A lesbian over on BlogCatalog started a discussion entitled, "Gays & Lesbians of Faith," as a device for attracting homosexuals of all "faiths" to participate in a documentary film she's planned. It garnered some questions about homosexuality in general. I left a second comment there that follows and that is self-explanatory for the most part. Here's theso you may read it all in context.
In my book, "the way" is the way of life both here and now and hereafter. The means and the ends are one. Also in my book, it is the most pragmatic path. The most pragmatic thing to do here and now is to adhere to the best of our individual and collective efforts to the right teaching, path, way, doctrine, or whatever synonym you prefer.
I consider my brother Jesus (our brother if we are of the same root-spirit) still to be the best heard. I've read and listened, etc., in search for answers. I've come across none better. I trust you agree. Jesus said to do the things here, now. It's not easy, especially because, as I know you know, the worldly system seeks to prevent it. That worldly system even murdered Jesus and many, many others and isn't done yet, far from it. From that perspective, which I ask you to consider in full, I did not mince my words. I do thank you for saying that I "may be mincing" rather than I am mincing.
Depending upon the circumstances, I too can appreciate it when discussions don't go too far a field from one initially narrowly set.
Had you not answered concerning homosex in general, I likely would not have raised anything here. I do though see where in an open environment such as BlogCatalog it's not beyond the pale for someone openly to question the premises of your endeavor.
However, more to my specific approach, we obviously run in different circles; and since you used "ONE WAY" with so much emphasis and concerning a discussion where one major part is religion, per se, I chimed in over issues of extreme ecumenism and syncretism.
In the circles in which I've mostly functioned, when one asserts that there are many ways in terms of religion, he or she is always referring to many paths to ultimate enlightenment. This is the argument of many (the vast majority) of Hindus for instance, who take exception to Jesus's words about himself unless those Hindus falsely turn Jesus into just one of many gurus/avatars who have come along with more and greater to follow, one who will correct Jesus. Many Buddhists also subscribe to this concept. Many in the Emergent and Charismatic Movements leave doors wide open to this sort of thing. I've seen ostensible Christians claim that one may be simultaneously a Muslim and Christian, which is completely untrue. In fact, this is the first discussion I've seen where the religion is an integral focus where "the way" has been used exclusively mundanely especially without simultaneous qualification/clarification.
Let me say that I believe different souls have different partial-truths at any given time. Just because you are a lesbian doesn't mean to me that you are automatically wrong in all you say or are even less right than others who call themselves Christian and are heterosexual in both word and deed, including even monogamous and faithful in that. There are other issues besides these where consistency enters in, such as war and greed and peace and giving and sharing, etc.
Let me also say that by stating these things, I am not shoving anything down anyone's throat. I don't say that by way of suggesting that you intended it that I was shoving. I say it only to preclude further misunderstanding. I am a total pacifist and opposed to coercing anyone unless the power of moral suasion from word of truth not meant in anything but the spirit of wholesomeness and healing is considered force, which in the proper context, it certainly is.
So, I don't vote in secular elections for or against your decision as a female to engage in sex with a female. I do want the law of the real and New Heaven to come to Earth and to become one with it. I say it will and already has in part. That divine law does exclude the confusion of same-sex sexual intercourse and in very fact, all sexual intercourse, as we will not be confined to the procreation of the flesh apart from the Holy Spirit.
I realize this is quite spiritual; but if I don't say it, I'll be failing. In that sense, I'm forced or compelled by the movement too ultimate righteousness. It is a very narrow progression in the movement to a specific place. Homosex drops away in the here and now or progress stops short. I am certainly not interested in taking my cues from lesser-evolved flesh, as in homosexual confusion amongst even the non-Homo sapiens sapiens we refer to as animals. That direction leads to the reptilian brain or proverbial serpent who is the spirit of Satan of whom we read in the Bible and as Jesus used that name.
Lastly, as for literal interpretation versus figurative, I am steeped in the figurative while seeing the literal playing out all the time.
If my peace is rejected, I leave with it. I say the peace is the truth, is the one and only way, always. I say Jesus said and still says this and that it will never prove wrong no matter how much anything appears to change. There is no such thing as updating the eternal.
As for Paul, I'm not Pauline for many reasons. However, there is the law and then the law and then the law. The law of Moses is not the secular today and neither of those is the divine law of which Jesus lived and lives. It is divine law that interests me. When I say, "Thy kingdom come," it is that law I ask to come here. The Pauline very often turns into hedonism via hyper-antinomianism. One may as well self-license as a self-styled Christian to drunken orgies in the churches, which I'm sure has happened.
Jesus went to the cross to bring you the real law. The grace of God is not an excuse. Don't say, "LORD, LORD" or "Lord, Lord" and think it's enough. Your faith is to be strong enough to quit obvious carnal confusion. Jesus did not pay the price to ransom those who willfully keep following the blind into the ditch or who preach to lead others with them, since wickedness loves company. God's love includes allowing Satan to have souls. The God of Jesus does not block Satan from taking souls and tormenting them.
What you need to do is to ask yourself who is Satan in relation to what you are doing and preaching. You are here proselytizing you know. It sounds very clear to me that you are acknowledging that your relationship is sinful but that it is forgiven even though you do not break it off. Jesus didn't say go and continue sinning. You know that.
"Sin is on earth whether we like it or not." Well, I don't like it, and it's not going to stay. Sin and the willfully iniquitous, according to Jesus, get separated out. Would it have already happened except that there are lost sheep yet to be found.
As for Leviticus, if you leave it completely out, you are still left with Jesus's clear admonitions against all the various forms of selfishness and harm that he was not obligated to list in some exhaustive, anticipatory, list for the literalists of which you make yourself here in convenience.
He did not say don't have sex with your dog, did he? No, he didn't. Are you going to say that just because he didn't say verbatim not to be homosexual that he licensed it. Well, if we go by that, then anything he didn't name is licensed in Heaven. I know that, that is not correct. In addition, there are many verses that show that Jesus was adamantly opposed to the same sexual deviation Moses also found to be error. Jesus definitely did not throw out all of Moses's teachings. He removed the hypocrisy. He did not remove the prohibition against homosexuality, for it is hypocrisy. If you re-read in complete honesty your own writing here, you will see it.
So, I don't support your project. How I can not do that while asking for God's blessing on you, I reconcile.
I added this comment on November 5, 2009 at approximately 8 PM PST:
Since you are not the only one here and since so many souls are on the line, I add this in direct response to you even though it is obvious that you ignore the truths contained in my earlier comment.
You say you have accepted Jesus, but you also ask the question: "What about a divorced woman who remarries while her ex-husband is still alive?" If you accept Jesus, why do you ask? He was clear and plain about it. He said what is and what is not the sin of adultery. He also forgave. Did he forgive the unrepentant too? Yes, he did. What he didn't do is tell you or me or anyone else where we have it in writing passed down to us exactly where each soul will end up. He did refer to Peter as Satan, but Peter is where now? He did say that there are many mansions in God's house. Is Hell flat by analogy? I don't read it that way.
"The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was based up on rape——not
homosexuality." It covers both. That spirit that conversed with Abraham was the same as gave to Moses. Do you doubt it? Do you believe that the spirit that destroyed Sodom was not the voice that told Moses to kill the homosexuals? This notion about Sodom not being about homosex doesn't work. No one who truly loves the truth will buy it upon reflection.
Also, you want to be sure not to accuse others of judging in the sense where Jesus does not judge. I have not seen in this discussion anyone judging you, condemning you, calling down the wrath against you, or seeking your punishment but rather warning you against doing those things that lead to those things, just as Jesus did.
Lastly, "...back it up with valid scriptures and I will back mine up too," suggests that valid scriptures contradict each other; however, Jesus gave an enhanced, new law that was always the real law but was just too good for humans to grasp and to hold. We are to change and to change that.
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:4-6)
Now, if you can read that to allow that "at the beginning made them male, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his husband: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," then may God have mercy on you because Satan, the author of such a confused interpretation, won't.
Furthermore, Jesus said, "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11:23)
Since Jesus upheld the law of Moses but only removed the harmful hypocrisy, then certainly he would not say what he said in Matthew 19 while also saying that homosexuality is acceptable in the eyes of God. Were he to do so, he would be a hypocrite, no one to lead to God, and I would not call him my spiritual brother in God.
The people here who have written in opposition to homosexuality are not going to stone you. Can't you see what kind of people they are? They are not following the Mosaic law verbatim or advocating it. They are following Jesus's New Testament example as God has given them to do it.
Pasquella, you are conveniently being selective and still mistaken. You wrote, "Tom, "not having sex with your dog' would be under bestiality...." This does not address my point. I said he did not list out all sexual sins. Obviously though, you hold that bestiality is wrong. Why? There are those who do not. They will want their rights. What will you tell them that you entered in and closed the door behind you because they are the new homosexuals? That's exactly what the Church is not to be about. It is to be about informing you too to leave your sins behind.
I see that you duck and remain redundant in error. I will look once again but then shake the dust as all real Christians do and will, per Jesus.
Peace to all,
Here's my last comment on that thread, November 6, 2009 at approximately 3 PM PST:
Well, I see that Pasquella is reading only what she wants to see that confirms what she wants to do and how she wants others to view what she's doing.
I see that her position that she's preaching here is that Jesus is the only way into Heaven, but that also there's no discrimination. Jesus clearly said that when certain souls knock he will tell them that he never knew them. He will discriminate. He did discriminate. He was given his disciples. They were chosen with discrimination. Jesus was and is the most discriminating mind I've ever met. That is completely consistent with his statement asking that the ignorant be forgiven. It does not mean that those ignorant enter in.
God doesn't force Heaven or Hell. Satan does that. Satan's goats can't hear Jesus.
Also, Jesus cleans the temple, and he called them "serpents." Jesus hated. He said so.
To understand the language of the revelation of Jesus Christ one must understand love/hate relationships. One must understand relativity. Semantical understanding is required. Understanding paradoxes is required.
Pasquella said, "If you believe in your heart (as a Christian) and confess with your mouth that you love God and believe that Jesus died for your sins, you are saved."
"Christian" must be defined, and Jesus did that. Everyone who mouths and merely thinks he or she has done what Pasquella's suggests has not necessarily arrived at salvation. She's mistaken and misleading. It is one of the Big Lies. Repeat it often enough, and supposedly the masses will be duped. Are you duped?
There are many who will believe that they believed in their hearts as Christians and who confessed with their mouths that they loved God and believed that Jesus died for their sins who will not enter in.
Pasquella has issues with Roman Catholicism. She is conflating all of "the religious" with her experience at the hands of certain Roman Catholics. Despite Pasquella's assertions, Christianity remains religion.
Pasquella cites Paul as authoritative, but Paul's letters show a founding of highly structured churches with denominated hierarchies and many rules, which Paul called his commandments to the congregations and leaders against which Pasquella argues, blanketly so. Would Pasquella have fit in, or would Paul have written a letter about how she is a problem for the body had she attempted to remain and to sway others into accepting homosexuality as not being a sin?
By the way, has Pasquella said here whether or not homosexuality is a sin? If she holds that it is, then how does she hold that you ought to accept it and not change? Does she sound like Jesus or someone else?
She won't be pinned down (give firm opinions and precise information), but avoidance speaks volumes. It actually does pin her down whether she likes it or not.
Also, her words do show that she does believe that it is sin even while she also in, other places, speaks as if it is not.
There is logic in Heaven.
Nearly anyone may write a letter to the churches. Which letters signify in Heaven?
I leave my peace with those who accept it. Concerning those who do not, I shake my feet. This is what Jesus said.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)