Re: Argument from silence is always risky
Submitted by sally on March 27 2002 17:47:42
In reply to Argument from silence is always risky submitted by Forgiven on March 26 2002 20:01:10
|
Dear Mr. Forgiven... I agree that an argument from silence is risky. So the Bible is silent about Paul being a pedophile and silent about the age of Timothy and silent on the whole "boy" "YF" questions... so why did you bring it up? =0) In two respects a) You're making the assumption that my past and present relationships with my YFs are sexually driven. I didn't mean to make that assumption but did mean to assume that the relationships were fraught with temptation. I assume that, though that nice kid, hopeisalive, says that sex is not much of issue, most pedophiles are sexually tempted by the boys they befriend. That really isn't the case; there's been a shading of that in there, but the fact that clear boundaries were laid down by things that they said early in the relationship means that it has not been the focus of the relationship. The focus of the relationship is not my concern. Why on earth do they have to lay boundaries? Hasn't God laid boundaries? What if they had not lain boundaries? One of the reasons why I have no doubt that the relationships are of God is that when the issue became a problem, prayer led to them saying things that placed clear boundaries. (Don't know if that makes any sense...) with the result that there has not been an issue or temptation since. It doesn't make sense to me, no. I can not understand how you can defend a relationship where the issue became a problem and do so based on Jesus' relationship to John. b) We have NO idea what age John, John Mark or Timothy became part of the life of the respective men. There is little justification to assume that they would have NECESSARILY have been much over 14; I disagree. I think it likely that all of the apostles were older than 17 when Christ died and not open to being despised for their age. But I don't really care how old any of them were. They were not Jesus' or Paul's or anyone's boys or YFs. The term YF puts the boy in a whole different category from a young disciple or young assistant. I don't believe that God has made it so that adults are to draw emotional support from children. Jesus did call his disciples friends and that is one reason I believe they were adults. A child the age of that beautiful kid in Andy's picture cannot be your friend. He is not emotionally able to support your needs and it is cruel for you to put such a burden on him. Maybe a teenager, could be your friend, in a small way, but even a mature teen is not equipped to be a friend to an adult. We just have way more experience that they and they are not able to relate to our struggles or offer us support in them. But even if they are semi-friends, I still find the term YF as offensive as I find the homosexual term "partner". I understand the need to come up with labels to aid in communication but what we do with YF and boy and partner is introduce into society new relationships that the Bible hasn't taught us about. Paul called Timothy his son. Maybe that is what you need to do. Take a young man under your wing and treat him as a son. But know this, fathers do not extract emotional support from sons and it should never ever come to a boy to have to make a decision about whether he wants to have sex with his father or not. One of the deficiences in reformed theology is that they are very bad at celibacy; given Paul's commendation of it, this is a clear mistake. There is an art to celibacy - to fulfill the emotional needs for intimacy by having a lot of appropriate relationships with people who might be otherwise be our sexual partners. It's NOT a sexual relationship in the strict sense - but it fulfills those needs. And as a result when things are going well, I can honestly say that I don't 'burn'... Ummm... you tell me I argue from silence... =0) What scripture do you find that gives us this artful description of the celibate life? I see in 1 Corinthians 7 this: 32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. Have you read much of the literature of monks down through the centuries? Of what use were they to the church cloistered as they were? They didn't have a lot of appropriate relationships with people who would otherwise be their sex partners. There were no coed monasteries. Am I to assume they were all homosexuals having appropriate relationships with men who would otherwise be their sex partners? The Bible says, and the church for centuries has agreed, that the ones who were celibate set their lives aside in service to God. Yes they did works in their communities but the heterosexual monks didn't hang with the teen-aged girls and I doubt that the homosexual monks hung with the boys. They were devoted to the contemplative life and they served the communities but it is not apparent from the Bible or church history, I don't think, that they had lots of relationships with people who would otherwise be their sex partners. So what good were they? They were great good. They did many benevolent works, the protected the scriptures, they prayed. All of these things edify the church. Speaking of these monks triggered a thought... If you were to befriend a young girl who needed a father figure in her life... you would never be in a position to see her naked. What do you do with your young boy friends? Particularly the ones who don't know that you are a pedophile. Do you use the restroom with them? Swim with them and use the same locker rooms? Or if the situation arises do you explain that you cannot shower at the same time they do? I ask because I imagine that your choice of hanging with boys in "appropriate" relationships that fill your need for sex (while not giving you sex in the strict sense-- and what is the unstrict sense I wonder) would often put you in compromising positions or push you into corners where you had to lie. If either of these occurs then are you sure you are in a God-given relationship? Of course you need friendships... I would think with men and women your own age. But I think you are wrong to look for fulfillment from boys. Even if you never touch him, he is, as you say, fulfilling your intimate, emotional needs. This is not how it should be if you are truly called to celibacy. The celibate is called to be taken up completely with God. He is to be devoted to God and precisely we are told that he is able to be devoted to God because has not the emotional, physical, intimate entanglement that the wife requires of a husband. So how can you say that you have this partial entanglement... all but the physical... with not one boy but often with several... and yet you are the celibate the Bible speaks of. Forgiven, please understand that I am not judging your heart. I believe you when you say you are not burning. And I am not saying you can never have friendships with boys you are not physically attracted to/burning for. I am not urging you into a monastery. What I'm saying is probably.... you talk a good game, bubba, but I think you have not much Scriptural support for keeping a YF or two or five. I think some have made pedophilia into a holy calling and I can see no reason for that. You are just sinners like the rest of us. sally sally@paraklesis.com |
Follow ups: