A fresh start
The Interesting Conversation post has gotten many replies, and is now quite lengthy to read through. I wanted to move a few posts to a new thread, and see where it takes us. There had been several exchanges between current and ex-oalcers; and I'm happy to say that it didn't seem to end in anyone going away angry...
A current OALCer stated at one point:
"When persecution comes, watch who is being persecuted.God is not angry at His children, He's angry at those who, no matter how much He tries to remind them of their sins, continue to praise and honor other gods. God WILL NOT be merciful to those souls."
and:
" The reason I say that God is not that merciful is because I get the feeling that some people say they worship God, yet are subconsciously worshipping their own deeds. They talk as though they are the nicest, kindest, most thoughtful people and that because of their goodness, God will save them. God wants man to feel like a wretch, to understand the pain and suffering He put His own son through because of man's sin. As I read some of these, it seems as though because Jesus already dies for our sins, man doesn't have to worry about it anymore. Maybe that's how some believe. I don't know."
One ex-oalcer posted:
"Here's the thing about becoming a Christian. You don't really get it until you realize it's not about YOU anymore, it's about HIM. You don't spend all your time on Sunday wallowing around in your guilt and feeling wretched; HE told you he paid it all, and you have to believe Him. That doesn't give you some license to go out and purposely sin. How on earth would that be helping to bring more people to Him? Clearly, that makes no sense, and we must strive to stop sinning. But we will fail, despite all efforts otherwise. This is not to say that repentance and absolution are not important and necessary. It just shouldn't be the entire focus of your service and doctrine.
The OALC service is all about searching for and maintaining your own soul's salvation by seeing your wretchedness and sinfulness, asking forgivenesss, and working harder to avoid sinning again. Obviously, part of a Christian walk must be to try to not sin. But HE has told us over and over, that no matter how hard we try, we will ALWAYS end up failing. Not that we should ever stop trying to live up to His flawless example.
We will never have cried enough and have tried hard enough, to merit salvation. Realizing your wretchedness and bringing you to repentance should NOT be the sole purpose of your church service. Certainly it is an important part. But if you don't walk out of that service with the determination to go spread the Good News about Jesus to those who don't know it yet, you are failing in your Christian duty. Then it's just about you-- worrying about "am I saved?" As long as you believe in Him, He's told you "yes you are-- now go tell more people about me so they can be saved, too!"
Though I know this point of view will probably draw some self righteous OALC rage on myself, I have to say that the OALCers and their services are at the very core, selfish.
I know it sounds totally absurd to say that these people, willing to give up so many earthly pleasures, could be labeled such. But I am referring to their church services and their lives-- all focused on their own salvation, focused on avoiding the world and its temptations. As if huddling together in their protected little world can somehow save them...
If Christ were to be angry, as the OALCer above states, what does it really make sense for the anger to be for? He told us He paid the price for our sins, that not one of us could ever have done it on our own, and to go make more disciples. So will His anger &/or judgment be on those who say "THANK YOU" for my totally undeserved, unearned or merited gift and who go out and try to help spread His Word... or on those who huddle together, not spreading His Word, love, and JOY outside their congregation? (The Parable of the Talents in Matthew addresses this).
My hope and prayer is that it will be on neither, and that we can all learn to love each other and not have this fear of judgment day forever threatened on those that choose to leave the OALC.
Most every conversation between OALCers and EXes always ends with the OALCer trying to say that you left salvation behind you when you left the OALC. Yet they never take the time to read the Bible and find the many places that would help them to see that they are wrong. They stand by what is preached rather than what is written in the Bible.
On judgment day, I believe I know which He'll be going by.
God's peace and Christian love to you ALL."
posted by Left the OALC at 12:33 AM
73 Comments:
That was an amazing response! It agrees much with my spirit. I am an ex FALC member and have seen many of the same problems the OALC has.
Gods Blessings to all...
Any reactions from any OALC members out there? I'm sure some of you have read this
"God wants man to feel like a wretch"
How truly sad & depressing. No wonder you don't see them smile very often. My bible talks about being Joyous, uplifting, thankful, obedient, kind, truthful, doing good works, praising him all day every day, evangelizing by bringing others who don't know him, closer to him. I don't find where it says God wants me to feel like a wretch. It would be hard to bring non-christians closer to God by telling them you only get closer to him by feeling like a wretch because thats what he wants. Everything I read tells me as christians we should be joyful in him. That statement is a contridiction to the bible from what I have read. "Be still & know that I am God" (psalms 46:10}sounds comforting, doesnt say Be wretched & know that I am God. If he wanted us to be wretched he would not have given his son on our behalf. We were wretched then, thats why he sent him. Am I not correct in thinking this?
In his book Churches That Abuse, Dr. Ronald Enroth carefully examines several of these churches throughout the United States. He reveals the cultic methods these groups use and points out several distinguishing marks of abusive churches. At this point I will briefly introduce each of these characteristics
First, abusive churches have a control-oriented style of leadership. Second, the leaders of such churches often use manipulation to gain complete submission from their members. Third, there is a rigid, legalistic lifestyle involving numerous requirements and minute details for daily life. Fourth, these churches tend to change their names often, especially once they are exposed by the media. Fifth, denouncing other churches is common because they see themselves as superior to all other churches. Sixth, these churches have a persecution complex and view themselves as being persecuted by the world, the media, and other Christian churches. Seventh, abusive churches specifically target young adults between eighteen and twenty-five years of age. The eighth and final mark of abusive churches is the great difficulty members have in getting out of or leaving these churches, a process often marked by social, psychological, or emotional pain.
To see the rest of this with explanation go to :http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/abuse-ch.html
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. . . .For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matt. 11:28-30).
: (
May God have mercy on you poor lost souls...praying is the only way now.
Of course not Ex! :D
"anonymous said...
: (
May God have mercy on you poor lost souls...praying is the only way now.
11:04 AM "
Anon above--
I'm curious who you're talking to... those who are convinced they're supposed to feel wretched (but have no biblical basis to back it up); or those who are thankful the Bible instructs us to be joyful
in Him,
I'm talking about those who are lost and don't even know it.
"Anonymous said...
in Him,
I'm talking about those who are lost and don't even know it.
4:03 PM"
You must be talking about yourself.
Yeah, I must be. LOL. :D
"anonymous said...
: (
May God have mercy on you poor lost souls...praying is the only way now.
11:04 AM "
I'm still wondering who you are referring to... which posters here are you calling "poor lost souls"?
Being specific would be helpful. You obviously weren't referring to yourself since you said "you poor lost souls"
Are you referring to those who are convinced they're supposed to feel wretched (OALC); or those who are thankful the Bible instructs us to be joyful?
Why would you put a judgement on other people, calling them "poor lost souls"? Does it give you some sort of person satisfaction?
The first thing I did when leaving the FALC was stop judging.
You do not know the secrets of someone elses mind so dont even attempt to play the role of god.
I'm sorry you have to feel that you are being poked fun of, and that you feel the OALCers have an 'air of satisfaction' at your misfortune. It isn't intended that way, and if you'd only speak up when you feel that way, a lot of this could be settled silently and everyone could walk away happy. Tell them how you feel, nobody can argue with someone else's feelings.
Just remember, that Jesus came here for sinners. How could you need Him if you don't sin? It seems to me that those who 'finally broke away' have no sin anymore. They were all freed when they left and took Jesus into their lives. Poor Jesus. Hasn't He endured enough pain?
"Anonymous said...
Just remember, that Jesus came here for sinners. How could you need Him if you don't sin? It seems to me that those who 'finally broke away' have no sin anymore. They were all freed when they left and took Jesus into their lives. Poor Jesus. Hasn't He endured enough pain?
9:42 AM "
Please explain WHAT it is you are trying to say. Do you really believe lauri is saying that she doesn't sin anymore? That's an interesting interpretation of her post, to say the least.
I think it was a very good description of the turning point in a Christian's life-- when they realize it's not about themselves and their own salvation, it's about Jesus Christ life, and what He did for us ALL.
YES, He came for sinners. That's what the entire Gospel is about. What makes you think she's disputing that? And without Christ, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US would be going to hell. If she's able to sin less because of her faith in Jesus, that's wonderful. But I bet she'll tell you she KNOWS she'll sin again, every day, and would be going to hell if not for Jesus Christ' blood.
Your interpretation that "those who 'finally broke away' have no sin anymore" makes no sense. The freedom is in knowing that He knew we'd never be able to do it without Him, and He loved us so much that He paid it all anyway. We will never be SIN-FREE until we are with Him. Until then, it's our job to try to be like Him (and we will NEVER come close), and share His Gospel with the world. HE already paid the whole price. Unless your tears of repentance on your fellow Christian's shoulder help you go spread the Word, they are in vain.
People who aren't really free in Christ, just don't understand it, and don't understand how others can be free. When you're free, you don't have that underlying fear in you anymore that keeps you constantly worried that "this might be a sin", or this might "make me sin". The bottom line is this JESUS DIED FOR ALL OUR SINS AT THE SAME TIME... PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE. We need to believe that and thus be free. NOT free to do whatever we want, BUT free in Christ. Free to do and seek His will for us.
anon2
Amen, anon2. =)
Luke 24:25 ,26
...O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
They all too well understood His glory, but of His suffering they were totally ignorant. It is imperative that we know, understand and believe all that Jesus was, not only as Savior and Redeemer, but also as Lord of Lords and King of Kings. He is more then just some ghastly figured nailed to a cross on a stick the Pope carries around. He is risen and anxiously awaiting His return, when the day will arrive to finally knock some heads together.
Paul preached in Antioch a dozen years after Christ's ministry that the very reason "they that dwell at Jerusalem and their rulers" sought to have Jesus crucified was because "they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day" (Acts 13:27)! How little have things changed?! They still gather in the so called "house of the Lord" to worship, yet they still know Him not! The truth of who the Jesus of the Scriptures is, is so far removed from what is commonly thought of Him today, it is like they are worshipping a totally different person, a heteros.
they repented not
Right after Jesus' visit from the two disciples of John the Baptist and their question about looking for another, an heteros, He begins to speak very harshly of the cities wherein "most of His mighty works were done," because "they repented not!" He makes the amazing statement that had the ancient cities of Tyre and Sidon experienced what Chorazin and Bethsaida just had by His ministry, they would have "repented long ago." If the ancient city of Sodom, which was destroyed by fire because its sin was very grievous, had seen what Capernaum had just seen, it would "remain until this day." With all the mighty works Jesus had done in these cities of the so-called Holy Land, they "repented not." They had in essence, rejected their Messiah.
Certain of the scribes and Pharisees had asked Him for a sign, as we hear many think they need today. His response was that "an evil...generation seeketh after a sign." He told them that the only sign they would be given was that of the prophet Jonas (Jonah). For as that prophet was in the whales belly three days and three nights "so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40).
Somehow the Church today must use a different math for they have Him in the grave from Good Friday afternoon till early Easter Sunday morning, less then two full days. Perhaps "the thief" (of John 10:10) stole a day while some other men were sleeping?
He then further reproves these proud Judeans by telling them that the men of the Gentile city of Nineveh shall set in judgment of His generation because the Ninevites repented at Jonah's preaching, and a greater then Jonah was there. Also that the Gentile Queen of the south would set in judgment of that generation, because she came from a distant land to hear Solomon, and a greater than Solomon was there. In other words, they neither repented as did the Ninevites nor even wanted to hear, as did the Queen of the South. They had rejected Him as a Prophet (Luke 4:29), they were rejecting Him as a Priest (Matthew 12:1-14) and they are going to reject Him as King (John 19:15).
Notice that it was Jonah's preaching and the hearing of Solomon that enabled both the Ninevites and the Queen of the South to judge that generation. It was not faithful attendance at Church or even good works that made them worthy. It was the hearing and believing of the Word.
I've heard people say that they would more readily believe the things of GOD if Jesus would come back and do some miracle today. I wonder if they really would. If His own countrymen rejected him as He did "many mighty works among them," what is so different today that would cause men to finally believe?
It's obvious that His own family even rejected Him. Yes, most definitely His brethren (John 7:5) and possibly even His own mother rejected Him. After teaching that "a man's foes (echthros, enemies) shall be they of his own household" (Matthew 10:36) Jesus received word that His mother and brethren were outside wanting to speak with Him. His response is astounding;
Matthew 12:48-50
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
At every opportunity He emphasized the importance of hearing and believing the Word, not who your family is or in what Church you congregate.
Luke 11:27-28
And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Rather then affirming that His mother was blessed, He said that these that hear the Word and believe it are blessed. These sayings also suggest that His own family didn't believe Him. In Mark 3:21 it is written that "His kinsmen...went out to lay hold on Him for they said, 'He is beside Himself'."
He was rejected because they were expecting a Messiah totally different than what He turned out to be. He was not living up to their expectations as another King David, someone who would liberate them from the legions of Roman soldiers. They did "err, not knowing the scriptures..."
Israel had not learned what to expect in their redeemer. While men had slept, the enemy had came and sowed tares. When Jesus does return someday I wonder if He will be what men expect this time? Are we, as a collective Body of believers so much more in tune with the Scriptures today then they were then, when "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among" them? How many different interpretations of the Book are there on your street corners? Seems there are more every year, all claiming they are the 1st Church or 1st Assembly or 1st Congregation of this or that. Will we somehow avoid the deep sleep that the Israelites failed to wake up from? Are not the same tares choking the same good seed, in the same field?
Who is Jesus Christ talking about when He declares;
Matthew 7:22,23
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
to formerblogger
Can you state your point in 20 words or less?
formerblogger,
Do you pray that you are not one that works iniquity?
Hi formerblogger.... He is talking to those people who "never knew Him"... those who think that somehow by their works, they are deserving of eternal life...
He has done it ALL... as He said on the cross... "It is finished"
As believers in Him, we will and should do good works. NOT to earn anything, BUT rather BECAUSE we have that hope and assurance in us and we want others to also.
anon
I must say that I truly am enjoying finding these blogs on the net. I am currently attending the Laestadian Lutheran Church, the church that I grew up in, on a semi-regular basis. I am a gay man that has been shown the door as I am "living in sin" and won't repent of it.
I read the response and agree with many of the other people on here, quite humble and amazing. Every entry that gets posted gives me a better understanding of where I have come from, and where I am going.
I am curious to find out if there are any other gay Laestadians or former Laestadians out there that would like to discuss our unique circumstance within the church.
God bless us all!
I think many who converse here, who have found the grace of God inspite of the church, would certainly kindly embrace this gay man knowing that we are all sinners saved by grace. I dont think being gay is worse or better than being a thief or a porn addict or child molester. The question remains though... how do we view sin?
Is sin something we need to repent of or is it something that the love of Jesus tolerates because 'we are who we are'.
If I told you I have a unique situation with the church because I cant resist the temptation to steal from the collection plate am I truly "unique"? Or am I someone who needs to repent, which means TURN AWAY from SELF and follow Christ.
Stealing may seem more harmful than being gay, but to God this is all the same. The ten commandments tell us that if we see someone's car and wish it were ours we are guilty of coveting.
Under the Law, we are all hopelessly fallen sinners, each one of us and we are all "unique" sinners and we are all treated in some fashion or another depending on how the 'church' sees our sin.
The thought remains: are we trying to get the church to stamp approval on our sins or on our souls.
The cross of Christ took care of sin and the resurrection offers a way out of the trap and slavery to sin.
Live in the resurrection!
There are Christans who certainly don't lump gays in with child molesters. Being gay is a genetic situation that a person is born with!!! Just yesterday I read in the paper about a study that shows a difference in the brain between straight and lesbian women. Do some reading about this matter and there is no way a person can accapt any answer other then gay folks are born that way. Acceptence of God's people is the only correct way to live. Get off your pedestal and realize that we don't have the right to judge the way God will look at different behaviors. What I believe is that he will not look kindly on those who judge others.
This isn't about being gay. It's about whether your that thing that's seen as a sort of "F-word" to a liberal Christian. Meaning: a fundamentalist. The liberal Christians forget all about their nice loving and non-judgmental ways when they converse with fundamentalists. You'll see them consistantly judging and condemning those who hold the traditional christian values. Its very ironic actually.
Fundamental doesnt mean you kick the gay guy out of your fellowship. I know gays who dont want to be gay. So, if liberals hold the view that he's "wired" that way without choice then he's not likely to think those words are comforting. I see God as much bigger than that myself, and certainly much more righteous. I doubt he wants the credit for our flaws.
My "view" of sexuality is like my "view" of gravity. It is based on God-given science. Fundamentalist Christians apparently base their "view" of sexuality on centuries-old, culture-bound opinions that included slavery, child-abuse, and other horrors. Don't make a false idol of the Bible. Ask your conscience, ask God: what is sinful about two people loving each other?
So instead of making a false idol of the bible, shall we idolize modern day science?
Even modern day science reaches back to influences that are centuries old (but of a different source than the scriptures) and cannot escape those same reputations...
I find it peculiar that the same lib's who tell us the bible was "written by humans prone to err" can not see that science was written by humans prone to err, and science admits this! It changes with the tide.
The bible has remained remarkably preserved and unchanged, which in my "view" makes it the wiser choice.
I don't mean to sound flip, but science differs from the Bible in a major way: it is not a book but a method (using our God-given capacity for observation, prediction, experimentation, verification, and theory). Of course its theories change with new inputs and understanding. Thank God. Or we would still be blaming SIN for germs and birth defects and hurricanes. (No, wait! Some of us still are! Pat Robertson!) At least we're not burning Galileos, so I guess that's progress. In a hundred years, those who deny the science of sexuality will seem as quaint as the flat-earth society. Meanwhile, generations of children will suffer for that obstinacy. Refuse to be a part of it.
As far as we can reach back there has been this same diversity and the message of the scriptures has had amazing influence thus far in the world. The bible has remained on the best seller list since they've ever kept record. Its hard to imagine that an influence of this proportion would suddenly vanish.
Yet, the Word itself declares that this will happen. Its God's Word that is coming to pass as we see increase in disease and weather catastrophies and in mens knowledge. It's God's Word that tells us that men will begin to laugh and scorn those who think His Word (the bible)is true. Its His Word that tells us that we'll see an increase in people worshiping the created rather than the creator, and so on.(this would include sexuality)
It is also God's Word that says it would be more possible for heaven and earth to pass away than for His Word to pass away.
On this basis only, I agree, I may be of the "flat earth" society some years ahead.
I wonder what year the bible will slip from the best seller's list?
This is a Christian blog and we are discussing whether or not we can beleive the bible and being told to put away the bible and read the more worthy newspaper.
I dont doubt that it will be the "Christians" who remove the bible from mainstream. But I still dont understand the trade-off because everything and every opinion and every source is still human in nature to those who embrace all of this, and all of it has evil in its reputations somewhere. But God will be God, and it is He who spoke of this to come.
Hmm. I'm not sure how my previous post prompted that diatribe, but I suspect that I'm being called a false prophet. Dear fellow sojourner, I think we are talking past each other because we have different ideas about biblical truth, and further conversation is futile. But rest assured, I am not advocating less bible reading, but greater bible literacy. Peace.
Imagine that, Anon, you stumped Free!! :D She had nothing to contribute so she closed the conversation. I do so enjoy reading this blog.
Free-
It’s true, this discussion was racing ahead of itself.
Probably because we both knew where it would end.
It’s that ‘been there done that’ thing.
I’m glad to know you promote the bible even though I suspect we’ll differ drastically on what bible literacy means.
It occurs to me now that the bible need not move from the best
seller’s list for modernism and new age to ‘destroy’ it. We just
need a ‘new and fresh way’ of teaching it.
(This is extremely offensive to a fundamentalist-)
As we suspected, we are quite divided and both the ‘false
prophet’ of sorts to one another. Peace to you, too!
oh- allow me to repeat- that fundamental doesn’t mean
we kick the gays out of our fellowship! But we will probably
read him Romans chapter one, and if he wishes to stay in spite
of that, and not repent, we will gladly keep him. What good
would a false repentance be? The issue is not in being gay,
it’s in seeing our sinful nature in contrast to a holy God.
That’s fundamental. And it gets on a liberal’s last nerve.
Sorry!
No need to apologize. I'm used to these impasses and cross-conversations; they're the price of talking outside one's own group. But I do want to be understood. While in my view, the truth of God never changes, I do not think you nor I, nor any other human in the long and motley history of scripture writers, recorders, translators, interpreters, compilers, and readers has THE handle on it. Whatever we might label ourselves (I'm probably more fundamental than you in some areas), may we pray for wisdom and be open to the Spirit in all our relationships, even this one.
I wonder if 'formerblogger'above is the late Prairie Poet from some of the other threads?
Whoever it is said:
"He is risen and anxiously awaiting His return, when the day will arrive to finally knock some heads together"
What on earth is that about? That's an autrocious statement!
Free,
Forgive me, but I find it an oddity that you say you "do want to be understood" while your standing in the red zone.
Your last post is an oxymoron. (I suppose you realize it was like an undercover attack). It would be very difficult to come here and be 'understood' while your accusing the scripture writers of not having THE handle. One of our primary beliefs is that the authors of the scripture were inspired of God and that the bible IS the Word of God... we just can't understand you because we are too fundamental, not just by choice but with JOY!!!
But, that aside, we can befriend you and enjoy your personality.
To understand you is out of the question. To love you is easy.
LLLreader sez: "Ouch!" I sure didn't think Freeda was planning an undercover attack with her post. I tend to think when a person says that we should all pray for wisdom--even when we have differing views--that shows an understanding, that as humans we will look with different eyes at matters of the spirit. Christ knows that. If God wanted, we would be like gingerbread men--all in the same mold. When we are given the opportunity to hear another's take on what various Bible passages mean, then that opportunity shouldn't be missed. As a liberal I respect EVERY persons right to their own beliefs, I haven't walked in their shoes. I guess it does get "on my last nerve" when someone else tells me what God REALLY meant. I got too much of that at the OALC. One more thing, how is it possible to "love" someone if you don't respect, understand, or approve of them? God's Peace to everyone
Nope. No attacks, cover or undercover, were intended. I looked up the definition of red zone, apparently a football term. Perhaps that is a clue to the communication problem. I am not trying to kick a pigskin over anyone's goal posts, tackle anyone, or win a game.
For me, these conversations are not competitions, but a way of getting to know myself and others better, and even (sorry if this sounds New Agey), of spreading the Love around.
When people get nasty, I always wonder what insecurity they are masking (even to themselves). At least that's what makes me get nasty. Fear.
Aren't we all doing the best we can with what we have? I hope so.
Perhaps it is only when we internalize God's love (unconditional love, not based on "right thinking"), that we can go beyond dualities (us/them and right/wrong), to feel and share the the great good news of the Gospel. Love.
Thanks for the love.
Thank you, Free that you say you never meant an "attack".
Nor did I.
In the same way that you feel about "spreading love", I feel just as strongly, maybe more, about spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ as our One and only source of forgiveness of sins and the one and only door to heaven.
That may sound exclusive to a liberal, and I'm sorry that the OALC (and many other Christian churches)have tarnished the meaning of that so much. But to me, in my heart, it does not sound exclusive at all. I dont know how John 3:16 can be exclusive. In my opinion you can't get more inclusive than God loving the whole world that he offered his Son that whoever would believe in Him would not perish but have everlasting life. Yes, there's a stipulation, but this is GOD talking after all! He writes the rules and He's not a racist prejudiced pig, He's a loving wonderful God that offered a way out of sin through our faith in the righteousness and works of Jesus Christ! That's good news!
You may say, what about those who dont believe? Or who haven't heard of Jesus? Is it fair?
My answer is that God has declared that He will judge the world with mercy and I see Him as fair. I won't say what some Fundamental's say here, when they say God can do what He wants. I feel that I have come to know the heart of God as a God of MERCY. Not one who enjoys showing His badness but His goodness. I believe Him when He says that He loves the world. I believe Him when He says He will not judge until every last corner of this world has been evangelized. I believe Him when He says He has instilled in each person a knowledge of Himself and that the heaven's declare the glory of God and the earth shows forth his Handiwork. I believe God!
I don't see any fruit in minimizing Him and minimizing sin on account of our small human thinking. I just think He's got it figured out and humanly we can't see the forest for the trees, but spiritually we begin to get a glimpse of the fabulous grace and mercy of God the Father revealed in our wonderful Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Whew.. that was long
free2bme said...
I don't mean to sound flip, but science differs from the Bible in a major way: it is not a book but a method (using our God-given capacity for observation, prediction, experimentation, verification, and theory). Of course its theories change with new inputs and understanding.
5/14/2006 3:16 AM
The point is; does your god speak through science or the Bible.
The God who speaks through the Bible doesn't contradict Himself. God in the Bible says "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:" So He cannot be the one speaking through science saying that homosexuals were born that way. God would not call His own design an abomination.(By the way, do any of those studies that claim homosexuals were born that way actually prove that their brains were different FROM BIRTH? Or were they all done on adults who either claimed to be or not be homosexual?)
Hey, we agree on something! The Creator would not call His own design an abomination. Or tell it to kill babies, hate its mother, enslave people, etc. That's why, while God does speak through scripture, we should question exactly when and where, and use our God-given capacity for reason in doing so. I won't cite negative examples here (just google "bible contradictions" for loads of them).
God speaks through science AND scriptures.
Now a question for you. If it is proven that homosexuality is as biologically determined in humans as it is in other species, would that have any effect on your ideas?
"I used to believe the Bible was the ultimate source of authority. In so doing, I elevated Scripture to a status equal with God. It eventually occurred to me that my ultimate allegiance belonged, not to the Bible, but to the One of whom it testified. When I lifted up the Bible as my ultimate authority, I made my leather-bound, gold-engraved Bible into a paper calf. . . . We are not to worship the Bible; we are to worship the One the Bible reveals." (from "If Grace is True" by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland)
Free,
Your statement "use our God given capacity for reason" in determining when and which areas God is actually "speaking" through scriptures reveals the source of where you and others in your "group" get your information.
I see a much better solution in the way scripture speaks of itself:
Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of _wisdom_ and revelation in the knowledge of him:
The wisdom of God works in such a way that it does not need proof,
It is a God given faith that does not ask for- or need- a sign. (science)
After all, Faith with a 'sign' is not faith at all.
It becomes something else entirely.
Again, a point of agreement: faith and reason are different. But faith in God is different than faith in inerrant scripture.
It is not surprising that many Christians are still afraid of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" by applying reason to Scripture, drawing on the same fear as the Inquisitors who required Galileo to repent of his reason-derived discovery that the earth moved around the sun, not vice versa.
("Eppur, il muove!" he is reported to have whispered after recanting. "Still, it moves.")
This is the 21st century, and modern Galileos are telling us other reasonable things about nature. How are we responding?
If we followed the Bible, we would put all homosexuals to death (Lev. 20).
Peace.
Actually, thats not true, since Lev. 20 sits in the Old Testament and Jesus has fulfilled the Law. We are under the New Covenant now, and the wrath that God expressed toward sin has been delivered against His own Son on the cross.
So the homosexual need not be put to death, for Jesus was put to death for him, and for all the other broken commandments of God.
Galileo couldn't do that for anyone, and many of Galileo's theory's were flat out false and even far fetched, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there were those who didn't trust him.
Scripture really has no trouble holding up to the great 'Galileo's' who try to figure it out through reason. It's divinely disigned to upset reason and the Truth of it all is hidden from the wise and the prudent.
Free said:
"That's why, while God does speak through scripture, we should question exactly when and where, and use our God-given capacity for reason in doing so. I won't cite negative examples here (just google "bible contradictions" for loads of them)".
Free- may I propose the same question you ended the above post with (not pasted here) in reference to bible 'contradictions'--
If I could prove to you by the power of the Spirit and Wisdom of God that they are not contradictions would that have any effect on YOUR ideas?
Yes!
I hope I am not perversely wedded to my own ideas and my own limited experience. I pray that I will be open to Wisdom.
But as long as we looking at the Scripture and our "a priori's" are mutually contradictory, how can we go further? You believe it is all God's word because it says so. (Most holy books make the same claim.) I can't believe that. I've tried your point of view and could not hold it with any integrity.
That's why I left the OALC. I think/feel/intuit that I am meant to live with integrity.
So we don't agree. No a big deal. The greatest commandment, after all, is not BELIEVE, but LOVE.
So, is your experience in exploring the Fundamental Christian perspective limited to the teachings of the OALC? Or have you also read/fellowshiped with other bible teachers outside of that? (if you dont mind my asking)
No, not limited to the OALC. My first real intro to the Bible was by a sweet, handsome if somewhat intellectually-challenged neighbor who followed Kenneth Copeland and invested considerable time, talent and money in a Bible theme park. He strongly believed that God wanted him to be (a) a millionaire, and (b) my groom. (Neither happened. Not sure about the theme park.)
In college, I was an avid reader of the theologian Francis Schaeffer (who Tim LaHaye counts as an influence). I marched against abortion rights. I attended non-denom churches, Christian concerts, and bible classes. I prayed and partied with fundie friends and loved their warm hearts and sincerity.
But I yearned for the integrity that comes with finally admitting "I don't know what I don't know." I yearned for the peace that comes from the direct, unmediated experience of God's love. How can I describe the joy of this discovery? It was like arriving at a home I didn't know existed.
Can I assume that needing to admit "I dont know what I dont know" is a need for contentment and inner peace?
I can understand the need to experience God's love, and happily I have found it by the mediator Jesus Christ and what I have found in Him is unexpressible. Even, as you say, a place I never knew existed. Even when I was with my
"fundie" friends and church, etc.
I find there is a lot of "fake it till you make it folks" out there.
Perhaps when you say you had the need to experience the unmediated love of God you are not including Jesus in that statement... I dont know...
But I know at present, where each of us sit, within our 'groups' there is plenty of controversy.
(not limited to John Shelby Spong in yours and the Pat Robertson types and Kenneth Copeland's of the Word Faith movement within mine, for instance)
The reason I touch on this is because I believe you can have an "experience" with Fundamentalism that never truly experiences the Spirit of God.
I meet people consistantly that are hard core Fundamentalist's who march as you did for the "rights" they believe in, and who are political activists and intellectually outstanding, and yet they do not have the inner peace. They have external experiences, but not internal.
Internal seems to be only as far as their opinion, and never reaches the heart of the matter.
Yet, they would be offended if I told them that they clearly have not found peace with God, because they have a twisted view of peace.
I dont doubt the liberals have people of this nature also, who for the life of them can not get rid of the gnawing questions that stir deep within, so to quench them they become activists for their opinions to keep them alive.
Godliness with contentment is great gain.
Where'd the anonymous poster of 5/22/2006 2:15 AM go?
(Free, just to keep this less confusing, there was another person interjecting there)
Any more thoughts Anon?
Hi, I'm the anonymous poster of 5/22/2006 2:15 AM to minimize confusion I'll call myself Joy Nobody addressed my question...(By the way, do any of those studies that claim homosexuals were born that way actually prove that their brains were different FROM BIRTH? Or were they all done on adults who either claimed to be or not be homosexual?)
I agree with anon at 5/22/2006 11:36 PM
I don't know. Perhaps with the new brain-imaging capabilities, some longitudinal studies will be done.
But currently, the majority of scientists agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. And that in most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.
It may be influenced by DNA, by the environment in utero (the bath of hormones), by birth order (e.g., gay males are likely to have older brothers), and early social experiences. A genetic propensity may be triggered by an environmental input.
But regardless of the PERSON, the question for Christians is: is a homosexual RELATIONSHIP counter to the "greatest commandment" (on which all else hangs)? I think we are all called to have relationships that are loving, respectful, eqalitarian, generous, life-affirming, and committed.
How can we encourage such relationships? By demeaning, marginalizing and criminalizing them?
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin."
I second that.
Also, Not all that calls itself "love" is love.
Any relationships that do not fit within the original design of the creator are not, in essence, loving, respectful, generous, life-affirming, or committed. Certain elements belong in certain types of relationships; those same elements brought into another type of relationship where they don't belong are damaging.
(equalitarian is not really a quality that I see as essential to relationships. There must be a mutual give and take, but each person has their own role which is not necessarily equal to that of the other. Obvious female qualities make females more suited to certain roles and vice versa. I've seen people try to reverse it and its looks like a mess to me.)
1. All of the Commandments are fulfilled by loving God and loving others. We are never to judge others. (Matthew 7:1; Romans 2:1) Read Romans 1 in detail and then Romans 2:1.
2. The "clobber passages" in Leviticus and Deuteronomy concern the "Holiness Codes" that have been fulfilled in Jesus. "Toevah" means "abomination" or "detestable" as related to idolatry and cult prostitution that were engaged in by the Canaanites.
3. The Bible also contains prohibitions against eating shell fish; there are also the cultural practices of stoning to death those who commit adultery, stoning to death those who work on the Sabbath, stoning to death recalcitrant children, women not being allowed to talk in the Church, women not being allowed to teach men, women always keeping their heads covered in church, not wearing mixed fibers in one's clothes, etc. Why not picket Safeway for selling shell fish and picket K Mart for selling shirts made of cotton and polyester?
4. The "sin of Sodom" (Genesis 19) has nothing to do with homosexuality. It deals with gang rape. Whenever Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in the Bible, homosexuality is never mentioned as its sin. Its sins are primarily inhospitality and not taking care of the poor.
5. In a tribal society, living on the edge, surrounded by enemies, homosexual activity is condemned because in this way people can't "be fruitful and multiply." However, we are no longer a tribal society living on the edge; it's inappropriate to blindly translate the cultural practices of ancient societies to contemporary society as witness as a widow having to marry her husband's brother. If she loved that man, that's wonderful. But if she didn't love that man, she still had to marry him and one can't legitimately argue that God is in favor of serial rape!
6. If homosexuality was so important, why is it not mentioned in the Ten Commandments; why did the prophets never write about it; why didn't Jesus ever condemn it? If it were that important, don't you think that it would have been mentioned in at least one of these contexts?
7. Why was the centurion so concerned about this particular slave as recorded in Matthew 8? After all, slaves were a dime a dozen. As it says in Luke, this is a slave who was "dear to him." (Luke 7:2) Why is the Greek word "pais" translated as "servant" in English, when this Greek word is best translated "slave boy?" "Doulos" is the Greek word for slave! A slave boy was frequently one who had a romantic-sexual relationship with an older man; that may well be why the centurion was so concerned about this particular slave boy and asked Jesus to heal him. If such a relationship was a sin or in any way inappropriate, wouldn't Jesus have taken this opportunity to condemn or censure the centurion for having such a relationship? Instead, Jesus merely commended the centurion on his faith and promptly proceeded to heal the man's slave boy.
8. Same-sex love is certainly affirmed in reading of the relationship between King David (called "a man after God's own heart") and Jonathan. See 1 Samuel 16:12;20:1-23;35-42;20:41;28:32-34;20:12-17;42; 2 Samuel 1:26. If one reads the account of Deborah, a Judge and esteemed warrior in Israel, one comes away with a feeling that she may well have been transgendered, as she certainly didn't live up to the cultural expectations of how a "woman" is to behave. (See Judges 4:1-24)
9. Particularly in the New Testament, same-sex love is never condemned! What is undoubtedly condemned is male cult prostitution, as seen in the fact that in Corinth, where the Book of Romans was undoubtedly written, there were many religions, one of them being the fertility cult of Aphrodite. Here, sex was frequently a worshipful act in homage to various pagan deities for purposes of fertility, having the crops grow, etc.
10. The word "homosexual" never appears in any biblical manuscript, as it was a word coined in the late 19th Century and first appeared in an English Bible translation, the Revised Standard Version, in 1946. The Greek word used for "homosexual," arsenokoitai, is an obscure word that doesn't seem to appear in any other ancient writings, and may very well have been only used by the Apostle Paul. Its literal meaning is "male bed." No one knows what Paul was referring to but, if he wanted to denote same-sex love, there were other words available to him that he could have easily used.
11. The word translated "effeminate" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is malakoi. It means "soft." It's used elsewhere in Scripture to denote soft clothing. (Matthew 11:8) In this context it probably refers to people of soft morals, or people who lack courage. In any case, to translate it as "effeminate" in a pejorative way would contradict Paul's assertion of the equality of men and women in Christ. (Galatians 3:28)
12. Regarding the word "para physin" that is usually translated "against nature," this phrase is also used in regard to God's welcoming the gentiles into the fold. (Romans 11:21-24) The phrase is probably best translated, "unexpected," or something not done in the usual way.
13. Biblical principle must always trump biblical practice! The biblical principle is the Gospel, the Good News, of God's grace (unmerited favor) to us that we appropriate through our faith in Him. (Romans 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-9) As Peter J. Gomes writes in his excellent book that I strongly urge you to read, The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart, when we read any passage of the Bible we must try to discern what it says, what it means, the subtext, the context, what we bring to the text, and what we take out of the text. Much of the mind-set and many of the words that appear in Scripture don't mean what we think they mean from our perspective.
14. As Christians we are to show forth the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and live out the Gospel of grace, faith, love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness. We are in no way to align ourselves with wolves in sheep's clothing who stigmatize and oppress gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people for their own psychological, political, social, and financial gains, particularly when they have absolutely no Scriptural authority to do so.
"Not all that calls itself "love" is love."
So true. Do all wives love their husbands? And vice versa? If love is not exploitative (for example, between an adult and a minor, a boss and an employee, or teacher and student), we should tread lightly. How could one judge another's love?
"Any relationships that do not fit within the original design of the creator are not, in essence, loving, respectful, generous, life-affirming, or committed."
The design of nature clearly included homosexuality, both in the animal and human kingdoms.
"Certain elements belong in certain types of relationships; those same elements brought into another type of relationship where they don't belong are damaging."
Agreed. I think it is terrible when men bring commerce into their marriages, for example, and "pay" their wives for certain things, with money or other stuff. How degrading!
"Equalitarian is not really a quality that I see as essential to relationships . . . "
Whoa! Egalitarian is not sameness. It means sharing fairly the duties and responsibilities and benefits of a relationship. Each of us brings our own gifts, whether by virtue of gender or personality or experience or what-have-you. But being treated as an equal is, I would argue, essential to a healthy relationship. It means it is not exploitative.
Lev 18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Hmmm.
The way I read the bible tells me this;
It is not a sin to BE a homosexual, but the ACT of homosexuality is a sin. The bible refers to the act as an abomination but continues to tell us to love one another & not to judge. Our best bet as christians is to love each other. No one is here forever & will be judged according to their hearts eventually anyway. I don't think it's our job to do so here on earth. Matter of fact we are told NOT to. We are told to live according to God's word & be examples for others like "shinning stars in the universe" (Phillipians) how can you be a positive good example to those you shun? I think the way to win the war, so to speak, is to be a big part of the life & support system for those struggling with their orientation. To me, it is more the "fad of the day" seems like the popular thing to do to rebel. At one time it was smoking, then draft dodging or protesting Nam, then body piercing......now here we are. Love your gay brothers & sisters or neighbors just as you love yourselves. Thats where our actions or opinions on it should end.
I agree Anon. Exactly why I said Love the sinner, hate the sin.
I must say I am completely appalled at the suggestion in the (5/31/2006 2:31 AM) post that the Centurian was having a child/adult sexual relationship with his servant. In fact, it seems the poster is more interested in making the "servant" into a "sex slave". How degrading!
This new "bible literacy" promotion immediately ruins itself when stooping to this level. Even more disgusting is the attempt to soften such a thing by calling a slave-boy/master relationship ROMANTIC! Have you gone mad? Where's the romance in perversion? Why tone down sexual abuse? (if the Greek suggests slave boy then we are to think of a preteen!)
And to think Jesus approved such a thing because he blessed the Centurian with an answer to his prayer?!
This is what's wrong with human reasoning... it's all surmising and winds up in the gutter, giving Jesus an awful reputation as though He'd step away from equality and humanity and promote child/adult sex by blessing the request of the Centurion.
It is JESUS' BLESSING that proves the Centurian did not buy the child to have sex with him!!!
I do believe this is the most reckless attempt I’ve ever seen to rescue the ‘rights’ of homosexuality. In my opinion, such a suggestion immediately dismisses the entire post, and I'm left wondering if Dan Brown here.
Is there such a desperation to find support for homosexuality that the thought never enters the mind that the Centurian might actually be a decent person who treats his servants with respect?
Just to be very clear here, Anon, is your statement;
"It is not a sin to BE a homosexual, but the ACT of homosexuality is a sin."
synonymous with the statement; It is not a sin to BE a thief, but the ACT of theft is a sin.
Or should we put it this way?
It is not a sin to BE a sinner, but the ACT of sin is a sin.
(no criticism intended, simply thinking 'aloud')
Jesus came to save sinners not the righteous. So why are we so afraid to call sinners, "sinners"?
Sinners have a variety of behaviors that are selfish, unloving, self-destructive, etc. Jesus sets us free not to continue in those behaviors; but sets us free from the desires for those behaviors.
Anon 6/1/06 2;56 am, I agree.
What a stretch of imagination. Most Christians have such love and compassion on their fellow man that they would plead for the life of anyone close to them, even those they may not have a special fondness for. Someone who was a follower of Jesus wouldn't think of other people (slaves included) as 'a dime a dozen'(Many servants, throughout the ages, became like part of the family they served)
To: anonymous 5/31/2006 2:31 AM :
As someone who has experienced such abuse, I must say HOW DARE YOU CALL SUCH A THING ROMANTIC? Slaves were at that time considered propery and could be put to death for not doing whatever their master demanded of them. ...more on that post later.
The following response is an alternative way to view the post from 5/31/06 2:31 am...
1. the bible teaches us to judge. It tells us to judge others the way we judge ourselves, which is through Christ Jesus if you are a Christian. Apostle Paul emphasizes that the church should be able to judge, and "do you not know you will judge angels?"There is much more to this...
When King David said he'd rather be judged by God than by man he was very likely referring to the judgement we have in Jesus Christ. In this judgement we have a standard that changes not and a 'courtroom' that does not "go with the flow" or change its 'constitution'.
2 and 3. Jesus fulfilled the holiness codes AND the diet codes and the ENTIRE LAW. So number 3 is pointless. The New Testament teaches us that all things are pure if rec'd in thankfulness. And Apostle Paul seeks a perspective on the rules of women in churches by saying "we have no such custom" and Jesus had women help him in his ministry, so did Apostle Paul, we can only be left assuming that any oppression toward women was merely the teachings of men and not of God. Deborah the judge need not be "transgendered" to be annointed. In many ways she makes a great allegory of the Church of Jesus Christ which is referred to in the feminine form as a bride.... Strong and courageous and ABLE TO JUDGE!!!
4. Jesus told the Pharisees that inspite of the sins of Sodom they would have repented if they had the opportunity the Jews of Jesus day had. SODOMY is commonly known as a homosexual term.
5. There are still cultures in existance that have laws for women this way, and they are against homosexuality because they view it as indecent and immoral, certainly not only because the children would stop coming!
6. Homosexuality IS mentioned in the LAW. The ten commandments are just the simple version. There were hundreds of ammendments that Moses had to write down. Hence the five books of the LAW.
Jesus did condemn it and the prophets DID write about it. It's called disobedience! Do we really need it spelled out more clearly?
7 and 8 --- excuse me, I am sure my stomach is regurgitating. If my husband has a dear male friend (burp)I cant even go here. My husband, I assure you is not gay, but he LOVES his friends!
Isnt that what you liberals preach, LOVE ONE ANOTHER. That does not mean orgie!! (help...BATHROOM!)
9. Same sex relationships are dealt with by Paul in Romans 1 and elsewhere through words like "following Christ" "dying to self" "mortify the deeds of the flesh" etc... (endlessly)
10. I know what Paul was referring to. Exactly. Its very clear.
11. Paul is FOR man, not against man by urging men to be the way God has designed them to be.
12. Welcoming Gentiles into the fold has nothing to do with sex.
13. NEVER READ THE BIBLE WITH THE MIND. Read it with the help of the Holy Spirit and pray for revelation. That's the way the book itself teaches us to read it. Otherwise you'll end up with one big sex party and perverted Centurians and the need to assume friendship between men is sexual.
13 -b. "Much of the mind-set and many of the words that appear in Scripture don't mean what we think they mean from our perspective". --------- Exactly, teacher!
14. Living out the Gospel calls us to be SET APART and a people foreign to the ways of the world, not thinking like the world, or following the corruption of our natural thought process, but rather seeking to be enlightened by a higher power, not to minimize sin, but to recognize sin and the answer to it.
We HAVE been given authority, by none other than JESUS CHRIST to judge matters, discern good from evil, LOVE sinners but HATE sin, and defend the gospel and earnestly contend for the Faith, not sexual rights.
We who belong to Jesus have heaven's authority to use the Word he left to us to judge what is right and good and what is from the deceiver. When someone doesnt recognize this authority it's a sure sign not to follow them.
James 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, he that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
James 4:11-13 (KJV)
(11)Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
(12)There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
Matthew 7(1)Judge not, that ye be not judged.(2)For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
The bible gives us authority to judge MATTERS, however, the NT explicitly tells us we should not judge OTHERS. If the bible speaks of things that are not acceptable to Christ, then those matters have already been judged by him & I am quite sure he doesnt need our help with that. He also assures us that such matters will be dealt with BY HIM on judgement day & we are not to judge before then. Romans 12 (19)Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,saith the Lord."
THE LAW was fulfilled through the blood of Jesus Christ. Under the New Covenant we are to love one another, be kind & understanding & lead others to him. HE is the judge. The ONLY judge of man.
Speaking on homosexuality, Romans 1:32 ends with 3"And knowing the judgment of God..."
1 Corin. 5:13But those who are outside (the church), God judgeth.
That being said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"
"The wise man judgeth all things"
"Ye shall know them by their fruits."
"For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged."
A redeemed sinner does not judge with the same judgement as a 'perfect' person. For he(she) knows always "but for grace of God there go I". And knows that we shall be judged the way we judge others. However that does not change sin from being sin. It does not mean we shun the sinner, but that we are merciful, loving, longsuffering, gentle and good to him.
I will clarify this, that homosexuality is a MATTER. It is a sin according to scripture.
No one here has been in the mindset to HATE the homosexual. That has not been the jest of this discussion.
And to judge does not mean "put in hell". It means to know the difference between obedience and disobedience and the will of God and the will of the flesh.
Galatians 6:1
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
This is not about casting stones at sinners, or burning them. We ought to be able to do the above verse using grace and love AND to judge matters.
Life in Christ is found by dying to self and allowing the Word of God to be TRUE and all men to be liars. Let God be true and every man a liar!
There is a reason for both GRACE and TRUTH. They ought to be in balance. The way I see it, we should all be defending Christ and Truth, and not the lust of man, or the lust of the flesh. When we surrender to Christ we give up our rights for His and we are better off and our lives are fuller.
Joy-
I just posted under yours here and I completely appreciate your input.
I see this as you do, even if I have trouble articulating it!
I am of the conviction that our lives are traded for the life of Christ and that we lose ourselves to Him. Let my name be lost in His!
Free,
'How could one judge another's love?'
"Ye shall know them by their fruits." Sometimes it's obvious. I'm not saying we can always know though.
Lust is often mistaken for love. Even (or especially) by those who are are experiencing it. I think it's necessary to know the difference to have healthy relationships.
'The design of nature clearly included homosexuality, both in the animal and human kingdoms.'
I disagree. I have not seen any studies that definitely prove that. For one thing the anatomy doesn't match up very well. Also, whatever "proof" (of anything)science comes up with from nature. needs to be considered with the fact that nature itself is no longer as God created it. Remember the earth was cursed. We have no way of knowing how much is different from the way it was created to be.
By the definition of egalitarian which you gave, I would agree that it is necessary in relationships. However, we must always keep in mind that life itself is not fair and thus relationships will not always be either.
anon 7:14 & 7:19
Same here, You said some of the very things I thoughth about adding to my post.
So much passion on this topic. That's good. One day our great-grandchildren will study this era in their history books. They'll ask their teachers why Matthew Shepard was murdered. They'll review the long arc of civil rights in this country, stare at photos of blacks in chains and nooses, at child laborers in sooty factories, at suffragettes marching in sashes. They'll ask us how we, who lived WAY back at the turn of the century, felt about gays, and did we know any, and how did they feel in that charged and changing time? We'll tell them about friends, our doctor, our babysitter, our church organist. Our son or daughter or cousin. We'll hold them close and bless them with love.
Like the anti-abolitionists, the gay-fearers are mortal, and the generation that replaces them will (as polls already indicate) consider the issue of one's sexuality as irrelevant to one's character as skin color.
God speed that day.
(Joy, homosexuality has been documented in over 450 animal species. You can find studies with an online search.)
I'm hysterically laughing.
Some scientists are sure desperate!- AND gutter brained.
It'll never cease to amaze me what some people write and how others believe the imaginations of men.
Animals would HAVE to have reasoning to be homosexual.
Talk about looking at everything through the eyes of sex and lust!!!
yeah, agreed. The whole animals and insects are homosexual is such a weak argument, i'd be embarrassed to post it. God didnt create us with next to pure instinct, he gave us will, and an intelligent mind (for the most part). I still cant get over why the fact that God didnt create a man and a woman for adam isnt enough proof that it is MAN+WOMAN.
check out alc-discussion.blogspot.com Hope it is beneficial to you all.
<< Home