Subject:
|
Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 May 2003 20:53:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
275 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
(snip)
> Easter isn't scriptual, nor, btw, is Christmas. The Lord's supper is,
> though.
Easter, not scriptural? I do remember being in Religion classes back in
school and be told that it was *the* most important Christian celebration!
> 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?
I dunno that much about the old testament, which I think would be a lot more
helpful in answering that. But IIRC, the adoption of the term "Easter" to
refer to the time when Jesus was crucified has more to do with a meaningful
coincidence with the Jewish calendar - isn't a sacrifice undertaken in that
time of the year?
(really, I don't know for sure)
> Christmas?
Commercial, judging from my religion teacher (a nun :-). The event in itself
is something interesting in the Bible's context, but not crucial for the
overall message.
> > > 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?
Good question.
I asked my mom about that (she's Catholic), and after filtering all dogmatic
assertions I got the idea it has to do with promoting family stability.
Which in theory is a good idea, despite the knowledge it can become perverse
in practice:
> 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.
There ya go.
> > > 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?
Actually, the pope *can* grant divorce (and has done so more often than I
thought). The reasons are very restrictive, though - and in that particular
part I think there is room to more openness, which is not the same as
liberalization.
Then again, I am not a Catholic - just a very critical "ex" :-P
> > > 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?
(Note to John: *We* are fallen? Speak for yourself, I don't feel down! :-)
> 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?
Interesting point.
I suppose I could benefit from knowing more about Orthodox Christianity,
since theoretically they represent the closest to the source...
> > > > > 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?
No. Not even if you sin more than once, if you accept that you've sinned and
avoid comitting *the same* sin again. Or so I've been told.
> If
> my friend is 'living in sin', does that mean he's not Catholic?
Since I dispute he's living in "sin" (I reserve "sin" for stuff with
practical importance to others, like murder), I think he's Catholic. But I
will have to accept that my answer is in the antipodes of the Vatican's.
> 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.
And the Church olimpically ignores you - because it can. It is not a
democratic institution, nor it pretends to be so; think of it as a country
club where usually people are welcomed in, but where they reserve the right
not to admit folks with funny looking clothes.
> > > 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.
Practical matter? :-)
> > > 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?
Abraham was adulterous - and he was the patriarch. Good choice! :-P
> > 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).
And there was of course the evolution in time: a man writing in Palestine in
70 AD would be thinking of different everyday affairs than a man writing in
Ireland in 500 AD...
> 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.
Somehow I find creepy the use of possessive when referring to god(s)... :-/
> > 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?
Is it relevant? :-)
> Pseudo-Christians, sit down and take a seat.
Pedro (who won't disclose whether he sitting or not ;-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Pagans and Xtians (was Re: Sex Scandal etc)
|
| (...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes: (...) Easter and Xmas are both originally pagan holidays. You might as well be worhshipping some ancient fire god like some of the peoples mentioned in the OT (at one point Abraham, prior to (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
