http://www.edow.org/...

Contributions from Ahmanson and the Bradley, Coors, Olin, Scaife and Smith-Richardson family foundations have frequently accounted for more than half of the operating budgets of the American Anglican Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy . . . The AAC and the IRD have worked together in opposing the Episcopal Church's consecration of a gay bishop with a male partner, its practice of ordaining non-celibate homosexuals to the priesthood, and its willingness to permit the blessing of same-sex relationships.

It's not just the Episcopal church that's being attacked.  Here's an alarm from a Methodist academic:

The political right-wing, operating in the guise of a gaggle of so-called "renewal groups," particularly one named the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), has acquired the money and political will to target three mainline American denominations: The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the Episcopal Church. The IRD was created and is sustained by money from right-wing foundations and has spent millions of dollars over 20 years attacking mainline denominations. The IRD's conservative social-policy goals include increasing military spending and foreign interventions, opposing environmental protection efforts, and eliminating social welfare programs.

The amazing thing I've discovered in the early going is that this may have all started because of the Christian Churches' efforts in Latin America towards helping the poor.  At least that's the charge I've read.  I've got to try to evaluate it.  The Reagan Administration's policies towards Nicaragua and El Salvador are allegedly part of the story.  Basically, the story goes, the right wing think tanks and foundations decided at that time to try to discredit the churches working for social justice, in an effort to advance their political and economic agendas in Latin America.

For now there's a good summary of this story at http://www.talk2acti...

Dirty business indeed.

Is this why one critic on this blog tried to argue this was just an affair among Nigerians, and non-Episcopalians should stay out of it?  He/she did sound defensive and nervous.

If you're a churchgoer at a mainstream Protestant Church, I strongly recommend you start some reading on your own.

Jamie over at West of Shockoe today talked about the right attacking veterans.  Is nothing sacred?  Now are they targeting religions to advance their political agendas?

Oliver North reportedly also attends Truro.

2) The Episcopal split is an Episcopal issue.  The Episcopalians split off from the Pope and did not have to return property to the Roman church.  If a parish decides to break off, it should be able to retain its property.  The precedent is clear.  Leave the lawyers out of it.

3) "homophobic", "sexist" ?
What's with the name calling.  Can't a church be allowed to keep it's traditions?  I think most folks are willing to accept different religious practice without using names.

You left the Episcopal church, I suggest you stay out of their brawl.

It's not just a Nigerian issue or an Episcopal issue, any more than Nazism was just an internal German matter.  (And yes, I do thing hostility towards gays is one of the moral issues that can be compared to Nazism.  John Aravosis has a nice piece on the issue on his blog.)  It's an international issue dealing with basic morals and humanity.  (In fact I understand the U.S. applied some political pressure the last time this legislation came forward.)  It's the same type reason people had to stand up to Hitler.

I wonder if you support imprisoning people for their sexual identity?  The tenor of your comment suggests you do.

There are some moral issues that transcend local "customs."  Treating women like property.  Imprisoning people because of sexual orientations.  Chopping off body limbs for minor crimes.  Killing for being of a different religion.  And yes, if they're Muslim traditions, we work against those too.  Trade sanctions could be used, for example.  The U.S. has intervened in countries on far less serious moral issues.

The only reason I advocate getting out of Iraq is that the moral issues are insoluble.  But Nigeria has a Christian tradition that I believe is being subverted and I think public pressure may be enough to counter the anti-gay laws.

The property issue is not clear.  Perhaps you're just reading something sent around by the non-Christians that currently control Truro and Falls Church.  (That's not name calling -- that's opinion based on thousands of hours of theological study.)  I don't think Bishop Lee would have started this fight on a lark.  (In fact, he confirmed me.)  He's truly a religious person, and from hearing him speak once, he seems quite smart. 

Slavery was a "tradition" too.  And the Christian churches for a long time condoned or supported it.  Tradition?  What is "tradition?"  It just means the way people used to do things.

Part of my heart is still within the Episcopal Church.  I was confirmed in that church.  Some things never leave one.  And I am sorry that a group that openly advocates treating gays and women as less than fully human, funded in part by the radical right, is causing such pain.

I'm Episcopal.  It IS my fight. You left the church. So buzz off.

As an apostate Episcopalian you should have some knowledge of the history of the church and not be so disingenuous in your attacks. 

You are just plain wrong to call the people of separatist parishes non-Christians.  I suppose you have a name for anybody you disagree with.  You are symptomatic of a long decline in political discourse that has resulted in out of touch nuts on both sides dominating a pointless discussion punctuated with name calling.

You paint the Nigerians with a broad but negative brush.  Most Nigerians are moral people who just like their traditions.  They are not the monsters you imply.  You say that AIDS is big problem (it is. Africa is devastated).  Banning non-monogamous sex might actually be a good idea for poor people in order to eliminate transmission mechanisms for a disease which is wracking genocide on the people of Africa. Some of the excesses that happen there are exactly that, excesses that get luridly reported in the American Press. Frankly, I don't have a problem with a culture deciding to keep most of their traditional mores.  Certainly tolerating murder and slavery are out.  But basic marriage law is up the people of that country. I'm not for bombing them or blockading them or imposing trade sanctions. People like you who compare them to the Nazis are wrong (Yes. I am invoking Godwin Law ... you lost this argument).

The issues with Nigeria vs the US on the Episcopal church is really quite simple.  It's not the "African Nazis" (as you imply) versus the "morally superior" white Americans.  The African church is thriving and the American church is dieing (you yourself said you left).  So, the majority Africans are starting to flex their muscle against the minority whites and will likely take over the church.  It's a fight the minority, white, liberal Episcopalians are going to lose to the traditional African Episcopalians.  Lose?  Heck, in your case  you quit.

Invoking Darfur?  Please.

1)  Well, yes and no.  Slavery is wrong no matter where it occurs, and saying that's for another country to deal with is evading the issue.  The reason the Nigerians came up in the first place is because the breakaway churches want to affiliate with this particular bishop, and that directly relates to the U.S.
2)  The Episcopal split is not analogous to the split from Catholicism, not least because the breakaway churches don't have a monarch on their side.  Individuals that want to leave a church can go, they just can't take the property with them...I think the lawyers need to be in it.
3)  It's not a tradition to condemn homosexuality.  Wasn't there somebody that said, "Love your enemies"?  I have to agree with PM that it is homophobic and sexist.

I also left the Episcopal church over issues of tolerance.  The church doesn't need to listen to me, but I have a right to express my opinion regardless of whether I am a member or not.  It also is a huge problem if the church wants to maintain its membership among a more liberal group. 

And, damit, seperate the issues.  You folks are invoking "Darfur" and "slavery".  C'mon.  Keep it on track, people.

Yes, you do have a right to criticize the African revolution in the church.  But, as you say, you left.  You don't have a dog in it. 

I've probably read as much church history as lots of divinity school graduates, by the way.

(In fact, given Henry's reasons for creating the church, it's a wonder that the radical rights want to identify with the Anglican church.  It's an embarrassing part of Anglican history.)

It is a court fight.  Where I grew up in PA (so the law may well be different in VA), our local Catholic Church was built by a group of immigrants.  No funding came from the diocese.  A policy fight ensued among the founders who were also the church board, and one group sought a division of assets.  The PA Supremes ruled for the diocese -- and the dissident group had to start a new (non-Catholic church) across the river.  I don't have access to Westlaw now, but look for a town named Olyphant in the search, and St. Cyril's Church.  I sincerely hope that the breakaways lose, and the court imposes Rule 11 sanctions against the breakaways so they have to pay all the court costs.

You still haven't answered the question, but from your apparent support of the breakaways I guess we may conclude that you support imprisonment of gays in Africa.  Because that's what, in effect, the Truro and Falls Church people have done.  The Nigerian bishop is said to be an ardent supporter of the heinous loegislation.  Nice.

And you can say "homophobe" is name-calling, but since they have a phobia [intolerance or aversion, according to M-W.com] of homosexuals, that makes them homophobes.

Most Western churches look the other way at the treatment of women and the polygamy of many churches in Africa. Many of these traditions include abusing or mutilating women, keeping them in poverty, and denying them nutrition or health care to safely deliver and nurse their children. As long as the Western churches are willing to overlook this, expecting them to tolerate our diversity is the least they can do in return.

"Nigerian Muslims aren't trying to violate the terms and take this property"

What the heck ?????

Do you favor imprisoning people because they're gay?  That's what the Nigerian bishop wants.  He's on record as backing the proposed laws there.

As to "where I get this stuff" -- try, for example, the website of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. 

http://www.edow.org/...

When the General Convention of the Episcopal Church meets June 13 in Columbus, Ohio, a small network of theologically conservative organizations will be on hand to warn deputies that they must repent of their liberal attitudes on homosexuality or face serious consequences. The groups represent a small minority of church members, but relationships with wealthy American donors and powerful African bishops have made them key players in the fight for the future of the Anglican Communion.

Mainstream Episcopalians are on to this right wing threat.  I just read a big article by a member of Christ Church in Alexandria, for the McClatchy papers.  Boy, wait until the real power structure in Virginia -- the thousands of mainstream Episcopalians -- starts acting.

I now realize some of this has been addressed before on Raising Kaine, and a number of RKers expressed their shock and dismay at what Truro church was doing. See Dianne's excellent diary at: http://www.raisingka...  And Rob also did one.

But this money link to the Scaife, Olin, Coors foundation money is intriguing. 

I don't like many tenants from many religions: Jewish , Muslim, Christian, etc.  I'd like for them to change.  I do respect their rights to manage their religion as they see fit, though.  If roman catholics want celebate male priests and will only sanction one man, one woman marriage, that's their business.  Do I think it's silly not to have women priests?  Yes.  But it's their business.

I personally oppose schism.  However, individual parishes and congregations have some rights to cleanly seperate.  I'm not sure howling about it is going to prevent it. 

The African bishop is on record as opposing jailing gays.  Sadly, he does say that the Nigerian government has right to pass laws as it sees fit without interference from the West.  Given that he's fighting radical Muslims who want to impose a Sharia dictorship on the people and trying to prevent sectarian violence that the kills hundreds of poor people who don't share our enlightened Western values, I am inclined to give him a break.  His main problem is avoiding a Sudan style civil war, not imposing European values on his poor, malnourshied parishoners.

A new anti-gay bill is close to becoming law.  This Time Magazine writer states that it's time for Akinola top put up or shut up.

The Anglican Primate of Nigeria***needs to clarify his stance on a Nigerian anti-homosexuality bill he initially supported, which assigns a five-year prison term not only for practicing gays, but also for those who support them. Akinola either needs to publicly renounce, in strong terms, his early support of the bill's punitive clauses and to amplify the rather tepid concern he later expressed about them . . ."

By the way, the 2006 bill was publicly opposed by the U.S. State Department.

I think the Time writer expresses the urgent issues better than I can summarize, so I'm apologizing in advance for this slightly long excerpt.

In the heat of Nigeria's presidential election campaign, however, the bill has been revived. According to Stefano Fabeni of the Washington-based organization Global Rights, the Nigerian legislature is supposed to be considering a new, "harmonized" version of the bill, that may or may not include the five-year penalties. Fabeni also asserts that on February 14, during a discussion of the issue, the Christian Association of Nigeria, to which Akinkola's church belongs, argued in favor of letting the penalties remain. In any case the old version, with penalties, has already passed two readings in both houses of the National Assembly, and will become law if it passes a third reading in the Senate. The deciding vote could take place at any time within the next few weeks. So, now would be a good time for the habitually forceful Most Rev. Akinola to be a bit more forceful.

This looks like an emergency that the public needs to know the facts about.  And Akinola has the chance to make his position clear.  And so do the 15 breakaway Virginia churches.

This does not change the fact that the monied right wing is behind a lot of this.  That is the belief of the Washington Episcopal bishop, John Bryson Chane: 

http://www.washingto...

Civil libertarians in this country, and other people as well, should also be aware of the archbishop and his movement. Gifts from such wealthy donors as Howard Ahmanson Jr. and the Bradley, Coors and Scaife families, or their foundations, allow the Washington-based Institute on Religion and Democracy to sponsor so-called "renewal" movements that fight the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches and in the United Church of Christ. Should the institute succeed in "renewing" these churches, what we see in Nigeria today may well be on the agenda of the Christian right tomorrow.

And he raises this profound question - why the silence?  Do many Christian leaders favor these repressive policies?

What about the members of Truro and Falls Church and the other thirteen churches (I mistakenly earlier said 11 total -- it's now 15).

Surprisingly, few voices -- Anglican or otherwise -- have been raised in opposition to the archbishop [Peter J. Akinola, primate of the Church of Nigeria and leader of the conservative wing of the communion]. When I compare this silence with the cacophony that followed the Episcopal Church's decision to consecrate the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives openly with his partner, as the bishop of New Hampshire, I am compelled to ask whether the global Christian community has lost not only its backbone but its moral bearings. Have we become so cowed by the periodic eruptions about the decadent West that Archbishop Akinola and his allies issue that we are no longer willing to name an injustice when we see one?

I also feel compelled to ask the archbishop's many high-profile supporters in this country why they have not publicly dissociated themselves from his attack on the human rights of a vulnerable population. Is it because they support this sort of legislation, or because the rights of gay men and women are not worth the risk of tangling with an important alliance?

As a matter of logic, it must be one or the other, and it is urgent that members of our church, and citizens of our country, know your mind.

So, it is not a rhetorical question.  The Bishop of Washington had the same question a year ago.

Let's see what Akinola says.

This blog is keeping the Nigerian events up to date:  http://politicalspag...

In discussing the oppression of African Americans and women, Rogers wrote this which I think is instructive in how we look at religion and gays:

"Why did good, intelligent, devout Christian people not see what we now recognize as mitigating factors in the biblical record? ....In each case, we accepted a pervasive societal prejudice and read it back into Scripture. We took certain Scriptures out of their context and claimed to read them literally with tragic consequences for those to whom these verses were applied.

Another good book promoting tolerance and explaining common misconceptions about what the Bible says about gays is by a Catholic priest, Daniel Helminiak:  http://www.amazon.co...

The struggle within the Anglican church is something that affects gays outside the church.  That makes it a political issue.  I do not understand loboforestal at all.  It's that simple.

It is not clear why the church and society became so hostile after this period.

But I refer to Boswell because he was an expert in a variety of ancient languages (unlike a lot of hack theologians who will just tell their gullible listeners that "the Bible says it's a sin.")  He was head of Yale's History Department at an early age.  (Fair notice -- Boswell was also gay.) 

His Appendix I deals with the common mistranslations of parts of the Bible dealing with gays.  Basically he shows through a lengthy list of comparisons that "male prostitution" was being singled out, not homosexuality.  (Page 341, if anyone wants to look it up.) He argues that modern Biblical translations on the key "homosexual" verbiage show no understanding of the original Greek words -- which one only gets by understanding Greek culture and their usage in that culture.

The book is fascinating, but long long long.

In short, there is support for the argument that the New Testament does not address homosexuality.

People who don't swallow talking points without wondering where they came from.

There are also some big contradictions in the accepted canons, which should lead one to the conclusion that mortals were writing this stuff.  But that's for another time, except to say that if errant mortals were writing the Good Book . . . well, you can see where this goes.  Anyone interested can just google bible and contradictions.  Basically, many of the facts in the most famous N.T. and O.T. stories don't match.

Win money from what you learn on Raising Kaine! 

Win a bar bet -- ask how many of each type of animal Noah brought on the ark.  Most people know this: "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."  Gen. 6:19 

But you, clever person, will just happen to have a copy of the Bible with you (never enter a tavern without one) and if you go to Genesis 7:2-3 you find:  Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."

While claiming to be wise, they became fools. They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for statues that looked like mortal humans, birds, animals, and snakes. For this reason God allowed their lusts to control them. As a result, they dishonor their bodies by sexual perversion with each other. These people have exchanged God's truth for a lie. So they have become ungodly and serve what is created rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen! For this reason God allowed their shameful passions to control them. Their women have exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion. And because they thought it was worthless to acknowledge God, God allowed their own immoral minds to control them. So they do these indecent things. Their lives are filled with all kinds of sexual sins, wickedness, and greed. They are mean. They are filled with envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, and viciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, haughty, arrogant, and boastful. They think up new ways to be cruel. They don't obey their parents, don't have any sense, don't keep promises, and don't show love to their own families or mercy to others. Although they know God's judgment that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do these things but also approve of others who do them.
Romans 1:22-32 (GW)

For the record, I don't agree with imprisoning homosexuals. God loves a man or lady who is engaged in homosexual sin just as much as a man or lady who is having sex outside of marriage (Jude 1:7), is divorced and remarried (thus committing adultery; Matthew 19:9), is killing someone in Iraq (Matthew 5:43-48), or who is lusting after someone (male or female) walking down the street (Matthew 5:27-28). We should treat gays no differently than any other person who is engaging in rebellion against God.

Do you really still believe that all these years we've been mucking up a simple translation of "males leaving instinctive sex with the woman, [were] inflamed in their lust [with] one another, male with¹ male accomplishing  indecency"? The previous sentence in quotes is an on-the-fly translation I did from the Textus Receptus. The Westcott-Hort has some different word order, but retains all the key words. These words used are very basic, very simple words that are used extensively throughout secular Greek literature. I have read these words in the writings of Aristotle, Philo, Polybius, and in the civic code of the Itanians. These are very, very basic, well-understood words. To posit that they were somehow mysteriously misunderstood is to simply manufacture. These words have been used thousands of times in context and they certainly didn't mean something different then.

I mean, seriously, how basic and well used is this list of words?
male
with
instinctive (also translated "natural")
lust
sex
indecency

It's quite obvious that Boswell went with a (if it feels good, do it) conclusion begging a scholarly excusing.

¹the Greek word here is "en"; you'll recognize it if you know Spanish. It's a very, very basic preposition. Not complicated.

Any man who does not accord the same rights to others as he himself enjoys is a barbarian.

Second, you cite 2 Peter.  In Professor Bart Ehrman's book "Lost Christianities" he says (p. 11) that there is essentially unanimous agreement that 2 Peter is a forgery.  So too are the Pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

Third, I should have made clear that I do not base my conclusions on looking at the Bible's words with a magnifying glass.  The Bible was written by mortals, who tried to copy down lessons from one to several generations before them, many passed orally.  They made many factual mistakes in simple areas.  How many people were at the tomb?  What were the circumstances of Paul's conversion?  There are many more.  All different facts.  And some ludicrous and dangerous mistakes -- like the Christmas story in Matthew, which if read carefully basically concludes that God bears responsibility for the children killed under Herod.  (Gee, God forgot to keep the star in sight for the Magi?  How ludicrous.)  (Of course, that's probably just another Mithras myth anyway.) 

The N.T. writers included men who had agendas -- you're not familiar with the policy struggles among early Christians, such as between the writers of Thomas and John?  And clearly some of those agendas involved men with women issues, and sexual issues.  Ehrman has a list of the competing philosophies (e.g., the question of Christ's divinity.)  And some of those differing philosophies, others observe, led to dangerous outcomes -- such as the differing scriptural treatments of guilt relating to the Pharisees versus Pilate for the crucifixion, and how that led to antisemitism through the Christian era.

And you can't find me one quote from Jesus, can you, on homosexuality?

Are you aware of the massive scholarly 19th century work that was done by the French and Germans showing all the errors and probable fraud in the Bible?  (Conveniently, Pope Leo XIII ordered Catholics to ignore this new science.)  The scientific and scholarly work continues today, of course.  But doesn't it strike you at all odd that if the Bible is God's word, we don't have anything close to originals?  For example, the earliest letters we have of Paul are copies from 200?

And are you so naive that you don't realize that illustrious theologians who comprised the Jesus Seminar agreed there is very little of the New Testament that remains intact (other than Jesus' direct lessons -- none of which touch on homosexuality)?  That many theologians believe Christian myths (e.g., the Virgina myth) were copies of pagan myths meant to popularize the religion?  Remember, early Christian art (halos and such) are just copies of pagan art.

Are you aware that the early Church ordered destroyed all documents that didn't agree with their position?  (Some of these were found in separate discoveries, the latest important one being Nag Hammadi.) How's that for intellectual dishonesty. 

Are you aware that the Old Testament writers probably invented the patriarchal stories, and the Exodus stories?  And the conquest of Canaan?  At least that's the gist of The Bible Unearthed, by the head of Tel Aviv University's Archeology Department.  The archeology just doesn't match the words.

I am sick and tired of "pious" people trying to validate their fears and prejudices from a series of embellished stories that have little or no historical reliability.  And then trying to pass it off as some great truth to other insecure people.

I'm going on to a new topic.  I've had all the unscientific, superstition-laden sanctimonious justifications for bigotry I can take this decade.

When I was under 21 I thought I knew everything too.

And don't repeat personal opinions (or ones you are parroting from your profs) about religion and masquerade them as fact.  That's intellectually immoral.

First, let's start off with this.  You say: "For the record, I don't agree with imprisoning homosexuals."  What, just treating them as second class citizens?  That's okay?  And women the same?

No, I don't believe in treating them as second-class citizens either. Nor do I believe in treating women as second-class citizens.

P.S. Do you REALLY want to get into a contest over Biblical quotes?  For instance, how about the numerous statements in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Gospels sanctioning slavery?  For instance:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ..."

Do you really want to go there?

Let's be clear why dominating males like Christianity.  Here's more of Paul:  "Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted for them to speak.***And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home..."

Nice.  Real nice.  Let's just take half the population and make them spiritually and intellectually inferior.

You wonder if the reason homosexuals were attacked by religion is because a lot of gay men are really nice to women.  Did you ever notice that?  And maybe they were telling these women -- "You know, this isn't right.  And by the way your husband is a brute."

I think one reason the chruches of Europe are mostly empty is that after WWII the people there -- more painfully than our soldiers saw -- realized how truly evil people manipulated their thoughts.  (Hitler -- """Oh, those Jews, those gypsies, those homosexuals, and those evil Czechs and Poles who stole our land, etc.""") They finally woke up and saw how bigotry dressed up in the fancy clothes of religion and nationality were being used to destroy the common man.

Those segments of Paul?  It's a very old and mean trick.

A man should not cover his head. He is God's image and glory. The woman, however, is man's glory. Clearly, man wasn't made from woman but woman from man. Man wasn't created for woman but woman for man. [Remember the Creation account in Genesis? Eve was created from Adam's rib.] Therefore, a woman should wear something on her head to show she is under someone's authority, out of respect for the angels. Yet, as believers in the Lord, women couldn't exist without men and men couldn't exist without women. As a woman came into existence from a man [creation], so men come into existence by women [birth], but everything comes from God.
(1 Corinthians 11:7-12 GW)

Something else that Paul said:

There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females. You are all the same in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:28 GW)

Clearly, Paul is laying out the authority structure of society, specifically at the family/marriage level. This is the God-designed hierarchy of authority (For God's reasons, check out I Timothy 2:12-14). However, it doesn't make them inequal as persons! Paul said elsewhere that there are not males and females with Christ! It is a non sequitur to say that being higher up the chain of commmand makes one a person with more worth. (Do you believe that George W. Bush, being the President of the U.S. and in authority over you, has more worth as a person than do you?) We are all equal in value as people. Furthermore, Paul says in the I Cor. passage that men and women need each other.

And yet another passage on authority structures:

Place yourselves under each other's authority out of respect for Christ. Wives, place yourselves under your husbands' authority as you have placed yourselves under the Lord's authority. The husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. It is his body, and he is its Savior. As the church is under Christ's authority, so wives are under their husbands' authority in everything. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it. He did this to make the church holy by cleansing it, washing it using water along with spoken words. Then he could present it to himself as a glorious church, without any kind of stain or wrinkle-holy and without faults. So husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself.
(Ephesians 5:21-28 GW)

This goes even further! It says that, yes, wives are under that authority of their husbands, but the tougher responsibility is with the men. Husbands are instructed to love their wives as Christ loved the church and give His life for it! Wow!

The reason society has a negative view of women being under man's authority is because when only half of that passage is followed, problems ensue. Men who are jerks get the authority part, but don't follow the love part. My parents followed both and they have had a long happy marriage. My mom is totally under my dad's authority, but dad loves mom like crazy. He would do anything for her. That's God's design. The rate of divorce in the conservative Mennonite church is right next to zero. I can testify: God's plan works.

That's what the religious right wants you to do.  "And you slaves, accept it.  Obey massa."  Same thing.

It is pointless to engage with you.

Once again, you are found to be quoting only half of what the Bible says--the half that justifies your incorrect view of what the Bible teaches.

Masters, treat your slaves with respect. Don't threaten a slave. You know that there is one master in heaven who has authority over both of you, and he doesn't play favorites.
(Ephesians 6:9 GW)

Masters, be just and fair to your slaves because you know that you also have a master in heaven.
(Colossians 4:1 GW)

Does that sound like any slave owner you know? I didn't think so. The problem with the whole slavery thing in America is that people *didn't* follow the Bible.

In fact, most of the early church slave owners freed their slaves once they came to the logical conclusion from other teaching about equality of brothers, etc, etc. You should read the book of Philemon sometime.

And bad treatment of women.

Although most modern religious people pick and choose -- because the authorities frown on things like selling your children into slavery, or permitting them to be raped by visitors.

"In fact, most of the early church slave owners freed their slaves" ---- gee, that's a surprise -- apparently there were no church goers in the south prior to the Emancipation Proclamation?

Every Scripture passage you have brought up that you claim says such things have been found to have been misquoted out of context. Apparently you prefer to make sweeping generalizations about a book you apparently don't know much about, rather than backing up those aforementioned sweeping generalizations.

"In fact, most of the early church slave owners freed their slaves" ---- gee, that's a surprise -- apparently there were no church goers in the south prior to the Emancipation Proclamation?

Sarcastic comments seem to be a substitute for logical thought.

Churchgoer does not equal consistent follower of Scripture.

We, Anabaptists, were a very important part of the Reformation--we were the ones that pioneered separation of church and state, voluntary (rather than coercive) church membership, local election of pastors, respect for other beliefs, non-violence, etc, etc. These were all beliefs that the mainline Reformers of the Reformation rejected.

I have gay friends--I treat them in the same way I would treat someone who is divorced and remarried. Check out how Jesus treated prostitutes, etc.

I hold women in very high regard and go to women for advice on things in which God has better equipped them. God's plan is a division of labor and expertise; not an inequality of worth. In matters of art, emotions, relationships, etc, I favor the advice of women. In matters of science, math, etc, I favor the advice of men. The academic realm noticed this, as we all remember that famous incident in which academic truth was dared to be spoken. My dad defers to my mom probably more than half the time--however, it is understood that the final authority and responsibility rests with him. It's anarchy if it wouldn't.

Your views of the Bible are inspired by people *not* following the Bible, not by true followers of the Bible. Following God's plan works and it works well, to the benefit of all involved.

Thanks.

Pacifism believes that we should work to end wars. Non-resistance believes that it's not right for me as a follower of Christ to go to war.

Romans 13 tells us that the government is a servant of God to execute wrath with the sword on the evildoer and to protect the righteous. Proverbs 21:1 tells us that God works through the governments of this world to accomplish His purposes. Thus, I don't believe it is my place to tell the government that it shouldn't kill--God has placed the institution of government there for that purpose. So you won't see me marching against the Iraq war.

However, I believe that Jesus' commands preclude His followers going to war. Witness:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you this: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.
(Matthew 5:43-44 GW)

Christ never verbally abused those who verbally abused him. When he suffered, he didn't make any threats but left everything to the one who judges fairly.
(1 Peter 2:23 GW)

Don't pay people back with evil for the evil they do to you. Focus your thoughts on those things that are considered noble. As much as it is possible, live in peace with everyone. Don't take revenge, dear friends. Instead, let God's anger take care of it. After all, Scripture says, "I alone have the right to take revenge. I will pay back, says the Lord." But, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. If you do this, you will make him feel guilty and ashamed." Don't let evil conquer you, but conquer evil with good.
(Romans 12:17-21 GW)

I have a hard time seeing being able to love and kill someone at the same time--whether one classifies it as a just or injust killing.

The early church recognized this and didn't allow their members to serve in the military. Even some of the early Roman emperors recognized this and chose to accept Christ on their death beds because they saw they couldn't be a good emperor and a good Christian at the same time.

BTW my wife has a PhD in Economics and knows a little about math and science.  Her sister is a biologist.  My ex-boss' sister is such a preeminent mathematician there's part of a book written about here.  In my former line of work, involving the law and its intersect with statistics and economics, nearly half of the "math" heads have been women.  And we're talking about people functioning at the highest levels of their profession.

Look at the way you've already let the embedded bigotry affect your life.  Your intellectual life is a closed loop.  That's why your values are so screwed up. 

Your views of the Bible are primitive -- pre-adolescent -- any scholar worth his or her salt knows it was not divinely constructed. 

You'll never have a wife worthy much if you believe -- "it is understood that the final authority and responsibility rests with him"

I'm sorry your parents intellectually abused you so.  I don't think you'll ever get over it.  You seem intellectually dead, at a young age.

Look at the way you've already let the embedded bigotry affect your life.  Your intellectual life is a closed loop.  That's why your values are so screwed up.

Your views of the Bible are primitive -- pre-adolescent -- any scholar worth his or her salt knows it was not divinely constructed.

You'll never have a wife worthy much if you believe -- "it is understood that the final authority and responsibility rests with him"

I'm sorry your parents intellectually abused you so.  I don't think you'll ever get over it.  You seem intellectually dead, at a young age.

It is thought among most people that "intellecutal abuse" does not produce a student who graduates from high school with honors at age 16 with a 97.74% average.

Those are some very serious charges to make. They are also made out of incredible ignorance. Just because I do not subscribe to the politically correct view of the Bible and the ordering of society does not mean that I am intellectually dead. On the contrary, I have patiently responded to all your objections with thoroughly documented and comprehensive responses. All you have done is throw insults and labels.

I have always thoroughly questioned what I was taught--my professors sometimes get mildly irritated that I instantly fact-check on Wikipedia and other resources whatever they say. I always study the opposing viewpoint from an original source--not an attack piece by the opposite side.

We had boxes and boxes of old National Geographics that I read as a kid. I loved to read the encyclopedia. Every week I read The Economist, Scientific American, Newsweek, TIME, and Popular Science.

In short, your charges are highly questionable and it might appear to a reasonable observer that just perhaps the situation is reversed.

Do not eat any detestable thing. 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. [a] 6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [b] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

  9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. 10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat; for you it is unclean.

  11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, 14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

  19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them. 20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.

  21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God.
  Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

So much for your Easter ham this year or your Red Lobster dinner this weekend. Ha.

Jesus said that Moses' law, the Old Testament, would not pass away until it was fulfilled with Him dying on the cross (Matthew 5:18), which it was. Furthermore, things were allowed in the OT that weren't God's will because, as Jesus said, of "the hardness of their hearts" (Mark 10:5). They didn't have the Holy Spirit to give them the power to fully live above sin.

The issue you brought up was specifically addressed in the New Testament:

Around noon the next day, while Cornelius' men were on their way and coming close to Joppa, Peter went on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted to eat. While the food was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the sky open and something like a large linen sheet being lowered by its four corners to the ground. In the sheet were all kinds of four-footed animals, reptiles, and birds. A voice told him, "Get up, Peter! Kill these animals, and eat them." Peter answered, "I can't do that, Lord! I've never eaten anything that is impure or unclean." A voice spoke to him a second time, "Don't say that the things which God has made clean are impure." This happened three times. Then the sheet was quickly taken into the sky.
(Acts 10:9-16 GW)

As for the Ten Commandments: I don't follow the Ten Commandments because they are given in Exodus. I follow them because Jesus re-affirmed them and actually strengthened them. Witness:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery [one of the Ten Commandments]: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
(Matthew 5:27-28 KJV)

Jesus did this all throughout the Old Testament. He took the old letter of the law, an action based law, and changed it to affect the heart. In the NT, Jesus addressed the root sin of adultery: lust. This is a sin that occurs in our minds.

The book of Romans talks extensively about this shift from an action focus to a heart focus. Like I said earlier, the reason that it wasn't a heart focus from the beginning is because our inborn sinful nature didn't allow the Old Covenant followers of God to live above sin. However, in the New Covenant, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross gives us that power to live above sin (Romans 8:11-12; Revelation 1:17-18; I Corinthians 15:56).

So since we can pick and choose I'll pick one of my favorite verses:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
  by Jesus Christ

There is some great modern philosophy to be found in those books.  And to the extent we know what Jesus said directly (e.g., the parables and the Sermon on the Mount) he was a great great person with a wonderful philosophy.

Everyone knows one can find lots of things in the bible that mainstream Christians, even the Evangelical types, just ignore, like prohibitions on divorce, yet divorced people are remarried in almost all denominations.

Ah, the old trick of pointing out inconsistencies to justify more inconsistencies. Notice, however, in my earlier post that mentioned divorce that I do not subscribe to that blatant sin of divorce and remarriage.

-- http://lap.sagepub.c...

-- http://www.christian...

For those who wonder whether or not there is or is not a simple explanation as to what the Bible says about homosexuality (Mr. Mast apparently believes -- or his seminary believes -- it is a cut and dried matter) you can see some of the debate at places like: http://www.religious... and http://en.wikipedia....

As to parsing individual words, you'll come across the word "arsenokoitai"  -- a pretty descriptive word for something - - - and the wranglings scholars have had about that word.  (Paul used the word in 1 Corinthians.)  By the way, Paul never spoke with Jesus, and may have been quite ignorant of Jesus' actual life -- he barely mentions Jesus' life in his letters.  Paul was also known for being anti-female.  He seems to fit the personality mold of a lot of modern social ultra-conservatives.

And Lowell raises the excellent point -- the Bible approves of slavery and such approval was used by those who opposed its abolition.  So anything you read in the Bible has to be taken with a pillar of salt.

I'm really tired of this diary -- I'm glad it has alerted me to the real goings on at Truro and Falls Church -- but it's really pointless to argue a lot of this stuff.  As my older brother said to me last year -- it's pretty much an intellectual black hole.  That's why I'm devoting most of my reading now to scientific issues.  There's where the future lies.

By the way, Paul never spoke with Jesus

Not true:

As Saul was coming near the city of Damascus, a light from heaven suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?" Saul asked, "Who are you, sir?" The person replied, "I'm Jesus, the one you're persecuting. Get up! Go into the city, and you'll be told what you should do." Meanwhile, the men traveling with him were speechless. They heard the voice but didn't see anyone.
(Acts 9:3-7 GW)

and this

and now we look like this

I attended a Catholic/voodoo mass in Rio.  Very interesting.  Whirling dervishes, regular old male Catholic priest in silk vestments, and a female hearing confession and absolving sins with waves of cigar smoke standing in the middle of the floor.  We were not allowed to stay for the goat sacrifice (the goat was tied to a pole).

The other article presents a very complex view of what two-thirds of the world believes.  The author seems a bit traditional though -- and I think traditional Scripture-based religion won't ever be much of an influence in much of Europe.  However, history turns strange ways.

I just hope religious demagogues don't start controlling too much of the politics in those regions.

The truth is, there are so many books and so many versions of books that I don't see that the Bible is well-suited to teach detailed specifics, much less science. It's not a textbook; its a guide to treating each other.

We have a hard enough time living up to simple commands like "Love One Another." We can bicker endlessly over the other commands of improper mixing of rituals that should be kept separate, e.g., mixing two crops in the same field, making cloth out of two different raw materials, plowing a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together, or certain sexual pairings. Hopefully we can at least agree on the love one another part, and then agree to disagree on some of the rest.

Interestingly, do you know how they came up with limiting the Gospels to "only" four (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John)?

Because there couldn't be more books then there are "four corners of the world."

At the Council of Rome they voted on the "Final Four."  I don't understand how that's any different than betting on the NCAAs. See also here.

There are almost no occasions in the Bible of "objective fact." The ones you pick and chose might work for you, and if it makes you a better person, go for it.

Don't get too excited about homsexuality; studies are starting to suggest that the louder you are when you say it's bad, the more likely you're gay, too.
J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.

The paper does not make the conclusion you suggest.

It is possible that viewing homosexual
stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic
men but not in nonhomophobic men. Because anxiety
has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory
would predict increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore,
it would indicate that a response to homosexual stimuli
is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual
arousal per se. Whereas difficulties of objectively evaluating
psychoanalytic hypotheses are well-documented, these approaches
would predict that sexual arousal is an intrinsic response
to homosexual stimuli, whereas Barlow's (1986) theory
would predict that sexual arousal to homosexual stimuli by homophobic
individuals is a function of anxiety. These competing
notions can and should be evaluated by future research.

Furthermore, the research appears not to have been duplicated, indicating that there may have been a selection bias in the original experiment.

First -- there's a new literature circulating on "MEMES" or mind viruses and how they circulate (with analogies to physical disease viruses).  Here's one example: http://www.bidstrup....

A few quotes:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of woman's emancipation (Free Thought Magazine, Vol. 14, 1896)." "I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women (Eight Years and More, Elizabeth C. Stanton, p. 395)."

George Foote: "It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible."

And let's all reflect on the Easter miracle (lost the cite for this humorist):

When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.

When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick.

At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.

If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).

So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.

Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15).

Bye for now. 

http://en.wikipedia....

http://www.bible-res...

Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textural Criticism by Philip Wesley Comfort

The Text of the New Testament: an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism by Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger

A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results by Paul D. Wegner

Ancient Texts For New Testament Studies: A Guide To The Background Literature by Craig A. Evans