 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dan
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
Posts: 273
Location: midwest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Friend Gracie,
It amazes me that thee can not differentiate between the law and grace. Neither me nor thee are bound to the Old Testament. That was for the Jew, unless thee's Jewish????
In the NT Hebrews tells me the law is a school master. It shows us the evilness of man and how it is impossible to keep the law, that's why Christ came to fulfill and free us from it.
According to Jesus, the entirety of the law is bound up in this: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart mind soul and strength and love thy neighbor as thyself."
So, don't put words in my mouth that are not there. I live by the New Testament. Now if thee cares to jump me as to anything in the New Testament, I'll be happy to discuss that with thee.
Thy Friend Seeking Truth,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gracie
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 170
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan wrote: |
Friend Gracie,
It amazes me that thee can not differentiate between the law and grace. Neither me nor thee are bound to the Old Testament. That was for the Jew, unless thee's Jewish????
In the NT Hebrews tells me the law is a school master. It shows us the evilness of man and how it is impossible to keep the law, that's why Christ came to fulfill and free us from it.
According to Jesus, the entirety of the law is bound up in this: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart mind soul and strength and love thy neighbor as thyself."
So, don't put words in my mouth that are not there. I live by the New Testament. Now if thee cares to jump me as to anything in the New Testament, I'll be happy to discuss that with thee.
Thy Friend Seeking Truth,
Dan |
But then the entirety of the law brings us back to no condemnation of homosexuality or praise of a particular type of marriage. I'm not trying to be rude, Dan, I'm just perplexed.
_________________
http://sowingmildoats.wordpress.com
When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?
Eleanore Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CelticNorth
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 755
Location: East of Eden
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with you Friend Kevin, that Jesus did indeed begin Mathew 19:4 with his commentary being directed at divorce; but to say that his continued statements in Mathew affirming the male and female union as being God ordained be somehow negated because he switched gears, and addressed marriage as that of being between a man and a woman escapes me. There are many and numerous other passages threaded together within the New Testament affirming the male and female union- with nothing proclaiming homosexual sodomy unions being of nature, or of God. I'll stand by George Fox's affirmation on this matter, which in no way is meant to demean or margianlize your interpetation. While brotherly love and compassion for all human life is a given here, it does not mean a accpetance, approval or enabling of every sexaul practice which man, or woman, is capable of performing. I believe Friend Dan is more in tune with the spirit, and meaning, of both scripture and historical Quaker practice on the reverance for the male and female union. A man laying with another man as like a woman, is indeed old and historically known, but turning upon one's sexual biololgy to attempt and enact a function and form of union through which nature has designed us otherwise is the incongruence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mcguffey, you make two points:
--homosexuality is forbidden because jesus didn't mention it, and also because scripture writers wrote that heterosexual marriage is a good thing.
-- things that are inconsistent with our biological structure are wrong.
regarding the first, i already pointed out that jesus didn't mention many subjects, such as friendship, political parties, and the use of fossil fuels. is everything else he didn't mention wrong? scripture writers also approved of many things. because jeremiah 25:10 approves of brides, bridegrooms, and candles, are electric lights forbidden?
i would say no, and therefore disagree with your first argument.
regarding the second, you and i probably brush our teeth, wear clothing instead of shivering, and use gloves when performing heavy work. none of this is congruent with our physical makeup, yet their practice is uncondemned throughout society.
so i would say this second argument is unconvincing as well.
in general, why is homosexual activity singled out for condemnation, while ignoring these other things, which are also forbidden by those two arguments? this is really what i'm interested in listening to from people, because the general pattern occurs over and over.
Last edited by kevin roberts on Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:26 pm; edited 8 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hi dan
can i summarize, for my own clarity of thought?
| Dan wrote: |
Christ never mentions homosexuality some will point out. I would say that he didn't need to . . .
|
and of course, i would say that he did, my position being that we have no right to put words into the mouth of jesus to support the doctrines of men. you and i disagree on how to interpret a lack of scripture here, dan. neither of us is likely to change, so i'll go on.
| Dan wrote: |
. . . I will say, however, that I would accept what the New Testament says as being our rule as Christians so Paul's letter to Timothy and Romans 1 would have to be taken into account, both which condemn homosexual behavior as sin.
|
romans 1 is primarily concerned with idolatrous canaanite religious practices, worship of statues of animals, creeping things, birds, and so on. it also condemns homosexuality, but to me it is clear that it is homosexual religious rites that are being condemned, and to which god gave the canaanites over. there is no mention of ordinary, mundane homosexual relationships here, just ritualized temple sex, as i see it. i don't find romans 1 to be at all convincing that the sorts of homosexuality we're talking about are sinful.
regarding timothy, is this the passage you're most concerned with?
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
the word used in the KJV for "for them that defile themselves with mankind" is arsenokoitēs, a word of extremely doubtful meaning, and one which the KJV's translation is very likely wrong. one modern translation of the greek word is "man of many beds," which is interpreted simply to mean "promiscuous men," and not homosexuality at all.
english translations of scripture have gotten better and better over the centuries. how would these different translations of romans 1 and timothy affect your attitudes regarding homosexuality?
| Dan wrote: |
. . . We are not so concerned with the keeping of the doctrines of men as we're concerned with What does the Bible say? We consider it our standard in all matters of faith and practice. When one's thoughts are inconsistent with the Book, then the book is right and not we.
|
if your understanding of what the Bible says turns out to be based on faulty translations and faulty interpretations based on the doctrines of men, would you be willing to change your mind to better match what scripture says? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
Posts: 273
Location: midwest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This already lengthy thread will now get a might longer.  Is thee saying thee has found a translation that is more accurate than the KJV which has stood for 400 years? If so, pray thee tell what is it?
When I went to Bible college thirty years ago, the KJV was the best version to have to "cheat" in translation of Greek and Hebrew because it read more accurately like the KJV than any version at the time so if thee's aware of a better one since, I would love to know.
Too, I will gladly tell thee, that those passages that condemn homsexuality also condemn many other sins, no doubt if we can't holler amen, then we should holler ouch! Instead of winking at sin, it needs to be forsaken and that position taken by EF I believe is more in keeping with the spirit of the early Friends than the direction some of the rest of thee have gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan wrote: |
| This already lengthy thread will now get a might longer. Is thee saying thee has found a translation that is more accurate than the KJV which has stood for 400 years? If so, pray thee tell what is it? |
Short answer- one that wasn't paid for by a royal figure interested in keeping the power in the throne by paying for a Bible to be kind to his views.
Long answer- 30 years changes a lot in how people interpret things.
Well, maybe that wasn't a long answer. But in 1971, the Standford Prisoner Experiment was carried out, which is a pretty terrible experiment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CelticNorth
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 755
Location: East of Eden
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There are some good arguments for advocating that homosexuals should, indeed, commit to " two people involved in a long term loving relationships" if they and thier supporters intend and desire to change the definition of marriage from that of between a man and a woman to the aforementioned proposed definition; according to the Christian Apologetics website, they cite a study from 1978 indicating that 78% of homosexual men experienced more than 100 sex partners; 28% more than 1000; 79% of homosexuals stated over half of their sex partners were strangers; the modal range for number of sex partners was 101-500; 15% claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 % claimed 250-499 sex patners, and another 15% claimed 500+. For a minority group politicaly advocating changing the defintion of marriage to that "of between two people involved in a long term loving relationship", it seems that definiton cannot be applied to the homosexual male population- and keep a straight face. It seems rampant sexual promiscuity may be part and parcel of the overwhelming majority of the male homosexual life experieince, and would not seem to warrant the right to marry arguments propostioned using any language indicating " long term". True, Christian Apologetics is a Research Christian Ministry, but they do cite their research statistics. Male homosexuality has a dark side which, when examined closely, seems to justify Christian disapproval. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| McGuffey wrote: |
| There are some good arguments for advocating that homosexuals should, indeed, commit to " two people involved in a long term loving relationships" if they and thier supporters intend and desire to change the definition of marriage from that of between a man and a woman to the aforementioned proposed definition; according to the Christian Apologetics website, they cite a study from 1978 indicating that 78% of homosexual men experienced more than 100 sex partners; 28% more than 1000; 79% of homosexuals stated over half of their sex partners were strangers; the modal range for number of sex partners was 101-500; 15% claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 % claimed 250-499 sex patners, and another 15% claimed 500+. For a minority group politicaly advocating changing the defintion of marriage to that "of between two people involved in a long term loving relationship", it seems that definiton cannot be applied to the homosexual male population- and keep a straight face. It seems rampant sexual promiscuity may be part and parcel of the overwhelming majority of the male homosexual life experieince, and would not seem to warrant the right to marry arguments propostioned using any language indicating " long term". True, Christian Apologetics is a Research Christian Ministry, but they do cite their research statistics. Male homosexuality has a dark side which, when examined closely, seems to justify Christian disapproval. |
That's hateful, McGuffey. Not long ago you were denigrating Jews based on a half-baked list of claims by a known bigot; now you're denigrating gay men based on a half-baked quote you grabbed from an extreme right-wing religious organization that you would otherwise have nothing to do with.
I doubt the study is accurate, but even if it is, it is not relevant. If you wish to argue against promiscuity do so, but you're arguing against policies that explicitly encourage gay male monogamy by associating those who seek it with gay male promiscuity. That is frankly bonkers.
Mainly I want young gay men and women who come across this thread to not be misled. Please, don't judge Quakerism by this. In most liberal meetings and quite probably a fair number of Conservative meetings as well, you will not be treated this way, but with love and respect. At least I think that's mostly true.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| McGuffey wrote: |
| according to the Christian Apologetics website. |
Ugh, I couldn't stomach that website. Please link to the actual study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
punkrainbow
Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 301
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to echo what James has just said. These claims would be laughable if they didn't come from such a hateful place in the human psyche. 'If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh?' I hope one day most people on this planet will come to accept same-sex attracted people as fully 'human' and no longer a subject in need of moral or religious discussion.
_________________
I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiahanie
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Friends James and punkrainbow speak my mind here, as have Friends Gracie and Shay a short time ago.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiahanie
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
punkrainbow-- Haven't seen you around for a while. Welcome back.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
punkrainbow
Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 301
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Kiahanie, life has been unbelievably busy but glad to be back!
_________________
I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan wrote: |
This already lengthy thread will now get a might longer. Is thee saying thee has found a translation that is more accurate than the KJV which has stood for 400 years? If so, pray thee tell what is it?
|
dan, are you serious? i wouldn't even know where to begin, except to point out that the authorized version has not stood for 400 years, and while much loved for its poetry, is no longer considered an accurate representation of the original greek in many areas, for many reasons.
the original translators pointed out a few of its problems in their own preface. time has not solved them.
| Quote: |
Too, I will gladly tell thee, that those passages that condemn homsexuality also condemn many other sins, no doubt if we can't holler amen, then we should holler ouch! Instead of winking at sin, it needs to be forsaken and that position taken by EF I believe is more in keeping with the spirit of the early Friends than the direction some of the rest of thee have gone. |
you've already stated that the beliefs of early friends were wrong when you disagree with them, dan. i don't think you advance your position any by using them as a reference now. but that's a side issue.
is your interest in discussing romans 1 or timothy? both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
