Belief in god and the right to homosexuality?

[shazeep]

but since we have rather hijacked this thread, and perhaps this is what has the phnx upset, i would say the following

Originally Posted by thephnxman

They say, "I do not believe in God."

it strikes me that the thread title suggests that they are saying the opposite, so perhaps i am misunderstanding here. Regardless, i think the gender-confused are clamoring for their "rights" because they have been so ill-treated, and Love is the answer, not more condemnation.

Not withstanding that imo anyone talking about their "rights" is forgetting God anyway; you have the right to defend yourself against attacks, but you cannot reflect Christ in the process. Turn the other cheek is anathema to anyone's "rights." So it might be said that the gender-confused are demanding a legal remedy because a spiritual one--that being just treating them like humans, like you are supposed to--has been effectively denied them by society, most or many "churches" leading the way there.

Where Grace is absent, the Law will rush in, iow. You posit a Sodom/Gommorah outcome here, but i find no gender-confused seeking the "right" to molest your guests, so i think this is misplaced. However, i am about as comfortable with homo marriage as you are; so i would suggest a view more akin to "legal marriage," which has little or nothing to do with actual marriage, anyway, no matter how hard it tries. Divorce is legal, too, although it is completely against marriage in God's eyes. I'll keep my opinion on anyone who would conduct a legal marriage to myself, but i suggest some reflection here as well.

While this view would require a divorce in our allegiance to the State, and our understanding of It as somehow some sanctified ground, i think this is healthy anyway, because as uncomfortable as it is to contemplate, satan rules your country and always has, and it is only your nation, or people, that matters to God. All of these kingdoms you SEE before You are mine, to do with as i will.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

if i understand you correctly here, this is exactly what i doubt. There are many mansions in my Father's house.

That does mean there are many roads to God other than the cross, though.

i'm not sure there is any error there, tbh. If there is, it might be in discounting this as salvational.

Please confirm. Do you believe loving each other as we would have others love us saves us without the work of the cross of Jesus involved to remit our sins?

"Fulfilling the law and prophets" is the same language we use to describe Christ and the cross, right?

Yes. But that does not mean that other things that fulfill law and prophets save us apart from the cross, just because we read the cross fulfills the law and the prophets. Is that what you suggest?

So granted, it sounds sacrilegious to us to advocate "Be as kind to people as you would want them to be to you" as a means to eternal life without recognizing Christ's sacrifice specifically, but on the other hand it is written this fulfills the law, so one could argue that one is spiritually recognizing Christ when they do this, v legally recognizing Christ via altar works, especially when supporting Scripture--that gives so many lawyers fits--is taken into account.

What about remission of sins? With out the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Fulfilling law is not pointing toward that which saves us. Someone who refuses to murder people is someone who fulfils law. But that doesn't mean that one is saved.

But don't get me wrong, i think the one should be done and the other not neglected, ideally;

"Ideally" leaves room for salvation without the cross.

however, we condemn Muslims for a few verses that we read as "antichrist" when they could rationally be construed as a defense against the RCC of the Dark Ages, and we might condemn apostates, 65 million strong in the US, who have abandoned the est'd church, but this does not mean that they are not seeking Christ, necessarily, so much as it is an indictment of religion, and the churches' tendency to obscure Christ with Law.

Christ cannot be obscured with law except by saying the cross is PART of salvation, while our works complete salvation. Legalism is always and never will be anything other than salvation by works. Again, all theological stripes agree on that definition. All of them.

I think one might at least consider that the point may be to give people someone to condemn out of hand, that hearts may be revealed, but this is just imo.

Yeah, I understand you have a unique way of thinking of how the bible offers people to fall.

To answer your Q there--which reads more like another accusation, tbh--yes, i attend a congregation, but not religiously; i volunteer whenever they ask, etc., but i do not consider it "Church" per se.

"Church" is a body of believers that is intended by God to be as much of a place for believers to belong as a herd is for cattle. I am not talking about a church building but the genuine fellowship pf true believers. Not a denomination.

i would rescind that if i could; apparently there is a connotation of this phrase that i was unaware of. Re-reading your statement, you likely meant no harm, anyway, but just require that you be ascendant in your own mind, same as me, i guess--and my chief complaint @ "They are all lost."

Like I said, you took note of that phrase, and all but bypassed all my clarifications about it, to the point you were enraged at me for not answering your question whether' they're lost or not. That hesitation of mine should have shown you my true intent on the whole issue. But I said that before.

or the Church, anyway. I would argue that one might find themselves in the Catholic church, and yet be a living stone in the real Church, or not, and the same goes for an OP church, or any other.

Again, catholic in my use of hte term is someone who believes one is lost without belonging in pen-written membership to the catholic church. And that is salvation by works. I believe one could attend a catholic church and be a genuine believer. I don't see why anyone would, though, seeing the blatant presentation of salvation by works.

It is the difference in religion and following Christ; and not being in denial about there being a difference.

Of course there's a difference.

I was prepared to admit that a legal understanding and acceptance of Christ might involve crowns or other rewards at one time, but i'm not so sure now.

Again, the term LEGAL does not fit into this concept. A legal understanding of Christ CAN ONLY mean one thinks salvation by works is related to Christ. You really are wrong in your use of the term. Research it and see for yourself.

If you have Grace, why bother with Law?

That's what I have been trying to say. lol. Grace is salvation by faith and law is salvation by works. You cannot have both at once.

Why insist people go through all these altar works if they are just going to drift away because they cannot find any Grace?

You again again again speak as though I think altar activity saves.

And I have distinctly said otherwise and refuted that concept many times. SO, what other words will I waste presenting to you to see you write as though I never wrote them?

Or, more likely, because they are confronted again with Law?

Confronted with salvation by works? Hardly.

well, i tried my best to not be insulting there, and re-reading it i find none;

Polishing my helmet was insulting.

"But to answer your Q, i have no interest in where you got your version of the Golden Rule, no." but perhaps i am quoting the wrong passage or something? Anyway, i def agree with part b there, and suggest that you might extend this to people who identify as Catholics, as well as Catholicism, and see how if you were to extend this to Muslims as well you would change the tone of at least your immediate society, surely with ripple effects.

I extend the golden rule to muslims, catholics and anyone else who truly does to others what they want done to them. But the golden rule does not save. I stand by that last sentence, too. If salvation comes b the golden rule then salvation is by works.

Again, the damage--which is incalculable; likely it defines the bulk of it--to holding opinions such as "they are all lost" is the damage to yourself and your peers, and not to any Catholics or Muslims.

As you repeat this incomplete phrase over and over, and just as many times ignore the detailed meaning and use of terms I used, I will keep reminding you of what I am currently saying... you focus on that line and ignore all my explanations about it.

Are they in fact lost? Anyone who has not fulfilled the Law is, surely.

Incorrect. Anyone who has not received God's righteousness via the cross is lost.

Why include yourself in that group by judging?

I am not judging, for the umpteenth time. the bible already judged that, long before I was around, and I merely presented what the bible said when it cast that judgment.

Which i really don't care about, there are lots of judgemental people, but to teach this to other people as a pastor?

I teach no one to judge. I teach them to read the bible and see where it made the judgment call.

If there is a single Scripture that can even be construed as being against judging others, why not just say that you don't know?

I outlined several references that deal with judging, especially Matthew 7, which you ignored. Again, the context is not saying do not judge. It is saying do not judge something over what you lack yourself. This is another example of writing something that is ignored as if I never wrote it.

Shazeep, here's an etiquette to take note of. When a person explains their position about an issue, like judging, we keep that in mind when responding about such an issue, and not speak to the person as though they never said anything about it. That's downright rude. Like the example I gave: "

Shazeep: "It's not black, it's white."

Mike: "I know it's white. I never said it's black."

SHazeep: "But why do you insist it's black?"

This has been what it;s like talking to you.

You cannot be proven wrong in this last case,

lol. I do not believe what you accuse me of believing. It's not black.

whereas you are forced to defend a position against Scripture in the other, and "be sure in your own mind," which is a euphemism for denial imo.

lol. I do not believe what you accuse me of believing. It's not black.

these are what you have read, but we both demonstrate here that agape love is pretty hard, perhaps, and i am not the first to equate agape with the cross, am i?

It is not equal to agape love. It is the highest form of agape love. And it is so high, that no human on earth can rise to that level. Therefore, nobody can be saved by having agape love in their hearts without the work of Jesus' cross, where he manifested that love beyond the degree we can.

I genuinely doubt it. As to legalism, of course someone brought up from the crib on the legal requirements for salvation would not view these as legalistic, so you might see it this way;

There are no legal requirements for salvation. That;'s like saying salvation without works requires works for salvation. Again, you are way off in your use of the term.

do you have some requirements that i must fulfill in order to be considered "saved" by you?

I have NONE! The Bible says obey Acts 2:38, though. But that's the bible not me.

Do you know for a fact that God has these same requirements?

They're his words, not mine.

Is there any Scripture that can even be construed as mitigating against this?

His word does not contradict itself.

Is it at all possible that one might get some personal advantage in claiming that they know something even if they do not know, viv a vis other people?

I do not know what you are asking here.

As to 'no spiritual leadership,' how do i not take this as denigrating?

Because it's not meant to be. One either has it or doesn't. And by spiritual leadership, I mean FROM A HUMAN BEING... which the bible demands we have.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

You started to deal with the discrepancy in our definition of terms right there, and then suddenly stopped again.

In your mind are catholics those who adhere to that list of doctrines YOU ADMITTED you were concerned with, or not? I am asking this over and over again.


ya, this is my fault, and stems from the belief that what people say is pretty much irrelevant, and what they do is all that matters. Catholic doctrine is satanic, imo, but individual Catholic people might easily be more righteous than either of us. I perceive your doctrine as satanic now, too, but that doesn't mean "All OPs are lost."

It;'s what they actually belies that's the issue. If they adhere to demand to belong to the catholic church or be lost, that's actual legalism. And ironically, you forgive them, and muslims, for something you claim I say and call my view satanic for saying it.

Why do you excuse muslims who believe those who are not muslims are all lost?

Why do you excuse catholics when they say all non-catholics are lost?

It seems when three people say the same thing, and one is condemned to hell and the others are not, there is am obvious bias against the one.

[shazeep]

i've put your last two posts here
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=49839&page=19
and will answer them there

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i've put your last two posts here
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=49839&page=19
and will answer them there

They need to be formatted desperately.

[mfblume]

More unanswered questions.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why do you excuse muslims who believe those who are not muslims are all lost?

Why do you excuse catholics when they say all non-catholics are lost?

It seems when three people say what you claim is the same thing, and one is condemned to hell and the others are not, there is an obvious bias against the one.

[shazeep]

i answered them yesterday, on the other thread, Mike.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i answered them yesterday, on the other thread, Mike.

Thanks.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Thanks.

Elder Blume,
thank you for your continued contributions to this forum. I always enjoy reading your insights. I would, however, humbly entreat you to consider your backs and forths with shazeep. you have far too much to offer: to your church, your family, and this forum, to be found so encumbered with this guy.

I testify that he has not the spirit of Christ, and is none of his. his fundamental stumbling at the cross of Jesus Christ, not to mention his ignorance of the whole counsel of God, sets him in a lonely chamber covered by the heavy veil of agape righteous blindness. You will not change him, regardless of how skillfully you present a truth to him. I think perhaps only my Lord can remove this blindness.

I'm not sure if I'm just seeing a stubborn refusal, on every fish he throws out there, to not devour it wholly, or if I'm seeing a zeal that's lost it's rudder. I think there are many on this forum who share the truths you champion. I myself share most of them. But at what point, my elder, does the great gulf between your time, effort, and frustration, and his willful blindness, become great enough to reconsider the investments of the gifts my Lord has given you? This man offers you not the respect due your office and calling. he is as the town drunkard fallen in the mud, and hollering at the mayor as he passes by.

While I enjoy some of the scriptures that come out in your tussles, believe it or not the frustration also follows for us who share this like precious faith. So, just wondering if its time and energy well spent. In your own words, "my thoughts anyway".

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

Elder Blume,
thank you for your continued contributions to this forum. I always enjoy reading your insights. I would, however, humbly entreat you to consider your backs and forths with shazeep. you have far too much to offer: to your church, your family, and this forum, to be found so encumbered with this guy.

I testify that he has not the spirit of Christ, and is none of his. his fundamental stumbling at the cross of Jesus Christ, not to mention his ignorance of the whole counsel of God, sets him in a lonely chamber covered by the heavy veil of agape righteous blindness. You will not change him, regardless of how skillfully you present a truth to him. I think perhaps only my Lord can remove this blindness.

I'm not sure if I'm just seeing a stubborn refusal, on every fish he throws out there, to not devour it wholly, or if I'm seeing a zeal that's lost it's rudder. I think there are many on this forum who share the truths you champion. I myself share most of them. But at what point, my elder, does the great gulf between your time, effort, and frustration, and his willful blindness, become great enough to reconsider the investments of the gifts my Lord has given you? This man offers you not the respect due your office and calling. he is as the town drunkard fallen in the mud, and hollering at the mayor as he passes by.

While I enjoy some of the scriptures that come out in your tussles, believe it or not the frustration also follows for us who share this like precious faith. So, just wondering if its time and energy well spent. In your own words, "my thoughts anyway".

do you mind if i post this in another thread, as we are abusing this one? ty. moved to
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...68#post1441068