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?
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 For example, I don't think that "thou shalt not kill" is outdated.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.
posted
That was specifically part of the law of moses, and therefore a really good candidate for extinction.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's referring to the she-bears that took out the young men for telling Elisha to "Go up, you bald head!"
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.)
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Yeah, I guess that answers my question, although it brings up another one, Why no sabbath?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's awfully kind to say... (smiles) I don't know so much if it's true quite yet, but it was very kind...
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.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.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
