Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Reverend Charles Morris Maybe A Misunderstood Man

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Reverend Charles Morris – Photo Credit: Nation Newspaper

Reverend Charles Morris considers himself to be the most misunderstood man in Barbados. In has been just over a week the Anglican priest, who has been unassigned a Church for some time, deposited a thesis which has created consternation in a society known for its Christian influence.

Reverend Morris’ thesis states that no where in the Bible does it condemn pre-marital sex. He agrees however the Christian thing to do is to have sex in wedlock. BU has been able to attract over time some of the best dividers of the word in the world, we are certain the BU family is equipped to validate Morris’ thesis or shatter it to smithereens.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

306 responses to “Reverend Charles Morris Maybe A Misunderstood Man”

  1. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    It’s all good Sarge..
    You’re ok by me, if I could make Zoe laugh….all is well 😉

  2. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    @Calvin Phillips ” against premarital sex in order to protect unmarried people from unwanted pregnancies, from children born to parents who do not want them, and to protect children from parents who are not prepared for them.”

    Who says that all pregnancies to unmaried people are unwanted?
    Who says that all pregnancies to married people are wanted?

    Who say that all children born to unmarried parents are unwanted?
    Who says that all children born to mareid parents are wanted?

    Who says that all unmarried parents are unprepared to be parents?
    Who says that all married parents are prepared.

    You are telling me that a that a 13 year year old married Saudi married “woman” is better prepared to be a parent that a 30 year old unmarried Bajan woman?

    You do know that you are writing foolishness dont’ you?

    I hope that you are not a parent, ’cause you ain’t ready yet.

  3. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    @Calvin Phillips ” Imagine, for a moment, a world without premarital sex. There would be no sexually-transmitted diseases”

    This statement is a lie as evidenced by the fact that the next door neighbour from my childhood, died from AIDS in the year of her 50th wedding anniversary. This AIDS was given to her by her husband who died a couple of years later.

    And she in not the only one. I can’t tell you the number of respectable married women who have caught AIDS from their promiscous husbands.

    And such husbands don’t care where they put their dciks, (the dead husband above tried to put his dcik in me too, nothwithstanding he was 25 years my elder and long married (I had the good sense, note good SENSE not good morals, but good sense to tell him no) they put their dciks in old and young, men and women married and single, and then they go home and put them in their dutiful wives who fool themselves that a ring, rather than a condom will protect them from sexually transmitted diseases.

    Neither marriage certificates nor wedding rings can protect anybody against sexually transmited diseases.

    And you Calvin Phillips should stop trying to fool people.

  4. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    @Calvin …I hope you listening real good to Random thoughts! If you gine come here to talk nuff NON sense you will be EDUCATED. Now go to the back of the class and study what RT has told you. I do hope that you will learn something.

  5. Brother Richard Gumbs Avatar
    Brother Richard Gumbs

    Reverend Morris the Anglican priest is not a man of God.

    Chances are, if you’re asking “Is God against premarital sex?” you’re either looking for an excuse to engage in premarital sex or you are hoping for a reason to NOT feel guilty because you already have.
    The good news is: You CARE what God thinks. Even better news is: He cares what you do.
    Is God against premarital sex? In the Bible, premarital sex is lumped in with other “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” The short answer is: God is very much against it.
    If you looked in a dictionary for the definition of the word fornication, you would read, “Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other.” And another way that pre-marital sex is described in the Bible is with the words “adultery” or “lewdness.” And the people who participate in pre-marital sex are referred to as “whoremongers” and “whores.”
    It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality (1 Thessalonians 4:3). 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 warns us, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
    The Apostle Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians that we, as Christians, have invited Jesus Christ to live inside us. So any sexual sin we commit also stains our great Savior who, through the Holy Spirit, wants only to unite us with God. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (1 Corinthians 6:13).
    “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body” (1 Corinthians 6:18-20).
    In addition to breaking our fellowship with God, there are plenty of common-sense reasons to avoid premarital sex. It can result in guilt and shame, AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies which may then tempt us to consider abortion. And Galatians 5:19-21 reads, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness … of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “Again, we see that pre-marital sex is not something that God wants us involved with. God wants us to stay away from such behavior. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel (body) in sanctification and honor, not in lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which do not know God.”
    What about those who say premarital sex is OK because God gave us our appetite for sex and therefore it must be good?
    We should remember that God gave us all sorts of appetites, but our sinful nature makes it possible for us to turn even the best of appetites into gluttony.
    The theologian C.S. Lewis made this point by looking at our society’s obsession with nudity as evidenced by “strip-tease” clubs. “Suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate onto the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let everyone see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon. Should you not think that in that country, something had gone wrong with the appetite for food?” Lewis wrote in the book Mere Christianity.
    Or look at how strange it would be if we pursued food the way some of us pursue promiscuous sex. We would purchase a steak or a succulent lobster, admire it, cut off one juicy bite, chew it up, then spit it out, and toss the rest in the trash. Then we would order something new and different to taste.
    We would be silly to forget that food has something far more valuable to offer than the flavor. It offers nutrition – without which we would die.
    The commitment of marriage is what adds the nutritional value to otherwise frivolous relationships. It offers each partner opportunities for refinement and sanctification as they work through the problems that they would simply flee in an uncommitted pairing.
    We should also remember that when we resist the temptation to engage in premarital sex or other sexual immorality, we are storing up favor with God, as we see in James 1:2-3:
    “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.”
    Brother reverend Morris I pray for you turn away from misleading people and repent for deceiving people into committing and justifying sin. I love you my brother and I hope you come out of darkness and into the light.

    Yours truly
    Brother Richard Gumbs

  6. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    @Brudder No teet Gumbs,

    Will you please stop misleading the people with your hypocrisy? You all so called God men are responsible for many crimes against humanity. Many like you dress in sheep’s clothing just waiting to devour the ignorant and illiterate . You all expect no one to question or challenge your words or actions BECAUSE you claim to be a GOD man. You have perpetuated a farce called religion, where men like you have become the Gods of the congregation. You all thirst for POWER over the flock. Man go and jump off a cliff please.

  7. Brother Richard Gumbs Avatar
    Brother Richard Gumbs

    Islandgal246,
    First of all sister we can agree to disagree but we should maintain respect for each other. Your resentment towards me seems to be from what I wrote previously and it is like an acknowledgement of you guilty conscience. I hope in time if you read the bible for yourself and ask God to help get understanding about the right and wrong choices in life. You are not really mad at me but you are really mad at the statement I made which in some way identifies who you are and maybe the kind of life style you live. God loves you and all you have to ask is for forgiveness. May the lord bless you and keep you. I love you my sister. And I have already forgiven you, you see, I have no choice that is what God expects of me.
    Yours truly Brother Richards Gumbs

  8. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    “You are not really mad at me but you are really mad at the statement I made which in some way identifies who you are and maybe the kind of life style you live.”

    If only you knew how I live brudder Gumbs if only you knew. I do not have to believe in your God to live a moral life, however your profession says more about HYPOCRISY than anything else.

  9. ac Avatar
    ac

    @ Br. Gumble
    If you are a man of the cloth your above comments to IG are not wise as they are judgemental and against the principles and teachings of the Bible. You should cease and decease any further comments of such nature as there are anti christian

  10. Brother Richard Gumbs Avatar
    Brother Richard Gumbs

    Greetings my brothers and sisters,
    The problem with today’s world people does not have the backbone to preach and tell each other the facts as it is. And that is a sign of weakness. We have to fear God and keep his commandment for that is the whole duty of man. The wages of sin is death. Conviction is the courage to tell people the truth. For people to change they must admit guilt and turn away. God expect us to stand up for what is right. We must never compromise on values. Remember what God said above all thing the heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it. The fear of God is to hate evil. He did not say compromise or tolerate evil. He said why do you call me God or Lord and does not my Will. God curses sin, none of us is perfect but we must call bad wrong and not fool ourselves. It is ok to hate me; I still love all of you. But I will continue to tell it as it is and have no fear for who hate you, because of standing for moral values. I fear God; he can kill both soul and body. May the lord bless you and keep you. Seek and you shall find ask and it will be given. The soul that sinneth shall surely die, but the gift of God is everlasting life.
    Until another day
    Yours truly Brother Richard Gumbs.

  11. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    Brudder Gumbs ….get some teeth ans SHUT your Mouth!

  12. ac Avatar
    ac

    Br. Gumble
    Judgement starts first in the HOUSE OF GOD. You should start with yourself. Judge NOT! Yourword says!

  13. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @ac & Islandgirl
    What you sharpening them collins with girls? My Lord! Both sides too. LOL! Gumbs got to get some manure to grow back them teet. LOL!

  14. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    We need to call in the BU Theologists to deal with Brother Richard Gumbs.
    GP, Zoe please come in.

  15. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    GP & Zoe? Gumbs with teeth? LOL!

  16. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    MARRIAGE AND SEX

    Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

    During much of Christian history, sex in marriage has been condoned as a necessary evil for producing children. Before the sexual revolution of our times, calling a lady “sexy” would have been insulting. Nowadays many ladies would accept that adjective as a prized compliment. “The Victorian person,” writes Rollo May, “sought to have love without falling into sex; the modern person seeks to have sex without falling into love.”1

    The attitude of society toward sex has truly swung from one extreme to another. From the Puritan view of sex as a necessary evil for procreation, we have come to the popular Playboy view of sex as a necessary thing for recreation.

    From the age of warning “Beware of sex,” we have come to the age of shouting “Hurrah for sex.” Homo sapiens has become homo sexualis, packed with sexual drives and techniques.

    Both extremes are wrong and fail to fulfill God’s intended function of sex. The past negative view of sex made married people feel guilty about their sexual relations; the present permissive view of sex turns people into robots, capable of engaging in much sex but with little meaning or even fun in it.

    In spite of the increasing number of books on the techniques of love-making, more and more people are telling marriage counselors: “We make much love, but it isn’t much good. We find little meaning or even fun in it!”

    Objective of the Chapter.

    This chapter examines the Biblical view of sex. We shall consider various aspects of sex within and without marriage in the light of the Biblical teaching. The chapter is divided into three parts. The first part surveys the past attitudes toward sex, from ancient Israel to modern times. The second part examines the Biblical view of the nature and function of sex. Attention will also be given to the morality or immorality of contraception. The third part addresses the question of whether or not there will be marital relationships in the world to come. The overall objective of the chapter is to counteract the secular and hedonistic view of sex by helping Christians understand and experience sex as God intended it to be.

  17. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    PART I:

    PAST ATTITUDES TOWARD SEX

    Ancient Israel.

    The Hebrew people understood and interpreted human sexuality as a positive gift from God. They were not affected by the later Greek dualism between spirit and matter which considered sexual intercourse and evil “fleshy” activity to be shunned if possible. Such thinking was foreign to the Hebrews who saw sex within marriage as beautiful and enjoyable. A wedding was a time of great celebration, partly because it marked the beginning of the sexual life of the couple.

    The bridal pair retired to a nuptial tent or chamber at the end of the wedding festivities to make love together while lying on a clean, white sheet. Blood on the sheet indicated that the bride had been a virgin and provided evidence of the consummation of marriage (Deut 22:13-19). A newly betrothed man was even excused from participating in war in order to be able to enjoy his bride (Deut 20:7)!

    This indicates that the ancient Hebrews had a healthy attitude toward sex. They saw it as a divine gift which gave pleasure to the persons involved while providing the means for the propagation of the race. The classic example of the exaltation of human sexuality is found in the Song of Songs.

    This book has often been a source of embarrassment to Jews and Christians alike. Some interpreters, like Sebastian Castellio, have viewed the Song of Songs as an obscene description of human love which does not belong in the Biblical canon. Others, like Calvin, have defended the inclusion of the book in the canon by interpreting it as an allegory symbolizing the love of God for His people. The book, however, is not an allegory. It is a romantic celebration of human sexuality. According to some traditions, portions of the book were sung during wedding processionals and wedding feasts.

    When the Hebrews came to the land of Canaan, they were exposed to the evil and excesses of the fertility cults associated with the worship of Baal, which included sacred prostitution. To correct these evils, several regulations were given. There were strict prohibitions, for example, against revealing in public one’s “private parts” (Gen 9:21; 2 Sam 6:20), incest (Lev 18:6-18; 20:11-12,14, 20; Deut 27:20,22), bestiality (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16), homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13), and various kinds of sexual “irregularities” (Ex 22:16; Lev 19:20,29; 15:24; 18:19; 20:18; Deut 25:11). Overall, however, the Jews had a healthy view of sex, although they saw it primarily in terms of its reproductive function.

    New Testament Times.

    In New Testament times, we find the beginning of two extreme attitudes toward sex: licentiousness and celibacy. Some interpreted the freedom of the Gospel as freedom to engage freely in sexual relations outside marriage. Jude speaks of “ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness” (Jude 4). Peter warns against the enticement of false teachers who had “eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin” (2 Pet 2:14). The problem of sexual permissiveness and perversion had become so noticeable in the Corinthian church that Paul openly rebuked those who engaged in incestuous and adulterous sexual relations (1 Cor 5:1, 6:16-18).

    Other Christians were influenced by Greek philosophical ideas which viewed anything related to the physical aspect of life as evil. Since the sexual act involves “fleshly” contact and pleasure, it was viewed as inherently evil. This thinking prevailed in the Greco-Roman world, and exercised considerable influence among some Christians. In Corinth, for example, there were some Christians who maintained that unmarried people should remain single and those who were married should refrain from sexual activity (1 Cor 7:1-5, 8-11, 25-28).

    Paul responded to these “ascetic” believers by affirming that it was right and proper for married persons to engage in sexual activities: “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. . . . Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season . . . lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control” (1 Cor 7:3,5). Paul counsels unmarried and the widows to remain single (1 Cor 7:8, 25-26). His reason, however, is based not on theological but on practical considerations, namely, on the need to avoid the added burdens of a family during the end-time persecution which Paul believed would soon break out (1 Cor 7:26-31). Paul’s counsel does not reflect a negative view of sexuality because his advice was predicated solely on practical considerations. This is indicated by his counsel, “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. . . . if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin” (1 Cor 7:9, 28).

    Christian Church.

    The negative view of sexuality, already present in embryonic form during apostolic times among some Christians, developed fully during the early church, shaping the sexual attitudes of Christians up to modern times. This view can be traced back to Greek philosophy, especially to Platonic thought, which saw man as having two parts: the soul, which is good, and the body, which is bad. Such dualistic thinking influenced Christianity through a movement known as Gnosticism. This heretical movement taught that all matter, including the human body, was evil. Only the spark of the divine in man (soul) is good and through special knowledge (gnosis) such a spark could be released from the human body and returned to the divine realm. Thus, salvation was perceived as the liberation of the soul from the prison-house of the body.

    This dualistic teaching greatly influenced Christian thought through the centuries to the point that many Christians gradually abandoned the Biblical view of the resurrection of the body, replacing it with the Greek concept of the immortality of the soul. The fundamental error of this view, which an increasing number of scholars are rejecting as unBiblical, is its assumption that matter is evil and must be destroyed. Such a view is clearly discredited by those Biblical texts which teach that matter, including the human body, is the product of God’s good creation (Gen 1:4, 10 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). The Psalmist declares: “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works” (Psalm 139:13-14).

    The adoption of the unBiblical Greek notion of the human body as intrinsically evil has led many Christians through the centuries into a warped attitude toward sex. Its effect still lingers, as many today are still uneasy about their marital sexual relations, viewing them as something tainted with sin.

    Augustine’s Role.

    The church father who has molded the negative Christian attitudes toward sex more than any other person is Augustine (354-430).2 He regarded the sexual drives and excitement which cannot always be rationally controlled as the result of sin. He speculated that if sin had not come in, marital intercourse would be without the excitement of sexual desire. The male semen could be introduced into the womb of the wife without the heat of passion, in a natural way similar to the natural menstrual flow of blood emitted from the womb.

    As a result of sin, the sexual act is now accompanied by powerful drives which Augustine called concupiscence, or lust. The satisfaction of lust through intercourse, was for him, a necessary evil to bring children into this world.

    In effect, Augustine equated original sin with the sexual act and its lustful desires since the act is the channel through which he thought the guilt of Adam’s first transgression is transmitted from parent to child. By making the sexual act the means whereby original sin is transmitted, Augustine made sex for pleasure a sinful activity. This view necessitated the administration of baptism immediately after birth to remove the stain of the original sin from the soul of the new born baby.

    The major fallacy of this view is its reduction of original sin to a biological factor which can be transmitted like an infectious disease through sexual intercourse. In Scripture, however, sin is volational and not biological. It is a willful transgression of a divine moral principle (1 John 3:4), and not a biological infection transmitted through sexual contact.

    What can be transmitted is not the guilt of sin, as Augustine believed, but its punishment. Guilt is the personal transgression of a divine principle, which cannot be imputed upon a third party. The punishment of our wrong doings, however, can be passed on in terms of sickness and/or evil hereditary tendencies. Scripture tells us that God visits “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation” (Ex 34:7). In the case of Adam’s sin, what has been passed on to mankind are the consequences of its punishment, which include evil inclinations and death. These consequences cannot be mechanically removed through infant baptism.

    Original Sin.

    The notion of original sin is derived primarily from Romans 5:12 where Paul says that “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” In this statement the apostle simply affirms the fact that mankind shares in Adam’s sin and death. He makes no attempt to explain how this happens. He makes no allusion to sexual procreation as the channel through which mankind has become partakers of Adam’s sin and death. The context clearly indicates that Paul’s concern is to affirm the fundamental truth that Adam’s disobedience has made us sinners and Christ’s obedience has made us righteous: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).

    The concept to which Paul alludes to establish the connection between the sin of Adam and that of mankind is not that of biological transmission of sin through sexual procreation, but that of corporate solidarity. As Achan’s sin became the sin of his household because its members shared in a corporate solidarity with him (Josh 7:24), so Adam’s sin has become the sin of mankind because its members share in a corporate solidarity with him. This Pauline argument provides no support to the Augustinian attempt to equate original sin with sexual excitement and intercourse.

    Augustine’s association of original sin with sex has been widely accepted throughout Christian history, conditioning the sexual attitudes not only of Roman Catholics but also of Christians in general. As Derrick Baily notes, “Augustine must bear no small measure of responsibility for the insinuation into our culture of the idea, still widely current, that Christianity regards sexuality as something peculiarly tainted with evil.”3

    Partly as a reaction to this negative view of sex as a necessary evil for the propagation of the human race, a completely different and pleasure oriented (hedonistic) view of sex has emerged. The sexual revolution of our time has glamorized sexual profligacy and prowess, ridiculing sexual chastity as a prudish superstition. The catastrophic consequences of the sexual revolution can be seen in the ever-increasing number of divorces, abortions, incidents of incest, sexual abuse of children, and the loss of the true meaning and function of sex. In the light of this painful reality, it is imperative for Christians to understand and experience the Biblical meaning and function of sex.

  18. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    For all wunna God men

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSJ1mVpk-FI&w=425&h=349%5D

  19. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Islandgal, this is a better one:
    http://youtu.be/Q7YRrhbNQ8g

  20. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    @ IG246 & ROK

    [2] great videos parodied through none other than our sarcastically-minded Trini brothas & sistas…

    The sad reality is that this is part of the human condition… It can be said for believers as well as unbelievers; those who profess a faith as well as those who have even more faith to profess nothing…

    So nothing NEW* there guys!!!

    The examples we ought to choose to look for are those who are faithful to their convictions, beliefs and to the moral compass which navigates their lives…

    You see the issue of HYPOCRISY* is really a mask worn by believers as well as all others… No one is really exempt from the vicissitudes, predilections or permutations of the human nature – the only difference comes in those who choose to honor CHRIST* through inner faithfulness, irrespective of social convention…

    Any thing less is mere form, ritual and ceremony!!!

  21. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    PART II:

    THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF SEX

    Image of God.

    The book of Genesis is the logical starting point for our quest into the Biblical view of sex. The first statement relating to human sexuality is found in Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” It is noteworthy that while after every previous act of creation, Scripture says that God saw that “it was good” (Gen 1:12,18,21,25), after the creation of mankind as male and female, it says that God saw that “it was very good” (Gen 1:31). This initial divine appraisal of human sexuality as “very good” shows that Scripture sees the male/female sexual distinction as part of the goodness and perfection of God’s original creation.

    It is important to note also that human sexual duality as male and female is related explicitly to God’s own image. Theologians have long debated the possible nature of this relation. Since Scripture distinguishes human beings from other creatures, theologians have usually thought that the image of God in humanity refers to the rational, moral and spiritual faculties God has given to men and women. This is a valid interpretation since these faculties distinguish human maleness and femaleness from that of lower creatures.

    There is, however, another possible way in which human maleness and femaleness reflects the image of God, namely in the capacity of a man and a woman to experience a oneness of fellowship similar to the one existing in the Trinity. The God of Biblical revelation is not a solitary single Being who lives in eternal aloofness but is a fellowship of Three Beings so intimately and mysteriously united that we worship them as one God.

    This mysterious oneness-in-relationship of the Trinity is reflected as a divine image in man, not as a single individual but as a sexual duality of maleness and femaleness, mysteriously united in marriage as “one flesh.” The love uniting husband and wife points to the love that eternally unites the Three Beings of the Trinity. In this sense, it constitutes a reflection of the image of God in humanity.

  22. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    A “Unisex” God?

    Some theologians interpret the image of God, not in terms of a similarity of oneness-in-fellowship, but in terms of a correspondence in sexual distinctions within each person of the Godhead. Paul Jewett articulates this view saying:

    “If we are to think of God as sexual, we have to think of the divine as both feminine and masculine if this symbolization of God is to convey a personal wholeness. God becomes he/she. Otherwise the attribution of personality to God would be skewed or out of balance. A purely masculine God would be as intolerable as a purely masculine human, and the same could be said for the purely feminine.”4

    The attempt to make God into a unisex Being consisting of both feminine and masculine characteristics, if not properly qualified, can lead to a disastrous misrepresentation of the God of Biblical revelation. While it is true that God possesses not only masculine but also feminine qualities, since He compares His love, for example, to that of a woman’s for her sucking child (Is 49:15), the fact remains that the possession of feminine qualities does not make God into a “he/she” androgynous Being.

    We recognize varying degrees of masculinity and femininity in every person , yet we do not regard a man who possesses unusual feminine gentleness as a he/she person.

    The fact that the Bible sometimes presents God as our Father (Jer 31:9; Matt 23:9), while at other times compares God to a crying or compassionate mother (Is 42:14; 49:15), does not mean that God is an androgynous he/she Being. It is important to see the distinction between those statements which describe the person of God (God is our Father) and those which describe the qualities of God (God is like a crying or compassionate mother). The former identifies the person of God, the latter compares the compassion of God to that of a mother.

    Today, both liberal and evangelical feminists are clamoring for a re-symbolization of the Godhead based on impersonal or unisex categories. This is seen as the first indispensable step to clearing the way for the elimination of sexual and functional role distinctions in the home and in the church. To achieve this, they advocate dropping the masculine names of God, adopting, instead, non-personal names such as “parent, Benefactor, Almighty” or androgynous names such as “Father-Mother” for God and “Son-Daughter” for Christ.

    The ultimate result of such efforts is not merely switching labels on the same product, but rather introducing new labels for an entirely different product. Biblical faith knows nothing of an androgynous Godhead, partly masculine and partly feminine.

    Any attempt to introduce a female counterpart in the person of God means to reject the God of Biblical revelation, accepting, instead, the one fabricated by feminist speculations.

    In light of the foregoing considerations, we reject as unBiblical the attempts to interpret the image of God in human maleness and femaleness as indicative of sexual distinctions within the persons of the Godhead. God transcends human sexual distinctions, yet He has chosen to reveal Himself predominantly through male terms and imageries because the male role within the family and church best represents the role that He sustains toward the human family. The image of God in humanity must rather be seen, as discussed earlier, in the rational, moral and spiritual faculties God has given to men and women, as well as in the capacity of a man and a woman to experience a oneness of fellowship similar to the one existing within the Trinity.

  23. ac Avatar
    ac

    That video was so funny! I like the part when the cell phone rings

  24. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @ TM Blackette,

    The problem is that your believers seem to think that they are none of those things and the talk down and preach down to others as if they are sinless, while we on this secular side know that men of the cloth are only human, so you need to take your comments to them. Telling me that it applies to believers and non believers is not an excuse and may even be part of your own hypocrisy to try to brush it over. Hypocrisy cannot be a mask, but a means of believers trying to make themselves look like more than they are. It is about image for the believer and not about truth. That is where the hypocrisy comes in.

  25. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @ac

    LOL! Obviously, the preacher man is a technological dinosaur, otherwise he phone would have been on vibrate right through getting the little piece; or at least as soon as the man got back home. Suppose somebody else had called him and his phone rang while he was hiding in the closet? He rass would be g-rass the same way.

  26. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Mr Blackett, you rambling.

  27. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @TM Blackett,
    “…yet He has chosen to reveal Himself predominantly through male terms and imageries because the male role within the family and church best represents the role that He sustains toward the human family.”

    Which came first, God or the family? You must know God better that he knows himself. How could you thousands of years later know what was in God’s head or why he choose to do what he did? All you can do is accept what is written but you obviously clutching at straws and saying it as though you have the facts when you have none. Your hypocritical slip is showing.

  28. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    Rok what irks me about these so called Christians is that they feel by talking down to those who have a different belief that as Christians they are superior. Yet they preach that their Bible teaches tolerance and kindness. They preach hellfire and damnation to those who do not follow the scriptures and forgiveness to those who have transgressed. Many keep jumping in and out asking for forgiveness after doing immeasurable harm to others. Rape, murder and stealing is ok as long as you ask for forgiveness. I am of the opinion that Jesus Christ is a criminal since he is always discovered in prison. Instead of preaching verses that make no sense why don’t these believers live a life of service to their fellow man? Talk is cheap haven’t they not heard that before?

  29. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    “If we are to think of God as sexual, we have to think of the divine as both feminine and masculine if this symbolization of God is to convey a personal wholeness.”

    We have this way of deceiving ourselves. Never in any passage of the Bible is God referred to as female. It is always, “He”. God says he is a man but you now to say he is both man and woman.

    I came to the conclusion long ago that the Creator has to be equally man and woman… but is God is a man and portrays himself as a man, then he could never be the Creator. Now, after all these thousands of years, you and your intellectuals, realising this mistake now seeks to correct it, but it cannot be corrected. God claims to be man and that is why the society is male oriented and for no other reason.

    The dichotomy is that women accept God as a man, but many of them still believe that men are dogs. They turned around the word. This has always puzzled me.

    BTW, is this a basis for a re-write of the Bible?

  30. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @ac
    “I am of the opinion that Jesus Christ is a criminal since he is always discovered in prison.”

    Good one, but the Christians will come after you for that. Remember that he was said to be always among the ungodly to make them godly… so be careful, you may be giving license to this one. However, you think that criminals are idiots? How else to get out before your time on good behaviour or be accepted back into society without the distrust? Just become a preacher and all your woes are gone and the money coming in. No need to snatch a handbags for money when you can make them empty their handbags in church without touching them or their handbags. You don’t pay taxes on it either.

  31. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    Rok ……man has to show his superiority over woman and that is why the Bible was written to show precisely that. If God was a woman how many men would you see as leaders in the church? Many have this belief and cannot get away form it, they also see God as a white man as well. This has enslaved the back race mentally and will continue to do that. Religion has to get a complete overhaul for it to be relevant.

  32. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    “Just become a preacher and all your woes are gone and the money coming in. No need to snatch a handbags for money when you can make them empty their handbags in church without touching them or their handbags. You don’t pay taxes on it either.” LOLLL

    And there will always be suckers waiting to empty their purses to these frauds.

  33. ac Avatar
    ac

    Rok I have come to the conclusion that the creator is neither male or female but is a creation of man. Ever since man has acquired knowledge man has only used it to suppress each other . There own bible distinctly as law says man should not make any graven image or images that have a likeness to things in heaven or earth.So for people to put a face or sexuality to God is the same as idoltry. I once asked the same question. “Why would God be called by such a name that represents idol worship? no one seems to have an answer!in response they gave me a list of a thousand names representing GOD.

  34. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @ac,

    “So for people to put a face or sexuality to God is the same as idolatry.”

    You hit the nail on the head. I always argued that a Creator will not insist that people serve “him” and always beating chest saying I am lord god… has to be something other than the Creator trying to make us believe otherwise. A boss does not have to convince workers that he is the boss… he/she can just fire them if they don’t do what he/she says. More complex nowadays but still the same.

  35. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    BTW ac, the Creator may be both male and female and yet neither one. That rules out God as the Creator. God is a mere Massa.

  36. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Wait ROK you come back …? Wah happen man, you went fah a enlargement operation too like Bonny? Wah part ah you get bigger now ?

  37. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @BAFBFP

    Man, I never went nowhere… and I may return but never come back. Forward ever.

    Truthfully, I just got so busy it was impossible. I am a little less busy now but still busy, so I finding some time.

  38. David Avatar
    David

    Guy Mayers an Advocate columnist had an interesting view on the matter of pre marital sex:

    http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=columnists&NewsID=17695

  39. Show respect for men of God Avatar
    Show respect for men of God

    MOCKERS –
    THE JUDGMENT OF GOD DOES FALL
    DEUTERONOMY 30:7
    And the Lord your God will put all these curses upon your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecute you
    PSALM 109
    1) O God of my praise! Keep not silence, 2) For the mouths of the wicked and the mouth of deceit are opened against me; they have spoken to me and against me with lying TONGUES. 3) They have compassed me about also with words of hatred and have fought against me without a cause. 4) In return for my love they are my adversaries, but I resort to prayer. 5) And they have rewarded and laid upon me evil for good, and hatred for my love. 6) Set a wicked man over his [as a judge], and let [a malicious] accuser stand at his right hand. 7) When [the wicked] is judged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer [for leniency] be turned into a sin. 8) Let his days be few; and let another take his office and charge. 9) Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. 10) Let his children be continual vagabonds [as was Cain] and beg; let them seek their bread and be driven far from their ruined homes. 11) Let the creditor and extortioner seize all that he has; and let strangers [barbarians and foreigners] plunder the fruits of his labor. 12) Let there be none to extend or continue mercy and kindness to him, neither let there be any to have pity on his fatherless children. 13) Let his posterity be cut off, and in the generation following let their names be blotted out. 14) Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. 15) Let them be before the Lord continually, that He may cut off the memory of them from the earth!– 16) Because the man did not [earnestly] remember to show mercy, but pursued and persecuted the poor and needy man, and the broken in heart [he was ready] to slay. 17) Yes, he loved cursing, and it came [back] upon him; he delighted not in blessing, and it was far from him. 18) He clothed himself also with cursing as with his garment, and it seeped into his inward [life] like water, and like oil into his bones. 19) Let it be to him as the raiment with which he covers himself and as the girdle with which he is girded continually. 20) Let this be the reward of my adversaries from the Lord, and of those who speak evil against my life.

    ISAIAH 54:17
    But no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall show to be in the wrong. This [peace, righteousness, security, triumph over opposition] is the heritage of the servants of the Lord [those in whom the ideal Servant of the Lord is reproduced]; this is the righteousness or the vindication which they obtain from Me [this is that which I impart to them as their justification], says the Lord.

    THERE IS NO HATE, MALICE, RACISM, ETC. ON THIS SITE. THESE ARE SINS IN THE EYES OF GOD, AND ARE ALSO DEMONS. THE BIBLE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SIN CANNOT GET INTO HEAVEN.

  40. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Good article by Guy Mayers.

  41. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    I notice that when you challenge Christians, they get hysterical. Have to be careful because when you shake the foundation of anyone’s faith they sometimes react violently, but most definitely hysterically. This is not good for their mental health and an indication that they are on the precipice of irrational thought and action.

  42. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @Show respect for men of God

    I think you have it the wrong way around. Men of God need to have some respect for others. What they need to understand is that they are men of belief and not proof. There is nothing to prove here because it is belief and belief is not truth. It may be your truth but that is you. Have some respect for those who are not believing the same thing you do. Hold on to your faith and stop shouting. You are acting irrationally. You prize heaven, those who believe otherwise do not prize it so when you spouting your faith thinking that you have something on somebody, you don’t. They can also spout their faith at you too and where will that lead?

    A SHOUTING MATCH?

  43. Show To whom a may concern. Avatar
    Show To whom a may concern.

    HOW TO ACT AND TALK TO A FOOL
    Job’s wife was foolish when she told him curse God and die because of his intense suffering. He answered her wisely:
    “ His wife said to him, ‘Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!’ He replied, ‘You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?’ In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.” Job 2:10 Thank goodness, she had her husband to set her straight.
    Expect trouble if you confront a fool (Proverbs 9:7-8, 15:12, 17:12).
    Don’t give a fool honor and its rewards. They are “not fitting for a fool” Proverbs 19:10, 26:1 (26:8).
    We should avoid taking a fool to court:
    “If a wise man goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.” Proverbs 29:9
    Don’t ask a fool to deliver a message (Proverbs 26:6) and do not hire a fool (Proverbs 26:10).
    Jesus said not to give what is sacred to pigs (Matthew 7:6). Ask God what you should say to a fool:
    “Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning and even among fools she lets herself be known.” Proverbs 14:33
    “Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the assembly at the gate he has nothing to say.” Proverbs 24:7
    “For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the LORD; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water.” Isaiah 32:5-7
    We are to love the foolish. Paul will suffer for others and make sure they understand Jesus’ free gift of grace to them because “I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish.” Romans 1:14

    WHO IS A FOOL?
    Basically a fool is someone who doesn’t know God (Psalm 43:1 53:1). They do not respect God; they mock God (Psalm 74:18, 22 Proverbs 1:7).
    Fools “despise wisdom and discipline” and “hate knowledge”. (Proverbs 1:7, 22).
    Fools “…do not know that they do wrong” Ecclesiastes 5:1.
    Jeremiah complained that his people were fools because they didn’t know God and worshiped idols (Jeremiah 4:22, 5:4, 21, 10:8).
    Fools do not obey Jesus (Matthew 7:26, 25:1-13 Luke 6:46).
    Jesus calls the hypocritical religious leaders fools (Luke 11:46).
    Fools are those who do not consider eternity but think only about the things of this world (Luke 12:20).
    Fools consider themselves wise but became fools because they did not consider God (Romans 1:22).
    Fools do not believe and so perish (1 Corinthians 1:18, 20, 3:18-19).
    Fools consider wisdom foolishness:
    “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14
    Fools are those who follow “the god of this age” 2 Corinthians 4:4.
    When we did not believe in Jesus we were fools (Titus 3:3).
    A fool is someone who acts (or condone others who act) any way he pleases and thinks just because he has “faith” he is OK:
    “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless “ James 2:20

    WHAT CAUSES A PERSON TO BECOME A FOOL?
    In a sense everyone is a fool at birth:
    “Surely I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5 People are fools because of their sin.
    Because of God’s love for His creation everyone is given a chance to become wise:
    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
    Jesus came “into the world” to save the world, but those who do not believe in Him are condemned:
    “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” John 3:17-18
    People do not believe in Jesus because “their deeds were evil” and they “fear that their deeds will be exposed”:
    “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” John 3:19-20 People who do not choose to believe in Jesus remain fools.
    Everyone can see that there is a God, but because of sin they become fools (Romans 1:22).
    Fools become fools because of “their rebellious ways” Psalm 107:17
    Choosing to sin makes a person a fool because (1 he is a fool to sin and (2 sin separates us from God and blinds our eyes to what is right and what is wise:
    “The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.” Proverbs 14:6
    Extortion and bribes turn men into fools (Job 36:18 Ecclesiastes 7:7).

  44. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    And there you go. You are the wisest my dear sir. I am the first to admit.

  45. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    “Psalm 51:5 People are fools because of their sin.”

    What is your sin? Have you been able to calculate that yet?

  46. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    “The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.” Proverbs 14:6

    You sought to make a mockery of me, sir. I guess you are not the discerning type, right? So where does that leave you?

  47. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    @ ROK

    “Telling me that it applies to believers and non believers is not an excuse and may even be part of your own hypocrisy to try to brush it over…”

    What is it about a “STATEMENT OF FACT” that seem to cause you cognitive dissonance?

    What is applicable to BELIEVERS* (in the context in which I spoke) – is it not equally applicable to UNBELIEVERS*?

    Having hoped to tar & feather me with a broad, sweeping brush of generalized prejudgment in your mind – you assume that I am trying to “BRUSH” aside something for which I chose NOT* to place any undue emphasis on…

    But as was said before – “NOTHING NEW THERE!!!”

    As a person of no visible FAITH* – it is commendable how you philosophically engage and take on issues pertaining to God and how your exegesis on the foundational aspects of Biblical interpretation has a classical dialectic to it…

    To the average reader, one would believe that you ONCE* held a profound faith but have somehow RECANTED* and wandered off into the land of NOD*…

  48. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    @ ROK
    “Which came first, God or the family?
    A: That’s pregiven!!!
    You must know God better that he knows himself.
    A: He revealed HIMSELF* through the person of JESUS CHRIST!!!
    How could you thousands of years later know what was in God’s head or why he choose to do what he did?
    A: We are reminded that “HE DOES NOTHING UNLESS HE REVEALS IT TO HIS SERVANTS THE PROPHETS!!!
    All you can do is accept what is written but you obviously clutching at straws and saying it as though you have the facts when you have none…
    A: Do you know what has been written? What are the FACTS* that are written there? And what are the “STRAWS” you are alluding to?
    Your hypocritical slip is showing…”
    A: This is not a personality contest!!!

    If you are you having problems understanding Biblical contexualization – I can suggest that if in doubt, it is always better to RE-READ the text!!!

    The mind of God is NOT* up for speculative analysis – HIS* will and purpose for MANKIND* was clearly revealed, leaving none of us in any doubt…

  49. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    Becoming “One Flesh”.

    The oneness of intimate fellowship between a man and a woman is expressed in Genesis 2:24 by the phrase “one flesh:” “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The phrase “one flesh,” as already shown in chapter 1, refers to the total union of body, soul, and spirit between marital partners.

    This total union can be experienced especially through sexual intercourse when the act is the expression of genuine love, respect, and commitment. The physical or sexual meaning of the phrase “one flesh” is clearly found in 1 Corinthians 6:16 where Paul applies it to the sexual intercourse between a man and a harlot.

    The phrase becoming one flesh sheds considerable light on God’s estimate of sex within a marital relationship. It tells us that God sees sex as a means through which a husband and a wife can achieve a new unity.

    It is noteworthy that the “one flesh” imagery is never used to describe a child’s relationship to his father and mother. A man must “leave” his father and mother to become “one flesh” with his wife. His relationship to his wife transcends the one to his parents because it consists of a new oneness consummated by the sexual union.

    Becoming one flesh also implies that the purpose of the sexual act is not only procreational, that is, to produce children, but also psychological, that is, the emotional need to consummate a new oneness-relationship.

    Oneness implies the willingness to reveal one’s most intimate physical, emotional and intellectual self to the other. As they come to know each other in the most intimate way, the couple experiences the meaning of becoming one flesh.

    Sexual intercourse does not automatically ensure this oneness intimacy. Rather it consummates the intimacy of perfect sharing which has already developed.

    Sex as “Knowing”.

    Sexual relations within marriage enable a couple to come to know each other in a way which cannot be experienced in any other way. To participate in sexual intercourse means not only to uncover one’s body but also one’s inner being to another.

    This is why Scripture often describes sexual intercourse as “knowing,” the same verb used in Hebrews to refer to knowing God. Genesis 4:1 says: “And Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived.”5

    Obviously Adam had come to know Eve before their sexual intercourse, but through the latter he came to know her more intimately than ever before.

    Dwight H. Small aptly remarks: “Self-disclosure through sexual intercourse invites self-disclosure at all levels of personal existence. This is an exclusive revelation unique to the couple. They know each other as they know no other person.

    This unique knowledge is tantamount to laying claim to another in genuine belonging . . . the nakedness and physical coupling is symbolic of the fact that nothing is hidden or withheld between them.”6

    The process which leads to sexual intercourse is one of growing knowledge. From the initial casual acquaintance to dating, courtship, marriage, and sexual intercourse, the couple grows in the knowledge of each other and this makes greater intimacy possible.

    Sexual intercourse represents the culmination of this growth in reciprocal knowledge and intimacy. As Elizabeth Achtemeier puts it: “We feel as if the most hidden inner depths of our beings are brought to the surface and revealed and offered to each other as the most intimate expression of our love.”7

    Sex as Pleasure.

    A revolution has taken place in Christian thinking about sex within the last hundred years.

    Until the beginning of our century, Christians generally believed that the primary function of sex was procreative, that is, to produce children.

    Other considerations, such as the unitive, relational and pleasurable aspects of sex were seen as secondary and usually tainted with sin. In the twentieth century the order has been reversed.

    Christians place the relational and pleasurable aspects of sex first and the conception of children last.

    From a Biblical perspective, sexual activity is both unitive and procreative, or we might say, recreative and reproductive. God’s command, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28), is a command to be sexual.

    When we obey it, we fulfill God’s purpose by becoming one flesh and producing children. So sex in marriage is both unitive and procreative. “During the Middle Ages,” writes David Phypers, “Christians stressed the procreative aspect of sex while neglecting and sometimes despising its unitive purpose. Today, we stress its unitive role, and may ignore the command to be fruitful and increase in number.”8

    As Christians we need to recover and maintain the Biblical balance between the relational and procreational functions of sex.

    Sexual intercourse is a relational act of perfect sharing that engenders a sense of oneness while offering the possibility of bringing a new life into this world. We need to recognize that sex is a divine gift that can be legitimately enjoyed within marriage.

    Like all other divine gifts, sex is to be partaken of with thankfulness and moderation.

  50. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    “What is it about a “STATEMENT OF FACT” that seem to cause you cognitive dissonance?”

    It’s not the statement, the cognitive dissonance is with regard to the hypocrisy.

    “one would believe that you ONCE* held a profound faith but have somehow RECANTED*

    Recanted? No, your God is real, just that you have him out of context. You see, just like dealing with the massa, whenever you are finished dealing with your God, you still have to deal with your own soul and existence as we call it. That is because your God is a Massa and not The Creator. He has no spiritual control over anybody and the whole concept of heaven & hell is no more than a dangling carrot in front a race horse.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading