of the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (in some of the best original manuscripts, the word “blood” is not there; but it is not important anyhow, because the thoughts are the same). “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth…” But do not stop there, “…and hath determined the times appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Now, what does that say? That says that God Almighty fixed the bounds of their habitation. That is as clear as anything that was ever said."

Someone else jumping on the boundary thing but still not leaving the country that was obvosuly not theirs to start with.

Makes me wonder if people like this are aware of the interracial marriage in the Bible.
Rahab was a Canaanite. The Canaanites were an ungodly culture, and were descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham. Who did Rahab marry? She married Salmon from the tribe of Judah and was the mother of Boaz. Boaz became the father of Obed who was the grandfather of King David directly in line to Christ himself. If God supported the marriage of a 'black' Canaanite to someone 'White' who are we to say otherwise.

 

[Kylie]

By that line of thinking you would be fine if the next Pope does a 180 because of Papal Infallibility. All Popes are fallible humans including the first, Peter the Apostle. And that's not how all Catholics think and act.

So you are saying that people just pick and choose what beliefs they will follow, and have no problem disregarding statements made about religious faith, even when such statements are made by the person they consider to be the representative of God here on Earth?

How is that any different to someone who holds beliefs simply because they are convenient?

And does that suggest that people who hold that same sex unions are wrong do so simply because it is convenient for them to do so?

And how does one know they have found the truth when they hold their beliefs out of convenience?

Also, that would completely eliminate the idea of Papal infallibility. Maybe when they said that Papal infallibility was a thing, that was an example of them being fallible.

 

[SilverBear]

If you claim something in a debate it's up to you to show the proof of your claim. Not for the opposing side to go dig it up. So your claim is empty.

Hedrick gave you a starting point if you are unable or unwilling to spend a few minutes with Google

 

[Kylie]

Hedrick gave you a starting point if you are unable or unwilling to spend a few minutes with Google

That "starting point" was the incredibly vague, "Its called history. Go look into it sometime."

That's not a starting point.

That's like asking where the start line of the Boston Marathon is and getting the answer, "Somewhere in North America."

 

[SilverBear]

Thank you for taking the time to get me some links. I will look at each one.

will you do anything but give flat out denials?


Yep. Flat out denials down the list...

One Finis Dake. Is again a perfect example of someone who had an opinion and wanted to find justification for it. He then went to the Bible hoping to have it backed up.

sounds like every anti-gay individual I've ever met.

Rev. James Henley Thornwell was again a product of his time. This was something he grew up believing because society around him believed it.

how is this different from your own positions, aren't you and your prejudices just a product of societal belief?

 

[SilverBear]

That "starting point" was the incredibly vague, "Its called history. Go look into it sometime."

That's not a starting point.

That's like asking where the start line of the Boston Marathon is and getting the answer, "Somewhere in North America."

two different posters

 

[coffee4u]

will you do anything but give flat out denials?


Yep. Flat out denials down the list...

sounds like every anti-gay individual I've ever met.

how is this different from your own positions, aren't you and your prejudices just a product of societal belief?

You agree with these positions?
1) That difference races of people are different kinds and shouldn't intermarry
2) That the verse in Genesis is justification for the transatlantic slave trade
3) That people of different languages should not intermarry
4) That the different races should live in different areas.

Because that is what I was denying.

Nothing in that list was to do with sexual activity.


Being against sin is not anti anything. Unless you also use the words 'anti-adultery, anti-theft, anti-greed etc.

God lists sins in various places in the Bible
Galatians 5:19–21

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

I am against these things because God says they are sins. As God's children we are to hate sin. Which is why when we commit any sin we are suppose to repent of it. We are most certainly not to practice it. Any sexual activity with another outside of marriage is sexual immorality. The vast majority of adults have at some point in their lives committed sexual sin. It doesn't matter if the person is attracted to the opposite or same sex, its all sexual sin.

James 1:14–15

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Feeling tempted is not sin. When we are tempted we are to turn away from whatever is about to cause us to sin. Jesus gave us the example when the devil came to tempt him in the desert. It doesn't matter what the sin is, it doesn't have to be sexual. It could be greed, anger, alcohol, anything.

two different posters

Yes but it still stands that if you are making a claim that you need something to back it up with.
I am claiming that God's word says any sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin. I back that up with scripture to show where I get that claim from.
I didn't formulate that idea then try and find verses to support it. It would be a lot easier for Christians if these things were not all counted as sins. We are all sinners, we all fall short. We are saved because Jesus died on the cross for our sins, for these very things mentioned. You seem very stuck on this one particular sin and are in denial that it is a sin. It is a sin, and it is no different to any of those other sins listed.

 

[Redac]

That's a bit different. The whole thing with Papal Infallibility.

That's not what Papal infallibility is or how it works.

 

[Kylie]

That's not what Papal infallibility is or how it works.

You'll forgive me if I find the whole thing has just too many ways for people to explain away why they don't believe certain things.