Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[eider]

Do you know what excommunication is?

My question sounds condescending - I don't mean it to be.

We in the UK mostly think of Henry V111's excommunication, but I would guess that it is complete and total estrangement from the Church with added horrors after death?

But my point is this....... The majority of the Christian World is reconsidering this question, possibly because Jesus never said anything against it, and wholeheartedly spoke out for love, understanding etc...

 

[glassjester]

How will the archbishop deal with those legislators who supported the perverted legislation?

Good question - I don't know.

 

[glassjester]

We in the UK mostly think of Henry V111's excommunication, but I would guess that it is complete and total estrangement from the Church with added horrors after death?

But my point is this....... The majority of the Christian World is reconsidering this question, possibly because Jesus never said anything against it, and wholeheartedly spoke out for love, understanding etc...

Excommunication means the person is no longer in full communion with the Church. This means they are ineligible for receiving the sacraments. They are, in a sense, cut off from the Church. They can be granted absolution, though, if they repent.

Certain sins carry the penalty of automatic excommunication. This means the person is excommunicated without any formal declaration by a bishop or pope. Those sins include, for example, abortion, heresy, breaking the seal of confession.

The lawmakers in Malta (the Catholic ones, anyway) that voted in favor of homosexual marriage may be considered automatically excommunicated, as heretics. After all, they have formally and publicly declared their rejection of Church teaching. I am not 100% sure, though.

But if I had to guess, any Catholic supporters of homosexual marriage are not practicing Catholics anyway, and are "Catholic" in name only.

 

[Nang]

It seems that High Cherub will not be able to answer.

Maybe Angel4Truth or Right Divider can.

Can someone believe they are saved, but not actually be saved?

Sure.

 

[Nang]

I am asking about someone that thinks they are saved. Then they realize they are not really saved. Could they get saved after that?

Sure.

 

[eider]

Excommunication means the person is no longer in full communion with the Church. This means they are ineligible for receiving the sacraments. They are, in a sense, cut off from the Church. They can be granted absolution, though, if they repent.

Certain sins carry the penalty of automatic excommunication. This means the person is excommunicated without any formal declaration by a bishop or pope. Those sins include, for example, abortion, heresy, breaking the seal of confession.

The lawmakers in Malta (the Catholic ones, anyway) that voted in favor of homosexual marriage may be considered automatically excommunicated, as heretics. After all, they have formally and publicly declared their rejection of Church teaching. I am not 100% sure, though.

But if I had to guess, any Catholic supporters of homosexual marriage are not practicing Catholics anyway, and are "Catholic" in name only.

Thanks for the above explanation....
I have always heard that Catholics believe that only Catholics can attain to 'Heaven' or 'Salvation'.
I can imagine that when whole countries turn against a fundamental Catholic principle that they will no longer be considered as 'Catholic' by Catholics.

On the side, the record of one of our Kings, an adulterous, greedy, murdering, looting, pillaging, deceiver ignoring his Catholic Church in order to commit bigamy with a woman whom he executes soon after so that he can lay with his next fancy, thereafter using the situation to destroy and pillage nearly every monastery in the land.......well, yes, I can see how that ball of lard got excommunicated, along with 90% of his whole nation. Soon after his death, during little Edward's reign, we were burning Protestant and Catholic 'heretics' in English cities 'on the same days'...... you just couldn't make this stuff up, really.

Brazil might be next? Brazil already leaves gay unions alone, and yet other countries might follow. I do brelieve that despite everything you say about the Churches 2 millenia fixed doctrine that if enough countries 'go over to gay' that your synod (?) might need to think hard. It might not help much but the JWs drift into new doctrine when they must, you know.

 

[glassjester]

Thanks for the above explanation....
I have always heard that Catholics believe that only Catholics can attain to 'Heaven' or 'Salvation'.

Not true.

Here's the Catholic teaching on the matter, from the Catechism:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Paragraphs 847-848, above, refer to the doctrine of invincible ignorance. Many non-Catholics may be invincibly ignorant (and therefore inculpable) of the true teachings of the Church. There are many common misconceptions about the Church and her doctrine (ie, that we worship Mary, or that we believe all non-Catholics are damned).

As Bishop Fulton Sheen famously said, "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

 

[glassjester]

Sure.

So someone could get saved, then realize they weren't actually saved, then get really saved? How would that happen? They wouldn't be baptized twice, right?

What would constitute their second salvation (first legitimate one)?

 

[glassjester]

I do brelieve that despite everything you say about the Churches 2 millenia fixed doctrine that if enough countries 'go over to gay' that your synod (?) might need to think hard.

Has that happened with the Church's teaching on abortion? Divorce and remarriage? Contraception? Nope. The Church spans the centuries. She is not swayed by the fashion of the day.

One by one, the unorthodox churches allow the earthly desires of the secular world to contaminate their doctrine, and fuel their ongoing departure from Christianity, as it was taught by Christ and the Apostles. This only reveals that they are not, in fact, the historic Church founded by Christ, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail.

It might not help much but the JWs drift into new doctrine when they must, you know.

Apples and oranges. Unlike the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the JW church was not founded by Christ, Himself. They teach doctrines of men, and so they change with the whims of men.

 

[Nang]

So someone could get saved, then realize they weren't actually saved, then get really saved? How would that happen? They wouldn't be baptized twice, right?

What would constitute their second salvation (first legitimate one)?

Many sinners think they are saved simply because they practice religious rituals and/or attend a church . . but to be truly saved, one must be changed in heart and soul by the workings of God in their lives.

It is called "regeneration." When God draws a soul to have faith in Jesus Christ, a spiritual resurrection occurs. The sinner, dead in sins, is actually raised from his old life and put on a new track of repentance from wrong, and love of God's right way.

A person can easily be baptized under the first idea of salvation, but the baptism has nothing to do with actual salvation.

If that person is later regenerated by the power of God, and realizes now he is really and permanently saved by God, there is no need to rebaptize. . for baptism is not salvific in any sense.

It is only a human witness of a spiritual change, revealing repentance from sin and faith in God, and such REAL spiritual change will show in that person's life; therefore, no need to baptize again.

In fact, it would be sinful to rebaptize, for that would be confessing that somehow baptism is a requirement to being actually saved, which only takes away from the miracle of regeneration and resurrection to new life worked by God, and to His glory, alone.

 

[Lon]

Goodness! So you've come back to silly ol' Eider. Have you run out of members to bore with your prejudiced notions? :chuckle:

But you never did get to show how anything that Jesus said or did could produce such 'doctrine', did you?
The religious side of the debate had waned, and you tried to reintroduce the legal side of the debate, several pages back,which you had already lost... which only left you with philosophy to trawl, and philosophy supports gay unions, ssm, etc.

It is flesh for flesh.
You don't have to agree with the Spiritual, but you should acquiesce that all other forms are NOT a picture of Christ and His church Ephesians 5:32 You won't get it, but at least acquiesce that God is calling some of us to higher things and purposes than your concerns over the needs and desires of the flesh. One day, you may become a spiritual being, God willing. -Lon

 

[glassjester]

Many sinners think they are saved simply because they practice religious rituals and/or attend a church . . but to be truly saved, one must be changed in heart and soul by the workings of God in their lives.

It is called "regeneration." When God draws a soul to have faith in Jesus Christ, a spiritual resurrection occurs. The sinner, dead in sins, is actually raised from his old life and put on a new track of repentance from wrong, and love of God's right way.

Ok.

So a person could be baptized, and repent of his sins, and believe he is saved. Then later, maybe he commits a serious sin of some kind, or does not persevere in the faith, in some way. He realizes he had not actually been saved yet. So, as you say, he must be raised from his life of sin (again) and repent (again). Now he is really saved.

But then later on he commits that same grievous sin (let's say adultery). Certainly that's not the perseverance of the saints! He hasn't persevered (again). So he realizes he wasn't actually saved (again). So he repents (again). Now he's really saved (again).

Can this happen? Can a person go from (1) believing they are saved to (2) realizing they aren't, (3) repenting, and (4) being saved - several times over in a lifetime?

A person can easily be baptized under the first idea of salvation, but the baptism has nothing to do with actual salvation.

If that person is later regenerated by the power of God, and realizes now he is really and permanently saved by God, there is no need to rebaptize. . for baptism is not salvific in any sense.

It is only a human witness of a spiritual change, revealing repentance from sin and faith in God, and such REAL spiritual change will show in that person's life; therefore, no need to baptize again.

In fact, it would be sinful to rebaptize, for that would be confessing that somehow baptism is a requirement to being actually saved, which only takes away from the miracle of regeneration and resurrection to new life worked by God, and to His glory, alone.

I think Scripture disagrees with you on the efficacy of baptism. Scripture attests to a real effect of baptism, and its necessity.

1 Peter 3:21 - and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 22:16 - And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Romans 6:3-4 - Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

 

[eider]

It is flesh for flesh.
You don't have to agree with the Spiritual, but you should acquiesce that all other forms are NOT a picture of Christ and His church Ephesians 5:32 You won't get it, but at least acquiesce that God is calling some of us to higher things and purposes than your concerns over the needs and desires of the flesh. One day, you may become a spiritual being, God willing. -Lon

We all have to interpret the message of Jesus as best we can.
My perception is not that of any single Church, but just based upon what Jesus said and what Jesus did.
My belief is that a spiritual person has love and understanding before all else.
I would never wish to make one mindset/heartset/spiritset live, eat, drink, partake with another when it causes upset or disharmony, but I would defend the right of any to live in peace and harmony so long as they live in love and understanding.
So I am more focused against hatred, cruelty, violence, domination than, say, SSM.
That's why I support SSM.... I have no interest in gay lifestyles any more than in international standard competitive tadpole racing......... I would just defend the right for either of those to get on quietly with their lives......... and those tadpole racers better not be cruel!!!

 

[MrDante]

Gay marriage is, what ought to be, one of the smallest statistics in the country- the number is so small you could flick it like pebble on a marble table.

That's what this godforsaken, godless country fought for with all it's might.

Not the poor and homeless going through very real struggles, not parent-less children or anything like that.

Rather,

Anally penetrating penises.

That is literally the world you live in, welcome to it
lain:

why are you here ranting? Shouldn't you be out helping the poor?

 

[shopkinslpskids]

Is there anyone among all you gay marriage supporters who can explain clearly , 'Why the modern cry for gay marriage?.' How can gay marriage be equal with traditional understanding of marriage?

Lets face the blunt facts that anal intercourse is obviously not natural.

The call for gay marriage and the many who support the concept only demonstrate how far our modern world has fallen into depravity!

It's Satanic. America needs a revival.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[shopkinslpskids]

I think homosexuality should be illegal. Gay men are adopting little boys and calling that a family.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[shopkinslpskids]

Gays are not the ones to define the term 'marriage'.
Governments and religions are doing that.

Like could happen today.
The Scottish Episcopal Church leaders are meeting in Edinburgh today to debate and vote on the question of 'should this church accept gay marriages?'
It could vote against the proposal, but the mere fact that it is meeting to make such a vote should show you how many Creeds and Churches are moving towards gay marriage.

Apostasy

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[shopkinslpskids]

Bahauallah put it quite well. In so many words he said that he accepted polyamorous marriage (of one husband-two wives) if all spouses could be treated equally.
But I wouldn't expect you to be much impressed by Bahauallah.
But then you might embrace his belief that gays could not be given a vote or sit upon government seats.....

I get the feeling that you grab anything which might suit your needs, and throw down anything against.....?

Me? I live in a country where refugees with two wives can keep them both.



What you don't understand, cannot seem to grasp, is why the laws about marriage were given to Moses 'back in the day'. All of the 613 were intended for the protection of, health of, strength of, cohesion of..... the people.

Incestuous marriages produced weak children, so that's damaging the health of and strength of.,... the whole community. So it was outlawed. That's why it's unlawful today.
You try to think in terms of good and evil etc...... although you seem to go so horribly wrong even there.
Mose's Laws were about health, strength, cohesion. There were no exceptions, so there's something for you to do..... looking for any exceptions..... but there aren't any.

But Gay marriage is safe with regard to health, strength, cohesion etc...... so there's no reason why it should noty be lawful

I liked this before the conclusion. Homosexuality is a sin.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Nang]

Ok.

So a person could be baptized, and repent of his sins, and believe he is saved. Then later, maybe he commits a serious sin of some kind, or does not persevere in the faith, in some way. He realizes he had not actually been saved yet. So, as you say, he must be raised from his life of sin (again) and repent (again). Now he is really saved.

But then later on he commits that same grievous sin (let's say adultery). Certainly that's not the perseverance of the saints! He hasn't persevered (again). So he realizes he wasn't actually saved (again). So he repents (again). Now he's really saved (again).

Can this happen? Can a person go from (1) believing they are saved to (2) realizing they aren't, (3) repenting, and (4) being saved - several times over in a lifetime?

Yes, this can occur and does occur in many lives. Genuine salvation can be counterfeited; deceiving both the pretender and all those around him. See Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29

Regeneration to new spiritual life, worked by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-8), precludes a continual practice and/or return to sinful choices. Genuine repentance is a total change of heart, mind, and will. See I John 3:6-1

I think Scripture disagrees with you on the efficacy of baptism. Scripture attests to a real effect of baptism, and its necessity.

1 Peter 3:21 - and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 22:16 - And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Romans 6:3-4 - Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

The actual "baptism" that saves a sinful soul, is the baptism of the Spirit of God. John 3:1-8 This is what I refer to as "regeneration" or being spiritually born (resurrected) from above.

Many think they are Christians, who have never been baptized and indwelt with the Holy Spirit of Christ. I John 2:18-19

These will continue to produce the fruits of the flesh, and fail to manifest the fruit of the Spirit. Galatians 5:19-25

 

[Danoh]

Gays are not the ones to define the term 'marriage'.
Governments and religions are doing that.

Like could happen today.
The Scottish Episcopal Church leaders are meeting in Edinburgh today to debate and vote on the question of 'should this church accept gay marriages?'
It could vote against the proposal, but the mere fact that it is meeting to make such a vote should show you how many Creeds and Churches are moving towards gay marriage.

These debates are all pointless.

Scripture is against homosexuality.

Period.

Thus, those who claim live by The Book, should not hold to homosexuality.

As for it's solving for, Scripture is clear on this also.

That government is not the solution.

The Law of Moses basically proved what Scripture asserts it had set out to prove - that any attempt to legislate morality will end in failure.

That only the gospel of Christ preached and believed in can solve for such issues.

At least that is the Lord's word on this through the pen of Scripture's writers way back when depravity was at a height we have yet to witness in our day no matter how bad things are thus far....

When the following was written, murder for sport was the norm, along with out in the open pedophilia, as well as both straight and homosexual prostitution, you name it.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

No where in any of their writings and or preachings does one see them going on about running for office and or supporting one fool or another as some sort of a means of converting the world to what would make the so called religious right happy in their obvious hypocrisy.

We read instead, things like...

Ephesians 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

In short, how that the lost can be expected to carry on like the lost.

And how that there is no legislating such away from that.

And that the Believer is neither of that, nor able to somehow normalize it into fitting his beliefs.

That the Believer's role is to be that of one who compassionately continues to preach the following, for it alone is the Believer's sole reality as to a solution.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12