I suppose I should correct #1 from my list of How to Deconstruct Your Church. I should probably say, instead, that you should deconstruct yourself first. I guess this is especially for pastors, but it applies to all of us who want to deconstruct the church so that we can become a genuine community of free individuals. So, here’s a list of how to deconstruct yourself:
- First of all, you have to really want to. It has to be an inner necessity. You’ve seen the light and you have no choice. You are a fraud exposed. You are going to divest yourself of your false self. Let everyone know that the real you is here to stay (whether they like it or not, fire you or not, desert you or not).
- Create a small group of people with whom you can open up and really be yourself with. Your leadership team or elders is best, if possible.
- Keep a journal. It will help you be honest and keep on track. Write even your dreams, which are excellent detectors of what our masks are. Write what people say about you. For instance, my wife said to me once: “When you are more spiritual, you are a worse husband!” I’ve never forgotten that because it exposed that my spirituality at the time was nourishing an arrogance in me.
- Start letting some of the things you do that are motivated by ambition, rote tradition, competition, or people-pleasing die. Stop doing it. Explain why if necessary.
- Have people call you by your first name (not pastor, Mr., Reverend, or Father, etc.). Be a real, normal accessible person.
- Recognize those things about you that aren’t truly you but are attached to your identity as a pastor. Reject them! Example: there are some of your people (and I know some pastors) who have what they think is a biblical view of the authority of a pastor, but is in fact identical to the idea of the “Divine Right of Kings”. Reject it!
- In your mind and heart, genuinely become one with the people. Party with them. Drink too much with them. This, I think, was one of Martin Luther’s strengths as a reformer. His community was his friends, and they would get together and party and intentionally drink too much to spite the devil.
- Prepare for rejection. Many religious people want a king. If you aren’t willing to be that for them, they will go and find one. I can’t tell you how many people have left because I was an insufficient leader or none at all.
- Develop other means of income in case your church shrinks to a size where it is unable to pay you a full salary. Over the last 13 years of my own deconstruction and that of our church, I have taken several pay cuts. I am making much less than I did when I started pastoring this church 13 years ago. Lisa has had to start working, and I am an artist on the side. I’ve done construction and other side projects to keep my family supported. I’ve even received unemployment benefits.
- Start to seriously question everything, especially your theology and your ideas of what church and ministry is. Let your theology deconstruct, realizing that much of what we are taught and have learned endorses power, authority and control, and is contrary to freedom. Begin to discover what the truth is for yourself. Your search, it is promised, will not go unrewarded.
That’s just a start. I hope this is helpful to some. I’m starting to get some clarity on writing a small book on How to Deconstruct Your Church. Ten easy steps. With some of my more relevant cartoons.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
It only leads to the absurd because your views are absurd, and seemingly inconsistent. If you state that being a practising homosexual is wrong and they will go to hell then you have to define what you mean by that.
preacherlady – not exactly sure who you were addressing with this comment, but it’s interesting!!
Can you explain what you mean by “occult”?
How do we know what is “truth”, if we are trapped inside our biases? Also, how do we know Jesus reached a particular “plane” and what exactly is this plane, if not an idea created by the material mind to make sense of the ineffable? Especially if it allows Christians to claim that “Jesus is better than Buddha”?
I don’t think the notion that there is some sort of plane from which we can measure such “achievement” would fly in most Buddhist circles. The idea of a “plane” is of the ego and therefore remains in the realm of duality and so remains separation – no matter how long you are able to remain there. Enlightenment is complete emptiness which is also fullness. Oneness. One of the things Buddhism did was smash the levels that started sneaking their way into Hinduism. Early Christianity did the same thing for Judaism. There is no place to go. No levels to reach. Nothing to achieve. Nothing to discover. Any such notion is still a matter of separation rather than emptiness/fullness. Isn’t this what Jesus taught? The Kingdom of God/Heaven is here now. We have eyes but don’t see. We have ears but don’t hear.
Tiggy…if you read carefully what I said you will see that psychic experiences and intuitive experiences come from the occult level , but in that occult level there are also different levels. Intuition is part of the creative process and someone can be intuitive without having a psychic experience. A psychic experience usually comes about by someone reading anothers fears or things they are angry about. Psychics aren’t usually intuitive and most intuitives dismiss psychic experiences as a matter of course.
Arulba…I have an appointment in about 5 min so I can’t answer you right now…I’ll be back later tonight.
No worries Tiggy. Like I said, it’s simply a thought experiment I used to attempt to make a very specific point, which I think was made for the person I was making it to. It probably doesn’t make much sense out of that context.
I’ve come across psychics who were very intuitive and I don’t at all dismiss psychic experiences. I had one, but I think only the one,just before we were in a car crash.
I prefer to see Intuition, Sensing, Thinking and Feeling as being on a level playing field. I’m not at all into hierarchies.
Tiggy said, on November 9th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
It only leads to the absurd because your views are absurd, and seemingly inconsistent. If you state that being a practising homosexual is wrong and they will go to hell then you have to define what you mean by that.
———No, tiggy, I don’t have to define what I mean by that. Especially since you believe my views are absurd. You weren’t and are not looking for the reasons and definitions for and of my beliefs as they pertain to homosexuality; you are looking to fight, and it would be a circular fight I will not engage in. I will go with what the Bible teaches; you go with whatever belief you care to. You won’t change me and I won’t change you.
fishon
I was not looking for a ‘fight’. Your views are different from those I’ve heard from other fundamentalist or evangelical preachers. I was trying to find out what your views actually were, but you were being cagey. Then you make a sarcastic comment and as you hadn’t been making any sense I said that I thought it was probably all nonsense.
I believe you often say that on here and I’ve never accused you of ‘looking for a fight.’ You weren’t really backing up your expressed opinions with any reasoning or justification or even the Bible!
Tiggy said, on November 9th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Your views are different from those I’ve heard from other fundamentalist or evangelical preachers.
————–Like on what?
YOU:I was trying to find out what your views actually were, but you were being cagey.
———-Tiggy, first it was kissing, then it was anal sex; what was next? I don’t want to go to the next cause as you said, you believe my views are absurd and nothing I say will change your mind or help you understand someones views you believe to be absurd. That is not being cagey.
YOU:You weren’t really backing up your expressed opinions with any reasoning or justification or even the Bible!
————–Tiggy, be honest, if I quote any scripture you are going to argue that is only my interpretation; is that not true? So why would I waste time giving scripture. Heck, even David on occasion has scolled me for using ONLY scripture as proof for an argument we would be having.
And again, I am truely interested in what my views you mean are different than my fellow fundys? Of course none of us view everything the same—-so what do I view differently than the majority of fundys?
fishon
Actually, I only said your views were absurd after you were unable to articulate them for whatever reason. Of course I’m going to ask about those different things – those are part of the definition in a lot of people’s minds of what ‘practising homosexual’ means.
Other fundies have said that it’s not okay for gay men to kiss – that that is still being a pracitsing homosexual. If it’s a case of the problem being with anal sex then that would not apply to many practising homosexuals as they don’t have anal sex. However, I do know that in America there is a kind of religious or cultural feeling against anal sex even in heterosexual relationships. Fishon, you really don’t know me very well if you think I wasn’t genuinely trying to make sense of it. It’s all a bit of a foreign country to me because I didn’t grow up in that sort of culture. I had to explore this whole thing about homosexuality because I was, for a long time, very anti-homosexual. I forced myself to go to talks about it at the Christian Arts Festival I go to. Now I’m involved with people who are trying to make sense of the way they are viewed by many churches.
!Tiggy said, on November 9th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Other fundies have said that it’s not okay for gay men to kiss
———-Wow, I have NEVER heard it even discussed by any fundies. Might you site me some guys who would deal with the subject of two gay men
By the way, the subject got started when you asked the simple question:
Tiggy said, on November 6th, 2009 at 9:17 am
So Jerry, if a woman kisses another woman, will she go to Hell?
——–No, I don’t think so.
Please show me proof of fundies saying that a woman/gay would go to hell for kissing.
YOU:Other fundies have said that it’s not okay for gay men to kiss – that that is still being a pracitsing homosexual.
———-Please site that too.
YOU: If it’s a case of the problem being with anal sex then that would not apply to many practising homosexuals as they don’t have anal sex.
—————-So why would you have asked me that question if it is so rare? Might it be to spring a trap?
YOU: Fishon, you really don’t know me very well if you think I wasn’t genuinely trying to make sense of it. It’s all a bit of a foreign country to me because I didn’t grow up in that sort of culture. I had to explore this whole thing about homosexuality because I was, for a long time, very anti-homosexual. I forced myself to go to talks about it at the Christian Arts Festival I go to.
————Tiggy, you won’t like this, but that is part of youand so many others problems of figuring out Biblical issues. The Bible calls it sin, and it matters not how many Christians you talk to at Art Festivals who may claim it is not sin. Their vote doesn’t count. God’s Word is the only one that counts.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that there is such a thing as “sexual sin?” And what might they be?
fishon
I’m amazed that you’ve never heard it discussed by fundies. Maybe it’s because of where you live. I’ve lived in cities most of my life or in and near London. I’m sure there must be lots of stuff on fundamentalist Christian websites anyway but at this moment I have to complete some proofreading work and can’t look for them. Remember it’s 3.15 am here!
I can’t really cite things I’ve heard said verbally in churches or at talks and I don’t tend to read books by fundamentalist Christians – not many anyway.
I have most certainly heard Christians say that kissing a person of the same sex was practising homosexuality. When I said ‘kissing’, I would have thought it clear from the context that I mean sexual kissing and not a peck on the cheek.
I didn’t say that it was rare for gay men to have anal sex, but that many don’t. A lot of gay men don’t like the idea in the same way that a lot of heterosexual men or women don’t. This has always been the case, but it has increased somewhat since the spread of AIDS. Of course for gay women it’s not on the agenda in that way.
Actually the talks at the Christian Arts Festival were based on Biblical study and were by a Baptist Minister among others. His name is John Peck and as this was a long time ago he’s getting on a bit now so I doubt he’s got a website you could refer to. By the way, it wasn’t an Art Festival, it was an Arts Festival – there’s a big difference. It has seminars on many topics and Bible studies. It’s not just about people being artistic.
The Bible calls WHAT sin though? You haven’t defined your terms. I don’t remember the Bible mentioning anal sex at all.
Sexual sin – I see no Biblical precedent for categorising sins into sexual, economic, temperamental etc. The Bible just talks about sin – it doesn’t put an adjective in front of it.
I say that because I was going to cite paedophilia, but that’s often not about sex at all though it involves sex. The same goes for rape.
Ok, Tiggy,
If you want to play it that way, what does Paul me when he says in Romans 1 ::26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
————What do you think were the unnatural relations the women committed that Paul is talking about?
What do you think was the lust the men had for one another?
What do you think were the indecent acts the men committed with other men, which Paul calls perversion?
fishon
Fishon, w hy are you so hostile? ‘If you want to play it that way’. You seem to feel you’re under attack all the time. I’m wondering if it’s making you paranoid being on here.
What does ‘God gave them over to’ mean? I don’t know. You tell me.
What does ‘received in themselves due penalty for their perversion’ mean?
It all seems to be about lust. and I was given varying definitions of what that is recently when I enquired. The one I settled on was ‘making someone an object’.
The talks I went to were about fifteen years ago now. I can’t remember the details and I expect scholarship has moved on since then. I don’t understand why you are asking me these things rather than telling me. I don’t know what it all means except that there were certain temple practices going on that involved public sexual performances and Paul would have been aware of that.
fishon: What is considered natural varies from culture to culture and generation to generation. We understand hormones far better today than they were understood in Paul’s time. Just because Paul potentially thought it was unnatural doesn’t mean it makes sense for those in our day and age to likewise think it unnatural.
Aristotle thought slavery was natural. From some of Jesus’ parables, it seems he likely did, too. Peter tells slaves to obey their master without question. So does Paul. For that time period, it was natural. Would you consider slavery natural, today, simply because it was considered natural during Biblical times?
Hopefully not! But the Bible was frequently used to condone slavery in the American South. The President of the Confederate State said, “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation.” He’s right – it is sanctioned in the Bible. But that doesn’t make it right.
Tiggy…if you make no distinction, then how do you discern what is truth and what isn’t and how do you discern what is God and what isn’t? Just because something is termed spiritual, and most things that are termed that are dealing with the relative plane rather than the absolute, doesn’t mean its truth.in the spiritual realm. In the spiritual realm there is no good and evil, there just IS.
Arulba…my remarks were to no-one in particular and everyone in general. Occult simply means hidden. Thats why practices such as astrology, tarot cards, etc. are called occult. They deal with the hidden relative realm. Perhaps I was using the wrong terminology because I in no way meant that there were levels as dilineated in some Hindu practices however, on the way to enlightenment there are several stages one passes through. You don’t go from zero to enlightened in 30 seconds. Also, in this forum, I think we need to stick to the person of Jesus as the gold standard, although I do recognize that the teachings of Jesus and those of the Buddha are similar, and that of course is because the truth is the truth is the truth is the truth, no matter who teaches it. The children of Israel, and the Jews, up until the time of Jesus, followed the law. The law in no way could bring them to enlightenment. It kept them from getting stoned and it made them nice people, at least outwardly…it was, however, strictly cleaning up the outside. Then came Jesus, and the Sermon On the Mount. In it He, 1) said to make your first priority to seek the Kingdom of God 2) He showed us how to start cleaning up the inside. When we reach the stage where seeking the Kingdom is all we want or do…when we stop practicing external religion and go within where the Kingdom is, then we are covered by Grace and are needs are met as if we had reached enlightenment. There is only one way way to seek the kingdom, and that is to “be still and know that I AM. The rest is all preliminary work. If we go within without working on our consciousness and without forgiveness work, we bring a lot of junk to our meditation and it becomes emphasized. Thats it in a nut shell…I can hardly do the topic justice in a few sentences. Read Joel Goldsmith’s “The Thunder of Silence”. He’s got a great handle on it.
arulba said, on November 10th, 2009 at 12:29 am
fishon: What is considered natural varies from culture to culture and generation to generation. We understand hormones far better today than they were understood in Paul’s time. Just because Paul potentially thought it was unnatural doesn’t mean it makes sense for those in our day and age to likewise think it unnatural.
——————I am guessing by what you say that you do NOT believe that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit in all his writings! I believing that Paul was totally inspired by the Spirit. I believe he wasn’t talking about things that would become culturally and generationally not relevant. What was unnatural then is unnatural now and forever.
Aristotle thought slavery was natural. From some of Jesus’ parables, it seems he likely did, too. Peter tells slaves to obey their master without question. So does Paul. For that time period, it was natural. Would you consider slavery natural, today, simply because it was considered natural during Biblical times?
————Aristotle was wrong. What parables? Peter lived in a time when Rome was in power, and to tell Christian slaves to obey their masters had absolutely nothing to do with him thinking it natural. Paul was not concerned with them being slave or not, that wasn’t his ministry–just as Jesus didn’t deal with it. Would you say that Jesus was in favor of slavery because he DID NOT have the people rebell? He was interested that free or slave lived unto the Lord. Jesus nor Paul was not about bringing politiacal rebellion——remember, that is what turned off most of the Jews. They wanted the Messiah to lead the rebellion against that slavery they indured.
Hopefully not! But the Bible was frequently used to condone slavery in the American South. The President of the Confederate State said, “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation.” He’s right – it is sanctioned in the Bible. But that doesn’t make it right.
————–Of course I don’t believe that slavery is natural. And just because Davis said “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation,” doesn’t make it so. And of course you would agree with me, I assume. So, if you say that what Paul is saying in Romans about unnatural and natural is cultural or generational, well, that doesn’t make it so, either.
fishon
Preacherlady, I don’t know what your’e referring to when you say I don’t make a distinction. I mean I’ve no idea at all. I don’t make a distinction between what? Are you talking about Intuition?
Intuition can go wrong, just as reasoning can go wrong.
It’s gone 5am here and I’ve been working on an Accountancy PhD as well as writing a letter to my landlord, so excuse me if I’ve not followed everything you’ve been saying.
Tiggy said, on November 10th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Fishon, w hy are you so hostile? ‘If you want to play it that way’. You seem to feel you’re under attack all the time. I’m wondering if it’s making you paranoid being on here.
———-My lord, tiggy, that isn’t hostile. Feel attacked, now why would I feel attacked. Now tiggy, saying “I’m wondering if it’s making you paranoid being on here,” well, that is just game playing words.
Tiggy, you are soooo politically correct that a plain, old, straight spoken person like me can’t have a converstation with you cause you are so darn sensitive. My way of communicating becomes the issue, not what I have to say.
Enough of this for me, tiggy. I just frustrate you, so on to other encounters when we cross paths again on another subject.
fishon
No, it is not game playing. I don’t play games. I say what I think. I said that because you seem to think everyone is playing games. Maybe it’s a cultural difference in expression, I think it’s definitely a gender difference, but I would only say ‘If you want to play it that way’ if I thought someone was being devious. And that has nothing to do with being politically correct. I don’t know why you keep saying I’m politically correct as no one else thinks I am. I don’t even TRY to be politically correct. Sometimes my friends look at me askance because I’ve used terms like ‘loony’ and ‘retard’ and one of my favourite comedians, Jimmy Carr, has got to be the most politically incorrect comedian ever – he makes a point of it.
You’re just refusing to answer my questions again and this time about Biblical texts – and you’re a pastor! Why are you asking me what those texts mean instead of telling me what they mean?
fishon:
I think Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But I don’t think that makes him infallible. He was a human being! It’s clear from the Bible that Peter and James didn’t particularly dig him – so I’m not sure why we should assume he’s infallible. I don’t think Paul or Jesus condone slavery. But they did nothing to condemn it. Why not? You say Peter and Paul were not about political rebellion. But that’s not true. One of the reasons the early Christians were so heavily detested by the Romans is because they refused to pay tribute to the Roman gods. That’s outright rebellion. I don’t know where you are from – but that’s like refusing to say the National Anthem in the United States. It was political rebellion. So to say the reason they didn’t condemn slavery was because they didn’t want a rebellion is just an excuse. They would have condemned it if they thought it was wrong. Clearly, they didn’t see it as wrong. There had been slavery for thousands of years and it was for them, the natural way of things.
I realize this doesn’t mean that they were condoning slavery as Davis suggested. That wasn’t my point. My point is that this is the stuff of the Bible that slave owners in the American South used to condone it. Even if you think the Bible is infallible, that doesn’t make your interpretation infallible.
Ok – so let’s assume the Bible is infallible. Neither Jesus nor the Jewish prophets have anything to say about homosexual behavior whatsoever. Why not? Out of the entire Bible, there are only 6 verses that even refer to it and most of these passages are about male prostitution and other practices that don’t at all resemble current homosexual orientation. Romans 1:26-27 is the ONLY verse in the entire Bible that references same sex behavior between women so this is the passage most used to oppress the gay community. But how can you be certain that you have interpreted it correctly? Homosexual relations was a normal occurrence among the Romans. So how do you know that what Paul is referring to isn’t a heterosexual engaging in homosexual behavior? That would mean an individual is engaging in acts not natural to his own orientation. It’s not entirely clear and doesn’t provide near as much evidence to oppress a people as the slave owners of the south, had!!!
(Jesus reference was Luke 12:43-48. I realize this is not about condoning slavery. But it doesn’t condemn it, either. There is also Matthew 10:24-25)
arulba said, on November 10th, 2009 at 5:33 am
fishon:
I think Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But I don’t think that makes him infallible. He was a human being! It’s clear from the Bible that Peter and James didn’t particularly dig him – so I’m not sure why we should assume he’s infallible.
——-Ok, let’s assume Paul was infallible. You believe that his infallibilities play into understanding cultureal and generational issues that are now part of scripture. And the issue at hand is “natural and unnatural” as pertaining to homosexuality. \
So what is next to be dismissed because the next guy screams: “No, it was a cultural and generational issue, and it doesn’t apply to todays society. I suppose “Wives, submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord” is out? “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord,” is out? And to some, logic and reason would say that “Fathers, do not embitter your children or they will become discouraged,” is out. How can we dismiss ‘Wives submit”, but not, ‘Fathers, do not…? One follows the other in other–one goes, all go {Col. 3:18-21}. Wives scream, “Culture”, Husbands scream, “Culture,” Children scream [and boy don't they in our USA culture] “Culture.” Where do YOU draw the line?
YOU:You say Peter and Paul were not about political rebellion. But that’s not true. One of the reasons the early Christians were so heavily detested by the Romans is because they refused to pay tribute to the Roman gods.
——I don’t see that as political, but obeying God’s commands. Political would be refusing to pay any taxes to Rome, and that they did not do. They paid to the government, but not to the gods. Big difference.
That’s outright rebellion. I don’t know where you are from – but that’s like refusing to say the National Anthem in the United States. It was political rebellion.
———arulba, where are you from?????I am from Oregon, and I disagree that refusing to say the National Anthem is political rebellion. I grew up with and know to this day Jehovahs Witnesses who refuse to say it, but I don’t think them in political rebellion. Our definition of political rebellion must be different.
YOU: But how can you be certain that you have interpreted it correctly?
————-Got to make a stand some place, arulba. So would you suggest that people doubt ALL their interpretation? Too many people are afraid to take a position and live or die with it, so to speak. If I thought my interpretation was wrong I would change my opinions, but until convinced otherwise——-I believe my intrepetations are right. Confident, yes. Think I am right about what I believe, yes. Could I be wrong? About some things, yes; about other things, no.
YOU:Homosexual relations was a normal occurrence among the Romans.
————-So where drunking orgies. So were temple prositutes. And your point is???? Am I to take it since homosexual realations was a normal cultural practice and temple prositutes were likewise, you subscribe to modern day temple prositutes??
Apples and oranges! We are like apples and oranges, arulba
fishon
‘Children, obey your parents in everything’
Hmm, you can’t take this as something you should always apply. The idea that a parents commands are sacrosanct has been used a lot to justify various forms of child abuse. I can think of lots of situations where a child shouldn’t obey their parents.
By the way, I hope the sentence didn’t include adult children. Oh well, I don’t have any parents any more so I needn’t worry.
It’s still not clear to me if it’s ‘unnatural’ because it’s between two men or ‘unnatural because it’s involving anal sex. And yes, that does matter because if the latter t hen it’s wrong for heterosexual couples to do it. If that’s what it means anyway and if you want to obey St. Paul who always comes across to me as a bit of a control freak.
fishon:
I have no desire whatsoever to argue the fallibility or infallibility of Paul. But just as a matter of knowing where it is I stand on the matter, not only do I think Paul was infallible, I don’t think everything attributed to him was written by him. Scribes added their own interpretations over the centuries as they were interpreting and copying the texts. So everything attributed to Paul isn’t Paul. I don’t hold to the Bible in the same way you do. But I realize – that isn’t going to be a basis of argument. I only say that to point out our difference of opinion. I don’t feel the need to change your mind about his infallibility. If you want to think him infallible – knock yourself out.
I’ve been married for almost 19 years and have a solid, strong marriage. But I think the institution of marriage is pretty much bunk these days. We don’t need it anymore. It once existed as a protection for women and women don’t need that sort of protection anymore. And when 60% of all people get divorced and that rate goes up as they get married second and third times, clearly the institution is becoming more detrimental these days than helpful. So yeah. And it isn’t because wives don’t submit to their husbands. It’s because women are no longer viewed with the disdain they once were in the patriarchal hierarchy of Rome. But keep this in perspective. I have a very traditional family. I’m a homeschooling mother and play the traditional female role in our marriage – way more so than any fundamentalist family I know of. I don’t have a problem with it. But it’s not because some guy 2000 years ago says I should do it. It’s because intrinsically, I feel this is best for my family. My husband and I are not the sorts to look out for ourselves. We look out for one another and we trust one another. It doesn’t take Paul to tell me to do that and any attempt to enforce one side of Paul’s command is likely to interfere more than help. But that’s just my view.
So yeah. To Hell with Paul telling wives to submit to their husbands. But that’s not exactly what he said, is it? And you are a male, aren’t you? So, why did you leave the first and second part out that has to do with husbands? Is it not equally important? That verse is another one that has been grossly misused over the years because it has been taken out of context and misinterpreted.
And definitely – children should NOT obey their parents in everything. I can’t even begin to tell you how many children I’ve dealt with who have been sexually abused by their fathers. Thank God children and women have more rights today than they did back then!!! Back then, father’s could throw their wives and children out on the streets and leave them to die if they wanted to. Why would you use these examples if you genuinely want to make a point? Surely you could find something more appropriate.
What is out is that which has been misinterpreted and used to our great detriment rather than to our good. Nothing more. Any attempt to oppress a group of people is detrimental to us all.
Back to the matter of wives submit to your husbands. I find it interesting that you would mention that Fathers should not embitter their children but would leave out the entirety of the command about wives: Submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands. Husbands, love your wives.” I think I’ve caught on to your game, fishon. You clearly aren’t that stupid. You like to set traps, don’t you?
My point about the normalcy of homosexuality in ancient Rome and the abnormality we attribute to it today calls into question our ability to interpret Paul’s point appropriately. You can draw a line wherever it is you want to draw a line, fishon. It’s just a line. Not the truth.
I am from Texas and we have to say a state national anthem right along with the national anthem at state sponsored events Oregon is anamoly. Most of the U.S, does not take kindly to students who refuse to stand up in schools and “repeat after me”. Even California has taken a turn for the worse since 9/11 in that regard. So perhaps the comparison of refusing to say the National Anthem won’t make sense to you. But suffice it to say that paying tribute (money) to the gods was a patriotic act in Rome because each leader had his own particular god that he was associated with and that money went directly to the government of the area in which he presided. That was the primary reason for the persecution of Christians – that they would not participate in matters of government because they refused to acknowledge other Gods. The Jews had figured out ways around this, but the Christians basically spit in their faces. (Which is what finally outraged the Jews – since they were originally considered a Jewish sect.)
And fishon – yes. I think we should always be in doubt of our interpretation. Not just about religion but about everything. We are human beings. Not God. It is in God we trust, not ourselves for Christ’s sake!!
arulba said:So yeah. To Hell with Paul telling wives to submit to their husbands. But that’s not exactly what he said, is it? And you are a male, aren’t you? So, why did you leave the first and second part out that has to do with husbands? Is it not equally important? That verse is another one that has been grossly misused over the years because it has been taken out of context and and misinterpreted.
————Ah, my point. I leave it out and you come to its rescue, but you say to hell with Paul and telling wives to submit. Or do you believe that the part: “Husbands, love your wives…” is a to hell with what Paul says. You raise a stink about me leaving out one part, but to hell the other part. Interesting!
————-And by the way, I believe that Husbands love your wives is MORE IMPORTANT to the subject of wives, submit, than wives submit. I have never majored in the few sermons I have preached on the subject on the wives submit part, but on the husband part. And yes, the verse has been grossly abused, but that is not Paul’s fault.
YOU:And definitely – children should NOT obey their parents in everything.
————–That is the problem with so many folks—–throw the baby out with the bath water. When that scripture is understood in the context of the parent-child relationship as taught in the NT, then that scripture makes sense. You know the one that says, It would be better to have a mill-stone tied around…. arubla, do you ignore context of scripture?
YOU:I am from Texas and we have to say a state national anthem right along with the national anthem at state sponsored events Oregon is anamoly. Most of the U.S, does not take kindly to students who refuse to stand up in schools and “repeat after me”. Even California has taken a turn for the worse since 9/11 in that regard. So perhaps the comparison of refusing to say the National Anthem won’t make sense to you.
———-WHAT? I’ll bet my lunch that IT IS NOT the State law of Texas anymore than it is in Oregon that a child MUST repeat the anthems. The issue was political rebellion, and I used that as a point that to not say it is NOT political rebellion. I did not say that it was taken kindly, I said it wasn’t political on the JWs part, but religious. Most of them love this country as much as I or you.
YOU: And fishon – yes. I think we should always be in doubt of our interpretation. Not just about religion but about everything.
—————I will remain confident in my interpretation——and you can live in doubt.
How did you put it: “knock yourself out.”
apples–oranges.
fishon
So if the child doesn’t say it, are they sent to prison or what? Fined? That must be against human rights. There’s no way kids here would do all that hand on heart stuff.
If I’ve been married to the same man for over 19 years. How could I do that and not submit to him? But I can promise you, if he was disrespectful, abusive or made unreasonable demands of me, and especially if he thumped Paul out of context at me – Hell Yes! To hell with the statement – “wives submit to your husbands”. It’s complete bullshit out of context. (To be said with a Texas accent.)
About the national anthem – like I said, not a good example to use for someone from Oregon. But I’d get your lunch. People still fly the confederate flag around here – lest you forget. Never mind the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Tiggy said, on November 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
So if the child doesn’t say it, are they sent to prison or what? Fined? That must be against human rights. There’s no way kids here would do all that hand on heart stuff.
———-And they don’t have to in any States here in the USA.
fishon
arulba said, on November 10th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
If I’ve been married to the same man for over 19 years. How could I do that and not submit to him? But I can promise you, if he was disrespectful, abusive or made unreasonable demands of me, and especially if he thumped Paul out of context at me – Hell Yes! To hell with the statement – “wives submit to your husbands”. It’s complete bullshit out of context. (To be said with a Texas accent.)
————Been going on 43 for me, arulba, and if I disrespected, abused or made unreasonable demands on my wife, well, I would be one lonely soul.
About the national anthem – like I said, not a good example to use for someone from Oregon. But I’d get your lunch. People still fly the confederate flag around here – lest you forget. Never mind the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
——————-So are you telling me it is State law that says kids sing the National and Texas anthems????————Stay on topic, political rebellion. Just because you don’t like my example of the JWs, don’t not take away from them being germane to my arguement.
Ah, never mind. We are getting no where.
fishon
I get the feeling you are still misconstruing what it is I said. I wasn’t implying that you treat your wife poorly – just that you were attempting a trap by referring only to part of Paul’s command about wives and husbands when you presented both for children. I get the feeling you are sneaky.
I keep saying National Anthem but what I mean is the Pledge of Allegiance. There are lots of examples of teachers doing some pretty horrific things to kids who refuse to say the pledge of allegiance – many caught on camera by students. Just take a look at you tube! My point was simply that people are probably far more touchy about patriotism where I live than where you live, simply because we have a different history. So I was actually agreeing with you. It wasn’t a good example for someone who lives in Oregon. And fishon – you completely missed my point to begin with by bringing up the JWs. So I agree. We are getting no where.
Did you think we would?
arulba said, on November 10th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I get the feeling you are still misconstruing what it is I said. I wasn’t implying that you treat your wife poorly – just that you were attempting a trap by referring only to part of Paul’s command about wives and husbands when you presented both for children. I get the feeling you are sneaky.
———-Ah, this darn way of communitcating. I never took it as if you were implying anything about how I treat my wife. I can promise you I was not intentenly setting a trap. Sneaky! Some times, yes, but wasn’t trying to be with you.
I keep saying National Anthem but what I mean is the Pledge of Allegiance.
———I thought that. But it wasn’t a big deal to bring up. The principle was the same.
There are lots of examples of teachers doing some pretty horrific things to kids who refuse to say the pledge of allegiance
———Yes, I agree. I was fortunate to not see a teach abuse JWs when I was in school. But I know it happens, even still.
My point was simply that people are probably far more touchy about patriotism where I live than where you live, simply because we have a different history.
———Do a little checking on Oregon and you will see that there are 2 Oregon’s when it comes to politics–religion, patriotism, and etc.
We are getting no where. Did you think we would?
———No, and I was wondering why you decided to start a conversation with me. You are way smarter than me—write your thoughts better than me—think better than me–so I was kinda puzzled. Maybe sometime you will drop in on me again. Apples and oranges!
fishon
Our teachers wouldn’t have said it either. They would have probably started singing, ‘Keep the Red Flag Flying’.
Sneaky, are you Fishon? So you admit to it. Well I’m not, so don’t project your sneakiness onto me. I’m a very straightfoward person and I trust people enough to ask questions, which is a risky business with many Christians, it seems. I may make jokes, but that doesn’t mean I’m not genuinely interested in asking about something. I’ve always studied different religious beliefs and taken an interest in different people’s religious views. If there’s a tv programme on about animism in Papua New Guinea, I’ll watch it and if t here’s a programme on about Eastern Orthodox theology, I’ll watch it.
fishon: I have no sense, whatsoever, that I am smarter than you! We just have a different way of coming at things. And I have a difficult time leaving the homosexual conversations alone. It is my personal opinion that it is the social justice issue of our times. I didn’t think I’d change your mind, though. Just couldn’t help myself.
I have never been to Oregon so know very little about it other than it is supposedly one of the most beautiful places in the U.S. and that a lot of people from Texas have moved there in recent years to to get away from the ultra-conservativism here. You all have far more just laws for homosexual couples than we do. And in general, it’s viewed as a sort of haven to a lot of liberals, here. That’s my only source of comparison, however, and it isn’t a good one since it isn’t first hand. I’m sure there are two Oregons and I’m only considering one of them. There are two Texas’, too – ultra conservative and fanatically conservative. (Ok. Just kidding!! There are moderates and liberals, too. But they are few and far between and moving to places like Oregon!)
Hi Tiggy: Just caught your comment. Most states require that schools recite the Pledge of Allegiance before the school day begins. But the vast majority of states either give students the option to recite it or not, or don’t have a law one way or another. There are five states, however, that require that students recite the Pledge of Allegiance and Texas is one of them. (I think they adopted the law in 2005.) It is also state law that our students recite a pledge to the Texas flag, too.
I have two teenage kids and they tell me that most of their teachers don’t enforce it even though by law, they are supposed to enforce it. I don’t know what happens if someone who really cares about the law decides to press charges against someone not obeying. But my son has also come home with some pretty crazy stories of kids being suspended for not saying it. I’m just not sure whether they were suspended for not saying the pledge or for disobeying their teacher. He hasn’t mentioned anything lately, however. So maybe things have changed with Bush out of office. Our political system is becoming much more balanced in Texas again, too. Still have neo-confederate Governor Hair Piece, however.
Doesn’t Texas also have the fattest Americans?
I find it quite hard to believe that someone goes to Heaven or Hell, depending on where they stick their dick. I’m surprised Jesus didn’t mention it, or that it didn’t come up in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch – I wonder how they knew he was a eunuch…..
arulba,
Liberal Oregon is really not a big part of the State, land wise, and that is what galls many of us. The Portland Metro area has much of the States pop., so they dominate the rest of us. If you are a lib, and I take it you are or have big leaning that way, Portland is the place for you. We don’t hang-um out here in the wild country, but we do suggest they go back to where they came from:California.
And yes, the beauty of our State is, well, heaven.
fishon
Doesn’t Texas also have the fattest Americans?
No, Tiggy. That’s Mississippi. But obesity is usually linked to poverty and we certainly have more than our fair share of poverty in Texas.
I think Jesus didn’t mention it because it wasn’t an issue. They weren’t obsessed with what people did with their genitalia like we are today. I think Eunuchs performed specific court functions and so were usually easily recognized. They weren’t necessarily homosexuals, though.
arulba said: Most states require that schools recite the Pledge of Allegiance before the school day begins.
————You are wrong.
FROM Teachingaboutreligion.org
Can Not
Compel students to say the pledge, nor punish them for refusing to say the pledge (resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 60 years ago with its landmark 1943 decision West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette)
==========================================================================================================================================
lawprofessorstypepad.com
April 13, 2009
Texas pledge of allegiance reference to “under God” is constitutional
Croft v. Perry, ___F.Supp.2d___ (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2009), is an important case.
April 13, 2009
Texas pledge of allegiance reference to “under God” is constitutional
Croft v. Perry, ___F.Supp.2d___ (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2009), is an important case.
A district court has held that a 2007 law amending the Texas Pledge of Allegiance to include the phrase “one state under God” does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Texas Education Code requires school districts to make the recitation of the U.S. and Texas pledges mandatory. Students may opt-out by written request of a parent/guardian.
———–Did you get that last sentence?
I won’t bore you with other sites, but it is NOT required by any States without an opt-out clause. If you think me in error, please site the info.
fishon
fishon – I don’t know what I am. I’m about as traditional as traditional gets. It’s just my views that are liberal.
fishon: But the students don’t have a choice and they do in Oregon. If a kid in Texas joins the JWs and his foster parents don’t want to sign a note for him, he is forced to do what that government tells him, not what his religion tells him. He has no recourse. This same student would have freedom of choice in Oregon.
And it still has nothing to do with my original point about Christian rebellion and its repercussions.
fishon: I just went through our entire conversation and I can’t find where I said there wasn’t an opt-out clause. Can you please show me where I said this?
Also – I must admit to being supremely confused and I honestly apologize. I haven’t followed you appropriately because it is obviously important to you. Can you please try explaining to me again why opt out clauses in the Texas state law regarding the pledge of allegiance has to do with Christian rebellion in Rome? I’ve already admitted that my use of having to say the Pledge of Allegiance (National Anthem) was a poor analogy – especially given where it is you live.
Schools are required to recite the pledge of allegiance in most states in the U.S. That is a separate issue from requiring students to recite the pledge. Only Texas, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusettes and Tennessee require that students must recite it (without a written note from a parent or guardian, of course.)
fishon: Sorry – doing this in between making dinner for my son who came home from work really late, tonight. Didn’t mean to make so many scattered comments.
arulba said, on November 11th, 2009 at 2:10 am
fishon: Sorry – doing this in between making dinner for my son who came home from work really late, tonight. Didn’t mean to make so many scattered comments.
————Ah, no problem. Besides, feeding the boy is important. If it wasn’t for my wife I would starve. She let me in the kitchen once to try my hand at the stove, since then I have been banned for life.
We need to move on anyway. We have rabbit trails going in so many directions my beagle would get lost.
MAKE IT a great tomorrow–well, day in your time zone, now
fishon
Hey fishon – we do need to move to on.
(Love the idea of rabbits running in different directions – very true!) It was fun traveling with you for a while and I get the feeling if I met you in person I’d like you a lot!!
Luckily my son is an excellent cook. Sometimes thinks about becoming a chef. But he gets home so late and I see him so rarely these days that I enjoy making him dinner so that I can catch up.
Hope you had a great day and thanks for sharing your views!