NT Wright on gay marriage

[Lursa]

People will look back someday and look at the people of this era as prejudiced, ignorant dinosaurs, just like we do those that were against the Civil Rights movement. George Wallace...remembered as an ignorant idiot.

It's embarrassing to think that I'll be lumped in with that some day.

 

[Chagos]

the numbers speak for themselves they are fact. you can't ignore it nor can you deny it.
and no where did i say that. i said there is good reason that it was not permitted in the bible.

i listed those reasons up front.

Then, as I already said before, kindly don't quote posts that have nothing to do with what you wish to present, just so that you can go off on a tangent.

You could have presented all of what you did while leaving my post out of it altogether.

this is the theology forum

When I need advice like that, I'll ask.

And now I'll be done with you so have a good one.

 

[Chagos]

Nope, it's the belief and skepticism forum.

It is here now, thread apparently having been moved from "theology" to more appropriate forum.

 

[devildavid]

Marriage is an historical human invention. The human race was reproducing long before there was this thing we call marriage. It did not come from god. We have and can make it anything we want.

 

[Chagos]

People will look back someday and look at the people of this era as prejudiced, ignorant dinosaurs, just like we do those that were against the Civil Rights movement. George Wallace...remembered as an ignorant idiot.

It's embarrassing to think that I'll be lumped in with that some day.

Can't see how you or those of equal mindset will be.

Where ignorance and intolerance may express itself in religiosity, that doesn't mean it does so with such frequency as to equate to it.

 

[HonestJoe]

We have not made any laws. We had this foisted upon us by unelected judges, and that does not serve society. Finally, my purpose was not to debate any of that, it was to explain the Christian position and why it is important to us, since nobody seems to understand it, nor do they want to, apparently.

I’d question that there is a singular Christian position anyway but I don’t think the common issue would be a failure to understand the position you present but a question of its relevance to the wider national and international picture. Christian theology on this issue (and any other) is only relevant to Christians. If you disagree with same-sex marriage, you’re free not to have one, just as anyone who objects to religious marriage is free not to have one. There are practical complications and edge cases to work though of course but that’s the core principle.

 

[CLAX1911]

Read my response to you!

Read my response to your response.

 

[CLAX1911]

Going back to voting........don't you have elected representatives?

What is the supreme law?

did you not take any government classes?

 

[Chagos]

We have not made any laws. We had this foisted upon us by unelected judges, and that does not serve society.

By that argument we might as well do away with courts altogether and put virtually every decision up to the public vote?

Well, if PEW is to be believed, that would have us all exactly where we are now.

Support for Same-Sex Marriage Grows, Even Among Groups That Had Been Skeptical | Pew Research Center

Finally, my purpose was not to debate any of that, it was to explain the Christian position and why it is important to us, since nobody seems to understand it, nor do they want to, apparently.

Fair enough.

And I, for one, DO understand it.

I just don't agree.

 

[Lursa]

Can't see how you or those of equal mindset will be.

Where ignorance and intolerance may express itself in religiosity, that doesn't mean it does so with such frequency as to equate to it.

Dont we look at most/all Germans of the WW2 era with a general 'blanket' view?

Or the people of the South during the Civil War era?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

We have not made any laws. We had this foisted upon us by unelected judges, and that does not serve society. Finally, my purpose was not to debate any of that, it was to explain the Christian position and why it is important to us, since nobody seems to understand it, nor do they want to, apparently.

Why not embrace the traditional Judeo/Christian position on women then. From a Biblical perspective, women are the property of their family until they are married and thus become the property of their husband's family. For example, if you rape an unmarried woman, from a Biblical perspective you have committed a crime against her family. Point being if we are going to embrace tradition and the traditional Christian positions, why not embrace them all?

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

As you can see, any pain caused to the woman is not even a factor. The problem with rape in this case is that it devalued that woman and thus her father should be compensated. Since she is worthless to any family now, the rapist must marry her. So why not bring that one back?

 

[Chagos]

What is the supreme law?

did you not take any government classes?

Her obvious misunderstanding appears to be that if you get enough people behind you, you can change anything you like even if it means passing laws that are inconsistent with the constitution.

And even where she is from Canada, the Supreme Law of her country doesn't differ much from that of the US in such respect.

 

[Chagos]

Dont we look at most/all Germans of the WW2 era with a general 'blanket' view?
Or the people of the South during the Civil War era?

Dunno about "we" but I don't and neither does anybody I associate with in RL.

Granted, I've probably come to know more Germans and Japanese than I know "Southerners" (to stay with the WWII reference).

 

[HowardBThiname]

We have not made any laws. We had this foisted upon us by unelected judges, and that does not serve society. Finally, my purpose was not to debate any of that, it was to explain the Christian position and why it is important to us, since nobody seems to understand it, nor do they want to, apparently.

Of course we made laws. We've made laws for thousands of years regarding the subject of marriage along with dozens of other laws.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "Christian position" however, because all the Christians I know accept same-sex marriage as being the best for society. Many Christian churches, in fact, are performing same sex marriages. That appears to be the real Christian position. I was just pointing out how Mr. Wright was wrong in much of his assessment.

 

[CLAX1911]

Her obvious misunderstanding appears to be that if you get enough people behind you, you can change anything you like even if it means passing laws that are inconsistent with the constitution.

I suppose she's right to an extent because enough people can overthrow a government but I seriously doubt it will ever happen through votes.

And even where she is from Canada, the Supreme Law of her country doesn't differ much from that of the US in such respect.

I was not aware she's from Canada and I am not very familiar with Canada's government.

 

[it's just me]

I’d question that there is a singular Christian position anyway but I don’t think the common issue would be a failure to understand the position you present but a question of its relevance to the wider national and international picture. Christian theology on this issue (and any other) is only relevant to Christians. If you disagree with same-sex marriage, you’re free not to have one, just as anyone who objects to religious marriage is free not to have one. There are practical complications and edge cases to work though of course but that’s the core principle.

All right, try this on for size: the Church has always been against abortion, that's number one. And I think it's generally agreed that the best institution for raising children is a man/woman marriage. (Don't bother quoting some study to me that says otherwise, there are just as many that say the opposite).

I thought another poster was alluding to this but I'll say it right out - we are below replacement level in our population, just like Europe, the UK, etc.

We are running the risk of economic and national decline simply because we don't have enough sense to reproduce. And as stupid as I have seen people become over the past 40-50 years I don't see much hope.

 

[it's just me]

Of course we made laws. We've made laws for thousands of years regarding the subject of marriage along with dozens of other laws.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "Christian position" however, because all the Christians I know accept same-sex marriage as being the best for society. Many Christian churches, in fact, are performing same sex marriages. That appears to be the real Christian position. I was just pointing out how Mr. Wright was wrong in much of his assessment.

Well, I don't know how many Christians you know, but being a priest I'll bet I know more, and I may even know more priests than you know Christians. My experience does not match yours.

 

[Chagos]

I suppose she's right to an extent because enough people can overthrow a government but I seriously doubt it will ever happen through votes.

That being the whole point of installing virtually unchangeable constitutions. "Virtually" resting in the fact that equally installed obstacles to change are enormous.

I was not aware she's from Canada and I am not very familiar with Canada's government.

Changing Canada's constitution would require (last I heard) not only approval by both houses but, more importantly, agreement by two-thirds of all provinces.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Well, I don't know how many Christians you know, but being a priest I'll bet I know more, and I may even know more priests than you know Christians. My experience does not match yours.

I would expect a well-informed priest to realize that there is historical record of same-sex marriages, yet, either you did not or you were lazy in not countering Wright's incorrect statement.

You certainly may know more Christians than I know, but the fact that Christian churches are performing same-sex marriages indicates that not all Christians adhere to the same belief system you do. Therefore, you're incorrect when you use the phrase the "Christian position," since that position does not represent mainstream Christian thought.

You give yourself away with the "priest" label. Okay, you're Catholic. That's cool, but do you wonder why the US Catholic Church has lost more members than virtually any other church? If you figure that one out, you'll also be on the cusp of understanding why your position is not the real "Christian position."

 

[it's just me]

I would expect a well-informed priest to realize that there is historical record of same-sex marriages, yet, either you did not or you were lazy in not countering Wright's incorrect statement.

You certainly may know more Christians than I know, but the fact that Christian churches are performing same-sex marriages indicates that not all Christians adhere to the same belief system you do. Therefore, you're incorrect when you use the phrase the "Christian position," since that position does not represent mainstream Christian thought.

You give yourself away with the "priest" label. Okay, you're Catholic. That's cool, but do you wonder why the US Catholic Church has lost more members than virtually any other church? If you figure that one out, you'll also be on the cusp of understanding why your position is not the real "Christian position."

Sir, you are mistaken on just about every count. I am not a Catholic, I am Anglican and in spite of our affiliation with the Episcopal Church we don't believe in same sex marriage. And not all Episcopalians believe in ssm. Furthermore, if you examine the beliefs of the ones who do believe in ssm you will probably find that they are not Christian at all, to the point where many of them don't believe in Christ or God. That is the belief system you have to have, or at least Christ himself thought so. I know, I used to be an Episcopalian, except to me it was a Church and not a social club.

Finally, yes, I have heard the claims about ssm among native North Americans, but my recollection of it was that it is not what is generally referred to today as ssm.

But I'm not an expert, I just administer the sacraments, one of which is marriage.

 

[zyzygy]

I would expect a well-informed priest to realize that there is historical record of same-sex marriages, yet, either you did not or you were lazy in not countering Wright's incorrect statement.

You certainly may know more Christians than I know, but the fact that Christian churches are performing same-sex marriages indicates that not all Christians adhere to the same belief system you do. Therefore, you're incorrect when you use the phrase the "Christian position," since that position does not represent mainstream Christian thought.

You give yourself away with the "priest" label. Okay, you're Catholic. That's cool, but do you wonder why the US Catholic Church has lost more members than virtually any other church? If you figure that one out, you'll also be on the cusp of understanding why your position is not the real "Christian position."

Here in Belgium the Catholic Church is slowly dying. Where I live there is no priest, the sparsely attended services are conducted by a sort of stand-in.
This is from a speech by Cardinal Godfried Danneels.

What are the great challenges for priestly formation in these areas? First of all, we are seeing a real scarcity of vocations. We have very, very few priests, particularly in Europe. If you look at Belgium, for example, there are very, very few vocations to the priesthood throughout the country. In Flanders, the north of the country, there are nine new candidates for a population of about 5 million Catholics in the country. The fact that there are so few seminarians in formation is, of course, a determining factor in many of the seminaries and gives rise to many problems. Because there are not many vocations, seminaries are turning into very small groups of people indeed. Training therefore concerns specific small units, which from a human point of view is often a disadvantage.
A third reason why so few candidates for the priesthood exist is that our society is almost entirely secular, a society where God has disappeared due to the influence of public life and the tabloids. Religion is no longer talked about on the radio or television except if there is some scandal. We seem to have moved out of the public eye. We are no longer taken seriously by the media. So this means that priests are actually public people for private interests, because actually religion has become a private issue. Religion is something done in private and not talked about in public.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=557

 

[HowardBThiname]

Sir, you are mistaken on just about every count. I am not a Catholic, I am Anglican and in spite of our affiliation with the Episcopal Church we don't believe in same sex marriage. And not all Episcopalians believe in ssm. Furthermore, if you examine the beliefs of the ones who do believe in ssm you will probably find that they are not Christian at all, to the point where many of them don't believe in Christ or God. That is the belief system you have to have, or at least Christ himself thought so. I know, I used to be an Episcopalian, except to me it was a Church and not a social club.

"Angelican." I stand corrected. However, I'm saddened that you would resort to labeling those who believe in ssm as "not Christian at all." That's the pat response from so many when they don't like what others think. But, it's an alienating idea and it's why we're seeing such a huge drop in church memberships.

Finally, yes, I have heard the claims about ssm among native North Americans, but my recollection of it was that it is not what is generally referred to today as ssm.

But I'm not an expert, I just administer the sacraments, one of which is marriage.

Actually, I referring more to ancient Greek ssm marriages, along with other early culture traditions.

The deal is -- you're going to lose members if you can't move into the future with them. They will recognize that they are better individuals without the Church and they will leave it behind. Claiming that they aren't really Christians will only speed their departure.

Many in the Angelican Church support ssm. If Church leaders don't get on board pretty soon, there's going to be mass mutiny, and you can't really blame them -- the Church is no longer recognizing or supporting their needs.

 

[it's just me]

"Angelican." I stand corrected. However, I'm saddened that you would resort to labeling those who believe in ssm as "not Christian at all." That's the pat response from so many when they don't like what others think. But, it's an alienating idea and it's why we're seeing such a huge drop in church memberships.



Actually, I referring more to ancient Greek ssm marriages, along with other early culture traditions.

The deal is -- you're going to lose members if you can't move into the future with them. They will recognize that they are better individuals without the Church and they will leave it behind. Claiming that they aren't really Christians will only speed their departure.

Many in the Angelican Church support ssm. If Church leaders don't get on board pretty soon, there's going to be mass mutiny, and you can't really blame them -- the Church is no longer recognizing or supporting their needs.

I don't refer to them as non-Christian because they believe in SSM, I call them non Christian because they don't believe Jesus was who he said he was. Some don't believe in God at all.

And as far as us losing members, it's actually the other way around. The Episcopal Church is losing it's membership to the Continuing Anglican movement and the Anglican Realignment in droves.

 

[tosca1]

What is the supreme law?

did you not take any government classes?

Why don't you answer? Yes or no.

Whatever nuance of democracy it's supposed to be - lol, makes me think of atheism (with it's different "shades") - don't you have ELECTED representatives?

That's a very simple question.

 

[AGENT J]

Once again no human being has the power to judge another has Christian or not :shrug: Always fun when people arrogantly and falsely think they can

Millions of Christians are ok with SSM
Millions of CHristians are probably not, BUT they would never be bigoted ad vile enough to try and make laws treating american citizens as lessers
lastly theres a minority out there that are against it and want laws against it and are trying (and failing over all) to make laws against.

Well as far as any human knows, all 3 groups are Christians since we factually have no power to judged and decide otherwise.

The first two groups understand how beliefs work and how rights, laws and the constitution works.

The last group is clueless about this and a first world country like america with rights and freedoms really isnt for them. of course they are welcome here but more times then not they arent going to be happy because thank god they cant force thier views on others