Would you marry a gay couple...

[savagewind]

No I am not saying Jesus is true because people died for him. I am claiming he must have done extraordinary things for people to be willing to do so.

Really? Romans 5:7 I hope that I would be willing to risk death for someone I think is good. Just plain good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then they can investigate it. The brothers leave it to Jehovah to investigate it and take care of it.

They leave the investigation of the crime to someone who they believe watched the crime as it happened but stood by and did nothing? This seems irresponsible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I am not saying Jesus is true because people died for him. I am claiming he must have done extraordinary things for people to be willing to do so. And therefore the stories about his miraculous works must be true.

Didn't you just restate what I said?

But whether those miraculous works were genuine or the work of a magician or con artist is left to the individual to decide.

My point is the claim that Jesus did no miraculous works and that stories of his works were inventions by later authors is a very weak one.

Since we have countless examples of miracle stories developing organically out of misunderstandings or being the product of outright lies, why would the Jesus story be especially less vulnerable to this concern?

 

[Thanda]

Since we have countless examples of miracle stories developing organically out of misunderstandings or being the product of outright lies, why would the Jesus story be especially less vulnerable to this concern?

Because they were the basis of a movement that started during his time and which led people being willing to risk their lives to embrace it. And the people who did (who died for him) were not casual witnesses but people who knew him well and spent everyday with him.

To claim you are the Son of God is not a simple claim to make. And it is not one that someone can make lightly while providing no kind of evidence (whether real or fabricated) that they in fact are such a thing. That Jesus claimed, or that others claim he claimed, that he was the Son of God is clear from the writings of Paul who was his contemporary and whose writings are considered authentic. So the issue here is what evidence did Jesus provide or what works did Jesus do which would have led people (who are close to him) to believe the claim that he was the Son of God? Clearly whatever it was it must have been extraordinary. He could not have been a regular preacher who preached of love and peace, like countless others have done, who then was suddenly (out of nowhere) assumed to be a Son of God. Note that John the Baptist was also a preacher of love and peace and no one assumed him to be the Son of God.

So for me the evidence is clear that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact do some miraculous things during his lifetime which lead people to believing he was not just a rabbi or prophet but more than that. Again, you can argue whether Jesus did those works genuinely or whether he conned people and you could have a case (as with Benny Hinn of our time who I believe is a con artist) but the argument that he actually did nothing of the sort and that people only made these things up later on does not have much substance.

 

[Thanda]

Really? Romans 5:7 I hope that I would be willing to risk death for someone I think is good. Just plain good.

Yet they were not killed because they said Jesus was a good man. They were killed because they said he was a God, God himself or the Son of God. Would you be willing to die for saying Nelson Mandela is divine?

 

[Sonofason]

I am an ordained minister, I live in the USA, and I grew up as a very conservative Southern Baptist in Alabama. Knowing that...

I was recently asked if I would ever marry a gay couple. My answer was, YES. The person that asked me that was taken back by my lack of hesitation in my answer. They could not believe what they just heard.

After they recovered from the initial shock, they asked "why?" This was my answer:

In this country, there is a separation of Church and State. The government (State) can't dictate to the Church how it is to be run, what to believe, or who can serve in a clergy-capacity. By the same token, the Church can't dictate the law to the government, regardless of what the issues might be.

I went on to explain that not everyone in this country is a Christian, so why should everyone be subject to Christian "law?" The US Constitution grants rights to all of its citizens, regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else, and that includes being married.

That person was speechless. I added that I personally do not agree with a gay lifestyle, but it is not my place to discriminate or judge. To each their own in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

At that point they tried to make some type of come back and the best they could was to mutter something about children seeing two guys kissing in public. While I understand the confusion that might cause in a child, I actually can't recall a time that I have seen that happen. If it does, I will deal with it in my own way with regard to my children.

The last thing they mentioned was how gay men would be sexually abusive to children. I stopped them right there and explained that there is a HUGE difference between being gay and being a pedophile. People can be gay and have no attraction to children what-so-ever.

They walked off.

I personally would not play any role in the marriage of a gay couple. I believe that sex between humans and animals is also wrong, regardless how much the animals enjoy it. We human beings have opinions about morality, and those moral opinions are what cause us to set rules for other human beings. I really don't care if a bunch of people like driving 85 mph on the highway. If I were a cop, I'd be writing you a ticket for going that fast. If I were the one in charge, homosexuality would remain illegal, and I really don't care how everyone else feels about that. After all, it is my opinion that matters.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I personally would not play any role in the marriage of a gay couple. I believe that sex between humans and animals is also wrong, regardless how much the animals enjoy it. We human beings have opinions about morality, and those moral opinions are what cause us to set rules for other human beings. I really don't care if a bunch of people like driving 85 mph on the highway. If I were a cop, I'd be writing you a ticket for going that fast. If I were the one in charge, homosexuality would remain illegal, and I really don't care how everyone else feels about that. After all, it is my opinion that matters.

The most important thing, make sure your name is not on a gay or lesbian marriage license and that you don't draw up a prenuptial agreement or marital contract. That's the bottomline. Everything else follows from that.

Second, no one can force you to call a gay or lesbian union a marriage. Depending on your line of work, you could lose your job. Depending on what state you are in, you may not discriminate when providing employment, housing or medical care. But consider gays and lesbians need those things.

I have had gay sex, but because of my religious conviction, I would never marry another male, only a female.

Just don't be like Kim Davis. Be a man of principle, not one of bigotry. All men (women and children too) are equal, gay or straight. But like you, I don't want to cosign anything against my religion.

 

[MichelleB]

I am an ordained minister, I live in the USA, and I grew up as a very conservative Southern Baptist in Alabama. Knowing that...

I was recently asked if I would ever marry a gay couple. My answer was, YES. The person that asked me that was taken back by my lack of hesitation in my answer. They could not believe what they just heard.

After they recovered from the initial shock, they asked "why?" This was my answer:

In this country, there is a separation of Church and State. The government (State) can't dictate to the Church how it is to be run, what to believe, or who can serve in a clergy-capacity. By the same token, the Church can't dictate the law to the government, regardless of what the issues might be.

I went on to explain that not everyone in this country is a Christian, so why should everyone be subject to Christian "law?" The US Constitution grants rights to all of its citizens, regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else, and that includes being married.

That person was speechless. I added that I personally do not agree with a gay lifestyle, but it is not my place to discriminate or judge. To each their own in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

At that point they tried to make some type of come back and the best they could was to mutter something about children seeing two guys kissing in public. While I understand the confusion that might cause in a child, I actually can't recall a time that I have seen that happen. If it does, I will deal with it in my own way with regard to my children.

The last thing they mentioned was how gay men would be sexually abusive to children. I stopped them right there and explained that there is a HUGE difference between being gay and being a pedophile. People can be gay and have no attraction to children what-so-ever.

They walked off.

I agree with you about the "not agreeing with their lifestyle, because it's wrong in the eyes of the creator, but at the same time, sometimes one have to judge when it comes to spirituality. Jehovah is against homosexuality, as well as Jesus Christ. Jehovah created marriage for a male and a female, not with two males/two females. Homosexuality is a abomination in the eyes of the LORD and they will not inherit into the kingdom of Jehovah (1 Corinthians 6:9), as well as other things, but that is true when you said that homosexuals can be gay and have no attractions towards kids...there are many homosexuals that wants a family.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This thread makes me want to get ordained by UU just so I can be an atheist wedding officiate or.

 

[savagewind]

Yet they were not killed because they said Jesus was a good man. They were killed because they said he was a God, God himself or the Son of God. Would you be willing to die for saying Nelson Mandela is divine?

Probably not because I do not know him. You said something about his miracles. If I knew Jesus, but I never saw him perform, I might die for him. That is what I meant.

 

[Thanda]

Probably not because I do not know him. You said something about his miracles. If I knew Jesus, but I never saw him perform, I might die for him. That is what I meant.

I didn't say anything about Mandela's miracles - I know of no miracles he accomplished. What I was trying to say was that you would never die for saying something you didn't believe was true about a good man.

So the people wanted to kill the disciples of Jesus because they said he was divine, not because they said he was a good man. Clearly they would not have died saying he was divine if they only believed he was a good man like other men have been good. Clearly they were willing to die because they were sure of their testimonies that Jesus was more than a good man.

 

[Deeje]

No, you disfellowship people who see through the Watchtower's cult-like narrative - and these people lose their only stable support network (their family) in a lot of cases. All while not getting rid of those who are doing actual harm to members of the community.

That's exactly what the two-witness rule does: it prevents accusations being taken seriously - and the accuser must describe their case with the accused present which can be even more off-putting. If they don't have an independent witness - and no smart child abuser would risk abusing where there might be one - the accusations are dismissed out of hand. Any organisation which is serious about the welfare of its members would not treat their concerns in such a blasé manner.


More often than not the victim let it be because they figured nobody believed them at the time so why would anyone believe them now? That's why so many victims of child abuse by Catholic clerics are coming forward now after decades of silence - because we're starting to believe them.

No, they're not. The police are the police. And the Watchtower published guidelines which prohibit elders contacting the police if they're legally able to do so. At least one of the links I posted before explains that. You can't use times past as an excuse for your organisation's current enabling of paedophiles if things have changed - which they have. But still the Watchtower does it.

Regarding my accusation of the Watchtower actively protecting child abusers, I'll admit I was over-zealous and wrong. It's more accurate to say the Watchtower are passively protecting paedophiles while shoring up their own reputation.

That is all very twisted but not unexpected given that people will believe anything negative they read on the internet about us. (Matthew 5:11-12) None of the above is true. There is no protection for wrongdoers in our brotherhood. Disfellowshipping is entirely biblical (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) and those who break God's law unrepentantly will not be permitted to remain in fellowship with the congregation because "a little leaven ferments the whole lump", as Jesus said. Those who are expelled from the congregation removed themselves by their own conduct. They are given every opportunity to mend their ways, but some stubbornly refuse to admit that they did anything wrong....and just like Adam and Eve, they often want to blame anyone else but themselves.

The "support system" of their immediate family is withdrawn in the hope that, like the prodigal son, they will appreciate what they gave up for the temporary pleasure of sin. In that parable, the father did nothing to support his wayward son until he saw him returning home with a contrite spirit. It is the same with us. Anyone willing to humble themselves and admit their mistakes is welcomed back. This is the case with many who are happy to be "home", corrected by the discipline, realizing that the world does not love them and will not care what they do. They then become "slaves to sin." (Romans 6:16)

Hebrews 12:5-6:
"...you have entirely forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him;  for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son.”

We guard our precious relationship with Jehovah and will not allow blatant wrongdoers to stay and insult God by their conduct and influence others who might be vulnerable.

I am always amazed that so many people can become experts on what JW's are, or are not, by reading the poisonous propaganda put out by those who only want revenge.
One sided sob stories always have another side but no one seems interested in finding out what might have really happened. Just remember that we will all be judged by how we judge. Would you like a disgruntled "ex" to tell the world about you?

 

[Deeje]

... unless you did the responsible, ethical thing: report allegations of abuse to the police as soon as you hear about them.

This is actually encouraged in our child abuse protection policy. It is up to family members to report any suspected abuse to the police. The legal system has thankfully been modified to protect innocent victims from what was a harrowing courtroom appearance.....it is also trained to detect those troublemakers who might want to get back at someone by a false accusation against a brother who may have offered some Bible based counsel. Have you not heard of many high school teachers who have lost their jobs because some disgruntled teen has falsely accused them of sexual abuse? Even if the teachers are innocent...the mud sticks.

 

[savagewind]

There is no protection for wrongdoers in our brotherhood. Disfellowshipping is entirely biblical (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

He was referring to people who disagree with Jehovah's Witness dogma. Disfellowshipping for disagreeing with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses IS NOT Biblical. YOU twist scripture to say that it is whenever you use the one mind scripture. OK. But when the governing body CHANGE THEIR MIND or minds, Jehovah knows, they do not disfellowship themselves, though they SHOULD.

On the other hand, real sinners, those who prey on children, are not disfellowshipped UNTIL THEY ARE FOUND OUT.

 

[savagewind]

This is actually encouraged in our child abuse protection policy. It is up to family members to report any suspected abuse to the police. The legal system has thankfully been modified to protect innocent victims from what was a harrowing courtroom appearance.....it is also trained to detect those troublemakers who might want to get back at someone by a false accusation against a brother who may have offered some Bible based counsel. Have you not heard of many high school teachers who have lost their jobs because some disgruntled teen has falsely accused them of sexual abuse? Even if the teachers are innocent...the mud sticks.

A brother who might be wrongly accused should be able to suffer for all the children who REALLY ARE HARMED. He should be able to step down so that other JWs who are prone to such disgusting behavior as child abuse will think better of it knowing they will be penalized at ANY ACCUSATION. Biblical? You bet! Please read Titus 1:6
6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children who are not accused of debauchery* or rebelliousness.+7 For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed,+ not quick-tempered,+ not a drunkard, not violent,*not greedy of dishonest gain

You might say that is only for elders. Is that what you want to say?

Do you understand that a man, whether he did it or didn't do it, is not "free from accusation"? But JWs let the accused go door to door because there is no PROOF?

 

[savagewind]

A righteous man should sacrifice himself for the children. True or false?

@Deeje Let the children suffer because no man should suffer being falsely accused.

That is what is being served at your table. NO THANK YOU!

 

[Deeje]

There is a very big difference between knowledge of scripture, which, I assure you, I do have, and one's opinion of the matter. Most often here, because I separate my teachings of theology from this forum, as this forum is for my relaxation and edification from other faiths POV. So I express my opinions which may or may not be the knowledge related to same. IMO, when one lives and breathes the word of God, it is very similar to what Buddhists do in that we strive to be kind and harm no one. This, for me, is what Christ taught on the Sermon of the Mount. Also, I note that in your posts, you rely very heavily on Paulian dogma and there are those who argue that Paul did not understand nor did he represent what Christ taught. This is not about whether or not he 'met' Christ, as that is a very different argument and one I am firmly against, in that I don't believe he met Christ and I don't believe any of what he wrote was in keeping with what Christ taught. Ask any two people what they glean from The Sermon and you are likely to get two very different answers. But study the Sermon from a historical, archeological, linguistic and a few others branches of study and you get a wide range of differing views on the subject. That is not what I am trying to do here.

Jo, are we to take the Sermon on the Mount and ignore everything else that Jesus taught, especially with regard to his absolute condemnation of the Pharisees at every possible opportunity? The gentle, mild approach of Jesus to the "meek" who came and wanted to be taught by him, is tempered by his absolute rejection of false religious teachings, which he constantly exposed. (Matthew 23) The Jewish people needed to be able to distinguish a genuine biblical teaching from a man-made tradition. (Matthew 15:6-9) People today have to be able to do the same.

Was Jesus appreciated by those whom he exposed as religious frauds? They hated him enough to want to kill him. Jesus told us to expect the same treatment for the same reasons. (John 15:18-21)
The only ones who appreciated his ministry were the "lost sheep of the house of Israel"...the ones whom the religious leaders considered unworthy of their attention. These ones were "lost" because the "shepherds" were neglecting them.

I am at a loss to understand how anyone can doubt the writings of the Apostle Paul. This suggests that we cannot trust any of the scriptures that God has preserved down through the centuries. It assumes that they are the work of men and not the product of God's holy spirit. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

If I can't trust Paul's writings then I can't trust any of them. What human is capable of making a judgment call like that? Talk about playing God!

 

[savagewind]

If I can't trust Paul's writings then I can't trust any of them. What human is capable of making a judgment call like that? Talk about playing God!

This is not true. The writings were selected trusting they belonged. Do you know if there are writings that should have been included but were not?

Why do you disregard Jesus at every turn?

John 14:16-17 John 14:26 John 15:26 John 16:7-8

Why can't The Holy Spirit grant you the truth about what the Bible really teaches?

@Deeje You seem to think that if you doubt one scripture you must doubt them all. Is this Biblical thinking?

I wonder if that same principle works with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses? If you doubt one must you doubt them all?

 

[Neo Deist]

Homosexuality is a abomination in the eyes of the LORD...

Actually it is an abomination in the eyes of the men that wrote the various scrolls that would become the Bible. God never came down from the cosmos, sat at a desk and wrote anything. Humans make the claim that God spoke to them and told them to write something.

Well, guess what? God has spoken to me and told me to write something as well. Look for it on Amazon e-books soon...

 

[Deeje]

Why do you disregard Jesus at every turn?

Why do you? You select scripture to suit your own version of things.

Why can't The Holy Spirit grant you the truth about what the Bible really teaches?

He does, but as he has always done, he does not use individuals...he uses his servants as a collective to teach others.

If individuals were guided by holy spirit, they would all teach the same things...but we all know that they don't. There are NOT many versions of the truth revealed to separate individuals who think they are somehow "special". It is to a collective of individuals who all teach the same things. The 12 did not teach independently, they taught as a collective, one truth for all. That is how you know it is holy spirit guiding things. There is peace and unity, (Gal 5:22-23) there is no involvement with the corrupt politics or the false religions of the world and as one global brotherhood, they are fulfilling the commission given by Jesus to preach a single message of the blessings of God's kingdom which will ensure that God's will 'is done on earth as it is in heaven'.

Along with the "good news", there is also the warning......the one Jesus gave in Matthew 24:37-39.....that just as Noah preached to the people of his day but it fell on deaf ears...so it will be the same when Jesus' disciples preach to the people of this age. When he comes as judge the world, he will separate the true disciples from the false ones. Ignoring that teaching of Jesus is very convenient.....for some.