Comments on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: Discussion Topic: Israel, Judah, and Homosexuality...

This is my first post I'd like to congratulate...

2010-01-06T15:19:53.566-08:00

This is my first post I'd like to congratulate you for such a great quality forum!
thought this is a perfect way to introduce myself!

Sincerely,
Robin Toby
if you're ever bored check out my site!
[url=http://www.partyopedia.com/articles/elmo-party-supplies.html]elmo Party Supplies[/url].

...please where can I buy a unicorn?

2009-11-30T12:16:34.487-08:00

...please where can I buy a unicorn?

Moderator's Note: For the record, I could easi...

2009-10-31T18:14:30.602-07:00

Moderator's Note:
For the record, I could easily be accused of writing as though I "have all the answers." as well...and I appreciate a diversity of opinions on this blog, including Andy's.

----
Also: Welcome to the blog, Jaigner...I hope to see more comments by you elsewhere!

Whoa, whoa, Andy. I would really caution you to n...

2009-10-31T13:46:28.387-07:00

Whoa, whoa, Andy. I would really caution you to not attack so harshly or decide that you have all the answers. Biblical interpretation is tough and even then, it communicates truth only so far as our fallen and feeble and finite minds can grasp it. God is bound by His own attributes, but I would caution you to be very careful before you box God up all neat and tidy.

Remember that Scripture is accommodation, giving us a glimpse of something we could not otherwise hope to see. It's also not written in a vacuum.

Christ's finished work is sufficient entirely, and Dan says such numerous times on his blog.

Lastly, I've read Hebrews. Have you read the Old Testament?

God is love.

Blessings to you, friend.

Dan; Okay, I read many of the posts on your blog....

2009-06-27T18:58:30.929-07:00

Dan;

Okay, I read many of the posts on your blog...We will have to respectfully disagree. Jesus Christ is my Saviour, and His work is the reason I am saved: I nneded a Savior. I cannot save, nor redeem myself. Were my work sufficent to gain Heaven, to produce a life of holiness and godlikness...I would not need a Savior.

It seems in your attempt to address "easy belivism" and some faulty notion that "salvation" is an "end," you have gone off on some reservation that is no longer even biblical.

One point I just haven't read from you on your "follow me" expose is the purpose of Christ's invitation. Follow Him where? Down a road of religeous activity? That seems somhow beneath the Savior. Yes, Jesus instructed us to follow. He also said He is the Way, Truth, and LIfe. He told us only one Door is available; and that He is THAT Door.

Are we to follow Christ to our own martyrdom? Would my own blod spilled be the point? I think even you would find that a silly notion. You tell us salvation is pointless. Dan, you miss the whole point of Jesus coming to us as Emmanuel.

As for you comment on blood only part of the answer for sin...may I remind you of Mat 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." And, Rom 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" Then, from the book you may dead reading, Heberws there is a tiny problem with your primise: Hbr 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

As for my comment about Mohammed was sarcasim. We do not worship a cruel, arbitrary, in-coherrant God. We worship the God of the Bible, revealed to us through His Son. I am not slamming Musilms in this discussion, and am not affronted by their false religon, so much as I am affronted by your own blashemy of Jesus finished work on Calvary.

God's Soverignity cannot, nor will not over-urule His Justice.

That He COULD do anything concievable (or inconceivable) is evident; but He will notact independantly of His own attributes. He will not counter His own attribues. Did He not tell us Himself that He CANNOT lie? Is this a weakness then? A assault to His Soverignity? No - to think so is foolishness. So, that He cannot "simply" forgive is NOT an assault to His Soverignity.

My point about forgiveness and Sodom is EXACTLY that there is no forgiveness in the story. IF there were no price necesary for sin's atonement; if God COULD simply forgive at whim...then He oes those folks an apology for NOT extending forgiveness...

I'll leave off this discussion. We will hve to disagree, as neither of us seem likly to convince the other. In Heaven, our Savior will have plenty of time to explain all His work and the relevancy of His attonement.

Until the we have His Word.

My gracious, Andy, much to answer: your verses...

2009-06-24T10:16:29.814-07:00
My gracious, Andy, much to answer:

your verses in defense of your position do not nullify my comment

Why not? Your comment was that "Sin must be paid for: It requires a blood sacrifice." I merely showed numerous times throughout Scripture where God dealt with sin, or promised he would, on the basis of repentance, mercy, etc., with no mention of sacrifice. Blood is sometimes required, and I do not dispute this. But the scriptural diversity would suggest it is not a NECESSARY condition at all junctures.

God cannot and will not ignore affronts to Himself.

Nor have I suggested that he will. But the amazing grace and compassion of God are demonstrated repeatedly in his forgiving and reaching out to those who have affronted them. To forgive is most definitely NOT to ignore. . .

Should God be able to "simply" forgive at face value...just because someone asks, or beacuse someone has remorse...

Well, if God is sovereign at all, then yes, by golly, God "should" be able to do absolutely, unequivocally, anything he chooses, without having to resort to justifying himself before you or me or anybody else. See my post on God's sovereignty for a longer version of my response to this question.

what was Calvary all about?

I don't know that any of us will ever know all that Calvary was about, and I certainly don't presume to. But even if you still subscribe to substitutionary atonement (which I do not), scripture is full of evidence for other things God accomplished through Jesus on Calvary (or more accurately, through Jesus' death AND RESURRECTION). For this I refer you to my post Atonement and the Resurrection as well as the rest of my writings on atonement, as well as the discussions previously alluded to on this blog.

What say you of the judgement of Sodom and Gommorah? If God does not require something BEFORE forgiveness...what of the sodomites?

And what part of the story of Sodom and Gommorah looks like forgiveness to you? God blotted out a great evil, and I'm not going into his justification for doing so, but nowhere in that account is there any suggestion that in the destruction of those towns any sort of atonement or forgiveness was accomplished. Irrelevant to your point.

This strikes at the very core of true Christianity....what is the point? If no sacrifice is required...why on God's earth and in God's name was or is the point?

This statement is fundamentally the greatest tragedy of modern Christianity. . .that you could even ask this question is proof positive that the church has failed to teach the way of Jesus. "The point" is the one Jesus made over and over again: "FOLLOW ME."

If Calvary is pointless...God is cruel. We should worship Mohammed instead of a God like that.

Calvary is not pointless, God is not cruel. But I take offense at this statement's implication for Muslims...they do NOT worship Mohammed; they worship the God of Abraham, and they teach that Mohammed was his prophet. There is much we can do to reach out to Muslims with the name of Jesus; blaspheming their faith is not helpful in that regard.

Dan; Intersting defense of your view point. As w...

2009-06-24T09:56:14.440-07:00
Dan;

Intersting defense of your view point. As was already mentioned by someone else, your verses in defense of your position do not nullify my comment.

My statement was a bit hashly worded, no doubt. Yet it is truth. Sin is ultimatley against God. All sin. It is all an afront to Him and His person, His holiness. Sin must be dealt with. God cannot and will not ignore affronts to Himself.

As you say...I am a new comer to this blog, and don't intend to drag everyone back into a centuries old argument...I just have a few questions for you...

Should God be able to "simply" forgive at face value...just because someone asks, or beacuse someone has remorse...what was Calvary all about? Why would God send Jesus (or allow, or stand by...I don't care which term you use) to Calvary? What was the point?

Good God: could we say that of a God who allowed His only Son to die so cruely for no point? When He could have intervened? What a horrible thing to say of our God.

What say you of the judgement of Sodom and Gommorah? If God does not require something BEFORE forgiveness...what of the sodomites? Need God repent and appologize for that judgement?

This strikes at the very core of true Christianity....what is the point? If no sacrifice is required...why on God's earth and in God's name was or is the point?

If Calvary is pointless...God is cruel. We should worship Mohammed instead of a God like that.

Has anyone on this blog read the book of Hebrews?

~ Andy

Hey Dan, I don't doubt you have some backup...

2009-06-23T20:53:13.528-07:00
Hey Dan, I don't doubt you have some backup for your refutation of Andy, but none of those verses include that backup. You seem to be mistaking an efficient condition for an exhaustive cause.

I don't believe I have, Stephen. Andy made the statement that "Sin is something God simply cannot forgive." That statement is what's not backed up by Scripture. He went on to say that without blood there is no forgiveness -- which I admit the writer of Hebrews also says -- but what I intended to show with the verses I listed above was a series of forgiveness events or promises throughout both old and new testaments, that have not the slightest mention of sacrifice in their contexts. The claim that God cannot, or will not, forgive sin without blood is simply not substantiated by the greater scriptural narrative.

Which is not to say Jesus' blood was of no effect. I don't know if you've read any of the other threads on this blog--on Penal-Substitutionary Atonement, the Passover, or Propitiation--but we've gone around this subject quite a bit and it'd be tough to regurgitate it all here.

Nevertheless I think it's Andy's blanket statement about God's conditions for forgiveness that needs backing, and my challenge was merely to demonstrate places where God forgave with other conditions.

Stephen, I believe you are misunderstanding the re...

2009-06-23T19:37:41.406-07:00
Stephen,
I believe you are misunderstanding the reasoning I am using with regard to claiming those items are proscribed.

I'm not saying "everything in the Mosaic Law is proscribed." Were I doing that, clearly the list could have been much longer.

Rather I'm saying that if the Word of God to Moses describes something as outside God's desire for humanity (without reference to Israel), then that is a claim we are bound to accept. There are certain proscriptions in the Old Testament where something is said to forbidden to Israel in particular, and there is a separate set of items that the Old Testament labels as detestable in general.

The items I indicated were of this second class: not merely forbidden to Israel but declared generally outside of God's will for all.

Secondly, the NT does in fact refer to some of these. The Acts 15 council specifically lay the Jewish regulations regarding the eating of strangled animals, blood, and food sacrificed to idols. It also transferred the Jewish sexual code to Gentiles (who had a completely different norm).

Thirdly, it sounds like you are adopting the idea that "Jesus' death allows God to forgive...and that forgiveness is ladled out in certain situations dictated by things completely separate from Jesus' death."

This stance would allow God to forgive anyone [believer or non-believer] while at the same time not guaranteeing forgiveness to anyone (other than by satisfaction of one of works described as provoking forgiveness).

In this theology, Jesus' blood is a type of limitless bank account God can (but does not have to) transfer whatever is desired to for purposes of payment for sins.

Is the above what you are suggesting as the most accurate representation of atonement?

Your remarks on 1 John 1:9 are well taken.

"This is flat-out wrong, Andy. It is deeply e...

2009-06-23T17:41:37.048-07:00
"This is flat-out wrong, Andy. It is deeply embedded in church doctrine, to be sure, but it is false. God has forgiven sins without requiring blood many times throughout the history of Scripture, and to make such a statement is a denial of his sovereignty as well as his character. 1 Kings 8:33-34, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Jeremiah 31:33-34, Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 9:2-7 (and its parallels in Mark & Luke), 1 John 1:9."

Hey Dan, I don't doubt you have some backup for your refutation of Andy, but none of those verses include that backup. You seem to be mistaking an efficient condition for an exhaustive cause. An example: I will marry my fiance if she shows up at the Church on our wedding day. Does that mean that the totality of causal relation is exhausted by the statement? No. I will not marry just anyone who shows up on my wedding day, just the woman with whom I have built up a relationship. There is no inherent contradiction between these verses and what Andy says.

! John 1:9 makes my point. Are you willing to claim that confession itself "purifies us of all unrighteousness" by itself? None of this is inconsistent with a standard evangelical reading of Romans 3, where the blood of Christ is necessary that God both be just and the justifier of the ungodly.

And before someone points me to the book, I don't find that dealing with the text at all persuasive (nor the James Dunn attempt to do the same thing in his commentaries).

"If we want to attack everything that is pros...

2009-06-23T17:30:38.114-07:00
"If we want to attack everything that is proscribed by God's law, which is not itself a terrible idea, that would include:
i) Seeing a relative naked.
ii) Crossdressing of any kind.
iii) Eating of anything cooked rare
iv) Remarrying the same person after having marrying someone else after divorcing the first.
v) Lying naked with a woman during her period (even if they do not have sex.)"

I don't remember any of those getting mention in the New Testament at all, save possibly under a claim that all the above may be considered Pornea.

It is not inconsistent to call sinful that which the Bible calls sinful, as opposed to what was necessarily considered lawful in theocratic Israel. I do not need to consider shellfish evil to think of homosexuality as sinful scripturally. You're excluding middles.

Sin is something God simply cannot forgive. His...

2009-06-23T10:28:01.026-07:00
Sin is something God simply cannot forgive. His righteousness, His judgement, His truth cannot allow sin to simply be forgiven, or ignored. Sin must be paid for: It requires a blood sacrifice.

This is flat-out wrong, Andy. It is deeply embedded in church doctrine, to be sure, but it is false. God has forgiven sins without requiring blood many times throughout the history of Scripture, and to make such a statement is a denial of his sovereignty as well as his character. 1 Kings 8:33-34, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Jeremiah 31:33-34, Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 9:2-7 (and its parallels in Mark & Luke), 1 John 1:9.

"I don't actually subscribe to the idea o...

2009-06-20T14:41:32.167-07:00
"I don't actually subscribe to the idea of Jesus taking the punishment for humanity...at least not in the way presented by the modern church..."

Intersting, though I may say you have caught me flatfooted on tis one. If you understood my own comments to mean I think Jesus took my punishment on Calvary and I have no role or action (such as to accept or reject His mercy), then I mis-stated , or you misunderstand my own view.

Jesus' actions on Calvary were substitutionaly, of this there can be no debate. 1 John 2:1 is very clear on this matter (as are a gagle of other Scriptures). A bit of room for discussion would be upon the individual's role or responsibility in the process of forgiveness and salvation. I doubt we two could solve that debate in a confined space such as this; but my own view is that Jesus paid the price, and if I acept His offer, then His righteouness can be imputed unto me and I will be saved.

Sin is something God simply cannot forgive. His righteousness, His judgement, His truth cannot allow sin to simply be forgiven, or ignored. Sin must be paid for: It requires a blood sacrifice.

This is what Jesus did on the cross. He paid a debt I could not pay. I thank Him for the gift of life, eternal live daily. In Heaven, my first 10,000 years could well be spent thanking Him for His unspeakaable gift.

"Note that the first sin was not the eating o...

2009-06-20T14:28:31.671-07:00
"Note that the first sin was not the eating of the apple. The first sin was not even Eve lying to the serpent, misrepresenting what God had said about the tree. The first sin was actually Adam and Eve not doing anything about their state of nakedness."

I fear you are caught in your own trap. Stand back from the picture for perspective on this mater. The SIN was disobediance to God. THAT seems always (or signficntly) the issue; we think we can just do things our own way, and CHOOSE (by will or neglect) to disobey God's will and desires. Adam passed to his children this very nature. Did Cain do evil for growing a garden? No, his sin was in usurping is own idea of acceptiblitiy over God's stated purpose.

Even in watching how God chose the skin clothings for Adam and Eve as covering their nakedness - what was happening? God was presenting our first sermon on the cross. He was showing us blood is required to deal with sin.

I disagree. Adam's sin was not tardiness in covering his and Eve's nakedness...it was disobeying the command of God.

and I do hope you can see to forgive me any off...

2009-06-11T22:30:39.970-07:00
and I do hope you can see to forgive me any offense my hardline approach to this subject engendered.

To the extent any forgiveness is needed, it is gladly given. I often agree to disagree with a brother, without in any way denying he is a brother. I don't fully agree with your reasoning, as I know you don't with mine. But I see you striving to follow, and to goad others to follow, the Lord Jesus. Peace be upon you!

Dan

Hey Dan, I certainly wasn't out to offend you ...

2009-06-11T20:29:17.193-07:00
Hey Dan,
I certainly wasn't out to offend you with my words, and I do agree it would be easier for Christians to live as they should be if their fellow believers were doing the same, but I believe if you go back to my original post you'd see there was a focus on the corporate body there as well: IF churches took a stance that took Christ's words on materialism to heart, wouldn't it be those same churches that would likely have the means (or make the means available) to provide for their members?

If a church took a hard-line policy on this (as they take a hard-line policy on easier (for them) topics), and only allowed membership to those who resisted relying on material possessions or stockpiles for their future, wouldn't those same churches be the ones who (by pooling the surplus of their members) be able to provide for their members?

Recall that I was talking about church policy in my original post, and clearly the policy a church has towards materialism is related to the policy it would have toward communalism.

Finally, with regard to this:
I only say that perhaps you should consider the lives people live before you make blanket statements about the disobedience inherent in their choices.

I think homosexuals could (and do) feel the same way towards those who would make blanket statements about their actions as well.

And so we have come full circle, and I do hope you can see to forgive me any offense my hardline approach to this subject engendered.

Dave, I just re-read your OP (which I hadn't ...

2009-06-11T13:33:31.189-07:00
Dave,

I just re-read your OP (which I hadn't gone back to as the comments continued) and noticed this:

Israel fell away from God's law and was quickly assimilated into tribes and peoples who were not sons of Jacob. It seems that those churches that are totally "open and affirming" are doing the same and at the same risk.

I withdraw my suggestion that you were being permissive on this issue. I misspoke by not reviewing your original words. I apologize.

Dan

Well, Dave, it's like this. I agree with your...

2009-06-11T08:24:37.624-07:00
Well, Dave, it's like this. I agree with your statement that the church is far too materialistic, and far too uncritical of the business-and-wealthy-first priorities of the Republican platform. I'm completely with you there.

But let me personalize it a little. We live comfortably, including the ability to give, on what we make today. I am in the very real situation that my next paycheck (or the last one) could be my last until I find a different job. Whatever time that takes, I can either try to save a buffer, or I can trust God to provide. In the final analysis I know he will or won't, bank accounts aside, but that does not excuse me from trying to give my family a bit of a cushion.

I also have a young son with Down syndrome. He's doing well, and will likely be able to live semi-independently when he's older, but he will always require more care, and have the ability to earn less, because of his disability. My other two children may or may not be able/willing to support him (I have seen families estranged over the assumption that the typical kids would have to carry the water for the disabled one).

So my wife and I have taken measures to save money and to buy life insurance, not so anybody can "take their ease, eat, drink, and be merry," but rather so our son can be provided for when we aren't here to do so.

As I mentioned several comments ago, if we were part of a fellowship of believers who really saw it as their God-ordained duty to look out for each other (as, I believe, they did in Acts), neither of these things would be the concern that it is in fact. But we live in America, and American churches don't do that.

So do I throw my family blindly on the grace of God, or do I make my best efforts to provide for a future that we all know remains uncertain despite my efforts? You may call it disobedience or lack of faith all you want; I see a pretty clear responsibility here.

I don't know your personal/family situation, and it's really none of my business. I only say that perhaps you should consider the lives people live before you make blanket statements about the disobedience inherent in their choices.

Come, Come, Dan...there is a big difference betwee...

2009-06-10T20:49:23.609-07:00
Come, Come, Dan...there is a big difference between choosing not to put away specifically for retirement or unforeseen vague concerns and giving away every cent you have.

Further, I doubt giving away everything you own could in any way shape or form be called "flushing away."

But I also wonder why you consider poverty such a bad thing? But then again, I'm not really talking about poverty here, right? There is a difference between living on what is provided today (which would not put you in a state of poverty, as I assume you make enough to cover your current bills, etc.) and eating only oatmeal so that you can give even more away.

I believe you're making my case more extreme than it needs to be. I have no problem with people providing for their families [and neither did the writer of Timothy evidently: 1 Tim 5:8]. Providing today for your family with what you are given today is very different from storing up your excess (as the Israelites tried to do with the manna and quail) for fear of God not providing in the future.

Finally, I'm not advocating "permissiveness." I'm advocated that the church look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they have not become in this way like the Pharisees in Jesus day. Jesus did not attack the Pharisees for upholding the Law. He attacked them for only holding up the parts that were convenient and politic to do so. Note the wording of Matthew 23:23. Jesus claims they should uphold the provisions they actually were upholding without neglecting the others.

In other words, the church should first make sure it has removed the plank from its eye before pointing out the speck in another's. We do a terrible job of renouncing materialism, especially in America...and especially among conservatives distrust anything that smells like communism, socialism, or giving money to someone who doesn't deserve it. We have been trained to distrust anything that sounds like requiring as a matter of faith that which the politically liberal attempt to construct through force of law.

It's always easy to attack the behaviors that are considered deviant by the majority.

With regard to the question of whether God's dictating that an action be done in a particular situation indicates the action is not otherwise contrary to God's will, it's an open and shut case. The Israelites were told, point-blank, "thou shall not kill," and upon any interpretation of the Torah we see situations where killing is quite clearly within God's will (even when it is not statutorily called for).

Dishonesty is generally sinful, but we see instances where people or spirits sent from God are either told to lie or told to break an agreement they had hitherto made.

Jesus says we must renounce material possession...

2009-06-08T14:10:34.420-07:00
Jesus says we must renounce material possessions to be His disciple. I don't think He was speaking in hyperbole there given everything we read in the gospels.

Maybe so. I certainly grant that working on behalf of the poor is central to both old and new testaments, and that it gets far too short a shrift in churches in America. I have tried to do my bit, but certainly not enough. I'm trying to do more, but certainly not enough. I would reiterate that a committed community of believers would make this way more practicable than individuals on their own.

But I also have to admit, I have a wife and three kids and I feel a God-ordained duty to support them. I believe I would be violating that duty if I simply cleaned out my bank accounts, sold my house, and took them into poverty so I could give away the little I've saved. Am I lacking faith? Yes, probably so. I've seen too many people who believe far more faithfully than I can, struggling mightily (and far beyond what I could've mitigated with all the $$$ I'll ever earn in my life).

So if that's lack of faith, go ahead and damn me, you won't be the first. I'll do my best to order my priorities to help those in need, and maybe it won't be enough. But the hard, cold reality is that despite the faith I do have, I don't expect God to come in and pick me up after I flush away everything he's so far provided for my family. Guess I'm just too corrupted. . .

That is poor logic, I think. By that token havi...

2009-06-08T13:59:07.100-07:00
That is poor logic, I think. By that token having multiple wives and marrying prostitutes is okay because God told people to do that too.

Well, actually, polygamy is not presented in the Bible as a sin, only as a disqualifier for eldership and deaconship in the church. We have adopted the standard that it's contrary to God's order, and I think correctly so, but it's not (ever) taught as sinful. Likewise, Hosea didn't sin in marrying the prostitute--SHE sinned in cheating on him after they were married (and in whoring beforehand, of course). So neither of your objections stands, I would say. God did not command his people to sin (of course you can bring up the stickier issue of genocide in the Pentateuch/Joshua, which I suspect may not have actually been God's command, but that's another issue).

I know we've gotten far afield, and I don't expect to convince you. I'm still going to shower, and enjoy my wife, without feeling guilty for not keeping something on. I see no scriptural reason to be concerned.

I am, however, a little confused by what appears to me to be a rather permissive view of sexuality (at least homosexuality) while getting (at least in my view) rather legalistic on some of these other issues. I'm afraid I don't get the logic there...I would expect someone who is concerned about the finer points we have been discussing, to be MORE concerned about homosexuality vis-a-vis the church, not LESS. . .

And I realize the reference to self-mutilation ...

2009-06-08T13:52:53.709-07:00
And I realize the reference to self-mutilation is hyperbole--Jesus intended it to be. My point is that you can't demand literal implementation of one part of Jesus' illustration while explaining away another part as a heart issue. So I still say that by your logic (getting back to the root of this post on homosexuality) we would have nothing legitimate to say about any form of adultery, unless we jump into the extremes of all those illustrations. Or else I'm just not following your logic here. . .

I don't find it extreme to say we should not put away money against unknown future need. From all indication that is exactly what Jesus literally called people to do and He gave a good reason why. I don't see Matthew 6 as hyperbole. Regarding Luke 12:18-19, I would say any 1st century Jew would look on what Americans think of "retirement" [a life of ease] as easily fitting the description given there.

I also think you are making an error in treating a discussion of action commanded [self-mutilation] in the same realm as a discussion of ethics [whether or not saving is correct.]

We can agree that lust [in any form] is wrong. That is an "extreme" the any form part, without at the same time being beholden to the action prescribed. Just as we can uphold parts of the Mosaic code without feeling that we have to also uphold the punishments given by them.

I'm not saying the church cannot say anything about homosexuality [which, as I mentioned earlier, is really not related to adultery at all.] I'm just saying that true reliance on God and having faith in God's providence that allows for generous (some would say "extreme") charity toward those placed in our lives today is easily as important and any church that takes a less forgiving approach to the former has its priorities wrong.

The issue is that people think this "giving to the poor" or "relying on God" idea is more nebulous, and so its easy to say "Well, we cannot put exact requirements down on what those words say to do," and then play up those aspects where clear requirements are more easily seen.

And my point is that this is just a convenient way not to show proper concern for those issues that dominated Jesus' actual teaching. Jesus says we must renounce material possessions to be His disciple. I don't think He was speaking in hyperbole there given everything we read in the gospels.

I do agree that we are particularly responsible for those needs that have been made apparent to us, but my guess is that if you have extra money and cannot find someone in your own life who could use it...then you aren't looking very hard. Having money automatically removed/deducated and put into a 401k as an institutional savings plan makes it easy to hold it back from others who are in far greater need of it than we are.

Dan, And, re: the nakedness; I see your argume...

2009-06-08T13:35:23.765-07:00
Dan,

And, re: the nakedness; I see your argument, but the narrative could just as consistently be interpreted that there was nothing to be ashamed of until, having sinned against God's intended order, humanity "knew" (experientially) good and evil.

I'm not even sure what you are saying here, but we have to assume that "Good and evil" exist outside of humanity and there was a "good" and "evil" that they did not know about before eating the fruit, which they did know about afterward.

Sure, by the time the story was written, nakedness was a shameful thing (not a sin, or God wouldn't have told Isaiah to do it).

That is poor logic, I think. By that token having multiple wives and marrying prostitutes is okay because God told people to do that too.

But that was a result, not a cause, of the fall. After all, God created them naked, and his one command--don't eat the fruit--wasn't a fashion directive. . .

I think you are confusing sin with "rebellion" [a separate word Paul uses to refer to the specific act by Adam.]

Jews acknowledged that Adam sinned before eating the apple [for example, the coveting of something that was not his to have was of course a sin, as was Eve's lying to the serpent, etc.]

It was the rebellion against a promulgated law that caused the fall, not sin in general. Paul separates the two in Romans 5:12-21 in pointing out that people could sin even when there was no law to sin against, but the law puts one in greater spiritual peril because it is the way in which we become actively separated from God.

Adam and Eve may not have carried guilt for their sin prior to eating the apple, but that is another matter. Note the similarity with John 9:41 and John 15:22. You can act contrary to God's will without bearing the consequence of it.

And, re: the nakedness; I see your argument, but t...

2009-06-08T13:21:48.905-07:00
And, re: the nakedness; I see your argument, but the narrative could just as consistently be interpreted that there was nothing to be ashamed of until, having sinned against God's intended order, humanity "knew" (experientially) good and evil. Sure, by the time the story was written, nakedness was a shameful thing (not a sin, or God wouldn't have told Isaiah to do it). But that was a result, not a cause, of the fall. After all, God created them naked, and his one command--don't eat the fruit--wasn't a fashion directive. . .

Is Luke 12:18-19 not a picture of saving for re...

2009-06-08T13:18:21.889-07:00
Is Luke 12:18-19 not a picture of saving for retirement?

Not at all. It's a picture of taking unanticipated bounty and sequestering it for oneself, and even more, (v. 19) presuming that this wealth entitles the holder to kick back and enjoy "the good life" with (as you pointed out) no regard to the poor & needy. V. 21 "So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God" is Jesus' own summary. I think it precludes conspicuous consumption and wanton ease; I don't think he's talking about any form of future planning.

As to Luke 14:33, it's at the end of Jesus' discourse starting with verse 26. Clearly he doesn't mean we are to literally "hate" our family (he forbids hatred elsewhere). So he must mean making sure our priorities are in the right order. No fair taking one verse literally and the other symbolically. . .

Your reference to 1 John 3 is actually what brings this together IMHO. It isn't that we should spend ourselves dry and blindly "trust God" for our needs; it is that we should respond with compassion where we see need, and that THIS SHOULD BE DONE IN COMMUNITY! Note he says "if anyone sees A BROTHER" (my emphasis) in need and does not respond. . .the security we ought to have is not that of individual believers relying blindly on God, but rather on the community of believers looking out for each other and then together responding to the needs around them.

In other words, it might be legitimate to argue that if we really had a church, we wouldn't need a 401(k), but that is an indictment of the church, not the individual believer's faith or obedience.

And I realize the reference to self-mutilation is hyperbole--Jesus intended it to be. My point is that you can't demand literal implementation of one part of Jesus' illustration while explaining away another part as a heart issue. So I still say that by your logic (getting back to the root of this post on homosexuality) we would have nothing legitimate to say about any form of adultery, unless we jump into the extremes of all those illustrations. Or else I'm just not following your logic here. . .

Comments on Fire in the Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity]: Discussion Topic: Israel, Judah, and Homosexuality...

This is my first post I'd like to congratulate...

...please where can I buy a unicorn?

Moderator's Note: For the record, I could easi...

Whoa, whoa, Andy. I would really caution you to n...

Dan; Okay, I read many of the posts on your blog....

My gracious, Andy, much to answer: your verses...

Dan; Intersting defense of your view point. As w...

Hey Dan, I don't doubt you have some backup...

Stephen, I believe you are misunderstanding the re...

"This is flat-out wrong, Andy. It is deeply e...

"If we want to attack everything that is pros...

Sin is something God simply cannot forgive. His...

"I don't actually subscribe to the idea o...

"Note that the first sin was not the eating o...

and I do hope you can see to forgive me any off...

Hey Dan, I certainly wasn't out to offend you ...

Dave, I just re-read your OP (which I hadn't ...

Well, Dave, it's like this. I agree with your...

Come, Come, Dan...there is a big difference betwee...

Jesus says we must renounce material possession...

That is poor logic, I think. By that token havi...

And I realize the reference to self-mutilation ...

Dan, And, re: the nakedness; I see your argume...

And, re: the nakedness; I see your argument, but t...

Is Luke 12:18-19 not a picture of saving for re...