Originally posted by Nemesio"You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!" (Matt. 23:24).
A church wouldn't be endorsing a woman with spiritual leadership? (This was the next-to-last question.)
What if your male pastor had long hair? Would you discontinue going?
What if your pastor married two people, one of whom was divorced on non-adulterous grounds?
Would you discontinue going?
Nemesio
I go to church for fellowship and to enjoy the presence of the Lord. If I sense the Lord is not present, then I move on. It's that simple. I've never chosen a church based on the criteria which you've mentioned. I'm not saying those issues aren't important, just that my search for a church didn't happen to be dictated by them. My hunger for genuine bread from heaven is what drove me. And really that's my only concern church-wise.
Originally posted by whodeySo if a white man hears his "inner voice" telling him that it is 'wrong' for a white person to marry a black person and he can also find references to it in the Bible then would you say he is correct? Or do you think we should use our common sense as well as our inner voice sometimes.
In addition, however, there is the innate voice from within that stears us in terms of right/wrong. This voice also calls out to me as does the sriptures that homosexual sex is sinful. It is the same voice that has cried out to me when I engaged in other sinful practices including sex outside the confines of marriage. Therefore, I can go against this inner voice at my own peril.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf it were in scripture not only once but on several occasions and my "inner voice" spoke to me about it then I would say yes, I would have to consider this greatly.
So if a white man hears his "inner voice" telling him that it is 'wrong' for a white person to marry a black person and he can also find references to it in the Bible then would you say he is correct? Or do you think we should use our common sense as well as our inner voice sometimes.
Originally posted by epiphinehas
I go to church for fellowship and to enjoy the presence of the Lord. If I sense the Lord is not present, then I move on. It's that simple. I've never chosen a church based on the criteria which you've mentioned. I'm not saying those issues aren't important, just that my search for a church didn't happen to be dictated by them. My hunger for genuine bread from heaven is what drove me. And really that's my only concern church-wise.
Well, then your implication is that if homosexual couples were blessed, then you wouldn't 'enjoy the
presence of the Lord.'
So, I would ask:
If a woman pastor is present -- a direct violation of Scripture -- how could the Lord be present?
If homosexual couples were permitted blessing services, why wouldn't the Lord be present?
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodey
The first is what is the "nature" of men and women based upon how a paricular society views it and/or how God intended it.
How convenient that you would think this, but that's not what the text says, as I've pointed out a
number of times. St Paul clearly states that if anyone is inclined to be contentious, that no such
custom (of wearing your hear contrary to 'nature'😉 will be found in the churches of God.
Further, he writes that a man's hair ought not to be covered because he is the image and reflection
of God. Again, this indicates that this is no mere custom, for how could the nature of that image
change with society?
Even more telling is verse 10, where a woman ought have the symbol of authority over her head
because of the angels. This is demonstrable testimony that this is not a societal issue, but a
Divine command.
So, your interpretation has no bearing on the text -- no, inspired testimony -- offered specifically
to address the concerns that it might be societal.
Lastly, why do you insist that, if you can pervert your reading of this clearly articulated text, the nature
of sexuality is fixed in stone?
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyDo I think that every act of fornication is a sin? No. Let's say a man and woman who are
Ok, so lest say that there are two people who are not married and are heterosexual and wish to fornicate or have sex outside of marriage who love each other. Would they be in sin?
engaged are on a plane which crashes and leaves them on a deserted island. Let's say that they
are apparently stranded but have been able to cobble out a shelter and figure out food and water
routines to keep them alive.
Do you think that, because nobody is around to 'marry' them, they ought not to have sex?
The issue for me is not 'marriage' per se but commitment. Marriage is one sign of such a
commitment, but there are many others.
Take for example a couple whose every experience with church has been perverted by poor clergy,
nasty congregations or whatever, so that their opportunities to experience God through worship has
been negative by no fault of their own and they elect to a secular commitment ceremony because of
this. Do you think that sex after that point is a sin?
I think that an expression of commitment which normatively but not exclusively takes the form of
marriage suffices for complete sexual exchange, especially in a world where the houses of worship
very often testify to negative images of xenophobia.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSaying that a man's hair ought not to be covered because he is the reflection of God and saying that a woman ought to have the symbol of authority over her head because of the angels does not mandate that these things are said apart from what the social beliefs were of Paul's time. If the social perception was that women ought to have a symbol of authority because of angels then he is catering to social custom rather than Biblical teaching.
Originally posted by whodey
[b]The first is what is the "nature" of men and women based upon how a paricular society views it and/or how God intended it.
How convenient that you would think this, but that's not what the text says, as I've pointed out a
number of times. St Paul clearly states that if anyone is inclined to be contentious, that ...[text shortened]... of this clearly articulated text, the nature
of sexuality is fixed in stone?
Nemesio[/b]
If it is Biblical teaching then where else in the Bible does it say these things? Then, if it says it no where else in the Bible then if one were to interpret them literally one would assume that it was not necessary in the past. The question then begs to be answered as to why? This custom seems to have changed during Pual's time in comparison to the Mosaic time because it was not written as being required in the Mosaic times. So either the Mosaic law got it wrong or Paul did if it were to be taken literally. However, if it is not taken literally then neither must be assumed to be in error regarding the matter.
Originally posted by NemesioI am not sure it a wise decision to have sex in such a desperate scenerio as being stranded on a deserted island. That is unless, you wish to bring a child into the desperate mix. Who would do such a thing? I mean, you never saw Gilligan and the Skipper engaged in such activities did you? Then again, I always wondered about the professer and Ginger or even Mary Anne and the professor.
Do I think that every act of fornication is a sin? No. Let's say a man and woman who are
engaged are on a plane which crashes and leaves them on a deserted island. Let's say that they
are apparently stranded but have been able to cobble out a shelter and figure out food and water
routines to keep them alive.
Do you think that, because nob ...[text shortened]... re the houses of worship
very often testify to negative images of xenophobia.
Nemesio
I say that what is required of two people getting married depend on the law of the land and customs of the culture. In the end, it should be a mutual understanding that they have decided to spend the rest of their lives together in the most appopriate and public way possible so as to ensure there are witnesses to their comitment to each other. Marriage is nothing more that a contract of sorts that defines such comitment. I suppose if no one was around then such a comitment should be done in the best way possible. The Bible says that the two shall become one flesh and that is the way it should stay.
Now lets take the example of two people who say they are comitted and who could get married if they wanted to. What is the sign they are giving if they say they are comitted to living together for the rest of their lives but avoid getting married? As far as churches go, who says it has to be a religious ceremony? Many, many people simply go down to the court house or find the nearest Elvis impersonator and get hitched whether they be religious or not.
Originally posted by whodeyWe're getting off the topic, but I'll play ball if you start answering questions directly.
Now lets take the example of two people who say they are comitted and who could get married if they wanted to. What is the sign they are giving if they say they are comitted to living together for the rest of their lives but avoid getting married? As far as churches go, who says it has to be a religious ceremony? Many, many people simply go down to the cou ...[text shortened]... t house or find the nearest Elvis impersonator and get hitched whether they be religious or not.
First of all, the reasons for the extreme examples are to demonstrate that the 'marriage' idea is not
always a necessary requirement for morally permissible sexual exchange. Unless you dispute those
examples, then you agree with that statement.
Before I answer, I need to clarify something: Do you recognize state-sanctioned marriages as sufficient
for morally permissible sexual exchange?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioEpiphinehas, I missed your answer to these questions.
Well, then your implication is that if homosexual couples were blessed, then you wouldn't 'enjoy the
presence of the Lord.'
So, I would ask:
If a woman pastor is present -- a direct violation of Scripture -- how could the Lord be present?
If homosexual couples were permitted blessing services, why wouldn't the Lord be present?
Nemesio
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodey
Saying that a man's hair ought not to be covered because he is the reflection of God and saying that a woman ought to have the symbol of authority over her head because of the angels does not mandate that these things are said apart from what the social beliefs were of Paul's time. If the social perception was that women ought to have a symbol of authority because of angels then he is catering to social custom rather than Biblical teaching.
What would angels have anything to do with social custom? What would the reflection of God have
anything to do with social custom? Are you suggesting that the reflection of God changes based on
social custom?
Why would St Paul take such great pains to point out that the churches of God will not have such a
custom?
If it is Biblical teaching then where else in the Bible does it say these things? Then, if it says it no where else in the Bible then if one were to interpret them literally one would assume that it was not necessary in the past. The question then begs to be answered as to why? This custom seems to have changed during Pual's time in comparison to the Mosaic time because it was not written as being required in the Mosaic times. So either the Mosaic law got it wrong or Paul did if it were to be taken literally. However, if it is not taken literally then neither must be assumed to be in error regarding the matter.
Moses is silent on the issue; St Paul is not contradicting Moses. Moses' silence on the issue could mean
that there was no need to articulate the sinfulness of hair style because everyone amongst the
chosen people of God adhered to it unlike the people St Paul's time which would necessarily include
Gentiles (who were more inclined to different hair styles).
So, I'll return to my three-fold clarification:
1) It's really a sin for a woman to have short hair or a man to have long hair;
2) St Paul was totally wrong on this issue; or
3) What constitutes sin has changed over time.
If there's a fourth answer, then you should be able to articulate it in a short sentence like these rather
than spinning a long post that doesn't really answer the question.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioPerhaps the society at large had beliefs about angels that Paul wished not to counter in order to avoid disputes.
What would angels have anything to do with social custom? What would the reflection of God have
anything to do with social custom? Are you suggesting that the reflection of God changes based on
social custom?