Originally posted by jaywillI'm sure the so-called Christians didn't either. However, when
For some reason I don't go to Playboy magazine to get my theology.
they heard that the magazine had published a picture of Jesus's
laughing, they wrote in protest with a number of letters that couldn't
compare with the letters written in regards to the display of scantily
clad or naked women.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillYour fatal assumption is that a Bible thumper can talk sensibly about the subject.
Whatever happened to TOLERANCE? I thought we were all suppose to get along together - the preachy and the non-preachy.
Where's John Lennon when you need him? Imagine a world where the Bible Thumper and the Skeptic of the Bible can talk sensibly together.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillWhy would he want to publish to the whole world photos of he and his wife in the most private and intimate moments of their marriage?
Now you should realize that John Lennon must have been confused about a number of things. And he is to be felt sorry for.
Why would he want to publish to the whole world photos of he and his wife in the most private and intimate moments of their marriage? Was he trying to turn us into animals again with no sense of modesty?
Lennon was to be pittied. ss way?
This man needed help. He needed Jesus Christ. We all need Jesus Christ the Savior.
Are you referring to the infamous "Bed In"? The one in which they did "nothing at all except clutch a tulip each"? Lennon's mischievous comment: "I hope it's not a letdown".
I've seen a picture of Lennon and Yoko in which Lennon's naked and Yoko is not (it's a side shot of Lennon cuddling up to Yoko - no junk and barely any crack visible).
EDIT - My mistake - apparently they were nude on the cover of the "2 Virgins" album. But so what? What's wrong with nakedness?
Originally posted by NemesioYea. And maybe then some sensational marketing person hyped it up into a big deal.
I'm sure the so-called Christians didn't either. However, when
they heard that the magazine had published a picture of Jesus's
laughing, they wrote in protest with a number of letters that couldn't
compare with the letters written in regards to the display of scantily
clad or naked women.
Nemesio
Playboy sales must have been down that month compared to Penthouse.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNothing in itself is wrong with nudity. But it strange that he should have to be so public about it.
[b] Why would he want to publish to the whole world photos of he and his wife in the most private and intimate moments of their marriage?
Are you referring to the infamous "Bed In"? The one in which they did "nothing at all except clutch a tulip each"? Lennon's mischievous comment: "I hope it's not a letdown".
I've seen a picture of Lennon ...[text shortened]... e on the cover of the "2 Virgins" album. But so what? What's wrong with nakedness?[/b]
I guess he thought he was representing a new kind of "freedom".
Originally posted by NemesioI take my attitude concerning gay marriage from Paul's epistles. He said we should not expect to have to go out of the world.
Are you suggesting that you are tolerant of gay marriage?
Nemesio
"I wrote to you in my letter not to mingle with fornicators, But not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and rapacious, or idolators, since then you would have to go out of the world." (1 Cor. 5:9,10)
I understand the apostle to be saying that we disciples of Jesus should expect that in the world there will be fornicators, the covetous, the rapacious, and the idolators with whom to some extent we have to "mingle".
So this is a teaching that though the community of the church should be free of such lifestyles we should be tolerant enough to expect that in the world we will sometime have to be in company with such.
They need to see Christ in us believers just as much as anyone else. Then the apostle continues his exhortation:
"But now I have written to you not to mingle with anyone who is called a brother, if he is a fornicator or a covetous man or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or a rapacious man, with such a one not even to eat" (v. 11)
In the context of the normal church life these lifestyles will damage the fellowship. Each and every sinful kind of life is not mentioned. But the principle should be pretty clear. In the world we Christians may have to share tolerant company with those who are living evilly. But in the community of the church life we have to be vigilant that we are sanctified from these sins.
I also don't think Paul is taking about an instance of a moral failure here or there. I think a continuous living in covetousness or drunkeness or fornication or male on male fornication or female on female fornication is what he speaks of.
The Corinthians who made up his church audience were saved and transformed out of many of these sinful ways of living as evidenced here:
"And these things were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11)
Such things were some of the Corinthian Christians. But they were transformed by the dynamic salvation in Christ. Here is a list of some of the things Paul says that they were previously:
"Or do you not know that the unrrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray; neither fornicators nor idolators nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homsexuals nor thieves nor the covetous, not drunkards, not revilers, not rapacious will inherit the kingdom of God.
And these things were some of you; but you were washed ... etc."
Originally posted by jaywillI wasn't asking about your personal attitude towards gay marriage; I could have anticipated
I take my attitude concerning gay marriage from Paul's epistles. He said we should not expect to have to go out of the world.
[b]"I wrote to you in my letter not to mingle with fornicators, But not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and rapacious, or idolators, since then you would have to go out of the world." (1 Cor. 5 ...[text shortened]... dom of God.
And these things were some of you; but you were washed ... etc."[/b]
that answer with little difficulty.
I asked if you are tolerant towards allowing the secular state to permit it, whether you have
to 'mingle' with them or not.
It is a 'yes' or 'no' question. Are you tolerant of gay marriage?
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillOkay, so you're a Christian. I get it. However, all you've done is dodge the point of what we were talking about and gone on a spiritual rant. Why don't you respond to the point I was actually making?
I don't have any faith in myself alone. I don't think I have more faith than the next person as a natural response to Jesus.
I think I know where I can obtain faith. I know where to get it. The word of God produces the believing ability in me in some measure. The Bible is like radiation to me. You can agree or disagree with uranium. Regardless you will g ...[text shortened]... e appeared to me also, as ot were to one born prematurely." (First Corinthians 15:4-8)[/b]
B.
Originally posted by Bromage
I don't believe that prayer is futile and meaningless, at least not to everyone anyway. If you've got faith in God, then prayer is a great way to convince yourself that God really exists and that you're really communicating with him. I presume that there would be some therapeutic value in that. But for someone who doesn't have faith, then it's just a waste o ...[text shortened]... specific than a Bible passage. What's the point you're trying to make here?
B.
8 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI wasn't asking about your personal attitude towards gay marriage; I could have anticipated
Nemesio[/b]
that answer with little difficulty.
Here is your asking of the question a second time. Can't you see that there is a personal element in it?
You specifically mention me. "Are you tolerant of gay marriage?"
So how can my answer not involve my personal practice and attitude?
Here is your clarification of your original question.
"I asked if you are tolerant towards allowing the secular state to permit it, whether you have
to 'mingle' with them or not."
I think that that is probably a state by state issue. I will speak of the particular style of secular state that I live in.
In the particular governmental state that I live in this is a matter enfluenced by democratic vote. My personal vote effecting tolerance towards males "marrying" males or females "marrying" females" would not be tolerant towards that practice.
Having said that I would add that I am ready to live in a state in which the majority of the democratic vote might happen to go against my vote. If I found that it came to a point that I could not live in such a society then I would seek another state of government to live in.
This is my personal approach to your question at this time. We do not have in our church practice any mandate instructing people how to vote.
Does this answer your question?
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou have a point. But getting to know Jesus is something like being in love for the first time of your life.
jaywill,
Referring to the very first post of this thread, my interpretation was that you think faith is a necessary condition for revelational experience. Now it seems you are saying that faith is initially acquired through revelational experience. Have I misinterpreted you, or is your stance really that incoherent?
The very first time I liked a girl and she liked me I cannot for the life of me remember who started liking first. I just remember, wham, we liked each other.
My initial posts were about calling to the Lord Jesus with the expectation that He will respond. And He will. Well obviously I think you have to know something about Jesus. You have to probably have heard that He is God's Son - at least taught so. You may have heard a few things that He had said. You would have had to have heard that He is divine and is alive from the dead.
I think some things like this must have been planted as seeds in one's heart.
Now whether you called to get faith or faith caused you to call, that is not always easy to pin down. The two matters work together. And we don't always know how or frankly care that much.
When you are hungry you seek to satisfy your hunger. You might starve to death if you only care to analyze the food before you.
So whether you get faith first to call on the Lord's name or you call on His name "cold turkey" and get faith - these is not easy to analyze. I think the bottom line is not how you come to Christ but that you do come to Christ.
My main point is that He is so available.
Originally posted by jaywillMy initial posts were about calling to the Lord Jesus with the expectation that He will respond. And He will.
You have a point. But getting to know Jesus is something like being in love for the first time of your life.
The very first time I liked a girl and she liked me I cannot for the life of me remember who started liking first. I just remember, wham, we liked each other.
Well obviously I think you have to know something about Jesus. You have to probabl ...[text shortened]... ist but that you do come to Christ.
My main point is that He is so [b]available.[/b]
I don't mean an audible response in the ear or a response picked up by one of the five physical senses.
I mean something deep in the innermost part of our being.