Of course not: being a priest / minister is (or ought to be) a full-time job.
Furthermore, those particular jobs are going to compromise specific aspects of the priest / reverend’s role as counsellor.
All far as I can tell, though, the sin involved in all cases is fornication. Fornication isn’t just unmarried sex, it’s irresponsible sex: sex that might produce children which would be unsupported and / or ruin the mother (in societies where virginity + marriage were the only acceptable routes). These days, with birth control and DNA testing, fornication is a lot harder. I don’t think gay sex IS fornication, because gays aren’t producing children and they aren’t spoiling women’s marriage opportunities. I’d even say that porn stars aren’t fornicating, because again, they are entertainers. It’s only if you have somehow made the leap from “fornication is bad” to “sex is inherently bad” that you have problems with these. (Prostitution is more complicated: I would say that a woman who freely chose the career and enjoys it is no fornicating, but as actually practiced, most are, or at least the johns are.)
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13
Seems you are contradicting yourself now. As a layman, the meaning of the above verse is really obvious.
I think your terminology ads confusion, so you can talk in a sort of code such that typical Christians don’t know you are saying the Bible is full of errors and can’t be trusted. So you come up with euphemisms.
So why do you think active homosexuals should be ordained, but not prostitutes or porn stars?
Quick practical question, Buckaroo: are you suggesting that homosexual sex be punished by death? If so, what are you going to do in those majority-Christian nations that don’t have the death penalty, which these days is most of them? The Bible doesn’t say “they shall be disapproved of” or “they shall be forbidden to marry,” it says “they shall be put to death.”
If you’re NOT suggesting the death penalty, why are you okay with changing the second half of the sentence, but not the first half?
This is not a gotcha question. I’m genuinely curious if you lend both halves equal weight, and how you understand this applying to contemporary society.
Edit to answer the questions posed above: In our society, a lot of people are weird about sex, and one a priest’s jobs is marriage counselling. I don’t think any marriage counsellor can simultaneously operate as a sex worker or sexual entertainer in the community in which he / she counsels. I think that’s common sense. As far as adultery, neither prostitution nor porn nor gay sex need involve adultery. If they do, well, that’s bad, but it’s the adultery, not the method used to commit it.
If context and current mores don’t dictate and liberal Christians cherry pick the bible, why do those who interpret it literally no longer own slaves? At one point, that was considered God ordained. It isn’t now, although the bible is still seen as infallible and in changing by literalists. So, doesn’t that also mean that they cherry pick and take on contextual and current mores?
Okay. Kable, you came across as defending the biblical line. I’m not a Christian, though I do have a great deal of respect for the religion. I don’t think most Christians, historically or contemporaneously, were literalists. It is basically impossible be a literalist without cherry-picking.
As far as “what does a priest know about sex,” that depends on the priest. It’s not like they take vows and are sent out to counsel: they do get training, and there are a lot of good ones. I have nothing against sex workers, but I’m not sure what you’re suggesting with your analogy.
“All religion is stupid” (not saying that’s your position, but it’s common on this board) is basically equivalent to biblical literalism: a hasty generalization that ignores vast chunks of reality.
The Bible does not command you to own slaves anywhere. However, it has guidelines for how you should treat your slaves if you were to own them.
It’s kinda like car ownership - at no place are you legally required to own a car, but if you do then you need to follow the traffic and insurance laws.
No more than any reader of Faust, Milton, or Melville do. Although the Bible is a relic with rapidly decreasing relevance to modern mores, it’s still a literary work of cultural importance and examination of the Book is a harmless pursuit. Christians get a huge kick out of arguing translations and implications, and a study of the contortions that each new generation takes to shoehorn Biblical directives into modern life is really kind of fascinating even though I’m entirely disinterested in faith itself. I’d love to see a timeline of evolving attitudes vis a vis application of Biblical law taught in public school history classes.
A pitfall of the US public school system is that we don’t teach morality or ethics, and I can’t fault parents and the community for attempting to fill that gap with religious teachings. I do hope that increasing numbers of Christians continue to admit to cherry-picking and scrapping inconvenient and immoral directives and judgments in favor of comfortable exceptions. Discussions and ethical dilemmas like these are how the Bible is losing its power to exclude and shame. At least those believers who cherry pick are admitting on some level that one size does not fit all and are adapting to the modern world despite the enormous pressure of indoctrination.
The US Postal service is going broke no need to add more junk mail to their problems though … I’ll be headed that way soon … I can deliver it for you …
actually you can just keep it in your heart as a faithful deed and it will be read back to you on judgement day
That’s not what it clearly says. That’s what the English translation you are most familiar with says assuming the words are given their most common modern interpretations. Aren’t gun owners always talking about how the term “well-regulated” is being misinterpreted in the Second Amendment? Hell, that’s only three hundred years old.
I clearly wasn’t talking about the SOP of competent scholars, just hoi polloi like politicians, televangelists and Quatro who use the bible to justify their beliefs and actions.
It is obvious. Looking at a number of different translations and commentaries, it means exactly what you think. However, since it is part of the Old Testament Law, which was fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice, it is no longer relevant in a Christian church. Or so says one side. The other side says yes, the OT Law was fulfilled, but it’s still abhorrent and gay men shouldn’t be ordained.
Yes, we contradict each other. No two scholars have agreed exactly on the Bible for the last couple of thousand years.
I think you mean to say it’s impossible to be any kind of Christian without cherry picking, and that’s a pretty big fault of the religion.
I thought you were saying a sex worker can’t be a good counselor, and can’t be a pastor, but a gay man can. That really sounds discriminatory. Why not?
Because as a human being, I respect the complex cultural structures that human groups create. Christianity is vast and complex and while it is the source of a lot of evil, it is also the source of a lot of good. Ultimately, it’s one reflection of what it means to be human.
No. I meant what I said. I don’t think you understand how religion works, or the nature of the Bible. You are not supposed to take the text of the Bible as your one and only how-to manual for everyday life. That notion is only even POSSIBLE since Martin Luther, which is only around 25% of the history of Christianity, and statistically it’s quite a rare idea among Christians.
No, I did not say that. I think a sex worker who was also trained as a counsellor could be good counsellor, though probably not for the population that priests and ministers counsel. I don’t think sex workers are inherently gifted nor deficient in the field of counselling: they’re just like anyone else. But being gay isn’t an occupation, and so the two aren’t precisely comparable.
