Fallen from Grace
Joe4jesus
has lost touch with Christ and has become an empty shell
compared to what it should be. We have become little more
than just another manmade religion with all of our rules,
regulations, ritual and ceremony. We have fallen from grace
and instead have crafted any number of different versions
of law to suit our needs according to what denomination
we happen to belong to. Galatians 3:10-11 says, " For as
many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for
it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in
all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is
evident, for "the just shall live by faith."(NKJV)" For anyone
who has an eye to see, it is evident that the Church in large
part is not living up to the standard of holiness and power that
the first century Church set, as we see revealed in New Testament
scripture. Could our weakness have to do with the fact that we
choose to live under law when we should be living under grace
and through the power of the Spirit? How can we partake of the
power that comes with grace if we insist on living under law?
In Christ's Love
Joe Elliott
http://members.aol.com/joe4jesus/index.htm
MOD: This might just be a spam broadcast but I've let it through, as
perhaps Joe will respond to any comments you have.
charles sommers
"Joe4jesus" <joe4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rnqvovoqe5ach7o7d...@4ax.com...
CHUCK
It sounds as though you have been reading Bruce Bawer's book
"Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity"
Bruce is a gay man, a highly religious Episcopalian, and feels
one of the ways his premise is illustrated is the way fundamentalists
treat gay people (in accord with "the law") vs. the way he believes
Jesus would treat them and the way true Christians should treat them
(in accord with "the spirit").
Joe4jesus
>>It sounds as though you have been >>reading Bruce Bawer's book
>>"Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism >>Betrays Christianity"
>>Bruce is a gay man, a highly religious >>Episcopalian, and feels
>>one of the ways his premise is >>illustrated is the way fundamentalists
>>treat gay people (in accord with "the >>law") vs. the way he believes
>>Jesus would treat them and the way >>true Christians should treat them
>>(in accord with "the spirit").
No, I have not read the book in question. However, I do believe that
many
fundamentalists do treat homosexuals in the wrong way. I do believe it
is a
sin. But the way to prove that is not to cite old testament law. When
that is
done it opens one up to the obvious question of why they don't live
according
to the rest of the old law. Homosexuals should be treated with the
same love
that any sinner should receive. But that love will not and should not
extend to
acceptance of the homosexual sin. Homosexuality is a sin because
several pieces
of evidence lead to that conclusion. First, it is mentioned negatively
several
times in scripture in both the old and new testaments. Secondly, it is
never
mentioned in a positive manner anywhere in scripture. Marriage between
a man
and woman is the only mention we have of marriage or sex in the bible,
as far
as in a positive way. Thirdly, why would God make us male and female
if that we
not the way it was supposed to be. Why would God make anyone a
homosexual? If
he wanted a man to be attracted to men, he would have made him a
woman. It's
really very simple. But let me also say that I don't believe it is a
choice,
per se. I do beleive that some are born with the desires. But that
proves
nothing. We are all born sinners. We are all born corrupted. How we
are born
isn't the way God wants us. That is what salvation is about. We are in
need of
the new birth in Christ the day we are born. Being born a certain way
means
nothing. None of us is born perfect. We are only perfected in Christ.
Steve Gray
wrote:
>The vast majority of the professing Christian Church of today
>has lost touch with Christ and has become an empty shell
>compared to what it should be. We have become little more
>than just another manmade religion with all of our rules,
>regulations, ritual and ceremony.
GRAY:
Xty has always been nothing more than just another manmade
religion. Provide some evidence to the contrary or stop claiming it.
And you can't do that by citing the Bible because that would be
perfectly circular.
If Xty somehow reflects "God," than why has it degenerated, as
you admit? Why did "God" let that happen? Why does "God" let any bad
thing happen?
charles sommers
> >>CHUCK
> >>It sounds as though you have been >>reading Bruce Bawer's book
>
> >>"Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism >>Betrays Christianity"
>
> >>Bruce is a gay man, a highly religious >>Episcopalian, and feels
> >>one of the ways his premise is >>illustrated is the way fundamentalists
> >>treat gay people (in accord with "the >>law") vs. the way he believes
> >>Jesus would treat them and the way >>true Christians should treat them
> >>(in accord with "the spirit").
>
> No, I have not read the book in question. However, I do believe that
> many
> fundamentalists do treat homosexuals in the wrong way.
CHUCK
I would first point out that the Bawer book is about much more than
the treatment of homosexuals. In fact, that is only a minimal part of
it.
It is, as I said, about the way some religionist fundamentals
emphasize
the "law" and nit-pick about its observance than emphasizing the
spirit
of Christianity. This, I believe, was your whole point.
>I do believe it
> is a
> sin.
>But the way to prove that is not to cite old testament law. When
> that is
> done it opens one up to the obvious question of why they don't live
> according
> to the rest of the old law.
CHUCK
Quite correct, but this "old testament law" is the only source
of bible-based disapproval of homosexual acts (including that of Paul
by the church.
>Homosexuals should be treated with the
> same love
> that any sinner should receive. But that love will not and should not
> extend to
> acceptance of the homosexual sin. Homosexuality is a sin because
> several pieces
> of evidence lead to that conclusion. First, it is mentioned negatively
> several
> times in scripture in both the old and new testaments.
CHUCK
Old Testament:
Same-sex male acts are condemned as "an abomination" (meaning
"unclean", not "a sin") only in Leviticus.
I must assume you are referring to the Sodom story.
That the Sodom story is about homosexuality is untrue;
besides the inconsistency that a whole city's men would be
homosexual, the meaning of "knowing" the two visitors
is very questionable , and the same story is told
in Judges with different characters but without any penalties.
In the only other places it is referred to as the "sin of Sodom" it is
quite specifically described in ways other than same-sex sex
or love.
If you are interested, I could refer you to a fascinating history
of the Medieval invention of both the word "Sodomy" and the
myth that the "sin of Sodom" was homosexual behavior.
New testament:
One reference to the Sodom story by Jesus. He condemns those
who would not welcome his followers into their homes, and refers
to the failure to welcome and care for stangers as "the sin of
Sodom".
References by Paul: He, influenced by Leviticus, dislikes homosexual
behavior, is condemning pagan rituals using same, but considers actual
"desire" for the same sex to be a punishment for particular other sins
and
not something originally inherent.
Besides, I've never understood how the words of one person, Saul of
Tarsus,
could be construed to be so paramount. I would think the lack of any
condemnation by Jesus to be much more significant.
>Secondly, it is
> never
> mentioned in a positive manner anywhere in scripture.
CHUCK
Nor are many other harmless or virtuous things.
People in biblical times had no understanding that
people could be different by nature.
>Marriage between
> a man
> and woman is the only mention we have of marriage or sex in the bible,
> as far
> as in a positive way.
In spite of the fact that fundamentalists today seem obsessed
with the virtues of, and the desire to be rewarded for marriage,
marriage and Weddings are barely mentioned in the bible.
Look up both words in a concordance.
If you want to model marriage after the old Testament you must
accept polygamy and the stealing of women for forced coupling.
There is no description of, nor advocacy of weddings.
A great deal is made of adultery, which is due to the obsession
with making sure, for purposes of inheritance, that a man's
children are really his, not those of some other man. This need
for faithfullness and the establishment of a marriage contract was
the chief pupose of weddings - which, by the way, occured long
before the bible, and in societies which never (or still have never)
heard of it.
Contrary to the assertion
in today's church weddings that marriage was "instituted by
God (or Christ), marriage has pre-dated any knowledge of
either the old or new testament, and was, and still is, a civil
(secular) legal process, or contract.
Paul (an unheard -of un-married Pharisee) was opposed to
marriage, only begrudgingly allowing it for purposes of
reproduction. The early church discouraged marriage.
Jesus infers little respect for marriage when he describes
following him as more important than family, and he leads his
disciples away from (presumed) wives and children. The wives
and children of the disciples are never mentioned - this seems
to say something about the so-called "sanctity" and importance of
marriage
and family.
The early church not only did not perform marriage (leaving
that to the civil authorities), but discouraged it.
Eventually they "blessed" wedding, much as they blessed other
events such as the launcing of a ship, and it wasn't until the
second millenium AD that marriage became a sacrament.
>Thirdly, why would God make us male and female
> if that we
> not the way it was supposed to be.
CHUCK
"God", of course, did not use humans to invent sex. Sex evolved in
single-celled organisms because it conferred the evolutionary
advantage
of greater genetic diversity. The inherent desire for the opposite sex
(sexual orientation) is genetically inherited by most people because
of its obvious evolutionary advantage in the encouraging the behaviors
that would leave descendants. "maleness and femaleness" is virtually
universal - it certainly has nothing to do with the fictitious
Adam and Eve.
>Why would God make anyone a
> homosexual? If
> he wanted a man to be attracted to men, he would have made him a
> woman.
CHUCK
You must be very ignorant about a number of things.
Men do start out being women in the embryo.
Are you so ignorant of biology and psychology that you are unfamiliar
with the complexity of gender and the incongruence of physical and
psychological sexuality which occurs? Physical sexual structures
and mental sexuality are two separate things. People are born with the
bodies of one sex, but the profound feeling and need to be of the
opposite sex, psychologically-thus leading to sex-change procedures.
Even physical sexual development is ambiguous.
Chromosomal abnormalities can create hermaphodites (people with
the reproductive structures of both sexes) and other "abnormal"
results.
All humans (and other vertebrates) begin developing as females in the
embryo/fetus stage, but the y- chromosome in males kicks in,
testosterone
production begins, and the subsequent development causes the labia
to close, and what would be the clitoris to become a penis.
Male frogs, for example, contain vestigial oviducts left from their
developmental background. Mammals, including humans, retain
nipples in the males, and given hormonal changes, functioning
breasts can develop. (Haven't you ever wondered why men have
nipples?) Countless factors can cause variations in this process
during
embryonic development.
In most reptiles, the sex of an individual is determined by
the temperature of the egg in the nest. Ie: it was not "made" either
sex, initially.
There are species of lizards in which everyone is a female. Eggs are
layed and develop without fertilization. That these species
once had more typical sexuality is shown by the vestigial need for
females to
take their turn perfoming "male" courtship behaviors toward other
females to induce them to ovulate.
If the development of the physical aspects of sexuality are complex,
imagine the greater complexity and variability which can and does
occur
in the "wiring" during the development of the billions of neurons of
the brain. This is where sexual identity (what sex you feel your are)
and orientation (which sex attracts you) occur.
Hundreds of species of animals have been studied and homosexuality
has been found in nearly all of them-both birds and mammals.
Males frequently pair-bond for life and even steal babies to raise
as their own. Animal breeders are well familiar with the occasional
male who has no attraction toward females and is useless as a breeder.
In other words, homosexuality IS "natural" (unless you want to imply
that homosexual animals are "sinning").
I could refer you to an excellent book on this subject.
By the way, it was Thomas Aquinas, the medieval theologian
who, working from the writings of the pagan Aristotle, concluded
that women were extremely inferior to men, were allowed by God
only for reproductive purposes, and were due to bad weather
conditions during the time they were concieved. This pathetically
ignorant man is the one who defined "natural" for Christianity - the
same "natural" spouted by the Vatican and people like yourself.
Why homosexuality is present as a variation has not yet been fully
explained. Because it would seem contrary to the "rule" of natural
selection (to be able to leave offspring) it would seem that it should
disappear, but for some reason it doesn't. It reoccurs in each
generation,
probably at the same rate. There are many good hypotheses why
having a small number of homosexuals in a specie (especially a social
one like us) exist. There are good books on this subject.
There is much evidence to consider it genetic,
and also evidence that the environment during pre-natal development
may play a role, as well as a continuing, but faltering belief that
the
environment during childhood may play a part. (Having homosexually
open parents, by the way, plays no part in determining the sexuality
of
children.) Homosexuality can't be "taught" (though openness about it
can) and homosexuals can't be "recruited".
That some (probably like yourself) consider homosexuality to be
on the increase (and infer this is due to an "agenda" or the
activities
of homosexuals) is merely the observation of the fact that when
society accepts reality and allows homosexuals to be open about
their sexuality, more of them become apparent, and their number
seems to be increasing.
>It's
> really very simple. But let me also say that I don't believe it is a
> choice,
> per se. I do beleive that some are born with the desires. But that
> proves
> nothing.
CHUCK
Of course it does. "Sinning" involves free choice.
Homosexuals cannot choose to change their orientation.
They can choose to stop behaviors which it can lead to,
and even act as if they were heterosexuals, but the
orientation remains. Pretending to be straight is extremely
damaging to the individual and to anyone with which they
may be forced to partner as a supposed "cured" gay person.
Claims they can "cure" homosexuality by various Christian
organizations
have never been supported by unbiased, long term studies, and must be
assumed to be bogus manifestations of the religious hysteria and fear
they
induce
in their "patients".
>We are all born sinners. We are all born corrupted. How we
> are born
> isn't the way God wants us.
CHUCK
Religionists keep trying to have it both ways. Sometimes
"how we are born", such as with birth defects or genetic
diseases is considered to be the work of "God". If so, is it to
punish these children? To strengthen or test their faith or that of
their
parents? Is left-handedness the work of God? Left-handedness used to
be considered a major defect, but humanistic enlightenment now teaches
us to know better. It is known to be genetic in basis (and,
coincidentally, occurs in about the same percentage of humans as
homosexuality.)
>That is what salvation is about. We are in
> need of
> the new birth in Christ the day we are born. Being born a certain way
> means
> nothing. None of us is born perfect. We are only perfected in Christ.
CHUCK
First, I would again contradict your assumption that homosexuality is
a
"sin"either
according to scripture of common sense.
It is a harmles manifestation of love.
Second the rest of the above is pure, unfounded in reality hogwash so
far as scientific knowledge and other study is concerned and is
derived purely
from the inventions of Paul and the inventors of the Gospels.
We evolved with instincts suited to an earlier time-some potentially
"good",
some
"bad", and parental and societal influence can guide humans toward
acceptable
behavior.
Our natural aggressiveness must be carefully chanelled and controlled,
out
natural
altruism and empathy must be encouraged etc.
This concept has been intensively studied in other Primates, and in
humans
by anthropologists and others but I doubt that you
are well-read enough to be familiar with it.
The doctrine of original sin is one of the most evil and
psychologically
damnable parts of Christianity, in my opinion. What kind of "loving"
god would create such a system? What kind of "loving God" would
condemn billions of people to eternal suffering even though
they didn't even have a chance to hear his "rules"? Why would
he depend on the falable humans of a tiny sect to convey such an
all-important "fact"?
Again, I could provide you with a long list of excellent books by
Theolgians and others to support the assertions I've made.
I'm not doing it now because, frankly, I'm too lazy to look them up,
and see no need to do so unless you are actually interested in and
willing to read them.
In Love of Humanity ,
Chuck Sommers
David Vestal
news:7vn6rvsqdm55tkgee...@4ax.com:
CHUCK
> If you are interested, I could refer you to a fascinating history
> of the Medieval invention of both the word "Sodomy" and the
> myth that the "sin of Sodom" was homosexual behavior.
DAVID
Please do.
charles sommers
"David Vestal" <someogget...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:5jpbrv0or2hlv1ju4...@4ax.com...
CHUCK
Jordan, Mark
The Invention Of Sodomy In Christian Theology
(U. of Chicago)