[Vision2020] Classical Christian hypocrisy?

[Taro Tanaka]

-- Princess Sushitushi

"keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:

>You're a bit of an ass.  You know that, don't you?

No, I don't know that, actually. I'm not a "bit" of an ass; I'm a humongous 
ass, and I have a humgongous ass -- always getting in people's way -- and it 
also happens to be a pimply, cellulited, human-gas ass. Sort of like this:

http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd4143/sumo-competition-98.3.jpg

However, it does come in handy (or perhaps "assy"), for moving pianos 
single-handedly. You may perhaps surmise from this self-description that I 
am a Lutheran of the *very* old school, as in early 16th century -- a 
veritable curmudgeon from the dungeon, and if you did surmise that you might 
not be far off. I have a secret dream of breaking into right-wing radio with 
my nationally syndicated program, Mopium for the Asses.

I endeavored to conceal my grim reality with my happy moniker (which was 
actually the name of a character created by Carol Burnett and Harvey 
Korman), but you saw through it, and so I have confessed all.

>The argument you postulate in sarcasm has been responded to repeatedly in 
>seriousness.

Really? Please point me to even one reply to my sarcastic-but-serious 
contention that the radical individualism and legalism inherent in modern 
secular approaches to the "age of consent" is absurd and untenable. 
According to the modern secular approach, there comes a time in a child's 
life where the parent can no longer have ANY decisive say in his child's 
decisions concerning sex, and that time is determined by a very specific 
point in time. A single tick of the clock makes all the difference. Likewise 
the difference between "felonious offender" and "legitimate lover" is 
determined by a single tick of the clock. The modern secular approach iis 
totally contrary to what the Bible teaches about sex at virtually every 
point, so a person must reject one or the other. One cannot embrace both. 
(When I say "reject," I don't equate that with refusing to obey, because 
there are laws which I think are severely in conflict with the Bible and 
obedience to them involves no sin on my part, so I can obey them despite 
disagreeing with them.)

I do not wish to defend Jamin Wight in the least -- not at all. But the fact 
of the matter is, the Bible gives exactly this kind of a case law example 
and explains how to deal with it. And the way to deal with it is NOT the way 
the modern state deals with it.

Exodus 22:16-17 "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie 
with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly 
refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of 
virgins." Contrast that teaching with what the State of Nebraska did to this 
couple:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8716780/

Matthew had been having a relationship with a 13-year old girl. It was one 
thing after another -- he didn't realize at first how young she was, the 
girl's mom didn't realize at first how old he was, and so on. After the girl 
became pregnant, her mother gave permission in May for Koso to take the 
young woman to Kansas, which allows minors to get married with parental 
consent. The girl is now 14 and seven months pregnant.

"The idea ... is repugnant to me"” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon 
Bruning. "These people made the decision to send their ... 14-year-old 
daughter to Kansas to marry a pedophile." He said the marriage is valid, 
thanks to the "ridiculous" Kansas law, "but it doesn’t matter. I'm not going 
to stand by while a grown man ... has a relationship with a 13-year-old -- 
now 14-year-old -- girl."

Seems to me he doesn't have any choice in the matter. The guy is married to 
the girl, and the marriage is valid. That means it's nobody's business now.

"It seems to me like they, as much as they could, made a responsible 
decision to try to cope with the problem," Yoesel said. "The families are 
all united in this effort. ... What benefit is there to anybody in the 
prosecution of this young man?"

What benefit, indeed.

I personally know two couples where the husband and wife are separated by 
more than 10 years, although admittedly none of the marriages took place 
when one of them was 14 or 15. (In both cases the wife is older.) One man is 
a partner in a major international law firm, and one man is president of a 
successful computer software development company. I also know of some cases 
where teens had shotgun weddings, although they were both teens at the time. 
These two contingencies can be logically combined: teenage shotgun weddings 
where one party is ten years or more older than the other. I don't see why 
we *automatically* have to classify such a person as a "pedophile." The 
Bible doesn't do that -- the Bible calls such a person a husband (assuming 
the girl and her father are willing to have the man as a husband) -- a 
husband who hopefully just had the spiritual equivalent of getting a 
two-by-four upside the head, and isn't going to repeat his foolishness in 
the future.

Again, none of that is said in an attempt to defend Jamin Wight, but simply 
to point out that the State's approach is in conflict with the Bible.

And the entire, modern, secular approach to sexual matters is also totally 
off-base, because it leaves God out of the picture. Biblically speaking, 
there is no such thing as a relationship that exists only between two 
people. At the very least, God is always involved, and God's approval is 
required. And if God does not approve of the relationship, then it is 
sinful. And that is that.

-- Prince Late-for-Dinner

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/