[Salty]

Box Turtle Bulletin » Ex-Gay Ministry Admits Sexual Abuse; Grateful At Not Being Found Out

I read this today and I threw up a little in my mouth.

[Laminar]

Political/War Lounge - MacNN Forums

[olePigeon]

You think that's sick? Google about the wide spread child abuse in Ireland. You'll be retching for days. People who boo Sinead O'Conner for taring up a picture of the Pope should be kissing her ass. We need more people like her, it's disturbing how often people turn a blind eye simply because they don't want it to be true.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You think that's sick? Google about the wide spread child abuse in Ireland. You'll be retching for days. People who boo Sinead O'Conner for taring up a picture of the Pope should be kissing her ass. We need more people like her, it's disturbing how often people turn a blind eye simply because they don't want it to be true.

Well, what do you expect when mankind, in its wisdom, decides to ignore the Bible's requirements for church elders?

Ministrants -- let them be of one wife husbands

See that? Church elders must be husbands - so as to ensure constant supply of on-demand tang.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

See that? Church elders must be husbands - so as to ensure constant supply of on-demand tang.

Haven't you ever watched a sitcom? Once you're married, sex stops.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Haven't you ever watched a sitcom? Once you're married, sex stops.

I bow to your superior knowledge in said matters.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I bow to your superior knowledge in said matters.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

See that? Church elders must be husbands - so as to ensure constant supply of on-demand tang.

That is completely contradictory to a male dominated society. Priests, cardinals, bishops, etc. didn't marry because of the risk of women inheriting property and limited power.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That is completely contradictory to a male dominated society.

Not really. Yer Bible also mention that blokes and chicks are nearly equal, with a slight authority going to the blokes. Only slight though. With reference to this, the point is that if a bloke can't run his own family well, how can he run a church?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Priests, cardinals, bishops, etc. didn't marry because of the risk of women inheriting property and limited power.

True. You're going to have to stop confusing "power-hungry man made pseudo-religious political organisation" with what's in the Bible though.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, what do you expect when mankind, in its wisdom, decides to ignore the Bible's requirements for church elders?

Which would be what (out of curiosity)?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Which would be what (out of curiosity)?

I posted it - under that line you just quoted.

[Big Mac]

That Catholic clergy were originally supposed to take wives?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That Catholic clergy were originally supposed to take wives?

And did so until the 10/11th century, IIRC. Then the church didn't like the idea of having to look after a deceased priest's family, so stopped all that. All about money, as usual.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, I became aware of that historical anomaly some years ago. I wonder, though, if a clergyman decided he wanted to get married anyway, how much of a scandal would it cause?

It's funny, at least in many Orthodox Jewish circles you're not taken seriously as a rabbi until you're married.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, I became aware of that historical anomaly some years ago. I wonder, though, if a clergyman decided he wanted to get married anyway, how much of a scandal would it cause?

Not much, I guess. Well, not in society anyways. The Vatican may well run around with their frocks blowing in the air over it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's funny, at least in many Orthodox Jewish circles you're not taken seriously as a rabbi until you're married.

Exactly. 'Tis the proper way.

[DrTacoMD]

I once knew a Catholic priest who had a wife -- he converted to Catholicism after he was married. Apparently the church didn't stop him from becoming a priest (and obviously didn't make him get divorced). And for the record, he remains one of the most down-to-earth, reasonable priests I've ever known.

[Person Man]

In the Greek Orthodox church you can be a priest and be married, but only if you're married before you become a priest.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

See that? Church elders must be husbands - so as to ensure constant supply of on-demand tang.

More Biblical misinterpretation from Doofy. There's no such requirement for marriage, especially since Paul and Jesus were celibate. Paul clearly indicated that marriage is optional.

Regardless, there's no relationship between marriage and child abuse. In fact, most victims of child abuse are victimized by their own fathers.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Paul and Jesus were celibate.

But didn't Jesus pork that Mary Magdalain bird?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

More Biblical misinterpretation from Doofy.

Of course it is.

it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband

Ministrants -- let them be of one wife husbands

Let's go KJV with that...

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

But didn't Jesus pork that Mary Magdalain bird?

Heretic!

STONE HIM

...


*puff puff*

...


here, take a hit

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Of course it is.
Let's go KJV with that...

And you're sure that doesn't mean that a bishop should be a monogamist, or a several-time divorcee?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, I became aware of that historical anomaly some years ago.

Perhaps the present state is the anomaly?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And you're sure that doesn't mean that a bishop should be a monogamist, or a several-time divorcee?

Yes:
- Married to first wife.
- Widower.

No:
- Single (OK for laymen).
- Divorced (debatable: OK for laymen if wife's a slapper).
- Polygamist (OK for laymen).
- Cot-hopping kiddie-fiddling frock-wearing pansy (not OK for anyone).
- Not a chick (OK for laychicks).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

More Biblical misinterpretation from Doofy. There's no such requirement for marriage, especially since Paul and Jesus were celibate. Paul clearly indicated that marriage is optional.

Regardless, there's no relationship between marriage and child abuse. In fact, most victims of child abuse are victimized by their own fathers.

That might be a false positive. It's not surprising that more victims of child abuse are victimized by their fathers than by Catholic priests; there are *far* more fathers in the world than there are Catholic priests. To properly understand the relationship, we'd need to look at the *proportion* children sexually abused by their fathers vs. the *proportion* of children sexually abused by Catholic priests.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Haven't you ever watched a sitcom? Once you're married, sex stops.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Haven't you ever watched a sitcom? Once you're married, sex stops.

Since when? Here's a tip, find chicks who dig sex and give it to them daily.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

But didn't Jesus pork that Mary Magdalain bird?

Mmmmmaybe. Not enough info either way to draw a conclusion.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps the present state is the anomaly?

Yeah, that's what I meant, although it's definitely an enduring anomaly.

[Salty]

Wow... it scares me but for the most part I agree with Doofy... did I just say that? I'm not sure what disturbs me more... my original link... or that fact.

Anyway, I find it ironic that a huge chunk of the world takes their que on what's right and wrong, even in sexual matters from people who aren't getting any? Actually that's a joke I tend to make in general about catholic theology.

But one of the problems that the catholic Church has is that they tend to only want to talk about sex in bad contexts, even the heterosexual type that they've recently decided is a really good form of being a better person, since it means you're not queer, they still have trouble with. It's only good if it can bring more people into the world particularly the third world where they're so busy trying to take care of all their kids they don't have time to notice how much the Church isn't making sense anymore.

This also results in a LOT of sexually abnormal people in ministry, because the only way it's OK to be catholic and say, gay, is to be catholic, gay (shhh), and celibate. Also, let's say you have some head stuff going on that means kids turn you on? Well you wouldn't want to be able to say talk to a counsellor about that, maybe sort things out, let's rather put you in charge of a Church and tell you just to not think of sex! The priesthood unfortunately is a safe haven for anyone who's confused about their sexuality or is sexually damaged.

As for what Doofy's saying, yes most child molesters are married heterosexual men, but if you notice while the Protestant and Orthodox Churches do have their scandals they're not nearly as bad. (Well OK aside form Ted Haggard...)

That said, Paul and Jesus were both single as far as is recorded, odds are Paul was married at one point, but that his wife and he might have split (explains why he doesn't go off on divorce as much as Jesus... that and Jesus was telling off Herod as he made that sermon) and Jesus, while Scripture never states he was married, it also never states he wasn't, now odds are the Church would have probably venerated anyone they knew was close with him like that, that said if you're all knowing and you didn't want the one you cared about the most to have done what he'd known would happen with Mary wouldn't you keep them out of the lime light? Actually there's a whole bunch of theories about Jesus and John (why is it all the homos think all the Jonnys are gay!) not that I buy em, but I kinda imagine if Jesus really was fully man, he probably wasn't entirely at one end of the Kinsey scale.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let's go KJV with that...

Both of those quotes are from 1 Timothy I think, which was not written by Paul, but by a fraudster in the 2nd or 3rd century. Only about half of the letters attributed to Paul were really him. Regardless, the text was written opposing polygamy, not celibacy.

The scholarly consensus on authentic Pauline writings are: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. The letter to Titus and Timothy are certainly frauds, and the remainder lack scholarly consensus.

The Letter to the Hebrews was admitted to the canon as a letter from Paul, but Pauline authorship was disputed as early as 2nd century. So clearly, it's OK to dispute authorship of "canon" texts and still be Christian. The Apostle's Creed is the touchstone of Christian belief, and it says NOTHING about required texts. The limited number of "required" beliefs is the very reason the church is so diverse.

On other matters, there's no credible reason to believe Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married or has a sexual relationship. The reference to Jesus kissing Mary in the Gospel of Philip isn't very interesting, since the "holy kiss" was common among early Christians, and that is the only reason the very corrupted text is even assumed to be a kiss on the lips, and not the hands or forehead or whatever.

Regardless, the gnostic gospels are unreliable for the same reason that Timothy is unreliable: lack of referents to 1st century concerns, lack of diction and semantic parallels to reliable works, and a clear relationship to 2nd century theological developments that were unknown to the early Christians.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Both of those quotes are from 1 Timothy I think, which was not written by Paul, but by a fraudster in the 2nd or 3rd century. Only about half of the letters attributed to Paul were really him. Regardless, the text was written opposing polygamy, not celibacy.

The text doesn't oppose polygamy. It's still OK for laymen.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The scholarly consensus on authentic Pauline writings are: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. The letter to Titus and Timothy are certainly frauds, and the remainder lack scholarly consensus.

I don't respect "scholarly consensus". This is your modern-day Sanhedrin - pompous old tarts who listen but don't hear, look but don't see.

[ort888]

Vows of celibacy are such a great idea.

It's too late for me to do that now, but in the spirit of the original idea... I've decided to never again take another dump for as long as I live.

I'll let everyone know how it goes.

[Salty]

In all fairness even in english it is pretty clear that polygamy is the concern. If celibacy was Paul/the author's target then it would have read something about how elders must have someone to share the burden with, or something of that nature, something to suggest that the wife fit in with the job, instead he simply says that there can't be multiple wives.

That said though, while I've never looked much into the theories on which books might or might not be pseudepigraphal the fact that Paul says much that's favourable toward marriage is actually pretty out of character, I think some chick burnt him pretty bad.

Either way, the identity of the author doesn't negate the text's accepted inspiration by the Church, and really it does seem to sound like God's inspiration is in the text. With that being said, I think it's clear that there is an element that works against the celibacy as the best option idea. The fact is the Church's original motives were not wanting to have to take care of orphans and widows of priests, they favoured money over the care of the needy, thus they decided that priests couldn't have that significant bond that the majority of humans crave in life, and they negated the priest hood to those deprived of human touch, or those too messed up to want to be touched.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Salty 

In all fairness even in english it is pretty clear that polygamy is the concern. If celibacy was Paul/the author's target then it would have read something about how elders must have someone to share the burden with, or something of that nature, something to suggest that the wife fit in with the job, instead he simply says that there can't be multiple wives.

Sorry but no. Read it. "Of one wife".

And then there's Genesis 2:18...

[Salty]

There's exegesis, and eisegesis. You're doing the former. To take the words on the page instead of the meaning they're clearly meant to communicate excludes both single people, gays, and women (unless perhaps they're lesbians) from serving as elders/bishops/pastors. The passage clearly leaves open the option of single ministers, but rather closes the door to polygamists... (Which the African Church often ignores.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Box Turtle Bulletin � Ex-Gay Ministry Admits Sexual Abuse; Grateful At Not Being Found Out

I read this today and I threw up a little in my mouth.

Heheh.. box turtle.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Salty 

There's exegesis, and eisegesis. You're doing the former. To take the words on the page instead of the meaning they're clearly meant to communicate excludes both single people, gays, and women (unless perhaps they're lesbians) from serving as elders/bishops/pastors.

This is correct. Single people, gays (unless they're non-practising and married to a woman, Elton John style) and women cannot lawfully be elders/bishops/pastors.

See elsewhere in the Bible for "the bum fun* is an abomination" and "women shut your mouths!".

(* not being gay - having the bum fun.)

[lpkmckenna]

Women can't be pastors or bishops, but they can be apostles (like Junia) and prophets? Nonsense.

The bit about requiring women to be silent is pretty shady. The same letter says women can be prophets, so something is askew. Given that the 1 Cor 14:34-35 isn't related to the passages immediately before and after it, it's certainly an interpolation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Women can't be pastors or bishops, but they can be apostles (like Junia) and prophets? Nonsense.

The bit about requiring women to be silent is pretty shady. The same letter says women can be prophets, so something is askew.

Right, so being an apostle (giving a message) or a prophet (also giving a message) carries the same leadership responsibilities as being a community leader?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right, so being an apostle (giving a message) or a prophet (also giving a message) carries the same leadership responsibilities as being a community leader?

No, it carries more. And in Paul's writing, the word apostle means someone who has had an experience of the resurrected Jesus, not just carrying a message. And a prophet is charged with applying moral direction, a very critical leadership task.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No, it carries more.

Exactly. An apostle and a prophet are way above the normal people and separate from them. However, the elders are in amongst the normal people and expected to set a good example in a way befitting their station. Top management vs floor manager.

[olePigeon]

Apparently marrying gay couples will get you excommunicated, but having sex with children gets you moved to a new place to have more sex with children.

[Spheric Harlot]

And giving your okay to this standard procedure gets you elected Pope.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Exactly. An apostle and a prophet are way above the normal people and separate from them. However, the elders are in amongst the normal people and expected to set a good example in a way befitting their station. Top management vs floor manager.

Wrong. Paul did not see himself this way at all. Being a prophet or an apostle or a healer or a deacon were all equally valid parts of the mystical "body of Christ" (ie the whole church), with only Jesus as the head. Your desire to see "separateness" in Paul's writing is completely at odds with Paul's chief purpose: maintaining the unity of the church. Besides, I just can't see Paul the tent-maker doing anything other than being one with the common people.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wrong. Paul did not see himself this way at all. Being a prophet or an apostle or a healer or a deacon were all equally valid parts of the mystical "body of Christ" (ie the whole church), with only Jesus as the head.

Right, so if we follow your line of thinking, everyone in the church is equal. Thus there's no separate rules about polygyny for elders and laymen, is there? Hmmm.

[lpkmckenna]

Like I said before, Timothy is a false letter. Paul himself advocated an egalitarianism in the church: "no Jew or Gentile, no slave or master, no man or woman" etc etc.

Anyone who wants to learn about the real Paul, I recommend Gary Wills' "What Paul Meant" and John Dominic Crossan's "God and Empire," both of which demonstrate Paul's commitment to the equality of all believers.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Like I said before, Timothy is a false letter.

Like I said before, I don't respect your "scholarly consensus".