|
|
"I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural. I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God. I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity. I believe in the church of everyday saints as numerous, creative and resilient as patches on the AIDS quilt, whose feet are grounded in mud and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder. I believe in the calling to each of us that love is love is love, so beloved, let us love. I believe, glorious God. Help my unbelief."
The paragraph you just read above is not anything from the Bible, nor anything that could possibly be honestly extrapolated from the Bible. It is the easily debunked delusion of those who worship designer gods. I likely wouldn't have devoted any time to addressing such absurdity, but the church where this blasphemy occurred is in my home state and near our largest metropolis. Since I stated that the Alphabet Creed is easily debunked, I'll do so now. Original text from the spurious doctrine in italics, my commentary in regular text. I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural. The Bible uses masculine pronouns to describe the Lord. However, as God is not flesh as we are, and resides in a form of existence that transcends our physical realm, gender is likely not an appropriate identifier. Which is to say, since the Hebrew and Greek texts do not mention God having a wife, it is likely that gender and sex were created for our form of existence and have no significant relevance in Heaven. This must necessarily confound those who prefer to interpret their entire identity through the lens of what they do in the bedroom. It is convenient that God is referred to occasionally in the plural in the Bible, if one seeks to project a non-binary sexual agenda onto scripture. However in Heaven there is no marriage (Matthew 22:29-30), so the whole binary/non-binary dispute becomes moot as applied to God Himself. Sex is apparently restricted to our fleshly life on Earth, and the sole purpose of its existence was to fill the Earth with genetic variance, using sexual reproduction instead of asexual reproduction to accomplish this goal (Genesis 1:27-28). How we view sex in 'modern' times has very little to do with the mysterious gift God originally gave us. I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, The "their child" reference is a convenient insertion, in light of the current grammatically incorrect use of pronouns for those who are confused about who they are, and it expands on the previous sentence ascribing non-binary status to God. In terms of believing in Jesus Christ, it should be noted that demons believe in Jesus Christ also, and tremble because of it (James 2:19). who wore a fabulous tunic I almost chuckled at the adjective. Using the word 'fabulous' is really pushing the cliché boundaries in a homosexually oriented article of faith. I certainly wasn't there when Jesus was preaching two thousand years ago, and perhaps He did wear a fancy outfit when he addressed crowds. However, the obvious directive to exercise humility despite His infinite power suggests that He could have just as easily worn nothing special. and had two dads Another opportunity to insert homosexual agenda, as the whole "Heather has two mommies" public declaration has long since gone beyond novel concept to accepted and celebrated reality. Jesus had one father, the Lord, and a man who raised him as an adoptive father. This situation is nothing like the arrangement of two homosexual men raising an either adopted or surrogate-produced child. It's also nothing like the earthly divorce equivalent, which is parents dissolving their marriage, and a new father marrying the mother. Mary was not formerly married to the Lord. The Holy Spirit implanted a seed in her womb. There was no sex and no marriage involved. and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God. "Sibling-child" sounds a lot like manipulating language, which has been a tactic of the Left for a long time in Western culture, but much more markedly in the last twenty years, which conveniently matches the chronology of United States culture since the 1960's in terms of Romans 1:18-32. Is uttering the new term "sibling-child" supposed to be an interpretation of Biblical references to the children of God? If so, the logic is already faulty, as the sentence refers to everyone as a child of God, and the Bible is very clear that this is not so. Yes, we are all created in the image of God. Yes, the Lord would prefer we all come to repentance, this is why He's been so patient and slow in returning for the final days (2 Peter 3:8-10). However, not just the Hebrew scriptures demarcate between those who serve God and those who do not. Jesus Himself also made a clear distinction between the children of God and the children of Satan (John 8:42-47). I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity. Of course someone with a homosexual agenda in the 21st century would take a symbol of God's promise not to destroy humanity with water ever again, imbue it with a complete non-sequitur reference to homosexuality, and blasphemously ascribe it to the Holy Spirit. To describe the refraction of God's light into a "rainbow of gorgeous diversity" is a ridiculous attempt to twist the purity of God into arbitrary GLAAD wish-fulfillment that has absolutely nothing to do with anything written in God's Word or on the hearts of those who honestly seek God in truth. When we come to the Lord, we come with complete and utter humility, or we're just deceiving ourselves. The Lord, on the other hand, is not deceived, ever (Galatians 6:7-8). I believe in the church of everyday saints as numerous, creative and resilient as patches on the AIDS quilt, I'm not familiar with the "church of everday saints." Is this a new denomination? It certainly doesn't appear as an official sect in an Internet search. No matter. Let's look at the "numerous, creative and resilient as patches on the AIDS quilt" passage. "Numerous" is surely meant to encourage, and in terms of percentages of the population, statistics do seem to indicate that the alphabet collective is increasing at an ever growing rate every year. Ironically, this destroys any previous claims to genetic predispositions and transfers incidence rates to cultural influence, but that's for another essay. "Creative" is another homosexual cliché, as most people recognize that creativity and homosexuality are often shared traits. Let's avoid digressing to silliness here; I'm not saying or even implying that creativity suggests homosexuality. But a larger percentage of high-profile creative individuals are homosexual than the general population. "Resilient" is likely a GLAAD-approved adjective, as we are constantly reminded how much homosexuals were oppressed in the past, and they all came through with flying rainbow colors, so let's all salute their brave and courageous accomplishment of eating, sleeping, working and breathing every day. It doesn't take an Einstein to understand why "as patches on the AIDS quilt" was included. Another reminder of how homosexuals are oppressed, except in the case of AIDS quilts, because those patches could have been much less numerous if certain subcultures weren't so familiar with orgies and anonymous sexual antics. whose feet are grounded in mud This reference genuinely confuses me, as I'm not sure if it's meant to imply humility, or unintentional admission of sexual amorality. Simply saying "feet are grounded" would have had a more respectable tone. Mud seems to call attention to something dirty, which doesn't bring to mind uplifting concepts. and whose eyes gaze at the stars in wonder. An attempt to appeal to others as accessible and as possessing shared appreciation for the glorious wonder of nature. But wonder is a human commonality, and as God's creation is beyond our ability to fathom, to gaze at it in awe is a normal, expected reaction that has nothing to with what one does with his or her genitals. Gazing at the stars in wonder also has nothing to do with the whereabouts of the Lord. The Lord is simultaneously at the other end of the universe and 'standing' right next to us. Heaven is not in outer space, the Lord is not a bearded sky daddy living on a distant planet, and His ability to know everything we do and to know everything we think for every second of every day is not a magical feat at all. Those abilities are the natural result of who God is and where He resides, and also in contrast, a result of what we are and where we reside. I believe in the calling to each of us that love is love is love, "Love is love is love" is "love is love" extended for effect. "Love is love" has become a popular declaration that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love. But is it? That depends on what kind of love you're referring to. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can certainly both experience and express friendship, familial love, altruism and self-love. However, the similarities end with sexual love, and that is the exact form of love that the slogan is referring to. There is also an element of deliberate conflation present, which seeks to combine the similar expressions of friendship, familial love, altruism and self-love with erotic love. The purpose of conflating all five together is it appears to confirm that heterosexuals and homosexuals are both the same in how they express love. The only problem with that conflation is that the Bible expressly identifies homosexual sex as unnatural and detrimental to the individual and community. So, if one is simply being honest and not being clever or manipulative, love is not love. Human manifestations of love are not all the same, and are not identically expressed across the sexual spectrum. so beloved, let us love. This remainder of the sentence is supposed to be the conclusion that follows the "love is love is love" conjecture. So having allegedly established that all expressions of love are the same, then let's have at it and express love in any way we choose, regardless of dissent from the Word of God about particular activities. Well, Lord forgive me for adopting the glib phraseology of the sensually overloaded denizens of our relativistic cultural imbroglio, but I'm left with this sentiment in response to the Sparkle Creed: "You do you." I of course strenuously disagree with going against the natural order God designed, but I also recognize that it's not my place to force others to comply with the Lord's tenets, so in a free will universe, I think every adult should walk his or her own path. Ideally that would be the narrow path through the strait gate, but unfortunately not everyone agrees. I believe, glorious God. As referenced earlier in this essay, believing is not enough. Here's the fully expanded verse: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." --James 2:19 For good measure, here's more from Jesus Himself: "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." --Matthew 7:20-23 Help my unbelief. Indeed. However, upon closer examination, that sentence should read instead: "Protect me from false belief." The absence of that sentiment in their prayers may be the reason why their false belief is allowed to continue. |