http://www.portlandmercury.com...0&category=34029

interesting article, thoughts?

BTW, Portland Mercury is one of the most left leaning newspapers around here, so this article is really surprising considering what they normally write.
This message was last edited by the GM at 10:20, Mon 28 Nov 2005.

Nothing wrong with Christian Punk :)  I got a number of my friends hooked on Five Iron Frenzy (a ska band) back in the day and I saw a couple good bands in our area.  That said, while I don't think Jesus would be a rocker, he certainly was a punk.

Christian Punk isn't bad.

Went to Sonshine Fest this summer (agnostic stage).  One Bad Pig put on, probably, the best show I've ever seen.  Seriously...

Food fight in the mosh pit... toilet paper wars... stage diving into kiddie pools full of ice cream... smashing guitars and chucking them over the stage... it was amazing.

:D
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:46, Thu 01 Dec 2005.

Total lunacy and sensless destruction?

Sounds like a gay old time to me.  ^_^

*awkward silence*

I dunno how much of the article you all read, but here is a guy, who probally is completely surounded by people that hate the church.  One day he crossed the bounds to go church.

But it wasn't church like 90% of us would expect, people could goto that church and get tattoos, people had all kinds of peircings, it was a church that became like the club scene to reach those people.

That's an interesting way to think about it. A similar idea happened with another couple of men who started a group that goes to pron conventions, and talk about Jesus.

www.xxxchurch.com

An interesting premise that they hang out with porn stars, and share the gospel.

I think one of their T-shirts say "Jesus loves porn stars".

Another website that may surprise the man looking for porn, and end up finding Jesus.

http://www.jcsgirls.com/

Good article.  The following quote (which is from the, uh, pastors) stood out to me:


Anyone have a counter example, or is this biblically accurate?

(Those "porn" sites are interesting too)

If you read the Old Testiment, (Starting on Hosea) you will find many examples of God rebukes nations and tells them of there punishment for there sins. But in most cases the people repent and God forgives. It talks about Gods wrath towards them and stuff like that. The only time that I can think of when Jesus acully freaked out (though I woud use a different word) is at the temple when he trow over the boxes and drove the people out. He chased the common sinner ,who had found a way to make money off of the place of worship, out. Not the Pharises or the riligeous people.

Weren't the vendors there with the Pharisees' consent?

They were (I think) but that does not excuse there sins. Just because some one you look up tells you to do something wrong, does not mean that it is not a sin on your part to do so.

That is inaccurate.  He freely forgave the penitent sinners and told them to sin no more.  He certainly "freaked out" if sinners did not have any indication of changing their ways.  Given that the body is considered in Judaism and Christianity a temple in the image of God which should be dedicated to God and preserved with sacredness and sanctity, it is hard to believe that anyone could adequately use such religions as a justification for pornography.

Keep in mind that, in my experience, all pornography has at its core earning money at the exploitation of the body (or acts with the body).  Therefore, it is not much different from the moneychanger situation.  He would certainly "freak out" about it.

Heath, I agree with what you just said, but I don't know how that relates to my comment that you quoted.  I'm not sure, but I think you're mixing up the articles.  My quote is from the "punk rocker" article, which has no porn in it.  Also, the two sites that rogue posted are not actually porn sites; go check them out.

Sorry, I wasn't really following the articles all that closely.

Though I think my first comment does address the comment made on the site about Jesus and penitent sinners (compared with all sinners).

No problem, and as noted before, I agree with what you said.  You wouldn't happen to have any specific bible references would you?

His forgiveness of penitent sinners occurred often, including Mary, the prostitute.

His lack of forgiveness for those who are not penitent is also indicated in stories like the rich man who despaired because he could not give up his riches.

I didn't look up anything, if that's what you're asking.

LDS sources on the body being a temple are numerous.  I didn't check the Bible, but I am aware of the Judeo-Christian beliefs about the body being a temple.  That is fairly common knowledge and is also contained in the New Testament.  Just don't have the references off the top of my head though.

I don't see selling animals for sacrafice to God as a secular occupation.

I think the point was that they were violating the commandment that innocent blood was not be shed in the temples, and therefore they were violating a commandment previously noted by Jeremiah 600 years earlier.  Also, there may be a connection with selling sacrifices for God for profit...i.e. in order to obey God's commandment, people had to buy the sacrifices for them...and thus he called it a 'den of thieves.'

So could one then say that any profiting from, uh, "religious aids" is wrong?

Jesus got pissed at it.

I don't think there is a commandment about innocent blood not being shed in the temple.

People could bring their lamb or other animal but for some that lived far away it was more practical to make the journey and buy the animal there.

As for profiting, it went so far as exploiting.  He called them "thieves," after all.  I don't think it has anything to do with profit or money per se, but instead because people's thoughts were on the money instead of on God.

The sacrifice in the temple issue is from Jeremiah.  That was just one argument I've heard.  I'm not aware of the record being clear enough for us to say for sure exactly what it is.  Maybe it requires a bit more research.

Actually, the way I always understood it is that they could certainly sell the animals for sacrifice (i.e. make a profit), but once they moved onto temple grounds...i.e. sacred ground dedicated to God...they were in violation.  So they should have stayed off the temple grounds to sell the animals for sacrifice.  There may be more to it than that though.

I think that's what happened.

There may be more layers, but this is certianly the most obvious one.

Hmm...  This looks like the most appropriate thread to continue Duolos' post.  Is Jesus a rebel?

Yeah, good idea to put it here.

The short answer is a resounding yes!  :)

Alright, I admit it, after listening to Sex Pistols and Dead Kennedys all day, I really just wanted to see this thread brought back to the top...  Anyway...




I don't remember reading that he used ceremonial vats.



What does this have to do with religion?



I think you need to differentiate between organized religion and just 'religion'.  Religion is the philosophy, the dogma of the belief system.  Organized religion is the structure that supports, enforces and actively modifies those beliefs.  I can definitely see Jesus as rebelling against the standing structure (although that doesn't mean he was against ALL organized religion, just how that particular one was working).



Because we can't talk reliably with God.  At least I can't, I don't know about you :P  Plus organized religion bring a lot of other advantages, namely, a shared understanding of beliefs.  Before the Catholic Church rose, there were uncountable different versions of 'Christianity', and they were far more diverse than what we have now.  Some of them certainly weren't following Jesus' teachings.



But he didn't say NOT to either, and you'd think that would be much more important to specify than the contrary.



As above, religion is belief in the supernatural.  Being the son of God indicates there is a supernatural.  I think you're referring to organized religion, in which case his being the son of God is irrelevant.

John 2:6 - "Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons."

Re: The lame man carrying his mat.



Jewish law forbid the man to carry his mat on the Sabbath (John 5:9,10), and yet Jesus told the lame man directly to take his mat with him when he walked away (John 5:8) Jesus is very clear about his intentions to eliminate religion.



Every religion in the world is supported by some organized setup.  So in terms of this discussion I see no reason to separate the two.  Jesus was against anything that replaced a direct and perfect relationship with himself.  It's only our human messed up ways that feels the need to create a system to get to God, when God has just destroyed the system entirely with no plans in place to replace it with anything.



Why can't we?  Jesus says in Matthew 6 that we pray to the Father and that we can even do this with confidence as Hebrews says.  It's not complicated or esoteric.  It's simply talking, nothing more.  Why complicate it when Jesus never wanted it to be complicated.



The perceived benefits of religion are far outweighed by the horrors it has caused.  And yes there were all sorts of different "religions" that believed different things.  You just said that they were not following Jesus' teachings, and therein is the problem.  Get rid of all the useless systems that were never intended to be used, but were brought in out of necessity, and get right back to simply getting to know Jesus.  That's it.


Re: Jesus commanding the disciples to build a church


Why do more then Jesus commanded?  That was the problem with the Jewish tradition.  The addition of so many laws and customs.



Perhaps we are talking along similar lines here, but like I said previously there is no religion in the world that is not supported by some organized religion.  Therefore for the sake of this conversation I don't see a need to separate them.

Normally, I wouldn't touch a thread with a title like this one, but my impulsiveness got the upper hand of my better judgment.

Jesus was God. The once-blind man believed this. When God tells you you can break the Sabbath, which do you hold in higher regard? God or his laws to the Hebrew? I would say God has the higher authority of the two. Why He told the once-blind man to do this is admittedly unclear to me, though.

I don't believe Jesus was rebelling against any religious structure. I think a proper perspective would be theywere rebelling against Him. God doesn't rebel against anything, even when He is a man. After all, He made the laws in the first place, and a key point to recall regarding the life of Christ was to establish that not only can the laws of God be upheld by any man who has the knowledge and willpower to do so, but they can actually be exceeded.

The man born blind believed that Jesus was a prophet (John 9:17) and from God (John 9:33) but he never said he was God.  Whether he believed he was or not is open to debate I suppose though in this situation I don't think it really mattered to him - what mattered is that he could see again (John 9:25).

Out of curiosity though Mentat, how would you interpret Jesus intentionally using Jewish ceremonial washing vats in his first miracle?  This looks clearly subversive to me.  You would say that the Jews were rebelling against God (this may or may not be true) but how is that evident in this specific case?  This very clearly shows Jesus thumbing his nose at religion as he does with the man carrying his mat on the Sabbath as well.

*reads on*

John 9:37 and John 9:38. 'Nuff said as to what the blind man believed.

As for the use of ceremonial washing vats, what better source of wine then water used for cleaning? It was intended to be as pure as water could be. Then it became wine. Besides, it was rather understood that since the vats were dedicated to God Himself, He could use them as He chose. In this instance, making wine to celebrate a joyous occasion, a wedding.

I still fail to see the subversive nature, but as I've admitted before, I'm slow on the uptake.

Yes Mentat you are right.  After he had spoken with Jesus again he worshipped him as Lord.  But it's not immediately clear whether he believed that at the time of the miracle when Jesus commanded him to pick up his mat and walk.  It's not entirely clear whether the blind man was Jewish (though there is some indication that he might have been based on his parents fear of the Jews and not wanting to be put out of the synagogue).

Either way it doesn't matter.  It wasn't the blind man that was offended by what happened, it was the Jewish leaders that made the huge deal about it.  If Jesus was not trying to make a clear statement about religion then why send the man on his way through all the crowds of people blatantly showing him breaking the Sabbath?

A very interesting take on the ceremonial vats.  Perhaps if this was an isolated instance then it could be plausible.  But when Jesus uses the ceremonial washing vats (in my mind sending a clear message that system is no longer to be used), and purposefully sends the blind man through crowds breaking the Sabbath laws (another message) and makes mud on the Sabbath and then sends the man to wander through the town again on the way to the Pool of Siloam (sending another message), and these are just three examples.  There is a theme here.  In isolation perhaps one of these could be seen as just an oddity, but when combined with everything Jesus teaches (his own blood replaces the sacrificing blood of animals, his own body is now replacing the temple of the current religious system, the last supper was meant to remind people of Jesus, not be some fancy new religion that he was instituting.  He even tells a group of young jewish men (the disciples) during the last supper to see the eucharist as drinking his blood.  Talk about completely radical and against the system.

This is what I love about Jesus, he hates religion and comes down on earth himself to put an end to it.

He hammers away page after page, chapter after chapter, that the old guard is passing and it's time for something new, something that is not a stagnant old religion, but a fresh and inviting relationship with an active person.

That is certainly not true.  Most Gnostic 'churchs', many modern wiccan denominations and many pagan beliefs have no organized setup.  The early Christians had little or no organized setup.  I think it's absolutely critical to differentiate between the two because when I hear 'religion', it refers to what I believe and my relationship with God, which clearly makes it contradictory with your statement above.  If Jesus wanted to abolish religion, he would abolish my belief in God and my relationship with God.  If he wanted to abolish organized religion or a religious hierarchy, he'd abolish the priests, bishops and pope.



So can you talk with God?  If I asked you if abortion is right or wrong, could you get a reliable answer?  If your sixteen year old girlfriend were pregnant and you're still in high school, would you get the same answer?  Because I can guarantee I wouldn't.  So having a group of people who have dedicated their lives to answering these questions for me, so I can defer to their authority, is AWFULLY useful to me.  That's the benefit of organized religion to me.  That isn't to say that organized religion is meant to SUPPLANT my relationship with God, but it is certainly there to supplement it.



Horrors?  I'm not aware of very many myself, unless you are including 'when religion is used by another group to push a point', in which case I can't honestly say whether unorganized religion, a 'direct relationship with God' held by each person is more ripe for political abuse than an organized religion.    But that's a historical perspective, which is better discussed elsewhere.  I'm not aware of a lot of non-political cases where organized religion is horrible (although I can think of a few examples where unorganized religion is, such as Heaven's Gate).



Your paragraph here is a little unclear, so let me try to clarify my position.

With the early Christians, we had people following all sorts of weird things.  There was a lot of dispute over what was and wasn't Jesus' teachings.  There were 'gospels' telling people to forego the flesh and embrace only the spirit.  There were gospels also telling them to embrace the flesh and forget the spirit.  There were ones which said Jesus wasn't God and was just some nice fellow who got nailed to a cross.  There were ones that said Jesus was never human at all, and we can never have a relationship with him.  Presumably, followers of all of them at least tried to get in contact with Jesus/God and never got anything to tell them sex/murder/aesthetic lifestyle/whatever is good/bad/negligible.  So there were dozens of organized and unorganized churches, but the situation was anything but 'simple', and they had very different views of how to 'get to know Jesus' and who this Jesus fellow was.

With the rise of the Catholic Church, the majority of these beliefs died off, and we have what we generally all share as our beliefs; that Jesus was God AND man, that Jesus was sinless, but died on the cross and was resurrected.  90% of all Christian churches share this belief now because a single organized church rose from the rabble.  We all basically share the view that you CAN have a relationship with Jesus.  In other words, the basic premise of your argument only really came to be widely accepted due to the thing you reject, organized religion.

Obviously, if you embraced some other gospels as truth, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary, you could really justify your view that Jesus was against organized religion.  I assume you don't read these gospels or hold them as true, however.



Most of the laws and customs were laid out in the Torah and Talmud, presumably by God.  But regardless, the premise of the argument is flawed.  It's like saying 'why ever try to earn better than a C on an assignment?  That's a passing grade.'  Just because you met the bare minimum doesn't mean you shouldn't go on.

Organized religion is more susceptible to use for non-religious (usually political) means. When people become accustomed to listening to an authoritative body - priests, bishops etc - they don't simply follow rules like 'abortion is bad'. People tend to follow them in other things too, like 'smite the infidel'. Now, Jesus may not have been as consistently peaceful as the general view assumes (he was far more admirable than that), but he was certainly not militant. However, there have been many occasions in the past and more recently when Christians (and other followers of organised religion) have been exhorted by their church to do violence.



And then split into Protestant and Catholic, which had more disagreements to give us all of the different churches that we can find today. Modern christianity is anything but unified.




I would say, not quite. Trying to guess at God's will is like revising from notes that you've creatively made up about a subject. You can try to base them on what Jesus did and said, but you have to realise that anything you come up with on top of that is inherently flawed. It might be better than nothing, but it cannot be as right and perfect as if it had come from Jesus (although as an athiest, I believe that he as a human was inherently flawed as well). Therefore, if the Church says it, they have no right to demand that you follow it, only to suggest that it is probably what Jesus would have wanted. As the most knowledgable people on the subject, much of the time the church are the best people to interpret what Jesus would have wanted. However, ulterior motives much be considered as well - in Britain, the Church of England is often referred to as the Conservative party in drag.


I believe that people should be allowed to make their own mind up about religion and what Jesus wanted. If  we're brought up to believe too strongly in any one thing, we won't evaluate it properly. As an athiest, I think that Jesus was a great person - a philosopher on the lines of Ghandi. Many of his teachings are applicable today. The idea that we should listen unthinkingly to anyone however, as if they were descended from God themselves, is wrong.

This might be drifting off topic somewhat, but this is why I think faith schools are so wrong. They fill children with preconceptions, children who know nothing better, and who cannot question what they learn. They also work actively to increase the chasm between different cultures, which is becoming a big problem in Britain.

Ok, for the purpose of this discussion then I am going to use the word 'relationship' instead of what you seem to be defining as 'religion' and 'religion' to define anything other then 'relationship'.

Hopefully this will help to keep us speaking the same language.



I don't know what you mean by Gnostic churchs and I am not overly familiar with a lot of pagan and wiccan belief systems.  But do they have any rites or rituals at all that are essential for their practices?  I am not speaking of a building or even an organized gathering, but rather any action that replaces relationship.

Jesus would only want to eliminate the priests and pope etc if they are starting to take the place of a relationship with him.  In my opinion this is happening a lot in the Catholic church (just as it happens in the Protestant church) and Jesus most certainly is saddened by what is happening in both of those organized setups.   If the priests and pope were only used as ways to simply glorify God and enhance a relationship with Him, and not an iota more then I would not see a problem with it.  But the pope is seen as being needed as a mediator to God (though the Bible is clear there is 1 mediator, Jesus Christ) and the heirarchy of priests and bishops etc, have done more for confusion and detachment from God then helped.



Yes I can talk to God.  Yes I can get an answer about abortion.  That's the point of an inspired Word of God.  The spoken Word to us humans trying to figure out life.  My own feelings and opinions are what cause different answers in different situations.  The Catholic church has really missed the boat on prayer, by inserting an additional step into the God - human relationship.  Jesus gave up his very life to destroy the temple and the religious system and we as sinful, selfish human beings have done everything in our power to build this system back up because it's what we feel comfortable with.

In reading the book of Hebrews we can see that this was the issue that they were struggling with.  Returning to a previous religious lifestyle simply because the direct relationship way of living wasn't easy for them, and the Jewish religion offered a strange sense of comfort and familiarity for them.

Prayer is not complicated or mystic, we have simply made it that way, and it's very sad.  Let's get rid of any mediator other Jesus himself.  No popes, no priests, no pastors, no saints, nothing else that gets between Christ and ourselves.



I am speaking of organized religion here.  The Christian religion is the worst in the world at actually living out what it's founder wanted for it.  Bar none.  By a country mile and back again.  This is not to say that other religion hasn't caused incredible heartache, but Christianity (whether it be Protestant or Catholic) is the worst easily.  And I say this as a Christian myself.  Every time in history you see horrible atrocities related to religion, it is when a belief system, or a set of rituals and rules, have replaced a relationship with a loving God.



And now the Christian church, including of course the Catholic church, has simply become a new Pharasitical setup with a whole set of rules, regulations etc to relate to God.  What a big waste of what Jesus came to achieve.  So how has organized religion helped a thing?  It hasn't.  With organized religion we are in the exact same spot that the Pharisees (or any of the Jews) were in.  Having systems in place to relate to God.  We don't need them.  In fact they are harmful.  Let's get rid of them.  I love that 'what' we believe has been basically laid down, particularly the core beliefs (deity of Christ, totality of sin etc).  But if at any point I am told I HAVE to read the Bible to be saved, or I HAVE to pray to God to be saved, then we have replaced relationship with religion.  Anything at all that becomes necessary for a relationship with God, other then simply the relationship itself, is religion and was the very thing that Jesus rallied against as hard as he could while on earth.

I do not believe in the gnostic gospels, just as an fyi.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

Here's the point in all of this.  If I go to church on a Sunday morning believing that I need to read my Bible to be a good Christian then I have missed the point.  If I sit at home in my living room believing that I need to pray to be a Christian then I have missed the point.  If I go to the Vatican believing that I need to agree with the Pope then I have missed the point.  None of these things need to happen in an individual's life in order for them to know God.  If we do any of them let it be simply so we can celebrate that we don't need to, that  Jesus already did all of the hard work for us.  It's the way that life is intended and the way that we are going to live at the end of days and the way that we lived at the beginning.  Why do we feel like we need to create systems in the interim when life was never intended to be lived with such bondage?

I haven't seen enough unorganized religions to be able to compare.  Do you have any support for that?  Obviously, organized religion has the 'benefit' of being an organized body, so if you capture its head, the body follows.  But generally the head is hard to get control of.  In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, it took generations for it to fall under the sway of politicians.



The difference between any Protestant and any Catholic is nothing compared to the difference between a Manichean and a Catholic.  Current Christianity isn't unified politically, but in beliefs it really is.



Like I said, at least speaking for myself, I can't get it directly from Jesus.  At least not definitively.  When I look at why the Catholic Church has its stance on abortion and compare it to my own thoughts, the Church's view is well laid out, logical, well supported.  Mine is a muddle.  Praying has done little to help this.  So the 'better than nothing' the Church offers is the best I got, and thank goodness I got it.

Obviously, if I had the time to really research the topic, I could have more faith in my own answer.  Instead of an abortion, which is generally very time sensitive, consider the use of condoms.  I can do plenty of research and check the bible and pray and for me, the answer is a little more straight forward, while the Church's position is more tenuous.  So clearly, deferring to an authority isn't always as clear cut in every case.



I think this begs an interesting question, that of primacy of conscience.  If I think not going to church on Sunday is okay, who trumps?  Me, or the priest?  If I think murder is okay, who trumps?  Different churches approach it in different ways.  This is one case where I agree with the LDS Church more than the Catholic Church because they do support the idea that we have to do what we honestly believe is right, even when it disagrees with Church teachings.  I think the Catholic Church's stance came out of necessity, and since it isn't a theological teaching, I think it will change over time.  It's just the Church moves painfully slowly.  But even then, there will be limits.  Even if I thought abortion was right, I'm pretty sure it will continue to be an offense that the Church would reward with excommunication.  But that is definitely moving away from the core subject of whether JESUS supported the idea of a Church or not.  I certainly think Jesus supported the idea of primacy of conscience, however.



Currently that's certainly the case.  People are allowed to leave or join whichever religion they please.

There are some Christian groups (like the Mennonites) were it is general practice for the individual to leave the community for a year and then come back to better judge whether he really wants to be there.  I certainly agree more religions could use that.  Objectivity is valuable, and that fact is easily forgotten.



This is off-topic, but I'm just curious, why is the 'chasm between different cultures' bad?




I'll try to keep that in mind.  So relationship is what you share directly with God, your beliefs about God and the supernatural, your theology, and religion is the organized, human structure that supports that.



Some, although generally the rites are defined largely by the person doing them.  Many wiccan denominations have a 'book of shadows' where the individual writes his own rituals that he uses.  The gnostics believed God was within each of us, and so they had certain basic rituals which drew on psychological imagery (such as a death and rebirth motif), but were not set in stone requiring it be done in a particular way.  I'm not aware of any strict Gnostic or Wiccan rituals that were written down and always done the same way for every person.  It's far more based on the individual and his or her needs.



I can agree with this.



I think in these cases it's important to compare what would happen if we didn't have these traditions and rituals in place.  We really don't see a lot of people who actively have a relationship with God, but don't go to church.  The reason is because people are lazy.  Unfortunately, the alternative is most people think church is a replacement for having a relationship.  As long as they go to church, they don't NEED a relationship, and if they don't go to church, they don't even think about a relationship.  So this isn't a case of the priest supplanting the relationship, it's the case of people not taking the initiative and doing what they're asked to do.



The pope isn't a mediator to God in the way you seem to be indicating.  You don't need to pray 'through' the pope or a priest.  Is a priest an important part of spiritual living?  For most of us, yes.  Most of us can't dedicate the amount of time to godly thoughts as we should.  But it certainly shouldn't replace prayer and a personal relationship.



You mean the bible?  The bible tells us abortion is wrong?  I've missed that one, muchless things like masturbation or stem cell research.  Can you show me how you got your answer?  How you would get an answer for something more complex?



Christianity has a complex history, and has fulfilled many functions that no other religious organization was called upon to perform.  The Buddhists were never relied upon as the sole source of educated people, the Aztec religion was never the sole source of political stability.  No other religion has survived the fall of a major world power like Christianity has, nor been the primary form of stability for an entire continent for a century.  Is it a position the Church belonged in?  Not at all.  The Church is meant to be a religious institution, not political.  But was it a very good thing that it was there to bridge that gap?  Most certainly.  The lives and culture saved by the Church come the fall of the Roman empire cannot be calculated.  An unorganized religion would have been unable to offer that sort of support and charity.



But if we threw away the organization, our beliefs would simply begin to splinter again.  People argue that the Protestant/Catholic split is significant, but it really isn't.  Take some time to study what the early Church had to compete with, and how wild some of those views were.  Some of the most 'relationship' based views DID require you read a certain book or partake in a certain ritual, and it had nothing to do with an organization.  It's the simple fact that people are lazy.  People will not take the initiative.  If they don't have to read or pray or do anything other than watch American Idol, they won't.  Christianity as you and I know it would drop t a hundredth of its size because people simply wouldn't care.  A relationship with who?



Read them if you haven't.  The Gospel of Thomas especially I think you'd find interesting.



Firstly, you complained that the Jews had all these laws they were following.  But the laws were laid down by God, not by people.  If God requires the people follow laws, I think those people better follow them!  It isn't much of a relationship if you ignore everything the other person says.

Second, you (I believe it was you) asked why we should go beyond what Jesus said.  I think that's a bit of a defeatist question.  Why ever go beyond the bare minimal requirements?  Especially when it comes to a relationship based on love.  You do EVERYTHING you can.  If my wife asks me to clean the counters, I'll sweep too.  If Jesus asks me to have a relationship, I'll make a community too.  And if I happen to be the person most on fire about it, I guess I'll lead the community!



Yes, yes, yes!  100% agreement!  But, the part you missed is what you've built your entire argument on.  You need a relationship!!

When I was in Venezuela, I met people who went to Church twice a year, Christmas and Easter.  They were baptised and got First Communion.  That's it.  They said they're Catholics.  I wondered why they bothered.  Even now, I know people who go to church because they always did, because their parents did.  What good is that?  Heck, when I was in college I mostly went to college because my parents would be upset if I didn't.  Why didn't I just stop going?

The reason is because if that's all the tools we have to poke those people, we need to use them.  Sure, I didn't really have a relationship in college.  But when I got out of college and started really learning about life, when I had kids and gave it more of a chance, then I started to redevelop that relationship I had let lapse.  If I had stopped going ot church altogether, would that relationship have come back?  Almost certainly not.

This is why Mormons knock on my door once a month, to offer me a chance to have a relationship.  They'll convince me with whatever tools they have.  This is why I'm going to require my kids go to church, so they at least recognize this need.  This is why they'll go to bible studies too, so they can see other people who do have a relationship.  It's only through community, through tradition, that that relationship survives its lapses, lapses that last for years or generations.

So why organized religion?  I don't think my grandfather was religious, but my father became a deacon because, even if his father didn't have a relationship, my father went to church every day, and that was enough to push him to find out more.  I was raised with a child's relationship, which died when I hit college, but because I kept going to church, kept pushing myself, I began developing it again.  And when I was in times of need, I had a community to help me.  I knew where they were and that they'd always be available.  When I had ethical dilemmas and was too caught up to solve them myself, I had dedicated specialists who I could depend on.  Organized religion is God's messages piling up on your answering machine asking 'where are you?' and God's community of people there to support me in my relationship.

We seem to be bringing this conversation closer together with every post which is excellent.  I really do think for the most part we are pretty close in this issue.  I will post more much later today, I have a busy day at work.

But keep in mind I am fully in support of attending church, but not because I need to, but because it's a great way to enjoy God and others.  If at any point it becomes a situation where I feel like I am obligated to be at church to be a good Christian, then that's when I've strayed from what Christ sett into motion 2000 years ago.

This is a good chat Katisara.

This whole idea is all fairly new to me as well, so I am still working through it, so you might need to forgive me some stream of consciousness writing at times :)

There are several issues to consider here. One, Jesus seemed particularly eager to tweak the man-made rules that were attached to worship. Virtually every miracle recorded happened on the Sabbath, and the ire it drew from the religious leaders of the day is noted. Jesus fired back at them, asking them that if their child or their animal were trapped in a well on the Sabbath, wouldn't they pull him out? This was a clear case of taking what was meant to be a blessing (the Sabbath) and turning it into a curse (a list of prohibitions that prevented the goal of the Sabbath -- refreshing man's soul).

But to take this and turn it into a diatribe against religious acts is equally wrong. We are exhorted in Hebrews not to give up meeting together. Jesus did say that he would establish his church (i.e. assembly of people) upon the rock. We are commanded to celebrate the death of Christ through communion. So, removing all structure is clearly not the way to go.

What we need is a balance between remaining together and not imposing undue burdens that cause our brothers to stumble.

Like I said, I am not against meeting together and having times to worship, pray, read the Bible.  Those are all great things.  But if at any point there is any indication that any of those things are necessary to be a Christian, then that is where we see a failure.  Only Christ is necessary.

"Only Christ is necessary" is a noble platitude, but what that means for a person's life is a topic that belongs in another thread. For now, I will simply say that if a person claims to have become a Christian and still lives the same way he did before becoming one, he is missing out on one of the most powerful tools the Christian has: transformative change through the power of the Holy Spirit. Why that change is not present is either a matter of the will (he doesn't want to, which brings into question why he became a Christian) or a matter of the inability (which brings into question his salvation).

As for our current discussion, part of the problem lies in people being unclear on what is actually required.

I would agree with the premise you put forward, and we've seen examples (Cromwell, for instance), where the rules of humans, if anything, made it MORE difficult to spend time with God.  The big question for me is, where do we draw the line and does that line shift with changes in culture?

I agree, someone who claims to be a Christian but sees 0 change in their life, well there is something going on there, and your two options are the most likely.

But only Christ is necessary is more then a noble platitude, it is a powerful template for how to live.  If at any point, anything at all takes the place of, or becomes an addition to Christ, then I am in error.  And therein is the struggle of my own life.  How often does free time, my family, my church, my ministry, my bible study, my worship, my prayers, become the focus of my Christian life, as opposed to just Christ?  The answer is a LOT!

But thankfully that's also the beauty of Christianity.  I don't have to feel guilt about it.  God knew that he would have to send his very own Son to die on a cross to even give us the option of not being stuck in a religious system.  And now we still struggle with not being stuck in that system because that's how we are wired.  But it's still a fun ride figuring all of this out as I go along, and just enjoying the complete freedom that is in it.

Are there days I feel guilty?  Of course.  But that's a failing on my part and not the fault of God.  Any system that breeds guilt is a flawed one and the very reason Jesus died.

Ugh and I really need to work, too much to do today!

Thought I'd poke around a bit at some of what has been said earlier that I hadn't addressed.

Re: Wiccans etc.

I really have to claim ignorance here, as I simply don't know enough about it to be able to speak much about it.  The gnostics I am more familiar with but again not enough to be able to speak about them in the context of this discussion.



There was no formal organized religion in the early church.  Just some people that cared for each other, read the Word of God etc.  That seemed to work wonderfully.  Like I said earlier I am not in favour of shutting down churches, but rather making sure we know why we are going.  And that it has nothing to do with being a good Christian.



Can someone be a good Catholic Christian and yet decide that they no longer need to confess their sins to a priest?  Would that be ok?



Not really the place for a debate on abortion.  Obviously people are going to differ on their interpretation of Scripture, perhaps that's your point.  That doesn't take away the simplicity of having a conversation with God.  It just means that sometimes we disagree on what God's reply is.  Such is the beauty of a Christian community (sadly it's usually ugliness) that should be able to discuss and read about these things together to try and decide what the answer is.



The good things that have come about from organized religion are but a drop in an ocean of hurt and pain that it has caused.



If all of the pretenders and people who say they are Christians because it makes them feel good or they get something out of it, if they all left and it was boiled down just to a group of people who spent time loving each other and working out how to love God better every day then we have gone miles closer to the setup Christ wanted.  People are lazy, good thing Jesus did away with a system that required them to work (religion).  None of the work is required.  If people don't want to read their Bibles and pray then how real is their faith.  If people are only doing it out of a sense of obligation then how real is their faith.  Get rid of all of that, and all those people and bring it back down to a core group who simply do those things because it helps them know their God even better.  Of course we'll struggle with it all, we're still living in fleshly bodies, but that's the purpose of other friends, who can struggle right along with us.  We shouldn't be doing any of these things because it's our obligation as a Christian.



I have read parts of the gospel of Thomas. So many issues with it I'm surprised people still bring it up.  It was a late written document, it is filled with gnostic phrases which differ greatly from the content of the synoptic gospels and at points it clearly seems to be lifting content from the Apostle Paul and saying Christ said it.  People make a big deal (not saying you are at all) about the book but a fairly quick reading of it combined with an understanding of the synoptic gospels makes it a pretty easy decision as to why it is not in the Bible.



The Jews were commanded to follow God's law and they should have.  It doesn't mean they should have added to it (they had all sorts of additional laws that they had made up).  But the time for that is past as Christ has done away with the need for the law.

As for your second point, I am talking about salvation, not enjoying the relationship with Christ.  Of course we want to do more for Christ - just like we do for our spouses and friends - but we don't have to!

In short, for every wonderful story there is of people who were encouraged in their faith because of mandatory church attendance, there are far more of people who were hurt, damaged, maligned and destroyed because of an organization that forgot why they existed.  I go to church, yes even on days when I don't really feel like it.  But not because I know that if I don't I am a lesser Christian.  But because I value my relationship with Christ more then anything else in existence.  Too many people do it because it's just expected or they feel guilty, and I feel sad for them.  And for me when I do it for those reasons, because that still happens.

I'm guessing you're discounting the whole 'fed to lions' bit :P

I would actually disagree.  You have such a wide range of beliefs, some of which could be genuinely damaging.  I do support the existence of unorganized groups like that (like youth groups, for instance) but, especially when there were such communication problems, we don't have a way of keeping dangerous or wrong people in check, a single authority to check information against.  Even assuming 90% of these unorganized Christians aren't mean to each other in an attempt to convince one another of their beliefs, most people have little protection from con artists, false prophets and the like.



Not mortal sins, only venial sins.  But it's along the lines of asking if someone can kill other people and be a good Christian.  Being a non-murderer or a charitable person isn't a 'mediator', it's just part of Christian behavior.



Basically.  You seem very confident that you can get an answer about abortion and, presumably, stem cell research, masturbation, etc.  I just can't understand that confidence, myself.  I think if I got together with another dozen Christians in my office or neighborhood, I fear the vast majority would not be able to offer anything useful to the conversation.  They don't have the time or interest to study these things or, like me, have strong personal bias on topics.



Again, I'm not seeing that.  I guess if you wanted to weigh the good and bad of organized religion in history we could.  The bad generally gets more press.  I guess people are more focused on 1100 than 400.



I don't know, I guess if I had to choose between a bunch of bad Christians and a few very good Christians, or JUST a few very good Christians, I'd probably choose the former.



Fair enough.  But if I want to have a relationship with Christ, and part of my worship of him is building an organized religion, how is that bad?




But of those people, how many would have had a relationship with God if they didn't feel they had to go to church?  Alright, a person spends 52 hours a year going to church and being bored.  Is he really that much better off if he spends those 52 hours watching Sunday morning cartoons instead?  Is that really such a huge advantage?

Some good points you've brought up.



This is a really good point, and so I want to hold this particular thought while I look at some stuff.  Particularly how the early church in Acts behaved and interacted with each other and how the Pauline epistles etc (which deal with these sorts of issues) fit in with all of this.



I've never understood the different types of sins personally but no matter.  Are you saying that not confessing sin to a priest is a sin then?  Does confessing sins to a priest make you a better Christian?  Is it involved in any way with salvation?



I think it's sad that people don't care enough to look up these topics.  But that's not because communication with God is not simple and easy.  It's because people don't' do it.  Seems straight forward.



Fair enough, we can leave this topic and just say we disagree.  If we wanted to bring this specific topic to another thread we could (it might even be somewhere already)



There would be no bad, good, or very good Christians.  But genuine ones who were all figuring it out together.  That's the point.  There is no 'class' of Christian, just a bunch of messed up people figuring it out as well go along together in community.



Let me think on this.  I've typed something several times and deleted it because my answer has felt inadequte.  I'll get back to this point at a later time.



I'd say they are equally unhelpful.  But in the first case people can be hurt as well as helped (I would say a higher chance of being harmed, though you would disagree).  In the second instance at least people don't get the impression that God is judging them or hating them as many people have from religion.  They just get entertained :)

The ideal situation is neither.  People go to church because they want to, not because they are guilted into it.

Let me ask it this way, if you believe in Jesus, and then you commit some terrible sin like murder, is that sin in any way relevant to your chances of salvation?  Do you need to ask forgiveness for that sin and seek to fix what is wrong?

Obviously, we're talking about a living relationship with someone.  If I were to kick you in the head and steal your car, even if I believed in you and liked you, our relationship would require some repair.  The first step would be asking forgiveness, then doing what I can to repair the damage I caused.

The priest serves as the 'third party' basically, to make sure you're genuinely asking for forgiveness, to offer you ways to repair the damage, and to help YOU get your head on straight (because frankly, if you're killing people, you need some help).

I would say confessing your sins makes you a better Christian, just like my sending you a card on your birthday makes me a better friend.  For most sins, it doesn't have a tremendous bearing on salvation.  For those very serious sins like murder, theft, rape, adultery, etc., it's considered a critical step in asking forgiveness, to repairing your relationship with God, and therefore for salvation (on the idea that if you aren't willing to confess your sins, you're not asking for forgiveness, so you won't receive forgiveness).  There are, of course, extenuating circumstances, but the basic question is, if a priest is available, why not?



I'm still very confused by your answers.  How do you determine if abortion is good or bad??  Speaking for myself, I'd check the bible, non-biblical canon, the Catholic catechism, speak with trusted people like my priest, gather non-theological ethical opinions, and of course, pray.  In my experience, prayer is the LEAST effective method because I worry any response I get is clouded by my personal bias.  In many cases, the bible is also ineffective because the scripture is unclear or there's nothing on it (they bible says nothing on stem cell research or masturbation, for instance).  So with the amount of research I have to do, I'd hardly call it 'simple', regardless as to how easy prayer is.



Fair enough.  Then if I had the choice between a bunch of genuine Christians and ungenuine Christians, or just genuine Christians, I'd still choose the former :P



I do wonder what sort of church you go to now!  Maybe I haven't seen a lot of 'fire and brimstone' preachers.  The only time I can remember going to a service where the priest directly condemned any sort of behavior was on the subject of an active homosexual lifestyle, drawing on scripture, and honestly, I think he was right in doing so.  A relationship with God isn't always puppies and roses, it's sometimes very challenging.  The priest was right to push this topic home.  He might not be able to get people to actually pray, but he may at least be able to get them to stop activity which pushes them farther from God's plan.

No, that sin is not relevant to salvation.  Because what is to prevent you from murdering someone and then being instantly killed.  That would make salvation based on your actions and that is completely against what Christ did.  It doesn't make sense to us because we do not love in the same way that Christ does.  I do not believe you can lose salvation.

Asking forgiveness is important in the sense, like you've touched on, that it can restore a damaged relationship with the one who created us.  But that's only our part.  Christ is consistent in his love and acceptance for us even in the midst of our screw up, no matter how large.  It's a radical, almost unimaginable, love.  Beyond anything we can see here on earth.



The difference between me as a normal human friend and Christ as the creator and lover of our eternal souls, is that I operate on a sense of "what have you done for me lately" and so you being a better friend is dependent on the card.  Jesus does not work that way, that's the entire point of all of this.  You doing things for him doesn't change the way he feels about you one ounce.  Not a single iota.  It doesn't make sense to us as humans but that's the way he works.  That's the point of the worker and the wages.  Those who work all day long get the same full day's wage as those who only just started working an hour ago.  No favoritism when it comes to salvation.

As for priest's I like a discussion I heard from a guy named Drew Marshall on the radio.  He says he goes to a Christian councilors once a year for a tuneup.  I see the priest operating the same way.  But, he says, and I would agree, if the body of Christ were operating in the way it was intended, there would be no need for priests or Christian Councilors. We would simply be able to grab another person who is a believer in Christ and have an intimate chat about our lives and our struggles.  That is the way the body is meant to operate, not with certain individuals who have higher levels of importance such as a priest or even a christian councilor.



Maybe the issue is that obviously all of us don't get the same answers when trying to determine the will of God through reading the Bible.  That's one of the constant growth issues of our faith.  I don't have a TON of stuff figured out, but that's not God's fault.  It's mine.

Here's prayer in a nutshell.  I talk to God through speaking (prayer) but God has already replied through his word, and directs me through the Holy Spirit (someone rarely talked about in Christian circles) to view the Word of God correctly.  That's it.  I view the Bible as the perfect and direct Word of God, and so perfectly suitable for making all decisions on life.  Does the Bible say Thou shalt not masturbate, or and Jesus blessed masturbation for all of his children?  Obviously no.  All that means is it's going to take a little digging and properly understanding context etc to find the answer.  And you and I might still end up having different answers to the question at the end of the day.  So then we can get back at looking at it again, because obviously one of us is a little wrong in our thinking.  But that's ok.  It's not because God hasn't given an answer, it's because I might not get it.

And what is the greatest part of all of this is that it doesn't really matter if  I am wrong on masturbation. It's not a salvation issue.  I need to only have an opinion, based on my understanding of the Bible, but be willing to rexamine that opinion if there is other evidence presented to me on the issue.



What is an ungenuine Christian?  I would say they are not Christian.  A genuine Christian is not a good Christian, but simply a real one.  Warts and all.

I'd say an ungenuine Christian is an oxymoron and cannot exist.



The church I currently attend is very religious.  But it's the best there is in my city and there are very genuine people within the church.  It's fine for a pastor or priest to say "This is what I believe the Word of God says about such and such."  As long as he is not pretending to speak on behalf of God.

My problem with this is not that we shouldn't be confessing (we should), but rather with the idea that certain sins need to be confessed to a specialized official in order to be forgiven.



John here is addressing the entire church, saying that Jesus has made us priests. I don't see a distinction between certain chief officials of the church and the remainder.


Peter takes it one step further and declares in two places (verses 5 and 9) that  Christians as a whole are priests; that we don't need to have a specialized class of priests.


There is no requirement here for mortal sins to be confessed to a priest. Indeed, given the above, confession to another Christian is confession to a priest. But is my salvation jeopardized because I confess to my best friend in the Lord and repent as opposed to a church official?

The question there is does God judge us based on our relationship at the moment of death?  Based on our overall relationship?  Based on something we do after death?  The bible really isn't precise on that matter.  While the Catholic Church has said that your state at the moment of death is critical (which is a belief that predates the Catholic Church, and is actually a creation of the early Christians).  I don't believe it's one of those theological issues that the Church has come right out and said 'this is absolutely certain and we're not changing', so I cannot tell you that if you die immediately after committing a murder, you would go to heaven or hell.

However, let us assume that you DON'T die immediately afterwards.  Can you say you have an honest relationship with Jesus, that you love Jesus, if you're not willing to come clean?



Why do you say that?  Jesus said that you have to believe (and presumably also love) him.  So if you reject Jesus, reject his gifts or reject his love, you lose salvation.



But notice, they all worked.  The parable doesn't have the foreman going out to pay people on the street who didn't work at all, nor people who started to work, then went off to do something else (in fact, to the contrary, we have the story of two sons, one who says he won't do his father's will, but does it in the end, and the other who says he will but ends up not doing it.  It's the one who did the work who gets credit.)

So obviously I can't repay Jesus for what he's done.  It'd be like a four year old trying to pay the mortgage on the house he lives in.  However, he can reciprocate through his relationship with his parents.  Jesus didn't offer us a completely free ride, we still need to pursue him to some degree as well, and some things push us the other way.



Unfortunately, it doesn't (I know, stating the obvious).  If you decided to talk to me, you wouldn't know if I had the ethical background to help you determine if you've done wrong, the psychological training to help support you in changing, or the spiritual training to actually help you get closer to God.  Priests are required to have four years of higher education and work full time on developing these critical skills to help us.

Obviously, if I, for whatever reason, did get all this training on my own and had a sincere relationship with God, I could help you with your struggles.  But then how do you know I'm legit?  What trusted authority tells you I actually did this stuff and I'm not just a con artist or a charismatic crazy?  How do you know I'm not trying to manipulate you?  If you've known me my whole life or if you're married to me, you can be pretty sure (at least as sure as you'd be with a priest), but most people don't have life-long friends who have four years of ethics, scripture and psychology training and a proven commitment to Christ.



Alright, so if it's your fault for not getting the right answer, doesn't that tell you that prayer is not fully reliable?  Nothing against God, you're just not fully capable of that sort of a relationship yet (I've admitted to that many, many times!)  So if you cannot get trustworthy answers through your prayers, how do you answer these questions?  Do you just ask someone else who is in just as bad a spot as you are?



No, but obviously, if you love Jesus, you want to go out of your way to follow his commands.  The first step is clearly to find out what his commands are.  So in my thinking, we have a moral obligation to find a solution for these issues.  Saying 'boy, my girlfriend got pregnant...  I love God, but I really don't want to have to change my life around this new baby.  I'll pray, and if I don't get an obvious answer, I'll just accept that whether I have an abortion or not, I'm still saved,' is obviously a terrible thing.  Saying 'it doesn't really matter' is relieving ourselves of all responsibility to moral living.  (This isn't to say that you don't live morally, but that people listening to you might figure that Christianity is a one step process, saying 'I believe in you Jesus' and then going back to whatever you were doing like nothing changed.)



Correct, but I'd still want them, as much as I detest them.



I believe this is the only line that's really relevant.  Disregarding that this is in Revelations, which is the single most controversial and obtuse book in the bible, I really don't read it like that.  (Actually, do you have the exact verse?  Revelations 4 doesn't seem to match that.)

"and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God"

I don't think you're fully appreciating the possible nuances of 'made us ... priests'.  This could mean:
-Made some of the community into priests (like 'made us pregnant' doesn't refer to the men being pregnant)
-Made priests for us (like 'made us peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, which clearly doesn't mean he made us INTO sandwiches)
-Made us all into priests (like 'made us into a kingdom')

So I hardly see it as a definitive statement.






These are both from letters written to specific churches, not to the general public.  Jesus never said this, nor did anyone say it to just a group of random people or during a sermon.

Let's look at this:


Are only the members of these particular churches the ones who were called to be a royal priesthood? Are they the only ones chosen for obedience to Christ? Or are these meant to apply to everyone?



The "twelve tribes", if they do not refer to the entirety of the church, must refer to Jews. So if this does not apply to everyone, it must refer only to Jews who have converted to Christianity. So if I am a converted Jew, I can confess to another converted Jew, but everyone else must confess to a priest? What happened to the idea of a holy catholic church?

Jesus wouldn't have a need to command people to confess to one another. First, He is God, so confession to Him is confession to God directly. Second, He hadn't yet established the church. Until then, Jesus was speaking to Jews who had a priesthood and animal sacrifices for sin.

As for the epistles, they don't specify that they only apply to the church leaders. In fact in the case of Paul's letters at least, it was expected that they be read aloud to the church, and in some cases, shared:



And remember, we are talking about Scripture here, not some random discussion from a church leader. Viewing context is necesary, but here the context seems clear that we don't have any support for a priesthood within Scripture.

Of course not.  However, we can't take one line from the letter and apply it to everyone.  Parts of the letter have things that should apply to everyone, parts are addressed only to the recipients, and the implication is everyone else in a similar place should do the same.  So a priest, whether in Arcadia or Arkansas, is held to the same high standard, however that standard does NOT necessarily apply to non-clergy or non-Christians.



This one is a little more confusing.  I'm trying to figure out who specifically it was sent to then.  Obviously, in the case of 1 Peter, it was sent to actual churches being maintained by priests.  This one is so vague, I can't really determine the context.  Let me get back to this one later.



We have a few options here.  Let us assume that Jesus realized he was setting the foundation for a religion that would last well past his death.  He could:
A) Tell people to confess things to each other when he's not around (remember, he can't be everywhere, and many of his disciples never got a chance to speak with him in person at all).  This would be very valid, if that was his intention, because, like I said, many of his disciples had very limited access, if any (note, I'm saying disciples, not apostles.  So this includes Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, etc.)  So if Jesus told Lazarus, "look, I'm going to be gone, I might get nailed to a cross, but confess your sins to your other Christian friends," he'd have set the precedent for this, and it would make sense for him to say this during his life.

B)  Tell people to confess things to a priest.  Jesus really couldn't have said this because it makes so little sense.  There were no priests, and he didn't share his ultimate plan with people, so he didn't say anything before his crucifixion that led people to expect there would be priests.  As you pointed out, in the case that Jesus wanted people to confess to priests, he would have said NOTHING.  However, during his 40 day ministry or by visiting his apostles during prayer, he could have conferred this message after his crucifixion.  Since we have basically no information on what Jesus did during or after his 40 day ministry, we wouldn't have any direct support in the scriptures for confession, we would have to imply it instead from the behavior of the early Christians.

Since we have nothing indicating Jesus supported people confessing to each other, I think B is the more sound conclusion.



Of course, but they don't specify (except for Paul's letter, which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand) that they SHOULD be shared either.  So if you get two letters, one says 'pass this to Bob when you're done' and the other doesn't, do you assume that BOTH should be passed on?  Of course not.  There's no reason to assume that all letters are meant for the same audience.

If our actions still determine eternal salvation that Jesus dying was a waste of time, and the greatest tragedy in history.  There are so many verses like John 10:29 "And I give eternal life to them; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."

I fully believe that.  If someone rejects Christ, well who knows.  Maybe they never were a Christian, or maybe Jesus' death on the cross was enough even for the person.  All I know is that salvation is a one time, no takey backeys kind of thing.

It doesn't seem fair to us, we get mad at it.  But it's the way God works.



Addressed above.



What about the thief on the cross?  All he did was believe and nothing else.

Jesus DID offer us a completely free ride, with a desire that we would reciprocate, but our relationship with him does not depend on it.  Again, this does not make sense in our world, but God is the definition of love and his love does not depend on our actions.



Yes, I agree, people serve different functions within the body, but not different status.  The Bible is very clear on that.  There are some within the body that are better abled to understand and discuss Scripture, but that doesn't give them any higher standing within that body.

The individual who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even read the Bible, who cannot speak his/her prayers because they don't have the ability and are too crippled to be able to get to a church is as vitally critical and important to the complete health of the body of Christ as the Pope.  In what way?  I don't know, but that's not for me to figure out.  If any of those actions (church attendance, prayer, Bible reading) were necessary for salvation then God has made it impossible for certain people in the world to have a relationship with him, and that's completely against his nature.



I sure do ask someone just as bad off as myself.  That's the joy of being in community with others.  We work on all of this together.  It's refreshing and exciting and biblical.  As an aside you also are asking someone as bad off as yourself to tell you things.  Your priest.  He's no better then the drug addict lying in a gutter downtown who only knows that Jesus loves him. That's the levelling factor of sin.


Absolutely!



Ok so saying it doesn't matter was the wrong way to phrase it...heh.  It does matter, but not for my salvation, just in the sense that I have a desire to know and serve Christ better, just as I do my wife.




But isn't that the exact problem that Paul addressed in Romans.  If people are not coming to that conclusion then they don't understand the gospel.  The line of thinking goes "If salvation is completely free and requires no other actions on my part then what is preventing me from living a crazy wild life."  Paul addresses it in Romans 6.



I am saying that there is no such thing.

But then again, we also have verses like this:
So while God may not take away our salvation, we are certainly able to throw it away.

So how come Lucifer, who was once one of God's greatest followers, is now stuck in Hell?



The thief is completely anomalous.  We don't know that he was actually a thief, just convicted as one by what was likely a not especially fair trial.  Jesus could read his soul, we don't know if that was all that was required for a confession.  We don't know if he'd been baptized previously.  Of course, it's convenient to think that he really was a dirty thief who just said he believed right there, because that's all the information we're given, but it's a dangerous assumption.  Regardless, even assuming that, HE HAD TO BELIEVE!!!  He accepted Jesus.  Notice the other thief, he did NOT believe.  He rejected Jesus.  We assume he didn't go to heaven.  So there is that initial act on our part.  Hence, it isn't, strictly speaking, a free ride, since we need to accept that relationship.



Let's be careful about how we use 'status'.  I don't think anyone believes the pope is somehow 'better' than me, or going to go to a better heaven.  However, in any organization, some people take on more responsibility, and there's no question that the pope has a LOT more responsibility on his shoulders than I do.  Equally, within an organization, it functions better with some sort of leadership structure.  That isn't saying the leader is better, but it does afford him some necessary power to guide that organization.

So saying the cripple is critical to the Church isn't devaluing the existing hierarchy, it's just reinforcing that we're a community.



If we assume that some people can have a better relationship than others, and that ethical decisions are not based SOLELY on prayer, I would have to disagree.  The drug addict (assuming he's even coherent) probably does not understand the concept of the natural purpose of things, nor can he quote the story of Oman from Genesis as an example of why an action may be wrong.

Ultimately, if I'm asking for advice about if I should let someone get an abortion, I'm going to ask someone who has already spent some time thinking about it, not someone who is just listening long enough to ask for some money.  I'm a strong believer in the value of an educated conscience, and the first step in that is education.



And I believe you said previously (correct me if I'm wrong) something along the lines of a person who is not interested in knowing or serving Christ might not be a genuine Christian?



Precisely!  So let's assume Bob has accepted God.  There IS a next step.  He is compelled to put away sin and try to live a sinless life.  How does he do that?  By seeking out what a sinless life is.  To do this in the most effective way requires specialists to do the research, have the debates, and give him the refined results on his behalf.  Remember, for about two thousand years, only a fraction of the population was capable of even reading.  It's only in the past century that we've had the tremendous amounts of leisure time we now enjoy.  People don't have the time or ability to look up if abortion is wrong.  They want to do what's right.  They need help!  The help can only come in the form of priests supported by an organized church.



Then who are all those other people who come into church on Christmas, but not the week before?  :P

My point is THOSE PEOPLE I want to get into church, even if they don't believe and don't care.  Even if they continue not caring, if they only spend two hours a week in church, I'll take those two hours!  Because that has the potential of blossoming into something better.  If that's all the influence Jesus has in their life, I'll fight to keep it.

So how are you proposing to divide who is supposed to receive what parts of the letter? I can see certain divisions of address starting in Chapter 3 ("Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands...") but not before then. And the part calling people a royal priesthood happens in Chapter 2.



Well, remember also that there was an existing religious system in place at the time, and Jesus didn't advocate rebelling against them, despite their obvious failings:


Also, there is the problem that we have to assume that the early church knew how it was set up, and that the format was either created by them or given to them somehow. So, when Paul lists offices in the church and doesn't mention priests, what does that say?





True "pastors" are mentioned, but that word is also applied to shepherds and lay people, so that doesn't confirm that there must be a priesthood. In fact, apart from this possible reference, I don't see where a defined priesthood is mandated.



No, but all Scripture is useful.

By better studying the history behind it to get a better sense for its context and the nature of its language.  Unfortunately, English especially is rather ambiguous at times, so it would be nice to at least be able to read it in the original language.

Of course, I know I can't do that and I suspect you can't either, so the natural thing to do would be to seek out professionals who have studied this stuff and draw on their opinions.



Not sure what you're trying to say here.  How does this relate to the subject at hand?



Priests fall under the category of apostles.  That's why the apostolic succession of all bishops is so absolutely critical to the Catholic Church.  Without apostolic succession, any new ordinations have to come from God directly, or they aren't valid.  Ergo, by these lines, we can determine that the bishops and the priests they ordained to support them are critical to the wellbeing of the Church, and 'outrank' anyone else, ecclesiastically speaking.

Lucifer is not a human being, the same rules do not apply to him.



I believe the Bible when it says they were criminals.

And are you suggesting that not only do actions after you believe have an effect on your eternal salvation, but also actions before you were saved (..."we don't know if he'd been baptised previously"...)?

The thief only said "Jesus remember me when you die."  That's it.  Seems like an  free gift to me.



I fully agree.  But according to this website

http://www.catholicmissionleaflets.org/leafpope.htm

it says "To fulfil the teaching office of their pastoral ministry, the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, are given a gift of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The Pope, as head of the college of bishops, enjoys this gift of infallibility in a unique sense."

Infallible?  That's more then just increased responsibility, that's a clear line of status conferred upon him and the bishops.  If they way you viewed the pope were the way the Catholic church viewed the pope then wed havefar less to talk about in this thread.



I would also ask for advice from someone like a priest over the drug addict.  But the drug addict does not need to understand anything except Christ died for him to understand the gospel.  If any more is needed then God is saying that only people with a certain intelligence level can be saved.  I'm not willing to believe in a God that condemns people right from the get go based on how well their brain functions.



I did say that.  I think I lost our line of conversation on this point...lol



Bob is only compelled in the same way that I am compelled out of love for my wife.  If I am mean to my wife and don't treat her well it doesn't change the fact that I am still her husband.  The biggest difference is that my wife might divorce me.  God's level of patience is far greater and he won't do that (though it is interesting that he said he divorced Israel, but that's a whoole new ball of wax)

People do (most  people anyways) have the time and ability to look up if abortion is wrong or right, they just chose not to. But for those who want more help there is an entire body of believers all doing it together who can help each other.

<quote katisara>
Then who are all those other people who come into church on Christmas, but not the week before?  :P

My point is THOSE PEOPLE I want to get into church, even if they don't believe and don't care.  Even if they continue not caring, if they only spend two hours a week in church, I'll take those two hours!  Because that has the potential of blossoming into something better.  If that's all the influence Jesus has in their life, I'll fight to keep it.
<quote>

I am still figuring this particular topic out.  I have been listening a lot to a guy named Bruxy Cavey from the Meeting Place church in Toronto who is very much against religion.  He also has, once or twice a year, a week where they encourage people who have 0 intention of becoming actively involved in the body of Christ to find something else to do on Sundays.  Not speaking of non-Christians mind you, but Christians who are motivated to attend church on Sundays because they only feel it is their obligation.  I'm not sure I understand that completely, and have intents to get in contact with him to clarify some of the questions I have on this particular subject.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:51, Fri 25 May 2007.

I'm curious why you feel that way, that God should love us more than He loves Lucifer.



Oh no!  To the contrary, I'm saying we know nothing about these guys.  I'm saying it could be the thief who goes to heaven was a martyr too.  We just don't know.



I will admit, my choice of words is poor in this regard.  I suppose 'an automatic' gift might be more accurate.  You don't get a place in heaven by virtue of having on one earth.  You need to 'opt in', which does require some action on your part.

That said, once you have opted in, you're part of a relationship.  Unlike you, I do believe you can 'opt out' again (and why shouldn't you be able to?  God gave you free will for a reason.)  While your actions don't directly opt you in or out, they are a way of showing your relationship with God.  If you beat people and say bad things about God, you're probably not in the 'in crowd', even if you've been baptized and believe God exists.  If you were in a genuine relationship with God, you'd be working hard to fix that problem.  "By their fruits you shall know them" and all that.  So the first step is 'free', but it puts you on a road that involves hard work.



The power of infallibility is something very rarely called upon.  It has not been used during my lifetime, for instance.  Basically, it's calling rank, similar to the prophets of the LDS Church.  When a pope speaks with the power of infallibility, the idea is God has communicated this to him, and we are asked to accept it as true, just as we are asked to accept what Paul or Peter wrote as true, even though they're just people.  Of course, Paul is no more 'valuable' to God than I am, but I'm going to listen to his words with an awful lot of respect, especially his words which are divinely inspired and accepted as infallible (as do you, I notice).

So infallibility is an acceptance that religion is not static and dead, but that God continues to communicate to us.

It IS POSSIBLE that a normal person could speak the truth, as a prophet, but because I, as Joe Shmoe (not my real name), wouldn't be able to tell if he's a genuine prophet or not, I can (in theory) depend on the Church to research this, determine the truth of the matter and, if appropriate, evoke that power to pass on the new message.  The Church serves as a filter to keep me from going off with some Jim Jones who tells me God has shown him the truth.



ONLY IF being a teacher is a requirement of salvation, or acts are a requirement of salvation.  Neither one are.  So the drug addict can tell me how best to reach salvation (through faith), however he is unlikely to be the best person to tell me how to follow Jesus' example (since you don't have to know anything about the historical Jesus to be saved).  That drug addict could kill people, have abortions and commit suicide, but still be saved.  That doesn't mean that the actions he did pleased God.

(Boy, I feel more and more like you and turnabout should be talking directly to each other, since the quotes one person finds applies directly to the points of the other.)  Some people are teachers, some people are not.  We go to the teachers for lessons, not to those who speak tongues or who do administrative work.  We all have our gifts and purpose in the Church, let's make the best use of them!



But it might be a sign that you don't really accept your wife or care about her, and that's what Jesus is ultimately asking us to do.



1)  Most people...  In your country.  What about a woman in Nigeria?  What about a woman eighty years ago?
2)  And what does she find when she does look online?  Family Planning?  "Pro-life myths about abortion"?  The internet is NOT a reliable source of information for ethical decisions!  But that's the first place many people go.  The bible doesn't say much, at least nothing clear.  Neighbors can be useless.  So where do they go next, if not to organized religion?  To a priest?




I look forward to seeing his response.  It's not a position I'd heard before.  I'm wondering how well thought out that plan is, especially in the long term.

We do know that he was a criminal though.  At least I believe the Bible when it says that directly.  That's the important part.



I am open to the thought that a person could chose to reject Christ at some point in their life, though as we seem to agree that has nothing to do with God's decision.  But even that I am unsure on.  But either way the hard work is separate from the salvation process, it's just something we do because we care enough about the person.  Salvation is free, but a deepening of the relationship takes work.  However, we can still be saved with a crappy relationship with Christ.



I do believe that the canon of Scripture is closed now though, that's why Paul's writings (though not Paul as a moral person) are infallible.  Though this is a whole discussion on the infallibility of Scripture.

I simply feel it is unbiblical and incredibly damaging and dangerous to believe a sinful person might not make a mistake on their interpretation of Scripture.  Infallibility is something I apply only to God (or his word as spoken directly in the Bible)



I agree with everything you just typed!



Of course he desires it but our eternal salvation does not depend on it.



As I said...





Yes, ask people, lots of people, talk to friends, family, christian people who are also going through this together.  The internet is horrible yes...lol.  Just because that's where people turn for information doesn't mean that's right, I am saying that it's wrong.  Pastors and priests are fine people to go to as well, no problems there.  As long as it's not a requirement for our salvation.



I agree that I have questions with it as well, but having heard him speak in person as well he'd be the first to tell you he's figuring it all out along with the rest of us.

You know, it occured to me just last night that this is all going on in the wrong thread.  Too bad we're almost wrapping up...

Anyway, to look at this completely logically, we have three things:
A - accepting Jesus
B - salvation
C - works

A -> B
A -> C

(I'd use one A and a tree if I could).

So if A, B and C follow.  If you accept Jesus, you will do works.  You don't HAVE to do works, just like you don't have to get a job or buy food, but you really probably will.

So if we have a person who does NOT meet C, we can imply that A is questionable.

Is that a satisfying explanation?




Scripture clearly is.  This isn't added to the bible as another book or anything.  But it is considered on the same level.



And why do you believe that his word, spoken through the bible, is infallible?  It's from the mouths of sinful people written by sinful people translated by sinful people.  Some examples, like Paul's letters, don't even say "God said", it says "I say".  Paul never said that his words are directly from God, sinful humans decided that was the case.  So how can we be sure that the council of Trent (run by Catholic bishops) was infallible in their choice of books?



Then why would you go to the drug addict to be taught what is ethical living?  God gave us people to teach us that, both priests and individuals (like yourself)?

Played in a 3 on 3 basketball tournament today.  Was a good reminder of how bad I am at it.  Very fun, very painful.



It's a wierd thing isn't it.  Works is not required for salvation, but a living relationship with Christ will naturally bring about works, simply as a loving response.



This is another funny thing.  I accept that what Paul wrote and we now accept as Scripture, is perfect.  It is his opinion on things, and yet completely guided by the Holy Spirit.



Yeah like I said, I need to learn more about this.  Somehow I have to figure out what "All Scripture is God breathed..." includes.  One of those to dos on my checklist that I have had to entrust that experts have figured out and that one day I'll have a chance to figure out as well.



Why would I go to the drug addict to be taught about ethical living?  I don't believe I said I would.  The drug addict has an incredibly valuable role within the body.  Teaching is likely not that role.

You go to the drug addict to learn about what ethics are NOT. As callous as this is, some people are walking examples of what not to be and often even provide a reason if you are willing to look for it. By the depth others have sank, you can learn where you stand morally.

Maybe.  Or maybe you go to learn compassion, respect for those not as fortunate and how to be a servant.

Whatever the reason is, there's huge value there.

I was just confused because I suggested priests act as a moral authority of sorts.  If I have a question, I can go to them and they teach me.  Doulos seemed to indicate that he can go to his fellow Christians to learn, including the drug addict.  While we certainly do learn from each other, it just seemed to me that a specialist would be more effective, hence the reason priests are so important in the Christian organization.

I started reading this, and got a little lost. Hopefully this won't be out of context. I'm assuming that we can learn from those who are fallen, and those who are considered up "high" such as strong, good leaders. The example of drug addict was given, as to looking at that addict and learning something from them. I see that as plausible. Not everyone has ever quality perfect, though we all have qualities that can be be beneficial to emulate. My personal look at this, I would suggest none of us are perfect, though we learn from others who are also not perfect. So while I can understand that someone more experienced with a certain issue might be more beneficial to learn from in that regard, I can see how we can learn from one another.

Let me approach this from a different angle. There is a woman I have met who does not appear to be all there. She talks a bit slowly, and has a hard time understanding things, often needing explanations three or four times. She doesn't have a decent job, but she makes ends meet. In short, when certain atheists talk about using God as a crutch, it's people like her they have in mind when they say that.

But once you get to meet her, you find out that she has a love for God greater than most of the rest of the congregation combined. Her "work" is to be a shining example of love even when new members of the congregation dismiss her and call her names in private.

Now I'm not saying that everyone should emulate everything about her, but that's an area in which she excels. Those who can watch her example should try to learn from it. However, I have had people who say things like, "I could never follow this example, therefore I'm not going to try" and use it as an excuse not to change. That is not the example we are given, nor is it the reason we are given example. We are to become as perfect as we can; Jesus will take care of the rest.

This is why I find both sides of the classic "faith vs. works" argument lacking. The faith argument usually focuses on the idea that God will save us even if we sin afterward (true) to the point where people have argued to me that we have no need to repent (false). On the other side, the works argument is usually so focused on the need for people to change (true) that they place it ahead of the need for faith (false).

I agree with that turnabout. We can all have qualities that we can learn from others and use.

As to the faith versus works argument, I'm not sure it is argued properly all the time either. People who often argue works lead to salvation usually have faith for that reasoning, and those who argue faith, are clearly full of works. I think both sides of the equation can agree that we are allowed into Heaven not because of us, but because of Jesus and His actions. Jesus took all of our sins in full when He died on the cross, not just a portion of our sins.

Beyond the initial act of repentance (which in itself is said to be a free gift from God in Ephesians), is repentance really necessary?  If I yell at my wife and then 24 hours later get hit by a car am I damned?  If I cheat on my wife and then 24 hours later get hit by a car am I damned?  If I murder my wife and then 24 hours later I get hit by a car am I damned?

If I do not repent during the 24 hours between those acts then has Christ's death been for nothing?

I would think turning from sin is part of accepting Jesus. Repentance would turning from sin, right? Wouldn't that mean the goal is to repent?

Repentance is part of the initial salvation process, yes.

But what about after that?  That's where I get concerned.

My questions are very important ones because they radically effect how we view God and our faith.

I would think the goal is to learn more about God, not less. That would mean strive to follow God and learn what God wants of us. I think that would mean continuous repentance as you learn more of what God wants of you.

So you are answering yes to my above questions then?

I think so. Repentance at acceptance, and repentance as you possibly face other sins as you live past initial acceptance. We cannot love sin, and love God at the same time, right? They would be in conflict.

Out of curiosity, are you considering christianity, or new to the faith Doulos?
This message was last edited by the player at 00:09, Thu 31 May 2007.

So then what about sins that you are unaware of?  Maybe you saw that cute looking checkout girl and had a few impure thoughts.  As you're walking out the door, BLAM, a guy on a motorbike slams into you, killing you instantly.

You're going to hell then because you didn't repent?  You had time technically, you could have done it immediately before you walked out the door, but now you've sinned before you had a chance to fix things.

It's a great question, and you are pointing out a clear example of conflict in the statements of repentance, and forgiveness. We will have our fleshly bodies, and our spiritual nature in conflict. One desires sin, and one desires to be closer to God. Our spiritual nature is designed to want to live forever with God, our fleshly bodies are pulling at the worldly things. We are not given permission to sin just because the price is paid by Jesus. Acceptance and repentance does not mean we will not sin anymore. We must strive and work at repentance. We have an enemy in Satan who tries to entice us any chance he can get.

So to clarify, repentance doesn't mean we all will never ever sin. It means we desire to grow closer to God and follow His commands. We can and do fail, but acceptance of Christ doesn't mean the end of life, but rather a new beginning of life. In your example, you mentioned an isolated instance. Only God knows you well enough to judge if your repentance is true, or if you in fact love sin more than you love Him.

I guess all I know is I don't have to worry or care about how screwed up I am.  I do my best to love Christ more every day but man there are a lot of days I feel like I am going backwards.

I trust that what Christ did is enough, and completely thankful for it.  I am done with religion and rites and rituals, and completely ready for a full reliance on the one who did away with all of that and replaced it first and foremost with a relationship.

I still go to church and still am greatly concerned about other people within that community, but it's a response to something already done, not an action "because I feel I have to"  Because I don't.  As wrong as it sounds to my human works oriented brain, I don't.

I agree. A relationship with Jesus is vastly important. Our actions don't earn us a ticket to heaven. It is wholly due to what Jesus did for us that is what allows us to heaven.

Sorry, I missed your question earlier by the way.

I have been a Christian for about 20 years.

It seems we are very close on what we believe.  I just believe that repentance is needed only once.  After that it's simply a love reaction, but if we never repented again I do believe that we would still be fully redeemed, though it would be as Paul mentioned "some will be saved as through flames".

But really this is an odd discussion for me anyways because I have personally never met someone who claims that they fully believe the Bible as the Word of God, and Christ is Lord, but openly refuse to "work out their salvation".  I've just never seen it.  Christ's love compels us.  It's just the way it is.  So all of this discussion of faith vs works is more philosophical in nature (heck even Pal addressed it), but I have seen very little real world application of it.

20 years is a long time. God bless you!

As you can see I still am figuring it all out...lol

You betcha! I'm looking at about 9 years of starting on the path with Jesus. That path will always be learning as long as I'm alive. God doesn't want us to drift away from that path. And quite truthfully, God knew when we would fail. God can use our failures and our good days for His purposes.

I think the question of forgiveness of sins immediately before death is getting caught up on a technicality.  Ultimately, the decision is God's, and it's not one He's been 100% clear with (depending on your reading of the bible).

Many churches hold the belief that if you die without the chance to repent, you go to hell (as an interesting note, before the Catholic Church introduced the idea of confession, most people would wait until the last possible moment to get baptized, since baptism forgave all sins.  This is why so many early Christian people were baptized on their death beds.  If you got baptized at birth or as a youth, then any sins you commit until your death 'stick'.)  I think we all agree, this is hopefully and probably incorrect.  However, there is a valid purpose in saying this, because it encourages you to hurry up and fix everything as quickly as you can.  Live like you may die tomorrow and all that.  You can't put off your relationship with Jesus if you may die tomorrow and your procrastination costs you eternal life, you need to do it TODAY.  Certainly in this case, where there is some doubts, it's doubly better to be sure.  Like a person handling a gun, you always act like it's loaded (the worst case scenario) even if the bolt is open.  Act like you must be clean of sins even if that's not the case, and there's no chance of a 'misfire' costing you eternal happiness.

Jesus' death on the cross made it very clear.  Enough trying to earn our way into heaven, He's done with that way of life.

Take the gift.  It's not fair in the eyes of the world, it doesn't make sense but that's God's way of doing things so we might as well get used to it.

Saw this article in the news today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...gazine/11punk-t.html

Anyone have any thoughts?  Is Mark Driscoll too liberal?  Too conservative?  Both?  Are mainstream evangelicals "singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair?"  Have they turned Jesus into "a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell?"

Good! It's about time Christianity meant standing up for something, even when it's unpopular, and staying true to what's written in the book. I'll say, I disagree with Calvinism specifically, but the fact that the guy is willing to talk candidly and even step on some toes means he's fallen in line with the lion, the warrior, that Jesus represents, not just the lamb everyone else seems to follow. And frankly, I'd prefer to butt heads with someone who is strong, outspoken, honest and actually practices what he preaches rather than someone is is quiet, submissive, hypocritical, but ultimately will sabotage you for the 'greater good'.

Christianity has largely had its teeth pulled. And I suspect most of it is because it ceased to become difficult and controversial. It's become commercialized. Now it's so easy to be a Christian, it's hard to NOT be a Christian, and that's a bad situation for anyone who is truly working for spiritual advancement. It means almost all of us are stuck at the bottom rung. Faith needs to be a challenge, otherwise it means almost nothing. Good for this guy, stirring the pot a little bit.

My main concern is that a Christian should emanate Christ.  Those who take Christian principles and morality and twist them to mean what they don't or to justify their own behaviors are not acting in this way.  It's trite but still true to ask "What would Jesus do?"

I don't think keeping to cultural norms is contrary to Christ. I do think accepting weakness in yourself when you have the power to conquer it is, however.

It depends on what the cultural norms represent.  For example, being a hippie in the 60's, in my opinion, wouldn't be the ideal.

Cultural trends tend to represent or symbolize something, often bringing with them moral predispositions.

So if I dress like a hip hop gangbanger yet profess to be like Christ, it sends a mixed message.  Christ was shooting for the highest cultural norm, not just the one accepted by the lowest common denominator.

I certainly think getting tats, drinking (not to excess) and fighting the man would be cool with the J-man.

Christ was shooting for the highest cultural norm, not just the one accepted by the lowest common denominator.

Highest cultural norm? No such thing. Such things are subjective.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:20, Tue 13 Jan 2009.

Which mixed message is that?


I'd have to disagree here.  What was considered the 'highest cultural norm' in Jesus' setting was actually what he seemed to be most against.  The people he seemed to spend much of his time with, and care the most for, were 'the lowest common denominator' of his time.

You have to keep in mind that the time and place where Jesus lived were not the US in 2009.  Remember, he was considered a heretic by the religious establishment (ie, by the 'highest cultural norm' of his day).  He was an iconoclast who challenged societal norms and stereotypes.  He wasn't a suit-and-tie, preach-to-the-upper-middle-class guy, really.

Would he be cool with tats?  I'd guess that if a christ-like person lived today, then yes, he would be.  Was the real Jesus cool with tats?  On that I'm a bit less sure, since there was a religious law against them for Jews, if I recall.  Even if he were against them, though, I don't think he'd be too harsh on those that had them.

Would he be cool with drinking?  His first miracle was turning water into wine.  Seems like he can't be a tea-totaler.  ;)

On the other hand, I don't recall anything that would make me think he was a misogynists or homophobe to the degree that the guy in the article seems to be (though, St. Paul probably was).

I also find it somewhat odd that someone who seems to like challenging the views of those in authority as much as the guy in the article does has such a problem with people questioning his authority, or even disagreeing with him.

Alright, so Jesus is going to tell them a story that has a lesson in it...go on.



Wow, does that sound like somebody who would fight the man, or who IS the man?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:29, Tue 13 Jan 2009.

Keep in mind that was a parable about a king, not Jesus actually telling his disciples to round anyone up and kill them.

A parable about how his disciples should respect the rulers that be, and protest not.

Sort of like what Plato preached; if you don't like it, leave. :S

Only in your opinion because you've expressed you believe in a subjective morality.

I believe in an objective morality, but that's another discussion.  Since you gave no substance for your reasoning, I guess that's where we're left.

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.