Archie Bunker always used to tell his wife Edith to "Stifle!" when he no longer wanted to hear her speak. In the ongoing debate regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the idea of women being silent in church is often brought up to prove something about my true adherence to Scripture. (It should be noted that I do not claim to be the perfect representation of Christian living, but only that I don't try to twist Scripture to justify my failures.)
The argument is that since Paul speaks of women being silent in churches, that it shows that change has come to the Body of Christ and thus, such change can and/or has also come regarding the Church's position on homosexual behavior. Well, I had never spent much time looking at those verses that claim that women stifle themselves in church, but considering the choir in mine, that wouldn't be a good thing. In addition, I had always felt that there was much more to the story but that there were far more important concerns.
Since the argument has come up again, and by a particular visitor who relies on it greatly, I have begun to research the issue and among the many sites I've visited in this quest, this one explains the issue in a manner that matches what I had basically felt from my own Biblical study. I doubt it will suffice for the visitor in question, but it is a sensible and logical explanation nonetheless.
The site from which it comes, "The Refiner's Fire" is an interesting site I intend to examine further, but whether or not one agrees with what they say, I don't think they are off base at all regarding the issue at hand. As I've said, I've visited several other sites and have found pretty much the same thing. I just like the way it's laid out at this site.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
147 comments:
"Although exceptions existed in antiquity, women were generally far less educated than men."
Sounds good in an unthinking way, but this likelihood did not prevent the majority of apostles being picked from uneducated, blue collar men. If Peter can be an apostle, there was not barrier to the rich, educated women in Corinth from taking a local leading role. Further, conversion was just the beginning of an expected life of increasing wisdom and skilled ministry on the part of all believers. Serious reflection was a leveling act of discipleship.
This argument rests on assumed generalities that were ignored by the early church.
________________
"If female authority was allowed in the church, opposition may have increased against the small Christian community."
You're amazing, Marshall. You criticize me for being led by our secular culture and social powers and to want to be seen as a fully "modern" Christian, thereby throwing out the baby with the water. But here you are approving an argument that the early church curtailed the freedom of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for "appearances" sake.
I can only shake my head and smirk at the depth of hypocritically ignorance.
Furthermore, if you continue to stand by this argument, it becomes a nice parallel argument for now lifting the ban on gay-identified Christian service. The only offense we are now giving is to anachronistic, anxiety-ridden, reactionary, book-imprisoned "Christians."
Who should be hearing us loud and clear: we no longer care about your weakness. You've had plenty of opportunities to graduate from milk to solid food, but we can no longer afford to wait.
Same thing we did for women in leadership.
____________
"does not teach that women cannot exercise their spiritual gifts when the body meets... and only this function! [teaching with authority] is reserved for men."
Precisely. And it is this thinking that we no longer find appropriate under the Spirit. This chapter and verse lived out its helpfulness long before we realized it. Or, in this case, yet to realize it still, given the double talk here:
"How important that today we, like Paul, affirm believing women and lift them up to become full participants as partners in our homes, and as ministering persons in Christ's church!"
Why do those accursed women not find this to be truly affirming!?
Because it isn't. To them or our daughters. It's just the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Interesting, that in his sociological examination ("apparently") he does not take on the church in Corinth, just Ephesus, which makes it suspiciously partial, "apparent" conclusion.
________________
This is my favorite:
"because if she was always teaching the man, he'd never have time to teach her."
I'll just let that lie.
Despite your blatherings, you have yet to provide any explanation as to how this issue compares to the issue of homosexuality. Homosex behavior is listed as a specific don't by God, one of many listed to teach us acceptable sexual behavior. This list comprised "sins of the flesh". What "sin" is women in leadership? I don't think you can make the case that women as preachers is a sinful thing, even if it was not recommended as the ideal for a church. This is the biggest, most glaring problem with your offering of women as preachers to bolster your case for homosex behavior no longer being sinful.
As for the point of this post, it was merely presented as an explanation for why Paul's directives were given, NOT as proof that something has changed in the Body of Christ. I, for one, have no problem with the only men as preachers, any more than I have a problem with women as preachers. The main point has to do with roles of each sex in the eyes of God. But I don't think that if men are absent there should be no instruction, do you?
In addition, are you aware of any major denomination that has at it's head, a woman? There may be, but I'm not aware of any myself. Assuming there are none, then there has been no real breech of the directive as the real authority for each denomination is a man. Thus the teaching with authority aspect is also still intact.
"You're amazing, Marshall. You criticize me for being led by our secular culture and social powers and to want to be seen as a fully "modern" Christian, thereby throwing out the baby with the water. But here you are approving an argument that the early church curtailed the freedom of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for "appearances" sake."
First, thank you. I am pretty amazing.
Secondly, I don't know of whom you're referring to someone wanting to be seen as a fully "modern" Christian. I have no such desire.
Thirdly, I see a significant difference between you enabling homosex behavior in order to be seen as "really really Christian" and Paul or other early church fathers trying to dealing with the reality of their 1st century culture. I have a hard time believing that Paul would tolerate blatant disregard for the Will of God in order to grow a congregation.
"...we no longer care about your weakness."
Wow! That takes a lot of gall. To accuse someone of stricter adherence the the Word of God as being weak, as opposed to those who reject the Word in order to satsify their sexual desires. Incredible.
It looks like the main problem here with your complaint against this directive is your modern and worldly belief about justice, as opposed to your true longing (or lack thereof) to be right with the Will of God. Why ISN'T this directive more solidly followed here in 2009? Of whom are you more afraid? God, or women? Exactly how are we harmed, spiritually or otherwise, by following this directive? Is this just another cross too heavy to bear? Is this some leftist cry of injustice when the focus should be on what God had intended for the preaching of His Word?
Finally, what makes you think you know my bottom-line position on this issue in the first place that you would attempt to insist I justify this change in church history? As I said earlier, there's no comparison between this issue and the prohibition against homosex behavior. You just wish there was.
Garsh! Lots of typos in that last. Hopefully a serious thinker can still navigate.
After demanding scripture and verse, and getting back scripture and verse you did not like, you seem to have changed your tactics and now start parsing what is a sin rather than if chapter and verse indicate something.
Don't get me wrong, though, I don't think you can live by chapter and verse either (see Paul on women in Colossians and 1 Timothy, in case you've forgotten the resource of your own post).
But now you've turned to tactics that smell suspiciously liberal. "I know the NT asks women to be silent and slaves to be happy, and wine to used to celebrate communion every time we gather, buuuut, I disagree with chapter and verse and want to interpret what makes sense for my experience of faith and the values I treasure."
Congratulations, Marshall, you've liberated yourself from the specious argument of golden delivered tablets of untouched scripture to an actual grown-up Christian charged with interpreting scripture for your faith and that of your community.
Now that you act like an adult, I still have to question this bizarre distinction of "sins of the flesh" from any other sin. Haven't you been saying that you certainly welcome your gay brother to the altar like any other sinner, but that he needs to see his gayness as a sin.
You didn't mention some hierarchical category then.
You're waffling and making your arguments up as you go along, dusting the tracks so no one can follow the twisting trail.
______________
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Episcopal Church
______________
As for you weakness, chapters and verse:
Hebrews 5,6,7 and pay particular attention to 7:12.
The United Methodist Church has many women bishops presiding over various conferences. Some of our most creative leaders have been our women bishops. While the structure of our denomination is such that only the whole body gathered together every four years can speak for the UMC, day to day administration of various episcopal areas and general church commissions have been in the extremely capable hands of women for years.
Geoffrey,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I don't know much about the workings of the UMC, or if it has a president presiding over it. I'm equally unaware of the same regarding any number of denominations. So far as I know, most have a dude at the top thus preserving Paul's notion of proper roles for men and women in the church, as the top dog would constitute the authoritative teacher, at least in my mind.
As I've also said, I've never given the issue of women in church leadership a whole lot of thought, but only recently started to look at it because of Feodor's declaration that I must somehow be as vocal about it as I am with homosex marriage and leadership within the church. I guess he feels I must somehow take a stand on every issue, or if I don't, then I can't take a stand on any issue.
He also seems to think that I am somehow inconsistent in my position because of things like women in leadership, the use of juice rather than wine in communion, slavery and other issues that HE seems to think are directives of God equal in force to, say, murder, theft and sexual immorality. I don't and he has yet to show how they are equal.
In addition, he has yet to show how he has any idea what my position is on any of those other issues, so I can't see why I'm to address them. What's obvious is that he is trying to use all these other issues to show my interpretations and understanding of the Bible is lacking, while at the same time never showing why his is superior. He only states that it is. However, I find his position to be far too stupid for a supposed Anglican priest to express out loud.
I will try to address his latest goofiness likely tomorrow as time allows. Time is tight right now. He will likely think I'm running from him. He has all sorts of goofy ideas.
Whoa, making nice with GKS, Marshall? I really must bother you.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword, Marshall.
You think scripture gives us the very mind of God since you think God gave us clear and perfect "words."
You and Tug challenge me to prove God loves gay and lesbian children without exception with Chapter and Verse, because, for you, that is the only way to know the mind of God.
You ignore that Christ is alive, much less that the Spirit is and blows where it wills. Your God is trapped in a paper prison and bonded in leather.
And with a multitude of contradictions: I gave you chapters and verses on many things which you now choose to sidestep in an effort to cover your contradictory life in faith.
Paul has women be silent in the church. I gave you chapter and verse.
Paul asks slaves to be happy. I gave you chapter and verse.
Jesus blesses wine, not juice; I gave you chapter and verse.
If, as you demand, Chapter and Verse give us the mind of God, then there you have it. You also have the answer to your befuddlement:
"I guess he feels I must somehow take a stand on every issue, or if I don't, then I can't take a stand on any issue. "
Pinned by your own words. Hoisted on the broken points of your contradictions.
__________
When we pray in church, we always pray for the President, the Governor, the Mayor, the head of the U.N., our Bishop... and our 26th national Presiding Bishop, Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori.
May the Holy Saints be praised.
I was never "not nice" with Geoffrey. He simply didn't want to debate with me, but he is still welcome here. Do I think some of his positions are goofy, stupid, inane or without basis? Yeah, so what? He doesn't just jump in and act like a feodor so he gets a bit more respect than you. Don't like it? Bite it.
As to your last, I am proud to live and die by my beliefs as I feel they are in line with God's Will, until someone can prove otherwise.
"You think scripture gives us the very mind of God..."
You're an idiot for continually making these preposterous claims. I think Scripture gives us the revelation God intended we receive. At best, that's a mere hint of God's mind. Try keeping up, dolt.
"You and Tug challenge me to prove God loves gay and lesbian children without exception..."
At best, this is an outright lie, since we both continually insist ours is a quest for proof that God has lifted his prohibition against homsex behavior. Can you not, with all your vaunted knowledge, education and book-learning not understand this most simple distinction, you twit?
"Paul has women be silent in the church."
Still working on this, but since you such lack of understanding for an alleged Anglican priest, I'm compelled to believe you've got this wrong as well. Time will tell. Until then, what makes you think I support women in leadership?
"Paul asks slaves to be happy."
He tells them to act like Christians. Never saw where he supported the institution of slavery. Big distinction here that you apparently can't see, either.
"Jesus blesses wine, not juice;"
Jesus used wine at the time, but said He would no longer drink "fruit of the vine". Is juice not also fruit of the vine? Did Jesus warn against using anything else BUT wine is future religious ritual?
I have neither contradicted myself nor have I been inconsistent in my position or thinking. I have responded to each of your lame attempts to use chapter and verse to entrap me, and you have failed whether you have the brain to see it or not. You have been unable to make your case and still you weasel out of proving your position regarding the sinfulness of homosex behavior. You lose.
No, I've pretty much got you right.
All I've done is repeat what you've kept saying until it doesn't sound good to you anymore. That you don't like the clear implications isn't my fault.
And now you're just getting pissy. Never a good sign for the possibility of good thinking.
Funny timing - Jimmy Carter's in the news today because of this very topic.
Actually, his point is that St. Paul says (and related New Testament writings) say far more about the issue of women as leaders in the church and how that is not to be tolerated than it does about the evils of same-sex desire.
That you admit ignorance, and post something without serious reflection on it, is par for the course. You say you don't know much about the structure of the UM Church, yet I just told you, so apparently your reading comprehension and retention isn't all that awesome either. . .
The United Methodist Church is a federal (in the sense of divided powers), semi-democratic denomination. There is no presiding individual. Part of our genius (if I may say) is our refusal to have a single leader; because of Wesley's insistence on the necessity of "holy conferencing", only General Conference, held every quadrennium, speaks for our denomination. Annual Conferences, geographical areas where clergy conferences are held each late spring for the purposes of gathering, reflecting, and planning for the year ahead (and getting ready for General Conferences as well) are presided over by bishops, selected in a democratic process in each regional, or jurisdictional, conference, held the same quadrennium as General Conference. A bishop ("presbyter" in Biblical language) is an administrative office, implementing the policies decided upon at Annual and General Conferences, working with the Cabinet to decide clergy appointments each year, and being the face and voice of the Annual Conference if such is needed. The face and voice, however, are unofficial, and only authoritative in an administrative, rather than biblical or theological sense.
As for your statement that you haven't paid much attention to the issue, haven't studied it or researched it, yet believe that male dominance is preserved across in general, thus in keeping with St. Paul, that not only is par for the course (lazy, ignorant) but indicative that you really don't get what Feodor's point is at all.
Even now, fifty years after the first ordination of women in the United Methodist Church, and after many women presiding bishops, the issue is still a bone of contention for many United Methodists. Furthermore, it is far more serious from a Biblical point of view than any question regarding gay ordination, gay marriage, or the like.
Les,
Saw that online. Haven't read it.
"No, I've pretty much got you right.
All I've done is repeat what you've kept saying until it doesn't sound good to you anymore."
You haven't properly repeated anything I've said ever. In fact, you say things that makes one wonder if it is really me with whom you're speaking. That's how far off base you are "repeating" anything I've said. So it only follows that I would not like the implications of what you say since they don't reflect anything I've ever said to you. If I'm getting "pissy", it's only from trying to converse with the likes of you. You have no where near the insight you think you have. You're quite thick, in fact. And you're boring me greatly with your poor reasoning and lame arguments. If you wish to claim some kind of victory, I would expect no better from such low class character like yourself.
Geoffrey,
You tryin' to start some crap? What up, dude?
"You say you don't know much about the structure of the UM Church, yet I just told you,"
yet you provide a more detailed explanation, so I guess you really DIDN'T just tell me, did you? You only told me a part. But hey, with your history of missing the point, you'll pardon me if I take your explanation with a grain of salt and seek the same from another Methodist, if I give a damn.
At the same time, you've only proven, if you've got it right, that YOUR denomination does things differently. Mine, the heretical UCC, in which each congregation is likely more autonomous than in your congregation, is headed by a man as president. I think this is likely the routine across the board with Christian denominations, even if YOURS is an exception. Do you understand the word "exception"? Without deep investigation into every freakin' denomination, I stand by my point.
In addition, I don't feel that I need to be expert on every topic I cover in order to have an opinion. You, for all YOUR reading and education, are remarkably lacking in grasping basic points. I can assure you that I am not too proud to change my tune if you, or even an cow's ass like Feo, were to present compelling arguments. In fact, I've been waiting to hear just such an argument for some time. But not all things require a freakin' doctorate to understand, and far fewer than I think YOU'D like to believe. So with all due respect, neither you nor the troll have shown a superiority the vast education you both possess should present as a matter of course.
continued---
"Furthermore, it is far more serious from a Biblical point of view than any question regarding gay ordination, gay marriage, or the like."
From where in the wide, wide world of sports do you get THIS? How could the ordination of women be worse than the ordination of an admitted unrepentant sinner? How could the ordination of women be worse than blessing a union of two unrepentant sinners, a union based on their unrepentant sinfulness? You take great liberties in your interpretations.
As for Feodor's point, I get it entirely. He joins you in believing that God has somewhere changed His mind on what constitues sinful behavior and seeks to put up that which he thinks is comparable to which I'm supposed to answer. Of course he does this without either explaining how they compare, or why he thinks he knows how I feel about those changes he thinks are comparable. It's called grasping at straws and throwing up distractions to avoid having to answer for his defense of the indefensible. He believes that because these issues have changed in various ways (whether they truly have or not is not the issue---he THINKS they have) since the 1st century, that he is justified in believing that it is through the Holy Ghost that these changes have occurred and thus, the same is true about homosex relationships.
And here's an important point to keep in mind (listen closely): If it can't be proved that ANY of Feo's "gotcha points" changed as a result of the Spirit, then perhaps they haven't and those who support those changes are equally guilty as HE is for his support of homosex behavior.
The fact is, he uses examples he doesn't understand, can't support as far as his interpretation, and will use anything he can to maintain what he wants to believe, over conforming to what God wants us to believe.
Oh, and BTW Geoffrey, I only offered this post because the troll continually brings up the issue. It is presented to show how some feel about the issue and how they explain it. I'm cool with the explanations, but the troll doesn't seem to care what my position on the issue really is. He would prefer to assume he knows.
Can you say, "beeeeettuuuuuun!!!!!!"?
I'll do a Neil and refer you to comment #1.
Wow. That Feo thinks I've lost this debate is astounding. First of all, where's the debate? It's not about women in the church, that's for sure. Poor butthead doesn't even understand the battle, let alone know who's "winning".
I'll do a Neil and refer to comment #1.
Feodor,
Why don't you do a Spinal Tap drummer and spontaneously burst into flames?
That would be doing a Neil in so many years.
Not into that.
Wow. Marshall was self-whupped in this one. Cool! LOL.
I am trying to start giving a rip again what MA-Neil-Tug-et al. "think" about stuff. No luck.
Maybe it's 'cause I've got more RW things to deal with than I used to. I dunno.
Homos is my friends, and Jesus lub us all. Y'all come to the Communion table. Let's feed the po', give 'em somethin' to drink, make sure they ain't nekkid. The rest of it all can go hang.
Now, I'd perfer peeps to vote like Christians ought to vote, too -- you know, librul as all get-out, since, you know, Jesus is a librul. But, I ain't gonna loose any sleep over any more if they don't. The Spirit does blow where She wills, when He wills, when we're ready to be touched thereby.
In the meantime, carry on!
ER still spouting the same ole liberal ignorant tripe? For your sake as well as ours, please stop trying to 'give a rip'
No, I'll keep at it -- for Christ's sweet sake. And yours.
ER,
Perhaps you can explain how I whupped myself here.
BTW, homos is my friends, too. Too bad you don't care enough about them to speak the truth.
Nope. Trying to get you to see anything so clear is a merry-go-round I ain't in the mood to get on.
The truth? The truth is the Bible says too little about the topic at hand to justify any of the invective, huffing and puffing, and other assorted hullabaloo surrounding it. Until and unless fat jerks, mean-mouthed spouse abusers and pompous asses who shame the church every time they stand behind a pulpi get the same attention, the same treatment, and the same judgmentalism, it's all just an excuse to berate people who make other people feel ooky.
Nonsense, ER. If it was so clear, it would be easy to articulate. As to the truth about homosexual behavior, the Bible says less about bestiality and incest. Are you having trouble understanding the wrongfulness of THOSE behaviors? How many times is "Thou shalt not..." required to be more crystal clear?
"...the Bible says too little about the topic at hand..." give me a break.
Yer right. Note that the church is not beng torn over bestiality and incest. Or gluttony. Or lying. Or unjust judgmentalism. Or any other supposed sin!
Or any other damned thing but homosexuality -- and political-economic systems (capitalism, socialism, democracy, etc).
Knock yerself out. Give yerself a break. Please. Yer wasting the breath God gave you.
Oh, and I said nothing about the ease of articulating yer foolishness. I said I had no interest in doing so. Been done -- over and over and over.
But notice how much the Bible does say about women being silent and slaves being happy.
So, now, Marshall has to come up with a second rule of interpretation, but one that runs in the opposite direction from his first rule ("see how clearly its mentioned!").
Now he's got to conditionalize himself about some things AND indicate why one cannot conditionalize regarding homosexuality.
I do so love to see him dance around.
"Or any other damned thing but homosexuality..."
Mostly true. That's because there are few other issues over which the church is forced to wrestle due to the selfish desires of the sinner in question. But though the church does deal with other issues, such as women in leadership, divorce, abortion and others, the homosexual lobby is arguably one of the loudest and most well funded. It is spreading the most lies about its "righteousness" and thus deserves the fight it gets.
"Oh, and I said nothing about the ease of articulating yer foolishness."
Didn't say that. In addition, abiding God's word and will as clearly revealed in Scipture is not foolishness. What I said was that if what YOU claim is so clear, then THAT should be easy to articulate. Of course, you've never been one to worry about clarity. It's part of your charm.
"But notice how much the Bible does say about women being silent and slaves being happy."
But notice how Feodor still fails to explain my postion on women being silent or how he fails to explain how describing the behavior of a Christian slave amounts to an endorsement of slavery by God. He also fails to explain why, if the church goes astray on one issue, if indeed it has, how that then justifies going astray on another. He also fails to explain how the "movement of the Spirit" that he claims to feel or understand is legitimate if it strays from Scripture. He also fails to explain how I've changed the rules of interpretation. He might also explain how a supposedly well educated and well read man comes up with a word like "conditionalize".
I have yet to dance. It's called ducking stupidity and likely appears as dancing to the well educated and well read false priests.
Notice how Marshall gets all vague all of a sudden.
Marshall, are you adhering to Chapter and Verse and so say that women should be silent in the church?
(And how much less is that than taking up "leadership)
And, Marshall, are you adhering to Chapter and Verse and so say that those Christians who find themselves in slavery today should serve with gladness and peacefulness of heart?
Can you declare your pride in Chapter and Verse or are you vague because you are uncomfortable with declaring your biblical position?
Or is your approach to indicate how different these issues are? (Which would be conditionalizing.)
I'm hardly being vague. Don't accuse me because of your own inability to understand plain English. I go out of my way to use simple words so as not to confuse you. You'll have to have someone explain things to you.
In the meantime, try to figure this out:
I don't adhere to any chapter or verse without understanding what it means. Do you understand what was going on with Paul's wish for womens' silence in church? Go look it up and get back to me. If you can't do that, try to reconcile your idiotic understanding with 11:5.
In addition, he says it relates to the Law. As I have stated, I am not totally familiar with this issue, and as yet, I've found no law that speaks to women speaking in church. Likely, you're barking up the wrong tree and using whatever you think is sticking to the wall in order to support your indefensible position on homoseuxality. I'll make one thing plain for you, however. If I found that God demanded silence from women in church, then I support that as well. I'm not one to bend with the whims of the world and then claim it's the Spirit in order to cover my ass.
As far as a slave, if he's a Christian, he should act in the manner suggested by Paul. Absolutely. Hopefully his master will also act in a Christian manner. Do I think that's a mandate for slavery? Only an educated, well read false priest would think so.
Here's another clue for ya: these issues ARE different. You simply don't want them to be. Anything to further your heresies.
Final clue: I'm no scholar. But I've studied enough, both of Scripture and people like yourself to know I've no reason to doubt my positions and perspectives. Should anyone have something solid, I can adjust my thinking. You've got nothing but nonsense designed to draw the gullible to your dark side. That's why you fail here so miserably. You've got nothing.
Ummm, I'm pretty sure you just said a whole lot of nothing.
Or rather, you took all three routes:
Chapter and Verse are fiat.
You're uncomfortable with implications of Chapter and Verse because you may not understand everything (would that this interpretive position could be formalized into your official, humble, and honorable baseline for everything).
And you conditionalize your interpretations to exclude how you think from issue to issue.
Clue for you: that is intellectual dishonesty; and, it seems plain to see, failure to convince even yourself.
Not at all, false one. The failure is in your argument supporting homosexuality, in your attempt to establish actual mandates for all (or any) of your offerings, in your ability to actually counter any of my arguments. Indeed, the biggest failure here is you.
But let's stop for a moment and consider: IF I got really drunk, after throwing down a couple of hits of mescaline and doing bongs, and then conceded your offerings are indeed stumpers (a most laughable and fantastic stretch of reality), you are still left with explaining how one can take a definitive "Thou shalt not..." regarding homosexual behavior, and make it OK by God. In other words, what does any of your nonsensical arguments have to do with THAT SINGLE issue?
Thus far, all you've done is imagined I've ducked your issues, changed the rules, etc, etc, etc, when in reality, you've been stopped, unable to respond in an intelligent manner. You're like a picture window, fraud. Totally transparent.
" you are still left with explaining how one can take a definitive "Thou shalt not..." regarding homosexual behavior, and make it OK by God."
Missing the relevance?
I explain it the same way explanations are given for replacing wine with grape juice, replacing polygamy with monogamy, toning down the significance of the Mass every time we gather, realizing that women are equal in life and ministry in the eyes of God, Christ, and the church, and that slavery cannot be tolerated anymore, not even as St. Paul tolerates it.
It's not hard, Marshall. But you have to have a heart, and you have to be aware of how variously you interpret scripture according to its setting for the time in which it was written, the audience to whom it was written, and the differences in faith and Christ's body between then and now.
It's common sense rather than hermetic, hateful dedication to temporary rules written for the sixteenth and seventeenth century religious wars.
I still think you can do it. I think you'll have to do it if you ever want to make sense as a Christian.
So you have no answer. You pretend you've made a point, but I insist your attempts have fallen woefully short. Your last list has produced nothing that stands as a definitive command as is Lev 18:22, yet you insist they are apples instead of the oranges they are.
But here's your biggest failure of all: If your argument is truly that God instituted slavery, or the silence of women in church, or only wine during communion, even the incredibly stupid argument, polygamy, then indeed all of those are still in effect if you cannot show where they've been overturned by God. It's just that simple.
But He didn't institute polygamy, he tolerated it. He didn't silence women as far as I've been able to tell thus far, and I don't think you understand Paul's suggestion properly. And if Jesus meant it absolutely HAS to be wine, what type, white or red? And slavery? Never instituted by God. Ever.
But homosex practices? Banned outright. You like to think it refers to a specific context. That's Dan's argument as well. But if you're trying to play the game where you say, "That refers to pagan rituals" or some such, then all the laws given from Lev 18-20 fall under that as well. Then incest is OK if not done in the context of pagan ritual. Then bestiality is OK if not done in the context of pagan ritual. Then adultery is OK if not done in the context of a pagan ritual.
We are the audience for whom Scripture was written. This is the time and setting for it's teachings. What you speak of is a changing world changing the Word to conform to it. I speak of conforming to the Word as was meant for us to do, is expected of us to do. THAT'S the common sense a true Christian must face. I am merely in the world. You are of it. As such, you'll only make sense to others who blow not by the Spirit, but by the whims of the world.
I've demonstrated my answer not by declaiming something that you would just deny by prejudice, but by showing how you, despite your claims and your willful blindness, wrestle to make sense of Chapter and Verse on a whole host of issues.
In fact, when it is a non-threatening issue, you demonstrate a freedom to think around all aspects of interpreting Holy Scripture: you take time, place, audience, writer all under consideration when interpreting the passage at hand seems a creative process that promises not to lead you where you don't want to go.
But if the issue is troubling for you, you retreat to principles that you nonetheless cannot keep.
So, I have given you my answer.
It lies in examining how you approach non-threatening issues like communion, like how you just begin to touch on what Paul was dealing with in Corinth and Colossea.
If you had an unanxious faith and a Christlike heart, you would not turtle up when handling other passages that have implications for how the Christian community responds to the faith of other populations.
The answer is in you, Marshall, as it has always been. You just have to wake up.
"But He didn't institute polygamy, he tolerated it. He didn't silence women as far as I've been able to tell thus far, and I don't think you understand Paul's suggestion properly. And if Jesus meant it absolutely HAS to be wine, what type, white or red?"
Marshall, Marshall. Still not getting it?
These questions are not really troubling for me. Wine or grape juice, who cares, as long as the sacrament is meaningful and spiritually effective for the community. What was Paul's position on women? Conflicted, but that hardly matters. The Church has moved far beyond the first century on issues of gender participation and leadership. In fact, it has been the gendered voice of women that has taught us so clearly why polygamy is not good in most modern cultures. But that does not mean that some nomadic cultures still find greater protection for women's identities in polygamy.
And slavery is to be denounced and fought against in all circumstances. No culture's ethics defends slavery anymore. We all see it as a wrong against basic human rights. In this way, we are altogether and irretrievably different from the first century.
And we are different on whole hosts of other things right down to the basic ways in which we understand our own identity construction.
That I can get you to get so wrapped up into a discussion of wine v grape juice or even as ludicrous as red or white? is testament to the insufficiency and utter weakness of the "Chapter and Verse" approach to reflecting on what God calls us to understand in our lives of faith today.
I took you down a long path of "Chapter and Verse" mud wrestling in oder to demonstrate that is almost always the end of "Chapter and Verse" living.
History evidences this clearly in the massive proliferation of protestant denominations (some 80-odd alone in Presbyterianism) because Chapter and Verse and inerrancy simply gets us nowhere.
That it seems so to you is simply the illusion that many conservatives agree on homosexuality because conservatives are so anxious about it.
Conservative cannot agree on the role of communion, the role of women in the church, environmental crisis, feeding the poor, etc., but conservatives just aren't that anxious about it. For the sake of fighting abortion and gay marriage, you guys have agreed to disagree.
So Chapter and Verse has the illusion of supplying the foundation on the fight against the things you want to fight, while Chapter and Verse are relaxed on the things you don't feel a need to fight... because conservatives cannot agree on Chapter and Verse.
Who can?
We live in a different time, as you so clearly point out regarding the silence of women and wine v grape juice.
I'll say one thing for you, Feodor. You really have a gift. You have a gift for double-talk and bullshit. On top of that, you have the gift of seeing what doesn't exist. You think I've struggled with your offerings and that's not the case in the least. You think you've led me somewhere, but we're still at the same place, where you're unable to support your indefensible position of insisting a sinful behavior is no longer sinful.
MY point has been that IF you think you have chapter and verse to suggest something about communion, polygamy, silent women, wine at communion or whatever, then what's important is what instituted the changes that you seem to believe justify changing the perception of homosexuality. If those changes are a result of "the church", then those changes fall short of a God-given revelation upon which we can rely. Instead, those changes are a result of human decision and should be disregarded by any who consider themselves believers and followers of God, because only HE can change what He has mandated. Not us.
Thus, the "long path" down which you believe you took me (more like a freakin' smelly and unnecessary alley) serves to strengthen my argument, rather than to destroy it. But you haven't the sense to see it.
Whether I fully understand every nuance or mystery of the Bible is truly irrelevant to your own willful disregard for that which is not in any way vague or confusing. "Thou shalt not..." is crystal clear and only those who care more for worldly things than Heavenly struggle with such. I do not. I do not pretend that which represents God's notion of holiness in human behavior is conditional, based on ancient sensibilities as if God was not truly involved as personally as the Pentateuch says He was, or contingent upon whether or not they took place in a pagan context. Such childish excuses for an argument should embarrass you, but you are too wrapped in the world to care, notice or understand.
In addition, you have no idea where conservatives differ between themselves on such things. You have no idea at all what conservatives think and believe in the first place. Like most liberals, you make shit up because you're incapable of dealing with the truth. Wise up while you still have time.
MA, you are a gem.
Re, "then all the laws given from Lev 18-20 fall under that as well. Then incest is OK if not done in the context of pagan ritual. Then bestiality is OK if not done in the context of pagan ritual. Then adultery is OK if not done in the context of a pagan ritual."
I do believe I smell an actual formal fallacy. Dang it. I can smell 'em but I can't always identify 'em. Off I go to try to find it ....
It's quite simple, ER. The routine goes this way:
Lev 18:3 says,
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in Canaan, where I am bringing you."
From here, the idea is supposedly that the rituals of the pagans included homosexual activity and it is that which is being prohibited later in Lev 18:22. The "loving, committed, monogomous relationships" of today are not as the pagan ritualistic practices of ancient times, thus, not prohibited.
Yet, men lying with men is but one of many sexual practices that are listed on the "Thou shalt not..." list. But by virtue of the argument in support of "loving, committed, monogomous relationships", ALL the prohibited sexual practices must also be worthy of God's blessing as long as they are not performed in the context of pagan rituals.
Does that make sense to you? Is doing your goat OK as long as you promise and deliver your undying love and fidelity? How about your sister? How about your neighbor's wife (or husband, for that matter)? As long as you don't do so at the local Druid temple, what's the problem?
Not even the enablers and activists will go that far, but they insist the argument works for 18:22, which, incidentally, is not even first on the list following 18:3.
And I'm supposed to be the one who isn't understanding Scripture. It's absolutely pathetic to hear such a charge after suffering such weak arguments. Then a false priest questions MY ability to read and understand and does so without anything beyond ambiguous double-talk used in a failed attempt to impress.
Y'all think you understand which way the Spirit blows. What Spirit? How do you even know to whom it is you're all listening?
This is the fallacy: "by virtue of the argument in support of 'loving, committed, monogomous relationships,' ALL the prohibited sexual practices must also be worthy of God's blessing as long as they are not performed in the context of pagan rituals."
But I can't decide which one it is.
"Thou shalt not engage in polygamy."
Leviticus 18:.........
... oops, it's not there.
"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God."
Leviticus 19:9; now that is most definitely there. Marshall, you keeping this law?
Or, how about Leviticus 19: 20?
"If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram..."
Or, say, Leviticus 19: 27?
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
By the way, I ride the train with folks who keep this commandment along with your prohibition on gay sex.
I hope you are saving yourself from judgment and not cutting your hair along with refraining from homosexual activity.
Marshall, you have any tatoos? For your soul's sake, I certainly hope not.
Leviticus 19: 28.
____________
I do question your "ability to read and understand" scripture because of the way you hop and skip through it, paying attention only to the things you want to pay attention to, ignoring the very words of God Himself in your "ambiguous, double-talk" journey through Holy Writ.
You are far from impressing. You depressing Him.
1 Timothy l: 3-11 Feodor and E.R., stop swerving away from sound teaching of the Word. mom2
Bless you, mom2. That's all I have for you. I respect you, despite your occasional meanness. :-)
Galatians 3, mom2, which tells you by the end of it that there is no distinction between the gay and straight person.
By the way, you and Marshall are the subject of 1 Timothy 1:6 & 7.
If meanness is telling someone to read the scripture, what are you and Feodor guilty of with all your tasteless accusations that you make against people disagreeing with you? I have a bit more hope for you E.R. than I do Feodor because you loved your precious Mother. Feodor seems to only love himself. mom2
Mom2, I respect you because you are, apparently, judging from your repeated assertions, you are my elder -- but mostly because, as far as I can tell based on what you've written around here, your Christianity is based on faith in Christ alone. You seem to *want* and hope people behave certain ways, but your faith is based on Christ's work, not your own.
MA's faith, based on what I've seen of his writings, is based on himself -- his ability to "accept" salvation, or, his ability to live up to others expectations, or his ability to understand Scripture, or -- or, God only knows what.
But! THIS, brethren and sistren, is what Jesus was talking about when he said that every damned jot and tittle of the law would be upheld, or "down to the last pen stroke" as some are fond of saying! HE IS THE FULFILLMENT OG THE LAW! FAIYJ IM HIM IS FAITH IN HIS FULFILMENT OF THE LAW!
"Does the Law disagree with God's promises? No, it doesn't! If any law could give life to us, we could become acceptable to God by obeying that law. But the Scriptures say that sin controls everyone, so that God's promises will be for anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ."
What part of that is unclear? Yet y'all dare attempt to supercede Paul, and Paul's understanding of Jesus's role in salvation, by continuously trying to hold others, and yourselves to LEVITICUS? Jesus Christ! Yes! It's authoritiative -- it stands as one of rhe things that we've been saved from! Shut UP about it -- lest you would have Jesus crucified again!
I swear, this shootin' at each other with the Gospel gun is the last damned thing Jesus died for!
We share one world view -- and anyone who does NOT share this view cannot, by any stretch of history, Christian theology, or doctrine, be taken seriously:
JESUS. Our world view is JESUS. Clinging to him. Stumbling along with him. Trying our damndest to do what he said to do and live the way he showed us to live. That's IT.
That's IT!
ANYTHING else is details -- and the devil himself is in the details!
Meanness is throwing around things you don't understand, mom2, and when you throw around scripture you show you don't understand it.
And even Jesus didn't show love to Pharisees. Whey should I?
I think you'll be alright without my love.
MA, you smug s.o.b. You need to get SAVED! Mom2, forgive me, but you need to return to your first love! Christ and him crucified -- and unabashed, UNTHINKING love for everyone on this planet -- because God loves YOU like you were his last lost sheep! YOU need to get untangled from whatever it is that has led you away from the JOY you once had in Christ! Because the poor substitute you keep pretending makes you happy is so plainly and clearly false and ragged and see-through that I can see through you.
Feodor, For all your education and self absorption, you nor E.R. has much spiritual discernment as far as can be seen by your writings. If you would read 1 Tim. 1:3-8 and seek to learn from scripture, it warns against false prophets and their message. Both of you and several of your buddies have made the gospel try to fit your beliefs and preferences over Christ's teaching. I have no angry or malicious thoughts toward you, I only wish you would love the Lord more than the ways of the world. The Way is narrow and all the promotions of the world will not change the Truth. I have no righteousness in and of myself, only that bestowed upon me through Christ and His atonement which I have accepted, so your accusations against me just roll off. mom2
Mom2, holy cow, you misuse, probably because you don't actually understand, the word "discernment" -- if by it you mean, "Read the Bible, do what it says, and be quiet"! Lordy!
As if the Bible were the fourth person of of the Trinity! Which would make for a quadrophonic God, actually.
I mean: It takes NO insight and NO judgment -- both requirements of one who has discernment! -- to just trot out scriptures, point to them and say, "See?"
The Way is for damn sure narrow, I'll agree to that. And getting narrower.
E.R., Your diplomas will mean nothing in eternity and if you do not understand discernment, you might check up on some things. When we receive Christ as our Saviour, the Holy Spirit comes and abides in us. The Holy Spirit is providing our discernment. We have nothing unless we yield ourselves to Christ. Yielding means obedience. Obedience will change us from the inside out and it will show. You, Feodor and the crew that post on your site toss out accusations and it makes me wonder if you read your own posts. Try a little love for me and Marshall and some of us that disagree with you. mom2
Tell me, dear, how I can agree with every word of this, yet you banish me to the "needs prayin' for" section?
"When we receive Christ as our Saviour, the Holy Spirit comes and abides in us. The Holy Spirit is providing our discernment. We have nothing unless we yield ourselves to Christ. Yielding means obedience. Obedience will change us from the inside out and it will show."
Amen! Absolutely! Yes!
So, now, tell me why we are fighting over BULLSHIT that doesn't matter? Honestly. We disagree on the meaning of Scripture and what the Bible is, and is supposed to be to us right now. WHICH MEAN NOTHING in light of the Grace of God and the shadow of the Cross!
Why did you even inject yourselof into this discussion, mom2? You lead no one here because you have nothing to offer that we don't already have. You just can't stand the fact that there are Christians DIFFERENT from YOU!
Enough. Done with you again now, mom2. Peace. My prayer for you is you unclinch your fists fromm whatever it is you're clinging to -- cause from here, it looks like the wood, hay and stubble of religion and tradition. Enough with you.
Read the list of false teachings that were warned against in that small section of scripture in Timothy. That sounds like Feodor's list of protected subjects. Then I wonder where to find that those same issues have been blessed by God. E.R. and Feodor think they have NEW things to add to discussions, but all it amounts to is the same OLD stuff that will save no one. As for putting E.R. on the need to pray for list, we are all there, but we need to at least love brother and sister Christians as well as love the sinners enough to warn them and lead them out. mom2
Again, mom2 puts herself in the camp of "some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm" (1 Timothy 1:6 & 7) for claiming that I would argue with the list from 1 Timothy:8-10:
"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."
I have never opposed this list and, in fact, have tried to show how biblical literalists fail to understand the "doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel" because they bind God into a book and lose the sense of love.
What is the greatest commandment, mom2; you can at the very least cite that. And do you not see it here in 1 Timothy also?
vv. 4 & 5: "... so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."
It is Marshall with his anachronistic and anxious misuse of Leviticus (myths and endless genealogies) who wants to be a teacher of the law but doesn't know what he is talking about.
And now you join him by lying about me and what I argue for.
You are nothing but a windbag, a clanging symbol, without love, without a vision of the Gospel, with only a dry inheritance of something given to you without understanding.
You are nothing but a windbag, a clanging symbol, without love, without a vision of the Gospel, with only a dry inheritance of something given to you without understanding.>>
AND......that statement makes you a shining example of love? mom2
Not for you. But, as I said, you are not in need of my love.
You're the one who claims being full of righteousness not your own.
That surely isn't in evidence.
Read Galatians, mom2. See what Paul does with law there. And then read the farewell discourse of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
That would be my prescription of love, if any.
Feodor, No time to comment now, so don't start the "running away" junk. mom2
mom2, I think that if you count the number of my comments here at Marshalls, the inordinate amount of time I spend in correcting the misapprehensions, bad theology, and corrupt doctrine, along my stubborn perseverance in comebacks, you could not, with any honesty, predict any "running away."
It's my experience that, if we were to be compared, you would take that title.
God, I sound like Bubba there.
Where is Bubba, anyway?
I wasn't talking about you (Feodor) running away. I get accused when I drop off the scene.
I have some more scriptures for you to read and if we are not to look to the inspired Word of God, then I will refuse to accept just the words of an intellect.
These scriptures show reasons for Christians to pursue a Godly lifestyle. If one has accepted Christ as Savior, but gives no thought as to how to live and walk; Where is our love? The gift of Grace is offered freely, but came at a great cost and to act disrespectful after receiving such a blessing reflects poorly upon the receiver.
1 Peter 2:11-12
1 John 2: 15-16
Colossians 3: 5-8-9
Galatians 5: 24
1 Peter 1: 13-25
Just a few for starters.
I believe in salvation through Grace, but if there is no good fruit after salvation; something is wrong. Sanctification is a daily walk of yielding. mom2
mom2,
It concerns me that you carve up scripture into too little pieces. It concerns me for reasons that have to do understanding the full scope of an epistle, and therefore understanding more of what the pieces you like are truly saying.
You recommend to me 1 Peter 2:11-12. Set in the context of Peter making recommendations to a Jewish community set within a Gentile world, I confess that it is not exactly clear how we are to interpret it for ourselves. I certainly would agree that, as Christians, we should conduct ourselves honorably in the world according to, at the very least, the best ethics of our society, say, like outlawing hate crimes and offering civil rights to all who may be victimized. This kind of agreement seems to me to be very much in line with Peter's intentions here. And on those lines, I wonder how you are at following verse 13 and 14. I especially wonder how you will be should your state pass legislation approving gay marriage.
Beyond this simple extension, I would have to say that I, myself, cannot abide by verse 18 and ff. I find it horrifically out of date with how we have understood the unGodliness of slavery for almost two hundred years and more now. Peter, of course, could not have known of the ways in which western civilization gave birth to the notion of human rights in the enlightenment, which, of course, inexorably led to the principles on which our nation is founded. And Peter could not have known how long it would take us to apply those principles to every human being, first to black men in theory (though not in practice), then to women. And soon to gay and lesbian people in every state.
Yes, let's conduct ourselves honorably and follow the best principles of our nation, our laws, and our ever increasing understanding of human rights.
Now, 1 John 2: 15-16 give beautiful evidence for a more socialist economy, since capitalism loves "the things that are in the world... the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches.:
And, I should think, it is most pertinent to the current debate on health care. One's body is one's temple and we as a society should not have our eyes on protecting rich corporations but helping those who cannot afford health care for their "temple" which God made.
Surely the fact that the world is passing away ought to loosen the grip of any Christian on his or her earthly treasure if there are hungry, poor, orphaned children of God still among us, and even increasing now.
I like this part of 1 John very much.
Colossians 3: 5-8-9 again speaks of greed and sexual depravity together, very much the popular appetites of the American consumer.
I am particularly drawn to verse 10 for, as I have been trying to tell you for so long now, "renewing ourselves in knowledge" is expected of us by God, and that renewal is difficult work, using the mind and faculties of reason that God endowed us with in order, in the context of faith, to keep thinking.
Remaining static is remaining stagnant and new times call for our new selves, not the traditions of the dead long ago.
Verse 11 is a great summing up of how I think of the heavenly community: "no Greeek, no Jew, no circumcision nor uncircumcision, no barbarian, Scythian, slave or free," black or white, hispanic or asian, male or female, gay or straight, "Christ is all and in all."
Galatians 5: 24, yeah that's pretty good, but not quite like 5:14.
___________
1 Peter 1: 13-25
You have saved the best for last, in many ways. But it's odd that you would be drawn here, since it's message and that of 2 Peter 1 as well is far from a life of yielding. Peter would not have us yield; he, it seems to me, would have us be bold and confident that we can, indeed be holy, purified and enter into genuine love.
As 2 Peter 1 would have it, it is even so great a life set for us that Christ's "divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness... that through them [we] may become participants of the divine nature."
Man, NOW THAT'S SOMETHING!
But these passages wear away at your clinging to that leather book in your lap. For the power comes from Christ, not the Bible. He has already brought us the grace by which can be conformed to holiness. The Bible did not give this to us. The Bible, even here in 1 Peter, is itself saying to look to Christ, not itself.
"'... the word of the Lord endures forever.' That word is the good news that was announced to you."
Peter is writing this to some Jewish community. Long before the New Testament was put together. Before even all the books were written. For here it is in 1 Peter. And 2 Peter still wasn't yet written.
But they don't need the New Testament to live a holy life. They need Christ's power, the living Christ's power by which "he has given us... his precious and very great promises."
It is still thus. Christ is the one who has so completed what was begun in creation -- the blessed ability of human nature to be in com-union with God -- that we are actually able to co-participate in the divine nature.
Think of that!
And you know what? I've seen it in some very deep Christian lives, this ability to participate along with God's own goodness.
And you know what? Not a few of them are gay.
Amens and amens, Feodor.
Concerns me greatly when people are so much more concerned that Christians NOT do certain things than that they DO certain things.
We are not called to stop. We are called to start.
The irony of course being that you guys are doing to us the exact same thing that you accuse us of doing. The difference is that you guys have no really solid basis for believing what you do. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that any time you guys DO use Scripture, it is to use against itself, to try to support your desire to make good what Scripture has said is evil and never said otherwise. Not a good plan as far as reasonable people can see.
On a side note, I will say for ER, that any credibility you might have had is now out the window after agreeing with the false priest, Feodor. He's been unable to even connect his own dots, much less "correct misrepresentations" he believes have been made. Apparently, you've yet to begin your seminary studies.
Now I have to go over the various comments over the last three days. I've only skimmed them up until now, though the "smug s.o.b." comment kinda stood out. Seemed totally outa the blue.
I would like to commend Mom2 for standing firmly against the drivel.
ER said,
"But I can't decide which one it is."
I haven't the foggiest notion what the hell you mean. The point is that ALL of the sexual practices are prohibited, and prohibited NOT due to any connection to pagan practices, but by virtue of God's command not to do them. The ONLY sexual practice sanctioned by God is that which takes place between a husband and his wife. Those listed in the prohibitions of Lev 18 must ALL be viewed equally if engaged in with the same spirit as the supported homosex behaviors, that they are NOT sinful if apart from pagan ritual and done in a loving, committed, monogomous manner. Ths is the consequence of the pro-homosex argument. You can't have it both ways.
""Thou shalt not engage in polygamy."
Leviticus 18:.........
... oops, it's not there."
You already lost that argument, Feodor. Give it up.
"Leviticus 19:9; now that is most definitely there. Marshall, you keeping this law?"
I'm not a farmer.
"Or, how about Leviticus 19: 20?"
I'm married and do not commit adultery. If I was not married, I would not have sex with any woman.
Your attempts to hold me to ritual/purity laws are in vain as I have already blown that tired, desperate argument out of the water long ago. You're so busy trying to pretend a sinful behavior is no longer sinful that you won't take the time to study the why's and wherefor's regarding which of those laws still apply and which don't.
That you question my ability to read the plainly revealed Will of God is a personal problem for which you should seek a sound Christian teacher for instruction. You say I "hop and skip" through Scripture picking and choosing what I will honor, yet you have not shown that to be the case at all. NOR have you shown how my own shortcomings, if indeed there are regarding my understanding, means that I'm wrong regarding the sinfulness of engaging in homosexual behavior in any context.
This is an important point. I could be wrong on everything else, but that homosexual behavior is sinful is without question and you would only be able to say, "Look at Marshall Art! He's wrong on everything else, so he must be wrong about homosexuality!" Yet, the former doesn't make the latter true at all. It's only a ploy I wouldn't put past you to use.
Fortunately, you can't say anything remotely close to that without proving yourself again to be a liar.
"Galatians 3, mom2, which tells you by the end of it that there is no distinction between the gay and straight person."
Two problems with this.
First, Gal 3 does not say that we are no longer to abide any previously mandated law of behavior. That is, those laws that defined what is good/holy behavior vs bad/sinful behavior have not been wiped away so that we can then do as we please as opposed to what pleases God. This is the typical position of the enablers. With tracts such as Gal 3, the feodopes feel justified in acting on whatever desires move them regardless of the morality of the behaviors motivated by those desires. "Yahoo! We don't have to abide any ancient law anymore! I can say I have faith and do anything I want!"
Problem 2 with Feo's argument.
Of course the tract doesn't mention anything like "there is neither gay nor straight". What absolute heresy and childish stupidty. But let's assume it's there. One could only assume that there is no difference between the two as long as they are both abiding God's Will for human sexuality. Being straight isn't a "good", so to speak. Certainly there are a lot of whores out there who never indulge in same-sex practices. So one's urges aren't as important as how one deals with them. There is on difference between gay and straight as long as they deal with their urges in a manner pleasing to God. For the homosexual AND the heterosexual, the pleasing manner means chastity until marriage with another of the opposite sex. Period.
ER wrote,
"MA's faith, based on what I've seen of his writings, is based on himself -- his ability to "accept" salvation, or, his ability to live up to others expectations, or his ability to understand Scripture, or -- or, God only knows what."
Then you have as poor an ability of understanding plainly written comments as does Feodor and another who will remain nameless here. I have never spoken on what my faith is based. That you could glean anything of the load above from my words is nothing more than projection on your part. All I've been doing is dealing with one or two issues and my position on them. In this case, it's still the issue of homosexuality. Not whether such people are deserving or not of my love and prayers, but whether or not their behavior is sinful. Period. It is. Period. No one has come up with any legitimate reason to suggest otherwise. Period.
"HE IS THE FULFILLMENT OG(sic) THE LAW! FAIYJ(sic) IM(sic) HIM IS FAITH IN HIS FULFILMENT OF THE LAW!"
So anything goes?
"What part of that is unclear?"
Where it supposedly gives any of us justification for deciding for ourselves what is or is not sinful behavior.
"Yet y'all dare attempt to supercede Paul, and Paul's understanding of Jesus's role in salvation, by continuously trying to hold others, and yourselves to LEVITICUS? Jesus Christ! Yes! It's authoritiative -- it stands as one of rhe things that we've been saved from!"
Not really. We have been saved from God's wrath for our sinfulness if we accept Christ as our Savior. That doesn't mean we can act as we please, such as using His name in vain. If you want to use that line, it should be understood that we are saved from having to abide those laws perfectly and without backsliding. But those behaviors called sinful are still sinful. Sorry to break it to you.
"JESUS. Our world view is JESUS. Clinging to him. Stumbling along with him. Trying our damndest to do what he said to do and live the way he showed us to live. That's IT."
Cut the crap. You use this as a bludgeon far more than we do holding to the words of Scripture. You maintain this ambiguous world view to relieve yourself of having to really say anything substantial that teaches anybody anything about Jesus or what His being our world view really means. Why do you even bother? And then, smugly, like an s.o.b., you dare decry anyone who wishes to flesh it all out in a more focussed, tangible manner.
Feo said,
"Meanness is throwing around things you don't understand, mom2, and when you throw around scripture you show you don't understand it."
I find Mom's understanding to be far more sensible than that double-talk YOU throw around.
"And even Jesus didn't show love to Pharisees. Whey should I?"
So you're equal to Jesus Christ, now, are ya? Shows you don't understand much at all with an attitude like that.
ER said,
"MA, you smug s.o.b. You need to get SAVED!"
And the distance between this and my last comment previous to it confirms my belief that it was totally out of the blue. Your X-ray vision fails you if you believe either Mom or myself lacks joy in our faith. I'm positively giddy at the prospect of being used by God to bring you to His Truth and away from your Willem Defoe charicature of our Savior.
"I mean: It takes NO insight and NO judgment -- both requirements of one who has discernment! -- to just trot out scriptures, point to them and say, "See?""
But it takes both to understand the relevance. Before discernment, however, reading and studying is required. Perhaps at seminary you'll be so encouraged.
Feodor said,
"I have never opposed this list and, in fact, have tried to show how biblical literalists fail to understand the "doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel" because they bind God into a book and lose the sense of love."
You've opposed the part regarding adultery and perversion. This has been at the heart of most of our discussions and you've yet to explain how you can justify calling sinful behavior "non"sinful. We neither bind God in a book nor lose the sense of love. This is the reaction of those who do not wish to conform to codes of behavior by which we can be something akin to holy. It's like a little kid who says to his mother, "You don't love me", because she forbids certain behaviors. Altogether very childish of the liberal "Christian". You don't even understand the term "literalist" as what we do is not literalism at all, but a proper reading and understanding of what the only source of God's Will revealed to us explains.
"It is Marshall with his anachronistic and anxious misuse of Leviticus (myths and endless genealogies) who wants to be a teacher of the law but doesn't know what he is talking about."
So because it's old, it's no longer useful, proper, God-given? And where do you get this "anxious" nonsense? If I'm anxious, it's only for the sake of those you are leading astray by your heretical interpretations of God's Will as revealed in Scripture. In addition, you have yet to demonstrate that I don't know what I'm talking about or that you do. And then you accuse Mom2 of lying about you. Doubtful to say the least. If there's any lying going on, fool, it's by yourself.
Feodor said,
"God, I sound like Bubba there."
Two problems here.
First, you WISH you sounded like Bubba. He makes sense, you make trouble.
Secondly, like the false priest you are, you again use His name in vain. Does your understanding of Galatians 3 include such disrespect for the Creator of all things?
And you dare question our understanding.
"It concerns me that you carve up scripture into too little pieces."
Like you haven't done that with Galatians.
"You recommend to me 1 Peter 2:11-12. Set in the context of Peter making recommendations to a Jewish community set within a Gentile world, I confess that it is not exactly clear how we are to interpret it for ourselves."
Good gosh! are you stupid! These verses teach us to live according to God's Will and not the whims and desires of worldly things. WE are the aliens and strangers in the world if we consider ourselves citizens of heaven. It has nothing to do with ethics of whatever society we find ourselves. GEEZ! And then you go on to impose your liberal crap, like hate crimes legislation as being at the heart of the verses. GEEZ!!!
As for 13 and 14, we are bound by the laws of our country to the extent that they do not stomp on HIS laws. If "gay marriage" were to be instituted (God forgive us were it so), we would be right with Him to work to overturn such abominable legislation that only false priests and Christians would celebrate.
"...I, myself, cannot abide by verse 18 and ff. I find it horrifically out of date with how we have understood the unGodliness of slavery for almost two hundred years and more now."
You can't abide it because as the false intellectual you are, you're too stupid to understand that the verse does not condone slavery in the least. Read it. Study it. It speaks to how we endure harsh conditions. If you suffer for doing good and endure it, this is commendable before God. How galling it is that you pose as a student of the faith!
"Peter, of course, could not have known..."
Idiot. You really think Peter was concerned with worldly things here? He was clearly teaching us something more than to act according to what might be going on in our world, but instead always act in a "Christian" manner regardless of what befalls us. And then to pretend that he would be so shallow as to make the lame comparison between the unchangable nature of one's race or gender with the totally changable behavior of homosexuals. Liar.
"Yes, let's conduct ourselves honorably and follow the best principles of our nation, our laws, and our ever increasing understanding of human rights."
No. Let us conduct ourselves as God intended and as He taught us by His revealed Word as found in Scripture and our ever increasing understanding of His unchanging Will.
Now you use 1 John 2:15-16 in a most hypocritical way. You pretend it justifies socialism. But you're an idiot and don't see that you are indeed a proponent of that which the verse warns against. You enable the practice of behaviors God forbids and pretend that to accept and love those who refuse to repent of such behavior is what we are taught to do. No. Love them is one thing. But to pretend their sin is not sinful is to love the world and the desire and cravings and lusts the verse warns us against.
"And, I should think, it is most pertinent to the current debate on health care."
No you shouldn't. It only confirms that you're an idiot. There is nothing in Scripture that justifies idiots like you forcing others to cough up dough for the poor. Scripture tells YOU to donate. Take care of what YOU do for the poor. I don't need hypocrites like yourself to tell me when, how much or to whom I should give my excess loot.
"Remaining static is remaining stagnant and new times call for our new selves, not the traditions of the dead long ago."
What progressive bullshit and what a perfect example of being in the world! NEW TIMES! What a completely false and stupid priest. We are the same as the ancient Hebrew and those before. The human condition has not changed and the teachings of Scripture are for that human condition, not some supposed change of times to which we should adapt God. You unholy heretic! You really have no freakin' clue just how off the deep end you are in your thinking. How I grieve for your children!
Again your understanding is lacking as you again place behavior with state of being with your laughable rendering of verse 11. Being Greek is not moral or immoral. Being a slave is also morally neutral. Engaging in homosexual acts is sinful and immoral, you heretical idiot.
"Galatians 5: 24, yeah that's pretty good, but not quite like 5:14."
Yet you show no love for your neighbor when you accept and tolerate their sinful behavior, and worse, when you chastise other neighbors for having the love you lack when they hold to God's teaching about that sinful behavior. Our love will lead them to a better understanding. Your idea of love will lead them to destruction. Way to love, idiot.
And finally, Feo's understanding of either of Peter's Epistles leaves much to be desired. He doesn't understand that he is the type of person against whom Peter warns, one who falsely teaches that which leads to the rejection of restraint and self-control. He thinks he understands to whom Peter writes and believes that what he tells them is some ambiguous progressive claptrap that he himself imparts whenever he gets the chance. "They need Christ's power to live a holy life"? What the hell does THAT mean? Apparently that means to you that people are holy even when engaging without remorse or guilt or shame behaviors that are sinful because THEY'VE GOT CHRIST'S POWER! You're a fool's fool.
which leads to ER's "amens". How foolish indeed to ditto such drivel.
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman..."
is a ritual/purity law, embedded in all the other you don't slavishly follow.
Picking this one out of the others is dishonest.
You just keep stubbing your toe on how you honeycomb what you claim to be God's handwriting with pieces you take and pieces you leave behind.
"The irony of course being that you guys are doing to us the exact same thing that you accuse us of doing. The difference is that you guys have no really solid basis for believing what you do."
Your ingraciousness, of course, not realizing that we do not demand that your take on scripture has to be ours. I'll present my take, contextualized as it is in the take of a significant portion of historic Christianity. But it is only one approach among the kaleidoscopic takes. In fact, these are only preliminary efforts on my part.
But I am in no way convinced that the way I just presented a reading of scripture is the only - or even the best way - to read scripture.
That is hubris that is unChristian and a misapprehension of the role of scripture in the community and the glory of the godhead.
So, no, we do not do what you do when you claim - despite being a temporal - limited human being, to have a absolute claim on Truth.
The irony is contained within your own self-defeating pride.
"the why's and wherefor's regarding which of those laws still apply and which don't..."
Like I said, an approach to scripture that hops and skips for reasons that are constructed out of nothing but what you need the Bible to say.
"So one's urges aren't as important as how one deals with them. There is [no] difference between gay and straight as long as they deal with their urges in a manner pleasing to God. "
I agree this far.
But what is pleasing to God is that sex be a part of giving oneself in love and commitment. One can't begin to give oneself if you make them deny who they are. You cripple the plan for sex in this way.
Feodor, Even at my age, I have better things to do than to mess with you. Pfft. mom2
Galatians does not say there is no black nor white, either, but we were able to use Galatians to figure this out for ourselves.
This is how Christian reflection on scripture works, Marshall, discovering new apprehensions of God's love and truth.
Sometimes we come to a tipping point before which the Church was not mature enough to understand and after which, we are.
You are the tight-assed child who loves that Mother says you can't take down the cookie jar until after dinner. You don't know that she tells you this and not me because you are not yet mature enough to handle the cookie jar on your own.
This is basically what Paul and Peter are saying about the role of the law and the force of the Gospel.
The age of Leviticus is not my point. The age of the style of Biblical interpretation you've inherited is part of your problem, and it leads you to carve up Leviticus in such a way that is far more dishonoring of Holy Scripture than my finding Leviticus superseded by the Son of God.
You carve it up, I embed it in the living Christ.
Which sounds more sound?
Yeah, like how you get your bib overalls in a twist when I use the word, "God."
As if that's his name... as is if God is a He.
You have yet to grow up as a Christian.
You know, sometimes I put my coffee cup on the Bible. I don't even have a built in, nitrogen gas filled case for it like you.
"we are bound by the laws of our country to the extent that they do not stomp on HIS laws..."
GEEZ (as if that's not simply colloquial stand-in for)
God! That's not exactly what the passage says, Marshall.
You're adding to God's word here.
"What progressive bullshit and what a perfect example of being in the world! NEW TIMES! What a completely false and stupid priest. We are the same as the ancient Hebrew and those before."
Marshall, Marshall here you've not only spilled out ad hominem after ad hominem (Bubba would love counting all these - I bet you have half a hundred in all your froth) but now you have lost scripture altogether.
You say, "We are the same as the ancient Hebrew and those before."
Colossians 3:10 & 11 says, "you have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator."
Poor Marshall, ranted himself right on the tracks of oncoming scripture... and was flattened like a pancake.
"And finally, Marshall's understanding of either of Peter's Epistles leaves much to be desired. He doesn't understand that he is the type of person against whom Peter warns, one who falsely teaches that which leads to the rejection of restraint and self-control. He thinks he understands to whom Peter writes and believes that what he tells them is some ambiguous conservative claptrap that he himself imparts whenever he gets the chance. "They need Christ's power to live a holy life"? What the hell does THAT mean? Apparently that means to you that people are only holy if they keep every letter of a book -- except where YOU say they don't - and that Christ no long has any power in himself. Only people who read the Bible like they're from the nineteenth century prairie, they're the only ones who have it right. THEY'VE GOT CHRIST'S POWER! You're a fool's fool."
mom2 takes a quick leave; something she said she wouldn't do.
Yeah, Marshall, that's really "standing firmly against the drivel" and doing it with a strong presentation of scripture.
""Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman..."
is a ritual/purity law, embedded in all the other you don't slavishly follow."
No. It is a moral law. A law regulating our behavior. A law you reject in order to please people rather than God. It is not I that picks this law out of the group. It is you and people like you who are more interested in appearing "Christian" to those who also have rejected this law.
You continue to make this claim that I follow some of His laws and don't follow others. Someday you'll have to prove this sorry assertion.
"So, no, we do not do what you do when you claim - despite being a temporal - limited human being, to have a absolute claim on Truth."
Absolute crap, of course, as you continue to chastise me for preaching something so easy to understand as "Thou shalt not..." You are absolutely certain that somehow, by means only progressive false priests, Christians and homosexuals can understand, that God has, through His Spirit, overturned His position on homosexual behavior. And then you condescend to the rest of us who look to the Bible for instruction on what is sinful and what isn't.
There is no issue of pride in my position. There is only God's Will as revealed in Scipture and an honest, objective reading of that Scripture to come to the only possible conclusion an honest person can.
""the why's and wherefor's regarding which of those laws still apply and which don't..."
Like I said, an approach to scripture that hops and skips for reasons that are constructed out of nothing but what you need the Bible to say."
Again, an accusation you have yet to prove, while in the meantime, the issue is the twisting and distorting necessary to arrive at your position.
"But what is pleasing to God is that sex be a part of giving oneself in love and commitment."
An invention of your own, unsupportable by anything in Scripture. Perhaps the "spirit" told you that?
"One can't begin to give oneself if you make them deny who they are."
You mean like denying one's greedy nature? One's violent nature? One's self-serving nature? I deny no one anything. Christ requires that we give up our old selves to follow Him. YOU insist that we cling to our sinful ways because to do otherwise is to deny who we are. Child.
"You cripple the plan for sex in this way."
You twist the plan for sex to include that which He has called an abomination.
"Galatians does not say there is no black nor white, either, but we were able to use Galatians to figure this out for ourselves."
Race, like ethicity, is not a behavior. There have always been people who have undestood this, otherwise slavery would still be practiced as it was before. Keep in mind that it was generally Christians who spoke out against the previously poor interpretations of the past, those that were man-serving interpretations, like your position on homosexuality, rather than God-serving interpretations. It was the Spirit acting through those God-serving people that brought about the current understanding.
"You are the tight-assed child who loves that Mother says you can't take down the cookie jar until after dinner. You don't know that she tells you this and not me because you are not yet mature enough to handle the cookie jar on your own."
An example of the pride of which you accused me. You pridefully view yourself as above Mom's law when you're only a year older (though in reality your argument's are like that of a small child) and still subject to them.
"The age of Leviticus is not my point. The age of the style of Biblical interpretation you've inherited is part of your problem..."
Nonsense. We are the same as the ancient peoples with all the same desires and temptations. The nature of man and the human condition has not changed one iota in all of human history. This is even as obvious as the meaning of "Thou shalt not..." You wish to pretend you are somehow more than ancient people and not in need of God's guidance, that somehow you can handle that cookie before dinner. And you dare ascribe the word "hubris" to me.
"You carve it up, I embed it in the living Christ."
Not even close to accurate. Here's accuracy: I adhere to what is easy to understand. You claim it is mysterious and open to untold interpretations, which allows you to believe what is convenient and self-serving. There's no soundness in your methods unless self-satisfaction is the goal.
"Yeah, like how you get your bib overalls in a twist when I use the word, "God." "
It's not MY bib overalls over which you should concern yourself. And it's the name we use, so try and worm your way out of that with Him.
"You know, sometimes I put my coffee cup on the Bible."
I'm not surprised the way you spit on it's teachings as you do. I'm well aware of the difference between a book and my Lord. I seek to honor Him by adhering to the teachings in the Book. I've worn a copy or two in the process and not felt I've been disrespectful by doing so. But YOU disrespect Him by supposing you are above the teachings of the Book and deciding for yourself what is and what isn't sinful as if He has ever given any human the right to do so.
"You're adding to God's word here."
Not at all. I'm only correcting your poor understanding of it.
"Marshall, Marshall here you've not only spilled out ad hominem after ad hominem..."
Not at all. I'm only describing you as you are.
"Colossians 3:10 & 11 says, "you have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.""
This is not the same as being human and subject to the same temptations and desires as every human who ever existed. The verse refers to the change that should happen within the heart of one who accepts Christ and His teachings. Man's nature doesn't change, his desire to either succomb to it or control it does.
As to your last to me, change every word I say and you still haven't changed the truth. But if it makes you feel better, continue on your way to perdition.
Your theology (to the extent you are conscious of having one) about not having a changed nature is entirely opposed to the theology of the Christian life presented in Colossians and in Romans 8, especially v. 9 and ff.
And the reason that Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision is used in Colossians is exactly to talk about past behaviors. Greek is what is used, not for one ethnicity as you think, but for the entire non-Jewish world with all its many ethnicities.
Circumcision and uncircumcision was a behavioral act controversial because of its religious import, not its ethnic identification, since many non-Jews took up circumcision.
You've stepped in it, again, Marshall, since you are not a very developed student of the NT.
Another way to know that the writer of Colossians is talking about behavior is the presence of "Scythians" in the list.
Paul and his world only knew them as ancient mythic people who were barbarians in BEHAVIOR.
They are only useful to mention here since, no longer existing, it was there legendary behavior that served his point.
Also note that here in Colossians he does not mention "male of female."
So, in this way, again, you miss the import and so cannot climb aboard the movement of the Holy Spirit today.
You're an idiot. The whole thing has to do with the fact that we are NOT separated from God by virtue of being Jewish or not, but that we are all God's children open to His Promise for mankind. It has nothing to do with behaviors, unless you mean that thieves and liars are no different than honest men and need only accept Christ without rejecting their stealing and lying ways. Boy, what an idiot you are.
It means that behavior alone separates from God.
Not expressing who we are as God made us.
If a Jew, then fine. Be a good Jew and do not make war against your semitic brothers.
If a Christian, then fine. Be a good Christian and do not support imperial behavior that lords it over others, and do not support the hedonistic and sexualized tendencies of capitalism and popular fetishes.
Whether a man or a woman makes no difference. Be a good woman and a good man in the things you choose for you life. You can lead, you can serve, you can do whatever; your gender means nothing. It is your behavior.
If black, white, brown, yellow, it means nothing in God's eyes concerning moral value. It is your behavior. Be a good white man, which means never thinking your whiteness means anything of hierarchal value.
If a Muslim, then be a good Muslim and do not wage extremist war against your semitic brothers and do not hate those who are not Muslim.
If a Buddhist, be a good Buddhist and do not support oppressive and murderous regimes.
If a gay man, be a good gay man and do not launch out on hedonism as a salve against the way so many in our society hate you for what you are. You have allies.
If a lesbian woman, be a good lesbian woman.
This is the message of Galatians and Colossians for someone living two thousand years after Paul's wisdom - but not for the hermetic, soul killing idiots like yourself.
Well you're only partially correct. Homosexuality in and of itself is merely a condition, a desire, a state of mind. But to freely, willingly and eagerly seek out a partner with whom one can engage in homosexual behavior is a sinful behavior. Like the lying, heretical false priest you are, you preach that homosexuality is akin to race or gender or ethnicity. It isn't. It is a compulsion like any other sinful desire, like stealing, smacking idiot false priests, or fornication. It is as if you are saying that what is important is that one be a good thief, not an evil thief. You're an idiot.
Another stupid aspect of your inane premise is that it is enough to be a good Muslim. This is something that no Apostle of the Lord would ever say. Only a 21st century psuedo-intellectual would see something like this in the words of Paul.
The only way one could be a good homosexual or lesbian is to reject their desires for another of the same sex and trust in Christ for help in overcoming that desire. One cannot be a good sinner of any kind by indulging in the sin.
What you present is the message of Feodor and other fools and false priests and Christians. It is NOT the message of Galatians, Collosians or any other of the 66 books of the Bible. Why do you even bother calling yourself a Christian? You are far more interested in following your own way than His way. Stop the charade and just be the foul, self-serving chump you want to be.
OR, start understanding that which is clear and come to God on HIS terms for a change.
Marshall,
Stupidity in and of itself is merely a condition, a state of mind. But to freely, willingly and eagerly, stubbornly fashion it into a state of mind and engage in stupid behavior is a sin against God and creation.
But here you are, losing the laws and opinions, the ethical and religious tenor of your times.
You, Erik Prince, the members of C Street.
I'll stick with the 200 million others in my country who find trying to control God and people to be a dark, evil strain you wring on an altar lately converted from the Klan.
Remember, Marshall, what your brothers in arms would say:
Jesus + 0 = X
WOW!
Re, ""JESUS. Our world view is JESUS. Clinging to him. Stumbling along with him. Trying our damndest to do what he said to do and live the way he showed us to live. That's IT."
Cut the crap
xxx
MA wrote the above.
Consider it cut. Good luck with whatever it is you've miststaken for Christianity in general and faith in Christ specifically.
Yeesh. I need a shower. And I encourage you in your desire to leave the UCC.
:-) "Poor Marshall, ranted himself right on the tracks of oncoming scripture... and was flattened like a pancake."
I HATE when that happens.
Re, "It's not MY bib overalls..."
I'd bet a dollar that I am the only person here with a pair of bib overalls hangin' in the closet.
... unless mom2 has a pair ...
Feo said,
"Stupidity in and of itself is merely a condition, a state of mind. But to freely, willingly and eagerly, stubbornly fashion it into a state of mind and engage in stupid behavior is a sin against God and creation."
It's good that you recognize this. Now you must stop doing it.
"But here you are, losing the laws and opinions, the ethical and religious tenor of your times."
What the hell does this mean?
"You, Erik Prince, the members of C Street."
What the hell does this mean?
"I'll stick with the 200 million others in my country who find trying to control God and people to be a dark, evil strain you wring on an altar lately converted from the Klan."
So will I. I don't see how that's relevant here, unless you think I'm trying to control Him who I seek to follow. Naw. That would make no sense.
"Jesus + 0 = X"
What the hell does this mean?
I've asked that question three times. I really don't mean to seek an explanation. I doubt you're capable of making your own blatherings any more understandable. Your nonsensical comments are tiring and do little to support your opinion of yourself and the education on which your parents wasted so much money.
For ER,
"Good luck with whatever it is you've miststaken for Christianity in general and faith in Christ specifically."
Someday you'll have to explain where I'm mistaken. Feodor can't do it. I don't see how you can with no reliance on anything more tangible or substantive than some fantasy notion of "Grace". It's funny though, in a pathetic, progressive kinda way, that you won't stick your neck out to preach Biblical teaching to others, but you're so certain that what I do, say and believe is unChristian. Upon what could you possibly base such a position with your lack of regard for Scripture?
"Yeesh. I need a shower. And I encourage you in your desire to leave the UCC."
I'm sure you do need a shower, but that's totally irrelevant. As for the ucc, I dunno. I've been vacilating and think I'm needed to stand against its heresies. Well-meaning people are being led astray.
":-) "Poor Marshall, ranted himself right on the tracks of oncoming scripture... and was flattened like a pancake."
I HATE when that happens."
Ranted? Hmm. Thought I was just talking. But flattened? Not hardly. Scripture lifts me up because I don't play games with it. It strengthens me because I don't seek loopholes to justify my sinful compulsions. It lightens me by showing me truth that you and Feodor ignore for the sake of worldly things. I feel sorry for the both of you.
"I'd bet a dollar that I am the only person here with a pair of bib overalls hangin' in the closet."
I won't take that bet.
My johnny-bibs got holes in them a long time ago. mom2
I was reading about Erik Prince in the Boston Herald and thought about you.
How nice.
Now run along.
I'm waiting for mom2 to come back with her considered reflections on Galatians and the farewell discourse of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
I gave her passages, or part passages, time and some good thought, and I am waiting for her return contribution.
That pre-supposes that she gives a flying rat's ass what you think. At least YOU think well of yourself.
But, Marshall, she promised:
"I have some more scriptures for you to read and if we are not to look to the inspired Word of God, then I will refuse to accept just the words of an intellect."
So I did what she asked.
You don't think she'd lie about something like scripture do you?
Surely not. I have faith she'll be back.
And, boy, you talk a lot for other people. For an honorable, humble Christianistic person, I mean.
"And, boy, you talk a lot for other people. For an honorable, humble Christianistic person, I mean."
Two questions:
How could this possibly be a problem for you? I mean, aside from interfering with your attempts to run your nonsense by another person, and
Is it so hard for you to understand the honor of humbly speaking for a friend in order to spare them the nonsense you're sure to try to run by them?
I'm sorry. I'm assuming "honor" and "humility" aren't foreign concepts to you. My bad.
I'm not running anything by anybody who didn't ask.
She asked.
I'm waiting for her follow up.
(See, I understand what honor, humility, and even patience and politeness mean.)
Another wrong conception on your part Feodor. I only said I was giving you a few scriptures out of many that COULD enlighten you, if you were willing to know the truth. I didn't say I was going to post them. Looks to me like you have plenty of time to look them up, but when you close your eyes every time you see something that does go along with your "theology", it evidently is unprofitable. Surely, you could find some GOOD thing to do with yourself. mom2
meant does NOT go along with your "theology". mom2
mom2,
You were right the first time, but now you seem to be unsure about your call to "look to" scripture.
We did look to the scriptures you provided and I found a wealth of helpful inspiration.
Now are you denying that scripture can inspire?
And after following your lead into some very beautiful and "fruitful" passages that you suggested, you don't seem to be willing to involve yourself with Paul on law in Galatians or Jesus in his farewell discourses in John.
What's up with this selfish exclusivity.
You want to talk about scripture, which you claim is plain and simple, but when we do talk about scripture, you're faced with how we interpret it because it is not that plain and simple.
It just seems so because you were never taught, and Marshall defends, the plain and simple Christian mind that serves an eighth grader (like Milk) but does not serve the adult Christian life (like meat).
You think you have Truth wrapped up in gingham.
You're not familiar with, because you are scared of, Truth who is a vision of glory, living in heaven and active in our lives.
No wonder you piecemeal the Bible. Even it is too big, bold, and generous to face when one is afraid.
And with everything Christ wants to say to us, his first words are always, "Do not be afraid.'
But Marshall helps you cover that up and hide it under leather covers, broken into little pieces, and strained through a misguided labeling of others who are the targets of your fears, anxieties, and anger at the way the world changes on you.
Which drugs give you all those hallucinations? mom2
Oh, referring to Feodor.
It's called faith in the living Christ.
You should try it. Step out a little.
(Oh, and I'm talking to all of us.)
"You were right the first time, but now you seem to be unsure about your call to "look to" scripture."
The section I emboldened shows Feo's penchant for seeing what does not exist.
"...you don't seem to be willing to involve yourself with Paul on law in Galatians or Jesus in his farewell discourses in John."
Speaking for Mom2, which I've little doubt would offend her, I'd say a more likely scenario is that she is unwilling to suffer your lame interpretations. It ain't like she ain't been reading along.
"...you're faced with how we interpret it because it is not that plain and simple."
It's only complicated for those unwilling to change in order to conform to it's teachings. For those of us who place God's Will and Christ's teachings above all else, it's incredibly easy to understand. Your idea of milk vs meat is as skewed as your idea of a living Christ.
"You think you have Truth wrapped up in gingham."
"You're not familiar with, because you are scared of, Truth who is a vision of glory, living in heaven and active in our lives."
You've rejected Truth in favor of wordly desires and created for yourself a false god that justifies your unwillingness to conform to REAL Truth.
"No wonder you piecemeal the Bible."
No one here has done that. It is a given that we expect you to read, study and understand the entire Bible. Because you've demonstrated that you don't understand, because you've studied poorly what little you've read, requires that we break it down for you into smaller, more easily digestable bites. Yet still you choke.
"Even it is too big, bold, and generous to face when one is afraid."
Which is why we break it down for you, to allay your fears of having to truly do the heavy lifting of carrying one's cross, which in your case must be considerable.
"But Marshall helps you cover that up and hide it under leather covers..."
Mom2 is quite capable of understanding God's Truth without my help, as she shows constantly. You purposely ignore and/or distort what lies within those covers pretending that you are abiding some fantasy "living Christ" who speaks only to liberals and homosexuals.
"and strained through a misguided labeling of others who are the targets of your fears, anxieties, and anger at the way the world changes on you."
Any labelling we do is hardly misguided, but instead imposed upon us by those who are self-labeled by their actions. We don't target them, we simply acknowledge where they are going wrong. Any fear or anxiety we feel is for their own souls, and any anger we feel is toward heretics like yourself who would enable those who need more guidance, heretics like you who change with the world rather than holding fast to the eternal and unchanging Truth.
"It's called faith in the living Christ."
A lie if ever there was one. It's called, "changing Christ to conform with the world." Good luck with that. For us, we won't try it, thank you very much. It ain't stepping out, it's stepping in it.
You sing a pretty tune, Marshall, like a mine canary.
Thanks, Feo. It's based on a true story. Try listening and understanding the words. If you can.
LIke a mine canary.
Follow?
Yeah, I get it. Mine canary. First to die from gas. Your gas, though noxious, is hardly fatal except for yourself and those who breath deeply its heresies.
In addition, your use of the term shows your determination to be clever. Good for you. Keep trying and soon, perhaps you'll actually say something clever.
I'll have to stoop so you can get it the first time.
Post a Comment