The Nashville Statement versus the bible Part 1. (edited)

There is a lot of talk about this “Nashville Statement” (NS), but does it hold up to what the bible actually says and teaches? Over the next few weeks I will explore how “off” these evangelicals are in their signing of this ‘hate document”. For starters, we are looking at a Jewish system of belief that forbid the heterosexual men to have same-sex with men… as that is unnatural. It also  prohibits sex in any form  in pagan worship.

Article 1.

WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.

WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

My Response: There are only two verse in the whole bible that remotely states this – but only by interpretation. Jesus states: Matthew 19 (also in Mark 10 the same story):


3.  The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?'' 
 4.  And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning `made them male and female,' 
 5.  "and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 
 6.  "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'' 
 7.  They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?'' 

 8.  He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 

This verse is not “anti-gay” but anti-divorce. To twist it to mean “anti-gay” means you do not honor the texts context. Jesus is not saying this is the only “marriage” but that a man and woman join together to procreate and stay together and not divorce as they have become “one flesh”. In Jesus day, if a woman was divorced she would have nothing to turn to but prostitution or begging. If a man divorces his wife and leaves her this way then that is the “sin” of this passage and not “homosexuality”.

Meanwhile, marriage in the bible had “polygamous, or polyamorous relationship(s)” all throughout it. You even have King David sleep with, get pregnant, and have murdered, the husband of Bathsheba – and yet, somehow, David is a “man after God’s own heart”. We see the patriarchs have multiple wives, (though it never works out that great). To deny these are also "biblical marriages" that were allowed by God and the Jewish faith is to also dishonor the history and reality the scripture presents. 

Even in the New Testament, Jesus never states that a man cannot have more than one wife – but that a man and wife should not divorce as in the passage above. To use this scripture in the way it is on the Nashville Statement is unBiblical and even goes against the teaching of Jesus as one must pervert His words to make it mean as those who signed this trash want to make it mean.

Jesus and Paul never stated a man could not have more than one wife. Paul’s only limitation was that if a man wanted to be a leader in the church he must only have one wife. To make the bible say what it does not is twisting the verses to fit one’s one desires and beliefs… but thankfully the bible does not say what these people claim it to say. 

On the idea that marriage is not a contract but a covenant? It is a legal contract and that contract is man-made. Adam and Eve never went before a judge and signed a document. Therefore, with the logic of the NS, Adam and Eve were never married but created for each other so Adam would have a suitable mate. In other words,  Eve was given to Adam to procreate as Adam did not see any other "animals" that would be acceptable. (think about that one - we could be arguing that a marriage between a man and rhino as a traditional marriage.

One last thought Galatians 3:

 26.  For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 

 27.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 

 28.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 

 29.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

If we are now "in Christ" then there is no separation of male or female as we are all one in Christ. This verse alone stands against the bulk of the Nashville Statement... of which I will discuss next week.

Bonus: If anyone says I am justifying divorce here, and one person accused me of that, I am not. I am stating that the verse often used to clobber the gay community is not about gay people. It is about divorce and as you can see, Jesus did not like it and neither do I. 

You're a marshmallow!

(source)

Years ago... I mean like way back in 1983/84 I had the pleasure of hearing Brother Jed and Sister Cindy (the disco queen) do some street preaching. They would show up and shout all sorts of horrible things like, "You dress like a whore" and the female students. They would go on and on about how everyone one was "going to hell". I even heard brother Jed, during a q and a state, "The ONLY godly form of economics is capitalism." Even after the Montana State University police escorted Brother Jed and Cindy off campus they still came back. Even the fellow students began to repeat the catch phrases... "I was a disco queen" and the crowd said it with Cindy... You are all "going to hell"... as the crowd said it with her. If they had not been so obnoxious I might have felt sorry for these two street evangelists.

After a long tirade on how everyone was a sinner and was "going to hell" I got sick of them only saying half the gospel, (yes we are all sinners - who deserve the judgment for our transgressions and I still believe that though I may not agree in how God will do that). I to shout, "Everyone knows they are sinners. They get that... but why don't you tell them how to get saved? Why don't you tell them about Jesus?"

Sister Cindy turned toward me in here religious fiery... and shouted at me.... "You know what you are!?!? You're a marshmallow!"
I laughed and said.... "Tell them about Jesus."


http://www.brojed.org/cms/

Trump and Tolerance

If you preach tolerance, then why are you not tolerant about Trump? Yeah… that is the question that some ask. First, the very fact the question is asked, means you are living in a world of privilege and do not even know it. Here is the definition: tol·er·ance ˈtäl(ə)rəns/Noun 1.the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. "the tolerance of corruption" synonyms: acceptance, toleration; More 2.an allowable amount of variation of a specified quantity, especially in the dimensions of a machine or part. Now, I tolerate someone who I see does not want to be part of the “good” that would add to society instead of trying to make it worse. The cartoon is an example. I tolerate and would even fight for the KKK to speak their hate as well as teach their hateful beliefs. However, if they do kill someone, they cross theline. Trump, is tolerable when he is not in a power position that can harm many people. Trump has done many things (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2017/04/26/431299/100-ways-100-days-trump-hurt-americans/) that has made it harder to do things like pay a house payment or even buy a house. In fact, during the election he joked that the housing crisis “was a good thing for him” as thousands of people lost their homes. Talk about being in touch with “the people.” Now, if Trump lived in a way that did not harm so many people them he would be “tolerated.” However, when someone is harming people then tolerance is not something that can happen… as Trump (or someone like him) negate it by their actions. It is like this. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement wants people to know that black people are being killed/murdered and we need to change something. Instead, there was the response of “all lives matter” where I even bought into it until I found out it was to negate the need to change the cop killing that is happening. Then the police began a “blue lives matter” in another attempt to negate the problem. Now, people are all, “BLM supported killing cops”. No, not at first, but after three more deaths and not one cop charged, the anger rose to that point. Was it right? No. However, JUST THE FACT THERE IS THE BLM movement show there is an issue as there would be NO NEED for BLM if there were not an issue. Think about that before you respond. There IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS ADDRESSING and pointing to things or people in the movement only proves that there is an issue… Back to tolerance. Jesus loves EVERYONE! He does. However, just as not all will ove Jesus that does not negate His love or that we love others. Sometimes, as with Trump, or other “Christians” who claim Jesus but then turn their backs on the poor, hungry, sick, and anyone else Jesus taught us to reach out to andlove – in a very anti-Christ way – we need to stand up and cry, “evil” when it happens. Now, for those who now think that after eight years of criticizing Obama that now we “must accept Trump as our president” I say, no. I do not need to accept him as President any more than Paul accepted Caesar as Lord. In fact, Paul was subversive to the point that he proclaims a phrase considered treason in Roman…“Jesus Christ is Lord” – and with that declaration, he stated that Caesar isnot Lord. Trump is not my president or Lord or anything but a reality TV star that had stupid people vote him in a position he has no qualifications to do.

Who was the Greatest Reformer?

Many just think of Calvin and Luther as the only Reformers. If I were to pick - Luther is good but not great but when i was looking at them Zwingli seemed to be closest to my thoughts. Funny thing is the assistant to Luther would take Zwingli's writings and promise to show Luther - but the assistant knew that Luther would through a fit when he read it. The assistant wanted to keep the two as distant friends who still mutually admired each other. 

Now, if I were to choose a great reformer Friedrich Myconius who kept that peace between the so-called "Great Reformers". When Friedrich Myconius became ill and believed he was dying he sent a note to Luther who replied, ""I command thee in the name of God to live because I still have need of thee in the work of reforming the church.… The Lord will never let me hear that thou art dead, but will permit thee to survive me. For this I am praying, this is my will, and may my will be done, because I seek only to glorify the name of God." He lived two more years and even outlived Luther by a couple of months.

A man of peace in a time of sometimes shameful arrogance over theology is my Reformer.

Picture by the original uploader was GregorHelms at German Wikipedia - Transferred from de.wikipedia to Commons by Magnus Manske using CommonsHelper., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7900903 

Pro-Choice is not Pro-abortion

Before you judge her are you actually adding to her situation instead of helping her? Here is the real issue. This anti-abortion message actually adds to the problem and does nothing to further their cause. Why? It overlooks the reasons a woman has an abortion. If there was social justice for women they would have:

1. Equal access to health care that includes birth control, mammograms, pap smears, etc BTW, birth control stops abortions if you never thought that one out.

2. She would get equal pay thus would be in a better economic standing. This would make her less "poor" and not have a need to have an abortion. A women working two jobs just to make a living will more likely have an abortion than the woman who has healthcare and a job that pays a living wage.

3. She would not just be seen as a sex object and make herself that object to just get by because she "needs a man".

4. Rape culture would be a shameful thing instead of celebrated but the election of a sexist president.

The issue is not so simple. A person is not pro-abortion who is pro-choice. It means that we believe women can make the choice needed at the time. If we create a better situation instead of mocking and keeping it the same the cause to end abortion loses. By mocking social justice for women you show you are uncaring and really do not love her. You show you are part of the issue not the solution.

Daniel in the Lions' Den: Tragic Echoes of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'

Sad days... Great post by Daniel Hayward

Tragic Echoes of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'

Daniel in the Lions' Den: Tragic Echoes of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four': From Foreign Policy , March 17, 2017: On Friday, an Apache military helicopter reportedly opened fire on a boat packed with over 140 Somal...