tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post176909814702133381..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Wesley Hill and Celibate HomosexualityKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-56135852367232715712015-11-10T10:13:44.318-05:002015-11-10T10:13:44.318-05:00Christians are concerned that if we do not define ...Christians are concerned that if we do not define the terms exactly as scripture states, then, America will be doomed culturally, if not judged directly by God. I beg to differ and this is why.<br /><br />There is a reality show on TV that follows a polygamist and his wives. I've not watched it except to stop to see what the show was about. Many argue that if we don't define sex according to scripture, then, we will come to accept polygamy, bestiality, etc. But, polygamy was allowed in scripture.<br /><br />Scripture was the record of how ancient people formed their social order and has become the tradition of the Church, as the Church was "born" within an ancient context. Paul (the Church's apostle) recorded his opinions about sexual order, using his "political power", as an apostle to further "Christian order". (This is how "colonization" is defined as promoting cultural values.)<br /><br />This morning I ran upon a question whether an atheist could govern our nation. Do we need a "Paul" to govern our nation, or is "Christian" a cultural term, which has little to do with specified religious belief?<br /> This is what I think. And how I defend it.<br /><br />It is true that we are a "Christian Nation", but America is not a CHRISTIAN Nation!<br />America was founded by Europeans, who came from a Christian background. Because of the religious wars that Europe fought and because people wanted to claim Christianity as their religious tradition, but did not want the imposition of the King upon the tradition, the Founders sought to prevent government intrusion into matters of conscience.<br /><br />Separation of Church and State was to protect "free speech", which is neutral concerning religious opinion, as the Founders understood what happens when religion becomes the focus of discussion!<br /><br />I see no conflict with an atheist serving the public interest, despite protests from CHRISTIANS! Both Atheist and Christian could agree on certain principles of "social order", but might disagree about how to define "social order". Who is going to be more "fair minded" about diverse views of conscience?<br />Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-38345121869396803352015-11-08T13:46:41.474-05:002015-11-08T13:46:41.474-05:00Doesn't it seem disingenuous, for historical a...Doesn't it seem disingenuous, for historical abolitionists, and those that advocate "love", to limit the role of gender within the confines of a marriage, when the role of a slave has been re-defined in modern society?<br />It is the prerogative of the two consenting adults to determine the roles/functions they will play within their particular marriage. Each marriage is a unique relationship because each of the individuals involved are unique. Good marital counselling considers the individuals and individual cases, not standardized and specified roles and functions.....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-24814715598312218252015-11-08T12:35:40.800-05:002015-11-08T12:35:40.800-05:00If one is "holiness" then, a personal co...If one is "holiness" then, a personal commitment to what defines "holiness" is the most important value. Holiness seems to be defined by one's sexual behavior in his case. Granted it sounds as if Wesley Hill contains his "burning" by a choice and commitment to celibacy, which monastics have done for eons. But, what about those that "burn" and cannot contain themselves? Doesn't Paul suggest marrying instead of burning? <br />Marriage is a choice and commitment to value a monogamous relationship which is to value an institutional structure in our society for order. Gender concerning marriage is unimportant for maintaining the institutional structures for social order. Monogamy is the ultimate value of marriage, as procreation cannot be the reason for marital sex because many heterosexuals marry that cannot procreate! So what is the difficulty in affirming marriage between homosexuals? Just doesn't seem reasonable.<br />I've also heard that the homosexual verses are verses misunderstood of their cultural context, as homosexuals were present at the public bath houses which were "free for all" sexually. Paul was concerned about promiscuity, not homosexuality.<br />Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-32436895438255448912015-11-06T21:07:39.350-05:002015-11-06T21:07:39.350-05:00Thanks for your sensible thoughts.Thanks for your sensible thoughts.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.com