Five Ways to Help Your Church Remain United

blessedman »

Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Michaels, it's one thing to see someone mistreat you. It is quite another to generalize. Saying that all pastors don't care is the same as a kkk member calling all blacks dumb, or a nazi calling all jews evil. Beware stereotypes ... however, I am sorry you feel that way and were it seems mistreated. My paster is almost the opposite of what you describe. He's very caring, and acts in loving ways as we should be doing. Not every church is the same, not every pastor is the same, not every church is the same.

But even if all pastors were corrupt, that would be more of a reason to follow God, not less. It would be up to us to live lives that reprove them. But if they don't follow God, and we use that as an excuse to not follow God ourselves, then we are no better than they are.

Anti-Gay Group Criticizes Wheaton College Speaker

blessedman »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

QT, I'm not much of a debator (too time-consuming) but I would like to make some comments. Please don't deluge me with replies like you did Chris. I don't have the time or desire for that. But I did want to give you some things to consider. Ok?

You said that the early church would view the idea of Jesus being God as idolatry. The challenge in the New Testament is that the early Christians were repeatedly told by Jesus that He was God. Jesus even took the divine name upon Himself. Then after the resurrection, even doubting Thomas was willing to state categorically to Jesus "My Lord and My God" - knowing full well as a Jew what that meant.

However, they wouldn't see it as Idolatry, for two reasons: First, Jesus didn't claim to be ANOTHER God, but to be Yahway in flesh. So it wasn't turning to a new God, but recognizing their already-accepted God.

That would fit with the Old Testament concept of God coming in other forms - in the Old Testament, it was not idolatry to state that God came in the form of an angel several times. (Jews even had a special name for when God took angelic form.) Idolatry is with another God, not the SAME God revealing Himself differently.

Whether God came as an angel in the Old Testament, or as a human in the New, as long as they were convinced that it was the same God, no idolatry would exist in their minds.

Secondly, once they understood Yahway better, they did change many of their customs and ways. The New Testament gives a lot of info about the clash, and how hard it was for some Jews to make the transition. But Jews did change, accepting the New covenant as better than the Old (Hebrews) because it fulfilled the Old.

Anti-Gay Group Criticizes Wheaton College Speaker

blessedman »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I guess I've changed on this issue. More and more I see wisdom in a more libertarian viewpoint. It's not about whether it's a sin, it's about whether God gave humanity the ability to make choices, good or bad. You can be absolutely against sin, but not believe it is right to pass laws against it. Nowhere do I see Jesus pointing his followers toward controlling others in such a way.

Just because something is sinful does NOT mean God want's us to force others to not do it.

The day in which Christians make the laws is gone. Sadly, instead of insisting on laws that were open for disagreement, we pushed for a "we are right, so let's legislate it" type of self-centered governance. Now that we are no longer in power and receeding, that attitude has been passed to others to use against us!

Case in point: Christian marriage. It USED to be that we could marry, and the laws would support a Christian marriage viewpoint (very hard to divorce, for example). But those days are gone. We will probably never have a legal version of a Christian marriage again. But this could have been avoided had we allowed people to choose in the first place. We could have had a marriage legal system where I could CHOOSE to be in a Christian-based marriage, while someone else choose a no-fault divorce style of marriage. Not either-or, but both. Then you could choose God's way, or not God's way.

But now, I DO NOT have a choice!! It doesn't exist. You can not choose a Godly marriage covenant legally in the USA. All or nothing thinking eventually means you get ... nothing.

Freedom for OTHERS to choose is the only way to protect OUR freedon to choose. Freedom for others to do it ANOTHER way is the only way we can be free to do it GOD'S way.

But it's probably too late for that now.

Hellfire Preacher Stirs Up Campuses

blessedman »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:30 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Very sad, very sad. Most of the New Testament has rebukes of Christians for their sins. God tells them to be loving (hint, hint, they weren't always) and to be at peace with one another and so on. The New Testament shows a deeply flawed church, a very human church.

God describes His relationship with CHristians as being a Father spanking his kids! (Hebrews) He even goes as far as stating that someone not disciplined isn't a son at all. The clear implication is that Christians sin, and are basically just growing children.

As we grow, God digs deeper into sin. Our attitudes, our motivations, come into view. We thought we were oh-so good, until God shined more light. The older I get as a Christian, the more sin I see. Not because I sin more, but be cause I see more.

People like Micah usually short-circuit God's work in their lives. Once you concentrate on externals (how you dress, drinking, etc.) it's easy to convince yourself you are godly and righteous, even in the middle of deep sins of lovelessness and so forth. (Not to throw stones, but this is one of the great problems with holiness churches, they can cut off true maturity).

Micah can preach. But may God help him to see.

Gays Still Looking for Love from Christians

blessedman »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:13 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

The whole "born gay" marketing campaign was brilliant. One man wrote a book pushing for gays to use that concept, and he even admitted as a gay man that he didn't believe it to be true. (He himself mentioned nurture, for example.) But he said that gays had to use the lie because the "religious" people would clobber them if they didn't. That's a very telling comment.

Pretty much from that point on, the younger generation heard two messages: (1) born gay, and (2) being against the sin of homosexuality is equal to a mental disease (homo-phobic). Tremendous marketing plan, on the level of "Coke is it" or the Army's old "Be all that you can be."

But now, both sides are in a foxhole, and the vast middle is trained from childhood in the "truth" that Christians are by nature evil. Tolerance is the one virtue left, therefore lack of tolerance is the one sin left. Christians become de-facto forces of darkness.

I deal with teens all the time. It's unbelieveable how the teen culture has embraced homosexuality in only the last few years. What is really interesting is that, since the born-gay lie has spread, even Christians have lost focus. It's not "gay" people vs straight people! It's people who choose to do some acts.

Some people are tempted to homosexual thoughts and acts, and partake. Others are tempted, but since they came to God, they fight to go God's way in spite of their feelings. Homosexuality is therefore like any other sin - there are Christians who struggle with it. It's not "gay vs straight" it's Christ vs not-Christ.

What was Geraldine Ferraro Thinking?

blessedman »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:53 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

Geraldine understood what this article did not - Obama is in this race because of his ethnic background. It is his 1/2-black parentage that led to amazement, strong support, and talk of him running a campaign. But is that really a bad thing? The reality of the situation is that Obama used his uniqueness, his charisma coupled with his heritage, as a stepping-stone.

Many whites and other races are still waiting for the shot at being president. Many would love to run. But they cannot get that starting-off point. Obama did, because he is black and well-spoken. Being black he has an almost-guaranteed base of support. Being a solid speech-maker means he will gather others.

I'm not suggesting that Ferraro's comments were the wisest. They may have lacked a bit of tact, or have been taken out of context. But she was correct - we wouldn't know Obama's name if he were white. There would have been no way for a white Obama to stand out and been seen.