Subject:
|
Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 May 2003 20:06:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
256 times
|
| |
|
|
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, 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.
Easter isn't scriptual, nor, btw, is Christmas. The Lord's supper is,
though. And yet all three of these are pretty much the cornerstone of
today's church. Divine revelation by the Holy Spirit? Is there a book in
the Bible that says that "Angel so-'n-so" visited the 1st century church and
said that "Easter" would be a good thing? Christmas?
>
> > > > 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".
Then why doesn't the Catholic Church recognize it? Jesus did. Are not we
suppose to follow the teachings of Jesus, and not man-made institutions?
And I may have said that divorce is fine, as in without consequence--for
that my apologies. Divorce shouldn't be taken lightly, but I also don't
condemn those that take that particular route. It's better than, say,
having two people living miserably with one another.
> > 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.
Is it? One says you can divorce if there is adultery (and note only on the
part of her... but we're in the 21st century where we're equal opportunity
sinners) without any consequence of remarrying. The other says that there
are consequences of remarrying. They're not the same at all. So which is
it? And why only adultery? Can a woman divorce a man if he's abusive? Why
are we ruling all other ideas except those explicitly stated?
>
> > >
> > > > 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;-)
Yes, it was a "Stroke chin flashback" a la Letterman.
>
> > 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.
Ah but there is--just a quick www.bible.com shows us the various editions of
the Bible today. I don't have to say that they have different
interpretations--the fact that there are different editions makes it so.
It's like the Noah story--some bibles say "the entire Earth was flooded",
whereas some say "the earth was flooded"--my OT prof said that the word for
earth, could be "the known earth", which is vastly different than "the
entire earth". Does this matter? Well, when you get into a discussion
about it, as some scientists would point out--there isn't enough water, even
in the icecaps, that could possibly flood the entire earth. But does that
make the Bible wrong? If we take the interpretation of "the known earth",
it makes more 'scientific' sense. To each his own on this one.
>
> > > 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).
I think that churches, as institutions, are prone to the same failings as
individual people, and should, as such, be scrutinized. Revisiting
ideologies and beliefs is not inherently bad--on the contrary, blindly
following dogma is the 'badness' in this situation. I condemn no one. I
point out where there may be flaws, either on a personal level, or on an
institutional level--it is our duty, not only as Christians, but as
individuals with God given discernment, intelligence, and rational thought,
to analyze and come to better understandings--that's what the very first
command from God is to humans--be stewards of the planet. You can't be
stewards if you don't understand.
>
> > 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 suggest that we don't base our belief on the interpretation of those
'fallen' people before us, who had their own worldviews and ideologies.
When isn't the Bible interpreted by fallen individuals? If we are all
fallen, never. That said, to say, today, that "I believe the Bible"--what
do you believe? That homosexuality is wrong? Why? Where does it say that
in the Bible? Or are you going by another persons 'flawed/fallen'
interpretation of scripture and centuries of dogma that suited the church?
> > >
> > > > 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 is a Christian? If I sin once does that make me *not* a Christian? If
my friend is 'living in sin', does that mean he's not Catholic? If you're
going to use a metaphor, use the right one--if you're sitting in a car
that's missing a bumper, whether you say vroom or not, it's still a car
you're sitting in. Because a Catholic is 'living in sin' (according to the
church), he's still Catholic. And again, it's gettig away from the
point--the point is, "is the church right in this?" I say no.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
Do all issues have to be explicitly stated in order for you to accept them?
Your very own constitution, that you seem to hold in such high regard,
doesn't explicitly state all matters, nor, so I'm told, should it.
>
> > 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.
Yes I'm quoting Jesus, and it's a great quotation. I hear it at almost
every single wedding that I've been to. It's a little sexist, though--it
could definitly use some refining. Do you think that if Jesus were to be
here, today, in this 'unisex' environment, that he would be as patriarchal?
I happen to think that he would.
And again, he doesn't condemn harems here, either--it doesn't say "Just
*one* man and just *one* woman"--and he didn't come outright and forbid
polygamy, even though men had multiple wives at the time. So where did this
"one man/one woman" enter the picture? Doesn't say anything about that in
the Bible.
>
> > >
> > > > 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?
What I'm saying is that today's english translation might not be the *exact*
translation of the original manuscripts. Of course it's hard due to the
scarcity of original manuscripts--what we're going by for much of the Bible,
are copies of copies of copies (that are now gone).
I also like the idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, isn't "their"
God anymore, but is "our" God--that the Jewish people somehow have lost
their God to us gentiles.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
Jewish people don't believe that. Isn't our God the God of Issac? Of
Abraham? Of the Israelites? Of the Jewish people? But they don't believe
that Christ died for them--are they wrong?
>
> 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.
Love James. Good stuff. And basically reinforces one of my first points
that maybe, maybe, a dozen references in the entire good book to
homosexuality, but the entire Bible, in context, from Genesis right thru the
New Testament, talk about being Stewards and social responsibility, and yet
here we are, focused on what consenting adults are doing behind closed doors
whilst stepping over homeless people on the street.
Pseudo-Christians, sit down and take a seat.
> JOHN
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
