Arkansas Church Kicks Out Young Gay Man For ‘Choosing A Sinful Lifestyle’

[Huckleberry]

Of course he couldn't just disregard the laws of his time and place. Neither can we. But neither are we being held to the laws of his time, any more than he should be held to the laws of ours.

My point is that the laws change, as we change. As time passes, and circumstances change. And as we learn an grow as a species. Applying ancient religious laws to today is foolish, and counter-productive. It's also a form of false idolatry. And it's also a "trick" that religionists use to falsely ascribe divine authority to themselves, so they can then lord it over others. All in all it's a bad idea and a bad practice. Yet modern Christianity has become rife with all these false and flawed motives. Based on the idolatry of ancient Jewish religious dogmas.

From where I sit, none of this bloated religiosity expresses or furthers the love, forgiveness, and healing promise of Christ. What it does do is give a lot of people the illusion that they are made more righteous than others by their religious beliefs, when they are not. Which of course makes it a popular drug, but a drug none-the-less.

This all seems to boil down to moral relativism and bigotry thereby. If there is an independent eternal truth, then laws based on that remain true. If there is no independent eternal truth, then no laws concocted by those ancient ideologues who-I'm-so-much-wiser-than are worth consideration.

 

[PureX]

This all seems to boil down to moral relativism and bigotry thereby. If there is an independent eternal truth, then laws based on that remain true. If there is no independent eternal truth, then no laws concocted by those ancient ideologues who-I'm-so-much-wiser-than are worth consideration.

That's not what it boils down to at all.

What it boils down to is the difference between an external God, and an internal God. Ancient Judaism was all about God as an external absolute, represented by religious laws that no human was allowed to question, or doubt, or disobey. Then Jesus showed up. And Christianity introduced a whole new concept of God: and INTERNAL conception of God, wherein a human being becomes a human manifestation of the divine spirit of God. And with this new internalized God-spirit, alignment with God is no longer being determined by religious laws and absolute obedience, but by one's individual conscience, and the state of one's heart and mind.

The concept of 'sin' changed when this concept of God changed from an external God to an internal God. And Jesus explained it to us. Sin was no longer a matter of breaking some religious law or rule. It became a matter of internal motivation. Just WANTING to break the 'law of love' (for God, ourselves, and each other) became the sin. And sin became a matter of the state of our heart and mind. NOT the defiance of some religious dogma, rules, or laws.

But there are a lot of Christians who really don't like this idea of God being an internalized spirit, and therefor being subjectively experienced and understood. They want God to be the external absolute like in the old testament, that they can use to tell themselves, and everyone else, every minute, what to think and how to behave.

They aren't really Christians, yet. Because they don't trust that God's spirit is within them, and will guide them individually, without the need for all those external religious dogmas and laws and rules. They're just too frightened of being wrong, and untrusting of themselves, to accept an internalized God. They call themselves Christians, but the truth is they haven't been able to get past the old testament idea of God, and accept that God now lives within them. They say the words, but everything they do tells the real story.

 

[Huckleberry]

That's not what it boils down to at all.

What it boils down to is the difference between an external God, and an internal God. Ancient Judaism was all about God as an external absolute, represented by religious laws that no human was allowed to question, or doubt, or disobey. Then Jesus showed up. And Christianity introduced a whole new concept of God: and INTERNAL conception of God, wherein a human being becomes a human manifestation of the divine spirit of God. And with this new internalized God-spirit, alignment with God is no longer being determined by religious laws and absolute obedience, but by one's individual conscience, and the state of one's heart and mind.

The concept of 'sin' changed when this concept of God changed from an external God to an internal God. And Jesus explained it to us. Sin was no longer a matter of breaking some religious law or rule. It became a matter of internal motivation. Just WANTING to break the 'law of love' (for God, ourselves, and each other) became the sin. And sin became a matter of the state of our heart and mind. NOT the defiance of some religious dogma, rules, or laws.

But there are a lot of Christians who really don't like this idea of God being an internalized spirit, and therefor being subjectively experienced and understood. They want God to be the external absolute like in the old testament, that they can use to tell themselves, and everyone else, every minute, what to think and how to behave.

They aren't really Christians, yet. Because they don't trust that God's spirit is within them, and will guide them individually, without the need for all those external religious dogmas and laws and rules. They're just too frightened of being wrong, and untrusting of themselves, to accept an internalized God. They call themselves Christians, but the truth is they haven't been able to get past the old testament idea of God, and accept that God now lives within them. They say the words, but everything they do tells the real story.

And this is how you deny that homosexual sex is a sin, by denying the absolute relevance of Mosaic law and God's specific condemnation of it. Any "internal" God is not going to disagree with the "external absolute" God you so casually dismiss, because they are one and the same. Your internal relative god is not Jehovah. It's you.

 

[ok doser]

Just WANTING to break the 'law of love' (for God, ourselves, and each other) became the sin. And sin became a matter of the state of our heart and mind.

(checks back to the OP)

Settles had "made it known publicly, of [his] choice, to embrace the homosexual lifestyle

looks like the homo in question WANTED to break the law :idunno:

 

[Angel4Truth]

And this is how you deny that homosexual sex is a sin, by denying the absolute relevance of Mosaic law and God's specific condemnation of it. Any "internal" God is not going to disagree with the "external absolute" God you so casually dismiss, because they are one and the same. Your internal relative god is not Jehovah. It's you.

Well said.

 

[kmoney]

Of course he couldn't just disregard the laws of his time and place. Neither can we. But neither are we being held to the laws of his time, any more than he should be held to the laws of ours.

Actually, since Christianity (orthodox, anyway) says Jesus is God then he could have disregarded a law that he himself gave. :chuckle:

My point is that the laws change, as we change. As time passes, and circumstances change. And as we learn and grow as humankind. Applying ancient religious laws to today's humans is foolish, and counter-productive. It's also a form of false idolatry. And it's also a "trick" that authoritarian religionists use to falsely ascribe divine authority to themselves, so they can then lord it over others. All in all it's a bad idea and a bad practice. Yet modern Christianity has become rife with all these false and flawed motives. Based on the idolatry of ancient Jewish religious dogmas.

No one is trying to make Settles obey an ancient law. The issue is what is moral, not what is lawful. If God declared through the Jews thousands of years ago that homosexuality was immoral and that continued through the New Testament then it's still immoral thousands of years later. Believing that's the case doesn't seem to me to necessarily be idolatry or giving yourself divine authority. Perhaps in some cases? :idunno: A level of humility is always good when interpreting and using scriptures. It certainly can be abused.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about 'ancient' as if that's a discrediting factor in and of itself when you seem fine using what Jesus said who lived 2000 years ago. That seems pretty ancient to me too.

From where I sit, none of this bloated religiosity expresses or furthers the love, forgiveness, and healing promise of Christ.

That's fine enough. I've always been open to the point that the church could have handled things differently and perhaps achieved a better outcome.

 

[lifeisgood]

The truth is what is.

Where did you get that from?
Oh, I forgot, you make your own truth.

I place my faith in that truth. Even when I can't always know it or understand it.

Of course, you do.

I don't place my faith in the platitudes of ancient nomadic Jewish tribesman, now long dead. What they knew they knew in their own time and place. Which is not here or now.

No.
You make your own.

 

[ok doser]

I'm not sure why you keep talking about 'ancient' as if that's a discrediting factor in and of itself when you seem fine using what Jesus said who lived 2000 years ago. That seems pretty ancient to me too.

you noticed that too? :chuckle:

at least he isn't using that "moldy old goat herders" trope

 

[relaff]

So, the same old game again ... which sin is worse than others?

I stick with Jesus and won't throw the first stone.

 

[ok doser]

So, the same old game again ... which sin is worse than others?

how do you figure?

 

[lifeisgood]

So, the same old game again ... which sin is worse than others?

I stick with Jesus and won't throw the first stone.

To whom are you directing that he/she is throwing the first stone, relaff.

 

[relaff]

how do you figure?

Basically I'd say all sins are created equal.

But of course the behavior that goes with it might make it worse. Sinning is one thing, we all do it, we all know the price for it (that Jesus paid). But bragging about it or actively promoting it is of course a different beef.

 

[PureX]

No one is trying to make Settles obey an ancient law. The issue is what is moral, not what is lawful. If God declared through the Jews thousands of years ago that homosexuality was immoral and that continued through the New Testament then it's still immoral thousands of years later.

If, if, and if …

You can believe whatever you want. But if you're going to be honest about it, then you should be willing to admit that believing it doesn't make it so.

Believing that's the case doesn't seem to me to necessarily be idolatry or giving yourself divine authority.

It isn't, 'necessarily'. But that's how the belief is being used, much of the time. By pretending that the Bible is "God speaking", and tucking it under your arm, you in effect take possession of God, and of God's unquestionable righteousness. To pull out and use against anyone who dares to disagree with you. Because after all, it's YOU who has determined that the words are His, and is determining what they mean. (The "you" here is being used generically.)

A level of humility is always good when interpreting and using scriptures. It certainly can be abused.

The abuse starts internally, with the idolatry itself: the presumption that the Bible is "God's own voice/mind/intent". That's an assumption that no human can verify, and that requires some degree of dishonesty to proclaim (even to ourselves).

I'm not sure why you keep talking about 'ancient' as if that's a discrediting factor in and of itself when you seem fine using what Jesus said who lived 2000 years ago. That seems pretty ancient to me too.

I only use Jesus' quotes as they apply to our reality, today.

I don't see why anyone would logically presume that what people thought a thousand years ago should ratify, negate, or otherwise effect what we think, today. In fact, it's so illogical an assumption that religionists have to attach divine magic to such claims to get away with it at all. Even to themselves.

That's fine enough. I've always been open to the point that the church could have handled things differently and perhaps achieved a better outcome.

It still could. But unfortunately, it seems intent on pursuing the illusion of it's own unquestionable righteousness, instead of the Divine Spirit it claims to represent.

 

[bybee]

If, if, and if …

You can believe whatever you want. But if you're going to be honest about it, then you should be willing to admit that believing it doesn't make it so.
It isn't, 'necessarily'. But that's how the belief is being used, much of the time. By pretending that the Bible is "God speaking", and tucking it under your arm, you in effect take possession of God, and of God's unquestionable righteousness. To pull out and use against anyone who dares to disagree with you. Because after all, it's YOU who has determined that the words are His, and is determining what they mean. (The "you" here is being used generically.) The abuse starts internally, with the idolatry itself: the presumption that the Bible is "God's own voice/mind/intent". That's an assumption that no human can verify, and that requires some degree of dishonesty to proclaim (even to ourselves).
I only use Jesus' quotes as they apply to our reality, today.

I don't see why anyone would logically presume that what people thought a thousand years ago should ratify, negate, or otherwise effect what we think, today. In fact, it's so illogical an assumption that religionists have to attach divine magic to such claims to get away with it at all. Even to themselves.
It still could. But unfortunately, it seems intent on pursuing the illusion of it's own unquestionable righteousness, instead of the Divine Spirit it claims to represent.

There is a "natural" righteousness to which one might appeal. We are designed for specific functions. The reproductive function requires a male and a female. The male and the female bring different skills to parenting and family nurture. Since this is the natural design it works for me.
Other functions may occur to be sure. They are aberrations.

 

[PureX]

There is a "natural" righteousness to which one might appeal. We are designed for specific functions. The reproductive function requires a male and a female. The male and the female bring different skills to parenting and family nurture. Since this is the natural design it works for me.
Other functions may occur to be sure. They are aberrations.

Things often have more than one function. And anyway, functionality depends on the goal. Different people have different goals at different times and for different reasons. And there is no single arbiter. Certainly not some 2000 year old religion.

 

[bybee]

Things often have more than one function. And anyway, functionality depends on the goal. Different people have different goals at different times and for different reasons. And there is no single arbiter. Certainly not some 2000 year old religion.

Nature, that which is natural based on design and function is an arbiter for me.
An apple is not an orange. We designate them both as fruits based on their attributes but an orange pie is not the same as an apple pie.

 

[relaff]

To whom are you directing that he/she is throwing the first stone, relaff.

I didn't direct that to anyone in particular. I simply said that I won't do it. Actually if I meant anyone in particular, I would likely be throwing the first stone by doing that.

 

[relaff]

Things often have more than one function. And anyway, functionality depends on the goal. Different people have different goals at different times and for different reasons. And there is no single arbiter. Certainly not some 2000 year old religion.

The religion or people are not the arbiter. But for Christians there is one, though I think he prefers judge to arbiter, that will decide.

 

[kmoney]

If, if, and if …

You can believe whatever you want. But if you're going to be honest about it, then you should be willing to admit that believing it doesn't make it so.

Sure. Who said otherwise?

It isn't, 'necessarily'. But that's how the belief is being used, much of the time. By pretending that the Bible is "God speaking", and tucking it under your arm, you in effect take possession of God, and of God's unquestionable righteousness. To pull out and use against anyone who dares to disagree with you. Because after all, it's YOU who has determined that the words are His, and is determining what they mean. (The "you" here is being used generically.)

The abuse starts internally, with the idolatry itself: the presumption that the Bible is "God's own voice/mind/intent". That's an assumption that no human can verify, and that requires some degree of dishonesty to proclaim (even to ourselves).

I don't agree with all of this but I'll just let it stand.

I don't see why anyone would logically presume that what people thought a thousand years ago should ratify, negate, or otherwise effect what we think, today. In fact, it's so illogical an assumption that religionists have to attach divine magic to such claims to get away with it at all. Even to themselves.

What divine magic? The belief that God inspired the writers of scripture?

 

[PureX]

What divine magic? The belief that God inspired the writers of scripture?

No, by divine magic I mean the dishonest fantasy that the term "inspired" means; "God wrote every word of it using the hands of the scribes and the minds of the editors, and therefor it cannot ever be questioned, doubted, or confined to the context of time and place". Because that's how the Bible idolators are defining the term, "inspired".