> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:54:01 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > If Charles Casey's wife was only good to him and a wife to him when he
was
> > well and able to provide, and then divorced him and had him put out on
the
> > street when he was unwell, then she was no better than a hooker, and the
> > elders who enabled her to do it, they were like her pimps.
> >
> > And you can quote me on that.
> >
>
> Why the hell would we want to?
>
> You do realize, of course, that one can express moral outrage without
> using sexual terminology towards a person that Charles obviously once
> cared about deeply, if he doesn't now. (I personally am not aware of
> Charles' feelings towards his ex-wife; that's his business unless he cares
> to share it with the group.)
>
> Now, if _I'd_ had a similar thought to the one you'd had, I might have
> phrased it a bit differently.
>
> "If Charles Casey's wife was only good to him and a wife to him when he
> was well and able to provide, and then divorced him and had him put out on
> the street when he was unwell, then she is clearly in violation of the
> spirit of the marriage contract, which calls for two people to be "one
> flesh", and is generally vowed "in sickness and in health". Granted, I
> don't know Charles Casey's wife, but I for one would like to apologize for
> the actions of my fellow Christians, who treated him so poorly when he
> became ill."
>
> What do you guys think? Maybe a bit more acceptable than Davey's version?
You're right. I should have said it your way.
And I'd like to apologise to Charles Casey's kids, if they're reading, for
calling their Mummy the p word, and also point out that whatever happened,
it definitely wasn't their fault, and that Mummy and Daddy both surely love
them very much.
And I'd also like to ask them not to keep reading Usenet, as it is no place
for kids.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|