| Author | Message | ||
     troll |
By: Troll (no, not a perpetrator; no, not an internet forum bomber; YES, actually, a creature living under a bridge which eats billygoats!) I was going to post this on the "moral crisis" thread, which Richard so nobly started and which I so ignobly flushed down the toilet. However, I decided to gracefully exit and leave that threat to smarter people. Instead, I shall carry on my damn-fool idealistic crusade (pop quiz- who said that?) here. Come one, come all. Hear the hate-filled fundie, with no sense of humor. See the freak show. Spout sociological talk to him. Quote MLK. Poke him with a sharp stick. Call him a sissy. No, really. I noticed that there's not many of us ignorant types around here (and I betcha LIKE it that way, don't ya?) So, in the interest of sordid entertainment, I decided to do a confessional post. Come, smell my dirty laundry. ------------- I apologize to everybody here for beating what you consider to be a dead horse. It's not my intent to hijack a thread on the church's moral authority, but rather to be a gadfly and remind everyone that the affirmation of that which is, by definition, NOT sex, is not to be glossed over in the hunt for corruption in the church. You do indeed argue for a change in orthopraxy and orthodoxy, but you don't seem to realize that it's happened. There are many churches which approve of homosexual practice as being consistent with biblical doctrine. So, in a sense, you've won. Party down! The problem we're dealing with when we talk about the Christian faith is that many in "the church" are, without a doubt, seriously lacking in their commitment. That's just how the cookie crumbles. The "kingdom of heaven" is within, but not co-extensive with, the church, so to speak; the church is the "visible" kingdom of heaven. Often to humanity's detriment. It's much of the source of humanity's angst; we all gaze at the moths around the flame and often ignore the flame. It's pointless to argue which people are apostate or not based on orientation. Psychologic doctrine pretty much affirms the deterministic view; what many love to forget is that biblical doctrine isn't the least bit affected by this. In fact, this modern understanding even tends to bring it into focus. The more we realize just how desperate we are, the clearer is the call to love. I know you're much more intelligent than to go on and on about how we don't keep old testament law. You know as well as I do that the law wasn't punish someone for this, but rather someone oughtn't do this in the first place. The common complaint about working on the Sabbath blatantly ignores something very, very true-- God wants us to take a freakin' day off!. You don't have to look at American workaholism very long to appreciate this. Christly grace does indeed teach us the new law-- don't grind the sinner into dust, because you'd be dirt yourself. I can understand what you call your pro-gay stance based on an existential understanding of Christianity. But how does your experience trump mine? I've got my share of experience with homosexual people. I've prayed earnestly for a female couple, one of whom was near death while having her surrogate baby. I know two other couples. I've been in close quarters, partied, laughed, had deep conversations with homosexuals. I live in a town which is very accepting of them; I spend lots of money at galleries and restaurants owned by them. One of my favorite people is my barber Joyce, who runs a shop with her partner. I've given her knicknacks to decorate her shop; she came to my wedding. Yep, I'd trust her to babysit my kid. Do I pass? Nope. My experiences weren't deep enough? But wait- there's more. I grew up in a small town in a fundamentalist church. Did our pastor harp on homosexuality? Did he rail against it more than any of the other disapproved behaviors in the new testament? Nope. Could the homosexual friend I grew up with in high school have attended my church and felt comfortable? Yep. Except maybe on the one day the pastor mentioned homosexuality in his sermon (maybe once in a blue moon-- I can't even remember a specific time). Did my little backwards church make a great impact in our small town, taking care of the needs of a large elderly and immigrant population? Yep. So, the old venemous stereotypes get kicked in the bollocks (what a terrible, violent, hyper-masculine phrase!) So much for the benighted fundamentalist. The absolute worst anyone could accuse me of is simply saying "homosexuality is wrong". They can't look inside me and see hate, or even ignorance. There's plenty of good data to support my position; of course, there's plenty of "data" to shore up the claims that it's socially benign. About the best either "side" can muster is that the other's research is biased. I think the only thing each side could agree on is that the philosophic gap is indeed wide. So, the culture war rages on. This doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that much of what Munro has said is indeed true. Inside the church, an entire contingent insists that they do indeed sin less than their brethren, leaving a large contingent puzzling over not just why the faithful should choose to reject what they claim as a code for winsome living, but why they would adopt such a self-righteous posture, when Christian teaching so blatantly rejects sinning that grace may increase. Outside the church, the general Joe on the street is puzzled why a group of people would choose to create a new vocabulary which essentially sets them apart as a new, third type of humanity, with claims to governmental privileges which formerly were reserved for men and women who ostensibly came together to have families. Acceptance indeed isn't enough. Everyone is now told that approval is required. Now, a class of people who can't procreate insist that they should adopt children, when miserable sterile couples are passed by. Fame and large bank accounts are seen as significant grounds to approve adoption by single homosexual women. These kids ostensibly will be told that two mommies are just as "natural" as a mommy and a daddy. What are they supposed to think? Pixxaa, since "kids are too young to know any better", how do you gloss over this inconvenience? So. I sit with my conservative brothers and sisters, doing my best to help whomever seeks it. Striving, just like everyone else, not to judge, particularly those outside the church. Being a good neighbor. Doing my best to emulate Christ, especially to my homosexual friends; always mindful of the extra burdens some of them labor under. Knowing that they will experience haughty treatment, not just from those inside church buildings, but those outside. Listening to their stories and trying to learn from them, just like I do from everybody. Good will dictates that I give the benefit of the doubt to homosexuals. By knowing so many of them, I'm smart enough to know that the majority of them aren't child molesters. But, by knowing myself, I'm quite certain that the anti-sexual temptations with which I struggle are only a few rhetorical blows away from being considered perverse. So, knowing this, I admonish my homosexual brother to give it up, because it isn't sex. Instead, I'm told I'm the only person who has to struggle. In striving to "think no evil" of my brother, but simply to warn him, in respect, I'm now told that I'm more evil than he. Of course, nobody will sympathize with the "victimhood" of a bible believing fundamentalist, because, of course, they just haven't been hated as much as the homosexual yet; and, of course, by definition, the bible believing fundamentalist can't accept victimhood. So, about the only good this little narrative can accomplish is to add to the store of lore which a culture claims as "educational". Therefore, all of you accepting, tolerant, loving, compassionate, non-meanies out there, read my sad tale. Use it against me. It's great, sordid, confessional material. Coming out of the closet, if you will. I think J.A.H. would tend to promote an existential ethic which says "your religious courage is measured by your ability to buck your holy book". The problem I have with this is that bucking it isn't any more courageous than standing by it. One of the things a Christian is supposed to do is not only acknowledge that God created people, but that God created love; thus, "making up" our own version isn't any more enlightened than carving little wooden totems or slicing sheep's throats. Obedience is seen, in orthodoxy, to fulfill love perfectly, just as Christ obeyed, even when he really didn't want to. Or are we supposed to believe that he would have done better to skip town that dark night, and perhaps go heal a few more paralytics? "Do some good"? We can't measure good by our own standards any more than we can weigh a chicken with a yardstick. God is the standard, obedience is the fulfillment. "If you love me, keep my commandments". Many would modify the golden rule: "Do Unto Others as they most desire you to do unto them". Or, "Do Unto Others as you would have them do unto you, IF YOU WERE THEM" (huh?) We've already proven here that disjointed arguments, full of fallacies, can be thrown out by both "sides"; also that aphorisms abound, neither of which ever seem to do much good. Well, since self-indulgence seems to be the game, I'll indulge myself. Here's a lumpy one for the gay theologian: Christ doesn't mention pedophilia. Pederasty. Sexual abuse of people, period. Innocence is defined by childhood itself, not a certain age. Children are created by sex, not anti-sex. No children, no human knowledge of innocence. Abuse of trust is just as reprehensible between adults as between an adult and a child. A homosexual says "I'd really like to change how I think". Do we say 1)You're crazy or 2)Oh, you're not really homosexual, you're bisexual. Now THAT's a helpful, empathetic attitude. Talk about non-acceptance! Of course, I know the answer is 3) Oh you poor dear, the fundies must have got ahold of you. It ain't about "kicking people out of church". Funny how someone could complain that church has just turned into a self-affirming "normalcy" club--- and then complain that the church "isn't affirming my normalcy". I'm sure there are many disfellowshipped homosexuals, but by and large not because of what sex their affections lie toward, but because they repeatedly claimed "the bible, 'taint for me, it's for you other folks". I know of plenty homosexuals who live out their lives in mainstream churches, surrounded by loving friends & family who help them cope with their desires. The "fags doom nation" people are a damn shame, and they ought to have their houses redecorated in pastels and be forced to watch The Birdcage over and over. But this mean ole' fundie ain't buying it. I have no problem with that. Go gay; do good works. But I'm eternally curious why fellowships which use a certain book as their guide should be ridiculed for attempting to govern themselves by it. But, guess what? I don't care. Naughty-naughties and shame-shames don't always work on me, or on lots of folks I know. We're gonna go down in our whitewashed tombs, eternally convinced that we are not authorized to judge good and evil all by ourselves. And yep, there will be a few homosexuals with us. Maybe even in the same relative proportions as the gay folks currently inhabiting this old marble. Of course, they will be mean old fundamentalist gays. Not gay at all, very unhappy people. Self-repressed, you know. But, it'll be heaven, so they'll be happy. Wait a second-how the hell could a fundie get to heaven? I get a great sense of satisfaction knowing that, with God, it is possible to submit to truths which seem hard to me.. and as long as I submit to them as fully as I can, I won't be keeping the keys from anybody, much less turning them into a son of hell. Since mean old fundies like throwing out mean old bible verses, here's one for the "activists" among you, who make simoleons off your fervor... (same would apply to any "evangelist" driving a Jaguar and wearing a Rolex)... Once upon a time there were two mean old apostles. They were walking down the street, and a girl with a demon started pestering them. (Actually, she was just misunderstood). The mean old apostles, being mean, got cranky and told the demon to get the hell outta there (to hell, presumably). The girl's abuser/controllers got miffed, because that demon had been making them a lotta money! General chaos ensued. So, here I am, just another barking Chihuahua. Nobody knows any better than anybody else.. except me, of course. I've said some dumb things, thought some stupid things. Been perplexed at the actions of my brothers. In my worst moments, even thought evil of them. Lots of what I've written could be wrong. The bible may just be "the word about God" (how sagacious). There might not be any great imperative to encourage one another to live up to it. I might be a literalist (If a man loudly blesses his neighbor early in the morning, it will be counted a curse-Prov 27:14, I take that literally). I admit my benightment. I admit my meanness, because I ask the committed churchy people around me to try to live up to some standard (which, thank Whomever, I'm not responsible for making up). I might even be a meanie because I cajole society to say that homosexuality is weird, and creating homosexual "marriages" might actually promote wierdness. I might be hate-filled, because I say that the idea of a third sex, or a fourth or fifth, is weird. I might be full of shite because I ask homosexuals not to press for civil priviledges which were designed to reward people for having kids and raising families. But, in spite of all this meanness in me, I do know one thing. I have pretty good confidence that the bible is actually true because even the people who put it down actually speak, behave, and live out their lives as if it were true. Even mean old fundies like me. (tsk-if only you knew, poor man) | ||
| Munro |
"If the truth of the Christian faith is, in fact, TRUTH, then it stands in absolute antithesis to the way of thinking, living, and understanding, that characterizes post modern times." Try these links, troll: http://www.postmodern-times.com/ and http://www.antithesis.com/ If you like Francis Schaeffer you'll really like these. Best regards, --Munro | ||
| troll |
Thanks for the links, Munro. Of course, Schaeffer was just a mean ole evangelist who came to a bunch of really bad conclusions based on certain bad presuppositions. Fascinating how a group of people are ready to trash another group of people who, by definition, are the most prepared to be their friends, based on the doctrine of "confess your sins to one another". Of course, if none of the stuff they do is sin, or even wierd, then I guess mine isn't either. Yeehaa!! Freedom from self-repression! I'm mean, was born mean, LIKE being mean, and want others to affirm my meanness. Give me what I want. Well, this is a good lesson. Love your enemy, even though he made himself your enemy. Kick the bible in the bollocks, and destroy the one thing which is capable of giving you true affirmation. Happy Independence day. from one meanie to another, | ||
| woody |
Question #1: When we sin, do we do so by choice? Question #2: There is research being conducted concerning the genetic makeup of homosexuals. If said research finds that sexuality is genetically determined, what will be the effect on your orthopraxis? | ||
| troll |
#1: actually, this question is a complex amalgamation of desire, genetic determination, nice people you meet, mean people you meet, peanut butter, and justice. And quotes from Sojourner Truth. #2: will have to change my orthopraxis to warm fuzzy hugs. but then, if research indicates that the original researchers were genetically determined to be less slimy than me, would have to re-adjust orthopraxis to include reading the "Left Behind" books. I'm so confused. blessed beef and merry meatloaf, btw good thoughts on G. Will and vouchers. still don't entirely agree. respectfully | ||
| woody |
Cute, but I was hoping for substance. | ||
| troll |
I have a better idea. Could you provide the answers? I promise I won't try to pick them apart. Right now I'm more interested in what other people think, because I always learn a lot more about myself by listening, anyway. thanks respectfully | ||
| Munro |
According to the Bible, we sin due to our fallen nature. The fabric of existence is marred due to man's separation from God. Christ, through His death and resurrection, has united us once again with God, and come Judgement Day all will be as it once was. Seen in this light, all sin may be considered some sort of genetic flaw. A good example of this is alcoholism. An alcoholic has a disease, often a genetic disposition, that wants to kill him. Through competent therapy a person willing to stop drinking may become and stay sober. This makes the "gay gene" argument of little consequence, as orthodox Christianity sees man's current nature as depraved anyway. Just as a habitual drunkard can stop drinking and help other drunks to stop drinking, so too may homosexuals stop doing whatever it is that homosexuals do, and help other homosexuals to recover. | ||
| Efrem |
Munro Sayeth: "....An alcoholic has a disease, often a genetic disposition, that wants to kill him. Through competent therapy a person willing to stop drinking may become and stay sober. This makes the "gay gene" argument of little consequence, as orthodox Christianity sees man's current nature as depraved anyway....." Your assumption that all genes are of the same strength and influence is fallacious: Mmmmm..., I been drankin' too much and my Paw did th' same thing an' folks say it's what kilt him; I don't want the same thing to happen to me so I'm gonna get with some other folks who been through what I been through and we can all help each other stop." This does not equate with "Mmmmm...., y'know, I don't like what sex I am (or my eye color, or my hair color, or any of the genetically determined personal attributes) so I think I'll join a support group and stop being male (female, blue eyed, brown haired, Inuit, etc.) so we can help each other and stop. Munro, there are studies of the brain (ongoing) that have demonstrated a demonstrable difference in certain areas of the brains of Males, Females and Homosexuals (Transgendered folks in particular). Sorry, I came to this discussion unprepared, I don't have the URL handy but can get it if you have genuine interest. Love, Efrem | ||
| Munro |
For the last 40 years this nation has been getting progressively screwed up about everything to the point where we have had a clearly psychopathic president ripping the clothes off high school girls and running around in his underwear in the Oval Office while playing with himself, all with the tacit satisfaction and permission conferred by the silence of the mental health community. We also have university clinicians in charge of training our mental health professionals licensing man boy pederasty, describing this as intergenerational sex relationships. The status of members of the psychological and psychiatric professions depends on the motivations they came into the profession with, and the departments in which they were trained. The graduates of this system can be as different as Hillary Clinton and Jesse Helms. Nutball pseudoscience, particularly in the psychological professions, is flourishing like kudzu. What you get passing off as studies and science depends on which journals you read and who published the studies. Through selection, anyone can quote so-called scientific evidence to argue anything they want. I am well aware of recent brain-structure brain-scan studies suggesting anatomical differences between gay and non-gay men. I am also aware that technological advances are such that the day will soon arrive wherein brain scans will be able to chemically and anatomically detect whether someone has learned advanced algebra in high school. It may then be possible to center a debate on whether or not someone has a properly-configured neurological arrangement rather than whether someone has bothered to open the book upon taking the algebra course. All acquired behavior is accompanied by neurological/anatomical changes. The biological mechanisms are referred to as learned neuronal connective growth patterns. The cultural condition and fashion in America is presently predisposed to support organic permission for homosexuality; i.e., if anatomical/chemical brain function can be concentrated upon, all introspection can arbitrarily end at that point. Acquiring such permission satisfies many people. However, mind-body relationships are more complex than are being presented. Obviously, a large proportion of the psychiatric, psychological, and other mental health professions of the recent period will not agree with anything I've posted here. My responsibility is to myself and my own integrity, not to them. In the affairs of this world, one is not saved by faith, rather, one is saved by the lack of it. That means that the only person I presently trust in these matters is myself, my own experience, my own observations, my own judgement, and my own training, which take precedence over what anyone else wants or needs me to believe. If others find this troublesome, my only reply can be "c'est la vie." | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Troll, Are you a fundie in the sense that you insist that evolution never happened and that God created the heavens and the earth in a span of time that was literally equal to six 24-hour days? That the Neanderthal fossils correspond to what people look like when they live 900 years? And all that? Or are you just a conservative person of God who is trying to live a Godly life and bring the Word to whomsoever he encounters? | ||
| troll |
heh heh heh... Nope, I'm not a young earth creationist. I'm just someone who takes himself way too seriously. Sorry I can't sign your petition. I know it's from your heart, and I don't mean to put you down in the least. I just believe that it hamstrings something ugly, but important... which is the bad news. Yeah, I hate it too... but the good news doesn't make much sense without it. Then again, that's probably a very fundamentalist attitude. Doubtless, many have played the bad news too hard, to the detriment of the good. But I see your proposition as an error to the opposite extreme... just trying to stick to the middle ground as best I can see. thanks again for your work here. best, | ||
| woody |
Troll, I asked the question to learn from you. You've started this thread with a position statement disputing the pro-gay stance JAH has put forward. I'm asking you a couple of honest questions. Why won't you answer them? | ||
| Tracy Hartford (letah) |
"However, mind-body relationships are more complex than are being presented. Obviously, a large proportion of the psychiatric, psychological, and other mental health professions of the recent period will not agree with anything I've posted here." Actually, they believe that "correlation does not equal causation" and that's what they are chanting in Research Psychology Bachelor's programs. --Psychology Major (btw, >wave to all< it's been a while) | ||
| troll |
Okay Woody, fair enough. 1- we're all captives to sin 2- it wouldn't change the way I practice my faith respectfully | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
You don't have to be a good psychologist, only an honest statistician, to know that 1) correlation does not equal causation, 2) statistics are only as good as the sampling technique, and 3)they only apply to a specific population during a specific sampling period. Remember, there are lies, then damned lies, and finally statistics. | ||
| Woody |
Munroe: I'm not sure your argument is sound exegesis: According to the Bible, we sin due to our fallen nature. The fabric of existence is marred due to man's separation from God...Seen in this light, all sin may be considered some sort of genetic flaw. What about Adam and Eve? Was their sin a "genetic flaw?" Is my sin or your sin any different from their sin? Just as a habitual drunkard can stop drinking and help other drunks to stop drinking, so too may homosexuals stop doing whatever it is that homosexuals do, The drunk is still a drunk. The homosexual is still a homosexual. Is being a homosexual a sin? Troll: By saying we're all captives to sin, are you implying that we have no choice but to sin? | ||
| Munro |
Romans 5:18 tells us "In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all." This is basic Sunday School/Wednesday night Bible study stuff, Woody. Have you ever read Paul's letter to the Romans? | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
Munro, Arguing strictly from Rom 5:18 alone, it seems that all are righteous independent of their acknowlegement of the source of righteousness, just as all are condemned independent of attitude or knowlege of the source (or even existence) of sin. | ||
| Woody |
Munro, It seems you've mastered numerics. Now answer the question (I can give trite insults as well as you, if you really want to go there). Is Adam's sin substantially different from mine? Or yours? | ||
| troll |
Woody, I'm not implying it. I'm SAYING it. what are you implying? | ||
| troll |
oops, forgot to answer JAH's question.. yep, I'm trying to bring him to whomsoever. I usually mess up (as evidenced by the peripateticism recently). Usually, when I let him do the work, things turn out better. Conservative? I suppose so, in the commonest sense of the word. best, | ||
| Woody |
Troll, I'm implying nothing. I'm asking a question to clarify your statements. Thank you for a direct answer. However, if sin is not a choice but a condition forced upon us, then God seems very capricious condemning us for sinning. It would be akin to me beating my dog for being a terrier. Isn't our captivity to sin a captivity we enter into willfully? Does God condemn us, or do we choose seperation from God? It seems to me that the message of Scripture is that we choose the seperation. I know that when I sin (which is far too often) it is because I have chosen to sin - I've placed myself and my will above God's will for my life. | ||
| Munro |
"Is Adam's sin substantially different from mine?" "...God seems very capricious condemning us for sinning. It would be akin to me beating my dog for being a terrier..." ------------------------------------------------ The following footnotes to Romans 5, from http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/, explains this: 'Paul reflects on the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:1-13) in the light of the redemptive mystery of Christ. Sin, as used in the singular by Paul, refers to the dreadful power that has gripped humanity, which is now in revolt against the Creator and engaged in the exaltation of its own desires and interests. But no one has a right to say, "Adam made me do it," for all are culpable (Romans 5:12): Gentiles under the demands of the law written in their hearts (Romans 2:14-15), and Jews under the Mosaic covenant. Through the Old Testament law, the sinfulness of humanity that was operative from the beginning (Romans 5:13) found further stimulation, with the result that sins were generated in even greater abundance. According to Romans 5:15-21, God's act in Christ is in total contrast to the disastrous effects of the virus of sin that invaded humanity through Adam's crime. 5 [12] Inasmuch as all sinned: others translate "because all sinned," and understand v 13 as a parenthetical remark." ' | ||
| troll |
we do choose what we like, rather than God. our foolish hearts are darkened. how often do I wish I could see how much more satisfying God is, than whatever I'm chasing after at some moment. scripture confirms this, but I think the angst of humanity stems from the fact that we know it, even apart from special revelation. thanks be to our Lord Jesus Christ. We can't come to him on our own; only through a miracle, not wrought by us. the words "which of you, if his child asks him for a fish, will give him a scorpion?" reveal that we may actually petition to receive this miracle... | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
"The words...reveal that we may actually petition to receive this miracle... " Seems to contradict the reformists, but joyfully, that's OK. Every position gets contradicted here! | ||
| troll |
yeah, kinda funny... to my thinking, actually reveals the infinite beauty of that view. a gift which, after we ask for it, we are brought to realize that we didn't bring ourselves to ask for it... | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
"...infinite beauty..." More like infinite spiraling paradox. I don't see why God would make it any less simple for us blind yappers than it had to be... I appreciate the Deity most when [he] makes sense. However, I am also one of those aggravating, threatening people who are willing to let questions stand without feeling compelled to provide ironclad answers for the sake of the insecure. | ||
| Woody |
Munro, Since, as your quote states, we are all culpable for our own sins, I would contend we are deserving blame because we have chosen to sin. If we choose not to sin we are not culpable. The argument that because Adam sinned we have a "genetic flaw" that causes us to sin is specious. If sin is a choice, as I contend, then the genetic development of the homosexual is a serious issue and should cause Christians to re-examine the "orthodox" position on human sexuality. If we have no choice but to sin, then we cannot be culpable. For the record, I reject Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin. That doctrine, and the dispensational theology so popular today are IMHO the greatest heresies being taught in Christianity today. But you know what they say about opinions... | ||
| troll |
heh heh... Richard, you're forgetting something. It's not our theology which is usually a stumbling block, it's our consistent failure to live it. Therefore, as a happy Calvinist, I can easily admit my own intellectual shortcomings, and forgive those of others. I can even see how God uses people who don't see it the way I do. He's sovereign, after all. If you look at me and see smugness or insecurity, therefore, I can forgive you. I know how it feels to see people that way, because I've done it myself. Or maybe that very statement I just made was an example of my "aggravating, threatening" nature? In other words, that paradox you mentioned isn't my problem to solve. It's yours. You might not like my "pat" answers, but I do. If they just make you mad at God, or mad at me, there's not much I can do about it. respectfully, | ||
| troll |
Why should Christian doctrine make a discrete partition for sex? Sex is just another part of the mind/body/soul interplay with which, apparently, God is interested. I maintain that Christian doctrine doesn't have to change, even if they discover an "asshole" gene. (or, in other words, a Calvinist gene). respectfully | ||
| Woody |
Calvin didn't think that. Neither did Luther. That's why they were reformers. Doctrine is a statement of truth, or a statement that tries to encapsulate truth. When our world grows (like when Galilleo proved Copernicus was correct), things change - the way we understand reality changes. The world isn't flat, the sun doesn't go around the earth, and the pope isn't infallible. | ||
| troll |
Agreed. According to our limited perspective, truth changes. So, how shall we reform? I'm really interested in what you propose. Just like you, I want to "get it right". respectfully | ||
| Woody |
I think we have to look at what is holy and sacred in our lives, and what makes those things holy and sacred. The institution of marriage, for instance, is sacred, but it isn't sex that makes it so. And there are plenty of marriages around that are anything but sacred. Sex is sacred, but it isn't marriage that makes it so. Marriage provides a framework, or a context, in which sex can become sacred and holy. Is it possible that monogamous, deeply committed and loving homosexuals can have a holy, sacred relationship - just like monogamous, deeply committed loving heterosexuals? If homosexuals have not chosen to be homosexual (and why would anyone choose to be called "fag," be discriminated against at school, work, and in society at large?) but are genetically "wired" to be homosexual, just as heterosexuals are genetically "wired" to be heterosexual (something the biblical writers could not have possibly known about) should we recognize their right to enjoy life just as heterosexuals do? | ||
| troll |
The problem with those hollow "marriages" is that the parties involved have set themselves up as arbiters and judges of what makes it holy. In the same way, homosexuals who claim they are in a holy, sacred relationship have set themselves up as arbiters and judges of what makes it holy. Now, I depart from God's will for my marriage at times. When I do this, the marriage is weakened. It becomes the unsacred marriage you spoke of. I'm telling the gay person that being with someone of their own sex isn't God's plan for marriage. They can reject that, or accept it. That's their choice. But, if they reject that biblical model, I don't want to hear anything from them about my marriage going astray. They don't have anything to stand on, no criteria to judge my marriage, other than their own invented scheme. Gnosticism is the view that the material realm is somehow corrupt or spiritually unworthy. If that's how you worship, then enjoy it while it lasts. And, by the way, I don't have a right to be married. I don't even have a right to be happy. Some would accuse me of denying gay people what I've got. I'm not denying them anything, because they're not trying to take what I've got away from me. They're asking for something else entirely. In the context of the body of those who are faithful to Christ, and who are seeking to obey his commands, the "graciously married gay" is seeking their own way, not God's. The absolute best rejoinder they can muster is "well, YOU do it sometimes, so why can't I?" | ||
| Efrem |
Inter-Threadle Cross Pollination (she said): From: Morality Crisis by Troll "here's a pretty good admission of the reformed camp's culpability. -snip- Either we are too pietistic, happily ensconced behind our stained glass and not wanting to get involved in that dirty world outside, too scared and fearful of what the world might think, or just too busy waiting to get raptured out of this mess instead of helping to clean it up." From: Spittle-flecked, hate-filled, fundie ramblings (SFHFFR for short, dears) by Richard Gay "I appreciate the Deity most when [he] makes sense. However, I am also one of those aggravating, threatening people who are willing to let questions stand without feeling compelled to provide ironclad answers for the sake of the insecure." From: SFHFFR (Okay..., changed her mind again; for the purposes of this diatribe it's 'Spittle' for short.) by Troll "...we do choose what we like, rather than God. our foolish hearts are darkened. how often do I wish I could see how much more satisfying God is, than whatever I'm chasing after at some moment. scripture confirms this, but I think the angst of humanity stems from the fact that we know it, even apart from special revelation." From: 'Spittle', today..., right now. by Efrem I'm a fourteen year old 'Old Fart'; which is to say I am stuck with the same 'non' answers I had when I started 'questioning' forty five years ago. In the meantime, I've been thru all the various 'we have all the answers (but don't remember the question) phases' of most folks of conscience who came along in the sixties. I'm still stuck with the same conclusion: My original perception of 'God' was based on the finite understanding of those around me whoever they were/are. Actually, on my own, I cannot imagine something so infinitely large as to be able to conceive and birth the Universe and so infinitely small that its consciousness is greater/smaller than a quark (not to mention your run of the mill 'black hole'); much less its 'motivations' for doing anything. In short, I'm helpless in understanding/perception before 'that' force, and there's no point in any kind of philosophical nonsense. Still, I know, as part of our attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible we have to lend words to our feebled thoughts: some say Jesus' idea of a great 4th of July would be barbecued queers on a stick (oh my ); others think rednecks should be placed under house arrest in a GRS hospital in Thailand; still others think and pray for peace and love while their families are dessimated. Bhuddists, Protestants, Catholics, Hindu (the often left out and ignored Inuits, whatever religion they have) and all of the thousands of other major/minor spiritualities/religions all have an answer, an answer to whatever the question was in the first place; which nobody has ever convinced me they actually have a handle on. I swear..., it's beyond me, folks. From: 'Spittle' by Troll God wants us to take a freakin' day off!. Love, Efrem | ||
| troll |
A day off is a good idea. Everybody tends to commit the naturalistic fallacy... saying "what IS" is "what OUGHT to be". I think Jesus went around gently reminding everybody of their propensity to do that. He then showed them that he knew how things OUGHT to be. Before he left, he told us to go around showing people that. What an irony! A bunch of people running around, like chickens with their heads cut off, and we're told to be like Jesus... individually AND corporately... love, troll | ||
| troll |
What I find most humorous about research into "fundamentalisms" are the definitions. The researcher always scowls and pulls some hair talking about how hard it is to define fundamentalism. After all, they have to make the term cover William Jennings Bryan, J. Gresham Machen, and Ralph Reed, as well as Sinhalese Buddhists, Islamic Shi'ites, and Missouri Synod Lutherans. But at the same time, they have to formulate a definition that precludes worldviews they like. This is no easy feat. | ||
| troll |
If we were to find the medical reason why some people have a craving to eat dirt, this discovery would not have the effect of turning dirt into food. | ||
| Efrem |
Apparently primitive man was not a dumb as modern man has often assumed. Clay is renowned to have many uses in promoting health in plants, animals and humans. Bentonite, Pascalite, as well as other types of healing clays, have been used by indigenous cultures since before recorded history. Studies show that the use of volcanic ash clay internally goes back to the Indians of the high Andes mountains, tribes in Central Africa and the aborigines of Australia. Taken internally, it supports the intestinal system in the elimination of toxins. The application of clay has achieved miraculous healing of Buruli Ulcer - mycobacterium ulcerans which is similar to leprosy and tuberculosis mycobacterium or flesh eating disease. (in French) "The Native Americans call it "Ee-Wah-Kee" meaning "The-Mud-That-Heals" Bentonite, as well as other types of healing clay, has been used by indigenous cultures since before recorded history. "The Amargosians (predecessors to the Aztecs ), the Aborigines, and natives of Mexico and South America all recognized the benefit of clays. " "...healing mud not only draws toxic material out of the body if taken internally, but also reduces pain and infection in open wounds on both humans and animals." "The eating of clay has been observed in [native] peoples and animals in all parts of the world since antiquity. Early writers described the widespread use of kanwa ( earth from a lick near Lake Chad ) for animals and humans in Nigeria. Long journeys were made to [ this ] lick to obtain a tribal supply of this earth, and it was then issued as rations to cattle and humans..." Bentonite Why would animals want to lick clay? Bill Roundy is a retired rancher. He remembers a generation ago, when he lived in Utah, that he and other cattle ranchers, learnt a valuable lesson by watching their cattle. Whenever a cow got sick and went off her food, the ranchers would turn her out to fend for herself, as they could not afford to throw good money after bad. But, they noticed that, time and time again, the cows would return after a few days, fully recovered, and ready to feed with the rest of the herd. It wasn't long before these ranchers discovered how the cows were recovering. The sickly cattle would take themselves across the desert to clay banks, and feed on them until their health returned. When the ranchers saw how easy and cheap was the solution, they transported clay to their sick cows - a practice still continued today. Free-ranging cattle dig into ancient clay sub soils to access clay and so have no need to be supplemented in this way In 'Our Earth Our Cure', Dextreit writes that that clay stimulates the deficient organ and helps the restoration of the failing function. Clay is a powerful agent of stimulation, transformation and transmission. Clay contains highly active ingredients, able to induce cellular rebuilding and to hasten all organic processes. He also says that clay acts with wisdom - it goes to the unhealthy spot. Used internally, whether absorbed orally, analy or vaginally, clay goes to the place where harm is, there it lodges, perhaps for several days, until finally it draws out the pus, black blood, etc. with its evacuation. In the 'Clay Cure', Knishinsky writes that clay is part of his diet and he never skip a day without eating clay. He writes "When clay is consumed, its vital force is released into the physical body and mingles with the vital energy of the body, creating a stronger, more powerful energy in the host. The natural magnetic action transmits a remarkable power to the organism and helps to rebuild vital potential through the liberation of latent energy. When the immune system does not function at its best, the clay stimulates the body's inner resources to awaken the stagnant energy. It supplies the body with the available magnetism to run well. Clay is said to propel the immune system to find a new healthy balance and strengthens the body to a point of higher resistance." http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/clay.htm Love, Efrem | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Efrem, You have just shown that clay is sometimes medicine (as anyone who has ever taken Kaopectate should know), but you have not established that it is food - i.e., that from which one can draw calories. But it is am illuminating post nonetheless. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Everyone, Troll started this thread, apparently to make the case that homosexuality is wrong. I, for one, am curious to see Troll try to convince us of that proposition. So, Troll, lay it on us. I presume that Troll may argue that homosexuality is a corruption of sexuality into something that is not sex, as he (and his fellow Calvinists I presume) understand sex. Lest we all dismiss such an argument out of hand before it starts, I remind everyone of John Milton's portrayals in Paradise Lost of sex before (Book IV 720-775) and after the Fall of Eve and Adam (Book IX, 1000-1045). Comparing the two passages one gets a description of how their previously healthy love and sexuality is corrupted by the Lust with which we are all familiar). | ||
| troll |
Actually, I didn't really start out to prove homosexuality wrong. I was more trying to get folks to see that my traditional stance on homosexuality does not equate to a stance against homosexuals. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a trite bit of Christian jargon, to many; but it's not trite to me, because it happened to me. Therefore, I try to understand what it means, and apply it. Some, like you, claim that the way to apply it is to reform the church to include ministerial affirmation of gay marriage. We obviously have some differences regarding the nature of Christ's ministry of mercy, grace, obedience, law, etc. Lots of interesting things to ponder. I will absolutely affirm that "it is a monumental mistake for Christians to blithely claim that if homosexuality isn't genetic it must be chosen." (Greg Koukl's words). Some find it unloving to suggest that the church's role, as a corporate body, is to encourage, with great love and support, its members with same-sex desires to combat those desires. Some say it's unfair to ask those people to deny their flesh, since obviously so many other churchgoers have their flesh satisfied. I don't find it unloving; what I find unloving are churches who do the above, but provide no like encouragement and modeling for good heterosexual conduct. That's pure hypocrisy, and condemnable. respectfully, | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
But Troll, If homosexuality isn't wrong, why shouldn't the Church affirm gay marriage? Also respectfully, | ||
| woody |
I've been away for awhile, so I've got some catching up to do. In response to a couple of things, Troll, you're last reply to me included And, by the way, I don't have a right to be married. I don't even have a right to be happy. Who said you did? I asked if homosexuals should have the same right to enjoy life ("pursuit of happiness") as heterosexuals. In response to JAH's challenge you state Actually, I didn't really start out to prove homosexuality wrong. I was more trying to get folks to see that my traditional stance on homosexuality does not equate to a stance against homosexuals. Yet in a post on another thread (but same topic) you told him you were trying to change his mind. Seems like a good bit of double-speak to me. JAH, laws currently on the books dealing with divorce and child custody typically award child custody to the mother and place a responsibility of child support on the father. In a homosexual marriage where children have been adopted, what standard would you propose for child custody? | ||
| troll |
Woody, J.A.H., I know you folks don't share my view of scripture. That's your prerogative; apparently, that's what non-mean old enlightened people do. However, I don't really have anything to prove, but you guys do. You see, you're using the naturalistic fallacy to argue for "acceptance" of homosexuals (per the skeptic, David Hume, of all people). Your argument is based PURELY on it. However, your argument dissolves when they find an "asshole" gene, or some such thing. You're going to be left scrambling-- you will be FORCED to use a moral argument, rather than a naturalistic one. You can't just change premesis mid-stream. Sorry if this seems too simplistic to you. It doesn't to me. Respectfully, your doublespeaking friend | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
One of my most enjoyable vices is smoking cigarettes. To me, there is hardly anything more satisfying than having a cup of hot coffee and sparking up a Winston after a good dinner. On the grand scheme of things, cigarette smoking is relatively harmless- sure, it will give me cancer over time (though my dad has smoked for over 60 years, and is still alive, doing what makes him happy, has lived a full life, and CONTINUES to smoke), but that prospect (cancer) doesn't really worry me too much. Now, my wife and kids don't want me to smoke. They love me, and don't want to see me die early, and suffer through painful disease. They also don't like the smell of it. My wife doesn't like the fact that we live basically from paycheck to paycheck, and can sometimes barely scrape up enough cash to buy milk, or diapers, but I can always manage to buy a pack of smokes (at over $5 a pack now). But, (and I'm slowly trying to get to the point here) smoking cigarettes is a SIN for me. I don't believe it is a sin for everyone, but for me, it is a matter of consciously choosing a behavior that I know my God does not approve of. Now, nowhere in the Bible does it single out smoking as something that God hates. And I can interpret different biblical passages to justify my smoking if I want to, but that would be dishonest, because I KNOW in my heart, that smoking is a SIN for me. I've known it for a long time, and have smoked cigarettes in spite of that knowledge. When I choose to smoke, I am "living in sin". To make matters worse, I no longer smoke, but I didn't quit smoking because it was sinful, I quit because I sacrificed that sin for an athletic pursuit (I love to play competitive racquetball). By my actions, it could easily be argued that I love both cigarettes and racquetball more than I love God. Smoking cigarettes, getting intoxicated on alcohol or drugs, playing racquetball, reading the bible, having heterosexual sex, having homosexual sex, having bestial sex, church involvement, work, typing messages on discussion forums... all these are VOLUNTARY, not involuntary. Which means that any of them can become our idols, and idolatry is something God feels pretty strongly about. Not all of the actions that I mentioned above are covered specifically in the bible- but drunkenness, inappropriate heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, bestial sex, and work ARE biblically covered. Someone show me a biblical passage that specifically CONDONES homosexuality. The body is a tool for the will to use, and is subject to the will; the body and its senses are directed by the will, and not vice versa. Just as the Holy Spirit should be allowed to reign over the will of the person, so the will should reign over the body. When the body/senses rule over the will, it is a direct analogy of the person claiming authority over the Holy Spirit inside him. How often do we let the Holy Spirit preside, and how often do we pilot ourselves? | ||
| Efrem Jones |
By Eric Hagelin on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 08:35 am: "One of my most enjoyable vices is smoking cigarettes. To me, there is hardly anything more satisfying than having a cup of hot coffee and sparking up a Winston after a good dinner. ........smoking cigarettes is a SIN for me. I don't believe it is a sin for everyone, but for me, it is a matter of consciously choosing a behavior that I know my God does not approve of." I don't understand how you 'know' God's preferences as far as Winstons and Folgers are concerned....; is there a proclamation somewhere in the teachings about nicotine and caffeine? "Now, nowhere in the Bible does it single out smoking as something that God hates. And I can interpret different biblical passages to justify my smoking if I want to, but that would be dishonest, because I KNOW in my heart, that smoking is a SIN for me." Oh.., so it's a subjectively arrived at knowledge of what is sinful for you. Okay. "I've known it for a long time, and have smoked cigarettes in spite of that knowledge. When I choose to smoke, I am "living in sin"." "....By my actions, it could easily be argued that I love both cigarettes and racquetball more than I love God. Smoking cigarettes, getting intoxicated on alcohol or drugs, playing racquetball, reading the bible, having heterosexual sex, having homosexual sex, having bestial sex, church involvement, work, typing messages on discussion forums... all these are VOLUNTARY, not involuntary." (As is the decision to wear clothes, brush your teeth, clip your toenails, cross the street with the light and nearly any other action you can name in day to day living, including eating food and drinking water.) "Which means that any of them can become our idols, and idolatry is something God feels pretty strongly about. Not all of the actions that I mentioned above are covered specifically in the bible- but drunkenness, inappropriate heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, bestial sex, and work ARE biblically covered. Someone show me a biblical passage that specifically CONDONES homosexuality." Somebody show ME a passage in the Bible that "condones" pathological schizophrenia, infertility, cancer, being a nun, nudism, nationalism, patriotism or heterosexuality (in that illiterate time, 2,000 years ago, heterosexuality was the 'decree of the leadership of the Jewish people and, I would guess, most other tribes as it was the way the group(s) thrived and prospered.) All of these things are either physical conditions experienced involuntarialy or choices made by people with the same ardor you exhibit with your love of cigarettes and racquetball. By "condone" I mean actually endorses it with fervor, not merely recognizing that it exists by mentioning it. As there were generally far fewer folks back then, there were proportionately fewer homosexuals; however, there are illusions made to intense 'romantic' attachments between certain individuals and the same sex 'objects of their desire'; also, there are more than a couple of unexplained mysteries concerning Jesus' own orientation. "The body is a tool for the will to use, and is subject to the will; the body and its senses are directed by the will, and not vice versa. Just as the Holy Spirit should be allowed to reign over the will of the person,...." Excuse me..., but I don't think a mere human 'allows' the Holy Spirit, Force, or whatever way you understand that Entity to do or not do anything. "...... so the will should reign over the body. When the body/senses rule over the will, it is a direct analogy of the person claiming authority over the Holy Spirit inside him. How often do we let the Holy Spirit preside, and how often do we pilot ourselves?" Why do I keep thinking of, "If God had meant man to fly, He'd a given him wings"? The 'Force' does what it does and manifests Its Self regardless of your awareness, acceptance or denial. Utterances, oaths, allegiances sworn and damnations shouted are only stutters of the mind; a mind whose thoughts are known by the 'Holy Spirit' before it's owner is aware of them. Our concept of 'sinfulness' and 'holiness' is puny and blighted by finite understanding next to something whose omni presence, awareness and intellect is totally unfathomable to our primitive minds. I mean, you're talking about Something that built the Universe, boy!! | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Efrem types: "I don't understand how you 'know' God's preferences as far as Winstons and Folgers are concerned....; is there a proclamation somewhere in the teachings about nicotine and caffeine?" and, "Oh.., so it's a subjectively arrived at knowledge of what is sinful for you. Okay." Yes, in a matter of speaking, it is subjectively arrived at. I am referring to Romans 14:23 here. Because I 'know' something subjectively, doesn't mean you 'know' it, or even have to agree with it (I'm more realativist than I thought!). I'm sure there are many things you 'know' subjectively that I don't. What's wrong with that? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the tooth-brushing, nail-clipping comment. "Somebody show ME a passage in the Bible that "condones" pathological schizophrenia, infertility, cancer, being a nun, nudism, nationalism, patriotism, or heterosexuality..." I can't. But my point is that I can point you to passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. I'm not saying homosexuality is the only detestable act around, but I'm saying that it IS detestable, regardless of how homosexuals view it. Just like my cigarette smoking is detestable (to God, because my love for Him gets shared with a plant) and should be detestable to me (if I loved God more). The difference lies in the fact that cigarette smoking falls under Romans 14:23, and homosexuality falls under Romans 1:24-28. It doesn't make my smoking any less of a sin, but homosexuality is specifically mentioned... "Excuse me..., but I don't think a mere human 'allows' the Holy Spirit, Force, or whatever way you understand that Entity to do or not do anything." Why not? Do you believe that every miniscule event that takes place in your life is determined and manipulated by that 'Entity'? My own children would not be around on this planet except through actions I took (to put it rather clinically). That doesn't mean their thoughts or movements are directed by me, though my children may occasionally OBEY me. Why does it have to be different just because God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent? "The 'Force' does what it does and manifests Its Self regardless of your awareness, acceptance or denial." Efrem, I would buy this, if I believed that this force was impersonal, but I happen to believe this "Entity" has a personality. That changes things, because it means my actions can please or displease Him. "Utterances, oaths, allegiances sworn and damnations shouted are only stutters of the mind; a mind whose thoughts are known by the 'Holy Spirit' before it's owner is aware of them." So are you saying it makes no difference to the Holy Spirit if I bless Him or curse Him? That He doesn't care? Or that just because God is all-knowing and knows what I'm going to pray before I pray it, that I shouldn't pray? Seems pretty purposeless... why not just put the barrel in my mouth and pull the trigger? If God doesn't care, then why bother? If we don't exist to please Him, then what do we exist for? Certainly a God that doesn't care about me does not deserve my worship. Again, if He were impersonal, I'd agree. As it is, He LOVES, and that makes all the difference. "Our concept of 'sinfulness' and 'holiness' is puny and blighted by finite understanding next to something whose omni presence, awareness and intellect is totally unfathomable to our primitive minds." Yes, I agree with you about 99% here. "Totally" is a little too strong for me, though, because oddly enough, this omnipresent, aware, and intelligent Builder is interested in making Himself known to me, a puny, blighted man. And when He does make His presence known to me, it is wonderful. It is firmly rooted in experience and in emotion, not intellect. | ||
| Martin Reynolds |
I stumbled upon this discussion, and as a christian pastor who also happens to be homosexual found it interesting. Perhaps it always interesting to read about oneself being characterised, discussed, analysed, condemned etc. etc. by others.I recognised myself in the pew at Troll's church, it sounds just like the one I grew up in. I don't remember our pastor ever mentioning homosexuality either. The debate reminded me of a conference I attended in Berlin in the early 1970's which discussed the problems of racism. For the first day there was no black person present in the 140 strong seminar. My partner and I live in a house we have converted to cope with our family, and the need for meetings and listening any pastor has to cope with. My pastorate is unable to pay a salary - they are just getting over the last pastor who preyed on their children and was arrested for selling child pornography. So my partner has to work hard to keep body and soul together for us all. We have a 15 year old boy, who we took into our care 11 years ago. We did not demand any rights for adoption, Andrew's behaviour and severe learning difficulties meant that nobody wanted him, we were asked to give him try and he has never gone back. My lonely uncle came for the last four years of his life. His memories and bodily functions were shot, but we knew his favourite songs and he died in our arms as we sang to him. My mother lives with us too, her health and mind are also a little tattered at the edges. But cuddles from Andrew make her day and he loves her stories though he knows not a word. My best friend recently left after three years, his alcoholism had destroyed his marriage and I am God Father to all his five children. He left with hope and sober to try again and is doing fine. Perhaps I should worry about my homosexuality, or my rights or what other people think of me, but I really don't have the time. My partner loves me and I love him, we worship together, pray together and our love encompasses all who come into our life. From time to time abused children are placed in our care, we cry a lot together then as we tend the bruises and nurse the cuts and broken bones and cry again when they are healed and go home. We read the Bible and see the condemnations, we smart: but perhaps because we read that masturbation is equally as wrong, and women wearing trousers, and being cheeky to your parents, and having plants indoors and cutting your hair; while occasionally bashing childrens brains out on a rock is something to be happy about we get on with our lives. Just like my old church I don't mention homosexuality either - except perhaps on the odd Sunday when recalling the dead of the German concentration camps or the victims of Christian bonfires - but hardly at all. I will enjoy reading more of what you say, but forgive me if I do not think you are talking about me, or the God who loves me, even if it is interesting. Kindest regards and respect to all | ||
| Martin Rerynolds |
Oh! Just to say that my visit with you has made one change in my life - I shall be more careful crossing bridges in the future, | ||
| troll |
You're okay Martin... I only eat Bills, not Nans. I'm glad you're so righteous. I really mean that. The world needs more caring people. I, too, try to be righteous where I can. I have much to learn from you. In particular, since my theology is obviously so messed up in relation to yours, what parts of the bible should I be allowed to believe? The parts which make me feel happy? The parts which make me feel sad? The parts about forgiveness? The parts about obedience? Test yourself to see if you are in the faith. If you believe in a social gospel exclusively, then I inform you that you don't believe in a Jesus which can save you. If you think I'm obsessed with the afterlife but not properly concerned with the here and now, you're mistaken. I'm quite concerned with both. Are you? My arguments can't persuade. However, Christ gives a spirit to those who believe in him; that spirit is capable of persuading. Be warned, though. That spirit has been known to convict people to make serious, self-denying changes in their lives. But, don't worry or fear; as a gay man, I'm sure you know about suffering and your character has been built up by it. I am confident that Christ will give you the strength you need. If you don't have the time to worry or think about how you are living your sexual life, that's too bad. Christ had time to die for you. Or- I ask you- was that all a mistake? For- if Christ has been truly "loving" by the world's standards- he would have obeyed his Father to the point of death? I think he would have skipped town to go heal some more paralytics. By the way, read some books on logic. To say that a man going with a man is okay because some other people don't have a problem with masturbating is not merely an absurd argument-- it's not really an argument at all. Also, educate yourself about the divisions of Jewish law- moral, ceremonial, etc. And quit reading gay theology, and try reading the bible with new eyes. Stop trying to convince yourself that your or a small class of people who have just recently appeared on the scene of history are suddenly better morally educated than the apostles were. If you continue in the intellectual cesspool of gay theology, you will simply spiral down in an alternating cycle of victimology and self-hate. Am I preaching to you? YES I AM. I'm preaching a gospel that has been around a lot longer than both of us. Am I moralizing? YES I AM. Don't try to pretend that you're not. Ask God for wisdom, and he might just drag you out of the postmodern sewer you're living in. He did it for me-- and I didn't have to lift a finger. In fact, every time I tried lifting a finger, I found I was fighting him. Does it seem duplicitous for me to call myself your friend, when I'm preaching to you so? It probably does, to you. Yeah, I'm sure you've heard it all before. You've been around. Guess what-- you're always going to hear it. Fight it, or give in. respectfully, | ||
| Richard Adler |
If, when I'm old and stand a shrivelled piece - my eyes are watery, my bowels are weak, my sex is gone but for in my head, my mind is scattered if not shattered and my spirits nearly gone, whom shall I seek? I'm repulsive to all and sundry, I cannot speak but only mumble and then I dribble; my breath is weird, I give no company but for just a solitary fart. Who will care? My wife has died - so long ago. My kids? They've had enough -prefer to 'put me down'. My friends are dead - or just like me a useless piece of human form - I was once a mighty soul but now am just a step away from ash or dirt. And when I go, who will grieve? Who will hold my hand as I slip from all this care with memories all but lost - this tired old thing with rattling breath? Who will shed a tear and stroke my head, as I pant, with final gasp? - No mean ol' Fundie I'll bet, nor pious type or preachy soul but in my heart I know.... that Martin will. | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
I wonder, Richard, is your confidence in Martin based on his self-penned list of humanitarian acts? Surely there's some "mean ol' Fundies" out there with some equally long (or longer) lists of selfless acts. Or is it that we tend to prefer getting counsel from people who think just like we do; because if someone tells us we're wrong, it bruises our ego, and if someone tells us we're sinning, it makes us feel conviction? Am I missing something, here? Surely there's a difference between being an intolerant "fundamentalist" and being able to discern right from wrong. | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Martin Reynolds, Thanks for chiming in! May God bless your ministry whether because or in spite of yourself. Troll, You know, to be a real man of God, you have to get circumsized. Yes, I know that there are arguments in the New Testament to the contrary, but only a minority of people who believed circumsizion to be commanded by God thought those arguments convincing, which is why the first Christians were much more successful at proselytizing Gentiles than Jews, despite the fact that all the first Christians were Jews themselves. So, if you had been there at the time, before the New Testament was written, would you have been in the circumsizion party? Or would you have believed the folks who claimed that they had a new revelation to the effect that circumsizion was unnecessary, even though Jesus never said anything of the kind? And what would be your reasoning? | ||
| Richard Adler |
No, Eric there is no human act upon which I base my confidence. Martin is human but by his words and acts shows he goes beyond. By his words, the world he enters is not of judgement but of suffering with those he's near. He has a flock and will not leave or take a fancy flight - sounds he's there to stay and without the pay. In your addiction you judge a man as right or wrong for his acts whose care and love you'll seldom see in corporate pews or glass Cathedrals. You say, God's presence is, " firmly rooted in experience and in emotion" - What of Martin or is this a double standard? Bruise my ego or slap my face, it makes no difference if my 'self' is gone. Do you know the Christ who raised a 'pro', received her tears and 'blessed' her soul? Our counsel should come from those who love and do not flatter. We all dysfunction - but is that the point? You may not masturbate or perhaps you do but either way I just don't care for that part of you - it's your love I'd rather see and not your rules or funny ways. | ||
| troll |
John, First, please tell me why you are comparing circumcision to homosexual acts. You've got more explaining to do than me. Richard, Pardon me, but here's what I see-- me: I'm a sexual sinner gay people: I'm not; in fact, I'm more righteous than you I don't buy it. troll | ||
| troll |
John, I should add- simply explain to me a good reason to believe that the church should not encourage homosexuals to leave their sin. If you simply believe that the apostolic writings were cruel hoaxes inflicted by God upon people, just say so. I would take you at your word. troll | ||
| troll |
Richard, I know as well as you how to love. But, explain to me where admonition and discipline belong in the scheme of love. You look at me and see only a rule-maker. You don't know how many I've helped. I admit I am moralizing. I simply want all of you to come out and admit it, too. Here's a thought. What does it mean to fear God? Some would say it's an archaic concept, ill-suited to the modern dogma of self-love. I say the opposite. To fear God is simply to pay homage to Him. To fear anything else is sin. Therefore, I don't fear gays; I don't fear gay-bashers; I don't fear fundamtalists; I don't even fear postmodernism. Because I fear none of them, I AM CAPABLE OF SPEAKING AGAINST ALL OF THEM. Yes, I'm hellfire and brimstone. But, don't fear me. Fear God only. Hell either exists, or it doesn't. You can decide. Don't spout existential babble at me. Some create their own hell on earth; some do it willingly, some do it unwillingly, with a sense of strong delusion, as do gays. If I call a gay out of his delusion, God wins a victory. If he stays in, I am saddened; but I realize God is sovereign. If he calls me a hater, he's not calling me anything at all, is he? He's calling Christ the hater. But, I don't pity Christ. He can take it, I'm sure. If a gay man says he is a brother, I say "fine". Let us confess our sins to one another, and exhort each other to love and obedience. If he says "not me", whatever truck I have with him afterwards is based on lies, not truth; even as badly as I may want to continue dialog with him. My discernment says he has not been given the Holy Spirit. Now, I admit the limits of my discernment; only God can judge, for only God knows the true heart, and only God knows from what depths a sinner has risen. But a brother who will not join in the body of confession has effectively bootstrapped himself from out of the ranks of sinners, like ME, into some new rank of people without sin. How fortunate for him-- if he is not a sinner, he does not need Christ! I reiterate- my confessional attitude here has been met with only scorn and derision. You can psychoanalyze me, claim I'm trying to drag poor powerless souls down into my own hell. Just make sure it's my hell, and not yours. If you are so righteous, it probably is mine; for I am the worst of all sinners. If I give all I have to the poor and throw my body into the flames, but have not love, what am I? Apparently, you don't think I have the spirit of love, or am willfully ignoring it. I would like to think the best of you all- scripture commands me to not think evil of a brother, so, by Christ's grace, may I not. I would like to think that we differ on only one small fundamental (yes, I used that word!) point-- that love and obedience are two sides of the same coin, not separate coins entirely. And forgive me, but I wish you would speak plainer in your writings. Half of the time I have trouble understanding what you're trying to say. If I am intellectually underindowed, I will be the first to admit it. I myself am too flowery sometimes. But I do believe we should all strive to let our "yes" be yes, and our "no" be no. troll | ||
| troll |
And, while I'm ranting, The judgement issue is a two-edged sword which all should handle very carefully. When I say a word against homosexual acts, I simply say to the person "I am sinner too". If all they have to say in response to me is "don't judge me", I think they have fled the field of moral AND intellectual courage. I find no satisfaction in sensing this. I don't get my jollies from seeing people flee God. I do it myself so much, how could I? It's heart-wrenchingly painful. God grants the courage-- ASK for it. If you define your righteousness by how many people you cuddle, your righteousness is by works alone. I'm glad to have you on this planet, for the good you will do. If you want to multiply that righteousness a thousandfold, ask for Christ's righteousness. NOT mine (you yourself have seen how unrighteous I am alone), but Christ's. | ||
| troll |
John, Forgive me, but your question to me begs a thousand questions of its own; you ask me what I would have done had I lived before the New Testament was written? How should I know? I can't see through time; only God is the Alpha and Omega. The fact is-- Christ HAS come; the NT HAS been written. That is my epistemology. This might be frustrating to you, but think of it this way-- if you want to deconstruct me, all you have to do is use the bible, since I claim that as my authority. Use the same rule-book I do, in order to figure me out; whether you have the same view of it as I do, or not, at least it could be useful for you in knowing how I think. And don't use the tired old literalist card. I'm not a reconstructionist. I'm a simple believer in the covenant of grace for all who believe. And yes- faith IS adequate for salvation; that's why I believe a gay person can be "saved", as well as junkie, or even the worst criminal in prison or out of prison. But you're going to have to prove to me that faith is adequate for LIFE. To someone who has been a "Christian" for 60 years, yet still drinks milk, I have many words of exhortation for. DO these things, and YOU WILL LIVE. | ||
| troll |
An example of why it's useless to speculate about "what we would have done" in history- John Calvin was a saint. His love for God and the scripture which He provided helped bring about a sea change in western civilization-- and, I say, was instrumental in the development of modern liberal democracy. Yet, in his lifetime, a heretic was executed "on his watch". Calvin sweated blood and tears to reason with Servetus. To be honest, Calvin probably couldn't have done anything about it; it was the civil authorities, still hidebound to a theocratic system, which carried it out. But, I suppose, if Calvin had had the true spirit of Christ, he would have jumped on the pyre himself, untied Servetus' bonds, and taken the flames for himself. He didn't. Was he a demon then? An unloving inquisitor? I'll bet a lot of us think that we, had WE been there, and BEEN Calvin, would have been so righteous. I'll bet a lot of us also think that WE, had we been there, wouldn't have crucified Christ. Was Calvin's a moral failing? Perhaps. But we don't know; that was then, this is now. The only people we have to love are the people alive today. So-- why did I call Calvin a saint? Because HE was a saint? YES- but not because of anything he did. He was a saint because Christ made him so. If you're gay, and you believe in Christ, guess what? You're a saint!! Now BE one. And, help me be one, too. | ||
| troll |
More on the judgement issue. Everybody's favorite verse in the bible: Matthew 7:1-5 ESV Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Many today think this means that human beings are not allowed to have any opinions that might make another human being feel uncomfortable. Many also believe it means that saying anything judgemental is a sin. Some twisted people even believe it means that, as long as they aren't guilty of a certain thing, that they're allowed to point that thing out in others (FALSE) What it REALLY means- for you, me, and everyone, is this- Never use a double standard to judge yourself or others. Use God's revealed word only (yes, even the writings!) God's word says I'm a sinner. It says you're a sinner. Never quote scripture to someone, but blithely assume the same scripture doesn't apply to you. What does this mean? For believers in Christ, it means scripture is our ultimate authority, and that same scripture commands us to exhort one another USING scripture. For non-believers, it means nothing at all. Therefore, believers cannot judge those outside the church, for those people will never understand. God is sovereign- he will give those people whatever they deserve, good or bad, to His glory. The church is called to such an infinitely different standard than the world, most don't understand it. Yet, believers are free of judgement, free of fear, and are one in the body; a hand here, a foot there. Scripture says some other hard things, too. It says that sometimes the most convincing "believers" are not believers at all, but are deceivers. Since Satan is a wily son-of-a-bitch, I can easily believe this. There seem to be two conflicting teachings here- we are to be able to discern such deceivers, sent by the evil one (yes, I really mean that); yet, we are to love them, even as enemies. The best way to love an enemy is to point out his error. He might kill you for it, but if you speak the gospel to him, the Lord may exercise his divine will to turn that sinner from his sins. Yet, we're even supposed to be able to discern when someone is "swine"-- when throwing our pearls to them could get us killed! And, presumably, walk on to die on some other hill. We all have a bit of the deceiver in us. I think the foulest deceivers are those who know the bible inside and out, and love to use it to scare people- but who think it doesn't apply to them. And THAT's where the "judge not, lest ye be judged" comes into play. Are you in the church? I'll judge you. Judge me. What's our authority? Scripture. The same measure for all of us. Don't claim scripture as our authority? Claim to have "the Spirit of Christ", but without all that confusing "revealed words of God" stuff? I call you a deceiver. Don't like it? I can demonstrate to you why I'm right, and you're wrong. Because what do you invariably use to judge me? The bible. Christ's recorded actions and sayings. The apostle's visible struggles with sin and devotion to their master. Believe that the "obedience" stuff is out-of-date? Fine. Why don't you go join Bishop Spong? You'd be welcome there. | ||
| troll |
I just realized that "reconstructionist" might not be a term which is that well known, so here is a quick background to see what I was talking about. An Appraisal of Reconstructionism | ||
| Scooper (admin) |
Troll, I mention the debate in the early Church over circumsizion because in our disagreement over homosexuality we have each touched on some BIG ISSUES, among them reason and revelation, law and gospel. Now in the case of circumsizion, the early Church faced all these questions. The issue of circumsizion is thus a laboratory for us to look at these larger issues in a context that we care less about (and are therefore less likely to fight over), and in which we (all of us) know the right answer from Scripture. We can then return to the homosexuality debate with a greater appreciation of our own and each other's positions. The risk is that such a discussion might render these ramblings are not merely spittle-flecked, but smegmatous. | ||
| troll |
hee hee-- smegmatous. that's good John... you're right, they are BIG ISSUES. that's why it's important to get them right. I'd love to be a unifier rather than a divider on this issue. But it's not nearly that simple, and no one can claim that Christ was nothing but a unifier. Quite the contrary. more later hopefully- | ||
| troll |
Richard, It just struck me that I wasn't very kind in a recent post. I apologize. Just because some of your sayings may be too pithy for me is no reason to react negatively. I appreciate your view "I don't care for the sinful parts of you". That's a good way of saying it. So, thanks to you, I have something hopefully more hopeful to say to Martin, or Efrem (or myself). I don't care for the sinful parts of you. I love the servant in you. I'm not trying to impale you with orthodoxy, just as I hope you're not trying to impale me with your own orthodoxy. We have to know more about what it means to "wish each other well". As bizarre as it may sound, part of me "wishing you well" is wishing you would consider your lives more carefully. When I say I'm no better sexually than you, I really mean it. We are capable of being more of a team, here, but we all have to let go of some things. A big part of the reason I'm here is that this type of conversation helps me to let go of some of my well-polished chestnuts. If I can just be brought to see that they're strangling me, it's easier to let go. Grovel, cajole, admit my huge inadequacies, attempt to reason, whisper, shout. It's all a part of what I'm trying to do here- share the gospel. I don't accuse you of anything other than error; no evil intentions, no end-of-western-civilization. And- I wouldn't know anything ABOUT error unless I'd been subject to it myself (continually). | ||
| troll |
John, Let me see if I can say what you'd like to hear. The circumcision issue in the early church was mean, nasty and divisive. Some people said you had to be circumcised in order to be a man of God. Some said it wasn't necessary. The "wasn't necessary" folks won, because they were right. Paul had the spirit of Christ- he discerned that the good news of love and faith were not dependent on the physical mutilation of the body, which had been a God-ordained sign of obedience for the Jews, before Christ came and made the gospel available to all. Now Christ is here; he dwells in the hearts of those who believe, regardless of each person's individual practices. Therefore, if two gay people want to get married in the sight of Christ, Christ's obedient followers (AKA his "body") are obliged to grant them their request, out of a sense of graciousness and forgiveness (two characteristics which Christ personified). Forgiveness, because everybody knows the body is just trash; it's really the spirit that matters. Therefore, desiring anything "bodily" demonstrates our sinful nature, because we want "a person" instead of God, and he disapproves of such idolatry. So, any human being who gets married (regardless of to what sex) is really just demonstrating their pitable fallenness, so, as fellow screw-ups, Christ's body ought to go along with it, since we all know we're not any better. Forgive me, but this view seems quite dualistic, John. I don't think you're a docetic ;-) are you? | ||
| Richard Adler |
Troll, In your 'fundie, speckle flecked ramblings' you've levelled at me the accusation of being deceitful. Sorry if I've sounded a little 'pithy' or terse in the past - people sometimes find me that way, perhaps 'flowery' is a little better. In your (if not our) troubled quest for truth, if I might put it in such a way, you suggest also your sense of 'evil' - my intention here is not to 'de-construct' but merely show, by my words, that I'm honest. You may say I fail in this 'authority' and such is your prerogative - but trust this, if you can, know what I say to be true to myself because they are an expression (albeit not always the most 'perfect') of who I am. To myself, I say, "Get your own identity in order before worrying about the 'outer' or the other" - I've come to realize just how difficult this actually is. Also, in my own perception of 'evil' I've come to know it as far closer than we sometimes think. And as for 'truth'? Just what is it? - a timeless question with not an answer? Perhaps as ever, it lies in the silent depth of our own hearts and minds - the response as given in a narrative written around 2,000 years ago. You say I talk in riddles with no "Yea" or "Nay" -perhaps by reflection or drawing in the sand we'll see that not all is 'black or white' or as 'plain as day' but rather a 'musing' presence, quite deep and friendly and unafraid. In your words you contradict, "Martin is a saint", you say, but then suggest he is in some way or sense unworthy. I say, "he is a 'sinner' but this, in no way, denies his worth, his truth or his faith." | ||
| troll |
Richard, The best we can ALL do is be honest, and thank you for it. Wherefore my honesty? Wherefore my admittance of wrongdoing? If my words call Martin a sinner, and at the same time call myself one, what of it? I would only know these things FOR CERTAIN if they had been made known to me by revelation. Wherefore, then, reason and revelation? What of John's question? What of mine? Is it not highly dualistic to suggest that gay "marriage" needs no more hard, careful consideration than real marriage? Come on- be honest. It's good to buoy yourself up- good to buoy Martin up. What about further honesty then? What about flattery? What about the offense which is already inherent in how God wants us to live? Can you say the offense is all mine? | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Richard, First of all, I didn't mean to minimalize Martin's selfless actions. The love and caring he has shown for others is commendable. My earlier post didn't reflect any appreciation for that, and I'm sorry. You say that "In your addiction you judge a man as right or wrong for his acts..." - what 'addiction' are you referring to? Yes, I do judge men according to their actions. I'm not afraid of making distinctions between right and wrong behavior. The distinctions I make between right and wrong behavior are not of my own fabrication, but are based on clear-cut biblical teachings. I try to avoid picking at specks in the eyes of others, but if someone says that they are a practicing homosexual AND a Christian pastor, well... I find that pretty incongruous. It's like saying "I'm a greedy Christian pastor" or "I'm a lazy Christian pastor" or "I'm a drunk Christian pastor" or "I'm a thieving Christian pastor". Now, after reading Martin's post, I see that he doesn't claim to be a "practicing" homosexual, just a homosexual. If he feels that homosexuality is indeed wrong, and is ashamed of his sinful condition, then that's different; but if he's saying that he thinks homosexuality is a neutral issue from a biblical perspective, then I would question whether he is actually qualified to be a pastor, because I'd say his understanding of scripture is pretty twisted. You type, "You say, God's presence is 'firmly rooted in experience and in emotion' - What of Martin or is this a double standard?" I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. My comment about having an awareness of God's wonderful presence, and that awareness being rooted in experience and emotion, was in response to Efrem's statement about God being "something whose omni presence, awareness and intellect is totally unfathomable to our primitive minds." With my statement, I was trying to help Efrem understand that God isn't "totally unfathomable" to us. So I don't understand what you are referring to concerning Martin and a double standard. Do I think Martin's perspective on homosexuality should be based on emotion or experience? No. Should my own understanding of what is right or wrong be based on my own emotion or experience? No. But I'll wait for you to clarify your question before I go on. You type, "Do you know the Christ who raised a 'pro', received her tears and 'blessed' her soul?" Again, I'm sorry, I don't know if I understand your question. Please clarify. If you are talking about the woman caught in adultery and brought before Jesus, yes, I know that Christ. (There's only one Christ to know.) He also told her to "go and sin no more". It wasn't out of judgmental legalism that He asked her not to continue sinning, but out of love. It's an example we should follow. But we live in a culture that promotes homosexuality, and so if I say, "hey Martin, stop sinning" - I get labeled a 'homophobe' and a judgemental, intolerant right-wing fundamentalist. The culture Jesus walked around in was heavily legalistic. Our is licentious (I'm speaking about the good 'ol USA - I don't know where the rest of you in this discussion forum reside). | ||
| Martin Reynolds |
Pastors who are: greedy; lazy; drunk; thieving - yes, I've met many pastors who described themselves (in part) like that. The company Jesus kept was felt to be incongruous by the standards of the religious people of his day. | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
I would have to make the distinction between "keeping company with" and "participating in" though. As Troll said in his Wednesday, July 10 post on this thread, as trite as it sounds, we can love sinners and hate sin. Jesus ate with them, and accepted them. He did not accept their sin, nor did he enter into their sinful behavior. Loving others only comes second to loving God. Jesus summed up the law that way. Loving Him is acted out in obedience, which means making a conscious decision to stop doing those things that displease Him. Tricking ourselves to believe that some sins are 'okay' now (because homosexuality is not only acceptable in 2002, it's 'trendy'!) is just that- a trick, a deception. I also accept people who practice homosexuality. But I'm not going to sugar-coat the truth about the depravity of what they practice. Correction is a good thing. If the light we think we have is really darkness, how deep that darkness is! | ||
| Richard Adler |
Troll, No. My reference wasn't to you merely calling Martin a sinner it was the allusion your words draw to the assumption that he lacks basic integrity. As I understand it, the strong sentiment following behind both you and Eric is the supposition that homosexuality is singled out as heinous above any other sexual act in the 'sight of God'. My mention of the word dysfunctional could apply to any sexual act that does not lead to pro-creation, i.e. to be strictly legalistic, this would include masturbation, recreational sex including sodomy and the use of artificial contraception when having sex. If one is to confine sex to an area where the only desired result/outcome sought is in the creation of another human being then all other 'activity' can perhaps be described as dysfunctional. If we are to presume God's only purpose for sex is the propagation of our species then you guys have a strong argument.I'll agree, there are bounds to human decency and to my mind I do find certain acts depraved. Above all, I consider fidelity in any relationship to be very important but that is another matter - it is simply about an 'act' to which we are referring here which some of us consider depraved. My suspicion is, the puritanical slant the Church has placed on sex for centuries in the form of taboo continues to reside deep within its psyche today. For some time, a part of the Church has regarded any act producing a little too much pleasure as inherently wrong (Take a look at Luther, pre-reformation). The subject of licentious living is again another subject and certainly should not only refer to sex. The fear of homosexuality by many has caused them to grey the area between this, arguably a 'natural'and controlable tendency with the actively evil paedophilia. A hate campaign has been prompted through a basic misunderstanding of homosexuality and will drive many of these people further underground - many homosexuals will find themselves acting from a position of retaliatory hate and through spiteful reaction perhaps muddy the waters even further. Eric, The addiction I was referring to was your smoking habit. Your self-confession (which is admirable) is you understand it to be a 'sin' but continue in its enjoyment also knowing the offence it causes your spouse. I'm not suggesting here per se smoking is a sin - these are your words and for you it is perhaps your stumbling block. Jesus, when referring to a woman well known for her 'sin' said "Do you see this woman? I came into your home, and you gave me no water for my feet, but she has washed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You did not welcome me with a kiss, but she has not stopped kissing my feet since I came....the great love she has shown proves that her many sins have been forgiven."(Luke 7) | ||
| Martin Reynolds |
I have already said that I hardly ever mention homosexuality other than to lament the cruel murder of many. Sadly I have only read one book that could possibly be considered "Gay theology" - though perhaps I should have read more to understand what others rail against here. I also understand the view that no matter how long (25years) our partnership, nor how faithful, nor how devoted, nor how sincere, nor how honest, nor how caring, nor how healing, nor how effective, nor how serving, nor how inclusive, nor how joyful, nor how crucial, nor how growing, nor how selfless, many passionately believe it can never be anything other than detestable in the eyes of God. | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Richard, Thank you for clarifying (Luke 7). Both Jesus and His host knew of the woman's sinful life(style). Jesus said "because of her great love, her sins are forgiven". This is so wonderful. I've never advocated in any of my posts that we 'shouldn't forgive', but only that we should acknowledge homosexuality as a sin, and not as an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Of course we should be forgiving- this is a very basic doctrine of Christianity. In agreement with Troll, what I see (for the most part) coming from Christians practicing homosexuality is not an attitude of "well, my lifestyle is sinful, and I want to change" (or even, "I know my lifestyle is sinful, and God help me, because I DON'T want to change", as is often the case with us sinners) - instead it's an attitude of "there's nothing sinful about my lifestyle." Does anyone reading Luke 7 actually believe that, after all was said and done, the woman argued for the moral validity of her sinful lifestyle with Jesus? I would venture a guess that she probably came away from the experience with a new resolve to live in a way more pleasing to God. And Martin, I believe God is VERY pleased with the way you have loved and cared for the meek and needy. I'm not suggesting that the faithful, devoted, sincere, honest, caring, healing effective, serving, inclusive, joyful, crucial, growing and selfless portion of your partnership is detestable to God. In fact, my very best male friend, who is like a brother to me, I love deeply. We have a relationship which I would characterize with the same words you used. The difference is this: I don't have sex with him. | ||
| Martin Reynolds |
We have not been short on counsel over the past years, some we have sought - while other just arrives! We were aware that our lack of feeling of sinfulness in our relationship could not be trusted - there is no deception like self deception. So we listened to those who advised us that we should live our lives without the intamacy of sexual expression of the wonderful and passionate love that we feel for eachother. We worked hard at areas of our life together and did much to conform our lives to loving God and our neighbour(we see these as working hand in hand, with little scope to prioritise one over the other) we asked for no rights while accepting that our relationship involved a multitude of resposibilities. Of course we were never ashamed of our sexuality or of our love for each other, but we wanted to do nothing that would cause a scandal to our brothers and sisters in Christ. Some years later, our ministry was attracting some attention, I was then working in a very violent downtown area and in the local jail. The same people came to counsel us again, we were now told that our lifestyle was attracting public comment and disaproval. They had recently been on a conference, and the result was that the group of ministers to which I belonged now believed that our relationship had to end as they now believed homosexuality itself was a corrupt condition and that we should seek deliverance from this state. Sex, was no longer the issue, our passion for eachother was. Even those who were not quite sure of this pointed out to us that our public profile was such that others could be misled into thinking that the church approved of homosexuality. At that time we had already accepted the responsibilities I mentioned earlier, and to end the relationship meant the abondonment of those people who had come to depend on us both financially and emotionally. We demurred. We were rejected and isolated. We moved on. We continue to move on - we still welcome counsel from all, but we have discovered that whatever we do, we cause offence to some. We are sinners, we do not pretend otherwise. But we do worry why this issue has become so "burning" while others, we see as far more significant, are glossed over or ignored. It seems that this has become a highly political issue,and we see why it has become so emblematic. We do not see ourselves as victims or have any self hate, even though others may think we should. We remain happy and steadfast, we hope our love will grow and blossom in many more ways and welcome all, even those who hate us, with no questions. | ||
| Richard Adler |
Hmmm! Forgive me Eric but your reply seems a little fanciful. Troll was very close to the truth with his remark concerning the moral relativism being practiced here. It goes something like, "I'm a sinner but at least you're a greater sinner than me!" If a Leopard were told it had spots do you think it would make a difference? Tell me Eric is forgiveness not so much as a single act but more a state of mind or 'grace'? What do you think "He who is without 'sin' cast the first stone" really means? From Martin's last posting I'll add: For years the Church has officially condemned others in spite of their likeness to Christ whilst, through inertness, ignorance or fear has harbored the evil of the pedophile and the abuser. Wherefore lies the real corruption? | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Martin, I'm sorry that you experienced rejection and isolation from the church. I too have experienced isolation and rejection from the church, though not for the same reasons. I'm sure that, regardless of those reasons, it has hurt you as painfully as it has hurt me, maybe more so. In each case, we both felt strongly enough about something to question/defy the leadership of the church. I question the biblical basis for your (and your partner's) decision, that's all. It appears to me that your decision to remain in a homosexual relationship was not based on scripture, but on an emotional feeling that, regardless of how strong that feeling may have been, is in opposition to biblical teaching. If I'm wrong about that, and your decision was based on scripture, I'd like to know what biblical passages you would point me to that condone homosexuality. What's your hermeneutic? I agree that there are other significant issues which are indeed glossed over and ignored, but I feel this issue is not insignificant, and it does happen to be the topic of this thread. You say, "...whatever we do, we cause offence to some." - Please understand, I am not wanting to offend you, Martin, by my questions, statements, assumptions, etc. I think I may often offend people too. (I sure offended some people at my last church!) How odd that what seems so simple and clear-cut to me is so confusing to others (and vice versa). At any rate, please trust me, Martin, that I am much more concerned about the areas of impurity in my own heart than the ones in yours, and I don't mean to come across as judgmental or holier-than-thou. Incidentally, my homosexual cousin just recently went forward at a church (I have no idea which denominational flavor) to give his life to the Lord. I am overjoyed by this news. My wife and I have been praying for him to make this step for many years. The last thing in the world I plan to do is to get up on a soapbox and tell him he's going to burn in hell for his perverted lifestyle. However, I won't compromise the truth and clarity of the word of God that he and I both base our faith on, if he asks. Jesus is a true Deliverer. I know- He has delivered me from a powerful drug addiction, which I thought I would NEVER be free from. There was a time when I didn't want to be free from it. There were many times that I did, and felt hopeless, because the addiction was stronger than I was. This deliverance took place almost 10 years ago. I have been faced with the temptation to return into those arms more than once, but God has given me the strength to abstain. Many people will argue that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, and should be legalized. Marijuana became a daily living hell for me, and I was enslaved to it, for years. Do I think it should be legal, and acceptable? No way. It is insidious in its destruction. Just as Jesus delivered me from the slavery of drug addiction, He can also deliver us from slavery to sexual addiction, whether it be homosexuality, masturbation, pornography, necrophilia, or whatever other form it may take. But I don't believe He will do it unless we are willing to trust that His way is better than our way, and repent. | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Richard, what in my reply did you find fanciful? You ask me if forgiveness is "not so much a single act but more a state of mind or 'grace'". The honest answer? I don't know. How does repentance, accountability, humility, etc. play into the act of forgiveness? I've struggled with this. I've been counseled that forgiveness is a "one-time" decision, much like a judge's gavel being slammed down- "There, it's done. Forgiven." Well, I don't know if that's true. It seems more like a healing process- that forgiveness can sometimes take a long time (it may not happen overnight, depending on the offence). I just don't know. What I meant in my earlier post was that when someone has sinned, forgiveness is NEEDED to restore the relationship. If we sin against God, we should ask forgiveness for it (because our sin offends Him) and REPENT, not continue in sin. Martin hasn't sinned against me, and I have nothing to forgive him for. If he called me a dumb ol' fundamentalist that hates gays, well, then I'd have something to be offended by, and he could then post "Hey, Eric, sorry about that, I don't really think you hate gays", to which I could reply, "I forgive you." As to forgiveness being more a state of mind... again, I don't know. Is that how you define it? If so, are you able to DO IT? I mean, I tend to think of myself as rather thick-skinned, and not easily offended, but in reality, forgiveness isn't always so easily granted from me (I say that with shame). You ask, "What do you think "He who is without 'sin' cast the first stone" really means?" It means, don't pass the 'guilty' verdict on someone, since we're all guilty. But there's a difference between casting a stone and admonishing one another, isn't there? Those guys weren't dragging her out so that they could gently encourage her to stop sinning, they wanted to kill her. If I'm caught up in a sin, isn't my Christian brother or sister supposed to try and gently restore me back to a position where I'm pleasing God instead of displeasing Him? And wouldn't that restoration possibly require them to point out that my behavior was sinful? | ||
| Richard Adler |
"....but only that we should acknowledge homosexuality as a sin, and not as an acceptable Christian lifestyle..." - This important part of your response is what I find fanciful Eric. The most 'acceptable' Christian lifestyle I've found to date is through its originator. Jesus did not acknowledge homosexuality, heterosexuality or in fact any other sexuality as sinful. What he did acknowledge through his action was the hypocritical treatment meted out generally to women through men's often totally condescending attitude towards them. Within the context of Judaism women were often reviled as inferior, not worth talking to and a prized possession only if good at child bearing/rearing. What our modern culture does not often pick up on is the strict separation males and females had within early Judaic society. Sex, generally was an unclean act because of the male's association with the 'unclean' female when procreating (planting) his seed. The superiority of the male against the inferiority of the female was so great that she deserved a stoning for the misdemeanour of corrupting the 'innocent' male (notice no judgement has been made against the fornicating male during the stoning). So residing within the mind of Jesus was that ALL sexual acts are basically unclean and should only be performed within the sanctity and 'ownership' of marriage. To suggest Jesus as singling out homosexuality as wrong is therefore fanciful. The 'sin' committed by the adulterous woman was not so much as in her having sex (an unclean act in itself) but as causing the 'contamination' of a male. Jesus replied to the crowd, "He who is without contamination (i.e. having touched a female) throw the first rock." The embarrassment left to some of the crowd and perhaps laughter for others perhaps diffused the situation entirely. Interesting theory you think? Maybe, but this conjecture makes far more sense to me than the longbow you draw and subsequent condemnation of Martin's homosexuality. | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Longbow? How about the double-edged sword: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 1 Timothy 1:8-11 Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13 These were found in just a few seconds of concordance work, using the NASB, and the keyword "homosexual". Don't forget Romans 1:21-32. Many more verses come up if you use the keyword "immoral". Don't misread this, I'm NOT flying an "I hate gays" flag. I advocate loving, not hating. I am also advocating obedience, versus sinning. It is not inappropriate to juxtapose loving with obedience. Indeed, they belong together. I admit, it was rhetorical of me to say "show me a passage in the bible that CONDONES homosexuality", as the biblical stance on homosexuality is clear. J.A.H., this is precisely why the church should not affirm gay marriage. Certainly, if a church does endorse gay marriage, it ought to be honest enough about its own disdain for scripture, and develop some self-created system for what one should and should not take seriously concerning biblical teaching. But then, if a church did that, it could no longer truly be classified as "Christianity". It becomes a man-made religion with a Christian mask. | ||
| Efrem Jones |
"There are no extant originals or "autographs" of any biblical writings. What we have are hundreds of ancient copies, some in the original languages, some in translation. The oldest Manuscripts we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in caves along the Dead Sea in 1947. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain at least portions of every book in the Hebrew Bible except Esther, were probably written over a 200 year period between the second century BCE and the first century CE. Our best manuscripts of the New Testament include a papyrus from about 200 designated P46 and Codex Sinaiticus. The picture to the left is one of the leaves from P46 (residing currently in the Papyrus Collection at the University of Michigan). The problem with these many ancient manuscripts is that they do not always agree and often leave us with two or more possible readings for a particular biblical passage. These multiple readings are typically called "variant" or "alternative" readings. A good modern study Bible like The Harper Collins Study Bible uses footnotes to make the reader aware of the most significant variants. Such footnotes usually begin by saying "Other ancient authorities read . . . ." During the last century and a half the discipline of textual criticism has been developed and refined by biblical scholars. The purpose of textual criticism is to evaluate the variant readings and reconstruct the original text of the biblical writings. This is obviously a very inexact science, but it has led to a surprising consensus regarding most biblical writings." http://www.furman.edu/~jshelley/origmss.htm Dear Folks, please remember the above when you start trying to tell each other what "God" does and does not want or like. You're talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of people who, today, would be considered semi-literate, at best, responsible for translating that ancient material (if ever there was any to begin with) that has since formed our modern christian belief structure. (Not to mention King James, who was, from all reports, quite a 'gay' vagabond himself (Mmmmm..., 'Jimmy' and 'Peter' the Great could've been quite 'th pair' I guess.) They didn't understand lightning, fer cryin' out loud; nor earthquakes or sunamis or, even, rain (not to mention gravity, post-menapausal depression, cloud formations; how the liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, etc. work; or anything except how to start a fire, pitch a tent, build a wall, and dig a hole in which to take a dump;... oh, also, they did seem to know how to 'scribe' the folk tales they grew up hearing...., and you want me to believe they(and through them, you) have the answer to the omnipotent "FORCE" behind the Universe?....I don't think so folks; as they say, "That's between me and my Creator.") Love, Efrem PS: When I was growing up in the fifties, Walt Disney created what was then a mindblowing television program; part of it's sustaining force was the legend of Davy Crockett: an unwhippable foe and, a constant friend; he even came close to defeating twenty thousand Mexican troops all by himself at the Alamo.....; Walt Disney taught me that! I believed it for years. It wasn't til a few years ago that I found out there's another version: Davy Crockett and six other survivors were hacked to death in front of General Santa Anna. http://www.reporternews.com/texas/ala0908.html or..., http://www.trafford.com/robots/01-0132.html I mention all of this only to illustrate that in only 164 years or so, Crockett's legend grew to gigantic porportions and was largely misconstrued by even the 'educated' of his day and of this century....; get the point? | ||
| Richard Adler |
Well said Efrem, You're point is well taken. Those who quote scripture as their sole authority, based on an interpretation suited to a particular culture, whether it be ancient or modern, miss the WHOLE point. There are many variants to biblical interpretation - what has been defined in early gospel writing are the themes of early Jewish writings but reinterpreted even magnified. Unfortunately the 'Fundies' of that period found them too varied against their own 'sptittle flecked'ramblings' and conspired to crucify those whose opinions differed. As we're reasonably civilised today, we no longer crucify - but to be sure there are other ways and means. Some put others down out of igorance (Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing). Some are more blantant and seek by legislation to criminalise that which they do not understand but fear. The secular state and Church need remain separate and the legend of Davy Crockett to remain a 'fairy tale'. | ||
| troll |
Earlier this century, J. Gresham Machen declared, ,"According to modern liberalism, faith is essentially the same as 'making Christ master' of one's life...But that simply means that salvation is thought to be obtained by our obedience to the commands of Christ. Such teaching is just a sublimated form of legalism."11 In another work, Machen added, What good does it do to me to tell me that the type of religion presented in the Bible is a very fine type of religion and that the thing for me to do is just to start practicing that type of religion now?...I will tell you, my friend. It does me not one tiniest little bit of good...What I need first of all is not exhortation, but a gospel, not directions for saving myself but knowledge of how God has saved me. Have you any good news? That is the question that I ask of you. I know your exhortations will not help me. But if anything has been done to save me, will you not tell me the facts? | ||
| troll |
What Defiles a Person 10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." 12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" 13 He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. [3] And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." 15 But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us." 16 And he said, "Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? [4] 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Wow... all this time I thought that all the depraved things we do were due to our sinfulness! Now I get it... those depravities are actually just normal healthy human behavior, because the bible is so misunderstood! That sure clears things up! How convenient for all of us! I'm so glad I kept an open mind about all this. Thanks for so quickly exposing the truth that the bible actually means the opposite of what it says, because throughout the ages, ignorant men and their faulty hermeneutics have twisted the original writings into a conservative, restrictive, puritanical book that we'd be better off ignoring. What's next? Lying? Greed? Sorcery? I guess these are all equally decent, normal "lifestyles", because surely the bible was wrong about them as well. And lying and greed are even more prevalent in today's society than homosexuality. Give me a break, please. If we follow this line of pseudo-intellectual/culturally relativistic/agnostic reasoning, then... Bible: homosexuality = sin Reality: homosexuality = acceptable behavior Bible: saved by grace, not works Reality: saved by grace AND works; or, saved by works, not grace; or, not saved Bible: Jesus = Christ Reality: Jesus = just another guy Bible: God is love Reality: God is hate; or, God isn't How far do you want to take your hermeneutic on reality? Or does your hermeneutic only apply to homosexuality? I understand that textual criticism may not be exact, but that does not necessarily mean that the bible is inaccurate. Are there "variant" texts that say homosexuality is holy? Or even acceptable? And if so, do those variant texts carry more or less "weight" than the ones we are familiar with in the bible? (Who wrote them? Were they eyewitness originals, or are they relegated to the "scribe/folk tale" status? How many copies of those variant texts have been discovered through the ages?) I am no expert (nor even an interested student) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or even Judaism. Do any of the world's other major religions CONDONE homosexuality? (And surely, even if they did, they must also have been equally as misinterpreted by their culture/future cultures/scribes who didn't understand rain, cloud formations, and post-menopausal depression.) And after all, understanding rain, cloud formations, and post-menopausal depression are all such relevant prerequisites for textual criticism, hermeneutics, and holy living! To quote Troll's original starting post on this thread: "The problem I have with this [...your religious courage is measured by your ability to buck your holy book...] is that bucking it isn't any more courageous than standing by it. One of the things a Christian is supposed to do is not only acknowledge that God created people, but that God created love; thus, "making up" our own version isn't any more enlightened than carving little wooden totems or slicing sheep's throats. Obedience is seen, in orthodoxy, to fulfill love perfectly, just as Christ obeyed, even when he didn't really want to. Or are we supposed to believe that he would have done better to skip town that dark night, and perhaps go heal a few more paralytics? "Do some good"? We can't measure good by our own standards any more than we can weigh a chicken with a yardstick. God is the standard, obedience is the fulfillment." | ||
| troll |
Since this purports to be a church, ol' Troll is gonna preach a sermon. From one sinner to another. Can y'all take it? Gloves off ;-) If I'm a pharisee, you guys could pray for me! --------------- It is time to reveal these law breakers for what they really are, using the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "wolves in sheep's clothing". As we are fellow law breakers ourselves, we see our common ancestries. Yet, somehow, by the grace of our most holy God, we have been given to the Son, so that our pathetic, weak, and vile attempts at righteousness may be revealed for what they are, and our shortcomings may be mercifully covered by the blood of our substitutionary lamb, the Holy Son of God, Jesus Christ. It is time we see this blessing for what it really is. It is time we fall on our knees before our Savior and kiss his feet for the blessed gift of our deliverance. For only a most Holy God could, in his mysterious wisdom, use the weak to shame the strong. Only the imputed righteousness of Christ, which forensically justifies us in the sight of a God whose eyes can behold no evil, is capable of snatching us from the fire, yet seeming to abandon others, who seem righteous in their own eyes, to the fire. It is time we see those outside the church, even those who would blaspheme the Son and the Father, as the blessed harvest; the blind, who are not yet aware of their guilt. It is time we see those ostensibly inside the church, who would blaspheme the Holy Spirit, as false teachers. They are self-condemned. For if a man has been delivered from his sin, but these other men would deny that deliverance and account it to some trick or ignorance on the part of those so blessed, they are indeed blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It is time we realize the Holy, revealed, written word of God for what it is- the very mirror of Christ incarnate; the seat of Truth. These men feel the tension in their hearts as they try to claim Christ yet deny every shred of Holy-Spirit revealed knowledge about Him. They know in their hearts what this entails, but cannot bring themselves to admit it. They are bent on destruction without even knowing it. Led astray by the traditions of men; hollow, vain philosophy. Rationalism not properly subject to God, but set aside as autonomous. Deconstructionism, the denial of True Truth; postmodernism; the spirit of this age: psychology unbound to the Truth of God; man-centered humanism, not God-centered humanism. It is time we pity these gnostics. Yet, pity is not strong enough; we must loathe the very clothing stained by corrupted flesh. It is time we reclaim the doctrines of grace; the faith once for all delivered to the saints. For good doctrine sanctifies; it leads us to good works based solely on the knowledge of how unmerited is our salvation. The more we become aware of God's graces toward us, the more we may loathe these men's lies, yet simultaneously pity them as blind, led astray. We must expel the immoral brother who repeatedly denies the need for his repentance. For, only the sinner is in need of Christ's atoning blood. The new birth may be portioned out only to those who have been brought by Divine Providence to see their own filth for what it is. Thus, like Saul the king, they may be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh; they may be left to follow their own appetites; they may be given their wish. Praise God is his merciful glory, for even Saul, in his final bloody moments, saw the folly of his ways and beheld the living God whom he repeatedly rejected. Even Saul may have found eternal bliss in the arms of his Father; we know not, but for such a thing we hope. David honored his grave and praised God for the love and brotherhood which he had shared with his former king, and so must we, with these men. But we must not deny for one second the filthy lie of Saul- unrepentance. It is time we reveal these men for what they are- followers of Christ by their own self-declaration; new legalists. They do not see their own word dances, but accuse God of it. They would make the gospel itself into a new Law, yet would deny the true Law given by our Lord. It is time we see ourselves for what we are: followers of Christ by His declaration. Filthy sinners undeserving of such a master, yet mercifully sheperded by his crook and disciplined by his rod. Let us be sheep, but let us be innocent as doves yet shrewd as snakes. Let us humbly unmask the Pelagians, the gnostics, the new legalists. For those who would deny our Lord Jesus Christ's words to love the Father with all our mind, would reduce all of glory to nothing but personal subjectivism. They would cry "the individual" but deny the Body. They would cry "the Spirit" but deny the body. They would call our Lord's injunction to live in Unity a vile lie. It is indeed ironic that these subjectivists would pose as intellectuals. Yet, that is a favored mode of those liars. The church at Corinth was a very smart church-- so smart, in fact, that they were proud of their dualism. They "knew" that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ was a license to sin, because the body is unspiritual trash. They were proud of their superior spirituality. How like the "new age" were they. The Lord used a beaten-down sinner to expose them and sheperd them back towards the doctrine which saves. And good doctrine does indeed save lives- ask Russell Yates if he would continue to follow the hyper-charismatic Pelagian heretic which he used to revere before his children's deaths. At least I pray he would see the truth- that no one whom the Father gives to the Son may be lost; that the gift given as a result of repentance, trust, and obedience is never revoked. It is time to see "new ideas" of revelation for what they are; self-idolatry, the lust of chasing after idols. Desires other than God. Deluded seekings which pose as righteousness. Equivocations. Fundamentalist railings against fundamentalism. Arguments that modern so-called "knowledge" imparts a new kind of righteousness which separates "us" from the morally ignorant "them" of the past. Arguments that an "idolatry of scripture" separates the righteous from the unrighteous. These blind men do not see that the only thing which separates the righteous from the unrighteous is the unmerited grace of God; the free gift of justification through faith in Jesus Christ. This "open" revelation, this seeking to equivocate the apostle's circumcision debate with any or all moral behaviors, is pure super-spirituality, pure gnosticism. For these hypocrites would only pick certain moral behaviors as their examples. There is always some thing which revulses them enough to put it out of their consideration. Fortunately for them, Christ drew no such lines. Their appeals to tolerance are based on the idea that some people are better than others, while no propositions are any more true or false than the next. These blind men do not see that true tolerance regards all human beings as equals, yet remains elitist concerning ideas. This is the tolerance of Jesus Christ; the acceptance of all people in whatever state they approached him, but the severe and caustic reprimand of even his most intimate friends, when Truth was at stake. It is time to see excommunication for what it is- a fearful means of administering God's grace to the unrepentant. With the entire church gathered, and the spirit of Christ present, the defiant fellow sinner is delivered out of the Body so that he may fulfill his own wishes. We must see his intense desire for community as the sign of his own knowledge of Christ's truth, even as he spits and blasphemes Christ himself- the living body; a sin for which he may be forgiven, if he will but turn from his idolatry of self. It is time we swallow our pride and admit the words of our Lord- "on account of me, men will say all kinds of evil about you". For our own sin of pride is what causes us to react to this promise- yes, a promise! And because of our sin, we fight back with our own words and wisdom, not the Lord's. We lose charity and speak lies ourselves. We must rely only on the word of God, and lean not on our own understanding. We must take care not to hinder those who would join us on our knees before Christ; yet we must use the discerning words of the Holy Spirit; the revelation of God's own mind. "For that is what some of you were- but you were saved, you were justified". We must not, in our vain sense of righteousness, question who God chooses; for He chooses a murderer here, a child there; a pervert here, a housewife there. By his grace, all his chosen are brought to the knowledge that they are no better than their brethren. Also, by his grace, he provides some who seem bent on self-destruction and false teaching. We must not give in to the lie, so common in the evangelical church, that He is helplessly watching these events unfold beneath him; we must see his Providence for what it is, and rejoice that he has provided error, so that truth may be manifested the more greatly. For those who are grieved by our own sins, and seek solace and comfort within the body, their brothers' duty is tremendous. For we face our own prejudices as we comfort these people, these God-given gifts. Through them we are further convicted of our own sinful behavior, yet through them we are brought in closer unity through the Word of God, the brotherhood of unmerited righteousness. In each other we are able to see the ongoing process of sanctification, the blessed promise given by the Lamb. We alternately sorrow at our shortcomings, and rejoice in our salvation, an ever-present comfort which cuts through our rags and washes us. In us the Lord finds no blemish-- all on account of the Cross. Yet, for those who deny the Law, their brothers' duty is even more heartbreaking still. These people set up man-made righteousness and they pronounce judgement on the Almighty God himself, for His Holiness, which seems to them to be mere caprice. For those who will not submit to mystery in even the smallest thing are not concerned with the things of God, but are concerned with their own rationalizations. They would accuse Christ of doublespeak even today. Yet, we know that, without the sovereign grace of God, so would we. We must adopt the exact attitude of Christ toward sin: absolute hatred. If we hate then the sin within ourselves, so much more will God's glory be made known to us, and he will teach us to love the sinner. He will teach us the joys of eating with sinners; living among the lost, yet not being of this world. And He will teach us the discernment and discipline to see men's pathetic excuses for what they are. With a full knowledge of the treachery in our own hearts, we will come to know the treachery which creeps into the church; the doctrine, taught by deceivers, that habitual sin in the body brings about greater Grace. Let these false dispensers of Grace be shown for what they are. God, grant us the wisdom of your Word, to know when argumentum ad miserecordiam is used as a pedantic shield against the ministries of your grace. Make us the miserable ones; make us to see that those who would claim to spread grace in your name are not evil but blind guides; it is we who are evil, and through your mercy you have pardoned us. Help us onward to a truer knowledge of your revealed mercy; move us away from milk and on to solid food; for we have strayed so far from seeking and loving You that we have failed in our duties as fishermen. You have shown us how our love of the world has caused us to swallow reductionist lies; we know in our hearts that inwardly we are nothing more than members of a "Jesus Seminar"; "new-orthodox"; Spongian murderers of the Truth. We know that, in our natural state, we would accuse Christ of doublespeak even today. Yet praise your Holy name- you have washed us; God finds no blame in us, oh mystery of mysteries! For this our minds and hearts reel; we are delirious in you. In your Holy Son we have our pardon; in your Holy word our mission of a lifetime. Remind us every second that our own strivings at righteousness are filth compared to what Christ has done for us. Our minds, our hearts, our very muscles and sinews are justified and redeemed. We are saints in your eyes. Make us to work for your kingdom, that those under the angst of condemnation, those innocent liars, will be given the gift of Grace which you have bestowed upon us. | ||
| Efrem |
Troll, You live in a doublewide outside Doublecreek, Mississippi, don'cha. Love, Efrem | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Troll, Pop-quiz answer: Obi-Wan Kenobi said it, in the original Star Wars movie. You can preach at my church anytime. Efrem, You crack me up. At least Mississippi is in the Milky Way. You can attend (and hear Troll preach) at my church anytime. | ||
| Efrem |
Gosh..., all I did was disagree with you and offer an opinion about where you might live and you suggest I'm from beyond the Milky Way?; well.., that's probably a good thing: that's where my Creator is from. Love, Efrem PS: "...I said, Y' know they refused Jesus, too; ..he said, 'You're not him!...." | ||
| Eric Hagelin |
Sorry, Efrem. I typed it (not Troll) with a smile on my face, not out of malice, but out of a genuine appreciation in reading your posts. I particularly liked the one about clay, incidentally. I figured since you could "dish it out", you could also "take it". I truly meant no disrespect. Only that our different views sometimes seem light years apart. | ||
| Efrem |
"...I said, Y' know they refused Jesus, too; ..he said, 'You're not him!...." Love, Efrem | ||
| Efrem |
Troll/Eric, The line reads, "Whosoever believes in me..."; not "Whosoever believes in me, except.....". Love, Efrem | ||
| Efrem |
Eric/Troll, Sounds kind'a 'all inclusive' if y' axe me; regardless of your or my interpretation of anythingelse written in 'The Book'. Now, wha' d'ya have to say...; somethin' I'm sure. Love, Efrem | ||
| Richard Adler |
It seems the opinions offered here are of sufficient variance to remain divisive. The reasoning offered by both you Eric and yours Troll, seems to align itself closely with Calvinistic thought. To say your arguments do not ally themselves to a certain logic would also be unfair. Many of Luther's writings offer logic in similar fashion, albeit in a different direction and with conclusions diverse enough to attract quite separate followings. With the benefit of historical hindsight both these men of faith have been scrutinized and certainly do not 'smell of roses' in some important aspects - Luther for his anti-Semitism and Calvin for his ready use of torture and persecution. The thread you offer is undoubtedly quite similar to many of the 'evangelical' forms of Christianity I've encountered and for reasons, which should be obviously apparent, I remain separate from their 'worship' communities. An essential difference between yourselves and by many of us in this forum is this: Our sense of community is inclusive of homosexuals and their ability to aptly serve the needs of its people no matter in what form or position. Common Law has arrived at such a proposition. You say, "But this is not God's Law." I say the opposite. Your position will only become 'politically correct' until such time as you again place yourselves in situations of temporal (political) power - my hope is this will never occur. If your American constitution allows no other subservience but to a God of your own image the next war will almost certainly be fought under the pretence of its just and 'holy' cause - it will be fundamentally little different from many previous wars, except perhaps by its magnitude. | ||
| Martin Reynolds |
The battle for the heart and mind of the church appears to have focused on homosexuality. For a growing number of Christians this has become the make or break issue that defines orthodoxy - the line in the sand - the litmus test of true belief. Here in Europe, we are seeing a growing division characterised by where one stands on this single matter. It is an old battle reforged in new clothing, in that single issues (even single words) have been the source of bitter and bloody internecine conflict, since the church began. Many homosexuals, including myself, deeply regret that such a struggle should be taking place over our bodies. We feel that it is others who have choosen this battle field, perhaps sensing a potential victory in a conflict that (in their view) has been lost on so many other fronts. It may be only the begining of something much more profound as we build on what seperates us. | ||
| troll |
Efrem, Your interpretation of "whosoever" is incorrect. I'll share the correct interpretation (Jesus Christ's). He made it quite clear. Only the following people may be saved by grace, through faith... Sinners. | ||
| troll |
Efrem, Actually, those new doublewides are built a lot more stout than people think! So, I'm sure the good people of Mississippi forgive you. | ||
| troll |
Richard, I don't share your pessimism concerning the course of world politics. And, neither do I take offense at your implications that I support violence in the name of God, who is love. I also don't share your belief that merely "doing some good things" is all God expects of humans. That's why I absolutely refuse to attempt to justify myself in your eyes by listing my good works. I'll leave you to wonder, or imagine, just how many tunics I give away, or how many I feed, or how many lies I expose. I'll leave you to wonder if I've ever sternly corrected any of my friends who think that they are more holy than homosexuals merely because they're hetero. No, I won't, because it would be boasting. But I WILL boast in our Lord Jesus Christ, who does all these things through me. | ||
| Efrem |
Troll wrote: >Efrem, >Your interpretation of "whosoever" is incorrect. You're in no position to judge my 'interpretation' because you have no idea what my belief structure is.... >I'll share the correct interpretation (Jesus Christ's). >He made it quite clear. Only the following people may be saved by grace, through faith... 'Faith' in what..., there was certainly no such thing as a Christian (Prostestant/Catholic) vision/interpretation of God when Jesus spoke those words; and there certainly was no massive work such as the Bible which has been translated and interpreted by thousands of finite (hence, imperfect and biased) minds through a couple of millenia. So, I would suppose, that unless you are of the same 'faith' as Jesus and viewed it from his perspective, then any 'faith' one exhibits in their imperfect, human based understanding of God and spirituality in general would be wrong. >Sinners. Besides, we're all 'sinners' anyway, in your understanding, so where's the problem? Love, Efrem | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
Efrem, How would you describe Jesus' faith and perspective on it? Do you think this is the faith we should have? Richard Gay | ||
| troll |
Martin, The battle in the church for "your" body is not a new one, as you suggest. It has been fought for millenia. Your body belongs to Jesus Christ, not you. Glorify God in your body. I sigh along with you at the course of events in the secular realm. The so-called "religous right" has done significant damage to the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ in the past few decades. Where they err is in their assertion that government pronouncements are capable of saving people's souls. The deadly dangers of moralism However, their initial stirrings were not attacks, but parries. They did not actually start the "culture war". The problem is that they are using that schoolyard mantra as the sole reason for pressing it in an attempt to take ground which does not belong to them. I also sigh along with you that homosexuality has become a sole litmus test for many who profess to know our Lord Jesus Christ. I have known several such people myself, and have personally questioned their commitment to Truth because of some of the things they have said. I am overjoyed to report that several of them saw their error, and have proceeded to a deeper knowledge of God as a result. However, I take no credit, for I would not have known the Truth had it not been most graciously revealed to me in Christ. However, I know that thousands remain; and in some communions, they will be the forces which assume power. I would despair of God's sovereignty over this issue, if I didn't know that this is nothing new. There truly is nothing new under the sun. I know the truth will prevail, for Christ is the truth, and he is returning, even while he reigns in our hearts at this very moment. The hue and cry here is "dont' judge me; religion is personal, not corporate; concentrate on your own self!" The reason this is so powerful is because it is true. Only God may judge the individual heart. The chief instrument by which He does it today is through his revealed word, which is sometimes grossly misinterpreted, sometimes correctly interpreted. Since the Holy Spirit inspired it, only the Holy Spirit is capable of producing honest interpretations of it, in men's minds. Part of the reason I'm here is to help lead you to an awareness of your sin, by speaking the Word. I stumble when I don't let the Spirit interpret it; for that, please forgive me. The sanctification of my mind is an ongoing process. But I won't yield an inch on the bible. The fact that some have misinterpreted it, or used it for violence, only makes it the more plain to me that it is true. We cannot know everything through natural law; we can only know enough to condemn us. Only through the knowledge of Christ, given us solely through the ministering of the Holy Spirit, through the bible, can we come to a knowledge of salvation. The facts are clear. Christ came to save you from your sins. When you say that a life of sex with another man is no less offensive to him than the obedience of either committed heterosexuality or celibacy, you are lying. And, for that denial, you will die in your sins. Now, I know that you don't WANT to give it up. That's the whole point. That's why the rich young ruler walked away in sorrow, even though Christ "loved him" as he looked at him and spoke to him "give all you have to the poor, and come follow me". That's why I love you, in the name of our common savior Jesus Christ. Only He can make you want it. You may spend the rest of your life fighting it, but the whole time you will want it, and he will honor that. Then, your service in his kingdom will be miraculous. You will be able to face those dividers with victory and hope, not gloom. You will be able to tend to your flock with ever-increasing love, wisdom, and affection. You will feel no condemnation, from within or without. | ||
| Efrem |
>By Richard Gay (willbonds) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 09:08 am: > Efrem, >How would you describe Jesus' faith and perspective on it? (Thanks for the civil question; I'll try to answer in kind, but please don't interpret my words as glib or uncaring: that will only add to the difficulty of communicating on this subject.) My answer is that I am a product of the 40's/50's South and for a great many of my formative years was influenced in my perceptions of God and Jesus by my Methodist and Baptist surroundings and teachers. They in turn, were, in their own formative years, influenced by yet another kind of the same spiritual teachings and so on down the line generation after generation til one is taken back to the time when Jesus is said to have lived. The short answer to your question, Richard, is: I haven't the foggiest. I can no more actually know Jesus' spiritual state and faith than I can honestly know yours. I do know what I've been told by other mortals who have tried to explain and interpret this Immortal to me; but, I also know that there are as many strongly held heartfelt, sincere variations as there are people in the world. I also know that, of all of these strongly held belief structures, they all can't be right and they all can't be wrong. I regard it as finite minds trying to understand, interpret and explain the infinite. It's beyond me. >Do you think this is the faith we should have? Since I don't know..., I don't know. There's more I could write, but I'm in the midst of sanding, routing and finishing 32 kitchen cabinet doors and 11 drawer faces, so I'm a bit busy and not able to sit here for extended periods. I just check in once in awhile, looking for a message from a missing client. >Richard Gay Love, Efrem | ||
| Martin Reynolds |
When you say that a life of sex with another man is no less offensive to him than the obedience of either committed heterosexuality or celibacy, you are lying. And, for that denial, you will die in your sins. Sir, you have obviously not read my postings. | ||
| troll |
Yes, Martin, you're right. You did not say that. But, rather than an attempt to put words into your mouth, it was an attempt by me to prompt you to say what you DO think of the issue, in more depth. Obviously, we agree about many things; e.g. that the false faith of some have led to their using homosexuality as the sole litmus test of Christian truth. But we still obviously disagree over something. What is it, exactly? Help me out here. | ||
| troll |
Efrem, The big problem with me is that I'm dogmatic. Yep, that's right. Dogmatic. I'm a product of much of the same culture as you are. They had their dogma, I have mine. It's always getting updated. I think everybody has their dogma, and most people are constantly updating theirs. Agnostic, deistic, legalistic, atheistic, what have you. Heel!! From time to time, mine bites. Inasmuch as it's the "true" part of my dogma which bites, I'm content; when it's something false which I've allowed to bite, I feel great remorse, and try to learn where I've gone wrong. But, the fact is, I know (and so does everybody else) that sometimes, the truth bites hard and latches on. So I can't doubt every instance of my dogma doing that, merely on that basis. I follow the bible, trying to find a balance between the "nice" parts of Jesus and the "nasty" parts. He appears to have had quite a bit of both. For instance, many of the sermons he preached were apparently not to Pharisees or scribes at all, but to "just honest good old folk". Yet, sometimes even those folks reacted quite violently (once, they tried to throw him off a cliff). So, I know it isn't just the legalists which were in the wrong, although he showed particular disdain for them. This might make you chortle (how exactly does one chortle, I wonder?) But I'm not exactly as opinionated in person as I am on paper (or, "in electrons"). I'd much rather drink beer (or wine, or 7-up, if their faith is weak ;-) with people, than be polemical. But, here we are, in the "forum". My "biblical" stance is just part and parcel of what's important to me. I wouldn't think the way I do, or act the way I do, without a pretty strong longing to try to understand and apply it to my life. Mea culpa. Since you're a southern boy like me, raised around Baptist and Methodist, I know you can know where I'm coming from, even if it leaves a foul taste in your mouth. The main question you're asking is an extremely fascinating one. I think it could be fascinating from merely an aesthetic perspective (not taking into account the cosmological/philosophical ramifications) by itself, even, because of the intricacies of thought and logic involved. Since our minds are, as you pointed out, finite, what are we capable of knowing? When we state a proposition as "absolutely true", how do we know that? When you say that it's absolutely true that we can't know absolute truth, should I take that statement as absolutely true? Not being sarcastic at all- it's something I'm really interested in, and I think it's cool that we're even talking about it. It's quite a dilemma, IMO. Good luck on the cabinets. Hope the client likes them. | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
And as I've said here before: Dogma is man trying to make man behave himself; doctrine is man trying to make God behave himself. (Did I get that right, John?) Cheers, Richard Gay | ||
| Richard Adler |
Troll, my pessimism stems from the continual reporting of world events as the arsenal and intent for war builds. I write in comfortable surroundings and in a country where even the threat of world conflict is surreal. It is perhaps only from the vantage of an occasional heightened awareness I might say, "War is inevitable" and I don't just mean the 'secure' "War on Terrorism" axiom where we all sit at home watching it unfold from our comfy lounge chairs. I do not want to believe it; I say to myself much of the time, "Nah! It probably won't happen" - and I hope to God it doesn't. The words, the signs the intentions and the deceit -they're all mounting. Most of the time I try to ignore them - an all out confrontation is just too unthinkable. The first nuclear strike made by Israel against Iraq will be a matter of course in the event of Sadam Hussein playing the first card from his faulty deck... Nowhere have I said or have meant to give implication to,"doing some good things" is all God expects of humans. As you've totally misread Martin you misread me also. Neither do I wish you to attempt, for whatever reason, to justify yourself in my eyes - don't flatter me so much. In the light of all your militant type ramblings and your admission to support violence in the name of a 'loving God' the boast, "..in our Lord Jesus Christ, who does all these things through me." sounds hollow, maybe deceitful (that's nasty) so I'll say ignorant. I'm laughing as I say this - please don't take offence as I appreciate your candour. If you truly believe in the revelation of God through J.C. you would understand violence to be man-initiated alone - nothing to do with 'God-action' but soley our reaction to God. | ||
| Martin Reynolds |
I am unsure that your diatribe was merely provocative, it appears unseemly to me to use such language merely to elicit a response. I am cautious by nature and training, more prone to listen than to speak. This debate causes me to reflect and weigh opinions carefully. I am sure we do disagree on many things, but I continue to consider where it might be useful to express any alternative view in the light of your understanding of revelation, spiritual inspiration and biblical interpretation. At this moment I am of the opinion that nothing I can say will be of help to you, but I will continue to ponder and study what I see here. I find my careful use of language is not respected here; "over our bodies" was translated to "for your body" and the studied insult on the tasty nature of my flesh being unwanted because it was of the wrong gender unhelpful. I continue to read all here carefully. | ||
| troll |
Richard Gay, So, the only truth we can know is that it is impossible to know truth? No, I'm sure you wouldn't go that far. You might say "we can only know SO MUCH truth", but can't be assured of anything beyond that. How do we even know that? And how can anyone agree on how much? E.G. some people would say that everyone can agree it's bad to hurt people. However, events seem to contradict that. Some don't seem to be aware of this truth. I am, you are, everybody else here is, but not all are. What else is truly true, besides your assertion that we can't know how to answer this question? | ||
| Judd |
|
