Why are Christians expected to shed their principles in deference to the spirit of the age?
There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man’s life. However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair’s homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display. Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin, and its offer was rescinded.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Dr Dreadful
And, Irene, I am sorry for not responding to your post about why homosexuality might be a sin. That was ungracious of me. I did read it and was going to type a thank you, but somehow my fingers didn't make it to the keyboard.
While I don't agree with it, it was a very thoughtful response in which you actually considered your grounds for your belief, as opposed to many Christians who never get beyond "because the Bible says so".
Having read quite widely on cosmology, the Christian view of the Universe doesn't make much sense to me. I do perceive in the elegance of quantum mechanics the workings of something that may be a Creator, but he (she, it, it doesn't really matter) is very far from the Being conceived by any of the world's religions. (To be frank, I think that Hinduism gets closest.)
And - not that it should matter - Clavos is correct in his assessment of my sexual orientation. Either that, or my wife is in for a nasty shock! ;-)
77 - Duncan
Jesse, WRONG, Irene's analogy is an excellent one. In fact the homosexual lobby is infinitely more powerful than Phelp's one family. And there are plenty of people pushing legislation, it just hasn't succeeded yet. Where have ya been? I think you need to read more. And no, I don't mean the new york times.
78 - Nancy
Sorry I'm late (as usual) to this debate.
I'll start by observing that I really hate it when people cite Paul as if HE were JC. He wasn't. In fact, a helluva lot of what he wrote is diametrically the OPPOSITE of what JC preached - & practiced. From early on, it occurred to me that in fact if Paul hadn't claimed some sort of conversion, his perfect m.o. for destroying this hated nascent religion/blasphemy (to him) would be to infiltrate it, gain high credibility/authority, & then deliberately pump it full of dogma & theology exactly the OPPOSITE of what the founder & original followers intended so that the entire structure would be a sham. It seems to me he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, if that is so. And if it wasn't his intent to do so, then he accidently perpetrated the greatest harm to the original Message to the point where he couldn't have done worse if he'd intended to. Who says Satan doesn't work in mysterious & effective ways? Gulling the #1 fervid cheerleader into spouting precisely what his purported leader DIDN'T preach to the faithful as gospel? Nice job, Hellboy.
Paul has way too many problems of his own, both obviously psychologically & (via what shreds of history are left as well as inference from the various letters, letters, gospels, & traditions) literally to have much credibility for anyone with half a brain who can read & isn't inclined to swallow whole whatever is fed to them by religious authorities. It's known (not surmised) that he had some first-class run-ups against not only Peter, but James as well as the rest of the Original Our Gang, not only over power/authority in the group, but over policies & intent (as in, what would JC do?) as well. Massive ones.
Now, considering that THEY were all actually present to hear what JC himself said, and Paul was NOT - regardless of how very convincing he claimed his vision of JC to be - I'd have to say that given any claims by Paul over those who had actually been there & had post-sermon Q&A sessions w/JC as well - I'd believe anybody BUT Paul. Paul obviously had issues also with self-aggrandizement, self-congratulations, self-importance, etc. Read his letters. Quite a few are full of '...me-me-me-I-I-I....' He's an incredible narcissist, to start with. Arrogant & cocksure as well. And his policies towards women stem not from nattering biddies in the stalls, but from the traditional view of Greeks (remember he was a Greek Jew) that women are less than human. Indeed, he verges on the misogynistic to the point where several armchair psychologists/theologians have speculated rather strongly that he was himself a homosexual, albiet a closeted & self-hating one. Oddly, I've seldom met a gay man who hates women; most of them seem to be just the opposite, & like women in general, just prefer men for sexual/romantic partners. Not being a psychologist myself, I can't say how that particular foible works out, but I do assert Paul is no friend to women in general.
To build most of the Christian religion as currently practiced throughout the West on Paul's rantings & misplaced assumption of authority & understanding of JC's message is the main reason I have personally rejected the Christian church in any of its manifestations. PAUL is NOTJC, never was, never will be. And his teachings are for the most part the exact opposite of what JC actually preached & practiced, on many, many fronts. Yet the bulk of modern Christian theology is based on Paul. Not the fragmentary teachings of JC as quoted in the 4 gospels.
Enough of Paul the maniac. He doesn't deserve further attention, IMO.
I read Irene's comments w/interest. She has some good takes on conservative, traditional church explanations of what is sin, why thinking about things that hurt nobody (seemingly) are still sins, etc. I was lucky enough to have a really good philosophist/theologian for a catechism teacher, who was willing to go into the minute details of the official rationales against this that & t'other thing, & her explanations accord a lot with his, in that it isn't the sinner, it's the sin. The sinner (including the despicable Phelps) is to be pitied & loved - altho as she pointed out, not necessarily given podium space. Forgiveness is from God, not anyone else. JC never ascribes the authority to forgive to anybody but the Top Guy, regardless of what the RCs claim about Peter (which is actually a 3rd century insertion & therefore eminently suspect anyway).
After thumbing thru my own several copies/versions of the Bible, I can't find any reference to homosexuals by JC whatsoever. I'm sure there were plenty around back then, but - especially given the norms of 2000+ BP Judaic culture - they certainly weren't & wouldn't be "out" unless they were totally suicidal or prepared to move to Athens or Rome on a permanent basis. Perhaps therefore they weren't an issue to JC in addressing his Judaic followers, since he was pretty specific that he was NOT preaching to anybody BUT the Israelites. Certainly if he'd been addressing the faults & sins of Everybody, he'd have had plenty to keep him busy, depending on what culture he was focusing on: the Greeks - loose morals, the Jews - internecine squabbling & forgetting their #1 obligations to Yaweh, the Romans - well, just about everything anyone could think of, starting with power-craziness.
Since JC didn't ever directly discuss this aspect, it would be interesting to hear how Believers justify current religious policies towards gays in general. I'd have to agree with Gonzo & Gandhi: Christiantiy would be a dandy religion - if only someone would actually practice it.
79 - Jesse
Your rudeness-to-logic ratio is approaching infinity, Duncan (as opposed to Irene, who knows how to make a decent point). If the analogy makes sense, spell it out for me.
Fred Phelps : The Sinclair Family :: what? : what?
homophobic activism : gay-rights activism?
religiously-minded people : homosexuals?
conservatives : liberals?
All these analogies show is that the religious far-right is much more mean-spirited and petty than the left. If that's what you're trying to prove, then by all means, make the claim.
80 - gonzo marx
ok..reverse order, so i can catch up...
Zedd in #55 - thanks for the condesencion, but no thanks...try dealing wiht my argumentative position, and i migh tsuggest keeping away from what you think you know (especially about me) and stick to what you know yourself for certain...do explain what you think i am missing in my "scholarship"...to wit..i differentiate between Pauline doctrine and the Synoptic texts
but, apostate and heretic that i am..i consider Iraneus and Constantine to have ruined th eoriginal concept of the Annointed's ministry and message...i can get into that if you would like, but i don't think you are really interested
however, trying to impugn my understanding of current theological dogma, as well as it's historical origins is not only insulting, but ludicrous based on just my body of writing here on BC...you are entitled to your Opinion, of course...but no hugs for smarmy types
#53 falls into the same category of talking about things the typist has no fucking clue of and should stay away from...his right to his Opinion, of course..but just trying to bash with silly ad hominem does nothing to further the conversation...he sez..
"however, i do operate under the premise that gnosis > dogma
Thereby falling into the fallacy of thinking you are privy to revealed truth. The formula should actually be:
logos > gnosis > dogma"
my formulation stated "knowledge is greater than authoritarian pronouncements"...now i don't pretend to know what he meant by "logos"...but here's the beginning of the wiki entry for it, just to show how wide ranged the meanings are...
Logos (Greek λόγος) is an important term in philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion.
Its semantic field extends beyond "word" to notions such as "thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard", or "logic". In English, the word is the root of "log" (as in record), of "logic," and of the "-ology" suffix (e.g., geology).
Heraclitus established the term in Western philosophy as meaning the fundamental order of the cosmos. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to argument from reason. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made. The gospel further identifies the Logos as God (theos), providing scriptural support for the trinity. It is this sense, the Logos as Jesus Christ and God, that is most common in popular culture.
Psychologist Carl Jung used the term for the masculine principle of rationality.
i reject the Vox formulation, due to the uncertainty of meaning being implied as well as it not fitting th ebasics of the formula i presented, as well as the implication that i am in any way attempting to claim any "special knowledge"...merely stating what i typed above...
Irene...i didn't forget about you, will check in later and respond
Excelsior?
81 - Dave Nalle
If you're not claiming 'special knowledge' then you should be using some term other than gnosis. I'm sure looking up the wiki entry on logos was fun, but now go look up the one on gnosis, because unless god is whispering in your ear or you have a magic book given to you by the Angel Moroni, or you're in touch with your inner Thetan, a claim of gnosis is a pretty weak reed to cling to.
As for the Wikipedia definition of logos it has the usual flaw of being too thorough to be useful. Boiled down, logos is just reason. And IMO reason trumps 'revealed mysterious bullshit' aka gnosis every time.
Most of our discussions here aren't theological in nature, so unless you're going to turn politics into a religion - which might put you in MR's camp - sticking to the secular definition of these terms is probably a good idea.
dave
82 - gonzo marx
@ #81 - ummm..bite me..
the direct translation of gnosis is Knowledge, just as logos is Word
the implications can indeed be otherwise, but those are the direct, secular translations...therefore your entire premise is incorrect
as for the theological versus the political...try going with the context of the thread...as well as the discussion in which i use the terms, in this case it IS in the theological, and to avoid confusion i even defined my terms
i've long since stoppted even attempting to advise you, might one suggest you try to avoid doing the same towards me?
probably too much to ask for, i know...
but i can Dream, can't i?
Excelsior?
83 - troll
skeptomai>gnosis>logos>dogma
84 - Jesse
Logos beats gnosis.
Gnosis beats Dogma.
Dogma beats Logos.
one... two... three... SHOOT!
I think gonzo should write a blog post on the definition of gnosis, its value in the context of human thought, and how it interfaces with Logos. After all, logos could be a form of revealed knowledge, inspired by the divine order of the universe. Or, conversely, gnosis could be a form of logos, specifically the type rooted in intuition rather than mathematics.
Why don't we have a philosophy section on BC? Come on! Then I could stop submitting articles to Culture, where nobody reads them!
85 - Lee Richards
The Bible:
1.) was written by human beings but, for the most part, we don't know who the individuals were, when they lived, or how they came to write.
2. is not original but a copy of a copy of a copy... The originals do not exist, as far as is known.
3. is not 'A' book but rather a collection of books put together many years after they were written by committees who decided what to include(in support of the Church's agenda) and what to leave out (anything that challenged their orthodoxy.)
4. presents a human interpretation of the nature and actions of an imagined abstract divine being. (Humans cannot possibly describe the ineffable and conceptionally indefineable, and so all descriptions of the mind or being of God--being beyond existence as we understand the term and, therefore, beyond human understanding--are only human conceptualizations, not literal facts.)
In Acts 17:23, Paul states that he is going to make the unknown God known--an arrogance that has poisoned Christianity from that time forward.
Although God is beyond mere existence and the limits of human knowledge, orthodox Christians believe he has revealed "himself" to them. Paul's theology can't reveal the nature of God--nothing can. It only convinces Christians that the things THEY think are true about God and his will are the gospel truth--a false, dangerous and damaging human rigid mindset.
86 - Zedd
Doc,
I understood what you were doing. I was purposely being silly. I couldn't resit. Hey it's Duke's thread, there is an unwritten rule....
By the way BBC is getting some good programming. Have you been watching Jeckle and Hyde? There is also a new sci-fi coming up and off course Dr. Whooo-oooo (I always sing the song when I say his name, I'm such a nerd).
Im Zulu. I cant shed my dignity. Its there even when I don't want it. Oh, what to do....?
87 - Zedd
Gonzo,
You are right. I shouldn't have said that. I am sorry.
88 - troll
*Hey it's Duke's thread, there is an unwritten rule....*
...you mean the conspiracy to be rudely caddish - ?
despicable
89 - Dr Dreadful
No, troll, the conspiracy (a pretty open one) to thumb our noses at Selwyn's Neanderthal views by hijacking the thread. Pretty harmless really.
Honestly, you're the most untrollish troll I've ever come across...
Zedd, haven't caught Jekyll yet, although it looks intriguing. I've been DVRing MI5 (aka Spooks), Dr Who and Coupling. Ain't got time for much else, especially since my wife (bless her) seems determined to record the Complete Works of Oprah and Dr 90210, and of course she needs time to watch them before our DVR hard drive gets filled up!
90 - Baronius
"Since JC didn't ever directly discuss this aspect, it would be interesting to hear how Believers justify current religious policies towards gays in general."
Nancy, I can see that you're not a fan of Catholicism, so I'll try to answer this question in as evangelical/Protestant a way as I can. First of all, Paul doesn't contradict Jesus. The emphasis of much of Paul's writings was on his Greek audience. The Gospel writers were mostly focused on their Jewish readers.
So the ban against homosexual activity is a matter of law that the Old and New Testaments agree upon. The fact that Jesus didn't say anything about it doesn't matter, as the Bible itself is God's voice. Jesus didn't say anything about not sleeping with wild beasts, but that doesn’t mean he endorsed it.
But is there a reason for the law against homosexual behaviour? Didn't Jesus overturn the old law? Which OT laws are we allowed to ignore?
The importance of children was integral to the Jewish life. It was the basis of their identity and survival. Some people would be consecrated to G-d and live without sex, but most were squeezing out kids. Sex was the fulfillment of the obligation to go forth and multiply. Any act which limited familial reproduction was a sin: spilling the seed, adultery, bestiality, whatever.
Jesus supported that moral code in dozens of ways, from criticizing the Samarian woman to partying at Cana. He even upped the ante on adultery, saying that thinking about cheating is cheating. He condemned divorce, and stated the the Mosaic law was too leniant! Also, Paul wrote a lot about marriage, saying things that fit the OT tradition.
If I remember my catechism, the definition of sin is that which opposes God's will. The norm of marriage and children is God's will, and any use of sex or marriage in a way contrary to reproduction is a sin.
91 - gonzo marx
troll - i'll stop being a "cad" on a Selwyn thread when he stops using phrasology like "Episcopagan" and the like...fair enough?
Zedd - accepted, no worries
Lee - you grok in fullness
Jesse - you think far too highly of my ability to write...i've tried delivering on such topics previously...
Irene - i have not forgotten you...my reasoning for asking you to produce sai dquotes was to avoid the distractions such as the one you utilized about th eincident of the adulterous wife... it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion...
what i was attempting to find out was EXACTLY what scriptural passage you are referencing to list homosexuality as a "sin"
my understanding has always been that it came from Leviticus and/or different oblique references from Paul (Saul of Tarsus)...hence my asking if you had something that was alleged as a direct quote from "Jesus", since i can't think of any such at the moment, anywhere, in any text..
in fact, historical data of the early Church (up through the Valentinian period) shows that believers greeted each other wiht a kiss on the mouth...men and women, women and women, men and men...this custom was abolished during the Pauline period
hence my asking where you find the admonition that Jesus himself stated homosexuality was considered a "sin"...NOT the words of any "elder" or pope...but a direct quote, please
Excelsior?
92 - troll
takes all kinds Dreadful...even liberals and bigots
censorship is distasteful
93 - Zedd
Lee
"It only convinces Christians that the things THEY think are true about God and his will are the gospel truth--a false, dangerous and damaging human rigid mindset."
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by this statement. If you are saying that it is futile to discuss God because he is God (infinate and eternal); Since it is futile to discuss what is eternal because it has no characteristics.
However we derive that notion from a lot of Paul's writings (the bigness of God that is).
Paul talks about a realationship with God that has never existed among this group of Athenians. He was talking to a crowd of very religious people who worshiped every idol available including one that Paul said was called the unknown god. He used the existance of this idol to reveal what was revealed to him. He says:
24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
Context always helps doesn't it.
Also what is revealed in scripture is not God but us.
94 - Dr Dreadful
's not censorship, troll. How is anyone being stopped from saying anything they like here?
95 - Dr Dreadful
The norm of marriage and children is God's will, and any use of sex or marriage in a way contrary to reproduction is a sin.
Oh, very nice, Baronius. Thank you so much for informing me that the loving marriage I am a partner in, which happens to be childless, is sinful.
Shall I tell my wife, or do you want to?
96 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
As I mentioned some 70 comments ago, you, gentle readers determine what is news. This little piffle of trash about a changed funeral plan seems to have gotten a lot you scratching under your underwear. It is rather amusing...
97 - troll
shouting down unpopular views is not directly censorship either but it has the same stink as your disjointed hijacks
...of course I wouldn't be nearly so down on your smarmy act if you kids had chosen something to talk about other than sports
98 - Dr Dreadful
troll, since your second utterance right there indicates that you do have a sense of humor, where's it been?
We change the subject on a lot of Duke's threads because his opinions leave a bad taste in the mouth. That's our view. I say we are exercising our freedom of speech, not censorship.
And in case you hadn't noticed, we have been discussing not only sports but also British TV, and have now embarked on a quite in-depth discussion of Pauline theology.
99 - troll
both British TV with its obviously homosexual agenda and Pauline theology are very much on topic
100 - Dave Nalle
The norm of marriage and children is God's will, and any use of sex or marriage in a way contrary to reproduction is a sin.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Dave
101 - Dr Dreadful
Careful, Dave. Cardinal Baronius will put you in the comfy chair if you carry on like that...
102 - Clavos
troll,
How many comments would there be on these Duke threads if Doc et al simply boycotted the thread altogether, rather than just changing the subject.
IMO, it's a far cry from censorship to change the subject; anyone who wants to stay on topic is free to do so, even with the subject subversively changed, n'est-ce-pas?
103 - Baronius
Dread, I'm sorry. That was a very, very short posting and I skipped through a lot. I should have said "possibility of children". If you don't do anything to prevent children, you're open to God's will. This is where we get into the stuff that Catholics and Protestants don't see eye-to-eye on, which I was trying to avoid. Nalle is right (although he thinks he's joking), the posibility of procreation is a pretty important thing.
104 - Zedd
Doc
MI5 is amazing!! I caught Coupling the first time around. Loved it. Thats right it's called Jekyll :o). LOVE! Its so smart and ridiculous. I keep missing Dr. Who.
Did you catch that short run series of the guy who woke up in 1973 (i think) after an accident. It was so well made. He'd been a detective in our time and found himself in the 70's working on a case which may involve his Dad. It was brill! He knew that what he was experiencing was weired and he kept thinking he would wake up. What made it so smart was that his reactions to some of the antiquated goings on of that era mirrored we the audiences reaction. The police brutality of his fellow policeman, often startled him. I forget the name of the show (off course)
105 - Dr Dreadful
Thanks, Herr Baron. I also feel bad about snarling like that. I realize you were simply trying to explain the Church's general POV, rather than specifically your own.
Shake.
106 - Dr Dreadful
Zedd, the show you're talking about was called Life on Mars. I've read about it but it must have run on BBC America before I got Dish.
They've just signed a deal to make an American version of it, which will probably bomb spectacularly, as most of these remakes tend to do (The Office being a notable exception).
107 - High Heels
"This right ends, though, where my property line begins."
You OWN the church? Can you walk on water, too?
108 - Lee Richards
Re # 90:
"God's will" is an interesting term, illustrative of human hubris.
Claiming to know God's will implies that we could comprehend what that would mean on a divine scale of understanding--a self-evident impossibility to all but the delusional or seriously misguided.
We, of course, can only know what those words mean to us in human terms of understanding. So, claiming something is "God's will" is only saying that it seems right to us in our mortal and limited capacities, or that we want it be an unbreakable rule for all. In other words, it is someone's very human interpretation of what they WANT to be the law from on high.
(And, no, telling us the Bible says so and the Bible is true because it says it's true is not a convincing argument.)
I would think that since God, by definition, is beyond existence and creation as we apply those terms to our world, we cannot logically define nor confine such an essence--or its will-- by any human constraints.
109 - Baronius
Lee, that makes sense, but only if you believe that God is an intergalactic moron. Most adults can talk to five-year-olds, so I imagine that God could communicate to us if he wanted to. Maybe he doesn't want to. That's a possibility. Based on my study of world religions, I'm convinced that Christianity is correct.
110 - STM
Everyone should just chill out, go away and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, then come back and rejoin the discourse.
And of course, if you want a proper cup of tea, everyone knows you need a nice teapot.
Tea is the preferred brew of the civilised (which is possibly why Americans love coffee, although they don't do it that well :).
111 - STM
Baronius: "I'm convinced that Christianity is correct".
And we're talking the pure form of Christianity here too Baronius, right? The one that says we shouldn't make judgments, shouldn't exclude anyone, should offer our love without conditions (and by extension to the last, the lost and the least), should be tolerant of others, should behave at all times with compassion, should forgive - and should ask forgiveness of ourselves because none of us is perfect - and should treat our neighbours as we would treat ourselves. Also, all the while remebering that the sins we should be focusing on are our own, not those of others.
Which is why I don't believe many "Christians" of the evangelical right are even Christians at all. They are very fond of telling you that the instructions for living are to be found in the Bible, and if you don't do what they say you'll go to Hell, but they forget that the whole basis of Christianity is about those very simple of teachings of Christ - also to be found in the Bible. Indeed, real Christianity has always been more about love and community than about a rigid ideology.
In a way, fundamentalist "christians" are a bit like fundo muslims - they take the bits that suit their argument and twist the ideology to justify their own actions.
Mine might be a very Catholic viewpoint, but I'm convinced it's as close we get to the original idea, which is that the spiritual journey is a contract between oneself and God.
112 - Duncan
Stm, I have to chuckle when non-believers such as you pose as authorities on the faith. Did you ever hear, don't throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot? Do you know that Jesus called people children of the Devil and a den of vipers? Not only that, but to say that making judgments is wrong is a judgment.
It is you who is picking and choosing. You know nothing about Christianity. So stick to what you know, like plum pudding and tea time.
113 - Clavos
Duncan,
STM is a practicing Roman Catholic. An Irish one, at that.
You might want to wipe that egg off your face, know-it-all.
114 - Dr Dreadful
It may be 100 degrees outside, but that cup of tea is sounding pretty good all the same.
Have to be out of a jug kettle though. Don't own a teapot.
BRB...
115 - Duncan
Clavos, if he was a practicing Catholic, he would understand his church's teachings and not profess nonsense. The Catholic Church calls homosexual feelings gravely disordered and the behavior a grave sin. Anyway, if he really thinks he's a practicing Catholic, he'd better keep practicing, maybe he'll get it right one of these days.
Of course, Irish Catholics are often the worst kind. Hello Ted Kennedy?
116 - Dr Dreadful
So rather than stand up and admit you got it wrong, you take the coward's way out and resort to ad hominem attacks. Really classy, Duncan.
(It's a good thing personal attacks aren't allowed. The words 'arrogant', 'little' and 'prick' come to mind...)
117 - STM
Duncan probably also doesn't understand that the real Church doesn't close its doors to anyone, sinners or not. It follows the REAL teachings of Christ, which are very different to the kinds of hate mongering practised by the heathen evangelical Christian right - who, like I say, are not real Christians at all.
You simply can't hate and be a Christian at the same time, and another person's homosexuality is God's business Duncan, not ours. We'd all be better off looking at our own sins before we look at those of others.
Casting the first stone, and all that ... remember. And mate, please think before you get on here misguidedly claiming to be a real Christian and calling me an unbeliever (I guess that signifies you think you have all the answers), a member of the original Church that can trace its direct, unbroken lineage all the way back to the apostles.
118 - STM
I think Duncan would find his answer in the fact that many of the hospices around the world that care for the victims of AIDS are run by the Catholic Church.
They don't discriminate when it comes to the dying, nor do they care you got it.
You have your ideas totally arse-about Duncan. Perhaps it's not up to me to judge you, but I was told by a wonderful, caring priest Jesuit priest once who works (happily, and with love) on the sleazy side of life with drug addicts, prostitues and yes, victims of AIDS, that you can't hate AND be a Christian. The two are mutually exclusive.
119 - STM
Of course, we could easily get around this very simply by shooting all gays, leftists, liberals, those on the "wet" right, any Christians who don't confirm to the fundamentalist "christian" viewpoint, people of other religions, any immigrants who aren't white or even better, anglo-saxon, blacks, browns, oranges, yellows, latinos, etc.
Possibly once that happens, then we can set about restoring America to the values upon which it was founded: freedom for all (except for those fu.kers we don't like).
120 - Andy Marsh
I read the article...and was reading down the comments when I got to #55...
...Gonzo,
Its quite clear that you don't understand Christian theology.
I almost fell out of my chair! I quickly started skipping over comments looking for gonzo's reply...all I can is...it took you long enough gonzo!
I'm not sure how the Jesuits let you get away gonzo?!??!
121 - Andy Marsh
STM - what's the "wet" right?
And if you're gonna use "We" when talking about restoring American values...then get your ass over here...let's spark one up and talk about it! I'm sure we can come up with some kind of agreement on what those values should be...Let's start with the value of "sparking one up"!!!
122 - Nancy
I don't think STM has been to America since the time he announced to everyone he was wearing "thongs"...and in his mind he was referring to his flip-flops, but everyone else thought he was referring to his underwear. IMO most Ozzies make the world a better place.
123 - Andy Marsh
I'm looking for the one true religion...I've been turning over stones in my yard...I uprooted a few trees...nothing...dirt and worms is all I can find...
Honestly, I think I've found more truth in things that were outlawed by the christian church thousands of years ago than I ever did in 11 years of catholic school. Not sure I'll ever grok it all...not sure I really want to!
124 - Andy Marsh
Nancy - you just made me throw up in my mouth...luckily all I tasted was a little bit of bitter coffee...the thought of seeing STM or any guy for that matter in a thong is really really disturbing to me!
It brings back this memory I have of this 80 year old man in Waikiki wearing one of those sling things on the beach...sort of like a marble bag...only much more disgusting!
No offense STM
125 - Andy Marsh
And since we're supposed to be talking abou funerals on this thread...I have a question.
I was sitting at a red light yesterday waiting to make a left turn and right before I got the green arrow a cop car pulled into the intersection to let a stream of about a 100 cars through in a funeral procession.
My question is this: Why hold up traffic for a funeral procession? Something tells me the person in that staion wagon isn't in a real hurry...but I was!