Comment by Cotswold Quaker on 4th mo. 14, 2012 at 3:38am

Doug,

Thankyou for your lovely clarity on how we as Quakers can read the bible. I found it refreshing and put the emphasis back on the spirit rather than on the letter of the law. As our Friends, the Elders of Balby said, 

"Dearly beloved Friends, these things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all, with the measure of light which is pure and holy, may be guided: and so in the light walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life".

And what an unexpected pleasure to be able to agree with Forrest on something! 

Susan, why do you need to convince someone of something they don't have an experience of. Can I tell you what horseradish tastes like?

Thomas, you argue for strict following of the bible. Do you abide by this rule in your meeting and if not, why not:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Corinthians14:34-36 (KJ)

 

Comment by Cotswold Quaker on 4th mo. 14, 2012 at 4:07am

those of you who wish to interpret the bible and Quaker life in ways that exclude others , you are doing exactly as chief seattle observed of the first white people to arrive in the north america.  

"Your God seems to us to be partial. He came to the white man. We never saw Him, never even heard His voice. He gave the white man laws but He had not word for His red children whose teeming millions filled this vast continent as the stars fill the firmament. No, we are two distinct races and must ever remain so."

By claiming ownership of the bible and god in the way that you do, you separate yourselves from your sisters and brothers. It is a form of psyche suicide that you impose on yourselves........ where can it lead?

Comment by Barbara Harrison on 9th mo. 25, 2012 at 7:20pm

More attention to cultivating that ( the Divine/human courtship) -- might leave less attention to spare on other people's sexual behavior.  Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 26, 2012 at 2:03pm

Friend Speaks my heart

Comment by Christine Manville Greenland on 9th mo. 30, 2012 at 9:38am

When I read Leviticus 18 in its entirety, what impresses me is the apparent intent, given that the book itself is a collection of laws, including dietary, sacrificial, allowing rest from work and production, as well as mixing fibers in clothing. 

The overall intent (of the particular chapter) seems to favor keeping a community whole in the face of all sorts of temptations. Women were honored in their roles as mothers, sisters, sisters-in-law, nieces, aunts... The restrictions involve subjugation of men and women within the extended polygamous family, and may have more to do with admonitions against incest and abuse in general than homosexuality in particular. 

Both in the Torah and in the Gospels, there is the repetition that what we must attend to (as Jews or Christians) is loving God with our whole being -- and similarly, loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Scattered through the texts are implications that judgment comes with wisdom, and that punishment/vengeance is God's to enact.  This is not our place.

Going back to the Leviticus 18 discussion, there are two sets of "advices"... One in Leviticus (without stating the course of community action) and the other in Deuteronomy  in the time of Josiah) with consequences of the law at that time.

That was then. For the most part, we no longer admit to life in a polygamous society, though with the divorce and remarriage rates, that is open to question. 

My question is how we might apply the whole of this set of rules to modern life. If we are to be consistent, we might well take another look at the dietary restrictions (pork, in particular, which is the only other part of the book in which the term often translated as "abomination" appears. I understand from discussions with many others that the implication in both cases is one of avoiding deceit.  Secondarily, there is a matter of subjugation of individuals within a community -- female or male.

My larger questions concerning Christian practices involve how/whether we avoid subjugation within our own communities -- whether family or the local community. At the time these texts were compiled/written, the family unit was the community, and was  contiguous. 

How does this apply in our modern nomadic situation in which families are not the community extensions they were?

Comment by Barra Jacob-McDowell on 9th mo. 30, 2012 at 11:34pm

Friend Thomas, I have two brothers. One is biologically part of my family. He has never done any unselfish, loving act toward me except to once put a fan in my window when I was struggling to breathe after an asthma attack. My other brother is a dear friend who "adopted" me and I him. When I was grieving over my 1st husband's tragic death after our divorce, he called me every week on the phone long-distance to comfort me; he acknowledged the otherwise-disregarded loss of my three stillborn babies by sending me Mother's Day cards, and ensuring that my 2nd, current, best husband does the same. I love both my brothers, although I feel more warmly towards the 2nd--and yes, he is gay. Would an intelligent, loving person choose a lifestyle that is decried by others as immoral and wrong, choose to be villified and discriminated against--unless it *isn't* a choice, but simply the way he was created.

I have another question for you: would the Jesus who ate with those his society villified prefer the callous, outwardly "respectable" brother, or the one who is gay?

Comment by James C Schultz on 1st mo. 15, 2013 at 12:14pm

This discussion is never going to get resolved as there is a basic difference of opinion on the words sin and sinners. 

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page