tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post1967385667112759916..comments2023-10-25T08:44:46.963-07:00Comments on Two Friars and A Fool: Homosexuality is unnaturalAric Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-19426166072222684562010-11-18T15:25:31.362-08:002010-11-18T15:25:31.362-08:00@Doug, yes. And they, unsurprisingly, all took on ...@Doug, yes. And they, unsurprisingly, all took on a discipline of celibacy. In fact, the RC religious orders (male and female) are about the only remaining christian groups who engage in NT-style celibacy.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-3004902300625668252010-11-18T15:09:05.591-08:002010-11-18T15:09:05.591-08:00@ Aric: Wasn't that a major selling-point for ...@ Aric: Wasn't that a major selling-point for the women's religious orders in Medieval Europe?<br /><br />@ Snad: Definitely!Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-78543672805405183302010-11-18T11:53:54.849-08:002010-11-18T11:53:54.849-08:00Doug and Aric -
Would you kindly send the pdf of...Doug and Aric - <br /><br />Would you kindly send the pdf of this resource to firstpresbyterian AT embarqmail DOT com? I had it and now I cannot find the darn thing. I've gotten a request to send it to someone since we included it in last Sunday's bulletin (as Jphn S. mentioned).<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />SandraSnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055786911610974637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-50206952002369036752010-11-18T10:24:50.383-08:002010-11-18T10:24:50.383-08:00Geez... So you're saying that marriage has bee...Geez... So you're saying that marriage has been redefined over time and we even have evidence of that in the Bible? Heresy! :)<br /><br />Note that Jesus does not condemn the practice of requiring widows to marry their brothers-in-law. Something also conveniently ignored by the defenders of "traditional" marriage.<br /><br />(Seriously, I do sometimes wonder if all these folks who are so quick to "defend" marriage have ever read the NT.) Interesting how we go from an attitude about marriage in the NT that can, at best, be described as "meh" to it being something that must be "defended" at all costs.<br /><br />I've read that in early American churches, marriage was not performed in church because the connotations (including ... eep! ... sex) were too worldly for inclusion in a sanctuary. So it seems that at least some of that NT cynicism lasted for quite a long time in the Reformed tradition.<br /><br />So much for some folks' understanding of "traditional" marriage, eh?<br /><br />Anyway, back to the natural law argument, though I assume some exist, it is ironic that most people who use natural law arguments have <20 kids. Apparently contraception is "natural"? But then I have to remind myself that hypocrisy is the one foundational consistency in all their arguments.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-65673543747312930532010-11-18T10:04:46.804-08:002010-11-18T10:04:46.804-08:00That's a great point Doug. In its incarnation ...That's a great point Doug. In its incarnation as an institution for kinship-contracts, property transference and a way of "purchasing" women and offspring marriage was pretty ugly. In that context being anti-marriage is radically egalitarian. It benefits no one more than women who get some measure of control over their own life if they avoid marriage.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-57226544009994618512010-11-18T09:56:06.198-08:002010-11-18T09:56:06.198-08:00I think it's easy for me to have a low or crit...I think it's easy for me to have a low or critical view of marriage 2000 years ago as well. We picture it as something like what marriage is now, and it was nothing like that. I can see the early Church looking at that institution, in light of the gospel, in light of the higher status of women, and thinking "this is not so great".Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-7681420663804954712010-11-18T08:30:39.132-08:002010-11-18T08:30:39.132-08:00re: Luke 20. For one thing I am not a dispensation...re: Luke 20. For one thing I am not a dispensationalist so I reject readings that divide things up into eras and say "in this era we do things one way, but in the next era..." Eschatology is all about the future breaking into the present. The church is called to live NOW as we understand God's future will one day universally be. So if Jesus is understood here to be saying in the future no one will marry, then he is also saying in the present, no one should marry who wants to be a disciple.<br /><br />The New Testament is very negative about marriage on the whole. It seems to be, at best, a compromise for weak individuals. This is not my view of marriage, which I've talked about <a href="http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/08/school-of-virtue.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://twofriarsandafool.blogspot.com/2009/11/basic-family-unit.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-66417579338605652602010-11-18T06:44:01.366-08:002010-11-18T06:44:01.366-08:00I always find it interesting to hear Reformed Prot...I always find it interesting to hear Reformed Protestants use Natural Law arguments to defend their anti-gay views. (Fingers, BTW, were not designed to type out silly blog posts, but the purveyors of these Natural Law arguments don't seem to tire of doing that, unfortunately.)<br /><br />It seems we got rid of the Pope, but not his philosophies ... when they're convenient to bolster our bigotry.<br /><br />BTW, I've never seen anyone counter this "natural vs. unnatural" take on marriage with Luke 20:34-37. (Which, interestingly enough, the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds NEVER quote with regard to what Jesus had to say about marriage.)<br /><br />Anyway, that bit seems germane to me, since Jesus appears to imply that the natural (ie. pre-fall) state of human kind was not marriage. It is mirrored by Paul's view that singleness is better than marriage, but that it is better to marry than to burn.<br /><br />But such a frankly negative view of marriage as better than fornication, but not by much and that it certainly is not the sacrament the BFTSs think it is (which it isn't, but they rarely know what the sacraments are anyway) doesn't much bolster the other side of the argument. So they ignore it.<br /><br />Again, as always, they pick and choose.<br /><br />What are your thoughts about that Luke 20 passage?Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226481506470506962.post-8118745092488563062010-11-17T16:24:50.933-08:002010-11-17T16:24:50.933-08:00This is probably going to be the longest, or one o...This is probably going to be the longest, or one of the longest, in this series. Even given that, it's hard to limit how much we say to remain efficient and direct. There is so much to say, but this is a start at least.Douglas Underhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02215736448645573566noreply@blogger.com