S
stephe1987
Guest
ssmwhynot.com/
This was a good presentation and is very informative. It focuses on the family and non-religious reasons to oppose “gay marriage.”
- Status
This was a good presentation and is very informative. It focuses on the family and non-religious reasons to oppose “gay marriage.”
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Excellent presentation! In 4 parts about 15 minutes apiece. I listened to it while prepping Thanksgiving fare. Thank you for bringing this valuable audio/video link to CAF.
The presenter is Dr. Jennifer Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute. The state and the country needs more people like her. She is the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World, (2005) and Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work (2001), recently reissued in paperback, as Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village.
She practices what she preaches. She and her husband are the parents of a birth child, an adopted child. From March 2003 to August 2006, Dr. Morse and her husband were foster parents for San Diego County. During that time, they cared for a total of eight foster children.
There must be something special about San Diego. It attracted CAF founder Karl Keating and Dr. Morse!
From the presentation, here are two good sites to bookmark:
Ruth Institute is a treasure trove of very useful information, one of which is the pamphlet (image provided) 77 Non-Religious Reasons for Man/Woman Marriage. I could not find a downloadable file, which would be good to provide in this forum.
Projects of the Ruth Institute:
Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion.
The presenter is Dr. Jennifer Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute. The state and the country needs more people like her. She is the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World, (2005) and Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work (2001), recently reissued in paperback, as Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village.
She practices what she preaches. She and her husband are the parents of a birth child, an adopted child. From March 2003 to August 2006, Dr. Morse and her husband were foster parents for San Diego County. During that time, they cared for a total of eight foster children.
There must be something special about San Diego. It attracted CAF founder Karl Keating and Dr. Morse!
From the presentation, here are two good sites to bookmark:
Ruth Institute is a treasure trove of very useful information, one of which is the pamphlet (image provided) 77 Non-Religious Reasons for Man/Woman Marriage. I could not find a downloadable file, which would be good to provide in this forum.
Projects of the Ruth Institute:
- Campus Speakers Bureau, bringing lectures and debates to pro-life, pro-marriage student groups around the country, at minimal cost to the students.
- Gay Marriage Affects Everyone: a workshop series explaining the importance of man-woman marriage. Offered to churches and other non-profit organizations.
- Student Essay Contests, to reward and identify young people who share the Ruth Institute’s vision.
- “Life in the HOV Lane,” You-Tube Video Contest: Wacky Things That Could Only Happen in a Big Family.
- PADS: Parents Against Dumb Sex: an advocacy group for parents and grandparents concerned about the culture of sexual license.
- Week-end Seminars for students and young adults, giving them the tools they need to defend the family to their peers and to prepare for married life
- Assist Students in Organizing pro-life, pro-family clubs on their own campuses.
- Research and Research Dissemination Program.
- Week-end Seminars for Engaged Couples: potentially for the “tough cases” of the churches, couples who are currently cohabiting, and resistant to Christian teaching.
- The Ruth Institute Supper Club (RISC) bringing high quality pro-family speakers to San Diego County.
- Ruth Institute Books publishing project, bringing research to the public in the form of books, booklets, research briefs, audio CD’s and DVD’s.
Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion.
S
stephe1987
Guest
Thanks for the links! I had the first link but not the second, so I added it to favorites.
Here is the Catholic brochure from the second link.
nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf
Protestant (non-Catholic Christian) version:
nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf
Jewish version:
nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/JewishEnglish.pdf
Here is the Catholic brochure from the second link.
nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf
Protestant (non-Catholic Christian) version:
nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf
Jewish version:
nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/JewishEnglish.pdf
M
Married31Years
Guest
is a treasure trove of very useful information, one of which is the pamphlet (image provided) 77 Non-Religious Reasons for Man/Woman Marriage.
Are you kidding?? Have you read “77 Non-Religious reasons”?? Sure, go ahead and quote this junk, like I did. The you too can come across as an ignorant boob, like I did. The Ruth Institute does our cause NO favors with ill-conceived list," several of which were immediately and compellingly refuted when I raised them in a recent discussion with same-sex marriage proponents, and many of which I simply refused to raise because I myself recognized them as patently invalid and easily refuted. Many of the “reasons” could easily be levied against the practice of adoption! Shall we also outlaw adoption? Crips, one of my friends even pointed out the namesake of the institute, Ruth, was married twice and therefore a contradiction of the institute’s motto “One man, one woman, for life.”
The Ruth Institute would be doing us all a favor by withdrawing this poorly considered list of “77 Reasons” and give us GOOD arguments that don’t make us look like d@mn fools when we raise them!! Are they truly supporting traditional marriage? Because this effort looks more like an exploitation of “confirmation bias” in an effort to pump a chosen market segment for donations!
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
As your first post in this forum, yours appear to be a cynical generalized claim without specifics. Which of the 77 Reasons do you deem as poor arguments that failed in your debate with same sex marriage proponents? Without your elaboration, it is hard to say if the failure is due to the inherent substance of the argument(s) or a result of lack of preparation and/or skills in debate. Further, is your criticism of the Ruth Institute and by implication, also against Dr. Morse, based on someone who has an axe to grind? Does your friend Crips acknowledge that the biblical Ruth was a Moabite widow who married Boaz later, hardly a criticism of the choice of name for the institute by Dr. Morse?
You should know that I forwarded the link of your post to Dr. Morse, who I am hoping will reply directly to the allegations you made. I will post any reply she makes on this thread. As founder of the Ruth Institute and advocate of traditional marriage making the rounds in national and state house assemblies, she is a public figure, in contrast to your profile in an internet forum reflecting only an impersonal and anonymous name.
,
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
This is in follow through to my previous post.
Incidentally, Married31Years asked if the Ruth Institute, Dr. Morse by implication, would want adoption outlawed, not realizing or perhaps forgetting that Dr. Morse and her husband are adoptive parents themselves. But I imagine Dr. Morse is not promoting adoption by same sex parents who have been allowed to ‘marry’ in a few states. Gay activists are clearly moving towards legalized same sex ‘marriage’ and unencumbered efforts in adoption of children in all states.
At any rate, Dr. Morse did reply to my e-mail which forwarded the criticism of the poster against 77 Non-Religious Reasons.
In defending traditional marriage and ‘one man, one woman – for life,’ she realizes that there are those who cannot be satisfied.
Below are the answers Dr. Morse has, depending on the objection made that many of her arguments can be levied against adoption:
Incidentally, Married31Years asked if the Ruth Institute, Dr. Morse by implication, would want adoption outlawed, not realizing or perhaps forgetting that Dr. Morse and her husband are adoptive parents themselves. But I imagine Dr. Morse is not promoting adoption by same sex parents who have been allowed to ‘marry’ in a few states. Gay activists are clearly moving towards legalized same sex ‘marriage’ and unencumbered efforts in adoption of children in all states.
At any rate, Dr. Morse did reply to my e-mail which forwarded the criticism of the poster against 77 Non-Religious Reasons.
In defending traditional marriage and ‘one man, one woman – for life,’ she realizes that there are those who cannot be satisfied.
Below are the answers Dr. Morse has, depending on the objection made that many of her arguments can be levied against adoption:
*]“Adoption is a child-centered nstittution to give children the parents they need, not an adult-centered institution to give adults the children they want.
*]Adoption is usually a response to an unavoidable tragedy. We should not go around creating the conditions that are otherwise understood to be tragic.
*]If biology is really unimportant, then let’s save ourselves some money and trouble and stop tagging the babies in the hospital. If you come in with a baby, you go out with a baby. It doesn’t matter which one!”
M
Married31Years
Guest
Are you kidding? Did you read them? It’s hard to know where to start a critique of this poorly-reasoned polemic! It’s filled with unsupported (and frankly, crazy) assertions, factual errors, non sequiturs, ad hominum attacks and strawman arguments.
#1 is nothing more than poppycock. There is no accepted “public purpose” of marriage and, in fact, the ORIGINAL “public purpose” of marriage was to designate a wife as the “property” of the husband, so no other men would impregnate her.
#2 is ridiculous because there are LOADS of heterosexual marriages in which one or both parents are unfit. There is absolutely NO evidence that a child raised in a same-sex marriage suffers from the lack of either a male or a female parent. In fact, there is NO evidence that the problems alleged in # 2, 3, 11, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 are any greater for same-sex marriages than for heterosexual marriages or single-parents. This pamphlet offers NO supporting evidence for ANY of the allegations and then has the temerity to criticize the research done by legitimate scientists. And “legally forbidden” in #36? Silly stretches like that just make us all look like asses!
#5 may be true, but it’s a non-sequitur, as any child raised by a same-sex couple MUST be either conceived through IVF or adopted.
6, 7 and 8 are a few of the MANY examples of assertions without evidence. #8 is the silliest, as it doesn’t prove anything. It’s simply a non sequitur. In fact, many of the assertions are non sequitur (examples: 20, 25, 31)
Several of them are one argument split into several points (11, 12 &13 for example) which gives the impression that the author is disingenuously “piling on” to make her position appear stronger (but only those who read this uncritically will be fooled).Several are straw man arguments. Statements that argue against a point that the other side never made - like “children are not objects.” No one is treating them that way and it relies on assumptions about another persons motives.
Did the woman who wrote this (or any one reading it favorably) ever take a basic course in rational thinking and logic? This pamphlet will only persuade the most ignorant of the ignorant! You really have to suspend all rational thought to accept 90% of it. If you’re going to argue against same-sex marriage, don’t use arguments that are easily refuted by the most casual observer.
And to address this latest response, #1 is yet another straw man argument. And you provide NO evidence that same-sex parents cannot provide what the child needs. #2 makes no sense at all, as no one is talking about “creating tragic conditions” just so same-sex parents can have a child and #3 is just a spectacularly ignorant comment that I won’t even justify with a response. If this is the way you plan to argue the point, I don’t want to be associated with any of you. I don’t want to be on the “emotionally-charged, but rationally bankrupt arguments” team.
I’m beginning to rethink my position, based on the sheer inanity of this discussion.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
In order for readers to judge for themselves which side has reason and logic, the Ruth Institute / Dr. J. Morse or you, here is a read-only pdf file of the 77 Reasons pamphlet. You submitted two posts declaring disagreement with it which is short on articulation and substance, but long on invective against support for traditional marriage and parenting.
It is obvious you want to argue for same sex marriage and same sex parenting. However, to be taken seriously in this forum, you need to find a better way to present your arguments or counter arguments. If your next posts are anything like your first two, you run the risk of being regarded as a troll with a potentially brief membership. There are rules of engagement in debate as set by the moderators. Please do yourself a favor and read the Rules of the Road first if you haven’t.
,
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Thanks for posting the pamphlet. It is too long and repetitious to be effective. Numbers 1 (though inadequately phrased) 52 and 73 & 76 are solid arguments against samesex marriage and should have been developed further. The rest of the pamphlet could be called 73 reasons against samesex adoption and in vitro fertilization, something which already happens in many states and countries without samesex marriage.
Any text of this nature if it is to have any influence upon educated opinion needs to begin with a clear definition of what the family is and how it precedes the state as the primary building block of society. From there it would then be possible to go forward with additional points, but these should be limited in number and cogent to the primary argument.
Any text of this nature if it is to have any influence upon educated opinion needs to begin with a clear definition of what the family is and how it precedes the state as the primary building block of society. From there it would then be possible to go forward with additional points, but these should be limited in number and cogent to the primary argument.
B
Bobber90
Guest
Which rules have been broken? Has the poster made unacceptably detailed, on-topic and valuable points? I think your response is not warranted.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
The Ruth Institute and the people behind it would likely read your post. I have no idea if there will be a re-write of the pamphlet in the future on the basis of your critique.
I have no disagreement, however, with the message(s) or positions asserted in the pamphlet , as with many who are supportive of traditional marriage and non-supportive of adoption of children by same sex couples whether they are married, in civil union or domestic partnership. I am likewise not supportive of IVF. Incidentally, Hadrianus, I know from your record of posts you are well read and an informed Catholic on Church teachings, and for the benefit of followers of this thread, following is the position of the Church on IVF:
The Church teaches that from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation vis-à-vis the unborn child, must be the fruit of marriage.
Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an “inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”
IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.
Do you, Hadrianus, disagree with Church position on same sex parenting / adoption and IVF?
It is quite alright to disagree with issues and positions as that happens all the time in this forum. But the poster has made a long winded offensive and over the top rant against the institution and person behind the pamphlet. The moderators should take a look at the content of the post(s) of Married31Years violating the following rule, at the least, in my view, under Conduct Rules:
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude … language.
To label the assertions of the author crazy, among other things, without rational thought and logic, and any supporter the most ignorant of the ignorant, looking like d@mn fools and asses, are unnecessary personal attacks, very impolite and rude.
,
B
Bobber90
Guest
I took the tone to be “Look guys, we have the same point to get across, let’s not make sloppy arguments which might be easily discredited”. No doubt it might be possible to feel offended by some of the phrasing of that comment, but it appeared to be stated out of sensitivity to the public perception of Catholicism, not malice. I thought it was in line with the interests of the institution if not the methods, detailed rather than long-winded, and not a personal attack. As you point out, it was the assertions which were called ‘crazy’, not any people. Let’s not see an end to the sort of debate we all want, which was being had but merely ought to have lacked expletives.
H
Hadrianus
Guest
Yes, of course I agree with the Church’s position, but the arguments of the pamphlet would in so many instances apply to all sorts of people. None of it I approve of, but these arguments carry litte weight against the central point and lead off to other topics…
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
The debate we all want is the reasoned kind, not a list of declarations that this and that are unacceptable laced with expletives. I did not find the poster detailing what was unacceptable to him/her – it was more of a harangue with an underlying attack against the author or authors of 77 Reasons and any supporter of the positions advanced.
Members of this forum who have participated in enough threads are not so naive that they can not glean motivations and overriding interest of posters, some more transparent or easier to detect than others. It is not inconceivable that there are individuals and clusters of posters under the Catholic label who come on board to shame the Church, her positions on moral issues, and the faithful who heed Church teaching. Do I accuse the poster of malice? No, although there have been members who came across as malicious and are no longer members. Inarticulateness and rudeness in the first two posts? Yes.
,
M
Married31Years
Guest
I pursued the “77 Reasons” pamphlet with a sense of optimism. I left disappointed and annoyed. Disappointed because there are no where near 77 good reasons and annoyed because I had been lured to it under that false pretense. My message made no personal attacks at all. I said some of the authors “reasons” were crazy, not the author herself. I said some of the arguments would be accepted “only by the most ignorant of the ignorant” and I stand by that statement today, but it is not a personal attack; it specifies no person. I said that standing by some of the arguments would make us look like asses and fools. Again, not a personal attack, but an attack on the argument, itself. In fact, all of my attacks were attacks on the arguments themselves and not directed toward any particular person. My point is that this pamphlet is nothing more than “preaching to the choir.” The only people who will be swayed by it are those who already agree with it. As a persuasive tool, it will only be effective on an audience with poor reasoning skills. I don’t think that is your target audience for this pamphlet and, as far as I know, the Catholic church still supports rational discourse.
The only conclusion I can reach, under the circumstances, is that constructive criticism is unwelcome at this site and that visitors will be ostracized if they don’t toe the party line. Not being one who favors the company of fools (now THAT is a personal attack), I won’t darken the door of this forum in the future. Good luck with your pamphlet. And InSearchofGrace, good luck with that, too. In the mean time, this site has given me MUCH to think about - though not on the topic at hand.
B
Bobber90
Guest
Married31years, I think your view is entirely relevant to the topic, and what would be the point of the OP merely presenting a counter to ssm without discussing it? This is the moral theology forum, not the unthinking consensus forum.
Let’s get the ball rolling, away from this meta-talk. Are there grounds for an ‘institution’ or form of relationship for the support of gay people, if not marriage? I mean support in the sense of moral enhancement, towards both a human/worldly and a spiritual goal. Marriage is not a badge of honour for good deeds already done, but perhaps more a set-up/work-in-progress to help those of us who happen to reside outside a monastery to live well - in terms of loving each other and caring, raising children, supporting a family, etc etc. Is it right to say that this is a set-up limited only to those who tend not to commit a particular sin (same sex sex)? We would not deny someone the right to work and pay for a house because they frequently stole things. Is it acknowledged that there may be a human need for companionship which is being overlooked and denied in gay people because they are denied marriage or an equivalent?
Christianity is about understanding the person and not dwelling on the sins, a huge variety of which we all commit without losing the opportunity to form a lasting and meaningful relationship. I am aware of the idea that marriage is inextricably linked to the unity represented by heterosexual sex, but marriage encompasses a lot more than male/female compatibility, and it is the other aspects which I am most curious about.
Let’s get the ball rolling, away from this meta-talk. Are there grounds for an ‘institution’ or form of relationship for the support of gay people, if not marriage? I mean support in the sense of moral enhancement, towards both a human/worldly and a spiritual goal. Marriage is not a badge of honour for good deeds already done, but perhaps more a set-up/work-in-progress to help those of us who happen to reside outside a monastery to live well - in terms of loving each other and caring, raising children, supporting a family, etc etc. Is it right to say that this is a set-up limited only to those who tend not to commit a particular sin (same sex sex)? We would not deny someone the right to work and pay for a house because they frequently stole things. Is it acknowledged that there may be a human need for companionship which is being overlooked and denied in gay people because they are denied marriage or an equivalent?
Christianity is about understanding the person and not dwelling on the sins, a huge variety of which we all commit without losing the opportunity to form a lasting and meaningful relationship. I am aware of the idea that marriage is inextricably linked to the unity represented by heterosexual sex, but marriage encompasses a lot more than male/female compatibility, and it is the other aspects which I am most curious about.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Constructive criticism? What you demonstrated was a badmouthing exercise. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion on each of the positions on the pamphlet with which you disagree although the positions are actually consistent with Catholic teaching. If you are disappointed as you say you are, you can direct a letter with a civil tone to the Institute or Dr. Morse. I suggest you use a different method of attack and choice of vocabulary.I pursued the “77 Reasons” pamphlet with a sense of optimism. I left disappointed and annoyed. Disappointed because there are no where near 77 good reasons and annoyed because I had been lured to it under that false pretense. My message made no personal attacks at all. I said some of the authors “reasons” were crazy, not the author herself. I said some of the arguments would be accepted “only by the most ignorant of the ignorant” and I stand by that statement today, but it is not a personal attack; it specifies no person. I said that standing by some of the arguments would make us look like asses and fools. Again, not a personal attack, but an attack on the argument, itself. In fact, all of my attacks were attacks on the arguments themselves and not directed toward any particular person. My point is that this pamphlet is nothing more than “preaching to the choir.” The only people who will be swayed by it are those who already agree with it. As a persuasive tool, it will only be effective on an audience with poor reasoning skills. I don’t think that is your target audience for this pamphlet and, as far as I know, the Catholic church still supports rational discourse.
The only conclusion I can reach, under the circumstances, is that constructive criticism is unwelcome at this site and that visitors will be ostracized if they don’t toe the party line. Not being one who favors the company of fools (now THAT is a personal attack), I won’t darken the door of this forum in the future. Good luck with your pamphlet. And InSearchofGrace, good luck with that, too. In the mean time, this site has given me MUCH to think about - though not on the topic at hand.
Simply read the other threads in this forum and you will find out those who do not toe the party line (Catholic party line, I assume, you mean) abound in this site. At any rate, posts get reviewed by moderators with or without the report violation feature for use by members, which I did not use. Rather, on direct question by another poster, Bobber90, I referred in open forum to the rule which in my view was violated. I objected to your post for reasons I already stated, needing no repetition.
I don’t know if the pamphlet is just ‘preaching to the choir’ as much as I think it is geared to wake up citizens who may be indifferent to the serious negative impact on society of same sex ‘marriage,’ gay ‘parenting’ and adoption. A pamphlet could not be an exhaustive discourse and the fact that the supporting data you are looking for may not be there, does not mean that Dr. Ruth is unable to provide the data. I have done my own research on SSM and gay parenting so I have a good idea where Dr. Ruth was going with the assertions on the pamphlet. In addition, she makes various presentations many of which are available in free youtube / audio video tape format. I have the impression that the pamphlet is but a part of the information the Institute is disseminating. Just so it’s clear, I am not Dr. Ruth’s proxy nor am I connected with the Ruth Institute. If I am wrong about its target readership and objective with the pamphlet, I stand to be corrected. We can both be sure the publication is NOT targeting to change the mind of the gay crowd pushing for SSM and gay adoption and its sympathizers.
It is not surprising if/when non-Catholic SSM advocacy groups and individuals go mano-a-mano with Dr. Morse of the Ruth Institute or NOM President Brian Brown, for example. These two are not without a solid base.They actively and publicly oppose SSM, gay parenting and adoption.
Further, in a site like Catholic Answers where a new or old member claims to be Catholic but supports SSM, or gay parenting and adoption, he or she can expect to be challenged in more ways than one, as Church teachings on said matters are clear.
Btw, you picked a traditional sounding user name, Married31Years, with an initial ID as Catholic, although the ‘Catholic’ ID disappeared by the time of your last post in reply to mine. In reading your two earlier posts, it was confusing right off the bat that a Catholic would object to the essential public purpose of marriage, which is attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. You can read back what you posted. It did not quite make sense with the initial profile you provided, but the public purpose of marriage was an area which I would have wanted to explore with you. In reading the rest in your postings, however, your defense of same sex parenting in a total list of vehement objections was obvious, which could have invited serious debate had your posts reflected a more civil manner of argumentation.
,
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
My bad for editing lapses above. I meant to write Dr. Morse, not Dr. Ruth.
,
S
SwissGuard25
Guest
It is nice you uphold traditional marriage, but I don’t think Jesus would want people to treat others different simply because of their sexual orientation.
Remember Jesus drank with the Samaritan
"In order to get to Galilee he needed to pass through Samaria. Jesus and his disciples came to a city called Sychar, which was near a field that the Jacob had given to his son Joseph.
Jacob’s well was there. Jesus was tired from the journey, and he rested by the well.
He sent his disciples into town to buy food. While Jesus was sitting alone, a Samaritan woman came to draw some water.
Jesus said to her:
Give me a drink.
The Samaritan women was surprised and asked him:
How is that you who are a Jew would ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink? (The Jews did not associate with the Samaritans)
Jesus said to her:
If you only knew the gift of God and who it is that is asking you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.
The woman said to Jesus:
Sir, you have nothing to use to draw water out of the well, and the well is deep. Where are we going to get living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his cattle?
Jesus said:
Everyone who drinks this water will thirst again: but whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I give him will become a well of water in him springing up to eternal life.
The woman said:
Sir, give me this water so that I will never be thirsty again or need to come all this way to draw water from the well.
Jesus said to her:
Go call your husband and both of you come back here.
The woman answered:
I do not have a husband.
Jesus said to her:
You have answered correctly that you do not have a husband, for you have had five husbands and the man your now living with is not your husband. You have told the truth.
The woman said to Jesus:
I perceive that your are a prophet. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain; and you Jews say that Jerusalem is the proper place to worship.
Jesus said to her:
Woman, believe me, the hour is coming, when neither this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall be the place to worship the Father. You worship ignorantly: We worship intelligently, for salvation is from the Jews.
But the hour is coming, and now is here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. These are the kind of worshippers that the Father is seeking to worship him. God is Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.
The woman said:
I know the Messiah, the one called Christ, is coming; when he comes, he will declare all things to us.
Jesus said:
I, the one who is speaking to you, am he.
The disciples were coming back from town and they were amazed to see Jesus speaking to the woman. But no one said anything about it.
The woman left her water pot and went away to the city, and said to the townspeople:
Come see a man who told me all the things I ever did. Can this be the Christ?
People began leaving the city to find Jesus.
In the meantime, the disciples asked Jesus to eat. But he said to them:
I have food to eat that you do not know about. The disciples began to ask one another, Did someone bring him something to eat?
Jesus said to them:
My food is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work. Do not say, Aren’t there still four months before the harvest?
I tell you, Lift up your eyes and look on the fields, they are white and ready for harvest. He that reaps the harvest receives a wage, and gathers the fruit; the one that sows the seed and he that reaps the harvest will rejoice together. For here is a true saying: One sows and another reaps.
I send you to reap where other have sown the seed, and you have become a part of their labor.
Many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the Samaritan woman who testified that Jesus had told her everything she ever did.
When the Samaritans found Jesus, they asked him to stay with them. He did, for two days. Then many more believed because of his word.
They said to the woman:
Now we believe, not because of what you said. Now we believe because we have heard him for ourselves, and know that he is indeed the Savior of the world."
Jesus’ point in doing this was that he wanted us to view everyone as children of God and not treat others different.
Leave it to God, not humans.
Take Care and
God Bless
Remember Jesus drank with the Samaritan
"In order to get to Galilee he needed to pass through Samaria. Jesus and his disciples came to a city called Sychar, which was near a field that the Jacob had given to his son Joseph.
Jacob’s well was there. Jesus was tired from the journey, and he rested by the well.
He sent his disciples into town to buy food. While Jesus was sitting alone, a Samaritan woman came to draw some water.
Jesus said to her:
Give me a drink.
The Samaritan women was surprised and asked him:
How is that you who are a Jew would ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink? (The Jews did not associate with the Samaritans)
Jesus said to her:
If you only knew the gift of God and who it is that is asking you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.
The woman said to Jesus:
Sir, you have nothing to use to draw water out of the well, and the well is deep. Where are we going to get living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his cattle?
Jesus said:
Everyone who drinks this water will thirst again: but whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I give him will become a well of water in him springing up to eternal life.
The woman said:
Sir, give me this water so that I will never be thirsty again or need to come all this way to draw water from the well.
Jesus said to her:
Go call your husband and both of you come back here.
The woman answered:
I do not have a husband.
Jesus said to her:
You have answered correctly that you do not have a husband, for you have had five husbands and the man your now living with is not your husband. You have told the truth.
The woman said to Jesus:
I perceive that your are a prophet. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain; and you Jews say that Jerusalem is the proper place to worship.
Jesus said to her:
Woman, believe me, the hour is coming, when neither this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall be the place to worship the Father. You worship ignorantly: We worship intelligently, for salvation is from the Jews.
But the hour is coming, and now is here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. These are the kind of worshippers that the Father is seeking to worship him. God is Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.
The woman said:
I know the Messiah, the one called Christ, is coming; when he comes, he will declare all things to us.
Jesus said:
I, the one who is speaking to you, am he.
The disciples were coming back from town and they were amazed to see Jesus speaking to the woman. But no one said anything about it.
The woman left her water pot and went away to the city, and said to the townspeople:
Come see a man who told me all the things I ever did. Can this be the Christ?
People began leaving the city to find Jesus.
In the meantime, the disciples asked Jesus to eat. But he said to them:
I have food to eat that you do not know about. The disciples began to ask one another, Did someone bring him something to eat?
Jesus said to them:
My food is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work. Do not say, Aren’t there still four months before the harvest?
I tell you, Lift up your eyes and look on the fields, they are white and ready for harvest. He that reaps the harvest receives a wage, and gathers the fruit; the one that sows the seed and he that reaps the harvest will rejoice together. For here is a true saying: One sows and another reaps.
I send you to reap where other have sown the seed, and you have become a part of their labor.
Many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the Samaritan woman who testified that Jesus had told her everything she ever did.
When the Samaritans found Jesus, they asked him to stay with them. He did, for two days. Then many more believed because of his word.
They said to the woman:
Now we believe, not because of what you said. Now we believe because we have heard him for ourselves, and know that he is indeed the Savior of the world."
Jesus’ point in doing this was that he wanted us to view everyone as children of God and not treat others different.
Leave it to God, not humans.
Take Care and
God Bless
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
The story of the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:4-26 is a beautiful story. Through the story comes the lesson that people shouldn’t live by carnal pleasure. The story also shows that a well of grace is ready to refresh the soul parched by sin and suffering and that Jesus comes to save the sick and to serve those who still need both physical and spiritual healing — not only the converted. I also agree with what you indicated at the end of your post, that Jesus was teaching “us to view everyone as children of God and not treat others different.”
However, I don’t understand why you brought up the verse and lessons thereof. The OP is on same sex marriage, with the last posts discussing a pamphlet promoting traditional marriage and traditional parenting/adoption. Has anybody justified or proposed ill treatment of those with homosexual orientation? I would not wish this on an individual or individuals of any sexual orientation, including a close family member, a sibling, who happens to be same sex attracted.
,
- Status