A Christian Prespective...
Swiftspear
Custim tital Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22097Members
Custim tital Join Date: 2003-10-29 Member: 22097Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">I'm not ashamed with</div> I recently discovered these guys, a small church in Calagary Alberta, Canada, who has been doing sermons on various symbols of popular culture for a while now. Of course, when your run of the mill church takes a shot at doing a sermon on say, the band Metallica, it is ussually quite literally taking a shot, they criticize and chastize, really not taking a look at what the real issue is. That is why I was surprized to find a church that has similar belifes to my own. These guys preach from the prespective that God is in all things, and because of that, there is no thing that can be devoid of his goodness. They don't run from the curse words or the adult themes, in fact, previous the preaching his <a href='http://www.newhopechurch.ca/media/av/media_count.php?listen=media/av/20040509_128k.m3u' target='_blank'>sermon on Metallica</a> their pastor acctually attended and experianced in full a Metallica concert.
I realize that this post is infinately more relevent to the christan members of this board than the secular members and those of other religions, and that the sermons are hardly in depth analisis, as they need to be dumbed down to a signifigant degree so they can cater to the masses, but the message in the end is a christian prespective that I think is worth stating. That being said, feel free to take shots, just keep them within reasonable limits, and don't take this as an oppertunity to flame all the igornant christans please.
Other intersting links:
<a href='http://www.newhopechurch.ca/media/av/media_count.php?listen=media/av/20040215_128k.m3u' target='_blank'>Sermon on Evanescence</a>
<a href='http://www.newhopechurch.ca/page.php?pgid=se&show=2004' target='_blank'>A whole bunch of sermons for the obsessive compulsive</a> (I haven't listened to many of them, so don't quote them and expect me to have iron clad defence ready)
<a href='http://s4.invisionfree.com/Final_Hope_Faith/index.php?showtopic=26' target='_blank'>Final hope faith discussion on this topic</a>
Warnings: sermon files not 56k friendly, there are 56k freindly ones, but you will have to search for them.
Covers of popular songs may be butchered, keep in mind, the church recording equipment isn't of the same calaber as the originals were recorded on.
I realize that this post is infinately more relevent to the christan members of this board than the secular members and those of other religions, and that the sermons are hardly in depth analisis, as they need to be dumbed down to a signifigant degree so they can cater to the masses, but the message in the end is a christian prespective that I think is worth stating. That being said, feel free to take shots, just keep them within reasonable limits, and don't take this as an oppertunity to flame all the igornant christans please.
Other intersting links:
<a href='http://www.newhopechurch.ca/media/av/media_count.php?listen=media/av/20040215_128k.m3u' target='_blank'>Sermon on Evanescence</a>
<a href='http://www.newhopechurch.ca/page.php?pgid=se&show=2004' target='_blank'>A whole bunch of sermons for the obsessive compulsive</a> (I haven't listened to many of them, so don't quote them and expect me to have iron clad defence ready)
<a href='http://s4.invisionfree.com/Final_Hope_Faith/index.php?showtopic=26' target='_blank'>Final hope faith discussion on this topic</a>
Warnings: sermon files not 56k friendly, there are 56k freindly ones, but you will have to search for them.
Covers of popular songs may be butchered, keep in mind, the church recording equipment isn't of the same calaber as the originals were recorded on.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That being said, I was a bit disappointed in the "sermon". The minister never opened the Bible, never read from it. In my view, church is a time to worship God and hear what he has to say to you - not get an exposition on the similarities of Lars and Jesus.
I think the reason that Metallica is so good is that they strike a chord with people. They sing about anger, loss, hate, helplessness - primarily negative feelings. Now, I'm not calling those feelings bad - don't read me wrong. What I am saying is that they don't offer any songs about redemption, joy, or love.
If I were to judge Metallica based soley on what I hear in their music (and I will now - please don't see me as totally judgmental) I would have to say they are an "everyman". They are living life without Jesus, and the result of that choice is a life that looks very negative ~ it gets reflected in their music.
But that is the joy of Jesus - he came and died for people like that - people like me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> The problem with this sermon is it never gets that message across. It stops and says "its ok to have only negative - there is god in that." But the Bible's overall message is "give all your negative to Jesus, so you don't have to bear that burden anymore".
---I might try to listen to the other sermons, I'll post on them later.
That being said, I was a bit disappointed in the "sermon". The minister never opened the Bible, never read from it. In my view, church is a time to worship God and hear what he has to say to you - not get an exposition on the similarities of Lars and Jesus.
I think the reason that Metallica is so good is that they strike a chord with people. They sing about anger, loss, hate, helplessness - primarily negative feelings. Now, I'm not calling those feelings bad - don't read me wrong. What I am saying is that they don't offer any songs about redemption, joy, or love.
If I were to judge Metallica based soley on what I hear in their music (and I will now - please don't see me as totally judgmental) I would have to say they are an "everyman". They are living life without Jesus, and the result of that choice is a life that looks very negative ~ it gets reflected in their music.
But that is the joy of Jesus - he came and died for people like that - people like me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> The problem with this sermon is it never gets that message across. It stops and says "its ok to have only negative - there is god in that." But the Bible's overall message is "give all your negative to Jesus, so you don't have to bear that burden anymore".
---I might try to listen to the other sermons, I'll post on them later. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I heard it in lecture form at my uni, and the way he did it then, he quoted several passages from the bible compared to quotes from metallica songs. The similarities are stunning, many of the great laments of the old testimate use almost exactly the same language and tell the same stories as the lyrics of the songs.
I agree with you, to be christian is to rize above the challenges of the world for the glory of God. But we can't ignore the fact that there is great suffering in the world, expecially if we don't want to be seen as hypocrites in our walk. Metallica has been attempting to push away from the organized forces in the world, attempting to push away from the set conventions, but in the end, they very much just discribe the suffering and trials of a life that chritians are will aware exists, and strive daily to overcome in the glory of the Lord.
Has most of their reasonings for making there songs. Just click "Song Info" on the right. I just love the solo's they add in their music. Cliff with his adding classical and heavy metal was just pure awsomeness. Kinda stinks he died, he would of probably made very beautiful music.
I'm really struggling to see how this isn't narrow minded... I don't see how the comparison relates in any way to your dislike of christianity. No one is trying to afford metallica more authority that they are worth, and no one is trying to buffer the popularity of the bible by saying, "hey, this is as good as Metallica, YA!!!". The whole point is that the comparison should speak to steadfast Christians who have come out against Metallica, to show them thier hypocracy. The bible is no G rated book, and the similarities are stunning between the great old testimate lamentations many of the lyrics to Metallica songs. I don't see how having chritians give up there higher than thou art prepositions harms you in any way what so ever.
[edit] thnx for the link Duo <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The first is this - It does not surprise me that Metallica sings about things in a way that sounds similar to passages in the Bible. Thematically, they are very close in a lot of ways. The reason for this is that humans collectivly understand suffering, rejection, being lost, sin, death, etc. Unfortunatly, that is as far as the Metallica message can go. They don't have an answer to lifes problems, they can't save souls, they can't even lift their own despair - even with as much fame/money as they have. That is where the similarities end, and the gospel begins.
Second - I firmly believe in a time and place for everything. Concerning this message ~ it's time/place could be at a university, or posted on a forum, or discussed with his (the ministers) children. I do not believe that the proper time/place is a sunday worship service.
Sunday service is for worship, it is for rest and relaxation in God our maker, and for understanding truth about Jesus. Most Christians give 1 hour a week to this most important event. Why would we want to fill up that hour drawing parallels between our faith and a rock band, when we could be spending that time reading the Bible, or understanding what God wants for our lives, or worshiping Him. Metallica has similarities, but why not go to a <b>better</b> resource, like scripture.
Reason number 2 up there is exactly why I fear for the Church in America. Church has become about us - what can we get from it, is it exciting enough, is the music upbeat, how do I "feel" when I am at church. Those things are secondary to worshiping God. As God said, "You shall have no other gods before Me" - that includes church too.
Reason number 2 up there is exactly why I fear for the Church in America. Church has become about us - what can we get from it, is it exciting enough, is the music upbeat, how do I "feel" when I am at church. Those things are secondary to worshiping God. As God said, "You shall have no other gods before Me" - that includes church too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
hmm u make a good point there. Lately people who do believe look for a church that speaks to them. One that they feel they belong. I didn't see it how you see it til now.
As for the anti-christian canada-hater (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us) .. if you don't like it why did you come to this thread?
And just what the hell is wrong with my religion anyway? Sure there's corruption, but we're human, and that's life. Get over it.
The people of my parish, in my 19 years of being there, have done great things to help out our society. Alot of people miss the point, but that doesn't make the whole religion bad.
Please remember than anyone who judges by the group is a half-wit. Take people one at a time, huh?
On that note, what do these 3 things have in common?
Women in leadership (church leadership)
Homosexuality.
The concept of a "righteous war".
All three of those things have been debated endlessly in Christian circles - unfortunatly the debate centers around "cultural relavance" as opposed to "what does the Bible say".
Given that statement, what are your views (as a Christian) concerning each of those topics. Lets start with the "easy" one - should women be able to become ministers / elders in their church? Why? What does the Bible say about it? If your opinion contridicts the Bible, which is wrong?
Have fun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Then on the thing Pepe said about women become ministers (Priests?) or elders (?). Yeah sure why not, if they wish to become one why not. They arent inferior to men, they are equal and diserve equal rights as men do. If it werent for them then humans wouldn't exist anyways <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Never did like Religion, causes too many problems and I hate how I was forced to become a Catholic and go to church. I would of prefered just to be "me" and live my life without worrying about some High Up keeping PO'ed at me and sending to me to a nasty place I wouldnt like.
I don't think the bible counts as the word of god when its written by men.
Then on the thing Pepe said about women become ministers (Priests?) or elders (?). Yeah sure why not, if they wish to become one why not. They arent inferior to men, they are equal and diserve equal rights as men do. If it werent for them then humans wouldn't exist anyways <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Never did like Religion, causes too many problems and I hate how I was forced to become a Catholic and go to church. I would of prefered just to be "me" and live my life without worrying about some High Up keeping PO'ed at me and sending to me to a nasty place I wouldnt like. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, first of all, yes, Jesus did live. If you want to study it thouroughly, there is more proof for the existance of a man called Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great - and yet rarely is Alexander's authenticity questioned.
In terms of when it was written, the Old Testament was written ~ 1000 years before he lived, and the New Testament was written (most of it anyway) in the first 100 or so years after he died.
The Cheeze brings up a good point though (one already covered alot). Yes, the Bible was physically written using the hands of men. However, the Bible is "inspired" by God.
Back on topic.
If you are going to read the Bible literally, as I do, you will notice that the requirements for elder (I'll use that word from now on, it covers ministers/priests/etc.) are a male orriented requirement: "you must be the husband of but one wife" (there are more, but this one will do)
Now, don't get me wrong, I believe in the equality of the sexes. However, in the life of the church there are different roles, and if one is to belive what scripture says, then one must accept that women should not be elders.
Before you go off calling me a schauvinist, or a biggot, or whatever, feel free to ask me "why?"
I believe that the transcripts of the radio programs I listen to on NPR aren't the words of the hosts, because they were transcribed by someone else. ::rolleyes::
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wasn't the Bible (Catholic or Christian) written supposivly after a myserious man Jesus, whether he lived or not, written 300 years after his death?
Then on the thing Pepe said about women become ministers (Priests?) or elders (?). Yeah sure why not, if they wish to become one why not. They arent inferior to men, they are equal and diserve equal rights as men do. If it werent for them then humans wouldn't exist anyways tounge.gif
Never did like Religion, causes too many problems and I hate how I was forced to become a Catholic and go to church. I would of prefered just to be "me" and live my life without worrying about some High Up keeping PO'ed at me and sending to me to a nasty place I wouldnt like.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The old testament was written -- rather, compiled -- around the 5th to 6th centuries BC. The NT's dates are kind of disputed, but the gospels were all written before 100 AD - Matthew and Mark are commonly thought by one group of scholars to have been written around 50 AD, and another group thinks they were written around 70-80 AD. John is thought to have been written after 85 AD, but some scholars also believe it to have been written in the early 60's. Paul's letters were written in the 50's and 60's.
As for ministry...women, I believe, should be allowed to lead - however, I don't think that most women are geared towards spiritual leadership, and so I would be careful of it. My church once had a woman as the preacher...she's not there anymore, but I didn't really see anything wrong with her preaching except that it was a bit bland and lacked something...
I've already expressed my opinions (and gotten flamed thoroughly for them) on homosexuality - basically, it is not to be condoned. I am very strongly convicted that it is a sin of sexual immorality, like adultery. This isn't to say that homosexuals aren't subject to or the object of God's grace, but in my opinion a man cannot approve of homosexuality, a homosexual lifestyle, or homosexually lustful thoughts and be innocent of sin, just as someone who approves of adultery or lust. Don't deceive yourselves, if heterosexual immorality is not cool, what makes you think that the homosexual kind is ok?
Refer to previous thread on "righteous war."
*edit* stuff
On that note, what do these 3 things have in common?
Women in leadership (church leadership)
Homosexuality.
The concept of a "righteous war". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, tradtion dictates that women have never had high places in the church. ive never really heard anything about it though.
Homosexuality- I have a book called "do adam and eve have belly buttons?" has questions and answers about masterbation, homosexuality, other sex questions, and other things. It says that its OK, to be homosexual, as long as you do not have sex with the same gender. Its a catholic book...
I've learned in my religion book that you can have wars, and deaths are part of war. As long as you dont kill innocent people, your good to go. to heaven i mean.
On that note, what do these 3 things have in common?
Women in leadership (church leadership)
Homosexuality.
The concept of a "righteous war". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All three of those things have been debated endlessly in Christian circles - unfortunatly the debate centers around "cultural relavance" as opposed to "what does the Bible say".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The similarities between the three? All three have no relevent biblical descriptions, and for that matter, have no relevent adressing from a biblical standpoint. Now I know at this point there are several verses that you want to spew at me, but I also know that simply due to the fact that you want to spew those verses at me that there is no way you could have possibly done an in depth exigesis of those verses. If you take a close look at Paul's writing, there is only one point that he absolutly won't subceed, and that one point is that there is NO law that christians must follow that doesn't fit under the catagorys of the laws "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind", and the law "Love your niegbor as yourself". Thus I can logically conclude that anything that Paul says must fit into one of those two catagories.
That being said, how is it loving our neigbor as our self to disallow educated women to teach in the church? The more I ponder the issue, the more I am convinced that Paul is not opposing the issue of women speaking in the church, but rather, Paul is opposing something that applied to all women of his day, but was not really a fault of thier own. The biblical teachers did not have the overly simplistic world views that you acredit to them, they all were, expecially paul, extreamly bright people, who were called by Christ to cast asside all thier religious presuppositions, and follow him in a spirit of total and overwhelming love. To me it was far more likely that paul was speaking against the overwelming tendency for uneducated women, to pipe up and give thier husbands guff in the middle of a church service, in those days women just were not educated in any matters besides practical matters, so they didn't have the insight or knowlage to effectively add to anything said in the services. Want to prove me wrong? show me where in the bible it says "At no point in time, for the rest of history, should a woman teach in the church".
Homosexuality is an extreamly complicated issue, and I am not really comfortable condeming or upraising it. From a purely biblical stand point, the message of that catholic book quoted earlier is pretty much right, but it is obvious as the nose on your face that it is a violent oversimplification to say the least, and God doesn't oversimplify. Thus I am left with the prespective that homosexual people are my nieghbor and I must love them to the best of my ability. The only way I can effectively love them is to realize that they are just sinners like everyone else, and by extention of that, simply normal human beings who are God's lost sheep. I think for a true understanding of homosexuality we need to understand its design more, so I am waiting on science for more answers to my questions of what God could possibly have planned for these people.
Righteous war is a flaw in understanding of God's commitment to humanity. Ever since the distruction of the temple as Jesus died on the cross, God changed the kingdom, the government, that he was backing from the kingdom of the Jews, to the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God as Jesus says over and over agian, is not a kingdom of this earth, and by extention, the kingdom of God has no interest over the oil fields of the muslim home land, nor with countering the agression of the nazi regieme. The kingdom of God much like every other kingdom, serves only its own purpouses, and does not medal in the forien affairs of other governments. Members of the kingdom of God live in the world, and thus they defend thier homes, and fight in the interest of thier loyalties, and the kingdom of God supports its members in their endevors. But as an extension of his intrest in his kingdom alone, God does not back sides in wars, he works with the stories of the individual. Anyone who tells you that they are backed by God to go to war is lying, but that does not mean that christians have no place fighting in defence of the people and the land they love. Just keep in mind, war is like a game of soccer, someone wins and someone loses, and it is entirely dependent in the end on who has the best strategey, skills, and training. God isn't gonna fix the soccer game for you, and hes not gonna fix your war for you either.
[edit] I was gonna say, but forgot to, that this issues is really a whole new thread in itself, not that I am trying to kill the discussion, but I would really prefer discussion and opinions about the topic I posted, more specificly, christian prespectives on media, to take the lead position here. But any of those three questions would make a decent new topic here, and a great topic in the <a href='http://s4.invisionfree.com/Final_Hope_Faith/index.php?act=idx' target='_blank'>Final Hope Faith forums</a>
I believe that the transcripts of the radio programs I listen to on NPR aren't the words of the hosts, because they were transcribed by someone else. ::rolleyes::
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Out of all the counter-arguments to my statement yours is by far the worst. tsk tsk
I believe that the transcripts of the radio programs I listen to on NPR aren't the words of the hosts, because they were transcribed by someone else. ::rolleyes::
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Out of all the counter-arguments to my statement yours is by far the worst. tsk tsk <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's inspired by God, and most christains belive that God hasn't allowed any inconsistancies into its words. At very least Christians belive that the whole bible is valuable, and good for teaching, becuase that is pretty much exactly what one of the more famous and authoritive quotes from Paul says.
Personally I work under the assumption that the bible is underlied with truth and it is the intentional word of God, but that being said, I don't belive it should be read at literal value becuase there are way to many contridictions and oversimplifications at the literal level, and I find it far more likely that God is trying to say things at a very complicated level that is veiled by the author's inability to understand and comprehend the word, than the probablility that God says crude and simplistic things that the author's didn't hear properly, and thus used vauge and indescripive language to discribe.
From my experiance reading the bible, when God articulates something on a simple level, which the author then scribes, there is really no mistaking his intentions or his motovations.
I believe that the transcripts of the radio programs I listen to on NPR aren't the words of the hosts, because they were transcribed by someone else. ::rolleyes::
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Out of all the counter-arguments to my statement yours is by far the worst. tsk tsk <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's inspired by God, and most christains belive that God hasn't allowed any inconsistancies into its words. At very least Christians belive that the whole bible is valuable, and good for teaching, becuase that is pretty much exactly what one of the more famous and authoritive quotes from Paul says.
Personally I work under the assumption that the bible is underlied with truth and it is the intentional word of God, but that being said, I don't belive it should be read at literal value becuase there are way to many contridictions and oversimplifications at the literal level, and I find it far more likely that God is trying to say things at a very complicated level that is veiled by the author's inability to understand and comprehend the word, than the probablility that God says crude and simplistic things that the author's didn't hear properly, and thus used vauge and indescripive language to discribe.
From my experiance reading the bible, when God articulates something on a simple level, which the author then scribes, there is really no mistaking his intentions or his motovations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argh, no time.... So much I want to say, so I'll have to come back later.
Swift, several immediate concerns leap to mind with your interpretation of the Bible. First of which is as follows - why did an all powerful God do such a shoddy job? Why does he allow in a book that contains his primary form of communication with Christians to contain so many errors? Why did he, when he came to Earth, constantly quote from these flawed writings? Why are claims that the Bible is the infallible word of God scattered throughout if this is obviously false? And if those claims are false, then the Bible contains falsehoods - so how do we sort the truth from the lies? Why should we believe Jesus came to Earth to die for our sins - that could be false also.
The second concern is this - nearly every "liberal" Christian I have met expounding this theory then uses it to justify things outright condemned by the Bible, including things like legitimising homosexuality. The fact that homosexuality has been slammed with consistency every time it is mentioned doesnt faze them, they are convinced the whole Bible cant be trusted, and so they assume selectively that anything they dont like is probably false. The ultimate get out of morality free card - I think its cool, surely God wouldn't disagree with me.....
The truth is never a bed of roses. Sure, its great that we are offered free salvation in Christ, but that comes with the negative undertone that anyone who rejects it is damned. The same thing applies with many Biblical directives. Few and far between are the Christian young men, who sit in their cars with their girlfriends having a romantic snuggle and praising the lord for his abstinance before marriage command.
I cant recommend enough that if you have intellectual concerns over several passages, that you ask someone to help explain the contradictions. God said that if you looked for truth you would find it, what better place to take up his challenge then in his Word?
On that note, what do these 3 things have in common?
Women in leadership (church leadership)
Homosexuality.
The concept of a "righteous war". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All three of those things have been debated endlessly in Christian circles - unfortunatly the debate centers around "cultural relavance" as opposed to "what does the Bible say".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The similarities between the three? All three have no relevent biblical descriptions, and for that matter, have no relevent adressing from a biblical standpoint. Now I know at this point there are several verses that you want to spew at me, but I also know that simply due to the fact that you want to spew those verses at me that there is no way you could have possibly done an in depth exigesis of those verses. If you take a close look at Paul's writing, there is only one point that he absolutly won't subceed, and that one point is that there is NO law that christians must follow that doesn't fit under the catagorys of the laws "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind", and the law "Love your niegbor as yourself". Thus I can logically conclude that anything that Paul says must fit into one of those two catagories.
That being said, how is it loving our neigbor as our self to disallow educated women to teach in the church? The more I ponder the issue, the more I am convinced that Paul is not opposing the issue of women speaking in the church, but rather, Paul is opposing something that applied to all women of his day, but was not really a fault of thier own. The biblical teachers did not have the overly simplistic world views that you acredit to them, they all were, expecially paul, extreamly bright people, who were called by Christ to cast asside all thier religious presuppositions, and follow him in a spirit of total and overwhelming love. To me it was far more likely that paul was speaking against the overwelming tendency for uneducated women, to pipe up and give thier husbands guff in the middle of a church service, in those days women just were not educated in any matters besides practical matters, so they didn't have the insight or knowlage to effectively add to anything said in the services. Want to prove me wrong? show me where in the bible it says "At no point in time, for the rest of history, should a woman teach in the church".
Homosexuality is an extreamly complicated issue, and I am not really comfortable condeming or upraising it. From a purely biblical stand point, the message of that catholic book quoted earlier is pretty much right, but it is obvious as the nose on your face that it is a violent oversimplification to say the least, and God doesn't oversimplify. Thus I am left with the prespective that homosexual people are my nieghbor and I must love them to the best of my ability. The only way I can effectively love them is to realize that they are just sinners like everyone else, and by extention of that, simply normal human beings who are God's lost sheep. I think for a true understanding of homosexuality we need to understand its design more, so I am waiting on science for more answers to my questions of what God could possibly have planned for these people.
Righteous war is a flaw in understanding of God's commitment to humanity. Ever since the distruction of the temple as Jesus died on the cross, God changed the kingdom, the government, that he was backing from the kingdom of the Jews, to the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God as Jesus says over and over agian, is not a kingdom of this earth, and by extention, the kingdom of God has no interest over the oil fields of the muslim home land, nor with countering the agression of the nazi regieme. The kingdom of God much like every other kingdom, serves only its own purpouses, and does not medal in the forien affairs of other governments. Members of the kingdom of God live in the world, and thus they defend thier homes, and fight in the interest of thier loyalties, and the kingdom of God supports its members in their endevors. But as an extension of his intrest in his kingdom alone, God does not back sides in wars, he works with the stories of the individual. Anyone who tells you that they are backed by God to go to war is lying, but that does not mean that christians have no place fighting in defence of the people and the land they love. Just keep in mind, war is like a game of soccer, someone wins and someone loses, and it is entirely dependent in the end on who has the best strategey, skills, and training. God isn't gonna fix the soccer game for you, and hes not gonna fix your war for you either.
[edit] I was gonna say, but forgot to, that this issues is really a whole new thread in itself, not that I am trying to kill the discussion, but I would really prefer discussion and opinions about the topic I posted, more specificly, christian prespectives on media, to take the lead position here. But any of those three questions would make a decent new topic here, and a great topic in the <a href='http://s4.invisionfree.com/Final_Hope_Faith/index.php?act=idx' target='_blank'>Final Hope Faith forums</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
thankyou swift, I never thought of it quite like that. My views were more like silent_shadow900 and wheee. I am finding this thread very informative and glad it was started (even tho I must admit it is an odd place to find a post regarding God and the Bible in a forum belonging to a game where you shoot to kill lol)
Thx for expanding my mind <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I have been kinda confused lately. It doesn't help that most people around me don't even believe in the ever exsisting presence of God. I find I don't state my views too often because I don't know enough to defend them. I have been shot down too many times. It is nice to read from others who are strong enough to stand for their beleifs <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I hope to learn more and be stronger.
I have heard all sorts of things and yes it seems that too many people just take bits and pieces out of the Bible to fit them best. And roll it all into "God is love and loves us no matter what we do and we will all be forgiven" - yes, but only if you confess your sins. Most people don't even realize the extent of their sins and there for think they are not so bad and that if God is love that they will get to heaven in no time. And if God doesn't exist that it is okay because they haven't really suffered but do enjoy their life. I find most people just stand in the middle "safe" ground.
I don't really know anyone in my personal life who has a strong belief or strong stand on anything of the word of God. I know I believe in God but I do get confused in this every changing world as to what is okay and what is just what you have accepted since this is our world and we seem so far away from what God wanted for us.
That right there is a pretty radical claim I realize, but realisticly it can mean one of two things. 1. The bible is NOT the word of God, and therefore has really no real authority aside from being a book for heartwarming story, good to life truthes, and the history of the isrealites. or 2. The bible IS the word of God, and possesses infinate authority, but God speaks in mysterious ways as his wisdom is barely comprehendable by humans, and we need to seriously consider the prospectives ramifications and motives of every passage in depth before we can start drawing the higher, command level, authoritive wisdom out of many of its passages (I disclude many passages from this, becuase they are plain as the nose on your face commands and must be respected as such, they are ment to be read and taken literally as athoritive statements from the getgo as the author wrote them)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The second concern is this - nearly every "liberal" Christian I have met expounding this theory then uses it to justify things outright condemned by the Bible, including things like legitimising homosexuality. The fact that homosexuality has been slammed with consistency every time it is mentioned doesnt faze them, they are convinced the whole Bible cant be trusted, and so they assume selectively that anything they dont like is probably false. The ultimate get out of morality free card - I think its cool, surely God wouldn't disagree with me.....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read what I said a little more in depth, you will realize that the path I am attempting to walk is drasticly far from a "get out of moralility free card". To truely love your neigbor as yourself is essentially to follow to the tee every written commandment (at least the ones that are really commandments), but in addition to that, to have a backdrop which one can use to make judgements on infinately complex issues that can't be covered effectively by any simplistic law system. How can I steal from a man I love? How can I hurt a man I love? How can I screw around with the emotions of the woman I love? I will always argue the infinate authority of the commands of us to love, even as Jesus himself said "Man is not made for the law, but the law made for man" without love, our faith is in vain.
[edit] Kaboom, feel free to PM me any time to talk about whatever you want. I have answered alot of questions in order to get to the point where I am today, and part of the reason I stuck through it was just that I loved dealing with the questions in the first place.
I reject the first two facts, and am more than willing to debate that issue.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. The bible IS the word of God, and possesses infinate authority, but God speaks in mysterious ways as his wisdom is barely comprehendable by humans, and we need to seriously consider the prospectives ramifications and motives of every passage in depth before we can start drawing the higher, command level, authoritive wisdom out of many of its passages (I disclude many passages from this, becuase they are plain as the nose on your face commands and must be respected as such, they are ment to be read and taken literally as athoritive statements from the getgo as the author wrote them)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So much for the wisdom of God - a God so wise, so intelligent and so all powerful that he couldnt even explain himself to his people, who he created and knows inside and out, even those studying and meditating upon it, without making it to confusing to follow with consistency. That isnt my God, and that is not the God described in the Bible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Read what I said a little more in depth, you will realize that the path I am attempting to walk is drasticly far from a "get out of moralility free card". To truely love your neigbor as yourself is essentially to follow to the tee every written commandment (at least the ones that are really commandments), but in addition to that, to have a backdrop which one can use to make judgements on infinately complex issues that can't be covered effectively by any simplistic law system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality is an extreamly complicated issue, and I am not really comfortable condeming or upraising it. From a purely biblical stand point, the message of that catholic book quoted earlier is pretty much right, but it is obvious as the nose on your face that it is a violent oversimplification to say the least, and God doesn't oversimplify. Thus I am left with the prespective that homosexual people are my nieghbor and I must love them to the best of my ability. The only way I can effectively love them is to realize that they are just sinners like everyone else, and by extention of that, simply normal human beings who are God's lost sheep. I think for a true understanding of homosexuality we need to understand its design more, so I am waiting on science for more answers to my questions of what God could possibly have planned for these people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
God doesnt oversimplify? God often seems very straightforward to me - the 10 commandments werent a 1600 page document. When dishing out the laws to the Jews, God didnt muck around explaining the technical details behind a pork ban, he just laid it down. When Moses said "Who shall I say sent me", he didnt get a theology lecture, he got "Tell them I am sent you" ie tell them its ME, WHO ELSE WOULD IT BE? So your complaint here is that God is being too blunt, too direct. Can this God win? He is either too vague to be taken seriously, or so specific he must be ignored. I couldnt agree more with your statement that homosexual people are sinners and need to be loved all the same, but the same applies for murderers, false witnesses, fornicators, blasphemers, gossipers and gluttons, all condemned with the same severity in the Bible as homosexuals, yet you dont wait around for the scientific world to enlighten you about them? Why the double standard?
God called homosexuality "an abomination", so evil that practisers of which were to be executed (in Jewish society). Paul affirmed that God wasnt kidding about how severe homosexuality was:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you going to claim that Paul was a deciever? You'd have to throw out nearly 1/3 of the New Testament. Swift, it really looks like you are attempting to walk a fine line with zero Biblical backing that is only possible because you feel comfortable ignoring certain sections that you dont agree with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can I steal from a man I love? How can I hurt a man I love? How can I screw around with the emotions of the woman I love? I will always argue the infinate authority of the commands of us to love, even as Jesus himself said "Man is not made for the law, but the law made for man" without love, our faith is in vain.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hrrmmm, I cant find any passage where Jesus said the law is made for man. I agree love for our fellow humans should underpin everything we do, but lets not get so carried away in this love that we refuse to accept that God has condemned multiple human actions as sinful and wrong. Paul, however, a very intelligent man, had a fair bit to say about the law:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Struggling With Sin
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not!<b> Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law.</b> For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[2] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10<b>I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.</b>
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[3] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. <b>22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.</b> 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Following that passage is very, very difficult - but so is the topic he is covering. I had to read it several times and get my dad to help me with it, and I've been fascinated by Paul's insight ever since. I have bolded what I consider the crux of the matter - the law, whilst good in itself, condemned us all to death, as we failed to follow it. Paul advocated love with great consistency, but he refused to wriggle out of the very clear laws God had set concerning sin. You can love someone whilst still recognising their sin and condemning <b>the sin</b>, not the sinner. Thats the job of the law.
@Swiftspear: It is important that Jesus said that the most important command was <b>Love the Lord your God with all your your heart and with all your sould and with all your mind.</b> (Matthew 22:37) That is the most important thing. That means <b>But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.</b> Furthermore: <b>For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure, or greedy person -- such a man is an idolater -- has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.</b> (Ephesians 5:5-6)
Sure, we aren't slaves to the law anymore. But that does not mean that we don't sin. The law makes clear the sin, which makes the sin worse, but it doesn't actually *create* the sin. According to Paul, <b>... before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account where there is no law... The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.</b> Romans 5:12, 20
Basically the whole point is this: by our actions and thoughts we are condemned, but only through grace are we saved. Legalism is just as sure a way to death as is a sinful life, and righteousness by faith is the only way out. But if we have faith, we are to discard all that is impure. <b>What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.</b> (Romans 6:1-4)
<b>Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.</b>
In case that last part was being misinterpreted, what it means is this: Sin is something that enslaves - it masters you and your thoughts, and like Sauron, whose thoughts were "bent always upon the ring," in our sinful lives are thoughts are bent towards darkness, since we have no way of working ourselves out. However, since grace appeared, we have an escape route. We can choose to take it, or not, but don't deceive yourselves - <b>Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.</b> (Matthew 7:13). If we are to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect, this means rejecting sin in all its forms. Being at peace with God is the basis for our salvation. Look in the old testament - the message of all the prophets is 'if Israel would only turn back to me, then I will bless her and be her God...but instead they're idolaters and prostitutes.' Yes, love for others is important, but it's secondary to loving God. If you love God, then it's infinitely easier to love his creations.
Remember - not the least stroke of a pen.(Lit. Iota)
1 Timothy 3
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Overseers and Deacons
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[1] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
<b>11In the same way, their wives[2] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.</b>
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[3] appeared in a body,[4]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though women may not nescessarily hold official roles in the Church, that does not mean they are not to be respected.
Thought I'd throw this in here between classes. Sorry if I'm resurrecting a dead issue, haven't read the last page, but looks like some unsuprisingly great responses from Marine01.
lolz