Vatican says it will not bless same-sex unions, calling homosexuality a 'sin' and a 'choice'

[MennoSota]

lutherans/evangelicals. They wanted the catholic church to fail.

Not originally. Originally, they wanted to reform the holy roman church. Up until the council if Trent the Lutherans, Zwinglians and Calvinists wanted to remain one church. Rome crushed that reconciliation with its ruling at Trent, which resulted in the 30 years war. Rome would likely have succeeded in crushing the reformation if not for Swedish King Gustavus Adulphus bringing his army to stop Rome. Therefore Europe is still separated with Rome in the South and Lutheran/Reformed in the North. The Anabaptists are the ones who claimed that none of the above represented the true church and thus Anabaptists were attacked by all the others. Since Anabaptist means re-baptizer, the most common means of death was death by drowning.
The council of Trent, however, was the final blow against true reformation of Rome.

 

[howeda7]

I’m glad we agree. The Bible as currently published, consists of books chosen from a vast field by a political process and translated by a process that cannot possibly stand a test of inerrancy.

This. And is why anyone who is absolutely certain that their beliefs are the one true and only correct beliefs is a fool.

 

[Nokomis]

Where would you find this form of government or support in the Bible, Nokomis?

I'll defer to Luther on this one.

How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry and consented to by us? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom." In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

 

[MplsGopher]

The Sin is Not homosexuality, but sex outside of marriage. The Marriage being between a man and woman is what is considered by the Church to be sacred.

As any juvenile Catholic knows, there are loopholes to that whole sex outside of marriage business. Thus, I think it safe to conclude said loopholes apply.

Fair enough!

Therefore, homosexuality cannot be a sin, because the two consenting adults never engage in sex, as defined by the church (the so called "P in the Va-G" doctrine)!

Works for me. Menno defeated

 

[MplsGopher]

it was to bring down the church

That may be so. Regardless, homosexuality is not a sin. It is settled.

 

[saintpaulguy]

Can you burn a bush?

I'm the bleeding volcano!

 

[MennoSota]

I'll defer to Luther on this one.

How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry and consented to by us? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom." In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

However, that is not the same church politic that you described in your earlier post.
Many churches do not use a politic expressed in the Bible, but instead defer to a cultural form of church government.

 

[Nokomis]

However, that is not the same church politic that you described in your earlier post.
Many churches do not use a politic expressed in the Bible, but instead defer to a cultural form of church government.

Sure it is. We choose our church leaders, and they serve at the pleasure of the congregation. How is it not saying that?

I mean, just look at whom Jesus picks as his disciples -- a couple fishermen & a tax collector. Not exactly Jewish elites.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you & Blizzard ascribe to the Timothy/Titus definition of an elder. Do I have that right? If so, this isn't just about trans & gays; you also don't believe women should serve as elders or pastors (or your denomination's equivalent). Is that true?

 

[MennoSota]

Sure it is. We choose our church leaders, and they serve at the pleasure of the congregation. How is it not saying that?

I mean, just look at whom Jesus picks as his disciples -- a couple fishermen & a tax collector. Not exactly Jewish elites.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you & Blizzard ascribe to the Timothy/Titus definition of an elder. Do I have that right? If so, this isn't just about trans & gays; you also don't believe women should serve as elders or pastors (or your denomination's equivalent). Is that true?

First, here is what Peter said:
1 Peter 2:4-12

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

This passage has nothing to do with church politics and church structure.

Now 1 Timothy, regarding both elders and deacons:

1 Timothy 3:1-13

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued,not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The ending of Romans reveals women as deacons.
Romans 16:1-2,6,15

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.

Paul says this:

Galatians 3:28-29

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Nokomis, I am not personally against women having shepherding roles or having service roles. I do believe that the structure for the church should remain as it was laid out in the Bible. These functions still apply today. The church doesn't run by cultural whim.

 

[Nokomis]

First, here is what Peter said:
1 Peter 2:4-12


This passage has nothing to do with church politics and church structure.

Now 1 Timothy, regarding both elders and deacons:

1 Timothy 3:1-13

The ending of Romans reveals women as deacons.
Romans 16:1-2,6,15

Paul says this:

Galatians 3:28-29


Nokomis, I am not personally against women having shepherding roles or having service roles. I do believe that the structure for the church should remain as it was laid out in the Bible. These functions still apply today. The church doesn't run by cultural whim.

What you call a whim, we call reconciling the Word to today's world -- a diligent study into contradictions, historical contexts, and overarching themes. You make these claims without actually understanding our belief system.

If you don't believe women can be pastors or elders, you're probably never going to get on board with trans & gays. Just as we disagreed on our understanding of sola fide in another thread (or maybe that was Blizzard or Reserve). We are so diametrically opposed on some of these foundational tenets that arguing some of the more fringe stuff is probably futile.

 

[MplsGopher]

I do believe that the structure for the church should remain as it was laid out in the Bible.

Just as the men (humans) who wrote those parts, of their own will, intended!

 

[MennoSota]

What you call a whim, we call reconciling the Word to today's world -- a diligent study into contradictions, historical contexts, and overarching themes. You make these claims without actually understanding our belief system.

If you don't believe women can be pastors or elders, you're probably never going to get on board with trans & gays. Just as we disagreed on our understanding of sola fide in another thread (or maybe that was Blizzard or Reserve). We are so diametrically opposed on some of these foundational tenets that arguing some of the more fringe stuff is probably futile.

Your bolded statement is a very clear assertion that your tradition believes it's created tradition is authoritative over and above the Bible. The Bible does not command your tradition, but your tradition commands the Bible.
What this means is that your church is afloat with no sail or rudder except your own relativistic opinion. It will attempt to avoid the obstacles by denying the Bible when the Bible requires you to drive right toward the obstacles and destroy the philosophical arguments of culture.
Indeed, there will be no reconciliation between your tradition and the orthodox tradition of the church. It is best for you to float on by without your rudder and I will wave at you as you float on by.

 

[MplsGopher]

when the Bible requires you to drive right toward the obstacles and destroy the philosophical arguments of culture.

Do as your cult commands, and never question it.

You said it yourself, you're a bona fide, kool aid guzzler.


But that's OK, because it convinces more people, faster, that they shouldn't join.

 

[MennoSota]

Do as your cult commands, and never question it.

You said it yourself, you're a bona fide, kool aid guzzler.


But that's OK, because it convinces more people, faster, that they shouldn't join.

This is an interesting narrative in that the tradition I hold was passed on directly from Jesus, yet the tradition Nokomis espouses is a new tradition that reduces the Bible to a list of suggestions which his local church body can take or leave depending on the whim of the leadership.
I will again appeal to reason. The vast amount of scholarly review of the Bible text means we are able to recognize and discuss the teaching of all scripture rather than use reductionist thinking which merely states "Jesus is Love" as a mantra without actually studying how Jesus expressed love. For example is Jesus loving when he calls some "a brood of vipers"? Or when he tells the parable of the weeds and explains it?

Matthew 13:27-30,36-43

And the servantsof the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Either people will hear what Jesus says or they will excuse it and make their own image of Jesus and declare he is love while denying the loving Jesus of the Bible.
I argue that Nokomis tradition has created a Jesus that is taken from the parts they like while they discard the parts they dislike. Such a behavior is intellectually dishonest. It breeds Kool-aid drinkers who have no idea what Jesus love fully entails.

 

[MplsGopher]

This is an interesting narrative in that the tradition I hold was passed on directly from Jesus

You choose to believe it was, anyway.

For example is Jesus loving when he calls some "a brood of vipers"?

Probably never actually said that.

Again, written by men, they used their judgement in all of it.

 

[Angry]

Fair enough!

Therefore, homosexuality cannot be a sin, because the two consenting adults never engage in sex, as defined by the church (the so called "P in the Va-G" doctrine)!

Works for me. Menno defeated

Fraud against man bad, fraud against god ok?

 

[MplsGopher]

fraud against god ok?

What fraud?

 

[Nokomis]

Your bolded statement is a very clear assertion that your tradition believes it's created tradition is authoritative over and above the Bible. The Bible does not command your tradition, but your tradition commands the Bible.
What this means is that your church is afloat with no sail or rudder except your own relativistic opinion. It will attempt to avoid the obstacles by denying the Bible when the Bible requires you to drive right toward the obstacles and destroy the philosophical arguments of culture.
Indeed, there will be no reconciliation between your tradition and the orthodox tradition of the church. It is best for you to float on by without your rudder and I will wave at you as you float on by.

I have to remind myself going into these threads that you're just here to proselytize and aren't really interested in understanding another's POV nor philosophical debate.

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

Interesting to me how many Evangelicals never focus on these types of verse where God demonstrates his love -

American Standard Version -

John 3:17 -

For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.

God continually talks about the hypocrites like the Pharisees who like to judge others instead of worrying about their own spiritual condition - the whole Lest you judge, not you be judged bit.

Hard to be full of love when you're full of judgement and I speak from experience as I was in CCC (Campus Crusade for Christ in college).

Anyway God Bless!

 

[Angry]

What fraud?

I think that is self evident but homosexuality.

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

I have to remind myself going into these threads that you're just here to proselytize and aren't really interested in understanding another's POV nor philosophical debate.

I rarely delve into these threads even though I have a religious study minor and will be going to get my Mas Div in the next year or two. Ironically, those degree fall under the Philosophy Departments in schools because it's not a hard, provable science.

 

[Nokomis]

This is an interesting narrative in that the tradition I hold was passed on directly from Jesus, yet the tradition Nokomis espouses is a new tradition that reduces the Bible to a list of suggestions which his local church body can take or leave depending on the whim of the leadership.
I will again appeal to reason. The vast amount of scholarly review of the Bible text means we are able to recognize and discuss the teaching of all scripture rather than use reductionist thinking which merely states "Jesus is Love" as a mantra without actually studying how Jesus expressed love. For example is Jesus loving when he calls some "a brood of vipers"? Or when he tells the parable of the weeds and explains it?

Matthew 13:27-30,36-43


Either people will hear what Jesus says or they will excuse it and make their own image of Jesus and declare he is love while denying the loving Jesus of the Bible.
I argue that Nokomis tradition has created a Jesus that is taken from the parts they like while they discard the parts they dislike. Such a behavior is intellectually dishonest. It breeds Kool-aid drinkers who have no idea what Jesus love fully entails.

LOL! And whom does Jesus call a brood of vipers? The Pharisees -- a.k.a. a bunch of male church elders! And what does Jesus say earlier in that same chapter?

Matthew 23: 12-13 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.

Be mindful of your proselytizing...

 

[MennoSota]

You choose to believe it was, anyway.


Probably never actually said that.

Again, written by men, they used their judgement in all of it.

Textual criticism and scholarly research disagrees with your off-the-cuff assertions.

 

[MennoSota]

I have to remind myself going into these threads that you're just here to proselytize and aren't really interested in understanding another's POV nor philosophical debate.

That's untrue. I heard your assertion very clearly and explained why we would never agree. You pick and choose the Bible as it fits your own whim. I accept the Bible, even the parts that a natural man hates.
You can keep doing your thing and see how it works out for you.

 

[MplsGopher]

I think that is self evident but homosexuality.

Huh?

Sounds like you're agreeing that two men are not capable of engaging in acts which meet the church's definition of sex.

 

[MplsGopher]

Textual criticism and scholarly research disagrees

Unless they have a time machine, then they're just guessing.

 

[MennoSota]

LOL! And whom does Jesus call a brood of vipers? The Pharisees -- a.k.a. a bunch of male church elders! And what does Jesus say earlier in that same chapter?

Matthew 23: 12-13 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.

Be mindful of your proselytizing...

Not church elders at all. Religious rulers who had created added rules that weighed down all Israel, yes.
Were you even aware that these folks had nothing to do with the church or were you intentionally trying to be dishonest?

 

[MplsGopher]

I accept the Bible

Your version

 

[MennoSota]

Unless they have a time machine, then they're just guessing.

Do you really want to play that card? If you do, then all literature before the printing press is very likely not what the original person actually said. You can trust nothing in antiquity.
But, since we have well over 20,000 documents to sift through, it is an over 99% chance that what is written is actually what was said.
Take Plato's work where we have less than a dozen copies, with the closest copy being about 900 years after Plato. The odds that Plato actually wrote what we read is much, much lower.
Be consistent if you want to play this card. Admit that nothing you ever read about Alexander the Great would be true, by your own assertion.

 

[MplsGopher]

Do you really want to play that card? If you do, then all literature before the printing press is very likely not what the original person actually said.

OK? Not seeing a huge loss here, frankly.