Are u going to leave USA now?

[catch22]

Sorry I missed these, there's a lot of post activity. Was for no other reason than I didn't see it.

What's "beastly and mundane" about health, happiness and respect?? Isn't that what the church works for on our behalf -- health, happiness and respect?

Ideally, to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and all that goes with that. Yes, there's much work to help the sick and poor and the meek. Doing anything within the church to appease the world, and disregard God, His commandments, and His ways, would not be a good thing.

I think I was clear when I said: I'd rather be counted great in the kingdom and least in the world. You think I'm a bad person for telling people they are in sin, so be it. I've said before to you, you have turned sin into righteousness, which means you've traded truth for a lie. I'm not sure what else I can say to you.

And just where and when do you suppose that kingdom is? Jesus taught us to pray that God's kingdom would come (ostensibly from somewhere and/or some time else, to the here-and-now). And, BTW, I don't think Jesus threw anyone else under the bus for the sake of his own respect -- either in this world or the "next." What gives you the right to throw your homosexual sisters and brothers under the bus for your own respect, in either world?

Revelation from chapter 20 to the end explains the situation with the Kingdom. Wait, how am I throwing anyone under a bus? Explain.

What proves it to be "the word of God?"

Jesus did. John 1:1, for example.

What constitutes "the rest of the bible?" Do you include the Apocrypha, pseudopigrypha, and Thomas? Do you include other gospel fragments that may have been unknown by those who canonized the texts?

Sorry. The canonized Holy Bible, such as the NKJV. Not the Catholic variation(s).

I do read some apocrypha, but I don't consider it the inspired word of God. For example, Enoch is interesting, but very likely not inspired.

Seems like you're assigning an awfully big bottom line of certainty to something no scholar thereof is certain of. And doing so at the expense of a heretofore voiceless minority.

I'm not sure what you mean with this.

 

[dust1n]

No, the god of this age, the god of this world. Not the big G, the little g.

You might take a look through 1 Corinthians 1, though. I'd point you to verses 18-25, specifically, where that may be concerning to you.

Unfortunately, all the world's religions are of this world. And all the God's of those religions are off this world. So there ain't no winning that game. As far as the Bible, yeah, yeah, I know, it's wise, we're not, it says it a bunch.

A better example would be if you're walking down the street and find the corner store being robbed at gunpoint, you'd put yourself between the robber and the store clerk, and offer the robber your money and precious good instead.

It would be great example if I could ever find in instance in which my two daughters, two individual human beings, could be properly compared to my money and precious goods.

Had Lot not selflessly tried to protect the strangers, he likely would have been destroyed as well. Alas, the Lord spared him.

So, then offering your daughters is a requirement. That's probably going to run at odds with what I'm willing to do to defend God.

Noah became drunk and was disrespected by Ham, which brought a curse down upon his lineage as a result. Noah was a sinner, yes. So was David. So are we all. If God didn't work with sinners, none of us would ever have existed, and this party would have ended in the garden.

The difference, then, is repentance.

Lot does no such repenting in the Bible.

More or less: the wages of sin is death. Unless you know that I am He, you will die in your sins. I am the way the truth and the life, no one goes to the Father except by Me. Etc. You know all these verses, or shall I cite them? Lot was saved for reasons described above.

I'm not sure how Lot was suppose to through the forgiveness through Jesus Christ, cause we still got a lot of book and centuries 'til we get to that point.

Disobedience. More than that, was the reason in her heart for turning back in light of destruction.

What reasoning is that? I don't remember any reason being given. Might have to look that up.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry I missed these, there's a lot of post activity. Was for no other reason than I didn't see it.

Thanks for catching that and taking the time to respond. I appreciate it.

Doing anything within the church to appease the world, and disregard God, His commandments, and His ways, would not be a good thing.

I'm just not convinced that there's the huge disconnect between "the world" and "God's kingdom" that you seem to indicate there is. Jesus was in the world. Jesus told us to care for peoples' temporal needs first and foremost. The church is the Body of Christ in the world. I guess I don't see what's the issue of "appeasing the world." Is equal and fair treatment, inclusion, welcome, and respect "disregarding God" in some way I'm not aware of?

I think I was clear when I said: I'd rather be counted great in the kingdom and least in the world.

And I was clear when I said that you appear to be too willing to throw your homosexual sisters and brothers under the bus to attain that "greatness." You pledge your allegiance to laws, rather than to people, which is what Jesus taught against when he said that the sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the sabbath.

you have turned sin into righteousness, which means you've traded truth for a lie.

What "sin" have I traded for "righteousness?" The "sin" of advocating fair and equal treatment of all people? Because you'll never have any proof that the bible (or God) claims homosexuality as "sin."

Revelation from chapter 20 to the end explains the situation with the Kingdom. Wait, how am I throwing anyone under a bus? Explain.

See above. Jesus is still in the world and his kindom is established in the world in and through the church. You appear to throw homosexual people under the bus by judging them as sin in order that you remain "faithful" to what is arguably a misapprehended biblical stance against homosexuality.

Jesus did. John 1:1, for example.

Jesus doesn't speak in John 1:1. John 1:1 claims Jesus as the "Word" -- not the bible. How is the bible "God's word?" By whose authority and by what evidence do you make that claim? The bible does not claim itself to be "God's word." AFAIA, Jesus never claims the bible as "God's word."

Sorry. The canonized Holy Bible, such as the NKJV. Not the Catholic variation(s

Did you know that the RCC version was canonized for about 1000 years before Martin Luther "revised" it, and took out some of what had been canon text? Why, then, don't you accept what's in the RCC version? Do you accept the EO version, or the Ethiopian version?

I do read some apocrypha, but I don't consider it the inspired word of God.

How are you sure that Thomas, for example, isn't inspired? In what way is the Didache not inspired? In what way (again) is any of it the "word of God?"

I'm not sure what you mean with this.

What I mean is that there are several authorized canons of text that differ, and lots of contradictions within the texts, themselves. Additionally, there are differences in interpretation -- some legitimate and defendable, some not so much. For example, there's this whole huge debacle over whether the bible even mentions homosexuality. There's a lot about the bible that's unknown and uncertain -- including the parts that ostensibly deal with homosexuality. Yet you appear to treat it with the certainty that its contents are irrefutable, immutable fact, that is absolutely congruent with your particular interpretation of it. And, in doing, so, condemn a whole segment of humanity to sin.

Consider this: what if your interpretation is found to be wrong, and you've perpetuated the dehumanization of a minority group based upon that mistaken interpretation? Isn't that far more damaging to people than giving these folks the benefit of the doubt, and God's inclusive love the benefit of the doubt, allowing God to sort it out God's Self, in God's way and in God's time? I feel that, before being so damn sure of your own righteousness and your interpretation of the texts, and your understanding of what God desires of us, you'd be better served to hold people, texts, beliefs, and God a bit more gently, especially when dealing with delicate issues that have served to dehumanize and divide for far too long.

 

[sojourner]

It would be great example if I could ever find in instance in which my two daughters, two individual human beings, could be properly compared to my money and precious goods.

In the biblical culture depicted by the story, daughters were a lower priority on the legal scale of "who must be defended" than were guests and strangers. It doesn't equate well to our culture, in which women are equal to men, and our laws concerning strangers and guests not so stringent.

 

[dust1n]

In the biblical culture depicted by the story, daughters were a lower priority on the legal scale of "who must be defended" than were guests and strangers. It doesn't equate well to our culture, in which women are equal to men, and our laws concerning strangers and guests not so stringent.

It doesn't necessarily equate well to our culture, but it also really doesn't equate well to my own moral sensisbilities.

Now, I understand that this sort of thing is common place in human history, so I'd expect any text of the time to not bat an eyelash at that sort of practice. But the ethics of the Bible has to be extracted from a time and place to make much sense of it, and not exactly taken as the perfect, never-refutable word of God. Which, I'm sure which a MDiv, you understand far better than I do.

 

[sojourner]

It doesn't necessarily equate well to our culture, but it also really doesn't equate well to my own moral sensisbilities.

Now, I understand that this sort of thing is common place in human history, so I'd expect any text of the time to not bat an eyelash at that sort of practice. But the ethics of the Bible has to be extracted from a time and place to make much sense of it, and not exactly taken as the perfect, never-refutable word of God. Which, I'm sure which a MDiv, you understand far better than I do.

Oh, I agree with you. But then, I don't think the bible is perfect or irrefutable. Neither did Jesus -- according to what's written of him. Jesus weighed text against practical action all the time. I don't think anyone in their right mind would throw their kids under the wheels of the bus for any reason. But, we understand the differences in culture and glean from the story the lesson in the level of hospitality that the writers thought was expected of faithful people, and make allowances for the cultural differences.

 

[dust1n]

Oh, I agree with you. But then, I don't think the bible is perfect or irrefutable. Neither did Jesus -- according to what's written of him. Jesus weighed text against practical action all the time. I don't think anyone in their right mind would throw their kids under the wheels of the bus for any reason.

I'd certainly hope not. Interesting concept there, though, not to get to off topic or anything, but in regards to Jesus weighing text against practical action, were might I find an example of that, cause nothing is immediately coming to recollection.

But, we understand the differences in culture and glean from the story the lesson in the level of hospitality that the writers thought was expected of faithful people, and make allowances for the cultural differences.

Really? Are you sure it's not God's predilection to smite the overtly horny?! I kid, of course.

 

[pro4life]

Get back with me when you can marry a doughnut, a car, a dog, a bottle, or a child.

car -- check
doughnut --check
dog --check

child --soon

 

[catch22]

I'm just not convinced that there's the huge disconnect between "the world" and "God's kingdom" that you seem to indicate there is. Jesus was in the world. Jesus told us to care for peoples' temporal needs first and foremost. The church is the Body of Christ in the world. I guess I don't see what's the issue of "appeasing the world." Is equal and fair treatment, inclusion, welcome, and respect "disregarding God" in some way I'm not aware of?

This does not surprise me, that you don't understand. But hear some of what Jesus says about this. John 8:23-24:

23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

John 14

14 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”

5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

You do yourself a disservice by not believing these things. It leads your mind, and your heart, astray. Yes, the church is in the world, and we are of the kingdom while in this world. We will be taken out of here. This world will end, and the new heaven and the new earth shall come.

And I was clear when I said that you appear to be too willing to throw your homosexual sisters and brothers under the bus to attain that "greatness." You pledge your allegiance to laws, rather than to people, which is what Jesus taught against when he said that the sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the sabbath.

No, I do not condemn them, and I seek not greatness in such a lofty sense as you've framed it. Yes, I try to my best ability to keep Jesus' words, love one another as I've loved you, and love my neighbor as myself. I get it. To me, it's unloving to perpetuate lies and falsehoods about the nature of God, causing them to stumble into destruction and despair. I cannot control their response, only that at least they can respond. It's the only reason I initialized a stance in this thread; I never foresaw spending so much time going back and forth.

What "sin" have I traded for "righteousness?" The "sin" of advocating fair and equal treatment of all people? Because you'll never have any proof that the bible (or God) claims homosexuality as "sin."

It's there, and we've been over it. You say these things, but there's no reason to believe them; the opposite is the case, even non-believers know it. Changing it's meaning, or trying to obfuscate the issue with coined terms like "identity" does nothing for you but bring judgment down upon yourself by perpetuate falsehoods to others -- which is a grave charge.

See above. Jesus is still in the world and his kindom is established in the world in and through the church. You appear to throw homosexual people under the bus by judging them as sin in order that you remain "faithful" to what is arguably a misapprehended biblical stance against homosexuality.

To judge or to condemn? Have I done these things by simply saying it is sin, and call them to repentance? I cannot forgive sin, nor can I condemn for it. God is capable, I am not capable.

Jesus doesn't speak in John 1:1. John 1:1 claims Jesus as the "Word" -- not the bible. How is the bible "God's word?" By whose authority and by what evidence do you make that claim? The bible does not claim itself to be "God's word." AFAIA, Jesus never claims the bible as "God's word."

What is the Bible? Is it a book of codes and rules to be followed? Or is it the revelation of God to mankind?

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.

So then, who is God? This should be obvious. If I cite to you the words of Jesus, I cite to you the Word of God. If the entirety of the book is about He, then why do you ask "how is the bible God's word?"

Did you know that the RCC version was canonized for about 1000 years before Martin Luther "revised" it, and took out some of what had been canon text? Why, then, don't you accept what's in the RCC version? Do you accept the EO version, or the Ethiopian version?

Which includes Enoch. I've read it. I've perused Macabees and others from the Roman Catholics. Heck, I'm a confirmed Catholic if you want to be technical about it. There's some pretty dedicated guidelines into what is canon and what it isn't, and alas I see your point that how do I know? In that, I place my trust, that God's complete Word would be presented, complete enough, that I might read and know. I do not practice that religion any longer, however, and when one considers all the extra work they add onto the simplicity of God, it's easy to see why (catachisms, the apocryphas, and rituals and rites, unbiblical guidelines for clergy, etc).

What I mean is that there are several authorized canons of text that differ, and lots of contradictions within the texts, themselves. Additionally, there are differences in interpretation -- some legitimate and defendable, some not so much. For example, there's this whole huge debacle over whether the bible even mentions homosexuality. There's a lot about the bible that's unknown and uncertain -- including the parts that ostensibly deal with homosexuality. Yet you appear to treat it with the certainty that its contents are irrefutable, immutable fact, that is absolutely congruent with your particular interpretation of it. And, in doing, so, condemn a whole segment of humanity to sin.

You've created a debacle. The Bible does speak about homosexuality, you just refuse to see it as such by confusing the point with "are sin" versus "in sin" versus identity versus acts. It's regrettable.

Consider this: what if your interpretation is found to be wrong, and you've perpetuated the dehumanization of a minority group based upon that mistaken interpretation? Isn't that far more damaging to people than giving these folks the benefit of the doubt, and God's inclusive love the benefit of the doubt, allowing God to sort it out God's Self, in God's way and in God's time? I feel that, before being so damn sure of your own righteousness and your interpretation of the texts, and your understanding of what God desires of us, you'd be better served to hold people, texts, beliefs, and God a bit more gently, especially when dealing with delicate issues that have served to dehumanize and divide for far too long.

My answer to your consideration is 1 Corinthians 15:

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

So then I ask you to consider the opposite. Suppose you are misrepresenting the bible, and one, just one would read your words and enter destruction.

I dehumanize no one by simply informing them of their sin, according to the Bible. It's not easy to do, honestly, and it's hard to know what I might do in their situation. You have to believe I do honestly have empathy for people in this particular sin, and I'm not sure an easy answer to it. All I got is Jesus, there, and in that, I place all of my hope that good can and will come from these situations.

You can say that is dehumanizing, but I don't see how. Do I dehumanize my friends when I am concerned about their choices? Do I dehumanize myself when I slide and recognize the same thing in myself with my own private struggles? I am sorry you believe it this way, and I can only think the conviction of your own soul or conscience keeps you coming back. The gay fellow from pages ago was done with me after our brief exchange; why do you insist on vilifying me?

 

[sojourner]

God's predilection to smite the overtly horny?!

Some people get off on that sort of thing. Smiting, that is.

 

[sojourner]

in regards to Jesus weighing text against practical action, were might I find an example of that, cause nothing is immediately coming to recollection.

Wherever Jesus says, "It is written _____, but I tell you ______."

 

[dust1n]

Wherever Jesus says, "It is written _____, but I tell you ______."

Oh I gotcha. Some of the Matthew stuff, like you heard eye for eye but I say turn the other cheek, sort of thing?

 

[catch22]

Oh, I agree with you. But then, I don't think the bible is perfect or irrefutable. Neither did Jesus -- according to what's written of him. Jesus weighed text against practical action all the time. I don't think anyone in their right mind would throw their kids under the wheels of the bus for any reason. But, we understand the differences in culture and glean from the story the lesson in the level of hospitality that the writers thought was expected of faithful people, and make allowances for the cultural differences.

This is what I mean. You now have another member thinking this?

Demonstrate your "it is written, but I tell you" faults you claim exist.

 

[sojourner]

This does not surprise me, that you don't understand.

I t doesn't surprise me that you think I don't understand. It's congruent with your previous statements with regard to my level of understanding, which, as I've pointed out unequivocally, is not up for debate.

No, I do not condemn them, and I seek not greatness in such a lofty sense as you've framed it. Yes, I try to my best ability to keep Jesus' words, love one another as I've loved you, and love my neighbor as myself. I get it.

You have posited that these people are sin through your having not "gotten it." Homosexuality is an identity that science believes cannot be changed without psychological damage. That's condemnation.

To me, it's unloving to perpetuate lies and falsehoods about the nature of God, causing them to stumble into destruction and despair.

To you. You. Your perspective -- neither an empirical observation nor a reasonable, Christian stance. Is it a falsehood that God advocates equality, fair treatment, respect, and hospitality?

I cannot control their response, only that at least they can respond.

It's not your job to control them -- or their responses. It's your job to accept them for who they are.

I never foresaw spending so much time going back and forth.

You didn't foresee how important this is to their personhood.

It's there, and we've been over it.

Yes we have. It ain't there.

You say these things, but there's no reason to believe them; the opposite is the case, even non-believers know it.

You're wearing bias-blinders.

Changing it's meaning, or trying to obfuscate the issue with coined terms like "identity" does nothing for you but bring judgment down upon yourself by perpetuate falsehoods to others -- which is a grave charge.

Changing the meaning of ... what? The term "homosexuality" patently Does. Not. Appear. in the bible. The term "identity" isn't "coined." It's what the medical community now understands homosexuality to be. It is what it is. The issue is that the writers of the biblical texts didn't understand it that way. So the Bible. Is. Wrong. on that point.

To judge or to condemn? Have I done these things by simply saying it is sin, and call them to repentance?

Yes.

I cannot forgive sin, nor can I condemn for it. God is capable, I am not capable.

No, but you can refrain from leveling the charge when your position is untenable.

What is the Bible? Is it a book of codes and rules to be followed? Or is it the revelation of God to mankind?

Or is it the collected written Tradition of people who believe in God?

If I cite to you the words of Jesus, I cite to you the Word of God.

How are you certain that these are "words of Jesus?"

If the entirety of the book is about He, then why do you ask "how is the bible God's word?"

Abraham Lincoln has had whole books written about him, but we don't refer to them as "Lincoln's word."

Which includes Enoch. I've read it. I've perused Macabees and others from the Roman Catholics. Heck, I'm a confirmed Catholic if you want to be technical about it. There's some pretty dedicated guidelines into what is canon and what it isn't, and alas I see your point that how do I know? In that, I place my trust, that God's complete Word would be presented, complete enough, that I might read and know. I do not practice that religion any longer, however, and when one considers all the extra work they add onto the simplicity of God, it's easy to see why (catachisms, the apocryphas, and rituals and rites, unbiblical guidelines for clergy, etc).

Soooo... "trust" not "evidence" or "authority." Again, it comes down to what you think and what you believe. And then you foist that belief on everyone else by calling them "sinful." On no authority other than your "belief."

The Bible does speak about homosexuality

No. It doesn't. It vaguely references some same-sex acts, which are Not. The. Same. Thing.

you just refuse to see it as such by confusing the point with "are sin" versus "in sin" versus identity versus acts. It's regrettable.

You just refuse to see it as such by confusing cultural mores and understandings with what we now understand about homosexuality. Which is regrettable.

My answer to your consideration is 1 Corinthians 15:

This is not a cogent response.

So then I ask you to consider the opposite. Suppose you are misrepresenting the bible, and one, just one would read your words and enter destruction.

Nothing I can say is going to change who they are. Far better to love them, include them, welcome them, treat them equally and fairly and err in that direction than in the direction of judgment, exclusion, and dehumanization. If one is confused, I have faith that God will sort all that out with boundless love and infinite compassion for the one so confused. But... I don't believe God is picayune and petty.

I dehumanize no one by simply informing them of their sin, according to the Bible.

You do by informing them of their sin according to your interpretation of the bible. The label of "sin" separates, places a lower value, and excludes from God's love. That's dehumanization.

it's hard to know what I might do in their situation. You have to believe I do honestly have empathy for people in this particular sin, and I'm not sure an easy answer to it. All I got is Jesus, there, and in that, I place all of my hope that good can and will come from these situations.

This is the first really honest thing I've heard you say so far. Thank you. Those who are privileged to be in the majority cannot understand the position of the minority that is dehumanized. That's why it's important not to make value judgments from your position of privilege.

You can say that is dehumanizing, but I don't see how. Do I dehumanize my friends when I am concerned about their choices?

When the perception of their choices come from your position of privilege as opposed to their position of disadvantage, that concern is dehumanizing, because it patronizes them, which places you above them.

Do I dehumanize myself when I slide and recognize the same thing in myself with my own private struggles?

If that recognition leads to poor self-image, yes.

I am sorry you believe it this way

I'm sorry you believe it that way.

I can only think the conviction of your own soul or conscience keeps you coming back.

It does.

The gay fellow from pages ago was done with me after our brief exchange; why do you insist on vilifying me?

My guess is because the "gay fellow" is dog-tired of having to fight every second of every day to defend his personhood. I'm not vilifying you; I'm vilifying your position, for the sole reason that such position is complicit in the systemic violence that has dehumanized the homosexual population for centuries. I think your heart is in the right place; you just can't get over the fact that they are as "righteous" as you believe yourself to be.

 

[sojourner]

Oh I gotcha. Some of the Matthew stuff, like you heard eye for eye but I say turn the other cheek, sort of thing?

Yep.

 

[sojourner]

This is what I mean. You now have another member thinking this?

Demonstrate your "it is written, but I tell you" faults you claim exist.

They'r not "faults." It's called, "Weighing the texts." Jesus did it. So can we. It's what happened when Christians eschewed the Levitican Law for the law of love. Heck, even observant Jews weigh the texts. The bible Is. Not. Absolute.

 

[catch22]

You have posited that these people are sin through your having not "gotten it." Homosexuality is an identity that science believes cannot be changed without psychological damage. That's condemnation.

You care what science tells you. I put more stock in the Lord.

To you. You. Your perspective -- neither an empirical observation nor a reasonable, Christian stance. Is it a falsehood that God advocates equality, fair treatment, respect, and hospitality?

I'm not sure on those points, I have argued.

It's not your job to control them -- or their responses. It's your job to accept them for who they are.

They are sinners who need to repent. Yeah, I got it. I've been there, too. Tolerate, yes, accept? I think it'd be wrong to not point out the sin.

You didn't foresee how important this is to their personhood.

Yes we have. It ain't there.

You're wearing bias-blinders.

Changing the meaning of ... what? The term "homosexuality" patently Does. Not. Appear. in the bible. The term "identity" isn't "coined." It's what the medical community now understands homosexuality to be. It is what it is. The issue is that the writers of the biblical texts didn't understand it that way. So the Bible. Is. Wrong. on that point.

It isn't wrong, the writers didn't have a word for it as we do now. It's a fairly modern concept. They didn't talk about airplanes or cars, either, go figure.

The acts they describe encompass said new term, lifestyle, identity... To the point where how can you have one without the other?

No, but you can refrain from leveling the charge when your position is untenable.

The charge I level isn't mine, per se. It's tenable (to me), because it is biblical. Alas, I am the guy who believes the bible before science, I suppose.

Or is it the collected written Tradition of people who believe in God?

How are you certain that these are "words of Jesus?"

I am certain based on the aforementioned 1 Corinthians 15, verse 17 specifically, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!"

Abraham Lincoln has had whole books written about him, but we don't refer to them as "Lincoln's word."

Irrelevant. Lincoln is not God, nor claimed to be.

Soooo... "trust" not "evidence" or "authority." Again, it comes down to what you think and what you believe. And then you foist that belief on everyone else by calling them "sinful." On no authority other than your "belief."

Perhaps. Faith, I guess.

No. It doesn't. It vaguely references some same-sex acts, which are Not. The. Same. Thing.

We've been over this, and I grow tired of the circular argument. While where you're from there's homosexuals who don't have sex or sex attraction to the same sex (making them homosexuals how, I do not know), in the rest of the world it generally means sex with people of the same sex.

Which the bible addresses. You concede it speaks about same sex acts. You're convinced it means something else. Let it be done already.

You just refuse to see it as such by confusing cultural mores and understandings with what we now understand about homosexuality. Which is regrettable.

Where I'm from sex is sex, I guess. I know a couple homosexuals. They like to have sex with people of their same sex. Which is what the bible forbids. Next.

This is not a cogent response.

It is. It means that if Christ is not risen, not resurrected, then my faith is dead. I have no reason to hope, and no reason to believe. I can go home and figure something else out. But, if He is risen, as all the testimony insists, then everything is true. All of it.

Nothing I can say is going to change who they are. Far better to love them, include them, welcome them, treat them equally and fairly and err in that direction than in the direction of judgment, exclusion, and dehumanization. If one is confused, I have faith that God will sort all that out with boundless love and infinite compassion for the one so confused. But... I don't believe God is picayune and petty.

This is not a bad thing in itself. My fear for you is you allow them to abide in sin since you cannot rationalize the conflict in interests. I often suffer the same thing. It seems unfair. But maybe it isn't. I'm a programmer, thus, a problem solver. If I can't reconcile something, I have OCD about it. In this particular case I just hope in Christ. But I cannot bend, and I cannot change, alter, minimize, or otherwise logically make homosexuality as it exists today a biblical concept. It just isn't. And I am called to speak truth, not lies. Alas, we conflict.

You do by informing them of their sin according to your interpretation of the bible. The label of "sin" separates, places a lower value, and excludes from God's love. That's dehumanization.

Then I dehumanize myself, as I have said since the beginning, I too was a sinner needing of repentance. It would be judgmental to call them a sinner, and proclaim I have no sin myself. Which I did not do.

I just don't fall on the wayside of sinners are victims. That's partially true -- we didn't choose to be born into it, but we chose to take part in it.

This is the first really honest thing I've heard you say so far. Thank you. Those who are privileged to be in the majority cannot understand the position of the minority that is dehumanized. That's why it's important not to make value judgments from your position of privilege.

When the perception of their choices come from your position of privilege as opposed to their position of disadvantage, that concern is dehumanizing, because it patronizes them, which places you above them.

I don't place myself above them. I only tried to appeal, at least in this thread, and demonstrate the hardness of heart to turn from God.

I'm not vilifying you; I'm vilifying your position, for the sole reason that such position is complicit in the systemic violence that has dehumanized the homosexual population for centuries. I think your heart is in the right place; you just can't get over the fact that they are as "righteous" as you believe yourself to be.

For what it's worth, I admire your going to bat on their behalf. I do appreciate it, because it causes me to make sure my position is sound by looking at the texts and the arguments. Alas, my aforementioned fear is still present. I would hope you do not cause others to stumble by perpetuating a position that does not line up with God. We can, at this point, simply agree to disagree on our understanding of the text.

Blessings.

 

[catch22]

They'r not "faults." It's called, "Weighing the texts." Jesus did it. So can we. It's what happened when Christians eschewed the Levitican Law for the law of love. Heck, even observant Jews weigh the texts. The bible Is. Not. Absolute.

Weighing the texts? I've never heard of it. Can't find any examples, either. Can you show me one so we can dissect it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You know, sometimes I tell myself, "DS, maybe you're wrong about organized religion. Just think about it more... give it another chance," and then

You know, sometimes I tell myself, "DS, maybe you're wrong about organized religion. Just think about it more... give it another chance," and then I run into threads like this one. Nope. Still skeptical and anti-religious after reading them. They only serve to cement my position.

They're aren't all bad. My ex, her mom is Catholic and totally supportive of GLBT rights. She was even one of the first, if not the first, people to acknowledge me as female. She even went from voting Republican to Democrat over healthcare, which has a direct impact on her kids and their significant others.
I also know an Episcopalian priest, back when I used to be neo-Pagan, and even knowing I was neo-Pagan he invited me to dinner with his family a few times, and not once brought religion up. Although he did loose some of his church members when he declared his church to welcoming of homosexuals and supportive of GLBT rights. But many of his members stayed.

I'm not sure why. Reading the Bible is probably one of the biggest reasons I'm not a Christian.

Reading the whole thing while I was having a crises of faith pretty much sealed the deal. I was already doubting, and after seeing what was really their, without having a pastor to twist and distort things, I just couldn't go on anymore with it. Since I've never looked back, and I've never considered going back. I didn't even experience the fear of hell that I hear is commonly experienced.

car -- check
doughnut --check
dog --check

child --soon

Why not try coming back when you have something to say that is based in reality?

 

[sojourner]

You care what science tells you. I put more stock in the Lord.

IOW, the earth was created in six days, no matter what science tells you, because that's what the bible says. And the earth is a flat disc, with the sky being a rigid dome upon which are fixed the sun and moon, no matter what science tells you, because that's what the bible says. Correct?

I'm not sure on those points

Interesting.

They are sinners who need to repent.

People can't repent of who they are.

It isn't wrong, the writers didn't have a word for it as we do now. It's a fairly modern concept.

If it's a modern concept, then the bible, as an ancient document, cannot speak adequately enough to that concept for us to form concrete judgments about it. Nor can we rely on the texts to be absolutely "correct" in their assessments.

The acts they describe encompass said new term, lifestyle, identity... To the point where how can you have one without the other?

The identity often encompasses the act to which the bible inadequately speaks. But they are not the same thing. Since the bible does not understand the complexity of the homosexual identity, I just don't see how it can adequately address the acts its writers perceive as "wrong."

It's tenable (to me), because it is biblical. Alas, I am the guy who believes the bible before science, I suppose.

The bible is only tenable where it is congruent with reality. Reality does not mold itself to the bible. Science addresses reality.

I am certain based on the aforementioned 1 Corinthians 15, verse 17 specifically, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!"

What does this have to do with proving what the words of Jesus are?

Irrelevant. Lincoln is not God, nor claimed to be.

Doesn't make any difference. Both are books that claim to be about each subject.
(BTW: The bible never claims itself to be the "word of God.")

Perhaps. Faith, I guess.

What does your faith have to do with other people?

We've been over this, and I grow tired of the circular argument. While where you're from there's homosexuals who don't have sex or sex attraction to the same sex (making them homosexuals how, I do not know), in the rest of the world it generally means sex with people of the same sex.

Which the bible addresses. You concede it speaks about same sex acts. You're convinced it means something else. Let it be done already.

The bible addresses sexual acts it clearly cannot grasp and does not understand. There is a homosexual act, and then there's the homosexual identity. Two different concepts. One does not need to be homosexual in order to commit a homosexual act. That has been proven many times over in our prisons. What the bible is likely addressing is instances of violence -- not love.

Where I'm from sex is sex, I guess. I know a couple homosexuals. They like to have sex with people of their same sex. Which is what the bible forbids. Next.

The bible forbids it because its writers do not grasp the complexity of homosexuality as an identity. Now that we know better, we know that homosexual acts, where they are truly expressions of love and affection, are completely normal for those who identify as homosexual.

It is. It means that if Christ is not risen, not resurrected, then my faith is dead. I have no reason to hope, and no reason to believe. I can go home and figure something else out. But, if He is risen, as all the testimony insists, then everything is true. All of it.

The problem here is that you see the biblical concepts as absolute and concrete fact. But that's not what the texts portray. They are decidedly more mythic, ephemeral and imaginative. "Truth" is not always the same thing as "fact." "Truth" is a fairly fluid concept that relies on perspective more than it does on empirical evidence.

My fear for you is you allow them to abide in sin since you cannot rationalize the conflict in interests.

Your fear is unfounded. Since they don't "abide in sin," and since I really don't perceive any "conflict of interest," your point is moot.

I cannot change, alter, minimize, or otherwise logically make homosexuality as it exists today a biblical concept. It just isn't.

Then how in the world, if it's not a biblical concept, can you say that the bible speaks to it, or that it is a sin?!?!

And I am called to speak truth, not lies.

Either you're confused or you're not expressing your thoughts adequately, because you're not making sense here.

I just don't fall on the wayside of sinners are victims. That's partially true -- we didn't choose to be born into it, but we chose to take part in it.

IOW, God (or some Christians) force some people to not be true to who they are. They must act contrary to who they are, and their full participation in humanity (in the scope of human love relationships) is seriously, seriously curtailed. That's dehumanization. I cannot believe God has any part in that process.

I only tried to appeal, at least in this thread, and demonstrate the hardness of heart to turn from God.

They're not "turning from God" by being true to who God made them to be.

I would hope you do not cause others to stumble by perpetuating a position that does not line up with God.

Being true to oneself is a position that is fully in line with God.

We can, at this point, simply agree to disagree on our understanding of the text.

Only if that position is not complicit in the systemic violence of dehumanization.