Maybe I was just aiming for a catchy title to grab attention but we'll see how this one goes. I was pondering this morning from the sermon about the Samaritan Woman. The connection the chaplain made with the scripture and us was to bring the gospel to people. I can't say that is an incredibly original or new message yet it is never to be taken lightly. The Great Commission is a mandate to all of us who claim to be Christians. I don't want to take the approach of merely critiquing the sermon, I think it served its purpose.
The main thought I am pondering and developing is “when should the Gospel be presented?” I love Chaplain Tran's pursuit to encourage people not to be afraid of offending people, I agree with him, in this day and age people want church to be more like a psychiatrist to tell them “it is not their fault” or “they are doing the right thing”. At the same time, is it possible that there is a right and a wrong time to present the gospel? I know we have all seen examples and sometimes been the example how not to present the gospel. What about certain timings though? I am not thinking directly of the situational times such as making a segue while in a potentially compromising situation. More so, are some people ready to hear the gospel in such a way that they may respond and more importantly is it up to us to interpret when that time is?
I am constantly pondering this one; because often times when someone will start to open up I want to hold the topic of conversation that got us to discuss spiritual things. I often sense if I bring up the gospel without leading to it, it becomes preaching. I’ve noticed if you talk with person instead of at them, they are more likely to listen. I recall a message that I did not entirely agree with, the speaker was saying the average person will hear the Gospel seven or eight times before actually committing their life to Christ, on average. I think that attempts to generalize something far too personal and precious like the Gospel. I think it really only takes once, just presented the right way, if that person actually will surrender their life to Christ or not. I am not claiming to be the master of knowing how to deliver the Gospel to each person, I will say that I think there is a very right and wrong way to do it and each time it should be done prayerfully.
One of the many big questions I ponder at night before rolling over to sleep is how I should deliver the Gospel? When is the right time and is my waiting expressing the urgency that I should be acting on because I don’t know when people are going to die. How am I to be urgent and passionate about the Gospel without scaring someone away? The best answer I have come up with so far: Share the gospel through action, through lifestyle. Let them see holiness in how I live that they will praise our Father in Heaven. The hard part is that most people won’t question why I am so different, so they will ask at some point, perhaps that frustration is my impatience. This is why I must constantly be in the position to be ready to give an answer for the hope that I have.
Jan 29, 2006
Jan 22, 2006
Semantics or More?
I first wanted to say that the last several weeks have just been awesome. I have seen the start of God working in people's hearts, and it is wonderful to start to see some effect from the efforts of faith on post. My friend Jay gave his testimony to some guys at Christmas, I think between that and seeing our living testimonies the guys around us are connecting the dots and seeing how Christ really does change lives. In addition, by living in the barrack and being available to fellow soldiers to help them when they need something I am seeing God opening their hearts. I think I have mentioned this a bit before, but I think it also has much to do with the current topic.
For some reason, one which I do not understand, many people have gotten the idea that it is a bad thing to question Christianity when they are earnestly looking. Those who adamantly oppose our God question it without wanting to consider the answers. Those that seek the truth have an apprehension about questioning their beliefs and what they thought to be Christianity. That brings me to the most recent pondering.
Perhaps the most frequent question I receive about myself is "Are you religious?” usually time permitting I say "not really, but for what you mean, yes." This might be a form of churchese that has yet to be really addressed. Most of churchese is simply objects, activities that are church oriented like communion, pulpit, Pentecost, things of that nature. When we get into the adjectives though it becomes two languages that I think occurs more frequently then we realize. I have found when asking people if they want to attend something that has to do with Christ, usually church or bible study they say they are not religious. Religion as the Pharisees practiced it is still being practiced in what I have seen by the majority of churches throughout the nation. That is the best explanation I can come to why so many people from so many different walks of life think the same thing when I say religion. It is a belief system about rules and control. It has abused people and is responsible for thousands of deaths and horrible crimes. Religion is not something that people like to study, talk about or identify with others. So far, these attributes are about the opposite from Christ and his teachings.
I do not prefer to be referred to as a religious person for just these reasons. I think as I have been around the barracks these months and the conversation I have had others are starting to realize that I live the way I do because I want to. Many people initially think that I am a brain-washed churchie who has never seen the world outside the church or made a decision for myself. I think that is one of the mindsets people have that are synonymous with "religious" or someone who is devout.
The next important miscommunication/interpretation I think has happened both within the church and outside the church is "believe". When I say "I believe" something that can range from Christ rising from the dead, the literal six day creation account or that I believe Kobe Bryant is entirely too much of a ball hog. Beliefs are very subjective, after all what each person believes is validly can be different from every other person. Where it has gotten mixed up though is what it means to believe in reference to Christ.
As I recall from the Romans Road, we are to "confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts Jesus is Lord" and he will become our Savior. This is where I find my theology differs from several pastors I have heard speak at conferences throughout. My uncle first pointed this out to me. I have not seen a reference to scripture where people are able to make Christ their Savior without him being their Lord. I looked through the nifty mini-concordance of the words "savior, save, saved" and most of them were from prophecy, Psalms while it seemed all the New Testament references always phrased God as Lord and Savior. For example the introductions to all the epistles, I like to call the "Grace and Mercy Schpiels" because from face value they seem like they same the same thing in each letter. 1 Timothy is the first to include the savior portion in the introduction while all the others always mention Lord Jesus Christ. Titus and 2 Peter mention God as Savior in the greetings, yet every single other greeting mentions something about Jesus Christ as Lord. I tie this in that I think mainstream Christianity has greatly underestimated scripture's meaning of "believe".
This in turn reflects that when we see a Gallop poll or something of that nature most show 60-80% of the population believe themselves to be Christians. From a previous blog I would be overjoyed to see 60-80% of the church practicing Christianity as it is meant to be done. So why is it that I have heard so many sermons with the phrase "Accept Jesus as your Savior" or something along those lines? I recall a friend from high school that claimed for years that he was a Christian and when I asked him why he talked and acted the way he did he responded "I am ready to have Jesus as my Savior, but not as my Lord". I was speechless to think that, at first thought was "how can this be, scripture does not offer that option". Yet how many of us have attended how many services that invite Christ like that? As I noticed other mentions of "believe" through scripture it is far deeper than what many pastors preach it to be.
From my interpretation believe goes hand in hand with action, such as lifestyle. I suppose it is easy to mix up belief that requires works because that would appear to be working our way to heaven. I think sincere belief will overflow into one’s lifestyle. Take this example, if I believe that the Kings are the best basketball team in the league and I believe myself to be a basketball fan, then I would be talking about the Kings constantly. I would watch and try to attend every game, I would share with my friends how great the Kings did the night before, all of this seems reasonable and I know we have encountered sports fans like that. Now translate that kind of belief into something like Jesus... how many of can say we know more Jesus fans than sports fans?
For some reason, one which I do not understand, many people have gotten the idea that it is a bad thing to question Christianity when they are earnestly looking. Those who adamantly oppose our God question it without wanting to consider the answers. Those that seek the truth have an apprehension about questioning their beliefs and what they thought to be Christianity. That brings me to the most recent pondering.
Perhaps the most frequent question I receive about myself is "Are you religious?” usually time permitting I say "not really, but for what you mean, yes." This might be a form of churchese that has yet to be really addressed. Most of churchese is simply objects, activities that are church oriented like communion, pulpit, Pentecost, things of that nature. When we get into the adjectives though it becomes two languages that I think occurs more frequently then we realize. I have found when asking people if they want to attend something that has to do with Christ, usually church or bible study they say they are not religious. Religion as the Pharisees practiced it is still being practiced in what I have seen by the majority of churches throughout the nation. That is the best explanation I can come to why so many people from so many different walks of life think the same thing when I say religion. It is a belief system about rules and control. It has abused people and is responsible for thousands of deaths and horrible crimes. Religion is not something that people like to study, talk about or identify with others. So far, these attributes are about the opposite from Christ and his teachings.
I do not prefer to be referred to as a religious person for just these reasons. I think as I have been around the barracks these months and the conversation I have had others are starting to realize that I live the way I do because I want to. Many people initially think that I am a brain-washed churchie who has never seen the world outside the church or made a decision for myself. I think that is one of the mindsets people have that are synonymous with "religious" or someone who is devout.
The next important miscommunication/interpretation I think has happened both within the church and outside the church is "believe". When I say "I believe" something that can range from Christ rising from the dead, the literal six day creation account or that I believe Kobe Bryant is entirely too much of a ball hog. Beliefs are very subjective, after all what each person believes is validly can be different from every other person. Where it has gotten mixed up though is what it means to believe in reference to Christ.
As I recall from the Romans Road, we are to "confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts Jesus is Lord" and he will become our Savior. This is where I find my theology differs from several pastors I have heard speak at conferences throughout. My uncle first pointed this out to me. I have not seen a reference to scripture where people are able to make Christ their Savior without him being their Lord. I looked through the nifty mini-concordance of the words "savior, save, saved" and most of them were from prophecy, Psalms while it seemed all the New Testament references always phrased God as Lord and Savior. For example the introductions to all the epistles, I like to call the "Grace and Mercy Schpiels" because from face value they seem like they same the same thing in each letter. 1 Timothy is the first to include the savior portion in the introduction while all the others always mention Lord Jesus Christ. Titus and 2 Peter mention God as Savior in the greetings, yet every single other greeting mentions something about Jesus Christ as Lord. I tie this in that I think mainstream Christianity has greatly underestimated scripture's meaning of "believe".
This in turn reflects that when we see a Gallop poll or something of that nature most show 60-80% of the population believe themselves to be Christians. From a previous blog I would be overjoyed to see 60-80% of the church practicing Christianity as it is meant to be done. So why is it that I have heard so many sermons with the phrase "Accept Jesus as your Savior" or something along those lines? I recall a friend from high school that claimed for years that he was a Christian and when I asked him why he talked and acted the way he did he responded "I am ready to have Jesus as my Savior, but not as my Lord". I was speechless to think that, at first thought was "how can this be, scripture does not offer that option". Yet how many of us have attended how many services that invite Christ like that? As I noticed other mentions of "believe" through scripture it is far deeper than what many pastors preach it to be.
From my interpretation believe goes hand in hand with action, such as lifestyle. I suppose it is easy to mix up belief that requires works because that would appear to be working our way to heaven. I think sincere belief will overflow into one’s lifestyle. Take this example, if I believe that the Kings are the best basketball team in the league and I believe myself to be a basketball fan, then I would be talking about the Kings constantly. I would watch and try to attend every game, I would share with my friends how great the Kings did the night before, all of this seems reasonable and I know we have encountered sports fans like that. Now translate that kind of belief into something like Jesus... how many of can say we know more Jesus fans than sports fans?
Jan 18, 2006
Re: Infamous Dr Laura Letter
In my years of forums and internet surfing I have seen this letter pop-up several times and have answered it in-depth on several occasions so this time it is being saved.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Unless you are Jewish, you don't need to give sacrifices to God in the form of previously living animals. Jesus was the last sacrifice to be given that cost blood. Romans 12 tells us how we can be living sacrifices if you would like to know how to sacrifice to God.
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Take into account also that Christ did not come for social revolution, which was within the culture of the time; and looking at the guidelines given, the Hebrews were to protect the slaves. Ephesians 5 also gives instructions on how masters and slaves should behave. In addition, Romans 13 explains how we should respect the governing bodies over us; that is until they attempt to interfere with God's laws. We are to follow the laws of the land after God's laws; I doubt the author of this letter was able to sell his daughter legally.
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Aside from that being one of the cleanliness laws that protected the people from diseases that they had not known about, it might also imply that the woman would be your wife. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one, I think if you can't tell when you're wife is on her cycle then you have no business being her husband. That or you two should be able to communicate well enough to disclose that kind of information.
d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Mexico, Canada and the United States all have laws regarding human servitude, after God's standards have been met, meet the governments. Sorry you can't own slaves either. For more explanation refer to the answer for question B.
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
The group being addressed where all Jewish, they shared common faith. If you and your neighbor share the common faith that practices Orthodox Judaism in that form you might have a case. For anyone that does not share your faith we are not to enforce our punishments upon people that do not share our values. That is something faiths other than Christianity teach.
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Aside from that being a poorly written sentence the idea behind it is false. The Hebrew words translated as "abomination" are two different words expressing the difference in emphasis. There are numerous parts throughout scripture that describe homosexuality as a sin, I think Romans 1:18-2:1 explains it all the best. The restriction on shellfish is another on the cleanliness issues to protect the people from disease since they didn't happen to have a refrigerator nearby.
g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I don't think you need to worry about approaching the altar of the Lord in that form now. Christ was the new covenant and what he represented completely voids or expands upon all of these issues to what really matters.
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
It did not state that trimming your hair is an offense punishable by death. That appears to be a law to be set apart from the people that lived in the region. As far as today’s application, I am hard-pressed to see any relevance with our relationship with Christ and our uni-brows.
i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
That is about the skin from dead animal not cured leather. In addition that is also a cleanliness commandment. Apply this rule to the New Testament in relation to Christ being the new Covenant and you can play all the football you like, just don't make it your god.
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
J) SEE reference to the New Covenant. Also refer to part E
Final note: Whoever wrote this letter clearly had no intention to seek the truth of Scripture or attempted to obtain true questions. There is nothing wrong with questioning scripture and the message, just do so with a true heart that is open to the truth. I am not sure what is more sad, the person that wrote this first, or the people that continually repost it because they too have never attempted to understand the Bible for even its historical, cultural, or social information. Don't let this hinder your trust in Scripture, anyone can look up obscure verses out of context, and they can just as easily be snuffed by reading the context and knowing Christ. This letter is clearly an attempt to add dissention and disbelief by questions which were never attempted to be understood.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
Unless you are Jewish, you don't need to give sacrifices to God in the form of previously living animals. Jesus was the last sacrifice to be given that cost blood. Romans 12 tells us how we can be living sacrifices if you would like to know how to sacrifice to God.
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Take into account also that Christ did not come for social revolution, which was within the culture of the time; and looking at the guidelines given, the Hebrews were to protect the slaves. Ephesians 5 also gives instructions on how masters and slaves should behave. In addition, Romans 13 explains how we should respect the governing bodies over us; that is until they attempt to interfere with God's laws. We are to follow the laws of the land after God's laws; I doubt the author of this letter was able to sell his daughter legally.
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Aside from that being one of the cleanliness laws that protected the people from diseases that they had not known about, it might also imply that the woman would be your wife. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one, I think if you can't tell when you're wife is on her cycle then you have no business being her husband. That or you two should be able to communicate well enough to disclose that kind of information.
d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Mexico, Canada and the United States all have laws regarding human servitude, after God's standards have been met, meet the governments. Sorry you can't own slaves either. For more explanation refer to the answer for question B.
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
The group being addressed where all Jewish, they shared common faith. If you and your neighbor share the common faith that practices Orthodox Judaism in that form you might have a case. For anyone that does not share your faith we are not to enforce our punishments upon people that do not share our values. That is something faiths other than Christianity teach.
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Aside from that being a poorly written sentence the idea behind it is false. The Hebrew words translated as "abomination" are two different words expressing the difference in emphasis. There are numerous parts throughout scripture that describe homosexuality as a sin, I think Romans 1:18-2:1 explains it all the best. The restriction on shellfish is another on the cleanliness issues to protect the people from disease since they didn't happen to have a refrigerator nearby.
g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I don't think you need to worry about approaching the altar of the Lord in that form now. Christ was the new covenant and what he represented completely voids or expands upon all of these issues to what really matters.
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
It did not state that trimming your hair is an offense punishable by death. That appears to be a law to be set apart from the people that lived in the region. As far as today’s application, I am hard-pressed to see any relevance with our relationship with Christ and our uni-brows.
i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
That is about the skin from dead animal not cured leather. In addition that is also a cleanliness commandment. Apply this rule to the New Testament in relation to Christ being the new Covenant and you can play all the football you like, just don't make it your god.
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
J) SEE reference to the New Covenant. Also refer to part E
Final note: Whoever wrote this letter clearly had no intention to seek the truth of Scripture or attempted to obtain true questions. There is nothing wrong with questioning scripture and the message, just do so with a true heart that is open to the truth. I am not sure what is more sad, the person that wrote this first, or the people that continually repost it because they too have never attempted to understand the Bible for even its historical, cultural, or social information. Don't let this hinder your trust in Scripture, anyone can look up obscure verses out of context, and they can just as easily be snuffed by reading the context and knowing Christ. This letter is clearly an attempt to add dissention and disbelief by questions which were never attempted to be understood.
Jan 15, 2006
Looking Back on 2005, Why I Joined the Army
It
has been some time since I have blogged lately, I think the re-enabling of my
wireless and thus the ability to play WoW has had something to do with that. Anyways,
a few days ago was the one year mark for me being in the Army. I figured it
would be appropriate to chart my journey in this last year and how I got to
where I am. I don't think I have actually written out why I did what I did so
I'll also see what my thoughts of the Army were and what I think now having
been there for my first year. There is a part of me that is thinking
"woot, 1 down 3 to go".
I
signed the papers in Sept of 04, as many of you remember I made the best of the
time as a civilian I had left and spent much money in doing so, it was fun. I
think everyone should try it once. My reasons for joining were never one single
reason but there were more important reasons. I will attempt to explain in
order of precedence. It might sound odd, but the one question I asked myself
why I did this again was to get away from all that I knew to be familiar. I
love you all dearly and have learned a great deal about how much that is since
I have left, but at the same time I know the lessons I have been learning will
develop me to be more successful in my ministry and life. I think at some point
in time everyone should leave their comfort zone, for many I think it is
manifested by going away to college, to others a full time job, and then there
is the 2% of the population that joins the military.
I
was not in any way unhappy with the life I had. More, I sought direction, and
spiritually I wanted a challenge over time that I had not yet encountered. I
think certain events through high school tested me on the moments but I had
never been in the environment I wanted to reach out to. The spiritual growth I
knew I would encounter would be unique and unlike something I had ever faced. There
were two things that held me back for some time to make that decision, one was
"Was it God's will?" and the other was leaving everyone that I love
so much. Yea, I am getting all gushy writing this one too. Unlike Jonathan I
didn't have to write an essay why I believe God directed me to the Army, I am
very thankful of because I don't think I could've written one. I came to the
conclusion after much discussing with my mentors (if they were, they still are)
and seeking scripture. The whole idea about God leading us certain directions
was very uncertain to me. The answer I concluded about if it was God's will
that I join was determined that God does not generally direct us in such long
term decisions. The questions about what college to go to, what should someone
study, and all those life direction questions I think should truly be answered
by ourselves. God has put the desires inside us what we want to do and what we
know we should do. My recent findings in scripture when the Holy Spirit leads a
person every time was in context to an immediate reaction, not life changing
decisions that would encompass long portions of time. I think for the long term
decisions we should go where, study what, and keep God included with all of
those. I don't think where one goes to college is as important as how we take
part in campus ministry. I think anywhere we work doing almost any job we can
share Christ with those we work with through our actions and our work ethic. The
jobs that I would be hard pressed to find righteous justification for doing so
are such things as prostitution, stripping, dealing drugs ect. I wouldn't be so
bold to say God can't use people in those positions; there just might be a
conflict of interests in those. The biggest reasons were rolled into two reasons;
the spiritual growth I knew I would experience and I just wanted to join. I
suppose there was a part of me that figured if I could survive spiritually for
4 years then I could accomplish anything…
I
think the getting away could’ve used a bit more explaining and counts as a
whole other reason independent from the other reasons. I found it interesting
talking to Kevin about this subject as well. He was telling me during the time
I talked to him about my strong desire to join, he looked back at the people he
went to high school with and noticed how so many have scattered all over the
world. At a certain point in a man's life there gets this feeling in him to
leave what he knows and discover. This is something mentioned in Wild At Heart.
I thought about that for a little while, and noticed that I was the same age
approximately as Jonathan at the time of my enlistment, so maybe there is a
part of the whole Wild At Heart being manifested in the "gotta spread my
wings" as I phrased it to many people. I don't think my parents hindered
me, well, my mom is definitely over-protective but that is something to be
expected. That is perhaps my best explanation for the "where does that
desire come from?" question cause other than that, there was just
something that hit me deep inside, not in the way I have felt the spirit move,
but in a way that just told me to leave what was familiar.
In
addition to the inward desire, I think it is commanded in scripture. Yes, we
are to surround ourselves with other Christians to hold us accountable and
spread Christ through community, at the same time we can't spend too much time
in the same place without experiencing different things. I think within the
means I had, my spiritual growth was ready for a kick in the stomach. So yea,
there was a certain thing inside that said "do something different and
radical" I think this was big enough. Having had independence, kind of, because
I am under the Army's leash for the next 3 more years at least I think it is
nice but somewhat over-rated. I laugh when I read forums and hear people
complaining about freedoms when they have no idea what it is like to lose many
of your freedoms. I think the military life has best been explained by my Uncle
Alan. It is an institution in which people voluntarily live under a
totalitarian rule so that others do not have to. Have my wings been spread? Yes.
Do I feel freer that I was when I was a civilian? No. The most freedom I have
felt or continually feel is the freedom from sin that Christ has granted me. If
I see nothing else from those around me I have seen so many people with chains
on their souls and they don't realize it and if you try to tell them they are
chained down they'll either deny it or take it as a joke.
I
have held the personal belief since I was in high school that I think every
male should spend at least 2 years in the military or some form of service in
their transition from teenager before they hit career age. I think my opinion
is more validated that I was willing to spend this period of my life to serve
this country. In doing so, much of the heritage I was raised with has grown in
significance. I don't know many civilians that can draw tears with the sound of
the Star Spangled Banner or to see Old Glory waving in the wind. The meaning to
all that the United States is has changed greatly, in the way of appreciation. I
will be hard-pressed to vote for someone that has not served in the military
and claim to have national pride in such a way to represent me.
I
suppose this also ties in with being a man of action. I do not ever want to be
looked upon as a talker, or a watcher. When I say something I want to go
through with it that my words may be validated by my deeds. There are times in
the days most often when I am assigned to "area beautification" or
what I call a "gopher (Go-For)" detail. I kind of chuckle when I see
the AFN (Armed Forces Network, the closest thing to American TV we get) commercials
thanking us for our service and whatnot. I mean there are plenty of those days
when I think, what am I doing that is so special? I think some of that is
within my desire to get deployed. I still long for my chance to do my part, not
so much to fight the War on Terror, but to be there side by side with the other
brothers in arms to earn what I have been thanked for so many times. Until I
get deployed and do my time wherever the Army deems necessary I feel like it has
been unearned thanks. Attached to this sentiment explains why I had to go Army
or Marines. When I look to Jonathan and see his airborne wings, he is in combat
arms, and downrange as I write this, I felt a duty to endure some of the same
hardships he has endured. Yea, it is also kind of a macho feeling of
hardcoreness. From easiest to most difficult, the progression goes Air Force,
Navy, Army, and Marines. Frankly I didn't want to be with Marines, they get my
hats off, but I am not that hardcore. Besides the Army let me pick my exact
job, not job field like all the other services.
I
was tired of school, or college. As simple as that may be it is the truth. I
was bored, unguided, and tired of college. I didn't know where I was going,
what I was studying, or why I was studying it. The worst of all, learning was
no longer fun. To think of it, I had been going to school for 16.5 years so a
break was needed, a nice long break. My options for what I could do as a break
were fairly well narrowed down. The last year of college was perhaps my worst
as far as school. Being the one of the high school interns I absolutely loved
it, it was why I woke up every morning. I knew after that year that I wanted to
continue in ministry wherever I go on my personal time and if I am lucky as a
vocation. At that point in my life my options looked like: join the military,
get a full time job, and keep going to school. I was clearly not satisfied with
going to school, I had no direction to what I really wanted to study or why I
was studying (or not studying). I think wherever we are; whatever we are doing,
we should be enjoying it both in the ends and means. The full time job
possibilities with my education level at that point in my life were bleak to
say the least. I do not think if I got a full time job it would be in such a
place to get me further in life than my previous activities; in fact I thought
it would actually be closer to a dead end. There are not that many job opportunities
that I think can really take you somewhere without a bachelor's or higher. The finale
option was the military, financially it seemed like the best option I had,
which brings me to the last reason I joined.
I
thought this was a very economically healthy decision. I know I am pretty good
with money, more so in not spending it, but I am wise with its management. I
have yet to find a better opportunity for the disgruntled college student,
recent high school graduate, ect. All I need to do is give years, and they give
me clothes on my back, roof over my head, food in my stomach AND a pay check. Doing
the math, in order to get the money left over from a job that I'd get from the
Army I would've had to earn 2500-3000 month, that was a near impossible for
someone in my position to find such a starting salary. I am not saying that is
how much I do get paid, but that was the approximate amount I would need to be
in the same position I am now in today. I still think that I am making out like
a bandit in this deal. In the last year I have wasted so much money on stuff,
and still saved so much money, while investing in a retirement fund. For
example, this last year I have bought this laptop, over 150 movies, saved over
7k and gotten all kinds of other goodies. I don't think I will be able to live
in this kind of luxury when I return to civilian life, so I am enjoying it
while it lasts. When I get out I will have a great marketability with my job
and life experience than someone with the same education level as myself. I
think spending these years is greatly beneficial to me in the long term.
So
what have I learned in this time period? Aside from all the fun soldierly stuff
like throwing grenades, shooting an M-16 and all that fun stuff, I think much
of it is written in my previous blogs. What do I think of the Army having
experienced some of it in this year? I think it is an excellent place for a
person to figure out what they really want to do, it provides opportunities
that I think most people with my upbringing and financial condition could not
provide for myself. Knowing what I know now about the Army would I have still
joined? Yes. I don't regret my decision. What are the hardest things about the
Army life? By far the spiritual warfare is the most difficult thing for me. The
tangible difficulties are laughable; there are endless stupid things to deal
with, so one can learn a bit more about patience. It is not a difficult life to
live; then again I have always been a little different from those around me. I
can deal with authority without a problem, more importantly in this position. Many
people around me tend to not like the Army, but I think they are of the mindset
unless they never have to work again or take orders they will be unhappy. Jim
Ward said it best, "The Army is what you make it". I have chosen to
better myself and learn as much as I can and I have enjoyed most of it.
Throughout
the last year I have figured out what I want to do when I get out, it actually
took only a couple weeks to figure it all out, after the army told me how I am
spending the next 4 years. I know I want to go to seminary, whether it will be
full time or part time is too far away to know. I am currently pondering
between going to seminary full time and working at Hume my first summer out or
getting a federal job with Homeland Security or something along those lines
(That is the marketability I am talking about). The best situation I can hope
for at this time is being able to work at Hume and while doing the federal job
part time and doing seminary full time. I'll decide when the doors are closer
and I can see what paths are available to be taken.
The most important
lessons I have learned? For one, the studying and spiritual growth has been
amazing. I have not always used my time as wisely as I should have, but I have
used a good portion very well. How much I actually love everyone back at home,
friends, family, so many of you on myspace (Facebook), I think I have learned
the value of relationships a bit better. What I have learned I truly believe
could've only been possible from the path I took. So here is to another year.
Epilogue: I did work
at Hume Lake my first summer out. I did not go to seminary nor have any plans
in the near future to go to seminary. I think at the time I was imagining a
Bible College, from which I did graduate from.
Jan 4, 2006
Eureka
This is awesome! I was just talking to one of the guys I have been hoping I could encourage to return to his faith. I think I mentioned in a previous blog he stopped by to tell me he wanted to return to his faith, I was greatly encouraged and hoped I could help him in any way that I can. Well, he asked me, straight up asked me if we could do a bible study!!! I am so ecstatic right now. This is absolutely an answer to prayer. I have been wanting a bible study for months, the one the chaplain oversaw never took off and was canceled altogether before Christmas leave. This is just awesome!
Born Again or Christian?
One
of my biggest pet peeves is the title or description of "Born Again".
I don't get irritated when people say they are "Born Again." It is
more the use and what I really think is the reason this description came about.
Before you might antsy, I recognize the scripture origin of the term directly
spoken of in John
3:1-15 when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus. One more thing, the encompassing
of born again in this context does not seek to address the sacraments of
baptism or communion. This is discussing being born again in the Spirit, so
there is no act of distinction between a “born again” Christian and conventional
Christian. This does include the rebirth of spirit which will compel different
actions, but how is that change any different from when a person makes Christ
their Lord? I think it is the same transformation prompted by the Holy Spirit.
So
I ponder, “What is the deal with people that call themselves Born Again
Christian vs. Christian". I think it has become a term that Christians
used to say that they are a different kind of Christian, one that has changed
from their old ways. I am excited when someone leaves the old life behind; I
tend to think such a display is manifested through something like Baptism. I
look at Baptism as it being a public declaration and statement of one's faith.
The difference in use is that when a person has been baptized they don't
describe themselves as “baptized Christians”, yet those who choose to describe
themselves as “born again” tend to use that as a prefix to their religious
identification. I do not think we should need to declare that we are changed
people because all those that know us ought to see it pouring out our skin. So
what is the deal, why did this term/title come about?
I
think people started calling themselves "Born Again" Christians from
Christians because they wanted to describe themselves in a manner different
than just “Christian”. It was a counter to the Christian culture in which one could
not differentiate between a cultural Christian from one who has a personal
relationship with Christ. To say that I am a born again Christian is supposed
to mean something differently than to say I am a Christian. Why is that? What
kinds of circumstances have happened in society that it was necessary to add a
new title? Was it because “Christian” had become such a general term throughout
society that people wanted to try to be different from everyone else? From
certain perspectives I find that approach commendable because they were
different and did not want to be associated with being just “Christian”.
It
is easy to see that motivation. This nation has been described as “a Christian
nation” for much of its history. In this identity though, the term Christian
has apparently lost any tangible meaning. We have come to a point in society if
one inquires “what religion you are” and the reply is "Christian", it
is seldom an adequate description. Is anyone else unsettled with this? What has
happened with the identification of Christ that people don't even know what it
means? I insist to say that I am simply a Christian, I am a member of
Presbyterian USA but that was not the question sought when people inquire of my
religion. I think religion has the connotation of the archaic belief system
that appeared as rules, not a freeing life-giving relationship with Christ,
which mine is. It is sad that through the decades, “Christian” in the public sphere
almost wholly lost any meaning. Somewhere in our history people realized that
and wanted to be set apart from the masses that claim the Cross without knowing
what it meant. My suggestion of the counter culture: I am a Christian, no more
no less. Instead of making new descriptions for whom and what we are, I think
Christians ought to reinvigorate the title associated with the belief. The term
“Christian” originated as a derogatory term literally meaning “little Christ”,
we could be so privileged to be mocked for our faith that others see Christ in
our life to a point of derision.
This
hit me a couple years ago. I was reading a newspaper article about a person who
was described as born again, being convicted of a crime. I thought what was the
point of adding that title? We ought not to claim something we do not live. I was
also reminded of a story from the campus pastor
at Azusa Pacific, they had a third party organization conduct a survey based on
observation the percentage of the college who appeared to be Christian. The
results were in the neighborhood of about 40% of the college population from
the organization's estimate. While that might sound sad, how true is it among
our youth groups, churches, and every other Christian organization? I know
going through the youth group I am most familiar there were people of whom, Christ’s
presence was clearly evident. I would be generous to say at any one point in
time that would consist of 30-50% of the group. I know there were constantly
new people and outreach constantly going but that figure reflected the core
group. A similar example is found in the manifestation of the 80/20 Rule in
ministry. Should it be? By no means it should not.
Something
to consider, of all the people you know, how many are committed Christians? I
am not calling us all to perfection, merely dedication. I weep for our society where
there are so many people that do not know what Christianity is because they
have never seen an authentic Christian. I am reminded of the staff T-shirts at
church we were given after the staff conference and the bold statement "Be
Like Me" on the front and on the right sleeve further instructions state “stand
here, take notes”. When we received those shirts, I do not recall a single
person not being intimidated by the boldness of the shirt.
My
final example, it shakes me to recall it still, at Basic Training while I was
just having small talk with one of the guys in my platoon, and he asked me
"What are you?" in reference to my faith. I responded with "I am
a Christian" and further explained that was all. His response was
"oh, so you mean like you actually practice what the Bible says? That's
cool.” a conversation that I am sure he has since forgotten but it hit me. A
bit of a pat on the back but at the same time, could it be possible that he
went his 19 years and I was possibly the first Christian that practiced the
faith he claimed?
I
am very discerning when I encounter people, anyone can claim they are
Christian, and when you call yourself that to me, I will observe and hope you
live it out. It is more than apparent that we have all encountered people who
claim it but do not realize what they have claimed. Even my own filtering
process is evident in myself how I have seen "Christians"
misrepresent the faith. From my experience, I want to know that I actually
share my heart with someone who actually shares the hope we have. I have no
problem being open to other Christians, accountability is vital to encouragement
and holiness of the Body. There should be no limits to having it with every brother
and sister if they are so inclined.
Epilogue: I am also reminded of extended family who came to Christ during the Jesus Movement in which "born again" was proliferated. For that personal experience, the title was important to their conversion experience. It is important to be sensitive to such experiences concerning our journey to faith, but we ought to also consider "why" still use the term of differentiation between orthodox Christians?
Jan 1, 2006
Response to a "You can be a Gay Christian" article
You can be a Gay Christian article
This one is a response to the article above. As a preface it is important to establish that scripture does not offer any less condemnation to a sexually immoral life of a homosexual than a heterosexual. Too often churches will attack and rally against homosexuals without addressing the rampant divorce, infidelity, and lust that goes on within its own walls. Christians are not here to judge the world, in 1 Corinthians Paul mentions that we should “judge our own” for the sake of the gospel, it is not the churches’ reign to turn the homosexuals into heterosexuals it is the churches’ job to introduce people to Jesus, the Jesus in the Bible.
First Premise: I agree most people don't know the Word of God nor treat it as such, however I am not one of those people and I do know the Word fairly well and have the resources to understand it, in addition I have the Holy Spirit in me to guide my studies among other things.
As I recall Jesus talks about sex on numerous occasion, such as defining lust and addressing the situation with the woman caught committing adultery to name a couple. Jesus was very clear in defining lust that sexual sin occurs far before the physical realm. The Jewish prophets did not mention homosexuality, okay they are prophecies the books of the law did mention it, and I will get there on that point. That does not mean the epistles have not addressed this issue.
In response to the claim “homosexuality as it is known today” is never mentioned in scripture, I refer to Romans 1 when Paul describes how people exchanged the truth and continued to exchange they get to the point of "exchanging natural desires for unnatural ones... men being enflamed with lust for one another".
Second Premise: I agree that misinterpretations have lead to many deaths and bad things, the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition are among some of the worse things the church has lead. I do not believe we should go about killing homosexual or abortionists as some "Christian" organizations promote, I think that is far from sharing the love of Christ.
Third Premise: I agree being open to the truth of Scripture we must be actively seeking, new truth... I am not entirely sure about that new truth being the same truth found in Scriptures and the same God since the beginning of existence. I don't think we should condemn people with their sins; that is God’s duty. Sin affects every person, how we deal with it makes all the difference. What I see in this site and in other debates with similar resources are people arguing that they can live the lifestyle they want to and be Christians. That is like me saying I can look at all the porn I want to without it affecting my relationship with Christ, or me saying that I can get drunk every night and be a good Christian. If we think God is not interested in these intimate details of our life then we are not believing in the personal God described throughout the Scriptures. God knows the hairs on our head, how could something as important as this, which has such a huge role in our lives not be important to God?
Fourth Premise: Interesting claim, it starts out claiming that God is not interested in our sex lives, I disagree. The bible is a guide to human life on the earth that we do not belong on (See 1 Peter, We are a chosen people, royal priesthood ect..) I don't see how showing spots in the scriptures that are controversial helps the argument that this is going for, is it trying to divert our attention or what? Keep the focus on the issue at hand.
Fifth Premise: I believe the Word of God literally, I think when God said it is "good" that was a comment on how it should be done. Take note that during creation everything created was "good" but when Adam had Eve as his partner they were "Very good".
Interesting claim that the destruction of Sodom was not related to the homosexuals raiding Lot's home to have sex with the angels; other resources say they wanted to "know" the guests, which in Hebrew is true. The only part they failed to mention is that "know" was the same Hebrew word used when Adam "knew" Eve and she got pregnant. Anyways, I think that is wishful thinking to say that the group of men wanting to rape the Angels had nothing to do with God's judgment on the city. God did make a covenant with Abraham if 10 righteous people could be found the city would be spared, which 10 could not be found, so yes the city was not to be spared. I take the crowd of lustful men as one of the many traits of the evil city, not a separate incident the eve of its destruction.
The approach to Leviticus is funny, at least to me. Once again pointing out other ways we follow or don't follow the Books of the Law correctly and it tries to downplay its message by adding the condemnation of shellfish and playing with pigskin. I have never felt a need to argue for the validity of the laws in the Books of the Law seeing that was the old covenant, Jesus is the new covenant. I understood the Law as an implicit message that the Jews would need to see how impossible it was to do all of those things and rely on God to forgive them of their sins. In the same way we look back to the Messiah to save us, they should have looked forward to the Messiah to save them.
Wow, I am impressed it does address Romans 1:26-27, I disagree with the reason Paul wrote those 2 verses that the link suggests. The links says that those behaviors were behaviors used to honor the Greek gods and that is why they were condemned. I very much disagree, if you look at the greater context of that passage you see that it is talking about people exchanging the Truth of God for something different. Each paragraph people exchange the Truth of God and what they exchange it for gets more debauched each time. I can identify that with my own battles against sin. When I battle it is something that for the most part can be seen as harmless, but that little bit of sin gets me to want more; that is how sin works. We give in to a little bit and as we give in it goes further and further. Jeffery Dalmer provided a good example, he started with pornography and that drove him to pedophile to murder to cannibalism ect...
The bit about the further mentions of homosexuality being different, well I understand that it was common at the time for older men to have sexual relationship with young people, both boys and girls. This was a social thing for the empire, I like to take special note that as that practice became widely accepted in the Roman empire, the empire collapsed, I site that as the social breakdown being the primary problem of the empire breaking down. The final point in that premise was pretty much saying that the condemnation of homosexuality was not as it is in this culture. I still think Romans 1 best explains and describes why people are homosexual and what God thinks of it.
Premise Six: Homosexuality did not exist until the 19th century... that is if you believe that the descriptions at Sodom was not homosexuality. As well as the mentions of homosexuality in the Epistles as not actually being homosexuality.
Premise Seven: My studies of Scripture has lead me to believe that in order to follow God I must give up my desire to do things that I want to do. This is where I have the most disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, it promotes the idea to do what people want. With this line of thinking it is hard to find real reasons against homosexuality in the secular atmosphere, but in the Christian lifestyle I cannot see a place for it. It is a behavior that people want hold onto and do, that selfish attitude is what waves my mental flags that this is not a good thing spiritually. Based on my studies of the Bible, love is expressed by us living our lives for God, not for ourselves and abandoning our selfish desires. Every sin in humanity is selfish in someone way or another, selfishness is the root of sin.
Premise Eight: I am not arguing people for their rights, I am arguing if homosexuality is consistent or inconsistent with the Christian life. Marriage is something created by God, don't touch it. As far as rights as a person, I think they already have that until someone infringes on their rights.
This one is a response to the article above. As a preface it is important to establish that scripture does not offer any less condemnation to a sexually immoral life of a homosexual than a heterosexual. Too often churches will attack and rally against homosexuals without addressing the rampant divorce, infidelity, and lust that goes on within its own walls. Christians are not here to judge the world, in 1 Corinthians Paul mentions that we should “judge our own” for the sake of the gospel, it is not the churches’ reign to turn the homosexuals into heterosexuals it is the churches’ job to introduce people to Jesus, the Jesus in the Bible.
First Premise: I agree most people don't know the Word of God nor treat it as such, however I am not one of those people and I do know the Word fairly well and have the resources to understand it, in addition I have the Holy Spirit in me to guide my studies among other things.
As I recall Jesus talks about sex on numerous occasion, such as defining lust and addressing the situation with the woman caught committing adultery to name a couple. Jesus was very clear in defining lust that sexual sin occurs far before the physical realm. The Jewish prophets did not mention homosexuality, okay they are prophecies the books of the law did mention it, and I will get there on that point. That does not mean the epistles have not addressed this issue.
In response to the claim “homosexuality as it is known today” is never mentioned in scripture, I refer to Romans 1 when Paul describes how people exchanged the truth and continued to exchange they get to the point of "exchanging natural desires for unnatural ones... men being enflamed with lust for one another".
Second Premise: I agree that misinterpretations have lead to many deaths and bad things, the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition are among some of the worse things the church has lead. I do not believe we should go about killing homosexual or abortionists as some "Christian" organizations promote, I think that is far from sharing the love of Christ.
Third Premise: I agree being open to the truth of Scripture we must be actively seeking, new truth... I am not entirely sure about that new truth being the same truth found in Scriptures and the same God since the beginning of existence. I don't think we should condemn people with their sins; that is God’s duty. Sin affects every person, how we deal with it makes all the difference. What I see in this site and in other debates with similar resources are people arguing that they can live the lifestyle they want to and be Christians. That is like me saying I can look at all the porn I want to without it affecting my relationship with Christ, or me saying that I can get drunk every night and be a good Christian. If we think God is not interested in these intimate details of our life then we are not believing in the personal God described throughout the Scriptures. God knows the hairs on our head, how could something as important as this, which has such a huge role in our lives not be important to God?
Fourth Premise: Interesting claim, it starts out claiming that God is not interested in our sex lives, I disagree. The bible is a guide to human life on the earth that we do not belong on (See 1 Peter, We are a chosen people, royal priesthood ect..) I don't see how showing spots in the scriptures that are controversial helps the argument that this is going for, is it trying to divert our attention or what? Keep the focus on the issue at hand.
Fifth Premise: I believe the Word of God literally, I think when God said it is "good" that was a comment on how it should be done. Take note that during creation everything created was "good" but when Adam had Eve as his partner they were "Very good".
Interesting claim that the destruction of Sodom was not related to the homosexuals raiding Lot's home to have sex with the angels; other resources say they wanted to "know" the guests, which in Hebrew is true. The only part they failed to mention is that "know" was the same Hebrew word used when Adam "knew" Eve and she got pregnant. Anyways, I think that is wishful thinking to say that the group of men wanting to rape the Angels had nothing to do with God's judgment on the city. God did make a covenant with Abraham if 10 righteous people could be found the city would be spared, which 10 could not be found, so yes the city was not to be spared. I take the crowd of lustful men as one of the many traits of the evil city, not a separate incident the eve of its destruction.
The approach to Leviticus is funny, at least to me. Once again pointing out other ways we follow or don't follow the Books of the Law correctly and it tries to downplay its message by adding the condemnation of shellfish and playing with pigskin. I have never felt a need to argue for the validity of the laws in the Books of the Law seeing that was the old covenant, Jesus is the new covenant. I understood the Law as an implicit message that the Jews would need to see how impossible it was to do all of those things and rely on God to forgive them of their sins. In the same way we look back to the Messiah to save us, they should have looked forward to the Messiah to save them.
Wow, I am impressed it does address Romans 1:26-27, I disagree with the reason Paul wrote those 2 verses that the link suggests. The links says that those behaviors were behaviors used to honor the Greek gods and that is why they were condemned. I very much disagree, if you look at the greater context of that passage you see that it is talking about people exchanging the Truth of God for something different. Each paragraph people exchange the Truth of God and what they exchange it for gets more debauched each time. I can identify that with my own battles against sin. When I battle it is something that for the most part can be seen as harmless, but that little bit of sin gets me to want more; that is how sin works. We give in to a little bit and as we give in it goes further and further. Jeffery Dalmer provided a good example, he started with pornography and that drove him to pedophile to murder to cannibalism ect...
The bit about the further mentions of homosexuality being different, well I understand that it was common at the time for older men to have sexual relationship with young people, both boys and girls. This was a social thing for the empire, I like to take special note that as that practice became widely accepted in the Roman empire, the empire collapsed, I site that as the social breakdown being the primary problem of the empire breaking down. The final point in that premise was pretty much saying that the condemnation of homosexuality was not as it is in this culture. I still think Romans 1 best explains and describes why people are homosexual and what God thinks of it.
Premise Six: Homosexuality did not exist until the 19th century... that is if you believe that the descriptions at Sodom was not homosexuality. As well as the mentions of homosexuality in the Epistles as not actually being homosexuality.
Premise Seven: My studies of Scripture has lead me to believe that in order to follow God I must give up my desire to do things that I want to do. This is where I have the most disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, it promotes the idea to do what people want. With this line of thinking it is hard to find real reasons against homosexuality in the secular atmosphere, but in the Christian lifestyle I cannot see a place for it. It is a behavior that people want hold onto and do, that selfish attitude is what waves my mental flags that this is not a good thing spiritually. Based on my studies of the Bible, love is expressed by us living our lives for God, not for ourselves and abandoning our selfish desires. Every sin in humanity is selfish in someone way or another, selfishness is the root of sin.
Premise Eight: I am not arguing people for their rights, I am arguing if homosexuality is consistent or inconsistent with the Christian life. Marriage is something created by God, don't touch it. As far as rights as a person, I think they already have that until someone infringes on their rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)