11 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderActually, my church, the Episcopalian Church of America, has accepted gays into their services for years, and have become the first of the mainstream churches to actually perform same-sex marriages.
In this case, struggling to reconcile your desire for greater tolerance for the gay community with the knowledge that it was, and still is, your religion that is one of biggest obstacles to this happening,
From Wikipedia:
"At its 2006 General Convention the Episcopal Church rejected a resolution allowing the solemnization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is recognized by civil law.
In July 2009, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America adopted a resolution allowing individual bishops to choose whether or not to allow the blessing of same-sex unions within their bishoprics. The resolution was seen as a compromise between those who call for an official rite for the blessing of same-sex unions, and those who oppose any recognition of such unions. However, the resolution also left the door open for the creation of such an official rite in the future, calling on bishops to "collect and develop theological and liturgical resources" for possible use for such a purpose at the 2012 General Convention.
On July 9, 2012, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution approving an official liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. This liturgy, called “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant” offers a blessing close to marriage, but the church is clear that it is not marriage. According to Rev. Ruth Meyers, chairwoman of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, “There are a lot of similarities. The couple give their consent to being joined in lifelong commitment, they exchange vows. There’s the possibility of exchanging rings, or, for couples who have been together for some time and already have rings, to have their rings blessed. There is a blessing over the couple. But we’re clear at this point that this is not a marriage because the Episcopal Church is not in agreement in its understanding of marriage.” The resolution enables priests to bestow the church’s blessing on gay couples even if they live in a state where same-sex marriage is illegal; however, bishops who do not approve of the liturgy can prohibit their priests from using it. The resolution is provisional and will be reviewed in three years.
As of September 1, 2012, clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of New York have been authorized to officiate at same sex weddings.
On July 1, 2015, the Episcopal Church makes the full marriage rite available to same-sex couples throughout the denomination." (Bold mine.)
----------------------------------------------------------
As I said previously, given the long-standing position of Christianity concerning homosexuality, this is a "sea change" coming only after years of wrangling back and forth. Things could be moving a bit more quickly, but at least things are changing. And my church has long been in the forefront of this change and changes like it.
11 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsNo i don't think you really understand the term 'self determination', the clue is in the wording, think about the term 'self', its quite important conceptually. Or just think generally, anything will do. I make an excellent Witness.
Perhaps he believes he should always try to save lives and does not want to admit that he would not make a good Jehovah's Witness either.
Originally posted by divegeesterWhat i do with my body is none of your business. It is clear that you have really little
It's interesting how you would find it easy to back away from Mosaic law if it suited your personal qualms and yet when I've asked you if your child needed a blood transfusion to guarantee saving thier life, would you let them have one, you have repeatedly avoided answering.
understanding of any of the principles of why I don't give or take blood and I am
certainly not wasting my time arguing against your ignorance.
Divegeester and FMF are both tirelessly lying trolls in close alliance. Evidently, their
main interest is in dishonestly distorting what some other people (whom they seem to
hate obsessively) write, so they can keep personally attacking them. I know that I am
far from the only reader who has noticed this fact about the trolls Divegeester and FMF.
I expect that anything that I could write will be dishonestly distorted by Divegeester or
FMF.
I regard Divegeester, who's evidently a pathological liar and hypocrite, with absolute
disdain.
Is it any sillier than you two (FMF and divesgeester) smearing and lying about people
you don't agree with? I don't think so.
12 Jul 15
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThe question is too vague.
If God brought back Mosaic law, and applied it to all of humanity, would the Christians here execute gay people or disobey God?
The truth is Jesus will return and establish His kingdom on the earth and rule with a rod of iron for a thousand years.
That means, to the best of my knowledge, that sin will be dealt with in no uncertain terms.
Homosexuality is a sin according to the Word of God. Jesus will punish any that appose themselves to His authority during His reign as King on this earth. No matter the infraction.
There will be peace. Jesus will know if and when anyone even so much as thinks about doing something that undermines His Word.
12 Jul 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou haven't converted me to your blood transfusion belief. I still think it is stupid and appalling.
No i don't think you really understand the term 'self determination', the clue is in the wording, think about the term 'self', its quite important conceptually. Or just think generally, anything will do. I make an excellent Witness.
12 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know exactly why you don't give blood, but I'm not asking you why you don't give blood that as you very well know.
What i do with my body is none of your business. It is clear that you have really little understanding of any of the principles of why I don't give or take blood and I am certainly not wasting my time arguing against your ignorance. so.
A hypotheses about OT law has been presented in the OP to which you have stated that you would not kill anyone irrespective of God telling you to do so as I it goes against your fundamental belief that killing is wrong. I respect this, however it is inconsistent with your claims about blood law.
I have asked you another hypothetical but real life question many times: if your child needed a blood transfusion to guarantee saving thier life, would you let them have one? and you repeatedly avoid answering.
On the one hand you would disobey God's OT command about killing but on the other hand you would let your own child die to appease this same version of God, is that your position?
Originally posted by CalJustWell, that raises a real problem. Because what you seem to be saying is 'this act is obviously immoral, so if I have any doubts about whether God is ordering it, I will not do it.' On the other hand, if it can be shown that God is ordering it, I may take a different view.
Absolutely Superman - Batman isn't even a bat!
To RO: Good question. I would not obey it, because I would question how people actually determined that it WAS god who "reinstated" it. The supposed "God said so" always comes through humans, and we know how many of them turned out to have feet of clay.
Your turn - my hypothetical question to you: If you d ...[text shortened]... orry that you had not embraced Buddhism during your lifetime and looked better after your karma?
Which raises the age-old question. How do you know that God is good and not simply a devil in disguise? You cannot judge his actions on their own merits, as no matter how evil they may appear on the surface, they are automatically deemed good. Sticking a sword into a baby, executing a man for carrying sticks on a sabbath, allowing your son to be tortured to death rather than saying 'I forgive you' - all these insanities suddenly become acceptabe if God orders it.
As to your hypothetical, I think the answer is pretty easy. No. There was no evidence that reincarnation existed, so why should I feel any sense of regret over the fact that I did not live my life according to this belief system?
You might as well ask, would you be sorry if you did not choose the winning lottery numbers next week? Colloquially, you might say yes, but you would be meaning something very different to expressing genuine regret over your choice of numbers, as the result was entirely out of your control.
By contrast, I would feel regret if I randomly chose to live my life according to one religious belief system over another, only to discover I had made the wrong choice.
12 Jul 15
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThis is even more reason why you should do a thorough investigation, rather than randomly picking a belief system.
Well, that raises a real problem. Because what you seem to be saying is 'this act is obviously immoral, so if I have any doubts about whether God is ordering it, I will not do it.' On the other hand, if it can be shown that God is ordering it, I may take a different view.
Which raises the age-old question. How do you know that God is good and not ...[text shortened]... rding to one religious belief system over another, only to discover I had made the wrong choice.
Originally posted by checkbaiterWe certainly CAN judge the bible god since the whole affair was made 100% by man, no god started these religions but theists are too duped to realize it.
I stand by what I said. To say it is wrong is to make yourself the judge of God Himself.
Why does't the BSometer go off when confronted with all the obvious BS in the bible or the Quran or any other human work of religion?
It really says a lot about the gullibility of humans. Not a good sign for the future of mankind, stuck in the mire of religion.
There can be no true maturity of humanity till we shuck the sham of religions.
12 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHow many other religions have you done a detailed analysis of?
This is even more reason why you should do a thorough investigation, rather than randomly picking a belief system.
And what specifically stopped you from choosing Shinto, Baha'i and Rastafarianism?
Just the main 5 or 6 points.
12 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderMaybe you miss-read my hypothetical. We both believe (I am assuming) that there is no reincarnation, but since about half the world's population believe that there is, my question was WHAT IF you found you were wrong, and came back as a rat (hypothetically). Would you then have any regrets?
As to your hypothetical, I think the answer is pretty easy. No. There was no evidence that reincarnation existed, so why should I feel any sense of regret over the fact that I did not live my life according to this belief system?
By contrast, I would feel regret if I randomly chose to live my life according to one religious belief system over another, only to discover I had made the wrong choice.
This may stretch one's "supposing organ" too far, I admit.
Similarly, you cannot imagine how you would feel if you were living in a 2000 BC culture where different rules applied. Modern morality actually only developed in the past few centuries, but even today there are some cultures where infanticide (and other terrible practices which we all abhor) are common.
So the obvious answer to the hypothetical question as to how you and I would both feel if the ancient Hebrew laws were to be resuscitated, would be abject horror.
12 Jul 15
3 edits
Originally posted by CalJustAgain, I would say I had no regrets. I would actually be pleasantly surprised to find out there was something after this life!
Maybe you miss-read my hypothetical. We both believe (I am assuming) that there is no reincarnation, but since about half the world's population believe that there is, my question was WHAT IF you found you were wrong, and came back as a rat (hypothetically). Would you then have any regrets?
This may stretch one's "supposing organ" too far, I admit.
Si ...[text shortened]... nd I would both feel if the ancient Hebrew laws were to be resuscitated, would be abject horror.
I think you need to separate the regret over the result with the regret over the choice of which belief system to follow. If I die and end up burning forever in hell, then obviously I am going to regret the result, but I don't see how I could regret the choice that led to it.
Turning back to my hypothetical, you still haven't answered the question. You have said you would not obey it on the basis that it might not be God reinstating the law, but my OP hypothesis was that it was God that reinstated it, so that is not an option. Now you are saying you would find it an abject horror. I did not ask this.
I asked whether you would obey it.
13 Jul 15
Originally posted by Rank outsiderBefore I take the hypothetic seriously, you need to provide some more information.
Turning back to my hypothetical, you still haven't answered the question. You have said you would not obey it on the basis that it might not be God reinstating the law, but my OP hypothesis was that it was God that reinstated it, so that is not an option. Now you are saying you would find it an abject horror. I did not ask this.
I asked whether you would obey it.
When you stipulate that it WAS god who reinstated it, then you need to also specify HOW do you know for certain, or postulate, that it was, indeed, god.
If (as I said before) the instruction came through supposed priests or human agency, then I would neither believe it nor obey it.
If it came through some definite occurence or God-event which made it absolutely unmistakable and impossible to ignore, which event would then also convince the entire society that this was indeed the case, then I guess I would, together with all those that witnessed that event, conclude that it was indeed the right thing to do.
13 Jul 15
Originally posted by SuzianneWonder Woman has a new outfit?
Since you have thus far received no takers to your "hypothetical" question, you then lay hands on a quote of mine and then proceed to drag me into this thread, kicking and screaming. I had not intended to respond to this thread, especially given the vehement reaction to the last "hypothetical" thread I responded to.
It's no secret that I am not a fan of ...[text shortened]... unlike most I've heard talk about it), I could see that happening, unlike your initial question.
Oh, for crying out loud...
Why am I always the last to know?
Why don't people tell me these things, and why am I just now hearing about this?
and where can I go to see her new outfit?