Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What a loaded question...

Obviously, he doesn't believe that.

Obviously he does. God again and again demonstrates his intolerance for homosexuality in both old and new testaments. Why is his God and your previous God such a bigot?

 

[FireDragon76]

Obviously he does. God again and again demonstrates his intolerance for homosexuality in both old and new testaments. Why is his God and your previous God such a bigot?

This is Exhibit A why I'm not a Christian anymore.

These sorts of tactics in a discussion or debate are fundamentally dishonest and are made in bad faith. And I've noticed a trend where many conservative Christians engage in this sort of thing.

 

[Ananias]

Since this discussion has turned to a Christian's role in civic government, I feel it would help to remind people of both Plato's Republic and Augustine's Civitate Dei (City of God). Both works are notable for how completely non-liberal (in the modern sense) they are. Modern Enlightenment-era governmental systems are running on fumes, much as Communist regimes were a generation ago. Reading the two works above should provide valuable insight on how "virtuous" societies should be structured by both pagan and Christian reckoning.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, your character isn't relevant, except insofar as you are not as tolerant as you claim to be and wish others to be. Rather you want homosexuality and any such relationship to be socially recognized and would seek legal means to see that end accomplished. I assume your in favor of forcing people in the workplace to recognize these relationships. Hence, I want to know why you bring up this idea of me being the one forcing my beliefs on others when in reality it's the opposite? Or rather it's that we have two competing ideological belief systems that are not tolerant of the other.

So don't pretend your simply out for equal rights. You want compliance.

You live in New Zealand, one of the more gay-friendly countries in the world. Why are you criticizing something that is widely accepted as law in most western countries, and many Asian ones as well?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You don't remember when you said it's the state's job to provide equality?

I said equal rights and I still think it's the state's job to do that, if not, who then?

What type equality were you referring to as communist?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Matt 8:5-13...silly auto correct

I am aware of certain interpretations of this verse but can that do away with other more explicit passages within the New Testament? Need I mention Paul and what he said about men who have sex with other men?

But if we're going to interpret this verse to be a positive statement, a positive endorsement of a homosexual relationship how are we to go about such an exercise? Did Jesus heal the Centurion's servant because he might have been his lover? There's no indication of that in the text. Did the Centurion call the servant his lover and argue from that basis that he should be healed? Again, no. What did the Centurion say to Christ? He pointed out that he was a man with a legion under his authority and that they do anything he asks of them. The obvious point is that this Centurion, being of such great authority and prestige within the empire is coming before Jesus and begging for his help. Thus Jesus marvels at his faith that this man who is socially better off than Jesus is nonetheless coming to him.

It's straining the logic of the text to argue that this is an endorsement of homosexuality, if the man being healed was the Centurion's lover.

Do you have anything else? Perhaps something more explicit?

 

[Ananias]

Compound words don't mean what their root words do. You don't have to be standing or eve under something to understand that the word butterfly doesn't refer to levitating dairy products.

No...but a handgun is a gun you hold in your hand. However, we're not speaking of English anyway, but Greek, which has different rules.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You live in New Zealand, one of the more gay-friendly countries in the world. Why are you criticizing something that is widely accepted as law in most western countries, and many Asian ones as well?

Because I'm a Christian. Do I need to say more?

 

[FireDragon76]

Since this discussion has turned to a Christian's role in civic government, I feel it would help to remind people of both Plato's Republic and Augustine's Civitate Dei (City of God). Both works are notable for how completely non-liberal (in the modern sense) they are. Modern Enlightenment-era governmental systems are running on fumes, much as Communist regimes were a generation ago. Reading the two works above should provide valuable insight on how "virtuous" societies should be structured by both pagan and Christian reckoning.

India is a productive society and it has recognize the rights of gay people. So have many other Asian countries. So what is with this "pagan" business? Most "pagan" societies tolerate or accept homosexual behavior.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because I'm a Christian. Do I need to say more?

I assume on some level you do in fact accept your country's laws and every day you are forced to tolerate people who do not agree with your religion's peculiar taboos.

I'm sorry but I think I'm going to play the world's smallest violin for such a tragedy.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I assume on some level you do in fact accept your country's laws and every day you are forced to tolerate people who do not agree with your religion's peculiar taboos.

I'm sorry but I think I'm going to play the world's smallest violin for such a tragedy.

What is this response? But I thank you for your pity. Labour was just given majority control in the government (God help us) and I suspect I am going to be taxed more, have less opportunity and a lot of Kiwis will be out of work.

As for how I feel about my country, I'm mostly indifferent and passive. I want to attend more Anzac parades as that's something about New Zealand I can respect. If Euthanasia is legalized here I will probably have even less love for my country.

 

[Ananias]

To say well only Christians can be married because marriage is a covenant before God, is to deny those who don't believe the same to the same legal benefits, and thus aren't treating them the same under the law.

That's not quite true. I don't really care if two homosexual men want to stand in front of a justice of the peace and be declared a legal couple. It's basically contract law, so whatever floats their boats.

What I object to is forcing Christian churches to accept this arrangement as an actual Christian marriage, which is not, and cannot ever be. Two men cannot be married because, in the Christian church, only a man and a woman may be united in marriage under Christ. The union between husband and wife models Christ's relationship to the Church, and two men (or two women) cannot model that relationship.

Now, the immediate cry is, "But nobody's forcing you!" It's a lie, because everybody can plainly see what the endgame is: forcing Christians to accept homosexual marriages (or "poly" marriages, or whatever other novel degeneracy the culture happens to be cooking up). The liberals absolutely will not stop until all the walls are down. If you think that pederasty is the red line, think again -- the liberals are busy chipping away at that sole remaining bastion as well. (And again, there are elements in the church itself that are driving this process as much as the secular culture -- or more. It is positively Satanic.)

 

[Ananias]

India is a productive society and it has recognize the rights of gay people. So have many other Asian countries. So what is with this "pagan" business? Most "pagan" societies tolerate or accept homosexual behavior.

Ask me how I know that you don't know much about Indian culture (or Arab, or sub-Saharan African, or just about any other culture that isn't politically western).

 

[FireDragon76]

That's not quite true. I don't really care if two homosexual men want to stand in front of a justice of the peace and be declared a legal couple. It's basically contract law, so whatever floats their boats.

What I object to is forcing Christian churches to accept this arrangement as an actual Christian marriage, which is not, and cannot ever be. Two men cannot be married because, in the Christian church, only a man and a woman may be united in marriage under Christ. The union between husband and wife models Christ's relationship to the Church, and two men (or two women) cannot model that relationship.

Now, the immediate cry is, "But nobody's forcing you!" It's a lie, because everybody can plainly see what the endgame is: forcing Christians to accept homosexual marriages (or "poly" marriages, or whatever other novel degeneracy the culture happens to be cooking up). The liberals absolutely will not stop until all the walls are down. If you think that pederasty is the red line, think again -- the liberals are busy chipping away at that sole remaining bastion as well. (And again, there are elements in the church itself that are driving this process as much as the secular culture -- or more. It is positively Satanic.)

This is untrue fearmongering. In the US, religions are free to declare what is suitable matter for marriage within their religious institutions. Obergefell did not challenge that.

 

[Strathos]

The fact that no church is forced to marry interracial couples against their will after Loving vs. Virginia has been law for decades pretty much shoots down this argument.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ask me how I know that you don't know much about Indian culture (or Arab, or sub-Saharan African, or just about any other culture that isn't politically western).

Stephen Fry did a documentary traveling around the world to different areas to talk to people about their views about gay people, and Indian Hindus generally did not view homosexuality in an overly negative light, their only concern was how it fit into a very family-oriented culture. One Indian Lesbian woman even mentioned that gay sex is mentioned in the Kama Sutra.

I also know about Buddhist cultures because I studied Buddhism in the past, and most historic Buddhist countries simply have never had any kind of laws against homosexual acts before western contact. Some, such as Thailand, are well known for having a large transsexual minority called kathoey, who have existed for many centuries.

We also have a family friend that goes to a Chinese Buddhist temple. She is trans and they don't have a problem with her. The Buddha's compassion does not discriminate between different kinds of persons.

The obsessive focus on sexual morality is unique to certain sects of Christianity, it is not universal.

 

[Ananias]

The fact that no church is forced to marry interracial couples against their will after Loving vs. Virginia has been law for decades pretty much shoots down this argument.

There was never any Biblical proscription against people of different races marrying each other (though there are remaining arguments as to whether Christians should wed non-Christians). Only of different genders.

 

[FireDragon76]

There was never any Biblical proscription against people of different races marrying each other (though there are remaining arguments as to whether Christians should wed non-Christians). Only of different genders.

The state of Virginia, and many other states, once disagreed and defended it using theological arguments.

 

[Ananias]

Stephen Fry did a documentary traveling around the world to different areas to talk to people about their views about gay people, and Indian Hindus generally did not view homosexuality in an overly negative light, their only concern was how it fit into a very family-oriented culture. One Indian Lesbian woman even mentioned that gay sex is mentioned in the Kama Sutra.

You really should visit Mumbai, Bangalore or Delhi someday and ask the same question of various random people. You're in for an eye-opening experience. And these are urbane city folk; wait until you travel into the rural areas. I think it would give you a whole new appreciation for how tolerant Western Christians really are.

 

[FireDragon76]

You really should visit Mumbai, Bangalore or Delhi someday and ask the same question of various random people. You're in for an eye-opening experience. And these are urbane city folk; wait until you travel into the rural areas. I think it would give you a whole new appreciation for how tolerant Western Christians really are.

India has been influenced by its contact with western missionaries and colonial rule, something the Supreme Court of India has recognized as being responsible for injustice against gay persons in India. But Hinduism itself is not the root of this.