|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Ambiguity of Fornication
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Incidentally, before the thread in Hell descended into profanitiy and verbal abuse and dead horse territory (particularly thanks to Marvin) the discussion had been about the status of Prince William and Katherine's pre-marital sexual relationship. I suggested that it was fornication and out-of-order for the a future Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I also suggested that someone in the episcopate should have had the bottle to rebuke William for such sin, instead of people like + Richard Chartres sucking up to the Royal Family just because one of his fellow bishop isn't similarly prepared to turn a blind eye to William's obvious commitment issues.
Call me Numpty
Don't import Hell discussions into Purgatory, by direct quote, summary or critical comment on content. That's a no-no because of the different Board purposes and guidelines.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
As a Quaker I do share that view.
I almost said Quaker earlier. I'd be very interested to hear about your understanding of marriage.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, I think that a marriage ceremony is a recognition of a relationship that has already come to exist. In my tradition we make promises in the form:
quote:
In the presence of God (OR In the fear of the Lord and in the presence of this assembly), Friends, I take this my friend NAME to be my husband/wife, promising, through divine assistance (OR with God's help), to be unto him/her a loving and faithful wife/husband, so long as we both on earth shall live (OR until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us)
So without a presider - and this is because traditionally we understand marriage as an action of God. In essence I see a marriage ceremony as socially useful - but probably not absolutely necessary.
That said if I end up with a life partner I would probably choose to marry.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I should add - though this can only be further discussed in Dead Horses - that the form of words is about to be amended, because we find ourselves led to recognise and celebrate same sex marriages.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I suppose the Roman Catholic understanding of marriage as a sacrament is helpful in answering this question. If a sacrament (following the Anglican definition) is a outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace then, yes, it is possible for a couple to be 'married' before any formal ceremony has taken place. My understanding however, is that such marriages require public solemnization in order to qualify and continue as Christian is the fullest sense.
It certainly wasn't the case until (at least) very late in the middle ages. It was generally accepted by both church and state that all it took to make a marriage was for the couple to make an explicit statement to each other of their intention to be husband and wife (even a witness was not absolutely necessary). The requirements of licenses, banns, and formal solemnization were instituted (and became increasingly mandatory) because of the problems that arose from secret marriages (such as lawsuits). But that was a process that took several centuries.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
If someone is in a committed, monogamous relationship - is this in fact a marriage in the biblical sense, regardless of whether a service has taken place ? If not, why not ?
As I understood it, if you go back more than a few centuries in England most 'commoners' had a 'common law wife' (or husband) and never went through any kind of service. Church marriages were for nobility to whom it was important to distinguish between legitimate heirs and illegitimate ones.
[Edit: beautiful x-post with Timothy]
[ 25. November 2010, 21:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Boogie -
quote:
young people live together before they marry these days - and good on 'em I say.
I see......Stuff the Bible and its Author, I have the platform and this is the 21st Century. What does it matter what God's Word may say.... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
[fixed code and deleted pointless duplicate post]
[ 26. November 2010, 03:20: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Numpty: it would appear from your tone that you would prefer that William and Kate should not get married at all, since they would then be honest fornicators (and would no longer be under sentence of anathema from you, which probably doesn't matter to them anyway)
The alternative would be for each of them to marry someone else with whom they have not fornicated, so they would no longer be doing that particular form of activity. BUT those marriages would not have been "test driven" and we would probably be back to Charles and Diana again.
Neither is a particularly desirable outcome, except that you wouldn't be fulminating in public, an activity which is probably forbidden by some obscure social rule normally applied to bishops.
Is there no scope in whatever church it is you subscribe to for something akin to forgiveness and "don't do that again", which seems to be what Jesus actually said?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wisewilliam
Shipmate
# 15474
|
Posted
I have read through this thread from the beginning. Why do the words "Self-righteous prig" keep coming to my mind. When you think of the way the Royals treated Dianna and their expectations that a 20 year old could understand the pressures of the fishbowl publicity machine, I think Prince William and Kate Middleton are very sensble to let her be exposed to what their life together is bound to be like. Now she understands what it feels like, she is in a position to decide whether or not she can take it.
The church has to keep up with society when it comes to marriage and family anf if there are priggish, oldfashioned people locked in the past, they have to prepare to suffer in silence.
--------------------
oldman
Posts: 79 | From: Dundas, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there no scope in whatever church it is you subscribe to for something akin to forgiveness and "don't do that again", which seems to be what Jesus actually said?
And if they need forgiveness then it is no more than the rest of us for being such voyeurs.
Isn't it just the 'human traditions' that are being flouted?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
I have read through this thread from the beginning. Why do the words "Self-righteous prig" keep coming to my mind. When you think of the way the Royals treated Dianna and their expectations that a 20 year old could understand the pressures of the fishbowl publicity machine, I think Prince William and Kate Middleton are very sensble to let her be exposed to what their life together is bound to be like. Now she understands what it feels like, she is in a position to decide whether or not she can take it.
The church has to keep up with society when it comes to marriage and family anf if there are priggish, oldfashioned people locked in the past, they have to prepare to suffer in silence.
People have the right to voice whatever religious belief they want to express. You have a right to ignore them. You do not have a right to silence them. I'm not sure what you mean by Church. I guess you mean the Church of England. Then again, I'm starting to think the Church of England is a big joke that now exists a cautionary tale for Christians about avoiding entanglements with their national government.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
ByHisBlood, there is a really nice thread here where you can introduce yourself to people on the Ship, should you choose to do so.
You will receive a warm welcome there, and it is a good place to exchange friendly greetings.
If you don't mind a suggestion, though, maybe hold off on the there!
[ 26. November 2010, 02:56: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there no scope in whatever church it is you subscribe to for something akin to forgiveness and "don't do that again", which seems to be what Jesus actually said?
And if they need forgiveness then it is no more than the rest of us for being such voyeurs.
Isn't it just the 'human traditions' that are being flouted?
Well, it depends on if you believe the church is guided by the Holy Spirit or not. If no, then they are only violating human traditions. If yes, then they are violating more than human traditions.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
although I haven't conducted that many weddings.
Now, which of your beliefs would make people decide to find someone else to conduct their wedding? That you'd consider them to be fornicators because they live together already, or that you would expect one of the couple to be like a slave to the other?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The answer why Prince William and Kate Middleton must be considered fornicators (in the modern sense) for almost a decade, if they had any sex that is, is simply that they seek marriage now. Thereby they declare that they were not married before and I see no reason not to believe them. If they considered themselves to be married, they would instead seek a "simple convalidation" or a "radical sanation" of their invalid marriage.
Now, maybe they are doing that, because it certainly could be so arranged that the "show" for the public looks near indistinguishable. Yet I have not heard anything so far that would indicate that they are aware of any problem with their previous arrangements. Thus that seems rather unlikely.
If one wants to avoid the "fornication label", a more likely story is I that this is not about celebrating marriage before God, but before man. That in a sense is fair enough as far as the couple is concerned, if they indeed married each other earlier (likely invalidly, but perhaps not consciously so) and now just want to get the public on board. The problem then is more why the Church is playing along, given that her obedience is to God primarily, not to man.
As far as they personally are concerned, why are we going on about it? I'm 95% certain that they were/are fornicators. So was I. Now I'm married, and so they will be. Let's hope that it is a start in a better relationship before God for them, and wish them all the best for it. The only problem I see here is that Prince William is likely going to be a "Defender of the Faith" one day. Some show of awareness that there is some problem with pre-marital sex would seem appropriate to that job description...
--------------------
Theyll have me whippd for speaking true; thoult have me whippd for lying; and sometimes I am whippd for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That does presuppose that sexual activity is a concern of the The Faith, with one particular view of what is and is not acceptable something to be Defended.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
As someone else pointed out above, the position being taken by Numpty and various others on this thread does depend on a particular interpretation of 'fornication' that many of us would not apply to a couple living together in a committed relationship.
Even if we accept this definition - which I don't - I can't for the life of me think of anything in Jesus' teaching that would imply people living in such a relationship were merely compounding their sin by getting married at some point.
Are we to understand from this that, although Jesus made a point of hanging around with people who were labelled 'sinners' by the religious establishment, he drew the line at not mixing with anyone who had had premarital or extramarital sex? And that his general statements about forgiveness being available to all have the unspoken proviso 'Unless you have had premarital sex'?
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
IngoB, I wasn't really intending to go on about it - I was interested in the wider principle underlying the idea, but at the moment its as if the upcoming royal wedding has a gravitaional effect on threads.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
As someone else pointed out above, the position being taken by Numpty and various others .....
Are we to understand from this that, although Jesus made a point of hanging around with people who were labelled 'sinners' by the religious establishment, he drew the line at not mixing with anyone who had had premarital or extramarital sex? ...
Oh, everyone knows Jesus only mixed with those with the proper Calvinist dispensations and Letters Of Credentials, and so many facial pimples that temptation simply wasn't a problem, really. And everyone knows that the Blessed live among us and have full mySQL Query database access to the Divine to determine who's on the Saved list and who not.
You know, Arrietty, what this reminds me of? It reminds me of many Christian men I have see, FINE upstanding, well, at least upper bourgeois if not terribly up to it, Christian men, who would bounce up to a visiting preacher or their mega-pastor and say, breathily, "You know, I believe/think/feel God has given me the Gift of Leadership....."
When I overheard suchlike, and I'm surprised myself at how many I have heard utter those sentiments, I always felt like taking the silly boy to the side and hammering him over the head with a thick telephone direcrtory (old police trick; it leaves no visible bruises. Don't ask), and telling him, look, you silly little boy, it's the situation and good will * that make a leader, not wishful thinking. In any bad situation, simply lead and lead well, and ffs, don't wank on about it.
It's like that with all the ... [for want of a better term] men who want women submitting like so many fainting violets to them. I feel like using the Sydney telephone directory (very thick and heavy) on them, and saying, "Ffs, just be a man, if you can, and shut tf up if you can't, and stop instead demanding some sort of fake manhood conferred on you by women pretending you actually have a visible non-microscopic pair of balls".
Oooo, and then there's the backbiting denuciations like old spiteful women over the house fences gossiping evilly about someone, in such a very voyeuristic fashion (ooo! living together, are they? Bonking every night?), and then the doctrine of salvation by taking that all and elevating it, saving it, gloriously redeeming it, to the Theology of Self-Righteous Damnation. Or in other words some theologies have no need of Peter Mandelson or me with our cynical, cynical, cynical ways and spin-doctoring skills, because frankly, when you get right down to it, those theologies are far more cynical and evil than anything I, Mandelson or Satan himself could come up with. When Pentacost comes to mean being filled with the Spirit of a lowergrade Fred Phelps.
* Interestingly enough, a new sociological/psych study shows narcissists make mediocre to incompetent leaders. They're most often simply not up to the tasks, not fit for purpose. They believe owing to their narcissism they have the entitlement to lead, since they project that so much many others believe them, so they often end up leading, but they're actually not every good at it, not good at the job. It's an interesting study indeed.
[ 26. November 2010, 07:40: Message edited by: Gurdur ]
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Well, Numpty, if ever head shaving, public denouncements from the pulpit of 'notorious sinners' and branding comes back, I'm sure the authorities know where to go to find the guy who'll do the job. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As it happens, I can respect, while not agreeing with, the view that takes a legalistic, immovable view of what the Bible would classify 'fornication', because I understand where it's coming from. However, I'm bound to say that as with much that is Biblical, my own understanding is, it's the principle essence of what the laws surrounding fornication were designed to achieve that is important, rather than the incidental contexts.
That is, a protection for people, principally women, who were exceptionally vulnerable to being loved and left in an age when that could mean the difference between a settled married life, with bed and board; and being abandoned disgraced, dishonoured and left to fend for oneself, or chained to the family.
There was also, of course, sadly the element of punishment. Presumably for the 'harm' done to an innocent and blameless society by the moral criminality of two consenting adults sharing intimacy ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) .
As much of our society no longer views a sexually active unmarried person as a pariah; and accepts as normative 'living together', I feel it's hard to argue that legalistic adherence to a Biblical view of fornication is helpful or applicable. Debateably, a strong downside to this might be a devaluation of the uniqueness and specialness of sexual intimacy. But that does seem to be a very subjective thing.
However, I can see how, in societies or cultures where people are still inclined to view consenting and non-abusive extra or pre-marital sex as an occasion for public interest and/or punitive action it is safer to stick to the literal Biblical view. But I can't see that as a good thing, myself.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Numpty--
Is what you suggest in the realm of good pastoral care? Seems more like beating them for fun and profit.
As to whether W&K have "commited fornication":
Well, we don't know whether they did or didn't. And a person's father generally isn't a good source of info about his kid's sex life.
If they had sex (which, frankly, is none of our business) and that presents some sort of impediment to being Head of the Church,...I suspect that most past British monarchs have had similar impediments, if not far, far worse.
That kind of "sin" would be between William, Kate, their confessor, and God.
I think it's enormously sensible of William to try to make sure Kate understands what she's gettng into. (Wearing his mom's engagement ring is probably quite a reminder.) No one should have to go through what Diana did. Personally, I hope they either elope or have a very small, private wedding. That would declare definite boundaries from the beginning.
Leave William and Kate alone. Give them space to give their marriage a healthy foundation and start...and to have and to keep some mental health.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The answer why Prince William and Kate Middleton must be considered fornicators (in the modern sense) for almost a decade, if they had any sex that is, is simply that they seek marriage now. Thereby they declare that they were not married before and I see no reason not to believe them. If they considered themselves to be married, they would instead seek a "simple convalidation" or a "radical sanation" of their invalid marriage.
Now, maybe they are doing that, because it certainly could be so arranged that the "show" for the public looks near indistinguishable. Yet I have not heard anything so far that would indicate that they are aware of any problem with their previous arrangements. Thus that seems rather unlikely.
If one wants to avoid the "fornication label", a more likely story is I that this is not about celebrating marriage before God, but before man. That in a sense is fair enough as far as the couple is concerned, if they indeed married each other earlier (likely invalidly, but perhaps not consciously so) and now just want to get the public on board. The problem then is more why the Church is playing along, given that her obedience is to God primarily, not to man.
As far as they personally are concerned, why are we going on about it? I'm 95% certain that they were/are fornicators. So was I. Now I'm married, and so they will be. Let's hope that it is a start in a better relationship before God for them, and wish them all the best for it. The only problem I see here is that Prince William is likely going to be a "Defender of the Faith" one day. Some show of awareness that there is some problem with pre-marital sex would seem appropriate to that job description...
The problem with the first part of your argument is that there IS no process of 'regularising an existing common law marriage' known to either the law or the church. This is because we no longer regard 'common law marriages' AS 'marriages'. The semantics have changed.
One can argue that perhaps there SHOULD be a process. And to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it was discovered that a few centuries back, there was such a thing. Nor would I be surprised if some concept along those lines existed in countries where civil marriage is totally separate from any religious service (France for example, and I think quite a few other European countries, and China as well).
But one cannot ask a couple to go through a process that doesn't exist.
I would argue that talking about them as a 'couple' is the nearest we can get to it with our current semantic boundaries. They will be going from 'couple' to 'married couple'. If you look at it that way, they are providing a nice adjective.
[ 26. November 2010, 08:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would argue that talking about them as a 'couple' is the nearest we can get to it. They will be going from 'couple' to 'married couple'.
Yes - and if the C of E has a problem with that 'they' certainly aren't saying so as far as I can see.
[ 26. November 2010, 08:24: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
It only remains to be said after all of that in the thread that the only genuine ambiguity of fornication that there is is if you were so stoned/drunk the last night you can't remember whether you
1) visited the brothel
2) actually managed to accomplish anything in there.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I'm assuming it might be something to do with the fact that Prince William will, in all likelihood, become the Supreme Governor of the Church of which Numpty is a licenced cleric. We have seen the importance some attach to the oath of alleigance to the monarch with the sorry tale of the Willesden/London debacle.
This is not simply the handsome heir to a fortune marrying a beautiful heiress, nor is it relevant only to readers of Country Life or the Tatler. This is the probable next but one Supreme Governor of the Church of England marrying.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm really quite curious, Numpty, why you have such a strong opinion about this. As far as I can tell through the anonymous nature of the Internet, you are not a member of this couple, nor are you their parent or their priest.
Sorry, my post above was in response to this. I'd somehow missed the fact I was only on the first page!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
It only remains to be said after all of that in the thread that the only genuine ambiguity of fornication that there is is if you were so stoned/drunk the last night you can't remember whether you
1) visited the brothel
2) actually managed to accomplish anything in there.
One can accomplish things in brothels?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
...
Are we to understand from this that, although Jesus made a point of hanging around with people who were labelled 'sinners' by the religious establishment, he drew the line at not mixing with anyone who had had premarital or extramarital sex? And that his general statements about forgiveness being available to all have the unspoken proviso 'Unless you have had premarital sex'?
I think His universal position was "sin no more".
So, an admonition to an unmarried couple might be something like "get married or stop having sex".
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Are we to understand from this that, although Jesus made a point of hanging around with people who were labelled 'sinners' by the religious establishment, he drew the line at not mixing with anyone who had had premarital or extramarital sex? And that his general statements about forgiveness being available to all have the unspoken proviso 'Unless you have had premarital sex'?
Yes, but I;m not sure that Jesus' hanging about with sinners amounted to a carte blanche to sin.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'm assuming it might be something to do with the fact that Prince William will, in all likelihood, become the Supreme Governor of the Church of which Numpty is a licenced cleric. We have seen the importance some attach to the oath of alleigance to the monarch with the sorry tale of the Willesden/London debacle.
This is not simply the handsome heir to a fortune marrying a beautiful heiress, nor is it relevant only to readers of Country Life or the Tatler. This is the probable next but one Supreme Governor of the Church of England marrying.
Thurible
The Church of England has not historically seen fit to openly rebuke the Monarch for his personal life. Indeed, the CofE become independent of Rome because of Henry VIII's marital difficulties. I do not recall any cleric demanding the head of Charles II for his innumerable mistresses, or any of the Hanovers, save George III.
The notion of the Monarch being a paragon of civic and moral virtue only emerged with Queen Victoria. As the monarchy lost effective political power, it became seen as an institution for instilling morality.
Considering the history of monarchy, it would be hardpressed if any to say that many of them should be seen as paragons of Christian virtue.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but I;m not sure that Jesus' hanging about with sinners amounted to a carte blanche to sin.
Do you think Jesus gave people carte blanche to sin?
If you don't, why do you assume that I would give other people carte blanche to sin, since I am clearly talking about following Jesus' example?
Did Jesus give the woman taken in adultery carte blanche to sin? Certainly not. Did he give those who were about to stone her carte blanche to judge her sinfulness to be greater than theirs? No.
So if I am trying to follow Jesus' example, should I go round pointing at people and naming them as fornicators? I think not.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, an admonition to an unmarried couple might be something like "get married or stop having sex".
How, exactly, was the sex before the wedding different from the sex after the wedding?
If the couple reamain just as committed - no difference whatsoever imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I;m not sure that Jesus' hanging about with sinners amounted to a carte blanche to sin.
In actual fact, God has given us free will so we are all free to sin. Jesus paid the price of that sin, so that if we truly repent we don't have to.
So if you want to look at it that way, Jesus has given us 'carte blanche to sin.'
'Whatever that means.'
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It seems pretty clear that views vary depending on what kind of sacramental view you hold. If, somehow, a Christian marriage needs a priest to pronounce with authority "those whom God has joined together ...." then without that sacramental act - and its related acts in the marriage ceremony - perhaps something vital has been excluded from the marrying process.
The old phrase "without benefit of clergy" assumes that a marriage at the very least benefits from the priestly sacramental acts.
Lots of low church people do not have a sacramental view of marriage (or baptism) preferring to think in terms of "outward signs" at best, arguing that what happens in the heart is the heart of the matter. If you think that way, its perfectly possible to argue that a true commitment between a couple is "graced by God" at the point where the couples' hearts are changed towards one another. Similar arguments may be applied to conversion for example.
I tend to see things that way, but I'm conscious that the human capacity for self-deception means that sincerity is not always enough. Pragmatically at least, I think it helps folks to accept the seriousness of what they are doing to make solemn promises in public before witnesses. But if they only do that because its the done thing, are not moved by its seriousness, then I'm not sure what is going on. In those circumstances, I wonder whether they are.
All of which leaves fornication not just ambiguous for me, but rather obscure. I take "ambiguous" to mean "capable of two interpretations only ..."
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but I;m not sure that Jesus' hanging about with sinners amounted to a carte blanche to sin.
Do you think Jesus gave people carte blanche to sin?
Er... I think I've at least implied that He didn't.
quote:
If you don't, why do you assume that I would give other people carte blanche to sin, since I am clearly talking about following Jesus' example?
Might you not therefore have something to say about such sin, or at least an opinion on it?
quote:
Did Jesus give the woman taken in adultery carte blanche to sin? Certainly not. Did he give those who were about to stone her carte blanche to judge her sinfulness to be greater than theirs? No.
No, but He did have something to say to her. Something to do with her not sinning, wasn't it? At least implied in that instruction was a comment that what she had been doing was a sin.
quote:
So if I am trying to follow Jesus' example, should I go round pointing at people and naming them as fornicators? I think not.
Would you therefor ignore sin, then? What if the sin were, say, exploitation of children in India? Or is it just sexual sins to which one should turn a blind eye?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Would you therefor ignore sin, then? What if the sin were, say, exploitation of children in India? Or is it just sexual sins to which one should turn a blind eye?
I'd say we should focus our energies on those sins and wrongdoings that negatively affect people other than the sinner.
So no, most sexual sin wouldn't be included in that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
St Paul would perhaps disagree with you there
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
That's his prerogative.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
Matt Black and Numpty, which couple would you say commits the greater sin:
The couple who blithely spends $50 to $100 on gasoline to go shopping on Black Friday, while knowning that other families in their neighbourhood have perhaps $40 to feed their family for an entire week?
OR
Their unmarried next door neighbours who stay home today and enjoy frolicking together in bed?
[still can't spell ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ]
[ 26. November 2010, 15:32: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I wonder whether much of the difference in views here boils down to how one views sin. ISTM that some folks see sin as something that we do, while others see it more as a state of our being. The first group might point to a passage of scripture that seems to condemn sex out of wedlock, while the other might invoke the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector. I don't doubt that we all are missing the boat, but perhaps we each are trying to catch a different ferry...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Does it matter whether the sin is 'greater' or 'lesser'? It is right to seek to 'quantify' sin in that way?
[reply to SF]
[ 26. November 2010, 15:51: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
This whole thing puts me in mind of a couple of things. One is a blog post pointed out to me recently.
The other is that personally I would have been quite happy getting 'married' to Mrs Snags by going somewhere nice, with a handful of people who meant something to us both, and just stating publicly before them and God that "This is it". That would have meant no more or less to me in terms of commitment and 'rightness' than churching it up, and considerably more than going to the registry office.
However, we currently[1] live in a place and time where 'society', rightly or wrongly, attaches different meanings/values/interpretations to those who live together long term, and those who marry. So getting married in church was, for me, a) a form of public witness on both a faith and a relationship level and b) something of an obedience, rather than a prideful and largely pointless eff you.
[1]Although arguably less pronounced than 15 years ago when it was pertinent to me.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
And if they need forgiveness then it is no more than the rest of us for being such voyeurs.
Isn't it just the 'human traditions' that are being flouted?
Well, it depends on if you believe the church is guided by the Holy Spirit or not. If no, then they are only violating human traditions. If yes, then they are violating more than human traditions.
Wait ... is this an appeal to ... TRADITION? How that warms an Orthodox heart!
quote:
quote:
And if they need forgiveness then it is no more than the rest of us for being such voyeurs.
Isn't it just the 'human traditions' that are being flouted?
Well, it depends on if you believe the church is guided by the Holy Spirit or not. If no, then they are only violating human traditions. If yes, then they are violating more than human traditions.
One can lose things.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I think His universal position was "sin no more".
So, an admonition to an unmarried couple might be something like "get married or stop having sex".
Rather begs the question, doesn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's his prerogative.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 26. November 2010, 16:05: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
@ Matt Black - which bit of Jesus' parable about motes and beams, or his condition that those who are without sin should cast the first stone, are you having trouble with?
Is it all just too simple for someone as highly intelligent as you?
Although I know plenty of Christians who believe they are called to go round pointing out other people's sins, since this will in some way save them, my reading of Jesus' teachings is that we are very definitely to address the totality of sin in the world one person at a time, starting with ourselves.
It's my observation that most people who feel called to denounce sexual sin do not feel quite as strongly about other sins which Jesus felt were dangerous.
Spiritual pride, for example, or a lack of mercy.
[ 26. November 2010, 16:46: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
... what is a marriage in biblical terms ? The marriage service did not spring up fully formed on the occasion of the resurrectoin of Christ. So how would a Christian have married in 100AD ?
If someone is in a committed, monogamous relationship - is this in fact a marriage in the biblical sense, regardless of whether a service has taken place ? If not, why not ?
Imho, any couple that sincerely vows monogomous fidelity to each other, even without the papers to prove it, they are married and not fornicating....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I agree.
It is of particular importance to groups whose social / public recognition of marriage has been denied for long periods - so as a Quaker I am especially aware that for a long time no one accepted our marriages. As a gay woman I am also very aware that for a long time committed partners had no access to a public rite.
For people / groups in this position - the theology of the enaction of marriage is particularly important. Public rites and recognition of marriage are socially useful - but to a religious person the fact of marriage as a sacrament and state of being may be most personally important.
It seems to me that the orthodox church have been most clear in recognising this - but I am not sure if the Roman Catholic church recognises a marriage of this kind.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
although I haven't conducted that many weddings.
Now, which of your beliefs would make people decide to find someone else to conduct their wedding? That you'd consider them to be fornicators because they live together already, or that you would expect one of the couple to be like a slave to the other?
I'll answer you when you present me with something I actually believe. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Welcome back to the thread. Do any of my unanswered questions to you above pass muster?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Well, the marriage service we all know and love so well may be fairly novel in historical terms, but surely in OT times there must have been some sort of rite to distinguish wives from concubines - both of which were OK (-ish?) in the eyes of God.
What went on at Cana before the wine ran out? Did the Steward do the whole business or would there have been a priest or a Rabbi present?
[ETA Apart from You Know Who, I mean] ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 26. November 2010, 17:25: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
