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
See more
See less

Opinions on Billy Graham

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    So 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
    Ok, so you're just determined to be uncharitable about it.
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      The 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.
      This 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.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
        Ok, so you're just determined to be uncharitable about it.
        Why on earth would I be charitable about an uncharitable philosophy?
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          So 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.
          OK, 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 first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            This 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.
            Yeah, THAT! It saved me on two very particular situations, where I was accused of inappropriate conduct by "women scorned".
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              OK, 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.
              It'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.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                It'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.
                I almost think it has to be a hatred for Pence and/or evangelists and/or preachers or something.... yeah, I'm astounded. Any time I've explained this to somebody, it was "oh, yeah, that's a good policy" - even the women who wanted counseling.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  This 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.
                  No, 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 (that I know of - pretty much all of them had one-on-one meetings with women at one point or another). 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 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."

                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Yeah, THAT! It saved me on two very particular situations, where I was accused of inappropriate conduct by "women scorned".
                    And 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.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      No, 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."
                      You're weird.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        You're weird.
                        Well - I never denied THAT!

                        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


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          And 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.
                          It'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...
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            OK, 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.
                            It's not just me, CP. If you think it is, then you have not been following the reactions to the Pence revelation that he employs this rule. It has pretty widely been panned, at least by women, the left, and moderates. Acceptance climbs, of course, as you move further right on the political spectrum. I provided just a couple links. Search on "Reaction to the Pence Rule." You may be surprised. There is support for it - no doubt - and a LOT of resistance.
                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              It'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...
                              Simple solution: don't have an affair - and don't implement an objectifying rule.

                              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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Simple solution: don't have an affair - and don't implement an objectifying rule.

                                Win-Win
                                Not having an affair does not prevent somebody from accusing you of doing so, and it happens a lot. Lose-lose
                                The 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.
                                Working...
                                X