Andy Borgmann's Blog

You know, this is the one verse that I
actually try to live my life by...I have it memorized and I repeat it to myself a lot when I'm in a relationship because it hits home every time. *random tangent commences*

As a woman, this type of love will get you into trouble. It means that you end up in a relationship where the power dynamic is out of balance, and it's not healthy.

Maybe there's a difference between love and a relationship. Loving someone is doing everything that verse says, but being in a relationship means that you do have to protect yourself sometimes and think about your own needs and if they're being met.

That said, I still hold out hope that someday, I can love someone like that (because I really don't know any other way) and have it work out in return.

Andy, you're only 24. You have a LOT of time...WE have a lot of time to find a person that can be our home.

You're single because you're, driven, focused, and yes...smart. Remarkably smart, in fact. You have alot of puzzle pieces that someone needs to fit in your personality because you're an independent thinker and sometimes you're complicated, too. But that's why I love you, so no worries, it's a good thing. :) People like you are exceptional, and it takes awhile to find a match for an exceptional person sometimes.

You'll find the one, I have no doubt. You're just still on the road to finding her, that's all. :)

You have a commitment phobia. I'm reading a book entitled "Should I Get Married" and I'm on the fear of commitment section. It's a good book, you can have it when I'm done if you'd like.

Dude you totally got me!

As soon as I read the title of that article I was thinking "Hmmm, so we think we're part of that group do we Mr. Borgmann..." and then half a second later you call me out in your blog! This blog makes me miss you and talking about random crap just for the fun of it, I'm glad you're coming to CA soon :)

Quoted From: Lissa [Visitor]
You have alot of puzzle pieces that someone needs to fit in

So do you think that will work as a pick up line. "Hey baby, do you want to see if my puzzle piece fits in yours?" *SMACK* "No I swear, my friend Lissa told me that's all I need: someone for my puzzle piece to fit in." *SMACK SMACK* ;) But in all seriousness, I get what you are saying.

Quoted From: Lissa [Visitor]
Loving someone is doing everything that verse says, but being in a relationship means that you do have to protect yourself sometimes and think about your own needs and if they're being met.

I think the only problem with this idea is that for this verse to be true, it takes both partners believing and trying their best to apply it to their life. The problem is that when one member lives like this, and the other doesn't, the person who does live by this will most definitely get taken advantage of and mistreated.

So I wouldn't become a cynic too quick, you just need to find somebody that isn't going to treat like *cough* you know who!

Quoted From: sarah [Visitor]
As soon as I read the title of that article I was thinking "Hmmm, so we think we're part of that group do we Mr. Borgmann..." and then half a second later you call me out in your blog!

What can I say, I am so smart I even know when you are going to make fun of me for thinking I am smart. But I also need to remind you that I am also a better packer than you per our trip to Italy. ;)

Statistically women are far more religious than men. Also, your are in the Bible belt now, not in the heathen California.

So, your chances are pretty good. Stop whining!

By the way, why would you get your dating advice from a guy (Paul) who was (supposedly) a celibate lifelong bachelor?

Quoted From: The Last Cainanite [Visitor]
Statistically women are far more religious than men. Also, your are in the Bible belt now, not in the heathen California.

It's odd that you say that. I found it easier to date girls in Cali than in Georgia. I have about three girls in Cali that I would date in a heartbeat if I were willing to do long distant relationships.

Quoted From: The Last Cainanite [Visitor]
By the way, why would you get your dating advice from a guy (Paul) who was (supposedly) a celibate lifelong bachelor?

Just because the dude was celibate doesn't mean he didn't know anything about love. Also, there are academic disputes out there on whether or not Paul was actually single, but that is beside the point.

First off, what happened to your last blog entry? The one where you bragged about how much money you made?

It's odd that you say that. I found it easier to date girls in Cali than in Georgia. I have about three girls in Cali that I would date in a heartbeat if I were willing to do long distant relationships.

And I say it's odd that Georgia Peaches don't appeal to you. I mean, I have met plenty of good looking, interesting and otherwise dateable girls with a terminal flaw of being fundies.

And why are you not willing to try a long distance relationship? I mean, you want to be celibate anyway, so where's the harm?

Just because the dude was celibate doesn't mean he didn't know anything about love.

I am not talking about some abstract notions of "agape" love but about concrete love and relationships between people. A wandering preacher committed to celibacy is hardly the best advice giver there!

Kind of like the Pope spouting off about sexuality and marriage.

Also, there are academic disputes out there on whether or not Paul was actually single, but that is beside the point.

Honestly, I have never heard of that claim. Do you have any supporting sources?
What I have heard is that some scholars think he might have been gay. That would explain his vicious homophobia as it has been shown that homophobia and latent homosexual feelings are correlated.

By the way, what does 2 Timothy 42 mean? 2nd Timothy does not have 42 chapters (not even close, it is a very short "book") and 2 Timothy 4:2 is hardly impressive.

Quoted From: The Last Cainanite [Visitor]
First off, what happened to your last blog entry? The one where you bragged about how much money you made?

I took it down because after conversing with a couple of married friends, I realized it wasn't communicating the point I was trying to communicate and it came off a little hard on married couples. I thought for sure you saw my response before I took it down, I'll go ahead and e-mail it to you. P.S. I wasn't bragging about how much money I made. Money does not equal success.

Quoted From: The Last Cainanite [Visitor]
Honestly, I have never heard of that claim. Do you have any supporting sources?
What I have heard is that some scholars think he might have been gay.

Talk about unsubstantiated claims. Nothing, in any of my studies, in a very liberal instituation and sometimes very gay friendly, had ever presented the idea that Paul was gay. I'll go back and try and find my sources on him not being single. Most thought he was probably married before his conversion (being that he was a Pharisee and it was unusual for Pharisees not to be married) and then because of his conversion his wife might have left him.

Quoted From: The Last Cainanite [Visitor]
By the way, what does 2 Timothy 42 mean? 2nd Timothy does not have 42 chapters (not even close, it is a very short "book") and 2 Timothy 4:2 is hardly impressive

It's at the bottom of the webpage. Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction.

It might not seem like a lot of the surface, but it means a lot to me. The in season / out of season reference means basically when it is popular and unpopular continue to preach the word. It has things I am good at (like correcting and rebuiking with careful instruction), but it also has things I am bad at and need to be challenged on (like encouraging and having great patience). It's cool if you aren't impressed with it, I am ;)

Talk about unsubstantiated claims. Nothing, in any of my studies, in a very liberal instituation and sometimes very gay friendly, had ever presented the idea that Paul was gay.

Well, it is a speculation, and since we don't have any contemporary extrabiblical sources on Paul's life it's all it can be. However I think
it is far more plausible and substantiated than the divorce Paul hypothesis.
A short google search uncovered this:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14299_1.html
by Bishop John Spong. I am sure you've heard of him.

I'll go back and try and find my sources on him not being single.

Yes, do that.

Most thought he was probably married before his conversion (being that he was a Pharisee and it was unusual for Pharisees not to be married) and then because of his conversion his wife might have left him.

Do you seriously think this is less speculative than possibility of him being gay? For one, homosexuality would explain his rabid homophobia, his life having left him because he converted to this new weird religion does not. Also, he mentions relations between a believing spouse and unbelieving one - why does he not allude to his own life if his unbelieving wife indeed left him?

Quoted From: The Last Cainanite [Visitor]
Do you seriously think this is less speculative than possibility of him being gay? For one, homosexuality would explain his rabid homophobia, his life having left him because he converted to this new weird religion does not.

Yes, yes I do. Pharisees weren't single. Paul himself said that he was the Pharisee of the Pharisees. It is a lot more plausible to me that he was married/divorced than he was gay. There was relatively no historical time when theologians thoughts Paul was gay until the 20th century.

Quoted From: The Last Cainanite [Visitor]
Also, he mentions relations between a believing spouse and unbelieving one - why does he not allude to his own life if his unbelieving wife indeed left him?

That's a good question, and I am not really sure. I don't think that is per se a stumper in my mind, I just find it interesting. Why does he not tell us what the "thorn in his flesh" is (read, the struggle that he keeps on struggling with). One could assume that meant that he was gay, or maybe it was masterbation (although I am don't usually follow that because I can't say theologically speaking masturbation is wrong). Maybe it was that he visited prostitutes. Or that he was a drinker. Or that he ate ham, and as a Jew that wasn't acceptable? Who knows? He just chose not to tell us.

I actually think his statements about the a believing spouse and an unbelieving spouse actually alludes to the fact it happened to him personally and people were attacking his character (which we know people did as that was pretty much what the entire book of Acts is written for) for it.

Quoted From: sectim42 [Member]
Yes, yes I do. Pharisees weren't single. Paul himself said that he was the Pharisee of the Pharisees. It is a lot more plausible to me that he was married/divorced than he was gay.

I think you mean "palatable" than "plausible".

There was relatively no historical time when theologians thoughts Paul was gay until the 20th century.

Perhaps because it was not socially acceptable to make such speculations about someone of Paul's stature in the Chrurch. And why do you think that an idea is automatically suspect if it arose in the 20th century?

Why does he not tell us what the "thorn in his flesh" is (read, the struggle that he keeps on struggling with).

Probably because it was something he was ashamed to name.

One could assume that meant that he was gay, or maybe it was masterbation (although I am don't usually follow that because I can't say theologically speaking masturbation is wrong).

So you disagree with Allen on that point?

I actually think his statements about the a believing spouse and an unbelieving spouse actually alludes to the fact it happened to him personally and people were attacking his character (which we know people did as that was pretty much what the entire book of Acts is written for) for it.

I don't see anything in his treatment of that subject that would allude to him having experienced that personally. As a matter of fact, since he is arguing that the believing spouse which has been left by an unbelieving spouse is blameless before god, he would have no reason not to mention it. Actually, he would have every reason to name himself as an example! And you mention Acts, but Acts is also very silent on Paul's supposed marriage. And Acts starts following Paul before his conversion. So if Paul's wife had left him because he became a Christian, there would be no reason for the author of Acts not to mention it.
On the other hand, he would not even necessarily know of Paul's homosexuality if he were indeed gay, so it is no surprise that is not mentioned.

And again, Paul is the sole NT source of condemnation of homosexuality. Jesus, in all four gospels, is silent on the subject. Repressed homosexuality is a good explanation for this.

I provided the Spong essay. Do you have any scholars that argue for married Paul?

Quoted From: The Last Cainainite [Visitor]
So you disagree with Allen on that point?

Yes, yes I do actually. Allen and I have had discussions on this. We disagree...but it is his show.

That's cool. By the way, how do you explain different Christians having different opinions despite (supposedly) being indwelled by the same Holy Spirit?

Quoted From: The Last Cainanite [Visitor]
By the way, how do you explain different Christians having different opinions despite (supposedly) being indwelled by the same Holy Spirit?

This is what I don't get by this point. Christians are normally accused of being too "vanilla." Wanting the world to be exactly like each other, with no creativity or difference, etc... Yet - even though that is not true at all - we then get reamed for having differences. Frankly, I am glad that God didn't just make life so unbelievably black and white that there was no discussion or adventure.