Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals"

[Haven]

Christian fundamentalists often claim to "love" lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (who they invariably label "homosexuals"), while at the same time actively opposing gay rights, including marriage equality, hate crimes laws, and even decriminalization of same-sex relationships. This seems ridiculous to me, as love implies support, but these individuals certainly don't support LGB people.

Debate question: Is it possible to love gay, lesbian, and bisexual people while opposing gay rights?[/i

[KCKID]

Yes, between two people. However, is one permitted to harm one's partner as long as it is consensual?

I don't follow. I didn't say that it's okay (permitted) to harm anyone as long as it's consensual. Harm may come from a consensual act but that doesn't really concern me. I'm no one's keeper.

So, are sadism, erotic strangulation or even intentional death none of your concern, as long as they are consensual?

No, they are not my concern since these things deviate from the topic under discussion which is Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals" . . .

I'm not sure what you mean by "Religiosity".

Well, I'm referring to the 'sanctimoniously religious', those with an excessive dedication to their religion who appear to give themselves the task of playing 'moral cop' at every opportunity. They have a tendency to interfere in one's private sex life. And, they often use The Holy Scripture as their 'badge of authority' to enter one's bedroom.

Is there some other "badge of authority" that society may use to enter one's bedroom? Is a designate bedroom absolute sanctuary, or are you using that term as an idiom for privacy?

I'm using that term as an idiom for privacy.

I am simply enquiring regarding about what you believe every society must allow.

I don't know that it's up to society to allow or not allow what two consenting adults choose to do in private as long as they harm no one else. If such intimacy is occurring under one's roof and one disapproves, then fine, speak up ...but not otherwise.

Do you not know whether it's up to society or did you mean it is not up to society?

I mean that it's not up to society to be concerned what gays or straights do in private, i.e. private being an idiom for their bedrooms.

[KCKID]

This thread is titled: Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals." I'm aware that, besides the active participants in this thread, there are also many more people that view this and other threads but don't actively participate. Thus, we always need to be mindful of these viewers when we post our comments and thoughts. Some of these people may well be gay themselves and might be curious as to how Christians and others regard them on forums such as this one. They would, undoubtedly, already know that Christianity, generally speaking, disapproves of them or their alleged 'behavior' or their alleged 'agenda' or their alleged 'abominations' or their alleged ...whatever. What they may NOT know, however, is that there are an increasing number of Christians and their particular denominations that are 'gay affirming' and that not ALL of Christianity should be painted with the same broad brush.

I would highly recommend the following video presenting Bishop John Shelby Spong featuring content that is well in keeping with this particular thread title. Yes, it is rather lengthy (1:23:19) but very 'watcher-user-friendly'. Also yes, the mere mention of John Shelby Spong may cause 'eye-rolling' from some but, from my perspective, what this man preaches IS 'Christianity'. His message has renewed my faith in 'Christianity' as it was meant to be! JSS has a huge following today because he actually tells it like it is ...from a common sense, logical as well as from a "Christian approach" to this and other scriptural issues. Because he does tell it like it is he's raised the ire of a number of Christian 'luminaries' over the years and also received death threats (yep! From Christians!) because he's dared to push the outside of the staid, stuffy and dogmatic envelope of Christian Fundamentalism.

If you're a gay person I, as already mentioned, highly recomment this video to you. If you're NOT a gay person I ALSO highly recommend this video to you. I think that you'll be glad that you did watch it.



Note: The first 12 minutes of this video are preliminaries followed by John Shelby Spong followed with 20 minutes or so of question time.

[bluethread]

So, are sadism, erotic strangulation or even intentional death none of your concern, as long as they are consensual?

No, they are not my concern since these things deviate from the topic under discussion which is Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals" . . .

You seem to have previously based your argument on the principle that a society should not regulate what happens between two consenting adults in privacy, as long as it does not harm anyone else. Did I misunderstand that, or do you wish to amend your argument?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Religiosity".

Is there some other "badge of authority" that society may use to enter one's bedroom? Is a designate bedroom absolute sanctuary, or are you using that term as an idiom for privacy?

I'm using that term as an idiom for privacy.

Ok, so why don't we speak frankly an use the phrase 'in private" rather than bedroom, so that there is no confusion?

Do you not know whether it's up to society or did you mean it is not up to society?

I mean that it's not up to society to be concerned what gays or straights do in private, i.e. private being an idiom for their bedrooms.

I presume the wink means that you do not mean just in their bedrooms, but anywhere that is private. Duplicitous statements, even in jest, do tend to lead to misunderstandings. Do you think this is not a serious matter we are discussing? If so, then I will not worry if I should happen to say something that might be considered disrespectful.

[KCKID]

So, are sadism, erotic strangulation or even intentional death none of your concern, as long as they are consensual?

No, they are not my concern since these things deviate from the topic under discussion which is Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals" . . .

You seem to have previously based your argument on the principle that a society should not regulate what happens between two consenting adults in privacy, as long as it does not harm anyone else. Did I misunderstand that, or do you wish to amend your argument?

I'm not sure where you are going with this; however, my previous and present argument on the principle that a society (or a religious organization) should not regulate or interfere with what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults - whether gay or straight - still stands.

<sigh> I hope the term 'behind closed doors' doesn't require from me a further analysis of what I really mean. If it does, then listen carefully to the lyrics of the 1973 Charley Rich song of the same title and all will be revealed!

Here's another wink for you . . .

I'm not sure what you mean by "Religiosity".

Is there some other "badge of authority" that society may use to enter one's bedroom? Is a designate bedroom absolute sanctuary, or are you using that term as an idiom for privacy?

I'm using that term as an idiom for privacy.

Ok, so why don't we speak frankly an use the phrase 'in private" rather than bedroom, so that there is no confusion?

I wouldn't have thought that, to most, there would have been any confusion.

Do you not know whether it's up to society or did you mean it is not up to society?

I mean that it's not up to society to be concerned what gays or straights do in private, i.e. private being an idiom for their bedrooms.

I presume the wink means that you do not mean just in their bedrooms, but anywhere that is private.

The wink was relative to the first query you had with regard to my initial use of 'bedroom' which, when asked by you what I meant, I replied that I'd used 'bedroom' as an idiom for 'privacy'. The second time (hence the wink) was when I used 'private' as being an idiom for 'bedroom' ... a reversal of terms, if you like. In both instances the use of either should have been - and probably would have been - quite obvious to most folks other than yourself it would seem. The wink meant ..."You're toying with me, of course ...?

Duplicitous statements, even in jest, do tend to lead to misunderstandings.

I would doubt that most folks on the forum would have had a misunderstanding of what I said and meant previously about intimacy between two consenting adults being a private affair. Nor, I'm sure, would most folks feel the need to go into such an indepth analysis as to what is meant by 'bedroom' and 'privacy" as you are doing.

Do you think this is not a serious matter we are discussing? If so, then I will not worry if I should happen to say something that might be considered disrespectful.

Is this real or am I in the middle of a strange dream . . .??

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

This thread is titled: Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals."

It should be: Christian "love" for the "sinner" shouldn't it?

Is it "Christian love" to pretend sin isn't sinning?

Is there "love" in false teachings? Is there "love" in a False Teacher?

I'm aware that, besides the active participants in this thread, there are also many more people that view this and other threads but don't actively participate.

Could it possibly because they are terrified to be labeled and charged with a hate crime and be reported for a warning for being a Christian like the ones in the Bible?

Thus, we always need to be mindful of these viewers when we post our comments and thoughts. Some of these people may well be gay themselves and might be curious as to how Christians and others regard them on forums such as this one.

Only if they care about history and Biblical truth.

They would, undoubtedly, already know that Christianity, generally speaking, disapproves of them or their alleged 'behavior' or their alleged 'agenda' or their alleged 'abominations' or their alleged ...whatever.

You seem to have forgotten that even you have oointed out that ALL Christians also follow the teachings that "all have sinned . . .:

What they may NOT know, however, is that there are an increasing number of Christians and their particular denominations that are 'gay affirming' and that not ALL of Christianity should be painted with the same broad brush.

They should be aware of the "preaching of a different Gospel" is a place to be wary of. Marriage in New Testament scripture is man and woman/husband and wife. No matter what Gay Agenda demands of it to change to the will of political correctness.

I would highly recommend the following video presenting Bishop John Shelby Spong featuring content that is well in keeping with this particular thread title.

Is it "Christian love" to preach a Gospel different from that of Jesus and the Apostles and Disciples?

Yes, it is rather lengthy (1:23:19) but very 'watcher-user-friendly'. Also yes, the mere mention of John Shelby Spong may cause 'eye-rolling' from some but, from my perspective, what this man preaches IS 'Christianity'.

It is radical Christianity not preached by anyone IN The New Testament, nor any Gospel affirming person in history. Nor does his teachings find support FROM scripture. John Shelby Spong is a "radical progressive" whose teachings align more with "the world and its ways" than with the faith delivered only once to the saints." Now, Spong and his group have the right to invent a new religion, but they do not have the right to claim Gospel or Apostolic support for their new inventions and new politics.

His message has renewed my faith in 'Christianity' as it was meant to be!

What kind of religion does Spong represent if it is no different than the secular world and its ways? If we are to "test all things and hold firmly onto the truth" doesn't that include Spong?

Caveat emptor

The Rt. Rev. Peter Jensen, Australia’s Archbishop of Sydney, is making headlines for denying a heretic access to the pulpits of the churches under his care. The heretic is the retired bishop of Newark, New Jersey, The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong — a man who has denied virtually every major Christian doctrine. -


John Shelby Spong has written a series of books attacking the central doctrines of the Christian faith. As a matter of fact, he has basically run out of doctrines to deny. He has repudiated the Christian faith as treasured by the faithful Church for two thousand years — the faith of biblical Christianity. This faith is the faith for which the martyrs died.

Mark Thompson, responding to Bishop Spong in the newspaper of the Sydney archdiocese, noted correctly that “one cannot imagine anyone willing to be martyred for Spong’s Jesus.�

Even the secular press understands the depths of Bishop Spong’s denial of Christian truth. The Sydney Morning Herald noted that Spong

- (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/an- ... 96819.html)

{Spong} - has denied that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Joseph ever existed, that Jesus performed miracles, that He died for our sins, and that He was raised from the dead. He also denies the deity of Christ and the nature of God as a personal being, much less the only true God. In other books Spong has suggested that the Apostle Paul was a repressed homosexual. More recently, he has joined the chorus of those suggesting that the death of Christ was necessary for the salvation of sinners amounts to “divine child abuse.�

-

JSS has a huge following today because he actually tells it like it is ...from a common sense, logical as well as from a "Christian approach" to this and other scriptural issues. Because he does tell it like it is he's raised the ire of a number of Christian 'luminaries' over the years and also received death threats (yep! From Christians!) because he's dared to push the outside of the staid, stuffy and dogmatic envelope of Christian Fundamentalism.

Fide, defensor, non armis,

The faith delivered only once to the saints. With not one stone cast by even one Apostle.

It is the "fundamentals of the faith" position that is now threatened as "hate speech" BY Spong.

Jesus preached that marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. Is Jesus and his Christian Fundamentalism?

The Gospel: Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo

If you're a gay person I, as already mentioned, highly recomment this video to you. If you're NOT a gay person I ALSO highly recommend this video to you. I think that you'll be glad that you did watch it.

If you are a person interested in truth of the Christian reality "test ALL things and hold firmly to the truth . . ."

http://streaming.integrationworks.com:3 ... 140530.mp3

Note: The first 12 minutes of this video are preliminaries followed by John Shelby Spong followed with 20 minutes or so of question time.[/color]

If Spong preaches a different Gospel, is this the product you want to follow?

It looks like people of Spong's ilk are no surprise to The Church:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

- Jude

Spong and his business of selling a different Gospel is nothing unexpected.

Caveat venditor:

From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility and with tears and in the midst of severe testing by the plots of my Jewish opponents. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

“And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. However, I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace.

“Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

So be on your guard!

Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

“Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ �

- Acts 20

This controversy in Australia is indicative of the situation we now face in so much of Christianity worldwide. Archbishop Jensen defends the faith and protects his people and is treated as a divisive figure. Archbishop Aspinall invites a heretic into his pulpit, explains that this is “not particularly extraordinary,� and is seen as a portrait of magnanimous ecclesiastical leadership. Bishop Spong gets to sell more books, and the public gets to see a spectacle.
How profoundly sad . . . and how utterly predictable.

- http://www.albertmohler.com/2007/08/16/ ... thedral-2/

http://streaming.integrationworks.com:3 ... 140530.mp3

http://www.equip.org/

Perversion of the Gospel

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

Galatians 1

[99percentatheism]

So, are sadism, erotic strangulation or even intentional death none of your concern, as long as they are consensual?

No, they are not my concern since these things deviate from the topic under discussion which is Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals" . . .

You seem to have previously based your argument on the principle that a society should not regulate what happens between two consenting adults in privacy, as long as it does not harm anyone else. Did I misunderstand that, or do you wish to amend your argument?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Religiosity".

Is there some other "badge of authority" that society may use to enter one's bedroom? Is a designate bedroom absolute sanctuary, or are you using that term as an idiom for privacy?

I'm using that term as an idiom for privacy.

Ok, so why don't we speak frankly an use the phrase 'in private" rather than bedroom, so that there is no confusion?

Do you not know whether it's up to society or did you mean it is not up to society?

I mean that it's not up to society to be concerned what gays or straights do in private, i.e. private being an idiom for their bedrooms.

I presume the wink means that you do not mean just in their bedrooms, but anywhere that is private. Duplicitous statements, even in jest, do tend to lead to misunderstandings. Do you think this is not a serious matter we are discussing? If so, then I will not worry if I should happen to say something that might be considered disrespectful.

And doing stuff in the "bedroom" being a metaphor for sexual intercourse.

I mean that it's not up to society to be concerned what gays or straights do in private, i.e. private being an idiom for their bedrooms.

So arguing that "arsenokoitai does not refer to sexual behavior (coitus even a new on-line magazine makes that connection) but instead just some kind of bedroom discussion . . . is a highly dubious stand. Even in the 21st century "going to bed" with someone, does not carry the meaning of two people catching up on some sleep.

[Joab]

Even in the 21st century "going to bed" with someone, does not carry the meaning of two people catching up on some sleep

I go to bed with my 11yr old grandson most weekends and all we do is sleep.
What are you implying?
Are you a sicko?
Perhaps what goes on in your bedroom needs to to be examined?
Do you think?

[KCKID]

KCKID

This thread is titled: Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals."

It should be: Christian "love" for the "sinner" shouldn't it?

Is it "Christian love" to pretend sin isn't sinning?

Is there "love" in false teachings? Is there "love" in a False Teacher?

99percent, here is an item from Wikipedia with references should you wish to follow them up: Along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum.[1] There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation;[1] however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts,[3] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination.[4] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;[4] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.[5] While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural,[6][7] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][8] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.[1] There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Please note that NOWHERE in the above documentation is homosexuality called 'a sin' or in any way referenced as 'deviant behavior'. When the word 'homosexual' first appeared in the New Revised Standard Bible in 1946 it inaccurately and dishonestly equated the term with 'sinful behavior'. Since you, 99percent, appear to be the main player on the board with regard to the Bible’s apparent aversion to homosexuality, would you (please) present the specific words that the later Bible authors sought fit to replace with the word ‘homosexual’ or ‘homosexuality’ ...?

I'm aware that, besides the active participants in this thread, there are also many more people that view this and other threads but don't actively participate.

Could it possibly because they are terrified to be labeled and charged with a hate crime and be reported for a warning for being a Christian like the ones in the Bible?

Yeah, 99percent, that must be the reason . . .

Thus, we always need to be mindful of these viewers when we post our comments and thoughts. Some of these people may well be gay themselves and might be curious as to how Christians and others regard them on forums such as this one.

Only if they care about history and Biblical truth.

Bible truth? The exegetical truth behind the texts under discussion? History? Factual or fictional?

They would, undoubtedly, already know that Christianity, generally speaking, disapproves of them or their alleged 'behavior' or their alleged 'agenda' or their alleged 'abominations' or their alleged ...whatever.

You seem to have forgotten that even you have pointed out that ALL Christians also follow the teachings that "all have sinned . . .:

You seem to have forgotten that 'homosexuality', by definition, is not 'a sin'.

What they may NOT know, however, is that there are an increasing number of Christians and their particular denominations that are 'gay affirming' and that not ALL of Christianity should be painted with the same broad brush.

They should be aware of the "preaching of a different Gospel" is a place to be wary of. Marriage in New Testament scripture is man and woman/husband and wife. No matter what Gay Agenda demands of it to change to the will of political correctness.

"They" should be aware that there are many Christian denominations throughout the world and probably just as many different interpretations of the same scriptures. No ONE Church has all 'the truth' and no ONE Church should claim to have all 'the truth'.

Also, this thread has nothing to do with gay marriage. It's about Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals".

I would highly recommend the following video presenting Bishop John Shelby Spong featuring content that is well in keeping with this particular thread title.

Is it "Christian love" to preach a Gospel different from that of Jesus and the Apostles and Disciples?

On the contrary, I believe that John Shelby Spong is pretty well 'spot on' with his preaching of the Gospel message. It's about love and being nonjudgmental.

Yes, it is rather lengthy (1:23:19) but very 'watcher-user-friendly'. Also yes, the mere mention of John Shelby Spong may cause 'eye-rolling' from some but, from my perspective, what this man preaches IS 'Christianity'.

It is radical Christianity not preached by anyone IN The New Testament, nor any Gospel affirming person in history. Nor does his teachings find support FROM scripture. John Shelby Spong is a "radical progressive" whose teachings align more with "the world and its ways" than with the faith delivered only once to the saints." Now, Spong and his group have the right to invent a new religion, but they do not have the right to claim Gospel or Apostolic support for their new inventions and new politics.

That his particular interpretation of the Gospel message (specifically the teachings of Jesus) might differ from yours does not make JSS wrong.

His message has renewed my faith in 'Christianity' as it was meant to be!

What kind of religion does Spong represent if it is no different than the secular world and its ways? If we are to "test all things and hold firmly onto the truth" doesn't that include Spong?

Caveat emptor

I haven't yet heard Bishop Spong preach a message that Christians should do whatever they please ...morally speaking. He does believe, however, in one being free to be fully human whether one be gay or straight. That's not such a bad message, is it? Don't you, on the other hand, support an opposite message?

<snip to shorten post>

[KCKID]

So arguing that "arsenokoitai does not refer to sexual behavior (coitus even a new on-line magazine makes that connection) but instead just some kind of bedroom discussion . . . is a highly dubious stand. Even in the 21st century "going to bed" with someone, does not carry the meaning of two people catching up on some sleep.

I'm not arguing. I'm merely giving the official definition of the Greek term "arsenokoitai". Once again (is this the 5th time?) ... arseno=male/koitai=bed/s. You can fill in the blanks with whatever floats your boat ...and many have, much to the detriment of gay people!

By the way, has it ever occurred to anyone that many, if not all, of these texts were never intended for we of today? Surely, if the original authors HAD considered that people in the year 2014 would be taking an interest in their work and preaching it to the world, then would not these authors have been more precise with their message/s and wording? Why is so much of it couched in ambiguities and riddles and even made-up words that have no clear interpretation? There is something clearly amiss when we need to spend so much time trying to decipher 'this scripture' from 'that scripture' just to determine who are the 'bad guys' we should be pointing the finger at.

Let's face it ...neither God nor Paul nor any other biblical 'whoever' had "we" in mind when these scriptures were written. Plain old logic tells me this.

[KCKID]

The Rt. Rev. Peter Jensen, Australia’s Archbishop of Sydney, is making headlines for denying a heretic access to the pulpits of the churches under his care. The heretic is the retired bishop of Newark, New Jersey, The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong — a man who has denied virtually every major Christian doctrine. -

John Shelby Spong has written a series of books attacking the central doctrines of the Christian faith. As a matter of fact, he has basically run out of doctrines to deny. He has repudiated the Christian faith as treasured by the faithful Church for two thousand years — the faith of biblical Christianity. This faith is the faith for which the martyrs died.

Here are a few quotes about martyrdom:

“They say martyrdom is the highest rank a believer can achieve! Do not believe in this! The highest rank is the life itself, it is the existence itself! There is no rank in death, but only nothingness! Rank exists only in life! Stick to the life, stay away from death! Neither kill nor die!�
― Mehmet Murat ildan

“Those who endlessly praise the rank of martyrdom must first attain that rank! No invented rank is superior to the life! You stick to the life and let the fools stick to the death.�
― Mehmet Murat ildan

“Beyond all the other reasons not to do it, free speech assaults always backfire: they transform bigots into martyrs.�
― Glenn Greenwald

“The myth of Christian martyrdom and persecution needs to be corrected, because it has left us with a dangerous legacy that poisons the well of public discourse. This affects not just Christians, but everyone. We cannot use the mere fact that we feel persecuted as evidence that our cause is just or as the grounds for rhetorical or actual war. We cannot use the supposed moral superiority of our ancient martyrs to demonstrate the intrinsic superiority of our modern religious beliefs or ideological positions. Once we recognize that feeling persecuted is not proof of anything, then we have to engage in serious intellectual and moral debate about the actual issues at hand.�
― Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom

Mark Thompson, responding to Bishop Spong in the newspaper of the Sydney archdiocese, noted correctly that “one cannot imagine anyone willing to be martyred for Spong’s Jesus.�

Meaningless rhetoric! How many Christians could step forward and state with all honesty that they are willing to sacrifice themselves as martyrs for Jesus because of Christian persecution?!

Even the secular press understands the depths of Bishop Spong’s denial of Christian truth. The Sydney Morning Herald noted that Spong

- (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/an- ... 96819.html)

{Spong} - has denied that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Joseph ever existed, that Jesus performed miracles, that He died for our sins, and that He was raised from the dead. He also denies the deity of Christ and the nature of God as a personal being, much less the only true God. In other books Spong has suggested that the Apostle Paul was a repressed homosexual. More recently, he has joined the chorus of those suggesting that the death of Christ was necessary for the salvation of sinners amounts to “divine child abuse.� -

People should be making their own decisions as to what they believe and what they don't. For too long "The Church" has been making that decision for them. It's "Wake Up!" time for Christianity and if Christianity can't 'hold it's own' against "old scriptures/new ideas" then it will crumble as it probably deserves to do. If a new and improved "Christianity" emerges then all the better! I don't know that anyone is out to destroy Christianity but rather to reintroduce Christianity as it was meant to be!

Arguing 'beliefs' is futile, 99percentatheism, and only results in disaccord. A 'belief' is, according to Wikipedia:- a pneumatological activity, maintaining a psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true. [1] Dispositional and occurrent belief concerns the contextual activation of the belief into thoughts (reactive of propositions) or ideas (based on the belief's premise).

So, there you go. Spong's beliefs differ to your beliefs and it matters not if 'your' particular belief is shared by the majority of Christians. So what? People's beliefs are regularly formed by what the majority believes. The brain is a sponge and, more often than is probably beneficial, it absorbs many things merely based on repetition, i.e. no actual 'thinking' required. Spong teaches that people should be encouraged to be fully human and that one's 'Christianity' is more about 'being' a Christian rather than in telling others "I am a Christian and I can quote the Bible (often incorrectly!) to prove it!"