 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > God hates fags? Genesis 19 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 8/20/2003 6:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 8/21/2003 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 0CT0R0K
Anyone that wants to do this  to me, feel free to hehe
I'll settle for  .
Just kidding...I never thought you were being malicious.
Shell
ps. Thanks Adiaphora. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/21/2003 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/21/2003 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph. I'll have to get back to you when my newer machine gets a new operating system...
But, in brief, of course homosexuality can have biological aspects. But it is homosexual actions -- and they are one at a time -- that matters. See what I posted from G. K. Chesterton on "Gay man defends..." So, as you would then have to guess, I don't go as far as you steriotyped me: "a VOLITIONAL thing rather than in any way BIOLOGICAL." I'm not being exclussive in one at the total lack of the other. But sin always involves OUR decision to follow temptation. Mere physical reaction does not rise to that. ALWAYS our own decision is involved. Always. In all kinds of sins.
You mentioned "narcisism." My best friend concluded that about people she has known over the years. I think she might have something there. "Gays" take as theiir object something the same as themselves. And they seem to be inwardly wrapped up. Marriage--the union of differents that complete each other--on the other hand, are uniquensess that lookd towards each other to find in the other themselves.
The John the Baptist and Mary as architypes comes from Evdokiomov, as where I got it.
As to:
quote:
quote:
Any ecclesiology that is so OVEREMPHASIZES the "Appostolic Succession" that is becomes a rule onto itself disregards [sic] the presence of the Spirit throughtout the Church in all times. And any interpretation that OVEREMPHASIZES the individual interpretation of Scripture" ignores the warning in the book of Hebrews.
I agree with this. What do you think is a healthy balance, POW? I¹m interested.
Zizioulas, "Being as Communion." The chapter on Ecclesiology. Great!!! "Pneumatologically conditioned Christology." Apostolicity but requiring the "axios" of the congregation. (I gave a copy to "T & C.")
Love you, Brother!!!!
(Schools open. God bless the kids. Thank the Lord for putting me here.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/21/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | First off, this thing about celibacy of any orientation being a gift is a joke. We are dealing with 21st century America here, not primitive society where women were property. You do realize that when Paul wrote, women had little to no choice over who or when they would marry? They were irrelevant. In fact, Paul said that "women would be saved through childbirth." He also talked about slaves staying with amd obeying their masters....
In today's society, there are many single people, in their 30s, 40s, and older, who are celibate by no choice of their own. I have some female (single) friends who lament the fact that they haven't had sex in over 2 years. They're actively looking for someone to have sex wiht, but haven't found anyone desirable. So is their celibacy a "gift"? Hardly. To them it is a curse.
Im probably in the minority in that I agree with the RCC requirement of priests being celibate. I do believe that if one is to serve the church in that capacity, he is essentially "married" to it and has no time for a wife and children. He has no time to devote to a family or other things that are not of the Church. This has nothing to do with "sex." Sure him having sex wouldn't probably have any effect on his duties. Him being married with children would. That's probably why "celibate" actually is defined as "unmarried".
And it's true that Paul knew nothing about homosexuals as we do today, in the same sense that he knew nothing of women's rights, or of equal rights for blacks, or of television, for that matter :).
Who really cares? This is just a sickening polemic. If you are gay, you live your life, you answer to God, and no one else. If you're not gay, you can't understand what it is like to be gay. You have no stake in the matter. It doesn't affect you . So what if the courts or legislatures eventually grant gays the right to marry in the US? It's been legal in Denmark for about 15 years - has it affected any straight marriages? I fail to see how a gay couple getting married affects your straight perfect marriage in any way whatsoever.
As a single person, I could sit here and complain that singles have to pay the highest tax rates, and moreover, for services they never use. So I have to pay property tax to pay to educate other people's children when I have no children? That's part of being an American, that's part of the social contract. So I have to shoulder the full tax burden so married people can get breaks? Again, part of the social contract. So now if I have to cough up yet more to accommodate the (maximum) 10% gay population, of which probably at most only half would decide to marry, what does it matter to me? Even though I don't support the war in Iraq, my tax dollars are going for that, etc.
So I really don't care if you have to pay more to accommodate the tax breaks of the few gays who decide to legalize a life-long commitment to each other. Since the straight divorce rate hovers around 50%, and this includes evangelicals too, I highly doubt that gays could mess up marriage any more than straights already have. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/22/2003 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Well RD, isn't life grand...
Some of us are better blessed with the ability to withstand not being married, as Paul apparently was.
Marriage does affect one's life. The question regarding RCC would be whether priests should be shouldering so many broad responsibilities, or whether the congregation as a whole should pitch in. The gift of leadership and celibacy are not perfectly correlated and it would be hypocritical for priests to have sex outside of a marital relationship.
As for Paul's ignorance on so many matters, I am not a NT scholar and so I can't say what on the balance were his views regarding women, but I think today we still have yet to figure out how the two sexes should relate ideally. As for slavery, Paul counselled against the early church trying to end it as an institution, but this may have been due to expectations that Christ would be returning soon, the cost/danger of ending the institution in non-democratic Rome, and it not being as vile of an institution then as it was here in the US.
I see no problem with the US gov't allowing for homosexual civil unions with rights/benefits, but I think permitting marriage would send the signal that the different forms of sexuality are the same.
As such, while I support allowing for gay marriages at Churches, I oppose it at the state level.
This may be hypocritical, but I think that one can make distinctions that should be made at the church level, whereas at the state-level the gay-rights-activists are trying to make a statement that I cannot support...
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/22/2003 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | RD, FWIW, I'm sure that my brotherinlaw being a father and a husband HELPS his ministry as a Priest. While for his Bishop (in an office that has not always required celebacy in the past) being single helps with overseeing fourty-some churches acreoss many states.
But a much more salient aspect is this. And it is not as mundane as practicality. Once an Orthodox Priest, where his wife to die his vow prevents his remarriage. (Many seminarians delay that vow until they find a wife. ) The reason is clear, that his "marriage" to the Lord does not get in the way with his marriage with his wife (their mutual monasticism--with sex and children!); however, that commitment superceeds any pursuit of other goals than total communion with the Lord and his Church. I was at his ordination. WOW!!! It was astounding, and awe-striking. Wow!!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/22/2003 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | Well my dad was a pastor so I also know first hand how the family comes second to the church. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/22/2003 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me clarify, it's not that my dad was neglectful. It is that a minister's first duty is to God and the church. Many times this conflicts with family duties- there is only so much time in the day. I can't tell you how many times we had to cut short family vacations b/c someone died and he had to come and do the funeral. Or not being home at night b/c there were many people in the hospital needing visitation. Or not being able to go to some of the kids' events b/c of an "emergency" with one of the church members.
The point is, a single person just has more time to devote to the church and to God - it's that simple. If you don't have the family to care for, the family doesn't get hurt either. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/22/2003 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Well my dad was a pastor so I also know first hand how the family comes second to the church.
Perhaps that was your family. But I know "first hand" the effectiveness of "Father and Pani's answering machine!
(What you said could be true of any organization, job, business or even hobbie.)
But, anyhow. perhaps you missed my point -- the one that was not about mundane practicalities. THAT was the important part. And while many times discussion just attends to practicalities, it is important to get centered again. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/22/2003 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | WE CROSSED POSTS (and I have a slow machine)
The Orthodox Church I go to some has four Priests and two Deacons -- all ordained for life. Not every priest is payed--some have "day jobs." They share the load. The Reformed Church I go to the rest of the time has a congregation that is really good at taking jobs away from the pastor. BOTH know the importance of not having ministry defined by "professional" boundaries.
I think that a lot of what you described goes on. And I'm glad that what I'm describing happens a lot of places, and a lot of times, too. (And some times at each of the less than 'edenic' places I'm briefly describing.  )
Peace to you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/22/2003 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Good point, Tigress.
And THAT points up one of the advantages of an Episcopal system (verses a congregational one). The Bishop can keep an eye on the Priest, and fiddle to help him not get burned out, or his family neglected. And the Bishop can speak directly and with authority to the local congregation to discipline them if their demands get out of hand. The congregational system where the individual pastor has to please-of-go-packing can be rough. But anything relies on people to make it work.
Teachers have to watch out to. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 8/22/2003 11:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Also, I don't believe it's necessary to make single people vow to remain single for their entire lives in order to carry out ministries. I think the Catholic Church would get more men wanting to be priests if they knew they only had to commit to it for a certain amount of time. Like they could vow to be married to the church for 5 or 10 years or something, and if they want to renew their vows after that, they'd have that option.
But, a ministry like Billy Graham's is one in which a man or woman could have done without making a vow to the church. As far as I know, BG never did that, right? Yet, the ministry flourished. Single people could do these things, if Protestant churches stopped believing that people aren't truly responsible adults until they're married, with kids.
I believe Paul would have taken a wife (he complained a lot about not being able to have one) if he could have. But, nowhere does the Bible say that Paul actually made a vow to be married for life to the church. I think he was just being practical and sensitive to fact that a wife and children had needs that he couldn't possibly meet if he had to travel and live for extended amounts of time at faraway churches.
But most pastors and priests nowadays, don't travel to faraway churches. They usually live right near the building. So, they can be married or single, but if they're married, they need to balance the time they devote to their families and the church.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/22/2003 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigress- your idea about having a time frame of being celibate actually sounds interesting. i wonder if it could ever happen.
But Paul also thought that Christ was returning in his lifetime- and so he was on the "fast track" so to speak- the end was at hand- who had time to think about getting married and having a family?
One of the problems is, it's hard today for most people to be single their whole lives. (for a lot of people, it's preferred however). And then you have men and women who feel called by God to be ministers. They don't think they should have to sacrifice having a spouse and kids b/c of it. Whether that's right or wrong I don't know. I do know that the position is not just a "job"- it is not like being a baker or farmer, or lawyer, or doctor where you have a separate identity between yourself and your profession. Pastors are pastors 24/7- and many congregations expect that. Also, many pastors are so devoted to God and others that they cannot say no easily. They can't say, "No, I am NOT coming home from my vacation - have the assistant pastor handle it." That's just not their personality or attitude. But for some reason,t he family is supposed to understand it.
Just for a practical matter, it seems much easier if you're going to be devoting your life to this kind of service to have no ties to a spouse or kids that would interfere. I don't think it's impermissible to be married (as for the most part, the RCC does) b/c Jesus was not married, etc. I jsut think that it is not the most practical, and that serving God and the church to that extent may require a huge sacrifice on your part (ie, giving up the idea of getting married and kids). | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/22/2003 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Well I and my siblings turned out fine as well. And so did Billy Graham's kids. Just b/c the kids may have felt resentful to the church doesn't mean that they don't turn out well.
And of course there are incidents of pastors who have found the balance between church and family, who have very supportive assistants and congregations.
But my experience is very common. I know many pastors' kids who feel the same way. I've read a lot about it too. It's a real issue. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/22/2003 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | | | Yes, teachers are appallingly underpaid and undervalued. (my mom is a teacher) - But it's certainly nice to get that 3 months off a year- pastors dont' get that (neither do most people)- and teachers aren't on call 24 hrs a day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/22/2003 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by DLW
maybe we can reform the tenure system in the US academic system while we are at it. The current one presumes the existence of a non-working spouse...
dlw
What DLW is talking about is that to "make it" in the university system one has to have the commited dedication of a corporate CEO. (I've done the 70-80 hour thing for a few years at the college.)
Presently I AM the "expansion plate" in our family, coming home--from a special ed. job--and helping our own kids with their homework; and making my own schedule conformable to the changes in my wife's.
But SHE has learned, as I did, to say "No." at "that" point. (Otherwise it is not only unwise to family and relationships, it is unhealthy too.) | | Back to Top | | |
| 105 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|