Pope: GOD made people gay

[Kurieuo]

That's just it...the same argument could be made against God for allowing sin to enter and ruin His creation.

Do I think you're saying God is a hypocrite? No...not at all. Stop taking everything so personal.

I've been asking about applying this logic elsewhere and how it CAN say something I don't feel you're trying to say.

That's not building a straw man ( why would I in this context if both you and I are believers! ), that's applying logic.
.
.

It's a leap that you and you alone made. I do not share your opinion that the same argument can be made as you claim nor do I think it's logical in any way. After all, same sex unions are a reality. Are you then claiming that A) God is a hypocrite for allowing it? Or B) that God had no control over it? Which is it, A or B? (option C is reserved for courtroom tactics).

I'm not the one that made a claim that something is hypocritical...hence why I'm asking YOU.

That you think it's a leap is to deny what it is you're actually saying. You're saying that if a person advocates for civil unions, that not advocating for the things you listed is hypocritical. God advocates that we do as we will, does that then advocate WHAT we do? That is what it seems you're saying...and instead of attempting to reword it even for the sake of the POSSIBILITY of being misinterpreted, you double-down and insist you are right.
.
.

Whatever you say dude.

So then you are saying God is a hypocrite...
.
.

Thankfully I wasn't drinking coffee as I read this, it would have gone all over the screen when I laughed.

[BavarianWheels]

Bavarian - why do you have a devilish, sinister-looking avatar?

That's my best smile...!
.
.

There's an SDA church down the road from me. They all have a Satanic look about them.*
*sarcasm used.

That is the going consensus...might as well play it up. *
.
.

[RickD]

See, sarcasm CAN be used to bring people together!

Now who's the genius?

[Kurieuo]

At least you don't look like RickD, imagine waking up to that every morning.*

6116.jpg (18.55 KiB) Viewed 3582 times

*Sarcasm used. Kind of.

[RickD]

At least you don't look like RickD, imagine waking up to that every morning.*
6116.jpg
*Sarcasm used. Kind of.

Now seriously K?

Stooping to ad homs? And you're a moderator and an administrator?

[Philip]

I always wonder if Rick's wife just has an awesome sense of humor or if she just stays constantly irritated. I mean, Don Rickles was a god to Rick!

[RickD]

I could never get away with half the jokes that Don Rickles did.

[Philip]

Not in 2018!

[Nicki]

That's just it...the same argument could be made against God for allowing sin to enter and ruin His creation.

Do I think you're saying God is a hypocrite? No...not at all. Stop taking everything so personal.

I've been asking about applying this logic elsewhere and how it CAN say something I don't feel you're trying to say.

That's not building a straw man ( why would I in this context if both you and I are believers! ), that's applying logic.
.
.

It's a leap that you and you alone made. I do not share your opinion that the same argument can be made as you claim nor do I think it's logical in any way. After all, same sex unions are a reality. Are you then claiming that A) God is a hypocrite for allowing it? Or B) that God had no control over it? Which is it, A or B? (option C is reserved for courtroom tactics).

I'm not the one that made a claim that something is hypocritical...hence why I'm asking YOU.

That you think it's a leap is to deny what it is you're actually saying. You're saying that if a person advocates for civil unions, that not advocating for the things you listed is hypocritical. God advocates that we do as we will, does that then advocate WHAT we do? That is what it seems you're saying...and instead of attempting to reword it even for the sake of the POSSIBILITY of being misinterpreted, you double-down and insist you are right.
.
.

Whatever you say dude.

So then you are saying God is a hypocrite...
.
.

Is your point that we should allow gay marriage/civil unions, the way God allows people to do what they want?

[Kurieuo]

I'm assuming by 'marriage' Ed means a civil union as a 'religious' marriage wouldn't mean much to him.

On that basis, let me ask you a question, Ed, are you (and by you I mean society in general) really prepared to accept the ramifications of same sex civil unions? And before you ask, here are but a few:

- Institutionally enforced genderless identities (already started at the federal level in Canada)
- Many persons' civil unions (3 or more) (already advocated for by poly-amorous groups)

The fact is if you advocate for same sex civil unions then you must also advocate for the above, otherwise you'd just be a hypocrite.

Do we agree that according to scripture ( and therefore according to God ) that homosexuality is wrong? ( the acts ).

If so, then we know God's position on the matter, YET...

YET God allows humans to act how they will. ( that's not to say there is no consequence )

Does God then "advocate" for same sex civil unions and therefore is He a hypocrite?
.
.

I would agree with you Bav, if it is what you're getting at, that Byblos' response/argument back to Ed was loaded. That is, it isn't clear that Ed must advocate the other things otherwise he is a hypocrite. I think you may just be going about it the wrong way to make this point, if that indeed is your point.

It might be enough for Ed to simply say that "society" hasn't reconstructed marriage that far along yet, and so, given marriage is a human construct, it makes no sense to be asking such questions at this point in time. "Marriage" just hasn't evolved in society to that extent yet. But, perhaps it will in the future. Nonetheless Ed could reject such things like polygamy and the like given such may not be as socially acceptable right now.

Nonetheless, Byblos is essentially correct as I see matters, and so I'd not quibble much with him. Because, what Ed has in mind is a civil union and not "marriage" itself (like we understand) -- marriage being a real metaphysical construction beyond humanity and regardless of what any human thinks. Society has taken "marriage" if you will, and redefined it, such that people don't even know what it truly is. Ed would I'm sure think marriage is simply a human social construction rather than a real intended framework, something with a real purpose, rooted in the very design of nature itself. There is a telos to marriage, that can't be removed irrespective of what any of us think. Marriage is a design found in nature and biology as such that humans fulfill, when a man and woman come together - this provides the natural foundations for children to be had and raised within. Yet, if materialism is true, than marriage is nothing more than a human construction so it becomes more like whatevs, nothing has any real meaning or design other than what we assign.

Now then, I don't believe people who view marriage as something more than a social construction -- for example, that marriage is a real archetype embedded into nature and given to humanity by God serving an important foundation to raising a family -- I don't believe such people should accept two people of the same sex can be married. It isn't a matter of morality, or religion, marriage just doesn't make any sense when understood as something much deeper than a human social construction. So, I think Ed (and all others like him) are being a bit disingenuous here in thinking Christians are just being uncharitable and not wanting equality for all.

The way around this, is for the government to simply butt out of it altogether. Let such private affairs be between individuals. If the government wants to incentify what they see as good for society however, then do so. Otherwise, I don't see what role the government has in private affairs of what happens in the bedroom between two adults. Certainly not in defining something outside its jurisdiction like "marriage".

[BavarianWheels]

Is your point that we should allow gay marriage/civil unions, the way God allows people to do what they want?

As a side note, yes...as we live in a democracy/secular society. However, if we were living in a theocracy, no.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

I would agree with you Bav, if it is what you're getting at, that Byblos' response/argument back to Ed was loaded. That is, it isn't clear that Ed must advocate the other things otherwise he is a hypocrite. I think you may just be going about it the wrong way to make this point, if that indeed is your point.

I can accept that Byblos and whomever else, disagrees. I never meant that Byblos THEREFORE believes God is a hypocrite.

My position was a position of digging deeper into the actual words Byblos wrote...and it is my opinion that the words/argument that Byblos made can also be made against God as God does not actively prevent us from acting as we will. If God MAKES people homosexual but then doesn't allow people to ACT on their homosexuality, God is a hypocrite! God does not make anyone a sinner, hetero or homosexual. But we know people are homosexual ( as a result of sin ) and no one that we know of has been actively stopped from acting on their homosexuality. There is no condemnation in being a homosexual ( a sinner ), there is condemnation in acting on that homosexuality ( as a sinner ) KNOWING it is sin and doing so anyway. It's no different, no less or no more a sin than a heterosexual ( as a result of sin ) ACTING on their sexual desires that God says is sin.

I agree with you, that it would be best for the gov't to butt out...we know that won't happen when the gov't's involvement is due to taxes and those types of issues due to relationships officially recognized.

This portion of the thread can end here. I accept that Byblos doesn't see his argument as I do and certainly that Byblos isn't making a claim that God is a hypocrite.
.
.

[B. W.]

The Great Apostasy has begun...
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

Nonetheless, Byblos is essentially correct as I see matters, and so I'd not quibble much with him. Because, what Ed has in mind is a civil union and not "marriage" itself (like we understand) -- marriage being a real metaphysical construction beyond humanity and regardless of what any human thinks. Society has taken "marriage" if you will, and redefined it, such that people don't even know what it truly is. Ed would I'm sure think marriage is simply a human social construction rather than a real intended framework, something with a real purpose, rooted in the very design of nature itself. There is a telos to marriage, that can't be removed irrespective of what any of us think. Marriage is a design found in nature and biology as such that humans fulfill, when a man and woman come together - this provides the natural foundations for children to be had and raised within. Yet, if materialism is true, than marriage is nothing more than a human construction so it becomes more like whatevs, nothing has any real meaning or design other than what we assign.

How is marriage rooted in the design of nature?

If we look at the Animal Kingdom as a whole we some instances of mating for life, but we also see males that do the deed and hit the road. Among mammals that stay to guard their offspring the males are typically polygamous. We also see all kinds of abhorrent practices. For example, cuckoos lay their eggs in other birds' nests, then when the cuckoo chicks hatch they pushes the hosts' eggs out. Botflies lay eggs in the skin of mammals, where the larvae feed on the hosts living flesh, then tunnel out at maturity. One male and one female in a lifelong bond isn't even the norm, much less the rule.

Among humans there's plenty of variety as well. Child brides, polygamy, and arranged, transactional marriages have all been common and in some places still are. Marriage predates Christianity, and it obviously exists outside of the Christian faith, as well. Calling a love match between one man and one woman "traditional" only works if you ignore a whole lot of traditions.

Marriage means different things to different people, and those meanings have always changed as society has changed around them. Same-sex marriage is just another change.

Now then, I don't believe people who view marriage as something more than a social construction -- for example, that marriage is a real archetype embedded into nature and given to humanity by God serving an important foundation to raising a family -- I don't believe such people should accept two people of the same sex can be married. It isn't a matter of morality, or religion, marriage just doesn't make any sense when understood as something much deeper than a human social construction. So, I think Ed (and all others like him) are being a bit disingenuous here in thinking Christians are just being uncharitable and not wanting equality for all.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that "Christians" oppose marriage equality. Here's a snippet from a piece from the Guardian:

In our slow learning process, Christians are increasingly asking, “Why shouldn’t our LGBTIQ+ sons and daughters, siblings and neighbours be included in one of our society’s most treasured institutions? What good reason is there to not do this?”

What people are finding is that the reasons being offered are not strong. Having rightly jettisoned older and harsher understandings of homosexuality, conservative Christians are left with much weaker arguments, such as: “One shouldn’t change the definition of marriage” or “this will violate longstanding church doctrine” or “society will unravel and children will be harmed” – or, most weakly and irrelevantly, “our religious freedoms will be threatened”.

These essentially backward-looking and defensive arguments don’t appear to be changing many minds, except in the other direction perhaps as support for marriage equality continues to rise, even among conservative Christians. In the US, for example, , 62% of Americans now say they favour civil marriage equality, with a mere 32% opposed. That compares with 48% in favour and 42% opposed in 2010. What is remarkable is that these rapidly changing attitudes are happening right across social and religious spectrums. Republicans are now almost evenly divided. Sixty-seven per cent of Roman Catholics are in favour, 68% of white mainline Protestants are in favour. Even among white evangelical Protestants, support has grown from 14% a decade ago to 35% now.

You may not agree with the opinions being offered there, but the polling is pretty clear - the majority of Americans, including American Christians, support marriage equality. Those who oppose it do not speak for all Christendom, or even for most Christians. They speak for themselves as members of a steadily shrinking conservative minority.

It's a bit uncharitable to assume that all of those Christians who accept and support same-sex unions do it because they fail to understand marriage as anything but a social construct. You're correct that that's how I see it, but the majority of American Christians?

The way around this, is for the government to simply butt out of it altogether. Let such private affairs be between individuals. If the government wants to incentify what they see as good for society however, then do so. Otherwise, I don't see what role the government has in private affairs of what happens in the bedroom between two adults. Certainly not in defining something outside its jurisdiction like "marriage".

It's tough to keep the government out of it when we're the government.

The reason that marriage equality is now the law of the land in the United States is that conservative Christian voters backed conservative Christian politicians who passed conservative Christian legislation aimed at legally defining marriage in conservative Christian terms, and at allowing states that banned same-sex unions the freedom to discount marriages performed in states that did. The Supreme Court found that those laws violated the Constitution, and here we are. When local and state governments use the law to push their religious views on their neighbors they risk getting burned at the Federal level, and boy did the "traditional marriage" activists ever get burned.

[Kurieuo]

That fact you see it as "marriage equality" shows you don't see what the root issue is about for Christians and many who believe in God. That, is, disingenuous. Beat your wife much Ed? (also disingenuous)

Your understanding of marriage is completely different as to not be the same as ours.

Q: What's the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" Ed?