Two mommies is 'too many,' Dobson writes in Time column

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Funny how one word can change the entire concept of an idea.
The term is "fence walking". It implies a precarious balance which if interrupted could result in one falling on one side or the other, or worse, slipping and landing on the fence pole "between the legs".

In any event the one now sitting on the fence most likely will fall one way or the other (in pain).

I always thought that it implied straddling the divider. (issue) Yes, it can involve pain. A very good reason to get off the fence.

[InLove]

Hmmmm....no pain, no gain?

InPeace,
InLove

[path_of_one]

Thanks, Q. You said more or less what I would have said. I've been without phone and internet for a few days (the joys of winter mountain living!). Ah, but the white Christmas is worth it.

Originally Posted by pattimax

What do you think being a Christian is about? There is a line drawn by spiritual formation that presents discipleship to Jesus Christ as the greatest opportunity that individual human beings have in life to to solve spiritual problems. Spitritual fulfillment is not the result, it is an on going process. True fulfillment will not occur until the Second Coming.

Being a Christian is being a follower of Christ, and all that entails. Beyond that, I've said lots in various posts about many of my specific beliefs.

I totally agree with you on this statement, by the way. Spiritual fulfillment is a process, and one result of increasing spiritual fulfillment is the increasing of our fulfillment in this life. I do not mean fulfillment in terms of material success or anything of the sort, but rather true joy. When we are truly fulfilled in this life, we are joyful and at peace, no matter our physical circumstances, and this is a result of our spiritual growth.

Spiritual growth is our ultimate purpose in life.

How much of it is related to God's values, capacities, and worth?The answer is all.

Of course. I was asking a rhetorical question. I was pointing out that discussions about the worth of humanity is not antithetical to the Christian worldview. Humanism is not necessarily (though it can be) putting humanity first or above God, but rather a discussion about human worth, capacities, and values... and these are inextricably bound to the long search all cultures have had for God and that results in religion.

Our "job" as Christians is to grow in Christ so that we come to recognize our worth as God's children, rather than any form of self-centeredness.

There are no TRUE Christian fence sitters. Sorry to say it that way. I was involved in an inter-faith ministry for quite a while. It wasn't until I was baptized into the family of God and I started faithfully studying God's Word that my heart really recieved the truth. I will never look back.

I wouldn't say I sit the fence, unless (like InLove describes) you climb up there so you can better understand other people.

I'd say I sit on the fence all the time as a social scientist- it is necessary to do so to be any good at social science at all, since you're trying to understand other people's point of view as much as you can, as well as the social mechanisms at work.

I do not sit on the fence spiritually, but I do remain open-hearted to God's guidance and continually bring matters before Him in prayer. I do not claim doctrines that I haven't been led to by the Spirit, whether or not they are considered Orthodox. I am open about what I don't know, what I'm still pondering and praying about, and what is based on my own testimony of God's and Christ's work in me.

I make no claims about what is right for others to believe, what resonates (or should) with their experience of God, or anything of the sort. Like Q said, I pretty much stick to what I have come to experience or believe based on my own journey under the guidance of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Some people think that makes me a heretic. Some think I should believe in certain doctrines anyway. Well, it is impossible for me to believe what I don't believe. The best I can do is say "God be with me in my studies. Christ protect me and guide me through the Spirit" and then be honest where that journey has lead to so far. Otherwise I would be lying.

You are DEFINITELY not alone in your thinking, but that doesn't mean much...

I was trying to say that even among "fundamental" denominations, people who are scientists and understand the true boundaries of science and humanism do not typically think science or humanism is antithetical to spirituality, God, and religion (even Orthodox religion).

Could you tell me more about this converation with a department chair at a Baptist university? What department?

What do you want to know?

Behavioral science. I'm an anthropologist and it was the department that encompassed anthropology, sociology, and psychology. They train missionaries, social workers, Christian counselors and the like.

You do NOT mean "Christian Science", right?

No. I mean it like I would say "Christian secretaries" or "Christian truck drivers."

To be honest, I don't even know anything about Christian Science.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

What do you want to know?

Behavioral science. I'm an anthropologist and it was the department that encompassed anthropology, sociology, and psychology. They train missionaries, social workers, Christian counselors and the like.

You have said quite a bit.

I'm curious what a department head at a (private/non-secular) University had to say about this issue. Now that you tell me this, I'm really curious.

I hope you still had electricity.

[path_of_one]

er

Originally Posted by pattimax

You have said quite a bit.

I'm curious what a department head at a (private/non-secular) University had to say about this issue. Now that you tell me this, I'm really curious.

I hope you still had electricity.

Thankfully, we did! (Though there isn't anything quite like living by candlelight for a little bit, with no TV or stereo or anything but the surrounding woods.)

We were discussing the interface of science and religion, and how it is unfortunate that in the mainstream public Christian view as well as certain religiously ignorant scientific circles, people of both sides see them as polar opposites. I've been in churches where all scientists and academics were literally condemned from the pulpit in a sermon to justify ignorance and a lack of learning or study. Likewise, I've been in meetings among colleagues in which I have been told that all Christians (yeah, me included) are "stupid" and "irrational."

What the pastor/department chair and I were discussing is that both of these views are profoundly ignorant. (I don't mean that disrespectfully, but rather literally- they just don't know much about the other side.) There are many scientists that have religious beliefs, including Christian, and I believe it is incredibly arrogant for the remaining scientists to assume that most of the world (as most people do have some form of religion) are somehow unintelligent people who are just needing the "information" to come from on high (i.e., from higher education and science). Yet likewise, I find it profoundly unjust and prejudiced to condemn science in general, when it is merely a way to try to understand how the world works. Just because someone is a scientist and is objective for understanding others and the "natural' world does not mean that they do not spiritually and religiously seek understanding as well.

Even the most atheistic scientist, if s/he is a good one, will admit that science only answers questions that are objective: things like how, when, what. Science cannot answer why, or speak to spiritual issues, as the spiritual world is not the same as the physical one. Much of our modern conveniences such as modern medicine, electricity, and so forth is due to science. But knowing how the heart works and being able to fix it, and pondering why we were created in that form to begin with, are two different issues.

Religion and spirituality go after the big "unanswerables"- the stuff science cannot effectively touch. Why are we here? Where do we and other living things go after death? Is there a God? What is He like?

Now, what is truly interesting is where science can meet religion. These are the questions like: what is the nature of the universe? The nature of humanity? Why do people everywhere, since the time of the Neanderthals, show evidence of thinking about an afterlife and spiritual issues? How does the mind work?

We discussed that the public debate and media really misses both the complexity of the science/religion issue and the potential for the two to be reconciled (as they so often are for scientists that are Christians, Muslim, or any other faith). Why are so many physicists coming to believe there is a God? Why are so many anthropologists clinging to the idea there isn't? What do we all stand to gain or lose by being firmly between the two falsely-divided methods of inquiry? So often, it's being called a heretic on one side and an idiot on the other...

The reality is that so many issues are best tackled by a union of science and religion. Indeed, for most of humanity history (and in almost all cultures except "Western"- European, North American) there was no distinction. People did not think reason and rationality were outside of spirituality, but rather one more faculty within it. Pondering humanity and pondering God were part of the same process. And this is perhaps the best way, especially when you consider the social sciences in a practical (rather than theoretical manner). I think it is no coincidence that religious treatments for things like alcoholism and mental illness are frequently more successful than secular psychotherapy, and if we think of what society could look like if we truly followed the example of Christ... ! No poverty, no homelessness, no one without health care... so many social ills at least on their way to being resolved.

What he and I agreed on is that the real tragedy is the lack of usefulness of such a divide. Science without religion is often heartless and cowardly. I may get flack from other scientists saying that. But without a focus on God, you are focused on self. And when you're focused on self, you worry about your standing in your discipline, your job, your retirement, etc. and therefore your actions are hampered. You may see opportunities to help others and fail to act because you are afraid of the consequences. You may see real social ills in various cultures (sexual molestation, or wife beating, or extreme and consistent violence) and be afraid to say it is wrong, because it will threaten your veneer of "non-bias" (which is hooey anway- we all have bias). But... too frequently, religious effort without science is ineffective. Religion, even Christianity, cannot on its own answer how to cure the sick, how to make sure there is enough food for all and it is better distributed, or even how spread the Good News (which requires the linguists to translate!).

God gave us reason and the capacity to study people so we might better understand the how behind spreading the Gospel and Christ's love. He gave us religion and spirituality so we might better understand the why to do it in the first place.

And that about sums up the conversation... sorry- I know I said quite a bit more, but couldn't really condense it much more (it was a 2+ hour long conversation).

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hmmmm....no pain, no gain?

InPeace,
InLove

...not in this case, I fear.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

...Some people think that makes me a heretic. Some think I should believe in certain doctrines anyway. Well, it is impossible for me to believe what I don't believe. The best I can do is say "God be with me in my studies. Christ protect me and guide me through the Spirit" and then be honest where that journey has lead to so far. Otherwise I would be lying...

"Lord I believe, please bless my dis-belief." It's a prayer my dad says every morning.

Considering you are both born in the same month, I'm not surprised you think alike...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by pattimax

The truly sincere one is the free-thinker that has figured out why the rules are there and follows them with all of their heart, soul, and mind, while absorbing the meaning of everything.

Rules can be detrimental as well as constructive . . .

In some denominations, ministers are required to be celibate, since looking after a church can be stressful, and having a wife can make things a little more painful . . . But some of these ministers can't get over the fact that they can't get married and have sexual relations with a woman. They spend ten years in ministry and suddenly decide that they need a woman.

This is where the damage is done -- for some of them the need for sexual contact is so great that they have to grab some little, vulnerable kid whom they can trust to keep a secret and empty their passion on them. If they can't experience the pleasure of sleeping with a woman, at least they can do it on some kid.

The ban on marriage for ministers in these denominations is what causes so many child-sex scandals because they can't have healthy sexual relations.

When the rules are strict, it can really do damage . . . Yes, we know why they are there, but sometimes they can create problems, even though they were created to eliminate problems.

Originally Posted by pattimax

Fence-sitters are NOT wrong for a while. God gave you a mind to reason and trust. We should have good reason for thinking Christianity is true before we dedicate our lives to it. If you are truly seeking, he trusts you will climb down from the fence and actually take a stand. There comes a time when asking questions will be tedious. While all of your questions may be valid, faith is your trust in what solid reasoning presents.

We can't always be on the same side of the fence when the issue comes up. Sometimes the situation requires a different response each time. You're a fence-sitter before the problem comes up, but after the problem has been solved you're on one side of the fence. But it's just that you're not always on the same side at the end when the problem is solved.

You're fence-sitter before you make the decision but you're on one side after the decision has been made.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Rules can be detrimental as well as constructive . . .

In some denominations, ministers are required to be celibate, since looking after a church can be stressful, and having a wife can make things a little more painful . . . But some of these ministers can't get over the fact that they can't get married and have sexual relations with a woman. They spend ten years in ministry and suddenly decide that they need a woman.

This is where the damage is done -- for some of them the need for sexual contact is so great that they have to grab some little, vulnerable kid whom they can trust to keep a secret and empty their passion on them. If they can't experience the pleasure of sleeping with a woman, at least they can do it on some kid.

The ban on marriage for ministers in these denominations is what causes so many child-sex scandals because they can't have healthy sexual relations.

When the rules are strict, it can really do damage . . . Yes, we know why they are there, but sometimes they can create problems, even though they were created to eliminate problems.



We can't always be on the same side of the fence when the issue comes up. Sometimes the situation requires a different response each time. You're a fence-sitter before the problem comes up, but after the problem has been solved you're on one side of the fence. But it's just that you're not always on the same side at the end when the problem is solved.

You're fence-sitter before you make the decision but you're on one side after the decision has been made.

where the hell did that come from? Were you a priest once?

Before a problem comes up, one is no where near a fence and has no reason to be.

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

where the hell did that come from? Were you a priest once?

Before a problem comes up, one is no where near a fence and has no reason to be.

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!

No, I have never been anywhere near being a priest. Just saying.

Child-abusing priests are not evil monsters who think they're all high and mighty because they're in the church and want to scare off little children (like the bogey-man). They're people with personal problems who need help. They got too close to a fence and fell onto the wrong side.

It would be nice if we could help them by removing the fences so that life is easier for those poor clergy. They get all the blame but they're really victims of the system. The church shouldn't set up so many fences so people can slip and trip over and get hurt. Priests aren't always "oppressors" as the media might have it. Sometimes they're the victims.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Funny how one word can change the entire concept of an idea.
The term is "fence walking". It implies a precarious balance which if interrupted could result in one falling on one side or the other, or worse, slipping and landing on the fence pole "between the legs".

In any event the one now sitting on the fence most likely will fall one way or the other (in pain).

You're not talking about the royally excruciating pain of losing one's crown jewels are you?

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Child-abusing priests are not evil monsters who think they're all high and mighty because they're in the church and want to scare off little children (like the bogey-man). They're people with personal problems who need help. They got too close to a fence and fell onto the wrong side.

It would be nice if we could help them by removing the fences so that life is easier for those poor clergy. They get all the blame but they're really victims of the system. The church shouldn't set up so many fences so people can slip and trip over and get hurt. Priests aren't always "oppressors" as the media might have it. Sometimes they're the victims.

This is a ludicrous argument. Child molesters are criminals, not fence-dwelling priests.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

er

Thankfully, we did! (Though there isn't anything quite like living by candlelight for a little bit, with no TV or stereo or anything but the surrounding woods.)

We were discussing the interface of science and religion, and how it is unfortunate that in the mainstream public Christian view as well as certain religiously ignorant scientific circles, people of both sides see them as polar opposites. I've been in churches where all scientists and academics were literally condemned from the pulpit in a sermon to justify ignorance and a lack of learning or study. Likewise, I've been in meetings among colleagues in which I have been told that all Christians (yeah, me included) are "stupid" and "irrational."

Science and religion are interfacing. In the United States, educating Christians has backslid, but we as Christians should not have as our primary focus this emergence of anti-intellectualism. Yes, lots of mistakes were made and we have the cults to show for it, but dwelling on past mistakes will get us absolutely nowhere. I am a fairly new Christian and I absolutely love the amount of information out there. Most of the churches that I have been involved in (4) have been very education focused and pretty open to new ideas. The one church that I encountered that was not ready for change was pretty harmless and probably glad I left. I know I was.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Spiritual growth is our ultimate purpose in life.

Our "job" as Christians is to grow in Christ so that we come to recognize our worth as God's children, rather than any form of self-centeredness.

I find spiritual growth does occur when we do our "job" as Christians which is to tell people the "good news" about how wonderfully freeing Christ is when we freely accept the gift that our awesome God has given us.

It is not cya. (A form of self-centeredness.)

[pattimax]

BTW- the bible is beieng translated into different languages all the time.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by pattimax

This is a ludicrous argument. Child molesters are criminals, not fence-dwelling priests.

I think you've misunderstood my point. What I was saying was that rules can cause bad behaviour. Because ministers are required to be celibate in some denominations, some ministers that have never been able to handle their sexual urges feel compelled to act on them in extraordinary ways. It's probably a personal problem that they keep to themselves. They can't marry so that have to prey on little kids. They develop unhealthy sexual urges. Eventually the problem may become so big it pushes them to paedophilia. The celibacy is as good as useless.

The fence I was talking about was whether or not ministers should be celibate or whether they should be allowed to marry.

I wasn't talking about the fence of crossing the line to abuse children. Wrong fence!!!!

If you see the fence I was talking about, you will probably realise what I was hinting at. It's not just the priests that have the problem, but the way the whole establishment is set up. The community or congregation has certain expectations of a minister . . . Being a pastor or priest is a very hard and boring job. Think about who you have to look after, what jobs you do. The divorce rate among married ministers is very, very high. You work long hours with little contact with your spouse. You go around healing other people, fixing other people's personal problems, but what about your own? You have to organise meetings and sermons. Now think about how the celibate ministers feel about never being allowed to touch a woman. Sexual desire comes naturally, but if a priest has to remain celibate, you're telling him to suppress something that's natural. You can forbid him from making love to a woman, but you can't stop the sexual fantasies. Not everyone who goes into ministry is up to the job.

A lot of ministers "burn out" and need help. They are no less human than we are. A lot of these people are overworked. They don't have time for normal social, interpersonal relations. A survey revealed that at least 15-20% of married ministers commit adultery. Around 50-60% of married ministers get divorced. Pretty high, eh? Ministry can destroy people, so you can just imagine why child abuse perpetrated by priests happens. Link to problems confronted by clergy:

Hard To Be Holy

It's because of what the church expects of ministers that they can be driven toward bad behaviours. A lot of ministers are low paid and have very little self-esteem. They are expected to preach, to tell people how to behave, what to believe. But I believe it can be just a show to impress us -- to let us believe that all is well in their minds and personal lives. Ministers have to be creative, to have a lot of ideas because they have to come up with ways to lead the community. But here's the thing -- I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up being very confused and disturbed people because of what they were expected to do.

It doesn't just end in divorce and sexual misconduct. Life is so bad for some ministers that they start dabbling in drugs and crime. They'd never admit it to us, but some do. Domestic violence is also possible. The life of ministers, pastors and priests. How much do we really know about them? Is it all just a facade? There are a lot of blessed ministers, but some are living a lie -- a curse.

Yes child molesters are criminals, but who said we were better than criminals? We live in a wealthy society but most of us are too consumed in minding our own business to help others with their problems. If there are criminals in our society, I would say it's our fault. We just didn't care enough. So who are the "real criminals"? Who robbed society of justice? Crime comes from ignorance and neglect. Everything bad, negative and destructive in our society is partly our fault. To compare ourselves to these people by calling them "criminals" is to be ignorant, arrogant and self-righteous. If I was in their position I would probably have done the same thing. To me it really doesn't matter if they're "criminals." It's this attitude we have that makes them criminals. We're responsible for the crimes committed by others.

Concerning the fence on which they walk, ministers are expected to make the rules -- to know right from wrong -- to be leaders. We may think that holiness comes from rules, but there's the danger of manipulating ourselves into thinking we're holier when we have not really dealt with our personal problems. That's my criticism of a rule that bans ministers from marriage. Being a married minister may be hard, but stopping someone from having healthy sexual encounters can also be damaging. Forced abstinence has its dangers.

Do a search on the Internet. You may discover what I mean. The minister can be found doing far worse crimes than the lay-person. Some ministers turn into "criminals," "adulterers" and "perverts" by the time they finish their ministry.

Didn't Paul, Peter and James warn us about such people?

But . . . as I said, I think we need to feel sorry for these "ministers." Their crimes are our neglect. We failed to look after our leaders. We were too selfish to care about them.

Life is hard for the minister. We should thank God if we have a good one.