September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« The Old Faith for a New Day | Main | Darwin Day Is Not Really about Darwin »

February 11, 2011


These two articles shed some interesting light on the subject:

What do you think?

Another example of wishing the text said something else. So we can sleep easy when our heads hit the pillow.

I'd be curious to see how these authors deal with the Pauline and Gospel texts that explicitly address male-female complimentarity and then connect that understanding to the Church as the bride of Christ. Also, it would be interesting to see how they deal with Creation itself, that maleness and femaleness are at the root of our being, that the commandment to honor mother and father was referring to real beings that embody maternity and paternity. I suspect that the authors see sex through the lens of an age that sees it as "doing it" rather than being it. It is the latter that grounds the Christian understanding. But you can't know that without knowing the theological infrastructure from which the Bible arose and its first readers embraced.

It would be like a constitution scholar taking the phrase "general welfare" and inferring that it requires a food stamps program.


There are people that do that with the constitution :(


I sat up when I saw, "I'd be curious to see how these authors deal with the Pauline and Gospel texts that explicitly address male-female complimentarity...", and got more amazed as I read further. (At that stage, I hadn't looked at the author, assuming he/she was non-Catholic), and so I was going to say, 'Well look at Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body'! :)

But then, when I did see the author, it struck me how, 'one, holy, catholic, and apostolic', describes something real that has such a recognisable signature which is metaphysical rather than epistemological, too.

It's more than merely 'like minds', and something I had never experienced so palpably before...

Question I've always had is "who is considered married"? Are non-Christians married, since they basically made their pledges to each other to a foreign god, or to no god at all? Does the Christian God here their requests? And if He does in this context, are there other requests of non-Christians that he would answer or grant?

I know many Christians say that they acknowledge people as married IF the state does so. But what if the state change the rules? What if the couple is a common law couple that just lives together for 7 years and the state deems them married?

And for those who may think non-Christians arent married, then if they do decide to become Christians, should they marry again - this time, under the true God of Christianity.

You raise some important issues, PTB, and too may to be dealt with in a combox, but maybe the problem arises also in terms of (re)baptism? That is, even in a purely Christian context.

For, when it comes to believer's baptism, many Christians, contrary to the Nicene Creed, get rebaptised, and some have multiple 'baptisms', because 'This time, it's the real thing. This time I truly believe'. (Until the next time. As if the congregation they belong to at this moment in time supersedes those they've been baptised into before.)

It seems to me that both these problems arise from a non-sacramental view of these matters which, therefore, relies on the feelings, decisions, or actions of the individual, and not grace.

The comments to this entry are closed.