Bush, Fundamentalism, and the Meaning of Life

Harold, you state that opposition to divorce is not “theological”. You are mistaken. The Catholic Church forbids divorce because Jesus prohibits it - see Luke chapter 16, verse 18 where Jesus says "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” or 1 Corinthians, chapter 7 verse 10-11 where Saint Paul says “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”

Fundamentalists who have accepted divorce are not fundamentalists. If they persist in calling themselves evangelical, Bible believing Christians they are being dishonest.

It is ironic that some of the very same people who want a US Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman on Christian Biblical grounds are divorced. Isn’t divorce the greatest destroyer of family values? Why don’t evangelicals demand a Constitutional amendment prohibiting divorce? Jesus is very clear on the subject. Obviously, such a prohibition would not be convenient.
 
Horace, my apologies if I was not clear. I was speaking of Fundamentalists' objections to divorce. The primary thrust of their objection being cultural and not theological. We Catholics have the Magistarium. Fundamentalists will not accept any authourity outside themselves in the interpretation or application of Scripture. Some Protestants do have institutions that serve as a weak authourity, so you can't categorically say evangelicals. But Fundamentalists do reject all authourity in the interpretation and application of Scripture other than the individual. Which is not authourity at all.
Othewise we agree, divorce is a greater harm to the family than homosexual unions, at least up til this point. What the future will hold is unknown.
As to the honesty or dishonesty of evangelicals or fundamentalists; that was part of my broader point and its connection with politics. The rejection of a questioning spirit in their faith has lead to their holding contradictory ideas simultaneously. (When I speak of questioning, I'm refering to questioning as a manner of increasing knowledge and intimacy. I'm specifically NOT refering to questioning as a means to discredit or to create doubt.) This habit can easily lend itself to other areas, ie politics.
 
Interesting comments, Harold. In fairness to "fundamentalists", they would say that what matters is the authority of the BIBLE, not the authority of the individual. Of course there are somtimes differences as to what the Bible actually says. Regarding divorce, the Bible is really quite clear. Jesus addresses the issue, thus the prohibition has to be taken very seriously. My point about homosexuality is that if the practice is sinful, as the Catholic Church and the fundamentalists believe, it must be less so than the sin of divorce or divorce and remarriage. Consider this: a homosexual act, once committed, is over and done with. The evangelical asks God for forgiveness and is forgiven. The Catholic does the same, through the intermediary of a priest. He is forgiven. He resumes his life as a Christian. The divorced person can't get out of his state of sinfulness. It is permanent. Marrying again seriously compounds the sin. This is why the Catholic Church has found an escape hatch: the divorced and remarried Catholic may receive the sacraments if the couple both agree to a life of chastity.

Regarding authority, there is really no Protestant denomination that has any real "authority" in the sense of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Even the most Catholic of Protestants, Anglicans, are ruled by the weakest of governing bodies. As to whether the Catholic Church has a right to invest so much authority in one man, the Pope, is arguable. It was not always so. As you know, the doctrine of papal infallibility began in the 19th century.

I agree with your comments on "questioning". An important part of the Ignatian tradition is developing an analytical mind that asks questions and seeks reasoned answers.
 
The claim that Scripture is clear is certainly (to my satisfaction) refuted by the existence of some thirty thousand Protestant denominations. Then of course there are quite a few quasi-Christian sects that reject, based on Scripture, some of the principle Christian teachings, the Trinity for example. Again part of the issue of honesty in Protestantism, particularly with Fundamentalists is that they consider their interpretation or application of Scripture Scripture itself. As I said the 'authourity' present in some Protestant demoninations is weak. I'm thinking of those which have 'bishops' and those in the Reformed tradition. It is true that Scripture is sharper than a two edged sword. But then the question is; who shall wield it?
As to divorce, it is a Protestant problem. There can be no Catholic divorce. Catholics may obtain a civil divorce, but that does not affect the sacramental state of the marriage. As you say, Catholics who divorce in order to remain in the sacramental life of the Church, must embrace a celibate life. But that option is also open to Protestants. Another solution would be of course is a civil remarriage of the spouses.
As to homosexual relationships, the real risk to society is in their acceptance and institutionalisation. Without those steps, it is hardly different than any other mortal sin. The proper response would be contrition, confession and penance (from a Catholic perspective). However with the acceptance and institutionalisation, the institution of marriage is undermined. But the beginnings of such a crack is to be found in contraception. It was contraception that first severed the procreative and the unitive purposes of the marital union. The question is what is marriage? Is it a civil institution or a sacrament? Which one it is determines who regulates it.
I think the ability of a body of bishops to collectively maintain the Faith is shown by the Anglican example to be difficult at best. It is further shown by the Orthodox and Catholic split. Now the formal definition of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was promulgated in the First Vatican Council by Pius IX; but the doctrine certainly existed before hand. But as you say anything is arguable. Which is the very reason that a Pope is necessary.
 
or is it too early to speak in that terms?
However the senate victory took many by surprise didn't it?
 
"bf4" said:
or is it too early to speak in that terms?
However the senate victory took many by surprise didn't it?
Click to expand...
What difference does it make? As Ken Livingstone once said: "If voting made a difference, they'd have abolished the ballot box a long time ago." I'm reminded of Dante's Inferno, where the sign outside reads, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." Just one glance at the likes of Hillary Clinton or Johm Kerry -- all smarm and sanctimony -- should suffice to engender despair. The Democrats' unspoken message: "Choose us! We're ever the minutely lesser evil."
 
This is a direct response to bf4, as a member of the voting public that participated in last Tuesday's election, it was a referendum of the IRAQ and the end of 12 years of GOP in power. And to bigbadwolf, I like you - I really like you. I think your extreme intelligence is very sexy, I mean that as a turn on!
The demographics that voted the GOP out of office will surprise you but the DEMS victory was not unexpected. Grassroots movement to oust the career politicians in the GOP has been happening for a few years now. It is too early to know who are throwing their names into the hat for higher positions, but for the first time, the DEMS agree that to get things done in Washington they need a woman to do it - watch for Nancy Pelosci - she is no push over.
The war in Iraq had to end and majority of the populace want the boys and girls that are in there back home! The economy in the US needs to be resusitated, the affordable housing needs to be addressed ( again), general medicare coverage out on the negotiating table again and immigration issues needs to be taken cared of - no more pussy footing on the issues.
Lastly, as a very politically involved person, I liken the 12 years of the GOP as a long love affair, everything was salacious, exciting even mind blowing while it lasted - but it had to come to an end sooner or later. People just got tired of the same old song and dance - the numbers of body bags and body parts coming home were too much. The people of the US spoke thru their ballots and archaic as the ritual seems, it is the best we have so we do the best we can with it, consider the alternative - bone chilling, really.
To those who do not vote, I say, You are not allowed to bitch about the government and the country you have nor the state it is in, if you do not make the effort to even vote.
So Bush has his tails between his legs now and the feeling is never that good. Dogs know defeat when it sees it.
 
"Grazie" said:
And to bigbadwolf, I like you - I really like you. I think your extreme intelligence is very sexy, I mean that as a turn on!
Click to expand...
I blush with embarrassment. I'm a respectable married man. That said, I'm always open to new propositions.
The war in Iraq had to end and majority of the populace want the boys and girls that are in there back home! The economy in the US needs to be resusitated, the affordable housing needs to be addressed ( again), general medicare coverage out on the negotiating table again and immigration issues needs to be taken cared of - no more pussy footing on the issues.
Click to expand...
Has any mainstream Democrat come out and said, "We need to get the hell out of Iraq, come hell or high water, and pronto?" Has any mainstream Democrat announced any concrete (and plausible) proposals to revive a moribund economy? Ditto for the other pressing issues. Or is it just more anodyne words?
The one result that pleased me was the election of Bernie Sanders of Vermont. His policies:
http://bernie.org/?page_id=77
 
I have always been on the up and up on my admiration of intelligent men, and I just called it the way it is, nothing wrong with that. I did not mean to offend you or your wife. My apologies if I offended you, or her.
Actually, the Democrats have been calling for Runsfeld's release from his post for awhile now- and that was the first on the agenda upon take over of the House and Senate. The last thing the DEMS wanted was to appear un-supportive of the soldiers in Iraq by calling for their withdrawal NOW - the US people and DEMS wanted a plan and timetable ( include budget) as it pertains to Iraq. TheGOP did not have this - every month the cost of the war was escalating - not mentioning the lives lost . GATES, the CIA man, is more reasonable and his resume boasts of a better strategist than Rumsfeld ever was. As anything else that happens after a midterm election, we had some bad seeds to take out and we took small steps to accomplish that.
The GOP was not in touch with what the US people concerned with - because of the scandals and the fact that they were digging their heels on the stem cell research advancement and studies, together with gay rights issues, the DEMS were attempting to pass the bill to increase the Min Wage (stagnant for the last 9 years and was killed in the Senate because the GOP had the rule in the House) ; environmental issues, the DEMS have always been tagged as tree hugging, veggan eating people while the GOP will not even ratify the KYOTO convention to help diminish the illl effects of global warming - issues that are significantly relevant to a good portion of the voting public this time.
BBW, I am happy to say that the baby boomers and the generation X and Y are move involved today more than ever and let us not forget the increasing numbers of Hispanic voters - the times a-changing , hopefully even just a little bit for the better.
One day I hope to meet you and you will get to see who is behind this posting - you will be surprised.
 
"Grazie" said:
I have always been on the up and up on my admiration of intelligent men, and I just called it the way it is, nothing wrong with that. I did not mean to offend you or your wife. My apologies if I offended you, or her.
Click to expand...
None needed: in my decrepit old age, I'm flattered by any attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top