For clarification!

[rsc2a]

And yet you didn't even answer the question.

 

[subllibrm]

Jesus said he was the truth. I choose to follow Him and let my belief system fall where it may in light of that.

This reminds me of the wedding vows in the movie "Serial".

You-ness
Me-ness
Us-ness
We-ness

Words that mean pretty much nothing.

Yes, Jesus said He is the truth. Your application is that there is no objective truth or if there is, it is unknowable to us. May as well jump in with Pilate. After all "what is truth?"

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Concerning my positions in these debates, if and WHEN I err, I pray it is always on the side of the distribution of grace and mercy. Sometimes that means living in a world of gray instead of being dogmatic in favor of one side over the other.

Well, you seem consistently & persistently dogmatic about your gray.

Must be frustrating living in a world of bland confusion.

Frustrating? Not really. I realize God is not in my self-constructed box of ideal (nor in a religious box of any stripe - including the Bible) and so I should expect ambiguity. The longer I try to understand (and yes, fail), the more I see grace, and God, in the gray.

Why does my perception bother you so much that you would think I am frustrated?

Your "god" is in your "self-constructed box" because you will not permit him to reveal truth in black & white, but only in shades of gray.

I know you're frustrated because it's tough banging your knees stumbling around in the dark.

"Black and white" is what creates confinement. Understanding what/who God is, is a futile pursuit. The closest thing we have is exemplified through the life and teachings of Jesus but the information we have been passed on still only scratches the surface because we are limited in our knowledge of Jesus' earthly teachings. It's like a guy "understanding" his mail-order bride based only on a caricature drawing of her before he ever meets her. There is a whole lot more depth there that is not revealed nor comprehended.

What I do glean from Christ is that God is about grace, love and mercy toward me, regardless of any "black and white" or "gray" perception. I realize that I am to do justly, love mercy and walk with God the best I know how. I am to love God and love my neighbor as myself. I am to live my life of love, repentance and forgiveness of others. Though I can't understand, there is comfort in knowing I can fall only on His grace because that is all I have. "Black and white" does not necessitate faith: living in the gray does. Does that mean "stumbling" and the "banging of knees"? Sure, but that is where grace is. That is the reason for faith. That is where I want to be. I realize that I don't have the answers, will never find all of them and don't need to expect others to live as I believe I should, based on my personal faith and walk with God. I don't have to fear a practicing homosexual or critique one who has his own relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I don't have to fear "heresy" when I realize that everybody espouses it to some degree because we cannot know the mind of God and view our personal theology through our relative lens. I don't have to fear having a "perfect Bible" because I realize God cannot be contained within its pages. In the "gray" I have the freedom to love people as they are, forgive them for what they've done to me and let God take care of the final outcome someday. I have the freedom to fall on God's grace daily, to exercise my faith because of my not knowing or understanding. Not only do I not have to know it all, I don't have to understand any of it and I believe God is OK with that.

Does your "gray" perspective permit you to affirm that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all?"

If so, please explain, in a manner consistent with your presuppositions, how that does not "confine" Him or put Him "in a box."

Of course. But then again, "no man has seen God". The Spirit was sent (among other reasons) to "bring to remembrance all the things I (Christ) have taught you." Even Paul claimed to "see through a glass darkly". The Psalmist said we walk by faith and not by sight.

God as a being is not confined by definition nor description. We have no other means but to confine him by the terms we understand/prefer.

Could we with ink the ocean fill
And were the sky of parchment made
Were every stalk on earth a quill
And every man, a scribe by trade
To write the love of God above
Would drain the oceans dry
Nor could the scroll contain the whole
Though stretched from sky to sky

If God's love is indescribable, what makes you think that God is?

So what is "walking in light" and "walking in darkness"? Simple. Follow Jesus (light) or not (darkness). (John 3 & I John 1.) From there, it is relative. And like I John says, those who walk in light realize they don't have it altogether, sin and are in consistent need of God's grace, regardless of whether or not we know or understand what is sinful or not.

 

[Potatochip]

Guess that answers that question.

You don't even know the main point of the passage.

I guess not.  I wasn't responding to a topic.  I guess you started when you decided to give a lesson.  I was responding to the original topic.  Which had to do with Homosexuality.  So start a new topic say like,  Romans 1 what does it mean?  For the orignial poster.  I think it needs to be read that Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God.  However I am not a pastor dealing with a congregation.  I don't pretend to know the complicated situations a pastor has to deal with.  I am a street preacher.  Dealing with unsaved sinners is what I do.  People that need to hear the Word of God.    Rsc2a.  If you want to respond to the topic at hand please do.  Otherwise please don't take me down a rabbit trail..

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And yet you didn't even answer the question.

The answer is to follow the teachings of Jesus. Doing so, one lives the truth whether or not he knows or understands it.

Is God more concerned about our tenet of beliefs or the distribution of love to others?

The Good Samaritan didn't have the right belief system yet he was the one who inherited eternal life in accordance to Jesus' parable. The priest and Levite, both of whom were believed to possess the truth didn't inherit eternal life.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Jesus said he was the truth. I choose to follow Him and let my belief system fall where it may in light of that.

This reminds me of the wedding vows in the movie "Serial".

You-ness
Me-ness
Us-ness
We-ness

Words that mean pretty much nothing.

Yes, Jesus said He is the truth. Your application is that there is no objective truth or if there is, it is unknowable to us. May as well jump in with Pilate. After all "what is truth?"

Or we can believe in whatever "truth" tickles our fancy and risk believing a lie.

 

[rsc2a]

And yet you didn't even answer the question.

The answer is to follow the teachings of Jesus. Doing so, one lives the truth whether or not he knows or understands it.

Is God more concerned about our tenet of beliefs or the distribution of love to others?

The Good Samaritan didn't have the right belief system yet he was the one who inherited eternal life in accordance to Jesus' parable. The priest and Levite, both of whom were believed to possess the truth didn't inherit eternal life.

Great.  Guess I should not teach that middle class,  white American jihad Jesus who wants you to be rich if you only give enough isn't accurate.

After all,  your truth night be different than mine.  It's a grey area.

 

[rsc2a]

The answer is to follow the teachings of Jesus. Doing so, one lives the truth whether or not he knows or understands it.

Is God more concerned about our tenet of beliefs or the distribution of love to others?

As if belief and practice aren't related...

It's a fundamentally flawed idea.  Your praxis is driven by your worldview (aka belief).

 

[rsc2a]

For the orignial poster.  I think it needs to be read that Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. 

I think someone needs to do a bit more reading before they start preaching.

 

[subllibrm]

Jesus said he was the truth. I choose to follow Him and let my belief system fall where it may in light of that.

This reminds me of the wedding vows in the movie "Serial".

You-ness
Me-ness
Us-ness
We-ness

Words that mean pretty much nothing.

Yes, Jesus said He is the truth. Your application is that there is no objective truth or if there is, it is unknowable to us. May as well jump in with Pilate. After all "what is truth?"

Or we can believe in whatever "truth" tickles our fancy and risk believing a lie.

But what difference would it make if I or you accepted a lie as truth? Just believe in Jesus and do the best you can. Isn't that basically what you are saying?

In essence you do not believe in any objective truth other than Jesus is messiah. Do I have that correct?

 

[subllibrm]

I think it needs to be read that Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

That flies in the face of Paul pointing out that some had been and no longer were.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And yet you didn't even answer the question.

The answer is to follow the teachings of Jesus. Doing so, one lives the truth whether or not he knows or understands it.

Is God more concerned about our tenet of beliefs or the distribution of love to others?

The Good Samaritan didn't have the right belief system yet he was the one who inherited eternal life in accordance to Jesus' parable. The priest and Levite, both of whom were believed to possess the truth didn't inherit eternal life.

Great.  Guess I should not teach that middle class,  white American jihad Jesus who wants you to be rich if you only give enough isn't accurate.

After all,  your truth night be different than mine.  It's a grey area.

You can teach what you want but realize that someone elses' perception of Jesus might differ from yours. Teach in humility as you understand it and leave the results to God. Who knows? Maybe Jesus IS a Republican!

 

[LongGone]

[quote author=LongGone link=topic=5502.msg103980#msg103980 date=142305736

Typical. NO ONE in this ENTIRE conversation has tried to preach against women wearing pants from Deut 22. In fact, if you knew the people participating in this conversation better.... You wouldn't even make such a silly comparison. WE DON'T BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE. To compare us to those numbnuts.... its entirely dishonest and self serving.

Jesus was speaking of God's intent in creating male and female. It is about sexual/family relationships among human beings.




I will attribute you not understanding what I was trying to say to my poor communication skills. I never said or implied that the people in this thread would use Duet. 22 to preach against women wearing pants.  I used that example because I assumed that you and others on this thread did NOT use Duet 22 to preach against woman wearing pants even though admittedly I do not know any of you well (I have read the forum and participated off and on since January 2001).  The point that I was trying to make is that there is a danger in taking a passage of scripture that is dealing with one subject and applying to a different situation.  Ultra-fundies will take Duet 22 and apply it to current women's apparel. I think it is equally as wrong to say that a question Jesus answered on divorce supports your belief or my belief on homosexuality.  It is an answer on divorce.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

But what difference would it make if I or you accepted a lie as truth? Just believe in Jesus and do the best you can. Isn't that basically what you are saying?

To accept a lie as an absolute truth could lead to other misuse/defy of the teachings of Christ. For example, the Inquisition, burning of heretics, and even Muslims using atrocities, murder and genocide to promote their belief system. To leave as gray what Jesus did not support/reject and let God handle, I believe is what is expected of me. "Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God." I need to worry about me and not about whether or not a couple of lesbians get a marriage licence in Michigan or some dude chooses to smoke weed in his house in Colorado.

In essence you do not believe in any objective truth other than Jesus is messiah. Do I have that correct?

Jesus laid claim to being the truth and that is what I believe.  Whatever truth I feel is objective is run through that grid.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=subllibrm]In essence you do not believe in any objective truth other than Jesus is messiah. Do I have that correct?[/quote]

Except Jesus is grey and Messiah us grey so there isn't any objective truth other than "is".

 

[praise_yeshua]

The answer is to follow the teachings of Jesus. Doing so, one lives the truth whether or not he knows or understands it.

Is God more concerned about our tenet of beliefs or the distribution of love to others?

As if belief and practice aren't related...

It's a fundamentally flawed idea.  Your praxis is driven by your worldview (aka belief).

No one has stopped loving others. He's pretending that "love" requires a person accept the wrong choices of others. No. Love doesn't ignore such things.

God demands we change. He still loves us when we don't. He just can't have a full relationship those who deny His requirements.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I will attribute you not understanding what I was trying to say to my poor communication skills. I never said or implied that the people in this thread would use Duet. 22 to preach against women wearing pants.  I used that example because I assumed that you and others on this thread did NOT use Duet 22 to preach against woman wearing pants even though admittedly I do not know any of you well (I have read the forum and participated off and on since January 2001).  The point that I was trying to make is that there is a danger in taking a passage of scripture that is dealing with one subject and applying to a different situation.  Ultra-fundies will take Duet 22 and apply it to current women's apparel. I think it is equally as wrong to say that a question Jesus answered on divorce supports your belief or my belief on homosexuality.  It is an answer on divorce.

Jesus went beyond answering the question on "divorce". He went to the very fundamental tenant of family relationship. It is impossible to see it any differently. The truth of His teaching rest in the root of God's plan for marriage. They had ignored the foundation of marriage. As such, they could even get close to..... "getting it right". Jesus often did this. He TAUGHT people. Teaching people is more than answer their questions. Often Jesus even ignored the questions asked Him and proceeded to deal with what was most important in conversation. Just like when Jesus told the women at the well that "she didn't have any idea what she was worshiping".

 

[praise_yeshua]

To accept a lie as an absolute truth could lead to other misuse/defy of the teachings of Christ. For example, the Inquisition, burning of heretics, and even Muslims using atrocities, murder and genocide to promote their belief system. To leave as gray what Jesus did not support/reject and let God handle, I believe is what is expected of me. "Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God." I need to worry about me and not about whether or not a couple of lesbians get a marriage licence in Michigan or some dude chooses to smoke weed in his house in Colorado.

Why are you making it about a "marriage license" now? You're being disingenuous.

There is a ligate argument to be made that Christian demands on social structures shouldn't extend beyond individual liberty. In other words, as a American Citizen, a person can pretty much do what they want, except when it directly hurts someone else. I can see that argument. I can sympathize with that argument. I'm not looking for a Christian form of theocracy.

However, to say that God doesn't care if a man has a sexual relationship with another man.... is entirely ridiculous. If you can't see the difference between the two, then you're hiding your head in the sand.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=subllibrm]In essence you do not believe in any objective truth other than Jesus is messiah. Do I have that correct?

Except Jesus is grey and Messiah us grey so there isn't any objective truth other than "is".
[/quote]

Everybody has some kind of line of "faith" demarcation, whether they claim to have any kind of faith or not. This happens to be my line.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

To accept a lie as an absolute truth could lead to other misuse/defy of the teachings of Christ. For example, the Inquisition, burning of heretics, and even Muslims using atrocities, murder and genocide to promote their belief system. To leave as gray what Jesus did not support/reject and let God handle, I believe is what is expected of me. "Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God." I need to worry about me and not about whether or not a couple of lesbians get a marriage licence in Michigan or some dude chooses to smoke weed in his house in Colorado.

Why are you making it about a "marriage license" now? You're being disingenuous.

There is a ligate argument to be made that Christian demands on social structures shouldn't extend beyond individual liberty. In other words, as a American Citizen, a person can pretty much do what they want, except when it directly hurts someone else. I can see that argument. I can sympathize with that argument. I'm not looking for a Christian form of theocracy.

However, to say that God doesn't care if a man has a sexual relationship with another man.... is entirely ridiculous. If you can't see the difference between the two, then you're hiding your head in the sand.

Or perhaps it is not my issue because I am not gay.

When one is called to court as a juror, he is instructed to vote the accused as "innocent" if there is reasonable doubt. Some jurors can be on the same jury, listen to the same testimony, read through the same transcripts and come to different conclusions as to what is "reasonable doubt" or not. I see enough "reasonable doubt" to see this issue whereas you or probably most everybody else on this forum would not. I'm fine with there being differences of opinion. I just choose to accept my "reasonable doubt" and not condemn someone to God's judgement based on my opinion, even if I were in the right. I would rather be wrong and offer grace than be right and offer condemnation. That is my choice. Now IF that which I perceive is wrong is hurting someone else, then I should step in and help the one being hurt. Where that particular line is drawn is also subjective.