Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Belinda - Home Wrecker?

Tie Domi's wife has publicly stated that Liberal MP Belinda Stronach has destroyed their marriage. Personally, I don't think Peter MacKay got such a raw deal when she crossed the floor... he's lucky to be rid of her.

Perhaps she could take on the "Critic for Children & Family Affairs" portfolio?

Now, dating Peter was one thing, he was "unattached"... but a married man? I'm sorry, but I have issues with that. Ms. Domi invoked a seldom used word to describe it... ADULTERY. And that's one of the "Big 10 No-no's", for the record.

But we never bat an eye at sin anymore, do we? For shame... on all of us.

UPDATE: Mark Peters has some good thoughts on CHARACTER... something that is missing not only in this situation, but in politics in general.


  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 01:22:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    Well, as I understand it, Tie Domi didn't actually break one of the 10 Commandments because when they were written adultery for a man was only if a man (married or single) sleeps with another man's property (ie, another man's wife) without her husband's permission. Adultery was a property law, not a law to protect women from being cheated on.

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 01:32:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger SUZANNE said…

    The New Testament Church didn't agree with your particular take. One of the things that astounded pagans in the first centuries was its insistence that spouses of both sexes had to be faithful for the sake of the marriage covenant. This is clearly established in the Gospels and other New Testament writings.

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 01:36:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    "The New Testament Church didn't agree with your particular take."

    Right, but I was talking about the Jewish 10 Commandments (although the ten that we traditionally think of are not the actual list of ten that are actually labeled the 10 Commandments, but I digress), not later Christian marriage ideas a few millennia later (plus this isn't my take or ideal, this is just what I've read the OT adultery laws were actually about). :)

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 04:13:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Perhaps she could take on the "Critic for Children & Family Affairs" portfolio?

    Don't laugh...she's the chair of the Liberal Women's caucus isn't she?? !

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 05:23:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Of course, if you prefer Drew, we could just refer to the Lord Jesus Christ's view on adultery...

    "You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

    Matthew 5:27-30

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 05:26:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Oops... there's that "Hell" topic too... my oh my, what a narrow-minded, intolerant guy that Jesus Christ guy was...

    And I say "Glory to His Name!" ;-)

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 06:09:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Teresa said…

    Ha ha. I find a hard time believing that Belinda has the magic powers involved to single handedly ruin someone else's marriage. I have suspicions that Mr. Domi was not held at gunpoint.

    I'm not a fan of Ms. Stronach, but in this case she's certainly not the one at fault. If he wasn't fooling around with Belinda it would have been with someone else, and it probably has been.

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 06:52:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    Sigh. First of all, Jesus was a Jew and my understanding is that adultery had the same meaning to Jews in His time as it did in OT times. Second of all, "lust" in the koine greek doesn't necessarily always mean sexual desire. My understanding is that it generally means to covet another person's property (hence to covet another man's property (his wife, in this case) was as bad as violating his property without his permission). Third of all, "hell" in this passage is refering to an actual, physical garbage dump called Gehenna outside of Jerusalem, not the traditional place that many Christians believe in. And fourth of all, if you are going to take that passage literally you also have to mutilate your body if you want to avoid this place.

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 07:53:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Sigh. That's rather sad... I almost predicted your reply. Understanding the Word of God is one thing... seeking to explain it away is another. I almost hesitated posting the passage as I knew you would do that. We pray for you daily my friend.

    You're absolutely right Teresa, there are indeed two guilty parties here. But being that I'm more politically minded than sports minded, I lean towards discussing her involvement more. I hope you didn't think I was excusing him for his part in it!

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 08:15:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Mark said…

    Just a note to say thanks for the link, CC.

    Great site by the way. I stop by from time to time but am usually so busy that I rarely leave a comment. Keep up the good work.

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 09:13:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    "Sigh. That's rather sad... I almost predicted your reply. Understanding the Word of God is one thing... seeking to explain it away is another."

    What part did I explain away? I've got no problem with the passage, per se, I just think that most Protestants completely misinterpret it (among many other passages), that's all. Or were you thinking I was trying to defend Tie Domi's actions, because I definitely wasn't.

    "We pray for you daily my friend."

    Nothing wrong with that, but I'd prefer that you pray that I find truth and not that I simply interpret Scripture the same way you do. :)

  • At Tue. Sep. 26, 11:34:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous ryan said…

    Is it just me or does there seem to be a bit of a behavioural pattern here. How many high profile men has Stonach used to advance her own profile now? Tie, Peter MacKay, Bill Clinton, Johann Olav Koss, Donald Walker.....the list grows

    Watch your back future Liberal leader there may ba a black widow on your tail.

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 09:11:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    "Understanding the Word of God is one thing... seeking to explain it away is another."

    And now that I think more about it I'm not the one explaining Scripture away. I'm looking at a passage and attempting to interpret it within the historical context of the day and trying to interpret it consistently rather than simply reading 20th century evangelical presuppositions into it and completely ignoring context and consistency. I'm pretty sure what I'm doing is supposed to be labeled exegesis and the other method is called eisegesis. :)

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 10:54:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Lord Kitchener's Own said…

    Just a modern day legal question, leaving aside morality and ethics.

    Since Domi and his wife separated in 2005, and the ALLEGED affair ALLEGEDLY began in 2006 when he was working on her election campaign, can "adultery" be used as a grounds for granting divorce if the adultery occured after the couple separated? I imagine perhaps it can, as they weren't yet divorced, but does anyone have a legal insight?

    Regardless, it does seem a little over-the-top to me to blame Stronach for "breaking up" the marriage of a man who separated from his wife, as far as I can tell, before he even knew her (and CERTAINLY never had an affair with her, if he had an affair with her, until well after he had separated from his wife, by his wife's own admission).

    Also, as an aside, I'm clearly not ready for marriage.

    According to the passage above, I commited adultery 5 times on the ride to work this morning, with 5 different women. Guess I'd better stay single if I want to avoid Hell!

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 11:01:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    "According to the passage above, I commited adultery 5 times on the ride to work this morning, with 5 different women. Guess I'd better stay single if I want to avoid Hell!"

    And gouge out your eyes as well if you want to interpret the passage literally. :)

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 11:28:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Or, repent of your sin and accept the sacrifice of he Lord Jesus Christ on your behalf on the cross of Calvary... it's your call. ;-)

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 11:45:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    "Or, repent of your sin and accept the sacrifice of he Lord Jesus Christ on your behalf on the cross of Calvary... it's your call."

    Not if you want to be a Bible literalist.

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 05:34:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Lord Kitchener's Own said…

    Yeah, repenting's great and all, and I actually might not mind repenting for fantasizing about some woman on the bus if I found out God really cared about that. I'd be more disappointed than I can express to find out that God really did care about that, but I might be able to sincerely repent.

    Problem is, if God really does feel that way about my "lusty" thoughts on the ride to work, then I'm absolutley positive he considers a lot of other thoughts (and a few actions) that I've engaged in in my life to be sins too, and things that I must repent for. Things that I won't repent for.

    I'd rather go to Hell than repent to a God I see as unjust (and of course, He'd know I wasn't truly repentant anyway, right? So no need to fake it). If Conservative Christians are right about some of the things God's going to expect me to repent for, then I'm going to Hell. 'Cause the only way I'd repent sincerely for some so-called sins would be if I were tortured (presumably in Hell) into sincerely regreting those thoughts and actions. So either I'm to be physically coerced into admiting that everyone I know is bound for Hell, and they all must repent for not following what I see as unjust standards of conduct, or I spend eternity in Hell.

    Of course, I don't think God's that petty, rigid, or unjust, so I'm not worried. I'll be terribly disappointed if I'm wrong though.

    'Cause if God thinks like Pat Robertson, I'd like to be traded to another universe please. If not, I'll play out my (eternal) contract in the Hell league. Hell fire and brimstone are bad, but not "Pat Robertson's view of the universe is correct" bad.

    I'm sure after the first thousand years you get used to the heat.

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 07:22:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    LKO, you're right on the Pat Robertson bit. He's not what Christianity is all about... and I think he'll have some explaining of his own to do when he gets to Heaven, on account of how many people he's turned off to Christ with his views and ways.

    As for your views on God, I just want to make a couple of points, and hope it clears things up.

    As for His rigidity, He is indeed rigid in His requirement that His Heaven (His, not Pat's) be free from sin. He cast Satan out of there because he rebelled against God... Satan, who was once Lucifer, a beautiful angel who was obedient to God, once upon a time.

    God created mankind, and instead of following His ways, we chose to rebel against Him. We chose instead, as you yourself said, that we wanted to do our own thing. We rejected His authority, and now we see the world in the state we're in.

    It's not like He's a tyrant who's a total kill-joy. Most of His commandments have DIRECT benefits to us, if you think about them logically. (and I'm talking about GOD's commandments, not the thousands of man-made ones that often only serve to repress and control people)

    Is it to much for Him to ask, that we simply recognize that He is Supreme, and that we honour His basic tenants, which only serve to benefit us? I would hardly say that He was unjust for that!

    You actually made a fairly correct statement about God... He's less interested in our conduct than He is in our ATTITUDES about Him. If our understanding of Him and His ways is correct, then you'll frequently find that a person's conduct changes over time... and he or she gradually becomes more "Christian". And I'm not talking about North American "Churchianity", (which for the most part is far removed from Christianity) I'm talking about true, honest, faith-filled Christians who span the globe, from all nations of the earth. People who are honest, kind, gentle, and true, like the Lord Jesus Christ... a Man who's standards I fall short of on a daily basis. (though I'm sure you're aware of that by reading my blog...)

    Here's the bottom line... we're sinners, who have openly rejected His authority. As such, we cannot come before Him... and since Heaven is His domain, we can't go there, so there's only one option left at the end of time... a little place called Hell, where He desires that no one go to. So, in order to prevent the inevitable, He opened a path for all of us to enter His domain, Heaven... by taking all of your sins, and punishing His own Son instead, on your behalf. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, was a willing participant in all of this... He desired to spend eternity with YOU, and felt the price was well worth it.

    All He asks is that you recognize yourself for who you are, and recognize Him for who He is... and accept what He's done for you. And to prove to you that the price for your sin has been paid in full, He raised His Son Jesus Christ from the dead, and now the Lord Jesus is this very moment in God's presence, and willing to "go to bat" for you once you join His team, to end off with your game analogy.

    Now, does all that sound like an unjust God to you?

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 10:54:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At Thu. Sep. 28, 04:48:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Hey Drew, as for the particulars of that debate, I'd prefer that we take that offline. As you can see, I've removed the comment for now.

  • At Thu. Sep. 28, 05:38:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  • At Thu. Sep. 28, 07:19:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    "CHARACTER... something that is missing not only in this situation, but in politics in general."

    Can't argue with that, but that's the nature of the beast, unfortunately.

  • At Fri. Sep. 29, 08:10:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Drew, as I'm sure you're well aware, most of your comments that I disagree with, I simply roll my eyes and leave well enough alone.

    A Biblical question was asked, and your response, I firmly believe, is unBiblical. It is error, it is a misrepresentation of God's Holy Scripture, and I won't have that on this blog. You may feel free to post replies on any topic you wish, however, I will not allow you to propogate heresy which I believe will only end in the eternal damnation of souls.

    DO NOT POST THAT CONTENT AGAIN. You can cry censorship all you want, it won't fly here. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I'm pretty tolerant about what's posted here, but heresy is not permitted. If it's something of a political nature, I don't care if you're a Liberal, Green, NDP or Communist, go ahead and debate.

    But when it comes to certain aspects of Biblical truth, I will not allow this blog to become a forum for error.

    (and please note, I say "certian aspects"... such as issues relating to salvation, the Character of God, etc. As I'm sure you've noticed, your comments on various issues such as sexuality have not been touched, though I feel that most of them too are unBiblical)

  • At Fri. Sep. 29, 08:37:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    Congratulations Andrew, you've now demonstrated that you are a true member of the Plymouth Brethren denomination. In fact I'd say you've made your first step towards PB leadership, I can think of PB leaders who would be proud of you (and that's not a good thing, just for the record).

    The only reason for censorship is fear, and there is rarely an excusable reason for participating in such a practice.

    I realize that you believe that what I said was incorrect and what you said was true (and that God will send or allow people who don't believe what you wrote to be tortured in hell for eternity), but simply by virtue of having deleted what I wrote (and it had been up long enough that many people have had a chance to read it and compare your comments and mine, and anyone who didn't can feel free to email me for a copy if they so desire) nobody who doesn't already believe as you do is going to be fooled by what you wrote, particularly if they read the Bible for themselves since it completely contradicts everything you wrote (in fact, from what I've read, the main reason that people stop believing in "evangelical" Christianity (or pseudo-evangelical Christianity as I like to call it seeing as there's next to no actual good news in that version) is because they actually read the Bible for themself and saw the truth).

  • At Fri. Sep. 29, 09:20:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    NOTE TO READERS: I got an e-mail from Drew, all is well now. "Move along, nothing to see here..."

    I'm sure Drew will confirm? Yes? ;-)

  • At Fri. Sep. 29, 09:36:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    Yes, as long as you don't delete the above post. :)

  • At Fri. Sep. 29, 10:03:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    It'll stay... it talks about the previous comment, but does not contain the main item of problematic theology.

    Even though the post takes a pot-shot at me personally... ;-)

  • At Fri. Sep. 29, 07:04:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous drew said…

    Yes I did, although it was more of a pot-shot at the PB denomination and certain leaders in it, but anyway I apologize for being mean, it was low of me.

    Btw, check your email, I've finally had a chance to respond to your last message. :)


Post a Comment

<< Home