What is your understanding of...

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I believe that God's theocracy dictated the death penalty, in fact, I don't have to believe, I know it as biblical fact!

The theocracy of God demonstrates the heavy burden that the law places on the individual by revealing what sin is. The working of the law were external observances, when it is really meant for inward observances. So the Christian, by seeing that ****sexual acts are do not belong in God's theocratic system also know that the theocracy of God as it moves and is applied to the spiritual kingdom of God applies to the Christian. The theocracy moved from the State to the innerperson. Therefore, ****sexuality cannot be a part of the Christian lifestyle.

Can you please give a clear, unambiguous answer to the question: Do you believe that any modern government has the right, duty, or obligation to execute people for ****sexuality?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

Can you please give a clear, unambiguous answer to the question: Do you believe that any modern government has the right, duty, or obligation to execute people for ****sexuality?

I am a Catholic, I do not; in fact, I am against the death penalty when the government can afford both protecting victim from the offender and the offender from discrimination, as well as those innocents prosecuted wrongly. However, it was God's covenant with Israel to have a nation of people who would love God and be a moral nation based on the same trust that Abraham had with his God. As such, the law is not done away with. When Christ fulfilled the Law, the people of Christ are still obligated out of an inward love to deny lusts and the moral aspects of the Law such as refraining from ****sexual acts. So if you claim to be a Christian, you cannot claim as a person filled with same-sex attraction that God sanctions the acts as pure and wholesome for conditions that are clearly not present in the Law as set by God to Moses. So far, I seem to get a sense that ActRaiser agrees with this ***essment, though I think his idea of loosing or gaining reward is a borderline excuse for some to continue living in licentiousness. Opps, I sinned again... I'll just loose a reward--almost similiar to some cafeteria Catholics who say, its no problem, I'll just go to the priest and have my sins absolved... without ever really repenting of their sins or recanting their support of such immoral evil acts as abortion, euthenasia, etc..

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I am a Catholic, I do not; in fact, I am against the death penalty when the government can afford both protecting victim from the offender and the offender from discrimination, as well as those innocents prosecuted wrongly.

Thank you. That does ease my mind.

However, it was God's covenant with Israel to have a nation of people who would love God and be a moral nation based on the same trust that Abraham had with his God. As such, the law is not done away with. When Christ fulfilled the Law, the people of Christ are still obligated out of an inward love to deny lusts and the moral aspects of the Law such as refraining from ****sexual acts. So if you claim to be a Christian, you cannot claim as a person filled with same-sex attraction that God sanctions the acts as pure and wholesome for conditions that are clearly not present in the Law as set by God to Moses. So far, I seem to get a sense that ActRaiser agrees with this ***essment, though I think his idea of loosing or gaining reward is a borderline excuse for some to continue living in licentiousness. Opps, I sinned again... I'll just loose a reward--almost similiar to some cafeteria Catholics who say, its no problem, I'll just go to the priest and have my sins absolved... without ever really repenting of their sins or recanting their support of such immoral evil acts as abortion, euthenasia, etc..

I understand that; I think it's a valid approach to Christian morality; I acknowledge that it has been the majority opinion through the years of Christian history; I recognize (and support, even!) the right for Christian communities to determine acceptable moral standards for adherents of those communities. As you said, "the people of Christ are still obligated out of an inward love to deny lusts and the moral aspects of the Law..."

My question specifically had to do not with "the people of Christ", but with everybody else. That's why I was referring to modern law and government.

Can't you make a distinction between modern law and spiritual law? Between the "theocracy of the heart" that you believe applies to Christians and the secular rule of law established in modern liberal democracies? Between sinful behavior (as defined by the community) being condemned within the Church itself, and enacting civil/criminal punishments on those outside the moral-religious authority of the Church community?

There's an argument to be had about the civil rights afforded to gay and lesbian people in wider society - which is where I'll be diverted every time you start talking about criminal penalties, e.g., the death penalty, outside the very limited and specific discussion of the role of Mosaic Law.

The argument about the role (if any) ****sexual people are to play in the Church is a completely separate argument. That's the argument I'd like to have - though I understand and respect that some expressions of the Church universal may well never reach agreement on this - but it's going to get sidetracked and derailed if we can't even come to a baseline of agreement wherein gay people are allowed to exist.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

Can't you make a distinction between modern law and spiritual law? Between the "theocracy of the heart" that you believe applies to Christians and the secular rule of law established in modern liberal democracies? Between sinful behavior (as defined by the community) being condemned within the Church itself, and enacting civil/criminal punishments on those outside the moral-religious authority of the Church community?

There's an argument to be had about the civil rights afforded to gay and lesbian people in wider society - which is where I'll be diverted every time you start talking about criminal penalties, e.g., the death penalty, outside the very limited and specific discussion of the role of Mosaic Law.

The argument about the role (if any) ****sexual people are to play in the Church is a completely separate argument. That's the argument I'd like to have - though I understand and respect that some expressions of the Church universal may well never reach agreement on this - but it's going to get sidetracked and derailed if we can't even come to a baseline of agreement wherein gay people are allowed to exist.

The Catholic Church is against ****sexual marriage. The sacrament of marriage is sanctioned by God between husband and wife. This extends to the very reason of marriage which is to establish a family to raise children (whether biological or adopted). ****sexuals already have enough civil rights as it extends to the working environment. I think that battle has already been fought, not only for the ****sexual but for the AIDS patient, as I believe Tom Hank's demonstrated in the movie "Philadelphia," which I believe depicted Geoffrey Bower's life. However, this does not guarantee that the ****sexual will be fired should they initiate sexual har***ment. I worked at a McDonalds in Tacoma and was being sexual harr***ed by a ****sexual in the presence of my coworkers who all said that they would have hit him in the face, whereas, I told the manager and he was fired. Not all ****sexuals are like this, I've worked with other ****sexuals and enjoyed the working atmosphere.

As far as politics is concerned, Christians should be active in their government because we are also a part of the people being governed. As such, prioritizing moral issues in electing officials to office should be as close to the Christian's own moral comp***. This is left to the individual, but as a rule, the Church has stated that knowingly supporting the candidate specifically because they are prochoice, proethenasia, or pro-****sexual is sinful. For people like Trinity, up in Canada, most candidates that run are not pro-life; so he has to weigh in the candidate's moral comp*** to be the most favorable to Christian ethics.


As far as the Mosiac Law, God did establish it for the purpose of his people being a moral people, so the death penalty established by God shows the severity and gravity he has for such acts in his kingdom. If you are a professing Christian, you should at least understand that ****sexual acts are not reasonable in a genuine relationship with God.

So as far as your questions are concerned...(1) making a distinction between modern law and spiritual law.... (A) the distinction already exists within the confines of the definitions. The moral laws existing in both establishments with Man on most instances agreeing with the spiritual laws, but in many cases violating and harming our society because it fails to listen to God.

(2) I believe that the number of books by philosophers of old have attempted to establish an ideal form of government. As many of our forefathers, framers of our cons***ution, the Judeo-Christian ethic was an important aspect in legislating laws that correspond to that moral ethic. George Washington stated the following in his Inaugural Address the following:

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ame.../inaugtxt.html


I believe therefore that the spiritual law, which in Christ's kingdom is perfect peace, is incorporated into modern law, that the "smiles of Heaven" will bring with it the 'public prosperity." (3)This should be both applied in a Christian gr***roots revival in bringing more people to Christ as simultaniously working in the government for legislative change. But as things exist asdf, the errosion of morality and decay is already moving in your favor. As such, I believe I answered your third question in this paragraph. Just one more retort. All kingdoms are going to fail, so do not put much weight into modern laws, especially if they violate God's approval.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The Catholic Church is against ****sexual marriage.

Indeed. The Catholic Church is also against the use of condoms or other forms of birth control (even going so far as to spread lies that condoms make the problem of AIDS worse). The Catholic Church is also against divorce, and does not recognize marriages of divorcees.

Thankfully, none of these "spiritual laws" that the Catholic Church has every right to impose on her members is enshrined in civil law.

The sacrament of marriage is sanctioned by God between husband and wife. This extends to the very reason of marriage which is to establish a family to raise children (whether biological or adopted).

We've been through this before, and I still don't buy it.

****sexuals already have enough civil rights as it extends to the working environment. I think that battle has already been fought, not only for the ****sexual but for the AIDS patient, as I believe Tom Hank's demonstrated in the movie "Philadelphia," which I believe depicted Geoffrey Bower's life.

All very easy for you to claim that discrimination doesn't exist. It's like an Alabamian flying a Confederate flag claiming that racism is over, since the p***age of the Civil Rights Act. The fact remains that there are 1138 federal statutory provisions of rights which heterosexual couples have that gay and lesbian couples do not. Including:

• The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically ***ume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically ***umes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
• The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
• The right to pe***ion for same-sex partners to immigrate.
• The right to ***ume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
• The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
• Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
• The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
• The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a ***.

However, this does not guarantee that the ****sexual will be fired should they initiate sexual har***ment. I worked at a McDonalds in Tacoma and was being sexual harr***ed by a ****sexual in the presence of my coworkers who all said that they would have hit him in the face, whereas, I told the manager and he was fired.

Very good. Sexual har***ment, by a gay or a straight individual, should not be tolerated at the workplace.

Not all ****sexuals are like this, I've worked with other ****sexuals and enjoyed the working atmosphere.

I don't know whether to be glad that you recognize this or sad that you have to take pains to point it out.

As far as politics is concerned, Christians should be active in their government because we are also a part of the people being governed. As such, prioritizing moral issues in electing officials to office should be as close to the Christian's own moral comp***.

I agree, but I believe that a 'moral comp***' should be beneficial to as many people as possible, not just the adherents of one religion (or one stream within a religion). "Of the people, by the people, for the people" should include all people and all faiths - and no faith.

This is left to the individual, but as a rule, the Church has stated that knowingly supporting the candidate specifically because they are prochoice, proethenasia, or pro-****sexual is sinful.

My thoughts are mixed on this. I understand that abortion and euthanasia are considered "life-and-death" issues, since it places a primacy of value on the "sanc***y of life", but ****sexuality? What's so threatening about gay people receiving more civil equality that the Church has to draw a line in the sand against political candidates who support those policies?

And why wouldn't the Church make such harsh denouncements against those who would knowingly support torture, or unjust wars, or lack of concern for the poor?

the Judeo-Christian ethic was an important aspect in legislating laws that correspond to that moral ethic. George Washington stated the following in his Inaugural Address the following:

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ame.../inaugtxt.html

Washington was a Deist. Part of the American Experiment was for Rationalism and not religious dogma to determine civil law. "The eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained" are decidedly not referring to the doctrines of Christianity - much less Roman Catholic Christianity!

[Columcille]

Asdf, your fellow ****sexual lobbyists are doing their *** for you. You should not be concerned with the far right or the moderate. I always thought that there will be a great falling away, even if it be gradually. You will get your way. I bet the antiChrist himself will approve of ****sexuality in churches.

You have eight bullets.
1-4, 6. Total agreement. The ****sexual should not have these rights. If anything, (1) you should encourage a medical living will. (2) Law needs to be changed here, I would recommend giving people an alloted frequency in which this could be used, and open a door for an individual to appeal for more time depending on circumstances. I would just word it so it includes people living under the same household, which would include dying friends, neighbors, as well as the precious ****sexual who now reside under your roof. (3) resounding NO! this infringes on State rights. (4) I am absolutely against ****sexuals adopting children. (6) Social Security was suppose to be temporary when it was first done. If anything, they need to privatize this because in all the government's wisdom, it cannot get any worse than if we ditch the whole thing and force people to make ammends with family and start relying on what our forefathers had before Social Security came along. Also, the military is staunchly conservative and always makes every effort to segregate male and female. There is no coop living condition, and frankly with public showers in boot camp... it is no place for ****sexuals. Therefore, if they get veteran benefits, it will be based on the conditions set forth when they joined and started collecting. Meaning, tough luck, you knew when you were closeted ****sexual that you would not be able to share these benefits with a ****sexual partner.
5. they should have this right.
(5) This is a matter of fairness for any venture, whether it be domestic or not. Even in marriages, I see at times where there is considerable abuse of this type of law. I had a friend come home from Iraq and got divorced by his cheating wife--who incidently spend all the money and maxed out his credit with the general power of attorney given to her.
7. Get a will.
8. Encourage the free market, if a person wants to spend their hard earned money on insurance for someone else, they should get it. However, I wonder what the insurance companies know about the frequency of AIDS and its costability in the ****sexual circles. Might be too risky to sustain profitability. The free market should be the answer to this and not the government.

[Columcille]

Ps. As far as the other concerns. I think I have answered that in regards to priority. Abortion accounts for more lives taken than what has been sustained by the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan combined for any given year. The life of the unborn is clearly innocent, whereas it is harder to make a case in regards to an "unjust war." As a soldier that has been over in Iraq twice, possibly looking at a third time... the UCMJ is pretty harsh, and we are drilled in our briefings and training the rules of war, current TTPs in regards to Escalation Of Force, and Rules Of Engagement. Our enemies do not abide by such rules, that is one reason we are gaining success in Iraq. Al-Queda uses torture, threats, and even ***asination of the people and their family members of whom they supposedly are helping against the wicked United States. I am against torture, and the uncomfort that some terrorists may feel in our care is better than handing them over to the Iraqi forces, who are not under the Genevia Convention, I might add, and will kill them. Better a living terrorist in our care whom may feel uncomfort than a dead one or one that will suffer real torture. A lot of these issues are real concerns, of which we should attempt to put a stop to, but it is still a matter of prioritizing them... and even if they are minor priority, it is easier to have discussion and change within whatever party is in power.


However, if you want to discuss this further... it has moved away from the story of Sodom... I think you should start a new thread.

[Follower]

The Letter of Jude, alone in all of the Bible, mentions any sexual sin, specifically, when referring to Sodom, (besides Genesis, of course) but he only speaks of their “going after strange flesh… [to]revile Angelic Majesties.” (verses 7 & 8) -- Not Human Men.

Nowhere in all of scripture (NOWHERE!) is “****sexuality” said to be the cause of their doom. The SIN/GUILT of Sodom is NOT ****sexuality. The city's Sin is recorded (as posted by others above, quoting Ezekiel, and by extension Jesus in Matthew) and we err if we presume to know God’s revelation about something which He has NOT revealed.

[Jean Chauvin]

Genesis 19:24 is called a theophany. Meaning, the 2nd person of the Trinity blew up the city.

God the Father (Yahveh is used here) from above sent down fire to God the son from earth, and God the Son then threw it to the direction of this city and we had a bombing.

So, when somebody asks you, "what would Jesus bomb," that's you answer. Genesis 19:24.

It was bombed as an example of God's judgment. Though, other cities were also done away with for various reasons.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).