This link is to a video from the Mississippi United Methodist Annual Conference. I got it from OneNewsNow.com, and it shows a lesbian couple giving their testimonial. To me it's quite sad. They appear to be decent people who love the church. But like most trapped in the lie of homosexuality, they believe that God blesses their union. As indicated two posts down from this one, there are many ways in which homosexuals and their enablers seek to support this notion. But their arguments never hold up under scrutiny, though some of those arguing won't own up to that fact, or are too stupid to realize their failure.
One woman made a statement I found most troubling, and even some heterosexuals buy into this one, as do many atheists in their own way. She said, (paraphrasing here) "I know that to be true to God means being true to myself." This is the exact opposite of the truth. Our true selves are rarely the stuff of glory, to say the least. To be true to God means that our old selves die and we are born again, to live a life that conforms with His Will. Even as we try to co-exist with the rest of society, we often have to deny our true selves to conform to the will of our communities in the sense that we must obey laws of those communities. But God's Law and Will takes a back seat to our "true selves"? How does that make any sense?
Conforming to the will of society, as we try to live our lives within the law, can be difficult by itself. We have to abide all sorts of limits, control our behaviors, obey the law. If we were true to our own selves, how many of us would truly drive like we own the road, over indulge in alcohol, take what appeals to us whether it belongs to someone else or not? It might manifest in more subtle ways by only ignoring the laws of common decency and propriety and decorum.
And we would pay the price for such selfishness. We'd be locked up, fined, shunned by the rest of society, or just be considered total jerks.
Yet somehow, we're to believe that God will be just fine with being true to ourselves rather than being true to His Will. Isn't that self-worship? Making ourselves a god who's pleasure is our greatest concern? I think there's a major commandment against that.
Seems to me that the issue isn't only about homosexuality and imagined rights for those so afflicted. The issue is how badly we want to please God. I'd bet that if each of us take a moment, we'd each find within ourselves (and for some of us it might not take much thought or searching) that to which we cling in order to deny ourselves the struggle it would take to deny the fault. We'll say, "That's the way I am. I've always been that way." as if taking that position absolves us of the effort to improve. Indeed, in this way, homosexuals are just like the rest of us. The rest of us just don't organize.
True to ourselves, or true to Him? One way must take priority at the expense of the other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
247 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 247 of 247Tug, then again,
"Can you direct me to the Chapter and Verse where we are told to read the Bible as a 'living document'?"
Romans 10:8, as I've said before. But for one to read this aright, it takes a great deal of time to understand how Paul has an interpretive take on the part of Deuteronomy 30 he is quoting and what he means in the larger sense.
Homework.
I hardly feel it necessary to respond to one who puffs up by virtue of his having read a few things not common to most, none of which can be used to support his enabling of prohibited behavior.
Worse still, this false priest uses his library as a bludgeon to intimidate others who he hopes is too weak to stand against his wordy, but empty prose.
Won't work here. Substance is required. False superiority is wasted here as well. He doesn't impress. How could he? He speaks volumes but says nothing. All we know is that he disagrees and denigrates, both us and our sources, as if he could ever hope to show any of us wrong.
Now, I don't know where he gets the idea that I have some great interest in the anus, although I acknowledge that his is the likely source of his opinions as well as the usual location of his head. Other than that, I have no particular interest.
One other issue is his constant reference to one source I've used as a hobbyist. As it may be true that one of the two men to whom I've linked is a brilliant and accomplished giant in his field of engineering, this bloviating false priest can neither show why the "helicopter guy" is in any way wrong in his perspective, or can he show that he knows better. Seems to me that if a brilliant man can excell in one area, it's likely he knows a lot about other things, and can be equally proficient in at least one other besides his major. The false priest doesn't say what he does for a living, but only that he is ordained. So if the priesthood is his line of work, which I don't know is the case, he hasn't shown that he is more knowledgable or has a better grasp of Scripture and/or the faith in general than this guy for whom Christianity is a side-line. And if the troll has a secular job, then he has absolutely no room to talk about Mr. Hodges. His disparagements are diversions anyway.
Dare I jump in. Oh, why not?
I've been reading through this discussion and the one on the "Got Milk" post for a few days now,(and it has literally taken that long to read through it.)
First of all, hi Marshall! In case you don't know me, I'm Tug's little sister. I've enjoyed reading your blog for quite awhile now.
It occurs to me that when Dan brings up the verse about killing children for taking the Lord's name in vain, that we are really missing an important point in the whole argument. That being that while Dan would have us throw out the entire verse because (Shock!) God would NEVER condone killing a child, he misses that even operating under grace we would discipline the child for such behavior. Why? Because we love our children and we do not want them going around taking the name of the Lord in vain. So you see, while we do not condemn the child to death for such behavior, we do expect (and God expects) for the behavior to CHANGE. So yes, the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Yes, the Lord accepts homosexuals into fellowship with Him, but he expects them to lay aside the sin which seperates them from Him. As long as homosexuality is a part of the life they lead, there is an undeniable divide between themselves and truly knowing the will of God. Why? Because they have failed to lay aside their OWN will. (Matthew 6:24--it's not just about money.)
Homosexuality in our culture has become the most rampant form of idolatry. People who come to Christ should be willing to lay all aside to follow him. That's why it's sin. And that's also why no "revelation" that Dan & Feodor tell me about will convince me of anything different.
And by the way, I've just about had enough of Dan bringing lefthandedness to the argument. I am left-handed. I was born that way, but I would lay it aside and use my right hand for the rest of my life in exchange for the redemption and wonder of the Savior I serve. Don't tell me a homosexual can't do the same--if their love of the Savior is enough.
"Substance is required here."
The point of noting that a very talented aerospace engineer with a really bad fashion sense and a blogger happen to be Marshall's resources is really to point out how Marshall must avoid substance in order to find "support" for the way in which he wants to read the Bible.
What if he did the reverse? What if Marshall flew his family in a helicopter built by a biblical scholar who hobbied in aeronautics?
What would we think about his chances for disaster? That they would go up exponentially... and that there clearly was a wiser choice.
Substance is required here?
Required to be avoided.
Frontier American protestantism has never wanted to follow substance. It is foundational tenet of the legacy of the seventeenth century radical protestant platform that anyone can read an inerrant and perspicuous sacred text and "get it."
This principle was largely driven by the political wars of Europe where Pope, Prince, and King forced conformity on everyone. The intellectual foundations of protestantism resisted the "conformity" pressure as conceptions of freedom grew under the Enlightenment.
But intellectual protestantism never, never underestimated the rigor it takes to understand the milieu of scripture and its interpretation. Luther himself contributed to new philosophical systems from which to approach the interpretation of the Old Testament, of which he was a professor.
It was the radical, anti-intellectual, head-down, hard-working-to-survive European peasant who found new opportunity in the new land of America that so distrusted both Pope and Professor.
Marshall, this is your legacy. No wonder government and education are such bad words in your household, and your wingnut part of the Republican Party.
I'll also add that not everyone who has seriously immersed his or her self in biblical studies and theology agree about the issues which divide us. We still disagree about abortion, the limits of the value of genetic applications, sexual identity and expression.
But those who have put in their time and mastered years of historical, philosophical, and multidisciplinary study are now "intellectually free" to make their own arguments which rest on a cultivation and interpretation of learning.
They make arguments that may be conservative in lineament, but they understand how they are doing so, they understand how people like me are making the arguments we make, and both respect how the other understands the limits of our own position vis a vis each other.
Unfortunately, you, Marshall, or Bubba or EL, are not intellectually free because, 1) you have disdained fortifying yourself intellectually, and 2) you have not freed yourself to think for yourself (certainly not by adhering to hobbiests in the field).
The result is you do not know the contingency of your own positions and cannot offer the respect due mine. This is true in politics as well, or any rational discourse in things social and moral. There are Republicans, as there are conservative Christians, whom I respect immensely for their learning, their dedication to think through how it is best to structure society and operate economically.
It is their intention which is immensely honorable.
You cannot be among them because your reasons for disparaging me includes the foundations of their intellectual work as well: Western Enlightenment tradition, and the Anglo-American political spirit.
Feodor,
You make great leaps in your last, particularly that we don't live our lives in love. Based on your snotty comments over the span of time you've made yourself known to us, there is very little there that speaks of a "loving" false Anglican priest.
Even less is a real argument that what we do with Scripture is in any way wrong or improper of outside of any Godly intent. I've examined a few links to various sites speaking of the "meant to sound impressively like you know something" items, such as the sinaiticus codex and such. It's the type of thing often put forth by those who reject Biblical teachings that do not go their way. If you intend to bring up these irrelevant things, have the courtesy to show how they either support your perspective, whatever the hell that may be, or show how they crush ours. Does the Epistle of Barnabas support your position on homosexuality? I doubt it.
One thing that seems to be a common theme regarding all your show stoppers is how there is debate as to the relevance of these things or just what they were all about. It's the same kind of crap we hear when people want to say that the early church left out some books on purpose to serve a worldly motivation.
What still stands is what we have now: the Bible. It is our source of info for what God has deigned the right way for us to live to please HIM. Sexual impurity is NOT on the list of right ways, and homosexual behavior is on the list of wrong ways.
"I don't think you know in what direction "He" exists. I know I don't."
Obviously you don't. It ain't a big mystery for normal people who can read plain English.
"I meet Jesus as Christ in the Eucharist, where he said he would be, and it wasn't in the Bible,"
IF it wasn't in the Bible, how do you know He said He'd be there? Try making sense at least once in a while, just to humor me. The Bible DOES say that He will be where we gather together in His name.
"Well, except that it does it within its own covers. Remember they are individual books composed separately over hundreds of years. Things change between them, which for me is not "error" but for you has to be... "
Not true, nor have any of us said anything like this. We don't see change in the way that you obviously do, we see a sharper focus of God's Will as the Book moves from beginning to end. It would be interesting to hear what you think we view as change and thus "error". Try paying attention.
First, the stupid stuff:
Feodor: "I don't think you know in what direction "He" exists. I know I don't."
Marshall: "Obviously you don't. It ain't a big mystery for normal people who can read plain English."
So..... Marshall, in which direction does God exist? I'll be very interested to be able to face the right direction at last.
____________
Feodor: "I meet Jesus as Christ in the Eucharist, where he said he would be, and it wasn't in the Bible,"
Marshall: "IF it wasn't in the Bible, how do you know He said He'd be there? Try making sense at least once in a while, just to humor me. The Bible DOES say that He will be where we gather together in His name."
I meant that he did not say that we could meet him in the Bible, not that what he said is not in the Bible. That you stop to spell out such a stupid unintended meaning is asinine as well as avoidant:
... you are avoiding that he did not tell us he'd meet us in scripture; he said he'd be present in the breaking of bread and the sharing of the cup of wine. For this reason, in my community, everytime we gather we celebrate the Eucharist, and that liturgical work of the church becomes the prime experience from which to reflect on how we understand faith. And next to me stands my gay brother, in whom Christ meets me, reproves me, loves me, teaches me, and makes me a better Christian. To deny my gay brother in the church is to deny Christ like Peter did, like you do.
_________
You have not reconciled Genesis with Leviticus with 2 Samuel with Paul. You have "error" problems of inconsistency because you need the whole thing to be inerrant, in pure agreement, every part with every part (even though you can't get past two different creation stories in the first two chapters).
You have an "error" problem because you have made something written into the fourth item of the godhead and obscure the second and third persons of the godhead by doing so. You bring Christ down from heaven and fit him into the pages as if he did not ascend and is still living and present to us; you bring Christ up from the dead and put him back perpetually on the cross, perpetually delaying the reconciliation; you act as if he did not die on the cross and accomplished our present freedom.
You deny Romans 10 (Chapter and verse for Tug).
As for the various codices we have in existence - from which, collectively, we have our Bible - none of them are the Bible entire or even the NT entire and many of them have books that are not in our Bible. And they were written no earlier than the fourth century.
What this tells us is not that we can ignore Holy Scripture or change it to mean what we want. These would be your (and I know these are your camp's favorite epithets) ad hominem and straw man attacks. Bubba should take you to the legalistic woodshed for your cheap antics and smoke and mirrors.
But truly understanding what Tug calls receiving the Bible "as presented" does for the Christian --who uses his or her God-given mind and capacities for reaching the Fides quaerens intellectum of historic Christianit -- what surely God intends: out of Holy Scripture, Truth breaks open the human heart. But notice, if you can, Marshall, that the Truth that breaks out of scripture and opens the human heart is not scripture. And clearly the Truth cannot be contained by scripture, since the Truth "breaks out" into the world from it. However, Holy Scripture has this high office, this inspired role: to serve Christ as THE helpful word, THE great story of HIm, so that we might know Him when we see Him, hear Him, witness Him move by the power of the Holy Spirit in at least the Eucharist community where he said he would be.
But it is not the Word, it is not Him, it is a servant, and like all servants of God, it is a broken one which is its very service: to be broken open by bearing the Truth that breaks forth from it as a revelation to the world of the Christ.
You worship the glorious cocoon, and miss the Dayspring butterfly and its flight that that cocoon bore forth. They are not the same. Only one is to be worshipped. The other is to be understood for the signs it gives. And it takes its place along with the signs given by tradition of the historic Church of the early fathers and mothers and the signs happening even now as perceived by the living faithful gathered in prayerful and thoughtful witness.
You worship a one-legged stool - to mix my metaphors. Your missing too much, and you miss that their role, the role of each leg, is to witness to the only one who can claim perfection.
Christ is inerrant, not scripture. Only God is fully good. Nothing written can be God. That is blasphemy.
I may have to back up a bit to get back on track in this discussion. My current hectic schedule has affected my abilitiy to notice details in the blogosphere, such as a second page of comment being formed. Thus, one of my last comments here might have been related to a comment from the first one-hundred published.
Anyhow,
"The point of noting that a very talented aerospace engineer with a really bad fashion sense and a blogger happen to be Marshall's resources is really to point out how Marshall must avoid substance in order to find "support" for the way in which he wants to read the Bible."
Let me state this once again for you, Feodor, and I really, really want you to pay attention to this:
Unlike yourself, who seems to base YOUR beliefs on the words of others, I simply base mine on the words found in Scripture. I used Olliff and Hodges' piece not as something upon which I would base my beliefs, but because their piece reflected what I already knew and/or assumed based on my own study of the Bible. They simply had all the work done in a manner that was already comprehensive and it allowed me the saving of time to simply link to it. Do you understand what I've just typed here? I ALREADY believed what they presented in their piece. I DON'T need other people to tell me what to believe. That's YOUR shortcoming.
"What if he did the reverse? What if Marshall flew his family in a helicopter built by a biblical scholar who hobbied in aeronautics?
What would we think about his chances for disaster?"
That would depend on the person building the helicopter. For some people, the hobby is where they excell, where they have the most ability. If I flew in such a craft as in your hypothetical, I would do so because I knew the guy was good at his hobby. In the case of Hodges, it seems he's equally good at his job and his hobby. Can we say the same for you? Can we say the same for you if your hobby and job are the same? Whether Christianity is your hobby or your job, I don't see that you are as accomplished as my helicopter maker, who, BTW, is only ONE source to which I refer, but not the only.
I don't think you understand the history of Protestantism, either, or it's beginnings and what drove it. But I'm not going to entertain any digressions on the topic at this time.
Gov't and education are not bad words in MY house. What is of concern is the direction of gov't and who's driving the bus, and in education, what passes for it and what direction "educators" insist on pushing our culture. I like good, honest gov't (if that is even possible anymore) and education based on what kids need to be learning in school in order to get on with their professional lives.
The above was in response to your comments of 7/10 @ 6:47AM
From your comments of 7/10 @ 7:15AM
"...not everyone who has seriously immersed his or her self in biblical studies and theology agree about the issues which divide us."
I can agree with this statement, but you follow it with a list of issues for which honest Christians don't much disagree. "Progressive" Christians disagree, but I don't see them as wholly honest in their perspectives.
"But those who have put in their time and mastered years of historical, philosophical, and multidisciplinary study are now "intellectually free" to make their own arguments which rest on a cultivation and interpretation of learning."
Unless their arguments stray from Biblical teaching. Then, they are just bloviating and making their own teachings and claiming they come from God.
"...they understand how people like me are making the arguments we make..."
So do we. You're making shit up. Truly, bring these people here to explain first, what your arguments are, and secondly, how you came to believe them. You haven't helped your own cause in the least.
"Unfortunately, you, Marshall, or Bubba or EL, are not intellectually free because, 1) you have disdained fortifying yourself intellectually, and 2) you have not freed yourself to think for yourself (certainly not by adhering to hobbiests in the field)."
Regarding 1), sez you. What is your minimum for acceptable levels of intellectual fortification? Why, having met those minimums, are you still so intellectually unfortified?
Regarding 2), I've addressed this in the previous comment. When will YOU start thinking for YOURself?
"The result is you do not know the contingency of your own positions and cannot offer the respect due mine."
Nonsense. And your positions deny themselves any respect due to their being counter-Biblical and contrary to the Will of God.
Politically and socially, we, at least I, think deeply on the issues and use common sense and logic to arrive at my positions and question such of my opponents. As with the faith, my opponents lack the wherewithal to respond in a manner that is persuasive or honest.
My intentions are entirely and thoroughly honorable and you couldn't begin to explain why you think otherwise.
My reasons for disparaging you are simple to understand: your attitude and tone have been insulting and condescending from the first moment you've made yourself known to us, and your positions are either incoherent or blatantly wrong or nonsensical. So if I was dishonorable, would I allow your babbling to continue here? I still have great hopes that all that education will someday provide clear, concise and compelling arguments. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
From your comments of 7/10 @ 8:02PM of which there are two posts. How did THAT happen?
"So..... Marshall, in which direction does God exist?"
In the direction that puts Him above all else regardless of personal discomfort or effort. That requires living life on HIS terms as revealed in Scripture. Seems to me, that if you have different ideas about how to live life, you might consider how you might respond if He were to ask you, "Where'd you get your ideas for how to live? Who told you to do it as you've done?"
"I meant that he did not say that we could meet him in the Bible..."
Hey, Pal. Don't give me crap because YOU can't explain yourself well. It's been a major gripe with you. Be clear or expect to waste time repeating yourself.
" ... you are avoiding that he did not tell us he'd meet us in scripture"
I guess that would be true if I ever said he would. All I've said is that God has revealed Himself to us there, and that all we know of His Will is presented there. It's a book, remember? WE never said we idolize the book. we use it for reference to know what HE expects of us. There is no other way as reliable.
"To deny my gay brother in the church is to deny Christ like Peter did, like you do."
Now you're lying, because we never said anything that would lead a reasonable person to believe that we deny Christ OR that we deny your gay brother the church. We've only said that he needs to repent of his sin of homsexual behavior (should he actually engage in it) in order to be born again. We each have to do this regarding our sinful behaviors.
"even though you can't get past two different creation stories in the first two chapters"
Perhaps you're presenting this for someone else's benefit, for I don't recall you ever mentioning this to me personally. I have no problem between the two creation stories. Indeed, I've reconciled pretty much all 66 books to my satisfaction, and likely as intended. It's really not that hard unless you're trying to force something into it. For me it flows rather nicely.
"...fourth item of the godhead..."
What the hell are you talking about?
"You bring Christ down from heaven and fit him into the pages as if he did not ascend and is still living and present to us..."
No I didn't. I see Him as the final judge of us all and try to warn wayward "believers" such as yourself against taking liberties with Scripture you have no right to take.
"...you bring Christ up from the dead and put him back perpetually on the cross..."
He's NOT dead. Haven't you heard? I thought you were a priest.
"you act as if he did not die on the cross and accomplished our present freedom."
Sez you.
Please don't insult me with Scripture written as you own words, as if you intend to trap me. You'll only be found out. And BTW, I meant to say that I already shredded your 2 Samuel nonsense.
continuing,
The Bible we have is the Bible we have. It is irrelevant that some denominations have a different amount of books in their Bible than other denominations. The question is, in which book to you find justification for denying the sinfulness of homsexual behavior? In which book do you find justification for deciding for yourself what is or isn't sinful? In which book do you find justification for telling sinners that they can continue to sin and still be saved? Use whatever book you want, within or without the canon. Use the Gospel of Thomas or Mary if you think they belong in the Bible. Use any you think belongs. The whole point is whether or not any manifestation of homsexual behavior is permissable. THAT'S what has been the underlying point of these discussions.
"But notice, if you can, Marshall, that the Truth that breaks out of scripture and opens the human heart is not scripture."
Duh!
"However, Holy Scripture has this high office, this inspired role:"
To guide us as Christ would have, which is to love God on HIS terms, and not the terms of some progressive from the 19th, 20th or 21st century who thinks he knows better what Scripture teaches than did scholars from all the hundreds of years previous.
"You worship the glorious cocoon..."
Once again, if you insist on repeating this nonsense, you expose yourself as a liar. We use the Bible as the only reliable resource for understanding God's Will. That does not constitute worship in any way, shape or form.
"...signs happening even now as perceived by the living faithful gathered in prayerful and thoughtful witness."
What signs do you perceive that have overturned the teaching of homosexual behavior as sinful? What signs give you the right to say wrong is right and evil good? You need to be really more careful in pretending you understand the true source of such signs. Sounds to me like you're a tool if you're trying to play that line.
Give up this notion that we worship paper and ink. It's not even an honest argument as you are using it to demean and demonize our position on the issue of homosexual behavior. And give up pretending that you really believe we are worshipping the Book over He Who inspired It. It's only a ploy used to distract from the fact that you have no real argument that reasonable people would accept as intelligent or based on true faith in God.
God is up. Didn't your Sunday school teacher teach you that?
Embedded in all your cop outs, Marshall, and your flim flam denials and your naysaying (all of which takes an impressive amount of verbiage: how do you yourself not get really bored with your own writing, Marshall, when it clearly does not demand thought?), there is this:
"That requires living life on HIS terms as revealed in Scripture. Seems to me, that if you have different ideas about how to live life, you might consider how you might respond if He were to ask you, "Where'd you get your ideas for how to live? Who told you to do it as you've done?"
Answer: "your Son, Lord."
This is the Truth at the heart of Christian faith.
All you have is a book. You've killed the connection between the two because you refuse to make the necessary journey from the thing that points away to the one to whom it points.
You have a map, but you don't leave the house and follow it to the mountain view indicated on the map. You just have a flat, coffee-stained, four-square, well-used, colorful map. Folded up by your lazy-boy.
I can see you now: a Pharisee just sitting back and watching the Bulls.
Oh, and by the Holy map - which takes you nowhere - is your boy Beck's book.
What a great source he is on government and religion.
You sure can pick 'em.
""That requires living life on HIS terms as revealed in Scripture. Seems to me, that if you have different ideas about how to live life, you might consider how you might respond if He were to ask you, "Where'd you get your ideas for how to live? Who told you to do it as you've done?"
Answer: "your Son, Lord.""
Oh, really? Jesus told you to ignore God's Will regarding human sexuality? To decide without basis that homosex behavior is no longer the abomination God said it was? Is that what Jesus told you? Jesus told you to treat bloggers like crap and then say, "you started it"? Where did you meet God's "son", at Burger King? Tell me, did he look more like Jeffrey Hunter or Willem Defoe?
It doesn't appear that you have any real handle on the truth of Christianity, Feo boy. Yeah, the Bible is a map, alright. That much you seem to get. But one isn't to discard the map and pretend he knows a better way to get where he's never been. You need to get another copy and stop listening to your goofy Jesus Seminar liberal idiots and learn to read the map properly. You're driving over a cliff. "Oh, I meet Him in the Eucharist!" It's just a wafer if you think it's this Jesus of your own making.
And why bring up Beck here? You think I won't get around to trashing your stupid political ideas, too? I'm well aware that you're crapping on Beck over at AmericanDescent. Then you can tell me why not being a political science professor disqualifies someone like Beck from having a clear understanding of the current political landscape. You haven't even read Beck's book and I doubt you have ever given him a decent listening, so cut the crap.
In the meantime, try staying on point.
Again, it seems to me that Feodor's "Jesus" has no power to deliver anyone from bondage to sinful lifestyles.
He accuses us of trapping God in a book, but he has trapped God in a STACK of books, and none of those having any claim to Divine Revelation.
He believes the Bible is easily misunderstood by those not properly trained to read it, and is at best a seventeenth-century quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore.
(That is, unless you have enough education to sift through it and decide for yourself which parts are relevant and which are not.)
Who's the Pharisee now?
My God still has the power to deliver sinners from their Sin, Feodor.
He's done it for ME.
Don't tell me He can't.
And as far as Glenn Beck goes, he is one of the ONLY people in American Journalism who is telling the actual truth right now.
But then again, truth sounds like hate to those who do not love the truth.
I digress.
Feo doesn't recognize Jesus because he's been a wafer so long.
"He believes the Bible is easily misunderstood by those not properly trained to read it, and is at best a seventeenth-century quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore.
Don't forget "and memories of the lost Lenore"
The Jesus I know accepts women as full members of his body and with full capacities to serve at all levels depending on their gifts: lay, deacon, priest, bishop, etc.
How about you guys?
The Jesus I know condemns slavery of all kinds, finds nothing essentially different between the "races" except a cornucopia of cultural expressions.
How about you guys?
The Jesus I know does not favor any political system but only a fuller and fuller expression of the love ethic. So America is not favored above any other nation. There is only one Lord of all nations working the Truth of Love in every instance without distinction. This infers there is a lot to appreciate about America and a lot of criticize in its failure to live up to the love ethic.
How about you guys?
The Jesus I know is not understood by Mormonism. In fact, the Christ I know is fairly distorted by Mormonism.
We know where Mr. Beck stands on Mormonism, but how about you guys?
Now, all these characteristics about Jesus cannot be found on the map of the Bible. They are extensions of the paths on the map that stop at the boundary of the page. Even more, these paths that point in the direction of these truths cannot be experienced in their full contour from the map alone. The Map is flat.
Jesus is not.
How about you guys?
So, Marshall, when God asks me about:
women, racism, my position on science, abortion, genetic research, killing the planet, reproduction rights, international aid to the poor, my vote for an economics that covers universal health care...
... and more questions that have to do with the Gospel but are not in the Gospel, I can answer with what the Jesus Christ reigning in heaven has given to me as a faithful member of his timeless body that extends back to early Church and even ancient Israel and forwards to times I cannot see, but where our gay brothers and sisters are not kept from the full Gospel by shriveled American Judaizers.
How about you guys?
Feodor stubbornly repeats, "where our gay brothers and sisters are not kept from the full Gospel"
Feodor, how many different ways are we supposed to say Homosexuals are welcome to the "full Gospel" before you get it? If they would pay attention to the "full Gospel" and follow the "full Gospel's" teachings, they wouldn't be homosexual.
We want homosexuals to come to our churches. We want homosexuals to listen to our ministers, and read the Bible. How else do they come to know their lifestyle is an abomination?
We don't want them going to Dan's church or your church as those churches plainly don't preach and teach the Word of God, but only what they want the Word of God to say.
Mark, with his dangerously undereducated theology thinks it's his job to welcome anyone to the Gospel.
I call for you to stop refusing our gay brothers and sisters entry to the Gospel which Jesus Christ has welcomed them to.
It is, ultimately, Christ whom you are rejecting, because it His Gospel to which he extends a welcome: certainly not yours.
The inference in Mark's comment is, of course, that he recognizes that Holy Scripture did not free women or slaves or speak to science of any sort.
We have to do that as a church, and can do it because Christ promised to be present in his church. So, while we have always proceeded cautiously, we proceed with the promise of His guidance in the Holy Spirit on things Scripture did not speak to.
Thus, reflection on Scripture, Tradition, and our own experience all goes into discerning God's will for our time.
The three-legged stool for Faith seeking Understanding: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, all reflecting on each other.
Mark's silence uncovers his one-legged stool.
Feodor: Huh? Excuse me? What part of Homosexuals are welcome to the "full Gospel" don't you understand?
How in the world have you managed to get even an elementary education with that complete inability to understand even the simplest of concepts?
Oh, that's right. Affirmative action. Never mind.
Don't worry, Mark. Marshall will cover your butt, again, and respond to what you don't get.
What are you talking about, Feo? Mark is right. We insist that homosexuals are welcome at any time. What you refuse to acknowledge is the need for all to repent when coming to Christ. Your comments suggest you believe that repentance is unnecessary and I don't believe you can support this in any way aside from your personal communications from something you think is Christ Himself. So somewhere along the line, at a point to which you have been woefully unable to indicate, one sexual prohibition from the entire list in Leviticus is now miraculously stricken from that list. How and when did that happen? Give us something Scripturally that justifies this thinking. It's the bottomline request we have had from enablers like yourself and surely one of your vast and exalted education must certainly have the answer we so desire. If you can't provide this information, then you are presenting a man-made invention, a conforming of church to the world rather than seeking to conform the church to the Word.
Regarding your 8:49AM comment, you play a typical game of describing points where little to no arguments exist, points with no relevance whatsoever to the issue begin discussed, all with the deceitful aim of painting yourself as something you are not regarding your understanding of the faith. You continue to make the mistake that you are dealing with people that will fall for such tactics. The only thing you need to remember for your gay brothers and sisters is that the full Gospel includes God's Will regarding sexuality and their lusts are not acceptable to Him. Once again, until you can explain how and when God changed His mind on the subject, you are NOT in the least bit Christian in your dealings with them, anymore than you are Christian in your dealings with us here at this blog.
No more drivel about maps and what you think is the direction to which we are pointed. Give us the reason that particular sin of the flesh is no longer of any concern to the He Who called it an abomination worthy of death.
And do it at the post two above this one.
Fuck you and your directions.
You deserve no respect.
You might want to slow down on the drinking, there, Feodor...
Your demon is showing.
Marshall, haven't you just about had enough of this clown?
Ha! Feodor's angry!
Why?
Because no one is impressed by his superior intelligence and education.
Here's a flash for you, Feodor:
Intelligence and education are not synonymous. I have known some very stupid people who have college degrees.
I know some highly intelligent people who never even finished high school. More intelligent than you, Feodor. Even if you don't think that's possible.
I know what's wrong with Feodor. He is young and inexperienced. He does not have the wisdom that comes with age.
There is hope for him. Eventually, some day, years from now, he will look back to this time in his life and say to himself, "Wow! I really was stupid then, wasn't I?"
Mark,
I know extremely stupid people who have Ivy League graduate degrees.
George W. Bush comes to mind.
"Marshall loses respect when he resorts to deletion in a cover up."
No. Marshall gains respect by deleting the comments of a false priest who shows his lack of class by dropping f-bombs when his panties are in a bunch. In real life, I talk like a sailor (regretably). But here, I like to keep it to a certain level of incivility. You push it always, hence the term of endearment "asshole" that seems so appropo for you. Your f-bombs do little to change my mind.
"I know extremely stupid people who have Ivy League graduate degrees.
George W. Bush comes to mind."
Let's see YOU become president.
I don't have the capacity to suffer fools to be a candidate for the Presidency.
And I don't want to. I'd rather be free to call out stupidity in Bush and idiocy in you.
Bush isn't the President, Feodor.
I thought you would have heard about that by now.
And that's apropos of what, Tug?
Do you seriously need an answer to that?
In light of Marshall bringing up Bush's presidency, yes, I do.
Did you direct your comment to me when you intended to direct at Marshall?
Or are on the ever continuing myopic rant and so need to refuse to see how I am always responding to something pithy but pitiable that you guys bring up?
So, which pretty simplistic mistake did you make?
The one of arguing with an idiot.
You better read the thread again...
You're not making sense.
Yeah, Feodor, that's how we all feel about reading your nonsense.
You know, Mark, being who you are, I'm not surprised.
Post a Comment