My post concerning Halloween led to a discussion on Christmas and Saint Nicholas.  I was quite surprised to find out that many of my friends do not know who Saint Nicholas was.  Oh sure, they recognized him as the guy who secretly gave gifts during Christmas but all the other details were completely off their mark.  For instance, many thought that he was German.

Since my friends, who are usually knowledgeable of Christian issues, do not know who Saint Nicholas was, I am suspecting that it's probably true of the general public.  So, I decided to post what I know (and double checked with reference literature).

The historical Saint Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra (in modern day Turkey but at the time was a Greek city; the city was mentioned in Acts 27).  He lived during the 4th century.  Although he was the Bishop of Myra, he was born in Italy.

His parents were wealthy.  When his parents died and Nicholas received his inheritance, he gave it away to the poor.

During his lifetime, he was renowned for:

1) Defending the Christian faith; most particularly the intolerance of Arianism, a warped form Christian theology at the First Council of Nicaea

2) Intolerance of pagan religions and pagan artifacts; responsible for the destruction of several pagan temples including the Temple of Artemis.

3) Taking care of the poor

4) Defending the falsely accused


Many amazing deeds were attributed to him including rescuing sailors.

The most enduring is, of course, the secret giving of gifts.  Evidently, there was a poor man who had three daughters but was unable to afford a proper dowry for them.  In those days, it would have doomed them to not only remaining unmarried but would have to become prostitutes to support themselves.  So Nicholas, on the nights before each daughter came "of age", would anonomously throw a purse of gold coins into their house.  The first two times, he threw the purse through the window.  The third time, the father decided to lie in wait to discover their benefactor.  When Nicholas caught wind of the father's plan, he tossed the purse down the chimney, instead.

When the Asia Minor was invaded by Turks, at the beginning of the second millennium (long after Nicholas' death), Nicholas' remains were taken to a church in Germany.  The town was renamed Nikolausberg.

I've been encountering some very distressing sentiment from within the Body of Christ.  By no mean is the sentiment a majority opinion.  However, I've encountered it enough times within the past several weeks that I felt compelled to respond to it.  Often it is subtle but there has been times in which it was very overt.

Of what is it I am speaking?  It is the sentiment that non-believers (whether atheists or believers of other religions) are to be treated as our adversary.  The advocates, of this sentiment, were often engaged in a shouting match with non-believers.

That is, of course, very inappropriate.  Satan and his hosts of fallen angles are our enemies, not non-believers.  The non-believers are the battle grounds upon which our war, against the evil one, is waged.

The following is a prime example of this sentiment:

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST,
THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE IN REGARD TO ANY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?
WHY WOULD PRIMITIVE MAN, "IN HIS PRIMITIVE THINKING," THINK OF HAVING RULES OF RIGHT AND WRONG? ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT, SHOULDN'T THESE RANDOM THOUGHT BE A RANDOM BLAST OF ENERGY? ANYHOW, WHO TOLD PRIMITIVE MAN ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG?
WHO TOLD PRIMORDIAL SOUP ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG? HOW DID MONKEY-MAN'S INVENTIONS GO FROM A BASIC STICK TO RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY? THESE ARE SUCH SILLY QUESTIONS BUT I HAVE YET TO SEE AN EXPLANATION OF FACTS RATHER THAN SO RANDOM GUESS OF WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPEN.

IF ATHEISM IS SURE THEN WHY WOULD ANY ATHEIST FOLLOW THE RULES OF A CHRISTIANIZED STATE? WHY DO ATHEIST LISTEN AND REACT TO THE LAWS OF THE RELIGIOUS "KNOW NOTHINGS" OF THE PAST? IT IS PROVEN THAT "EVERY CULTURE OF THE PAST" HAD ITS OWN RELIGION BUT AMERICA WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. HOW TRAGIC. HERE ARE SOME KEY NOTES ON THE DUTIES OF THE ATHEIST.

1. ATHEISTS SHOULD GO OUT AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE!
THIS IS A RELIGIOUS RULE RIGHT? IT'S NOT THE ATHEISTIC WAY TO BELIEVE RELIGIONS. NEVER MIND IF THAT PERSON HAS LOVED ONES.

2. ATHEISTS SHOULD COMMIT ADULTERY!
AGAIN, ANOTHER RELIGIOUS RULE, BUT NOT ATHEISTIC TO HEED THIS WARNING.
WHO CARES IF YOU RUIN A FAMILY OF FOUR AND THE CHILDREN GETS TO SEE THEIR FATHER OR MOTHER ONLY ON THE WEEKENDS. JUST AS LONG AS YOU CAN SLEEP WITH YOUR BOSS RIGHT?

3. ATHEISTS SHOULD STEAL!
YEP, A RELIGIOUS RULE NOT TO DO SO, BUT ACCORDING TO ATHEISM, GOD DOESN'T EXIST. AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST" THEN IT SHOULD BE OK TO GO TO A BANK AND TAKE EVERY CENT OF CURRENCY THEY HAVE. "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST," THEN HIS WORDS DON'T EXIST.

IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST THEN PERFORM YOUR DUTY AND STOP LISTENING TO THE WORDS OF MY GOD!

Here is my response.

I am a Christian but I can provide the atheist's counter to your argument.

The three rules that you mentioned (don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal) are part of the social contract: Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.

It does not require God to tell us to do so for us to know that we need to do so in order for those of us who live within a society to co-exist peacefully.

An atheist would also remind you that Christianity does not have exclusive claim to the so-called Golden Rule.  You'll find the same ethic in religions ranging from polytheist religions like Hinduism and Buddhism to monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

What is the difference between all the religions is how one deals with the violation of the golden rule ethics.

At this point I'll put back on my Christian hat and remind you that the foundation of the Christian faith is

Romans 3:22-24
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

All of us are sinners. It is purely by the grace of God that we are saved. Before we were saved, all of us were in the same boat as the atheist, doomed to eternal damnation and unable to hear the word of God.  It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that allow us to see the truth.

You can shout at atheists as loudly as you like and they would never hear you for they do not have the indwelling the Holy Spirit.  If you truly want to see them saved, I'd suggest that you do two things:

1) Get down on your knees and pray for their salvation.
2) Love them!  Love them as Jesus would them.


p.s., BTW, The commandment is not "Don't kill". The commandment is "Don't commit murder." There is a difference. Murder is unjustified killing. There are justified killing such as self defense, the defense of the innocent, etc.

Some one posted the following in one of the Christian discussion forums:

The Son of Sam killer (David Berkowitz) supposedly became saved in prison and has been exhibiting very good behavior. It is entirely possible that ol' Dave Berkowitz may join us in heaven with the Father, while his victims rot in hell. Unfair?

The person, who posted the above, answered it with:

yeah, a little.. unjust? no. Why? Because God can do whatever he wants. He's God.

I was not happy with this answer.  It leaves the reader with the impression that God is not fair and that the only reason that God is just is because He makes up the rules and He can bend the rules anyway He likes to accommodate His whim.

This perspective runs counter to the Christian faith.  The Christian doctrine is emphatic about the absolutism of God's standard.

The absolutism of God's standard is why there is the necessity of grace.

It is wrong to sin and the penalty of sin is death.  But all of us sin.  Because God loves us and doesn't want us to perish, He can either change His mind and say, it is no longer wrong to sin (change His standard) or He can give forgiveness to whoever sins and accepts His forgiveness (absolutism of His standard and grace).

God chose to maintain the absolutism of His standard and dispense grace by sending His Son, Jesus the Christ, to die, in our stead, for our sin.

So, how can God saving Berkowitz while condemning his victims (who did not accept God's forgivenes) be fair?

Jesus answered the question of fairness in the "Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" (Mathew 20:1-15) in which the landowner goes out and hires workers with the promise to pay a denarius for the day. He hired workers at the beginning of the day and continues to hire workers throughout the day. At the end of the day, everyone was paid a denarius. When questioned about the fairness of the same wage for a disparate amount of work, the owner answered:

"Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"

In the case of the Lord dispensing grace, the agreement is that the Lord promised forgiveness to anyone who asks. It does not matter if someone "sinned greater" than others. If the Lord fulfills His promise, He is both just and fair. If someone is forgiven more than others, the Lord is being just, fair, and generous.

What would be unfair is if God saves someone who did not repent and/or did not ask for forgiveness.

Do denominations really make that much of a difference? Within the Catholic church, there's a wide array of local parishes that worship as differently as night and day. We can say the same for many of the Protestant denominations like the United Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.

I have a theory:

The real distinctions between local parishes/congregations, irregardless of denomination, is that they can be categorized into one of three different groups: fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic.

Fundamentalists focus on adhering to the fundamentals of the faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Basically, it's yielding to the call of the Father to pursue holiness.

Evangelicals focus on completing the Great Commission that Jesus commanded the disciples before His ascension.

Charismatics focus on the being moved by the Holy Spirit.

It's really a focus on the call of one of the three God Head.

Of course, no local parish/congregation is completely Fundamentalist or completely Evangelical or completely Charismatic.

It's more of a spectrum within a triangle in which each corner of the triangle represents one of the far end of spectrum: Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Charismatic.  And each local parish/congregation falls somewhere within the triangle.

A well balanced parish/congregation would fall smack in the middle of the triangle.

It's just a theory.  I don't have any Biblical reference to back it up.

The discussion concerning Hans' theft of medication for his dying wife continued with more repetition of the same ideas.

So, I wrote the following to sum up my position on the topic:

While I sympathize with Hans' situation, I can not condone doing something wrong for the purpose of doing something right. The logic of the end justifying the means is simply bad logic.

If we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can rob his neighbor to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally right.

If we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can commit armed robbery of a bank to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally right.

My opposition is that there are too many alternative actions that can be pursued without having to resort to doing something wrong. Hans is either lazy or impatient or has no perseverance and gave up on pursuing morally right options.

My other opposition is that taking a morally wrong short cut has bad consequences. We have a legal framework for a reason. It is to minimize bad consequences. That is why we can not simply isolate our evaluation of Hans' morality to just the intent and the act.

If a metal artist steals an I-Beam from the Minnesota highway bridge over the Mississippi to build the most beautiful sculpture in the entire world. Can we simply isolate our evaluation to just the act of theft of the I-Beam from the bridge and the intent of building the most beautiful sculpture in the entire world? No, we have to consider the possibility of a bridge collapse that kills dozens of people.

In the same way, we must consider the possibility of the entire community loosing the doctor's services as a result of the theft. If the loss of $50, 000 drives the doctor out of the community, we must then consider the death of children dying from preventable diseases because of the doctor's absence.

The end can NOT justify the means!

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the crazy anti-abortion activists who fire bomb abortion clinics.

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the eco-terrorists who burn down homes next to wilderness areas.

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the rioters who burn businesses in the cities hosting the G8 summit.

If you look at all the major atrocities of the twentieth century, they all started with the persuasion of an unsuspecting public that the end justifies the means.

At the end of last December, someone slammed into my car.  (Thankfully, no one was hurt.)  While my car was in the body shop, I drove a rental.  A couple of days later, I caught the flu and stayed in bed the entire week.  During that week, the city of Baltimore ticketed and towed my rental car that I parked in front of my own house.

I live near the stadium where the Baltimore Ravens NFL team plays.  Because game spectators tries to avoid parking fees by parking in my neighborhood, the city designated my street a sticker parking street during stadium events; only cars with a particular parking sticker are allowed to park there.

Unfortunately, my rental car doesn't have a parking sticker and I had not realized that there are any NFL games at the end of the year (That's when they have the college football bowl games).

To get the rental car out of the city impound lot, I had the pay the cost of the ticket, the towing charges, and the impound lot vehicle storage fee; close to five hundred dollars.

I contested it in court and won.  However, I did not receive the money back right away.  The city had to process all the documents that I submitted.

This week, just as the bills started to come in (see my previous blog), I received the check from the City of Baltimore.

The Lord is faithful once again.


Matthew 6:25-34

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?  Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?  Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.  Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.  If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?  So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'  For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.  But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.  Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

I dread it when the Holy Spirit directs me to give more sacrificially than what I've budgeted.  I've already committed much more than the tithe percentage of my monthly net income.  And I've also specified a couple of percentages more for discretionary giving to the homeless that I meet on the street.  So, when the Holy Spirit appeals to me to help with more, I would spend several days praying about it.

O.K., I really don't spend the prayer time seeking God's guidance.  It's more like several days of protesting the request of the Holy Spirit.  More particularly, it's a couple of days of protesting and a couple of more asking Him to prepare me for the storm.

You see, the issue isn't about the giving of the money; I always leave some breathing room in my monthly budget.

What I dread is that whenever I give beyond what I've budgeted, without exception, a series of events/setbacks would follow and take me financially into an area that is completely out of my control.

This week was no exception.

A young woman, that I know, needed financial help with the cost of mission college training.  I wrestled with the Holy Spirit concerning the amount.  I offered an amount that I can afford but the Holy Spirit kept me restless.  I reworked my budget and offer a little more but the Holy Spirit continued to keep me restless.  Finally, I threw out my budget and asked the Holy Spirit to pick a figure; and He took away the breathing room from my budget for the next several months.

Lord, please, prepare me for the storm!  Please, please, prepare me for the storm.

When my heart calmed, I unfurled the sail.

Then, the storm hit.  My brother's Medicare prescription plan hit the "donut hole" and his prescriptions will cost $800 per month for the next several months.  My car's air conditioner gave out during the hottest part of the summer.  A lightening strike burned out the circuitry in my house's heat pump.  My main sewer line backed up into my basement bathroom tub because the tree in front of my house grew its root into it.

I am, by no mean, destitute.  I do have savings from which to draw.  I just hate to have to dip from that fund since I don't believe that Social Security nor my company pension would be there when I retire.

Besides, in all previous times, when the Lord pushed me out from the security of my safety net, He had always provided so that I would not have to withdraw a single dime from my savings.

What I truly dread is the fear from the financial freefall that He forces me to take before catching me again.

Each time, He would whisper, "Trust me. Trust me" as I watched the earth jumped up at me at two hundred miles per hour.  And just as my heart is ready to stop, He would pull the parachute.

You'd think that after so many times that He has proven that He is faithful to provide for all my needs, the fear would go away.

So, I had to learn the lesson, once again.

Matthew 6:25-34

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?  Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?  Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.  Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.  If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?  So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'  For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.  But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.  Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Luke 10:25-29
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"



Isn't that so typical of what we do?  Once we find out something that we must or must not do, we automatically assume that the imperative is not to be applied universally and want to know the boundaries within which the imperative must be applied.

In the same way, after the discussion on whether homosexuality is a sin or not, there where several new discussion threads concerning whether a particular act is a sin or not.

I finally posted a reply after someone asked if masturbation is really a sin or not and many of the responders replied that it was not a sin.



Here is my reply:

In the original Greek text of the Bible, the word sin is translated from the Greek words hamartano and hamartia.

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned (hamartano) and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin (hamartia) is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

These words are not religious word. They are secular terms. They are archery terms.

The definition of these words:

hamartano - to miss the mark
hamartia - the act of missing the mark

To sin is to miss the mark.

What is the mark that we are trying to hit. What is God's purpose of creating man?

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness

Our purpuse is to carry the image of God.

When we fail to truly carry the image of God, we miss the mark.

Romans 3:23 says that we fall short of the glory of God.

Whatever we do that cause us to fall short of the glory of God is sin.

Does masturbation reflect the glory of God or does the act cause us to fall short of the glory of God?

If one wonders if any particular act is a sin or not just ask that question:

Does this act reflect the glory of God or does the act cause one to fall short of the glory of God?


p.s., Shortly after I posted my answer, someone posted the following:

I wish I knew the verse, but there is a verse that says, "If you sin with your eyes cut them out, if you sin with your right hand, cut it off." Masturbation is indeed adultery, adultery is sin.

To which I replied:

Take your pick:

Matthew 5:28-30
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8-9
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.


Mark 9:43-48
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where
" 'their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.


That's an interesting take on masturbation that I've never considered.

Now that you mentioned it, I have to agree with you (with a qualification).

Adultery is sex with someone who is not one's spouse if one is married and fornication is any sex if one is single.

So, masturbation would be either adultery or fornication, i.e., a sin.

Also, masturbation would require some form of lusting in one's heart.

It has been a while since my last blog entry because I have been involved in a discussion thread on a Christian forum discussing a very important topic.  The main topic of the thread concerns homosexuality in Christianity.  I am not really that interested in discussing the topic of homosexuality.  (See my blog entry entitled "Obsessing over Homosexuality and Other Hot Button Issues", posted on July 2, 2007)  However, the way the Bible was being interpreted, in that post, has greater ramifications than the mere topic of homosexuality.

Here is the initial post in the thread:

1. Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." Pretty clear huh? Well what about the rest of the Jewish Holiness Code in Leviticus which also:

* permits polygamy
* prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
* bans tattoos
* prohibits eating rare meat
* bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
* prohibits cross-breeding livestock
* bans sowing a field with mixed seed
* prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
* requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

I am a huge sinner then... I thought this code was totally obsolete? Hebrews 8:13 "In that He says 'a new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away"

2. Where's the law against lesbian sex? Doesn't exist... hmmm...

3. Jesus never talked about homosexuality? Was it really not that important? Was it even a sin?

The original post was arguing that we are no longer under the Old Covenant (Hebrew 8:13) so we should no longer be obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies that it is an offense against God.  As evidence, he listed Old Testament regulations, in the first item of the original post, that are mostly ignored today.

Then, the author, of the original post, made two observations.

The first observation is that the Old Testament regulations explicitly forbid a man from laying with another man like a man would with a woman (Leviticus 18:22) however, they do not explictly forbid a woman from laying with another woman like a man would with a women.  It would seem that lesbian sex is not forbidden.

The second observation is that Jesus never talked about homosexuality.  If we carry the argument that we are no longer obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies it, then homosexuality must then be no longer an offense.

I could have stop the discussion by posting a New Testament reference that forbids homosexuality.  However, to do so would allow the broader problem of how the Bible was interpreted to continue to propagate.

The first problem is the interpretation of what IS the Old and Covenant that Hebrew 8:13 is talking about.  It is a problem because the interpretation of this verse does not conform to its context.

Hebrew 8:3
Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

The covenant to which Hebrew 8:13 is referring is not the entirety of the Old Testament laws, it is referring to just the system of giving sacrifice found in the Old Testament.  This system is no longer needed since Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice to save all who believe; Jesus' sacrifice is the basis of the New Covenant.

This chapter of Hebrew is not about abolishing the Law.  More particularly, Jesus said the following:

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the context of the homosexuality discussion, I added:

Just because Jesus did not explicitly mentioned homosexuality, does not mean that He thinks it's ok. He came to fulfill every aspect of the Law. By upholding every aspect of the Law, he implicitly upholds the prohibition on homosexuality.

The author, of the original post, wrote back with the following:

So, let's make sure we preach against sex with unclean women, eating unclean meat, wearing certain types of clothing, tattoos, work on the Sabbath... If this justification is correct, why have we then selectively chosen what to follow and what not to follow? Did we feel it was not culturally relevant? I think you (and most Christian doctrine) may be drawing some dangerous conclusions here.

I think you are taking this out of context. Jesus spoke on His most hated sins (adultery, murder, divorce, truthfulness. He spoke much about piety, helping the downtrodden, and love for one's enemies during the entire Sermon. Are you saying by default then that "he really meant" to speak against homosexuality? Matt 5:17-20 is the catch all for all laws then? I think that explanation is devoid of true logic.

With this post, the author, of the original post, added another assumption.  The post referred to some sins as more hated by God than others.

God/Jesus hates all sin; one is no more hated by God than another (maybe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

Jesus spoke about different sins to illustrate that we are all sinners. The ones that He pointed out were the ones that some people of that time were committing but weren't willing to admit that they have a problem these sins.

It's not about one sin being worst than another.

James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

It doesn't matter which sin we commit. Any sin condemns us to death.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It's not in keeping the Law that we can be righteous since none of us are able to keep the law.

It is only through the acceptance of Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross in which we can become righteous.

That's the Gospel.


Someone else who was following the discussion asks for clarification with the following:

If all sins are equally wrong then why did you say that homosexuals cannot be Christians? What makes homosexuality any worse than the daily sins we all commit?

I wrote back the following:

To be a Christian, one has to repent: one has to recognize that he/she is a sinner and strives towards not sinning. Of course, all of us continue to sin because we are not perfected until the return of Jesus.

However, if someone refuses to accept the fact that they are sinning, then they did not repent and they are not saved. It does not matter if the sin is lying or adultery or homosexual activities. If one is not willing to recognize their sin as wrong, they did not repent and therefore not saved.

So, if a gay or lesbian says that there is nothing wrong with being gay and he/she continues to sin, they are not saved.

However, if a gay or lesbian says that it is wrong to participate in gay/lesbian activities and is trying to stop sinning, then that person has repented. If that person, then, accepts Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross, then that person is saved.


Frustrated with my answer, the author, of the original post wrote the following:

I'm straight and I ate pork, have had sex with my wife on her period, have a few tattoos, have worked on the Sabbath, and wear some pretty ridiculous clothes. And I don't think I've sinned... I guess I'm damned to hell? That my personal relationship with Christ is nothing but a farce?

To which I replied:

Leviticus 11:4-8
There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

The dietary laws are about keeping clean. Whether it is for ceremonial cleanliness or health reasons, it doesn't matter. If for ceremonial cleanliness, since Jesus' death paid for all our sins and we no longer participate in sacrifice ceremonies. If for health reasons, our food processing methods clean those food.  (Not to mention Acts 10:13-15)

Same with laws concerning having sex during a woman's period.

Leviticus 15:19
When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

Notice that the person remain unclean only until the evening?


Leviticus 19:26-28
Do not practice divination or sorcery. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

The law against tattoos is about practicing divination or sorcery. If your tattoo isn't related to practicing divination or sorcery, it's not a sin.


My point is that the Old Testament law concerns three types of regulations:

1) Regulations for maintaining physical health
2) Regulations for maintaining spiritual health (acts that condemn us to hell)
3) Regulations for sacrifices to be made to atone for the violation of the second type of regulations

The first type does not concern eternal issues that send us to hell and does not require atonement.  Before modern technology and modern medical practices, these regulations were very important.  But now, we are free from the problems that they solved.

The second type, however, does concern eternal issues that can send us to hell and requires atonement.  No modern technology or modern medical practices can save us from the penalty required to pay for sin.  These regulations are very much in play today as they were when the Law was given.

The third type is the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant.  The New Covenant is the Christian Gospel:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


p.s., Homosexuality is also explicitly forbidden in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6:9
(NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

(KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"abusers of themselves with mankind" was translated from the Greek word "arsenokoites" which means sodomite.


p.p.s., I addressed the lesbian question with the following:

All sexual activity outside of marriage is sin. If single having sex, it's fornication. If married having sex with someone who is not one's spouse, it's adultery.

Since marriage is defined from the start to be between a man and a woman, then two woman can not be married to each other. Thus, if two woman are a sexual relationship, they are either committing fornication or adultery.


To which he replied:

Understood, what about two women that marry in the church? Say in Vermont? They are not having sex outside marriage. What then?

My answer:

A Christian Church must abide by Christian Doctrine. Otherwise it is not a Christian Church. Since Christian Doctrine defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, a church that sanctions the union of two woman does not abide by Christian Doctrine.

After I posted my response to the initial post calling for the young teenager, who started the discussion group, to changed her default photo with her in a bikini bathing suit, I watched the discussion thread quickly grew with comments protesting the request to change the photo. Most of the posts argued that the photo was not lewd since the bathing suit was not any more revealing than any other that are commonly worn at the beach or swimming pool; thus, she has every right to post the photo if she wants.

As the discussion progressed, it became apparent that there are, indeed, men, in the discussion group, who have to deal with lust when they see the photo. But their pleads were met with replies insisting that those with the problem need to deal with the problem and not force the young teenager to change her default photo.

So I posted the following response.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

1 Corinthians 10:23-24
"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

As you can see from my previous post, I don't find the photo of this discussion group's moderator to be one which would cause me to have problem with lust. However, it seems that there are others in this group that would have to deal with the problem of lust due to this photo. If that's the case, then I must agree with those who are calling for the moderator to change her default photo.

We must remember the purpose of "The Church". (I'm not talking about a building or an organization; I'm talking about the Body of Christ.) It's not about asserting our rights. It's about helping each other as the entire Body moves forward.

Consider the Israelites as they travel through wilderness towards the promised land. If someone's grandma was having trouble keeping up, do you think they would tell the grandma to pick up the pace or she'll be left behind? Of course not, they'd find some way of accommodating her weakness.

In the same way, if a brother is struggling with lust from the picture of the moderator, are we to say, suck it up and stop lusting? Of course not! We need to accommodate this brother's weakness while he is still working on his lust issues.

I'm not saying that moderator does not have the rights to post a perfectly legitimate photo of herself in a bathing suit. Yes, she has the rights. I'm only asking that she, as a member of this Body, be considerate of other members who are weak when dealing with the issue of lust.

Romans 14:19-21
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

One of the Christian Discussion Group in which I participate was started by a young teenager.  On the web page that hosts the electronic forum is a picture of her.  It is the default picture from her profile page.  She periodically changes the default picture on her profile page.  Recently, she changed it to a picture of herself in a bikini bathing suit.  She wasn't posing in a lewd way.  She was just standing there in front of a mirror in her bathing suit taking a picture of herself.

One of the discussion group participants found the picture inappropriate and tried to contact her to ask her to change it.  Without any response from her, he started a discussion thread with the following post:

Change the Picture

I tried to message you privately, but was unable to do so.

The current picture is unacceptable. You fail to realize that it (and others like it that you have posted) may cause others to stumble. Please read the Bible where it talks about causing others to stumble.

Again, I would have rather messaged you privately, but was unable to do that.

(*said in love)

cd


I thought about it for a long time.

As I thought it over, others chimed-in in support of this post.

soon, it started to look like the electronic version of a lynch mob.

So, I posted the following in response to the initial post.

I must confess that I didn't notice the photo as a problem until you pointed it out. I'm constantly getting bombarded with and deleting the e-mail messages and "requests to be friend" from barely dressed girls who wants to show me their nude photos; so, I'm a bit anesthized to photos of barely dressed girls.

Here's my dilemma. On one hand, I do agree that one should not cause others to stumble. On the other hand, I can not support the Taliban's position of requiring all women to wear the burqa. (I'm not accusing you of being a member of the Taliban; I'm just establishing two points of extremes.)

This issue is not limited to just this particular photo. We all go to the beach and to swimming pools in which girls and women are dressed in bikinis.

I wonder if the problem is in the eye of the beholder?  Where do we draw the boundary between where the responsibility rests on the subject being observed and where the responsibility rests on the observer?

Because most of the posts have been for changing the photo, I'd like to explore the other side of the argument a little.

There are parts of the world where it is still acceptable for women to walk around without anything covering their breast and the display does not invoke male sexual arousal in that society. If there is a Christian Church there, would the display of women's bare breasts be unacceptable? What if the only men that the display causes to stumble are the missionaries that brought the Gospel? Should the women now be required to cover up?

If we are to say that the bikini is inappropriate, what would we say is appropriate? A one piece? If we are to object to both, then what should a Christian woman wear at the beach or at the pool? What if the young woman in question had posted a picture of herself in a bikini on the beach? Would that be more appropriate than the current one?

The young woman in question is part of the MTV generation in which dressing in a bikini is not a big deal. So, if the calls, for her to change the photo, cause her to view the Christian community with distain, wouldn't that be considered "causing her to stumble"? Especially when this discussion thread is starting to look like a lynch mob.

I wonder: How many of us are actually being caused to stumbled by the photo?

I suspect that "causing others to stumble" is really not the issue here.

I suspect that it has more to do with being appalled with an young teenager showing so much skin.

If that's the case, shouldn't the issue really be about the mental and spiritual health of this young woman?  Why does she feel the need to post a picture of herself showing so much skin?  Does she truly believe that she is focused on being conformed to the image of Christ instead of focusing on conforming to the world?

Someone posted something against the Muslim faith that really burns me up!  This is what was posted:

This is from the Koran

Religion of Peace?

* Surah II: 98 – "Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers."
* Surah II: 191-193 – "Kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them….Fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah."
* Surah II: 216 – "Fighting is enjoined on you..."
* Surah III: 19 – "Surely the true religion with Allah is Islam…and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning."
* Surah V: 51 – "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whosoever among you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
* Surah VIII: 12 – "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
* Surah VIII: 15-17 – "O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, turn not your backs to them. Whoever shall turn his back to them on that day – unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company – then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell… So you did not slay them, but it was Allah who slew them…that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing."
* Surah IX: 29 – "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth… until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
* Surah IX:33 – "[Allah] it is who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though polytheists may be averse."
* Surah IX: 73 – "O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination."
* Surah IX: 123 – "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in your hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)."


Here's my reply:

I looked up verses 2.190 -  2.193

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Verse 2.191 was NOT referring to ALL unbelievers!!!!! If you look at its context in verse 2.190, you'd see that it was referring to "those who fight with you"

In fact this whole section is about fighting fairly: "do not exceed the limits"

Your quote of verse 2.191 also omitted an important part of the verse: "drive them out from whence they drove you out", referring to getting back the land that was taken from them.

I also looked up verse 8.12

[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Your quote of verse 8.12 omitted the beginning of the verse!!!  The verse is about God telling angles to strike down those who don't believe.  God was NOT telling Muslims to strike down unbelievers!!!

The way these verses are quoted is simply a misrepresentation of the actual text.

Please, stop propagating this falsehood!!!! It reflects badly on Christians.

As for accusing Islam of being a religion of violence, Muslims can just as well post verses from the Bible that would make our faith look very violent. Remember, the Israelite's march to the promised land? How many people groups were trampled on that march? How about the wars of Saul, David and the Judges? Even in the New Testament, we have God striking down Ananias and Sapphira?

Most importantly, they could point out the violence of "Christians" against Muslims like the Christian Crusades in the Holy Land, the Spanish Inquisition, British Colonialism, Russian conquest of Central Asia, etc.

Let's not antagonize the Muslim. They are just lost, like we were before we were saved.

Then, someone else posted a reply to the orignal post that quoted the Old Testament story of Ishmael, connecting the Arab people to Abraham and the chosen race.  I'm not reposting it in this blog entry because it's quite drawn out and very incoherent.

Anyway, I replied to it with the following:

PLEASE DO NOT equate Arabs with Muslim!!!!!!!

I would like to remind you that MOST Christians in the Middle East ARE Arabs: Lebanese Maronite Christians, Jordanian Orthodox Christians, Palestinian Melkite Greek Catholic Christians, Egyptian Coptic Christians, etc.

Conversely, Muslims are not only Arabs.  The most populous Muslim country is Indonesia. Muslims also include the various people groups who inhabits Central Asia, Africa, as well as the Iranians who are Persians.  In fact that the fastest growing religion within the African-American community IS Islam.