The Church of the Evolving Christ

A letter to the pastor of my childhood church

2006-02-26T22:28:07Z

I've typed this letter up rather quickly following a visit to my mother this afternoon. Please let me know if there is anything that would sound better if re-worded or clarified. Also, do you think it would be beneficial to send copies to the RCA (Reformed Church of America) and the Albany Synod? If I do, I will include a sentence at the end about copies being forwarded to them.

February 26, 2006

Dear Pastor Dave,

Over the past few months, I’ve been trying to decide what to do about getting my son, Thomas Ryan, Jr., baptized. My husband and I were married at Amity. I attended and was Confirmed at Amity. I was baptized at Amity, as were both of my brothers. But I’ve been conflicted because of issues involving my mother, and today it became clear that I could never allow you to baptize my son. I believe you have failed in your job as minister, and you have failed every opportunity you may have had to change that.

I was too young to know what was going on when Dennis J. was murdered over 10 years ago, but I know that’s when this all started. My mom’s relationship with the church has never been the same since then, and that hurts her every single day of her life. I don’t care what you think about Dennis J. and the way he lived his life. I do care that, when he was murdered, his surviving family members were active, faithful members of the Amity congregation, and the man who was supposed to minister to their faith did not do so. My mom has never talked to me directly about this because she never wanted my faith or relationship to the church to be affected by her situation, but I’ve heard her talk to my grandmother and to my mother-in-law, and I know as much as I need to know. Members of your congregation no longer felt welcome because of your actions. People left the church because you shunned them instead of reaching out. You chose divisiveness over healing. You have never acklowledged, let alone apologized, for any of it. That is not what a man of God should do.

Over the years, my mom has made numerous attempts to come back to Amity. She has tried going to other churches, but none of them is home to her. But every time she has gone back, when there was an opening for you to attempt to make her feel welcome again, you instead chose to ignore her and hurt her further.

I was upset when I overheard my mom talking about how it had been several weeks since the birth of my son, and you still had not congratulated her on becoming a grandmother for the first time. She walks every day when the weather is good, and you walk as well. I remember her telling me about one day she thought you might say something to her when you were returning home just as she was about to walk past your house. But by the time she reached your driveway, you had disappeared from view. You must have known she was there, but you chose to avoid her. It wasn’t until another day when you were out walking and confrontation was unavoidable that you managed to casually ask her how she liked being a grandmother. My son may have been a month old by then. Part of being a minister is sharing in the joys of life and the miracle of birth with the members of your congregation, and yet you could not muster up the congratulations until your only other option was to keep your mouth closed.

But that does not hold a candle to the anger I felt when I heard her talking to my mother-in-law today. My uncle, Jim C., is a Deacon. We know that my mother’s biopsy was mentioned at church. My mother may have breast cancer. You knew that. At a time when her heart is aching and she could use the support of someone in your position, you failed to provide any comfort or prayers. When she encountered you on a walk during one of the nicer days last week, after her biopsy was announced, you did not tell her you were praying for her. You did not ask her how she was feeling. You did not offer any words of comfort or say that God has a plan for everything. No. You made a comment about the weather. My mother is worried sick that she may have cancer, something you had been made aware of, and your only words to her were about the weather.

I don’t know how you can call yourself a man of God if you think it’s okay to treat people this way. My mother is a good woman. There aren’t very many good people in this world any more, but my mother is one of them. She’s a much better person than I am. Jesus Christ ministered to prostitutes and lepers, and yet you cannot muster an ounce of kindness or compassion for a good woman who misses her church desperately. I want you to know what you’ve done to her. You have wounded her spirit. She often talks about how much she longs to go back to Amity, but how she feels that will never be possible until you are no longer the minister there. You continue to treat her like something less than human, as if she had no feelings.

I want you to know that I do not think you are a good man. I want you to look inside yourself and ask why you think it’s okay to call yourself a pastor when you can have such complete disregard for another person’s spirituality. I want you to pray about what you could do to even begin to make this better, even if you can never fully make up for the pain you have caused. I have not told her about this letter, and I do not intend to tell her about it.

As I write this letter, I am praying for my mother, who has not yet gotten the results of her biopsy. Have you prayed for her? I hope that she will have the results before this letter reaches you, and I hope that you will pray for her whatever way it turns out. As for my son, I believe I will be having him baptized by Pastor Bruce Cornwell, a man who has not hurt any member of my family. As for my Uncle Jim and my Aunt Judy, who still believe you are a good man because my mom has not wanted to shatter their illusions by burdening them with her reality, I pray for them that they don't have to learn a similar lesson if some unfortunate tragedy should happen to them that you deem too unpleasant to deal with.

You may reply to me if you wish, but I am not concerned for myself in this matter. It is my mother that concerns me, and it is up to you to do, or not do, whatever you feel is right. I pray that it is what’s right for my mother.

Sincerely,

Christina G.

Jesus Christ!

2005-12-17T02:24:18Z

I've often wondered, how exactly did the name of the Son of God become an exclamation of the same wavelength as "fuck"? I mean, a person stubs their toe, and you're just as likely to hear "shit!" or "fuck!" as you are to hear "Jesus Christ!". When did that happen?

I've been Christian, by the southern Baptist definition, for the better part of six years. I've read about, looked into, talked about alot of differenet religions, seen the similarities, the differences, the stupidity and futility of trying to define the search for meaning in human existance.

The first thing I think any one, of any religion should do, is admit to yourself that not everyone is going to see things your way. Free will is a bitch like that, a double edged sword that means everyone gets to choose their own way, and they may not like the way yours sounds. Live with it. Stop preaching like your way is the only way. If God had meant for there to be only one relegion, why didn't everybodyknow about it to begin with?

Free will! That's why! We all have to come to Him in our own way, or go away from Him in our own way. We know we'll be judged for our actions, our attitudes, our lives. The best God can do, and should do, is to put the idea out there and lets us decided, each of us ourselves what we want to do with it.

Now here is where I'm going to throw people off. Could the tales of Jesus's exploits have been tainted, indeed changed, by stories from the East of Buddha, the man who himself preached many of Christ's teaching many years before? But Buddha didn't claim to be the Son of God, or God, or even an emissary of God. He claimed to be a man, nothing more. He wanted people to follow a path to enlightenment, and never claimed to know the way, just (if my understanding of what I've read is right) claim to be able to help a person learn the way. Adjust Buddha to be talking about God, and throw in some Jewish virtues and history, and you seem to have Jesus. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. I know it doesn't change the idea of Christ. It changes who Christ might have been. Did he actually say some of the things he said (I'll leave the miracles out because I haven't read anything about Buddha curing the sick and blind), or were these things adjusted to fascilitate the spread of the religion?

"History is written by the victors." That statement leads me to believe that most of what is in things like the Bible and history books is tainted, prejudiced by those who want to look good and justified in front of their peers and societies. Did many of the things in the Bible happen as they are written? Probably not. Which is one of my main arguements against the Bible itself. Scholars have long been of the opinion that the Bible started as an oral tradition, a story kept by an elder of some kind, and passed from generation to generation until someone finally learned to write. So obviously some of the stories are going to be confused on most if not all details.

Some people will say the the beieve the Bible because of faith. To them I say this: "Your faith should be in God, not in the Bible. The words don't matter, as long as you believe." But the Bible is the word of God, one might respond.

No, it isn't. It's something a bunch of guys in a room thought up. Something people wrote down to express their faith. What have you done to express yours? When was the last time you helped a person without thought of reward? When was the last time you just looked to the sky and said: "I will not question, for my faith is strong." and just gone about living your life?

I have faith. Faith in myself. Faith in my abilities. I won't ask God to help me live the life I've been given. If there is a God, I intend to show the strength of character, the personal fortitude to take respnsibility for my life, my actions. Faith won't change your life. It won't make you run faster, or live longer. God is a question, because if he's near, we'd always be asking for help. But we need to learn on our own what life is and what it isn't. The paths are ours, created by God perhaps, and we have to take it a day at a time. A moment at a time, and have faith in ourselves.

That's my rant. Later, folks.

christ_evolving @ 2005-07-07T22:17:00

2005-07-08T02:28:52Z

You ever notice how God is written in the bible? all vengeful? Spiteful? Mean like your old man after a bottle of Jack?

Because he is! "Boy c'mere! C'mere now! gimme some love! Boy I will slap you so hard, you're gonna feel it 'fore you was born!"

God just sitting up on his mountain top. Big asshole. "Worship me! Feed my insatiable ego! I gave you free will, but if you want peace for eternity you will do as I command! Noah, you drunk ass bastard! Build me an Ark! What do you mean 'what's an ark?', just fuckin build it!"

Then you've got Satan over in the corner, "Yeah, yeah. I hear ya. But, I'm not gonna force you into anything. Free will and all. No pressure. Go on, serve God. He's a pig-fucker, but you'll find that out." Smoking his cigarette, leaning on a post, like the cool kids in 60's movies. "Worship me if you want, I'm not going to make you."

And god? "DO IT OR I'LL FUCKING SPANK YOU! WITH FIRE! AND BRIMSTONE!"

Then Jesus came along, the Son of God, talking like Satan. "No big deal, it's all good, all you need is love."

And one of the Jews caught that! "wait! God's all fire and bullying! Satan's all nice and smooth! and Jesus is just like Satan!" the rest of the jews heard that and said: "He's not the son of God, he's the Devil! Crucify the bastard!" Judas then said only two words: "aw, shit."

Fun and Games with Desert Nomads

2005-02-20T21:27:25Z

Let’s imagine that you’re a man. A desert nomad man. A desert nomad man, living a few thousand years ago in your harsh environment, with a keen working knowledge of your environment, but without anything truly akin to what we, today, would call “science”.

For the sake of our hypothetical, we should also make it clear that you’re a brutal, misogynist asshole. Who knows exactly what it is, but there’s just something about trekking across a bitter, bleak desert that tends to plant the swift-growing seeds of monomaniacal dogmatism and oppression of those within one’s direct sphere of influence.

You’ve probably got a wife or three, some camels and some children. You need all of these beings for your basic survival or at least your contentment, but, being a misogynist asshole, you’re not really willing to give any of them the respect that they deserve. When you don’t respect someone, you lie to hir to get what you want. This is especially easy when you can overpower them on an individual basis. If your wife mouths off, you can beat her and she’ll stop. If your kids get into trouble, you can slap the shit out of them and they’ll behave. Hell, if you’re really sick of them, you can just kill them and make more. That’s what wives are for, right?

The real problem arises when you have too many wives and/or offspring. Beyond a certain number, your physical strength simply isn’t enough to keep them in line. They’re likely to get wise and gang up on you, take the camels and leave you to the “creeping things” of the dunes. Once you’re not just a husband and a father; once you’re a patriarch, it’s time to bust out the big guns: Religion.

No, you can’t take them all on at once and you can’t keep an eye on all of them twenty-four hours a day, but you might be able to convince them that an omnipotent being is doing so and that this omnipotent being is the one who insists upon adherence to these rules, not you. This does well to not only keep your family in line, but also to relieve you of being perceived as the tyrannical plague of a human being that you actually are. Convenient, n’est pas?

Considering that you get most of your wives around the age of twelve or thirteen (when you purchase them from their fathers for a few sheep, a box of garments and some salt), they should be young enough to train and brainwash into believing in your “God”. This isn’t a bad system, really, but a better system is for as many men in the trekable area as possible to teach their daughters this shit from birth. That way, you can buy a caravan-broken girl just about anywhere and she’s ready to serve you! It’s great to be a man!

This can go on for generations and even cross into new countries, onto new continents and spread to include several religions. You just pick the convenient lie that best fits your current environment and roll with it. Even in modern times, kids and women still fall for it. Not in the same way, but enough that we know we have them, fellahs. In fact, women are statistically more religious than men these days. Isn’t that a riot? We’re long past that “women’s lib” brouhaha and they willingly choose to keep their dogmatic chains. Isn’t it cute?

You’ll encounter women, who will defend their faith, saying something of the “It just gives me hope!” ilk. “Oh, I’m not like most Christians/Jews/Muslims, my faith is personal and gives me peace.”

You see; that’s the real beauty of it. Slaves that don’t even realize that they’re slaves. Slaves, who defend their shackles heroically – it’s a sight to see. They’ve been hooked on this drug since early childhood – why should they not defend their addiction? Why should reason not be overshadowed by panic? That’s what a drug does to the brain – it creates a chemical imbalance for which it becomes the sole savior. It’s the crutch on which they have to lean in order to face the world. We shouldn’t expect everyone to quit cold turkey, should we? Hell, maybe it’s even dangerous to quit cold turkey. Maybe they would have fits and convulsions and foam at the mouth. Maybe that’s why a lot of them go through the rehab of being “pagan” for a while, before they admit that it’s all hilariously dorky.

But seriously, guys: We’ve kept this a secret for thousands of years and you know what, women were our slaves for the bulk of that time and some of them still are. They fought for their rights and their freedom, and in some places, they won. But it’s only a symbolic victory and most of us with a penis know it. We know what our fathers told us and we know that our mothers and sisters probably weren’t told the same thing. Women won’t be completely free from patriarchal oppression until they are treated for their addiction to imaginary friends and the need to find solace in concocted beings. Women won’t be free until they can face the horrors of the world head on, as human beings against a hostile, yet conquerable world.

And I hope the women do this quickly, because men are going blow this place the fuck up if they don’t stand up and put an end to all this testosterone poisoning.

M-A

Science Must Stand

2005-01-04T02:08:13Z

Crossposted from my own journal and dark_christian.

Everywhere I turn there are strange folks coming out of the woodworks with even stranger ideas. God gave us the ability to think, to reason, to understand. His chosen people were the tribes of Israel and it was/is their destiny to wrestle with God, if one is inclined to believe such things. Obviously God wanted us to be more then small minded yes men or he wouldn't have designed us the way he did. Yet more and more Americans are dismissing the gifts God has given us. To be quite frank about it as a Christian I believe these others have fallen away from God and can count themselves as part of the corrupted beings that inhabit the lake of fire they like to worry about so much. I'm very serious about this line of thought. It's a rather consuming idea that has taken hold of me and won't let go.

I've been taken to task online and in private emails about denying certain individuals as being Christian. The idea has not been shaken loose, on the contrary it is in fact growing. I perfectly respect everyones right to believe and think as they choose. That is not the issue, so most of the emails and tirades have been addressing precisely the wrong thing. There is a difference between respect of belief and validation of said belief. I have had a terrible time letting the validation happen. This most horrific occurance has uprooted some of my base personality, somethings very much taken for granted by myself and most anyone that knows me. Such as my very liberal bend and flexibility when it comes to others and my generally easily given tolerance have all taken major hits. I simply cannot sit idly by, smiling up into the face of thieves and liars. Cannot give my tolerance and acceptance to those who defile my faith and harm others in the name of God.

I never knew I had it in me to be hard or perhaps cruel, but apparently I do. I'm quite angry at the state of things, quite angry at these people such as the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and the Coral Ridge Ministries. And what they are are not doing to help their fellow man. I picked this up from dark_christian and went to look for myself. Only Focus for the Family says anything about the disaster in Asia but it's below them asking for donations to them first. They have the money, time and resources to harass, belittle and actively seek to harm their fellow man in the name of Christ, in the name of families and of morals but their is no room left in their hearts or minds to spare for those who are in need. Not in Asia, not in Africa, not in their own back yard.

And yet I am suppose to nod, smile and give them room to claim they are of the same faith, the same genesis as me? I think not. I know not. They may claim they are Christian as much as they like, have at and have on. I still have no more intention of agreeing then I would agree that the world was made of carefully molded velveeta cheese.

While they are too busy to actively help others they aren't too busy to attack education, science and sex education in particular. All around the internet stories are popping regarding schools being brought under fire to remove or discredit evolution, in Texas, in Alabama, and here in Georgia where I live. Ray Bradbury wrote a fascinating short story once where the government had decided to elmininate anyone who was too smart, so at a particular age, I believe it was 14, a child had to drink a pink liquid that made him tell the truth so the child could be tested to see if they were too *smart*, if they did they simply never came home again. How frightening that story seems to me now.

As much as it tears at my heart, as much as it bothers me, I would rather live in a world bereft of spirituality then to live in a world bereft of free will and thought. You cannot destroy true spirituality yet free will can be crushed from a man, or washed from his mind if the right pressures are applied.

A young girl saved quite a few lives in Asia. On holiday with her mother she recognized the signs of a tsunami and told her mother who in turn told the hotel staff. It's worth noting the girl was British, not American.

Quick action by Tilly's mother and Thai hotel staff meant Maikhao beach was quickly cleared, just minutes before a huge wave crashed ashore. The beach was one of the few on the Thai island of Phuket where no-one was killed.

This is why science must stand, why education must stand, why I cannot and will not validate one more person who utters God's name as an excuse for behaving as a perfect jackass. Had this girl been raised here in America, in a dumbed down state where Creationism has replaced science do you think she would have learned what she needed to know to save her own life and the lives of others? Or would she have been sitting on the shore staring at the unusual waves and the fish flopping on the beach waiting for death to over run her? And if you think she would have known, it's not that bad yet, how much longer do you think it will be before it is that bad? Before you answer that or feel comfortable do you know how many people I know of who firmly believe that condoms do not protect against the AIDS virus because their church told them so? Not, do not believe it's a hundred percent effective, not, believe abstinence might work better but flat out do not believe at all. More then you would be comfortable with, more then I am comfortable with.

The atheists, the secular, the agnostics and those of other faiths have all started to rise to stop a flood of ill will and maliciousness. They will not be enough, it has to be US, it has to the Christians themselves who come to turn back the tide. We have to cast out those who have corrupted our faith. We can pray for them, we can try to reason with them, we can invite them to our homes and churches, we can even attempt to win them back to Christ but we must not accept them as being Christian. They are not Christian, some of them may be lost and confused, some may truly believe they are the next best thing to Christ Himself, and of those I hope many come to their senses. But most of these so called Christian Warriors no full well that they do not walk the path of their so called religion. They walk among us, their sins and lies protected by a faith they are corrupting from the inside out, the rot becoming more evident with each and every day. Christians must come to the forefront of the battle because it is in our name that great harm is being done.

I will not yield.

Ladye

Cross-posted from my personal journal

2004-11-27T20:00:20Z

We were in the bottled water aisle when my mom looked back to make sure my grandma hadn't caught up to us yet in the grocery store when she said, "I have kind of a strange question for you."

"Okay," I said tentatively.

"Do you pray?"

I conceded that it was kind of a strange question for the grocery store. "Occasionally," I replied.

"Then please pray for your brother," she said. And the tears started welling up in her eyes. He and Meghan are staying with them until they go back to Georgia tomorrow. When he got out of the shower yesterday, she saw a mole on his chest. Apparently, it wasn't there three months ago, it's all purplish now and is turning black. My mom is understandably upset, because these things are generally cancerous, and her friend Kathy's mother died because she ignored a mole like that for too long and the cancer had spread by the time she got it taken care of.

She doesn't want to say anything to my grandma so that she doesn't freak out, too, until they know for sure what it is. He goes to the doctor on Monday. Meghan's supposed to call my mom as soon as they find out.

Please, if you pray, or if you just send some happy thoughts, could you send some in Joe's general direction? He's already got health issues because he's an insulin-dependent diabetic. If it does turn out to be malignant, let it still be early enough that it's not going to be devastating news.

The Mote in Thine Eye

2004-10-20T19:47:39Z

A lot of people seem frightened of late. I can’t put a number on the recurrence of times over the past month that I have had friends over and after cutting into the hours wherein night and day are engaged in blissful, intellectual coitus, one of their faces would straighten, become the expression that we rarely see, but know to pay it attention when we do. It’s the “I mean this. This is important.” face that makes us all drop our facades and social lubricants. It’s the face that instigates an aside from the illusion of consensus hallucination and I have been seeing it more in the past month than I have seen it in the previous years of my life combined.

“I’m scared. All the time.” they say. And they mean it. Lately, everyone has been pouring over histories and trying to learn from them. Trying to understand the mistakes and the ardent progress of those who came before. We’re taking the only steps we can to cram before the “Doomed To Repeat It 101” exam.

It’s rather difficult to envision a glowing tomorrow, given the current state of the world. There are people in America, who can. Their vision goes something like this:

“George Bush, doing the will of Jesus Christ, will save us from the threat of Terrorism, everyone will see how great America and Jesus are and the world will be saved.”

For others, it’s:

“Jesus will return any day now, and I can get away from all of this.”

Then you have everyone else. Those futures don’t seem all that realistic to them. We don’t have the resources to stomp out Terrorism. If Jesus does, can we elect Jesus president, please? Has anyone heard from Him lately? If He can wave His holy hand and make people stop killing one-another, that would be nice. I think that the last person to hear from Him, according to the Mormons, were Native Americans. Perhaps, then, they being the closest living relatives of the last recipients of Christ’s message, we should ask them “How do you feel about America going to various places in the world with weapons in advance of the local people, killing some of them and telling the rest to change their customs? You spoke to Him last – what would Jesus do?”

Seriously, people – I direct this at everyone. If you believe in Jesus Christ and His message, put Him in the place of the leader of the free world and ask yourself how He would handle the threat of Terrorism.

If He isn’t here to speak for Himself, we have only the Gospels to understand His position on these issues. If Jesus was president when the World Trade Center was attacked, He would likely say something similar to:

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44)

“Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” (Matthew 5:38-42)

About prayer in school, Jesus would say:

“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” (Matthew 6:6)

In regards to homosexuality, Jesus would say:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

In response to lower taxes for the poor and higher taxes for the rich, Jesus would say:

“Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.” (Mark 12:43-44)

Hell, I’d elect this guy.

If the above represent Christianity, I can think of only a handful of actual Christians. Ghandi, I would say followed those rules. So did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That’s two…Mother Theresa? Probably not…That’s three… Pope John Paul II…I think that’s a “no”. At the very least, he prays rather publicly and I would imagine he needs some mote removal.

Help me out here, people. Any that are alive today? Any moteless people who can do some mass-scale mote-removing?

Nominations, please.

M-A

God vs. the Fags

2004-10-05T20:55:02Z

"The Bible is perhaps the most powerful socio-religious weapon in the arsenal of the opposition to homosexuality." as quoted from Gerald LaRue's The Bible and Homosexuality.

With recent scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is by no means a choice, (all hail the queer sheep and fruit flies.) religious zealots spring forward saying "Choice or not, it is wrong!"

What I find interesting about this is that it seems to contradict not only basic Christian ethics; i.e., "Judge not lest you be judged" but also seems to imply that God creates people to sin. If homosexuality is not a choice and is also a sin, then God must be condemning these people from birth. Guess He's getting bored.

But enough of that - let's move to the actual passages in the Bible, which have been translated to condemn the evil, evil, homosexual.

The first stop on our tour is Leviticus: Your source of moral weirdness and mine. The passages in contention here are 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such is an abomination" and 20:23 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them should be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Fun, fun, fun.

Now, on the surface, this would seem to blow my argument out of the water, yes? No, my little Velveeta slices of joy! Just the opposite! These two passages are part of a religious code delivered to the followers of the God Yhwh (or Yahweh if you prefer to add in possible vowels to the Hebrew). The idea is that these are the rules of their covenant, rules to be followed in order to remain holy.

Ok. Fine. But look at Leviticus 19:19...."Also shall you not wear garments made of two different fabrics."

Well...I would like anyone who has ever used the Bible against homosexuality to check the label on their shirt. If it says "Cotton/Polyester" or any other combination, I will see you in Hell.

Leviticus also forbids eating pork, planting more than one kind of crop, cutting of hair in certain ways, and eating meat that wasn't killed properly. Most churches ignore the bulk of Leviticus - why?

Because it's a silly book.

The book of Leviticus sets down a moral code that is specifically anti-pagan and thus goes against most of the tenets of pagan theology, homosexual practices being one of them.

Note also that at this time in history, there was no word for homosexuality. There was no concept of homosexuality. It was perceived as being a form of perverted heterosexuality, as a form or rape and conquest. The thought of consensual homosexuality was not even present when these passages were written.

So why do churches and religious people still consider homosexuality a sin while ignoring the other laws set down in Leviticus? The Switzers in their book Parents of the Homosexual propose that, "in all honesty, it has been our experience that in the church our major emotional reaction against homosexuality is not primarily on the basis that the Bible condemns it but that we as human beings condemn it."

Now, on to the real cannon fodder: Sodom! WooHoo!

"No, my brothers, do not be so wicked. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this crime. Rather, let me bring out my maiden daughter of his concubine. Ravish them, or do whatever you want with them; but against this man you must not commit this wanton crime." (Judges19:22-30)

"They called Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out so that we may have intimacies with them.' Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, "I beg you my brothers, do not do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do with them as you please.'" (Genesis 19:1-29)

Ewwwwwwwwwwkay.... Talk about morals...here we go! Fist of all, again, the word "homosexual" is not mentioned in either of the passages - the first taking place in the city of Gibeah, the second in the infamous, sin-infested burg of Sodom (ominous music swells). Most Bible scholars agree that these two tales were once the same and have, through oral tradition, branched off into the two stories in the Bible today. That would explain the similarities between them.

What it does not explain, however is he twisted reasoning behind the hosts' actions.

Let's take into account that in the case of Sodom, Lot's guests were angels disguised as men. This would account for their extraordinary beauty which must have prompted the lascivious in habitants of the city to come a-knockin'.

This would also account for Lot's aversion to allowing the crowd to have their way - messengers of God should not be allowed to be raped; That would be very very detrimental to Lot's relationship with Yhwh.

I also call attention to the word "raped" which was the intention of the crowd. They pressed onward, they threatened violence. These were not nice people at all - bad Sodomites, bad! Therefore, the sin addressed here is rape, not homosexuality.

What amazes me most about my upbringing in a Catholic school is that we were never given the full story. We never actually read the passages about Sodom and Gomorah, we were merely told about it. Suspiciously, our buddy and role model Lot's decision to toss his offspring to the wolves, so to speak, was omitted from the telling.

Convenient, n'est pas?

In Homosexuality: A History, Vern Bullough suggests that Lot's offering of daughters was not meant to be taken literally by the crowd, but rather "it was simply a way of saying that he respected the privacy of his guests (after all, they were angels) even more than that of his daughters."

I prefer to think that Lot was just loony but who knows.

Moving on...

"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals." (1 Corinthians 6:9)

"...males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one-another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." (Romans 1:26-27)

Oooooo! These are my favorites! Paul, you confused, frustrated little man. Let it be said in his honor that an random nutbar can claim to have had an encounter with God, be “changed” or “saved” and then profit from this fabrication, but only Paul can do so and become a vast backbone of the canon of Christian literature. Way to go, Paul!

This would be the time at which I cleverly segue into my next point - that being the conceptual aspects of homosexuality as seen by the writers of the Hebrew Bible as contrasted with the perception by modern day readers, in particular, the Christians.

Let us, for now, say that in the year 6593 it is discovered, rather conclusively that Schizophrenia is actually a condition under which aliens control the minds of human beings through the use of microchips placed in carrots.

Humor me.

Next, let us say that I write a book about Schizophrenia in 2002 and name it thus. In said work, I state that persons afflicted with the aforementioned condition have violent tendencies.

To a reader in the year 6593, it might seem evident that I was saying that persons under the influence of extra-terrestrials have violent tendencies when, in fact, I was saying nothing of the sort - I had no concept of such an event and could therefore not comment on it.

The word "Schizophrenia" would have very different connotations to me than it would to those aware of the alien mind-control condition. In a similar way, Paul and other Biblical authors had no concept of homosexuality as we see it today.

Christian historian John Boswell comments that: "(the fact that) early Christian writers called upon to comment explicitly on such (homosexual) relationships is no more surprising than their failure to mention household pets and is at least comparable to if not subsumed under, the complete absence from their literature of reference to the type of romantic passion which is the basis for marriage in all industrialized societies."

Boswell is backed up by professor Victor Furnish who writes: "First, not only the terms, but also the concepts of 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' were unknown in Paul's day. These terms...presume an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychological and sociological analysis...The ancient writers were operating without the vaguest conception of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'."

Now we arrive at the question of just how homosexuality was seen in Biblical times and just what Paul was actually talking about in those blasted passages.

As in the cases of Sodom and its parallels in Gomorah and Gibeah, rape was the issue with which the authors seemed to be dealing primarily. Homosexuality was not perceived as a form of sexual expression, the authors could not understand it as such. It could not in any way be seen in comparison to heterosexual encounters; it could only be seen as unnaturally violent to have relations with someone of the same sex.

At this time, consensual homosexual relationships were non-existent or at the very least, hidden from the public eye for fear of death. As the Switzers stated "a homosexual act was understood to be a perverse extension of heterosexual desire, that which happens when heterosexual lust is so great that it is not adequately fulfilled by someone of the opposite sex."

In this regard, it is easy to see why early Jewish and Christian writers may have been confused by the actions of homosexuals and thus the reports we receive in Biblical texts reflect their confusion.

Paul was completely unable to comment on homosexuality because he had never heard of it. What Paul had heard of was rampaging weirdoes pounding on people’s doors, asking to rape their guests. Homosexual or heterosexual, I'm sure we all agree that such actions are immoral.

So…if Paul and other Biblical authors weren't using a word, which meant "homosexual", then what the bloody hell were they talking about?

Good question. No one seems to know for sure from what I can tell.

Translations are goofy, goofy things.

Let's take a look at that passage from Corinthians again. As I have quoted, the New American Bible translates it as reading "...nor practicing homosexuals".

The word "practicing" is by no means in the original Greek text. The word magically floated its way into the text at the hands of a very biased translator....naughty, naughty!

This was added in for the benefit of the Catholic Church whose latest stance on homosexuality is more or less "It's okay to be gay as long as you don't act on it."

But I digress...

The word, which has here been translated as "homosexuals", when latinized, is arsenokoites.

The 1525 Tyndale translation seems to think that this word, which the New American translates as "homosexuals”, is in fact "abusers of themselves with mankynde."

Hm. A bit different, I would say.

The 1560 Geneva Bible seemed to think arsenokoites meant "bouggerers".

1946, Revised Standard Version: "sexual perverts"

Interlinear Greek, 1958: "Sodomites"

So...they've changed one "ite" to a completely different "ite" and remember that at this time, "Sodomite" didn't have the homosexual connotation which has been applied to it today - it mostly meant "one from Sodom".

It gets worse. The 1961 New English translation takes that one little word and magically comes up with the suspiciously expansive phrase "none who are guilty of adultery or homosexual perversion".

What? Where the hell did that come from? Where did they get words like "who are guilty of" crammed into a translation of one teeny, tiny word that the Tyndale thought meant "abusers"?

Moving on, the 1966 English translation seems to think it meant "Sodomites and Catamites" Where the bloody blue blazes do the Catamites fit into this? And how could one word be translated to refer to two specific ethnicities? Blargh!

Shall we go into how one version translates malakois as meaning "effeminate" and another translates it as "voluptuous persons" and yet another saw it as "boy prostitutes"?

Obviously, we have a very distinct form of confusion present in biblical translators that can only be defined as personal bias.

The problem, oh minions of Pop Tarts, is that the Bible was written by people. Whether or not God inspired it, people wrote it down and people make mistakes. People put their own spin on what they are writing and obviously, what they are translating. When the King James Version was written, condemnations of witches were conveniently added in to make witch-hunts legal. This is an old and nefarious game being played.

If you want to do battle against homosexuality, you have no valid religious grounding in the Bible. You have been misinformed and naive. If you really want to know what the Bible is saying, I strongly recommend learning it in its original language first.

christ_evolving @ 2004-08-29T08:54:00

2004-08-28T23:25:54Z

Greetings all. I have been watching for sometime and finally decided to post this. I wrote this in my own journal some months ago and re-reading it now I've realised how poetic and pretentious it is but please bare with me.

I have never quite been able to deny my religion. I have always felt strongly spiritual but never been able to name what I believed in.
Well last year when I was in China, touring with a choir. we sung at a Catholic church.
I remember entering it and, as always in a church, I was over-whelmed by both the beauty and the sacredness of the space. When you are in a place like this, surrounded by people who don't speak your language, with your breath freezing in the air before your face, it is hard to believe that a God does not exist.

However, I managed it because at that moment I realised what it was that I was worshipping: people. I was stunned, not by the presence of any God but by the beauty that humans had created and by the universal nature of beauty. This Church was being appreciated, not only by me, but by Chinese peasants, people I seem to have very little in common with.

I worship humanity because we are creatures capable of such amazing compassion, thought, intelligence, love and poetry. (I don't mean poetry in the sense of words but in the sense that we can create poetry through our everyday lives.) We are capable of both goodness and inflicting amazing hurt. Has anyone ever held a small bird on their hand and realised how easy it would be to crush it? We have that power. Some use it. Most don't. Isn't that worth praising? We can hold that fragile life, stroke it with tenderness and appreciate it without harming it. Isn't that extra-ordinary? Few other creatures are capable of such a feat!

Why worship something that wars against itself, that tortures, rapes, kills and maims itself? Because humanity survives and will continue to do so. Individuals may struggle to destroy it but it lives on in an infinite number of people. That is beautiful.

I take strength from such a thought, because at times I feel the weight of it pressing down upon me; all those minds that form this body clamouring to be heard. Let me appreciate it in all it's loveliness now so I can remind me of it when I see it's hideous side; when I sit at the kitchen table and cry over newspaper images of bomb blasts and rape victims being guided from court.

Yet still I lie awake at nights and watch men covered in flames which they have lit themselves run before my eyes, beggars dying of cold on the streets of Xi'an and a wealthy man declaring that all we need to do to avoid aids is stop having sex before marriage. Sometimes believing is hard.

Avec foi,
Fleur Susannah

Called to serve god, but necessarily as a priest?

2004-07-11T09:05:30Z

In a community I belong to, someone posted something about people being called to serve their god and how they choose to do so. I left a comment I thought I'd like to share with all of you. Take a look at what I have to say, and tell me what you think. Do you think I'm very far off?

Called to serve . . .

First-Timer

2004-06-26T00:30:16Z

First time posting hear, hello everyone.

Well, first and foremost, I believe that God(dess) is, in a very literal sense, love.

As in, God(dess)(head) (which will be referred to here after as Amor) is the complete embodiment of love, nothing more or less, sense all things good can be, in one manner or another, attributed to love.

I believe that Amor presents itself in different ways at different times to different people, thus the concepts of the different divinities, all of which, it can be argued, in one manner or another embody a concept of love. This is, of course, not going to refer to constructed dieties, such as the Catholic Churchs rendition of Satan. However, the Satan of the Jewish faith, who takes on the role of the deceiver or trickster, can, I think, be said to embody a concept of love, that concept of love that seeks to test our resolve.

I believe that the Universe, the Multiverse(if there is one, and I don't really see why there shouldn't be), and everything within it was created, or at least owes its creation to, Amor. I don't mean this in a literal sense, that Amor molds everything and directly creates everything, but that the spark of Amor created the universe, and thus created all things, much as Henry Ford can be said to have invented the modern Car, or Bell to have created the cell phone.

I believe that those who seek will find a personal relationship with Amor, while those who don't seek will find simply an acquaintenship. By this I mean that those who actively pursue a faith, any faith, and don't just swallow something whole-hearted, will eventually come to their own uniquely personal relationship with Amor.

I believe that sin is simply taking actions which distance oneself from one's relationship with Amor, and thus there can be no lists of sins, since my sin will be different from yours.

I believe that Amor forgives all with no need for structured repentance. By this I don't mean that Amor is a doormat. I believe that one stays seperated from Amor through one's own desire to keep living in ways that are not filled with Amor. Basically, people live in sin because they don't choose otherwise.

I believe that hell is not a literal place, but rather a state of mind whereby one has become so disconnected from Amor that there is no love in that person's life.

I believe that heaven is that state when one is completely filled with Amor, and in that state people can really touch and make a difference in someone else's life.

I believe that I have no idea what will happen in the afterlife.

Hope all that was appropriate for a first post

christ_evolving @ 2004-06-23T10:58:00

2004-06-23T17:01:29Z

A comment in response to one of sadbluedonkey's in the previous post here. I exceeded the idiotic word-count, so here it shall reside.

I thoroughly agree with your offense at being - what? - automatically cut to a certain size and shape by people just because you're Christian. I'm not at all happy with the way that term is thrown around. It's become a perjorative, and frankly, being belittled because one chooses to have a faith is just as insulting as being ridiculed because one chooses to be oneself. So long as my faith (your faith, anyone's faith) does not advocate hurting anyone (in any way, for any reason), there is no reason anyone should be against it. Likewise with gay marriage, since the obvious response to the rallying cries of "You Are Satan's Minions!" is "How does this hurt you?" My faith is just as much a part of me as my sexuality, and I don't take insults in any form or flavour. As you said, The condemnation, the judgemental labelling and the name calling. (on both sides) - it's intolerable. And it shouldn't be tolerated.

The worst part of it is, as you said in your post, that behavior like that which those girls were suggesting only makes the situation uglier. I don't know if you've ever seen the saying, "A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and who won't change the subject", but in the first place: it's absolutely true, and in the second place: violence has never succeeded against fanaticism. It only encourages 'the other side' - whoever they are - into reacting, and now they're justified in reacting, since the offenders gave them an excuse to do so. When there are millions of gay people who aren't aggressively 'in your face', who don't deliberately stir up hostilities - and when there are millions of Christians who are just the same - then the presence of those who want to pour salt into the wounds between the communities is purely destructive.

To use a different example (but one that bears comparisons very well), the Black Panthers did little or nothing to help the Civil Rights movement along. They inspired fear and hatred, and racists could turn to them - a small group - as the exemplar of the entire movement and say 'this is why there should be no Civil Rights'. Who eventually succeeded? Martin Luther King, Jr. Who took Gandhi as his highest example. Who used passive resistance to change people's minds. People eventually could not help seeing that the way the 'other side' (too massive for classification) was treating him and his followers was wrong. And once that was understood, there was suddenly a much broader avenue of communication between sides.

There needs to be a gay Gandhi for us. There needs to be passive resistance. There needs to be showing by example what a good Christian is, what the average gay person is. We don't eat babies or worship Satan, we don't rape little children or kidnap them, we're not trying to conquer the world - we're just people. 'Interrupting' a church service doesn't prove anything; it won't change anyone's minds; they'll just be confirmed in the belief that All Gays Are Loud And Aggressive And Anti-Christian. Likewise, daring to say that gay marriage 'goes against all Christian values', and insisting that 'as good Christians' the country cannot take such a Grievous Error onto its conscience, leaves one in serious confusion as to what exactly constitutes a 'good Christian'. Someone who spouts vitriol like that? Someone who can look at love and committment and call it 'evil' and 'perverse'?

This country - all countries; all communities within all countries - needs leadership by example. St Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words." A great deal of the anger towards the Christian community is caused by the failure to follow that advice. There's a lot of verbal preaching going on, and precious few of the speakers deserve the name 'Christian'. They use it as moral high ground from which to aim their guns - another reason the gay community feels isolated from them. Rhetoric is constantly aflow (especially these days; thank you, Mass Media) to the effect that you can be Christian or you can be gay, and likewise you can be pro-Christian or pro-gay, but you cannot must not will not so help them God be both.

And in complete fairness, I think the point you were getting at is - that rhetoric is just as abundant on the gay side of the argument.

A Sermon on Tolerance, from the 'other side'

2004-06-23T01:45:08Z

Recently I’ve been reading some of the posts on the gaystr8alliance community and I’ve been saddened by a few of the attitudes I have encountered there.

This has weighed on my heart to the extent where I tried replying to one of the posts in particular that worried me, but the comment I left remains screened and unread by the majority. That in itself is very saddening to one who actively prays for enlightenment, tolerance and a means to bridge across the divide between Christians and the GLBT community.

Lacking any other way to be heard on this issue, I decided to openly air my thoughts in this community, because I believe something needs to be said.

The post in question, deals with an upcoming day in the United States that is dedicated to the protection of marriage.

A member of the community posted on how she would love to visit the church across the road from where she lives on that day, wearing her gay pride shirt, and get a bunch of her friends together and ‘interrupt.’

While I can truly understand her frustration at the calling of this particular day, I did feel that she had made some fairly broad assumptions about the church across the road, and about Christians in general, and I pointed that out in the aforementioned comment.

First of all, the poster has never visited this church before. She knows fact zero about the church or the people who attend it. Has she called them and asked if they plan to even make a big thing of “Protect Marriage Day” ? It didn’t sound like it from the tone of her post.

Secondly, the best way to get yourself ejected from a church and to close all opportunity for your concerns and opinions to be heard, is by ‘interrupting’ a service.

I understand the issue of gay civil marriage, and I support the right of homosexual couples to be married under civil law, however, I also know that civil law gives Christians, Muslims, Jews, Quakers, Buddhists, Mormons, and any other religious group you care to name, the right to congregate and pursue their religious beliefs in peace.

That is a right most of them would defend fairly physically and I wouldn’t blame them for doing so.

Creating a riot is only going to further the division, and prove right, in the minds of those who’re already close minded, the idea that homosexuals don’t deserve to be listened to.

Open and honest dialogue is what is needed, and a thorough knowledge of the facts is handy before even considering approaching the ‘opposition.’

I live in Australia where thankfully, it seems, the culture is much different. I don’t hear a lot of messages preached against gay marriage in my church and, as far as I am aware, my church is not interested in the whole ‘protect marriage’ thing.

One assumption by a lot of people, and not only the homosexual community, that annoys me personally, is the one that says all Christians hate homosexuals and want to deny them their civil right to marry and be recognized as married partners under law.

That is very far from what is actually true. I know many Christians who think that civil rights should not be an issue decided by the church.

Another assumption turned up in another gaystr8 post which I didn’t bother replying to as I am fairly sure it would not be unscreened either, but I will address it here.

That is the assumption that homosexuals are not welcome or wanted in church.

Last time I looked everyone was welcome in church.

There are many churches in Australia at least which specifically reach out to, and welcome homosexuals.

I know it can seem sometimes like the ‘church’ doesn’t want homosexual people in her midst, and that is sad. But to make a broad and sweeping statement that “no church will allow…” is wrong.

Just as GBLT people resent being lumped in with paedophiles, rapists and other unsavoury types, so do open minded and loving Christians resent the thought that all Christians and all churches are going to blindly follow along with the rest of the herd and do whatever the ‘church’ dictates.

Refresh yourself, and me; next time you’re talking to a Christian ask his or her opinion.

You may be surprised!

Abortion.

2004-06-11T11:53:08Z

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..." Exodus 21:22-23

If two men fight and cause a pregnant woman to miscarry, but the woman is not killed, the man who caused the miscarriage is only condemned to pay up a sum determined by the judges. Only if the woman is killed is the man condemned to death. If the death of a foetus doesn't merit "giving life for life", then doesn't this mean that the foetus doesn't have the same standing before the Law of Moses as people?

A good way to fight the Pro-Life Christians using their own tools.

An open invitation!

2004-06-09T18:08:26Z

Hey everyone! My name's Blair. A friend of mine, Bry (almostfam0us) started up a Christian community a few weeks ago called vegaschristians. So if you read this, whether or not you live in Las Vegas, we would love to have you join! So stop by and check us out.

First official posting...

2004-06-08T14:17:40Z

I doubt that I actually belong here, although I have been non-denominational for several years now. But I still lean towards being conservative in my religious standpoint.

I dont see Christ or G-d as a religion, it is a faith, a friendship and a community. It is non-exclusive, but does have several rules that need to be accepted before any person can join.

In my mind it is simple, if someone believes in Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation, the only way to heaven and the only way to the Father (G-d); there is no other way, no alternative and no second chances when you die. For although Christ/G-d are compassionate and want all to get into heaven, they have allowed us free will to choose what we want - and if we choose to reject them so be it.

I also believe that the Old Testement is obsolete, for Christ himself said so - he was the replacement to all the laws. Now the New Testement still has some laws, but only rules that would be simple to follow if the person had already taken the first step and accepted Jesus. He tells us to believe in Him and to spread his word, He tells us to love, He tells us to be kind and generous to our fellow man, to be an example. He lists very few 'donts' besides the normal (cheat, steal, lie, etc)...

As for homosexuality - My opinion has not yet been decided on that matter...I do not have enough information.

If you have a little time and energy,

2004-06-08T11:10:29Z

I'd like you to do me a favour. A friend of mine's having a big crisis of faith and hassle from his church because of his sexuality. Could you spare a little vibe or a prayer or a candle or whatever you do to ask for a good outcome for him, please?

Interesting Prophecy

2004-06-08T02:21:33Z

I was just reading a newspaper that I picked up at the Columbus Hempfest, and came across a great quote that I thought was really applicable to what is going on here:

"When the earth is ravaged and the animals are dying, a new tribe of people shall come unto the earth from many colors, classes, creeds, and who by their actions and deeds shall make the earth green again. They will be known as the Warriors of the Rainbow."
--Native American Prophecy

Okay, first post. Here goes.

2004-06-07T14:35:33Z

There are too many "what if" questions for faith at all to be an easy thing. The question: "What if God doesn't exist?" To me, the only answer is another question.

By the same token, what if He does?

Scientifically there is no way to prove it. Or at least, none has been found, and I can't think of any. There hasn't been a Burning Bush in what? 5000 years? I think the last person to claim to be touched by God was burned at the stake (Joan of Arc, 1260? Can't remember the year.). I might be missing a few. My memory isn't perfect.

But setting aside the idea of whether or not God exists, which is a philosophical battle I fear no one can win, we must look to the message that He put forth, through His Son, who supposedly died to give us a second chance. Third, if you count the flood.

That message can actually be summed up pretty quickly in 1 verse. Luke 6:37. "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: Condemn not, and ye shall not be condenmed: Forgive and ye shall be forgiven." I mean, Jesus was all about love. Maybe he did look too nicely on the 60's... but that's not the point. And the key part of that verse is the last. Forgiveness.

Part of it all was "turn the other cheek" and that sort of thing. Well, if everybody was doing that, nobody would need to.

And I think that's all for me, for the moment.

Peace be with you all,
J.

Something to consider

2004-06-07T12:58:22Z

I grew up within walking distance of a Reformed Presbyterian church. I went to Sunday School until I graduated high school. I became a member of the church. I was married there. But I take immense issue with some horrible things our minister did to the church and the community, most particularly where it pertains to my mother.

I've struggled for a while with what I believe. I guess college and enlightened conversations with intelligent people can do that. And i still believe in God. Maybe not as most other Christians believe in God... I believe the Christian God is just one name for the Higher Power that most of the world believes in. I believe each culture based their religions in the terms they could understand best. I don't think that any one faith is necessarioly wrong, though the details may not entirely be correct.

So why do I remain Christian? I think I can best explain it by paraphrasing one of the scientists (possibly an archaeologist, possibly some sort of anthropoligist) on a special that aired this past Easter. Something happened two thousand years ago when the man known as Jesus of Nazareth was put to death on the cross. If he died and that was the end of it, Christianity would've never begun. The apostles would've eventually scattered after the loss of their leader; it had already begun. They would've been a handful of dissenters; nothing to spark any sort of revolution. But something happened, something no one could explain. Paul didn't believe until he met Jesus after his death. Why would an unbeliever make something like this up, and then go around telling everyone else? Something happened, and we may never know how or why, but it was, for lack of a better word, miraculous. Does this prove that Jesus was the Son of God? Not necessarily. But he was something special. And that makes him, in my opinion, worth paying attention to.

christ_evolving @ 2004-06-07T00:03:00

2004-06-07T04:06:02Z

My Christianity is as basic as humanly possible.

If Jesus didn't say it himself them I don't care. No apostles or other figures to follow. There are instances of the twelve being wrong just like everyone else. So I take their writings as helpful suggestions but Jesus as law. I figured if he couldn't take time to mention a subject by name then it probably wasn't important. It leaves a lot of gray area to work through but that gives people the ability to live their own lives in service to God.

It's working for me. Non-demonimational seems to fit my life best.

Means of Salvation

2004-06-07T02:47:10Z

What does one have to do to affirm the eternal salvation of one's soul?

The sort of Christianity I was brought up around (and which I consequently think of as "normal") maintains that to ensure that your soul will wind up in Heaven when you die states that you must first believe in the name of Jesus Christ (a vague term that doesn't really mean anything; I imagine Satan believes perfectly well in the name of Jesus Christ), you must repent your sins, and you must ask for Jesus to take away your sins.

Jesus seems to be rather central to all this saving business. There is a passage in Romans 1 which has always seemed to not agree with this premise (KJV):

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This has always seemed to state to me that if some tribesman deep in the heart of the South American jungles never has had even an opportunity to be told of Jesus, he would still have no excuse to not believe, because "they are without excuse" since "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen."

Odd as it may be that invisible things are able to be clearly seen, I'll buy it. I believe that ice can burn and that love can hurt; why not believe that invisible things are visible? But I find it absolutely unacceptable that someone who has never heard of Jesus can be damned for all eternity, just because they were unfortunate enough to be born somewhere commonly regarded as "uncivilized."

Is Paul talking about something else here? Or is he truly saying that everyone should be able to deduce the existence of a creator who sent His Only Son to die on the cross for the sins of everyone, and to believe that this is of utmost importance and decide that the Only Son has the power to forgive all sin (which they also had to deduce what was, as no one ever told them what was right or wrong).

Or is there another way to salvation?

my god is PEACE

2004-06-07T02:36:06Z

my mother is a born-again fundamentalist baptist.
I think she's brainwashed.

I...I am...hmmm.
I don't really know...agnostic, I suppose,
and an anarchist.(which I believe JC was too)
I feel a need for faith in my life, but don't know where to find it.
Can you KNOW faith, or do you need to FEEL faith?

anyhow,
greetings, I'm marigold, 29, midwestern USA, single momma of Jasper- 16 months.

I am interested to see how this evolves.

Good reading for you

2004-06-07T02:30:32Z

If you're not familiar with them, I'd like to recommend for your thoughtful reading the writings of Real Live Preacher, a deeply loving and contemplative guy. You can get a syndicated LJ feed here, if you wish.

Bedtime for me; sleep well.

When I was young and impressionable...

2004-06-07T00:44:05Z

As an angst-ridden teenager looking for some meaning, there seemed to be a good message. God loves you. God loves everyone. Everyone does bad things, things God says not to do, but he still loves everyone anyway. Sure, God said if you do bad things, you end up in hell. But he loves us so much that he sent his son to die for the bad things we do, so we can instead go to heaven.

Sounds really good. Wow, God must really love me. That's what I needed to hear. My thinking: As long as I believe in this stuff, and try to live my life the way God would want me to, I can go to heaven rather than hell when I die. Cool!

I was born again, so to speak.

I should go out and tell people about this wonderful revelation I just had. Others should know about this Obviously they will love to hear about this. Why don't you want to hear about this? It's so wonderful! You can't reject this, why would you want to? Isn't this the coolest thing? But if you don't believe this, you're going to go to hell, that's no good. Hell->eternal suffering->eternal seperation from God->bad thing.

I'd commiserate with my fellow born-againers about how some people just couldn't believe that we had found THE way to go. How sad that they would be condemned to eternal suffering after leaving this world.

Finally I started seeing my fellow crusaders for what they were: ordinary people. They would still do the things they used to do before being 'saved'. They didn't seem to be interested in leading a Godly life. What was all that about?

Then it occurred to me. The whole philosophy was flawed. It was WAY too easy. All you had to do was believe, ask for forgiveness, and viola!, you're heaven-bound. After that, you've got a Get Out Of Hell Free Card. Do what ya like, it don't matter, you're SAVED.

Not all Christianity is this way, I'd hope. But this was my experience with it. I never went back to that church, and honestly haven't been back to any church since. Any church that tells me all I have to do is believe that Jesus died for my sins so I can go to Heaven will totally turn me off, because I can't believe any sane Almighty would make things that easy.

Plus I don't really care for the double-standard. Certain people are an 'abomination' and even if they believe the same as the church, they STILL don't get into heaven. Where did that rule get written? Oh, I have to stop my sinful life in order to reach heaven also? Have you?

I apologize. My initial intent was only to relate my experiences, not to start a rant.

I look forward to hearing other views. Thanks for starting this, M-A.