Key Lime Pie: A Web Novel

The engagement of Jeff (Chapter 54)

arthuryeomans — Mon, 16 May 2011 23:17:15 +0000

Jeff went to the window, “That’s so unfair, you girls get to go swimming and we don’t. What is that rule again?”
“No swimming, for boys that is, unless we have a sister or a girlfriend with us.”
“Jill,” Jeff said to a girl standing pouring lemonade, “I want to go swimming. How about if you be my girlfriend?”
She looked up, “OK.”
Jeff looked shocked, “Really?”
“Yeah, sure, why not? I’ll be done in a second.”
“Guys, you hear that? I get to go swimming!”
I watched with amazement as Jill and Jeff went out to the pool. My sister looked surprised, the rest of the girls just looked amused.
We finished our snacks and went upstairs, leaving Jeff out at the pool with the girls. I looked out at him several times, where he was wildly jumpint off the diving board. I was extremely curious and when I saw him go into the pool shower room, followed by Jill, I couldn’t restrain myself and said, “I’ll be right back, guys, I want to check my email.”
I got mostly nods in return, and hurried off to my room. In seconds I had the feed from the shower room booted up.
“So, are you enjoying swimming?”
“Yeah, thanks for letting me come.”
“Well, I am kind of disappointed with you.”
“What? Why?”
“Well, I had to get naked in front of you before you would ask me to be your girlfriend.”
“I have always wanted you to be my girlfriend.”
“Right. Even knowing my rule?”
“Yeah. I respect your rule. But I thought you had two rules.”
“I do.”
“I thought that you had a rule that you would only be someones girlfriend if you would marry them.”
“I do.”
“So, you would marry me?”
“Yes.”
There was a pause. “So, would you marry me?”
“I just said I would.”
“No, I mean, would you actually marry me?”
“I already told you I would twice. Now, when you get the money, I would like a white gold ring with a ruby in it. It doesn’t have to be a big ruby, but I saw that combination once and I liked it.”
“Ummm… OK.”
“I’m going to go back to swimming now, but you need to turn some cold on in that shower.”
“I’m sorry.”
“What for? I would be upset if you didn’t need a cold shower.”
“Can I have a kiss?”
“Like that!? Not until we are married. Which I hope won’t be long. Now, turn on the cold.”
I quickly closed down the feed and went back to the games.

>Down from Homophobia: A response to Steve Chapman

arthuryeomans — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 01:59:00 +0000

>Over on Townhall.com Steve Chapman wrote an article entitled ‘Up from Homophobia’. In it he starts by saying, “I used to be a homophobe. I didn’t dislike gays a little; I disliked them a lot. Growing up in Texas, I didn’t know anyone who admitted to being gay, and I found the whole idea sick and repulsive.”

Now, any phobia is a bad thing. A phobia is an irrational fear. As Christians we are called not only to not have any irrational fears but, in the end, all fears.

Fear, of course, can mean different things. Our ‘fear of God’, is an example of a ‘good’ fear; an appropriate respect for something very, very powerful. Only an idiot doesn’t have an appropriate fear of lions, or heights.

But other fears should, in the end, disappear with the love of God. Fear of any particular person, or class of persons, is one of those fears. Thus a Christian who, literally, ‘fears’ those who commit Sodomy is a Christian who needs to continue to grow in perfect love.

Unfortunately, that was not Mr. Chapman’s point. As he points out in his initial statement he ‘didn’t know’ anyone who, to use his words, ‘admitted to being gay’. His change in his attitude did not come from an understanding of the power of God, and of his own sin nature… but was due to the fact that, suddenly, he was confronted with someone who was a good friend who, after knowing him for quite a while, admitted to being a Sodomite.

Suddenly Mr. Chapman was forced to confront the fact that Sodomites were ‘real people’. Something he should have known already from his Christian faith took him by surprise. And, unfortunately, faced with this fact, he drew an entirely erroneous conclusion. Instead of this fact deepening his love for the person, and thus a hate for the sin he was engaged in, he allowed it to convince him that it was no sin at all.

Mr. Chapman, real people really commit sins. You do, I do, we all do. Love for a person does not mean ignoring the sins they commit, still less denying the fact that it is a sin. Real love, God’s love, involves hating the sin just as passionately as you love the sinner.

The sexual relationship in marriage is a reflection (Eph 5:23-33) of the relationship between Christ and the church. Any perversion of that relationship, be it fornication, adultery, bestiality, or Sodomy; represents an active blasphemy against our Lord and Savior.

By all means, Mr. Chapman, love your Sodomite friends. But do so by hating the sin that they are engaging in. Just as you would still love your child if they were a murderer, and yet not, on that account, deny the horror of murder; in the same way you must love the Sodomite, even as you hate the sin he is engaged in.

Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Visit our betrothal site. Make your amazon purchases through our our amazon store. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to “LifeSiteNews.com”. Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

>Liars, Cursed Liars , and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology

arthuryeomans — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:53:00 +0000

>In a recent position paper the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology destroys any possible credibility they may have ever had on the issues of what are commonly called ‘conscience rights’. In this paper they state positions and argue for facts which have been stated and argued before, but their statements and arguments are clearer, their lies so much more apparent than usual, that they stand out among their peers.

The lies in this paper are voluminous, however three stand out in particular:

Mis-definition of conscience

In this paper they define conscience in the following way:

…the private, constant, ethically attuned part of the human character.

This sounds interesting, if a bit odd. Odd in that a very normal component of the definition, namely the word ‘moral’ or the words ‘right and wrong’ are missing. However, for most of us, the word ‘ethical’ implies these words, so we might be tempted to gloss over this. However such a gloss would be an error, as they immediately demonstrate; stating that the conscience performs the following actions:

… not to act in accordance with one’s conscience is to betray oneself—to risk personal wholeness or identity.

Later on they do bring up the word ‘moral’, stating that acting in accord with conscience allows one to preserve one’s ‘moral integrity’. However they still avoid the words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, and we quickly find out why.

They state:

… conscience may conflict with professional and ethical standards.

This, at first blush, seems to be utter nonsense. If the conscience is the ‘ethically attuned’ part of one’s character then to act in accordance with one’s conscience must, by definition, not be in conflict with ethical standards. And if it is in conflict with ‘professional’ standards, then it is the ‘professional’ and the ethical standards which are, themselves, in conflict.

They go on to say that acting in accordance with conscience may result in:

…inefficiency, adverse outcomes, adverse outcomes, violation of patients rights, and erosion of trust.

Again, how on earth can that be? How can acting morally (ie, in accord with one’s conscience) be ‘inefficient’? Surely it can only be ‘inefficient’ at producing immoral outcomes, it can never be inefficient at producing moral ones. How can a moral outcome be ‘adverse’ or a ‘violation of patients rights’? And in the area of ‘erosion of trust’, it is precisely a physician who acts immorally who erodes his patients trust; one who steals from them, violates their privacy, sexually assaults them…

The answer, of course, is found in the weasel word ‘standards’. What they mean, and what they make very clear in the article, is ‘what we have decided’. It is the physician who disagrees with their judgments who must, by definition, be ‘violating their patients trust’. You see, according to the ACOG, patients ‘trust’ physicians who operate according to their guidelines.

They make some semblance of covering their tracks by speaking of ‘patient autonomy’, but this is only a smokescreen, as we would find if the patient, autonomously, asked the physician to perform some action that was in violation of the ACOG guidelines. A patient who, for example, asked for their two year old to be raped or murdered would find the ACOG solidly against them… or one who asked for the ‘hopeless’ life of their newborn to be preserved.

Assisting in an immoral act is an immoral act, just as assisting in an criminal act is a criminal act

The above definitional problem destroys any credibility their (ironically entitled) ‘ethical’ guidelines might have. But it is by no means the last of their incredible deceptions. They proceed to pontificate that conscience, by definition, must needs limit itself to actions which the person, themselves, performs… not those they assist in performing.

However this standard is denied by every law that has ever been written or enforced. To say, “I merely handed him the gun so he could shoot his brother,” (outside of a lack of knowledge of what the gun was for) is hardly likely to impress any judge or jury. Similarly, “I only gave him the name of a hit man” will still land you a few years in the federal pen.

The problem began with the definition, you see. Since they don’t, actually, believe that they are asking you to do anything wrong, they can’t really believe that you would think it was wrong to help someone else do it, eh?

Insuring that the immoral act can proceed despite your not participating in it is an immoral act.

And then they go on to insist that it is necessary for you to ensure, that this thing (which really isn’t wrong) that you, because of your moral scruples don’t want to participate in, must be able to do be done in the most efficient way possible. That someone who won’t participate in murder, for example, should locate as closely as possible to someone who will, so that the person who wants the murder done, frustrated by your unwillingness to do it for them, can most easily find someone to do it.

>Tony takes a break again

arthuryeomans — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:40:00 +0000

>Tony has taken a break from publishing my comments again, so I thought I would post them here:

–

OK, awake again, with some questions that you have not seemed to answer:

1) I would still like to know what verb, in verses one through five, you are saying is referenced by Paul’s ‘permitted not commanded’. Surely that is not a hard question? What *verb* (or verb phrase)? How would you rewrite I Cor 7 1-6 in lay English to make your case?

2) I would also like to hear your reasoning on the following (you keep stating your case but not arguing it). If a) all Christians, lay and priests, are meant to have undivided attention to the LORD and b) If marriage keeps one from doing that then why c) Are not all Christians supposed to be celibate?

–

1) It is clear from St. Paul that many of the wives of the apostles accompanied them and ministered to them (as sisters, as we know from the Church fathers and even the Greek text), if the wives were even alive at the time. The point is that the apostles abandoned married life.

Make up your mind. First you say that the apostles had wives, who accompanied them and ministered to them, and then you say they abandoned married life. Surely you aren’t suggesting that ‘as sisters’ means that they abstained from intercourse? Surely you know your Scripture better than that!

Son 4:9-12 Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck. How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices! A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

Son 5:1-2 I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night.

And how on earth would the Church fathers know whether or not a man had intercourse with his wife (little, primitive spy cameras)? And how could they accompany them if they weren’t alive?

–
You seemed to have missed my point five above:

5) Which raises another point, namely, avoiding all appearance of evil. Proverbs five points out the well known common sense principle that a man who is appropriately rejoicing in his wife sexually is less likely to stray to the ‘strange woman’.

I am not one of those who believe that every Catholic priest is a Sodomite pedophile; or has closet mistresses in every parish, but the well known fact is that they have that reputation. The fact is that the supposed ‘undivided devotion’ of those priests via their unmarried state, far from bearing witness to the world of their devotion to God, has led to an almost universal speculation about their sexual perversions.

It is a dramatic shame that, in a world that so denigrates the institution of marriage, the Catholic church should insist that their best an brightest should reinforce that blasphemy.

Tit 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

In all of Scripture practically every Godly man was married. God Himself said it was ‘not good for man to be alone’. The unmarried status of Catholic priests has been a scandal for hundreds of years. Now, Satan will, obviously, attack the church in every way possible. But God has made it clear that he intends marriage, among other things, as an antidote for fornication. And even the world knows this, and instinctively distrusts unmarried people, treating them as more unstable sexually; note the term ‘swinging single’.

Indeed St Paul himself, in his qualifications for elders, links the two things very interestingly: 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, The very first qualification he lists after ‘blameless’ is ‘the husband of one wife’.

>Wow

arthuryeomans — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:27:00 +0000

>Well, I thought Tony was done, but he has come back for another round. He finally posted some of the comments I posted here, and responded in part.

I will post below some of the exchange we have had, but I encourage you to look there for the fuller exchange (note: he may not (yet) have moderated some of my comments):

All of 1 Cor 7:1-5 is said/commanded within the context of lay believers and of lust being a very great temptation for the Corinthians (verse 2: “because of the temptation to immorality”). Verse 6 clarifies that these are not the absolutist commands that you are portraying them to be.

You miss the point, my friend. What verse six says is that something is a ‘permission’ not a ‘commandment’. What is that thing? You say:

All the textual analysis in the world is not going to contradict these facts.

And miss the point of the textual analysis, which is to ask, “What is this thing that is permitted, not commanded?” If we came to a sign that said, “Do not enter” and I said, “but that is a permission, not a commandment” you would (with full justification) look at me as if I was insane. What would that mean? That you are permitted not to enter? You hadn’t dreamed otherwise! That you may, after all, enter? Then what a stupid sign!

In order for something to be ‘permitted’, not ‘commanded’ it must be something that can be permitted not commanded. What part of verses one through six, which of the various verbs, are you saying that applies to? The implied verb of verse one? The ‘let every man’ of verse two? What verb?

Jesus was married to no human being. That is clearly what I meant all along. You’re splitting hairs here. Marriage is merely a symbol that explains Christ’s relationship to the Church. Let’s not waste our time on something I think we agree on.

As long as you use the words ‘merely a symbol’ than we don’t agree

Jesus was (and is) betrothed to the church. If anything it is our human marriages which are a symbol for that heavenly reality, not the other way around. And, those marriages being a symbol for that marriage, is what makes the very idea of defrauding one’s wife here on Earth so blasphemous. Are we still agreed?

What … do you think Paul means when he talks about the worldly anxieties of husband and wife?

You will have to excuse me here… this is seriously funny. I mean, seriously. Do you really think that St. Paul was referring to intercourse as an ‘anxiety’? Are you married? Do you not have any idea what kind of ‘anxiety’ there is in marrying a wife, and raising a family in Godliness? The kind of thing that sends husbands and fathers to their knees every day? I can guarantee you that it is NOT sex, not coitus, not…

Pro 5:15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
Pro 5:16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.
Pro 5:17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee.
Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Pro 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

The “husband of one wife” is restrictive, not injunctive.

I think it is restrictive too… the eldership is restricted to those who…

I Ti 3 A bishop then must be … the husband of one wife, … One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Oh, and by the way, it is in all the passages, not just the Timothy passage. Elders and deacons. I tend to quote the Timothy passage because it has the parenthetical ending that you have never addressed. Is that restrictive too?

Why do you insist on your personal wisdom rather than theirs and their authority?

I don’t. Never have, never will. When they speak what is in accord with sound doctrine (ie the Word of God) I will applaud them. When they contradict it, then they denounce themselves.

Paul merely assumes that those who had advanced in age, wisdom, and holiness to be a bishop at that time mostly likely would have had a family and that looking to household governance would be necesarily helpful in the decision of whether to lay on hands or not. I don’t care what you think the text says. The context of the rest of Scripture and actual early Church practice demands your humility and submission.

The rest of Scripture? All of Scripture is unanimous on this point, so I am on rather firm ground there. And the text says nothing like ‘merely assuming’. The text is quite clear, the statements are in command form:

As for early church practice, it is certainly of use in explaining problematic passages, unclear passages. But this passage is not unclear. It can be (and should be) obeyed as written. If I were speaking to someone who believed that a Godly celibate man *could be* an elder in the church, that argument might fly. But the Catholic church has taken the words of the apostle in which he says ‘must be’ and has, literally, said, ‘must not be’. It takes a Biblical qualification (having a Godly family) and makes it a disqualification.

There was no defrauding going on b/c St. Paul wasn’t talking to priests and bishops in 1 Cor 7, regular sexual intercourse in marriage is not an absolute command under the Law of Christ but a concession as verse 6 says (though the marriage is not consummated until first intercourse), and the dignity of the priesthood allows for exceptions as evidenced in the Twelve and in Scripture.

It is St Paul who uses the word defrauding, I merely repeat his words. And St. Paul uses the word even where he gives allowable qualifications for that defrauding, so even if you are saying it is allowed, the example of St Paul would seem to suggest the word ‘defraud’ is still applicable:

1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

It is interesting you use the word ‘dignity’. Are you saying that coitus is ‘undignified’ and that is why priests must not engage in it? I will grant you that is ‘undignified’… but as it is a hallowed and commanded activity I think that that dignifies it enough for the most dignified priest. It was St Paul that said:

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

And Solomon who said:

Pro 5:16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.
Pro 5:17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee.
Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Pro 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
Pro 5:20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?
Pro 5:21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings.
Pro 5:22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins.
Pro 5:23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.

When you say ‘as evidenced by the twelve and in Scripture’ what exactly do you mean? No mention is ever made of the twelve ceasing to engage in intercourse (now that would be a rather graphic detail, wouldn’t it?) We know that Uriah didn’t… at least that one night. And Joseph refused an opportunity… we are told of lots of people that did perform coitus… but I seriously can’t think of any where it says they didn’t, and certainly not, as you seem to be suggesting, for the rest of their lives. Remind me again where Scripture says that?

Marriage is an earthly/worldly institution; it does not exist in heaven as Jesus tells the Sadduccees.

Jesus certainly says something like this to the Sadducees, who were asking a question about a series of physical relationships between various brothers and a wife:

Mat 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
Mat 22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Mat 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
Mat 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
Mat 22:27 And last of all the woman died also.
Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

But that is not because there is no ‘marriage’ in heaven; but because there is the most glorious marriage of all in heaven:

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Rev 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
Rev 21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

Rev 21:13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Rev 21:15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
Rev 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
Rev 21:18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
Rev 21:19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
Rev 21:20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
Rev 21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
Rev 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

The name of the church in heaven is ‘the bride’:

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The glory of our virginity is that it is to be presented to Christ, our betrothed… husband.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

And our consummation is still to come:

Rev 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Indeed all of the Catholic commentators I have ever read have insisted that the graphic sexual book of the Song of Solomon is a metaphor for that very consummation.

[marriage}… limited but sacred institution that it is, is used as a symbol to help us understand the great mystery that is the relationship between Christ and the Church.

That is exactly what I have been saying. Well put. And this explains how blasphemous it is for us, in our human institution, to fail to reflect, in our limited way, that relationship. Which explains passages such as Proverbs 5 and the Song, which insist that it is precisely in our rejoicing in the physical intimate relationship of the marriage bed that we can reflect the (even more) intimate relationship we have with Christ.

Just as abusing our physical bodies reflects poorly on our reflection of the body of Christ, so our abusing our marital relationship reflects poorly on our relationship with Christ.

Note: I think I might have miscommunicated earlier. When I said I objected to the words ‘merely a symbol’ in regards to marriage I should have clarified that I objected to the word ‘merely’, as failing to adequately state the depth and importance of that symbol. I am not saying that Christ will engage in physical coitus with the Church in heaven… but that what will happen will be a union that puts mere physical coitus in the dust.. but that, at the same time, will be a union that, on Earth, God has chosen to represent by physical coitus.. a union that will be the reason that God created coitus and marriage itself.

Hope that clarifies any misperception.

>Abstaining from intercourse

arthuryeomans — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:56:00 +0000

>Well, Tony has resumed the conversation, as have I. I pulled up something from earlier, and attempted a clarification and summary:

… if undivided devotion requires abstinence from intercourse…

Well, I so missed this earlier. Just shows what you get from re-reading.
Paul never hints that ‘undivided devotion requires abstinence from intercourse’… in fact he says the exact opposite. I tracked with you (I mean, you were wrong, but I at least understood you) when you were talking about abstinence from marriage, but now you are focusing on intercourse? (or, you were before and I missed it?)
I am truly confused by your position. So you are saying that Peter and them took their wives around but refrained from sleeping with them? That that is the official church position? I thought at one point you said the opposite.
Is that still the official church position? I know that, occasionally, in some rites and permissions, married men are inducted into the Catholic priesthood. Is it still the case that they are required to abstain from intercourse?
Let me resume the conversation with these questions, then:
1) You are saying that the apostles defrauded their wives (translation: refused to have/did not have intercourse with them)?
2) Are you saying that it is the church position that all married priests should refrain from intercourse with their wives (ie: defraud them)?
3) Are you saying that all truly Godly laymen, who wished (as God commands) to live lives of undivided devotion to the Lord should, equally, refuse to have intercourse with them?
4) Are you saying that these things (see I Cor 7:3-5) may be done *without* consent from the wife, not merely for a time of fasting and prayer, and not merely for a short time?
(Just to be clear from my standpoint. I hold that all of us, without exception, are to have undivided attention to the Lord. I hold that practically all laymen, and all elders of the church, should be married. That no married man, at any time, except with mutual consent, for a short time, for the purpose of prayer and fasting, should ever refrain from intercourse with his wife.)

>On the ‘clear’ teaching that baptism replaces circumcision

arthuryeomans — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:28:00 +0000

>Over on the Conservative Colloquim Tony says;

Scripture is quite clear that baptism replaced circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12).

Now, with all due respect to my paedo-baptist friends, this is really not that clear. First of all, the passage, with a bit wider net:

Col 2:6-17 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

And now some questions that come to my poor, Baptist, mind about this ‘clear’ teaching:

1) If baptism really replaces circumcision, then why was there no hue and cry when baptism was introduced? John the Baptist waded out into the stream and started baptizing right and left, and nobody came to him and said, “What is the strange new doctrine? This bizarre new practice?”

He had frequent conflicts with the Pharisees, but not about baptism… the very thing that his ministry was known for. “Repent and be baptized” he yelled, and nobody said, “repent and what?!!?” Indeed, the Pharisees came, themselves, to his baptisms! (Mat 3:7) And they never once accused him of heresy, of introducing some strange and illegal doctrine… let alone of the blasphemy that they would have considered anything ‘replacing’ circumcision!

2) Why, if baptism replaced circumcision, do we see Paul circumcising Timothy? And James, Paul, and the Jerusalem elders denying that they were teaching believing Jews not to circumcise their children?

3) Why, if baptism replaced circumcision, do we see Paul still referring to believing Jews as ‘the circumcision’ and gentiles as ‘the uncircumcision’?

4) What do we do with Abraham, if baptism replaced circumcision? The Colossians passage is clear that the ‘circumcision made without hands’ is the grace of God, his forgiveness, his blotting out the penalty of the law that lay against us… in a word, justification. Did circumcision justify before baptism, and now baptism justifies? What then of Abraham (and Job, and Enoch) who were justified without either circumcision or baptism? Did circumcision, itself, replace something earlier?

5) And where, pray tell, is circumcision said to justify, before Christ?

Perhaps Tony has some answers to these questions. Or someone else?

>Moral Courage

arthuryeomans — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:47:00 +0000

>I have, recently, been having a discussion with someone on the internet about the subject of ‘Moral Courage’, and thought perhaps I would take my thoughts over here.

Physical Courage is a rather obvious trait, at least in its outward manifestation. Someone who acts out Physical Courage is one who, in the face of danger to themselves, nonetheless performs some morally correct action.

I support The Constitution Party.

Visit our betrothal site.

Make your amazon purchases through our our amazon store.

Items copied from Life Site News are:
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to “LifeSiteNews.com”. Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

>Permitting a forbidding and other linguistic nonsense

arthuryeomans — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:13:00 +0000

> Tony, in response to a post of mine, wrote:

It is only “impossible” to you because you are begging the question, assuming what you are trying to prove. What a long response for merely a logical fallacy. You assume they are commands, and so they can’t be concessions. Brilliant!

Nope, you totally misunderstood my point. I will try again and see if you can understand my point. Fine if you disagree, but so far you haven’t understood it (based on your comment above).

The statements in verse 5 are of the following form:

1) Forbidding: “Defraud ye not one the other”
2) Exception:
      a. Part a: “except it be with consent”
      b. Part b: “for a time”
      c. Part c: “that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer”
      d. Part d: “come together again”
3) Reason: “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency”

Here is another sentence that is of the same form:

You may not stay up late while we are gone, except on Friday night, until midnight, to watch the meteor shower, and then get right to bed. I don’t want y’all all cranky from lack of sleep.

1) Forbidding: You may not stay up late while we are gone
2) Exception:
      a. Part a: except on Friday night
      b. Part b: until midnight
      c. Part c: to watch the meteor shower
      d. Part d: then get right to bed
3) Reason: I don’t want y’all all cranky from lack of sleep.

Now, suppose the mother were to say right after that, “But I am just giving you permission, not commanding you.” What would this mean? She is obviously not giving them ‘permission’ to ‘not stay up late’… that is ludicrous. You cannot ‘permit’ a ‘forbidding’. “I give you permission to not hit your sister.” “I give you permission to not murder your neighbor.” The linguistics do not work.

Nor can you give ‘permission’ for the reason. “I give you permission for me to want you to not be cranky.” Nope, doesn’t work.

No individual part of the exception can be a permission. Could she be only ‘giving permission’ for them to go right to bed after the meteor shower? When that is part of the conditions for the exception she is giving? Could they stay up till midnight every night? Could they stay up to watch a movie on Friday night?

What can be given ‘permission’ not ‘commanded’ is the ‘exception’ as a whole. She may not be ‘ordering’ the children to stay up and watch the meteor shower. They might have thought, based on her statement, that they were ‘supposed to’ stay up and watch the meteor shower (for school or whatever) and she is now telling them, ‘no, you don’t *have to* watch the meteor shower. You can, if you are tired or have no interest in meteors, go to bed early on Friday night, too.’

And so, similarly, in verse five. The ‘forbidding’ of the first part of the verse cannot be a ‘permission’. Nor can the reason at the end. The only thing that can be a ‘permission’ in that verse instead of a ‘command’ is the exception itself, as a whole. No man (or woman) should feel himself forced, by the apostle’s words, to abstain from sexual intercourse for a time of prayer and fasting. No man (or woman) should pressure their spouse into such a thing. Each spouse must judge for themselves concerning that time, and concerning their own sexual temptation… deciding whether they have the gift to successfully, without lusting etc., sustain the time proposed.

Indeed I challenge you to go through the verse and point out exactly what part of it Paul was afraid his audience might have thought was a ‘command’ that he felt it necessary to state was only a ‘permission’. The suspect part of the sentence must be liable to *both* interpretations.

>Apostles, Elders, Paul, and Generals

arthuryeomans — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:42:00 +0000

>Tony and I have exchanged so many posts that, at times, things got missed. Re-reading through his posts I found this:

From my perspective, you’re just splitting hairs now. Just because Paul didn’t have immediate responsibility for a particular church doesn’t mean that he was not an elder/bishop. He had general responsibility for all Gentile churches. He merely had more authority and responsibility than the typical local bishop like Timothy or Titus.

This comment fails on two points. First of all, because we do not, actually, know that Paul was not qualified according to the qualifications for elders. We do not know that he was not the husband of one wife, that he never raised a household of children, and that he did not have them under control. Pharisees, in general, married young. It was a rule of theirs, and Paul clearly identifies himself as a Pharisee in acts. Thus it is perfectly possible that Paul was a widower, with grown, faithful children.

That aside, the question isn’t ‘how much authority’. The qualifications that we are speaking of are for who should be appointed as the elder to a local church. It is perfectly possible, indeed probable, that that person might have differing qualifications from an apostle… which has nothing at all to do with how much ‘power’ they have. A sergeant, who lives day in and day out with his troops, might well have different qualifications than a lieutenant or a general… or a President! The intimate day on day relationship of a father might well be a qualification for governing, on an intimate and day on day basis, a local church… which might well be different from the qualifications for a traveling evangelist/apostle of a Paul or Barnabas, just as his relationship was different.

In the end, the qualifications for a local elder are clear in Scripture:

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Tit 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Tit 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

An elder must be:

the the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly, One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.

A deacon must be:

…the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well, Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things….

Because:

…if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?