Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[Kenny'sID]

I agree that it's a sin, yes.

My point of disagreement is that God's law should apply to non-Christian's, by force if necessary.

I disagree with that mentality. God's law applies to God's people, who willingly take upon themselves the Lordship of Christ.

It is to the Church (meaning God's people) to keep the integrity of the church... God will deal with the world accordingly, in His own time. In the meantime, our concern is sharing the message of salvation to the lost, and keeping our own spiritual and scriptural integrity..

Separation of church and state.

A rule ordained by God, as he has his hands on all our laws. Many Christians don't like it, but it stands up for what you are saying.

We all have to live on the planet, and the state's job is to keep the peace and allowing equal rights is the only way to make that happen. Otherwise we would be forcing beliefs, or taking away free will, something God is very much against.

The pope here is basically following God ordained rules. However, we should make no mistake in that God doesn't like it that there are homosexuals, any more than his children do, so him setting up rules as such, far from means he condones homosexuality.

In all fairness, I don't believe the pope ever said he condoned either the union, or marriage, but I'd guess he realizes this is just the way it has to be.

 

[Quartermaine]

It seems what you're really demanding is respect for relationships we find sinful. Not a live and let live attitude of liberalism. Don't pretend your position is neutral because it isn't, it is just as forceful as any other political ideology in ultimately demanding compliance.

isn't the other side demanding respect for what we find hateful and bigoted?

 

[Hazelelponi]

How far are you willing to extend that? In all cases or only few? In which case what's the determining metric? I could understand not directly challenging modern societal norms as a strategic goal with the hopes of the long term goal, but not outright supporting the practice of such a thing (while being against it personally).

Why should any Christian, who thinks Homosexuality and a whole host of other sexually deviant practices (prostitution, inappropriate contentography and the like) ever argue from a libertarian political perspective to allow these things? These things which directly undermine Christianity in society? We need only ask, has the legalization of homosexual marriage made Christianity stronger? What about no fault divorce? No, instead society at large is only emboldened to throw away more of it's Christian norms to the point where decadence is a virtue.

Decadence has always been a virtue to the world. Nothing's changed there.

What we need to ask is if ignoring damnable sins inside the church while condemning those outside the church strengthened Christianity in any way, or if doing so has led to its decline.

When there's no difference between the world and the church what does it profit God?

Let there be a difference between us and the world, and let that difference shine... that's what brings people to Christ...

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Separation of church and state.

A rule ordained by God, as he has his hands on all our laws. Many Christians don't like it, but I stands up for what you are saying.

We all have to live on the planet, and the state's job is to keep the peace and allowing equal rights, is the only way to make that happen. Otherwise we would be forcing beliefs, or taking away free will, something God is very much against.

The pope here is basically following God ordained rules. However, we should make no mistake in that God doesn't like it that there are homosexuals, any more than his children do, and him setting up rules as such, far from means he condiones homosexuality.

In all fairness, I don't believe the pope ever said he condoned either the union, or marriage, but realizes this just the way it has to be.

Since when was it the state's job, from a Christian perspective, to provide equality? This is simply applying liberal American political doctrine to Christian practice and is no way the historical norm or practice of the Church or any theory of Christian Statecraft. It owes more to the enlightenment than it does to the bible or any theological reasoning.

I get if you want to say this is the better system (though I disagree), but it is not one derived from Christianity.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Separation of church and state.

A rule ordained by God, as he has his hands on all our laws. Many Christians don't like it, but I stands up for what you are saying.

We all have to live on the planet, and the state's job is to keep the peace and allowing equal rights, is the only way to make that happen. Otherwise we would be forcing beliefs, or taking away free will, something God is very much against.

The pope here is basically following God ordained rules. However, we should make no mistake in that God doesn't like it that there are homosexuals, any more than his children do, and him setting up rules as such, far from means he condiones homosexuality.

In all fairness, I don't believe the pope ever said he condoned either the union, or marriage, but realizes this just the way it has to be.

That's all I'm saying...

 

[Ananias]

No, instead society at large is only emboldened to throw away more of it's Christian norms to the point where decadence is a virtue.

This. Give them an inch, they'll take a foot. Give a foot, they'll take a mile. Someday you're going to be taking communion of bacon and grapejuice from the genderqueer Muslo-Taoist High Pajandrum with purple hair, with xer non-binary temple attendants waiting to sacrifice an infant to celebrate, and you'll wonder, "How on earth did we end up here?"

This is how. By giving up ground one inch at a time.

 

[Ananias]

This is simply applying liberal American political doctrine to Christian practice and is no way the historical norm or practice of the Church or any theory of Christian Statecraft.

Yep. The older I get, the more I think I would have sided with the Tories in the American Revolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Since when was it the state's job, from a Christian perspective, to provide equality?

Since they started implementing it.

What do you think they should do?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's all I'm saying...

I figured.

 

[Ananias]

What do you think they should do?

The State, properly constituted, has only one job: to provide security and order to the citizens such that they can carry out their lives in relative peace and safety. That's it. It's not the government's job to make people "happy" (an impossible task for any government).

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Decadence has always been a virtue to the world. Nothing's changed there.

What we need to ask is if ignoring damnable sins inside the church while condemning those outside the church strengthened Christianity in any way, or if doing so has led to its decline.

When there's no difference between the world and the church what does it profit God?

Let there be a difference between us and the world, and let that difference shine... that's what brings people to Christ...

In a Christian society's of the past the decadence we have today would have been scandalous. They never made a virtue of sexual decadence, that's why it was mostly kept secret and out of the public view. Now we celebrate and encourage child actors to twerk and get half naked for the elation of pedophiles everywhere and this is defended by our elites.

You ask an interesting question and it is perhaps answered by Paul. He didn't hesitate to call idols, idols. He didn't hesitate to point out the flaws of the roman system even if he was subtle about it. There are reasons why he did this, probably so as to not deliberately antagonize the society around him. If a Christian in the second century, in a fit of anger spat at an Idol, he was liable for punishment within his own community. This wasn't for the sake of the idol but the community because that sort of behavior only drew attention and needlessly martyred oneself. If however you were asked to sacrifice to Caesar's idol, you had a choice and the choice was clear.

Here we have the Pope deliberately encouraging states to tolerate homosexuality in the form of secular legitimization of the relationship. He does this, despite it being a mortal sin. Now does anyone actually believe Pope Francis thinks it's a mortal sin? As a Spiritual Father to millions, this action essentially sanctions what Catholic doctrine has called intrinsically disordered. There is no reconciliation here, there is no reasonable explanation that allows for both positions. Here you have a clear and distinct contradiction and Francis (like he has with China) has seceded moral ground to sin.

Popes before him would have been offended at the notion of kowtowing to secular governments like this.

 

[Quartermaine]

That is ridiculous. The exact same problems were present in, e.g., the Corinthian church as there are in Western churches. In fact, they had some even more damnable problems relating to local cults and temple prostitution, etc. And blaming some of this stuff on "mistranslation" of well known Koine Greek words is laughable. Quote me passages you think are "mistranslated", and we'll compare them to Dan Wallace's NET Bible translations. (He is a renowned world expert in the Koine Greek, and also a believer, so he ticks both boxes for Biblical authority.)

Human nature is eternal, what was sinful then is sinful now. We are in no way "higher and wiser" than the Apostles were; in morality, we have regressed.

if you are talking about the Greek word arsenokoites claiming it is well known or even translated is what is laughable. No one knows what it means and over the years it's been interpreted to mean everything from kidnapping to masturbation. Outside of the bible there are just over 90 known occurrences of the word and in none of those cases can it be construed to mean homosexual.

Dan Wallace doesn't do anything to show that arsenokoites translates as a variant of homosexual other than to say some other people have said it and i want to believe them. Which is a really sad defense of the translation

 

[Kenny'sID]

The State, properly constituted, has only one job: to provide security and order to the citizens such that they can carry out their lives in relative peace and safety. That's it. It's not the government's job to make people "happy" (an impossible task for any government).

Doing that can make people happy, and some unhappy...so goes life.

 

[Ananias]

Dan Wallace doesn't do anything to show that arsenokoites translates as a variant of homosexual other than to say some other people have said it and i want to believe them.

Can you name a higher authority who has a better translation? If not, why do you think he's wrong? [EDIT]Paul probably coined the word himself, from "arsen" (man) and "koite" (bed, esp. marriage bed). He was likely drawing from Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. His meaning was specific, and he probably created the word to put emphasis on the concept he was trying to get across. Like θεόπνευστος (theopneustos, God breathed) in 2 Tim 3:16.

 

[Quartermaine]

That is incorrect, and I suspect you know that as well as I do. All of the Old Testament strictures against homosexual behavior remain in full effect - they are Moral Law, not Ceremonial Law. And in the New Testament, it is clear in Romans 1:27 that the proscription of homosexual behavior is general, not specific.

please cite the chapter and verse of Leviticus saying there is a division in the law

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Since they started implementing it.

What do you think they should do?

Provide justice and maintain law and order. Talk of equality is essentially communist in leaning and idealistic.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well not that far. Though they should seriously consider Orthodoxy.





Whose talking about injuring anyone?

When you deny gay people the same civil rights as everybody else, that is an injury to a person's dignity, if not also to their material needs such as the ability to access social resources.

 

[Quartermaine]

Can you find one positive description of a Homosexual relationship in any Christian literature in the early centuries of Christianity? Let alone a text which sanctioned any such union?

Mark 8:5-13

 

[Hazelelponi]

The State, properly constituted, has only one job: to provide security and order to the citizens such that they can carry out their lives in relative peace and safety. That's it. It's not the government's job to make people "happy" (an impossible task for any government).

Do you think that peace and safety should only belong to those who share your faith?

I think its the job of government to make sure all those under their protection have the same peace and safety, so long as they aren't harming anyone.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When you deny gay people the same civil rights as everybody else, that is an injury to a person's dignity, if not also to their material needs such as the ability to access social resources.

There is no dignity in homosexuality. Sorry to tell you this.

But I'm not advocating any physical harm to anyone, so you can move on with your redefinition of words. It's clear you don't tolerate others as much as you think you do.