What a Biblical Marriage Really Looks Like

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[slim 1,525]

Most thumpers will tell you this went out the window with Jesus.

[Danno 1,228]

Most thumpers will tell you this went out the window with Jesus.

You havta understand, Steve is one of the "New Catholics"...... Jesus aint so important.... Politics is.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Who says religion is bad? I think I'm beginning to see the light.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

*And* as per the top right, if you fail to marry your brother's widow, she will straight-up take one of your shoes and call you 'the shoeless one'. Word! If you marry her, but fail to knock her up, Yaweh will smite your ####, and then the Catholics will use you as an example to prevent the whole world from masturbating and using contraception. Forever. Snap!

PS ladies...in that situation the correct action is to dress up as a prostitute and ####### yourself out to your father in law. WWJD

Edited September 21, 2011 by PantomimeGoose

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Who cares?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You havta understand, Steve is one of the "New Catholics"...... Jesus aint so important.... Politics is.

Actually, Danno - if you've ever read what I've said before regarding Christianity, the Catholic Church is centered on the teachings of the Gospel and New Testament, while Fundamentalist Christians say they take the bible word for word. That's why things like this trip them up. When they say they're against gay marriages, they refer to the Old Testament, when they talk about disciplining a child, they refer to the OT, when they deny Evolution they refer to the OT. Catholics are contextualists and don't regard the bible as a literal interpretation. It was written by Man inspired by God, making the process of understanding scripture something beyond simple literal meanings.

[slim 1,525]

Bingo and beer!

[Danno 1,228]

Actually, Danno - if you've ever read what I've said before regarding Christianity, the Catholic Church is centered on the teachings of the Gospel and New Testament, while Fundamentalist Christians say they take the bible word for word. That's why things like this trip them up. When they say they're against gay marriages, they refer to the Old Testament, when they talk about disciplining a child, they refer to the OT, when they deny Evolution they refer to the OT. Catholics are contextualists and don't regard the bible as a literal interpretation. It was written by Man inspired by God, making the process of understanding scripture something beyond simple literal meanings.

1. If you need new testament scriptures to base those positions on let me know, I think it is "you" who might do well to give the Kos a break and actually read a little scripture before making such silly statements that the mentioning of homosexuality is limited to the Old Testament.

2.As for your comments about what the Catholic church does, get real Steve, many of the positions you hold are in direct disobedience of your Faith (though who knows what goes on in your local Parish). DId you "contextualize" yourself to a understanding that men marrying men was somehow "OK"? THis is what I meant when I referred to folks like you as "New Catholics". My friend the part that would be humorous (if it were not so sad) is how you think you are the "Guiding light of the Church" as you run the ship aground.

When I was a kid (right after Vatican 2) we had 4 full Masses every Sunday, if you weren't early be prepared to stand.

They don't have that problem no more.

[Dan and Judy 614]

2.As for your comments about what the Catholic church does, get real Steve, many of the positions you hold are in direct disobedience of your Faith

The missionary position is the only position endorsed by the church.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

From the title, I thought this thread was going to be about Ted Haggard swapping wives with Gary Busey

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1. If you need new testament scriptures to base those positions on let me know, I think it is "you" who might do well to give the Kos a break and actually read a little scripture before making such silly statements that the mentioning of homosexuality is limited to the Old Testament.

Catholics are biblical contextualists - meaning, we don't take the literal meaning, but rather discern between the authors (like St. Paul for example) own personal hangups (imperfections) and the Truth. The Catholic Church's official stance on women not being able to be ordained as priests is an example of an archaic understanding of the Truth. They will eventually have that role, but the Church is usually a couple of centuries behind progress. Same with gay marriages. The Episcopalian Church (our closest 'cousin' so to speak) accepts not only priests to marry, but they can be women and they can be gay.

2.As for your comments about what the Catholic church does, get real Steve, many of the positions you hold are in direct disobedience of your Faith (though who knows what goes on in your local Parish). DId you "contextualize" yourself to a understanding that men marrying men was somehow "OK"? THis is what I meant when I referred to folks like you as "New Catholics". My friend the part that would be humorous (if it were not so sad) is how you think you are the "Guiding light of the Church" as you run the ship aground.

When I was a kid (right after Vatican 2) we had 4 full Masses every Sunday, if you weren't early be prepared to stand.

They don't have that problem no more.

Ah, that explains your archaic views on Christianity. You're still stuck in pre-Vatican II mentality, when women had to wear a veil in church. I'll bet your father was a hardliner and you're just a chip off the ol' block. I'm too a chip off the ol' block, except that my father became an ordained deacon and continuously took theological courses which helped evolve his understanding of the Truth. It was he who told me that perhaps in the future, the Catholic Church would accept gay marriages, based on the understanding that God is all loving and all that is loving comes from God. If two men or two women are committed to one another and love one another - there is no evil in that. To think there is something evil about it is failing to really understanding the message of the Gospel. Don't get tripped up by words when the larger context is that God's greatest commandment is to love.

Edited September 22, 2011 by DFH

[Danno 1,228]

Catholics are biblical contextualists - meaning, we don't take the literal meaning, but rather discern between the authors (like St. Paul for example) own personal hangups (imperfections) and the Truth. The Catholic Church's official stance on women not being able to be ordained as priests is an example of an archaic understanding of the Truth. They will eventually have that role, but the Church is usually a couple of centuries behind progress. Same with gay marriages. The Episcopalian Church (our closest 'cousin' so to speak) accepts not only priests to marry, but they can be women and they can be gay.

Ah, that explains your archaic views on Christianity. You're still stuck in pre-Vatican II mentality, when women had to wear a veil in church. I'll bet your father was a hardliner and you're just a chip off the ol' block. I'm too a chip off the ol' block, except that my father became an ordained deacon and continuously took theological courses which helped evolve his understanding of the Truth. It was he who told me that perhaps in the future, the Catholic Church would accept gay marriages, based on the understanding that God is all loving and all that is loving comes from God. If two men or two women are committed to one another and love one another - there is no evil in that. To think there is something evil about it is failing to really understanding the message of the Gospel. Don't get tripped up by words when the larger context is that God's greatest commandment is to love.

Your words speak for them self and as I wrote above, you see yourself as a "guiding light" for the RCC... I knew I was right on that too.

What you didn't address was the collapse, post Vadican 2, instead you brought up The Episcopalian Church.. which too is now headed for a major world wide split due to this same issue, in fact some in higher ups The Episcopalian Church are actually entertaining the idea of reuniting with the Catholic church after the split.

Steve you again fall into your own trap of "tradition"..... why did you limit this Love between two people" to just -two people? Here lets examine your inherited spiritual logic on the matter and see where it might lead.

<<<<based on the understanding that God is all loving and all that is loving comes from God. If two men or two women are committed to one another and love one another - there is no evil in that.>>>> Kinda sounds like a pretty wide open door to me so

why do you know best about whether or not saaaaay three people can swim in this love you wrote of, why are you bound by your old traditions, why not allow people the freedom to choose -who and how many... are united in love?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your words speak for them self and as I wrote above, you see yourself as a "guiding light" for the RCC... I knew I was right on that too.

What you didn't address was the collapse, post Vadican 2, instead you brought up The Episcopalian Church.. which too is now headed for a major world wide split due to this same issue, in fact some in higher ups The Episcopalian Church are actually entertaining the idea of reuniting with the Catholic church after the split.

Steve you again fall into your own trap of "tradition"..... why did you limit this Love between two people" to just -two people? Here lets examine your inherited spiritual logic on the matter and see where it might lead.

<<<<based on the understanding that God is all loving and all that is loving comes from God. If two men or two women are committed to one another and love one another - there is no evil in that.>>>> Kinda sounds like a pretty wide open door to me so

why do you know best about whether or not saaaaay three people can swim in this love you wrote of, why are you bound by your old traditions, why not allow people the freedom to choose -who and how many... are united in love?

There you go again - thinking it's a battle of 'words' instead of the truth and inspiration behind those words. You are a modern day Pharisee - more concerned about the letter of the Law than the heart of it.

No, I don't think it's up to individual discernment to know the Truth, but an individual can discern what Truth is. Martin Luther had an understanding of Truth even though he also was in error on many things. Buddha knew Truth, Mohammad knew Truth, but Christ is the Truth, and that Truth is love. The Catholic Church doesn't consider homosexuality a sin, only sex outside of marriage, and I would imagine you and probably most other Catholics you know have had sex outside of marriage so you are no less sinful than a gay person. So the fact that the Catholic Church currently will not bless gay marriages, their reasoning is rooted in the idea that marriage is primarily for procreation. In fact, if a straight couple wanted to get married in the Catholic Church, but outright said they don't want any children, the Church wouldn't marry them.

Trying to argue that if you allow gay couples to marry in the Church then the Church must open itself up to polygamy or marrying animals is beyond silly. The sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church is recognized as a Holy union between two people who've chosen to commit to loving one another unconditionally, until death. There is no difference between gay couples who have that commitment and straight couples. The love a couple give to one another is experiencing Christ's love and a committed gay couple are no different from you and your spouse in that respect.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

There you go again - thinking it's a battle of 'words' instead of the truth and inspiration behind those words. You are a modern day Pharisee - more concerned about the letter of the Law than the heart of it.

No, I don't think it's up to individual discernment to know the Truth, but an individual can discern what Truth is. Martin Luther had an understanding of Truth even though he also was in error on many things. Buddha knew Truth, Mohammad knew Truth, but Christ is the Truth, and that Truth is love. The Catholic Church doesn't consider homosexuality a sin, only sex outside of marriage, and I would imagine you and probably most other Catholics you know have had sex outside of marriage so you are no less sinful than a gay person. So the fact that the Catholic Church currently will not bless gay marriages, their reasoning is rooted in the idea that marriage is primarily for procreation. In fact, if a straight couple wanted to get married in the Catholic Church, but outright said they don't want any children, the Church wouldn't marry them.

Trying to argue that if you allow gay couples to marry in the Church then the Church must open itself up to polygamy or marrying animals is beyond silly. The sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church is recognized as a Holy union between two people who've chosen to commit to loving one another unconditionally, until death. There is no difference between gay couples who have that commitment and straight couples. The love a couple give to one another is experiencing Christ's love and a committed gay couple are no different from you and your spouse in that respect.

I don't believe your a Catholic for the fact you don't seem to the slightest clue about the Catholic Church. Homoism is considered a sin with the Catholic Church and the closest Church to the Catholic Church is the Orthodox Church which also considers **'s as sinners. The next closest church to the Catholic Church is the Lutheran Church...the one that kicked the Catholics ####### all across Germany...yay, and the also consider **'s as sinners.

You might want to do your homework first before you go posting about the Catholic Church.