An Elegiac Rant
I weep for the body of Christ.
Via Pam at pandagon, I read the North Carolina Southern Baptist convention has agreed by 2/3 vote to deny membership to any church that admits “practicing gays†to membership.
On Tuesday, the state Baptist convention approved the so-called Sanderson motion, expelling churches that welcome practicing gays as members. The motion passed by more than two-thirds of delegates, known as messengers, and will allow the convention to investigate churches suspected of countenancing active gays.
I weep for the body of Christ – torn apart by bigotry. I mourn that the body of Christ is so full of members who cannot see the full humanity of other persons. I grieve that the body of Christ is full of people who are ready and anxious to exclude other people. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus, the Man of Nazareth, tells us “Congratulations! Those who mourn will be comforted!â€
To the pastor from North Carolina who brought the motion to exclude gays from your churches, I have this message: We aren’t the problem. You are. The body of Christ has always included and already includes God’s gay and lesbian children. You can exclude us from membership in your congregations populated by bigots, but you cannot exile us from God’s family or from the body of Christ. You don’t have that power. You never had that power. You will never have that power. You’re narrowness of vision is the same as the ancient scribe who challenged Jesus by asking “Who is my neighbor?â€
To my queer brothers and sisters, wherever two or more are gathered in the name of Christ, the Divine is present and real among use. You belong to the body of Christ – fully, holy, and wholly yourself, as you are and as you were made in the image of the Divine when you knit in your mother’s womb. The body of Christ is the collected number of all believers, all the faithful, all the people of the world claim Christ as their language of spirituality and their gateway to the Divine. No earthly authority can deny you the membership in the Body of Christ which God has already granted you. No pastor, no convention, no synod, no sermon can come between you and God. God invites you into the experience of the Godself – and you can come into the experience with absolute honesty, authenticity, and truth as you are. No prevarication is necessary.
There is no exclusion from the body of Christ. Human institutions may reject people but they cannot deny Christ to anyone.
I am fortunate. I belong to an Open and Affirming congregation of the United Church of Christ – a congregation that welcomes all people as whole and holy children of the Divine.
Pastordan at streetprophets describes the church as the place where people live transformed lives together. When I hear conservatives are willing to exile people from their churches because they happen to gay, I pity them – their anxious, bigoted, constipated faith offers no liberation, no sacred experience of the infinite open to all persons.
I have hope. Pastordan at streetprophets:
But still, the notion that homosexuality is an indulgent sin is becoming less apparent every day. Doogie Howser’s gay, dammit. He’s happy, too. If that’s possible, anything is. Supposed moral authorities nattering away about the “grave disorder” of same-sex attractions are liable to find themselves ceding their authority to someone who played a teen physician on TV. Not a good place to be.
Over at usatoday:
Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones or the child’s brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
And
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. “And, the Lord saw that it was good.” If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Know this all my queer brothers and sisters – who may be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, questioning, polyamorous – you are beloved children of a loving God and you belong absolutely in the Body of Christ. Bigots like Pastor Sanderson can take the hindmost.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
Why do you need to support the self mutilators?
Anyone would stop to help and have institutionalized anyone who was on the steet cutting up their face with a razon blade.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 am
I am glad that mr. muhammed stands up for what is right.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:54 am
Part and parcel of a schizophrenic religion. I refer to the sodomous mating of the old and new testaments.
The words of Jesus fly directly into the face of old testament declarations, or at least mutton headed interpretations of them. We don’t know what Jesus thought of buggery, as there are no references to it in the new testament, the old testament is quite clear.
If you are gay or lesbian why does it become of any importance to insinuate your faith into the minds of those who will not accept it? Why not simply build your own church of Christ, and allow in it anyone you wish? Why would you even care what the baptists say? (it is the baptists that believe bush junior to be a closet homosexual. I dare you to embrace his majesty, support him in his closeted gay preference, it would after all be the Christian thing to do)
No wonder the muslims would be bound to kill us.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:30 pm
G, YW; If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Glendon, God gave us free will, so while born as “good”, the choices I make define my goodness. Of course the church you wish inclusion in suffers from the “original sin” we all possess under the OT.
Indulge me here. If to you being Gay is a born thing, as to the church being a sodomite is a sin, and the punishment of the traditional God is for sinners to remain in hell, then God has presented you with a choice! You make the choice. He has clearly set you up for grief, but then in no place does it say getting to heaven is easy. The eye, the needle, the desire, the camel as Jesus said..
Ex: I am naturally inclined to kill liars out of hand, as this is my born nature. I believe there would be absolutely no worldly harm in doing so, it is just how I am. How am I checked in this behavior? The simple directive “thou shalt not kill”, a supposed directive from God, is all it takes for me to reconsider my born nature. In the case of gays, be gay, but don’t have sex, and in this way avoid sin. Personal accountability before God is not nearly as fun as wide eyed bungholery.
If you are gay and feel some superiority to the old testament concept prohibiting buggery, why then not simply reject the entire notion and form your own religion, rather than fighting for something that doesn’t include you? You have that right, in fact, you can claim it in the Name of Jesus. Hell, you live in Utah, have a “revelation.” Who could gainsay you after all the crap going on in Utah? Tax exempt status too.
Why is it in any way important to be part of a group that can point to their reference book for the means to exclude you?
I can only conclude that you wish to alter the notions of that church, which is simple apostasy, if you claim to be a bible believer(I do not know your inclination here). Apostasy is historically dangerous, especially when dealing with fanatic churches, and is of course the primary reason Jesus himself wound up on the cross.
Be careful out there in Utah, Land of Zion,.. soon to be fryin,… global warming,.. locust swarming…sychophants… ,led by hypocrites, …send the secular into fits,…
now those that backdoor break the rule, want to enter, are they fools?
Clearly this reference includes all sodomites, that are engaging in unallowed biblical sex acts. Don’t want god to discriminate do we?
My actual sentiments are expressed by a song written by Blind Faith, “do what you like”. Consensually of course.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Why do I care what the Baptists are doing and saying? That’s easy. Because they are actively harming people.
Imagine you are a 13 year old who has just realized he’s gay and your family belongs to the North Carolina Southern Baptists convention. Imagine you are the parents of a gay child and you attend one of these churches. Imagine you are a gay person who was raised LDS or some other conservative faith. These churches are doing and saying things that harm people.
IMHO (or not so humble), far too many apparently faithful people use religion as an excuse to not confront their own anti-gay prejudice.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Andy,
I wonder if you desire to promulgate YOUR interpretation of YOUR church’s position on homosexuality comes out of personal sincerity as much as a defensive reaction when the church of your birth seems to come under attack.
Because your logic is embarassingly inept. You said, “Indulge me here. If to you being Gay is a born thing, as to the church being a sodomite is a sin, and the punishment of the traditional God is for sinners to remain in hell, then God has presented you with a choice!”
The FACT of gay people is a hell of a lot more of a real fact of life than either your desire to kill liars or the non-existent eveidence of a God let alone one that says anything about homosexuality.
..and lets not get into scripture quoting here, because you will lose everytime.
What if YOU are wrong about what God thinks? After he stops laughing at you at the pearly gates, will he send YOU to hell?
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Quite frankly, I have always wondered why folks give a rat’s ass. If people are, or want to be, gay, then fine. No skin off my back, or off the skin of anybody else’s that I can see.
All this Bible thumpin’ nonsense. It’s not, for example, like were talkin about flying pigs shittin all over the place. Now that would be reason to get concerned about, cause when I ski the backcountry, I don’t necessarily like gettin crapped on by flying pigs.
BTW, Meryl, you are a piece of work; a real piece of good ole’ Utah work.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Meryl Mohammed: “But for some reason you think that mutilation of the anus is acceptable.”
I’ve read (a couple of years ago) that 50% of heterosexuals in the U.S. have tried anal sex. So you believe that 50% of heteros in the U.S. are “mutilating”?
What about male homosexual animals — are they also “self-mutilating”?
I think you’ve got a very outdated idea of sex and a misguided idea of what “mutilating” is, Meryl Mohammed.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Andy you’ve recapped many of the usual arguments used against homosexuality.
The reference to the Eye of Needle is an interesting choice. Robert Funk points out that the Eye of Needle was a particular gate in Jerusalem. To pass through it, camels had to be unloaded of all their gear, led through, then reloaded. Jesus wasn’t referred to the eye of a sewing needle, he was talking about a real world gate into the city. IOW, passing through it required one to unburden one’s self. For glbt persons to enter the kingdom of heaven, we might need to unburden ourselves of the weight of internalized bigotry we inherit from the world – to become the beings God intended us to be – before passing through the gate.
Superficially, the Hebrew Scriptures’ condemnation of homosexuality seems quite powerful – as does Paul’s in his letter to the Romans - until you consider that the ancient Hebrew people did not understand sexuality and sexual orientation in the same way we do – and certainly not in the same way the contemporary medical and mental health communities understand sexuality. The Bible is the product of many hands over a thousand years – people with differing and competing understandings of God and human nature. As human understanding advances, why should be we bound to five thousand year old beliefs? Biblically, a person is morally unclean if he/she has Hansen’s disease, but we know it is a disease not a moral judgment. Should we be bound by the understanding of leprosy as a moral state rather than medical condition? I say we should not.
There is much richness in the Bible. As a Christian I struggle with the Bible as part of my faith journey. As I see it, the question is not what does the Bible say, but “What does the bible say to us today in light of our understanding of the world as it is?†I.e. the creation myths in Genesis teach us that the universe was created by God (in the original birthed by God) and therefore is good in the eyes of God. It is a theological assertion, not scientific one.
Walter Wink says the bible embraces and knows many different sexual mores but a single ethic of love. Levirate marriage, polygamy, and arranged marriages are all embraced by the bible, while interracial marriage is explicitly forbidden yet implicitly approved in Genesis (eg Tamar and Judah). Daniel Helminiak transliterates the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality – it reads something like “You shall not with a man in lyings of a woman lie.†Well by all means, I won’t lie with a man in a woman’s bed. I guess I’m covered. The section of Leviticus in which the prohibition homosexuality appears is concerned with ritual purity laws. The Levitical authors also believed all persons were inherently heterosexual. To their understanding, homosexuality wasn’t an orientation, it was strictly lustful behavior; I would suggest what we know as situational homosexuality (i.e. men in prison) is closer to the ancient scribes understanding of homosexuality than to today’s notion of sexual orientation. The Biblical authors could not and did not conceive of the notion that a portion of population is naturally homosexual and certainly did not conceive that that portion of the population would wish to form stable, loving, lifelong relationships with members of the same gender. Given that conceptual lack, I believe the Hebrew Scripture and epistolary condemnations of homosexuality do not apply today.
Last but not least, Jesus, the man of Nazareth, was murdered by an army of occupation with the aid of collaborators. Jesus wasn’t killed by fanatics per se – he was killed by a brutal regime determined to avoid any social unrest. In their mathematics, Jesus represented the danger of social unrest and was best murdered to avoid potential problems. Certainly from the perspective of the Pharisees Jesus was both apostate and heretical so I’m inclined to see both apostasy and heresy in a rather welcoming light.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Jenni:
On your comment 50% heterosexuals have tried anal, what percentage of that was female? AND where do I find one?
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Being a godless heathen, I am amazed at how one class of folks uses the Bible to support their position, while another is forced to interpret the Bible to defend their position - or at least draw neutrality to the various positions.
Boiled to its essence, many of the various stories in the Bible are no less odd than flying pigs shittin all over the place. Think of Jonah and the Great Fish, for example. Indeed, I think a flying pig shittin all over the place is perhaps less odd than a dude surviving for three days in the belly of a big fish.
Accordingly, I say put the Bible aside and let each live as they see fit; excepting, however, for Meryl. Meryl should have to choose between living underneath flying pigs shittin all over the place or in a great fish.
Anyone care to take issue with this analysis?
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:06 pm
In regards to the 13 year old, beats getting blown up at the public fountain by sniper, placed in your country by some wierd interpretation of what God may want. god places all manner of temptation upon us in this world, and he is in no way democratic as to who gets to carry the heaviest burdens.
Imagine the leader of the free world is gay and cannot admit it. Imagine that he has led his constituancy to support upon the deceit of his sexual proclivities. My point was to reveal how all of this looks to those of us who do not give a rats unsodomized ass.
The fact of a gay life is not of concern to me, “do what you like”, but for those sodomites that would worship the OT Judaic god, it constitutes a conundrum.
I am only reflecting the odd desire to be a part of this Church, while not adhering to the letter of the previous order, which is why I recommend make your own church, rather than sodomize someone elses.
In accordance to the scripture which is so readily defined by believers as inspired by god, hesheit is predjudiced against men “lying” with men.(that covers almost all politics).
The eye of they needle glendon was simple meaningless word play on my part, reflective of what I think of the entire nonsense of utilizing a really old book to define ones life, however your explanation does not involve Jesus’ distinction of rich men getting through the eye of needle, as I guess their camels may have more stuff on them, right?
Cliff I do not belong to any organized church, and laughingly only mirror others contradictions within their own . What you describe as inept logic is not mine, just that of the religion that opposes sodomy. You will have to admit in the absolute calculus of this god, the behavoir qualifies as mortal sin.
Cliff; how can anyone lose in quoting scripture?, its an open book test, you simply decide what you think the mostly very simple sentences mean. As in Alice in Wonderland, they mean what you want them to mean… the nonexistant God, the only evidence for a creator is this place, the heavens and universe, as to the religious and atheist alike, it is surely a creation. To deny it is to deny yourself, the details is what religion, or lack therof, is all about. The big bang is as much a belief, as the 6 days of creation, none of us were there, so how do we know? A priori knowledge? If that were true why do we have the myths about creation based on a being creator, there are not too many old religious concepts that define the big bang as our creator.
Now, ex #2, I am born with a pathological desire to molest young children, very unfair, but a burden given to me by god that created me…, only by not molesting young children can I claim to not be a child molester. The behavior is defined by the action. God having created me already knows what I am, to use the born gay logic. My compliance in avoiding sin is my responsibility to gods law, as one sees it I guess. This is why I think it silly to attempt to rectify it in standing churches, other than to be a busybody malcontent…
..and Glendon, the latter part of your response was a great piece of sophistry. I am curious how you can claim to know the god that comes from such fractured logical origins as the ones you seemingly wish to maintain, and rectify. Holy Ghost perhaps?
ex. 3. Suppose I am a Christian and decide that the bibles admonition to be fruitful and multiply is a recipe for extinction. I decide that replicating is bad, though I am yet a christian, clearly I am not interested in following gods will, am banned to hell? Does my desire not to breed, get to compare to your desire to be gay? Am I not born to breed according to god? As much as I would like to have my own genetics running around to follow gods’ admonition, I can see problems ahead and want to keep some of the christian values, but not others. Am I not like you then? If then the church condemns me as it has you for following our own paths, is not this an unworthy place to be spending psychic time?
Do you mean to possess the Christian god for yourself and those that believe like you do? If such is the case, well then I see very little difference between you and THEM(all nutcase religious folks), at least in thinking, now what would you DO to the churches to get them to be as you like it? Time to quit christianity glendon, or at least quit calling it that.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
I imagine God is one / tenth homo.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Thank God I am agnostic and don’t have to concern myself with all this happy horse shit being discussed on this post.
PS Latter-day Buffalo has a good point. Flying pigs are not all that strange when one thinks about them in the context of the rest of the stories told in the Bible. Dang, they’d be just oversized pigeons with huge appetites - perhaps not all that different from Sen. Chris Buttars.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:37 pm
European studies claim the real % at 4%. If it is higher in America what does it mean? Any girls out there want chip in?
Glendon have you read the writings of Erasmus? You are to my mind subjectively his type of Christian Humanist. No shame in that.
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:34 pm
You blog readers should complain and threaten to quit reading unless the moderator quits censoring my comments.
I’m a tellin ya, he has no sense of humor.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:12 pm
OneUtah has several editors all with free reign to censor as they see fit.
As for me, I find you foul-mouthed and unimaginative. I can only assume that if you possessed a greater intellect that you would employ it. Such is clearly not the case.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:36 pm
He is a self important remnant of hisself, be piteous, not vindictive, of such shell.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
To the higher power we entreat that those that would compromise the human prospect…, would manipulate our monies…, so as to gain increase… for no reason but their existance…., which would hardly comprise the reason for ones true survival…., to any human extent…., would be anathema to human conduct…and subject to the wrath of benign humanity…
For that one must be necessary, or in the case of the opposition, contrary to the prospect of the other, to the extent that any law recognized as aberrant to our Republics survival, would be null and void…
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:33 pm
and void again, so say I, the Human Prospect!
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:21 pm
One utah should allow personal messaging and self editing/total post control. This format is old school by now. Many have this format, it rocks. Complete access, and self editing, the record is open and availaible of everything anyone has posted. Ya skeered of such? Set it up… way past time.
November 23rd, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Here is the official platform of the liberal party in Canada with regard to pedophilia, Foley was talking to “boys” that were 17. If they have their way the liberal party will be having their way….is this the kind of thing you are willing to support?
Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution: Allow “Anal Intercourse” with 14-Year-Olds
By John-Henry Westen
OTTAWA, November 22, 2006 LifeSiteNews.com) - In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for “anal intercourse” in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions.
On Monday, the Liberal Party of Canada made available the text of the policy resolutions put forth by the Party’s Provincial and Territorial Associations, commissions, and National Caucus. The policy resolutions are to be debated and voted upon at the Liberal Leadership and Biennial Convention to be held from November 28 to December 2, 2006, in Montréal.
While still resolutions, the policies which have made it into the book have already been carefully considered by party faithful. “The policy resolutions represent the culmination of a nine-month grassroots policy process that began at the riding level and has worked its way up to the national Convention,” says a release on the resolutions.
Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the “riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS” (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021403.html )
Nevertheless, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads: “WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity.” The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.
Resolution no. 46 calls for a review of the criminal code on prostitution with a view to legalizing the exploitive practice.
Another resolution seeks to make permanent ’safe houses’ in major citiies where heroin addicts can without fear of arrest inject themselves with the deadly drugs. Resolution no. 43 states: “BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada take all steps necessary to establish a National Safe Injection Site program for large cities.”
A proposal by the Young Liberals of Canada seeks not only to legalize marijuana, but also to have the criminal records of those convicted of illegal possession since 1923 expunged. Resolution no. 44 reads: BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the government of Canada to legalise and regulate Canada’s marijuana industry and trade; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the government of Canada to examine the social consequences of granting amnesty to Canadians convicted of simple marijuana possession since 1923, and destruction of all criminal records related thereto.”
See the Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolutions online here:
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/PolicyWorkbook-EN-web.pdf
See related LifeSiteNews reports:
Gay Activists Ask Canada to Lower Age of Consent for Anal Sex, National Post Agrees
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021403.html
Conservative Government Will Raise Age of Sexual Consent
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06020803.html
Bill to Raise Age of Consent for Sex from 14 to 16 Introduced, Gay Activists Opposed
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06062201.html
——————————————————————————–
(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).
NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444
Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/
November 23rd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Glenden Brown -
You said it potently- intolerance and bigotry have ripped apart the body of Christ. Where are Christ’s teachings today? Where are those whose actions make it whole again? They are marginalized (like Christ himself) or non-existent.
That’s why we cannot look outside of ourselves for the true manifestation of Christ’s teachings. They reside within each of us only.
November 23rd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
You take some time off . . . .
Andy, you’ve raised the usual conservative arguments against progressive christianity - in a nutshell if you don’t accept the whole bible as literal and inerrant you aren’t a Christian so stop calling yourself Christian. I start with the assumption that the Bible was written by people - with agendas, flaws, limitations. It tells their story of their understanding of the Divine, up to and including thenlimitations in their understandings of the world. It’s not sophistry to acknowledge those limitations and to reject absolute rules based on those limtations. Jehovah/Yahweh/Elohim, the god(s) of the Hebrew Bible gets a bad rap - it’s dull but read the law as laid out in Leviticus and Deutoronomy and you see a legal system far more humane than almost any other at the time. Read the Hebrew Prophets and you see a consistent concern for the lost and least. Jim Wallis tells a story where he and his friends took the bible and cut out all the stuff about social justice. What they were left with was a slim volume with most of its contents removed. Marcus Borg describes the Bible as personal as well as political - he writes:
“It combines sharp political criticism and passionate political advocacy: radical criticism of systems of domination and impassioned advocacy of an alternative social vision. Protesting the nightmare of injustice, its central voices proclaim God’s dream of justice, a dream for the earth. Criticism and advocacy are grounded in their understanding of the character and passion of God: a God of love and justice who passion for our life togehter is the Kingdom of God.” The Heart of Christianity, Page 126.
I have no problem reconciling my Christian humanism and liberation tendencies with the god of the Hebrew Bible. (I’m a nice catholic school boy at heart, what little Liberation Theology I’ve read fits my spirituality with all the comfort of a well loved pair of shoes.)
As far as lifesitenews, it’s not as if they even pretend to be objective. In many nations, the age of consent for same sex couples is higher than for heterosexual couples. The proposal says they’re addressing that situation in Canadian law. As far Mark Foley, I blogged about that a while back - Foley was sexually immature and his behavior certainly abusive if not technically illegal. I haven’t changed my view on that.
Ruble - I agree that we have to look inward for the manifestation of Christ’s teaching. I also belong to a great church and have seen the manifestation in others every sunday. It has cost me some of misanthropy.
November 24th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Well Glendon since you admit you read the bible and decide what it means and what its limitations are, then pick and choose, it sounds that it your faith is rather malleable, like a piece of gold shiny bauble, or when I pound it out, a cup, maybe several earrings in a pinch. The value system of the Hobbit, or perhaps Star Wars would do as well for anyone maybe. May the farce be with you. You may do well to read the Constituition, swap it out as a template for your life.
Lifesitenews is only being fair printing the liberal party agenda verbatim. I would challenge you to find any false content onsite. Their politics are not yours, but there is no deception in how they express their beliefs.
*Criticism and advocacy are grounded in their understanding of the character and passion of God: a God of love and justice who passion for our life togehter is the Kingdom of God.†The Heart of Christianity, Page 126.
How do we know gods character?///////////// You have yourself claimed you pick and choose what the bible means, to you. So, since you make up what god means yourself, if you follow the quotes admonition, criticism and advocacy are grounded on whatever you decide to think,… that is gods kingdom? I would do well to read the hobbit again.
As a side note, God is(seems to be) expressly undemocratic, and apparently unconcerned about particular peoples burdens as they are meant live them in this life, human concepts of Justice are seemingly irrelevant to god. Hesheit has killed many innocents with his wrath, due to the malefactions of their leaders. No big deal, as whatever happens to you here matters not to god, as he saves you to go to heaven if you recant your sins(or so say the priests)
If anal sex is natural, why is the fruit of it disease, and on the plus side, simple carnal pleasure/relational satcifaction? Disease is also present in hetero sex, women die in childbirth, what is gods justice in any of this? From the open evidence god is a bastard, as he could with the wave of his hand make this stop. So what is gods story with us, if hesheit, does exist? Does sheithe want us to with our FREE WILL make the right choices? Clearly there is a calculus, or we’re here on straight auto-pilot and the malfunction is torrid.
Right free will choices that according to Jesus, would cause you to live life more abundantly.
God dream of Justice? It is based on your free will, there cannot be justice but to follow the will of God, so making up what one believes the bible says does not strike me as a consistant way for delivering justice, for that social mores and conduct define the limits of tolerance, not god. Building a society with this as a guide is very much like remote sensing minerals in a substrate. You get lucky sometimes.
Progressive christianity, is that the opposite of regressive satanism?
November 24th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Your method is sophistry, as the reasoning hopes to justifies the life you are living(as I know it here)the logic is sound, but the reason for it is clear, you have a desire for approval from the god you were raised with.
The sophistry of justifying your own life with self interpretation of the bible, is the precursor to rejecting an inept religion and faith, that cannot hope to serve you as you grow. My opinion. What part of life is next that won’t fit? Perhaps you have already not changed what you could, due to the template forced by the faith you will not forgoe.
I too am operating in this way, so no real truth can come of it. It is simple semantic exercise for me.
Next exercise; This is primary for Christians. Do you believe in “Original Sin”. Does Adam and Eve in their temptation taint us forever? It is according to the bible, the cause of ALL grief humans experience. We would still be in Eden otherwise. The offense leading to our abandonment by him, at least til Jesus showed, yet he is meant to be the son of the god, that hath banished us from paradise, and isn’t accepted as such by the people(Jews)that were punished by god in the first place.
Confused yet? Give me Odin anyday! Thor the Hammer, Loki the Trickster(he made you gay) Hugin and Munin, Odins ravens, that see all we do, and know the contents of our thoughts(Hugin) and tell ODIN, if they are impure! According to the measure of your perversion, mental or corporeal, you may be simply destroyed by Odin, or he may choose to mess up your life by sending Loki to interfere, teach you a lesson so to speak. Much more fun as fantasies go.
November 24th, 2006 at 10:23 am
From my perspective, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that all forms of immorality are equally wrong. Homosexuality in practice happens to be one of those forms of immorality. But I don’t think homosexual immorality is any more evil than heterosexual immorality (i.e. adultery). Both are perversions from what God would have us do. Both of them cause social maladies. Incidentally, heterosexual immorality–being more prevalent–causes more social problems than homosexual immorality.
Therefore, to be consistent, the North Carolina Southern Baptist convention should also “deny membership to any church that admits ‘practicing adulterers’ to membership.”
This is perhaps a round-about way of saying that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints terminates membership of individuals known to be practicing either hetero- or homosexual immorality, but offers them the ability on an individual basis to overcome the immorality and return to full fellowship and membership.
The very term hypocrisy–the calling of something wrong while one is doing it or something similar–implies that we all agree that there are things that are wrong or immoral. All forms of immorality, regardless of sexual orientation, are wrong. Members of all religions should treat them as such, rather than picking and choosing their favorite-hated sins.
November 24th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Andy -
The approach I take to the Bible is hardly unique nor haphazard. Drawing on scholarly writings about the Bible, including archeology and ancient history, I do my best to understand the world in which the Biblical authors resided to help me understand what they were trying to say in their stories. But, that world was prescientific. In Levitical law menstruating women were rendered ritually unclean, to even tough a menstruating woman rendered a man unclean. Menstruation is normal and natural has nothing to do with a woman’s spiritual state. I have yet to meet a Christian who holds that women must take a ritual cleansing bath after menstruating, but that is called for by Leviticus. The choice today is to read that passage as the product of a particular society at a particular time or as an absolute law. Which makes more sense? I’ll take option A, thank you. There is, however, another reading of that from feminist authors - see the Red Tent. This reading holds that the uncleanness was not bad - rather it represented a time in which women were separated from the community for personal healing, health, and were then reintroduced to the community having had that time for personal care. It’s certainly intriquing. The fluidity of interpretation seems far more honest to me than Biblical inerrancy.
Another example: The consensus in the medical and mental health communities hold that sexual orientation is not chosen; whether it is purely genetic or a result of hormone balances in the womb is up for debate. So when I look at questions of sexuality in the bible, I have to ask myself: Given what the experts in our society agree upon, is there value in the Biblical witness? What can I learn from the Bible? It’s not a matter of saying, “I like this. I don’t like that.” Guided by scholarly and religious writers (Borg, Spong, Funk, Crossan to name a few), I struggle with the text in as honest a way as possible.
There is no single worldview or morality in the Bible - there are many. All Christians have to choose the parts they emphasize and the parts they reject. That’s neither sophistry nor dishonesty. Acknowledging that the Bible was written by people 0ver the course of about a thousand, huge parts based on oral traditions, actually makes it far richer for me than if I were to pretend God dictated it and people copied it down. That does not make my faith dishonest nor does it make my faith simply wish fullfillment. I do my best to keep my faith honest and my approach to reading and understanding the bible consistent.
I learn from hearing people’s stories about their lives, beliefs, experiences, I can learn from what the Biblical authors recorded - not all of it makes sense today. I believe it is a huge error to read the Bible today as if it were written by someone living today.
As far as knowing God’s will - that’s never easy. I’m not always sure God’s will is discernable. There are days I’m not sure God exists. But that doesn’t mean the Bible is valueless.
November 24th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Can I choose to render it(the bible) valueless? If I explain that your views based on it, as a series of words, has no more interest to me than the tenants of Scientology or some pulp fiction?
Am I allowed? The Constitution(made by referable people) says yes, so that the concerns based upon ones religious convictions shall have no bearing on our discussions with regard to my natural and civil rights, and for that you would possess the same rights as any man, not respective to his own restraints, placed upon him by his religious convictions.
November 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Semantic excess is a sin. How woulkd Jesus yammer?
November 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
verily, verily, and yammer he did. Bored yet? Think of the work it takes me.
November 25th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Cassandra, if I’d known you’ld be along so soon, I’d have shared my T-day leftovers w / you, but I bailed post haste, for reasons I think you appreciate. Well, we’ll just have to wait for the lame-ducks and the rebels to play-off over the holiday season, I’ve had about all the excitement I can take for now, Later.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Alice…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
April 27th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Alice Deejay Video…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….