1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

81 year old grandmother fired - she is a women

Discussion in 'The OT' started by wkomorow, Aug 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 29, 2006 #41 of 173
    Laverne

    Laverne Guest

    2,498
    0
    Feb 17, 2005
    Not quite sure what you're saying Nick. The church should reject the sin, but certainly not the sinner. Now, I (personally) wouldn't want an openly gay person trying to preach my sermons on Sunday. But the notion of not letting in anyone who's sinning? They'd have to lock the doors cuz even the preacher couldn't get in. Man is sinful by nature. Try not sinning for a day, I dare you. :)

    The idea of someone trying to wait till their life is all perfect and THEN going to church is an absolute impossibility. That's what church is for. :)
     
  2. Aug 29, 2006 #42 of 173
    skidog

    skidog Godfather

    400
    0
    Dec 2, 2004
    I quit going to church because I am perfect!:D
     
  3. Aug 29, 2006 #43 of 173
    Laverne

    Laverne Guest

    2,498
    0
    Feb 17, 2005
    Well, I brought it up just cuz I thought it was funny. I didn't try to pick apart the concept. Not having a DVR (still! :icon_cry: ), I have to find entertainment in commercials wherever I can, and I found that one amusing. Maybe it was the very notion that all so-called "conservative" churches would do that which I found humorous! :grin: (And Preacher knows I'm fairly conservative. ;))

    Well, Bogy... I seem to find myself lost in the quagmire they like to call the Potpourri forum. I've even broken my self-imposed "one post per Pot forum thread" rule, and given more than one opinion. :nono2: (But I didn't even get to give my opinion on the original topic of this thread!) Back to gold for me!! ;)
     
  4. Aug 29, 2006 #44 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    I don't think that's what he's saying, and it's not what I'm saying. Yes, we're all sinners, but we're not allowed to just continue in our sin. We're required to try to better ourselves in that regard. Part of the Catholic sacrement of confession involves that very notion - you have to go in with a contrite heart (and let me tell you, spilling it all out in front of a priest is a VERY humbling experience) with a real sense of being sorry for the sins you've committed, and with the promise that, with God's help, you'll work to do better in the future.

    If a church says "you're behavior is ok" despite being called out in the Bible as NOT being ok, then what exactly are you doing for that person? Aren't you just helping to keep that person in a life of sin? We would most certainly welcome people who are gay, just like we would welcome any sinner, but you're called to recognize the sinful stuff you're doing, and attempt to not do it anymore.
     
  5. Aug 29, 2006 #45 of 173
    ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    Maybe granny got canned because they found out she was lebanese.:confused:
     
  6. Aug 29, 2006 #46 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you or anything. I guess I just come at this from a certain perspective. As I'm sure everyone here knows by now, I'm a devout, conservative Catholic. And Catholic doctrine is different than the teachings of most protestant denominations. For example, just acknowledging that Jesus is Lord is not enough. We are called to do good works, and to attempt to counter sin, both in our lives and to help others do the same. Yes - we welcome all who want to come in, but we would be committing a sin in allowing you to continue in yours.
     
  7. Aug 29, 2006 #47 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    And just to clarify one point, and this goes to something Nick said, the behavior is separate from the person. One question I hear quite alot is, what if you're gay and Catholic, are you automatically going to hell? No - being gay isn't the sin. Engaging in sodomy is. There are many gay Catholics who live in communion with the church just fine - they remain celebate. Not saying that's an easy row to hoe, but that's what it would entail. Just wanted to clarify that point.
     
  8. Aug 29, 2006 #48 of 173
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Just some thought here... whatever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged"? If only God is supposed to be judging... then by what right would a church choose to reject anyone? Seems to me that none of the people in a church would be qualified to judge whether or not someone has repented his sins... so it shouldn't be up to the church to reject someone who may or may not be still sinning... right?
     
  9. Aug 29, 2006 #49 of 173
    billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    My problem with religion and its focus on gays is the way many people insist on seeing homosexuality as a super-sin. There is so MUCH focus on homosexuality. Much more than some of the ten commandments.
    I sometimes wonder why...what's the big deal?
    And I know the answer from many is because they feel it's a counter to the so-called "homosexual agenda"---there's this notion that gays are trying to convert our kids or something...I dunno- I've never seen any of that. If anyone has an agenda it's Christianity. I see it everywhere. Religous people volunteering their beliefs without being asked, religious television, religious radio....I don't have a problem with any of that- it's just if anyone is trying to put their views out there- it's got to be the religious right...I hear from them much more than my local gay crew who, perhaps, are out trying to convert the straights.

    But beyond that, it's illogical to think God would make all these gay people and tell them that they can't do anything about it. Since being with a woman is just as nasty a thought for a gay man as being with a guy would be for 'me', they're basically told by religion to be celibate for their entire life. It just doesn't compute. Something tells me, the Bible may come out against homosexuality for reasons other than God's will.
     
  10. Aug 29, 2006 #50 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    The way I've always read that is that you're not allowed to judge the person. But I believe you're clearly called to judge the behavior. That's why the church spends so much time and energy in spelling out what they believe is considered sinful (based on their readings of scripture). Is it subjective? Some of it is, sure. I mean, the Bible doesn't specifically say that artificial birth control is wrong, but that's clearly the teaching of the Catholic church. And by the way, judging behavior is not the same as condemning the person. We're called to love everyone, and the church believes ardently in wanting people to be absolved of their sins. One thing that our priests contend with is why people stay away from confession (apart from it being uncomfortable and all). Based on what they say, they seem to hear things like "I've done some REALLY horrible things...and I'm not sure God will forgive me..." As one priest said on a blog site - the only real unforgivable sin is believing that God can't forgive you.

    For example, the church in recent years addressed a very real and touchy question. What if your child turns out to be gay? How are you to handle that? The doctrine holds that you're not to condemn your child... you're not to kick them out of the house... you're to love your child (of course we're called to pray for them), and that just because they engage in a sinful lifestyle (assuming that they do) you are not to ostracize them for it.
     
  11. Aug 29, 2006 #51 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006

    You know what, I agree with you. For some reason homosexuality is given that status, and I believe it's wrong to treat it that way. It's a sin, but so is lying, and bearing false witness, and stealing... and gossiping. I'll hear people condemn homosexuality and in the same breath engage in blasphemy.

    Where I don't agree is that it would be purposeless for God to make you gay if there's nothing you could do about it. I believe we're all given our crosses to bear. We all come with some baggage - some innate nature toward sin. For some, that would be homosexuality. For other, things like pornography... or adultery. I believe God is giving you a challenge for you to contend with. One concept that I've come to understand -- and this came to the forefront with The DaVinci Code. Apparently (I've never read the book or seen the movie, nor do I intend to) they show members of Opus Dei engaging in self-flaggelation. While they don't really whip themselves, they do engage in some minor forms of self-mortification. It's designed as a way of faith through suffering.
     
  12. Aug 29, 2006 #52 of 173
    billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003

    I don't disagree with that. But to ask homosexuals to refrain from having a sex life because our sex is ok and theirs, by definition, is a sin, is just something I can't accept.
     
  13. Aug 29, 2006 #53 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but heterosexuals who remain single are held to the same standard. If you're not married, sex isn't allowed (that's one of the misconceptions I hear from time to time -- why not let priests have sex - get rid of the concept of celibacy? Except that celibacy isn't directly about sex... it's about marriage. Priests can't get married, hence they can't have sex). Besides, sex outside of the procreative act is forbidden as well... and yes that includes married couples. Hence the objection to artificial birth control - it gets in the way of the creative act. And so is sodomy... and other activities that I won't get into here. It's also why premarital sex is not allowed. We're really strict in that regard (and this is one of the things that MANY Catholics wrestle with) - sex outside of the procreative act is what's a sin. Whether homosexual or heterosexual. Ditto for engaging in what's considered mutilation for purposes of sexual activity (getting a vasectomy or tubal ligation).

    You can make the claim - "well, how convenient... create a situation where gays CAN'T have sex..." Like I said, not an easy cross to bear.
     
  14. Aug 29, 2006 #54 of 173
    ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    :icon_cry: :icon_cry: :icon_cry:


    This is contrary to what other churches teach in that marital sex creates oneness. For that brief moment, (a little more brief for some), two become as one.

    By that line of reasoning after a married woman reaches menopause it's sinful for her and her husband to have sex for the rest of their lives - even though she may stay married to the same man for another 40 or fifty years?:scratch:

    Does the Catholic Church really think this is workable?
     
  15. Aug 29, 2006 #55 of 173
    billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    Well, let me know when the major Christian churches in this country start preaching as hard about sex IN marriage not designed for pro-creation as they do about homosexuality. I mean, honestly, most families only have two or three kids at most now-a-days. I suppose that they had sex three times and quit? No @#&*ing way!
     
  16. Aug 29, 2006 #56 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    First off, we teach the same thing. Marital sex creates oneness - but not just with one another, but also with God. Please don't ask me to prove that one :) Second, I should have been more clear. We're not ONLY allowed to have sex during ovulation either. It's the specific act that's at issue. I don't want to get too lewd here - but it's an act that can only be engaged in by a man and woman. Stuff like birth control gets in the way of the creation of potential life, which is why it's against the rules. But if you engage in the activity, you don't need to ensure success, if you know what I mean. You just need to engage in the act that CAN result in life.

    Otherwise it wouldn't only be sinful for having sex during menopause, but also if one of the two is infertile. In fact, we're (and I know this is going to start another spark, but what the heck), we're obligated to have sex. Not all the time, and certainly not "on demand" but intentionally withholding sex from your spouse is also a sin.
     
  17. Aug 29, 2006 #57 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    I agree - we kind of stand apart in that regard. Trust me, we get hit over the head with this all the time :) I think the Catholic church has probably the most rigid doctrine on sexuality out of any Christian denomination. Most don't preach that, and most are fine with birth control and the like.
     
  18. Aug 29, 2006 #58 of 173
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    jpl, I'll accept that you never said the Bible endorsed slavery (although if you look at the Old Testament books of Leviticus and Dueteronomy you will find the rules for owning slaves), but where did I say the ad said anything about conservatives? Where does the ad say anything about conservatives? I think you are reading something into it that isn't there, out of your own defensiveness.

    One of the differences between Catholics and at least my branch of Protestants, is that it doesn't so much matter what the church considers sinful, but what God considers sinful. I haven't found the passage in the Bible yet where God condemns a loving, committed relationship between two consenting adults of the same gender. God condemns gang rape, sex with temple prostitutes, forcing your slaves to have sex with you, pedophilia, all kinds of behavior that might take place between people of the same sex. But I have not found condemnation of loving couples of the same sex.
     
  19. Aug 29, 2006 #59 of 173
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Then, unless they become priests, you are denying them the sacrament of Marriage.
     
  20. Aug 29, 2006 #60 of 173
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Yes, the sexual sins are and always have been, the biggies. Even when Christians say that all sins are equal, so you can't just "sin a little", when it comes down to it, the sexual sins get lots more attention. Even though, as I have attempted to point out previously, Jesus didn't spend much time talking about sexual sins. His first big topic was the subject of the Kindom of God/Heaven, and #2 was money and the treatment of the poor and powerless. This is what Jesus seemed to think the really big sins centered around. The Old Testament prophets seem to agree with him. But if anything there are "conservative" preachers and authors who make the emphasis of their ministry the accumulation of goods. If you have faith God will reward you with all your heart desires. :rolleyes: One of the biggest problems Israel had in the Old Testament was the reoccuring problem of the gap between the classes. We have the same problem today. The focus and blame are placed on gay marriage as causing the downfall of America, and the problem of the widening gap between the haves and have nots is ignored. This is not a Biblical view to my understanding of things.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page