Church elects its first gay bishop

[Natoma]

Just curious with all this bible quoting.. does anyone stop to think how much of the text may have been altered over the last 2000 some odd years? By either translation faults, or even just Church-as-state-agenda-pushing from hundreds of years back?

I'm not religious to begin with, but if I did, the integrity of the bible text would be the first thing that would pop into my head (just the kind of person I am I suppose, which is why I guess i'm not religious!).

Actually, the books that comprise the bible are roughly 5000 years old, have been translated through 7 different languages, and during the bible compilation by the catholic church, and later on by King James, various texts and works were expunged from the record.

I have a hard time translating "Hi honey. I'd like to have fish for dinner tonight" from english to chinese without it coming out as "Fishing with honey, we had hi for tonight" or something equally ludicrous. Obviously I'm exaggerating here, but the point remains that language translation is a very tricky business, and the books of the bible have been through that wringer at least 7 different times over the course of the past 5 millennia.

That's one of the reasons I left the church. I didn't have faith in what the bible said, nor did I believe everything in the bible.

 

[Natoma]

But Jesus stated in the new testament that the Bible in its entirety is not washed away. In fact it is immutable and stands for all time for everyone, did he not?

And if we're going to talk about Jesus, isn't it strange that Jesus spoke on everything but homosexuality as an abomination against god, i.e. himself (if you're christian of course. i know muslims think he was just another prophet)? That the only references to homosexuality in the NT were those written by Paul?

Well, to be pedantic, he didn't say that the bible in its entirety is not washed away. The bible didn't exist in its current form when he was around. He did say the old laws were not washed away, though "at the same time" debate with the parasees over the meaning of those laws. Another one of those mysteries that many people like to call contradictions.

Yes yes. You know what I mean when I say "the bible". Pedantic son of a.....

Mysteries, contradictions, unanswered questions (either deliberately unanswered, or cropped out by the various revisions of the bible later on by the catholic church and king james, to name a few), etc. Whatever it is, there are serious holes and flaws in the bible which I personally even with 15 years of indepth study could not reconcile.

Jesus also didn't say it was wrong to own slaves, but we seem to reject that idea this day also.

Tis true. However, the bible in quite a few passages accepts and even condones slavery. I wrote a piece on this a while ago. I'll dig it up if you don't know which scriptures I'm referring to.

So our denial of slavery today is anti-biblical. The slave owners in the 19th century were indeed correct when they used the bible to support american slavery. Who'd have thunk it?

 

[RussSchultz]

Which is why I'm happy enough to accept the core message of christ (Believe, and you shall be saved) and leave the rest of the bible as guidance and historical context

Though, lately, I tend to question the necessity in my life of having a trinity, and simply recognize a supreme being with the bible being one of our imperfect attempts to understand it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, that's why we have statutory rape laws. For those ages after prepubscence, and before the magical "18" when you become an adult.

"Magical" indeed. (Though the age differs from state to state I believe). And it has nothing to do "after" pre-pubescence. Statutory rape laws effect any relationship where one person is simply under the "age of consent."

They're designed for one purpose. To prevent the non-consensual sexual abuse of another being.

Yes...that the laws are there so the government can redefine "concensual." A consensual relationship is not, in fact, when there is consent between two people.

Interestingly, AFAIK, if BOTH individuals are underage, no law is broken. (At least, not statutory rape laws). Not sure about this though...Seems pretty odd to me...both kids can by law "not have the maturity" to understand sex, so they can freely enter into it....but if ONE of them is of age...that's a no-no!

A sixteen and a seventeen year old can have all the sex they want. Then when one turns 18 and the other 17.....well, you legally have to wait a year to resume activities!

Of course there are laws against rape, clearly because by definition it is non consensual. Why isn't that enough to just cover non-consensual relationships "under" the age of consent? Rape is rape.

Basically, it all comes down to accepting the premise of "Age of Consent". That the litmus test for being mature and responsible enough able to give your consent, is one of Age. It can surely be argued that's blatant age discrimination. Not everyone matures at the same rate, and not everyone has enough of an education at the same age to make an "informed enough" opinion.

 

[Natoma]

From a prior post of mine:

The other laws that make it illegal are child protection laws and statutory rape laws. There have been cases for instance where an 18 year old was thrown in jail because of sexual activity with a 17 year old. Ridiculous, but true.

I read a few cases where that happened. One of them was in Ohio. The one in ohio was between two gay kids. One was 16 and the other was 17. They both had birthdays around the same time though. The parents were none too happy about it, but legally they couldn't do anything about the situation, well, save for ground their child.

When the 17yr old turned 18, they immediately called the police and had him arrested for statutory rape and hauled off to jail. The two boys had been in a relationship for 2 years at that point.

As far as underage rape, you can indeed be charged with rape as a minor in a "minor-only" relationship. However, you won't be charged as an adult.

"Magical" indeed. (Though the age differs from state to state I believe). And it has nothing to do "after" pre-pubescence. Statutory rape laws effect any relationship where one person is simply under the "age of consent."

I know the driving age differs, but I wasn't aware the age of consent was different from state to state. Also, I thought statutory rape laws had something to do with puberty - 17.99999. Reason being that pedophile charges are never referred to as statutory rape in court cases. It's always pedophilia.

 

[V3]

Natoma,

So our denial of slavery today is anti-biblical. The slave owners in the 19th century were indeed correct when they used the bible to support american slavery. Who'd have thunk it?

Then they must have forgotten to read the bit about when God rescued the Jews out of slavery from Egypt.

I have no idea, why you bother putting down scriptures, that you have no faith in. Is it some assurance you need to find, that abandoning the faith, was the right decision ?

RussSchultz,

Though, lately, I tend to question the necessity in my life of having a trinity, and simply recognize a supreme being with the bible being one of our imperfect attempts to understand it.

Always pray for guidence. We all have our moments of weaknesses.

 

[RussSchultz]

Then they must have forgotten to read the bit about when God rescued the Jews out of slavery from Egypt.

So, should we take that to mean owning slaves is a sin, or is that overridden by Exodus where the proper treatment of slaves and their legal rights are described?

Again, one of those mysteries.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma,

So our denial of slavery today is anti-biblical. The slave owners in the 19th century were indeed correct when they used the bible to support american slavery. Who'd have thunk it?

Then they must have forgotten to read the bit about when God rescued the Jews out of slavery from Egypt.

I have no idea, why you bother putting down scriptures, that you have no faith in. Is it some assurance you need to find, that abandoning the faith, was the right decision ?

Not at all. I just put down scriptures that show the contradictions that exist in the bible. Also when people use the bible to condemn homosexuality, I show other scriptures that condemn many other things that people apparently don't pay any heed to.

Btw, in addition to what russ what wrt the rules regarding slave treatment and how slaves should be loyal to their masters, it could easily be argued as why a just god would allow the israelites to enter into the bondage of slavery for 400 years anyways. It could also be easily argued as to why a just god would create satan, since that god is omniscient and knows what havok satan would cause later on.

Here's my take on god's musings in the beginning of time. I wrote this in one of my more sarcastic moments

I'll create this somewhat intelligent species. I'll make him flawed, but I won't tell him I knew I was making him flawed. I'll tell him it was his fault that he failed, even though I knew he would fail because I'm all knowing and all seeing. Then let me lay the guilt trip on him by 'dying' for him to erase his sins which I created in the first place. And through all this, I'll say that if he doesn't worship me because I'm all powerful, he's condemned to eternal suffering, through no fault of his own, but just because I wanted a damn good laugh.

Personally I think God was bored with life and just wanted to see the shit hit the fan for a while.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

When the 17yr old turned 18, they immediately called the police and had him arrested for statutory rape and hauled off to jail. The two boys had been in a relationship for 2 years at that point.

Right...seems more like age discrimination to me. That's pretty much my point. Using age as the litmus test for "consent" is a very, very braod brush to paint with.

As far as underage rape, you can indeed be charged with rape as a minor in a "minor-only" relationship. However, you won't be charged as an adult.

Then that means both participants would be charged?

"I know the driving age differs, but I wasn't aware the age of consent was different from state to state.

Yes, here's a quick reference I dug up:

http://www.sexlaws.org/answers/index.html

For example: West Virginia is 16, new York is 17.

Also, I thought statutory rape laws had something to do with puberty - 17.99999. Reason being that pedophile charges are never referred to as statutory rape in court cases. It's always pedophilia.

Not to my knowledge. Obviously this can vary from state to state, but I was not aware that you can be charged with being a "pedophile". You can of couse be labeled a pedophile (from being convicted of statutory rape or posession of child pornography for example,) but as far as I know, you aren't "charged" with "pedophilia."

 

[Natoma]

No no. Not for having underage sex. For actually forcing someone else to have sex against their will. Minors can have sex with one another. But if one minor forces another to have sex against his/her will, then the one doing the forcing can be charged with rape.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No no. Not for having underage sex. For actually forcing someone else to have sex against their will. Minors can have sex with one another.

Actually, I'm not sure that is the case. (Though again, I'm not clear on this, and it likely varies from state to state.) The issue is neither person has the legal authority to consent to sex, so technically, both people are engaging in illegal activity. It would not be statutory rape, but there are probably different laws in different states the define the exact charge and penalties.

But if one minor forces another to have sex against his/her will, then the one doing the forcing can be charged with rape.

Sure.

 

[RussSchultz]

No no. Not for having underage sex. For actually forcing someone else to have sex against their will. Minors can have sex with one another. But if one minor forces another to have sex against his/her will, then the one doing the forcing can be charged with rape.

Um, statutory rape is defined to be having sex ("consensual" or not) with somebody under the age of consent.

The idea being, they're under the age of consent, therefore the sex cannot be consensual.

 

[V3]

So, should we take that to mean owning slaves is a sin, or is that overridden by Exodus where the proper treatment of slaves and their legal rights are described?

Again, one of those mysteries.

Russ,

At that time, God only make covenant with the Jews. Only the Jews are God's people. After Christ resurrection, salvation becomes universal, all nations are God's people (includes everyone on Earth). Its a sin to make slaves out of God's people, because Christ already purchased us with his blood, Christian are only slave to God.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Um, statutory rape is defined to be having sex ("consensual" or not) with somebody under the age of consent.

To be perfectly clear, the general definition of statutory rape is when one person of or over the age of consent, has sex with someone under the age of consent.. (You may have meant this, but you left that ambiguity in your definition.)

The idea being, they're under the age of consent, therefore the sex cannot be consensual.

When both people are under the age of consent, yes, the sex cannot be legally consensual and therefore, illegal in most if not all states. However, I am not sure (and it probably varies from state to state), whether this condition of both being under age is statutory rape on the part of both parties, of if it's some other charge.

 

[Natoma]

I have never seen statutory rape laws applied to two minors engaging in sexual activity. One adult and one minor sure, but never two minors. I don't know if that technicality could even be used in a court of law to prosecute two minors for engaging in sexual activity.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I have never seen statutory rape laws applied to two minors engaging in sexual activity. One adult and one minor sure, but never two minors. I don't know if that technicality could even be used in a court of law to prosecute two minors for engaging in sexual activity.

It certainly is illegal in most if not all states to have sex before the age of consent. Again, this doesn't mean it's a statutory rape charge though.

http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsent2.htm

Even if you are at the age of consent for where you live, the age of your partner can also effect the legality of the act. Confused yet? It gets worse! If you and your partner are both UNDER the age of consent, neither of you can legally consent to sex and under the law, you are both committing an offence in having sex (although this type of offence is rarely charged). If you are at the age of consent but your partner is OVER the age of majority, even if you yell yes at the top of your lungs and bring the condom, your partner could be guilty of Statutory Rape.

 

[V3]

Btw, in addition to what russ what wrt the rules regarding slave treatment and how slaves should be loyal to their masters, it could easily be argued as why a just god would allow the israelites to enter into the bondage of slavery for 400 years anyways. It could also be easily argued as to why a just god would create satan, since that god is omniscient and knows what havok satan would cause later on.

God is omniscient, look at the good things that happend to Israelites, while they were in Egypt, they were able to be fruitful, grew large in number, the oppression began was because of the Israelites growing strong, the Egyptian fear them.

God created Satan, the same main purpose as everything, to serve and glorify God and have share in the glory of God. Satan was good when he was created, the same as human.

And to those creatures that failed to function as God intended, will be burned in the eternal fire of Hell, for rejecting everything good that God has offered. Satan and his minions are already there, human will be there too, if we didn't take up on God's salvation plan.

 

[Natoma]

If god is omniscient, then he would know which creatures would fail would he not? So why create them flawed?

I'll create this somewhat intelligent species. I'll make him flawed, but I won't tell him I knew I was making him flawed. I'll tell him it was his fault that he failed, even though I knew he would fail because I'm all knowing and all seeing. Then let me lay the guilt trip on him by 'dying' for him to erase his sins which I created in the first place. And through all this, I'll say that if he doesn't worship me because I'm all powerful, he's condemned to eternal suffering, through no fault of his own, but just because I wanted a damn good laugh.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

If god is omniscient, then he would know which creatures would fail would he not? So why create them flawed?

Because we have freedome of choice and we are not puppets.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Natoma]

Natoma,

If god is omniscient, then he would know which creatures would fail would he not? So why create them flawed?

Because we have freedome of choice and we are not puppets.

Dr. Ffreeze

That doesn't change the fact that god created us perfect, according to his own word. A perfect creation doesn't make mistakes. That is the very definition of perfect. The absence of imperfection.