Tuesday, May 18, 2004
There But for the Grace of God.....
They would have liked to sponsor 40 candidates, but that $80 million settlement for the pedophilia scandal forced them to tighten their ...err...belts. Nice how the church is out to destroy marriages.... sigh....
WWJD? WWBD? (The second one is for you KKM)
http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0504/147622.html
WWJD? WWBD? (The second one is for you KKM)
http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0504/147622.html
Comments:
<< Home
Oh Broson, how I appreciate your comments (really).
But I must disagree with you. As an almost lawyer you should know that marriage is a dual institution. On one side there is the civil aspects of it we discussed the other day on your blog, the other is the religious component. The later is not in dispute here, churches are free to decide, without government interference, whom to provide this sacrement to. Most don't, but increasingly some are. In fact, my demonimation (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) is stauchly opposed to FMA. (As are Bob Barr, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe Dick Cheney, the late Barry Goldwater among others).
I'm certainly not surprised by the Catholic Churches position on this, churches change slowly with time (which is good) and after all it took them 500 years to forgive Gallileo and accept that the earth is not the center of the Universe. But my issue with the Boston Diocese in particular is that when it came to pedophilia in its own ranks, it was silent and complicit in allowing the problem to go on for years and years, but when it comes to loving people who happen to be gay they really get vocal.
It's nice you feel that the bible is unequivol in its condemnation of homosexuals. I don't agree. Yes, there's Leviticus, but that's in a context of a host of regulations for Jewish people none of which we observe. It's not in the ten commandments either and Jesus never, not once spoke on the issue. Although he did say that loving they neighbor as thyself was the most important commandment. (See the Parable of the Good Samaritan). You probably also feel that Sodom a Gamorah were destroyed because of their gay residence, again I beg to differ, Sodom was destroyed because its residents were rude to strangers (who happened to be angles) and were filled with lust. Lots of good scholarly work on this issue, you should check it out. (You can always reject it, but you should read it anyway)
But alas, my views (or anybody's views) of the bible are not what is at issue. What is at issue is should loving couples, who happen to be of the same gender, be allowed equal legal treatment as their heterosexual counterparts. I say yes, the Constitution says yes, five states say maybe and 39 others say not yet.
In the words of Lenny Kravitz, I say let love rule....
As alway, thanks for the comments!
But I must disagree with you. As an almost lawyer you should know that marriage is a dual institution. On one side there is the civil aspects of it we discussed the other day on your blog, the other is the religious component. The later is not in dispute here, churches are free to decide, without government interference, whom to provide this sacrement to. Most don't, but increasingly some are. In fact, my demonimation (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) is stauchly opposed to FMA. (As are Bob Barr, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe Dick Cheney, the late Barry Goldwater among others).
I'm certainly not surprised by the Catholic Churches position on this, churches change slowly with time (which is good) and after all it took them 500 years to forgive Gallileo and accept that the earth is not the center of the Universe. But my issue with the Boston Diocese in particular is that when it came to pedophilia in its own ranks, it was silent and complicit in allowing the problem to go on for years and years, but when it comes to loving people who happen to be gay they really get vocal.
It's nice you feel that the bible is unequivol in its condemnation of homosexuals. I don't agree. Yes, there's Leviticus, but that's in a context of a host of regulations for Jewish people none of which we observe. It's not in the ten commandments either and Jesus never, not once spoke on the issue. Although he did say that loving they neighbor as thyself was the most important commandment. (See the Parable of the Good Samaritan). You probably also feel that Sodom a Gamorah were destroyed because of their gay residence, again I beg to differ, Sodom was destroyed because its residents were rude to strangers (who happened to be angles) and were filled with lust. Lots of good scholarly work on this issue, you should check it out. (You can always reject it, but you should read it anyway)
But alas, my views (or anybody's views) of the bible are not what is at issue. What is at issue is should loving couples, who happen to be of the same gender, be allowed equal legal treatment as their heterosexual counterparts. I say yes, the Constitution says yes, five states say maybe and 39 others say not yet.
In the words of Lenny Kravitz, I say let love rule....
As alway, thanks for the comments!
Again, thanks for your thoughts. Here's my final comments and then we can just let it go.
My church disagrees with your views on gay people, they feel it is not per se condemnable and the bible. Marriage is a civil institution and a religious institution and the two are severable. Many people get married without any religious cerimony at all. (i.e. in a court house). Marriage has been regulated by the states and it is there traditional role of the federal government in this insitution. Your right on the good samritan stuff...Love God is primary. But I remain steadfast in my support of letting states choose there own way on this issue. Peace.
Post a Comment
My church disagrees with your views on gay people, they feel it is not per se condemnable and the bible. Marriage is a civil institution and a religious institution and the two are severable. Many people get married without any religious cerimony at all. (i.e. in a court house). Marriage has been regulated by the states and it is there traditional role of the federal government in this insitution. Your right on the good samritan stuff...Love God is primary. But I remain steadfast in my support of letting states choose there own way on this issue. Peace.
<< Home
