davestelzer

(My blogger profile is in my signature) Dave

James, Psalm 100:5 (Amplified version) 5. For the Lord is good; His mercy and lovingkindness are everlasting, His faithfulness and truth endure to all generations. Here is a lesson in mercy: His mercy is everlasting! How big is that? Infinitely so. His mercy is infinite. That means to me that God forgives sin. How much? Infinitely much. God's mercy is greater than our ability to sin. God has mercy on me and you.. greater than our capability to sin. Our sin is bound by our mortality but God's mercy is greater than all of mortality. God's mercy is huuuuuuge! I am liberated to know that whether my sin is small, or great, God has mercy on me. I believe that means that my venial sins are forgiven and my mortal sins are forgiven. But I have to believe it... there is no certainty. The bible promises everlasting mercy, but I have to believe it... there is no certainty. Mercy is a fundamental concept that I continually draw upon in order to survive my mistakes. The concept of infinite mercy continues even if all the bibles are burned and we have to start all over again with revelation from the beginning. My bible returns to dust but the concept survives. I don't worship the bible I worship the concept of God's mercy everlasting. Now consider the concept of unconditional love. For examples: God loves me whether I meet the condition of Christian or Pagan. And, God loves me whether or not I meet the condition of mortal sin against my soul or venial sins only or even sinless . My bible does not reveal unconditional love. The greatest statement of my bible is found in 1 Jn 4: God is love. So the bible is limited here. Unconditional love is greater than my bible. I believe a god that does not measure up to unconditional love is not a true God. I believe God's love is greater than the bible. The bible starts with a very wrathful punishing God and progresses to the revelation that God is love but then stops. Yet God is the source of unconditional love not spoken of in the bible. Is God limited from unconditional love or is God greater than the bible? My point is that I believe God is greater than the bible. The bible is a guide but not the lexicon of knowledge. My certainty is that God is a source of love and a source of life and the ground of being. But this certainty will be replaced by revelations to the next generation apart from the bible. There really is no certainty and I have come to accept that. Having no certainty has transformed my thinking and forced me to change my security system from a bible believing fundamentalist to a progressive Christian and perhaps to agnostic and even non-theist. I believe more in an eternal rest then an afterlife. With my pattern of mistakes (which I try to learn from) I am growing more in sin (and grace) than in virtue. My virtue if any is to avoid repeating my mistakes. Do you believe the desire for homosexuality is any more serious than the desire for heterosexuality? I do not. regards, Dave

James, You have obscured my point and changed the subject to make a plug for your biblical ideology. First your ideology: You are welcome to believe in a God that expects obedience and worship. It is good that you want to be a good person in true union with God. It is good that you want to avoid sin... you probably won't break any laws that way. We are different though in our paradigms which support our belief systems and ideology. But God can handle this difference easily. God has indeed allowed for such a difference. In my paradigm, God doesn't need the bible to be God. God doesn't need to order the earth or the people. God is not a divine parent who sweeps down to rescue mankind and then return up to her home in the sky. It is then left up to us to order ourselves. The bible did not drop out of the sky. It was formed over a period of 1000 years. Even though many believe the bible to be complete it does not solve all our moral dilemmas like abortion; stem cell research; and same sex marriage. I have boldly stepped outside the shell of the bible to examine other evidence and resources for knowledge. If you examine gay people themselves you will find that they are not indulgent sinners depraved of grace and truth. They are law abiding people when they have the reasonable option to be. Many of them want monogamous marriages and validation that they are loving, caring, people with the right to enjoy the privileges of civil marriage... just like you and me. If you don't examine other resources than the bible you will be living in a shell of ignorance. The bible can inspire us but it is just a helping guide. We cannot depend on it for every answer. Modern technology and society call for other more advanced resources like the internet or possibly J. S. Spong's book, The Sins of Scripture. We must not live in the cocoon of the Dark Ages. Even the bible says "knowledge will increase". Let us accept the modern world and let knowledge increase. Let us be citizens of the modern international globally complex world. Let the wisdom of the past be replaced by the wisdom of the present. Now, my point: It is not true that incorrect worship causes homosexuality even if the biblical ideology in the context is your paradigm: no scholar or scientist or psychologist believes that. We say that homosexuality is probably caused by brain formations in the gestational period before birth and is something that one wakes up to like being left handed. It used to be held that left handed people were sinister but not any more. We have become advanced in our understanding of left handedness and also our understanding of what causes homosexualty. It is not caused by incorrect worship of statues of mortal men, birds, beasts, or reptiles. That is simply the fiction of paul. I hope I can reach you with this reasonable assertion. Regarding that, please do not reduce the world and science down to the trivial solution of the bible's limited scope. Will you please agree with my point? Dave

james Romans 1:23ff (Amplified Ver.) 23 And by them [gays] the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images [statues], resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [gay activity], 25 Because they [gays] exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! It seems paul is saying he is 'holier than thou' (sanctimony) because he practices correct worship. I think this passage is quietly the unspoken huge fear of fundamentalists among themselves. Why can not literalists acknowlege that paul was wrong on this one? I think a caution is due the fundamentalists not to worship 'words' more than truth... Dave

James Words can inspire us and move us emotionally. Movies can inspire us and move us emotionally. I don't worship words or films per se I really am concerned with the inspired feelings. The inspiration makes me feel good, feel happy or sad, feel like justice was done, etc. If I am inspired by God's holiness or sacredness it may be her 'separateness' that I feel is astounding. God never speaks or appears to us directly. God speaks indirectly, through the universe we are placed in. So in this way all the universe is sacred to reveal the meaning of God. Yet paradoxically if all is sacred then nothing is actually sacred or more especially inspiring than the next: secular. Therefore everything is sacred and everything is secular to me. By the way, i'm a jerk too! Paul became the first to write of Jesus. Some of what he wrote is inspiring to me, but not sacred because other of what he wrote like, homosexuality is caused by incorrect worship of birds and creeping things,etc. just is not true. He may have been partly inspired and partly way off. He wasn't 'informed' by modern science and research. Paul was human. To me paul is to blame for our modern cultural scism over same sex marriage, etc. Paul is not 'holy writ' to me, just another opinion. I'm different than you since I don't feel that being offensive is the goal or credential to obtain... I feel being informed is the goal... or no? I hope debating with you will encourage you to be less offensive and more informed. I guess I'm more gnostic than I realized! Oh, well. Dave

It seems u r confused. If scripture offends it cannot be called sacred... If scripture is sacred why should it offend anyone? Obviously the element missing is the human element: paul is human so is the scripture of paul... the scripture is not sacred inerrant or infallible! I suggest you read J. S. Spong's book: The Sins of Scripture to become a more informed debater. Dave

As an independent student of the bible and by virtue of constitutional freedom of religion, I am free to be either liberal or conservative as a response to what I read. For example, If I am inspired by the mercy of God I may choose to be liberal. If I am inspired by the holiness of God I may choose to be conservative. I am free to change my mind on each inspiration. Conservatively for example I may choose to eat health food. Liberally, I may choose to eat frozen custard. Conservatively I may choose to pray for universal healthcare in the USA. Liberally, I may choose to politely greet people on the street. The point is: the bible is both conservative and liberal. I am free to respond either way. Both are valid responses. It does not have to be either / or, it can be both / and! Dave

Marilyn, I find your inner strength to be an inspiration to me. You carry the fight very well. I commend you. Homophobia is a formidable enemy as is the apathy and neglect toward those with disabilities. I admire you for even mentioning these disorders on this website. Bravo, girl! U da woman! I am from St. Louis, MO... where r u from? Dave

Hello SabreRoseTiger, Please do talk when you can muster up the inspiration! I'd love to read your thoughts! What does progressive mean to you? What brought you to view this message board? Your thoughts are just as important as anyone's if not more important! Short posts are as important as long posts. I'd love to hear your message when you have a moment to write! Thank you for lurking but please share if you like! Dave

Jim, I suggest you begin by sharing what you mean by sophianic gnosticism. This subject is relatively new to me. Can you describe other kinds of gnosticism? How does sophianic gnosticism appeal to you? Please share your thoughts when you have a minute to write! Thank you in advance. Dave

des, A good call by the leading mainline Episcopals. I think she will be cautiously liberal and inclusive. I like the Episcopals for so often taking the lead, they are the real progressive christian examples. Bravo! Dave

Flow, To be human is to acknowlege "I have a flaw"! I agree humanity is plagued with flaws. I like your honesty to admit you are also human. Maybe the american cultural flaw is to impose onto others - our flaws - as the best flaws. I am curious where did you used to live? I live just outside the city limits of St. Louis, MO. We are fairly mixed racially and I hope to spread my optimism to the inner city neighbors as well as other suburbanites. I believe in Jesus' love to all. Dave

Welcome RfrancisR ! I appreciate your candor and computer savvy ! I also hope your needs will find a rewarding experience. Dave

My stigma is mental illness. I was diagnosed bipolar in 1990. I have had trouble with stability most of my life. No obligation to respond you all, but would anyone like also to share a stigma? I realize this may or may not apply to you. In a sharing mood, Dave

We must also consider the stigma of lawlessness and the nature of control. Liberals and conservatives must both obey the law. Liberals are not under the control of conservatives. Liberals are free from control but not free to break the law. Some bad laws are made to enforce control. The constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I am glad I am a liberal under the law but not under the control of silence or religion. I respect the laws of physics and common sense. I am in doubt about the ACLU. Too extreme for me. Progressive describes my hope. I hope for inclusiveness of those bearing a stigma. I hope for inclusiveness of those not having access to universal healthcare, etc. Dave