Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
really bad move by my local diocese
Topic Started: May 28 2006, 08:45 AM (1,202 Views)
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
AlbertaCrude
May 30 2006, 02:35 PM
collateral damage.

More like friendly fire?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
May 29 2006, 11:00 AM
Rick, I "equate" the two, because polygamy and incest is almost universally seen as wrong and sinful, yet homosexuality lately has become more accepted, more tolerant...yet all of those acts are considered sinful and sexually perverse.

Considered sinful and perverse by whom? Just by you, I assume!

What's your problem with other people's sex live? Who or what gives you the legitimation to judge on them and tamper with their private life?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Your assumption is 100% incorrect, Klaus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
May 30 2006, 10:58 AM
Your assumption is 100% incorrect, Klaus.

I was not aware of having an assumption :P

But in which way is it incorrect?

edit: ok, you mean my assumption that it is only you is incorrect. OK, maybe. Let's say: "You and a few others" ^_^
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Sex is supposed to be sinful and perverse. That's what makes it so much fun. At least, that's what I've heard.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Klaus
May 30 2006, 03:04 PM
The 89th Key
May 30 2006, 10:58 AM
Your assumption is 100% incorrect, Klaus.

I was not aware of having an assumption :P

But in which way is it incorrect?

edit: ok, you mean my assumption that it is only you is incorrect. OK, maybe. Let's say: "You and a few others" ^_^

:D Better! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
May 30 2006, 11:11 AM
:D Better! :D

OK, but what's your answer to my question to you?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
:popcorn:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 11:09 AM
Sex is supposed to be sinful and perverse.

Imperfect sex is sinful anything else is just perverse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Oh sorry Klaus,

I don't have a personal problem with what other people do in the sack. I've said before, they can have orgies, have sex with their cat, do anything they want, really.

But when it's brought into the public domain (marriage, legal rights), or brought into Church (leadership positions, setting a good example), if someone's personal life is brought in the open (like having homosexual relations, while being the leader of church music), it becomes more than just their personal lifestyle. I say prostitutes or adultery, because those (along with homosexual relations), are among many very clear and noticeable sins that the church should stand against. It's not a personal thing. The church has rules....rules based on the Bible, which is God's word. The church has the duty to set an example with their leaders - whether they lie all the time, abuse their wives, pick up prostitutes, slander others, or have sexually perverse habits.

Again, I personally wouldn't have done anything, because the Church is supposed to welcome all and I'm not easily offended, but at the same time, I wouldn't complain if the church asked any leader to step down because of blatant, re-occurring, sinful behavior...whatever it might be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
May 30 2006, 03:25 PM

Again, I personally wouldn't have done anything, because the Church is supposed to welcome all and I'm not easily offended, but at the same time, I wouldn't complain if the church asked any leader to step down because of blatant, re-occurring, sinful behavior...whatever it might be.

So you think it would be OK to sack him if he was caught buying contraceptives in the local supermarket? Now granted, Jesus never said anything about buying supersize Trojans, but the RC rules seem to say that using contraceptives is a sin. Do you think firing is justified, or do you think it's a little old-fashioned?

It's a slippery slope, after all. Particularly if you're covered in jelly.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
AlbertaCrude
May 30 2006, 11:24 AM
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 11:09 AM
Sex is supposed to be sinful and perverse.

Imperfect sex is sinful anything else is just perverse.

Sexual perversion is anyone who is kinkier than I am.

I, of course, am within the bounds of "normalcy."
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Rick Zimmer
May 30 2006, 04:29 PM
AlbertaCrude
May 30 2006, 11:24 AM
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 11:09 AM
Sex is supposed to be sinful and perverse.

Imperfect sex is sinful anything else is just perverse.

Sexual perversion is anyone who is kinkier than I am.

I, of course, am within the bounds of "normalcy."

What's the difference between erotic and perverted?

Erotic - you use a feather

Perverted - you use the whole chicken
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt G.
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
How about envy, pride, etc.? These are also catalogued as sins of no lesser stature than any others. All in favor of a constitutional amendment prohibiting selfish people from getting married raise your hands....

Thanks, Dwain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
And what about masturbation, working on Saturdays etc., which are serious sins that should be penalized by death, according to the bible?

The bible is full of contradictions, and every logician can tell you that you can conclude everything from a contradiction.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 04:24 PM
The 89th Key
May 30 2006, 03:25 PM

Again, I personally wouldn't have done anything, because the Church is supposed to welcome all and I'm not easily offended, but at the same time, I wouldn't complain if the church asked any leader to step down because of blatant, re-occurring, sinful behavior...whatever it might be.

So you think it would be OK to sack him if he was caught buying contraceptives in the local supermarket? Now granted, Jesus never said anything about buying supersize Trojans, but the RC rules seem to say that using contraceptives is a sin. Do you think firing is justified, or do you think it's a little old-fashioned?

It's a slippery slope, after all. Particularly if you're covered in jelly.

If it's the church's particular position that using contraceptives is sinful, then it's valid for them to hold to that standard, especially with their leadership. Although I know "every sin is just as bad as the next", I don't believe every sin has the same consequences. For example, what sets a worse example? Using contraceptives and having a faithful marriage? Or not using contraceptives but committing adultery all the time?

For example, I would encourage the "sacking" of a man who has sex with other men before "sacking" someone who lies every now and then. In the same way, I would encourage the "sacking" of a person committing adultery or picking up prostitutes, before "sacking" a practicing homosexual.

In the end, I usually wouldn't take any action unless the church was being hurt by that individuals actions, or if they were setting clearly a bad example. But if the church does "sack" a leader, because of a repeating, blatant sinful activity...I'm not going to complain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Too pure water killed the fish. I still think it's a bad move.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Matt G.
May 30 2006, 04:35 PM
How about envy, pride, etc.? These are also catalogued as sins of no lesser stature than any others. All in favor of a constitutional amendment prohibiting selfish people from getting married raise your hands....

Thanks, Dwain.

If the heterosexual music leader was envious or prideful every day, unapologetic about it, etc...they are also sinning and setting a bad example and should be "sacked" along with homosexual leaders.

We all sin, every day. But it's not always the same sin, and we should try and work on it. That's not a bad example...it's actually a good example. Every leader sins. Those who commit the same sin, every day, ignore what the Bible teaches about it and are unapologetic ignoring God's word, are setting bad examples.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
So sins are okay so long as you mix it up? Like, a white lie here and a little envy there are okay, so long as you're not doing the same thing, every day?

That's ridiculous, man.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

No, I didn't say it was ok, I said it's not something you should be sacked for.

Answer me this, Aqua...would you protest if your church removed your music director because he was known to pick up prostitutes each night after church?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
John D'Oh
May 30 2006, 02:24 PM
The 89th Key
May 30 2006, 03:25 PM

Again, I personally wouldn't have done anything, because the Church is supposed to welcome all and I'm not easily offended, but at the same time, I wouldn't complain if the church asked any leader to step down because of blatant, re-occurring, sinful behavior...whatever it might be.

So you think it would be OK to sack him if he was caught buying contraceptives in the local supermarket? Now granted, Jesus never said anything about buying supersize Trojans, but the RC rules seem to say that using contraceptives is a sin. Do you think firing is justified, or do you think it's a little old-fashioned?

It's a slippery slope, after all. Particularly if you're covered in jelly.

If the local priest is buying Trojans at the local pharmacy, I think it might be of interest to his bishop....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
May 30 2006, 02:40 PM
And what about masturbation, working on Saturdays etc., which are serious sins that should be penalized by death, according to the bible?

The bible is full of contradictions, and every logician can tell you that you can conclude everything from a contradiction.

Sins of Onan, etc?

Aren't you treading a bit in the OT, not the NT?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I think the whole notion of sin does not make any sense.

Human behavior is not regulated by "commandments" given from above, but by moral standards which are derived from common values that people agree on
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
May 30 2006, 12:55 PM
Klaus
May 30 2006, 02:40 PM
And what about masturbation, working on Saturdays etc., which are serious sins that should be penalized by death, according to the bible?

The bible is full of contradictions, and every logician can tell you that you can conclude everything from a contradiction.

Sins of Onan, etc?

Aren't you treading a bit in the OT, not the NT?

Yes, that's OT. But isn't the OT an important document to the church?

Does the NT say anything about homosexuality, incest etc?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Klaus, the NT talks about homosexuality, adultery, and other sexually-related items. IMO, it's even more clear and relevant than what is said in the OT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3