I was trying to tell a friend of mine about God and they just tried to ignore me. I was telling him that we sometimes don't get along because of our beliefs [mainly concerning homosexuality] and he didn't want to hear it. They believe that Gods love is big enough to except same sex marriage and that He won't send people to hell for engaging in that lifestyle. I told him that we are going in two different directions and basically that I needed to let them go. He tells me that he wants to change and that he loves God and that he can't understand why God would send him to hell because of the life he lives. I told Him that if we continue to sin then we deserve to go to hell. I tried to tell him that time is scarce and that our eyes are shut so tight that we don't want to except Gods word in it's entirety. All he said was "yes they are, my eyes are shut tight and its going to take awhile for them to open". *sigh*. Bottom line is this: I want to change. I need to change. I can't wait for others to come to the realization that they too need to change their lives. That's on them. I don't understand how someone can ask for insight about God and want to get to know who He is but when you try and tell them, they get mad and want to change subject. If I want God to accept me I have to let these "friends" go. I have struggles of my own- porn and masturbation. I'm battling my own demons, but at the same time, I don't want my friends and family to be thrown into the lake of fire! I don't want that. I know that I can't change their hearts, only God can, but I would love for them to know who God is. I would love to talk to them about God and NOT get into arguments because we don't believe basically in the same God like we say we do. We all say that we believe in God but it's like they don't believe the whole deal about sin. That people who continue to sin will end up in hell because of it.Do you guys think I'm doing the right thing about parting ways?
Are you making your friendship conditional upon what he believes? Do you just end up arguing all the time? Do you think argument is a good thing or a bad thing? Do you have a desperate urge to control his behaviour, instead of address his lack of faith? It sounds like he has accepted a need to change - is that not progress? What will you think about what you are doing, if you have to look back on this thing in 10,000 years when you are in Glory? Just afew questions. Jesus didn't walk away from the Doubter, He showed them His wounds. I can't give you the answer, thats between you, God and the dude.J
One other point: well done in contending for God amongst your peers! That is something that I rarely do. You're a bigger person that I am, a kinder soul. I am not asking questions from a position of authority on this subject. God bless you.
ugh. i wrote something and my comp diedddd. blah. what i was gonna tell you is this: youre right!! Jesus didnt turn His back from un believers. my whole deal with this guy is that he says he loves God and Jesus but hates the bible. i don't understand. he asked me if he had to believe and agree with everything that the bible said and that confused me because, while he loves God, he doesn't want to accept His word. with the girl is a little different. she says that she believes that everything the bible says is true but doesnt believe that she has to repent for sin because Jesus already died for our sins. they both confuse the CRAP out of me! we dont get along because of our beliefs and because i honestly dont feel right around the, anymore. were going in 2 directions and i just feel like i need to move on =/. its better for my spiritual growth. i do still love them, dont get me wrong. i just cant be around them or have much to do with them.
It is good for a Christian to tackle habitual sin, otherwise it will eventually destroy. The opposite is of no benefit. It would be like us saying, "well i love God and Jesus died for my sins, so its ok that i keep using porn. I like it, maybe its wrong but I'm going to keep on doing it. Jesus can just take the rap all day long!" There is the concept that we are free from the law of sin in Christ, and we can use or abuse this freedom... although i guess when no good is coming of it, Christ is not being honoured. So it hurts the person, and it hurts the church, and it dishonours God. I think the key is how deliberate the sin is. But I'm no expert. I have to admit sometimes Christianity confuses me...do these guys go to your church?
i see where youre coming from jamesz. eh well, the guy doesnt go to church. doenst really want to be apart of one right now. they girl goes to a church that embrace the homosexual lifestyle so shes not getting the true knowledge of Christ. not all of it anyway =/christianity can be complex, but if we trust in God it can be made plain =]. know what i mean?
Well Netty I have got to say. I don't think your friend is the problem in the situation. Doubly, I would like you to consider something. The western, evangelical and catholic traditions of the Church, are the only traditions which feel the need to classify document, codefy and police people's sins. The orthodox, or Greek tradition believes that if you are in sin there is nothing they can do until you are convicted. Conviction is the first of the symptoms of the disease of sin. Without this there is no evidence God is even informing or showing you you're in sin, so the possibility exists that for that person before God, they're not sinning. I have been acquainting myself with my own people's Christianity lately- that of the Celts and Irish. And before they became Romanized, [which is a huge tragedy in the end] their sexual perspective, even after becoming Christians was a completely fluid thing. They near entirely eliminated war, they completely irradicated, through bloodless means their slave trade. In fact the whole nation of Ireland came to God without any martyrs. The druids in their idea, that truth needs no authority other than its persuasive self, weighed Jesus and embraced him as king with open non violent arms- some places it was slow, but eventually the whole island came around. And for hundreds of years as Celtic Christians, right up until the Catholics showed up, sex was a fluid thing- the only sexual sins were rape and pedophilia. Men had sex with men on the rare occasion they went to war and were away for long periods, women with women, people with animals. Marriages had conditions for sharing spouses as long as everything was indeed consensual. And God made no impact to change this sexuality, until the 'Logically' strict to a fault teachings of Rome and Augustine- and we cannot cast away what this sexual Christian reality is telling us- when there was no conviction from God to change it, and they were comfortable with it.The foundation of our faith is not who we fuck, the foundation of our faith is Jesus Christ. And let us also remember 'Love and reason have nothing to do with each other.' Second, I wonder, if this person were a thief, would you be treating them the same way you are treating them because they are gay? If they littered would you treat them the same way? A drunkard? A prostitute? And I wonder even if you were universal in the treatment of these select forms of 'sinners', would any of it be productive, serving, forgiving, and a sacrifice of your right to be biblically correct for the well being of your friend? A friend of mine through many conversations has explained to me some very interesting facts about the gay community he interracts with in Toronto here in Ontario Canada. FIrst that the idea of committed loving relationship between two individuals of the same sex, is modern and rare and something completely new in the historical scheme of things- maybe not lesbian wise, but the Roman world was brutal to women and persecuted any discovery of lesbian behaviour. But he also mentioned the fact that when discussing these issues with those engaged in the lifestyle, he gets answers like this 'As a human being I can live without sex, but I cannot live wthout love. Here I feel loved in a way greater than any where else.'How does your interraction with your friend make them feel, from a person filled with God, like they are loved in a way greater than anywhere else? IS your need to be biblically correct to the evanelical perspective so great that you would cut your friend off because of a sin that doesn't injure you or anyone around you, only because you can't talk about something else and pray for your friend away from their presence where it will not annoy perturb or persecute them? And are you then praying also for all their needs, for all their desires and wants, and that even in this time you feel they are simply behaving homosexual that they have the most supportive and safe and enriching relationships with men and women for their own safety and need and healing?
i dont think i treat her wrong because shes gay. the problem i have with her is that she doesnt think she has to repent for that sin, or any sin. so it makes me wonder whether or not she even believes in repentance. do you get what im saying? like if someone says "God loves me for who i am i and what i am, theres no need for me to change cause He knows my heart". Does that mean that Christ died so we can continue to live in sin? thats my issue.i get what youre saying though. i feel like people are too acceptant of that sin, whereas ppl hate the idea of incest. not saying im in favor of incest because im not, im just saying since theyre both equal in the eyes of God, just like any other sin, why is incest wrong to some ppl but not homosexuality? why are ppl treating homosexuality as if it were NOT a sin when God clearly says that it is? and, why do ppl want evvvveryone to accept it when God doesnt?
ok, ok. i've done some thinking. i think i should take sin out of everything. i know what they're doing is wrong, just like i know that what i'm doing is wrong. at the same time, God will deal with us all for the things we do. i love them, but is it really my place to tell them what they're doing is wrong? if i stay silent and never say a word, what would God think of me?
Because there is an intense and founded argument for the possibility that it is not a sin at all. There are several instances where due to translation ambiguity, people have incerted 'homosexuality' because it is neat a packaged, and fits with their agenda or world view or thought process on how the world works for them, how they percieve order, not necessarily how order ought to be. True or false they use God not as a source for this argument but an end to attempt to trump their 'correctness' without actually including conversation and relationship with God as a determinant factor on their decisions an conclusons. Many of the translations in Cirinthians use 'homosexuality' because a presedence exists that this is the unknown word other translations have used, not because it actually meansor reffers to homosexuality.The very simple fact that these realities and anamolies are not shown to and shared with the laity should be a first flare that Christianity is not being honest and nuancing scripture with its own purposes. One would hope that God and his Church might have converging combined purposes, but historically, there is little presidence for such a wish, esp as our application of scripture continues to degenerate by not thinking realistically and perspectively at our day and age. That is called Psychosis.Not to mention the reality of homosexuality in this day and age is changing and evolving into new forms that cannot be the homosexuality the bible speaks of for several reasons- chief of which might be the fact that very few homosexuals have same sex relations for the sake of temple and pagan worship. But hey, for every culture Christianity reaches and converts we cover a whole sleuth of acceptible sins in culture and condone a great many more through the word 'morality' and enact injustice through punishment by using the word Justice. If God is not impacting your friend to repent, then she doesn't need to, and if she does, she'll come to it. Forgive her, and let go of your rights as Jesus did, and don't impart her need to repent, impart your impulse to love her. Here's the clincher Netty- say in a fascist state or something, your friend were persecuted because of her 'lifestyle choice', and condemned to die. Are you willing to stand there with her, and hold her hand and die with her as a straight person who loves her? Because if you're not, I don't think you have the right to ask her to stand by you and repent.
"If God is not impacting your friend to repent, then she doesn't need to"so your saying people who live a homosexual lifestyle shouldn't repent? they don't need to? hmm. i thought that it was indeed a sin and that EVERY sin needed to be repented for? sooo, idk if i can agree with that part.on the contrary, of course i would stand by her if she were to get persecuted because she's gay. someone being gay isn't a reason to kill them, people shouldn't kill in general. question for you miracle man: do you think God accepts homosexuality? because honestly, that's what it sounds like. =/
Well Netty, there are many things you need to do about it, like pray and talk to God. But you also cannot just read your bible and say what it says like a parrot. Once you weigh the fact that heterosexual relationships can be abusive, and that they can over bear the masculine and feminine roles just the same as homosexuals.And you consider that God is not made happy by what we fuck, but the honest pursuit of truth and the loving caretaking of our neighbours.You consider that two people of the same sex living together in intimacy and commitment having a life together and starting families is not the homosexuality the bible was even remotely having to deal with. Consider Christianity's response, that God prefers one kind of flesh to another, [even though it is not our merit but who we are that causes him great love for us] starts abig shit storm. They respond to homosexuality with the dea that man and women together is superior and godly, as though our identity is in wat we have sex with, rather than God. don't see them emvracing such ferver when approaching non beieving heterosexuals. Because they have their prorities messed up, neglectng even the fact that God has set some aside for singleness. Between two people of the same sex. working out their relationship, sexually or not, I see no reason, and have actually come through much discussion to see no reason why God is off his bonnet about homosexuals. About abuse and lording over in every reationship, that I know he has a problem with.And if I am wrong, until the holy spirit comes and does what he does, there's no repentence that cab happen, and nattering them before he comes and they actually and personally ask for help, nattering them will only serve alienation, and they wont come to us for help when Holy Spirit does come, why should they, we tried to be Holy Spirit in their lives, we tried to super impose ourselves into hs role. But as of right now, except for a very specific and individually personal reason, I don't have any idea why he would come in that way to stop homosexuality rather than to help tose relationships flourish. On a purely political level, what is more infuriating is Christian legislation, banning things like gay marriage. God hates double standards of every kind, so when Christians as citizens of a nation, exclussively defend their rights and deny other citizens theirs, by the same standards and conditions in a nation, I think that makes God very very angry.
miracle man: so basically your a not a "bible-believing christian"? God SPECIFICALLY tells us NOT to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex and you think that God isnt concerned with who we screw? are you serious? no offense but you cant be pro-homosexual behavior and for God. is that NOT a double standard? think about it.as for banning same sex marriage i'm not too involved with that. i could care less whether or not the world thinks that a union between ppl of the same sex is marriage because its not. God NEVER mentioned it as being so, so how can it be? on another note, if sex is ment FOR MARRIAGE amd God identifies marriage as being between ONE man and ONE woman, how can a sexual homosexual relationship be okay?! i think youre worried about "logic" and not what God says miracle man.
I actually believe the bible quite profusely energetically and sternly. I strive to be impeccably responsible with my biblical beliefs, and while my relationship with God includes scripture it also transcends it so that it rests more with God who is living, as apposed to his word which was spoken to a time and place. I agree what the bible is telling us must always be what it was telling the people of the day and age it was written to- but that doesn't mean that it is all universally applicable, nor that what it had to say back then is relavent in every single aspect, or time or place. It also doesn't mean that the situations and relaities it deals with are universally present in our day an age and every day and age. For instance, we don't sacrifice a lamb in the same way the hebrews and many other cultures sacrificed animals for appeasement or atonement. But I am very confused why we make no sacrificial gestures of thanks to God in the form of water and burnt offerings. Breaking a cup in a set of eight so in that absence of a cup in always belongs to the spirit of God, and where one glass is used so too is he drinking with you etc. Pouring out your first bottle or can in a case of drinks to give thanks and let God's spirit join you in your abundance, we don't do that in this day and age, much I believe to our encapsulating detriment. Would you tell a person who is not a Corinthian they should always have short hair? Or that people should not hide their faces when they pray? Would you tell Peter than when God asks him 'slay and eat' a menagerie of unclean beasts that Peter is right and God is off his rocker? I have left room for the possibility on this issue that I am wrong, I don't think I am, because I have talked to God about it, and we have a very fluid relationship, where I believe due to his grace I have been imparted with a very distinct discernment of where he is active and convicting and where he is not. This still doesn't mean that I am correct however, and the issue is not a cerebral logcal one either. It is relational, and in these cases a persons relationship, not necessarily their reason is affecting their thoughts and perspective. Which means before repentance can talke place if it needs to, their relationships need to change- which will in effect change their mind, change the person they are, and in the end change their actions behaviour and lifestyle. If that needs to occur and until it does, no amount of request or pestering will change someone's mind and repentance will not take place. As an African American perhaps you can relate to the ideas of slavery in the united states much better than many of us Netty. However, the issue on many levels, when it existed in the south was not simple. Many of the most prominent generals and politicians recognized the inhumanity of slavery. But they also recognized the complexity of an entires economy built on forced labour- that cannot be irradicated without destroying the way of life not just of slave owners but also of those who did not own slaves and were very congenial towards their equally capable coloured brothers. However, their solidarity towards not whites but their fellow southern americans could foresee the reality of apposing an industry and an institution which persisted by false excuse that God condoned it, or more likely, upon the hearts and minds of those whose conscience was not affected at all to change or care for their slaves. At which point, protest and opposition would only hurt both black and white, likely more the black person, and all the people of the south. At which point they left the realities of slavery in God's hands, that he woud deal with it justly timely and redemptively. The best they could do was in the interest, fascilitate the slave trade in the dual interest of either setting slaves free or owning men they treated humanely and fairly and holding the conscience of those who did own or their fellow owners to consider freeing their labouers, or to maintain that they were treated as the human beings they are. And in Virginia that is exactly what you had to the most part, not a system which wanted to persist in slavery but a system that by necessity and tradition to some extent had to persist, and was looking for a means of conversion which would allow it to adjust out of the instute of slavery without ruining the lives of everyone in those regions black and white by becoming desitute in the process.
If you look at all the antimosity that existed and still exists these days between whites in the south towards blacks and foreigners, it stems frankly from the fact that they were never given that natural opportunity to rise above slavery, it was taken from them, which visited more injustice upon every part of their culture, including the slave, then discussion opportunity, and inegrating alternative means. The civil war had very little to do with slavery, but once it was a defining factor, the antagonism of the north for the sake of what they conveniently were able to disguise as a 'just cause of liberation' cause hatred and bitterness- generatons of defeat and poverty, murder disease, the worst kinds of death and despair- inadequacy, patronization, total bitterness that can only occur when a people loses its home, it's way of life, it's identity, turns on itself, beset within and without with no options except total annihilation. We call those who are racist fools, but this is not so, they behave foolishly, and it is not universally justified, but it does come out of a culture that was so bitterly defeated and paraded and shamed through the streets that such immortal bitterness and anger still exists one hundred and fifty years later. This doesn't excuse the injustices of that society, but it should not gloss over the injustices of others which utterly crippled a people group for it's own political and economic gains, and was able to wash its conscience with the convenience the end of slavery prospectively gave them. I sometimes very adamantly believe that the church and God's people behave this way, and use the bible to give them that safe place where no one can touch them, indeed it happens on many issues where people want to focus on one scripture that supports them and ignore others that don't and refuse to address the one group but not the other, or use consensus as a litmus of truth- ten thousand liars can approve the lie and it still remains false, but it begins with one lie that is approved. We're very apt at approving lies and streamlining our vision, which is why I leave room for being wrong here, even though I see a great deal of correctness in all relationships of mutually beneficial reality devoid of abuse.God is vast and divergent, he gave us culture, he gave us bodies, and languages, all of which have Christ at the heart, all of which are blessings and gifts which make us reflect him as being vast and divergent, yet whole and contained and focused. There is more than one way to God, because there are many ways and many places in which one can find themselves discovering Jesus as the love of their life, including the sinners prayer and him becoming their personal saviour. But what happens when the fact that following the idea Jesus is the foundation of our faith, not what we screw, gets people saved and restored to health, by homosexuals, even in homosexual relationships. What happens when a Lesban leads someone to Jesus, or leads their lover to Jesus? What is the issue when someone gives bread and cheese to the homeless, what they had sex with twenty minutes ago, or why they feel impelled to feed a person? When you give someone a paycheck do you ask them if they are going to go and spend it on drugs? Yet that is our response to giving many homeless people money. And what might we say to that? These people often times have mental disorders they cannot get treatment for, is our response then to say, the alcohol that lets you go to sleep instead of listening to your pain or mental disorder is forbidden you, your belly is full but you mind is tormented.
im not here to bash ppl. im just here because i can not see why ppl think that you can be an active homosexual and go to heaven. you cant. you have to leave that lifestyle behind and follow Christ. if there are Christians out there who practice this lifestyle and don't believe that they have to STOP engaging in that kind of behavior then i feel for them. the same goes for a fornicator, a murderer. why should ppl who commit every other sin have to repent but NOT a homosexual? it seems to me like youre trying to say to them "go ahead! God accepts the things that youre doing. dont stop! God loves you the way that you are". While HE does love us all, no matter what we do, He CLEARLY states that we must follow Christ. how can someone in a homosexual relationship be compleeeeeetely dedicated and devoted to Christ while STILL living that way? same with me and my porn/masturbation addiction, among many other. many people want to tip toe around sin and focus on how loving God is without realize that He hates sin, ALL SIN, and that ALL SIN needs to be repented for. no matter what is it. in order to be forgiven we must ask for forgiveness! confess that we are sinning and that we need God to pull us out of sin. we need to be willing to GIVE OUR LIVES for Him. if a person thats living a homosexual lifestyle and doesnt want to leave that behind to follow Christ, isnt that that kind of warped? i'm not saying it's easy for them to say "okay i'm not going to be with a woman/man". i'm sure its not, especially when its love thats involved. at the same time they need to understand that what theyre doing is wrong and unfortunately im dealing with a person who says "God says im going to hell for being gay and i just cant believe in something like that". its not her being gay is whats going to send her to hell its because she's sinning and doesnt want to repent. if we die in our sins were going to go to hell. she doesnt want to repent. she doesnt feel like he has to, which is lie because if its not im pretty sure God is a liar then...
We even have the idea that Jesus alone in the salvivic formula of the Spirit that God is and that person solves all our problems. But this is not presicely kosher, for the very simple reason of how outrageous the incarnation is. I often wonder how we claim to be part of those who know God, but our response to certain issues are, 'If you just had Jesus, if you just had more faith, oh you believe or think that, then you don't have either of those things.' Yet we don't see Jesus perhaps as a cause of problem in the first place. If a person doesn't confront us as God, there's no real reason at all to believe the type of life that incarnation commands of us is acceptible, and we say these things to people who live lives that we cannot fathom of being acceptible- we worry about food, clothing shelter, and are angry at people living on the streets that have actually gotten to the point where a full stomach a shirt on their back and a leanto against wind and rain are the only things they need, because in the grand scheme of things they're the least of our concerns, but we who have such things are always in the feeling they are of the most importance. We are attacking God when we determine what fulfills another human being and tell him what Jesus should be. We are more valuable than many sparrows and our clothing is accounted more spendidly than the robes of lillies. We get roiled up about results, external results. We get distracted by the idea that Jesus healed people, and so we determine that what we see as incapable or not whole, blindness, hunger, invalid persons, the mute the deaf. Those dying from aids, cancer etc. Should all be made right and normal as we see normal as we think we are normal, as we think our vision of God's path is whole and normal. We can effectively metaphor the capacity of Jesus feeding people not simply as physical but spiritual, in that he not only solves spiritual and physical hunger by giving people bread, but by he also being the bread of life. And we can understand that giving sight to the blind Jesus has become their eyes. But the strange thing is, that the people Jesus is healing we never stop to realize his words, 'That these people could see all along' 'these people could speak all along' 'these leppers could feel along', and it's us who could not see it, it's us who could not feel it, it's us who could not hear it,' and it's us who could not speak to them. As long as we are focused on what we dictate to be real results, we are doomed. Because we will fail properly give the bread that feeds their stomachs, but also the bread that sustains their spirits through relationship. Because the miracle in Christ, is not simply that he becomes the bread, or the eye or the bone, or the skin. But that he is the touch and the hearing and the seeing. And the simplest truth is not that he made men walk, but that he himself got on his knees to pick them up. And even in not picking him up, he got on his knees to acknowledge him, hold him, spend time with him.
i find it hard to come to a homosexual person and tell them about Christ because all theyll say is God is looooooove. He loves everyone. thats the only defense. bottom line is most of THEM dont understand why is wrong. God wants us to love people but at the same time i dont think He wants us to sit back and tell people to "knock themselves out" when it comes to sinning.
The facts are that, he saw the amputees, and ran to them and reach out to them. He saw the blind, heard the mute, listened with the deaf, knelt with the lame, touched the leppers. Made love to the prostitutes and was intimate with them [and not in any taboo kind of way]. That he talked patiently with the confused like Nicodemus, that he was consolidated with the tax collectors, was drunk with the drunks, gluttonous with gluttons, gave clean needles to the junkies so they embraced an evil as the least of many evils. That he was the justice that repars and redeems instead of the vengeance that can do no such thing and masquarades as justice but is really a consuming monster ravenous after the facts of injury. The realy cold hard fact of Jesus is that his whole life is a sesation of the argument 'I right and I am above.' His whole life is that I accept every loss and evil upon myself, unto myself, that I would strip and become naked, so you would not be. That I would beg that you might have employment. That I would stoop and bow down to the cripple, not caring why they are crippled but wishing to hold the gaze of a weakend one, to tell them, that because of him, they are really not so weak, to give up his throne, his control, to give us all that we need, wether much or little. That he would steal that others might be spared the need for theft, and see that even in death God is so good to us, we need not resort to theft. The bottom line is Netty, not that homosexuality is a sin or not, that is arguable to no end. The reality is that my God became a goat for me, so that I could become a man. And because of him I have the ability to set myself aside for degredation of any form, when it is the right and proper moment, to become whatever creature or form of creature is best for him, people, all creation and redemption. I don't believe right now is the best time to become anything to do anything, but when it comes I will know. The fact of the matter is that the type of creature I can be, possesses the strength to bow down, stop arguing and repent of my errors and weaknesses. If Christ became a goat for our humanity, perhaps we might become repentant for others to repent.
But you're approaching this from a set conclusion- they don't see it as sin, so how can you tell someone the sky is blue when they can't see it? How do you know the sky is blue and at that why the sky is blue? How do you know they're operating from a pattern of thought that says there is a sky? And if you're not willing to know that, let alone be open the the possibility that if there is no sky, then why should they listen to you? Even so, what is so bad about someone believeing there is no sky if it was never important to them in a real practical sense in the first place?And just for fact, the sky is not blue technically it is every colour but blue, and noticing that absence of blue, we see blue to complete the break in the spectrum, it's a completely universally psychollogical construct of the human mind- if no one is there to see the blue, it doesn't exist and never will until the external psychological conditions are correct, but placing a psyche into the conditions. Also Jeanette, if you notice, you're very frustrated that people respond with, but God is love, someone told me so, but your argument is, it is a sin the bible and God told me so. It's kind of the same argument with different words. Now if you knew both why God loves us, and why it's a sin and can communicate timely in love and compassion, you might strike some powerful ground. But I see it as sin, because of X because X is X is not an argument, even if it is truth, no one not even a Christian should give you an Amen for saying like that. If it is a sin, there are no arbitrary rationales that God just 'made it so' God does things on a sensible basis and does nothing that is nonsensible, and being as he is not concerned about being forcefully correct, I am sure he is willing to discuss the reasons why, just be open that he might also demonstrate reasons why not.
i see what youre saying. at the same time i cant help but feel sorry for all the lost souls and for all the people that i know and dont know. the people who choose to not follow Christ and live the way that they want. thats sad. the ones who'll never get the chance to repent because the dont want to or because itll be too late. i wish it were easy to focus on the person in love rather than the sin but how can you feel like you truly love someone without accepting their sin?
Well it breaks down into your view of sin. Celtic theology determines sin to be a void a vaccuum, a place of nonexistence. So at the end of the day, you cannot actually love sin, because sin isn't anything. But of course the obvious reality is people act upon something that is sin, or sinful. But in some sense you can travel into a void, or try and fill and abyss. What you fill it with then affects you. If you should be walking into the void, which might be argude you shouldn't will have very certain and very real adverse affects. At the end of the day, you cannot love non contextualized space or open space- because it doesn't exist. To a certain extent semantics will begin to tell us nothing is still something is a proper noun in contradiction, in paradox, and for us empty space, the nonexistent, the incompleteness, has a context, it is apposed to material and apposed to context- but for the sake of not getting lost- it makes us inhuman- the human that should exist doesn't exist in certain places, that are empty. So you don't have to love the garbage that is in their life, it is garbage, it either suffers from the same problems of contextualess nonexistence or was once good and overcome by nonexistence. Something like the movie the butterfly effect, wherever the main character has blaced out, he can go back and fill what isn't or wasn't there with new events to try and fix what he percieves as flaws in the historical record that has impacted the present reality he has to deal with- none of his efforts have a positive consequence in the end, and in fact he operates from one proof or cause of sinful absence and returns to another form of the same thing to fix the problem- emptiness addressing emptiness is doomed to fail. A better way to see it would be to appraoch a pedophile, and I am not comparing peadophilia with raping babies. In the modern context that is absurd. But for a paedophile, many things are or maybe going on in them emotionally and psychologically, which all stem from a place of incompleteness, a lack of wholeness, an absence, a place where something that should be there is not. For instance, the random loss of control or power, a theft of independence can cause a person to take those things from children because it is provided for the taking with easy access. So where the fullness of control does not exist, or the fullness of freedom, it is taken from someone else because somewhere the persons humanity is incomplete in extremely significant ways. Many abusive parent from abusive backgrounds let this out on their children, and it is no accident that many cereal killers have such abusive backgrounds, and specific intentions when it comes to their victims. But back to the peadophile example, sometimes the maturity does not exist within the individual to find age appropriate affection, and rape of adults can be classified in this way I believe as well. You cannot love the arm of an amputee in the same sense as it being physically present. I don't doubt that perhaps you could love the idea of it so much that love makes it again. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that is the point.
The fact of the matter is that the summation of the amputee, cereal killer, paedophile or abusive parent is not in what they are missing, they are not summation of their problems but in where is still there, what still exists, and as long as they have a body, they are still, as an anchor, not lost from being a human being. And this you can love. In fact, you can even love them out of the void, but focusing on the void as something that can be emptied or filled as we see fit is dangerous- because it causes us to neglect the parts of people that are really there, and the parts of us that are really there. In fact the reality is, Love, real hot hard, stern and gentle love is the thing that completes us. And you cannot actively stop loving anyone, because there is always something human there in them to be loved, as long as they have body, and love indeed persists even against the grave. This is why I support homosexual relationships because according to the claim of these people, which is all I have to go on, [and there is humanity in them, and in that humanity, part of God or entirely God], that they have found love and relationship which doesnt turn to garbage, which doesn't leave them out in the cold void, that puts something existing and existential in the place where once there was no context and nonexistence, which fought against me and ate me up from the inside and threatened to eat me up and leave me floating and dying in the cold sickness inside, or racing through and hurting the earth. Of course I also believe that only with the Father's love is this filling going to be complete and total, but without people and creation even with the father's love, there can be very little healing and filling of the emptiness. And it is a process as well, it is not isolated nor happens all at once. But I cannot shut myself off the possibility that any form of relationship of whatever nature is passed the point of being filled with that love, and being the agent of that healing wholeness. And I am very much for the conscience that can speak of itself about what is good for it on a meaningful level. Even taking drugs can be beneficial for a short time, they're like tonguing the openness around a wound with sensational electric shocks, but eventually you need larger shocks and more electricity and it is passing the gap between things that are points of wholeness, so that it either makes the nothingness grown or it electricutes even the healthy parts of a person.
But the fact of the matter remains, we can try and love people despite their sins, or we can focus on the fact that we love the person, and where sin is concerned, it doesn't exist. Yes there is a fear that the sin will consume them or kill them, but you fight that possibility not be antagonizing something you cannot poke or slay like it has organs and weak points- you fight it by strengthening that which exists, by loving them against the void- but not because it will help them against sin, but because the most basic nature of love is life giving and loving for its own sake by default keeps the sickness at bay. I don't think we should concern ourselves much with sin, simply for the fact that it is a thing that does not exist, and therefore is mysterious, elusive, useless unproductive and we can easily be lost and disoriented within it. I think personally we should address sin by surrendering it to God, who is far better equipped to know it and reckon with it. Even the contemplation of sin's fruits, that of death is not to concern ourselves with the negative, but to be wise place ourselves in order and live well for the good of every one and everything around us, and that resurgence of life when thinking of the merky insoluable perplexity of death and sin should drive us to love the parts of ourself which are still healthy and points of wholeness that much more dearly. And this is the work of Jesus, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world- he created wholeness through the distribution of his love, which causes dry land to appear where there were before, dividing waters. His removal of sin is not that he takes away and puts it in prison in the crushing waters of the deep hellish oceans, but that he fills it up with tissue and nerves and love and heath and people and relationships and birds and wonder. He sends it to the deeps of the sea not to imprison it, nor to crush it, but to fill it with washes of cold water and fill it in forever. And thus we find that those who have found God in the most shattering of ways also have a greater aptitude for hurt, not to endure it necessarily but to feel it more tenderly. For the things of injustice in our emptiness are fed by their projectiles.
But when the places of leprosy, blindness, deafness, muteness, lameness are made whole, where bellys are filled and shelters are given, and warmth is retained we feel it more greatly, not simply because we are no longer distracted by our own problems, but because we are no longer numb in our destitution. We feel the nakedness of others in our new garments, and since our beings are made whole there are more nerve endings for injustice to strike and bruise and more needs to respond with compassion- they can no longer pass through, nor can they attach themselves the same extensive void in us and cause it to grow, the hit solid skin, divinely build bones, they stain fresh garments given to cover us with dignity, they sour the food in our bellys because we were given so much to eat and ate it all, and go to find more food to give. It impacts our limbs because they are there again- it impacts our eyes because now we can see again, and it is not an idea or longing of sight that gave us a type of seeing, it is real sight. Our speaking is sent back to us in the silence of those who cannot, and we hear the weeping and the moaning, because we truly have ears now to hear, and they can be shattered now. And the risk of falling back into sin increases, because when those things of more insidious and precise articulate projectiles are launched, they enter penetratingly, and with less pain and create a new void, but that void is likely to heal quickly because it sliced through that which existed, and we have a great surgeon who is always working on us morning and night to remove them when we realize how foolish it is to encourage the emptiness in us, and fight our completeness. I must admit that for this simple relational reality present even by homosexuality submitted at the least to one another in community- that end of fighting the incompleteness, that acceptance of another human being entering into that void and them into the other is not disobedient but as desperate and true and real and human as what we all go through.
Seeking God in spirit in his own flesh and the flesh of others. Homosexuality is not in this day and age refusal to obey God, though in some cases it can be, just like heterosexuals can make their sexual pursuits abject disobedience, and both who believe can even make their sexual behaviour, gay and straight angry bitter protests towards our Almighty Wonderful God. But the deep seated ceded acceptance that in all places I need intimacy I need love, I need truth, and I need it given to me well, with dignity and for my dignity- well every relationship should be that way- to acknowledge, I need a church I need a saviour, I need to be a church I need to be a saviour, and that I am a church and I have a saviour, answer all our longings deep inside, and it can meet them, and it cannot- and sometimes we cannot explain why it can and why it cannot, but in every case it comes very close, and close is close enough if Jesus comes along, without argument but searching out the person he needs to bend his knees to to see, whom he needs to to speak to because he has heard. Whom he needs to listen to because they spoke. Are we seriously going to complain and dictate to other people, without bending our knees how they can find their wholeness, and are we seriously going to tell God, where he is allowed to make people whole? Are we really going to say, not by the cross but by our righteous might, in the fact that we are right and possibly biblically sound? Yes indeed love is not simply sexual, and intimacy takes many forms- but if it is indeed where people find all three, who cares if it includes one that makes you feel uncomfy, that's your problem, so grow out of it, and whether you do, or whether you don't, accept in all cases the need to submit rather than speak out. Are we really going to look people in the eye and heart and say 'Look, here in this person you think you've found and touched God in such a way, in no other person, in such a way that it i impossible as they live, to find and touch in another. But you haven't, and you didn't, and the best we can do is offer you God's Spirit, which you cannot touch, nor feel or hear the same way, and that's just going to have to be good enough!' And then we refuse to submit ourselves into the alternative of that intimacy and acceptance and truth they have discovered, and be that 'more meaningful love' because we don't give a damn. We want them to stop putting our way of life and beliefs under attack and stop telling us that the possibility exists that we don't control God. We are not interested in being the love that fills the void, not matter how much we tell them we are concerned about their eternal well being, by not giving a shit about their immediate well being. We have determined what thorn we have in our paw and bark with scorn and derision at it because it has the audacity not to pull itself out from where we have placed it.
I am sorry I siderailed your post netty, but I got on an inspiration schtick and had to see it to its end.
my thing is if living that way is so acceptable in the sight of God how come He never said that it was? how come He never said "children, honor thy father and mother or, in some cases thy father and father and thy mother and mother". why didnt God create THREE couples- man/woman, man/man, woman/woman- if being with someone of the same sex was somehow okay with Him? there is something that i say in regards to same sex relationships: God cares more about youre actions that your attractions. God isnt concerned about WHO you think is attractive, He's concerned about the things we do!! He never said that if i were to find a woman attractive i were committing a sing. NO. BUT He DID say that if i were to ACT upon those attractions i were to be committing a sin. and miracle man, i never really got a "yes" or "no" from you regarding my question, so i hope i get one now: Do you think that God is in favor of same sex relationships? Same sex marriage? all i need is a yes or no and a why. please do get too logical and philosophical on me, lol. oh, and if God is the same and doesnt change, why would He change His mind regarding same sex relationships?
Well, for paragrpah one, you also have to ask yourself, if heterosexuality was so straight forward and simple, why does God, in that place and time have to tell us to be heterosexuals? There are far more commandments about how to be heterosexual in the law than how to be gay. This is not to say that God endorsed heterosexuality and not homosexuality- but you see there are so many abuses and occurences of the one, and only certain circumstances of the other. Homosexuality in the old testament is usually a form of ritualistic rape, humiliation, and power opression. Of course homosexual relationships can behave that way today, but so can heterosexual relationships. The notion of homosexual relationships that don't fit these three profiles, even a fourth, that people screwed whatever moved for their selfish and animalistic benefit, is completely new, and if occurred in history was rare. Homosexuals wanting life long companionship with an equal, whom they can share themselves with, serve and self transcend with, be loved and love with and find peace or a constant and intimate ally through struggle, closer than anyone else, is very much a new developement, and therefore is not the homosexuality that God was speaking about. Of course not all marriages and relationships begin or finish like this, but the premise being asked for is to have that opportunity in this day and age. Homosexual, homosexuality, these even are more modernised terminologies, for the very simply reason they imply an exclusivity to the same sex that the ancient world would not have understood in the same way- most men buggering other men, would not have thought themselves Gay, and would have derrided the person they buggered because they had the unfortunate position of being buggered sometimes to death, but they were shamed by the fact that they received, no gave, and this was emmasculating, and so taboo. Men, the cheif engagers in these acts would also have had sex with women, sometimes with the same treatment, since both the person sodomised and the female were femininestly attributed. Take into account the woman in Judges who is raped to death when she is given to a whored of violent thugs. Now consider that this went on all the time in pagan worship, sacrificial slaughter by gang rape. Take into account that even when homosexual actvity went on in the ancient world, it was never to include respect and concern from the dominant party, for the value and beneficial treatment of the submissives body, and would always have included sodomy, which could have reulted in bleeding to death from the damage done by one penetration [but this would be repeated as a temple ritual again and again] or sometimes in Rome's case, violent fucking of the mouth- they even had a word for it unto itself, and to give a blow job in Roman society was always a violent action and their most humiliating insult. In fact their God of ferility whose weapons of guard over crops was a cycle and his penis, would punish vandals as so, children sodomised, women raped in the usual fashion, and men, mouth fucked. Imagine the damage these actions do, to the back of the throat or to the rectum and colin and they were violent degredations, either for legal punishment, or simply for selfish reasons- in fact in the ancient world sodomy could be considered beastiality from the practicing cultures, for the very simply fact that by being sodomised the recipiant was considered less than human. In all these contexts, the modern homosexuality is not the same thing at all, and so we cannot use the biblical record to approach it as necessarily forbidden. If it is forbidden then that fact has to come from somewhere other than scripture, because we have a new human practice going on.
if we cant believe scripture, what can we believe? homosexuals r supposed to overcome that [practicing ones], just lime im supposed to overcome MY sins and YOU yours. its sin miracle man, no matter what you say or what anyone else says. GOD SAYS SO...and ill leave it at that.
oh, and please read romans ch 1 miracle man. it speaks on the matter. maybe then youll realize that God is speaking more about relationships in those passages.
and you STILL didnt give me a yes or no lol. sheesh. how come?
Paragraph two- I have been having this discussion about morality alot lately- that it is summarized by 'what will you do, what will you do?' but mostly I have been being shown, especially on the Christian note, that the entire reality is more 'Who will I become, and who do I want to become?' At the end of the day this is the righteousness and unrighteousness of the situaton, the evil is not precisely all the sinful things I do, but the sinful person who chooses to do them. Action is a finacky thing, because we may want to do something and fail, and we may want to do something and succeed, but the simple question is not the success of the action, but did I succeed as a human being- am I becoming more human, or have lived as humanly as possible? And when that is a person's desire, they will strive to do the most human things to people and themselve and to creation, and this is the pursuit of Christ. This is why transformation and the change of heart ar so crucial, because without being partially the person you want to be you cannot produce the humanity in your actions and you cannot progress into becoming. Even God is concerned with the people we are wish to be and will become. This is why I enjoy the celtic theology so much, because Jesus shows up as the person we should be, and reaches deep inside to show us, this is what you've always wanted, and I made you long ago, and when you were conceived, so part of you is like that already. They would even go so far as to say that if our minds are resistant and ignorant the material we are made of will see and know and wish and be enabled by him and his template. In Roman's seven we can see this, in Paul's simplest terms, 'I want to be a good man, but I do wretched things and my being is engulfed in madness, because I know what's wrong and still do it [this is the legal definition of insanity by the way, in fact insanity is a legal term only], but thank you Jesus Christ who has given me back my identity, and my civility.' Morality is a tricky subject, because in the end we are trying to work out the order of the universe from the examples of our anscestors, whom we've confused as God's and combined with the supernatural, because it's useful and comforting to say and think that your first father is a god. This is not entirely evil, our anscestors male and female are to reflect god, but in the end, likely they were not very godly people in every respect, and when you give them Godhead, most of the time you have to decide which characteristics belonged to the God, and which to the man, and mostly all the powerful unyielding and otherwise striking and impressive in terms of order control and mastery, judgement etc are given to the God, and the truly virtuous. like mercy and tenderness are removed, not always but often. And then we start derriving our humanity from these anscstors, they determine the type of people we want to be, to be inline with the order of the universe, the order usually of the gods who are our anscestors. So what happens, well these anscestors were brutal and physically impressive, they established a nation of people, they by necessity had to be, look at the tasks undertaken by Moses and Joshua and the Judges, and by David to preserve their contribution. By these standards we want to become wealthy strong, flashy, fit, and it's not wrong, we should be fit, we should necessarily have some things of value, even if we're homeless, we should demonstrate self control, etc. But its the people that actively demonstrate departures from this godly order that are ignored or rejected, persecuted or reguiled. Compassion, mercy, charity, and love, these things are foreign to people who want to be like their desperate and hardened ancestors, and why not, they had the potential to imperil the tribe as it wondered in hostile lands, and carved out its place in the land usually by force. We are in a dangerous place truly more so when our Gods are not out anscestors but actors politicians investors, music stars, and they are, these contemporaries who don't know how to govern anything but money and art, are far less worthy than gods who in their context knew how to makes sure their people survived, or conquered on the battlefield, made sure they were fed, and could find food.
I have digressed far too much there, but morality boils down to who you want to be. Do we want to be righteous, even if we fail, or don't produce external results what is the result in me? Have I lived righteously as a human being? So when people begin to say, what I want in life is to be love and to be loved, to be a Christ and a Church to another human being, and to be as best they can constantly loyal and committed to other human beings. Isn't the least of our concern what sexual consequences are going on? Aren't the sexual consequences coming from those first desires of being, to be love and to be loved? At which point aren't they governed by love, and wont the God who is love be a part of that desire to be lovable and be loving? If we ask the honest questions, barring abuse and manipulation, what is not human about a homosexual relationship? Can there be an honest answer, if we ask the same question about heterosexual relationships, barring abuse and manipulation what is human about heterosexual relationsips? It's not really an issue about is what they are doing right or wrong, it comes down to, the type of people they desire to be, and in the positive side, what do we do when both forms of relationship actually want to be the same thing, to be love and to be loved?
they need to look to CHRIST for love first! especially those who are living that lifestyle and are christians! thats an oxymoron! they cant live both lifestyles, and you, being a christian should know that. seems to me like youre concerned with what they world accepts and not what GOD accepts.
I can believe the bible Netty, but I don't believe it just because it says something. It's not just the word of God, it's also a history text from a time and place and we cannot just apply that time and place to ours and draw conclusions, that's what atheists and amiraculousists do. We actually have to think like those people, or get an idea of what they were thinking and examine the context they were in, and once that is done you have to see if the context we are in is the same- the very simple fact that we don't think the same way those people did should be the first indicator that the context has changed.If you wish to have something to believe, trust in God, who is in you around you and very much alive- believing in scripture is not the same as how you should believe in scripture. I have no doubt that everything in scripture is true, but what that truth is and how it is really saying it is something you have to investigate. I also cannot believe that in a world that has x number of new religions and has been Christianised once already that it can be telling us everything it did before. That is like saying that a tank commander reading Napolean's artillery manuals should clean his twenty first century battle machine the same way you would clean a cannon. This might even be a sound principal, maybe they do clean tanks like they clean cannons. However, you cannot apply the same instructions of rifles and muskets to machine guns, because the times have changed. Cavalry units don't use horses anymore, they used choppers in Viet Nam, and I imagine they use vehicles now, should they park their vehicles in the stable at night, with a blanket and straw and feed it a carrot before they retire?
Gods word doesnt change miracle man. God doesnt change. He's the same as HE was thousands of years ago. its the devil thats at work and wants us to doubt whether or not God "meant what He meant". psssh! whatever. Gods word is JUST and its TRUE.
Leviticus 18:22 deals with homosexuality. I take it that this is God's law, but remember what Jesus did with that law - for transgressions of ours and transgressions of those engaged in homosexuality. Look at Leviticus 15:16 and 15:18, this is what it is to emit semen for a man, under circumstances where the man is alone, or with a woman. That is it is unclean. Masterbation makes me unclean in God's sight, and homosexuality makes me detestable. But for both I would be forgiven in Christ. Then I look to Ephesians 5:3 and seek after the way for God's liberated people. Not a hint of sexual immorality. So I take it this includes both masterbation and homosexual acts. You are faced with a Christian who does not follow this biblical guidance, and therefore dishonours the Lord. Or one who is not a Christian. If the essence of faith or absence of faith is one thing, it is invisible. Netts, is your job not simple? As Christ died for us sinners, that is He loved to the extent that he would die for us while we were in our sin, so you need to love your friend. You have to accept his sin - its happening. Sin by definition is unacceptable to God, but remember who was shoulder to shoulder with sinners when it mattered?: Jesus - God himself. I somehow think that the conservative Christian zeal for attacking homosexuality at present is a bit self righteous and dogmatic; and is doing more harm than good. You don't often see Christians being as organised in opposition to commerical exploitation, or the idolotry of consumer culture, for instance. I really, really don't understand all of it. Jesus didn't wear a placard. It is sometimes very healthy in a relationship to counter, rebuke, debate... but don't let these things destroy the relationship. It sounds like you are losing hope. But you are to be a vessel full of salt and grace. Perhaps you could season this friend's experience by relenting for a while. You don't have to keep hammering something to the extent that you become frustrated, that must be counter productive.And as for those who appear to reject Christ. Well, what of your salvation? Was it dependent on your turning away from sin and accepting Christ? Or was it dependent on God's will (Ephesians 1:5)? Or was it both. I'm not asking for an answer I'm asking you to think. What entitlement do any of us sinners in this fallen world have to salvation?How are you handling all of this is prayer?
what youre saying to me is more clear that what mm is saying to me. Christ DID die for us all! of course. but ppl used that as an excuse to continue to live in sin and not seek repentance because they believe that, since Christ died for our sins, we can keep on sinning because He's gonna keep on forgiving us. i'm not going to answer you yet jamesz because i'm going to ponder on this for awhile. i'm going to get back to you but i really wanna think things through.
I thought perhaps you were trying to be controlling. I thought you were being malicious. But perhaps I understand why you are angry - because I don't know what it is to experience what you're describing. Maybe this is the answer, in Corinthians:" 9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."It sounds like you are better off associating with a non-Christian practising homosexual rather than a Christian practising homosexual. There is a line in the church and I personally feel you are on the right side of it. But I'm still a bit concerned that you won't follow this commandment with sorrow. How hard is the verse to follow...!? How many of us are not those thing? How many of us deserve to sit down with another Christian. I know I don't.
my whole issue is that we as christians should know whats wrong and whats right. we should at least feel remorse for what we do and want to change but with her thats not the case and i dont understand. i dont understand how she could not want to stop the things thats shes doing and tell God "i'm sorry. please help change me", do you get what i mean? its not that i hate gay people or murderers or drunkards. for the christians out there who sin like theres no consequence, well.. i dont understand them.james, i think you get where i'm coming from. i'm not saying she's not a good person; it's not like she's "evil", she just doesnt want to hear the truth abot sin. all sin. i used to be like that myself but thatnks to God i'm not anymore. maybe i should be more compassionate with her and understanding but i'll have to ask God to help me understand why she chooses to ignore the fact that we allll are supposed to overcome sin, no matter what it is, and repent. i know it's hard, it's hard for me. that doesn't mean i'm going to give up though.oh, and james, i too feel like i shouldnt sit down with other christians. like at my church. i know in my heart that i'm WILLING to change and i'm able only through Christ, but i slip up a lot and i screw up bad. so i feel like i'm not worthy of being in the presence of other christians. i have a lot of things to deal with and i want to understand ppl more but boy! i don't think i'll fully understand why some christians take Gods word with a grain of salt.
its difficult isnt it... the whole of it.
yes it is. especially when you want to become teh best christian you can be and you want the same for others. but then again i have to realize that they too have to want it for themselves.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!