ILLEGITIMATE PASTORS non-accreditation,

Originally posted by tony9802
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

"What would matter is whether major religious communities and religious bodies are prepared to recognise the college and accept the training."THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT AS WELL.. RECOGNITION BY MAJOR COMMUNITIES AND BODIES..

The key difference there is that DISRAELI specified RELIGIOUS communities, and you leave religion out of the equation, leaving the door open for secular control of religious matters. That seems a slippery slope.

Originally posted by tony9802

I've seen pictures of some pastors who looked like prior thugs, probably ex-criminals with tattoes and bizarre hair-cuts on their bodies, and the impression they give is of being even ex-cons maybe even ex-pimps who suddenly become ordained as pastors!! I don't know, I just sort of think accreditation and proper schooling is important to teach.. but you be the judge, maybe these ex-thugs were likewise chosen by the Holy Spirit..
Hallelluaih

Pictures?

PICTURES?

You would base your acceptance of preaching on APPEARANCE rather than content? Well! There's your problem right there!

Just so you'll know, I have known pastors who actually WERE ex-thugs, didn't just look like it. Are you denying God the ability to turn a life around?

If you were going to preach to wolves, would you do it wearing a lamb skin? If you would, would you at least hand out bibs so they didn't get too messy?

And yes, we are ALL wolves, to one degree or another. Some of the "church people" I know are some of the worst offenders. Hell, some of them are even willing to go so far as to dictate what a man and his wife can and can't do in their own home!

Originally posted by tony9802
"His fruit was sweet to my taste" is a metaphor for fallacio.


PERFECT! Now the gay community can stand up and claim that scripture makes positive commentary about sodomy.. that's all I needed to hear. Are you saying Jesus Christ condones fallacio then? I am being serious by the way about pastors and their sexual practices.. I will have to look up the article again, but apparently there are a number of pastors who state that all sexual acts with their wives are acceptable.. so long as it is with their wives..
Therefore they probably excuse their inappropriate sexual behavior with Old Testament writings.. all the while condemning gays for the same sexual acts. The New Testament, clearly states the relationship we are supposed to have with the body.. it just seems as though alot of american churches and american pastors do not know how to teach those statements..

Like I said before, monastic tradition is not something that is taught by these very same pastors!
I think it's great.. because you have all of these over sexualized instructors of scripture not telling us the truth..
as it is written in the NT..

PSSST!

I dunno if this have ever been explained to you, but gay people are called that because they like folks of the same sex - it's also known as "homosexuality", for that very reason. Pastors, as a rule, when they take a wife pick one of the opposite sex... kinda like described in the Song of Solomon.

There's a difference there, but I don't think it would be proper to draw an actual picture. I think it was Paul who had a thing or two to say about how married folks should conduct themselves, and it sure wasn't any form of permanent monasticism.

You seem to be a good bit more bothered over sex than Paul was, and I hear he actually WAS celibate!

Originally posted by tony9802

In the meantime, no one is answering the question about Christ's position on sodomy.. any hands?

I've not read where he had a position on it. Perhaps you could point out what I've missed. I've read what he had to say about fornication, and monogamy, but nary a peep about specific practices between a man and his wife.

Does he have a position on swinging from chandeliers during intercourse as well?

Originally posted by tony9802
My point is that I think the vocation of Pastoring should be governed by the American Educational System.. not by "do it on your own." organizations.

NO! Just... NO!

The government can stay the hell out of religion, just like the First Amendment says. I don't want a government specifying religion for us - didn't some of the early settlers come here to get away from just that very thing?