Re: Robbing the Cradle - ine Epistles/Origin of States-Religion

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:29:34 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> Hmm... I haven't paid any attention to this controversy, but as far as I can

> remember, doesn't make any reference to homosexuality except a rather

> vague passing reference to " men committing shameless acts with other men " or

> something like that, which would be wholly irrelevant from the issue. They

must

> be quoting the " Let a bishop be the husband of one wife " injunction, which is

> in the pastorals. They are certainly regarded as Scripture by pretty much all

> Christian churches, but as you said, they don't talk to the scholars much. In

> fact, the pastorals were heavily disputed during the initial formation of the

> biblical canon as well in the fourth century.

Help me to understand your point. I can see the disputation process as

interesting from a human point of view, and it can provide many clues

and fascinating subplots. But once settled, I think all Orthodox would

agree that from a supernatural point of view, the inclusion is accurate.

For example, the Orthodox West did not want Hebrews included in the

canon. The Orthodox East did not want Revelation (although a typical

eastern service sure looks and smells a lot like what St. is

describing in Revelation!). Yet both books show up as a compromise,

humanly speaking. But Orthodox and Catholic alike would argue that God

certainly intended for both books to be there and in the synergy of the

human/divine such was accomplished.

>

> As to the man being the head of the wife, that is authentic ine doctrine

> that marriage typifies the relationship between Christ and the Church, where

> Christ is the head and the Church is the body, being the bride of Christ.

> However, the doctrine that occurs in the pastorals, that, after discoursing on

the

> evils of women, " nevertheless women shall be saved through childbearing " is

> an obvious twist of ine thought that is in direct contradiction to 's

> injunction to chastity, 's praise of women deacons and others who serviced

> the church unmarried, etc, 's companionship with St. Thekla, who joined

> him after hearing him speak on chastity, etc, etc, etc.

Yeah we will have to agree to disagree here. I think those alleged

contradictions can easily be resolved, but not here and not on this list

<weg>. Boy, I feel like I have been transported back to my university

days. God forbid! LOL!!!!

>

> Religions and states both developed around the same stage of development of

> human societies, and served primarily the same function, keeping of order and

> collection/redistribution of goods, etc, so it makes sense that they would be

> sort of blurred.

>

Hmmm...looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree here as well.

Marriage, property, religion, all those things pre-dated the state.