Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 239 (26900)
12-16-2002 8:34 PM


Guys, given the right amount of effort, a human sexual organ can be stimulated sufficiently with anything from a cucumber, a tree trunk, or a non-human animal. Whether or not the proclivity to do so is genetic is academic though, if God happens to say that such practices are degrading to you as a person and not what he had in mind for you. That is the basis of the Christian prohibition against homosexuality -- God says it isn't good for us.
All the way from Leviticus it is clear that homosexuality, among a number of other practices (idol worship, drunkenness, any kind of sexual promiscuity, etc.), was something that the God of the Bible thought was something that hindered us becoming closer to him. It was for our protection and growth that he asked us for obedience in regards to these things. Like a loving parent who doesn't ask us to do something we may not understand at first except out of love and concern for us.

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 9:21 PM zipzip has replied
 Message 147 by John, posted 12-16-2002 10:20 PM zipzip has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 239 (26932)
12-17-2002 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by nator
12-16-2002 9:21 PM


...Do you like to watch gladiator movies, Tommy? Have you ever seen a grown man naked? Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
Hey, c'mon. I said all the way from Leviticus, not I practice Levitical law. Although Jesus said nothing would pass from the law until all was fulfilled, it is pretty clear that as Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, the expression of the Law changed dramatically as a result of his presence. The NT makes this clear, which is why Paul and later Peter make such a big deal about why Gentiles (like me and a lot of you folks) needn't be concerned about acting like Jews. I would be a judaizer if I practiced OT law, something that is regarded as heretical in Christian doctrine.
I have read Leviticus (in fact I just re-read it...it is not very long and not all that hard to read). A lot is reasonable, a lot is pretty tough stuff to swallow. But I certainly did not live in that time, in which most of the Jews' neighbors practiced appalling forms of incest, bestiality, ritual human sacrifice, forced ritual temple male/female prostitution/rape, and child murder. The reason why Leviticus has such pointed prohibitions of these deplorable acts ("do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt."etc.) was because they were *commonplace* in the surrounding area.
In this context, much of Levitical law is amazing -- modern prohibitions against rape and incest, prohibitions against eating raw meat, the idea that you *should not touch* the discharge from a gaping, festering wound in another man's body, on and on. Some of these people were obviously incredibly ignorant, and much of Leviticus fills them in on common sense items. Even the culmination of the "eye for an eye/ tooth for a tooth" ideal, which is so often *misunderstood* -- it is the astonishing (and modern) idea that the punishment should fit the crime. If a man steals something, make him pay it back -- don't kill him or cut off his hand.
There are also some pretty tough consequences for certain actions -- prostitution, adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. The way I read it, these were all held in the same low esteem. And for a wandering clan whose neighbors did all of these things with abandon, maybe the threat of a death was the only thing that shook people up enough to make them realize just how seriously God took the behavior of his chosen people. God has his reasons, and I'm not going to do any handwaving. Yet people don't make as much of a deal of adultery being on the list. It is really commonplace and the basis of movies and bestsellers everywhere. Jesus did not throw the first stone at the adulterous woman, instead he forgave her and told her to stop sinning. I'll bet he would not throw the first stone at a homosexual, either, particularly since I'm sure they were part of his usual entourage of followers, some of whom were former prostitutes, tax collecters, and thieves as well.
An entirely different segment of Leviticus deals with temple practices which are in and of themselves fascinating and I do not pretend to entirely understand some of them. But I do gain the sense that while other gods were asking for the sacrifice of firstborn children and forced rape, the God of the Bible was asking for offerings that people could make reasonably while still instilling in them a vision of the sacrifice that God promised he would make for them one day (even with compassion -- if you can't afford the sacrifice, use doves instead, if you can't afford that, use some grain -- the same as the widow's tiny sacrifice in the NT where the heart behind the sacrifice means more than the sacrifice itself). This is obvious and a keystone of both Judaism and Christianity, since the whole thing starts with Abraham and Isaac --> 'Isaac, you don't have to sacrifice your only son, I will sacrifice mine. But I want you to sacrifice some of what I give you so that you understand just a little bit of what it is I will go through when I send my son.'
Looked at in that light (which really is the most reasonable way to look at it), the portion of Leviticus that deals with temple worship is an amazing picture of God's holiness and deep capacity for forgiveness.
As far as the testicle / nose / deformity question -- it is pretty clear in the Leviticus ch. 21 that Levites (the priestly tribe) were in fact not supposed to approach the altar if they had any of these unfortunate qualities. Yet a deformed priest was allowed to "eat the most holy food of his God," an high honor not afforded to the general population, healthy or not. I think this was a reflection of the fact that each sacrificial animal was also meant to be perfect -- this was in keeping with perfect reverence for the Lord and the perfect sacrifice he would make in Christ.
Handicapped people were cared for, loved, and treated as equals except in this regard -- elsewhere in the region they were lucky if they were not killed at birth. Perhaps you should marvel that the law should mention handicapped people at all, which suggests that they were commonplace. *Think on this*
As for the hair question -- yes it says that Jews were not to cut their sideburns or beards, so any Jew doing this would be directly disobeying that part of the Law and probably also sleeping with his aunt(!). At the same time, aliens (who might not have beards at all) were to be loved and treated as equals, because "you were aliens in the land of Egypt". This is pretty neat stuff, actually. To take these things out of context is goofy. If that is all you got out of Leviticus you need to *slow down* and ... get Hooked on Phonics! Also try to think about context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 9:21 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 9:12 AM zipzip has replied
 Message 153 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 AM zipzip has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 239 (26991)
12-17-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
12-17-2002 9:12 AM


I don't pick and choose -- that is perilous. The NT is pretty clear that strict adherence to Levitical law (temple sacrificial practice and associated cleanliness law etc.) was not necessary after the fulfillment of the Law through Christ (Christ was the final and ultimate sacrifice that all other sacrifices had merely been symbolic reflections of). Particularly not for a Gentile like me. Still, I take them seriously because they speak about God's character.
The Law talks about what it would take to be perfect, because his chosen people wanted such a Law. But because God understood that no human could possibly stand blameless before the Law, he had compassion on us and gave us a way out through Christ --> again, sacrifice was only a symbolic act, looking forward to Messiah.
If you free me from need to take part in sacrifice and to approach the altar, the only thing left I need to take a look at are the moral Levitical guidelines for acceptable living and against prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and certain other behaviors that God makes clear are not acceptable in his sight (then, now, or ever).
But at the same time, God tells me that Judgement is his and not mine, and while the Law is unyielding as any Law must be, I know that the Judge has compassion. I know this because the incredible patience and compassion of God through the OT and Christ in the NT is consistent throughout. (People talk about how the God of the OT acts like a three-year old but it is clear to me that he shows supernatural restraint as his chosen people continually reject him and worship idols, sacrifice their children to Molech, and bow down to Baal; only coming back to him after he allows them to suffer the consequences of their betrayal (tough love). And yet he always welcomes them back like stray children and somehow offers them yet another unilateral pact in which they have nothing to offer.)
The Law is unbending as it must be, but we know that the Judge is not, that is the key. Christ forgives us and so we are to forgive. He will judge as he sees fit. At the same time, as his people we need to practice discernment and avoid and not tolerate active disobedience against God amongst ourselves. To do so would be a reflection of a heart that does not care what God has to say.
The bottom line is that sometimes being a Christian makes a difference in a person's life, changes their behavior. That can be (really) difficult sometimes, but based on God's character as revealed in the Bible you've just got to have faith that God has our best interests in mind and not that he asking us to obey him for spite or because he wants to stop us from having a good time. "If you, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so does your Father in Heaven?"(paraphrase)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 9:12 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-18-2002 6:22 PM zipzip has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 239 (27006)
12-17-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by John
12-17-2002 11:32 AM


John, that stuff was in Leviticus because people were doing it. And after the Law, it for the most part wasn't the Jews. That is just straightforward contextual reading and reasonably safe for any intelligent person. I know enough about other peoples in the region to know that I am not far off when I say this.
The problem I have with your interpretation (and I say this seriously because I see a part of myself in you) is that is 1) shallow, lacking context (spiritual and textual) and 2) assumes that God is nasty, vicious, and spiteful, which is completely out of character from the God I read about and even goes against what the Jews say about the character of their own God.
In other words, you are way off in left field and I honestly don't know how you got there except by deep internal mistrust and blindness, which is sad and needs to be fixed. I don't have time right now to go verse by verse through your list, but I suspect it is the usual compendium of misread context. But the verses I do recognize by sight I think have reasonable contextual answers -- perhaps a good thing for you to do is to get a Schofield reference text or a Life Application Bible and read the notes to start yourself out. Then I will go one by one if you type in the text and do a careful introductory exegesis so that I can rebut carefully and thoughtfully.
In the meantime, you need to go and do what I have done and continually do 0) ask God for help with understanding 1) read the Bible through with the help of someone who is wiser than yourself 2) get an overall view of the sweep of Biblical history 3) get an overall view of the character and nature of God and his plan for humankind 4) re-read the Bible with newfound wisdom, visiting those passages that you took offense at in the first go-around and examine the context carefully 5) go talk to someone wiser than yourself about the passages that still don't jive 6) pray about it 7) don't give up until it makes sense and it all fits together, which it will.
Based on your previous passages, I suspect you haven't done your homework (I suspect this because these are the kinds of things I said when I was deeply ignorant and mistrustful of the Bible). I've been doing my homework steadily for 20 years and even I have still got plenty of lessons left.
John, you sound as though you have been isolated from the Christian church for many years, not in fellowship with other Christians (one of the things that is essential in building discernment, wisdom, and understanding), and you note that you actively disobey/disbelieve God. If the Bible is true, there is *no way* you could have any sense of it or the character of God at all -- the Bible is clear on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by John, posted 12-17-2002 1:19 PM zipzip has replied
 Message 158 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:21 PM zipzip has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 239 (27039)
12-17-2002 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by John
12-17-2002 1:19 PM


John, folks who have thought about these things a lot more than either of us have written books on just bits of your previous post. That is why I cannot go line by line like you and write a little bit to give you a pat answer and still be intellectually honest.
Which verse from Leviticus or other portion of the OT would you like to start with first so that we can give this a careful, thoughtful inspection? I stand by my assertion that your interpretation is shallow. You list the verse, but do not indicate the actual text, contextual or historical information that is pertinent, or the translation (if any) that you are using; then you assume that my interpretation of this particular text (lacking context) is the same as yours. That is not an exegesis, and it isn't intellectually honest.
Let's be honest and if you have serious questions about some verses in the Bible then lets tackle them one at a time and enlist the help of others as we think about what each might mean in context.
To Gene90, with all due respect, the Bible stands on its own. And to anyone careful and thoughtful enough to regard the context of a particular verse, every bit of scripture has value (as the NT also tells us).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by John, posted 12-17-2002 1:19 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:33 PM zipzip has replied
 Message 184 by John, posted 12-18-2002 12:39 AM zipzip has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 239 (27064)
12-17-2002 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by gene90
12-17-2002 2:33 PM


Gene,
If the Bible doesn't support the idea of a pope, then you ought to be able to walk up to a Catholic and talk it over. If they are a Christian and there is a definite prohibition in the Bible: "thou shalt not have popes" then somebody needs to make a decision. The Amish can do as they please, although some would say they are shirking Christ's great command: "Go make disciples of all nations..." But that is not for me or anyone else but the Amish to decide.
I assume you are referring to the BOM, etc. The point is the Bible has to stand on its own anyway, Gene, because it has been around for a lot longer that the BOM. The OT stands on its own, the OT+NT stands on its own, and by that same token, the OT+NT+BOM should stand on its own if the BOM is legitimate.
Besides that there are a number of scriptural references within the Bible that are clear that the Bible stands on its own and that none of it has ever been or will ever be irrelevant --> "all scripture is...useful for teaching and exhortation" "not on jot nor tittle will pass from the Law..." etc.
Where a person gets into trouble is by throwing things out. If the Bible doesn't fit with what you believe the answer is not to start throwing things out. Much better to learn to understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:33 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 5:21 PM zipzip has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 239 (27155)
12-18-2002 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by John
12-18-2002 12:39 AM


John, I was not trying to be preachy. Just honest. I apologize if I came off that way. I really think that by taking these verses on one at a time in context, they can be made clear.
Okay, I will start at the top and will be brief, which this medium requires.
1)It starts right off the bat with Adam n Eve's kids. Lot's daughters take a ride on old dad in Gen. 19:30-38.
As Funkmaster notes, this is a recounting of historical events. Note that the narrator simply (and dryly) notes the details of the pairing and spares the reader any editorial opinion. This is common in both the OT and NT, but in any case suggests that either the cultural and religious context of the events made such an opinion redundant or that the writer (and therefore God) is giving this event a pass.
Since a number of OT passages are very clear on incest, drunkeness and whatever else went on here, and the audience was a Hebrew one, it is reasonable to assume that the automatic response would be strong disapproval. The idea that God is giving this event a pass is not supportable given the local and/or global (textual) context in which this event occurs.
What we do note from the text is that this was a pairing of desperation rather than incestuous desire. Lot's daughters were isolated from civilization after the destruction of Sodom, with no hopes for marriage or family. Their main concern is that they "preserve our family line through our father." Rather than waiting for God, they do this despicable and pitiful thing.
It is interesting to note that the outcome of this pairing takes the form of two sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi, which the text notes are the fathers of the Moabites and Ammonites. Both of these peoples became implacable enemies of Israel, a sad outcome for this family. As you say, Ruth (a heroine of the Bible and the namesake of the love story Ruth), a descendent of Moab, was great-grandmother of King David and therefore an ancestor of Jesus. It is fascinating that Ruth marries Boaz, descended from Rahab, the former prostitute of Jericho (who helped the Israelites defeat Jericho). God has the power to transform the outcome of any sin to produce good.
Although this is a difficult text, it is straightforward in the sense that understanding the intended audience and the scriptural context clears up any apparent discrepancies. This is why, for instance, the original authors who wrote this text and generations of Jews studying the Torah have not stumbled over this passage.
2)Rueben sleeps with his dad's concubine in Gen 35:22.
This brings the sons of Jacob to twelve. God does, in Gen. 49:4, state that Rueben will not excel because of this; right after, in Gen 49:3, lavishing some hefty praise on him.
Unless I misread the text, Reuben's act did not result in offspring, certainly not in a younger brother/son. Benjamin is the youngest, the son of Rachel. In Gen 42:32, the brothers note that "we were twelve brothers, sons of one father."
As you note, Reuben's sin (again told of in a non-editorializing format) has later severe consequences. On his deathbead, Jacob takes away Reuben's birthright because Reuben has "defiled" his father's bed. The 'hefty praise' you note seems more like the first part of a 1-2 punch, and does not seem to contradict the idea that Reuben's actions had consequences.
The text in NIV is:
Gen 49:3-4 -- Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, the first sign of my strength, excelling in honor, excelling in power.[present tense] Turbulent as the waters [unstable / untrustworthy at times], you will no longer excel for you went up onto your father's bed, onto my couch and defiled it.[future tense]
Reuben is indeed Jacob's firstborn and the first sign of his strength (another way of saying firstborn). Before Jacob was on his deathbed, Reuben may have had a reputation of being an honorable and powerful man. As firstborn, he almost certainly held sway over the other brothers and their families in a very noticeable way.
But Jacob recognizes that Reuben has also been at times untrustworthy (in this case despicably so) and for this removes his birthright. This recognition had gone unspoken for many years, although "all israel" apparently knew about the original act. Jacob also tells Reuben that from this point on Reuben will not excel as he had before (perhaps as a result of not receiving the birthright and because of this open airing of 'dirty laundry').
This passage appears to me to be straightforward. Again, we know from cultural context that the intent of the original authors was not to cast doubt on the God they worshipped. This makes it very unlikely that any internal inconsistency was apparent at the time this text was written. Any apparent inconsistency that might occur is probably due to our modern misreading or misinterpretation of the text, the context, or in our understanding of the intended audience (the cultural and religious context).
John, I am not an expert at this type of thing, but I know that a careful exegesis of the Bible is essential for understanding. A prerequesite for understanding the Bible, though, is to assume that God is omnipotent, compassionate, merciful, forgiving, and just. Now hold on a second if your sensibilities are riled!
This is a prerequisite because this is the assumption that the original authors of the Bible were under -- in essence, this was the 'given' of the text. To read it with an eye to discredit or impugn God will always leave you blinded by apparent inconsistencies because the intent of the authors and the mindset of the intended audience has been ignored. In other words, you have to adopt the mindset of the authors and the intended audience to really understand the Bible the way it was intended.
Now about the other passages, this is way past my bedtime. I would welcome some help from others if they wish to chime in and look at the other passages in message #153? Funkmaster, care to take one on? If not, I will get to it later.
Take care, John and all

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by John, posted 12-18-2002 12:39 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by John, posted 12-18-2002 5:41 PM zipzip has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 239 (27157)
12-18-2002 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by funkmasterfreaky
12-18-2002 1:39 AM


Thanks, Funk. It is easy to get riled sometimes. Thankfully the Bible stands on its own. Besides, John will make an intelligent, eloquent, and thoughtful Christian someday. I would rather we be friends when that day comes around. [meant in all seriousness, John]
in <><

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-18-2002 1:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 239 (27235)
12-18-2002 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by nator
12-18-2002 10:47 AM


I don't understand, what is the point of taking this out of context? The beginning of the passage is earlier:
If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit. Your threshing will continue until grape harvest and the grape harvest will continue until planting, and you will eat all the food you want and live in the safety in your land.
I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid....
...I will look on you with favor and make you fruitful and increase your numbers and I will keep my covenant with you...
v.14: But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail t carry out all my commands, and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you...
v.18: If after all this you will not listen to me...
v.21: If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me...
v.23: If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me...
v.27: If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile to me...
v.40: But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers -- their treachery against me and their hostility toward me...
In other words, these people just would not get the picture and God removed his blessing from them.
The grand sweep of the history of Israel is one of a wayward child that continually cycles between desperate wickedness and disobedience (anywhere from sacrificing on the high places to sacrificing children to Molech like their neighbors) and acknowledgment of the one true God. Despite their incredible history of betrayal, forgetfulness, and ingratitude, God repeatedly takes Israel back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by nator, posted 12-18-2002 10:47 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by nator, posted 12-19-2002 11:02 AM zipzip has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 239 (27398)
12-19-2002 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by nator
12-19-2002 11:02 AM


I agree that bad things happen to certain people in the Bible that repeatedly disobey God after they have been warned. Punishment, justice, bad stuff, whatever you want to call it is fine with me. Most of the time, though, God is patient. That's the point of all those passages in Proverbs about the sun rising on the good as well as the wicked, etc.
However, I was only taking exception with you terming these punishments "evil". This passage describes people doing terrible, despicable things with the full knowledge that they are directly disobeying God's commands, even after being warned repeated by God to stop or face the consequences. (although actually, this passage is just the warning and not a record of what happened). Whether this makes them evil and stupid or just evil, I'm not sure. But I have little sympathy for them and have no problem with God warning people like this to shape up or allowing the awful repercussions of their deeds to catch up with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by nator, posted 12-19-2002 11:02 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 2:55 AM zipzip has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 239 (27462)
12-20-2002 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by shilohproject
12-20-2002 2:55 AM


I agree with you on some points, I think. I think our actions have consequences, and that is supported in the Bible.
So one form of God's intervention is indirect -- the consequences of our own actions can be our undoing when we stray from God's will. He asks us to live a certain way, we don't on purpose and he allows us to face the consequences. I don't count dying heroically to save someone from a fire as an undoing, because our eternal well-being is God's first priority. In the Christian sense, life is eternal so no matter if you die if you know him (Paul says "for me to live is Christ, to die is gain"). It is just a matter of whether you choose to spend it with God or apart from him for eternity.
Another form of intervention is direct, and there are (like indirect) a number of examples in the Bible. This is where God actively intervenes. This includes the acts of Jesus and the Apostles.
As to why God does not always intervene to stop 'evildoers' before they do evil, that has been a matter of debate amongst theologians and laypeople for many years. My personal take is that free will plays an important role -- God allows us to make decisions and influence the lives of others. We will be judged on how we influence others.
That's a tough answer but from the numerous examples of God's mercy and compassion in the Bible, I accept that he will judge us fairly, including taking into account every possible thing in our hearts, which he knows more intimately than we do. The point is, he judges --not us. If you believe in him, you have to have faith in his wisdom because we cannot fathom his thoughts ("my ways are not your ways...")
That brings up the original point of homosexuality. God loves homosexuals an infinite amount, more than we could possibly imagine, the same as heterosexuals. Like everybody else, homosexuals are of infinite value as people. But the same as adultery, promiscuity, and a multitud of other ways we can disobey God, this is one behavior that we know from Scripture that God didn't intend for us.
So you can be a active homosexual Christian the same that you can be an adulterous Christian, or a Christian who lusts, or drinks too much. Or one bowled over by the insidious sin of pride, which blinds us to all others. God has mercy on us and forgives any sin if we seek him faithfully, and gives us the gift of introspection so we learn to see our own hearts in more detail.
But the NT is clear that we 'grieve the Holy Spirit' when we continually and willfully disobey God's instruction (def. of sin) and do not try to turn away (repent) from our disobedience, and this stunts Christian growth and keeps us from knowing him as we should and becoming the kind of people that he made us to be.
I don't think an active, teaching-others-its-okay homosexuality is okay in a Christian for that reason. If it is a struggle and you slip now and again, be open about it but continue to reach out to others for support, struggle, and pray -- don't teach others that because it is so hard to beat that it must be okay.
It is the same as any other willful disobedience that we all struggle with -- damn hard to kick (and maybe we never do), and requiring faith in God to make it happen. The answer is to trust God and persevere (see Hebrews ch.12), not give in and then rationalize. That is the basis of the Christian struggle and it is hard work for everybody. Often the weakness is the blessing because it makes it obvious to us just how much we need the Lord and we seek him all the more.
None of this is any excuse for someone, a Christian or anybody else, to judge someone else. The only think I think has a place is discernment, discrimination (in the good sense of determining what is spiritually edifying and what is not), encouragement and support. In other words, if somebody is just happy doing something that you think is wrong and doesn't want support or encouragment in their nonexistant struggle with sin, then move on and maybe later they will decide to change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 2:55 AM shilohproject has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 11:27 AM zipzip has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 239 (27532)
12-20-2002 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by shilohproject
12-20-2002 11:27 AM


Shiloh, I agree mostly about bad things happening and it not being God's direct action. But almost any Christian will tell you that God has intervened directly in their lives, and is a real presence to them. Remember the scripture where Elijah waits for God and the storm and the earthquake pass, but he is not in either of those? Instead he is a quiet voice; I think that is how God is most evident in the lives of most people.
I don't think the huge catastrophic interventions we like to think about when we hear the word 'miracle' happen very often. But at some point they will again -- the Bible says Christ is coming back in person, and if he does that should qualify as direct intervention.
I agree that love is a miracle.
[This message has been edited by zipzip, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 11:27 AM shilohproject has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 9:53 AM zipzip has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 239 (29467)
01-18-2003 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by nator
01-16-2003 8:20 AM


Actually you bring up a good point. The origin of the Santa Claus legend can be traced to an actual person -- St. Nicholas, bishop of a Turkish city called Myra during the 4th century AD. The legend of Kris Kringle is related and is a mangling of the German 'Kristkindl' or Christ child.
So Santa Claus does exist in a manner of speaking (although is not alive in our time) and his physical remains probably exist somewhere in Asia Minor. This illustrates an interesting point -- oral tradition is a powerful conveyor of knowledge that is often based in fact. Written word is even more powerful, allowing facts to pass nearly unmolested throughout the world and through time. Fascinating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 01-16-2003 8:20 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by John, posted 01-18-2003 10:23 AM zipzip has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 239 (29542)
01-19-2003 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by John
01-18-2003 10:23 AM


No, it is germaine to the discussion. Santa Claus was held up as an example of pure myth, even though his existence appears to be based in actual history. My point is that not all old stories should be treated the same, because many old stories may have a basis in fact and may teach us something instructive. The decision to use our faculties for judicious (and if needed, subtle) discrimination is key if this discussion is to lead us anwhere except deeper into ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by John, posted 01-18-2003 10:23 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by John, posted 01-19-2003 1:06 PM zipzip has not replied
 Message 235 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 10:01 AM zipzip has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 239 (29952)
01-22-2003 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by nator
01-20-2003 9:53 AM


Schraf, that was the point about Elijah and God's presence more often being the quiet voice of instruction and encouragement that speaks to us through the routine of our lives, rather that the thunderous miraculous things that really do not have God in them at all.
The Bible says that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts...it may not always be apparent to us what is a blessing and what is not at least not until much later. Just like children with loving parents, we may not understand until much later how God's influence and actions have helped us. As one involved with the medical profession I have seen many times how death itself, natural death, can be a blessing to one who is suffering.
I don't know about the spiritual lives of all the folks that died on 9/11 -- but I do know that they were killed by other people and none of those deaths was in God's plan (it was a result of willful disobedience of God's instruction (=sin) --> murder). The ones that were saved by circumstance may in fact have been saved by God or not as far as direct intervention is concerned. I also know that Christians died during 9/11 and I grieve for their families. But if what Christ says about salvation and eternal life is true, then what Paul said --"for me to live is Christ and to die is gain" makes death for a Christian just another transition and not something to fear.
The Bible makes it clear that God cares first about our final destination -- with him or not for eternity -- and the means by which we get there may still be important but is secondary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by nator, posted 01-20-2003 9:53 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by shilohproject, posted 01-23-2003 1:32 AM zipzip has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024