America as World Cop?

[Traffic*Goddess]

The US Episcopalian Church has voted to induct it's first openly Gay Bishop. I can't say that I am surprised, and I can't really say that I am against it. Sexual preference, as long as it isn't harming other persons, shouldn't have to be hidden away.
That said....I do wonder if the Episcopalian Church has done the right thing with this vote. You see, they need to also focus on what impact this might have in the World forum, not just the United States.
Prior to this vote, several representatives from the African and Middle Eastern Anglican Church pleaded with their US brothers and sisters in faith to not approve this Bishop because of his openly gay stance. Instead of scoffing at these pleas as one might do from an American contingent, I wonder if the people casting these votes truly thought about the harm that they may be unleashing on their fellow believers overseas.
Unlike America, Muslim law dictates harsh penalties for homosexual behavior.
Unlike America, there is no appeal for cruel and unusual punishment.
Unlike America, justice is swift and merciless.
Members of those congregations may be perceived as being partial towards homosexual behavior, by still remaining a member of that church, they will be saying that homosexual behavior is okay.
Of course, we Americans realize that such jumping to conclusions is ridiculous. (At least...some of us!)
Unfortunately, we Americans have also paid a terrible price for underestimating what people will do in the name of their Creator.
I wonder...will we now see those African and Middle Eastern Christians pay a price for the vote of a US Bishop?

[TC]

I'm not sure where you've been, but the Episcopal church has always attracted more homosexuals than any other denomination. I have two friends who are gay....one male, one female....and both are episcopalians. The female is even studying to become a bishop herself.

[Lictalon]

Probably.

This is just one more thing to "bash" America for...at least in some quarters. Now, we're even more the "Great Satan"; our CHURCHES allow homosexuality.

Of course, there are probably many other, especially Europeans states, that applaud the move. :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't know how the Episcopal church managed to pull that one off. If your text is the bible, it's pretty clear...Homosexuality is bad. Of course, if you're going to toss out the bible, feel free...but why not just worship grass or trees or something? :rolleyes:

[Libby]

Personally, I would prefer for a leader in a church to be open about their sexuality to allow me to make an informed decision on if that's where I wanted to be or not RATHER than the alternative...

Catholic priests preying on our young (male) children, committing horrendous, unspeakable acts against them...all under the noses of the congregation...

[n567]

Originally posted by Lictalon
Probably.

This is just one more thing to "bash" America for...at least in some quarters. Now, we're even more the "Great Satan"; our CHURCHES allow homosexuality.

Of course, there are probably many other, especially Europeans states, that applaud the move. :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't know how the Episcopal church managed to pull that one off. If your text is the bible, it's pretty clear...Homosexuality is bad. Of course, if you're going to toss out the bible, feel free...but why not just worship grass or trees or something? :rolleyes:

It certainly makes more sense to worship! :D

Anyway, I thought there was some debate over what the bible actually says (and not just in regards to homosexuality), especially considering how much the bible has changed over the various translations and centuries.

[retired]

Lictalon,

Originally posted by Lictalon
Probably.

This is just one more thing to "bash" America for...at least in some quarters. Now, we're even more the "Great Satan"; our CHURCHES allow homosexuality.

Of course, there are probably many other, especially Europeans states, that applaud the move. :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't know how the Episcopal church managed to pull that one off. If your text is the bible, it's pretty clear...Homosexuality is bad. Of course, if you're going to toss out the bible, feel free...but why not just worship grass or trees or something? :rolleyes:

There are many who would disgree with you about homosexuality being bad. It may be bad to you, but that is your individual opinion.

I agree that worshipping grass or trees is just as absurd as worshipping the bible. But to each his own.

[Lictalon]

N567:

Anyway, I thought there was some debate over what the bible actually says (and not just in regards to homosexuality), especially considering how much the bible has changed over the various translations and centuries.

I'm not going to argue the point about what the bible means or says in the sense of "what are we to do." You're ABSOLUTELY correct...more than enough wars have been fought that we don't need to start one here on O.com! (Again. ;) :D)

However, the idea that the Bible has been altered/changed through the years is a bit off. TRANSLATIONS of the bible certainly have...There are MANY people I know that view the NIV like it came off of Satan's bookshelf. And, of course, different translations/word choice will change meaning. For instance, the KJV gave us that wonderful passage in Corinthians about "love":

Love suffereth long,
and is kind;
love envieth not;
love vaunteth not itself,
is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not her own,
is not easily provoked,
thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.

Beautiful...but modern translations usually use charity in place of love. It changes your responsibilities a bit, doesn't it? THAT type of problem with meaning, I'll grant you, exists.

However...The Hebrew Versions of the bible that are printed today are, word for word, exact copies of the same ones that were being read several thousand years ago. If you read up a bit, you'll find the extraordinary lengths that the Hebrews went through to preserve the text intact...right down to burning the whole page if the scribe found an error. :eek:

So...in terms of errors in the original text...no, I don't think there are any. ;)

Retired:

There are many who would disgree with you about homosexuality being bad. It may be bad to you, but that is your individual opinion.

I agree that worshipping grass or trees is just as absurd as worshipping the bible. But to each his own.

Hmm...couple of points.

For a very long time I never had an issue with homosexuality. I was very much in the "hey, as long as the guy never touches me, he can do whatever he wants camp." I wasn't even so "homophobic" as to say I'd punch/hit/whatever a guy if he made a pass...just like I wouldn't like to be punched if I made a pass at a girl. I'd just say sorry, don't swing that way, and away I'd go.

So my comdemnation of homosexuality comes from my Religion. I'll admit that. I think that the bible is pretty clear on this topic:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Now, operating under my beliefs regarding the accuracy of the bible, if a Hebrew scholar approached me and said "Nope, that's a rotten translation." I'd be willing to listen. But so far, that hasn't happened, and for the purpose of this conversation, I'll pretend it won't.

So...I think, operating under my beliefs, that the bible is inerrant, and that it expressly forbids homosexuality. So yes, I guess my opinion is just my opinion, but it isn't me alone...And my greater point was that I'm not sure how a church which claims the Bible as a source of its beliefs, can just go and change that. That's what surprises me about the Episcopal situation...

As for the rest...Well, Retired, throughout history mankind has argued, fought, and debated the nature of God...but EVERY civilization has believed in some kind of Divine Power. I'm guessing, by your last few lines, that you don't. I'd point out that this is just as much an opinion as mine on homosexuality...and certainly very much in the minority. But once again, you're entitled to that...though I have to wonder what other opinions you hold that most of the rest of the world doesn't. ;)

And, for the record, I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses, and his Son, Jesus Christ, who died for me. I do so because I have been touched, and am utterly convinced of His existence...I don't worship the bible, I merely read it to gain an understanding of my Father. ;)

[retired]

Lictalon,

You are certainly correct that I don't believe in any God or devine being. I would suspect that would put me in the minority, but it certainly doesn't make me wrong. I don't care if you and others worship a supreme being that you have never seen. That is your choice, and I support you having a choice. Like I said before, to me it would be the same as worshiping a tree or a statue. I have yet to see any proof that a God like the one in the bible exists. But, that is my opinion, and I like it.

[JohnKelly]

America as the Worlds Cop? - hmmm - yeah, it would appear to be that way at this stage, but don't get too Cocky.

Cocky - Definition - Australian Modern Oxford Dictionary = Conceited and Arrogant.

;)

Cheers,

JohnKelly
Australia

[n567]

However...The Hebrew Versions of the bible that are printed today are, word for word, exact copies of the same ones that were being read several thousand years ago. If you read up a bit, you'll find the extraordinary lengths that the Hebrews went through to preserve the text intact...right down to burning the whole page if the scribe found an error.


Mmmmm, I forgot about that, I read they make a new copy every year, hand written...

[Lictalon]

Mmmmm, I forgot about that, I read they make a new copy every year, hand written...

I know. Can you even BELIEVE it? :eek: :eek: :eek: :cool:

Retired:

You are certainly correct that I don't believe in any God or devine being. I would suspect that would put me in the minority, but it certainly doesn't make me wrong. I don't care if you and others worship a supreme being that you have never seen. That is your choice, and I support you having a choice. Like I said before, to me it would be the same as worshiping a tree or a statue. I have yet to see any proof that a God like the one in the bible exists. But, that is my opinion, and I like it.

Right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I think there are a great many people right here on this board who would leap up to defend that right...even if the actual opinion was detestable. And I certainly understand your position; I held it myself for a very long time. However, my only point was that when you dismiss my stand on homosexuality because it is "only your opinion" you do a great deal of diservice to yourself as well.

FWIW, ALL of our laws and rules are nothing more than the codified opinions of the bulk of the culture. To a very real extent, you're entitled to have the opinion that eating people is the best way to live your life...But at a certain point, an opinion can be wrong.

Unfortunately, we've never been able agree on the standards that would enable us to judge an opinion. :(

[retired]

having an opinion and acting on theopinion are two different things.

Uhhh, I don't recall condoning eating peole like it says in the bible.

[Lictalon]

Originally posted by retired
having an opinion and acting on the opinion are two different things.

Uhhh, I don't recall condoning eating peole like it says in the bible.

True enough...thought and action are not the same...in theory. In reality, though, they're often very much the same. For instance...The person who holds the opinion that homosexuality is okay is probably not going to have a problem with the marriage of same homosexuals...whereas someone who holds the opinion that it it morally wrong is going to be forced to oppose it...because of their opinion.

And eating people was just an idea I pulled out of the air. As far as I know, cannabalism doesn't occur in the bible...at least by name. I imagine that it was a custom in a couple of those various peoples the Hebrews found themselves neigboring after the exodus...though that's just conjecture on my part.

[retired]

Originally posted by Lictalon
True enough...thought and action are not the same...in theory. In reality, though, they're often very much the same. For instance...The person who holds the opinion that homosexuality is okay is probably not going to have a problem with the marriage of same homosexuals...whereas someone who holds the opinion that it it morally wrong is going to be forced to oppose it...because of their opinion.

And eating people was just an idea I pulled out of the air. As far as I know, cannabalism doesn't occur in the bible...at least by name. I imagine that it was a custom in a couple of those various peoples the Hebrews found themselves neigboring after the exodus...though that's just conjecture on my part.

How about these verses?

'Lev 26:27,29: Yet if inspite of this you do no obey Me, but act with hostility against Me,

[Traffic*Goddess]

LOL...oops! Alright, John Kelly...point taken!:D

[TruthSleuth]

If he had been a fellow who made it clear he was messing around on his wife would the church still have appointed him. That is a sin in the Bible just like homosexuality is so I see no reason they wouldn't.

[kheya]

As a member of the Episcopalian Church, I applaud the appointment of our Bishop.

I believe that there are many things in the Bible that are abominations in the eyes of the lord that we on longer observe.


If you do some research in to the origins of the references in the New Testament, here is some interesting information...


The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee," and "arsenokoitai." Although this is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.

One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai."

Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

In the end, for me, and many others in my church, its about love and commitment. The measure of the man is on the fact that he was selcted based on his record and the good that he did. In the end, its the business of the Episcopalian church. What they decide for them applies to them. What other churches decide is up to those churches.

kheya

[Traffic*Goddess]

Wow, kheya! That was a great post and very informative! Thanks for sharing...how has your congregation reacted to this?

[JohnKelly]

Originally posted by Traffic*Goddess
LOL...oops! Alright, John Kelly...point taken!:D

Gd'day TG - no worries - you're doing fine. ;)

Cheers,

JohnKelly
Australia

[Lictalon]

Retired:

Touche! It took a little while for me to check the verses, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing resembling the "condoning" of cannabalism. I could make an argument for each of the various verses, but I really don't think you're arguing that the Bible condones it? If so, I'm confused. :confused:

kheya:

This took a bit longer. Most of it is, admittedly, well beyond me. My knowledge of Greek is poor enough that I'm not going to attempt my own interpretation of the text. It still doesn't deal with the old testement prohibition, of course, but one can always argue that that's a section the New Testement superceded. But I do have a question...

Why would Paul (and I'm not sure where in the New Testement he discusses this at all, so I'm just fishing here) go out of his way to so narrowly define the phrase homosexual offenders to the users of boy prostitutes? Why would he refer to just one type of homosexual behavior as wrong?

What I mean is, if what I mean is "Don't do sexually offensive things" why wouldn't I leave out the homosexual reference entirely? To interpret it so narrowly is a bit odd...As if it was said "Well, Jesus said a man who looked at another woman committed adultery, so I'm just gonna blindfold myself and go grope..."

See my point? It just seems odd to limit the behaviour to just boy prostitutes. It just seems to stretch the limit of common sense.

I don't know. :confused: It just seems, and this is just me, that we're doing a very good job (and by we, I mean the church) to lower or abolish all the standards we're supposed to live by. It used to be marriage was forever...now divorce is okay. It used to be that sex before marriage was wrong...now it's okay. At what point does the Church stop being anything but another group with a secret handshake? :confused:

[retired]

Lictalon,

I was merely replying to your following comment.

"And eating people was just an idea I pulled out of the air. As far as I know, cannabalism doesn't occur in the bible...at least by name"

If the bible says to do those things, it is obvious to me that is condoning, and commanding. It is also obvious that cannibalism does occur. I posted those verses, which I understand are the word of God, and it certainly appears to me that eating people is a command from God. But I'm sure that you can rationalize and interpret the passages I posted differently. Although I don't know what rationalization anyone could use about II King 6-29, seems pretty clear to me. It says boil your son and eat him.

Please understand that I am not questioning your faith, nor do I intend to. Like you, I was at one time a strong believer in the Bible. Obviously I am no longer a believer.

'Lev 26:27,29: Yet if inspite of this you do no obey Me, but act with hostility against Me,

[JohnKelly]

Maybe I have missed something along the way, but what has all this Bible Stuff got to do with the Thread Title - America as World Cop?

:confused:

JohnKelly
Australia