Re: Matt Lowry goes incognito -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:30:18 11/16/12 Fri
Author: George
Subject: Re: Matt Lowry goes incognito
In reply to: - 's message, "Re: Matt Lowry goes incognito" on 13:23:54 11/16/12 Fri

>>Matt, why the secrecy?
>>
>>Are you ashamed to be seen talking to us?
>>
>>Are you afraid to be noticed endorsing something not
>>on the list?
>>
>>Are you afraid of being observed explaining something
>>in an unapproved manner?
>>
>>George
>>
>>Nixon: John, it's me!
>>
>>Mitchell: It's hard to recognize you in the clown
>>white makeup and the fright wig.
>>
>>Nixon: I'm incognito, John. There's something I've
>>been wanting to talk to you about.
>>
>>Mitchell: Yes sir?
>>
>>Nixon: You say you don't know anything about any
>>break-in, and I don't know anything about any
>>break-in. Offhand, I'd say one of us is full of the
>>old crapola. Which one of us is it, John?
>>
>>Mitchell: Uh... me?
>>
>>Nixon: Attaboy, John!
>just lazy-
>
>but the point needed to be made that the SHC statement
>was always about sex outside of marriage and still is.
> but with changes that have taken place over the last
>30 years in western culture, that basis for the
>statement is being actively challenged.
>if the church is authentically being the church, then
>it must take up the issue in a relevant way, and in a
>way that is faithful, not to traditionalism or
>presumed orthodoxy, but to the nature of god and the
>passion of god for all creation.
>
>regardless of all the rants and scriptural wresting,
>authentic response to the spirit of god does not
>conform to levitical law or puritanical orthodoxy or
>any other such list of rules or "sins". rather it is
>about relationships between people. this is something
>that has been completely devalued by many. thankfully
>there is an emergence of people who are embracing the
>desire to authentically understand christian response
>to god, not just in community of christ, but across
>all denominations. it is a revival of paul's
>proclamation and central claim.
>happily we are leaving the distortions, the condemning
>attitudes and misplacced priorities behind. those of
>you who want to focus on those and flog others with
>them may gladly have them....they are yours.
>likewise, you are always welcome to come and be a part.

Matt, the PC crowd has simply redefined sin to suit themselves. Part of what suits them about this new definition is that they have new grounds to flog other people. That's where the superciliousness of neopagan Christolopia.

When God told Moses to warn the Israelites about homosexuality, the global pagan culture of the time actually celebrated homosexuality. When St. Paul told his flock that homosexuality was still wrong, even though Jesus had risen from the dead with forgiveness for all, the pagan Roman culture had already begun to celebrate homosexuality in a way that made even the conservative pagans uneasy. Thus your false claim that God suddenly looks favorably on homosexuality now that Christians and Jews have agreed amongst themselves to revert to paganism is exposed for what it is.

What has happened is that a lot of Christians have rejected Christ as their king, and have preferred to reduce him to a lower status in order to return to the days of the Judges, when "every man did what was right in his own eyes." Everybody doing his own thing, with the bandaid of pretending to follow social conventions is basically the main argument of the "diversity" cults such as the Community of Christ.

I ordinarily would say that this is a free country and that you may believe and do as you like, but the situation is completely out of my hands. As you recall from the preface to Huxley's "Brave New World," government accepatance and promotion of polysexuality is what a dictatorship grudgingly provides for its citizens to compensate them for their complete loss of any other freedoms. It is a one-sided bargain, and I do not choose to enter it voluntarily, no matter what sophistry is offered in its defense.

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Matt Lowry goes incognito -- -, 02:03:55 11/17/12 Sat