Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[RDKirk]

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.

It's the state's job to maintain order in a fallen world. Paul explicitly points out that God has given the king to use the sword to maintain order...but if the king's authority order extends upward to the extreme of the sword (and scripture says it does), then it also descends downward to actions short of bloodshed.

Caesar, even in Paul's day, permitted abortion but controlled divorce. Caesar had a public welfare program (because it was considered shameful for a Roman citizen to beg...but also because it mollified dissent). Caesar built roads and many civic construction projects not only because they enhanced his ability to maintain control but also because it was good for the citizens. Caesar maintained an army and used it as he saw fit.

What did the Body of Christ gain from that? Why did Paul write Romans 13?

A pastor has observed, "Satan moves most easily under the cover of chaos."

I have observed that even under heavy oppression, the Holy Spirit is able to move and the Church is able to function when there is social order. The heavy oppression of centuries of Caesars yet found 25% of Rome becoming Christians. Oppression in China yet finds China the primary "growth market" of Christianity today. Some of the world's worst modern oppression of Christians is in North Korea...yet the Body of Christ in North Korea has grown tenfold since the mid-90s. The common denominator: Social order.

Contrast that with conditions in South Sudan or other areas where Christians are slaughtered by warlords or factions or governments that simply look the other way and do not maintain order. Look at the condition of the Church in Iraq after the strongman was removed. In such conditions, the Body of Christ can barely maintain a foothold, much less grow.

And that's why there is Romans 13.

 

[RDKirk]

The state's (valid) power over Christians stops at the door of the Church. God's law came first; God's law is higher. The Bible requires that we respect civic authority (Peter 2:13-17), but also says that we must obey God's law above that of men (Acts 4:19-20).

And, of course, that's going to result in, sooner or later, Caesar realizing that the Christians in his midst are a source of rebellion. It's inevitable.

 

[RDKirk]

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

Personally, I am of the opinion that a demonic principality took authority over the American south around 1800. That's when church folk in that region--and that region alone, out of all Christians in the world and in history--began to come up with such "theological" arguments supporting racism and slavery.

Slavery, in particular, had been given tacit tolerance by the Church as a matter under the king's discretion (Romans 13), but had still been regarded as a sin. Even American southern Christian slave owners themselves acknowledge that slavery was a sin...up until about 1800. This is most noticeable in the writings of Thomas Jefferson...something in his head clearly changed between 1776 and 1800. Prior to that, while the Church tolerated the existence of slavery under the law of the king on the basis of Romans 13, it never developed theological arguments that put God in favor of slavery.

And there is also the rift--specifically on the subject of slavery--among American Baptists. Baptists had been the very earliest American Abolitionists, from the very start of slavery in America. Baptists had been so anti-slavery that they didn't even hire domestic servants. The Southern Baptist Convention broke away from the northern Baptists specifically and explicitly to continue owning slaves.

Something changed, and it changed specifically in the American south from a specific point forward. It was such a change that the United States, out of all nations with a predominant Christian population, required a bloody war rather than Christian argument to abolish slavery.

 

[RDKirk]

Be aware: this may be (yet another) case of fake news. I have no doubt about Pope Francis' true feelings on this matter, and the Vatican hasn't debunked the story yet, but this bears watching.

Did you even read the subsequent discussion? It was debunked as fake news within the next few posts.

 

[Quartermaine]

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.

how do people in the workplace recognize heterosexual marriages?

 

[Quartermaine]

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?

you know you have created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people that you do

 

[Quartermaine]

I am aware of certain interpretations of this verse but can that do away with other more explicit passages within the New Testament?

but that is not what you asked for.

you were making a poor attempt to defend your personal prejudice by invoking an appeal to tradition and it didn't work.

Need I mention Paul and what he said about men who have sex with other men?

as noted several times in this thread there is no evidence that Paul said anything on the subject.
once again you are invoking a logical fallacy to justify your own prejudices, in this case an appeal to authority.

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?

did Jesus react with the hate and intolerance you are displaying in this thread? or did Jesus act with tolerance and compassion?

Do you have anything else? Perhaps something more explicit?

of course but i don't believe that you would accept anything at all in order to maintain your justification

 

[jayem]

It's a terrifyingly short step in going from "Christians must tolerate this" to "Christians must affirm this". If you think the secularists are going to be happy with mere tolerance, you aren't paying attention. There is an assault on Christianity taking place all over the world right now (partly coming from within the church itself). It won't be long before a Christian church will be liable to legal sanction for, e.g., refusing to marry two gay men or to deny ordination to a practicing homosexual.

It's going to come to civil disobedience for Christians, and a lot sooner than you think.

You're entitled to your opinion. But you don't speak for all Christians. As you must know, there are Christian churches in the US which already allow same-sex marriage ceremonies. The United Church of Christ is one. The Episcopal church allows clergy to bless same-sex unions and in some dioceses, can perform same same-sex weddings. I think in some Lutheran denominations, individual churches can decide the matter on their own. My wife and I were invited to a wedding of 2 women friends of ours at a Unitarian Universalist church a couple of years ago. Government isn't forcing this. Churches are acting on their own volition. Christianity is broader, more resilient, and more adaptable than you think.

 

[Quartermaine]

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.

does Greek have a rule that the meaning of compound words is derived from the meaning of its root words? (no it does not)

BTW the word hand has multiple meanings including: to provide help, to be close by applause, direction (as in defining position) a hired worker, a pointer on a clock, to give something...Why be sure the hand in handgun refers to the appendage at the end of an arm?

Just so you know the etymology of the word handgun involves the fact that when the word came into use around 1570 it was a reference to the fact that the gun was not mounted but carried on yoru person so it was "at hand"

 

[Quartermaine]

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.

yes it's a contract called marriage

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.

no church or minister can be forced to marry anyone they choose not to. This is why one occasionally hears of a minister that refuses to marry an interracial couple and that refusal is perfectly legal.

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.)

the only lie here see is the whopper you just posted.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

you know you have created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people that you do

Does this describe either of our perceptions of God? It doesn't describe the God I believe, and i hope not the God you believe. I don't think God hates all my enemies, because I don't have many enemies, at least on a personal level. I recognize competing forces but this has never lead me to the idea that God is personally affirming everything I do or condemning everyone I condemn.

God condemns a lot of behavior in the bible and who alive can say they are sinless? I take Paul seriously when he says he was the worst of sinners because that is an aphorism each Christian should apply to themselves. We are each of us sinners, but that doesn't therefore mean we have a license to violate the sacred. My views are derived from Christianity, not any personal animus. I grew up secular and my views have drifted further and further from that worldview the deeper I have entered faith.

but that is not what you asked for.

you were making a poor attempt to defend your personal prejudice by invoking an appeal to tradition and it didn't work.

I asked for a clear passage defending or affirming homosexuality. I believe I also dealt with the text in question as being inadequate for a solid defense or affirmation of homosexuality. That wasn't the point of the story in the Gospel and if you want to argue that the primary message that we should walk away with is to accept homosexuality because Jesus healed one, I think you have to strain the meaning of the text. It would be akin to saying that because Jesus forgave prostitutes he accepted their line of work, it's a bastardization of the Gospel.

as noted several times in this thread there is no evidence that Paul said anything on the subject.
once again you are invoking a logical fallacy to justify your own prejudices, in this case an appeal to authority.

As Christians we have an authority. If you are a Protestant then it is the bible alone because you might not put much stock in tradition. We are not academic free agents but have submitted ourselves to a rule of life that we ought to live by. So when you say it's a fallacy, I have to ask, how in the Christian life is the appeal to the scripture a fallacy in detailing what is acceptable for a Christian to do?

Also, Paul did address this subject, multiple times. Let's however use one example:

1 Romans 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Paul only speaks negatively of homosexual conduct as does every other biblical example on the topic. Again. Do you have any positive state affirming the relationship itself? Or are you relying on a bad understanding of the Centurion's servant which is interpreted primarily from your political ideals rather than from the text itself?

did Jesus react with the hate and intolerance you are displaying in this thread? or did Jesus act with tolerance and compassion?
of course but i don't believe that you would accept anything at all in order to maintain your justification

What do you mean by hate and intolerance? Do you approve of Jesus' harsh treatment of others at times? Like when he compared a Gentile woman to a dog (quite rightly) or when he literally whipped the money changers out of the temple? While Jesus could be at times loving and tolerant he would be sharp and direct and uncompromising.

You seem to construe the verse of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant as being an endorsement of homosexuality when that is by no means evident from the text. Jesus did it because the Centurion humbled himself. That is by far the most plain reading. Now I'll admit changing my mind would be hard (as it is for all of us) but my position isn't done out of spite but a simply loyalty to the religion I believe. Why should I embrace your theology, which is new and utterly alien to the theology which the Church has taught since the beginning? So far you haven't offered anything, only banal moral indictments of my so called bigotry.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The problem is what I said earlier. They push; we step back. They push; we step back again. Again. And again. And pretty soon we're standing on the edge of the cliff and wondering how we got there. And the answer is: one step at a time.

Remember back in the 80's when the issue of gay clergy first came up? Remember how liberals assured us that we weren't talking about gay marriage, gosh, not at all! Yet, a few decades later, here we are. At some point Christians are going to have to push back on this, or get pushed out of civic life entirely. And if you think that orthodox Christianity will not be made illegal in our lifetimes, you haven't been paying attention. If you think that, just remember the legal wringer liberal Democrats put the Little Sisters of the Poor through. Liberals absolutely want to break the power of Christianity over people, or render it powerless.

This isn't about "fairness" or "equality". Never accept their framing of the issues. This is about breaking the authority of the Christian church and replacing it with a postmodern liberalist pagan ethos. It's already happening; you can see it everywhere.

This news about Pope Francis isn't even all that shocking; I've been expecting it ever since he ascended to the Papacy. It's the legacy of two Marxist creeds that have corrupted the Christian church: Liberation Theology and Critical Theory. Pope Francis advocates both.

A couple things.

First I don't remember anything about Christianity and the 80's because I wasn't Christian then.

Second, things such as this topic are going to affect people who believe in state religion differently than it does people like myself who don't believe in mixing religion and state together or even having state sanctioned religion.

Things like this on a state level will never affect or change how I practice my faith, or who my pastor might be, because state has no say in my faith, and I only have a say in state matters due to the circumstance of my citizenry and the fact I live in a representative republic.

So there are going to be different reactions due to the differences in beliefs. Certainly, if the state has a say in your faith, your faith either has to change altogether whenever the state makes decisions which affect the faith, or you have to practice your faith like I do, without the tacit blessing of the state.

For me it's a non-issue, for others not so much. I do understand that.

I will say no early Christian had the blessing of the state to practice their faith, and the Church grew by leaps and bounds anyway. God's Word goes forward even when we think it won't, and for the church, that's the only concern which matters.

I stand by my previous stance from this standpoint, that of not believing we as Christians should support any people being less equal under the law than are we.

My above belief isn't changed by the fact the practice of Christianity might become illegal in my lifetime. I believe in doing what is right, no matter what the end result might be. I leave the future in the Hand of my God, and concern myself with doing what I believe to be right according to scripture in the now.

If that means someday the practice of my faith be in persecution, then so be it. JESUS did promise the time before His return would be as in the days of Noah.. He would just be proven right...

It won't stop me from doing the right thing, the best that I can. But I'm rather bull headed like that...

 

[Ananias]

does Greek have a rule that the meaning of compound words is derived from the meaning of its root words? (no it does not)

BTW the word hand has multiple meanings including: to provide help, to be close by applause, direction (as in defining position) a hired worker, a pointer on a clock, to give something...Why be sure the hand in handgun refers to the appendage at the end of an arm?

Just so you know the etymology of the word handgun involves the fact that when the word came into use around 1570 it was a reference to the fact that the gun was not mounted but carried on yoru person so it was "at hand"

Still waiting on those sources.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem is what I said earlier. They push; we step back. They push; we step back again. Again. And again. And pretty soon we're standing on the edge of the cliff and wondering how we got there. And the answer is: one step at a time.

Remember back in the 80's when the issue of gay clergy first came up? Remember how liberals assured us that we weren't talking about gay marriage, gosh, not at all! Yet, a few decades later, here we are.

Yes, here we are, where churches still aren't forced to marry people of the "wrong" race, much less the wrong gender. All of this slippery slope fearmongering comes off as just that - empty worries used to hide what's really behind all of this anti-homosexual rhetoric.

 

[Tinker Grey]

you know you have created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people that you do

Quoth Anne Lamott: Traveling Mercies; on page 22 of Bird by Bird she attributes this to "my priest friend Tom"
Anne Lamott - Wikiquote

 

[hedrick]

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).

Churches have had their own marriage standards for ever. Not marrying divorced people, or mixed-race couples. Most won't marry people if there isn't a connection with their church. It's paranoia to claim that anyone is going to force a church to marry people.

On accepting marriages done by others, at least some is possible. Employment legislation may reasonably apply to some positions within a church.

 

[Ananias]

It's paranoia to claim that anyone is going to force a church to marry people.

 

[Ananias]

Please show me one example of the United States government forcing a church to conduct a marriage that they did not wish to.

In the wake of Bostock and Obergefell, it's only a matter of time. Once you make homosexuality or "gender identity" a right rather than a privilege, Churches are opened to legal jeopardy if they refuse to affirm. Case law will play out but I fear Bostock will be controlling law on this issue unless something dramatic happens.

Another example.

 

[IntriKate]

He makes out that homosexual "couples" are in a genuine family.

The man is a heretic. Flat out.

The old joke response is "Is the Pope Catholic". Well the answer is now "Not anymore".

Yea isn't it sad that the man proclaiming to be Gods representative on earth, clearly doesn't even respect or talk to him.

 

[Strathos]

In the wake of Bostock and Obergefell, it's only a matter of time. Once you make homosexuality or "gender identity" a right rather than a privilege, Churches are opened to legal jeopardy if they refuse to affirm. Case law will play out but I fear Bostock will be controlling law on this issue unless something dramatic happens.

Another example.

First of all, I'm not going to download a pdf file. And your second link refers to a public accommodation and a civil union, which is completely irrelevant. It's also an internet archive link, which indicates the original page was taken down for some reason, possibly because it was an inaccurate story.

Please explain that if 'it's only a matter of time', why the government still can't force churches to marry interracial couples after 53 years of Loving vs. Virginia being legal? You keep evading this.