Re: Is Jesus honored when people make a lie in His honor?

Michael S. Morris wrote:

> This strikes me as a little more inflammatory analogy,
> Scott. 

I knew I was taking that risk, but I still liked the analogy.

<snip>

> In fact, I would be bound for all sorts of 
> ethical reasons (even were I not married myself) to decline 
> such an invitation, howsoever lovely you and your wife no doubt
> are.

Well, my wife anyway.

In the same way that some of the churches you visit make it clear that 
the Eucharist is for believers only, no invitation to participate in 
love making would be extended to you in my home.


> But, I would certainly have zero qualms about
> partaking in dinner in your household were I your guest and 
> offered dinner.

Eating dinner is a less intimate activity.


> Does this mean respect lovemaking more than
> eating? I don't quite buy that.

No, it means that love making is more intimate, and so it involves only 
those who are committed to the relationship.

The relationship between Christ and believers collectively is described 
in scripture as being analogous to a marriage. For many Christians, at 
least in the circles I frequent, participation in the Lord's supper 
(communion, Eucharist, call it what you will) is believed to be very 
intimate.

> I know you are saying there 
> is something sacred about the eucharist that is analogous to 
> what is sacred between a man and wife.

Which is exactly my point, which is why I used the analogy.


> But, my point is that 
> different churches seem to me to burden communion with different 
> levels of significance, and they do not always say exactly what 
> that level is to their guests.

Which is, no doubt, problematic for visitors, such as yourself.

--Scott