Prof Tiger & Sardis "All Things Considered" Theology Hut

[Cletus]

It's a shame the perfect infinite god couldn't find a better editor.

[hedge]

Or, as Christopher Hitchens liked to point out, that he had chosen somebody besides illiterate herdsmen to transmit his word to in the first place...

[Professor Tiger]

Practitioners of the Religion of Peace strike again, bombing a Coptic Church in Cairo:

https://apnews.com/78afc60765f0430386937c55181e67c3

[Professor Tiger]

Merry Winter Solstice to All!

[Professor Tiger]

I wonder what JD's take is on this:

Reactions to gospel preacher Kim Burrell on LGBT issues reveal split among black churches

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... dce3928f0b

The most anti-gay marriage people I have encountered have been Southern black Christians. They make me feel like a liberal by comparison. It's funny watching the MSM twist and squirm in trying to report on them.

[Professor Tiger]

I see that Niel Gorsuch is a very active Episcopalian. He is even a regular usher.

He will join five Catholic and three Jews on the Supreme Court. Looks like the Protestants are getting an affirmative action justice.

[The Gray Ghost]

I'm waiting to hear if he attends a Rite I or Rite II service.

[bluetick]

Trump and Bellicheat.

There is no god.

[innocentbystander]

It's a shame the perfect infinite god couldn't find a better editor.

The King James Bible is perfectly written Cletus. God (in His infinite wisdom) put it all in there, everything you need to know to explain your possible salvation and eternity. His rules that He asks you to Obey for this short time you are on Earth are very straight forward. And there was once a time when society (at the local level) and government (at the federal level) got on board with His rules. Then along came feminism.....

[AlabamAlum]

lol

[Professor Tiger]

Ah, the apostate "healthcare executive" returns...

[The Gray Ghost]

Lady Gaga prepped for the Super Bowl halftime show by attending a Eucharist at St Martin's Episcopal Church in Houston Sunday morning. Maybe they'll add some of her dance moves in the next BCP.

[Professor Tiger]

They might ordain her.

[innocentbystander]

Are you going to answer my six bullet points?

[Jungle Rat]

Are you going to commit suicide?

[innocentbystander]

Are you going to commit suicide?

unlikely

[Jungle Rat]

Dammit

[The Gray Ghost]

He'd consider if it didn't get him banned from an RC cemetery, or was that done away with in Vatican II?

[The Gray Ghost]

They might ordain her.

That would beef up average Sunday attendance.

[Professor Tiger]

Yes.

I ask you why it is important that a wife (who is not a widow) be a virgin on her wedding night, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

Yes, the perfect situation is for both men and women save themselves until they are married. That is indeed the ideal, although I notice you only hold women to that standard, not men. The modern world is much like the Roman Empire where men and women commonly both have sex before marriage. But even in biblical times, the Church absorbed tens of thousands of former pagans that were far from virgins, since virginity wasn't respected by pagans. Those former pagans who became Christians were not banned from marriage within the Church. Forgiveness is always available through repentance. Even Jews and Christians who violated God's rules could repent of their past misdeeds. And they were also forgiven. See the woman who had five husbands.

I ask you why it is important that a wife obey her husband in all things, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

I agree with wives submitting to husbands, as long as the husband also loves his wife as Christ loved the Church, i.e. total self sacrifice. I've noticed that you fixate on the former, but hardly ever mention the latter. Without the latter, the former makes a sham of any marriage and reduces it to mere slavery.

I ask you why it is important that you instruct women never to preach to men about anything spiritual, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

In my church, only clergy can preach. And all our clergy are male. I agree with that.

I ask you why it is important to remind wives to submit to their husbands as much sex as their husbands desire, why God has instructed that to refuse your husband is committing sin, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

Where does the Bible say, "Wives must give their husbands as much sex as their husbands want"? Because of the submission clause? Submission does not automatically equal sexual access. The Bible uses the submission clause in a lot of places. Christians are supposed to "submit to one another" in Ephesians 5:21, and to their elders in 1 Pet. 5:5. Does that mean that if a man in your church, or an elder in your church, wants your wife to submit to him sexually, she should "submit" like the Bible says she should? Christians are supposed to "submit" to civil authorities in 1 Pet. 2:13. So if the mayor wants to have sex with you, should you submit?

I ask you why it is important to tell young men that if they marry a divorced woman that they are committing adultery, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

Generally, I agree, as long as you agree that if a woman marries a divorced man, they are both committing adultery. It goes both ways. But, according to the Bible, there are two cases where that does not apply. Here's the first:

Matthew 5:32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

So, according to the Bible, divorce because of sexual immorality and remarriage is acceptable to Jesus, and is to me also.

The other case is abandonment:

1 Cor. 7:14-15 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

I believe that. I don't think you do, even though it's in the Bible.

I ask you to show me anywhere in the Bible anywhere where God says a woman can divorce her husband, and you don't have an answer for me. That is because it is NOT there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

I suspect you will say that the above are cases where husbands can legitimately divorce their wives, but wives cannot. I will say that is an interpretation that is not shared by 99.9999% of any Christian authorities I know of for the past 2,000 years. I think I'll go with the 99.99999%. What you believe is what the Bible calls "private interpretation" (2 Pet 1:20) and worthless.

I hope that answers your questions. I'm sure it won't. I just have one question for you: what training/education have you completed that qualifies you to be a Christian counselor?