home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!purdue!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!psinntp!psinntp!coopsol!gordons
- From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Re: I know more than I want to. (formerly: PRO-LIFERS: ABORTION...)
- Keywords: From: decay@
- Message-ID: <1992Jul20.162525.24504@coopsol.com>
- Date: 20 Jul 92 16:25:25 GMT
- References: <1992Jul9.185749.13280@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <8g_m!wm.gordons@netcom.com> <1992Jul16.174541.5729@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
- Organization: Stay Awake Software
- Lines: 114
-
- <1992Jul16.174541.5729@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) said:
- >gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
- >>>That statement is incorrect. The priest is not the one who 'marries' the
- >>>two people. He has no power to do so.
- >
- >>He certainly does. I suggest you try getting married by a priest not
- >>authorized by the local or state government. You'll find out that it is
- >>not legal.
- >
- >I'm talking from a theological, not a legal, standpoint. Regarding marriage,
- >the legality of it all is just a technicality, anyway, in my opinion.
-
- Do you personally view those millions of people that have been married via
- civil service ceremony as NOT *really* married?
-
- >>> The Church teaching is that the two
- >>>people themselves confer the sacrament - through their marriage vows.
- >>>If they are sincere in their vows, then God joins them together.
- >
- >>Since only this god can know if these two people are sincere (I've never
- >>been to a wedding where he put in a personal appearance and formally
- >>declared them sincere) it follows that if they *do* want to get a divorce
- >>that this god DID NOT join them together (else he joined them when they
- >>weren't sincere).
- >
- >No, as I said, the Church merely gives its approval to what it believes
- >to be a valid marriage, as a way of proclaiming to the community that
- >the couple is married. Don't be so contemptuous of a very dignified tradition.
-
- Contenpt has nothing to do with it (although I am contemptuous of
- inconsistency and hypocrisy). You claimed that the couple are only
- religiously married if your god finds them sincere. The church has *NO*
- (none, nada, nothing, zero, zip) evidence that your god ever finds two
- people sincere. Therefore your church is taking a shot in the dark by
- giving it's approval of any marriage where this god doesn't make a
- personal appearance.
-
- >Then they would have to admit that they lied before God at the marriage
- >ceremony, which most couples would not have really done anyway.
-
- No, the fact that they *want* and/or need a divorce is a sign that they
- should not be married. Your god would not have joined two people together
- who shouldn't be together, right? It follows that he might not have
- approved of their marriage in the first place.
-
- ...
- >>>Again, if the people no longer believe in the Church when they seek a
- >>>divorce, they always have the free-will to leave it and get a divorce
- >>>as they see fit. The Church will never recognize it, however.
- >
- >>It should since it's a sign from their god that the marriage wasn't
- >>sincere, and therefore was never approved.
- >
- >No, sincerity does not mean living out one's promises. Sincerity simply
- >means, in this context, making a promise in good faith. That's al that's
- >necessary for the marriage to be valid.
-
- I thought that all that was needed was for god to approve? What of all
- those "arranged" marriages that your god approved of in the past? Did
- those require that the individuals be sincere in their love and
- commitment, or were they just married by force of church?
-
- >>>Also, there is an implication here that we'd have our God do whatever
- >>>we wanted to - however, the Church has far more integrity than that.
- >
- >>Really? Anyone out there care to remind our friend here which
- >>organization imprisoned Galileo for the 'crime against the church' of
- >>declaring the earth revolves around the sun. Was there ever an admission
- >>of error?
- >
- >Yes, there was. Again, your contempt for the institution is unyielding.
-
- I was under the impression that no apology was ever stated. Could you
- tell me when this apology was offered? Like, how many years after his
- death.
-
- >>>Through examination of Christ's teachings, the Church, as the teacher
- >>>of the faith on Earth, has decided that God does not permit divorce.
- >
- >>They also decided once that the earth was the center of the universe, and
- >>that 'heathens and pagans' should be converted by the sword, and that
- >>Witches should be burned to death.
- >
- >>>Anyone who gets married in the Catholic Church knows that asking a
- >>>priest to preside over a 'divorce' ceremony would be heresy.
- >
- >>Only because it's not 'religiously correct' at this time. Sooner or later
- >>the Church changes it's mind about the "infallible word of god".
- >
- >Excuse me, but I was discussing, originally the merits of today's Church
- >regarding the teachings on marriage. If you cannot restrict your arguments
- >to the topic at hand without such tirades against Church history, then
- >you really, in my mind, do not wish to discuss the issue. If you want
- >to talk about the whole Church, then make an argument against it. Maybe
- >I'll respond to a responsible critique.
-
- You may have originally been discussin church marriage, but you brought
- into this discussion the church's interpretation of Jesus' teachings and
- the bible. Since the church has proven to be extremely fallible in their
- other interpretations how is it you believe their interpretation in this
- matter is accurate?
-
- I'm sure you'll only respond to that which you wish to respond. I'm
- likewise sure that you feel I'm completely unreasonable in my observations
- of your beloved church and their crimes/deeds. My only response is, if
- you can't defend your position wrt the church then don't pretend you can.
- Don't blame me for asking the *wrong* questions.
-
-
- Gordon
- --
- The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
- of whatever company you think I work for. So there, thhhbbbt!
- Message to Kodak: Freedom for Dan Bredy.
-