A Quaker Understanding...

[ricmat]

“…must be made by each man and woman for himself. No one is allowed to get it second hand by accepting a ready made creed.”

Your religion is called Quaker, but it has no centralized belief system. Creeds are individually determined. One believes this, another believes something else.

What a terrific idea . Every man and woman are their own pope. Some people “discover” homosexual sex, and conclude that it’s good. And so forth. Since there is no universal right and wrong, “right” is whatever one decides it is. That should work well…

 

[Publisher]

Publisher wrote that Sacred Scripture is a secondary source and also a “pope of paper”.

A person reading Sacred Scripture would be free to pick and choose the parts that are enjoyable, and to neglect or change the parts that are disagreeable - cafeteria Christianity, like cafeteria Catholics.

Again you offer a “caricature”…no one is free to “pick and choose”…the scriptures are seen as a whole and our individual experience with God is weighed against others experience in scripture.

I did not claim the scriptures are a “pope of paper”…you misread. Neither “pope of flesh” nor “pope of paper” have any place in our beliefs…we have a Living and True Teacher.

 

[ricmat]

Yes, I use the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Christian scriptures.

Yes…the stories of the Hebrew scriptures reflect the culture of the day. The scriptures do not claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of “homosexualtity”…Ezekiel provides the reason with God’s “own words”. Eze 16:14

“Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor” Douay-Rheims Bible

People willing to disobey God often do it at many levels. Ezekiel mentioned one of them.

So what happened to the angels who went to investigate Sodom? Gen 19:5ff. Immediately after this “event”, the decision to destroy Sodom is made.

 

[Publisher]

People willing to disobey God often do it at many levels. Ezekiel mentioned one of them.

So what happened to the angels who went to investigate Sodom? Gen 19:5ff. Immediately after this “event”, the decision to destroy Sodom is made.

Friend, I don’t know…I’m not even sure if there were angels…I know the story…I do not believe it is historical…perhaps that is a problem between us understanding one another…according to the story the angels appear to have been the object of rape and violence with the men in the city…a practice that ancient cultures engaged in…rape the male captives…make them into “women”…this was not an act of sexual expression…it was an attempted act of rape and violence and victimization of those “different” than themselves.

The story of Sodom no more condemns homosexuality than the sexual tryst Lot and his daughters engage in…the virgin daughters he offered to the crowd to keep the angels safe…strange offer for such a “righteous” man…yet his two daughers and he engage in drunken orgy…condemn heterosexuality…they are stories…not history.

 

[ricmat]

Friend, I don’t know…I’m not even sure if there were angels…I know the story…I do not believe it is historical…perhaps that is a problem between us understanding one another…according to the story the angels appear to have been the object of rape and violence with the men in the city…a practice that ancient cultures engaged in…rape the male captives…make them into “women”…this was not an act of sexual expression…it was an attempted act of rape and violence and victimization of those “different” than themselves.

The story of Sodom no more condemns homosexuality than the sexual tryst Lot and his daughters engage in…the virgin daughters he offered to the crowd to keep the angels safe…strange offer for such a “righteous” man…yet his two daughers and he engage in drunken orgy…condemn heterosexuality…they are stories…not history.

They weren’t captives. They were guests in the city.

The men of Sodom wanted “intimacies” with them (in the NJB, NAB, and others).

Lot offered his daughters because he thought it was less of an evil than the homosexual rapes that were being attempted.

This isn’t about Lot or his righteousness anyhow.

BTW - the Church doesn’t condemn same sex attraction. It’s a particularly difficult temptation for those who experience it. But falling to that temptation is a sin.

 

[ricmat]

Friend, I don’t know…I’m not even sure if there were angels…I know the story…I do not believe it is historical…perhaps that is a problem between us understanding one another…according to the story the angels appear to have been the object of rape and violence with the men in the city…a practice that ancient cultures engaged in…rape the male captives…make them into “women”…this was not an act of sexual expression…it was an attempted act of rape and violence and victimization of those “different” than themselves.

The story of Sodom no more condemns homosexuality than the sexual tryst Lot and his daughters engage in…the virgin daughters he offered to the crowd to keep the angels safe…strange offer for such a “righteous” man…yet his two daughers and he engage in drunken orgy…condemn heterosexuality…they are stories…not history.

They weren’t captives. They were guests in the city.

The men of Sodom wanted “intimacies” with them (in the NJB, NAB, and others).

Lot offered his daughters because he thought it was less of an evil than the homosexual rapes that were being attempted.

This isn’t about Lot or his righteousness anyhow.

BTW - the Church doesn’t condemn same sex attraction. It’s a particularly difficult temptation for those who experience it. But falling to that temptation is a sin.

These may or may not be history, but even if it’s only a story, it’s a story written by God that we need to learn a lesson from.

 

[gmcbroom]

Publisher,
Your right thats what is alluded to in Ezekiel. However, in Isaiah,it was a lack of social justice, and Jeremiah saw it as general immorality. Truth be told the Old Testament Prophets had various reasons to say what they did. The Yawist or J the oldest source of the Torah atleast according to Documentary Hypothesis tends to say homsexuality was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. True I got this from wikipedia which may or may not be authentic but my New American Bible says that as well in the footnotes so perhaps its true. Either way this is an area where our scriptures differ.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Homosexuality is a natural, normal variation of human sexuality.

A “normal variation” is an oxymoron, it wouldn’t be a variation in the first place if it didn’t go against the norm. Homosexuality can not be a normal variation.

 

[Publisher]

“…must be made by each man and woman for himself. No one is allowed to get it second hand by accepting a ready made creed.”

Your religion is called Quaker, but it has no centralized belief system. Creeds are individually determined. One believes this, another believes something else.

What are your opinions about the Apostle’s Creed? Were the Apostles too cohesive in their beliefs?

Asking if the apostles were “too cohesive”…I assume you believe the 5th century myth of how the “Apostles Creed” came about…each apostle providing a section…is true? The Apostles Creed was probably formuated in the 4th century by Ambrose, is one likely orign.

The Apostles Creed was not formulated by the apostles…

Each of us seeks to weigh his or her experience with God against the experience of others in the Meeting…each of us seeks to articulate our experience…and many of our experiences do differ in how we express the Divine and Eternal. In Quaker thought a “belief” is of value when it inspires and causes the one possesing that belief to service to others. If the beliefs one holds is not “translated” into daily life through the expression of our faith lived out in our world…such beliefs are of no value IF the beliefs held does not find expression in service to others.

 

[Publisher]

They weren’t captives. They were guests in the city.

The men of Sodom wanted “intimacies” with them (in the NJB, NAB, and others).

Lot offered his daughters because he thought it was less of an evil than the homosexual rapes that were being attempted.

This isn’t about Lot or his righteousness anyhow.

BTW - the Church doesn’t condemn same sex attraction. It’s a particularly difficult temptation for those who experience it. But falling to that temptation is a sin.

These may or may not be history, but even if it’s only a story, it’s a story written by God that we need to learn a lesson from.

Friend, I do not base my understanding of sexual orientation on ancient myths of angels and fire and brimstone. The story wasn’t about homosexuality either…based on what the prophets claimed…which you referenced above…yet you wish to discuss the story as though it did.

 

[Publisher]

A “normal variation” is an oxymoron, it wouldn’t be a variation in the first place if it didn’t go against the norm. Homosexuality can not be a normal variation.

Modern understandings of human sexuality disagree with you. Humanities sexual orientations are on a “variable scale” with most of us living on one end of a wide spectrum of sexual orientations. If your understanding of sexuality is based on your religious beliefs…I understand why you disagree.

 

[Barbkw]

Archeology, astronomy and geology back up the “story” concerning the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Publisher]

I am not overly concerned which parts are “myth” and which are not…the Hebrew Bible is a compilation of myths and historical events “interpreted” by the compilers and redactors in the 5th century BCE with the return of the Jews from exile. Geneisis through Chronicles took it’s form we now enjoy after the return.

There are essential truths found in scripture…how we are to treat one another…care for one another…lift one another up, seek peace with our neighbor, feed the hungy, clothe the naked, care for the widows and orphans…forumulating psychological “theory” of human sexuality isn’t one of the Bible’s goals I would think…

I would rather err on the side of love and kindness and accept my gay brothers and sisters as “equals” on this Journey. Each and every gay man and woman wears the face of Christ…and there is “that of God” within them seeking to be known in our world.

My Meeting struggled a long time…years…with much discussion and prayer to seek the Will and Mind of God on how we are to live together with our gay brethren. We chose to obey His call to love unconditionally and bring those who would seek to be named among us into full and impartial membership with full benefits and blessing of being part of our Meeting.

Many other Christian groups are now struggling with this same issue…

Perhaps my answer to your question…“which are not myth”…any story or passage which allows for the marginalization of a group of people and allows violence to be done to them and any story which does not speak to the dignity of the human condition and inspires us to “love as we are loved”…is myth.

The myths told thorughout scripture…those stories which call for the “righteous” to respond in violence and brutality to “unbelievers” is myth…not too much different than the Gods and Goddesses of other “faiths” of the time.

God is understood best in the revelations of God in Jesus of Nazareth. I find great inspiration in his teachings…the mythic stories of virgin births, walking on water, changing water into wine are products of their times…I weigh them against my experience and the experience of God others have. God is known and experienced as a Reality in the Meeting I attend…and we are always called to service to others…I’m not overly concerned by “visiting angels” or “clouds of fire” or “parting seas and rivers” or “floating axe head” or “talking donkeys and snakes”.

 

[Barbkw]

“…the mythic stories of virgin births, walking on water, changing water into wine are products of their times…”

You think those three occurances were myths?

 

[Publisher]

I do not believe in talking snakes or donkeys. I do not believe that rivers part from bank to bank to allow passage with the wave of a hand or at the implementation of a “magic wand”…I do not believe seas part nor that the earth quits rotating to allow the day to be longer.

If comfort is found in those myths and stories for those who wish to believe them…I say wonderful.

Any faith that does not put the welfare of others at it’s core is of no value to me. I am a Friend because of my experience with God has led me here.

I do not believe anyone in this world stands in the stead of Christ…He is Present among us…He and He alone is our Present Priest and King…so I need no human “priest” to perform rituals for or in my behalf…I have a Perfect Priest.

In the revelation of God in Christ, the ritual requirements of the Law have been taken care of…no rituals or rites are required of me other than to “love my neighbor as myself”…even if it is no more than offering a cup of cold water to a stranger who has need of a drink…that is more important than taking a sip of wine…or offering a meal to a hungry child…more important than eating a piece of bread to satisfy a “ritual requirement”…or sitting with a dying woman holding her hand…more important than someone “confirming” me into a relgious fellowship by “ritual gestures” and “laying on of hands”

I find worth in Quakerism because it seeks to make our world a better place as each Friend seeks to live today…this moment…this hour within the Kingdom of God in our world…“the Kingdom of God is within you”.

These are not your understandings…you must “work out your own salvation in fear and trembling” as I must…as Friend Margaret Fell Fox stated…“Doctrine divides…service to others unites”.

 

[Barbkw]

“…the mythic stories of virgin births, walking on water, changing water into wine are products of their times…”

You think those three occurances were myths?

Publisher, you answered around my question, but didn’t answer the question I asked.

Do you think those three occurances (virgin birth, walking on water, changing water into wine) are myths?

 

[Publisher]

No…I do not disparage Catholicism…I disagree with it most of it’s religious beliefs…but if I beleived in it’s doctrines…I’d be Catholic.

Perhaps you could assist me in how to express my faith so it would be explanatory as well as “gentle”…how does one express one’s lack of belief in ritual and rites without stating that I do not believe in rites and rituals? In the past when stated, some Catholics seem to take umbrage that I don’t practice some ritualistic schema such as water baptism or bread and wine consumption as a “ritual meal”…I have participated in communion services of various faith traditions when requested to participate…“all baptized persons may come forward…”…“But I’ve never undergone a ritual baptism, am I still welcome at your Table?” Sometimes…“Yes, all are welcome.”…sometimes “No, only baptized believers.”…I am a Baptized believer…I accept the baptism of Spirit directly from the Hand of my Baptizer…for some…this is enough…for others…I am to “sit this one out.”

Yes…I have been accused of the ever encompassing dismissal of “moral relativism” before…I still choose to err on the side of love and mercy…if “moral relativism” is how my pursuit is to be worded…I’ll embrace that definition…I am a “moral relativist”…but I must obey the Voice I hear as you must yours.

 

[Barbkw]

Publisher brought those three events up (virgin birth, walk on water, and water to wine) and spoke of them as “mythical” accounts.

I’m verifying Publisher’s remarks.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher brought those three events up (virgin birth, walk on water, and water to wine) and spoke of them as “mythical” accounts.

I’m verifying Publisher’s remarks.

They are my remarks…I do not believe in “virgin births”, men can walk on water, nor that water can be turned to wine with a word…“mythic accounts”…to teach deeper truths than simply to affirm the “event” as described took place.

We all know how babies are born, we all know people can’t “walk on water”, we all know when we turn on our faucet, we’ll most likely get water…not wine…unless someone “tampered” with our plumbing.

IF YOU BELIEVE these events as factual AND these events inspire you to love more deeply…speak more kindly…care for others more agressivly…I say wonderful…

 

[Barbkw]

They are my remarks…I do not believe in “virgin births”, men can walk on water, nor that water can be turned to wine with a word…“mythic accounts”…to teach deeper truths than simply to affirm the “event” as described took place.

We all know how babies are born, we all know people can’t “walk on water”, we all know when we turn on our faucet, we’ll most likely get water…not wine…unless someone “tampered” with our plumbing.

IF YOU BELIEVE these events as factual AND these events inspire you to love more deeply…speak more kindly…care for others more agressivly…I say wonderful…

Into the next generation, and the generation after that; you see no problem with Sacred Scripture being read to children - and taught to children - as if the events were similar in scope to Mother Goose or Cat in the Hat?