Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
General Theistics 101 Guidelines
This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.
The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.
Forum Rules: Here
The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Opinions on Billy Graham
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThe man is basically saying, "Gee, I cannot be around a woman who's not my wife! What would people think?" That makes the other women basically sexual objects that, apparently, the person either cannot control themselves around, or thinks other people will think they cannot control themselves around.
In a business - it means a male boss cannot have a personnel review meeting with female subordinates, for no other reason than "they're female."
IMO, it's a ridiculous, and potentially harmful rule. I don't find it uplifting in the least. I find it degrading to the women is objectifies, and a pretty sad commentary on the people who feel they need to follow it.
I think part of your problem is thinking of this as a boss/employee relationship. Pastors are not in that sort of relationship with their congregation. They deal with very personal, very intimate details of people's lives, but are also seen as someone with charisma, influence, wisdom and power. It's a unique relationship you won't find in a workplace environment or with a psychiatrist.
I can tell you from anecdotal experience that the rule was incredibly wise to use for pastors I've known.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostOk, so you're just determined to be uncharitable about it.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSo you said the same thing - in gentler words. Essentially, the man is either saying, "I can't be with a woman who is not my wife because I may not behave appropriately." or "I cannot be with a woman who is not my wife because others might suspect I am not behaving appropriately." And it's essentially about sex, which means women are being objectified as sexual objects. I find the rule...well...to be honest, I find it more than a little
In short, if you need the rule - it might be time to evaluate just how much you have managed to mature as an adult.
I was taught early on that, historically, preachers (in particular) get in trouble mainly in one (or both) of two ways... sex and/or money.
I never handle Church money... I direct it to the proper ushers, tellers, finance chair, accounts...
Do I do this because "I can't handle Church money because I may not behave appropriately"?
Do I do it because "others might suspect I may not handle the money appropriately".
I do it to avoid the appearance of evil, to minimize the temptation, and to minimize the probability that it will become an issue of debate and mistrust in my Church - because it just makes good sense.
Look at how you guys are tearing apart TV evangelists and preachers for "money". And look at the preachers who have gotten into trouble with inappropriate relationships.
How on earth you manage to turn a "good common sense" approach into something ugly is ... well, I was going to say is beyond me, but it's really not -- I guess it's the way you're wired.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThis is a very peculiar, very warped take on this rule. This rule is in most churches I'm familiar with to protect both the Pastor and the other party involved, and it's come about for real world reasons involving both claims of sexual misconduct where there wasn't any, and to protect people from those who would make unwanted advances. I'd figure a skeptic would be happy for a rule like this, especially in light of the many public affairs committed by televangelists in past decades.
I think part of your problem is thinking of this as a boss/employee relationship. Pastors are not in that sort of relationship with their congregation. They deal with very personal, very intimate details of people's lives, but are also seen as someone with charisma, influence, wisdom and power. It's a unique relationship you won't find in a workplace environment or with a psychiatrist.
I can tell you from anecdotal experience that the rule was incredibly wise to use for pastors I've known.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOK, this is goofy.
I was taught early on that, historically, preachers (in particular) get in trouble mainly in one (or both) of two ways... sex and/or money.
I never handle Church money... I direct it to the proper ushers, tellers, finance chair, accounts...
Do I do this because "I can't handle Church money because I may not behave appropriately"?
Do I do it because "others might suspect I may not handle the money appropriately".
I do it to avoid the appearance of evil, to minimize the temptation, and to minimize the probability that it will become an issue of debate and mistrust in my Church - because it just makes good sense.
Look at how you guys are tearing apart TV evangelists and preachers for "money". And look at the preachers who have gotten into trouble with inappropriate relationships.
How on earth you manage to turn a "good common sense" approach into something ugly is ... well, I was going to say is beyond me, but it's really not -- I guess it's the way you're wired.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIt's almost surreal to see someone object to it. Before reading this thread, I honestly had no idea that anyone thought (or could think) such a wise idea was a bad one. What a peculiar world we live in.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThis is a very peculiar, very warped take on this rule. This rule is in most churches I'm familiar with to protect both the Pastor and the other party involved, and it's come about for real world reasons involving both claims of sexual misconduct where there wasn't any, and to protect people from those who would make unwanted advances. I'd figure a skeptic would be happy for a rule like this, especially in light of the many public affairs committed by televangelists in past decades.
I think part of your problem is thinking of this as a boss/employee relationship. Pastors are not in that sort of relationship with their congregation. They deal with very personal, very intimate details of people's lives, but are also seen as someone with charisma, influence, wisdom and power. It's a unique relationship you won't find in a workplace environment or with a psychiatrist.
I can tell you from anecdotal experience that the rule was incredibly wise to use for pastors I've known.
And I would hold the same opinion if it was a woman having the rule about being with men.Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-21-2018, 03:58 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYeah, THAT! It saved me on two very particular situations, where I was accused of inappropriate conduct by "women scorned".
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostNo, I'm not limiting it to any particular relationship. I used the Boss/Employee as an example, but it applies to other places as well. IMO, it's a form of sexual discrimination. And this has nothing to do with "skeptic" or "christian." Indeed, there are Christians who also have a problem with this rule. And I am not unfamiliar with the pastor issue. I was very involved with my church(es) through my 20s, and in formation for Catholic priesthood for 4.5 years. In all that time, not a single priest (or minister, or Rabbi) I worked with ever gave voice to that rule, or practiced it. The topic once came up in a formation retreat, and the priest leading the retreat spoke rather vociferously against it as being "objectifying" and "demeaning." He was clear - and somewhat blunt - saying something like, "gentlemen, if you don't think you can keep it in your pants, or you you don't think you can live a life that will preclude others believing you can't keep it in your pants, you should consider a different calling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYou're weird.
And my wife would agree with you!The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAnd it's not just for women. There are women in ministry who apply the same rule about being alone with males (my mother for instance). I've heard more than my share of stories about people in church (on both ministerial and parishioner lines) needing accountability because of both true and false accusations. People be horny up in church yo.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOK, this is goofy.
I was taught early on that, historically, preachers (in particular) get in trouble mainly in one (or both) of two ways... sex and/or money.
I never handle Church money... I direct it to the proper ushers, tellers, finance chair, accounts...
Do I do this because "I can't handle Church money because I may not behave appropriately"?
Do I do it because "others might suspect I may not handle the money appropriately".
I do it to avoid the appearance of evil, to minimize the temptation, and to minimize the probability that it will become an issue of debate and mistrust in my Church - because it just makes good sense.
Look at how you guys are tearing apart TV evangelists and preachers for "money". And look at the preachers who have gotten into trouble with inappropriate relationships.
How on earth you manage to turn a "good common sense" approach into something ugly is ... well, I was going to say is beyond me, but it's really not -- I guess it's the way you're wired.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt's like D if you do and D if you don't --- when a pastor has an affair with a church member, the world pitches a hissy about how inappropriate that is, but when a pastor has a policy to attempt to keep that from happening, the world pitches a hissy about how inappropriate that is...
Win-Win
See how that works!?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSimple solution: don't have an affair - and don't implement an objectifying rule.
Win-WinThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment