And if you don’t, Hellfire and Bloody Damnation! Woo-hoo! (Hey, if you can witness, can’t I anti-witness? 
) Personally, while admiring of The Backstreet Boys’ profound lyricism, I don’t find the sentiment expressed to be particularly compelling. I do care what people do, and if it was something like my child, where I would love them even if they murdered someone, I’d love them even if they didn’t love me. I don’t demand that people love me for me to love them. Now, you will probably say that God knows loving Him is best for us little humans, so that’s why He wants us to love Him; it’s all for our benefit. However, He made us so that loving Him is best for us, which sounds rather like He didn’t want us to be truly happy unless we loved Him…just loving our fellow humans isn’t enough, apparently, we have to love Him. Hmmm…
Quick note to Chocobo:
True, so long as you keep two things in mind:
First, the majority of posters to this board are not Christian; many of the Christians are of a liberal persuasion. Very few accept the equation “Bible = Literal Word of God.” Like yourself, we accept it to varying degrees, seeing some of it as literal record and some of it as poetic. Where we all differ among ourselves is in how much is which.
(Friend, you questioned over the weekend where we differ. My answer is that the Holy Spirit, as you well know, is subtle, and often does things that don’t show the complete sense until much later, e.g. the Emmanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7. So I can accept that God intended that the book of Numbers or Joshua contain a condemnation tribe X without ascribing that condemnation to Him. “Try the spirits,” as you quoted some time ago – does the Lord of Love and Justice condemn whole tribes, man, woman, and child, for the intolerable sin of being in the way of His Chosen People? Or maybe it was a chauvinist scribe who stuck that passage in there, and God let it be. And we get a lot of Paul’s anguish about his sinful nature and strictures against stuff that he was tempted to do, not because God said to stick it there, but because he was sending his advice to the churches he’d founded and included it. And God let it be. D’you really think the Jesus you and I know hates Amelekites or the effeminate? Or maybe it was a proto-Milosevek who hated the Amelekites, and a proto-Fred Phelps who hated the effeminate?)
The second point is that it needs to be read in context, and IMHO sometimes that context is the whole 66 books. To give you a real quick object lesson on this, what in your view is the point behind the story of the Prodigal Son? (FoG, your answer too, please.)
Hey, it was a cute one-shot line based on happening to hear that piece played on the radio while driving this weekend, not the ultimate in spiritual profundity! (And the idea of Satan at the local hair-band concert (he promotes their music, just like Tipper Gore said!:D) contributed to it.
Where was my head?
In quoting the anti-queer verses, I totally forgot Romans 1:25-28!
Boy, is my face red!
So, as they deserted God (“worshipping and serving created things”) God also deserted them. Their vices are ultimately self-consuming, “the due penalty” in this case being not God’s vengance–he gave up on them, remember?–but the ultimate dissolution resulting from a profligate and prodigal lifestyle. God abandoned them for their idolatry, and worldly lusts and excesses tooke His place in their hearts.
Again, we see a condemnation, not of homosexual love per se, but the excesses of a debauched society, one of Paul’s recurring themes. This was during the reign of Tiberius in Rome, who, like much of Rome’s nobility (Paul was writing to Romans, remember) was a repulsive and excessive man. The historian Tacitus mentions that new words had to be coined for the new drugs used during this time.
The “inflammation with lust” for one another is simply that–the sin of lust. Since women were still essentially property in Rome, and usually little more than receptacles for men’s desires, sex with men and boys was a novelty, a debauchery, a symptom of the idolatry and spiritual perversion Paul was decrying. Nowhere here does Paul say that homosexual romance is a sin, nor does he damn homosexuality, and his “indecent acts” were less likely to be simple sex and more likely to be the more bizarre practices Paul believed the nobility of Rome engaged in.
(As an aside, this passage has been compared to the hardening of the Pharoh’s heart against the releasing of the Isrealites. At first, Pharoh hardened his own heart, later YHWH hardened it for him. As with Pharoh, first the Romans abandoned God, then He ensured they would continue to abandon Him.)
If anyone still thinks these verses are a blanket condemnation of homosexuality or homosexual love, please let me know. I’m happy to expand and discuss.
And perhaps the most important point about the last third of the first chapter of Romans, dragged out every time the question of Christianity and gays gets brought up, is the fact that it is followed by Romans 2:1 "So also were many of you."
Somehow the self-righteous seem to miss that verse. I can’t imagine why!
Well, I warned my friend that people on this board can be rather, ah, shall we say vicious! I’m glad I warned him. Some of the comments so far are out-and-out evil. (Not talking about you Polycarp). He told me he will be reading the responses.
I’d like to especially respond to Holly and Esprix’ concern about my friend’s HIV status and his being married with two kids.
I will tell you truthfully that if I had been in the same situation my friend was in, I don’t think I could have done it. My faith level is not nearly that high. But his is. In fact I can truthfully say that in my entire Christian walk (26+ years) that he is one of the most faith-filled men I’ve ever met.
I remember when he first told me about getting married. Remember now, we were roommates and didn’t hold anything back from each other! I was genuinely concerned. What if God wasn’t in it? What if she did contract HIV?
The thing that totally disarmed me, to be honest, was his calm. He was so totally full of the peace of God that it shattered every argument I could muster. I slowly began to very carefully step off the cliff with my friend in backing his relationship wholeheartedly. It was scary for me, but he was so peaceful!!!
She was not so peaceful at first, but grew in it. I think honestly that it rubbed off on her. Her faith grew at a phenomenal rate despite a few bumps along the way.
The main bottom line is this – it’s worked. He was right. They’ve been married for 7+ years and neither her nor the kids have an ounce of HIV.
Now … that was a rather gentle response to what seemed to be genuine conern on the part of Holly and Polycarp.
Esprix, you specifically said this:
"What worries me more is his disregard for his wife and children’s health. "
Ever lived with this guy and watched how he acts Esprix? He is a very godly husband and knows how to take care of his wife and kids just fine, thank you. I submit that he cares more for his wife and children than you’ve ever cared for another living soul in your entire life.
You also said: "“Leaving it up to God” is a cowardly way of not taking responsibility for attempted murder. "
Watch the fingers pointing back at’cha fella. You are the coward. You can’t face the reality of the change God made in his life, so you have to vomit this perversion out of your mouth instead.
Finally you said: "I’ll pray to God as well that this guy gets a clue and stops this reprehensible and irresponsible behavior before he hurts someone. "
Advice I wish you would take Esprix. Read it and apply it to yourself, and you’ll be applying it to someone who actually needs it. He is ten times the man you are, and knows what he’s doing. If it’s so reprehensible and irresponsible, why is his wife and kids in perfect health?
Bottom line Esprix – so far the guy has been proven right. You really shouldn’t open your mouth unless you have something to stand on.
cough
Okay let’s move on to more reasonable comments …
Both Esprix and Polycarp expressed concern about the molestation. Polycarp I honestly didn’t recall my friend telling me about the molestation when he was a child. He might have but I don’t think he ever did. It felt like new info to me even if he did in fact tell me at one time.
As for counseling, I don’t know if he ever had any … but all I know is that this is one of the most stable, mature, healthy individuals I’ve ever met. He walks his walk. He loves God like nothing else. He has a godly attitude about life like few others I know. God has used him as an example at times for me.
Now to answer Esprix’ string of posts to me:
You said: “God told me to be happy being gay. Please prove me wrong.”
I say – cannot happen. God won’t tell anyone to be “happy” in sin, because He above all knows that sin eventually leads to misery.
This applies to me, Esprix, as well as anyone. If I say, “God told me to be happy while I look lustfully at this supermodel”, I’m kidding myself. God will not approve of sin, ever. He cares too much about us to do that.
Next, you quoted my comments about heart being more important than outside actions. You then said “Based on this, I ask you to retract your statement.” My statement was: “One of the most dangerous deceptions around today is that you can sleep around before marriage, sleep with people of the same sex, sleep with someone who’s not your mate… and still be a Christian. NOT true.”
Okay Esprix let me make one tweak to the above – you cannot do those things as a lifestyle with no intention of changing and still be a Christian. I’ll admit that’s a more accurate way of saying it. A genuine believer might fall for any of the above sins, but doesn’t justify it and say this is just who I am.
So again - it’s not about action – whether someone sleeps with someone who’s not their mate – it’s about their heart attitude about the action. If their heart is that they have no intention of changing, they think it’s “okay”, that it’s “just who they are”, that they can “do it and God will just forgive me” – the Bible says you cannot have that heart attitude and be a Christian.
For goodness sake, it makes sense if you think about it! The whole point of walking with Christ is to leave a life of sin and start a relationship with Him! So if you’re choosing a lifestyle of sin, you are by definition choosing to not follow Christ! Again, a lifestyle of sin.
As for your other posts Esprix – to be honest I don’t want to rehash the whole certainty-vs-opinion thing again for the zillionth time. If you really want to know what I think on this subject, re-read my running debate with Guadere in C&L Parts I and II. It will only take 2 - 3 hours!
Polycarp and Andros … I’ll respond to you in my next post.
Polycarp …
First … and to be honest I’m afraid to ask … what is a sock puppet?!? I kind of got the impression one time that it had some kind of sexual connotation, but now based on what you said I’m not so sure.
Yes Poly, I enjoyed your band lyrics. Can’t you just imagine Jesus as the lead singer in a rock band? That would be a trip!
You said: "The idea that God wants to bring even more fulfillment into an already pretty good life is one that seems to have escaped everybody. "
GOOD POINT I’m glad you brought it up! It’s true. No matter where you’re at, God can make your life better.
As for your analysis of my friend’s pre-Christian experience with the gay lifestyle, obviously only he can speak for himself but I will say this – I believe the relationship he was in was a love relationship. He would naturally not refer to it in a positive light now since he regards it as a bad thing in his life, but I believe it was what he perceived to be love. I’m trying to remember back to a conversation we had during the first year we were roomies and that’s where I’m drawing this from, but the memory is very foggy so I could very well be wrong.
As for your notion of God allowing certain things in the Bible not attributed to Him … I find your phrase “And God let it be” to be interesting. Do you believe God let certain things in even though they aren’t true? I believe that God is big enough to put together a book with His will for mankind, even though He’s using imperfect people to do it. Just like He uses imperfect people like you and I to do His will in the earth on a daily basis.
You also said "The second point is that it needs to be read in context, and IMHO sometimes that context is the whole 66 books. "
I AGREE! In fact, a phrase I’ve heard used over and over at my church is “the whole counsel of God”. This is why so many believers read the Bible through each year, to stay well rounded. You can take one verse and twist it to mean anything, but if you study the whole counsel of God on a subject, you get the bigger picture.
Finally you said: "To give you a real quick object lesson on this, what in your view is the point behind the story of the Prodigal Son? "
A Bible quiz! I love it. Actually, I know the “standard” answer to this, but I believe there are many points and lessons to be learned from it. One of the most overlooked points is the story of the older brother. His self-righteous attitude is an example we should all shudder at. He looked down on his brother because of all the sins he’d committed instead of embracing him with open arms as he came back into the Family. That’s one of many nuggets that can be gleaned from this story.
And last but not least,
Okay Andros if you insist :). Here’s the line by line comparison:
Ben said: “If you kill someone’s family, kidnap them, …”
Chocobo said: “…they speak to similar subjects: what to do with women you capture in war”.
You can word things that happen in war in such a way as to make it seem more volatle. Ever known of a war where people weren’t killed and there weren’t POW’s? It’s war for pete’s sake! But that’s not the main issue, here’s more:
Ben continues: “… and force them to have sex with you against your will, that’s rape, plain and simple.”
Chocobo said: “…take them into your home, allow them a grieving period, then take them as your wife.”
Do I really have to point out the obvious difference here? Suppose you have an Israeli (sp?) soldier at war and he captures a woman who’s husband was killed in the war. She grieves for the loss of her husband for a period of time, and then he takes her as his wife. And the rape occurs where ? ? ? …
Finally, Ben said: "To say, as Chocobo did, that it was “marital relations” and therefore wasn’t rape is to imply that marital rape does not exist. "
Chocobo said: “Husband-wife relations is hardly rape.”
Again, must I? Could someone point out to me where Chocobo says or implies at all that marital rape doesn’t exist?
Okay, that’s enough for now. Night all.
Hi, guys, what’s new?
I just got back from Sin City (FoG would have loved the topless review I saw, among other things), and thought I’d pop in. Lo and behold, we’ve moved on to Part 3, where FriendofGod said:
I admit I’ve only skimmed, but I was hoping the FoGgy one could help me out and quote the “out-and-out evil” comments for me. Wouldn’t want to miss 'em, ya know.
Okay, okay!!! God is getting on my case for my harsh response to Esprix. I am retracting and repenting of the following statements:
“I submit that he cares more for his wife and children than you’ve ever cared for another living soul in your entire life.”
"You are the coward. You can’t face the reality of the change God made in his life, so you have to vomit this perversion out of your mouth instead. "
“Advice I wish you would take Esprix. Read it and apply it to yourself, and you’ll be applying it to someone who actually needs it. He is ten times the man you are…”
That was fleshly and sinful and I am sorry for saying the above statements. I could have made my point without being this harsh and mean. Please forgive me, 'sprix.
Friend, thank you. For dealing with negative attitudes with a gracious heart, and for proving me wrong about the Prodigal. If you read that in context, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees when he tells the story. And his point seems to be less the conversion of the Prodigal and his return home (though yes, that is there too) as the rebuke the Father gives the “good” brother for his uncharitable attitude.
Now, to one disputable point:
[qote][Esprix] said: “God told me to be happy being gay. Please prove me wrong.”
[FoG responded]I say – cannot happen. God won’t tell anyone to be “happy” in sin, because He above all knows that sin eventually leads to misery.
This applies to me, Esprix, as well as anyone. If I say, “God told me to be happy while I look lustfully at this supermodel”, I’m kidding myself. God will not approve of sin, ever. He cares too much about us to do that.
[/quote]
But your comparison, Friend, is between your treating the supermodel as a sex object and his gay behavior. And, without beating that poor horse any more, we have seen that good people can differ in their opinion of what constitutes sin. (I hope you’ll give me at least that much credibility.)
Esprix is not saying that he is called to be happy lusting after Jeff Stryker, any more than you would defend your interest in Pamela Anderson’s private parts as being “within God’s plan” because it’s a heterosexual lust. He’s saying that God told him to be happy with the healthy sex and the rest of the life he enjoys with his beloved, who happens to be the same sex. (And any good marital relationship is far more than sex. And being gay is, insofar as I can tell, having exactly the same sorts of feelings you and I would, including lust for sexy others and abiding love for one’s life partner, but with the objects of desire and of deep continuing love of the same sex. (Exprix, others, kindly correct this if I’ve painted it wrong.) The closest you could come to a heterosexual analogy is a couple who lives together in love on a permanent basis and refuses to marry, a “common law marriage.” (And of course, Esprix and Dr. Boyfriend cannot marry legally anywhere, although some churches will celebrate their union before God and in Vermont they can create a “civil union” (complete, no doubt, with locals and union dues – hey, Esprix, was Pride Days when the civil unions went on strike? ;))
Which, I think, brings us right back where we were about page 4 of C&L, Part II. These things never quite get resolved. But we have fun debating 'em. 
I am sorry to respectfully disagree with you, Brother FoG. But in MY Christian church, a commited, loving reationship is no sin, even if they are both the same sex*. We believe that the Word of Jesus is just that, his actual words, and Paul, even tho one of the greatest proselytizers of all time, and inspired to be so, his words are “just” the opinions of an inspired man, not the Word. Now, what, IHMO Paul was railing about, was the most common (at least then#, as far as HE knew) “gay lifestyle”, ie promiscous sex with multiple, oftimes anonomous partners, or even sex with gay prostitutes or BEING a gay prostitute. That is sinful.
And I challenge you, Brother, to show where JC condemned any such sin, other than intolerance.
- it is better, and easier to have this sort of relationship, perhaps, if you are hetero, and certainly easier to be additionally blessed with children.
#and, all too common, now. But even this won’t slam you into hell for all eternity.
**
Oh, great- a war of genocide as part of a land-grab, but hey, bad stuff just happens in war, ok?
**
This is really just amazing. Instead of the real situation (soldier kills a woman’s family and decides whether or not he wants to keep her as his wife) you turn it into this domestic fantasy in which the doo-right Israelite soldiers stumbled onto some war widows whose husbands just mysteriously got killed, and honorably decided to give them the gift of marriage. Not “I hacked your parents to pieces before your eyes, and I would have done it to you if your hymen weren’t intact,” but “why, you seem to have ended up in a bad way. Madam, it is my duty to marry you.”
This is just plain sick!
I believe andros and I already have.
Let me ask you this: do you believe that the “Rape of the Sabine Women” should be renamed, say, “The Marriage of the Sabine Women”? “The Dream Date of the Sabine Women”?
It’s still a little unclear to me what your position is. Is it that the women willingly, with full and free consent, married the soldiers who killed their families, or is it that you don’t think they were necessarily having sex after they got married?
-Ben
**
You’ve missed my point. If your deity were to tell you to do something that he didn’t really want you to do, because he wanted to test your ability to think for yourself, how would you know what he expected of you?
**
You know, this is really just bizarre. You’re actually going so far as to level an accusation at me, an accusation that I am deliberately twisting someone’s words. Whether I’m right or wrong, do you really find it inconceivable that someone might naturally assume that prisoners of war cannot freely consent to marrying their captors? Is that point of view really so absolutely alien to you?
**
But this is doublethink. When you want to try to convert me, you say that everyone has free will. When you want to excuse genocide, you say that Amalekite babies had inherited a curse that doomed them to become evil. So which is it? Were the Amalekite babies killed because they inherited the curse, and therefore had no free will, or do we all have free will, and 1-day-old Amalekite embryos chose a deep-seated evil which could only be dealt with by their destruction?
**
Now do I get to accuse you of deliberately twisting my words? I never said anything about your deity forcing people to love him. What I asked was, why does your deity create people even when he knows that they will choose to reject him? Why not choose to only create those people who will choose, of their own free will, to become Christians?
If I am not mistaken, you believe in the following premises:
-
Your deity can see the future.
-
Your deity’s ability to predict the future does not curtail anyone’s free will.
-
Your deity has free will. If your deity doesn’t like the outcome of a potential course of action, he can choose to do otherwise.
-
When your deity is deciding who to create, he knows whether they would choose Christianity or unbelief if they were to come into being.
Ergo, your deity could choose not to create those people who would not love him of their own free will.
After all, if it didn’t infringe on the free will of Amalekite embryos to be killed before they could put their evil plans into action, then it doesn’t impinge on your free will to never be created. In fact, the infringement on free will is even less, since you can’t infringe on the free will of someone who doesn’t exist. If you could, then your deity has sinned in consigning Sherlock Holmes to fictional status. When will Sherlock Holmes get his chance to accept or reject Jesus?
**
It’s remarkable to me what kind of logic people use when discussing their religion. Let’s apply your logic to real life:
You want to hire a babysitter. You find a potential candidate who is a pedophile and a serial killer. Your spouse objects to the idea of leaving your kids alone with this person but you say hey, let’s cut through the misty fog: what he did to all those other people is irrelevant to the fact that he loves our kids.
If you used that kind of logic in real life, you would be at the very least criminally negligent, and the police could conceivably investigate whether you were involved in a criminal conspiracy to kill your children. But if I object that your deity, as described in your interpretation of your Scriptures, is so repulsive, so sadistic, so perverted that I feel that it could be sinful even so much as to call it “God”, you tell me no, Ben, forget all this fog and academic discussion of this and that. The real fact is, God loves you.
And yet somehow, you argue that that doesn’t constitute ignoring my argument. When I tell you that I feel uncomfortable even gracing your deity with the term “God,” you tell me no, that’s irrelevant, Ben, what’s relevant is whether you will worship my deity. Look, FriendofGod, how can I worship your deity if I won’t even call it “God”?
**
Do you understand that I am making the only moral choice possible in this situation?
Put yourself in my shoes. How would you feel if someone were trying to convert you to Satanism?
-Ben
Boy this is my night for apologies. Ben I just read your posts and don’t have time to fully respond right now, but I do want to correct this statement I made:
"It appears you don’t really want to debate Chocobo, because you have to invent things to object to. "
It did appear this way to me, but I will take back this statement. To be completely honest your objections seemed so bizarre and “out there” to me that I made this assumption, but that isn’t fair of me so I take it back.
Tomorrow night I will try to take time to respond more in detail.
I always wonder why people want to get into the argument of specific meanings of scripture with those who profess not to believe in Jesus. I don’t have the authority to issue a call to faith for anyone. I am not the one who has the authority to tell anyone what God has told them in any specific chapter or verse of the bible. I have the authority to try to live a decent life, and make myself a testimony to His Glory.
But even aside from authority, what about effectiveness? Who has this discussion brought nearer to the Lord? I never feel very good after re-reading these things. I get the feeling that those who already believe the bible to be literal word for word truth leave feeling rejected by those they believe are not Christians. The atheists and other non-Christians feel the Christians despise them, and I fear believe sometimes even that Christ despises them. Now if you are just debating for the intellectual exercise, these factors are trivial. But if you believe that Jesus is the living God, and the spirit of Love itself, that is a terrible thing to be a part of.
If God is getting on your case about your words, consider the emotions you have been evoking as well. If you speak as a Christian, people ascribe your attitudes to Christ. Even supposing for a moment that Esprix (forgive me for supposing this, Esprix, it is only to personalize a point, not a true expression of my assessment of you.) was dedicated to practicing some sinful act for the rest of his life. Does that give you the authority to judge his soul, and pronounce his damnation? I deny that to you! I rebuke you in Jesus’ name for it. Go and sin no more. When you find and expel that hatred from your heart, go privately and make amends to him for it. He is as much a child of God as you are. His sin is no different from your own, whatever yours, or his might be.
Christ has not sent you out in the world to condemn the sinners, he has sent you out into the world to live your life in the world as He would have lived. He spent a lot of time forgiving sins, because He is the authority from whom judgment and forgiveness must come. You are not! You don’t have to forgive anyone, because you are not the one trespassed against by sin. You need to love your fellow man as you love yourself. Calling him unclean, or perverse, or unworthy of the love of God is not loving.
I am to angry to continue.
Tris
It is kinda odd those those who do not believe that the Bible is based on accurate history will take a verse from it and ask us, why our God did this.
This is a very old argument, although usually it takes the form of saying that if an atheist refers to the Christian God hypothetically in order to demonstrate a point where Christianity doesn’t make sense, then that reference to God is really an admission that God exists.
If a Mormon was going around acting like FriendofGod and Chocobo, and you wanted to prove how shallow their position was by referring to a passage from the BoM, would that be “kinda odd”?
-Ben
First, a needed response to FriendofGod. “Sock puppet” is a slang term used online for a rather nasty technique used by some unscrupulous posters who register (contrary to board rules) under a separate name in order to make posts, under a different persona, that support the things they say under the first name. This provides the illusion of widespread support of what they have to say. You probably noted that several people suspected that your ex-gay friend might just be you “telling his story” – since none of us have any knowledge of who you are than what you happen to have told us online – and that could be an elaborate ruse in and of itself, too. I think I know you better than that, and had myself asked you to ask your friend the questions you said you would post. (And I think objective observers will note a difference in tone and posting style between FoG and FOAF.) The term results from things like Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop, where what is actually Shari’s right hand with a lamb puppet on it appears to be having a conversation with her – you can see the parallel from there, I’m sure.
But I’m feeling very much convicted by Tris’s post. I don’t know about you, but it hit me very hard. Here’s where I am coming from: from my personal experience, I know that the Lord of Love cares about me, personally, very much, and calls me to live a life predicated on love of Him and love of my fellow man – and not to judge him, but to help him. I see that command, used by Jesus Himself to summarize God’s law, as overarching everything else in what God is said to have commanded people to do hither and yon throughout the Bible, and elsewhere.
I know you believe much the same thing from your previous posts. The key point we’ve dwelled on is that God is real, loves each of us, and asks that we turn and love Him. Radically. With everything in us. And equips us through His Holy Spirit with what we need to do His work in the world.
Where we’ve parted company on this thread is in the application of that call to do His work. You see the Scripture as normative – the thing against which everything else is to be tested. I do not. I believe that God’s evidence of His nature is in everything He created, including the Bible to be sure, but also the world He made, the people He placed in it, and loves, and so on. And that He does not lie. Nor is His wrath so much the petty judgment of an oriental king as it is the chastising hand of a loving Father. And we differ on where we find sin.
But that, FriendofGod and friend of mine, is unimportant. Neither of us is called to judge Exprix and his friends, nor in the last analysis to defend them. That is the job of his Mediator and Advocate, whose servants we are. I know you’ve posted out of love for your fellow man, out of a sincere desire to make clear to Gaudere and David and Esprix and me that we’re risking our eternal happiness because of earthly things. And we disagree strongly among the bunch of us on whether there’s evidence for God and for Jesus as His Son Incarnate in human form, on what constitutes sin for someone made up as Esprix is, and so on and so on, thread without end.
And what I have done here is to indulge my own sinful nature. Not that I am wrong in what I have said. But I have a lot of pride in my wit and my knowledge of things related to the topics we’ve covered here. And I love to debate. I’ve indulged my pleasure in this, and my pride in what I can say and how I can say it, to fail to do what He wants me to do.
Friend, you are not called to judge Esprix and others in his place. You have ably made your case that Scripture as you understand it shows the evidence of sin in his life. (Not that the rest of us aren’t sinners – but as members of a persecuted minority, Esprix and the Christian friends of whom he spoke earlier are particularly sensitive to being called sinners. And you must take into account that they are humanly unable to change. Assume for a moment that you have been convinced that God has no problem with gay sex. Then consider whether you could fall in love with a man and enjoy sex with him. But what a gay person hears in conservative Christian witness is that he must make that sort of radical shift, before he is saved.) And David and Gaudere hear that they are supposed to give up their ability to reason from the evidence before them, which has convinced them that evolution is the most logical explanation of how we and all our fellow plants and animals got here (“how,” the mechanism, not “why,” the purpose), on the basis of your assertion that your reading of God’s word says so. And they are justifiably offended that you are apparently setting their reasoning abilities at naught.
You have made your case, at great length. And if I and others find it lacking, that is our burden to bear. If God did in fact create the world in 144 hours, and made Esprix with a besetting sin he is unable to rid himself of and which merits his condemnation, then it’s His job to convince us of that. The God whom I know and love, and who loves me and you and Esprix and Gaudere and David, would not do such a thing. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. But I believe that he did it through the laws of the nature he created, that E=mc^2 is as true a statement of God’s law as “Thou shalt not kill.” And that he made Esprix to love Dr. Boyfriend for His own reasons, which are not yours or mine to know.
So, Friend and everyone, I ask your forgiveness for being argumentative and witty when I could have brought peace. For showing my pride when I should have been showing God’s love. For dividing instead of uniting. And I thank you most humbly, Tris, for calling me to my senses on this.
Let us move onward from here, but with a renewed understanding of each others’ minds and hearts, and perhaps we may yet find wisdom in this discussion.
Quoting scripture to explain what you believe or why you believe it is one thing, but using it to prove anything to a non-believer makes you look foolish. I mean, if I quote you this:
… it seems obvious that you should understand The Truth™. This is what I believe, and I believe it to be true for everyone, everywhere, even if you don’t believe it yourself (yet). Don’t you get it? :rolleyes:
What a cop-out. The text is either used in historical reference or it isn’t. That ranks up there with FoG’s “if it suits me I use my own interpretation, and if it contradicts then it’s a ‘divine mystery.’”
I think I’m going to services on Sunday to remind me there are reasonable, intelligent religious persons in the world.
Esprix
Does anyone else read “Jim Jones” into this, or is it just me? It frightens me that your god is “testing his faith” by putting his wife and children at risk.
For now. Praise the Lord. :rolleyes:
Nope - I’m only going off what he himself told me. But then, I’m not judging him, I’m pointing out basic facts of reality, which you and your friend seem to be missing.
Apology aside, I thought you claimed not to know anyone’s heart? (Oh, and I’m sure you’re wrong as well.)
Apology aside, I’m “vomiting” facts - HIV is transmitted through unprotected sexual intercourse. As long as this guy is having unprotected sex with his wife, he is putting her and any children they might conceive by that act at risk - period. It’s a fact, just like, oh, I dunno… gravity.
What you call “divine intervention” I call pure dumb doo-dah luck. HIV transmission doesn’t occur every time, but luck eventually does run out.
Ted Bundy was often described as stable, mature, and healthy - doesn’t mean the guy didn’t have issues.
So you are denying what I tell you I know to be true in my heart? You are denying that God has spoken to me? How dare you claim to know my heart! And now how am I supposed to take you seriously when you tell me God has spoken to you? I guess everything you’ve said so far then is a sham and a lie. I can believe nothing you’ve told me.
And you’re still telling me you claim to know what is in the heart of my gay Christian friends. My offense stands.
Sounds like the judgement of who is and who is not Christian is up to God and God alone. You seem to revel in pronouncing judgement on your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Of course you don’t, because that would involve taking responsibility for yourself.
Oh, then I guess he heard my prayers over yours. Imagine that.
And about forgiving you? I’m still waiting for resolution of the insult you hurled at my friends; insults you direct at me mean little.
Esprix