We should all command such respect for wasted air.
Why thank you. I was actually talking about my words. I gave a quick critique of his words and stopped short... it is a waste to go over this stuff again and again. That is what I try to base my opinions on, though, not one's title or where they teach or who they collaborated with, but on one's words, against my admittedly limited abilities. I work with what I've got though. I've only been within close proximity to some noble prize winners and spoken with other very smart but less recognized people
I don't follow his line of reasoning from the start with this. I didn't mean to imply that I don't respect the man. Honestly I don't know enough about him to say either way. I'd have to listen to more of his speeches. I'm certainly glad he is not a hate monger and I respect that. From this one snippet though, I felt it was a fairly standard answer from a more moderate and reasonable Christian view that I've heard a dozen times in person from other speakers. That and some elaborate details about a conversation he had with a big network reporter that was filming him at a huge event that he was headlining and his words made the person stay after saying they would leave after a short while and his reasoning stopped her in her tracks. I heard that he teaches at a very prestigious school and that he has a higher standard he has to live up to than say the average gay churchgoer. So I heard an answer that could have been answered fairly straight forward in considerably less time, but a good story that lends to the credibility of the speaker always goes further than an in depth answer.
So how is your race sacred? "You can not violate it," what exactly does that mean? His logic if applied equally to his position on the sacredness of heterosexuality leaves you with some messed up views on mixing races, which I'm certain he does not hold but the point is his line of reasoning was kinda jumbled there.
He doesn't speak off the cuff or from ignorance.
I'll take your word for it regarding the first half and say concerning the second half that we all speak from some degree of ignorance. Is he a science and medical expert or a theological or philosophical expert? And if it is not from ignorance then it is from disregarding things he's learned from some of his nobel friends if they talked about such things.
I don't want to waste bandwidth with all the findings about sexual orientation, but it is out there if one wants to know. There are more and more findings of physiological differences and phenotypically expressed differences in homosexuals compared to heteros (as physiological and phenotypical as one's race.) The evidence keeps building basically and more and more people will have to simply ignore it, baselessly deny it, or squirm and wiggle and come up with a new way around it. That is nothing new though is it?
Christians are speaking out angrily about Newsweek magazine’s current cover story, which maintains that the Bible does not provide justification for prohibiting gay marriage.
In “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” Lisa Miller writes that in the Old Testament “Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel — all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.
“The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments — especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. 'It is better to marry than to burn with passion,' says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.”
Miller claims that gay-marriage opponents “use Scripture as the foundation for their objections,” and asserts that “scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married — and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”
The American Family Association called Miller's article “one of the most biased and distorted pieces concerning homosexual marriage ever published by any major news organization,” and urged its members and like-minded readers to e-mail Newsweek’s CEO. Thousands of responses have poured in.
Richard Long, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, declared that the article “doesn’t surprise me. Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue, for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the article “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity” and said it was "just full of holes."
Land argued that the Bible lays out a very clear prescription for opposite-sex marriage, Politico.com reports.
He cited the passage in Genesis where God pairs Adam and Eve, and the New Testament passage when apostle Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the Church.
Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, took issue with Miller’s premise that conservative opposition to same-sex marriage is based on specific Biblical instructions.
"There’s more of a practical, sociological foundation for why we seek to affirm marriage as an institution than I think is generally understood by those who want to legalize same-sex marriage,” he said, adding that the Newsweek story was based on a “false assumption."
On the National Review’s blog, Mark Hemingway said Miller “can’t even get through the first paragraph of her story without evincing an understanding of Christianity and its basic texts that is grossly oversimplified and distorted, filtered through an almost exclusively liberal political lens.”
Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on his blog that the "notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual."
Christianity Today magazine observed: "Where, oh where is this supposed New Testament indifference to marriage?"
Comment: Does the ONE God like guys more than girls, or is God "ambiguously" bisexual?
I hardly think your opinion or insights are a waste of space--or that you are not making some sense. I was really very interested in the questions posed in the first post.
Had I read more carefully or really looked at other posts--I would not have answered. Waysider was right in that these issues expressed here run very deep--they may require a better outlet for expression. Not that Dr. WW is not free to post, that is not my point.
I may have been too hasty in engaging this conversation.
We probably agree on the essence of more points than we disagree.
Fer instance------ Like you, I believe a high percentage of what The Way tried to pass off as "Truth" was really a load of hog slop. One point we may disagree on, though, is that I don't think you need "the love of Jesus" to follow the golden rule. In fact, I don't even think you need to have any religious/spiritual beliefs at all to follow the Golden Rule. 'Cause if you can't love your neighbor as yourself and treat your fellow man with respect (homosexuals included), all the Bible talk in the world is nothing more than a clever Sunday School lesson. Many of the things The Way did in the name of God are so ludicrous, it sickens me. I, too, lost a good friend because of the toxins they promoted as truth. Some hot shot AC grad told him they thought he was born again of the wrong seed.------So he killed himself. Nice, huh? What they did to your friend is reprehensible. I'm grieved to hear it. Personally, I no longer believe "The Word" has to fit together with "math this" and "science that" or fit like "a foot in a sock" or any of that stuff. I also don't believe it's like some cryptic mystery we should pursue to the ends of the earth. The Bible is what it is. It's a compilation of writings of men. It's been mistranslated, misrepresented and misunderstood for hundreds of years. It's filled with errors that we most likely will never decipher. Still, that doesn't mean we can't make an effort to treat our fellow man the way we would like them to treat us.
We have all been hurt... and if there is a God of love, may we all (without exception) be blessed by this love.
Love is opening up a window so others can see inside and understand, learn.
One must not confuse walking by the flesh with listening to their heart.
I've still to read the book that waysider mentioned, but I plan on it.
It seems to me that many of your questions runn very deep. It is also evident that you've seen much in life that are hard things to deal with.
I have only ten or so minutes left, so unless my time is extended I may not get too far.
For many of us ex-Wayfers we remember Wierwille and his chosen children using the "not under law but under grace" argument to justify a sickening progression of sin that seemed to culminated (In my mind anyway) by suicide amoung the women that they abused and men that were somehow related to these abused women. It is a valid thing to ponder, but for me nasty stuff is not ignored by grace but is in truth, only healed by grace and part of that (as in the case of TWI abuse) must be thought of as repulsive and vile.
As a Christian who thinks that homosexuality is not good, for me the thing to note is all sin makes every one of us worthy of death. As a man who seeks to be justfied by Christ, for me to condemn you to hell would make me worthy of being condemned to hell (firy lake IMO) by the Lord for my sins that have made me worthy of death. I think that to examine Romans chs. one and two without realizing that homosexuality is just the example that Paul chose to use among the many death worthy sins in Old Testament law would tend to make me a self-righteous, judgemental jerk.
I've warned my former splinter group of TWI about God's garbage fire as I like to put it because they excelled in hatred and the hatred that was deliberately directed at me was exactly the deluded and self righteous religiosity that Jesus Christ held his worst condemnations for. I usually read of him councelling love when his disciple's were about to try to call fire out of heaven when they were facing folks that did not believe on him. I think once he told his disciples that THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHICH SPIRIT THEY WERE OF.
So while many of the things that you've seen and heard in your life seem hard to handle, I wish you only the best as you seek to come to terms with them. REALLY.....
Thinking back on your posts I remember a lot of ambiguity on your part. You mention ambiguity in yourself and the scriptures too.
I guess that seems to be perfectly honest on your part and I get it. I would have the ambiguity you seem to be seeing be replaced with certainty. But furthermore, I wouldn't want it to be the kind of certainty that is just a delusion either. Many people present themselves as certain of things, but their real state of conscience is not so easily percieved.
The Lord spoke of those who's eye's were full of light that was really darkness, "How great the darkness" in that case. And it is not easily dealt with if someone's concept of light is actually delusion.
As an admitted fundamentalist I choose to believe thast certainty can be found in the scriptures. But futhermore I would have your perceptions of ambiguity replaced by certainty. I'm just glad that all of us are free to explore these things as a matter of conscience. Even though I wish that you would see things my way, I respect your right to consider your beliefs for yourself.
If you wish to continue this discussion I will wait for your response.
Yes two millennium ago Jesus Christ was crucified by these same right and left brained fundamentalists, Mary Magdalene nearly lost her life by their hands also and it seems some are still hanging on to their nails and stones even today.
Homosexuality in the old testament is listed with the great sin of eating pork!
Eating pork is an abomination in the eyes of God and anyone who eats it is worthy of death! (cynical)
In the New Testament Paul the Apostle concludes there is neither male nor female (left or right brain) but all are one in Christ then he, Paul (an unmarried man) defines the natural use of a woman?
Isn’t there a bit of contradiction in this and some want to label this all LOGICAL?
Mary Magdalene was not the woman who was caught in adultery and almost stoned in front of the Lord Jesus. That was a misinterpretation and it has held on for millenniums. It wasn't just pork, there were other unclean things and the purpose of these things was to teach between holy and unholy since Adam/Eve lost the Holy Spirit after they sinned and therefore could not receive this information via the Spirit anymore.
You have to be MARRIED in order to figger out the birds and bees? :blink:
There isn't any contradiction and it is very logical indeed.
Mary Magdalene was not the woman who was caught in adultery and almost stoned in front of the Lord Jesus. That was a misinterpretation and it has held on for millenniums. It wasn't just pork, there were other unclean things and the purpose of these things was to teach between holy and unholy since Adam/Eve lost the Holy Spirit after they sinned and therefore could not receive this information via the Spirit anymore.
You have to be MARRIED in order to figger out the birds and bees? :blink:
There isn't any contradiction and it is very logical indeed.
Blessings
Yes hitching your horse on a Sunday/Saturday was also considered unholy and a sin. But today holy days don't matter... and... God has not changed?
My Question is which "God" does not change?
I am already going to hell because I am "happily" uncircumcised. (TMI, oh well)
But God seems to not anymore mind the gentiles and their schmucks…
Adultery was handled by the same "punishment" as homosexuals. Was it to deter sexual freedom or disease? Cured pork has nothing to do with sex but has all to do with disease. So, were these laws instituted for health reasons and not sexual reasons?
You would think heterosexuals would at least score a few points with their bisexual God because they understand "the birds and the bees".
Adam and Eve understood the birds and the bees and without corrupting the Bible with all this Lilith stuff the original sin stands as heterosexual sex...
And leave it to the heterosexuals to invent Lilith and use the story to flip the "original sin" around to hate homosexuals.
If the lesbians and gays really knew what "the Christians" have thunk up and used Lilith for they would drop her like a limp wrist.
Effeminates and dykes are going to hell too? Because their sexual preference is too murky, like God's or God-like. Explain how two sexes can represent the image of one God?
Then we get this picture of and androgynous man and woman suck to each other's backs with two genitalia... Remind you a bit of this ambiguous God that...
We are told that God KNOWS the secret intents of our hearts but then we are told that God is sexless.
Which one is it folks?
"You can't be both inside the tent and outside the tent at the same time..."
The Gnostics show the ridiculous nature of this biblical doctrine when they state that Jesus will turn all the women into men so God won't hate them anymore and allow them into heaven... It is painful to see how Christians have twisted and contorted logic to try and make the biblical doctrine fit with itself.
I have come to realize that it was my mind that was singed with a hot iron, that I would blindly accept a "God" for so long without concern for this God's concept of sexuality, compassion and liberty.
Blinded by the light.
That same ambiguous light that is neither a wave nor a particle.
Oddly enough, or perhaps not, your arguments don't phase me.
I still believe that you could find a much better certainty as to these things in the scriptures.
You certainly have been burned by religious people too.
The question about God knowing the intentions of our heart, what the heck does the differing nature of spirit and flesh have to do with God's knowledge. So GOD IS DIFFERENT AND HE KNOWS. What's so hard about getting that.
I think I can understand why you see ambiguity, you either were taght it or you've chosen to see it, or maybe both IMO.
The little that I know about gnosticism makes it for me a source that I will not rely on for showing me anything. But what the heck, if I hear a specific thing that they or anybody else said I will hear it out at least.
I think that Martindale screwed up the garden of eden thing spectacularly in his reference to homosexuality, but I've heard enough to suspect that he might have secretely dug it when it was two women. Boy, he sure seems bent.
Like I said before, I hope that you can work these things out, but even though I've listened to you, your arguments don't shake me either.
Oddly enough, or perhaps not, your arguments don't phase me.
I still believe that you could find a much better certainty as to these things in the scriptures.
You certainly have been burned by religious people too.
The question about God knowing the intentions of our heart, what the heck does the differing nature of spirit and flesh have to do with God's knowledge. So GOD IS DIFFERENT AND HE KNOWS. What's so hard about getting that.
I think I can understand why you see ambiguity, you either were taght it or you've chosen to see it, or maybe both IMO.
The little that I know about gnosticism makes it for me a source that I will not rely on for showing me anything. But what the heck, if I hear a specific thing that they or anybody else said I will hear it out at least.
I think that Martindale screwed up the garden of eden thing spectacularly in his reference to homosexuality, but I've heard enough to suspect that he might have secretely dug it when it was two women. Boy, he sure seems bent.
Like I said before, I hope that you can work these things out, but even though I've listened to you, your arguments don't shake me either.
Then nature of a singed mind is that it no longer reacts to reason.
Who does God have his arm around in this picture? Give Christians an inch and they take a foot. Here Michelangelo has taken the liberty to portray God figuratively. To carry broken logic to its own absurdity.
Notice how big God is in relation to the tiny portrait of a woman beside him. Does God have a wife?
And what of all the naked babies?
And you are still comfortable with your scientific accuracy, hand in a glove and stoic idea of God?
Some of the greatest minds of the renaissance have considered the same reservations I have.
The renaissance age was an age of reason and science that dominated religion rather than as dominated by it.
Religion caused the dark ages where history was burnt out of the fear of “SIN”…
Were sin was used to scare the masses. Libraries of antiquities were burnt by Christians… The only societies that thrived were the ones that could stave off the suffocating influence of the church by power.
Even today radical Islam and Christianity threatens to bring society back into the dark ages where they can dictate how far we are allowed to carry our OWN thought concerning the individual and the path to sacred spirituality “written in our hearts“. Where women are denigrated because, “the Bible tells me so“?
Mistakes whether from the dark ages or TWI have no direct bearing on my faith.
What seems to be a stumbling block to you is at worst irksome to me.
But these mistakes as they relate to people that I know I gladly reserve the right to withstand any pernicious religious doctrine with all my might.
I do not fret over them academically speaking. It's like I said, it is only irksome to me.
(added in editing)
I would have answered you sooner, but I was taken off the computer without being able to log-off and have no more time now.
JEFF
I find the hatred and persecution of homosexuals and the denigration of making women "submit" to their husbands, as if God ordained it, to be a bit more than, "irksome"... The Salem witch trials were very "irksome" to women too.
Romans 1:22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds [Lilith/doves/owl], and fourfooted beasts [lambs/rams/calf], and creeping things [locusts/scarabs/serpents].
I find the hatred and persecution of homosexuals and the degredation of making women "submit" to their husbands, as if God ordained it, to be a bit more than, "irksome"...
Romans 1:22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds [Lilith/doves], and fourfooted beasts [lambs/rams/calf], and creeping things [locusts/scarabs].
Comment: ...and holy old cow!
Was there any part of "gladly" and "with all my might" that wasn't clear DrWearWord.
When it is only academic it is irksome, but when is actually affecting people, well that's another story.
IMO these things are always worth thinking about. But I believe that God will judge by his standards whether or not I ever understand. So I will continue to seek him and my Lord Jesus Christ.
(ADDED IN EDITING)
I'm just not in the habit of settling on believing that shades of grey or ambiguity is ever an answer. When I recognize myself thinking in terms of ambiguity I think that is just is an indication to me that I probably don't get it.
I'm just not in the habit of settling on believing that shades of grey or ambiguity is ever an answer. When I recognize myself thinking in terms of ambiguity I think that is just is an indication to me that I probably don't get it.
I would rather live conscious of inherent ambiguity with mercy rather than live with absolutes which are often errant seeds tossed in fertile ground, they grow like weeds and choke out the truth.
Is God more served by us recognizing the ambiguity or by imposing impossibly strict absolutes on ourselves and others?
Thus I would conclude that the image of God is ambiguity and the spirit of God interfaces with such diversity as the world.
How do you confess ambiguity from sin? If one is to confess Jesus from sin and confess God from sin if Jesus and God represent absolutes and strict laws then, is the spirit the person receives holy?
Holiness is in diversity not partiality.
God is no respecter of persons. For the seed of the spirit is ambiguity. The seed is not a certain race, sex or sexual preference. The seed grows diversity. God waters the seed with ambiguity. H2O again two elements make one substance. So is water hydrogen or oxygen? God waters and tends us with diversity itself.
God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust.
Why would God make it rain on the just if God is so holy?
Because holiness is loving with diversity and ambiguity.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
10
72
13
Popular Days
Dec 8
17
Dec 23
13
Dec 7
11
Dec 9
10
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 16 posts
waysider 10 posts
DrWearWord 72 posts
JeffSjo 13 posts
Popular Days
Dec 8 2008
17 posts
Dec 23 2008
13 posts
Dec 7 2008
11 posts
Dec 9 2008
10 posts
lindyhopper
Why thank you. I was actually talking about my words.
I gave a quick critique of his words and stopped short... it is a waste to go over this stuff again and again. That is what I try to base my opinions on, though, not one's title or where they teach or who they collaborated with, but on one's words, against my admittedly limited abilities. I work with what I've got though. I've only been within close proximity to some noble prize winners and spoken with other very smart but less recognized people
I don't follow his line of reasoning from the start with this. I didn't mean to imply that I don't respect the man. Honestly I don't know enough about him to say either way. I'd have to listen to more of his speeches. I'm certainly glad he is not a hate monger and I respect that. From this one snippet though, I felt it was a fairly standard answer from a more moderate and reasonable Christian view that I've heard a dozen times in person from other speakers. That and some elaborate details about a conversation he had with a big network reporter that was filming him at a huge event that he was headlining and his words made the person stay after saying they would leave after a short while and his reasoning stopped her in her tracks. I heard that he teaches at a very prestigious school and that he has a higher standard he has to live up to than say the average gay churchgoer. So I heard an answer that could have been answered fairly straight forward in considerably less time, but a good story that lends to the credibility of the speaker always goes further than an in depth answer.
So how is your race sacred? "You can not violate it," what exactly does that mean? His logic if applied equally to his position on the sacredness of heterosexuality leaves you with some messed up views on mixing races, which I'm certain he does not hold but the point is his line of reasoning was kinda jumbled there.
I'll take your word for it regarding the first half and say concerning the second half that we all speak from some degree of ignorance. Is he a science and medical expert or a theological or philosophical expert? And if it is not from ignorance then it is from disregarding things he's learned from some of his nobel friends if they talked about such things.
I don't want to waste bandwidth with all the findings about sexual orientation, but it is out there if one wants to know. There are more and more findings of physiological differences and phenotypically expressed differences in homosexuals compared to heteros (as physiological and phenotypical as one's race.) The evidence keeps building basically and more and more people will have to simply ignore it, baselessly deny it, or squirm and wiggle and come up with a new way around it. That is nothing new though is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Christians Angry Over Newsweek Gay Claim
Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:00 PM
By: Jim Meyers (Newsmax)
Christians are speaking out angrily about Newsweek magazine’s current cover story, which maintains that the Bible does not provide justification for prohibiting gay marriage.
In “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” Lisa Miller writes that in the Old Testament “Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel — all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.
“The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments — especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. 'It is better to marry than to burn with passion,' says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.”
Miller claims that gay-marriage opponents “use Scripture as the foundation for their objections,” and asserts that “scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married — and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”
The American Family Association called Miller's article “one of the most biased and distorted pieces concerning homosexual marriage ever published by any major news organization,” and urged its members and like-minded readers to e-mail Newsweek’s CEO. Thousands of responses have poured in.
Richard Long, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, declared that the article “doesn’t surprise me. Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue, for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the article “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity” and said it was "just full of holes."
Land argued that the Bible lays out a very clear prescription for opposite-sex marriage, Politico.com reports.
He cited the passage in Genesis where God pairs Adam and Eve, and the New Testament passage when apostle Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the Church.
Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, took issue with Miller’s premise that conservative opposition to same-sex marriage is based on specific Biblical instructions.
"There’s more of a practical, sociological foundation for why we seek to affirm marriage as an institution than I think is generally understood by those who want to legalize same-sex marriage,” he said, adding that the Newsweek story was based on a “false assumption."
On the National Review’s blog, Mark Hemingway said Miller “can’t even get through the first paragraph of her story without evincing an understanding of Christianity and its basic texts that is grossly oversimplified and distorted, filtered through an almost exclusively liberal political lens.”
Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on his blog that the "notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual."
Christianity Today magazine observed: "Where, oh where is this supposed New Testament indifference to marriage?"
Comment: Does the ONE God like guys more than girls, or is God "ambiguously" bisexual?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Lindyhopper,
I hardly think your opinion or insights are a waste of space--or that you are not making some sense. I was really very interested in the questions posed in the first post.
Had I read more carefully or really looked at other posts--I would not have answered. Waysider was right in that these issues expressed here run very deep--they may require a better outlet for expression. Not that Dr. WW is not free to post, that is not my point.
I may have been too hasty in engaging this conversation.
Take Care,
Geisha
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Just out of curiousity, has anyone in this discussion read Eyesopen's book?
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...c=16888&hl=
(I have not read it, myself.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
We have all been hurt... and if there is a God of love, may we all (without exception) be blessed by this love.
Love is opening up a window so others can see inside and understand, learn.
One must not confuse walking by the flesh with listening to their heart.
To walk by the flesh is to have no heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Endeavoring to KEEP the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace...
There is one faith...
Not a separate faith for husband and wife.
Not a separate faith for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Not a separate faith for racial diversity.
But one size fits all.
One faith, in one God, for all.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Drwearword,
I've still to read the book that waysider mentioned, but I plan on it.
It seems to me that many of your questions runn very deep. It is also evident that you've seen much in life that are hard things to deal with.
I have only ten or so minutes left, so unless my time is extended I may not get too far.
For many of us ex-Wayfers we remember Wierwille and his chosen children using the "not under law but under grace" argument to justify a sickening progression of sin that seemed to culminated (In my mind anyway) by suicide amoung the women that they abused and men that were somehow related to these abused women. It is a valid thing to ponder, but for me nasty stuff is not ignored by grace but is in truth, only healed by grace and part of that (as in the case of TWI abuse) must be thought of as repulsive and vile.
As a Christian who thinks that homosexuality is not good, for me the thing to note is all sin makes every one of us worthy of death. As a man who seeks to be justfied by Christ, for me to condemn you to hell would make me worthy of being condemned to hell (firy lake IMO) by the Lord for my sins that have made me worthy of death. I think that to examine Romans chs. one and two without realizing that homosexuality is just the example that Paul chose to use among the many death worthy sins in Old Testament law would tend to make me a self-righteous, judgemental jerk.
I've warned my former splinter group of TWI about God's garbage fire as I like to put it because they excelled in hatred and the hatred that was deliberately directed at me was exactly the deluded and self righteous religiosity that Jesus Christ held his worst condemnations for. I usually read of him councelling love when his disciple's were about to try to call fire out of heaven when they were facing folks that did not believe on him. I think once he told his disciples that THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHICH SPIRIT THEY WERE OF.
So while many of the things that you've seen and heard in your life seem hard to handle, I wish you only the best as you seek to come to terms with them. REALLY.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi DrWearWord,
I've been further considering your situation.
Thinking back on your posts I remember a lot of ambiguity on your part. You mention ambiguity in yourself and the scriptures too.
I guess that seems to be perfectly honest on your part and I get it. I would have the ambiguity you seem to be seeing be replaced with certainty. But furthermore, I wouldn't want it to be the kind of certainty that is just a delusion either. Many people present themselves as certain of things, but their real state of conscience is not so easily percieved.
The Lord spoke of those who's eye's were full of light that was really darkness, "How great the darkness" in that case. And it is not easily dealt with if someone's concept of light is actually delusion.
As an admitted fundamentalist I choose to believe thast certainty can be found in the scriptures. But futhermore I would have your perceptions of ambiguity replaced by certainty. I'm just glad that all of us are free to explore these things as a matter of conscience. Even though I wish that you would see things my way, I respect your right to consider your beliefs for yourself.
If you wish to continue this discussion I will wait for your response.
JEFF
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Mary Magdalene was not the woman who was caught in adultery and almost stoned in front of the Lord Jesus. That was a misinterpretation and it has held on for millenniums. It wasn't just pork, there were other unclean things and the purpose of these things was to teach between holy and unholy since Adam/Eve lost the Holy Spirit after they sinned and therefore could not receive this information via the Spirit anymore.
You have to be MARRIED in order to figger out the birds and bees? :blink:
There isn't any contradiction and it is very logical indeed.
Blessings
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Yes hitching your horse on a Sunday/Saturday was also considered unholy and a sin. But today holy days don't matter... and... God has not changed?
My Question is which "God" does not change?
I am already going to hell because I am "happily" uncircumcised. (TMI, oh well)
But God seems to not anymore mind the gentiles and their schmucks…
Adultery was handled by the same "punishment" as homosexuals. Was it to deter sexual freedom or disease? Cured pork has nothing to do with sex but has all to do with disease. So, were these laws instituted for health reasons and not sexual reasons?
You would think heterosexuals would at least score a few points with their bisexual God because they understand "the birds and the bees".
Adam and Eve understood the birds and the bees and without corrupting the Bible with all this Lilith stuff the original sin stands as heterosexual sex...
And leave it to the heterosexuals to invent Lilith and use the story to flip the "original sin" around to hate homosexuals.
If the lesbians and gays really knew what "the Christians" have thunk up and used Lilith for they would drop her like a limp wrist.
Effeminates and dykes are going to hell too? Because their sexual preference is too murky, like God's or God-like. Explain how two sexes can represent the image of one God?
Then we get this picture of and androgynous man and woman suck to each other's backs with two genitalia... Remind you a bit of this ambiguous God that...
"Is not a man that she should lie..."
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
We are told that God KNOWS the secret intents of our hearts but then we are told that God is sexless.
Which one is it folks?
"You can't be both inside the tent and outside the tent at the same time..."
The Gnostics show the ridiculous nature of this biblical doctrine when they state that Jesus will turn all the women into men so God won't hate them anymore and allow them into heaven... It is painful to see how Christians have twisted and contorted logic to try and make the biblical doctrine fit with itself.
I have come to realize that it was my mind that was singed with a hot iron, that I would blindly accept a "God" for so long without concern for this God's concept of sexuality, compassion and liberty.
Blinded by the light.
That same ambiguous light that is neither a wave nor a particle.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear DrWearWord,
Oddly enough, or perhaps not, your arguments don't phase me.
I still believe that you could find a much better certainty as to these things in the scriptures.
You certainly have been burned by religious people too.
The question about God knowing the intentions of our heart, what the heck does the differing nature of spirit and flesh have to do with God's knowledge. So GOD IS DIFFERENT AND HE KNOWS. What's so hard about getting that.
I think I can understand why you see ambiguity, you either were taght it or you've chosen to see it, or maybe both IMO.
The little that I know about gnosticism makes it for me a source that I will not rely on for showing me anything. But what the heck, if I hear a specific thing that they or anybody else said I will hear it out at least.
I think that Martindale screwed up the garden of eden thing spectacularly in his reference to homosexuality, but I've heard enough to suspect that he might have secretely dug it when it was two women. Boy, he sure seems bent.
Like I said before, I hope that you can work these things out, but even though I've listened to you, your arguments don't shake me either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Then nature of a singed mind is that it no longer reacts to reason.
Who does God have his arm around in this picture? Give Christians an inch and they take a foot. Here Michelangelo has taken the liberty to portray God figuratively. To carry broken logic to its own absurdity.
Notice how big God is in relation to the tiny portrait of a woman beside him. Does God have a wife?
And what of all the naked babies?
And you are still comfortable with your scientific accuracy, hand in a glove and stoic idea of God?
Some of the greatest minds of the renaissance have considered the same reservations I have.
The renaissance age was an age of reason and science that dominated religion rather than as dominated by it.
Religion caused the dark ages where history was burnt out of the fear of “SIN”…
Were sin was used to scare the masses. Libraries of antiquities were burnt by Christians… The only societies that thrived were the ones that could stave off the suffocating influence of the church by power.
Even today radical Islam and Christianity threatens to bring society back into the dark ages where they can dictate how far we are allowed to carry our OWN thought concerning the individual and the path to sacred spirituality “written in our hearts“. Where women are denigrated because, “the Bible tells me so“?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
For me it is very simple.
Mistakes whether from the dark ages or TWI have no direct bearing on my faith.
What seems to be a stumbling block to you is at worst irksome to me.
But these mistakes as they relate to people that I know I gladly reserve the right to withstand any pernicious religious doctrine with all my might.
I do not fret over them academically speaking. It's like I said, it is only irksome to me.
(added in editing)
I would have answered you sooner, but I was taken off the computer without being able to log-off and have no more time now.
JEFF
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I find the hatred and persecution of homosexuals and the denigration of making women "submit" to their husbands, as if God ordained it, to be a bit more than, "irksome"... The Salem witch trials were very "irksome" to women too.
Romans 1:22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds [Lilith/doves/owl], and fourfooted beasts [lambs/rams/calf], and creeping things [locusts/scarabs/serpents].
Comment: ...and holy old cow! :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Was there any part of "gladly" and "with all my might" that wasn't clear DrWearWord.
When it is only academic it is irksome, but when is actually affecting people, well that's another story.
Have you read many of my posts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I am just stating that I find it more than "irksome"... I find it blasphemes the law of liberty.
I don't come off as friendly sometimes but I am really friendly and do not mean to misunderstand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Is death more "freindly" than life sometimes?
This next line got stuck in my head...
Because I could not stop for Death-
He kindly stopped for me-
The Carriage held but just Ourselves-
And Immortality.We slowly drove-He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labor and my leisure too,
For His Civility-We passed the School, where Children strove
At Recess-in the Ring-
We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain-
We passed the Setting Sun-Or rather-He passed Us-
The Dews drew quivering and chill-
For only Gossamer, my Gown-
My Tippet-only Tulle-We paused before a House that seemed
A Swelling of the Ground-
The Roof was scarcely visible-
The Cornice-in the Ground-Since then-'tis Centuries-and yet
Feels shorter than the Day
I first surmised the Horses' Heads
Were toward Eternity-
Emily Dickinson
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
God is love and God is holy.
I disagree that God finds homosexuality unholy.
However ambiguous God is, the human needs the approval of God in order to feel justified and righteous.
Whether God is perceived as a mother, father or even something more androgynous, God is still the source of all peace and prosperity.
God just wants to be loved and when we love God unconditionally we receive love and acceptance from God in return.
Whether this is a part of our brain “the God spot” that makes us feel a presence and seek the approval of this feeling of a presence is very possible.
But this “God spot” is none the less part of us and cannot be denied without the result of condemnation.
Whether it is daddy’s arms or mommy's arms we all need to love and feel loved by God.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Your point is well taken... :)
A God too narrowly defined cannot represent and love humanity as a whole.
It is the height of arrogance to only see God through prejudice and intolerance.
God is black, God is white, God is diversity and beauty beyond our ability to understand.
We are in God's image only when we accept this diversity as ultimately God's will.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
RIGHT AND WRONG
LOVE AND HATE
SIN OR DOING GOOD
PRAISE OR CONDEMNATION
STANDING FIRM OR STIFF NECKED
HOLDING THE TRUTH OR NARROW MINDED
LIGHT OR DARKNESS
IMO these things are always worth thinking about. But I believe that God will judge by his standards whether or not I ever understand. So I will continue to seek him and my Lord Jesus Christ.
(ADDED IN EDITING)
I'm just not in the habit of settling on believing that shades of grey or ambiguity is ever an answer. When I recognize myself thinking in terms of ambiguity I think that is just is an indication to me that I probably don't get it.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
But on the flip side, I'm certain that deluded certainty is worse than honest ambiguity.
I choose to seek the Lord using his scriptures to the best of my understanding as my standard.
I hope that those who do not chose to utilize the scriptures would at least acknowledge that a person could have worse standards and goals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I would rather live conscious of inherent ambiguity with mercy rather than live with absolutes which are often errant seeds tossed in fertile ground, they grow like weeds and choke out the truth.
Is God more served by us recognizing the ambiguity or by imposing impossibly strict absolutes on ourselves and others?
Thus I would conclude that the image of God is ambiguity and the spirit of God interfaces with such diversity as the world.
How do you confess ambiguity from sin? If one is to confess Jesus from sin and confess God from sin if Jesus and God represent absolutes and strict laws then, is the spirit the person receives holy?
Holiness is in diversity not partiality.
God is no respecter of persons. For the seed of the spirit is ambiguity. The seed is not a certain race, sex or sexual preference. The seed grows diversity. God waters the seed with ambiguity. H2O again two elements make one substance. So is water hydrogen or oxygen? God waters and tends us with diversity itself.
God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust.
Why would God make it rain on the just if God is so holy?
Because holiness is loving with diversity and ambiguity.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.