Now that I have thourghouly established my reputation as a homophobe, I just wanted to talk about the newly affirmed gay bishop in New Hampshire. The Episcopalians have decided to accept a man that (according to Episcopalian doctrine) is in open sin. What can this mean when the Church decides to accept a man as a leader that is in open defiance of the laws of the church. What can this lead to convicted child molestors presiding over mass?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Where on earth did you get this progression from?
gay ----> child molester
Far more natural and frightening a progression would be something like this:
intolerance -----> lynchings
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Yep. Well...
You imply that a gay bishop would deliberately put convicted child molesters at a pulpit. Is that because he's gay? I understand that there were some allegations against the bishop in question but I thought they had been disproved.
Now, since I think that you are definitely trying to imply that having a gay bishop will lead to known child molesters being ordained because homosexuality is inherently evil and dangerous, I will dignify this with the response it deserves:
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
It doesn't matter if he's gay or not. He's taken the vows. If he doesn't do anything, he's not in sin, and if he HAS done something, he can confess and be forgiven.
How in the world can you find fault in that?
It might be news to you, but it was definitely not unheard of to have gay church officials in the old days...
[ August 11, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What next? Putting someone who regularly lies on the pulpit!?! I mean, that gets condemned far more in the bible than homosexuality, so it must be much worse!
Wait, that's been done. Repeatedly.
Homosexuality, even if you believe it to be a sin, is a victimless sin.
Child molestation is not, and to suggest the two are morally equivalent is repugnant.
edit to add: and let's not get started on appointing church leaders who have been divorced. Being divorced, they must be divorced from God, at least according to some small time religious leader from the middle east, name of Jesus or something like that. He never mentioned homosexuality, but I'm sure it was just forgetfulness.
[ August 11, 2003, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Maybe it means that not everybody is as close-minded as you.
Your assertion that a homosexual bishop is even remotely comparable to a child molester is not only offensive and rude, but also quite stupid.
So you've established yourself as a homophobe, and apparently you think that's something to be proud of. But when you express your views without any semblance of intelligence, you only show yourself to be a hateful bigot.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Actually I believe homosexuality is addressed when it says that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Just because Christ doesnt mention it doesnt mean it isnt important. The whole bible is important, you cannot pick and choose parts, christianity doesnt work like that.
Posted by Jimmy (Member # 5518) on :
I'm an episcopalian, and was not very happy when I heard the news, that Rev. Robinson was elected to the Bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire. Now there are multiply reasons why I was unhappy with Rev. Robinson being elected to bishop. The first one is simple, I do hold the believe that homosexuality is wrong and considered a sin in the eyes of God. Now if you'd like to label me as a homophobe because of that belief, then go right ahead. However, I'd ask you to remember, I'm not the radical conservative, Hart. Just because I believe it is wrong, I do not mean to try and force such opinnions or beliefs on people. Nor am I in anyway afraid of homosexuals. The second reason I believe that electing Rev. Robinson to bishop was a bad move is simply political. Despite popular belief, not all episcopalians believe that homosexuals should hold positions in the church (as evident in my post). And the election of Rev. Robinson, has now jeapordized the status of the episcopal church. Immedietly following the confirmation of Rev. Robinson, six churches left the diocese of New Hampshire. This move, could possibly tear apart this denomination that I have been raised in, and love. And many people feel the same. One would argue however, that if it is right, then this price must be paid for progression. Which brings me to my third point. Recently, the Catholic church has reconfirmed that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Catholicism. Not to mention, thousands of churches, and denominations all agree that homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals should not be in clergy position. I have also recently watched an interview with Rev. Robinson, and he truly believes after prayer and an effort to seperate his own desieres from the voice of God, that this is what God wants him to do. How is it then, that God is telling: The Vatican, and the majority of Christians around the world a diffrent thing.
Ryuko: This idea that it doesn't matter, does not seem logically. This is a subject that is up in debate, and the point of the opposing party is that this is a lifestyle that is a sin. I dont' know if you believe in organized religion, or if you are even religious. But if you believed that something was wrong, and discovered that one of your leaders (a high position leader) was practicing that sin openly and often. Would that not distress you? Also the idea that he can simply confess and be forgiven is not bibically based. The bible speaks of true redemption. A Christian can not live a lifestlye, sinning on purpose, and expecting to be forgiven and then be able to go out and do it again. The point is this man is openly and actively a homosexual. Also, I feel that I am ignorant towards this idea that homosexuals have been welcomed in the church for a long time. Sincerely, I'd appreciate it you could enlighten me on such information.
Ryan: The idea that all homosexuals are child molestars, even based on some statistic you can throw in my face is absurd.
My final remark is that even though all sin might be equal in the eys of God, they are not all equal in the eyes of men.
[ August 11, 2003, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: Jimmy ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Ryan - you aren't the first God-guts-and-guns newbie we've had, so I'll give you a few pointers based on past experiences.
First, people are going to take offense to your opinions, but that's their problem. Everyone has an opinion that someone else doesn't like, and that's what makes debate so interesting. However, if you couch your words in an overtly belligerent and/or smug manner (e.g. "Now that I have thourghouly established my reputation as a homophobe") than when other people take offense it now becomes your problem.
I want you to understand this because sometimes it's easy to think that someone has responded harshly due to the fact that they "secretly" know you're right but won't admit it. This is absolutely not the case. If moments after you sign on you immediately jump into and begin discussions about THE hot button topic of homosexuality, you must understand that diplomacy is paramount. Otherwise we have the kind of thing that happened with Caleb, which is more than tragic.
Second - Hatrack is not the place to preach your gospel or agenda. I don't know if you had any intention of this, or if I'm just over sensitive to it. If that's the case, then I apologize. But it seems to me that when a new, very conservative young person signs on and jumps instantly in moral debates they often feel it's their duty to let people know what's Right and Wrong. There's a difference, and it boils down to your attitude while posting. Are you sharing your mind, or are you trying to change someone else's if you think they're wrong?
My brother once said a while back here, "Nobody changes their mind. But you solidify your beliefs in your own mind while debating them." (Or something something.)
Third - Often those that begin with a vengeance and then figure how to chill the hell out become some of my favorite posters. Just step back from your agenda and enjoy Hatrack for what it is - if you stick around you'll find yourself learning things that will help mature your ideas, and then when something you say DOES change or influence someone else's it's not a victory, but just a swap.
Welcome and have fun.
(Oh, and I recommend that you stop posting about homosexuality until you get your bearings. You're currently not any good at it. )
[ August 11, 2003, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
ralphie rocks. not sure which, x, y, or z. but nevertheless, she rocks.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I've worked out what this is.
It's the Ralphie Being Suggestive emoticon. It's got the removal of clothing, the little head dip and the wink. Wow.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Jimmy, I respect your opinions, and am glad you were able to tell them to me without offending me.
For the record, I am religious. I could be said not to believe in organized religion, but I'm wary of saying it myself I think that church is a great place to meet people who believe the same general thing you do. However, I'm against the practice of attempting to force people to believe the same thing you do. Religion is something best discovered by oneself, in my opinion. (Clarification: This doesn't mean that I don't believe in church officials. This just means that I take it with a grain of salt that church officials are stamped with the official approval of God. Which to some extent is what this thread is about.)
When I wrote that post, I was under the assumption that the assumption of priesthood also meant a vow of celibacy. In that case, it was a natural assumption to me that if he was going to be celibate, it wouldn't matter what he did beforehand. I'm sorry, but I'm going on a rather thin base of knowledge when it comes to your religion. For that, I apologize.
I agree, it would distress me if I found that my religious leader had repeatedly sinned. But I believe that if someone feels genuine sorrow and grief for sinning, God will forgive them. Of course, I'd think they'd have to try not to sin in the first place to the best of their knowledge.
I didn't mean that homosexuals had been welcomed in the church for a long time. I meant that historically, there have been homosexuals in the church, it's not a new thing. The new thing is that it's out in the open.
The only thing that keeps people from agreeing on a point like homosexuality is that people can't agree upon whether it is exclusively willful, or whether it is something that's decided on before birth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Promethius: perhaps all of it is important; I happen to disagree. However, I was pointing out an inconsistency in his position, not suggesting that not all of the bible was important. Christ clearly gave certain things very high priority, and didn't have much, or any, to say about others.
A similar thing occurs within the bible as a whole, where certain things are mentioned very prominently, and others not at all. For instance, not working on the sabbath got into the ten commandments.
For him to say that being homosexual disqualifies one from priestly positions while not raising a similar fuss over people who, say, are divorced, is disingenuous at best. Divorced is one of the very worst things one can be, according to the highest authority Christians accept.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jimmy: you did a very good job of laying out your position, and I thank you for it.
On a small note, I would like to suggest that the majority argument is, perhaps, flawed. If we are to accept that revelation is based on numbers, then the early followers of christ, and indeed christ himself, were wrong, as most other jews thought differently. Also, the rather large numbers of other religions would imply a correctness for them that I feel you would be reluctant to grant.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Ooh how delightfully patronizing. Thank you for the wonderful advice about how to administer my opinions. As for the fact that Hatrack is not a place to espouse your agenda. What the heck do you think everyone else is doing? Everyone is trying to get their point across, whether it is for Democrats, Communists, Homosexuals, or Mormons.
Jimmy- I wasn't trying to say that homosexuals are child molesters. I was trying to show an analogy from two groups of blatant sinners that remain in hight church positions. The Catholic church has taken steps I know, but it seems to be too little too late.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
He shoots... He scores!
Yep. That's sarcasm. Yep, I'm a prick. Yep, I'm happy with that. No, you can't have Ralphie.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Two questions. One what about Ralphie? Two Who is Caleb?
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Three. Why do you hate gay people?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Oooohh....
Ryan Hart, I don't like you, but I'm going to give you some neutral advice. When people try to tell you what's getting you bad Hatrack press, you should be nice to them, especially if it's Ralphie.
There's a lot of people around here who will dislike you just because you're mean to Ralphie, regardless of what your opinions are.
You should be less impolite when going into a community like this one, if you don't want yourself attacked.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
LOL @ Ethics...
And yeah - don't forget this is like a home to many of us. Ralphie wasn't being patronising, she doesn't do that.
Just giving you a friendly pointer that many of the posters here have been here for a LONG time - and this is hardly a new topic for us. And when you come in with all guns blazing, expect some serious return fire from debators much more seasoned than on your average forum.
peace Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Clearly you do not understand the difference between helpful advice and condescension. For some examples, what Ralphie said to you was helpful advice. This is condescension.
You are either not a very intelligent person, or you have kept your intelligence out of your thoughts about homosexuality. You have made several statements that are just plain stupid/ignorant whereever one stands on the issue.
Hatrack is not a place to push an agenda. If you are not willing to understand the difference between arguing a point and pushing an agenda, go away. You are not wanted here.
Insulting people baselessly is wrong. Heck, insulting people at all is a sin (taunting someone, especially someone trying to help you out, surely doesn't work with that whole love thy neighbor thing).
*glares at the beam in ryan hart's eye*
And you'll likely turn that line back at me; just remember that I do not believe the same things you do (supposedly; I've seen little evidence myself).
If you show a willingness to at least try to be polite and thoughtful, you're perfectly welcome to stay. Otherwise, go away.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Ooh how delightfully patronizing. Thank you for the wonderful advice about how to administer my opinions. As for the fact that Hatrack is not a place to espouse your agenda. What the heck do you think everyone else is doing? Everyone is trying to get their point across, whether it is for Democrats, Communists, Homosexuals, or Mormons.
My apologies for being patronizing. It seemed to me that you were in for a lot o' flaming, and I thought I'd give some tips on how not to be blasted by hundreds of Flammenwerfers masquerading as keyboards.
Like I said originally, if your intent is not to try and change opinions, but rather to share yours, then please chalk it down to my own oversensitivities. I don't personally see Hatrack as filled with agendas as it is with topics of conversation. While there are those who are actively trying to change the opinons of others (and how!) they almost always fail with their approach.
You may also chalk this down to me not seeing you post on any other topic, which admittedly made me feel you had an agenda. A SPECIFIC agenda.
I did mean my "Welcome." I hope you stay. (Honest Engine.) But whether or not you choose to think I'm patronizing... Whoa, mamajama, you should seriously stop arguing homosexuality here.
edit:
quote:There's a lot of people around here who will dislike you just because you're mean to Ralphie, regardless of what your opinions are.
::winces::
I have to say - that just ain't right. Anyone should feel free to slam me if I'm off-base - though I don't think I am in this instance - without fear of blind retribution.
That may not have been what you meant, Ryuko, but just the thought of it gives me the heebie-jeebies.
[ August 11, 2003, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:I've worked out what this is.
It's the Ralphie Being Suggestive emoticon. It's got the removal of clothing, the little head dip and the wink. Wow.
Of course, you know this means that everytime I post from now on, I'll have to get the money first.
Posted by strawberrygirl (Member # 5030) on :
Religion is just an excuse for you being close-minded toward certain groups of people, in this case, homosexuals. Like it or not, they are a part of our society and should be respected as such. I think that it was a good step for a homosexual to be accepted into such a high position in a church. You should be celebrating that your religion is so accepting of gay people, instead of preaching that it is a horrible abomination.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
::takes off shoes and prepares to tread lightly::
Jimmy pretty much spelled out my feelings on this issue, although I am not Episcopalian. But let me add a few more of my own thoughts to clarify before I respond to anything.
I'm from a very right-wing, conservative Christian background and my church is very conservative so I butt heads a lot with those around me -- including my support of a separation of church and state. They see it as the corruption of America, whereas I believe the church should stay the hell out of politics and the government shouldn't enforce any state religion. I could be wrong, but I believe the Christian church should be concerned with the kingdom of God, not the kingdoms of man. Likewise, government really has no authority over anyone's spiritual lives. Even in a dictatorship individual's will still believe what they believe whether it's "legal" for them to do so or not. So, all of this to say that I don't think the church has any right or obligation to impose oor try to impose any moral standards upon the country. Now, it's important to remember that churchgoing or religious Americans are still Americans with rights to vote and let their opinions be known, but I don't think anyone should claim "religious reasons" for opposition of a law.
For that reasoning, I have no issue at all with legalizing homosexual marriages or granting homosexuals any other right that a heterosexual American has. There are, I think, legitimate questions to be asked concerning this, but I don't think it's fair or in any way relevant to play the religion card when determining such laws. Which does, however lead me to this:
strawberrygirl:
quote:I think that it was a good step for a homosexual to be accepted into such a high position in a church. You should be celebrating that your religion is so accepting of gay people, instead of preaching that it is a horrible abomination.
I have to disagree with this point. If the church interprets homosexuality to be a sin (I wouldn't say "horrible abomination"), I think it's altogether fair and even respectable that they should not allow openly active homosexuals to hold positions of authority in the church. The church certainly views adultery as a sin and I would lose respect for any congregation who allowed an openly practicing adulterer to be a clergyman. And, I think, it's important the the church doesn't condone what it recognizes as sin just because of any political or social pressure to do so. Christians ought to encourage each other in their faith and not encourage each other in sin (be that any sin), so personally (I do believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin) I do not want to see active homosexuals as clergymen.
I'd like to add, because I do not mean to be insulting to anyone, that I don't dislike or disrespect homosexuals in any way. I do believe they are sinners just as I believe every last person alive is a sinner. Nothing more or less than that, really.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Would they allow a man who is openly committing a similar sexual sin (say plural marriage) to gain the pulpit?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If the church interprets homosexuality to be a sin (I wouldn't say 'horrible abomination'), I think it's altogether fair and even respectable that they should not allow openly active homosexuals to hold positions of authority in the church."
It's worth noting that the Episcopal Church is still debating whether or not being actively homosexual is going to be considered a sin; they're still debating the issue of gay marriage, in fact, and may well be one of the first denominations to actually hold religious services for gay couples.
Obviously, not ALL Episcopalians are happy about this -- but it appears that the majority of the church leadership is firmly behind this more liberal stance. It's possible that this will tear about the church -- but since the root of Episcopalian belief is actually the perceived primacy of the unity of faith over nitpicking and dogma, it's my hope that this will continue to be true. (Unfortunately, many Americans completely fail to understand what their religions -- Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, et al. -- stand for, and perhaps don't REALIZE that not breaking up the church is in fact the whole point of the Episcopalian denomination. *grin*)
As to Ryan Hart: laddie, you might want to tone down the ego a bit. I'd hit you with a pie, but something tells me that you aren't the kind of person who'd get the point -- and, besides, it's probably easier just to ignore you.
If you don't WANT to be ignored, consider allowing the occasional outside opinion to penetrate the thick membrane you've wrapped around your brain.
At the very least, Ryan, consider reading the OTHER threads on this board; we've already HAD a discussion about this bishop, and said quite a lot on the topic already. Since you don't appear familiar with the issues already covered in THAT thread, you doubtlessly could have benefited from reading it before creating your own.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scott, I think it's likely that religions which tolerated a "similar" sexual practice would, in fact, permit ministers who engaged in that practice.
For my part, I think the Episcopalian church should have waited to make a decision on the gay marriage issue BEFORE ordaining an actively gay bishop. Sex outside of marriage IS still a sin in the Episcopalian church, even if gay sex is not inherently sinful, and so I would have preferred to see this bishop married to his partner in the eyes of God and THEN ordained, rather than (as is likely) the other way around.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: When I wrote that post, I was under the assumption that the assumption of priesthood also meant a vow of celibacy.
Ryuko, it is my understanding that Episcipalian preists are not celibate. Many are married and some, like my aunt, were married and female.
Which brings me to my next point.
quote:Recently, the Catholic church has reconfirmed that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Catholicism.
Jimmy, idle curiosity. Aren't Catholics and Espiscocpalians two different religions? I mean, there is the same underlying themes, of course, but if y'all weren't radically different on some points, you'd have the same name. So, I don't understand how what the Pope has to say on the issue has to do with the price of tea in China.
Just a thought.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What about a homosexual virgin priest? Is that allowed? Is this particular priest a virgin?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Now that I've given it a night of sleep and serious thought...I have decided that your probably right.
Ralphie-I apologize. I generaly assume everyone to be an equal to me so an advice from an equal usually becomes patronzing. I even forgot to see if your advice was sound.
Before, I thought of these boards merely as an intellectual diversion, now I see that this is more of a communitee. I took my views and took them to an extreme and deliberatly came in "all guns blazing" my choice of issue however was poor. If I came in all guns blazing against say, the LA Lakers, no one would care.
If I have offended you I apologize. My opinions actually closely mirror Jimmy's. He just has much more tact than I do.
Edit: If you aren't too ofended already, and would like to hear me on something other than homosexuality, I have an essay on politics under Where is our Locke?
[ August 11, 2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Well, I think that the gay bishop's ideology is part of the problem. (Not just what he does) It confuses me that a gay person would associate themselves so thoroughly to a group that they don't agree with on a pretty important level--unless they hope their prescence there would begin to tear down the present system. In that case, they're deceivers and hypocrites. If not, why?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: . In that case, they're deceivers and hypocrites. If not, why?
Well, it could be simply that this bishop, like many religious leaders, see a difference between what is in the scriptures and what official church policies are currently espoused. Most of the major protestant denominations hold periodic councils or conventions wherein they define and revise current practices and policies in regard to currentl interpretations of scripture. Sometimes these conferences have led to the breaking apart of the church into two separate churches. I know this particular method of religious evolution is a foreign concept to many (LDS and Catholics, especially), but it happens nevertheless.
That said, it is not at all unusual in these churches for people to teach one another and work from within to get their understanding of God's will implemented. Clearly this church recognized this bishop's worth as an individual, knowing he was openly gay and still endorsing his authority within the church up to this point. Therefore, it's not like he's some outsider bent on raising hell in the ranks. The controversy came when he was set to receive a higher rank in which his views might be in position to influence the direction of church policy more strongly. There is no hypocrisy or deception in this. He was "openly gay" so it's not like he was pretending to be otherwise.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I would like to point out by most definitions, this bishop is not and has not "committed adultery". Committing adultery involves cheating while in a marriage relationship. He did not cheat on his previous wife while in that relationship. Interestingly enough he said on NPR that both he and his ex-wife, went and had communion together after the divorce was final. Apparently he had also discussed with the woman his sexual leanings before they were married. Whether a divorced person should be in ministry is a completely different issue, and I believe the Episcopal church already allowed that.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
More relevant, Banna, is that he is unmarried and sexually active, which I believe is still a no-no in the Episcopalian Church. But he's only unmarried, as I understand it, because he can't GET married, so maybe his fellow bishops are willing to overlook this difficulty.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Ryan - Not a problem. There's a fine line between diplomatically helpful and patronizing and with my general clumsiness it seems the best I get is to dance the Lambada on it. (The forbeeeeden dance.)
And your post on "Where is Our Locke?" is on the OTHER side of the 'rack. You can't expect me to go the OTHER side.
[ August 11, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Hmmm... Well, ever since I posted I've been thinking about this issue. It even came up today in my English class and in an e-mail list I'm subscribed to. A few interesting points were brought up about openly homosexual Christians that I hadn't considered. I've decided that I will stand by all my opinions expressed in my previous post while continuing to ponder the subject until I come to an ultimate decision.
I'm glad I'm not an Episcopalian (or gay, for that matter)... Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There was another thread around here somewhere on which I posted my opinions...
Basically, I heard an interview with the guy, and he kept dodging the issue. Gayness aside, Clintonian waffling is a WEENIE quality in a religious leader. Good grief, man, take a stand. This is the faith and gospel! Say what you believe!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Basically, I heard an interview with the guy, and he kept dodging the issue."
Actually, kat, as far as I can tell, he DIDN'T dodge the issue. He just said that he didn't believe the Bible said it was a sin. I still don't understand why this constitutes dodging.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, he did.
Teri Gross asked him "what about the verses that condemn homosexuality"
"They weren't talking about my kind - committed relationships."
"What were they talking about?"
Direct quote: "The real H word we are discussing is honesty. <paraphrasing now> I've always been honest, and the parishioners in New Hampshire respect me for it."
That's dodging. "The real h-word"? Come on, answer the question!
We still don't know if he considers the promiscuous sex Amka was talking about to be a sin.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But he wasn't actually ASKED whether promiscuous sex was a sin, or whether he considered himself to be engaging in promiscuous sex while in a monogamous, quasi-married relationship.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Very Clintonian. An asset as a politican, pathetic as a religious leader. Obviously that's the most controversial thing about him. He should have taken a stand.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." -- Dante
Most of the time I just want to tell everyone to shut up while I try to work all the details and implications out...
Seriously, some Christians that I respect very much make some very good arguments for the idea that homosexuality is not a sin. I'm not convinced by any of them, but I haven't thought through all of them yet either. Basically, I hate weighing in on any subject that I'm not convinced I'm right about, or at least have studied a good deal about. I have read a lot about this issue and I've given it a lot of thought mainly because I have a few homosexual Christian friends. And I'd give my opinion from my first post as my beliefs about the subject, but I just want to be honest and say that I haven't thought about everything and I could be wrong.
In any case, the one thing I am completely sure of is that if a person recognizes that he is a sinner and puts his faith in Jesus for redemption, no matter what his sins may be, he will be saved. (That's not a sermon, folks, just a statement of what I believe.) Everything else is just, well, living...
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Sorry to give you the jeebies, Ralphie... It was an off-the-cuff sort of statement. I just meant to say that even if people had nothing to say about his opinions, if he's rude to people who are being nice to him, he's not making any friends.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I wonder if maybe the Episcopalians are preparing to decide that maybe God's statement in the Old Testament no longer applies.
Re: picking and choosing, I'm sure other will or already have made this point. The other abominations mentioned in the OT include eating shellfish. So, you'll excuse me if I figure some of that stuff no longer applies. Since I have to pick and choose just to make the silly thing relevant in any fashion, you'll pardon me if I choose to ignore the obviously biased statements on homosexuality. They may have made great sense to wandering tribe(s) of recently escaped slaves in the wilderness, but the relevance is just not there today. Like eschewing shellfish. Sure, while I'm in the desert miles from any coast, in a land without refrigeration, eating shellfish is probably a bad idea. But I have a few things up on the ancient Israelites and can eat shellfish in comparative safety.
<insert apologies to all orthodox Jews here>
Christians pick and choose all the time. Those who say that they don't are just adding lying to the list of things they do in addition to picking and choosing.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Bob:
quote:Sure, while I'm in the desert miles from any coast, in a land without refrigeration, eating shellfish is probably a bad idea.
Which brings up an interesting question: where does one acquire shellfish in such a place to begin with? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, it's not like Egypt didn't have a seacoast. Plus there are fresh-water shellfish so the Nile probably contains some clams or what not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then Bob, he should have said that if that was he believed. I still don't know what he thinks the boundries are. It is possible that he thinks that anything you do sexually is okay, no matter what, and it is possible that he thinks only sex in a marriage - any kind of marriage - is okay.
No matter what his opinion, the fact that I could listen to him talk about that exact subject and still not know his opinion disqualifies him.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Eating shellfish, lobsters, catfish, etc (bottom feeders) is also an abomination, Prometheus. As is making fun of bald men, or displeasing ones parents (recommends death by stoning: so much for the "religious" anti-abortion lynch mob).
Whoops Sorry for the redundancy, Bob_Scopatz, didn't read past Prometheus. Just tired of the deliberately ignorant trying to cherrypick Biblical passages to justify their evil.
[ August 11, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
How many Christians keep the Sabbath Holy?
Anyone covet thy neighbor's new car? Playstation? Considering America's religion material posession, one can't help but wonder if anyone is keeping that commandment at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin*
Do you believe that all sins are equivelent?
That's a different question, I suppose. Seriously, though - what on earth is the point of a religious leader if he won't try to explain the path to righteousness? Paper pusher? Symbolic? Hand-holder?
[ August 11, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am not an Episcopalian.
I am not conversant with what is and what is not considered sinful in their view.
Hence I will not get involved with any discussion about whether this gentleman should be selected for a Bishopry.
And you know what? If every other non-episcopalian did the same, leaving the debate to members of that church, the whole debate would probably be over by now.
I think that any Non-Episcopalian that jumps in and tells them what they should or should not condone or allow is being pushy, egotistical, and demanding.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Kat, not really. After all, the Ten Commandments seemed pretty important to God. They are the only ones written in stone. And amazingly, not a single word about homosexuality.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:pushy, egotistical, and demanding.
Thanks.
That's a stronger stance that the bishop-elect took.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Regarding the idea that the old testament no longer applies:
I think that it is silly to lump everything together in the dumping of it. While some of it's rules were explicitly fulfilled and ended by Jesus, some of them were not. For example, I don't think that "thou shalt not kill" is outdated.
We believe that while God may change in practices, he does not change his principles. Therefore, he can end the requirement to chop off bits of flesh as a reminder of your covenant--but the principle that He wants us to remember our covenants is still as true now as it was then, and He may make different rules that show it.
If he didn't like Adultery/fornication then, he doesn't like it now--even though he doesn't ask us to stone them any longer.
So, if He didn't like homosexuality in the old and new testaments, he doesn't like it today--even though he has gone out of the practice of bombing them.
[ August 11, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, apparently he didn't like shrimp then. Why does he like it now?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Peter had a dream. Acts 10, I think.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Perhaps you can explain how murder jibes with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", popatr.
[ August 11, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
He discovered barbeque.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
That was specifically part of the law of moses, and therefore a really good candidate for extinction.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Maybe someone hopes they will get killed. So the golden rule might not be explicit enough for them.
EDIT: So really, the golden rule reinforces traditional morality, instead of replacing it.
[ August 11, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was not going to post in this thread. There seems to be lots of arguing and very little listening; and since that's my natural tendency anyway, I was going to practice keeping my mouth shut. However, I would like to clarify a couple of things.
Bob, the rules of kashrut (keeping kosher) have little -- if anything -- to do with the safety of the food. And I find the phrase "wandering tribe(s) of recently escaped slaves" unnecessarily pejorative, as do several other phrases that strike my eye.
quote: Since I have to pick and choose just to make the silly thing relevant in any fashion
:raised eyebrow: Glad I don't have that problem.
aspectre, Bald men? I wish I knew what you were referring to. And death by stoning is a punishment for striking one's parent with sufficient force to draw blood or break a bone. And, as with any crime, the guilty party is only punishable by (human) courts if he were warned beforehand, and the offense was witnessed.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I think he's referring to the she-bears that took out the young men for telling Elisha to "Go up, you bald head!"
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Kath, I heard the same article on NPR and I got a different reading of it. However, to do so takes time and he didn't have that time in this particular interview.
What he was saying is that gay people were in the clergy. To limit their position in the church to minor functionaries is going to force them to lie about their preferences. That is more damaging to a ministor or a bishop than his sexual practicies.
He earlier said that other translations of the bible describe not homosexual relations but abusive relations between men and boys, as was practiced by the Spartan-Greeks nearby, and by Male Prostitutes as was practiced by competing cults in the region.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I don't disagree with the fact that Christians pick and choose all the time. The threads lately have made me do a lot of thinking lately, including on Sunday (the Sabbath) while I was mowing the lawn.
However, quit using food as the example. As kat pointed out, Peter had a vision (Acts 10) which sorted that out.
quote:9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. 17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there. 19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, three[1] men are looking for you. 20So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them." 21Peter went down and said to the men, "I'm the one you're looking for. Why have you come?" 22The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say." 23Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.
I know this is picky, but if you're going to point out our hypocrisy, choose another example. There are lots of others to choose from.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, Ralphie. Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
I remember one of my better friends, who is an atheist, told me that he hopes religion would never evolve to tolerate and accept homosexuality. He thought it would be one of the few last walls for religion left, and his hopes were that it, and growing multi-culturalism and birth control and abortion, etc., would all slowly work to make religion impractical and fade it out of culture eventually. Personally, I myself don't believe in religion but I see some of the societal good it provides. I guess the churches that can wrangel their theology and re-interpret will survive the times and adapt.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I don't see why we would want to get rid of religion, myself. And I'm not a believer.
Edit: Meant to be "get rid of..." Ooops.
[ August 11, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Ethics Gradient ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:growing multi-culturalism and birth control and abortion, etc., would all slowly work to make religion impractical and fade it out of culture eventually.
That won't make religion fade. People have never shunned something just because it was impractical.
If religion embraces homosexuality, THAT will be the end, because it won't be necessary. If there is nothing different to get at church than what you can get on the Bravo channel, then why bother with church.
If, on the other hand, church is the place that is different from all the other voices out there, it is worth spending effort to keep.
In other words, the vast throng may be less interested, but the few who love it will cling much, much more tightly. If religion follows the whims of society, then it is completely irrelevant.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Weelll... If the rest of the world embraces homosexuality, birth control, &c; and if the mormons can stick to their guns through it-
Then we'll simply outbreed ya, and we won't go obsolete. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Might I point out overpopulation is already a serious issue in most of the world? If most people don't use birth control of some kind (abstinance being one kind), there will be mass starvation.
Sorry, make that more mass starvation.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I heard that the overall birthrate of the world is no longer high enough to sustain the population. While population is still on the rise, this is due to a momentum type effect, and is set to fall fast sometime in the not too distant future. This may be good in some people's eyes--but with birthrates likely to go even lower, it doesn't look good.
We'll try to fill the hole for you.
[ August 11, 2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Cool, well, while you attempt to breed like a rabbit I'll just go about my day Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
That page may be a bit overdone, IMO, but still has some interesting data.
[ August 11, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That link misses a few key places. Notably most of Africa and most of Asia. The places with the most people on the planet, and the highest population growth rates on the planet.
In developed nations, yes, population growth slows. This is due to the aforementioned birth control (including abstinence, but mostly other stuff).
However, birth control takes hold best in educated, first world nations. And this planet does not have enough resources to turn all of asia and africa into first world nations as they are currently understood. link link link
Basically, the world population is growing far too fast. There is a possibility it will stabilize in time, but that possibility is far from certain, and relies on the extensive use of birth control, which is what is keeping birth rates down in developed countries.
If no one used birth control, and marriage/sex statistics remained about the same . . . *does quick calculations in head based on total world population growing at a rate much closer to the rate in asia*
The world population would reach 10 billion in under 25 years (assuming starvation wasn't any worse than it is today, as a percentage).
The world population would be over 15 billion in 40 years. This would never happen in reality, as population pressure would cause major die-offs and wars; the planet can only sustain so many people.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote: So, if He didn't like homosexuality in the old and new testaments, he doesn't like it today--even though he has gone out of the practice of bombing them.
The point that Bob and others have been trying to make is that the broad Christitan religion over its History - from Genesis until now - has been an evolving religion.
What God decrees as worthy of death in one era is suddenly irrelevant in another. (As with the Shellfish and Peter's dream, as with "Eye for an eye", as with "I don't think it's a good idea to have lots of wives anymore".)
The Christian religion has always changed to fit the requirements of the society of the time. When survival of the population was at stake, the most wealthy (in the currency of the times - whether that be land or sheep or coin) had many wives and many many children. When people were not sufficiently civilised to understand any other form of justice, simple revenge was policy. These things, and many others have changed because the requirements laid upon the civilisation were either irrelevant or detrimental.
So simply saying that He didn't like homosexuals then and never will simply doesn't cut it.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Hey, Popatr, did you know that 43% of all statistics quoted on random websites that do not reference specific research materials are wrong?
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
I read it was 57% EG? Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
It's a flagrantly fickle floating and fairly fallacious statistic. Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Oooohh.. Alliteration...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dietary restrictions were not removed because of Peter's dream. The consensus on that is that it was a specific indication that gentiles could become Christians, which itself was by no means a settled issue. The Nazareans, the Jewish Christians led by Jesus' brother James, were angered by Peter's conversion of the uncircumcised Cornelius and were even more enraged by Paul's mission to the Gentiles were he preached Jesus' message completely divorced from any Jewish laws, among them the dietary restrictions.
In his letter to the Galations, Paul relates an incident that occured after Peter's dream, during a time when both Peter and Paul were in Antioch. Peter came and initially ate in the, in Jewish terms, unclean houses of the Gentile Christians. However, Jewish Christians, probably Nazareans, later arrived in Antioch and castigated Peter for what they saw as breaking Jewish law. Peter then stopped eating with the Gentiles and used his influence to get others to do the same. He was so successful that even Barnabas, Paul's missionary companion, ceased eating in Gentile houses.
The dietary restrictions were canonically lifted due to the Council of Jerusalem, which excluded from canonical Christianity all Mosaic law and obligations other than those from a specific list. In fact, if you believe the interpretations by some of the "salvation only by faith" crowd, Paul later goes on to explain even these specified restrictions as being a nod towards being understanding to the Jews and not as God's law.
quote:“But meat does not commend us to God; neither if we should not eat do we come short; nor if we should eat have we an advantage. … Wherefore if meat be a fall-trap to my brother, I will eat no flesh for ever, that I may not be a fall-trap to my brother.” (I Cor 8: 8, 13)
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
As far as my understanding goes, Squicky's dead right.
As usual.
(Though I'm not of the "salvation by faith only" crowd and so do not view the remaining restrictions as merely a nod toward the Jews. Which is why I do not, as an example, accept blood transfusions.)
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Because you get offered those at parties all the time, right? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ralphie, I've been meaning to ask, do JW's regard Saturday or Sunday as the sabbath?
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Troubs - All the time. I have to JUST SAY NO! and sing little Just Say No to Blood jingles to myself to keep strong.
edit: Squick - JW's don't require the observance of a sabbath day. Is that what you're asking?
[ August 12, 2003, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Ralphie, I don't exactly get the ban on blood transfusions...
And what if you'd die without one?
Could you explain to this pathetic newbie?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Really? Yeah, I guess that answers my question, although it brings up another one, Why no sabbath?
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
fugu13,
OK, but your 3rd link shows that the US and other developed countrys have been below the 2.1 children per woman since the 70's--at about 1.6 children per woman now. Those are numbers that lead to population decline. As for developing countrys: I don't know. Will it really help to have developed countrys leveling off or even declining while the others explode? Will our capacity to help them be lessened even further when we are outnumbered by them so badly?
I guess I don't know. Thanks for the links.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Squicky - It seems that, according to the scriptures, the observance of the sabbath was part of the things that were "fulfilled in Christ," or no longer necessary to have a clean relationship with Jehovah.
Colossians 2:16,17 - "Therefore let no man judge YOU in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or a sabbath; for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ."
That is how we interpret scriptures like this. Another example would be Hebrews 10:1.
Ryuko - Building on Squicky's post, there were a few restrictions that remained requirements according to the first century Christians. The account is in Acts the 15th chapter were things like circumcision were discussed as to their necessity. The outcome was this: "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to YOU!" (Acts 10:28,29)
We believe that abstaining from blood was among the "necessary things" to observe because blood was always precious to God, such as the very specific instructions given about how blood was handled during sacrifices. We believe this principle represents that Jehovah is the originator and sustainer of all life. Because of this, accepting blood transfusions would not be "abstaining from blood," and offending the original principle.
I hope I explained that clearly.
Fortunately, because of JW's no-blood policy and openminded doctors, there have been TREMENDOUS breakthroughs in bloodless medicine. I've heard one quote from a doctor that said, 'In ten years, everything will be bloodless and we'll view blood transfusions as barbaric.' It's actually much safer surgery, and the recovery time IMPROVES with bloodless alternatives.
However, even if this were not the case, because of the principle I would be willing to die not to offend it. It's as with anything you have a solid foundation in believing - if it makes enough sense to you to intellectually adopt it, accept it as your idealogy and love the deity (whether a god, patriotism, etc...) that is the source, than not being willing to sacrifice your life to maintain your principles is an act of disloyalty. To yourself and your god.
And, of course, blood is only to be drank while sacrificing virgins to Baal. Everybody knows that.
[ August 12, 2003, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
That really impresses me, Ralphie. I could never do something like that, and it really impresses me that you can. (also slightly worried) Don't let anything happen to yourself...
Is there a proscription against depositing your own blood for use just in case?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ryuko, Don't sell yourself short. I'm willing to bet that you're not a person who isn't willing to die for your ideas, but rather, you're a person who hasn't found ideas that are worth dying for.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
That's awfully kind to say... (smiles) I don't know so much if it's true quite yet, but it was very kind...
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Squicky is right, Ryuko. Finding the ideals willing to die for is far more difficult than making the ultimate sacrifice to keep them.
And yes, there is that proscription. But you would be shocked at how many WAY cool bloodless tools and procedures they have to prevent the need for blood transfusions. It actually IS healthier. I think that's what some may have trouble getting past - receiving a blood transfusion isn't 100% if you have an emergency that claims a lot of your blood, but there seems to be the misconception that it's the only way to survive. Bloodless surgery isn't 100% either (because nothing in medicine is), but it is by no means a deathwish.
Portland has an excellent Bloodless Surgery wing in one of the hospitals here. I'd actually feel more confident putting my life in their hands, religious beliefs or not, than a lot of other medical options.
Check out bloodless medicine alternatives, if only for a lark. It's becoming a far wider field than just for JW's.
[ August 12, 2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
Once more, its times like theese I am glad I'm a polythiest-athiest. On one side we have the folks who think the ole good book is an outdated idea and on the other we have the folks who believe they are following it to the letter of the law. Then there are those damn vultures......circling, and circling.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'd always understood that verse as refering to not eating raw meat, similar to the commandment God gave Moses after the flood. Do you believe that interpertation too?
(I really think we need a JW information thread)
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
True... (knows less than nothing about JW's)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*elbows Ralphie*
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
You know, I don't know if I'm ready to take on the responsibility of a JW thread. But I'm more than happy to answer any e-mails.
blackwolve - No, we believe it is the blood specifically that is to be abstained from. Raw meat (such as you find in stores) would not contain enough blood to offend the principle of it containing the properties of life, which is what it comes down to. So, it would be fine. Nasty and icky, but fine.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Is there any special JW site, the way Mormons have the official LDS site? I was thinking of asking for a basic explaination of Jehovah's Witnesses, which would probably take you more time than you have to spare. I don't know enough to even know where to start asking questions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
papatr: the US only has a few hundred million people. China has approximately 5 times as many people, and they are giving birth at a very high rate. India has approximately 4 times as many people, and are giving birth at a similarly high rate. Then there's africa, and south/central america, some of the other big population centers of the world.
First world nations don't have much population.
Even if every person in the US, and Europe, and Japan were to die off today, the world population would still explode.
And the reason first world nations don't have much population is pretty simple: reproductive choice has occurred. This is usually through two forces: educated, empowered women being pickier about mates (hence less sex at a young age) and educated men and women using birth control even when they start having sex (including when married).
If people didn't use birth control, this statistic would become what mattered: 85% of women having sex would become pregnant each year. If only two thirds of the women in the united states were having sex, that would be around eighty five million pregnancies every single year. That's eight hundred and fifty million kids born every ten years, more than enough to send the population of the US skyrocketing (even after taking off deaths).
Without birth control, or pretty much everybody just not having sex (including when married), the world is in dire straights.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:Even if every person in the US, and Europe, and Japan were to die off today, the world population would still explode.
Mostly because of the sex-crazed Canadians, right? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
rivka. Sorry. I wasn't trying to be deliberately offensive. But I can see it would've come off that way.
quote:Bob, the rules of kashrut (keeping kosher) have little -- if anything -- to do with the safety of the food.
I'd heard that interpretation from a Jewish scholar so I thought it was a pretty common thing. Not that there isn't the over-riding consideration of showing respect for G_d, of course, but that there were good logical reasons for the dietary restrictions as well, if you thought about the lives they lived and the environment, etc.
Oh well.
As for picking and choosing...the Christian Old Testament causes me a lot of problems. It is taken by many sects to be the literal word of God. And then so is the New Testament. The two volumes disagree on many issues, so that's a problem.
But even if I were Jewish and thus had no New Testament to confuse me, I would be picking and choosing.
Again, sorry for saying such abrasive stuff earlier.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
fugu13, But my point is that it wont do any good for the world even if the US does totally depopulate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I did not think you were being deliberately offensive, Bob, but thanks for the gracious apology.
Kashrut laws are in the classification of "chukot" -- laws for which we are deliberately given no explanation other than because God says so. (Kind of like the recurring conversation I have with my kids about why they have to clean up their rooms. ) That doesn't stop people with trying to come up with logical explanations of them, of course. The "for safety/health reasons" is one of several I have heard. But even if it's true (and it may well be ), it's very secondary.
Posted by Jimmy (Member # 5518) on :
Sorry I've been gone so long, and this is not my ultimiate post my interent has been down and right now I'm at a class and using on of my friends computers. I was just going to say that it looks as if we've strayed from the topic, however the current discussion is very interesting. Just wanted to know if you people wanted to close the book, or continue talking about Rev. Robinson. I do not want to beat a dead horse, so I won't post on it again if that is the general decision. I'll post again soon.
P.S. - Ralphie I really enjoyed the post on the blood transfusion, etc.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Jimmy - Oh, good. I'm always afraid I'm explaining things in the absolute worst way possible. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You forget that most of the Mormon population is not in the United States.
Also, I thought LDS members were required to be evangelical. *looks out window at missionaries*
If not, you're doing a darn good imitation of it .
If that is correct, it would not be an option for the US (entirely converted to LDS) to ignore the rest of the world; they'd have to try to convert 'em.
Not only that, but even ignoring the US, as pointed out the rest of the world would explode, and you can bet China (probably India too) will be at war for territory in a few decades, which will likely lead to war with the US.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Regarding Christianity as an ever evolving community:
quote:For if God is a socially conscious political being whose views invariably correspond to our own prejudices on every essential point of doctrine, he demands of us no more than our politics require. Besides, if God is finite, progressive, and Pure Love, we may as well skip church next Sunday and go to the movies. For if we have nothing to fear from this all-loving, all-forbearing, all-forgiving God, how would our worship of him constitute more than self-congratulation for our own moral standards? As an atheist, I like this God. It is good to see him every morning while I am shaving... (Eugene D. Genovese, "Pilgrim's Progress," The New Republic, 11 May 1992, page 38
I want religion to stay it's ground, to be true to God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are those people who prefer the carrot, and those who prefer the stick.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote:(Though I'm not of the "salvation by faith only" crowd and so do not view the remaining restrictions as merely a nod toward the Jews. Which is why I do not, as an example, accept blood transfusions.)
Hey, I'm not of the "salvation by faith only" crowd either, but I do believe that, more or less. (Idolatry being an obvious exception.)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
is.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
- without fear of blind retribution.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Bald men? I wish I knew what you were referring to. And death by stoning is a punishment for striking one's parent with sufficient force to draw blood or break a bone. And, as with any crime, the guilty party is only punishable by (human) courts if he were warned beforehand, and the offense was witnessed.