Fire By Night

The Chopping Block (aka The Chopping Clock)

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:46:28 GMT

I pulled up the slightly snowy driveway and slumped my exhausted car into its bed for the night. It sighed as I forced open to the chilling cold and incredulously waited for me to release the door and allow it to yank its frozen limb close to its body once more and settle down to rest. My feet dragged behind me, relaxing in the white frost, while the rest of my body leapt up the stairs to our porch and wrestled the house key into its place in the door. The heavy door welcomed me with a creak, and an inviting surge of warm air escaped around my body as I stepped inside.

Mess. Clutter. Where there had once been tidiness and flow, there was rubbish and ruckus. Not only that, but the gorgeous tree that we had already prepared was stripped and naked before the crooked, dying rival that stood in the same room. The controversy between the two had created this junk pile of a living room, and the room could not be remedied until one tree triumphed or the trees reconciled.

My mom said that she had decided to use a real tree; reconciliation was impossible at this point.

I was forced to change. And change I did. It felt good to be out of my work clothes, and sleep came not long afterward. I dreamt about beautiful, plump, eight foot tall, fake Christmas trees and woke up feeling great. However, the feeling only lasted until I came down the stairs, when I realized that the 100% real tree was still here. I had breakfast, every once in a while glancing over my shoulder to peek at this odd wonder like a criminal watches a detective at a bar. I'm sure I saw it's glare aimed directly at me from under its fedora and trench coat.

So I dug my heel in the sand, sat on the couch, and stared it down for hours. It just stared right back at me. It was too good; I never once saw it drop my gaze.

I gave in. It wasn't going anywhere, and I certainly wasn't about to leave my own home for a Christmas tree. Mom said it stayed, so it stayed. And I had to get used to it. But I didn't have to get used to it's ugliness. This tree was hideous, up and down. Dead twigs on the bottom, dried out needles hanging on the top, and crumbling pinecones hiding in the crevices between limb and trunk. It was ugly.

So I helped it out a little. I decided to work on the tree a bit. It had been due for a tune-up for some time, but the previous owner had been too busy to care for it. I started at the very bottom, working my way up. I pulled off all of the dead articles that hung from different limbs. I cut off the limbs that were of no use and merely consumed sustenance. And it started looking good. At least better than it had.

However, like a child who hasn't had his ears cleaned in a while, the tree was hurt whenever I attempted to make it look better. It had been so long since the last pruning that it couldn't handle it. It covered up the parts that it knew I was aiming to work on next, and made it virtually impossible to continue at any degree. I had only one option. I would have to hurt the tree more.

The branches that it used to block my work had to go, and so they went just as the dead limbs did. No mercy. At points I would have to clear entire portions of the tree to get to the problems areas, but after a short time, the tree realized it had no choice but to surrender the wasteful branches to me, even if it hurt to have them taken off.

I continued to pull off dead areas until I had stretched over the entire tree. And just as I finished cutting off the last piece of refuse, my mom walked in the door, turned straight toward the tree and said, "My what a breath-taking tree you have there. Where did the one that I had bought go?"

The fake tree, defeated and dejected, retreated to Wilson's room, where it has found itself more than one friend.

Alrighty, so obviously some of this is a little fictional. Just a little. But the main thing to be said here is about pruning. It's called a metaphor. Jesus used one very similar to it in the Bible. (Since it's kind of a big book, I guess I'll give you specifics. John 15:1-2) I basically just had my own, hands on learning situation.

So there is a lot to be said about this metaphor, and I really don't want to have to review it all here. So just read it again and pretend to be a Christmas tree. For some of you, that won't be very difficult. But don't take everything I said as part of the learning metaphor. (You don't have a previous owner. And if you did, it would be God. (Meaning He's both your previous owner and present owner.) And God would never be too busy to care for you.) So be smart and read the Bible. Stop reading me.

Thought of [a time]:
Be a Christmas tree. Be prunable. :D

1 Corinthians 16:22 (NIV)

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:05:56 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

Alrighty. My problem with this verse was cursing the unbelievers. I'm all about love and hope, so reading that Paul wished a curse upon unbelievers threw me a little.

There are two possibilities I see to this. One: Paul was writing to the Christians, and so those who call themselves followers of Christ, but have no love for Him are the ones cursed here.... Maybe it's wrong to think this, but I'm fine with that. I've known my share of posing Christians, and honestly, I'm tired of them. Just saying. Two: He IS talking to the unbelievers. They really are, in a way, cursed. They are completely separate from the love of God. (2 Cor. 6:14. This isn't the verse I wanted, but it was the one I thought of.) And what do they have to look forward to? (Matthew 25:24-30) Not a pretty picture.

However, I don't understand why Paul would have them cursed. In a way, they are, and they certainly will be. But the way of redemption seems far from what Paul says here. I don't know.

(1 Corinthians finished!!)

Discussion, please! :D

Just still.

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:53:22 GMT

There are so many things I wish I were. I wish I were smart enough to get a 30 on the ACT. I wish I could play anything on my guitar. I wish I could write novels until my head falls off. I wish I could make people laugh. I wish I could make them cry. I wish I were one of those people who drive recklessly and never get caught. I wish I was recognized for my perfect, safe driving.

The thing is, I wish almost all of these things and SO many more because I want to look good. I wish I didn’t want to look good, but I can’t help thinking I only wish that so that I look good. Publicly, I hate my sin and search for accountability. At home, however, I love to indulge in my sin and the only things that weighs on me is how I follow two opposing sets of values. My faith is all out when people see me. The thing is, I haven’t really prayed to God and talked with Him in a long time. I love to follow love, but I can do without God.

I can’t understand why I do this. I know every angle there is to know. Honestly, not many people can tell me something about God or about the Bible that I don’t already know and understand fully. I’m to the point where I can firmly disagree with some part of sermons, or I imagine parts that I would add on. I’m literally conquering every single difficult passage in the New Testament as of now, and I understand God much more with every victory.

Nothing has ever really fazed me or caused me anguish.

I’m an avid reader, but I haven’t read for months.

Really, I can’t peg my own problems. I’ll think long and hard about everything and anything, and I’ll come up with a satisfying answer that can become a goal to work on for a period of time. But I don’t know what’s wrong with me.

You know what, though? I know the answer as well. God. Jesus. Love. Let me tell you something: I do those well. I read my bible so often nowadays, you wouldn’t believe. I cry almost every time I take communion. I’m working on showing how much I love my co-workers every day. And things are going great. But I don’t get this. I know something is wrong. Absolutely. 100%. I know I don’t have it right, and why do I care? Probably because I’m scared that I’ll go to hell.

I’m a goal oriented person. I work best when I see exactly what needs to be done, and all I need is brute force to get through. This is why video games are so great to me. So when I see that I need to love, I go love. When I see I need to serve, I go serve. When God and I haven’t had a conversation in a while, I go talk it up. A works-based faith is perfect for me. Give me a point system and I’ll blow everyone right off the map. But tell me that I’ll do best by being silent and doing nothing. Not a chance in the world.

I honestly think that I need to do nothing. You can tell me anything you want about how following God never has you do nothing. Wrong. I can tell you that I need nothing right now. Not many of you knew me in 6^th grade. I was an introvert. To the extreme. But not anymore. And when there is that kind of utter transformation, I tend to go from one extreme to another. My switch from silent introvert to raging extrovert has caused me to long for people around me. At home, I can’t wait to go somewhere else. It’s so bad that sometimes I want to leave some people so I can be with other people. Just because they’re different people. I haven’t been actually secluded for a long time, and just the thought of it bores me. And boredom is scary to me.

(I hate to get compliments like, ‘You’re a great listener,’ when I run around town with this people-ADD.)

This reminds me of a great song by Josh Bales. “My head just will not let go. And all of these people just won’t go away. There when I am sleeping and when I’m awake. Everything’s wrong, and nothing is right. So that’s what I’ll say every night.” Boardgames. Fantastic song. What I wanted to show you was the first line. In my boredom, all I do is think. I think about everything; everything except the one who deserves my silence. And the second line. I can’t get away from my desire to attract people, and to say that I pray an hour every day would be something to brag about! People like a good prayer.

In my solitude, my thoughts are always on the next thing I can do for me.

If I’m not thinking about the next thing for me, the past weighs on me. My guilt of things done long ago and things done yesterday is overwhelming if I stop and think about it. I focus on it and lament my imperfections. And not because God has saved me and taken them away, but because I messed up. I wasn’t perfect. I didn’t please everyone, and I’m not exactly how I want to be. I’m sorrowful because I’m selfish.

Yet I write this now, crying possibly because it is how I should feel, but knowing full well that God has taken every burden off my shoulders. For the things I did yesterday and all of this I’ve just written, which happens every day of my life. It is forgiven. I know it is. God offered a sacrifice, a scape-goat for my sins. One that is free and full of love. I don’t have to pay for it. My goal oriented mind says eye for an eye, but Christ says, “Take my eye and I’ll give you my kingdom. Free of charge. No worries, I took care of it. Know that I am Lord. Just be still, and know that I am God.”

Be still.

Be. Still.

Still.

…

God.

1 Corinthians 15:29 (NIV)

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:40:20 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first! ;)

Actually, it'll help to read the post on 1 Cor. 15:2 as well before you begin this one. :)

I believe it's pretty easy to see what's weird about this verse. I myself wasn't sure what to think about being "baptized for the dead." I'm pretty sure I wasn't and won't be baptized for my dad. And... I think I even heard a sermon about this verse at one time. From what I remember, the explanation he gave was very complicated. I'm not sure it's complicated at all.

So as I took a second look over it just before I began writing, I had an epiphany. Taking what I talked about earlier and the subject that Paul had been speaking of for the duration of this chapter so far, I figured this would also have to do with Christ being raised from the dead. This verse makes much more sense when you think of the dead as Christ. Obviously, Christ is not dead. He is risen. Paul is wondering why these people, who believe there is no resurrection of the dead, are being baptized in the name of someone who only has power if he HAS risen from the dead. Hence, the line, "baptized for the dead."

Then, also, in verse 30, Paul makes the argument that he would not have done so many dangerous and life-threatening things if there was no resurrection from the dead. He means, here, that resurrection of the dead is vital to his faith that he so often suffers for, his faith in Jesus. And following verses seem to support this. I think I'll check if anyone else agrees with me, because this seems right to me.

I disagree with what Chuck Smith had to say. And David Guzik. And my HCS Bible. And the Message. (I really wanted to say I disagree with John Piper here as well. Is that ALLOWED??? Ha, too bad; he didn't speak on this passage.) Goodness, everyone seems locked on to the interpretation that Paul used a practice that he neither condoned nor condemned to prove his point. They use it to prove the point they think he's trying to prove, but then most of them say, "But we still don't agree with the practice!" It doesn't makes sense to me.

I went on a good romp through the NET Bible, and checked out, mostly, the word 'for' in the context of this verse. The Greek for the word used there many times meant something more along the lines of 'in place of.' However, there were a few instances where it equated to 'because of,' giving the passage the feel of 'in His name.' I don't know. To me, the explanation above makes the most sense. So with that...

Discussion please! Seriously, let me get your thoughts. :D

1 Corinthians 15:2 (NIV)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:56:08 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

Alrighty, this one looks to be simple now. I looked at this verse and the preceding verse and took it to mean that 'by this gospel you are saved, if you follow all of the rules that have been lain down in the word I preached to you.' That would mean salvation through works, and faith would be worthless. As it is, that is not how it is. :)

By 'hold firmly,' Paul means to say 'believe.' You see, as made evident by later verses, there was an argument among the church that there is no resurrection of the dead. Yet, if Christ died for our sins and was raised again, as was preached, then there is resurrection of the dead. So Paul says, basically, 'If you believe what I said earlier about Christ being raised from the dead, on which your entire faith is based, then you must believe, also, in the resurrection of the dead. Otherwise, your faith is worthless.'

There ya go. Really simple for what I thought I was getting into. I feel like I went through it really quickly though, so if you need an explanation, ask me. :)

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:10:51 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

The reason I marked this one is fairly obvious. In our world, the phrase 'women should remain silent' normally isn't taken very well. This one has me super confused, so I'll be reading some insights into this one.

I checked out Chuck Smith once again, and he had some very interesting thoughts. He mentions that in the Jewish synagogues, the women sat on one side and the men would sit on another. So if a women had a question and wanted to ask her husband, she would shout across the room and disrupt the congregation.

I have a few problems with this. First, it paints all women as simple-minded for shouting across a large room to have questions answered in the middle of a church service. (Imagine: "What? What was that? HEY HONEY! What did the preacher mean by that? Do you know? What's going on there? DON'T YOU HIDE YOUR FACE FROM ME!" Haha. :D Ok, anyways.) And second, it makes it seem like women don't understand the Bible enough, that they would have to shout across a room multiple times to their husbands, disrupting everything to get their questions answered. I don't think so. Most times, the ladies get it down before us guys.

Now after checking out The Message, it looks as if Chuck wasn't completely insane for a second there. It still gravitates away from the silence-of-all-women-during-church-at-all-times idea. It shows the women of the Corinthian church as being disruptive during services and asking questions of their husbands at inappropriate times. (I still disagree with the shouting-across-the-room idea, but maybe the couples who sat across the aisle from each other would talk or something like that.) This makes more sense. You ladies know you just love to talk all the time. :D

My HCS Bible completely ignores the subject. That was disappointing. :\

And, of course, there is the idea that this relates to submission of women to men in authority. That could work almost better than anything. It is also supported by 1 Timothy 2:12. There is a lot of weird stuff around there as well, though. I'll get to that book eventually. :)

So I'm pretty sure that I would have to go with the Message and 1 Timothy on this one. So, number one: the general statement is don't be disruptive during church. Not just women. Men are capable of speaking as well. So don't be disruptive. And, number two: women should not hold a position of authority over men in the church.... That's a huge statement. Umm,... I will definitely be contemplating that one. And as always, let me know your thoughts. :)

(First page done!)

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 14 (NIV)

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:38:49 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

This is a very weird part. I've always thought that. Probably because I've never understood prophesying or speaking in tongues (or why there is a sort of hierarchy between them).

SO, if any of you have idea on this, this would probably be a better place to post your thoughts on that. Any ideas help, really.

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 12:3 (NIV)

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:32:43 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

Alrighty. The reason I listed this verse: I have the Holy Spirit in me (1 Corinthians 6:19), and I could easily say either of those things at any time.

What I didn't see is the context that this verse is in. At the moment, Paul is talking about spiritual gifts; namely, speaking in tongues. So, wht I could imagine is someone inside their congregation who said, while supposedly speaking in tongues, 'Jesus be cursed.' Now I'm unsure, so here's where I go to other people to see what they say. :)

Right, so after looking around, I realized that I had already looked up this verse and subconsciously stolen the idea from what I had read before. :D The basic idea is that people speaking in tongues by the Spirit will not say things like, 'Jesus be cursed.' I'm pretty sure I agree.

However, I think if I go any further, I'm going to get deep into speaking in tongues, which I don't understand one bit. SO, if any of you have ideas on what I said, or even on speaking in tongues itself, that would be very appreciated.

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 11:3-10 (NIV)

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:10:06 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

This is a fairly long passage, but there are three main things I questioned here: the Trinity and hierarchy within, the relationship and hierarchy between men and women, and the passage about the angels. This could get intense.

The first thing I want to talk about is the Trinity. The Trinity is supposed to be a three-in-one deal with the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit where every part is equal. That's the part I want to deal with. This passages clearly states that "the head of Christ is God." This seems to establish a hierarchy within the Trinity. (Which is pretty typical. A lot of people would say God is the big guy, Jesus is his son underneath him, and the Spirit is that crazy, floaty guy.)

Well, I happen to disagree with this. I really like Philippians 2:6. It clearly states that the Father is not above Jesus. Also John 14:1-14 says much of the same thing. Now the Spirit is a bit more difficult. First, there is John 20:21-22 which seems to imply the Spirit has the same authority and power as the other two. Also John 14:15-21, 25-31 has much more on that subject. I especially like verse 17 there because it sounds much like John 1:10-12 where it clearly speaks of Jesus. It seems to equalize the two. That about all I can say to that effect.

So why does 1 Corinthians 11:3 say the head of Christ is God? This is my favorite part about this. Jesus made an example of himself for the church by submitting himself to God, taking on the form of man who's will is completely under God's. He was right up there with God, sitting equal with him. Yet he chose to humble himself immensely and let God be his superior, just as God sent his son and took an authority over him. It wasn't a hard decision, because we are worth it to him. So now there is still a Trinity with all three sides equal, yet somehow, because Jesus is still fully God, yet fully man, God is the head of Jesus. It's both. I don't know how to understand it. I don't think we, with our simple minds, can understand it. We follow, knowing that God is God and trusting him entirely.

Read The Shack. It has SUCH a good picture of God, the Trinity, and our relationship within it to... Her. lol, just check it out.

So here we come to the subject of men and women. First of all, there is a lot of cultural stuff here, and I don't really want to write about all that. This is all mostly cleared up in verses 13-16. Also, Chuck Smith, once again, has an adequate explanation of this. Click on his name, find where he quotes verses 3 and 4, then scroll down to the 6th paragraph. Start there and read until satisfied. But don't read the men and women stuff. I want to talk about that. :)

So the issue here: "the head of women is men," and "woman is the glory of man." Alrighty. Man is the head of woman. In marriage, the man is the head of the household. He is above the woman in that sense, but she is not subservient to him. As stated elsewhere, the man's focus is on pleasing his wife. It's a give and take. Man can't exist without woman, and woman cannot exist without man (Verses 11-12). See, there is a hierarchy created here. Man is the head of woman, Christ is the head of man, and God is the head of Christ. (And I already explained the Christ-to-God hierarchy.) This doesn't mean that a woman should follow everything a man says. (Please don't.) This says something more to the effect of, 'If a man is submitted to this hierarchy, then the woman should follow his lead. If the man is not in Christ or Christ in him, it's a bit like the hierarchy skips. But even when the woman is under the man, she should follow Christ more closely because the man is under Christ as well.

Now the glory of man part. This seems to me to say that the woman is to support the man in whatever he does (as long as he remains in Christ), even if she would do it differently or disagrees. But I really don't know here. I'm more like throwing out hypotheses. That's a lot to explain, let me know if any of that doesn't make sense.

Finally, the angels. In short, I have no idea what that means. :\

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 9:24 (NIV)

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:57:53 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

Alrighty, here's another stupid one, but it might be worth typing out. So basically, I looked at the 'one' and wondered why only one would get the prize. But that's not what it says. It says 'Run as if there is only one prize.' Not to set us against our fellow believers, but to challenge us to be the best we can be in the Lord. God wants all of His children to finish first.

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 7:17, 25-28 (NIV)

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:48:37 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

I'm actually NOT going to write about these verses and why I disagreed with them. It would be a waste of everyone's time and effort for me to write and you to read. If anybody has a problem with these verses, post it and I'll talk about that. And I promise, I won't make a habit out of doing this. :)

So... umm... yeah. :D

1 Corinthians 7:14-16 (NIV)

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:28:22 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

This one is tough. Really tough. Let's go through this one part at a time, ok? Verse 14, the 'unbelieving, unbelieving wife' part. From what I can see, we have two options here. Either the unbelieving spouse is saved by being married to a believer, or the unbeliever is set apart to be worked in through the Holy Spirit because of the faith of their spouse. (Chuck Smith) (Here, sanctified would mean something closer to blessed.) I'm not sure I believe that the spouse of a believer is saved by them, though that is the most direct interpretation. I'd guess that it's more of an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to work in the unbelieving spouse's life through their marriage to a believer. Verse 16 seems to support that. But I'm unsure.

Now here is another tricky part. The second part says, I believe, that because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by being married to a believer, then the children are as well. Now this could mean the same as for the spouse. It could mean either that the child is blessed in being born to at least one saved parent, or that the child is saved by being born to a believing parent. Taking the latter, then are children of unbelievers not saved? And what would be considered a child? Anyone under a certain age or a certain point of understanding? Will they lose this 'salvation by default' after a time? OR, (here's a crazy thought) maybe young children understand dependency on God better than anyone and are therefore saved, but we grow into our own states of independence.

A lot of this seems ridiculous. But guess what? It really doesn't matter. One could say that our goal is a world with hearts devoted to the Lord, whether some are 'saved by default' or not. Don't worry about it. We should all have one singular focus that overrides and out-does everything else on Earth: That is, the glory and love of our Lord.

Verse 15. I should not have put this down. (I really shouldn't have questioned any verses, but I am glad God and I are taking care of it now.) Let me ask you something. Imagine you are married to someone for years, both of you unbelievers. You have a fairly normal married relationship until you are saved by Christ. You're new attitudes and new-found morals cause your spouse to disagree with you more and more often. Your spouse won't accept Christ, and you can't follow their ways anymore. Your spouse decides to get a divorce. Do you think it would be a good idea to keep the marriage going? A relationship is very difficult between 'creatures of the dark' and 'creatures of the day.' There is practically no common ground. You decide.

Verse 16. Maybe I thought it was saying that a husband could save his wife, or vice versa. (Going back to verse 14.) But I think it fits better with verse 15. It seems to say, 'Don't continue your relationship with a nonbeliever because you think you can help them find the Lord.' It's more destructive than constructive.

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 7:10,12 (NIV)

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:32:53 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

I believe it is fairly easy to see why I noted these verses. It's a little daunting to hear Paul say "not I, but the Lord," or, "not the Lord, but I," as it seems to imply that he is speaking of his own opinions and not of the Lord's. I'm fairly sure that I noted another verse like these.

What I failed to notice is that (as far as I can tell) Paul is quoting Jesus here. The HCS Study Bible I have points this verse back to Mark 10:2-10. It is almost exactly the same teaching. That's why this small part would be noted as the Lord speaking.

Now how to explain the part addresses as 'I.' From what I can see, the fact that he specifies who the teaching comes from in these verses seems to imply that Paul is supplying the teaching throughout the remainder of the book. You could use this like I did and say "this contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16." I would guess, thought, that 'God-breathed' is another thing we can't fully comprehend. What I would say to explain this, though, is that Paul wouldn't be writing these letters thinking, 'God is speaking through me now.'

...That's about all I can think for now. My brain is a little dead from my first day of work (9 hours to close at 2 am).

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 6:16 (NIV)

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:17:54 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

Alrighty, so I looked at this one, and it seemed to say that he who has sex with a prostitute is married to her. The NIV says, "is one with her in body," and goes on to quote the verse in Genesis that says, "the two shall become one flesh." From this, I drew a whole bunch of weird theories.

This almost looks like it means that if you have sex with someone, you are consequently married to him/her. Taking that and applying it back into the verse, it seems like it means sex equals marriage. (Basically, God doesn't require us to go through a wedding or anything to be married. Just have sex.) And if that was true, why worry about sex outside of wedlock. Sex is marriage, so it shouldn't matter. And somehow, talking with Brandon, we got onto the subject of polygamy, and even wondered if God favored that (all of those OT guys, you know). Good thing we eventually decided that God is mostly in favor of monogamy. :D

So if you haven't noticed, I was really off base. I talked with a bunch of people about this, and we agreed on some things, disagreed on others, and had no idea on most of it. First, we all agreed that marriage, as our feeble human tendencies have made it these days, is really screwed up. Aside from the fact that most people don't even know what it's about, we really don't NEED a wedding and all the ceremony.

After that, I talked with Amanda about it, and she made the point that the verse didn't actually say they were married. It said they were one. Having sex with someone he wasn't married to, this man created a bond with the prostitute that imitated marriage. So here's my take on this:

Being married is not what we make to be now. It is, put very simply, a commitment. This commitment is made before God and intended to be honored until the death (as most commitments should be). "Let your yes be yes and your no be no," and all that jazz. The wedding seems to be, in many ways, much like a baptism. First, it is a public announcement of your commitment, and second, it is enacted (maybe a bad word to use there) in front of others for accountability. The only reason I can think to have a pastor marry the couple is for more accountability (but also probably just a tradition passed down from Catholics when we thought priests had super powers).

Now the sex. AFTER marriage. Having sex seems to be (obviously I don't speak from experience) like signing your wedding vows in blood. It is the consummation of your commitment to each other through God. That could be why sex before marriage is brutally wounding. It's like signing wedding vows in blood, except there are no vows, no commitment. There's just blood. As I remember Mark saying, you've given a part of yourself to that person, and you don't escape unscathed. FYI, if you give yourself away to people you're uncommitted to, you'll arrive in front of your future spouse bloodied and injured. I'd suggest being a whole person when you meet your future spouse. :)

(THIS is why it took so long to write another one. And some other reasons....)

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:44:07 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

Ok, so there are a good number of passages like this in the Bible. My reasoning for noting this verse was that we all fall into one of those categories. Almost all of us would fit in the second one alone. We all sin; Romans 3:23 makes this clear.

Now it's actually pretty stupid that I even looked at these and didn't just pass over them. I had already put this together in my head, but I wasn't willing to accept it in my heart. What's funny is that my rationale is summed up in verse 11. I reasoned that since we are saved (Paul WAS writing to the church), although we stumble in some or all of these sins all the time, we no longer are defined by those sins. Though I struggle with sexual immorality, I am no longer sexually immoral. I am a saint, saved by God through His grace, who is imperfect. I sin, yet God's grace covers all I do.

I think that I had another way to think about it, but I forgot. So if you have an explanation, let me know! :)

Discussion please! (In case you were wondering, even though I put this every time, I really do mean it every time. I REALLY would like discussion. If you have it. Ok.) :D

1 Corinthians 6:2-3 (NIV)

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:14:05 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

Ok, so the first thing I thought of: What if God is as sarcastic as me (or me as sarcastic as Him)? Imagine you're sitting there amongst the entire body of Christ, judging the rest of the world. I figured that the situation might make me feel a little too good about myself.

I say, "God, I'm not sure about this job you gave me/us. I think I'm getting a big head about it."

"Would you like me to fix that for you?"

"Yes, please!"

Yet, seconds later; "*chipmunk voice* Hey, that's not what I meant!"

HAHA. :) So anyways. I think it's fairly easy to see my predicament here. Judging the world AND the angels seems a bit... out there. And to me, it doesn't seem like that's really our concern at all. Two ideas I have on this.

One: We're not going to decide salvation. Jesus does that. We may say, 'Hey, you did this or that!' and you may not get a chandelier in your mansion (or whatever heaven is like...). But God is the big guy, and he says "He stays, he goes." Same goes for the angels. I don't think we'll be the ones saying, "You're fired." (Get it?)

Two: If God wants us to say "You're fired" or "You don't get a chandelier," then it's His prerogative. He's God. There ya go.

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 (NIV)

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:35:38 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

I know that for the majority of this passage, I could simply turn you back to 5:2. But there's some other stuff here I want to address.

Paul makes a clear distinction here. We are not to associate with the immoral who call themselves brothers, but if they make no claim in Christ's salvation, they're ok. As you might guess, this threw me off quite a bit. My mindset was one of, "Sure, they have problems, but they're still brothers in Christ. I thought we were told to welcome our brothers." This is all true.

People, are we going to judge those who don't fully understand the depth of grace? When we, as followers of Christ, sin, we do it with an extensive understanding of the sacrifice He made. We do it, knowing that it is the sin we commit that placed Him upon the cross. We want to throw out the unbelieving for the splinter in their eye when we have a log in our own. (Matthew 7:3) I'm not saying that they don't understand that what they do is wrong, or that the punishment for those sins is less than anyone else's. Sin brings death every time.

The kind of person that Paul is talking about in this verse continues in his sin, yet calls himself a believer. He is justified in his own eyes, and considers himself healthy (otherwise he would be open to change and restoration, and would not have to be thrown out). Jesus said that he came not for the healthy, but for the sick. (Mark 2:17) The healthy are so by their own eyes, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." When we accept this, we understand that we are sick, and can then allow Christ to work in their lives. The sick need a doctor. The sick who call themselves healthy need a smack on the head.

Honest humility is the key to Christ's work in our lives.

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 5:5 (NIV)

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:34:15 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

Alright, so I'm pretty sure I talked about the first part of this in an earlier post. The whole 'handed over to Satan' thing is God's way of smacking us in the face, telling us to get our act together. That's the easy part.

I'm pretty sure what I had problem with was the next part: "so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord." What that says to me is that because this guy was steeped in his sin, he was not saved; that the only reason he would be saved is if he no longer sinned.

So I think I'l have to say that I still don't have this one down. :\

Discussion would be AMAZING here. :D

1 Corinthians 5:3 (NIV)

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:48:14 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

It seems like I was misled by the use of 'judgement' here as well. I'm not sure if it's a result of the NIV translation or our society, but judgement seems to have become solely associated with damnation and the lake of fire. Or maybe it's just me. Or maybe it's Maybelline. (Artist and album, anyone?) All I know is that I took what meant 'Paul telling them what's wrong' and skewed it to mean 'Paul is going to decide that you need to burn in hell.'

People, just remember two things: the English language is completely messed up, and God is always right. :D

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 5:2 (NIV)

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:33:20 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

This is one of the major verses that I really had a hard time with. I've been looking and reading through so many different things just on this verse, and eventually straying to other verses similar to it. I couldn't understand why Paul would tell us to end our forgiveness of other men. My thought was always that of Christ. I said to myself, "Every moment of our lives is a chance God has given us to turn to Him. That's a lot of chances! How, then, can we presume to say that forgiveness should end and the perpetrator be thrown out?" The thing is, that's not really what he's saying at all.

The answer is embodied in Galatians 6:1. "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted." (ESV) When we find a brother in sin, he should be confronted. Yet if he doesn't not repent or discontinue in his ways, he is to be thrown out. He has literally become a corruption of the church, and likely tempting others to follow. Another passage that addresses this problem is Matthew 18:15-17. "If a brother sins against you, go out and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. but if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

That may seem a little harsh. Really, it did to me as well. I needed justification for this act. And I found it. Following along with the passage in Matthew, if you think about the chances said person had to repent of his actions, he was really resisting God and his way. He has already been treated gently, sternly, and harshly, but continued in his ways. This guy needed a smack on the head. And this is how the church gave it to him. He was thrown out of the church, unwelcome by any of Christ's followers. And this was in order to get his head back in the game. He wasn't thrown out forever, separated from God's grace. He was thrown out so he would realize his wrongdoing and return to his church to repent. The church WAS acting with grace and forgiveness, rebuking the man in their love.

And God does this as well. I don't remember where, but I read somewhere that God will disconnect from us when we continue in our sins. And He does. I have dealt with it myself. When I was deep into my own ways and would not repent, He let me deal with my sins and be overwhelmed with them. Eventually, I saw my error and was willing to let God back in to work on my heart. I learned quite a bit, just emerging from my own destruction. And those are some of the best times.

I see, also, that I've done this as well. There is at least one time I can remember that I have been the 'iron sharpening iron' I mentioned earlier, and it wasn't pretty. And I had another point, but I lost it. :\

I knew this would be an intense study today.... :)

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 4:21 (NIV)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:17:23 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

So I'm still pretty confused about this. On one hand, I could compare this to the fruits of the Spirit, which includes gentleness. The I would disagree with Paul's coming "with a whip."

On the other hand, I could compare it to the verse in Proverbs (27:17) that says, "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." First of all, I love that verse! Second, if you think about sharpening with iron..., it's not a gentle process. It's ugly and boisterous and grueling work. Not gentle.

Plus, one thing I took away from Summit (I believe it was from Summit) is when John Stonestreet gave his talk on masculinity. He was talking about accountability and he told a story. He was part of an accountability group, and he had been straying from righteousness for a while. When their group met again, one of the older guys basically said, "Hey; get it together or get out. We're serious about what we're doing here, and you had better be on the same page as us." Wow. So... thoughts?

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 4:8-13 (NIV)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:03:38 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible' first!

Once again, I'm really not sure why I noted this one.

This seems to me to be a good depiction of America. We have it so easy. If we tell someone the Word who doesn't want to hear it, oh well. We can go on with life. Believers in China, however, could be turned in to the government and possibly executed. Thank God for your blessings, and take advantage of the great opportunities he has given us!

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 4:2 (NIV)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:56:39 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

I guess I looked at this and said, "If they've been given a trust, haven't they already proven themselves faithful?" Yep. Try to find something I didn't question.

Trust me, it gets worse than this. Sorry if you can't deal with my stupidity, because i'm sure something great will come from these studies. At least I hope.

Not much to discuss, but... discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 4:1 (NIV)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:41:29 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

If it's one thing I've learned from this whole thing, it's that God is God. Omnipotent. Everything. He decides what's good. He does whatever he likes. And if he wants to have his secrets and tell them only to a select few, I have no authority to question Him. (Authority. Root word: author.) He's the author of the universe. He doesn't need my permission for anything. I can't even let him do anything, because I was never keeping, nor will I ever keep him from doing anything, So God... yep. You are God.

Discussion please! :D

1 Corinthians 3:21-22 (NIV)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:32:31 GMT

Read "Bashing the Bible" first!

I'm still unsure about this one. I guess I just don't understand what he means by "all things are yours," and it says that in each of the three versions I'm using (NIV, HCSB, The Message). Let me know your thoughts on this one.

Discussion please! :D