Letter From Christian Guys...

[niceniss]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Had he held firm like Job did, we would probably be having a different kind of conversation.
</div></div>

Why is Job given the opportunity to salvation's test. If Job can do it, so can we all, we don't then need Jesus. </div></div>

One single sentence out of you? I am floored! [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek2.gif[/img]

[niceniss]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Had he held firm like Job did, we would probably be having a different kind of conversation.
</div></div>

Why is Job given the opportunity to salvation's test. If Job can do it, so can we all, we don't then need Jesus. </div></div>

you seem hell-bent(pardon the pun) on opposing christianity. Why is that?

[rudemonk]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

[[monk scoops up Donnika from floor and sets her back on feet]]

i'm not hellbent on opposing christianity at all, I just feel like a lot of irrational and irrelevant layers have been caked over big parts of it- like any mythological system which does not have a powerful dialectic to self criticize. Personally if God is worthy of our worship and love then he should deserve it.

Putting aside the difficulty in reconciling the conception of a all powerful all loving God with something like Rwanda or Nazi Germany or the Khmer regime, people are too inflexible, too static, unwilling to do the difficult dirty work. They've been swallowing a potent cocktail mixed up from a piecemeal book and it's time to enter the year 2008. Some ridiculous porportion of our population believes this universe and world was created in 6 days by a myth that was conceptualized by factually ignorant people thousands of years ago, and it shows.

If hammered down I would say my biggest pet peeve is I wish christians would actually follow the actual teachings, they're so beautiful. Instead they get weighed down by all this gobbledeegook 'save me' stuff, and are given a devil made me do it or fall from grace cop out of an excuse. So when I see something in the mythology that is clearly nonsensical- usually of it's own accord- I don't mind pointing it out.

Like what people wear to Church. If God is God he sees you, lol...picking your nose, drooling when you sleep, going to see a man about a dog, etc. This is how he made you, if he did. You should be able to to go to worship naked, like you were born.

You think Yashua threw a rug over the whores and prostitutes he dined with or didn't attend their dinner parties if they were not up to dress code. Anyone who has time to b!tch out a fellow churchgoer for their dressing habits, I have far better suggestions on which they can spend their zeal, lol...go find an old age home and read some stories to the abandoned people there stacked away ready to die.

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

CEW,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One could say Jesus was the plan "B" for redemptive purposes if/when Adam failed. Unlike Monk, and maybe yourself, I do not believe that the odds were stacked against Adam from the beginning because as mentioned earlier, God, in the person of Jesus Christ, visited mankind as an aw-dawm', void of any divine abilities, and accomplished what Adam, the first aw-dawm', should have accomplished. His message to humanity, IMO, was, among other things: "This is how you experience victory over the evil one." If one were to ask: "Was it fair for God to 'test' Adam?", it raises the follow up question: "Fair by whose standards?" As we saw in the case of Job, God reserves for Himself the right to put His creation in any situation that furthers a divine purpose.</div></div>

<span style="color: #3333FF">1co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man ADAM was made a living soul; the last ADAM was made a quickening spirit.
1co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

1co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

1co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. </span>

<span style="color: #3333FF">1co 15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,</span>

My views differ much from Monk, I don't subscribe to the notion that Adam was set up for failure. I do believe however that what little we can gleam from the story that there were motives that would play out later to show that there was a flaw not in Adam the man but Adam the one flesh.

If we can diverge for one moment to two instances where God deliberately reached out to stop man something is common to both.

<span style="color: #3333FF">Ge 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever </span>

next.

<span style="color: #3333FF">Ge 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. </span>

The flaw I percieve in the Adam's was that the man desire was for the woman, but the woman's desire was for more than the man.

The one flesh was not of one mind but two. The woman had a will of her own that was not in unison with her husband. There was a crack in the one flesh even in EDEN and the woman held power over the man by the nature of his need for her.

Watch carefully what God says to ADAM.

<span style="color: #3333FF">Ge 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;</span>

ADAM's error was to harken unto the voice of his wife.
Now what was wrong with that?
HE placed his wife before GOD.

But God did not curse Adam person he cursed his domain, his curse to the woman was her person, to the serpent his person, to the man his dominion.

I believe the flaw was in the union, two wills did not work as one.

Eve's curse was a subjection of her will to her husband "your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you"

Here I concur with Monk from the beginning we were smitten with our desire for the woman, and she knew it and used it against the man.

[Diplomat]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, contrary to what some think, Christianity, properly understood, doesn't advocate the subjugation of women. We like our ladies dressing classy AND modestly [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] </div></div>so women should be responsible because you men have no self control and behave like animals? </div></div>
How about them just being responsible, period? </div></div>
And what responsibility should men have? Are you saying that women who dress in a way that men find attractive are irresponsible? </div></div>
Like I said in an earlier comment, there is a shared responsibility here. Sisters have a responsibility to the brothers, and vice versa. And yes, if a sister chooses to dress in a manner deemed inappropriate for church, by any collective standard, she is being irresponsible. </div></div>

ah such piety! [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I'll be sorry for any woman who is myopic enough to be with such a repressive character of a man. Thank God you are not a ruler of any country for you would rule in contemptuous tyranny. </div></div>
Perhaps the meaning of "classy and modestly" eludes you?

[Diplomat]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: accepted2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My views differ much from Monk, I don't subscribe to the notion that Adam was set up for failure. I do believe however that what little we can gleam from the story that there were motives that would play out later to show that there was a flaw not in Adam the man but Adam the one flesh.</div></div>
That's an interesting take, but seeing all we're saying is speculative, one could argue whether or not Adam instructed Eve properly in the things God had told him. That she wasn't able to recognize the deception in what Satan represented God as saying is instructive. But there's a bigger issue for me, and that is the notion being proposed that God made "Adam the one flesh" flawed. I do not share this view because it plays right into the thinking that the odds were stacked against them from the very beginning. People who say God is sadistic tend to take that position. I believe He made them with free-will, and despite being aware of at least one consequence, they exercised it.

Interestingly, rabbinical writings suggest that Eve's mistake was when she said of the forbidden tree, "God hath said,Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die" (Genesis 3:3). The Serpent then said "Ye shall not surely die", and according to the Rabbis, at this point he held on to the tree to demonstrate his point, and once she saw this, he had her hooked. No longer worried about death, she gave in to now awakened desire to "be as gods, knowing good and evil."


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ADAM's error was to harken unto the voice of his wife.
Now what was wrong with that?
HE placed his wife before GOD.</div></div>
Agreed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But God did not curse Adam person he cursed his domain, his curse to the woman was her person, to the serpent his person, to the man his dominion.

I believe the flaw was in the union, two wills did not work as one.

Eve's curse was a subjection of her will to her husband "your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you"</div></div>
So if I'm understanding you clearly, we have evidence of two individuals with independent wills, the same as it is today with a couple. Yet we also recognize their will were not on the "same page" when it came to the things of God, which if we digress for a moment, is what Joshua purposed to do with his household when he said, "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (24:15).

It stands to reason that God would curse Adam's domain as that was the sphere he was given control over. Eve, his helper, was 'cursed' in her sphere (child bearing and partnership) as well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here I concur with Monk from the beginning we were smitten with our desire for the woman, and she knew it and used it against the man.</div></div>
You're making Eve out to be a Jezebel [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img] While I respect that point of view (and who is to say it is right/wrong?), I take the view that Adam was smitten with Eve for all the right reasons, but I don't think Eve used that against him. If anything what we see is his desire to please his wife, and as you noted earlier, in that moment place her above what God had said. Eve thought she was getting a deal from the serpent, and she figured if it was good enough for her, for sure Adam shouldn't be left out. Of course this is no different than what some couples experience today.

ETA: If we apply this to the initial post, then I think that when a wife or significant other, for whatever reasons, choose to dress provocatively for church, her partner cannot simply give in to the sensual feelings her dressing may provoke in him. To do so is to make the same mistake that Adam made in not recognizing a responsibility to a higher purpose. A woman's body, even when modestly attired, is a very powerful symbol. That might explain why in some cultures, though definitely extreme by Western standards, that body is always covered to prevent temptation. The Christian church should be about balance, and I don't think that is a difficult thing to aspire towards.

[rudemonk]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I believe He made them with free-will, and despite being aware of at least one consequence, they exercised it.

</div></div>

What consequence was she aware of. Was there death in the garden before the fall?

Was she warned about the serpent?

Why conduct a test for which you know the outcome. There is no chance in omniscience.

[quote That might explain why in some cultures, though definitely extreme by Western standards, that body is always covered to prevent temptation. The Christian church should be about balance, and I don't think that is a difficult thing to aspire towards. [/quote]

just to play devil's advocate, what about those cultures in which the norm is to go about your day naked as the day you were born. Did God somehow forget to upload the desire program.

[niceniss]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[[monk scoops up Donnika from floor and sets her back on feet]]

i'm not hellbent on opposing christianity at all, I just feel like a lot of irrational and irrelevant layers have been caked over big parts of it- like any mythological system which does not have a powerful dialectic to self criticize. Personally if God is worthy of our worship and love then he should deserve it. <span style="color: #000099"> are you suggesting he doesn't?</span>

Putting aside the difficulty in reconciling the conception of a all powerful all loving God with something like Rwanda or Nazi Germany or the Khmer regime, <span style="color: #3333FF">Surely you don't blame God for man's racism, war and terror, do you? </span> people are too inflexible, too static, unwilling to do the difficult dirty work. They've been swallowing a potent cocktail mixed up from a piecemeal book and it's time to enter the year 2008. Some ridiculous porportion of our population believes this universe and world was created in 6 days by a myth that was conceptualized by factually ignorant people thousands of years ago, and it shows.

If hammered down I would say my biggest pet peeve is I wish christians would actually follow the actual teachings, they're so beautiful. Instead they get weighed down by all this gobbledeegook 'save me' stuff, and are given a devil made me do it or fall from grace cop out of an excuse. So when I see something in the mythology that is clearly nonsensical- usually of it's own accord- I don't mind pointing it out.

Like what people wear to Church. If God is God he sees you, lol...picking your nose, drooling when you sleep, going to see a man about a dog, etc. This is how he made you, if he did. You should be able to to go to worship naked, like you were born.

You think Yashua threw a rug over the whores and prostitutes he dined with or didn't attend their dinner parties if they were not up to dress code. Anyone who has time to b!tch out a fellow churchgoer for their dressing habits, I have far better suggestions on which they can spend their zeal, lol...go find an old age home and read some stories to the abandoned people there stacked away ready to die. </div></div>

I quite agree that such trivialities of how people dress is not God's rule but man's need to dictate his version of "modesty" and "class" to others.

[niceniss]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, contrary to what some think, Christianity, properly understood, doesn't advocate the subjugation of women. We like our ladies dressing classy AND modestly [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] </div></div>so women should be responsible because you men have no self control and behave like animals? </div></div>
How about them just being responsible, period? </div></div>
And what responsibility should men have? Are you saying that women who dress in a way that men find attractive are irresponsible? </div></div>
Like I said in an earlier comment, there is a shared responsibility here. Sisters have a responsibility to the brothers, and vice versa. And yes, if a sister chooses to dress in a manner deemed inappropriate for church, by any collective standard, she is being irresponsible. </div></div>

ah such piety! [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I'll be sorry for any woman who is myopic enough to be with such a repressive character of a man. Thank God you are not a ruler of any country for you would rule in contemptuous tyranny. </div></div>
Perhaps the meaning of "classy and modestly" eludes you? </div></div>

perhaps you should fixate your mind on your own behaviours and dress styles instead of trying to dictate what other free-willed people do.

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're making Eve out to be a Jezebel While I respect that point of view (and who is to say it is right/wrong?), I take the view that Adam was smitten with Eve for all the right reasons, but I don't think Eve used that against him. If anything what we see is his desire to please his wife, and as you noted earlier, in that moment place her above what God had said. Eve thought she was getting a deal from the serpent, and she figured if it was good enough for her, for sure Adam shouldn't be left out. Of course this is no different than what some couples experience today.</div></div>

No CEW,

I make no such comparison. On the contrary, I don't ascribe fault to the woman. I simply maintain what Jesus would later say.

<span style="color: #3333FF">1co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.</span>

and Paul would also add

<span style="color: #3333FF">1co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as
1co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn </span>

and further


<span style="color: #3333FF">1co 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
1co 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his WIFE.
</span>

You also alluded to Rabbinic thought on Genesis. The Talmud also ascribe to God progressive upgrades in his creation.

So man was made for a while lower than the angels, but Jesus as the firstborn of creation would make man Joint heirs with him in Heaven being the Second Adam and the first of the resurection.

The man then would be an upgrade of the angels, the woman the upgrade of the man, and Jesus the expressed image of the father being the last of Adam's line and the first of the new Birth the ultimate upgrade first and last by exposition.

So the woman knew she was created better than the man, looked higher than the man, that quip about woman being attracted to the source of Power even played out in Eden.
But this is all specculation.

As I quoted earlier, Jesus expressedly gave preference to being an eunuch for God.
Paul supported the same premise as the wiser choice.

Again.
There were two wills involved in the original ADAM. The woman will (desire) was not in unison with the Man's.

God did not make her to will towards desire of the forbidden.
She created this will in herself.
God have constrained himslf not to force us to his will. We must freely submit to him.

IMO, Adam was caught between two forces, the will of his wife to disobey and try the forbidden and his own will which up until then he had subjected to GOD.

Adam choose to keep the one flesh even in disobedience to God with his wife.

His wife had already decided against the one flesh she went it alone and knowingly encouraged him to disobey.

Which he did, looking out for his wife.
She looked out for the ME.

[Diplomat]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: accepted2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, Adam was caught between two forces, the will of his wife to disobey and try the forbidden and his own will which up until then he had subjected to GOD.

Adam choose to keep the one flesh even in disobedience to God with his wife.

His wife had already decided against the one flesh she went it alone and knowingly encouraged him to disobey.

Which he did, looking out for his wife.
She looked out for the ME. </div></div>
But for the thought of Adam wanting to keep the "one flesh" together, I agree with the above.

Your reference to Paul in your comments is an interesting one, considering scholars are of the view that he was previously married (being a ranking political figure of the day), maybe widowed, and having given himself over to full-time missionary work, realized he could devote more time to it than if he were still married. Those verses have also been used by those who adopt the view that he was anti-women.

Incidentally, I don't recall reading anything in rabbinical literature that speaks of progressive upgrades to creation. If you can post anything related to that, I'd appreciate it.

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

http://www.colorq.org/bible/default.aspx?d=Tanakh&x=women

<span style="color: #3333FF">Interesting read.

http://www.aish.com/torahportion/mayanot/Her_Ways_Considered.asp

similarly.

P.S
Paul was not antiwoman. Maybe anti Rabbinical thought but he got his authority from Jesus.

Mt 19:10 His disciples say unto him, <span style="color: #CC0000">If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. </span>
Mt 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Mt 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. </span>

[rudemonk]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If anything what we see is his desire to please his wife, and as you noted earlier, in that moment place her above what God had said. Eve thought she was getting a deal from the serpent, and she figured if it was good enough for her, for sure Adam shouldn't be left out. Of course this is no different than what some couples experience today.

</div></div>

For all intensive purposes, Eve proved God wrong. After the serpent's urging, she ate the fruit and saw God lied. Why shouldn't that be enough for Adam. Why does he need to take God at his word.

Would someone please explain to me why God curses the poor serpent.

I'd also like to point out that predicating the premise of free will, also admits that there is the inherent potential to make a mistake and make a wrong choice. If they were made with free will, and are known to be able to make mistakes, why the drastic punishments when you set the whole thing up in the first place. GOD was the one who put the trees there, GOD was the one who let the serpent work his wiles on Eve, God NEVER warned Eve to watch out for the serpent he just gave her a command without real explanation or true understanding of the consequence. Again, there was no death in the Garden until the Fall, so how could she know what God meant.

Another question I would like to ask you both is this: does it strike you as odd that if you had been born in India to Hindu parents you would probably be having discussions about Shiva and Vishnu? Or if you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would both be discussing the Quran with equal zeal and have invested in those holy works with equal alacrity.

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another question I would like to ask you both is this: does it strike you as odd that if you had been born in India to Hindu parents you would probably be having discussions about Shiva and Vishnu? Or if you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would both be discussing the Quran with equal zeal and have invested in those holy works with equal alacrity.</div></div>

Wrong

If we accept him here we would also accept him there or where ever. Abram was in Ur when he accepted the call the call went out to all men in the pit of idolotary Abram recognised the call of God through faith, and was justified for his faith and called the father of the faithful.
Its not by lineage its by faith that God selects his people. He looks for us and through faith we heed and obey and this have no geographical limits, his call goes out to all men.

<span style="color: #3333FF">The just shall live by faith.

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Ro 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Ro 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. </span>

[rudemonk]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

I'm not sure how you can say that, Accepted. After all, the world is full of people of many different faiths already. So that right there tells me that quite a few people do not accept.

plus, to accept him, you have to hear about him, and then agree with what you are being told.

you have to be convinced. if you are already invested in a faith, such as if you were born to muslim parents, you would be- chances are- an apologist for Islam...

in some parts of the world, there is no christianity.

kind of strange to think of it that way. that is quite immoral, for God to condemn people who do not accept Jesus who don't even know about him.