Pope Backs Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Julio]

It continues to be concerning how a pastor such as Rev Austin apparently is far more concerned with the sinful laws of man ... and continues to ignore God and his law.

It is said that we should obey God rather than man.  Rev Austin .. please try it sometime.

[Dan Fienen]

It continues to be concerning how a pastor such as Rev Austin apparently is far more concerned with the sinful laws of man ... and continues to ignore God and his law.

It is said that we should obey God rather than man.  Rev Austin .. please try it sometime.

Julio, are a member of the same denomination as Pr. Austin? The same synod? The same congregation? He is a member of a denomination that recognizes same-sex unions as morally equivalent as heterosexual unions. Thus his opinions are in line with those who have ecclesiastical supervision over him. It is up to them to supervise his faith and life. Within his denomination, his opinions are not considered out of line with God's law.


Now, I like you, believe that they and he are wrong in this. It is, I think, perfectly legitimate to state my opinion and my denomination's opinion as to what God's will and God's law states on this matter and to dispute their ideas in this matter. But it is not my place to accuse Pr. Austin personally of disobeying God or showing bad faith in his Christian walk.


I think that these discussion go better and are more productive when we stick more to disputing ideas and theological positions and keep away from opining about the spiritual health of others, especially those who are not subject to the same ecclesiastical disciple that we are.


I very much disagree with Pr. Austin about same-sex marriage and a great many other things. Where that places his faith and his faithfulness to God is up to him and God to work out, with a look in from his ecclesiastical supervisor if necessary. It is especially not my place in the impersonal media of a discussion forum to do so.


You might want to consider Romans 14:4, "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." In this, it seems to me that Pr. Austin is the servant of another, who are we to pass judgment on him?

[readselerttoo]

Let me ask one more time. Peter, why do you care if two men living together under a civil union or a marriage (which you don't have to consider a marriage) have the same standing in society as a heterosexual married couple? What does it matter to you? What is wrong with society recognizing that kind of relationship and giving that kind of relationship the same benefits, privileges and responsibilities it gives to a heterosexual married couple?
Are you totally unable for some reason to recognize a civilly licensed union of two people?

Good God.  It may not matter to me personally if two men are sleeping with one another.  But ths marriage thing civilly recognized between persons has to do with public recognition and policy.  There is a HUGE difference.  And the impact goes beyond my personal acceptance or rejection of it.  Of course, if it agrees with you personally, no problem:  the public agenda is in sync with your private opinion.  But with many of us it is NOT in sync.  And no matter of persuasion will change my opinion, in this case.

Also when the issue is raised for the public in general then the issue of the estate enters into as well.  One cannot talk about estate unless there are two individuals involved:  a public matter and not a private matter at that point.  None of us lives alone with our own personal preferences.  The neighbor is always affected when it comes to public matters.  How difficult is that for you to hear?

[Brian Stoffregen]

It continues to be concerning how a pastor such as Rev Austin apparently is far more concerned with the sinful laws of man ... and continues to ignore God and his law.

It is said that we should obey God rather than man.  Rev Austin .. please try it sometime.

If you do any work on the seventh day, you are breaking God's law (Exodus 23:12; 34:11). If you are a farmer you are not to harvest grain or grapes or olives on the seventh year. That's God's law (Exodus 23:10-11). God's law also tells us to put to death anyone who works on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15; 35:2; Nu 15:32-36).


I would venture to guess that there are many of the 613 commands in the Torah that you regularly ignore.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Let me ask one more time. Peter, why do you care if two men living together under a civil union or a marriage (which you don't have to consider a marriage) have the same standing in society as a heterosexual married couple? What does it matter to you? What is wrong with society recognizing that kind of relationship and giving that kind of relationship the same benefits, privileges and responsibilities it gives to a heterosexual married couple?
Are you totally unable for some reason to recognize a civilly licensed union of two people?

Good God.  It may not matter to me personally if two men are sleeping with one another.  But ths marriage thing civilly recognized between persons has to do with public recognition and policy.  There is a HUGE difference.  And the impact goes beyond my personal acceptance or rejection of it.  Of course, if it agrees with you personally, no problem public agenda is in sync with your private opinion.  But with many of us it is NOT in sync.  And no matter of persuasion will change my opinion, in this case.

Also when the issue is raised for the public in general then the issue of estate enters into as well.  One cannot talk about estate unless there are two individuals involved.  In that case it is not a private matter.  None of us lives alone with our own personal preferences.  The neighbor is always affected when it comes to public matters.  How difficult is that for you to hear?

The homosexuals are my neighbors. It's likely that there are some who are members of the extended family. What does loving the homosexual neighbor as ourselves mean? What does treating them as I would like to be treated mean?

[readselerttoo]

Let me ask one more time. Peter, why do you care if two men living together under a civil union or a marriage (which you don't have to consider a marriage) have the same standing in society as a heterosexual married couple? What does it matter to you? What is wrong with society recognizing that kind of relationship and giving that kind of relationship the same benefits, privileges and responsibilities it gives to a heterosexual married couple?
Are you totally unable for some reason to recognize a civilly licensed union of two people?

Because it something false being declared true, and everyone being forced to acknowledge it.

By the same token, why is it so important to you and many others that society recognize gay relationships as somehow official?

Yes.  I'd like to hear Pr. Austin's reply to the above question.

[readselerttoo]

Let me ask one more time. Peter, why do you care if two men living together under a civil union or a marriage (which you don't have to consider a marriage) have the same standing in society as a heterosexual married couple? What does it matter to you? What is wrong with society recognizing that kind of relationship and giving that kind of relationship the same benefits, privileges and responsibilities it gives to a heterosexual married couple?
Are you totally unable for some reason to recognize a civilly licensed union of two people?

Good God.  It may not matter to me personally if two men are sleeping with one another.  But ths marriage thing civilly recognized between persons has to do with public recognition and policy.  There is a HUGE difference.  And the impact goes beyond my personal acceptance or rejection of it.  Of course, if it agrees with you personally, no problem public agenda is in sync with your private opinion.  But with many of us it is NOT in sync.  And no matter of persuasion will change my opinion, in this case.

Also when the issue is raised for the public in general then the issue of estate enters into as well.  One cannot talk about estate unless there are two individuals involved.  In that case it is not a private matter.  None of us lives alone with our own personal preferences.  The neighbor is always affected when it comes to public matters.  How difficult is that for you to hear?

The homosexuals are my neighbors. It's likely that there are some who are members of the extended family. What does loving the homosexual neighbor as ourselves mean? What does treating them as I would like to be treated mean?

For me the honest thing would be to share my opinion on the matter with them.  I force no one when I share my opinion using "I" statements alone.  It is their responsibility on how they will respond to me at that point.

Note:  this does not ignore the other as my neighbor.  It actually gives back to them their inherent dignity as a free agent before their neighbor as well as before God.

[Charles Austin]

I answered your question, George Rahn, a few postings before you asked it.

[readselerttoo]

I answered your question, George Rahn, a few postings before you asked it.

Just saw that.  Thank you.

But the question was why ought the public be the arena in which we, all of us and not just those who are on board with gay relationships,
recognize gay relationships in general(in contradistinction to the estate of marriage issue, or the civil union issue, for that matter)?  The parenthetical items would need/or should be addressed along with the equality issue.  I wouldn't think you could talk about one without talking about the other.  Civil law about recognizing gay relationships in general borders on fascism, imo.

[Commencement2020]

Francis may be worried that he is the Antichrist and is trying to not be one.

1. He kissed the feet of the leaders of South Sudan (The exact opposite of what you see in a Luther/Cranach cartoon)

2. He does not accept the title "Vicar of Christ" and considers it to be historical only.

3. He has railed against "neopelagians" -- a term intended for traditional Catholics: https://onepeterfive.com/the-protesting-pope/

4. He pushed through communion for the divorced and remarried. Not forbidding marriage falls under 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

5. He has denounced altarage fees ("the Mass cannot be paid for"), in consternation to those beneath him who cite canon law. The concern about filthy lucre fits in with trying not to be Babylon the Great. Plus steep altarage fees for wedding masses in some places may discourage marriage and likewise fall under 1 Timothy 4:1-3

6. Now he is backing civil unions. Taken from a certain perspective, this is similar to the issue with #4 about 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Except the semantics term it "civil union" instead of "marriage"--but what is the difference?

7. Photo op with a Luther statue! https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A700-Luther.htm

There is are a decent number of ordinary Catholics who are aware of the Prophecy of the Popes and how Peter the Roman comes at the end. So it isn't just anti-Catholics thinking that the pope is the Antichrist, there are devout Roman Catholics who sincerely believe that Peter the Roman will be the Antichrist and a pope at the same time. Depending on how you count them, Peter the Roman comes out to be Francis. People in general have a love-hate relationship with authority and the papacy is no different. There is a certain natural attraction for this prophecy due to this. So Francis has an extra burden to be un-Antichrist.

[Julio]

Some thoughts on Pope Francis Recently Reported Comments on Same Sex Civil Unions by one of our own.

[Steven W Bohler]

It continues to be concerning how a pastor such as Rev Austin apparently is far more concerned with the sinful laws of man ... and continues to ignore God and his law.

It is said that we should obey God rather than man.  Rev Austin .. please try it sometime.

If you do any work on the seventh day, you are breaking God's law (Exodus 23:12; 34:11). If you are a farmer you are not to harvest grain or grapes or olives on the seventh year. That's God's law (Exodus 23:10-11). God's law also tells us to put to death anyone who works on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15; 35:2; Nu 15:32-36).


I would venture to guess that there are many of the 613 commands in the Torah that you regularly ignore.

Oooh, and don't forget the shrimp thing!  You ALWAYS mention that.

[Brian Stoffregen]

It continues to be concerning how a pastor such as Rev Austin apparently is far more concerned with the sinful laws of man ... and continues to ignore God and his law.

It is said that we should obey God rather than man.  Rev Austin .. please try it sometime.

If you do any work on the seventh day, you are breaking God's law (Exodus 23:12; 34:11). If you are a farmer you are not to harvest grain or grapes or olives on the seventh year. That's God's law (Exodus 23:10-11). God's law also tells us to put to death anyone who works on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15; 35:2; Nu 15:32-36).


I would venture to guess that there are many of the 613 commands in the Torah that you regularly ignore.

Oooh, and don't forget the shrimp thing!  You ALWAYS mention that.

I've mentioned it enough times so that I don't have to repeat myself anymore. I recommend the bacon wrapped shrimp stuffed with cheese that is served in Mazatlan - the shrimp capital of Mexico.

[Dan Fienen]

It continues to be concerning how a pastor such as Rev Austin apparently is far more concerned with the sinful laws of man ... and continues to ignore God and his law.

It is said that we should obey God rather than man.  Rev Austin .. please try it sometime.

If you do any work on the seventh day, you are breaking God's law (Exodus 23:12; 34:11). If you are a farmer you are not to harvest grain or grapes or olives on the seventh year. That's God's law (Exodus 23:10-11). God's law also tells us to put to death anyone who works on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15; 35:2; Nu 15:32-36).


I would venture to guess that there are many of the 613 commands in the Torah that you regularly ignore.

Oooh, and don't forget the shrimp thing!  You ALWAYS mention that.

I've mentioned it enough times so that I don't have to repeat myself anymore. I recommend the bacon wrapped shrimp stuffed with cheese that is served in Mazatlan - the shrimp capital of Mexico.

A recipe that I quite like is 007 Shrimp. Shrimp wrapped in bacon and marinated in a mixture of gin and vermouth and then smoked in a smoker.

[Richard Johnson]

I've mentioned it enough times so that I don't have to repeat myself anymore.

May we quote you on this? You know, sort of like reminding Lindsay Graham of his "you should use my words against me" quip?