Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dopefish, check out "by their fruit you will know them" and then look for "the fruit of the spirit" in Galations 5.
As for your other note. when you show me where God ever promised to give us a book as our guide we will check into whether He is capable of doing so. Until then, I'll go with the guide that is promised.
I have to ask, what is the "test of agape love"? No where in scripture have I ever seen a set of standards that say everything must be tested against the concept of agape love. That sounds very new age-y to me. The rules I remember are, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" - in that order. If we love God, we are to honor his commandments and written word, and through that, we will show his love to our fellow man through service. I don't see how marginalizing the significance of God's word can ever lead to showing "agape" love to anyone.
On another note: If you don't believe God could divinely breath his word into man, how can you believe God has any power at all? At that point you're in essence saying God is not divine enough to give man his word, or wise enough to maintain the content of that word throughout the ages. I don't think you can explain that away with agape love.
One keeps the first Great Commandment by practicing the Second. Jesus certainly "marginalized" scripture when He refuted God's direct command to Moses regarding an eye for an eye. It did not fit in with the sense of justice and fairness He practiced in dealing with people. That is why we should view scripture from the viewpoint of the life and words of Jesus rather than view Him, as the Pharisees did, through the lens of scripture.
In addition, there is no record of Jesus speaking harshly to anyone other than the uber religious of His day--the bible thumpers who could read black and white, but failed to sense the over-riding message of justice and mercy that runs through scripture. There are literally thousands of verses on those topics---yet the same uber religious people of today read the same, limited number, of ugly exclusive verses and tout them as the true message from God.
More will be the judgment such people receive on the day of reckoning.
Further, one should never claim for the bible what it does not claim for itself---perfection. And, yes, the "But I say unto you's" of Jesus illustrate that the Son of God was not going to be trapped into worshipping scripture regardless of how reverential He was toward it.
One keeps the first Great Commandment by practicing the Second. Jesus certainly "marginalized" scripture when He refuted God's direct command to Moses regarding an eye for an eye. It did not fit in with the sense of justice and fairness He practiced in dealing with people. That is why we should view scripture from the viewpoint of the life and words of Jesus rather than view Him, as the Pharisees did, through the lens of scripture.
The way I've understood this is that Jesus wasn't changing the command, he was elaborating on it. The following article goes in to great detail about Jesus's famous words about turning the other cheek, and so on. Doesn't really fit with most people's notion of Jesus's teachings, does it?
In addition, there is no record of Jesus speaking harshly to anyone other than the uber religious of His day--the bible thumpers who could read black and white, but failed to sense the over-riding message of justice and mercy that runs through scripture. There are literally thousands of verses on those topics---yet the same uber religious people of today read the same, limited number, of ugly exclusive verses and tout them as the true message from God.
Correct. These people misinterpreted scripture, or else ignored scripture for their own gain. Jesus many times says "It is written:" when battling with Satan in the wilderness. He also calls out the Sadducees for not knowing scripture in Matthew 22:
Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
He doesn't say, "The Spirit of God says..." or "Because society's morals have changed, this is now true..." He blatantly says, "It is written..." or "You have heard it said, but..." and goes on to explain more clearly what that original command meant. You're right, scripture isn't black and white, but it is clear on what God expects of us and how he wants us to serve him best. The parts that were muddled, Jesus elaborates on. I think of it like a math equation, phrased in the style of Jesus's teachings (bear with me here...):
"You have heard it said that 2 + 2 is four. But I tell you this, 3 +1 is also 4, as well as 5 -1, 3 - (-1), or 4 +0. No one will enter the kingdom of God who does not acknowledge these things."
Jesus isn't changing what was already written as God's word. He is giving us insight into what God meant by those things. The religious leaders of that day were trying to teach people that only 2 +2 =4, which is misleading. Jesus is the wise master teacher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Further, one should never claim for the bible what it does not claim for itself---perfection. And, yes, the "But I say unto you's" of Jesus illustrate that the Son of God was not going to be trapped into worshipping scripture regardless of how reverential He was toward it.
I agree, we should not worship scripture. We should revere it as God's word and use it for teaching and to defend ourselves against the attacks of the enemy. Jesus didn't say, "The Bible is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through its pages." He says that HE is the way to the father. HIS teachings are found in the Bible, and HE respected and honored the teachings of the prophets and other historically righteous people. God also gave us the Holy Spirit to help us interpret his commands and show his love to the world. I can't, in good conscience or spirit, agree with changing notions of morality based off human standards. God has more than equipped us to represent him in this world, so why would I reject portions of half the tools I've been given to use? Jesus was God, and he honored as well as believed scripture and used it for his work - why wouldn't I?
The way I've understood this is that Jesus wasn't changing the command, he was elaborating on it. The following article goes in to great detail about Jesus's famous words about turning the other cheek, and so on. Doesn't really fit with most people's notion of Jesus's teachings, does it?
Correct. These people misinterpreted scripture, or else ignored scripture for their own gain. Jesus many times says "It is written:" when battling with Satan in the wilderness. He also calls out the Sadducees for not knowing scripture in Matthew 22:
Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
He doesn't say, "The Spirit of God says..." or "Because society's morals have changed, this is now true..." He blatantly says, "It is written..." or "You have heard it said, but..." and goes on to explain more clearly what that original command meant. You're right, scripture isn't black and white, but it is clear on what God expects of us and how he wants us to serve him best. The parts that were muddled, Jesus elaborates on. I think of it like a math equation, phrased in the style of Jesus's teachings (bear with me here...):
"You have heard it said that 2 + 2 is four. But I tell you this, 3 +1 is also 4, as well as 5 -1, 3 - (-1), or 4 +0. No one will enter the kingdom of God who does not acknowledge these things."
Jesus isn't changing what was already written as God's word. He is giving us insight into what God meant by those things. The religious leaders of that day were trying to teach people that only 2 +2 =4, which is misleading. Jesus is the wise master teacher.
I agree, we should not worship scripture. We should revere it as God's word and use it for teaching and to defend ourselves against the attacks of the enemy. Jesus didn't say, "The Bible is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through its pages." He says that HE is the way to the father. HIS teachings are found in the Bible, and HE respected and honored the teachings of the prophets and other historically righteous people. God also gave us the Holy Spirit to help us interpret his commands and show his love to the world. I can't, in good conscience or spirit, agree with changing notions of morality based off human standards. God has more than equipped us to represent him in this world, so why would I reject portions of half the tools I've been given to use? Jesus was God, and he honored as well as believed scripture and used it for his work - why wouldn't I?
You don't agree that morality changes over time, yet you are unable to deny that past Christian morality used scripture to support slavery, to drown witches, to burn heretics at the stake, or to deny women an equal status with men. Every one of the Christians that practiced such things used the Bible to support their actions. They sincerely believed this was correct and godly. Few hold those positions now but have the exact same Bible as was read by those sincere Christians of past centuries. Why is that? Why do people now hold to different truths using the same Word? It can only be because our moral compass grew.
The same words you read in black and white were read by men who believe as sincerely as you do that scripture demanded their action of condemnation and dehumanizing of other people. You now quote from Leviticus as if that verse of man lying with man were as valid as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live among you." What about all those other laws in the same chapter of Leviticus? By what clear biblical authority do they not apply today?
The reason Jesus could say His burden was light and His yoke easy was because His message was to each of us as individuals--to love God with all our heart and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. That's it. No rulebook. And if I'm going to make a mistake in understanding Jesus' message, I'm going to make it loving and accepting every person as my equal--for I stand on common ground with everyone else as a sinner in need of a Savior.
The church doesn't reject any of the 25% of evangelicals who have cohabited without marriage. It literally ignores Jesus' strong admonition against divorce. It will even allow women who have had an abortion to enter its doors. But not a married homosexual couple. The church displays the exact same set of "by the book" rules it did while enslaving blacks, drowning witches, burning heretics, and denying women the right to vote or to hold many church offices. In other words it continues to be the antithesis of loving one's neighbor.
Jesus in fact did reject OT scripture. The creation of a story to "explain" what He said removes us from the words of biblical text as much as any "liberal" understanding about the death of all LAW under Jesus Christ.
Consider the woman caught in adultery--my favorite story that was not in the earliest texts of John--Jesus knew the Pharisees were correct. The woman deserved death by stoning. Their biblical assessment was unassailable according to the written word. But Jesus chose a different path. Apologists like to say things such as "They didn't bring the man with her." But does that mean Jesus would have said, "You're right, give me the first stone so I can bash their brains out?" He chose a different path.
And yes, fundamentalists LOVE to quote the line about "Go and sin no more." But does anyone think she never committed another sin? Or that Jesus spoke only of her adultery? And what about Jesus' injunction to Peter when the disciple asked Him how often he should forgive his brother for sin---"Seven times?" he asked. And Jesus replied "Seventy times seven." Does that literally mean we all have only 490 times of forgiveness? If so, I used mine up decades ago.
The forgiveness and acceptance of Christ followers is endless. Christians (I am a Christ follower as opposed to the narrow, more judgmental "Christian") are the ones who enslave, drown, and dehumanize their neighbors in the name of God.
The dehumanizations of homosexuals--literally the driving them away from the so-called House of God--points out the paganism that remains in the hearts of Pharisees claiming to be "Christian."
You don't agree that morality changes over time, yet you are unable to deny that past Christian morality used scripture to support slavery, to drown witches, to burn heretics at the stake, or to deny women an equal status with men. Every one of the Christians that practiced such things used the Bible to support their actions. They sincerely believed this was correct and godly. Few hold those positions now but have the exact same Bible as was read by those sincere Christians of past centuries. Why is that? Why do people now hold to different truths using the same Word? It can only be because our moral compass grew.
The same words you read in black and white were read by men who believe as sincerely as you do that scripture demanded their action of condemnation and dehumanizing of other people. You now quote from Leviticus as if that verse of man lying with man were as valid as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live among you." What about all those other laws in the same chapter of Leviticus? By what clear biblical authority do they not apply today?
The reason Jesus could say His burden was light and His yoke easy was because His message was to each of us as individuals--to love God with all our heart and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. That's it. No rulebook. And if I'm going to make a mistake in understanding Jesus' message, I'm going to make it loving and accepting every person as my equal--for I stand on common ground with everyone else as a sinner in need of a Savior.
The church doesn't reject any of the 25% of evangelicals who have cohabited without marriage. It literally ignores Jesus' strong admonition against divorce. It will even allow women who have had an abortion to enter its doors. But not a married homosexual couple. The church displays the exact same set of "by the book" rules it did while enslaving blacks, drowning witches, burning heretics, and denying women the right to vote or to hold many church offices. In other words it continues to be the antithesis of loving one's neighbor.
Jesus in fact did reject OT scripture. The creation of a story to "explain" what He said removes us from the words of biblical text as much as any "liberal" understanding about the death of all LAW under Jesus Christ.
Consider the woman caught in adultery--my favorite story that was not in the earliest texts of John--Jesus knew the Pharisees were correct. The woman deserved death by stoning. Their biblical assessment was unassailable according to the written word. But Jesus chose a different path. Apologists like to say things such as "They didn't bring the man with her." But does that mean Jesus would have said, "You're right, give me the first stone so I can bash their brains out?" He chose a different path.
And yes, fundamentalists LOVE to quote the line about "Go and sin no more." But does anyone think she never committed another sin? Or that Jesus spoke only of her adultery? And what about Jesus' injunction to Peter when the disciple asked Him how often he should forgive his brother for sin---"Seven times?" he asked. And Jesus replied "Seventy times seven." Does that literally mean we all have only 490 times of forgiveness? If so, I used mine up decades ago.
The forgiveness and acceptance of Christ followers is endless. Christians (I am a Christ follower as opposed to the narrow, more judgmental "Christian") are the ones who enslave, drown, and dehumanize their neighbors in the name of God.
The dehumanizations of homosexuals--literally the driving them away from the so-called House of God--points out the paganism that remains in the hearts of Pharisees claiming to be "Christian."
You don't agree that morality changes over time, yet you are unable to deny that past Christian morality used scripture to support slavery, to drown witches, to burn heretics at the stake, or to deny women an equal status with men. Every one of the Christians that practiced such things used the Bible to support their actions. They sincerely believed this was correct and godly. Few hold those positions now but have the exact same Bible as was read by those sincere Christians of past centuries. Why is that? Why do people now hold to different truths using the same Word? It can only be because our moral compass grew.
The same words you read in black and white were read by men who believe as sincerely as you do that scripture demanded their action of condemnation and dehumanizing of other people. You now quote from Leviticus as if that verse of man lying with man were as valid as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live among you." What about all those other laws in the same chapter of Leviticus? By what clear biblical authority do they not apply today?
The reason Jesus could say His burden was light and His yoke easy was because His message was to each of us as individuals--to love God with all our heart and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. That's it. No rulebook. And if I'm going to make a mistake in understanding Jesus' message, I'm going to make it loving and accepting every person as my equal--for I stand on common ground with everyone else as a sinner in need of a Savior.
The church doesn't reject any of the 25% of evangelicals who have cohabited without marriage. It literally ignores Jesus' strong admonition against divorce. It will even allow women who have had an abortion to enter its doors. But not a married homosexual couple. The church displays the exact same set of "by the book" rules it did while enslaving blacks, drowning witches, burning heretics, and denying women the right to vote or to hold many church offices. In other words it continues to be the antithesis of loving one's neighbor.
Jesus in fact did reject OT scripture. The creation of a story to "explain" what He said removes us from the words of biblical text as much as any "liberal" understanding about the death of all LAW under Jesus Christ.
Consider the woman caught in adultery--my favorite story that was not in the earliest texts of John--Jesus knew the Pharisees were correct. The woman deserved death by stoning. Their biblical assessment was unassailable according to the written word. But Jesus chose a different path. Apologists like to say things such as "They didn't bring the man with her." But does that mean Jesus would have said, "You're right, give me the first stone so I can bash their brains out?" He chose a different path.
And yes, fundamentalists LOVE to quote the line about "Go and sin no more." But does anyone think she never committed another sin? Or that Jesus spoke only of her adultery? And what about Jesus' injunction to Peter when the disciple asked Him how often he should forgive his brother for sin---"Seven times?" he asked. And Jesus replied "Seventy times seven." Does that literally mean we all have only 490 times of forgiveness? If so, I used mine up decades ago.
The forgiveness and acceptance of Christ followers is endless. Christians (I am a Christ follower as opposed to the narrow, more judgmental "Christian") are the ones who enslave, drown, and dehumanize their neighbors in the name of God.
The dehumanizations of homosexuals--literally the driving them away from the so-called House of God--points out the paganism that remains in the hearts of Pharisees claiming to be "Christian."
That's a nice rant, but I've never once advocated shutting homosexuals out of church, or not forgiving them for their sins. I'm not a G-man from an ominous, overarching organization called "The Church." I think we should love individuals as God loves us, and treat them with respect and dignity. If someone is gay, they are welcome to attend church with me, I wouldn't tell them to go "sin no more" and then they can maybe think about trying my church. That also doesn't mean I wouldn't teach them about God's word and show them the verses about homosexuality in the word if they asked me about it. I wouldn't try to change their opinion or do God's work of convicting them of their sin, but I should at the very least tell them the truth and let God do the rest. They may never change for all I know, and that's not my place to be concerned about because I have my own log stuck in my eye to deal with.
The thing that concerns me is that no matter how many times I try to reassure people on this forum that it's possible to love as Jesus tells us to, AND stand by God's commands, they insist on calling me a fundamentalist or imply that I must be burning homosexuals at the stake or locking them out of church because that's what the crazy, Bible-believing Christians do. How ridiculous does that sound? Ya'll must think I'm a member of the Westboro Baptist Chuch because I dare to have a different opinion.
You're right in saying that Jesus didn't jump on the stoning bandwagon and attack a woman who by every letter of the law deserved punishment. He showed compassion and reminded those watching that they were also not without sin. He didn't say, "You're wrong and God's law is wrong too!". He said, "You're right, but are you not also a sinner? Shouldn't we stone you too?". I'm paraphrasing here, but I hope you get my point.
Jesus did not compromise anything in his teachings. He came to fulfill the law and he never once broke any of the laws by what he did. He lived withinthe law yet still showed mercy and compassion, because the two concepts are NOT incompatible with each other! Yes, people make heinous mistakes and burn witches at the stake, drown people, behead them, enslave them, and so on. But those people are also not fulfilling the law by following it fully. They are taking bits and pieces of it and using them to justify monstrous actions, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees did. Jesus gave them a stark wake up call when he showed them how misled they were and proved their need for a savior - himself.
People call me black and white for relying on the word of God, yet I don't see how the hypocrites on this forum could be any more black and white in their beliefs that the OT portions of the Bible are not 100% compatible with Jesus's teachings, when he clearly demonstrated so on numerous occasions. If we can't even take God/Jesus's word for it, then who can we believe? Are you more wise then the creator? No, at that point you're just a mouthpiece for the enemy and you're doing his work for him.
That's a nice rant, but I've never once advocated shutting homosexuals out of church, or not forgiving them for their sins. I'm not a G-man from an ominous, overarching organization called "The Church." I think we should love individuals as God loves us, and treat them with respect and dignity. If someone is gay, they are welcome to attend church with me, I wouldn't tell them to go "sin no more" and then they can maybe think about trying my church. That also doesn't mean I wouldn't teach them about God's word and show them the verses about homosexuality in the word if they asked me about it. I wouldn't try to change their opinion or do God's work of convicting them of their sin, but I should at the very least tell them the truth and let God do the rest. They may never change for all I know, and that's not my place to be concerned about because I have my own log stuck in my eye to deal with.
The thing that concerns me is that no matter how many times I try to reassure people on this forum that it's possible to love as Jesus tells us to, AND stand by God's commands, they insist on calling me a fundamentalist or imply that I must be burning homosexuals at the stake or locking them out of church because that's what the crazy, Bible-believing Christians do. How ridiculous does that sound? Ya'll must think I'm a member of the Westboro Baptist Chuch because I dare to have a different opinion.
You're right in saying that Jesus didn't jump on the stoning bandwagon and attack a woman who by every letter of the law deserved punishment. He showed compassion and reminded those watching that they were also not without sin. He didn't say, "You're wrong and God's law is wrong too!". He said, "You're right, but are you not also a sinner? Shouldn't we stone you too?". I'm paraphrasing here, but I hope you get my point.
Jesus did not compromise anything in his teachings. He came to fulfill the law and he never once broke any of the laws by what he did. He lived withinthe law yet still showed mercy and compassion, because the two concepts are NOT incompatible with each other! Yes, people make heinous mistakes and burn witches at the stake, drown people, behead them, enslave them, and so on. But those people are also not fulfilling the law by following it fully. They are taking bits and pieces of it and using them to justify monstrous actions, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees did. Jesus gave them a stark wake up call when he showed them how misled they were and proved their need for a savior - himself.
People call me black and white for relying on the word of God, yet I don't see how the hypocrites on this forum could be any more black and white in their beliefs that the OT portions of the Bible are not 100% compatible with Jesus's teachings, when he clearly demonstrated so on numerous occasions. If we can't even take God/Jesus's word for it, then who can we believe? Are you more wise then the creator? No, at that point you're just a mouthpiece for the enemy and you're doing his work for him.
Except you cannot say Jesus LOVED the OT when you do not either. Otherwise you have never read it. I've personally been wading through Genesis-Numbers (now Numbers 11) over the past three months.
The problem with the Old and New Testaments is that they are both dated pieces of literature that reflect the values and mores of those who wrote them between 1000 BCE and 135 CE. Many passages in the Old Testament reflect a tribal mentality that portrays God as hating everyone the people of Israel hated. It also portrays God as killing the firstborn male in every household in Egypt on the night of the Passover, justifies the institution of slavery (except for fellow Jews), and defines women as the property of men. Note that even the Ten Commandments exhort us "not covet our neighbor's house, his wife, his slaves, his ox, his ass, etc." The neighbor is clearly a male, and the things that we are forbidden to covet are all male possessions. These Hebrew Scriptures, however, also define God as love, justice and as a universal being. In the portrait of the "Servant" in Isaiah 40-55 the Hebrew Scriptures portray human life as capable of giving itself away and even of acting in such a way as to draw the pain out of others, absorb it and return it as love. The New Testament portrays Paul as believing that slavery is good if it is kind. Paul also reveals attitudes toward women that are today deeply embarrassing: "I forbid a woman to have authority over a man." "Women should keep quiet in church."
So are you a sexist? The God portrayed in the OT is. Do you justify slavery? Paul did. It is a tribal mentality. Paul Tillich, the great theologian warned America after WWII that our flag-waving Christianity would degenerate into still another tribal god---and it has. Churches everywhere are flag waving, war-loving, all our boys who fight are heroes (wasn't that way in my war in Viet Nam circa 1967).
Compare the Geneva Convention to the Bible:
The Bible: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Geneva Convention: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
You would defend the Bible, and tell those who created the words in the Geneva Convention that it doesn't stack up to the OT?
Sexism and homophobia are inexorably linked to one another in the Christian world.
Homophobia works effectively as a weapon of sexism because it is joined with a powerful arm, heterosexism. Heterosexism creates the climate for homophobia with its assumption that the world is and must be heterosexual and its display of power and privilege as the norm. Heterosexism is the systemic display of homophobia in the institutions of society....
Quote:
It is not by chance that when children approach puberty and increased sexual awareness they begin to taunt each other by calling these names: "*****," "******," "pervert." It is at puberty that the full force of society's pressure to conform to heterosexuality and prepare for marriage is brought to bear. Children know what we have taught them, and we have given dear messages that those who deviate from standard expectations are to be made to get back in line. The best controlling tactic at puberty is to be treated as an outsider, to be ostracized at a time when it feels most vital to be accepted. Those who are different must be made to suffer loss. It is also at puberty that misogyny begins to be more apparent, and girls are pressured to conform to societal norms that do not permit them to realize their full potential. It is at this time that their academic achievements begin to decrease as they are coerced into dependency upon a man for economic survival.
Unless one is standing AGAINST this kind of ugliness, then they are part of the problem--no matter how "lovingingly" they intend to tell people that they are sinners because of being born with same sex attraction. Nature is full of same sex attraction--because that is the way God created it. From lions and elephants to cattle and horses, dogs and monkeys--all have a percentage of population that is homosexual--both male and female. BECAUSE GOD MADE NATURE THAT WAY. Humans aren't even the most "homosexual" of all mammals. It is mankind that sees anything beyond what it considers the "norm" that has created homosexuality as sin. They did it in the Bible, and they continue doing it today.
Now there is an interesting dilemma in all of this The more accepted homosexuality has become, many Christians have clung harder to their unyielding beliefs. The tighter they cling, the fiercer they lash out, and the more these particular Christians — and thus all Christians — are known not for love but for anger and angst. Angst defined is a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about the human condition or the state of the world in general.
Not every Christian who believes God speaks against homosexual behavior hates gay people. But many angsty Christians do hate gay people and want nothing to do with them, be it in a bakery or any other working establishment. The less these angsty Christians see, the less they think gay people even exist, the better.
But let me explain how that affects angsty Christ followers like myself. I believe that for the most part the Church is irrevocably broken. When the anti-gay bashing began in the early eighties, I began to move away from the Church and the people who were embracing the brand new theology of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Gays were his primary target--as they are for Pat Robertson now. I began to disconnect from the church despite being a licensed minister who has spoken in scores of churches. For me most churches are stuck in the first century, it isn't relevant, and no longer even makes any sense.
So on your side, you are part of a fiercely reclusive Church that refuses to interact with those beyond your bubble. On my side I am part of a fiercely independent Church (a loner) that has disconnected from the Body.
Neither of us are in a position to claim with certainty what those half dozen scriptures concerning homosexual sexual relations (not loving homosexual relationships) really means. I can already tell that you have not listened to the message by Pastor Danny Cortez. His church came to the conclusion that they could agree to disagree and be part of the same Church Body. And that's the way it was in the good old days before the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and James Dobsons came along. There was a thing called the Priesthood of the Believer, the right of every born again child of God to see Scripture in the light God gave him and to act accordingly. But that right is no longer present in evangelical churches. Fundamentalism has turned everything into black and whites. It refuses to allow or acknowledge that there are some things we will never have solid answers about. Instead it dictates to everyone about how they must live and believe and act--and is working hard to put creationism into our public school systems.
So people are leaving churches in droves--literally. Almost two years ago, millennialist Rachel H. Evans penned these words:
Quote:
What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
We want to ask questions that don’t have predetermined answers. We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation. We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.
We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.
You can’t hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. We’re not leaving the church because we don’t find the cool factor there; we’re leaving the church because we don’t find Jesus there.
So you are welcome to continue to preach to the walls. But old folks like me who knew better days in the church have left in disgust, and young people like Ms. Evans who simply are bored with the presentation of the last 35-40 years, have tuned you out.
That Bible the way you preach it, is nothing but a millstone about your neck. And we aren't going down with you.
If Jesus is born into your heart, then parts of the Bible can be a nice testimony of the faith understanding of some people historically. But the Spirit of God lives within those who have received it, and the Bible is not a necessary tool for believing,--one's own revelatory experience is the driving motivator.
Except you cannot say Jesus LOVED the OT when you do not either. Otherwise you have never read it. I've personally been wading through Genesis-Numbers (now Numbers 11) over the past three months.
The problem with the Old and New Testaments is that they are both dated pieces of literature that reflect the values and mores of those who wrote them between 1000 BCE and 135 CE. Many passages in the Old Testament reflect a tribal mentality that portrays God as hating everyone the people of Israel hated. It also portrays God as killing the firstborn male in every household in Egypt on the night of the Passover, justifies the institution of slavery (except for fellow Jews), and defines women as the property of men. Note that even the Ten Commandments exhort us "not covet our neighbor's house, his wife, his slaves, his ox, his ass, etc." The neighbor is clearly a male, and the things that we are forbidden to covet are all male possessions. These Hebrew Scriptures, however, also define God as love, justice and as a universal being. In the portrait of the "Servant" in Isaiah 40-55 the Hebrew Scriptures portray human life as capable of giving itself away and even of acting in such a way as to draw the pain out of others, absorb it and return it as love. The New Testament portrays Paul as believing that slavery is good if it is kind. Paul also reveals attitudes toward women that are today deeply embarrassing: "I forbid a woman to have authority over a man." "Women should keep quiet in church."
So are you a sexist? The God portrayed in the OT is. Do you justify slavery? Paul did. It is a tribal mentality. Paul Tillich, the great theologian warned America after WWII that our flag-waving Christianity would degenerate into still another tribal god---and it has. Churches everywhere are flag waving, war-loving, all our boys who fight are heroes (wasn't that way in my war in Viet Nam circa 1967).
Compare the Geneva Convention to the Bible:
The Bible: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Geneva Convention: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
You would defend the Bible, and tell those who created the words in the Geneva Convention that it doesn't stack up to the OT?
Sexism and homophobia are inexorably linked to one another in the Christian world.
Homophobia works effectively as a weapon of sexism because it is joined with a powerful arm, heterosexism. Heterosexism creates the climate for homophobia with its assumption that the world is and must be heterosexual and its display of power and privilege as the norm. Heterosexism is the systemic display of homophobia in the institutions of society....
Unless one is standing AGAINST this kind of ugliness, then they are part of the problem--no matter how "lovingingly" they intend to tell people that they are sinners because of being born with same sex attraction. Nature is full of same sex attraction--because that is the way God created it. From lions and elephants to cattle and horses, dogs and monkeys--all have a percentage of population that is homosexual--both male and female. BECAUSE GOD MADE NATURE THAT WAY. Humans aren't even the most "homosexual" of all mammals. It is mankind that sees anything beyond what it considers the "norm" that has created homosexuality as sin. They did it in the Bible, and they continue doing it today.
Now there is an interesting dilemma in all of this The more accepted homosexuality has become, many Christians have clung harder to their unyielding beliefs. The tighter they cling, the fiercer they lash out, and the more these particular Christians — and thus all Christians — are known not for love but for anger and angst. Angst defined is a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about the human condition or the state of the world in general.
Not every Christian who believes God speaks against homosexual behavior hates gay people. But many angsty Christians do hate gay people and want nothing to do with them, be it in a bakery or any other working establishment. The less these angsty Christians see, the less they think gay people even exist, the better.
But let me explain how that affects angsty Christ followers like myself. I believe that for the most part the Church is irrevocably broken. When the anti-gay bashing began in the early eighties, I began to move away from the Church and the people who were embracing the brand new theology of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Gays were his primary target--as they are for Pat Robertson now. I began to disconnect from the church despite being a licensed minister who has spoken in scores of churches. For me most churches are stuck in the first century, it isn't relevant, and no longer even makes any sense.
So on your side, you are part of a fiercely reclusive Church that refuses to interact with those beyond your bubble. On my side I am part of a fiercely independent Church (a loner) that has disconnected from the Body.
Neither of us are in a position to claim with certainty what those half dozen scriptures concerning homosexual sexual relations (not loving homosexual relationships) really means. I can already tell that you have not listened to the message by Pastor Danny Cortez. His church came to the conclusion that they could agree to disagree and be part of the same Church Body. And that's the way it was in the good old days before the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and James Dobsons came along. There was a thing called the Priesthood of the Believer, the right of every born again child of God to see Scripture in the light God gave him and to act accordingly. But that right is no longer present in evangelical churches. Fundamentalism has turned everything into black and whites. It refuses to allow or acknowledge that there are some things we will never have solid answers about. Instead it dictates to everyone about how they must live and believe and act--and is working hard to put creationism into our public school systems.
So people are leaving churches in droves--literally. Almost two years ago, millennialist Rachel H. Evans penned these words:
So you are welcome to continue to preach to the walls. But old folks like me who knew better days in the church have left in disgust, and young people like Ms. Evans who simply are bored with the presentation of the last 35-40 years, have tuned you out.
That Bible the way you preach it, is nothing but a millstone about your neck. And we aren't going down with you.
If Jesus is born into your heart, then parts of the Bible can be a nice testimony of the faith understanding of some people historically. But the Spirit of God lives within those who have received it, and the Bible is not a necessary tool for believing,--one's own revelatory experience is the driving motivator.
I'm sorry, but you completely ignored everything I said. I'm not sure how you took my reply and placed it in the same category as rhetoric from Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and other similar extremist commentators, but I think I expressed my view point as one of compassion, tolerance, and understanding of other sinners' struggles. I'm not rejecting anyone or living in a bubble of bigotry.
We're all born as sinners, so I'm not sure how your comments about homosexual animals have any relevance in a fallen world where all are born with some degree of brokenness. Homosexuality is not any more grievous than the countless other sins I can think of that people commit every day, and it's certainly not more grievous than the sins I've committed over the years. Yet, I still struggle with sin every day and lean on God for strength in resisting my sin. I don't just give up because a Pastor in California makes some interesting points, or because I read a study about gay animals. I have faith in what God reveals to me, whether it's through the Spirit, brothers and sisters in Christ, or the Bible. I don't get on with the times and just accept my sin as normal, because God's eternal word says its not. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Sin is sin.
Yes, I did watch your video from Pastor Cortez. No I don't understand why the God of the OT did what he did, and that's ok because it's not my place to question him or what he does. I am in awe of God and his grand design, and I would be foolish to place myself above God and declare any different. I'm also not a political conservative, a flag waver, or a fan of "Duck Dynasty" and "19 Kids & Counting" as you probably assume. I don't even have cable in my home and prefer not watch much, if any television as 99% if the content I see there troubles and saddens me. Not all people who go to the monstrous church you describe are alike, and in fact I'd wager most of them aren't. The soap-boxers with the loudest voices get all of the attention, while the rest of us are busy serving God and doing our best to live according to His purpose. As for Ms. Evans, she should really re-examine her own rhetoric. For someone who feels so strongly about hypocrites in the church, she sure gives up on the body quickly for not meeting her every need. God is BIGGER than all that!
I'm truly sorry that you felt like your only option was to leave the church, but I think you're misrepresenting church in your mind as this ominous, all-encompassing organization that defines Christianity in general. Congregating with other believers is an important part of drawing closer to God, and you're only limiting your relationship with Him by secluding yourself to home or the internet (if you've been online long enough you know how scary that can be...). I really do believe God wants us to be with other believers and learn from them - but that doesn't mean you have to join a Church or identify with some denomination. I 100% guarantee you, unless you live in the boonies or are a hillbilly, you could find a church that treats others in a way that agrees with your stance, and doesn't require you to sign your life away or recite its credo. I hope at the very least you're willing to forgive those who led you to a place of angst (even though I think you meant that sarcastically), if you haven't already.
I'm sorry, but you completely ignored everything I said. I'm not sure how you took my reply and placed it in the same category as rhetoric from Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and other similar extremist commentators, but I think I expressed my view point as one of compassion, tolerance, and understanding of other sinners' struggles. I'm not rejecting anyone or living in a bubble of bigotry.
We're all born as sinners, so I'm not sure how your comments about homosexual animals have any relevance in a fallen world where all are born with some degree of brokenness. Homosexuality is not any more grievous than the countless other sins I can think of that people commit every day, and it's certainly not more grievous than the sins I've committed over the years. Yet, I still struggle with sin every day and lean on God for strength in resisting my sin. I don't just give up because a Pastor in California makes some interesting points, or because I read a study about gay animals. I have faith in what God reveals to me, whether it's through the Spirit, brothers and sisters in Christ, or the Bible. I don't get on with the times and just accept my sin as normal, because God's eternal word says its not. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Sin is sin.
Yes, I did watch your video from Pastor Cortez. No I don't understand why the God of the OT did what he did, and that's ok because it's not my place to question him or what he does. I am in awe of God and his grand design, and I would be foolish to place myself above God and declare any different. I'm also not a political conservative, a flag waver, or a fan of "Duck Dynasty" and "19 Kids & Counting" as you probably assume. I don't even have cable in my home and prefer not watch much, if any television as 99% if the content I see there troubles and saddens me. Not all people who go to the monstrous church you describe are alike, and in fact I'd wager most of them aren't. The soap-boxers with the loudest voices get all of the attention, while the rest of us are busy serving God and doing our best to live according to His purpose. As for Ms. Evans, she should really re-examine her own rhetoric. For someone who feels so strongly about hypocrites in the church, she sure gives up on the body quickly for not meeting her every need. God is BIGGER than all that!
I'm truly sorry that you felt like your only option was to leave the church, but I think you're misrepresenting church in your mind as this ominous, all-encompassing organization that defines Christianity in general. Congregating with other believers is an important part of drawing closer to God, and you're only limiting your relationship with Him by secluding yourself to home or the internet (if you've been online long enough you know how scary that can be...). I really do believe God wants us to be with other believers and learn from them - but that doesn't mean you have to join a Church or identify with some denomination. I 100% guarantee you, unless you live in the boonies or are a hillbilly, you could find a church that treats others in a way that agrees with your stance, and doesn't require you to sign your life away or recite its credo. I hope at the very least you're willing to forgive those who led you to a place of angst (even though I think you meant that sarcastically), if you haven't already.
I don't disagree with anything you say about me. I recognize myself as a sinner in need of a Savior. That very fact, my need for mercy, inspires me to offer mercy to others rather judgment that they aren't able to sit beside me in church--- regardless of what sin they may have committed last night. I suspect your church has a different view---willing to accept non-biblically divorced and remarried people who live in constant sin (as you believe a married homosexual couple would) and ignoring the fact that there are probably single adults cohabitating or involved in "sleepovers" before entering church doors on Sunday morning.
God judges, the Holy Spirit convicts. The job of all of us sinners is to love and accept.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
