That I agree both with gangbangers and with Jesus.  The point is that in all things you should emulate Christ, not try to make Christ conform to you.


I think you missed the point, though.  He was not advocating for sin; rather, he spent his time among them to try to elevate them to a higher level by getting them to change their ways.  He didn't engage in sinful behavior with the prostitute...he told her to sin no more.  There's a HUGE difference there.


You're misstating what I meant by "highest cultural norm."  He was trying to elevate the cultural norm to the highest level it could be.  The religious establishment was the exact opposite because they had bastardized the religious beliefs so much that the beliefs had lost their meaning and the application of the religious laws were leading people away from God.  He fought for them to have a higher cultural standard.  Just look at the Sermon on the Mount and you will see his efforts to raise the cultural norm.


But he challenged them in a good way to raise their standards, not in a way that would invite sin.  He did not advocate shooting the police or rap about his "hoes" (sp?) or anything of the kind.  Our current societal norm is migrating to the level of moral decay advocating violence, sex, self indulgence and rebellion instead of deep thought, consideration, and selflessness.  I would vehemently argue that Christ would not rebel against society to create that kind of gangbanger society.


I don't even know what "tats" is.

Except it was pure wine of the grape.  It was not alcoholic in nature.

He would have treated the people with love and told them not to sin.  Jesus hated the sin but loved the sinners.  You have to separate the acts from the individual.

I suppose I probably agree with you there.

Tats are those temporary tattoos that you get from either professional tattoo shops or from a pack of Zebra Gum :P

So dressing like someone implies that you agree with everything they say or do?


Neither is getting a tattoo advocating sin (well, unless you still uphold the leviticus laws, I guess), nor wearing 'hip-hop clothes' or having long hair, or whatever.  In his day, people would probably have said "if you associate with a prostitute, but claim to be righteous, you're sending a mixed message!" just like you're saying now.  But Jesus essentially told them, "that's because you're making up a message for me based on your own preconceptions."  Jesus didn't seem to mind offending those kinds of sensibilities.  He seemed to enjoy making people realize that talking to a prostitute isn't the same as sleeping with one, or perhaps that dressing in 'hip-hop clothes' isn't the same a shooting someone.


Yes, but by his own standards, not the standards of the culture of his day.  He strived for what he viewed as the highest norm, not what the culture of his day told him was the highest norm.


Which is what these preachers presumably feel they are doing.  The guy in the article seems to feel that mainstream christianity has twisted christ's words to make it more popular or whatever.  We can debate whether or not he's right on that, but I don't think it's fair to say that Jesus always did what society told him was proper or right.  Telling the religious establishment to stuff it was something Jesus did.  That doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with the establishment is right, but it also shows that everyone who disagrees with the establishment isn't automatically unlike Jesus.


Again, though, that's by his own standards, not the standards of society of his day.  The sermon on the mount is beautiful in large part because of the way it challenged normal human assumptions.



I would say the establishment of his day would say the things he did "rap" about were far worse than that.  Again, you're judging Jesus by our current standards instead of those of his day, and comparing that to people you're judging now by modern standards.  None of the people in the articles linked here rap about shooting cops or about their hos.  I don't necessarily agree with what they say, but I don't think it's fair to say their unchrist-like because they don't follow lock-step with mainstream religion.


I don't know that I would call 'gangbanger' society the dominate norm today by any stretch.  Nor would I say that any of the people in the articles mentioned are advocating 'gangbanger society'.


Tattoos.


Hadn't heard that take on it before.  Do you have a source?

1- If you follow Jesus' admonition that your body is a temple, then typically defiling that temple with tattoos is considered sinful.  Even if not, what kind of image is tattoos giving off?  Not the kind that the ultimate creator and wisdom of the universe would probably give off...

2- As to the dominant cultural norm, gangbanger is one example.  Look at rap/hiphop music, or movies, or our commercialized society...many different cultural norms that are becoming prevalent and to some degree worshipped as laudable are simply not Christ-like.  I think I can safely say that our cultural norm as a society is NOT a selfless, deep-thinking culture...failures perhaps attributable to the media, to our school systems, but most importantly, to the failure of our families.


I think we are talking past each other.  I agreed with you that he was challenging his cultural norms and the assumptions built into the Mosaic law which was prevalent.  My point is that he "raised" the cultural norms when he challenged them.  It can easily be argued that the people at issue in this thread are lowering Christ's standards to make it more popular.  That's what troubles me.  There is no raising of the barre there.

I find "rap" in and of itself troubling and not Christ-like.  I'm not advocating against it, but if you look at the way the beat works on the psyche and how it affects people, it is not a calm, spiritual type of music at all.  It raises your blood pressure, not lowers it.  Same with hard rock, for example.  Even if you put the Sermon on the Mount into a Megadeath song, it's not going to elevate you spiritually or give you a "spiritual experience."

1- If you follow Jesus' admonition that your body is a temple, then typically defiling that temple with tattoos is considered sinful.

Do temples not have paint on their walls?

2- As to the dominant cultural norm, gangbanger is one example.  Look at rap/hiphop music, or movies, or our commercialized society...many different cultural norms that are becoming prevalent and to some degree worshipped as laudable are simply not Christ-like.  I think I can safely say that our cultural norm as a society is NOT a selfless, deep-thinking culture...failures perhaps attributable to the media, to our school systems, but most importantly, to the failure of our families.

As opposed to the Christian cultures that gave us the crusades and witch hunts?

False analogy.

Again, false analogy.  This is not the state of Christian beliefs or current culture, and I think almost any Christian would tell you that those cultures were not Christ-like in behavior.

It's like saying Muslims don't emanate the ideals of Muhammad because their cultures produce terrorists.  It is a false analogy and therefore a logical fallacy resting only on pathos (emotion).

False analogy.

Why? Temples and churches are, from what I can tell, fairly fancy. Statues, art, stained glass windows. When you make a church, you don't do a Soviet style concrete mold utilitarian building, you make something nice. I think it's a perfect analogy: We decorate temples, why not our own bodies?

Again, false analogy.  This is not the state of Christian beliefs or current culture, and I think almost any Christian would tell you that those cultures were not Christ-like in behavior.

But a thousand years ago, it was Christ-like behavior, according to the authorities on the subject. Do Christian values change over time?
This message was last edited by the player at 00:37, Thu 22 Jan 2009.

Like I said, I could see Jesus going either way on this one.  I don't think people who get tattoos consider it "defiling" their bodies, though, so I think the issue would be whether Jesus thought it was or not.  I could see him go either way on this one, really.


Well, depends on the tattoo, really.  A naked chick with devil horns on a harley gives off a different message than, say, a celtic cross, or a bible verse.  But I think worrying about conservative and/or establishment people's opinions is exactly what Jesus didn't.  He quite clearly did things that many of his day would consider to "send the wrong message" or be the kinds of things that "the ulitmate creator and wisdom of the universe" wouldn't do.  Many of the things Jesus did would have been considered far more taboo than tattoos are today.


Okay, but I'm not sure what this implies in regards to the subject at hand.  I can happily agree that many of the prevalent social norms are not christ-like, but the guy in the article that started the discussion off doesn't seem to have accepted those norms.  What clothes you where aren't what make you christ-like or not.  How long your hair is, or what color it is isn't what make you christ-like.  You seem to equate wearing certain clothes with taking actions that other people associate with those clothes, or at least equating it to promoting or accepting those actions.  Wearing a basketball jersey and baggy jeans doesn't make you a ganster anymore than wearing a suit makes you a mormon.  I don't think Jesus would care one iota what clothes you wear, and I don't think he'd care one iota what other people think of the clothes you wear either.  I think he'd tell people who were worked up about such things that they're missing his point fairly significantly.  I think he'd tell people who judge people based on their clothes that they're missing a big part of his message.


Sure, it could be argued, but so far no one seems to have done so.  I think the counter argument could also be made.  The guy in the article seems to think the mainstream churches are the ones that have lowered their norms to make them more popular.  I don't necessarily agree with him, but I don't its fair to just say he's lowering the bar and expect everyone to agree with you.  In what way do you feel he's lowering the norms?

Also, remember that while you and me think Jesus raised the bar, the establishment of his day certainly viewed it as lowering the bar to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  The pharisees certainly didn't view Jesus' work with prostitutes, tax collectors, and the like as 'raising the bar.'  They considered it a debasement of what was holy.  They considered it behavior that God would not approve of.  And they honestly believed this, just as you honestly believe that this guy is lowering the bar.  The question is, how do you know that you're not making the same error they did?  Remember, these weren't just evil bad guys who wanted to wring all they could out of the system, but people who devoted their life to God, and studied His word and laws.


Or gospel?  Or even "onward Christian soldiers," or "a mighty fortress is our God?"  I think you're making a false, overly-broad generalization, and trying to make something quite big out of simple personal preference.  And while you say you're not advocating against it, you say it's "troubling and not christ-like."  Sort of sounds like advocating against it to me.  I'm not a huge fan of rap, but I know that it's a broad enough style that you can't categorize the entire genre accurately the way you have.  There are calm, spiritual rap songs.  There are even pro-Jesus rap songs, even by mainstream artists (check out "Jesus walks" by Kanye West, for example).


No?  Might not for you, but how do you know what's going to give someone else a spiritual experience?  Do spiritual experiences always happen the same way for all people?  Do they only happen during traditional, conservative, quiet, what-many-would-call-boring church services?

You're gettin' old, Heath!  "Turn that racket down, you durn kids!" ;)

Like Tycho said, I think it depends on the tattoo. If you get a cross tattooed on your back and your shoulder says "Luke 16:21" or something, that would seem to say "I give my body to Christ". Body modification isn't an inherently bad thing. The Jews practiced it (circumcision) as a sign of how they're in a relationship with God. If I'm being told I should nip the tip of my, well, I don't see why putting "I love God" on my chest is somehow a sign of my body now not being a temple, or my not loving God.

Of course, if I was tattooed with swastikas and hate messages, that would be different, but I don't think anyone is talking about that.



As has been argued, I don't think dressing in a suit makes up for your not donating time and money to charities, or not praying to God daily. I don't think dressing like a priest or a rabbi makes you holy in the eyes of God, at least if how Jesus treated the Pharisees is any indication.

Seems to me that Jesus said "live God", not "dress God". Jesus is never noted as dressing well, except as a punishment (being dressed in royal purple before being crucified).



There are Christian heavy metal and rap bands. I was actually interested to note that Five Iron Frenzy, a Christian band, is noted as one of the best ska bands ever, even though it's hardly what I'd call a "spiritual experience". That said, I do a lot of things in my life (and I bet you do as well) which aren't spiritual experiences. Posting on chat boards. Doing income tax. Picking my toes. Sometimes you just need to unwind. And I've seen people who seem to actually have genuine spiritual... power-ups, for lack of a better word, from fast-paced music (more in the ska/punk direction. Not seen a lot of Christian rap fans. But I'm sure they're out there.) I wonder if you've really explored this culture, or if you're just throwing out your personal bias. Ever been to a Christian punk concert? They're actually pretty cool, and I probably met some of the best Christians I knew there. They lived God in their personal interests, not just for an hour every Sunday.

The difference:  They were commanded to do so by God to separate themselves from the gentiles.  There is no commandment to deface your body in other ways.


You might think so, but putting on a tattoo signifies a certain place in society (and not necessarily the one occupied by the most intelligent people).  I think Christ would want you to exude an intelligent, thinking human being whom society can look to as wise and good, not defacing oneself and looking like a Redneck zealot.


And that's not really the point. The point is that you want everything about you to reflect Christ, from the way you act to the way you dress.  You are saying only one of the two is necessary.  I am saying that both are necessary.


Live God includes as a subset dressing as God would have you dress.  That means different ways to dress depending on the occasion.  Going to church dressed in jeans with holes and a grubby t-shirt when you have a perfectly good suit at home and a shower that works is not nearly as reflective of Christ as going dressed your best.

That doesn't mean anything to me.  If music is not soothing and soft, it doesn't typically invite the holy ghost.  You can have Christian whatever, but it should have its place, not be touted as something you should listen to to get closer to God.  Because you don't.


Exactly.  And those don't pose as reflective of Christ.  I am more offended by a heavy metal Christian band because it is trying to dress up something very unspiritual as something spiritual instead of relegating it back to its fringe as just unwinding entertainment.

Sorry, but Jesus is NOT a punk rocker.


The question is whether the music invites the Holy Ghost and the peacefulness of heaven into you.  Psychologically and physiologically, that music doesn't do it.

Sure, I like to rock out when I'm working out, but I don't pretend it's a spiritual experience.


I'm not saying they're not good people.  It's exactly because they ARE good people that I worry that such music will become a substitute for what is really spiritual and bring them down instead of lift them up.  If you let your life become saturated by that type of music and then rationalize it, you cheat yourself out of truly spiritual experiences...which lie in meditative prayer and the soft whispering of the Holy Ghost.

Tycho, I think most of your questions are answered in my posts above.  I understand that people may "like" the more rock-based music...or even gospel music or whatever.

But my point is that to elevate music to a point where it moves you spiritually, it must have the effect of calming your mind.  It's not about getting old; it's a physiological fact.

I'm not saying there are not exceptions to the rule, but to rely on heavy metal music for your spiritual nurturing is a dangerous road not likely to lead to spiritual actualization.


I would agree with the man in the article.  Mainstream churches ARE lowering their norms in many places.  Where that affects the spiritual nature of worship and communion with the Holy Ghost and where that tolerates instead of rebukes sinful behavior is where I think there is a problem.



And yes, I am getting old.  I don't even enjoy listening to most pop songs.  As I get older, I see more and more how trite and meaningless they are, how they try to trump up idealistic and unrealistic values that distort reality, and how they create a herd mentality instead of inspiring one to think for oneself.  So, yes, when I want a spiritual experience, I don't listen to anything with words; I stick to instrumental, often classical, music that makes my mind work instead of shutting it down.

How do you feel about church hymns?  Just wondering O.o

This sort of jumped out at me.  Are you saying it's possibly to medically demonstrate a spiritual experience?  That you can look at someones pulse, say, and say "yep, holy ghost is with him" or "nope, no holy ghost there?"

To say something is a "physiological fact," seems to imply that you think a spiritually moving event is well defined physiologically.  Is that really what you mean?

I was talking about the deeply meditative state that is found among people who are praying and/or claiming to have a spiritual communion of some sort.

Church hymns are fine, but I think I need to be more expressive of my point:

I'm talking about music that draws you into a meditative state where you can commune with God.

Church hymns have a different purpose:  They are to worship God.  So they are crucial to our development and also spiritual (but I personally don't use them to induce a state of spiritual communion except at church or related activities).  They also draw people together.  But hymns and songs of praise like that can cross a certain line too and resort in just being educational, just worship, and not spiritually communal in nature.

Personally, I perk up when I hear John Lennon's "Imagine" or 5 for Fighting's "Superman," and they elicit emotions from me, and I very much enjoy Negro Spirituals (yes, actually I do); I enjoy barbershop and rock and roll.  But the question here is whether this emulates Jesus or is just a personal indulgence.  We can't have the highest ideal every time, but we should recognize it when it's there.

There was no commandment not to "deface your body". The commandment was to keep your body like a temple.

Now if you have a temple, and you don't believe putting portraits in your temple is respectful, but the God of that temple comes down and literally says, 'yes, please put this portrait in your temple', I would take that to mean that portraits are okay (as long as the content is appropriate). I wouldn't take it to mean that God is making all sorts of exceptions to His own rules.

If God had actually said "do not deface/alter/whatever your body", I'd agree with you. Putting up decorations in your temple isn't inappropriate, putting decorations on your body therefore isn't inappropriate either.



So you're just saying never go against cultural mores. On the one hand, I shouldn't dye my hair blonde, because the cultural expectation is blondes are stupid. However, it's okay to get a tattoo if I'm a sailor, because culturally we accept that sailors generally have tattoos (or did recently), and being a sailor isn't a bad quality.

Really though, Jesus broke cultural rules all over the place. He hung out with dirty prostitutes and lepers. People who touch lepers are in a bad place in society too. If Jesus honestly thought that protraying yourself as being in a bad part of society was wrong, he wouldn't have spent time working with lepers.

Plus, I don't see any commandment in the bible saying "don't portray yourself as stupid or undesirable". Quite to the contrary, the bible seems to suggest I should go out of my way to humble myself, to make myself poor and dirty and smelly, because it is the LEAST among us, not the best, not the richest, not the smartest, who make it to the kingdom of God.



And if Jesus were around now, he'd wear a business suit.



And your evidence for this is...



I'm sure it isn't for you. But your experience doesn't define the world.


You seem to be suggesting that people will supplant church and prayer time with Christian heavy metal, which is a silly argument. People can listen to Christian metal AND pray. I've seen it happen :) And people who invite God into their casual interests (music) seem more, not less likely to keep an active dedication to other obligations when it gets tougher to do so. It seems like injecting God into everything, even your non-prayer time, is preferable over the alternative.

Heath, out of curiosity, how do you feel Jesus felt about John the Baptist?  Here's a guy who's definitely not dressing in the "sunday best" of his day, even when he's baptizing Jesus.  Here's a guy who lives outside society, and more or less ignores what it considers appropriate.  He's not wearing a suit because he wants to look good for God, nor for anyone else.  To me, it sounds like if someone like John the Baptist were around today, you'd write him off as "not emulating Jesus," and "not striving for the highest norm."  It seems like you'd tell him, "Your dirty clothes and messy hair send the wrong message!  They imply bad things about you!"

John the Baptist didn't choose his lifestyle, and he wasn't rebelling against commandments.  There's nothing wrong with being in humble circumstances, but look at how John the Baptist behaved.

This is mostly my personal opinion, so arguing with me isn't all that helpful.  But, for example, I don't think Jesus would have been a stand up comedian or any other of many professions which are good to have but which, I think, aren't the image Jesus would want to portray for himself.

You seem to think I'm saying to reject everything that's not exactly how Jesus would be.  No.  I'm just saying that when you have the opportunity to choose between two things...like punk rock versus a more calming music...which one do you really think Jesus would chooose?  And then if you are representing Jesus through that medium, why would you choose something that lowers Jesus' standards?


We, as an LDS people, have modern day revelation which expands on this and includes, for example, that we should not have tattoos or pierce our excessively pierce our bodies.  And that we should dress in a way that reflects Jesus' high standards and modesty.


You're totally misrepresenting what I'm saying.  There's nothing wrong with going against social mores.  The key is what is the image you're putting out there?  Do you really think someone dressing as a gangbanger is going against social mores to elevate society?  Or is he putting out an image that he is also a gangbanger?  The example you set should emulate Jesus, not gangbangers.  (The fact that I have to say or defend that surprises me.)


As I said before, he did so to elevate their lives.  He didn't become a leper, did he?  He didn't give people the impression that he was a prostitute when he went among the prostitutes, did he?  No, he went among them and taught them a better way.


I think you are completely misrepresenting the biblical passage.  The point is that we live the best lives we can but that we not become prideful.  I'd like to see where you think the bible is saying you should make yourself poor and dirty and smelly, particularly when it says God's house is a house of order.  God is not dirty.

I guess we're crosstalking, because I never mentioned anything about what you're delving into here.  My point is simply:  give off the image to people that you represent Jesus in what you say and do, in every measure of your countenance. And I don't see how punk rock, dressing like gangbangers or hippies or things like that put forth that reflection of Jesus.

Why would you think that?


Nor is someone who likes punk music, nor dresses in a way you don't like.


Exactly!  Look at how he behaved, not how he dressed or what music he liked.


And what we're saying, is that we could easily see Jesus listening to punk from time to time.


You seem to define "lower standards" as "non-traditional."  Sort an "if it's not the way we've been doing it for years, then it's lowering the standards!"  And I don't think there's any evidence that that was the metric Jesus used, and in fact there is strong evidence that that wasn't the metric he used.  You seem to think that Jesus doesn't like people getting excited or energized.  You seem to view "calm" as the only acceptable christian emotion, and we disagree that Jesus sent that message.


What we're saying is that you can't tell if someone is elevating society or not by the way they dress.  You have to look at their behavior, not their clothes.


Why are you so concerned with image in the hypothetical, but then revert to behavior in the specific.


Yes, in behavior.  The way you dress isn't what Jesus is going to care about.  That said, do you dress like Jesus?  Or do you put on a suit and tie?  If someone says "you look like a politician!" are you sending a message that politicians should be emulated instead of Jesus?  By taking a career as a lawyer, are you sending a message that people should accept the stereotypical morals that they think lawyers have, or by being a lawyer that's moral are you elevating society?

Think on that for a moment.  Most people in the US think lawyers are sneaky, greedy, cheats.  This is similar to how you seem to think everyone who likes rap music and wears baggy trousers is a gang-banger.  In the same way you want people to judge you based on your behavior rather than their preconceptions about laywers, you should judge people who like rap based on their behavior, not just your preconceptions about people who like rap.  I think Jesus would think that way, and to a degree, might even dress in "hip hop clothes" specifically to challenge your preconceptions, when those preconceptions were getting so strong that you were judging people based on their clothes instead of their actions.


I think he certainly sent a message that many people of the day would find objectionable, such as "its okay to spend time with prostitutes and lepers."  The message he sent was one of acceptance of these behaviors.  Or, more precisely, the people who judged him only on appearances, instead of his actions, got the message that he approved of those behaviors.


You should remember that as you do the "the least of these" you do to Jesus.  If you can't see Jesus in any of the people you mention, you're not looking.

I didn't know what thread to ask this in, and it didn't seem worth while to ask for a new thread.

I just read the universilist christians don't believe Jesus is God. I had never heard that before. Are there any christian universalists that can confirm if that is true? That they follow the bible, but feel Jesus cannot be God?

If the body is a temple, should we let the "temple walls and floors" accumulate grunge or should we clean them regularly?  With regards to such guest-friendly activities as the washing of the feat, etc., in the standards of today, should we keep our bodies "clean"?

What does that mean, to keep our bodies clean and to respect them as a temple, in the context of todays standards?  I think "middle class" standards are a pretty good way of gauging what "clean" is.  Brush your teeth, take regular showers, use soap, etc.  Dress in "nice" clothes that cover the body modestly, etc.

Depends on what you considering the important thing about a "temple" to be, I guess.  Is it a place of worship, or something to look at?  If the two come into conflict, which is more important to look after?


There's nothing wrong with keeping yourself clean.  The trouble is judging people's sinfulness/piety/whatever based on their cleanliness.  If Jesus had judged John the baptists based on how clean he was, you'd have a rather different story of their interactions!


Which is all fine and good, for you.  If that what you feel helps you best achieve your goals (religious and otherwise), than more power to you.  I'd urge you, though, not to judge people's faith/devotion/religious views/etc., based on whether or not they look "middle class."  I'd also urge you not to consider people who can't appear "middle class" because, well, they're not actually middle class, as being 'unclean' or bad people or whatever.

There was a really good story of disheveled man who walked into a church, and the congregation grew very uncomfortable with the man due to his smell, his lack of clean clothing, and unkept hair. Through the process of the sermon, word spread to the pastor that the congregation was uncomfortable with the man. The pastor ended up approaching the man after the service, and chatted with the man. During the conversation, the pastor suggested the man should pray to Jesus and ask Jesus how the man should dress and come to church.

So a week passes by, and the disheveled man comes back wearing the same dirty shirt, and same ripped pants. Dirty boots, and a rotten smell emanating from him still. The congregation was very uncomfortable with the man still. This time after the service, the pastor approached the man and asked if he prayed to Jesus about coming to this church and how to dress. The man replied that he did. The pastor grew curious,and asked what Jesus told him. The man said that Jesus didn't know what to wear to this church as Jesus has never been to this church before.

The point has always been that no matter what you wear, who you are, what you do, how you've failed, etc, Jesus will accept you for you. Whether a person is homeless, or they struggle, you are still welcome to come and share with the Lord.

These things, like most are personal struggles.  Wisdom demands that we should take care of our health and respect our outward appearance.  If others do not do the same, that is their choice.  Perhaps they are convicted of other things.  I know that I am lacking in certain habits because all of my energy and discipline are focused on a few things that I am correcting right now.  These are part of the plan, but for really attacking at a later date once the enemies at hand are subdued.  Everyone is on a different place in their path.  We may lovingly suggest that perhaps they need improvement in certain areas and be willing to help if they will accept it, but as far as that person goes, love demands we accept them and hold them in a higher regard than we hold ourselves.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg #118):

Heh!  Good story, TitL!  :)

Also, I don't know enough about universalist churches to answer your question in #115. :(  Out of curiosity, where did you read that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15497618

Saw this today, and thought others might enjoy it.  It asks the question of whether christianity is part of the ruling system (ie, "the man") or part of the rebellious groups working to change the system.  It doesn't really reach a conclusion either way (except, perhaps, "both"), but it's an interesting read.