Someone invited me to join their protest in front of an abortion clinic earlier this week (see this post). It was about 6:30 that night and I looked at the piece of paper I had been given by someone who came up to me on the street when I was displaying the cross. It indicated one of their protests was on Tuesdays at 6:30. Saying a quick prayer asking whether I should go or not, I ended up going. I was debating on whether to wait longer or if I should go, since they were already out there. I ended up going.
As I wrote previously, the group is made of up of mostly Catholics. There was also a man there who had a sign that said "Pro-Life Atheist." I wish I would have waited longer instead of jumping the gun. I was reading 1 Corinthians today, and 1 Corinthians 5:11 says this: "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one."
I was associating myself with a group of people who were praying the rosary and standing next to a man holding a rosary. Not only that, next to him was the man with the "Pro-Life Atheist" sign. 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 says, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world."
Now, I could get technical about this and say that I don't call a Catholic a brother, and I definitely don't call an atheist a brother, but to everyone driving by, I was clearly one of their group. While their root cause (against abortion) may be commendable, this is not a place I want to be standing with my cross.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you open-air? Preach the gospel in season & out of season. Approach all who are killing their babies & use the 6th commandment with them. Ask them what they think it means. Tell them that babies come from God. The Lord will give you divine appointments.
ReplyDeleteThe gospel is for everyone. It never is out of season. All the people the devil brings together at the killing place should hear a biblical gospel.
Previous comment was editted for blasphemy:
ReplyDelete"Forbid you be open-minded about cooperating with people who exist outside your comfort zone. Jesus probably would have been pretty lonely had he led the life Paul recommends in 1 Cor."
This isn't about cooperating with people who exist outside my comfort zone. There are evangelists who, if I were with them, would put me outside of my "comfort zone." You are confusing my comfort zone with my morality.
This pro-life group is made up of Catholics and even a pro-life atheist (who wears a sign displaying that information). It is morally wrong to associate with idolaters- 1 Corinthians 5:11 tells us that.
Yes, their cause is good, but if I want to protest, it has to be separate from them.
Previous comment edited for cursing:
ReplyDelete"What I was trying to say is that Jesus associated with 'idolaters' and encouraged others to do the same. I always thought that part of his spiel was for people to get off their religious high horses and hang out with a diverse group of people. I mean, people got mad that he was associating with Mary Magdalene, and he was very vocal about defending that association."
Again, I am not at all saying they should not be witnessed to, but I do not agree that I should associate with them. 1 John 2:15-16: "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." If I associate with them, I am showing everyone that I approve of their message and am of the world.
I can't help but identify myself as one you would see as on religious "high horse." There are a lot of things I don't do and a lot of people I don't associate with anymore.
I don't watch TV shows that blaspheme or curse, and if I do hear one, I change the channel or turn off the TV. So, I pretty much don't watch TV except for Jeopardy (and not even that is safe all the time). This is a personal choice and I understand that the Lord convicts people of different things at different times.
Matthew 5:16 says, "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." People should be able to identify me as a Christian, and that may give the appearance of being on a religious "high horse."
When I take people through the Law when witnessing to them, I readily admit that I have committed all the sins I am asking them about. That is in my past and I would be a hypocrite not to, but understand that I have also changed.
As a side note to this commenter- please don't use blasphemies and curse words. I will just delete the comments in the future.
I am unclear what you mean by "blasphemies" and "curse words" and I do not recall using either in my posts.
ReplyDeleteI will tell you that the Christians that have most impressed me in my life have not been immediately identifiable as Christians, and could certainly never have been thought to be on a "high horse". They did not carry around a 5 foot cross or ask me if I was saved. They became friends and individuals that I respected by being collegues and professors, by inviting me to dinner (and not, mind you, out of some desire to convert me, but because they respected and enjoyed me as a person), they read Buddhist philosophy and were close friends with those of other faiths, belief systems and politics. They were humble and intelligent, able and willing to talk about how the Bible has been historically interpreted, about how the books of the Bible became books of the Bible, about the historical conditions at the time of Jesus' and Paul's lives and what that meant for interpretation, and most importantly they were open minded and respectful. I tried not to swear in front of them because I noticed that they never swore, not because when I swore they cut me off and declared that if I spoke in such a way they would never talk to me again. That just seems unrealistic. There is a difference between not swearing yourself and discounting what a person says because they use language that you find offensive. It seems like it would be impossible to have a conversation with someone that you do not consider saved who fails to slip into a "blasphemous" statement or curse.
I don't mean to be too critical -- really I don't care if you spend some evenings standing around with a cross. I even respect your right to hold your opinions on abortion. And I couldn't be happier that you felt uncomfortable standing outside a clinic with a group of protestors with creepy signs. I just think your way of approaching Christianity is harsh, close-minded and alienating to many people, whether they consider themselves Christians or not.
The comment where you said ******* forbid and the word I replaced with "mad" in your previous comment.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct that I am closed minded. If your beliefs are wrong, I won't hesitate to tell you exactly that. If it doesn't line up with the Bible- it's wrong. Plain and simple.
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." That doesn't leave room for ANY other way. I hope the people that are reading Buddhist philosophy are only reading it to be able to refute it, not practice it. If they are incorporating that into their life, they are practicing idolatry.
I do not at all agree that "friendship" evangelism is the route to take. I befriend you and then after X amount of time, I tell you about the most important thing in my life- Jesus. If He were that important to me, I should have told you right away when I first met you. You don't know that you have tomorrow to live.
If you had three minutes to live, I would explain to you that we have all told lies, stolen things, taken the Lord's name in vain, and lusted after another. That makes us all guilty of being a lying, thieving, blaspheming, adulterer at heart- and those are only 4 of the 10 commandments. You have to face a Holy God on Judgment Day and He will rightly find you guilty of breaking His Laws. Being guilty, He should rightly sentence you to Hell and that should concern you. Here is the good news. If you repent of your sins (that is forsake them and turn away from them) and place your trust in Jesus alone, you will be saved and can have eternal life.
Wow, I had no idea that anyone, even my religious old-fashioned grandma who can't pronounce Barack Obama's name, would consider ****** a curse word. Sorry to offend.
ReplyDeleteHow do you expect to convert people if all you say is "the Bible says that what you think is wrong?" That seems very unlikely to convince anyone who has ever read the Bible or known people of different faiths. Catholics think the Bible says something different than you do. So do Lutherans. So do liberal Christians who don't understand why some evangelicals care so much about condemning homosexuality but fail to stone disobedient sons as the "old testament" says? And there are dozens of contradictions within the text itself; completely understandable taking into account the size and span of it.
"friendship evangelism" isn't what these people were doing. what they were doing was called simply "friendship."
It's not the word "Heaven" itself, it's when you pair it with another word and give it void less meaning.
ReplyDeletePeople know the things they do are wrong. They have a God given conscience that tells them that. People know it's wrong to lie, steal, etc. The law is written on their hearts (Roman 2:15).
Catholics don't follow the Bible exclusively- they have the Catechism which changes. They are wrong on many things.
I am not interested in being "relevant." I heard Rob Bell is participating in Ramadan. That's idolatry! There are some churches (like the ELCA) that allow for certain sins- more idolatry. Belonging to a specific church does not give you a get out of Hell free card in the eyes of the Lord.
Scripture is the infallible Word of God. It is God breathed (2 Tim 3:16). There are no contradictions. Point one out to me. Once you say part of Scripture is wrong, that makes the whole thing wrong. Who is to say what is right and wrong? So you don't agree with 1 Corinthians 6 that says homosexuality is wrong? You're telling me I am wrong. Who is the judge? The Bible is the ultimate judge. Don't forget, John 1:1 says that the Word IS God. Are you calling God a liar?
Also, there is only one interpretation of the Bible- the right one. The Bible was written to a specific group of people during a specific time period. It has to be viewed in that context. The meaning hasn't changed since it was written.
The United Methodist church takes Galatians 3:28 and says that gives them the right to have female pastors. They take that one verse out of context and ignore 1 Timothy 2:12-14. You can't pick a verse and take it out of context like that.
The Old Testament has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The OT was given to Israel. We are living under the blood of Jesus Christ in the NT - that is why we don't go around stoning people and other things prescribed in the OT. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, "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."
Oh, I didn't even know it was heaven...i thought I had said "g*d forbid" which i would have understood as what you call blasphemy. I was talking about the "p*****" instead of saying the less colorful but apparently more acceptable "mad." i didn't think anyone considered that a swear.
ReplyDeleteGenesis 1 and 2 are different creation accounts, and differ in the order of creation. All four gospels on the last moments of Jesus' life. How many animals Noah took on the ark (Gen 7:2 vs. 7:8). The geneology of Joseph in Mat. vs. Luke. How Judas died (Mat 27:5 vs. Acts 1:18). Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial in Mat 26:34 vs. Mark 14:30. And these are just off the top of my head...my Bible is packed up and inaccessible for a bit. And it's got such good footnotes.
I think that homosexuality is a political issue and biological, not a moral issue or a choice, and is therefore not something that can be "wrong" or "right".
And there is clearly not just one interpretation of the Bible or we wouldn't be arguing, and there wouldn't be Catholics and non-Catholics etc.
And, everytime you pick one verse out and quote it as proof for what you believe, aren't you also inherently pulling it out of context to prove your view? And, really? No female pastors?
Genesis 2 is a detailed account of day 6.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to go through all of them- It clearly won't do any good.
You are guilty of idolatry because you have your own version of what is right and what is wrong. According to you, homosexuality is OK, while according to the Bible, it is not.
While there may be several interpretations of the Bible- I still stand by my statement that only one is right. I am willing to debate Revelation (as that hasn't happened yet), but most of it isn't open to debate (like the passage on homosexuality and female pastors).
While I may quote a certain verse, I make sure I am applying the proper meaning to it. For example, in Matthew 10:34, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." I am not going to take this verse and say that Jesus was for violence. This verse deals with division in your family and I won't quote it out of context.
Jesus says in Matthew 7: 13-14, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." Who has the narrow view here? Me, or you? You told me homosexuality is a political and biological issues, while the Bible says it's wrong. The Bible says no to women pastors.
And, yes, really, no female pastors. The Bible says so. I don't care what current culture says.
Please, I beg of you, repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation.
Oh, c'mon. Where in the Bible does it say anything about women not being able to be pastors? When does it even say anything about pastors at all?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your concern and everything, but No thanks. I am very passionate about my liberal viewpoints, including equal rights for women and gays, I love to read Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu philosophy and texts, and I am happily living in sin with my amazing boyfriend. I also adore swearing and HBO television series and whiskey sours. I really like a lot of what Jesus says, and he is one of my favorite historical figures to read about, but I simply can't stand Paul. In MY interpretation of the New Testament, Jesus was trying to open up a religion to be more inclusive and liberal, and Paul reoriented it with a much more radical conservative view. And I think Christianity is the worse off for it.
Jesus also asked these two questions:
ReplyDelete"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul?"
"Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death." -Proverbs 11:4
Jesus did the see the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the unnecessary burden they laid on people- but that does not give you a license to do whatever you want.
Even apart from all the Pauline letters, Jesus used the Ten Commandments- you can't ignore those.
Look up Luke 13:3 to see what Jesus said.
no, you misunderstood. I do not believe that the Bible tells me what is right and what is wrong. I think Jesus the historical figure is an interesting philosopher when the larger context is kept in minf. I take everything in the gospel as belonging in a historical context. I believe the Bible is a collection of historical texts. And I include the gnostic gospels in my library of interesting texts about Jesus (perhaps you would be interested to study the Catholic Church's history in shaping the books in the new testament, since they're your enemy now). Quoting the Bible is not an effective counter-argument. See how we are simply operating on different planes of logic? I say "science/reason says" and you counter with "the Bible says" and neither one of us is convinced.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am always bothered that Christians seem to always think that not being a Christian means you can do "whatever you want." That's simply idiotic. I have morals, I just don't base all of them on Paul etc.
Oh, and I'm still interested in where the Bible says that female pastors are a total abomination or whatever.
I have been writing on the premise that you believe in God- do you? How does one get to Heaven?
ReplyDeleteJesus is the Son of Man and Son of God. He sits at the right hand of the Father in the Trinity. He was God in human form. He was sinless in His life.
You said you do not believe that the Bible tells you what is right and wrong (your morals)? Who/what defines your morals?
Since you are not following the Bible (as you have clearly stated), you are doing whatever you want. There is no other way to describe it. To you it may not seem like it because everyone around you is acting that way, but it is what it is. If you don't get your morals from the Bible, who defines them for you?
Obviously, we have different morals. Who is to say whose are the correct morals? The Bible.
Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. Paul asks the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 9, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"
Science fits into the Bible just fine. Take a look at the ministry of Answers in Genesis.
1 Timothy 2:12-14: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
Well, if a woman is to remain quiet, than I am sinning by simply carrying on this conversation. Too bad we can't talk about this further; it was rather interesting.
ReplyDeleteAnswers in Genesis makes no coherent arguments.
ReplyDelete"Well, if a woman is to remain quiet, than I am sinning by simply carrying on this conversation."
ReplyDeleteYou are taking this out of context. Paul is referring to women in a church setting, teaching. Paul is not prohibiting speech in general of women.
From Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:
"According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion. Also, women must not think themselves excused from learning what is necessary to salvation, though they must not usurp authority. As woman was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression. But there is a word of comfort; that those who continue in sobriety, shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing, by the Messiah, who was born of a woman. And the especial sorrow to which the female sex is subject, should cause men to exercise their authority with much gentleness, tenderness, and affection."
Please don't accuse me of saying that women don't have any rights. Ephesians 5 says this about marriage: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."
The husband is to love his wife so much that he would willing to die for her- just as Christ died for our sins. That last sentence sums it up- love your wife as yourself. No woman has anything to fear about being in a marriage with a God-fearing, Christian man.
Well, I definitely have more to fear by marrying a Christian man than my boyfriend, who would die for me AND also would never dream of wanting me to "submit" to him in anything, unless I wanted to.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea who Matthew Henry is but he sounds like a first rate sexist. I feel no special sorrow for being a woman, and have no plans of redeeming some imaginary female sinfulness through the process of childbirth. That's just ridiculous.
And it seems like that 1 Tmthy that you quoted is incorrect: Adam WAS deceived. He too ate the apple, correct?
You are missing the point about submitting. You are making it sound like it is the submission of a slave to a master.
ReplyDeleteAdam did eat the apple- but Eve ate it first and then gave it to Adam to eat.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that they word "submission" has any positive connotation to anyone.
ReplyDeleteI know Eve ate it first -- and then deceived Adam into eating it.
Ephesians 5 tells the wife to submit to the husband as the church is to submit to Christ. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ died for the church. The husband is called to have the greater love.
ReplyDeleteIt also says for the husband to love his wife as himself. As I said, if that is followed, the wife doesn't have anything to fear. No God-fearing, Christian man is going to submit his wife to something that is unkind or unloving. Think about how much you love yourself (do you beat yourself? do you subject yourself to pain?).
No good muslim man would either. nor a good hindu woman. nor an ethical athiest. just because someone is not a Christian does not mean they are a wife-beater. or a husband beater for that matter.
ReplyDeleteWhile that may be true- Muslims and Atheists are sinners just like the rest of us (liars, thieves, blasphemers, adulterers and murderers at heart) and will be guilty when they face God on Judgment Day. They don't have their sins forgiven and are headed for Hell. As a believer in Jesus Christ and repenting of your sins, you can have eternal life.
ReplyDeletetalking with you is like arguing with a broken record or a fox news host.
ReplyDeleteThat's the beauty of the Gospel- it never changes!
ReplyDeleteYes, it does. The actual words may not, but the commentary and the interpretation certainly do. That's why there have never been prosperity gospel preachers, or abortion protestors, or Christians voting for republicans because the republicans throw in some social issue until the last couple decades.
ReplyDeleteI am positive that if one of the gospel authors came back today to hang out he would be confused and mortified about how people are interpreting his text. Not to mention translating it! Do you read greek?
And to answer an earlier question, I am a contented agnostic.
The books of the Bible were written to a specific audience in a specific time period. Their meanings do not change. Lying, stealing, blaspheming, lust, adultery, hate, murder, homosexuality, greediness- all that was wrong back then, just as it is now.
ReplyDeleteThose are all still "wrong" now, except for homosexuality, which was only ever taboo in very small social groups (I'm looking at you, Paul). what group of humans ever advocated for or accepted lying, stealing, adultery, hate, murder or greediness? Christianity does not have a monopoly on moral behavior.
ReplyDeleteisn't lust a positive thing in a committed relationship for you? or just an end to the means to reproduction and hence the totally bizarre "saved in childbearing" thing? don't you want to desire your wife?
Also, the meanings of words totally change over time, so that what seems to be a clear meaning to you actually meant something totally different hundreds of years ago. see this very interesting article in the NY Times about old oxford english dictionary entries:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16FOB-onlanguage-t.html
for example, "stuff" referred to "woolen fabric" and "idiot" referred to a layman.
also interesting to note that many of the words the english-speaking world consider "swear words" are simply descendants from the German, rather than the more aristocratic French old english tradition. so the entire concept of "swear words" is simply stemming from classism. not morality at all.
Leviticus 18:22
ReplyDeleteAgain, Levitucus 19:27. I have always been extremely confused as to why a verse like this "doesn't matter" but a verse like 18:22 is something to show up to protests about. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThe Old Covenant (Old Testament) was a specific set of laws given to a specific set of people- the Israelites. Under Jesus, we are in under the New Covenant (New Testament).
ReplyDeleteThe ceremonial laws, like the one you quoted about beards, do not apply anymore. Jesus said, "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." Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. However, the moral law (the Ten Commandments) still do apply.
The New Testament if the fulfillment of the Old Testament. If you look through the New Testament, you can see that the Ten Commandments still apply. Look at the conversation Jesus had with the rich young man in Matthew 19. Also, look to the list of sins in places like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21.
It is true that language changes over time, which is why it is so important to understand the language that the Bible was written in. And yes, I achieved academic honors in studying Greek and Hebrew.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I am jumping into a conversation that has been covering a lot of things pretty rapid-fire. So, I can't respond to everything now.
First of all, there is no way to conclude that Jesus came to promote a more open-minded religion. He is the One who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life - no one comes to the Father but by me." That seems pretty narrow.
Also, if you really look at what the New Testament says about women, it is revolutionary. The culture of the time treated women as having no value. Along comes the writings of Paul, by the inspiration of the Spirit, to say that husbands are to love their wives just like Christ loves the Church and that husbands are to give up their lives for their wives as Jesus gave up His life for the Church. We submit in a lot of areas - to no employer, etc. It is about roles, not value. So, Ephesians 5 is calling wives to submit to husbands who love them unconditionally, look out for their best interest, seek to serve them more than being served, and to do all that is possible to make life better for them.
Also, if you read Genesis 1-2 carefully, they are not separate accounts of creation as many atheists wrongly assert. Genesis 2 is not seeking to establish an order of things. Sometimes people assume that animals were not created until they were presented before Adam, but the text never says that. It simply says they were presented before Adam to name.
I would be more than happy to address specific accusations of errors in the Bible.
But lastly, a word about Christians who do not try and "convert" you but who just want to become friends. I do not know these people and cannot comment on them specifically. All I can do is ask this question: as Christians, they believe that anyone who dies without Christ as Savior will perish in hell for all eternity for their sins. None of us know when we will die. Since these Christians feel no urgency to talk with you about the Gospel, I have actually two potential questions: Do they really believe what the Bible says? Because if they do, I have to ask if they really care about you? If someone truly cares about you and truly is a Christian, they should care enough about you to speak the truth in love before it's too late. And in terms of their friendship, they should still be your friend whether you repent and believe the Gospel or if you laugh it off. if I saw someone unknowingly drink poison, I would have to hate them to stand back and not do anything to help them.
What Mark is doing may seem like some to be "in your face" or "shoving religion" at people. But because he believes the Bible, he would have to hate people to not do what he could to reach them with the Gospel.
PJ,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the posting, PJ. Just because the meanings of words change over time doesn't mean that we get to change the meaning of them in their original context.