<link>

"The very word "Christian" makes me wish I'd had a Druid spiritual awakening. In today's lexicon, Christian is equated with fanatics who need God to be as human as can be: male, full of pride and hate, war-loving and with a voting record that can only be described as shortsighted. For me to have found the answer to my spiritual hunger in the teachings of Jesus was at best highly inconvenient."

..............................­..............................­..

"As my partner's Mormon mother would say, I have a testimony. I was created by God, who works through all of his creation, and I've been gay as a handbag since birth. I wanted to wear my sisters' chapel veils at 2, had a crush on Hoss from "Bonanza" at 4 and have always known that God loves me and Jesus has lessons for me. And I am called to be Episcopalian and part of the Catholic faith, sure as Joan of Arc was called to her mission, although I'm not in drag. And I have faith that I will stand in front of the altar of God and commit my life to the man I love, with smells and bells and without secrecy. It is right to stand before God as I am, and speak my own truth. And I am grateful to have a model of simple, elegant defiance in the bishop from New Hampshire who happened to come to mass at my church one day."

...to make the either/or comparison between the "tricky" teachings of Jesus (Loving your neighbor) and viewing sin as wrong. What one needs to keep in mind is that "loving thy neighbor as thyself", is the second of the two greatest commandments. The first being to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength.

Old and new Testament texts seem clear in the condemnation of sin. While Christ's propitiation sanctifies the sinner, it doesn't absolve the sinner of any responsibility or accountability to God's laws. If you truly love a person, you are vulnerable and accountable to that person, otherwise, you cannot honestly say that you love that person with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. You are loving only on your own terms. And with God...I'm sorry but we don't get to call the shots.

Also keep in mind that that the second greatest commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself, doesn't imply that I need love my neighbor as THEY expect that I should love them. Their expectation may equate love to my ignoring any sin and not making any attempt to help them overcome what I believe is sin. If I love my neighbor as I love myself, I will certainly give some sort of indication that I believe they are in sin, and that sin separates them and estranges them from God's blessing. I want them to enjoy the greatest measure of God's blessing as I would...so why would I ever pretend that their sin is OK as long as they go through the motions of loving God. I believe if you truly love God, you TRUST Him and step outside the comfort zone of your own will.

Gay Episcopal Bishops no matter how well meaning, cannot overturn God's judgments. They can, however, do great damage by implying that instead of making any changes to our will, we simply build a new God by revision and consensus of the majority to fit our form of religion into whatever lifestyle is right in our own eyes.

I agree that the average Christian believer is heavy on condemnation and light on grace, but I do believe that sin is sin. Saying, "I love you, but I'm going to do whatever I feel like doing no matter if it hurts you", isn't really love at all. "Worship as I am" isn't such a bad thing if the person is willing to entertain change for the love of god. But it seems that a person who makes conditions for loving God isn't loving anyone but themselves.

I know I'm going to get a lot of debate on this post, but oh well....

moG (formerly B'liever_Cleaver)

Hi moG:

We'll argue later....in the meantime, its good to see u back! Welcome, and I hope life is treating u better. You had indicated that life was throwing you a few curveballs when u last wrote......

The wife is still dead-set on divorce and I've moved into a small rental down the hill from her and the kids. We share custody 50/50, but I have them every weekend. Not sure if that's fair to the kids (or me for that matter). Weekends are expensive and I'm on the more restricted income. She just got a huge promotion and is pulling in about 12K more a year than me...but she is trying to keep the house and the daunting $600 a month tax bill.

From the outset she was resistant to any marriage counseling...even in light of my recently diagnosed clinical depression. I've been on meds for 4 months and my therapist just gave me the OK to discontinue therapy. I so want our family to stay together, and I want to work on our relationship now more than ever...but unfortunately she isn't being honest with me, the kids or even herself. She denied that there was someone else, but she left her secret email account open for all to see and I saw enough to know that she has been having an affair with a married man since before she asked me for the divorce. That explains why she refused to go to marriage counseling.

Oh well, all I can do is take care of myself, my kids, and love the wife from afar. I can't blame her for what she did. I was unresponsive and detached. Even though that is changing, I doubt she will ever look back. At least I know now that it wasn't all me. She was obviously on the hunt before thoughts of divorcing me ever entered her mind.

All this to say...Christians aren't perfect. We have our foibles, our depressions, our affairs, our messes just like people who don't believe in God. But I know that in the valley of the shadow, He is with me. And I am comforted. I have peace like a river, joy for the moment, and grace beyond my own ability for graciousness. I thank God for you, konark_girl, no matter where your heart is toward God. Because he loved me when I was still His enemy.

Peace2U

moG

Sorry to hear all that. Best wishes, moG.

You might find the following book to be of interest: <link>

Sorry to hear that! Hope things get better.

What is the point in reading this book? What was your point in suggesting it?

Welcome back. I’m sorry to hear that your family situation is still so tough, but I’m glad to hear that your therapy has gone well. Sounds as if you’re feeling a little better about life despite the challenges you’re facing. That’s wonderful news indeed. For what it’s worth, you’ve been missed hereabouts. And who knows? Maybe this place can be therapeutic for you. It has been for me. Anyway, here's to happier times ahead, moG.

Take care of yourself and be well.

It's good to see you back, B'liever Cleaver. Sorry to hear about your situation.

The point of reading the book is that it suggests that Christianity has picked up a negative image as being intolerant, anti-intellectual, and the like. I think that the author was attempting to discuss where Christianity might be going wrong and what is needed to revitalize the religion so that most young adults are not feeling alienated by the system. The reviews of the book on Amazon are also interesting to read.

That I understand, but I doubt I will ever read the book.

While many Christian sects are a little too extreme in many cases, there are several issues which, though viewed as intolerant, the Christian world is generally correct on. The book sound slike it focuses on these issues, and not the more rediculous ones (such as banning public dances).

If a religion changes doctrine to fit popular opinion it is not a very strong religion. If it changes doctrine based on Scriptural evidence, or devine revelation, that is different.

"If a religion changes doctrine to fit popular opinion it is not a very strong religion. If it changes doctrine based on Scriptural evidence, or divine revelation, that is different."

Ok..... I would agree with you on these points in a general cautious manner. However, I would also say:

1) "Divine revelation" is often an excuse for political expediency. Examples would include for example the abandonment of polygamy by the mainstream LDS folks. Where these are more obviously separate, they often get confused over time (Quaker rejection of "outward struggle" for example). I am not saying that either of these changes were bad but often there is a very fine line between politics and revelation and that line is far finer than most want to admit. Remember this point: communication is intersubjective and therefore all divine revelation exists within the subjective sphere just as interpreting meaning from this post does as well. One cannot separate revelation from its political environment, nor can one separate the self and one's own ideas and interests from it.

If one believes that God is talking to him or her, this has all the same problems as any other form of communication....

2) Since communication is intersubjective, this affects written as well as verbal communication. The meaning of scripture is also inherently subjective and does not exist apart from our interpretation of it. Hence at best we can have views grounded in the words of scripture, but arguing over what something means as if it can only mean one thing misses the point.

BTW, both Heisenberg and Einstein also argued that scientific theory was subjective rather than objective, and the only thing objective was the specifics of experiments, results, and measurements. So this problem is not at all limited to theology.

The other problem is that no communication carries with it a singular irreducible meaning. If say to my son, "Stay out of the flower garden" this looks like a simple instruction but it could be carrying with it additional meanings too. Tone, inflection, and wider context, largely reduced or missing in written forms of communication provide important aspects of a communication.

When I start hearing the same preachers who talk about a "gay agenda" talk about a "cotton-polyester agenda" or a "hybrid crop agenda" then I will accept that there is a balanced and largely politically neutral approach to scripture (since clothing made of mixed materials and breeding of hybrids like mules are prohibited in Leviticus in a similar manner to male homosexuality). However until that point, I have to conclude that the issue is not one based on a balanced interpretation of scripture

Again, this is just an amusement for me. I am a Norse Pagan and happy with my religion.

May your God grant you the strength and the peace you need to get to through this very difficult time, B'liever!

Hang in there, and drop in and chat (or argue :)) with us whenever you get a chance and need the diversion.

"If a religion changes doctrine to fit popular opinion it is not a very strong religion. If it changes doctrine based on Scriptural evidence, or divine revelation, that is different."

Ok..... I would agree with you on these points in a general cautious manner. However, I would also say:

1) "Divine revelation" is often an excuse for political expediency. Examples would include for example the abandonment of polygamy by the mainstream LDS folks.

I agree that this was politically expediant. However, I stated a change in doctrine, and the LDS church never changed their doctrine. Plural Marriage was a devine law, and still is. However, because we also have the doctrine of obeying the law of the land, we do not practice this. The doctrine is still there, however.

When I start hearing the same preachers who talk about a "gay agenda" talk about a "cotton-polyester agenda" or a "hybrid crop agenda" then I will accept that there is a balanced and largely politically neutral approach to scripture (since clothing made of mixed materials and breeding of hybrids like mules are prohibited in Leviticus in a similar manner to male homosexuality). However until that point, I have to conclude that the issue is not one based on a balanced interpretation of scripture

While I have heard of these othe agendas within certain religions, I think they fall into a cattigory of doctrine that was given for the time of Moses. However, Homosexuallity was not only for the time of Moses, as it is mentioned more tha once in the New Testiment. Those who want the Christian sects to recognize gays as normal, and not in a life of sin, are asking God to deny the word spoken by his son.

I don't generally ingage in discutions concerning Homosexuallity online. I joined this one because, as it seemed to me, people were asking the Christian world to change their doctrine to fit the more "enlightened" times of the days. It is not exactly the homosexual issue that I am speaking about, but the general idea that religion has to change as the general opinion of the people changes.