logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
HolyGround >> Big Tent Christianity
| 10/18/10 12:35 AM | |
reverend john
60 
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27289 |
yes I am talking about Campolo I don't even know the other guy :) rev |
| 10/19/10 4:05 PM | |
|
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 18014 |
Looks like we can bring this full circle to the gay thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Campolo (I know wickipedia can be dubious) " Tony Campolo and his wife Peggy have participated in very public debates and discussions about the place of lesbians and gays within church and society. Tony Campolo contends that homosexuality is a sin in practice, though not in orientation. His wife, Peggy Campolo, disagrees, holding that committed, monogamous homosexual practice is not a sin; she supports full equality for LGBT persons.[2] Tony has been accused by some of showing too much compassion for those living in same sex relationships. He proposes, regarding same sex marriage, that all couples should have the right to a civil union with all the legal rights that are associated with such a contract; social security benefits, auto insurance recognition, ability to jointly own homes and file joint tax return etc. “I propose that the government should get out of the business of marrying people and, instead, only give legal status to civil unions. The government should do this for both gay couples and straight couples and, leave marriage in the hands of the Church and other religious entities. That’s the way it works in Holland….[3]” Looks like some of the forum posters have some affinity with this view. There's some other "interesting" positions he holds. check out the link |
| 10/19/10 5:16 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 3377 |
I'm wondering if all the folks who want the government to sanction civil unions for homosexuals will be willing to permit polygamous marriages. I mean after all, it's just a contract right? Can't a bunch of consenting adults enjoy the legal benefits that two people enjoy? And what about incest? Can't a brother and sister be married if they can't have children? But then again, with legal right to abortion by mother's choice, she could just have an abortion so there won't be any children born with birth defects. So what about that, civil unions for relatives, the polyamorous, no legal limits on love my friends! |
| 10/19/10 7:35 PM | |
|
reverend john
60
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27303 |
Well it is about where you set the line isn't it? I wouldn't have a problem with multiple partner marriages. I would have a problem with incest. So there is the line I draw. Of course that is the line I would draw in regards to government, not in regards to my personal church, which are different subjects rev |
| 10/19/10 8:40 PM | |
|
Lahi
2
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 7441 |
Thanks Rooster, enjoyed reading through that article. I certainly don't agree with him on everything, but I have alot of respect for how he lives out his faith, and isn't afraid to wrestle with the tough issues head on. And I'll admit I'm a little biased towards people who aren't afriad to call it how they see it, and make people mad on both sides of an issue:) |
| 10/19/10 10:39 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 3380 |
reverend john - Well it is about where you set the line isn't it? I wouldn't have a problem with multiple partner marriages. I would have a problem with incest. So there is the line I draw. Of course that is the line I would draw in regards to government, not in regards to my personal church, which are different subjects Why would you draw the line there for the government? Not trying to debate or anything, just curious as to why you'd draw the line there. |
| 10/20/10 12:31 AM | |
|
reverend john
60
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27308 |
because it seems like having sex with your family members is more wrong than multiple partners, maybe its just me. I don't like the idea of multiple partners "weddings" I think they objectify others, usually women if not always women. But if the women of consenting adults, I don't think the government should have anything to do with it. I am an anarchist remember, I think the government should basically exist only to do humanitarian outreach rev |
| 10/20/10 1:06 AM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 3385 |
Well, I agree with you rev, but on the other hand it's not real consistent, but then again what law really is? lol I don't believe the government should be involved in anything but defense of the nation and it's citizens, from outside it's borders or inside it's borders. Humanitarian outreach to me implies taxation, welfare, etc and I think I've just had enough of that, especially when we're not all Christian anarchists. ;) |
| 10/20/10 8:18 AM | |
|
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 18016 |
Could one argue that defending our nation from external and internal enemies is humanitarian :-) I'm more of a Christian libertarian and do believe that Christianity in its many interpretations and in its purest form can and is compatible with our constitution. The constitution is the contract on the "consent of the governed" which built in it safeguards for the free expression and practice of Christianity. What I also see is that other expressions are not so compatible. Sharia law, for instance, is not compatible with the constitution. |
| 10/20/10 9:09 AM | |
|
reverend john
60
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27311 |
Grakman - Well, I agree with you rev, but on the other hand it's not real consistent, but then again what law really is? lol not at all, I mean the government being people that come together in order to build roads. To build hospitals, ect. If you look at Amish culture there is no taxation, but every family gets a home built by the community rev |
| 1/23/11 1:22 PM | |
|
yusul
34
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 12794 |
wow, didn't know someone else agreed with me. i said the same thing that campolo said around a decade ago, and i agree with rev john. i really don't think the government has business in the spiritual institution of true marriage. the only reason i'd be against polygamy is not because of the concept in civil sense, but how it's executed; many polygamists are members of cults, and there is an environment ready for sexual and physical abuse and extremely disfunctional families. it would create a legal headache, although i'm sure the law profession would boom in employment. |
| 1/23/11 1:48 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 3598 |
reverend john - . If you look at Amish culture there is no taxation, but every family gets a home built by the community This works because they share a common culture. This would not work in a land where different people have different views of the world. Too many think nothing of taking handouts and bailouts without having to work or contribute. Think of the parable of the ants and the grasshoppers. |
| 1/31/11 9:17 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 3619 |
ttt |
| 1/31/11 9:29 PM | |
|
reverend john
60
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27419 |
It works Why it may not work in other situations is things we need to work on, the fact is it works. It is the way the early church lived, and is the way parts of the church live today. It works, and will continue to work, the question is cannot it work outside of a covenanted community? And my thought is probably not rev |
| 1/31/11 10:40 PM | |
Ridgeback
Member Since: 7/3/07 Posts: 21665 |
Just for the record, I fully support the legalization of polygamy. These people are far more persecuted than any gay couple. I also think Christians should probably bow out of legal marriage and set church marriages apart. That is if we can actually demonstrate something different and not have the same divorce rates as the rest of the culture. |
| 2/7/11 6:23 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 3637 |
reverend john - It worksWell in some places they do not have marriage, the men and women copulate freely and the children are raised by the village. That attitude is not working here, but the fact is it works. Is this something we should work on? ;) |
| 2/10/11 3:21 PM | |
|
reverend john
60
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27424 |
well we should work on it if that is how Jesus lived, and what he taught, and how the first followers lived and taught rev |
| 2/15/11 10:10 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 3687 |
rev, do you believe that Jesus had his own house? if so, how did he support himself, and if not, where did he live? You got me thinking about living as he did... I don't know the answer to these questions, this is not a setup for a debate. I'm interested in how it would play out if he did not have his own house or support himself, how we could really follow in his footsteps in that regard today. |
| 2/19/11 12:36 PM | |
|
reverend john
60
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27425 |
well there are few that do. They go from town to town preaching and passing out tracts and books. They take what people give them, and dumpster dive. They never go hungry. They sleep in a donated rv. I don't think Jesus had a house. But my understanding of the kingdom is not that you cannot own things, but that you cannot own them yourself. That everything that is yours is the kingdoms. This is what is meant when Jesus says, "everyone who gives up house, or family shall have a hundred times as much in this life" It isn't the prosperity gospel, it is the recognition that all in God's kingdom will practice hospitality and sharing. I think the 1st century church did well to work on how we take Jesus life into our own circumstances. The thing I try to look at is how can we offer an alternative to the American dream. How do we live out an alternative economy. What I and others are calling the economy of God, or Sabbath economics. There is a book called The Economy Of God which I am planning on getting soon, if you want maybe we can read it at the same time and talk about it rev |
| 2/20/11 11:55 AM | |
|
zealot66
9
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 11550 |
reverend john - because it seems like having sex with your family members is more wrong than multiple partners, maybe its just me. I don't like the idea of multiple partners "weddings" I think they objectify others, usually women if not always women. But if the women of consenting adults, I don't think the government should have anything to do with it. I am an anarchist remember, I think the government should basically exist only to do humanitarian outreach The fact that Paul said the Bishop should be the husband of one wife shows that there were christians in the community that had multiple wives. Our biblical hero's had multiple wives. Doesn't seem there was ever a law decreed polygamy. But there seems to be a trend into the NT that marraige should be between one man and one woman. But that may be more of a societal change with the romanization. Makes more sense in a 'civilized' society. I see a big plot hole so to speak in the whole marraige question. I dont believe paul would have approved of gay marraige especially in the church. To me, I have enough problems with one woman, I cant imagine a man who would want to take multiple partners in todays world. Perhaps if my villages survival dictated that we needed more offspring and all the men have been killed, I might consider it. But thats not reality for me. |
| 2/20/11 6:49 PM | |
|
Ridgeback
Member Since: 7/3/07 Posts: 22103 |
zealot66 -reverend john - because it seems like having sex with your family members is more wrong than multiple partners, maybe its just me. I don't like the idea of multiple partners "weddings" I think they objectify others, usually women if not always women. But if the women of consenting adults, I don't think the government should have anything to do with it. I am an anarchist remember, I think the government should basically exist only to do humanitarian outreach I've always taken Paul's criterion for a Bishop to have one wife to mean he has not married and divorced or become a widower and remarried. That is how it is interpreted in Orthodoxy. Was polygamy a big deal in first century Judea? |
| 2/21/11 8:08 PM | |
|
reverend john
60
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27426 |
I have taken it the same way, in my understanding, those that had multiple wives would not leave any. But those that were not married or had one were not to seek others. It seems as though that was case in my studies. rev |
| 2/21/11 8:09 PM | |
|
reverend john
60
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 27427 |
and polygamy it seems hurts and objectifies women rev |
| 2/21/11 8:20 PM | |
|
Ridgeback
Member Since: 7/3/07 Posts: 22145 |
Polygamy probably is not a good thing just like regular pot smoking is not a good thing, but I still think it should be legal in a country that is supposed to be about the freedom to express one's religion in peace so long as he or she doesn't trample on the rights of others. Some of the polygamist men are total scumbags, but that should not be the basis to simply take all the children away and put them in government foster homes because of some call from a crazy woman in another state (which is exactly what happened). Legalizing polygamy would actually bring it more out in the open and then I think the light of the sunshine would probably convince most women it was not for them. The ones raised on secretive compounds never really get a choice in the matter. |
| 2/21/11 9:35 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 3720 |
I think polygamy will eventually be legal in the US, just a matter of time now and especially with continued immigration from countries where it is allowed. In some places and times polygamy was a means of providing for the survival of women whose husbands had been lost in war time. It's not necessary now, but we can't say that it was always unnecessary or evil. rev, is a polygamous marriage objectifying women if they want to be in a polyamorous relationship? |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
