Subject:
|
Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 May 2003 18:57:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
327 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > > > > Sorry to burst your bubble, John; but I know gay men that attend a Catholic
> > > > > church regularly.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to burst yours, but they aren't married (by the Catholic church).
> > >
> > > And why is that? Why should the "church" tell two people, who want to live
> > > in the institution of marriage, that they can't just because those two folks
> > > are of the same sex?
> >
> > They can do whatever they want. It's just that the Church doesn't sanction it.
>
>
> And how does the church come to making such decisions? What process does
> the church use to come to the conclusion that this over here can be
> sanctioned, but that over there cannot?
Through what they believe to be the relevation of the Scriptures to them by the
Holy Spirit.
> > > Where in the teachings of Jesus does it say, "Marriage
> > > is good for these people over here, but not for those people over there"?
> >
> >
> > Read Matthew 19:3-12
>
> So the Catholic church is obeying the "letter" of the law, whereas all these
> "Christian" churches, who say divorce and remarrying is fine, are
> contemptable? Who's right? Who's wrong? Clarify.
Now you are the one who is quick to judge. There isn't any Church I'm aware
that says that divorce is "fine". They may recognize it as a necessary evil,
as Jesus explained to the Pharisees, but it is never "fine".
> I also like the little footnote in the NSRV--
>
> "Other ancient authorities read [except on the ground of unchastity, causes
> her to commit adultery]; others add at the end of the verse [and he who
> marries a divorced woman commits adultery] "
>
> So even in the various translations, there is much debate as to what was
> actually said.
But the core of the meaning is unchanged.
> >
> > > It's akin to my co-worker (who isn't gay, mind you--this is a tangent) who
> > > is Catholic, but is "separated" from his first wife. Since you can't get
> > > married after a divorce in the Catholic church, basically the church is
> > > "forcing" my co-worker to 'live in sin' with his new partner in life.
> >
> > Shoot the messenger, uh?
>
> Remember that little game that we played when we were kids--we'd all sit in
> a circle, and someone would whisper a phrase to the first person, and that
> person would whisper what they thought they heard to the next person, and so
> on, around the circle, until the last person spoke out loud what he/ she
> heard, and note how much it changed from the original phrase.
(For the record, I never knew Dave as a kid;-)
> Get what I'm saying? Don't shoot the messanger, but understand that the
> messanger today has gotten to us through many different people and
> worldviews. There is truth in the Bible, but it isn't as easy as pointing
> to a specific text and saying, "There is the Truth!".
The Bible is a collection of books. Any Truth revealed through it comes from
the Holy Spirit, right here and now. There isn't any game of ancient telephone
going on.
> > If it is too intolerable for him to be a Catholic and
> > abide by its teachings, he should be honest and leave the church. He wants
> > his cake and to eat it, too. Choices.
>
> Mayhaps it's "Mother Church" who has to re-read her Bible. The "sanctity of
> Mary"? She was fully human. That's the point.
Maybe, maybe not. I believe that, but Catholics don't. I don't condemn them
for believing it, however (as you seem to be doing).
> The church has choices as well--adhere to outdated and
> ill-conceived/understood ideas about what the Bible says, or revisit these
> 'institutions' and see if they need reformulating.
>
> What? The church is perfect? Doesn't need any scrutiny? Or would it be
> better to say that the church, as it is today, is people's interpretation
> thereof, and is subject to the same 'flawed/fallen' issues that people have.
God is perfect. We are fallen, as is our understanding. Are you suggesting
that we reinterpret the Bible in the context of our fallen ways?
> >
> > > I mean, they are living together but the "church" won't marry them.
> > >
> > > Nicely done.
> >
> > *He* has made a mess of his life, not the Church.
>
> He doesn't hink his life is a mess. On the contary, both he and his first
> wife are separated quite amicably. There were no issues at all, except for
> the church. His new pseudo-wife and his ex-wife are best of friends, and
> everyone gets along swimmingly. And yet, somehow, the church has the issue.
>
> If he were Christian, and went to the local Gospel/United/CRC/whatever
> church, there would be no issue. But he's Catholic, so an issue. Should he
> switch? Cease to be Catholic?
What is a Catholic, except for someone who adheres to Catholic doctrine? He
clearly doesn't, and so I would say that he may *call* himself a Catholic, he
isn't a *practicing* Catholic. I can sit in a garage and say vroom, but that
doesn't make me a car.
> > >
> > > > What's this "world" stuff? We are talking about marriage in the Christian
> > > > context. I don't know what you are talking about.
> > >
> > > Marriage in the bigoted, limited, wrong interpretation of what the Bible to
> > > say.
> >
> > That is wrong and any Christian who believes it is a heretic. Period.
>
> No, it isn't wrong. Marriage is a great institution. I'm probably going to
> partake in this institution in a few months, and when I get that ring on my
> finger, it'll be for life. But that's just me. And that's just her. But
> disallowing marriage for same sex couples is wrong. That's the heretical part.
Show me in the Bible where same-sex marriage is condoned.
> Sure the "letter" says "A man shall leave his home and become one with his
> wife". It's all cutsy and schmarmmy and true, but it doesn't say that it
> means that same sex is excluded from the same rights.
What's this "cutsy and schmarmmy" crap?? You are quoting Jesus. And by the
same token, it doesn't condone same-sex marriage either. It certainly is a
little broader than a "letter" interpretation of which you speak.
> >
> > > The Bible shouldn't conform to *us*, we should conform to it. And I
> > > believe, (and my biblical scholarship isn't as thorough as it should be, but
> > > I did minor in Religion at university a *long* time ago, so my memory's a
> > > little dusty), that the Bible actually mentions that polygamy is as viable a
> > > lifestyle as any other. And yet todays chruch won't let me have my little
> > > harem.
> >
> > Dude, you are suffering from full-blown amnesia!
>
> Go read the book. Where in the Bible aren't harems mentioned? I saw no
> admonishment thereof, either, btw. Abram, et al, had a few wives. So who
> did their reading? Who remembers better?
Are you suggesting that that Pre-first Convenant conduct trumps the unequivocal
teachings of Jesus?
> >
> > >
> > > We should all have a way of having our worldview, but also allow the
> > > discussion of ideas that might not necessarily 'jive' with it, and the
> > > ability to adapt the worldview or reject the premise as necessary.
> > > Stubbornly adhering to a disjointed WV or a bad premise are equally "The
> > > plank in your eye".
> >
> >
> > If you are a Christian, you are buying into a *particular* world view. You
> > cannot adhere to certain ideals that are in direct conflict with it (and still
> > call yourself a Christian). I cannot profess to be a Christian and believe
> > that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Put it this way: "It's possible, to fit a
> > Cadillac up your nose, it's just impossible...."
>
> My Christianity stems from believing in God the father, Christ the son, and
> hte holy spirit. It stems from the idea that I believe that Christ died for
> my sins. It does not stem from outmoded and "flwed/fallen" humanly
> constructed institutions that conflict with these ideas.
>
> I also believe that *my* belief doesn't have to encompass *everyone*. It
> just has to encompass me--"As for me and my house, we'll follow the Lord."
Jesus didn't die for just you; He forgave everyone, Christian and Atheist alike.
If anything, the concept of a "personal savior" is a Western idea, foreign to
the early Church, who held a much more corporal concept of faith. No Christian
is an island. Any real expression of your faith must be enacted in and amongst
your fellow man. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my children, that you do
unto me." "Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep." Heck, the entire book of
James for that matter.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
