 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Biblical talk about "sexual identity and orientation" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/3/2006 5:36 PM (GMT -6) |   |
MephEternal said...
Oh, and I loved this...from the Family section...
"True love in marriage supposes the bearing of children. Those who truly love in marriage will naturally have children as the fruit of their love and the greatest bond of their union. Those who despise children and refuse to offer them care and devotion do not truly love.
Of course there are those whose marriages will be childless because of some tragedy of nature brought on by the "sin of the world." In such marriages perfect love can exist, but the mutual devotion in the service of God and man will take on other forms, either the adoption of children or some other good service for the sake of others, The childless marriage, either by voluntary choice or natural tragedy, which results in self-indulgence is not a spiritual union.
The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship. Those who are living the spiritual life will come to the decision not to bear children only with sorrow, and will do so before God, with prayers for guidance and mercy. It will not be a decision taken lightly or for self-indulgent reasons.
According to the common teaching in the Orthodox Church, when such a decision is taken before God, the means of its implementation are arbitrary. There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible.
While, if I'm right, this is something D. quoted from the OCA site, it just as easily could have been quoted from a REFORMED source as well.
Strange as it can sound to a post-WW2 generation who's use of cars helped a breakdown of society and the advent of a "generation gap", it is TRUE that persons do not live for themselves. Person's do not live for themselves.
TRUTH. Being a parent is one of the most transformative elements in the life of a servant of God. Marriage as a covenant and as a kind of church is another. And marriage really does point beyond just the two of you.
I love what is quoted there. Hope you do to, D.
But the culture around us is dead set against it.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/3/2006 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Want to make sure I got this part straight. I am interpreting this from what I've heard...
Human procreation via sexuality was a method conceived by God to counteract the effects of human death...which would come from inevitable human sin.
Is this what you are saying?
That's not the only thing I'd say. But I do pick that up. I pick up that procreation is not part of the "original" design of humans. Were it, then there 'would' be giving and taking" in marriage in heaven; and there's not. Were it, then it would be part of the prototype of Him 'AFTER" the image of him we were created. Yeah.
And from that point we should take another step. We should notice that generation in the Kingdom is by "new birth" and not procreation.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/3/2006 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | This manner of thinking in yours and Wrights schrift.....
It reminds me of the University of Minnesota organization that debated scripture and science.
The notion of trying to make the Bible into a science book may be big among you fundamentalists. But leave me out.
And THAT seems what Wright and another you quoted are really doing. I bet that sounds distasteful. But it looks to be true.
Hopko gave you much better an idea, and one that is better supported by scholars, than what Wright says.
Wright is the new "sliced bread" -- but "this too shall pass."
"The Genesis story is the divinely-inspired description in symbolic terms of man's primordial and original possibilities and failures. It reveals that man's potency for eternal growth and development in God was turned instead into man's multiplication and cultivation of wickedness and his transformation of creation into the devil's princedom, a cosmic cemetery "groaning in travail" until saved once more by God (Rom 8:19-23). All the children of Adam, i.e. all who belong to the human race, share in this tragic fate. Even those born this very minute as images of God into a world essentially good are thrown immediately into a deathbound universe, ruled by the devil and filled with the wicked fruit of generations of his evil servants." www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=16
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/3/2006 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/3/2006 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
Strange as it can sound to a post-WW2 generation who's use of cars helped a breakdown of society and the advent of a "generation gap", it is TRUE that persons do not live for themselves. Person's do not live for themselves.
TRUTH. Being a parent is one of the most transformative elements in the life of a servant of God. Marriage as a covenant and as a kind of church is another. And marriage really does point beyond just the two of you.
I would agree that personhood, at it core, is irreducibly relational...as I would agree that a rampant culture of nihilistic consumerism and the idol of individualism (combined with technological advances and mobility) have produced an pervasively "anti-social" society.
I would also say that parenthood and marriage are definitely opportunities for creative, self-giving love. However, I would NOT go as far as to say some of what is said in the quote. Nope.
***********************
MephEternal said...
Want to make sure I got this part straight. I am interpreting this from what I've heard...
Human procreation via sexuality was a method conceived by God to counteract the effects of human death...which would come from inevitable human sin.
Is this what you are saying?
POW responds...
That's not the only thing I'd say. But I do pick that up. I pick up that procreation is not part of the "original" design of humans. Were it, then there 'would' be giving and taking" in marriage in heaven; and there's not. Were it, then it would be part of the prototype of Him 'AFTER" the image of him we were created. Yeah.
And from that point we should take another step. We should notice that generation in the Kingdom is by "new birth" and not procreation.
Hmmm...
Sexual procreation as NOT being a part of the "original" design of the hominid, homo sapiens sapiens. But, in some part, a contingency plan enacted once human sin came to be?
Wow. There is a lot to be said for that belief right there.
I soooo can't get down with that.
It would make more sense to me (within this schema) to say that procreation is a part of God's plan to INCREASE God's influence in Creation via God's viceroys. When the Consummation occurs at the End of All Things, that would be a superfluous process. God would already be "all in all" No more NEED for marriage...or procreation. But to say that the human ability to sexually reproduce was a contingency measure of some sort...I just can't do it.
***************************
POW:
This manner of thinking in yours and Wrights schrift.....
It reminds me of the University of Minnesota organization that debated scripture and science.
The notion of trying to make the Bible into a science book may be big among you fundamentalists. But leave me out.
And THAT seems what Wright and another you quoted are really doing. I bet that sounds distasteful. But it looks to be true.
Hopko gave you much better an idea, and one that is better supported by scholars, than what Wright says.
Wright is the new "sliced bread" -- but "this too shall pass."
"The Genesis story is the divinely-inspired description in symbolic terms of man's primordial and original possibilities and failures. It reveals that man's potency for eternal growth and development in God was turned instead into man's multiplication and cultivation of wickedness and his transformation of creation into the devil's princedom, a cosmic cemetery "groaning in travail" until saved once more by God (Rom 8:19-23). All the children of Adam, i.e. all who belong to the human race, share in this tragic fate. Even those born this very minute as images of God into a world essentially good are thrown immediately into a deathbound universe, ruled by the devil and filled with the wicked fruit of generations of his evil servants."
It's not about trying to make the Bible into a science book. It's about trying to make sense of claims by biblical characters and authors. It seems to me that you don't even care about trying to wrestle with the reconciliation of scripture and Tradition with findings about early human development. Like it doesn't even matter at all. That's your prerogative, I suppose.
As for me, that don't fly. It just doesn't. If I am going to think critically about other religious adherents religious claims and beliefs about the origins of the cosmos and humanity, I have to take the same scalpel to my own religious convictions. Wherever that leads.
I really don't feel like this is reducing my belief to mere rationalism.
But hey, what do I know...
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/3/2006 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | |
A._______________________________
POW:
Strange as it can sound to a post-WW2 generation who's use of cars helped a breakdown of society and the advent of a "generation gap", it is TRUE that persons do not live for themselves. Person's do not live for themselves.
TRUTH. Being a parent is one of the most transformative elements in the life of a servant of God. Marriage as a covenant and as a kind of church is another. And marriage really does point beyond just the two of you.
DCM:
I would agree that personhood, at it core, is irreducibly relational...as I would agree that a rampant culture of nihilistic consumerism and the idol of individualism (combined with technological advances and mobility) have produced an pervasively "anti-social" society.
I would also say that parenthood and marriage are definitely opportunities for creative, self-giving love. However, I would NOT go as far as to say some of what is said in the quote. Nope.
PoW:
What makes up the extra distance is the Cross.
"Relational" as liberal theology says it... as you've said, "would not go as far." Definitely not. It would not. But the Cross does.
My wife was watching Rich Mullins last night. His favorite song fit with a remark that he'd made, the he wanted to "go out like Elijah." Relying solely on the Grace by which he was saved.
Liberal theology does not "go out" like that.
***********************
B._______________________________
POW:
I pick up that procreation is not part of the "original" design of humans. . . of the prototype of Him 'AFTER" the image of him we were created.
DCM:
NOT...part of...the hominid, homo sapiens sapiens...
PoW:
THERE you go trying to make the Bible into a science book. Genesis is NOT "about" that.
DCM:
But, in some part, a contingency plan enacted once human sin came to be?
PoW:
You got that completely wrong. Thought you'd read carefully. I said that the "contingency plan" was enacted BEFORE the fall. Be clear on that.
DCM:
It would make more sense to me (within this schema) to say that procreation is a part of God's plan to INCREASE God's influence in Creation via God's viceroys.
PoW:
What MOTIVATES you to say that? That sounds very novel.
Even one person could and DID fulfill the call to be prophet, priest and king as mediator between God and Creation. Adam. Man's ROLE is not that of "power" but of "faithfulness."
Our best definition is "homoorans" -- Man the worshiper. The thanksgiving giver.
"More" is not the central point. That just sounded "carnal."
DCM:
When the Consummation occurs at the End of All Things, that would be a superfluous process. God would already be "all in all" No more NEED for marriage...or procreation.
PoW:
Where did THAT come from?
DCM:
But to say that the human ability to sexually reproduce was a contingency measure of some sort...I just can't do it.
PoW:
Its mainline, and its enumerated in the "curse". Without it there would be no hope at all for mankind. The Bible says that the woman, who gives birth in trivail, also has ofspring that crushes the serpant's head. But actual lineage is necessary to get mankind to Mary and Chirst.
***************************
C._______________________________
PoW:
This manner of thinking in yours and Wrights schrift.....It reminds me of the University of Minnesota organization that debated scripture and science. The notion of trying to make the Bible into a science book may be big among you fundamentalists. But leave me out.
DCM:
It's not about trying to make the Bible into a science book. It's about trying to make sense of claims by biblical characters and authors. It seems to me that you don't even care about trying to wrestle with the reconciliation of scripture and Tradition with findings about early human development. Like it doesn't even matter at all. That's your prerogative, I suppose.
PoW:
First you say that you aren't "trying to make the Bible into a science book" and THEN you say "wrestle with the reconciliation of scripture and (certain scientific) findings."
How do you want me to respond to that?
See THIS forum on " Can We Trust the Bible in Matters of History and Science? -- Panel Discussion (Part 1) February 19th, 2005 - Philip Sellew, Craig Blomberg, David Howard, Corrine Carvalho http://maclaurin.org/mp3s/panel_discussion_part_1.mp3 (I side with the woman who is the Roman Catholic theologian!)
I won't butcher the text to make it say what might make me feel 'this way' or 'that way' just for a moment. I WILL take seriously what scholars of the literature can teach me about HOW it was written, and for whom, and what the readers would see in both the what and the how of the actual text!!!
DCM:
As for me, that don't fly. It just doesn't. If I am going to think critically about other religious adherents religious claims and beliefs about the origins of the cosmos and humanity, I have to take the same scalpel to my own religious convictions. Wherever that leads.
PoW:
Try thinking about the "religious claims" of the Bible. And not fundamentalist-disguised modernism that wants to make the Bible into a science book. (You "protested too much, me thinks")
DCM:
I really don't feel like this is reducing my belief to mere rationalism.
PoW:
Do you think that you'd REPLACE faith with rationalism. If that's a danger, then watch out. If it's not...then why all the struggle?
==============================
BTW, Do check out the page on
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/3/2006 8:02 PM (GMT -6) | | |
D.
I mentioned liking what the female Roman Catholic theologian had to say at the U of M Biblical Reliability Conference.
Here's the two-part forum I listened to:
February 19th, 2005 -
Panel Discussion (Part 1): Can We Trust the Bible in Matters of History and Science?
Panel Discussion (Part 2): Can We Trust the Bible in Matters of History and Science?
And here are ALL the talks:
- February 19th, 2005 - Philip Sellew, Craig Blomberg, David Howard, Corrine Carvalho
Panel Discussion (Part 2): Can We Trust the Bible in Matters of History and Science?
- February 19th, 2005 - Walter Kaiser
The Bible and Sex: Timeless Truth or Flawed, Provincial Ideas From Another Place and Time?
- February 19th, 2005 - Walter Kaiser
Open Forum on Difficult Old Testament Passages
- February 19th, 2005 - Craig Blomberg
Open Forum on Difficult New Testament Passages
- February 19th, 2005 - Philip Sellew, Craig Blomberg, David Howard, Corrine Carvalho
Panel Discussion (Part 1): Can We Trust the Bible in Matters of History and Science?
- February 19th, 2005 - Craig Blomberg
The DaVinci Code (Part 2): Was There a Conspiracy to Concoct a Divine Jesus?
- February 18th, 2005 - Craig Blomberg
The DaVinci Code (Part 1): Was There a Plan to Suppress "Secret" Gospels?
- February 18th, 2005 - Walter Kaiser
Why Is the Reliability of the Bible Important in the Postmodern World?
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2006 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't remember, off hand (Oct 13, 1967), just what year Desmond Morris wrote "The Naked Ape." http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_3116000/3116329.stm But this thread caused me to remember it.
There was a push to try to reconcile new scientific discoveries with the view of man inherited from Christianity's shapind influence on western culture.
And since many animals are competative with respect to mating -- which included our nearest relatives in the animal world (hence the title "naked ape" ), the reconsiliation was a thinly disguised move to accomodate "what came naturally": the serial monogomy or informal polygamy.
That was then... and its reverberations are still sending shocks through the lives of those hurt by it. And this is now, where other thin veils are cast like disappearing cloaks over the contours of the living Word that did not leave his church alone, but sent his Spirit to lead them in all thruth, and to contain heaven on earth.
Morris's ideas were forcefully preached.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/4/2006 9:29:29 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 11:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm...
I listened to those discussions...
[PS: I sincerely want to thank you, POW, for some of the resources that you place on these threads. Really. Two of my Strengthfinders talents are Input and Learner...which mean that I love gathering and synthesizing new data, information, and ideas. So I love when I get leads to new books, articles, journals, and what not. Your suggestions have contributed significantly to my "stash" of stuff. So, thanks.  ]
I found myself agreeing with Carvalho on here view of "infallibility" (She called it "inerrancy" in matters of faith and salvation). It also seems like she has a dynamic view of inspiration. I also want to partially agree with Sellew's consideration of Kaiser's statements. Particularly those of 1) noting cautiously that Christianity is a HISTORICAL FAITH unchangably, even though fiction plays a really important part and 2) being JUST as critical of the religious claims of Christianity as one would with any other religious belief.
My main problem (interestingly enough something that ALL of the panelists kind of left alone, according to Blomberg) is that when we talk about the Creation narratives. When I heard this tongue in cheek statement, I was kind of disappointed.
There is so much of our doctrine of anthropology that is spoken into from the Creation narrative, I honestly don't see how people can just act like our discoveries on hominid development does NOTHING important to that doctrine. For goodness sakes, marriage is a SACRAMENT ultimately because of the Creation narratives (and Jesus' ratification of the same).
Am I just off on this??
There is NO WAY to talk saliently from the "big picture" on sexuality WITHOUT dealing with how we consider the Creation narratives.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2006 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm BEGINNING to have read enough of you to start feeling more sure of what you are saying...
(I read your other thread too, but left it 'clean' for others to contribute to.)
First, an aside: "Sacrament" with respect to marriage is spoken of by Evdokimov as "potential sacrament" when applied to particular persons. That does not change what you are saying, but it does NUANCE it a bit in an important way. This side of the fall hooking up does not necessarily become a "mystery." (Mystery seems to be the Eastern Christian way of saying sacrament.) Seems that marriage becomes sacamental (Avoid the word mysterious, as that is fodder for cathartic jokes about old married couples.) when it acts like its designed to be. I suppose I need to be more clear on that...
So, rather than saying "marriage is a SACRAMENT ultimately because of the Creation narratives (and Jesus' ratification of the same)." One might say that marriage is "sacramental" (Has the potential to be a mystery . . . and as all mysteries are really part of the ONE mystery--which is Christ and the Church...) because the Word created it to be a mystery. I'd say that the Creation pre-exists the narratives that refer to it. It is the spoken Word (Christ) that created the cosmos and the world. The written Word is also an incarnation of Christ (I get this from Maximus the Confessor), and as such it is truth given us by the giver, and in it we are confronted by the Giver. So the point then becomes one of WHAT are we being told by the Talker, rather than by some notion that the events in the narrative have a life of their own.
Personally, I have to just accept the narrative with respect to details: her first and then him... Besides issolated facts, that sequence in the narrative holds much, much more for us. It is SO male and SO female in many respects. And the missing of the mark -- which there is the over-do-gooding (Sahid's remark that sin is not mentioned until the abuse of "office" outside of paradise) -- is shown in the form of our ancestors AND US trying to be God without taking the time and practicing the role for being and becoming "gods" as God intended. He and Her and we and them are created different from each other, and complete each other. When either of us try to "be all and in all" -- which is only Christ's role, and us in Him -- we "sin" and fall short of the mark. Evdokimov had some very good things to say in "Women and the Salvation of the World" that I used to post....way back. Women embrace; and Mary embraced the Angel's words with her "Yes," and "uttered the divine name with all her heart mind, all her being, all her body, in such a way that Word became flesh." C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" paints pictures of thie "god" act run amuck where women become tyrants, and instead of embracing and nurturing their particular sin is to envelop to the point of suffocation or dominition. Men, unlike the godly example of John the Baptist who "became less that He might become more" become "Tim The Tool Man Taylor" only times ten, and display and control with their "more power" myopia.
I suppose we have to remember that marriage, like everything else, has an essence and a hypostasis (if I can use that word very LOOSLY here) -- I want to avoid the word "person." Their would be, then, the essential "sacramentality"/mystery of marriage; and there would be the hypostasis of marriage being the union of THREE persons (My wife gave me my ring that quotes the "three cords" verse. And the Orhtodox wedding liturgy -- check it out -- say "Do you, God... Only the "Do" does NOT mean "will you" but "Make sure that you." And then, for me in my marriage, I should have been better literate to know that "Do you B. take J." meant "You'd better take..." -- which was good advice!!!)
.
I'm sure that I've wandered. Feel free to call me back to what I've left off.
PoW
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2006 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Cobb says :
...process theology on the opposite side from the dominant Christian tradition. Whereas the tradition felt that sexuality was evil and that sexual acts required moral justification, process theology asserts that sexual activity is good.
But that is paganism introduced into the West from Augustine (I think.) And Cobb, then, gets to make all or nothing strawman claims, that are false for him to make.
And from there comes the centrification on the number-2 or even the number-3 of this thread's thesis, that (Bethel anthropologist's quote):
QUOTE:
"We need to take scripture as a whole and ask 'What does it say about who we are as persons, who is God, and what is the world like that we live in?" Sexuality is a derivative question from those broader themes, and homosexuality is derivative of that. When we start backwards, it seems as if six verses are for gay people and about five verses are for women, for example, when in fact all of scripture speaks to all of us."
And such a centrification as in Cobb brings with it distortion.
.
Further, where is the CROSS in Cobb?
====================
And, BTW, I don't find the "natural law" arguement to be very strong or central an arguement against H.S.B. That's not the center of the issue.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/4/2006 11:28:26 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
So, rather than saying "marriage is a SACRAMENT ultimately because of the Creation narratives (and Jesus' ratification of the same)." One might say that marriage is "sacramental" (Has the potential to be a mystery . . . and as all mysteries are really part of the ONE mystery--which is Christ and the Church...) because the Word created it to be a mystery.
Wouldn't we say that we know marriage to have the potentiality to embody mystery BECAUSE of what the Church has reflected upon the Creation narratives with Jesus and Paul's teachings? In other words, the reason we think marriage is a mystery...is because biblical claims give the Church the data from whence to make that inference.
***************************
POW:
I'd say that the Creation pre-exists the narratives that refer to it. It is the spoken Word (Christ) that created the cosmos and the world. The written Word is also an incarnation of Christ (I get this from Maximus the Confessor), and as such it is truth given us by the giver, and in it we are confronted by the Giver. So the point then becomes one of WHAT are we being told by the Talker, rather than by some notion that the events in the narrative have a life of their own.
But that "WHAT" incompasses the narrative, Jesus and Paul's teaching, and the reflections of the Church, yes?
****************************
POW:
Personally, I have to just accept the narrative with respect to details: her first and then him... Besides issolated facts, that sequence in the narrative holds much, much more for us. It is SO male and SO female in many respects. And the missing of the mark -- which there is the over-do-gooding (Sahid's remark that sin is not mentioned until the abuse of "office" outside of paradise) -- is shown in the form of our ancestors AND US trying to be God without taking the time and practicing the role for being and becoming "gods" as God intended. He and Her and we and them are created different from each other, and complete each other. When either of us try to "be all and in all" -- which is only Christ's role, and us in Him -- we "sin" and fall short of the mark. Evdokimov had some very good things to say in "Women and the Salvation of the World" that I used to post....way back. Women embrace; and Mary embraced the Angel's words with her "Yes," and "uttered the divine name with all her heart mind, all her being, all her body, in such a way that Word became flesh." C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" paints pictures of thie "god" act run amuck where women become tyrants, and instead of embracing and nurturing their particular sin is to envelop to the point of suffocation or dominition. Men, unlike the godly example of John the Baptist who "became less that He might become more" become "Tim The Tool Man Taylor" only times ten, and display and control with their "more power" myopia.
Ok. This is what some implications that I am interpreting from what you've said...
God, before God even creates human beings, knows that he wants to create human beings in such a way that their existence and furthered existence will potentially point towards the "Grand Mystery" of Christ and His work. God intentionally creates the sexual (and gender?) differences in human beings, IN PART, to do this. And those prescribed differences have moral implications, if violated. Moreover, even though the text can and does refer to human experience at large, there WAS a point in human history where our primal ancestors "missed the mark" and plunged all other humans (and Creation) into a big problem.
Would this be somewhat accurate?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2006 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | |
DCM:
Wouldn't we say that we know marriage to have the potentiality to embody mystery BECAUSE of what the Church has reflected upon the Creation narratives with Jesus and Paul's teachings? In other words, the reason we think marriage is a mystery...is because biblical claims give the Church the data from whence to make that inference.
POW:
You are SCREAMING "Soli scriptura," aren't you?
Yes biblical claims. But God also gave us marriage itself. Christ gave the sacrament; not just the instructions.
But just to remind you, that still only gets you to point two of BETHEL's three points (that I keep repeating).
***************************
POW:
Let us never forget (More likely, let us remind ourselves and each other.) tha the WHOLE Scipture is really about Christ!
****************************
DCM:
Ok. This is what some implications that I am interpreting from what you've said...
God, before God even creates human beings, knows that he wants to create human beings in such a way that their existence and furthered existence will potentially point towards the "Grand Mystery" of Christ and His work.
POW:
Two things: First, it just seems like you are getting the sequence switched around. "Pointing towards the 'grand mystery'" is not something we'd expect in the New Jerusalem, as what is present will not need "pointing to" -- mystery vanishes with the coming of the "face to face." I'm hearing Paul in my ears.
Second, thinking about your sequence, it springs to my attention that "male and female" does not presupose the fall. And your paragraph seems to posit marriage's institution as a pre-retrofit in anticipation of the needs of the fall (the necessity of Christ's work). But THAT is what procretion was and is.
And were the sequence I see you using true, THEN marriage would not mean anything in heaven. And the Church teaches that it does. There will be no "giving and being-given in heaven, no pairing up. But the unions of marriage--the becoming one flesh--are as deep as our humanity with its union of body and soul.
This is anothe reason not to botch up marriage. Take marriage and your whole body and soul to the CROSS.
. . .
Ok. This is what some implications..............
God intentionally creates the sexual (and gender?) differences in human beings, IN PART, to do this.
PoW:
The "THIS" would be your "potentially point towards the "Grand Mystery" of Christ and His work"...
So I'll repeat that this predates the fall.
So, the "mystery of Christ" is from before the foundation of the world. And the incarnation would have still been NECESSARY even had there been no fall.
DCM:
And those prescribed differences have moral implications, if violated.
POW:
Just what theological system are you reading in (acompanied by what theory of the atonement)?
DCM:
...Moreover, even though the text can and does refer to human experience at large, there WAS a point in human history where our primal ancestors "missed the mark" and plunged all other humans (and Creation) into a big problem.
POW:St. Maximus the Confessor pretty much has them falling right away, without much of a chance...as immature they were.
Augustine's great construction of TOTAL depravity is maximalist because he felt that they must have been perfect in every way, and only something huge would undo that. But the East thinks of them as immature, and in need of maturing (according to free will) in their relationship with God throughtheir divine office.
DCM:
Would this be somewhat accurate?
POW:
I"m not surprised by the way you are reading things, as you carry in a lot of things that are 'asides.'
The WHOLE Bible is about Christ. And it is about God calling mankind into relationship with God.
It's not about "morality."
I see that attention to morality as directly parallel to the beginning with (3) sexual behavior of liberal-fundamentalists. . . who then progressing to (2) sexuality and the place they think it should have, and then to remaking the (2)relationship between man and the world and man and God after their own image they have of themsleves.
.
Counting from three to one instead of one to three. Slippery slope, indeed.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | DCM:
Wouldn't we say that we know marriage to have the potentiality to embody mystery BECAUSE of what the Church has reflected upon the Creation narratives with Jesus and Paul's teachings? In other words, the reason we think marriage is a mystery...is because biblical claims give the Church the data from whence to make that inference.
POW:
You are SCREAMING "Soli scriptura," aren't you?
Yes biblical claims. But God also gave us marriage itself. Christ gave the sacrament; not just the instructions.
But just to remind you, that still only gets you to point two of BETHEL's three points (that I keep repeating).
ok...
"We need to take scripture as a whole and ask _1_ 'What does it say
about who we are as persons, who is God, and what is the world like that we
live in?"
How about this. YOU, B., give me what YOUR take on this #1 is. I think this would clear up some things for me. I want to use number 1, but obviously I'm not. So help me out.
******************************
POW:
But God also gave us marriage itself.
What...does...this...mean?
What does marriage mean, to you?
What, in your view, did God give us marriage FOR?
****************************
POW:
Let us never forget (More likely, let us remind ourselves and each other.) tha the WHOLE Scipture is really about Christ!
Hm. I think THIS begins to shed some light on things.
**************************
POW:
St. Maximus the Confessor pretty much has them falling right away, without much of a chance...as immature they were.
Augustine's great construction of TOTAL depravity is maximalist because he felt that they must have been perfect in every way, and only something huge would undo that. But the East thinks of them as immature, and in need of maturing (according to free will) in their relationship with God throughtheir divine office.
Dude, given what we are finding out about hominid origins and development, "immature" is a friggin understatement. That's part of my problem.
***************************
POW:
I"m not surprised by the way you are reading things, as you carry in a lot of things that are 'asides.'
The WHOLE Bible is about Christ. And it is about God calling mankind into relationship with God.
It's not about "morality."
I see that attention to morality as directly parallel to the beginning with (3) sexual behavior of liberal-fundamentalists. . . who then progressing to (2) sexuality and the place they think it should have, and then to remaking the (2)relationship between man and the world and man and God after their own image they have of themsleves.
Let me clarify here. When I talk about "moral" implications in that sentence, I'm talking in terms of responsibility before God...not just some axiological principle derived from we don't know what.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Wait a sec. Let's go from something I can read here..
The Covenant Church's Resolution on Human Sexuality
www.covchurch.org/cov/resources/resolutions/1996-sexuality.html
What are your thoughts on this, POW? Engage this...and then maybe looking at that engagement will help me understand better.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2006 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | DCM:
I want to use number 1, but obviously I'm not. So help me out.
POW:
YOu begin with two or with three and then try to work back to one, and in the process feel like you are addressing one; but its not done first. Consequently three especailly is not addressed in such a way as it is formed by one.
We can't drop two and address one in issolation. But neither should two be addressed by itself.
******************************
POW:
But God also gave us marriage itself.
DCM:
What...does...this...mean?
What does marriage mean, to you?
PoW: What marriage means is one thing. But when I wrote "God also gave us marriage itself." I was NOT defining marriage. I was saying that MARRIAGE ITSELF seems instructive -- and I think that it is. That's what I was saying
******************************
POW:
Let us never forget (More likely, let us remind ourselves and each other.) tha the WHOLE Scipture is really about Christ!
DCM:
Hm. I think THIS begins to shed some light on things.
PoW:
Good.
**************************
POW:
St. Maximus the Confessor pretty much has them falling right away, without much of a chance...as immature they were.
DCM:
Dude, given what we are finding out about hominid origins and development, "immature" is a friggin understatement. That's part of my problem.
PoW: That's a nonsequitor, D!
***************************
DCM:
When I talk about "moral" implications in that sentence, I'm talking in terms of responsibility before God
PoW: There is morality that is a construct by itself, as exterior. And liberals have taught that, and its a deformation of Reformed theology. Evangelicals focussed on the interior, and obeyed out of what was inside.
That's why they recognized liberal theology as legalism. And it is why they stayed away from liberal moralism all-the-while deeply practicing generousity and missions of mercy.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
YOu begin with two or with three and then try to work back to one, and in the process feel like you are addressing one; but its not done first. Consequently three especailly is not addressed in such a way as it is formed by one.
We can't drop two and address one in issolation. But neither should two be addressed by itself.
Ok, POW. So...talk to me about #1....please.
****************************
POW:
PoW: What marriage means is one thing. But when I wrote "God also gave us marriage itself." I was NOT defining marriage. I was saying that MARRIAGE ITSELF seems instructive -- and I think that it is. That's what I was saying.
Ok...so...
1) How is marriage instructive?
2) What does marriage mean to you?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/4/2006 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2006 5:57 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
1) How is marriage instructive?
Marriage is "sexual" -- the definition of sex is "difference" (from a Peter Kreeft article), so sexual means that marriage is filled with the conjunctions of differences and their surprises, events, challenges, opportunities, compromises, etc.
Corrolary...not everything with events, challenges and differences is "sexual' -- notably "homosexual" is an oxymoron!
Marriage is empathetic. One's own differences are sacrificed for what is experienced in the other, for the other's sake, and not for one's own differences.
Marriage is, as the OCA article by Hopko pointed out, outward-moving. It embraces children, the elderly, the neighborhood, traditions, etc.
Marriage is colaborative. Differences both in gender and what is particularly mine or hers become through the events of colaboration the ours. Being one we are more than the sum of our parts. And even more than that.
Marriage is a cross upon which we give ourselves and become one with Christ.
None of that is instructive just as words. But the doing and becoming of that all "instructs" all of our senses and aptitudes.
Marriage is forever. Death does not end marriage.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/4/2006 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | DCM:
Ok, POW. So...talk to me about #1....please.
Fine,
Question 1: What is the chief and highest end of man?
Answer: Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.
.
Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
Answer. That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, hath fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.
.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
| 72 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:56 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 |
|
|