Posts by Tess Rooney
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
How would you force a church to marry LGBT people though? And how would you square that with giving people freedom of religion?
-
Fair point. Although I'm not lawmaking I'm just saying what I think. Lawmaking will happen through democratic processes.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Deborah,
Which God? The God of Abraham and Isaac, the one who told Moses that He was the "I Am". The God of the Israelites, the Christians, and Muslims.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Jesus' toes?
-
Make that God can NOT be illogical. Sorry.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to BenWilson,
Does God make definitions? Really? If God said 1+1=3, by definition, would that make it so? Does God saying 1+1=2 by definition make it so either, really? Isn't it so anyway, no matter what God thinks about that? This is a really, really common mistake in religious thinking, IMHO, that God defines things like marriage and morality. Whether God exists or not, they still can't make the illogical logical, the false true.
I can't spend much time here, I have dinner to cook, but no, I don't think God can do the illogical. I know some Muslims believe that God's power is utterly absolute, 1+1=5 kind of thing, but Catholic teaching is that God is logic, ergo God can be illogical. Okay that makes God Spock... Anyways.
When it comes to marriage and God I agree with John Paul II's Theology of the Body.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Lilith __,
And perhaps it's worth a mention that our idea of a mum-dad-and-kids nuclear family is a very modern and Western one.
We personally live in an extended family. My mother lives with us and when we make big family decisions it's the three of us adults that do it. My mother would raise the kids almost as much as hubby and I do. We do it for practical reasons, my mum is disabled due to a stroke and it's a financial decision as well.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to BenWilson,
Pretty much I'm torn between being harsh to people and sticking with what I really believe to be true.
I want to magically find a solution between the two, a way that everyone can have the relationship that is right for them and for the State to not redefine marriage in a way that "steps on God's toes".
I think the way I'm dealing with this inner personal tension is for me to say loudly and publicly that marriage is a man and a woman making babies before the legislation passes and then feeling relaxed when the legislation goes through. I'm at heart a conservative person, and I live a very conservative life and I know I have to be careful not to project my way of life contentment onto other people. But I really, truly, deeply, feel that God has defined marriage and we would be wrong to change it.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
This statement is not true.
Could you give examples? And if so, are there examples were there was a purely civil marriage institution?
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Lilith __,
If God’s definition is what matters to you, why do you care what the State does?
Yeah, I do struggle with this one.
Much of me doesn't mind how others define their relationships, it's none of my business. But I truly believe (and before I used the word 'factual', which was wrong and sloppy) objectively that God is real and that He has revealed the institution of marriage through Creation and Jewish/Christian tradition and scripture.
If God says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman then I see that as an objective truth and a common good.
I have no desire to live in a theocracy, but I do want to use my democratic right to say what I think.