bleechers's Blog

Good points.

I'm sure that most of the people attending those kinds of events have no interest in seeking truth (and they'll tell you as much)... but I'm befuddled by their obvious lack of logic in trying to declare something as a "truth" while simultaneously shouting that nobody can really know what is the "truth."

Axe not trying to be hard to get along with but please define Kemetic system?

The thing I love about the concept of "truth" is that it's so flexible and, at times, convenient. For example, we'll point to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a slam-dunk example of the proof of God's feelings about homosexuals -- while we'll conveniently ignore the laws in Leviticus that call for the execution of adulterers. We'll shout to the Heavens about Paul's dictum in Romans about homosexuals -- while we'll conveniently forget his equally strident statements about the place (or lack thereof) of women in the church.

Yeah, truth -- so convenient when we need it to be.

So you guys been out sacrificing any oxen recently? Just checking -- after all, seems to be that God demands it. And yep, that's true as well.

>> t's called "rightly dividing the Word of truth

Oh, so *you* know what's supposedly God's truth about such things while the interfaith people dont? God was pretty specific about what we're supposed to do with adulterers - interesting how you slide with over that in your rush to condemn the people at this gathering. You can claim that you're just "dividing the truth" (translate: picking and choosing what you will or will not believe, evena s you claim the entire book is "inerrant") while you'll attack someone else for doing precisely the same thing? There's a term for that, one that Jesus Himself used in the New Testament -- you might want to take a look in the Book of Mark and see what He called it.

As for the people at this convence, they seem to have found a way to God based on His accepting them for who and what they are, while you seem to have found one based on making sure no one comes to God unless they're exactly like you, which sounds ever so vaguely like you're trying to sit in the Seat of Judgment -- something that, excuse me if I"m wrong, is God's job, not yours. Tell me, blogger, based on that alone, which "truth" should I believe? Theirs or yours? Because right now, from a strictly Christian point of view, yours is looking pretty wanting and a far sight from what Jesus would do.

I really, really recommend you think long and hard about what you're doing here. This isnt being a Christian. This is wearing a costume, while under that costume wearing the very things Jesus says arent a really good idea if someone wants to get into Heaven.

Final point: "how do they know that God approves of homosexuality?

I have no idea what you were reading. You make a number of points that have nothing to do with what I've written.

A. I never said whether God approves or does not approve of homosexuality. The group you laud has DECLARED as TRUTH that he approves. Why not get angry with them for such a "declaration of truth?" They're being definitive, not me.

B. You are free to interpret the Bible any way you'd like, but that doesn't make it true. I could certainly be wrong in some of my interpretations, but at least I'm willing to make the case for my conclusions.

C. God doesn't "reconsider," but he does change how things are accomplished. He CANNOT flood the earth again. Before Noah he could, now he can't. That's a change.

D. Not everything God says is to you... unless you make bread from dung. Have you sold all and given it to the church? Do you raise the dead? Do you preach to Jews only? These are all "Bible commands" but they are not to us. I am not Israel.

You miss the whole point. You laud the conclusions of the exact people who ARE claiming that they KNOW the will of God. THEY declare emphatically that God approves of homosexuality without a shred of evidence. Get angry with them, not with me. I only pointed out the folly of stating that we can't know who God is, but we DO know that whatever he, she, it is, we KNOW it approves of homosexuality. That's illogical.

Sorry, but you're picking and choosing again. You say, on one hand, "I'm willing to make the case for my conclusions," and yet this conference, which I gather you did *not* attend but simply read about, cannot do the same, lest it be in disagreement with your flawless estimation of the Truth.

Fine. Let's discuss truth, shall we? Sodom and Gomorrah -- always a great starting point. What you know is probably the Coles Notes version, so let's look at it in its *entirety*, *as written*.

Two angels appeared outside the city gates of Sodom and were ignored by the passersby, except for Lot. Now all we know for certain about the evil of Sodom at this point is... well, just that, that it's evil, except for this guy Lot. Go look: the Bible is very unspecific at this point in the story about the "evil of Sodom", just that it was. Sorta begs the question of "well, why didnt he just move?" but anyway...

Being a nice guy, Lot takes the angels to his home -- not unsurprising, since Middle Eastern culture is based on providing shelter and support to those who need it (Hey, how's your record on that one?) -- and, also not unsurprising, the suspicious and paranoid of Sodom demand Lot bring them out so "we may know them". You, I gather, take that to mean... ahem... "in the Biblical way". But you'd be wrong, according to most Biblical scholars. Still, moving on...

Lot refuses and, believe it or not, OFFERS HIS DAUGHTERS to them instead. Are you having a real warm and fuzzy Christian moment right about now about Lot? I know I sure am. The crowd refuses, and God lets Lot, who would h

... the Bible also says some rather specific things about them heterosexual adulterers.

What? No response? You're so quiet on that point. One might think that you actually disagree that we should execute adulterers, even though, according to the Book, God says we're supposed to.

So no, blogger, it is YOU who miss the point. You're so very, very quick to judge those you dont know when you know so very, very little. You fashion yourself as a "Christian" who can somehow determine what God can and cannot do (nothin' presumptive about that, huh?), that God can change but only when it suits you and not anybody else, that you and you alone know intimately the True Will of God, Unchangable (except where noted), Everlasting (except where noted).

And you dare to tell me what's "illogical". I repeat, go take a long look deep in the mirror, then get down on your knees and ask God for guidance. You, I fear, are in sore need.

You state that I have somewhere made a claim that "God doesn't like them BLEEP." Where have I argued such? The interfaith group argues that we can't know anything, but we CAN know that "God likes homosexuality." It is they who are "claiming" things based on nothing, not me.

Not following Leviticus is not some "strange Christian logic" is everyday logic. It is not addressed to me. I don't sacrifice bulls, I don't raise the dead, I don't build arks, I separate Jews from gentiles, I don't sell everything and give it to the church... for the simple and logical reason that NONE of those things was directed to me.

Do you raise the dead?

As for "heterosexual adulterers," where have I ever mentioned them or approved of their actions? I clearly state that I don't believe in stoning anyone. As noted, Leviticus is given strictly to Israel ("speak this to the children of Israel...")

Using the interfaith group's logic, can't we just declare that God approves of that too?

You're arguing with yourself. You state things I've never stated and then argue with yourself. As for logic, I'll gladly debate you anytime, anywhere. You are foaming with hate and can't even follow your own line of thinking.

"Leviticus is given strictly to Israel" -- oh really? Where does your bible tell you that? And if that's the case, then why is that *one* law still sticking in there for you to rush to when you need something that says God hates them BLEEP? Because of Romans? Shall we delve into that one for its cultural specifics, or shall I watch side-step that one with the same aplomb you exhibited about Paul's stance about women in the church?

Dont believe in stoning adulterers? GOD SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO. Now, is He right on this point or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

And dont even try to say I'm arguing with myself. Look at your original post, how gosh-darn terrible it was for this group to presume to know the Truth when you, just you, and you alone, REALLY know the Truth, because God told you so. Not these folks. Just you because God said so in a book that says, according to you, that He never changes His mind (or cant, somehow) but does when it no longer applies to you because, incongruantly enough, you're not Israel. Frankly, I dont know what you are. You're not a Christian -- at least, nothing like the Christians I was raised with, the ones who believed in acceptance and tolerance and the quality of God's limitless love. You know, the kind of Christian *Jesus* says we're supposed to be. No, cut through it all, and here's what you are, flat out:

You're such a fraud.