Santorum says Gay Marriage the most important fight of our lifetime

[erowe1]

That is not my understanding of Catholicism and not what I said. People are free to choose one way or the other.

So God makes some people who will freely choose one way and other people who will freely choose the other way.

And all these people who freely choose to reject Jesus, God could have made them so that they would have freely chosen to accept him, like he did for those who do accept Jesus. And in doing that he would not have in any way interfered with their free will. But he did not do that.

Is that your view?

Or, to relate it to Catholic dogma, the Synod of Orange says this:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

So God does a work of pure grace in some people that moves them to pray, and there are others to whom he does not do this work of grace, as evidenced by the fact that they do not pray. It must still be God who chooses on whom he will bestow this particular grace that he does not bestow on everyone.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/i....reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html

And I would argue similarly about other canons of the Synod of Orange, such as the next one, which says:

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

Also, here's what it says about "free will":

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

 

[king_nothing_]

You know Christians aren't bound by Old Testament Judaic law, right?

Don't 99%+ of anti-gay Christians derive their stance on homosexuality from Old Testament passages, and usually all cite the same one passage from the Old Testament to support their stance?

 

[erowe1]

LOL. By that logic...

If you mix cotton and linen in your clothes, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't put to death a child who curses at or strikes his or her parents, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't kill people for working on the Sabbath, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't put to death homosexuals, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't put to death adulterers, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't stone to death a women who lost her virginity before marriage, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't stone to death followers of other religions, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't kill innocent children for the sins of their fathers, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't approve of slavery, you are a non-Christian.
If you don't believe women are beneath men in worth, you are a non-Christian.
If you have a tattoo, you are a non-Christian.
If you shave or cut hair off the side of your head, you are a non-Christian.
If you crossbreed different kinds of animals, you are a non-Christian.
If you have a variety of crops on the same field, you are a non-Christian.

I could go on.

Do I need to cite chapters and verses, or are you a good Christian and know them already?

You think you know what you're talking about. But it's plain to those who do that you do not.

 

[erowe1]

Don't 99%+ of anti-gay Christians derive their stance on homosexuality from Old Testament passages, and usually all cite the same one passage from the Old Testament to support their stance?

No. But so what if they did? Are you trying to argue that if a Christian thinks some commandment somewhere in the Old Testament isn't universal that, therefore, there are no universal commandments to be found anywhere in the Old Testament?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Don't 99%+ of anti-gay Christians derive their stance on homosexuality from Old Testament passages, and usually all cite the same one passage from the Old Testament to support their stance?

The Christian opposition to homosexuality stems from the understanding that sexual relations are to take place within marriage, which is between one man and one woman. All other sexual activity is sinful, including not just homosexuality, but masturbation, fornication, adultery, beastiality, etc.

With regard to specific references to homosexuality there are a few in the New Testament:

9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I think we should have a photoshop contest!

Santorum having gay sex
Santorm at the alter marrying some guy
Santorum as an abortion doc in the middle of a procedure.
Santorum cross-dressing...

Then spread um all over the web...

<evil grin!>

-t

 

[Sola_Fide]

You know Christians aren't bound by Old Testament Judaic law, right?.

Says who? Where? Didn't you just previously say that we are justified in some part by our adherence to the law (good works)? Then Paul says that you must keep the entire law, perfectly, including the ceremonial law:

Galatians 5:3-4 NIV

Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Galatians 3:10 NIV

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

If you want to be justified by your works (which you said a few posts ago) then Paul is telling you that that path is a path that is all or nothing. If you want to go down the path of law, you are heading down the path of death.

This is why the Roman Catholic church is not a Christian church.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Says who? Where? Didn't you just previously say that we are justified in some part by our adherence to the law (good works)? Then Paul says that you must keep the entire law, perfectly, including the ceremonial law:

If you want to be justified by your works (which you said a few posts ago) then Paul is telling you that that path is a path that is all or nothing. If you want to go down the path of law, you are heading down the path of death.

That's not what I said. The Catholic Church does not teach that we earn our salvation by our own efforts, although it does teach that we have to work on our salvation. It teaches that we can do nothing to merit the grace that comes to us in baptism, which is the normal beginning of the Christian life. In fact, the Council of Trent condemned anyone who taught that we can save ourselves or who taught even that God helps us do what we could do for ourselves. The Church teaches that we can be saved only by God’s grace.

If you look carefully at St. Paul’s writings, you will notice that he never says that our righteousness comes from faith alone—only that it comes from faith apart from works.

This is why the Roman Catholic church is not a Christian church.

Ah right, and the protestant faith which popped up in the 1500s and ignores the previous 15 centuries of Christian theology is the true Christian church, right?

 

[king_nothing_]

No.

Bullshit. People cite Leviticus 18:22 more than anything else by far to support their anti-gay views.

But so what if they did? Are you trying to argue that if a Christian thinks some commandment somewhere in the Old Testament isn't universal that, therefore, there are no universal commandments to be found anywhere in the Old Testament?

It proves you're just picking and choosing what you want to believe and follow, and what you don't. You say you derive your moral views from the Bible, but if that were the case, you wouldn't be able to pick and choose which to follow and which to not follow. If that book was giving you your morals, then by what standard are you picking and choosing which are the right ones and wrong ones? Clearly you're picking based on some standard which has nothing to do with religion.

Also, is or isn't the entire thing "divinely inspired" in your view? How do you square that with also believing that whole heaps of verses (ones I paraphrased earlier, among others) are flat out wrong? God screwed up? I thought he couldn't screw up?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

It proves you're just picking and choosing what you want to believe and follow, and what you don't. You say you derive your moral views from the Bible, but if that were the case, you wouldn't be able to pick and choose which to follow and which to not follow. If that book was giving you your morals, then by what standard are you picking and choosing which are the right ones and wrong ones? Clearly you're picking based on some standard which has nothing to do with religion.

There is no "picking and choosing." Old Testament law, as such, is not binding on Christians. It never has been. In fact, it was only ever binding on those to whom it was delivered—the Jews. That said, some of that law contains elements of a law that is binding on all people of every place and time.

"The Law has not been abolished, but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment"

If you're interested here's a good explanation: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

 

[Pisces]

That's not what I said.



Ah right, and the protestant faith which popped up in the 1500s and ignores the previous 15 centuries of Christian theology is the true Christian church, right?

Yeah, I don't get how some Protestants can claim that Catholics aren't Christians when there wasn't even such a thing as Protestantism until the 1500's. When Jesus Christ ascended into heaven after His resurrection, He promised His disciples that He would not leave them orphans, that He would send them the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Are they claiming that He did not keep His promises and Christians were left orphans until Martin Luther came along?

 

[MelissaWV]

There is no "picking and choosing." Christians are not obliged to follow Old Testament Judaic law because that law has no effect on your salvation. Salvation is achieved by and through Christ, not by following the law.

Cool. So walking around, doing good deeds, living a good life, and being surrounded by a dozen people of your same gender a lot of the time is the way to go.

I wonder how often Christ sat around pointing fingers at people and deciding who should be smited?

 

[erowe1]

Bullshit. People cite Leviticus 18:22 more than anything else by far to support their anti-gay views.


It proves you're just picking and choosing what you want to believe and follow, and what you don't. You say you derive your moral views from the Bible, but if that were the case, you wouldn't be able to pick and choose which to follow and which to not follow. If that book was giving you your morals, then by what standard are you picking and choosing which are the right ones and wrong ones? Clearly you're picking based on some standard which has nothing to do with religion.

You don't know what you're talking about. You saw someone else use this argument, thought they must be pretty bright, and just mindlessly followed them in using, thinking you could show up some Christian.

There are so many possible ways to explain this that your failure to acknowledge the possibility of any of them proves your tendentiousness. To bother going through the steps of any of them with someone so obviously insincere would be to cast pearls before swine.

And what's your basis for that first claim anyway? Is there a poll out there of what verse people use?

 

[Carehn]

Is this crap still going on? When I get home from work I don't feel like looking at the same thread I had seen for the last three days. Its time to move on people.

 

[erowe1]

I wonder how often Christ sat around pointing fingers at people and deciding who should be smited?

He talked about being smitten a lot more than Paul did.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

//

 

[erowe1]

When I get home from work I don't feel like looking at the same thread I had seen for the last three days.

And yet here you are. Like a dog returns to its vomit.

 

[MelissaWV]

You don't know what you're talking about. You saw someone else use this argument, thought they must be pretty bright, and just mindlessly followed them in using, thinking you could show up some Christian.

There are so many possible ways to explain this that your failure to acknowledge the possibility of any of them proves your tendentiousness. To bother going through the steps of any of them with someone so obviously insincere would be to cast pearls before swine.

And what's your basis for that first claim anyway? Is there a poll out there of what verse people use?

Gotta say, I hear Levit quoted most often. When I point out what else is in that book, people tell me it no longer applies. Honestly, "people" are going to have very little to do with what happens after I die, so while I reserve the right to get frustrated at being condemned via the selective use of a verse or two, it really won't amount to much once the cards are on the table.

 

[Sola_Fide]

And yet here you are. Like a dog returns to its vomit.

I really did just laugh really hard at that. I'm not sure why.

 

[erowe1]

Yeah, I don't get how some Protestants can claim that Catholics aren't Christians when there wasn't even such a thing as Protestantism until the 1500's. When Jesus Christ ascended into heaven after His resurrection, He promised His disciples that He would not leave them orphans, that He would send them the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Are they claiming that He did not keep His promises and Christians were left orphans until Martin Luther came along?

No, I think most Protestants believe there was always a remnant. There were clearly precursors of Protestantism going back centuries before it. Protestants tend to see Augustine as one of them, not to mention the apostolic church itself.

At what point in time do you locate the beginning of Roman Catholicism? Whatever it was, would that mean that before that time Jesus did not keep his promise and left his disciples as orphans?