Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality

People dont lke Christian exclusivity, but I honestly believe that there are two basic flows. One is right and the other isnt. this extends far beyond religion.It is my belief....the Body of Christ will come from many religions. As jar says, it(the sheep) will include atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc... many of the goats will have professed yet not been real.And as far as thinking goes? All I can say is that I believe in One Holy Spirit. We are all not it...at best we are either in communion with it or in rebellion against it.Sorry....there is no shade of gray when it comes to truth.

Matt 12:30-32-- "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. It seems there are not multiple options. It seems to be a matter of either/or. John 10:14-17--"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. Is this all of the sheep? well, we do know that God so loved the world...not just a few of us.....then we get to your sheep/goats judgement...a passage that clearly tells us of two groups.and why does it matter? Thats up to you. maybe for you it doesn't matter. You have said before that in your belief none of can know until we die. (or is that misrepresenting you also? Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : spelling

In that case, within my belief paradigm(as opposed to in yours or Rahvins) you, being honest with yourself, would not be judged but would get an opportunity at some point to make the decision.We become the decisions that we make, on a daily basis.It could well be, within your paradigm and/or a shared societal paradigm, that God does not exist. Within that context I suppose that I would be horrendously disappointed...perhaps fatally so.Yes, I believe that God exists. Yes, I believe that He exists regardless of whether you or I believed that He did.
And...yes I believe that God is a "He" due to the corporeal manifestation of Jesus Christ.You and/or Rahvin may suggest otherwise, but the thing you nor I can do is claim that our belief paradigm is, in fact, a societal one.In short, I vehemently disagree that absence of evidence in any way suggests evidence of absence. Time will tell. Your questions presuppose that your own logic, reason, and reality can frame the issue. The question isnt who the human authors were. The question is on source rather than content. You may claim that Mark Twain is every bit as capable of being spiritually inspired (the term as I use it is that "spiritual inspiration emanates from One source...One God...creator of all seen and unseen) as is/was the authors of John and/or Matthew. This is your belief. Am I wrong?You then will probably go on and again try and frame this issue by using logic, reason, and reality...as you neatly put it...to explain that in any discussion, human wisdom is all that we have and that there is no such invention as divine inspiration....or that if there is, we all neatly and tidily have it.My point? Quite simply, my point is my belief. God exists. We are not God. Humans did not define God...God created humans long before we even had the capacity to imagine..much less begin to understand Him. Perhaps now you will tell me that I am off topic, in which case I reluctantly bid you to frame the issue yet again. (though I'll likely disagree with your frame.)Add by edit: That last point was aimed at jar...not you, Straggler.
You are, however, welcome to comment.Edited by Phat, : clarification

perhaps i need clarify. the truth that I refer to is the person of Jesus Christ, known by some as the living truth.In that context, there are no shades of gray. You either see Him as alive and above you or you see him as a human construct and a man-made religion. Perhaps, however, we conservative charismatics are guilty of superimposing our own ego (the need to be right) on Jesus and using Him to rubber stamp any and all arguments. In which case I'll concede to your grayness.

Lets do it. Maybe I can learn something. Matthew 12. Who said it? Jesus. To whom was it being said? The Pharisees. Am I right so far?And as for shades of gray...

quote:

---

Matt 12:25-26
"Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

---

Is that black and white or is it gray? Keep reading. And don't sit on your high ground telling us we have never read the Bible whereas you have. Read it again. You have no greater authority of interpretation than do I. Have you ever read the bible, jar?

I resurrected this topic by citing an article. In order to respond to this topic, you will have to read the article and watch the first 6 minutes of this video in order to understand the position which I have. (see video below )To reiterate, I brought up an article Macklemore-Same-Sex-Marriage-and-Human-EqualityIn the article, the following appeared:

quote:

---

For example, what if someone asserted that it is an unalienable human right for a man to marry all the objects of his love: three different women, another man, his own daughter, his dog, and his cherished 1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS?Of course it is an absurd scenario. But why is it absurd? Who says?

---

At the time I read the article, I indeed agreed that it was absurd to equate loving another human in the same vein of loving a car. Then I saw this.Watch just the first 6 minutes and then tell me you don't see the point of the Macklemore article.

Yes, I see your point. And I have said before that I support the legal right to same sex marriage. Thats not the point. The point is the behavior. Perhaps the question should be framed as this: Should society have a right to suggest appropriate behavior?Would I be bigoted if I informed an amorous car lover that their behavior was harmful?As far as the rift between some chapters of Club Christian (as jar likes to put it ) and secular society is this:What do we tell our children about human behavior and why do we tell them what we tell/teach them?This goes so far as to include heterosexual behavior as well.I think one of the main beefs that secular society has against much of the church is the idea that morality should be legislated...and I have said before that I agree that it should not. I am what political ideologists would call a moderate to far left Christian.

I agree that morality should not be legislated since we live in a pluralistic society and consensus demands equality.Personally, I think humans are too wicked for a theocratic government anyway. We simply cant play God, since we obviously fall far short of the mark.And I also agree that you have a valid point in claiming that Christians spend too much time attempting to police societal morality.But if the church isn't salt and light, where will we become well seasoned mature individuals? Where will we become loving without knowing the One who is love? Does not the church...within its own doors...have a right to encourage conformity among its members without being hated upon by society for suggesting conformity?

Then the issue is no longer a legal one. The issue is what we teach our children and how we present it to them.I can imagine that children would have lots of questions. We are responsible for providing good answers.The marriage controversy is not so much about whom one has a legal right to unify with as it is about the sociological issues raised by same sex couples raising healthy families and how the definition of a family is presented. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.