Charleston

The tragedy in Charlston is lamentable and horrible beyond words.   I am in awe of the way the victims families are handling this whole ordeal.    Hope is that the God who created all things will come near to each of the family members and wrap them in His peace.  

Before this goes further

I know this is a bit strange, but I wanted to get this settled before things went any further.    So, I'd like to try to clarify something.

You frequently use the term "rules", many times it seems that you use the term in an almost dismissive fashion.  What I would like to have you clarify is what you mean by the term "rules".    I presume that you are using the term as a shorthand for what the Scripture refers to as Law(s), The Law, Commandments, and Ordinances.     I have no problem using the shortcut, I just want to be clear about what meaning your are assigning to the term and whether or not you see some sort of differences between the terms.

A quick follow up

I think that there is a phenomenon in Christian circles that has spawned the type of thinking seen in the previous post.

Some friends of mine used to put it like this.

"People want Jesus to be their savior, but not their Lord"

I see this playing out differently of both sides of the spectrum

On the more conservative side this looks like someone who "commits their life to Christ", but still wants to hang onto that one (or more) thing that they/we just enjoy too much to turn over to God.    Usually, this is manifested as certain areas of ones life that one keeps private (from people) which entail things or habits or behaviors that one (we) know are wrong but don't want to give up.

On the more liberal side it takes a couple of different forms.

The first is what we are seeing from a growing number of influential folks who label themselves as progressive christians.   This one is the "If there even is a god, he is so loving and tolerant that he doesn't really care about stuff like sin, so as long as you're a good person it's OK."

The second is the folks who want a savior who is going to save people from whatever they perceive as the most pressing societal ill.   Poverty, Pollution, Racism, Climate, whatever.   They want a god who will come and save us from stuff and if he decides to use government mandates to do so, well that's OK too.

Ultimately, we see this playing out with (some) folks on the right focusing on personal piety as well as the public "sins", while failing to grasp (or ungrasp) what holiness is.   While in the left, we see anything from a denial of sin entirely to an almost relativistic view of sin (Well that might be sin to you, but...).

So, what's the answer?    I'd suggest that the place to start is to put God in His proper place, submit to His authority (even when we don't like it), and accept His gift of grace that gives us a clean slate.   I'd suggest that if we'd get the hierarchy straightened out and live like people who have been given a marvelous gift, that you'd see less of the social ills and we'd start to see the beginning of the Kingdom of God on earth, as It is in Heaven.

"God-given sexuality"

I saw this term used recently, and I found it a bit confusing.  starting with how the terms are Defined.

In this context does "God given", mean that God has "given" humans parameters for what is and is not appropriate behavior?   Does "God given" mean that whatever it is that "God" gave us, is objective, clear and understandable?   If it is, then where does one find out what "God" gave us on this topic?  If not, then how could one not argue that anything fits under that category of "God given"?    How did "God" give us this information?  How do we know if it is really from God?

One way to look at this is through the lens of who God is (or at least how God is portrayed in the Bible).    If Jesus choice of topics is any indication, then one could reasonably conclude that God is "King".     One way one could conclude this is the fact that in the existing record of Jesus words he uses the phrase "Kingdom of God" between 90 and 100 times.  He uses the term "King" between 10 and 20 times. He uses the term "Your/His Kingdom twice, and tells 3 parables about the what "Kingdom of God" is like.    So, it seems safe to conclude that it is at least within the realm of probability that God is King of something.

If one was somehow willing to grant the above point, then it seems that one might ask, what does that mean?

One possible conclusion that could be drawn is that God is (in fact) the King of all creation.     Or one could conclude that God (or god) is King (or king) of something, but not everything.  

So, what is a king (or King)?   According to the dictionary.com folks we find that two definitions are relevant here.

"1. a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people. "

"2.(initial capital letter) God or Christ."

So, one could reasonably conclude that when Jesus spoke of the "Kingdom of God", he was speaking of a realm where God was the chief authority.   Most Christians would probably substitute "sole" for "chief", but I think the point stands.

What does that leave us with then,   If "God given sexuality" does exist, then wouldn't it follow that something "given" by the King would be really more in the nature of an ordinance or command?   Further, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that something  of this nature "given" by the King would be communicated in some rational way?   I mean really, what good is it to be King (king) if your gifts, wishes, ordinances, and commands are so vague and amorphous that no on can really grasp exactly what you meant?

I could go on, but I think my questions are enough for now.

Yet, we must grapple with the term "sexuality".    If the term is used to mean that God has created humans to reproduce sexually, and that there is/are feelings of pleasure as well as emotional bonds created between the male and female sexual partners, then I suspect some might quibble around the edges, but at least agree in principle.

But, like many terms today, this seems to be one which can be used to mean virtually anything or nothing, potentially both at the same time.

So, we're left with a few questions before even evaluating whether of not the claim is reasonable.

What exactly is the definition of that term?
What, specifically, is sexuality?
Why did God "give us" a sexuality?
How do we know sexuality is "God given"?
If we don't live within the parameters of what God gave us concerning sexuality are we breaking a rule?

In the end we are left with a statement that at least implies multiple claims of fact.

1.   There there is a God

2.   That God gives us things in general

3.   That God have given us a specific "sexuality"

4.   That is is possible to know what #3 refers to and to understand that scope of what we have been given

5.   That there is a scope of "God given sexuality", which can be known and adhered to

6.   The straying outside of the scope of "God given sexuality" could be problematic

This may get continued, but I wanted to throw it out.

Free at last, Free at last....

The ransom has been paid, it's time to move into the future without the baggage.