Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
Rebekah Send a noteboard - 12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
And, fair dos to the Roman Catholics, but their way ain't necessarily the right way.
So. Onwards and upwards.
But it wouldn't be good for our church, and it's our church that matters to us.
There is this thing in the Bible called "disputable matters". There are central tenets of the Christian faith that most, if not all churches have in common: the virgin birth, the death of Christ on the cross to save us from our sins, the Resurrection.
And then there are the other things, the things that can be interpreted in different ways. These are things like contraception, homosexuality, etc.
It's important you understand that before I continue.
We do approve of contraception because we do not believe that the Bible stipulates that sex is solely for procreation. There are many verses that talk about how enjoyable and good it is to have sex, and they wouldn't be there if sex was just for making babies.
As for divorce: as far as I know, there is no form for divorce in the church I attend, which suggests it isn't sanctioned as such. However, being realists, and knowing that people sin, I don't know whether we'd prevent people from remarrying. I've only been going here for 3 1/2 years (since I moved to the UK) and it's never come up. I know that in my church in New Zealand people can get married again, but that comes after some serious questions and the reasons for divorce have to be "good": continued, unrepentant infidelity, abuse, etc.
No, because those are not things that all churches consider to be sins. The only ones that are indisputable would be the 10 Commandments, and only then if the church cares about the Old Testament (mine does).
Yes, He accepted sinners, but He also told them to repent and live a new life.
That's your mind. Centuries of theologians past and present disagree with you. There are those who agree as well, and, as it's a disputable matter, there are few churches who would say that condoning homosexuality means that you are not a Christian.
And, for the record, I am definitely not one of those. For me, the homosexual act is one sin of many possible, neither greater nor lesser than others. It is just one.
So. Onwards and upwards.
Aside from the good you could do by allowing gay marriage, I see your point about feeling like you were doing wrong by allowing homosexuals to marry in your church.
But it wouldn't be good for our church, and it's our church that matters to us.
There is this thing in the Bible called "disputable matters". There are central tenets of the Christian faith that most, if not all churches have in common: the virgin birth, the death of Christ on the cross to save us from our sins, the Resurrection.
And then there are the other things, the things that can be interpreted in different ways. These are things like contraception, homosexuality, etc.
It's important you understand that before I continue.
I admit that I don't know every practice in your church. Does it approve of contraceptions? Does it permit divorce?
We do approve of contraception because we do not believe that the Bible stipulates that sex is solely for procreation. There are many verses that talk about how enjoyable and good it is to have sex, and they wouldn't be there if sex was just for making babies.
As for divorce: as far as I know, there is no form for divorce in the church I attend, which suggests it isn't sanctioned as such. However, being realists, and knowing that people sin, I don't know whether we'd prevent people from remarrying. I've only been going here for 3 1/2 years (since I moved to the UK) and it's never come up. I know that in my church in New Zealand people can get married again, but that comes after some serious questions and the reasons for divorce have to be "good": continued, unrepentant infidelity, abuse, etc.
If it does to either then it seems like at least some sins are "sanctioned."
No, because those are not things that all churches consider to be sins. The only ones that are indisputable would be the 10 Commandments, and only then if the church cares about the Old Testament (mine does).
Also, I find it oddly important to you that homosexuality not be encouraged in any way in your church. Maybe the bible doesn't encourage homosexuality, but it places much more emphasis on accepting outcasts and taking in people of all kinds. We are all sinners and we are all gods children. Love your neighbor and love your enemy. Jesus Christ never once spoke any recorded words on homosexuality. Rather, he spoke much more on accepting outcasts. Embracing all.
Yes, He accepted sinners, but He also told them to repent and live a new life.
Banning gay marriage, in my view, seems like an unfairly emphasized part of the bible that hides what is often a form of homophobia. This may and probably is not the case with you and most members of your church. But to so vehemently oppose gay marriage, to deprive two individuals of a holy recognition of their love, in my mind, ought to require a bit more textual commentary than three lines.
That's your mind. Centuries of theologians past and present disagree with you. There are those who agree as well, and, as it's a disputable matter, there are few churches who would say that condoning homosexuality means that you are not a Christian.
And, for the record, I am definitely not one of those. For me, the homosexual act is one sin of many possible, neither greater nor lesser than others. It is just one.
*MySmiley*
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Gay Marriage
12/08/2010 10:23:19 AM
- 1839 Views
I disagree on the latter part
12/08/2010 12:04:15 PM
- 1213 Views
I follow your point...
12/08/2010 12:14:17 PM
- 1198 Views
Suspect you would find plenty of denominations that would argue with you rather strenuously.
12/08/2010 12:24:55 PM
- 1193 Views
See, that's what I'm saying...
12/08/2010 07:37:26 PM
- 1157 Views
You didn't read my post.
12/08/2010 09:10:21 PM
- 1070 Views
Actually, you didn't read my post
12/08/2010 09:23:54 PM
- 1111 Views
Um, you're wrong.
12/08/2010 09:37:13 PM
- 1120 Views
Re: Um, you're wrong.
12/08/2010 09:44:17 PM
- 1076 Views
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And no, he described it accurately. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:53:31 PM
- 565 Views
You're still wrong.
12/08/2010 09:54:55 PM
- 1214 Views
Re: You're still wrong.
12/08/2010 09:58:26 PM
- 1069 Views
Again, you are still wrong.
12/08/2010 10:04:42 PM
- 1119 Views
Re: Again, you are still wrong.
12/08/2010 10:17:13 PM
- 967 Views
Wrong definition of "club"
12/08/2010 10:30:52 PM
- 1214 Views
Re: Wrong definition of "club"
12/08/2010 10:40:55 PM
- 1122 Views
Also
12/08/2010 10:02:44 PM
- 1163 Views
And wrong again.
12/08/2010 10:08:24 PM
- 1186 Views
Not so quick!
12/08/2010 10:21:31 PM
- 1023 Views
Yes, so quick!
12/08/2010 10:32:13 PM
- 972 Views
Let's be reasonable here
12/08/2010 10:41:53 PM
- 1080 Views
Why do you get to judge?
12/08/2010 10:48:57 PM
- 1107 Views
I don't
12/08/2010 10:53:21 PM
- 1000 Views
OK.
12/08/2010 10:58:22 PM
- 1115 Views
Re: OK.
12/08/2010 11:03:50 PM
- 1044 Views
Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
12/08/2010 11:14:03 PM
- 1010 Views
Re: Here's the thing: your opinion seems to be informed by the Roman Catholic Faith.
12/08/2010 11:23:35 PM
- 1124 Views
Then please stop.
12/08/2010 11:01:05 PM
- 1082 Views
What's wrong with discussion?
12/08/2010 11:05:48 PM
- 1021 Views
Discussion? Nothing. Your assertions about other people's views, something.
12/08/2010 11:09:48 PM
- 1052 Views
What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
12/08/2010 10:12:54 PM
- 922 Views
Re: What, because the expressive message of scouting is anti-gay?
12/08/2010 10:23:36 PM
- 1070 Views
Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
12/08/2010 10:36:48 PM
- 1027 Views
Re: Well then that brings us back to my question, which you have yet to answer.
12/08/2010 10:46:22 PM
- 1138 Views
Not entirely true either... or, well, true as far as Brown goes.
12/08/2010 10:08:42 PM
- 1035 Views
Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
12/08/2010 09:38:33 PM
- 1108 Views
Re: Actually, I did. And since everyone else told you you're wrong about that I didn't see any need
12/08/2010 09:55:05 PM
- 1043 Views
Gah.
12/08/2010 09:59:45 PM
- 992 Views
What a mature response.
12/08/2010 10:11:00 PM
- 1177 Views
I can't speak for Rebekah, but I don't think the issue is that your points are invalid per se.
12/08/2010 10:22:30 PM
- 1016 Views
Um
12/08/2010 09:46:43 PM
- 1142 Views
That's a very good question. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:49:05 PM
- 533 Views
It makes no sense
12/08/2010 04:29:24 PM
- 981 Views
Re: It makes no sense
12/08/2010 07:39:25 PM
- 1055 Views
Re: It makes no sense
12/08/2010 07:41:02 PM
- 1133 Views
Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
12/08/2010 09:08:53 PM
- 971 Views
Re: Yes, but while marrying two murderers does not ensure that they will continue to murder...
12/08/2010 09:42:21 PM
- 1085 Views
What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
12/08/2010 09:45:33 PM
- 1142 Views
Re: What other church sanctioned circumstances encourage continued sin?
13/08/2010 11:04:02 AM
- 1077 Views
Wow, it's almost like an entire denomination believes that! *NM*
13/08/2010 03:41:07 PM
- 518 Views
13/08/2010 03:43:26 PM
- 881 Views
Yeah, that's the Roman Catholic basis against masturbation and contraception. *NM*
13/08/2010 04:12:00 PM
- 517 Views
Yes
13/08/2010 04:22:58 PM
- 930 Views
Dude....please at least have a working knowledge of the Bible before you spout off.
12/08/2010 10:47:13 PM
- 961 Views
secular marriage is decoupled from religious marriage
12/08/2010 02:50:43 PM
- 1154 Views
Simple, require the legal and religious marriage to be performed separately.
12/08/2010 02:58:43 PM
- 989 Views
And they are, in fact, separate right now in the US. They're just called the same thing.
12/08/2010 03:29:26 PM
- 1036 Views
It's not the same name that's confusing so much as the single ceremony. Or so it seems to me.
12/08/2010 03:37:20 PM
- 1045 Views
I disagree. I think giving the legal institution the same name as the sacrament is the problem.
12/08/2010 03:59:43 PM
- 1061 Views
What in the world would that accomplish?
12/08/2010 03:44:32 PM
- 1074 Views
Provide some much-needed clarity, evidently.
12/08/2010 03:49:33 PM
- 925 Views
the problem is it would be changing a centuries old tradition..
12/08/2010 04:26:47 PM
- 936 Views
heheheheheheheHAHAHAHEHEHehehehehahheeh*cough*
12/08/2010 04:55:09 PM
- 943 Views
thats OK I am sure you will get over it
12/08/2010 05:22:08 PM
- 978 Views
Just guessing, but I think it was the "centuries old tradition" that set off the giggle fit.
12/08/2010 07:25:38 PM
- 1100 Views
Really? I was hoping for something better
12/08/2010 10:06:00 PM
- 1032 Views
So government recognition makes your religion meaningful?
12/08/2010 10:11:54 PM
- 1121 Views
not my religion I'm agnostic
12/08/2010 10:34:40 PM
- 981 Views
I'm not far left, thank you very much. *NM*
12/08/2010 10:20:31 PM
- 589 Views
no but your are European and that slants your views *NM*
12/08/2010 10:36:01 PM
- 580 Views
Simples
12/08/2010 09:30:31 PM
- 1065 Views
there are about 140 post ranging from boyscouts to infant babtism
12/08/2010 10:57:46 PM
- 1060 Views
So.
14/08/2010 01:27:59 AM
- 899 Views
sorry I responded I forgot what a tool you are. my bad
14/08/2010 02:48:57 AM
- 1418 Views
You spout some utter gibberish then dish out insults when called on it? Very funny
15/08/2010 12:47:04 PM
- 1246 Views
Agreed *NM*
12/08/2010 03:45:04 PM
- 467 Views
I love you, Camilla
12/08/2010 04:02:15 PM
- 861 Views
Re: I love you, Camilla
12/08/2010 04:04:10 PM
- 1053 Views
A couple of things
12/08/2010 12:58:09 PM
- 1033 Views
there is major flaw in your argument
12/08/2010 03:31:45 PM
- 1169 Views
Re: there is major flaw in your argument
12/08/2010 04:01:32 PM
- 1053 Views
I should clarify that I support gay marriage
12/08/2010 05:20:36 PM
- 989 Views
One point about Prop. 8
12/08/2010 07:38:55 PM
- 1032 Views
I know that is the commonl;y held belief but I thinkit is wrong
12/08/2010 10:32:58 PM
- 954 Views
Religious institutions, though, pushed hard to pass it.
12/08/2010 10:42:33 PM
- 1041 Views
that doesn’t translate into people voting for religious reasons
12/08/2010 11:19:48 PM
- 861 Views
Bigotry and Fear that are supported and encouraged by religious institutions.
12/08/2010 11:32:30 PM
- 1019 Views
there are major flaws in your argument
12/08/2010 07:51:52 PM
- 1130 Views
Women can't be priests in the Catholic church.
12/08/2010 08:00:24 PM
- 810 Views
Forcing religious institutions to marry gay couples is hideously unconstitutional.
12/08/2010 04:18:59 PM
- 1079 Views
You are absolutely wrong
12/08/2010 07:57:19 PM
- 1073 Views
Your arguments are so specious and stupid I don't know where to begin.
13/08/2010 05:04:17 AM
- 994 Views
Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 07:11:15 PM
- 989 Views
Because "homophobic", like "xenophobic", has shifted a bit in meaning...
12/08/2010 07:33:56 PM
- 1071 Views
Because your reasons for being against gay marriage are so specious *NM*
12/08/2010 07:59:42 PM
- 597 Views
I particularly enjoy the implied assumption that your a good enough judge of my motivations. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:24:14 PM
- 564 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 08:04:24 PM
- 1143 Views
+1
12/08/2010 08:06:19 PM
- 1181 Views
Stop with the pile on Camilla.
12/08/2010 09:22:35 PM
- 1106 Views
You would have said nothing if I had just said "agreed"
12/08/2010 09:27:33 PM
- 930 Views
Which speaks highly of you....
12/08/2010 09:36:30 PM
- 1107 Views
This is being very petty. *NM*
12/08/2010 09:41:26 PM
- 552 Views
As opposed to a snarky +1 comment? *NM*
12/08/2010 09:45:02 PM
- 571 Views
It's not snarky.
12/08/2010 09:47:47 PM
- 1045 Views
Its a +1 shorthand comment...
12/08/2010 09:52:04 PM
- 1333 Views
Wow. Those two characters allowed you to read Camilla's motivations?
12/08/2010 09:54:25 PM
- 961 Views
Re: Why do people equate....
12/08/2010 09:13:07 PM
- 1143 Views
you are exactly why the state needs to make a clear seperation between the secular and religious
12/08/2010 09:33:22 PM
- 1020 Views
Ok, so if the state does then...
12/08/2010 09:44:31 PM
- 961 Views
No, marriage started because of property.
12/08/2010 09:59:14 PM
- 1055 Views
So then two things come to mind...
12/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
- 1033 Views
Only two?
12/08/2010 10:27:08 PM
- 1030 Views
That's a little difficult to do
13/08/2010 03:19:32 PM
- 1189 Views
Re: That's a little difficult to do
13/08/2010 03:30:14 PM
- 1060 Views
yes but about half of the old testament deals with protecting those rights
13/08/2010 05:16:09 PM
- 1019 Views
The relationship between religion and rain go even farther back...
13/08/2010 06:15:32 PM
- 1005 Views
Actually, I agree with that
12/08/2010 10:01:37 PM
- 908 Views
See, what I don't get is why gay people care about
12/08/2010 08:18:45 PM
- 1017 Views
It's mostly about getting married in the eyes of the state.
12/08/2010 08:42:52 PM
- 1131 Views
I'm fairly sure Jonte was referring only to the "churches have to accept gay marriages" bit. *NM*
12/08/2010 08:44:52 PM
- 601 Views
Starting again
12/08/2010 08:23:08 PM
- 1104 Views
Not at all
12/08/2010 10:58:45 PM
- 1040 Views
Re: Not at all
13/08/2010 09:14:48 AM
- 837 Views
Agreed *NM*
13/08/2010 10:21:06 AM
- 437 Views
Oh dear
13/08/2010 10:30:45 AM
- 952 Views
I suppose you also think that religious Pacifists should be eligible for the draft?
12/08/2010 08:42:21 PM
- 1113 Views