You said it yourself -- context. In the context of the times in which the authors lived, there was nothing wrong with slavery; think about it, there was nothing wrong with slavery as far as most of society was concerned until just about 200 years ago. So in the context of the time of the authors, it made sense. Homosexuality (again, in context) was an abomination. So it was easy to condone one and condemn the other. One of the things that many Biblical scholars miss is that times change and not everything that was pertinent or relevant then is pertinent today.
Why can today's religious community say that yes, slavery is wrong even though the Bible allows for it, but homosexuality is still wrong even though it's in the same book as the slavery part?
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-27-03 AT 12:01PM (CST)[/font][p]I think that answer is obvious: It's a matter of interpretation and any minister or church or congregation is going to interpret the Bible in such a way that it conforms with that particular person's/group's agenda.
I think the best way to illustrate this is with the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the safety and security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (or something like that-Constitutional scholars please forgive me for misquoting). Gun proponents focus on the second half of the sentence to support their position, whereas gun-control advocates point to the first half of the sentence to support their position (i.e., guns are for militiamen only). Same written document, wildly different interpretations depending on the agenda you're trying to support.
Paul: I'm assuming that you no longer are in context and have gone inconsistent on us. Are you saying that Paul does not feel comfortable discussing non-HR issues here on the Forum. Since when? Or is it suddenly just Biblical stuff? Parabeagle, I know old preachers who claim they are not making the Bible adjust to their ways - they have adjusted their ways to the Bible.
I know I'm on vacation, but couldn't resist this thread. Besides, I'm just hanging out waiting for the rest to get ready.
One person said "Nah! It will never catch on with the Baptists nor the Fundamentalists, at least not the ones with whom I grew up." Most Baptists would include themselves in the Fundamentalist camp. Being a Baptist, too (we seem to have a few on the forum) I do consider myself a fundamentalist, hesitatingly. I hesitate only because I don't want to be included with the far, far right wingers who have taken the Bible grossly out of context with extreme social agendas, but are referred to as fundamentalists.
In partial answer to Nrdgrrl's question, the New Testament along with the Old Testament of the Bible condemns homosexuality. Paul had an excellent post and in addition, my theological understanding is that many of the OT customs and laws were specific to the Israelites and the NT did away with their necessity. The exception would be laws, restrictions, etc. that are addressed by both testaments. Homosexuality is addressed in both sections. Slavery is addressed obliquely. The Apostle Paul refers to himself as a slave of the gospel. But, he is speaking metaphorically or theologically. Paul's letter to Philemon speaks of slavery. Paul urges Philemon to accept Onesimus, his escaped slave, back as a brother rather than a slave and to forgive Onesimus. I suspect there were many customs and laws that Paul did not approve of, or the other NT writers, for that matter, but their objective was not social or political upheaval.
Excellent discussion and I agree with others that these discussions on religion have been enlightening. I very much appreciate the tone of the posts, especially since the topic can be very polarizing. We almost seem to bend over backward to avoid offending others. An excellent demonstration of professionism.
BTW, as a "fundamentalist" Baptist, I did see humor in Scott's post. We can't be so sanctomonious that we can't laugh at ourselves or question why we believe a certain way. I find discussions such as this tend to strengthen my beliefs.
Hey HQR, Don't feel bad, I was brought up Catholic, alter boy (no was not molested ) Catholic grade and High School............quit and became Lutheran. It's great, similar enough I was comfortble, 2/3rds less collections 1/2 the guilt!!!!!! The pastor can marry............and therefore can relate to the challenges that married couples face. I never did understand how an 80 year old guy who has never been married could be expected to give marital advice. My mom expressed her disappointment when I converted too............I remember the quote, "I guess we wasted all that money on a Catholic education" I still feel a little bad about laughing and pointing out that it was still a good education...........I just changed teams....... My $0.02 worth. DJ The Balloonman
First off, I hope you were not offended by my apparent inconsistency.
No, I am not trying to be inconsistent but I have noticed a few comments from some forumites that the forum had a "Christian bent" or that there was too much religious discussion. So, I was trying to be sensitive to that.
Maybe in addition to the little smiley faces and LOLs we need "NOB" which stands for "No offense, BUT" That might shorten posts and save time. For example:
Don D,
NOB, your last post was dum and your speling suks.
I think you should use all the symbols, slogans, abbreviations and emoticons you can muster. Just please don't flash them legs at us no mo. PS: I'm offended by a Christian, who, in the middle of a religion discussion says, "Let's take that off line." Makes me wonder what he might be up to. How do we know you aren't stirring a pot with skulls and eyeballs in it?
...and just how long, Paul, did it take you to sit there and key-in those little emoticons while toggling back and forth to the short cut screen? (Or, even scarier, do you have the keystrokes MEMORIZED?)
It was all done by cut and paste. Thanks for noticing the effort! I thought it turned out pretty well.
Here is a question, does a smiley icon clap if no one is there to see it? Will these little icons be clapping, winking, and smiling in cyberspace for all time?
B-man, A good point about pastors being allowed to marry, vs. priests not being allowed. This also relates back to my post - about how I had difficulty relating to information presented to me in my catholic education. It was presented to me mostly by priests and nuns. (I attended public school, then CCD at night)
"Teams" is a good description. All have different approaches toward a similar goal.
Your description "2/3 less collections 1/2 the guilt" kind of sounds like a TV commercial diet - "Lutheran - The New and Improved Catholic Light!" x:D
Some of you Forumites have a way with words that I really enjoy!
Someone made mention earlier of the fact/rumor/suspicion that leaders in positions other than that of priest were/are involved heavily in, shall we say, touchy/feely activities with young boys. I can tell you that every boy scout leader in the community where I grew up and the only band director I ever knew at our school were supposedly offenders. One scout leader later married a man. One promised many of my friends cigarets and a night in bed with his wife if the boys would expose themselves on campouts. The band director's quivering lip wasn't caused by flute reed pressure. I didn't have enough sense to know it, but looking back I can identify several principals who were up to no good as well. I lived next door to a Catholic family once and they had three young sons. The young priest was forever over there. He was found shot dead at a carwash and two young boys confessed but blamed it on his approaches. When I was 12, a friend and I were allowed to drive the convertible of a man. When my friend's dad spotted us, he took us aside and read us the birds and the bees. I couldn't believe a man would do what my friend's dad told us this man was up to. So, they are out there. Everywhere. It's up to us as parents and grandparents to be alert to that and keep a vigilant eye on our kids. Kids are innocent. Pedophiles are not innocent. The church is not innocent for covering this up big-time for the past 30 years. There is no hiding from it. It goes on. Do we get these offenders counseling or castrate them on the spot? Personally, I'm more concerned for the welfare of my children and the small ones I see growing up behind them in the neighborhood. To hell with the offender's misplaced genes and his need for counseling. x:=| Hand me a filet knife.
Now that sounds exactly like the man I live with - are you sure your twin isn't in AZ?
I grew up Catholic, and maintained it through 14 years of a pretty crappy marriage - hang in there, you only get married once, etc. etc. Then the DIVORCE. I didn't want to be a second class Catholic citizen - can't receive the sacraments, can't marry again with out an act of God, can't live with someone because you're still married and it's adultry. THEN, my ex finally decided to get the faith (about 14 years too late) and become a baptised Catholic. My sister stood godmother for him, he bacame president of the divorced Catholics club...all before names were signed on the dotted decree line. I decided then organized religion just wasn't for me.
As Don D said, looking back their present troubles were evident...but you never thought that way then. We just didn't. And now, we're almost paranoid of every male/female in an untraditional role that has to do with children or young adults. It's simply sad.
If the Catholic church really wanted priests to abstain, they would make them get married.
::rimshot::
But seriously, folks...
As the Sunday School superintendent, vocal soloist and occasional substitute preacher at a small rural Methodist church, I found the response to Dr. Laura absolutely hilarious. I may get a wild hair and use it as a devotional at the next men's group meeting. (A "judge not, lest ye be judged" theme...)
I was about to post something similar and didn't want to get dragged in. Anyway, now that I'm here . . .
Everyone has a religion. Everyone has a title. The title gets the credit or the blame when we achieve or when we mess up. For example "Ex-marine goes bullistic with toothpaste!" or "Secretary known to cover up foot fettish!" So therefore if you're a Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc., etc., that's what will get exploited. We're all people. Our biggest mistake is issuing judgement. Forming an opinion is different than judgement. My opinion is that people who commit acts against other life should be held accountable. Don D had some creative ideas.
Bottom line - we're all here temporarily. Our body is nothing more than a host. What we do with our host and our time is not ultimately answerable to anyone here.
I try not to judge other's religious opinions or beliefs. Life is much too short for that - I just trust in GOD. You learn the hard way.
I was 16, living in Cebu. My cousin, who was good looking, lived in Manila. One day, cousin hitched a ride. In that car were the Provincial Governor and a Chief of Police. A while along, Communist rebels attacked the car, killing all those inside.
After that, I never, ever took a ride with any official of military person. I just walked the kilometers to wherever I was going. Never mind how long it took me to get there. At least I was alive.
I have returned from vacation and see that my post has managed to stay a-float. I have read over many of the new postings and thank all of you for the interesting comments. I saw my brother this weekend and we looked at these verses. Too me all of them can be interpreted in their own way icluding those on homosexuality. My brother who is a christian, stated that many fundamentalists use the bible as a weapon to put others down or as a way of justifying their hate. I found that interpretation interesting because I always thought of religion as a way of sharing love not hate. My brother also informed me that Jerry Farwell (spelling) tried to blame homosexuals and feminists for 9/11. Very interesting to me that people who are suppose to be preaching about love would target one or two groups of the population for such a hateful statement. Sorry again if this offends anyone, I am trying to understand this way of thinking. Most of the christians I know do not think this way but that there are some out there that do, just as there are with every religion, on earth. I try to judge people based on their actions not on what a piece of paper tells me to think of them. We in HR need to be mindful of this.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-03-03 AT 04:52AM (CST)[/font][p]I don't mean to offend x:-); but, Scott, you are again trying to turn this HR tool into a political agenda when it is not intended as such. Lighten up. I don't object to such subjects being touched on, but I personally do object to attempts to 'blenderize' each topic into personal political agendas. Maybe it's just me and I certainly have the right to not tune in to the subject, which I won't. I am glad you and your brother bonded and had a chance to discuss religion, Jerry 'Farwell', the climate of the universe and the Bible and what it does or does not mean and it's implication on homosexuality and the centering of egg-whites in fresh eggs; but let me suggest that you and your brother take it up in private email. Now you may feel free to jack my jaws.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-03-03 AT 09:28AM (CST)[/font][p]After writing my last post, I felt as though I was whipping a dead horse. Thanks Don. x:-8 Your right this was not the place to try and understand different religious views. Although, I am not sure what agenda you are talking about. Iguess my religion does not point fingers or condemn others. So when I hear of it happening, I try understand the logic. But now it is time to step off of my soap box!
Significant atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. Just toured the Cape Cod, Boston and Salem, Mass. area and museums - all of them used religion for personal retribution, land grabs and pure sexual deviation. I will not get into other than Christian Religion.
If you discipline the person for sending non-business email, make sure no one else is doing the same, and you want to issue discipline only because it offends your religious beliefs.
Also, in theory, when the the New Testament was written, the old laws went away in the Old Testament. Many "modern Bible thumpers" go back to the Old Testament to blugeon people with on a regular basis.
As a Buddist, do not stake your knowledge on just one Christian religions's opinion - they are all different (Methodist, Church of Christ, Baptist, Christian, Catholic, etc.) Study them all and sort out the baloney. (PS - baloney does come in all beef, all turkey and without Pork, if you need it.)
Comments
Why can today's religious community say that yes, slavery is wrong even though the Bible allows for it, but homosexuality is still wrong even though it's in the same book as the slavery part?
I think the best way to illustrate this is with the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the safety and security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (or something like that-Constitutional scholars please forgive me for misquoting). Gun proponents focus on the second half of the sentence to support their position, whereas gun-control advocates point to the first half of the sentence to support their position (i.e., guns are for militiamen only). Same written document, wildly different interpretations depending on the agenda you're trying to support.
That is a good question.
Its not really an HR issue so I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing it here but if you e-mail me, I would be happy to discuss it with you.
My e-mail is [email]paulknoch@cbcc.net[/email]
Paul in Cannon Beach
Paul, thanks for the offer!
One person said "Nah! It will never catch on with the Baptists nor the Fundamentalists, at least not the ones with whom I grew up." Most Baptists would include themselves in the Fundamentalist camp. Being a Baptist, too (we seem to have a few on the forum) I do consider myself a fundamentalist, hesitatingly. I hesitate only because I don't want to be included with the far, far right wingers who have taken the Bible grossly out of context with extreme social agendas, but are referred to as fundamentalists.
In partial answer to Nrdgrrl's question, the New Testament along with the Old Testament of the Bible condemns homosexuality. Paul had an excellent post and in addition, my theological understanding is that many of the OT customs and laws were specific to the Israelites and the NT did away with their necessity. The exception would be laws, restrictions, etc. that are addressed by both testaments. Homosexuality is addressed in both sections. Slavery is addressed obliquely. The Apostle Paul refers to himself as a slave of the gospel. But, he is speaking metaphorically or theologically. Paul's letter to Philemon speaks of slavery. Paul urges Philemon to accept Onesimus, his escaped slave, back as a brother rather than a slave and to forgive Onesimus. I suspect there were many customs and laws that Paul did not approve of, or the other NT writers, for that matter, but their objective was not social or political upheaval.
Excellent discussion and I agree with others that these discussions on religion have been enlightening. I very much appreciate the tone of the posts, especially since the topic can be very polarizing. We almost seem to bend over backward to avoid offending others. An excellent demonstration of professionism.
BTW, as a "fundamentalist" Baptist, I did see humor in Scott's post. We can't be so sanctomonious that we can't laugh at ourselves or question why we believe a certain way. I find discussions such as this tend to strengthen my beliefs.
Don't feel bad, I was brought up Catholic, alter boy (no was not molested ) Catholic grade and High School............quit and became Lutheran. It's great, similar enough I was comfortble, 2/3rds less collections 1/2 the guilt!!!!!! The pastor can marry............and therefore can relate to the challenges that married couples face. I never did understand how an 80 year old guy who has never been married could be expected to give marital advice.
My mom expressed her disappointment when I converted too............I remember the quote, "I guess we wasted all that money on a Catholic education" I still feel a little bad about laughing and pointing out that it was still a good education...........I just changed teams.......
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman
First off, I hope you were not offended by my apparent inconsistency.
No, I am not trying to be inconsistent but I have noticed a few comments from some forumites that the forum had a "Christian bent" or that there was too much religious discussion. So, I was trying to be sensitive to that.
Maybe in addition to the little smiley faces and LOLs we need "NOB" which stands for "No offense, BUT" That might shorten posts and save time. For example:
Don D,
NOB, your last post was dum and your speling suks.
Paul in Cannon Beach
NOB I like to take the conversation off line whenever the subject turns to God or Don D. You can insert your own joke here.
Paul in Cannon Beach
x0:) xx( xclap ;;) x:D xB-) x:'( :DD x}> #-o =P~ x:-8 xflash $$$ x:=| x:-) xhugs x:* O=* x:7 :~~ x:-/ xpray /:) 8-| x:-( x:o 8-} th-up th-down :-? (:| x:P :oo x;-) :-S x:9
p.s. I hope nobody was offended by the little yellow praying dude. If you were, contact Margaret. xpray
It was all done by cut and paste. Thanks for noticing the effort! I thought it turned out pretty well.
Here is a question, does a smiley icon clap if no one is there to see it? Will these little icons be clapping, winking, and smiling in cyberspace for all time?
Paul in Cannon Beach
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman
A good point about pastors being allowed to marry, vs. priests not being allowed. This also relates back to my post - about how I had difficulty relating to information presented to me in my catholic education. It was presented to me mostly by priests and nuns. (I attended public school, then CCD at night)
"Teams" is a good description. All have different approaches toward a similar goal.
Your description "2/3 less collections 1/2 the guilt" kind of sounds like a TV commercial diet - "Lutheran - The New and Improved Catholic Light!" x:D
Some of you Forumites have a way with words that I really enjoy!
I grew up Catholic, and maintained it through 14 years of a pretty crappy marriage - hang in there, you only get married once, etc. etc. Then the DIVORCE. I didn't want to be a second class Catholic citizen - can't receive the sacraments, can't marry again with out an act of God, can't live with someone because you're still married and it's adultry. THEN, my ex finally decided to get the faith (about 14 years too late) and become a baptised Catholic. My sister stood godmother for him, he bacame president of the divorced Catholics club...all before names were signed on the dotted decree line. I decided then organized religion just wasn't for me.
As Don D said, looking back their present troubles were evident...but you never thought that way then. We just didn't. And now, we're almost paranoid of every male/female in an untraditional role that has to do with children or young adults. It's simply sad.
::rimshot::
But seriously, folks...
As the Sunday School superintendent, vocal soloist and occasional substitute preacher at a small rural Methodist church, I found the response to Dr. Laura absolutely hilarious. I may get a wild hair and use it as a devotional at the next men's group meeting. (A "judge not, lest ye be judged" theme...)
I was about to post something similar and didn't want to get dragged in. Anyway, now that I'm here . . .
Everyone has a religion. Everyone has a title. The title gets the credit or the blame when we achieve or when we mess up. For example "Ex-marine goes bullistic with toothpaste!" or "Secretary known to cover up foot fettish!" So therefore if you're a Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc., etc., that's what will get exploited. We're all people. Our biggest mistake is issuing judgement. Forming an opinion is different than judgement. My opinion is that people who commit acts against other life should be held accountable. Don D had some creative ideas.
Bottom line - we're all here temporarily. Our body is nothing more than a host. What we do with our host and our time is not ultimately answerable to anyone here.
Life is hard. God is good.
"Sam"
I was 16, living in Cebu. My cousin, who was good looking, lived in Manila. One day, cousin hitched a ride. In that car were the Provincial Governor and a Chief of Police. A while along, Communist rebels attacked the car, killing all those inside.
After that, I never, ever took a ride with any official of military person. I just walked the kilometers to wherever I was going. Never mind how long it took me to get there. At least I was alive.
I always treasure GOD-given life.
Chari
x:D
If you discipline the person for sending non-business email, make sure no one else is doing the same, and you want to issue discipline only because it offends your religious beliefs.
Also, in theory, when the the New Testament was written, the old laws went away in the Old Testament. Many "modern Bible thumpers" go back to the Old Testament to blugeon people with on a regular basis.
As a Buddist, do not stake your knowledge on just one Christian religions's opinion - they are all different (Methodist, Church of Christ, Baptist, Christian, Catholic, etc.) Study them all and sort out the baloney. (PS - baloney does come in all beef, all turkey and without Pork, if you need it.)