Christianity Archives - Page 8 of 38

Desire – Lust: Are Desires Wrong?

Lust is a desire that is dwelt on. It goes beyond normal thinking, and beyond normal desires. Because we dwell on it, it grows exponentially more powerful until it overpowers us. That is the very nature of lustful thinking.

Desire itself is okay – but roots of desire that lead to evil are to be stamped out with ferocity. That’s one of the lessons we learn in James Chapter 1. Sin is a result of a desire that has been resting in the mind for so long that it’s taken root and grown. It is literally conceived like a child, and it’s growing into sin. And that sin, in the end, brings about death of a spiritual nature.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Matt 5:27-30

We have physical desires for a reason.

They push us to take action. The problem, however, comes when we spend too much time desiring something that is outside of God’s moral law. As much as men in the religious world tried to deny it, God has a set of regulations for behavior for his people. One of these is about avoiding adultery and lustful thinking.

Lust is adultery lacking only in opportunity, as Matthew Henry would say in his commentary. This is where most men live – no opportunity, but also no control over their own minds. Many men think that they are faithful to their wives, that they are loyal, but they are not. They simply have no choice but to be faithful and loyal because they have no opportunity or options to be unfaithful. I recently heard it said this way in a short video clip online, “drop your man outside the Playboy mansion and see how loyal he is then”. [Of course, you have to add that these women would somehow magically be attracted to the average churchgoer male, who is in most cases, unarousing by default – but that is beside the point. ]

Because for most Christian men, it’s not about loyalty, it’s about opportunity. And most men simply aren’t attractive enough to give themselves sexual access to options that they then have to resist. Meaning, there are no women who want to have sex with him. So they are not faithful, they are involuntarily loyal. They are “incels” but in married form.

Going back to lust – Lust is a desire that is dwelt on and approved by the mind, or at the least not resisted. This is different from having a desire and warring against it.

Christians live a life of self-denial. This means there must be some desire to deny, implying there is desire. Desire itself is never the problem. It is what we do with the desire that is the problem. Or if we feed the desire until it is a raging inferno, that is also a net negative. Even if you can make the argument and rationalization in your own mind that a raging desire is not a sin, you can at least see how it would be a disadvantage to have to war against that kind of desire. So your goal should be to avoid building it up to that level in the first place. And you do that by directing your thoughts toward other matters.

When it comes to the biblical model, we have one morally approved source of sexual access if we are married [which itself is an incredible sacrifice]. If we are unmarried we have no source of approved sexual access. That makes early unmarried life very difficult for men. Because most men have a massive amount of sexual energy that they then have to do something with. And I’ll tell you right now, you need to reorient that energy somewhere else. If you simply try to repress it, it will force an outlet. And with upwards of 70% of Christian men admitting to viewing pornography, I would say it’s forcing an outlet.

This war of sexual discipline requires us to plan strategically in advance. You are going to have a desire for other women who are not your wife, whether you are married or not – it’s all about what you do with it.

And I suggest you take that energy somewhere else. Literally, get up and go somewhere else when you start generating that powerful sexual energy. You do not want to be spending excessive time, or anytime at all, around women you find sexually attractive. That puts you in a losing position at all times.

Most men understand this logically. Even some high-level executives or men of success will talk about their principle of not having a meal, or being alone with any woman who’s not their wife. They usually take a lot of heat for this and get made fun of, but these men understand the male sexual nature. They understand that the sexual nature is a war with the rational mind. And that one should never voluntarily place himself in a position where he’s going to have to engage in that war because it’s difficult, and Sexual Energy can very easily overpower the rational mind if it is stirred to an excessive degree.

Remember, Desire itself is not a sin. If it is, what then is temptation? Isn’t Temptation just a form of desire? Of being pulled towards something that God has placed the divine stamp of disapproval on? Temptation cannot be sin because then Christ would have committed sin since he himself was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin [Heb 4:15].

The biblical distinction is very clear, Temptation and sin are separate. Temptation is the thing we war against. And we have temptations because we have desires, and there’s no getting around this. It’s just a question of what we do with the desire, and how we tamp it down.

We can be tempted and pulled by desire, but we must avoid letting it marinate in our minds. What sits in the mind inevitably expresses itself in action. If you are constantly meditating and focusing your mind on having sex with other women, you will be in a position of weakness. You will have programmed your mind through hours upon hours of visualization to believe that sexual activity with a multiplicity of women you are not married to is morally okay.

I am certainly not going to try to tell you not to have sexual energy, or not have sexual thoughts. I’m telling you to reorient those thoughts and direct them somewhere else. While you’re unmarried, and even while you’re married, You should find an outlet for those sexual energies. That is your masculine Divine energy, do not waste it on women or in fantasy. Because you can use that energy to make yourself a success in the physical world.

And of course, I argue that you should first do this for yourself, making yourself your own mental point of origin, because when you improve yourself everyone around you benefits. When you focus on yourself, and make yourself better, and make decisions that would be for the betterment of you, it’s not selfish unless it damages those around you. In fact, it’s the opposite of selfishness because it improves the lot of all those around you. The best thing you can do for those around you is to make yourself your mental point of origin and focus on yourself.

Again, this only becomes selfish if it damages those around you.

But you have to understand that this almost always improves the situation of those around you far more than you would ever be able to improve their situation by concentrating directly on trying to improve their situation.

The biblical model for handling lust is very severe. Christ moves from teaching on lust to teaching about hell. Why? Because Lust is one of the sins and desires that requires a reminder of severe punishment. We cannot always motivate ourselves with happy fluff. We will not motivate ourselves to do well with exclusively positive fuel. In fact, we need some fear and anger.

Christ does not teach “great is the reward for those with a pure mind” or “heaven will be more fulfilling than these desire of the flesh could ever provide”. He avoids this because it wouldn’t be enough to compete with the lust of the flesh. Heaven in fifty years or sex right now? Sexual energy and the urge of the moment are likely to win.

The complete counsel of God demands teaching on Hell.

It is motivating. We need to appreciate the fact that it is highly motivating and use it. When your rational mind is unable to overpower your sexual nature when you are tempted by sexual sin, you must conjure up the fear of Hell and the hatred of sin. These are some of the Practical tools for overcoming lust.

Become angry at your sin. Develop a hatred. Pray to the God of War[ Ex15:3] for strength and hatred.
Never be alone with a woman who’s not your wife. Your Sexual Energy will be at war with your rational mind. And that’s not a battle you want to engage in. The enemy is very strong, avoiding whenever you can.
Motivate yourself with reminders of punishment. When you’re being sexually tempted, the idea of Heaven’s not going to motivate you. Because the immediate pleasure of today is infinitely more tempting than the potential of unknown pleasure tomorrow.
Get clear in your mind about the practical consequences of adultery. You are risking your wealth, family, and future to have sex with a woman you are not married to. If you are unmarried, the risks are lower, but they are still present in the form of disease and pregnancy. But besides those two things, [which are the primary motivators most fear-mongering Christians use to talk about abstinence], you must be more concerned with the consequences from God.

Dietary Restrictions in The Old Testament

Throughout the Old Testament, there are a number of dietary restrictions that were placed on the ancient Israelites. These restrictions were given to the Israelites through Moses in the book of Leviticus, and were intended to keep the Israelites safe from harmful diseases and illnesses.

Many of the animals that were forbidden for consumption by the Israelites were actually animals that were known to be carriers of diseases.

For example, pigs were forbidden for consumption because they were known by God to carry trichinosis, a disease that can be fatal if left untreated. Other animals that were forbidden included shellfish, which were known to carry toxins, and birds of prey, which were known to carry disease.

Some might argue that these dietary restrictions were unnecessary, or that they were simply arbitrary rules meant to control the behavior of the Israelites.

However, it’s important to remember that these rules were given to the Israelites by God Himself, and that they were intended to protect his people from harm. In fact, we know now with modern science that the dietary restrictions protected the Israelites from the health consequences they would have otherwise sustained had they eaten these animals.

These dietary restrictions are a reminder that God does not make stupid rules.

Even when some of his commandments seem like mere restrictions or limitations, they are ultimately for the betterment of his people. That is something we can still learn from today. Whatever rules we read about in the New Testament are there for our benefit. They are there to protect us from the consequences of our own choices.

Left to our own devices, we engage in behaviors that damage us personally and societally. They damage our personal health and life fulfillment. And they damage the fabric of society.

Look around at the groups of people with no morals and no guiding Christian principles. They live lives of difficulty and confusion.

The Bible is a practical book of knowledge, not just a book of rules of ancient stories.

As Christians, we can learn an important lesson from these dietary restrictions. Just as God gave these rules to the Israelites for their own protection, he also gives us commandments and guidelines that are meant to protect us and help us grow spiritually.

Sometimes, these rules might seem restrictive or difficult to follow. For example, Christians are called to avoid sexual immorality, to speak the truth, and to love their neighbors as themselves. These commandments might seem like mere restrictions that limit our freedom.

However, just like the dietary restrictions in the Old Testament, these commandments are ultimately for our own good. When we follow God’s commandments, we grow in our faith and become more like Christ.

In our culture and within our own personalities, there is often a tendency to view rules and restrictions as weaknesses, and to see breaking the rules as a sign of strength and independence. I know this is my dominating thought, as a person who despises any impingement on my ability to choose.

However, as Christians, we should recognize that following God’s commandments is a sign of moral strength and masculinity. It takes courage and conviction to resist temptation, to speak the truth in a world that values lies, and to love others even when it’s difficult.

The dietary restrictions in the Old Testament are a reminder that God does not make stupid rules. Even when his commandments seem restrictive, they are ultimately for our own good. As Christians, we should embrace God’s commandments as a means of growing in our faith and becoming more like Christ. This applies to issues of masculinity as well, as following God’s commandments requires true strength and courage.

Does God Condone Slavery?

Does God Condone Slavery

One of the more popular attacks made on Christianity and the Bible is this idea.

“The Bible endorses slavery”.

The short response is this: there is a huge difference between endorsing slavery and providing regulations for the institution of slavery that has been consistently practiced across time and culture.

Additionally, we must define terms when we talk about slavery. Slavery in America is a far cry from slavery across time and history. Each iteration of slavery in history is different across time, therefore blanket statements cannot be made about slavery.

I – What was slavery in history?

Human beings have always held slaves. Just because this is what human beings do does not mean that God condones it. There are many behaviors that people engage in that God does not condone – but He allows it to happen so we can use our free moral agency. God also does not condone sex outside of marriage or between people of the same gender, so He placed regulations on marriage.

The institution of slavery has changed significantly throughout history, encompassing a wide range of practices with differing levels of treatment of enslaved individuals. To fully understand the complexities of slavery, it is crucial to examine the cultural context of different eras and regions.

1 – Slavery in Ancient Egypt: The Plight of the Israelites

In ancient Egypt, the Israelites endured a period of brutal slavery. As depicted in the biblical narrative of Exodus, they faced harsh labor, dehumanization, and oppressive conditions. This would continue for about 400 years. The Israelites were subjected to forced labor, building monumental structures such as the pyramids under the command of their Egyptian masters. Their treatment exemplified the extreme end of the spectrum regarding the abuse and mistreatment of enslaved individuals.

Why is it then, when people criticize slavery, that no one points fingers at the Egyptians for their treatment of slaves across centuries? No, but we will take a vacation to go photograph the Spinx, pyramids, and other great structures so we can post them on social media. We call the result of slave labor in Egypt one of the great wonders of the world but tear down historic plantations in America.

This is one of the many examples of a double standard with regard to passing judgment on civilizations that have owned slaves. Much of it is rooted in simple hatred of America. Racist individuals blame America for slavery but turn a blind eye to all other civilizations that have engaged in the same.

2 – Slavery in Ancient Greece and Rome: A Shift in Dynamics

Ancient Greece

In ancient Greece, slavery played a significant role in the socioeconomic system. Slaves were acquired through various means, including capture in wars, debt bondage, and birth into slavery. While the treatment of slaves varied, they generally experienced a lack of personal freedom and were subject to their owners’ authority. However, some slaves in Greece enjoyed relatively better treatment, particularly those who worked as household servants or tutors.

Roman Empire

Slavery in the Roman Empire demonstrated notable shifts in treatment compared to earlier civilizations. The Romans acquired slaves through conquest, trade, and birth. While some slaves endured harsh conditions, such as those engaged in manual labor or as gladiators, others held more privileged positions. Slaves were employed as tutors, doctors, accountants, and administrators, and their skills were valued. Roman society recognized that treating slaves with fairness and respect could help with productivity and loyalty. Some slaves were even able to earn their freedom through work or valor in gladiatorial tournaments.

3 – Cultural Context: Understanding the Variations in Slavery

It is crucial to acknowledge that not all forms of slavery are equal, and the treatment of slaves varied significantly depending on the cultural context. And nearly every nation across history can point to a time when they likely employed some version of slavery. And some even suggest today that a modern form of slavery exists called “wage slavery”, which is not a completely misguided notion.

Slavery in ancient Egypt was characterized by its cruelty and dehumanization, while in ancient Rome, slaves could experience a wide range of treatment, from harsh conditions to relative fairness and respect.

The cultural, social, and economic factors of each society influenced the treatment of slaves. In Rome, for instance, the concept of “paterfamilias” granted masters immense power over their slaves. However, philosophical ideas and shifting moral standards also played a role in shaping attitudes toward slavery. Stoic philosophy, prevalent in ancient Rome, emphasized the moral duty of masters to treat slaves justly and humanely.

Here’s a note from Apologetics Press on Slavery in America:

“Hitting closer to home, the pages of history dealing with the formative years of the United States are despoiled with gruesome stories of ships carrying slaves sold to the Americas by their fellow Africans (and others, e.g., Arabians). These slaves frequently were packed so densely in lower ship decks that many of them died of disease or malnutrition. Those who lived to see the States soon learned that their fate hinged upon those who purchased them. Some slaves were ushered into homes with kind masters, decent living facilities, good food, and freedom to worship. Other slaves were purchased by cruel, greedy people who overworked them, abused them, underfed them, and allowed them no freedom”

II – What was slavery in the Bible?

Slavery means different things in different places.

The Israelites were slaves to Egyptians in the classic sense of slavery. this is what we might traditionally think of when we picture slavery.

There are references to slaves in the new testament, especially the Epistles which advocate for fair and equal treatment of slaves, who were likely closer to employees than actual slaves in some instances. But this is not what we might think of when we picture slaves.

Modern people often picture slavery in America when they are asked to think about what slavery means. Many times, American slavery was closer to voluntary work [if there is such a thing] than what the Israelites were experiencing. In fact, it may be closer to what we classically call “jobs”. And in fact, later in the Biblical text, Christians will be told to “become slaves of righteousness” [Rom 6:18]. And the etymology of the word teaches us that a slave is someone who sets aside the personal desire for the desire of the master [a lesson in itself].

III – Human nature.

Human beings have engaged in various immoral practices throughout history, including slavery. However, it is essential to understand that just because people engage in certain behaviors does not mean that God endorses or condones those actions. God allows humans to exercise their free moral agency, which includes making choices that are contrary to His will.

Slavery is an unfortunate consequence of human free will, not a divine endorsement.

The Bible often portrays God using the behavior of His people to bring about His ultimate purposes. This does not mean that God approves of every action taken by individuals, including slavery. Instead, God may work within the existing societal framework to gradually shape human understanding and guide people toward justice and righteousness.

Throughout history, we have witnessed gradual transformations in societal norms, including the abolition of slavery [thanks to America, the supposed boogeyman of slavery], driven by a growing understanding of human rights and dignity.

When examining the New Testament’s references to slavery, it is key to recognize that the institution described differs significantly from the brutal, dehumanizing slavery that we often associate with historical accounts.

In the context of the New Testament, the term “slavery” referred to a broader range of relationships that encompassed general work and employment arrangements. Slavery in the ancient Roman world involved various degrees of servitude, ranging from indentured laborers to those employed as household servants.

It is important to note that the New Testament teachings emphasized fair treatment and respect for slaves, urging masters to treat their servants justly and kindly. The Bible advocates for human-like work conditions.

IV – Slavery is a Cultural Phenomenon

The Bible is a collection of texts written over a long period of time, reflecting the ethical development and understanding of human societies at various times. God’s attitude and thoughts towards slavery never change because God Himself does not change [Malachi 3:6]. The Bible contains passages that reflect the cultural norms of their time, including slavery, but they should not be seen as definitive statements on God’s stance regarding slavery.

Slavery existed across cultures and across time. God did not approve of it, He simply communicated to His people the manner in which slaves were to be treated which included fairness, decency, and respect that is deserved by all people.

V – America receives the most criticism about slavery even though it was a county that Abolished it.

Very few people sit around criticizing China for the fact that they have slaves even now, in this very day. If you own a smartphone, chances are it was produced as a result of modern slave labor.

But many modern people are too steeped in the irrational hatred of America, which is generally their own country, to have time to pay attention to Chinese slave labor. And even if they knew, most of them likely would not care. After all, “Chinese slavery is something happening “over there”, it does not affect me, so why should I care?”

While slavery has been a dark chapter in human history across various regions, it is important to address the selective criticism leveled at certain countries, particularly America. Despite being a country that abolished slavery, America often receives the majority of the blame and scrutiny regarding its historical involvement in the institution. This focus on America, while important for acknowledging past wrongs, overshadows the ongoing instances of slavery in other parts of the world.

China continues to face accusations of forced labor and human rights abuses.

In recent years, reports have highlighted the existence of modern-day slavery within manufacturing and agriculture in China. However, these instances receive considerably less attention and criticism compared to America’s historical past.

The discrepancies in criticizing different countries suggest that the issue of slavery is often influenced by political, social, and historical factors. While it is essential to confront and acknowledge historical wrongs, it is equally important to shed light on present-day instances of slave owning, irrespective of the country involved.

Matt 19:3-10 outlines the key authority for the fact that there were some things permitted in the Old Testament that did not reflect God’s will.

Because of the hardness of Israel’s heart, God allowed certain things, including divorce and slave owning even though these did not reflect His will.

The OT clearly teaches people to love their neighbors (Lev 19:18). But just because something is a command in scripture does not mean that men will be obedient to it or live out the complete ideal.

Even today, when the complete pattern for the church is laid out in the New Testament, how many denominations and religions try to invent their own path to God? The ideal exists in the NT, but men still fail to live up to it.

Slavery often existed as a form of debtors’ prison or a way to do something with prisoners of war. And as such, humane regulations for the institution were required.

Certain types of slavery are not morally wrong.

When someone is sentenced to prison, he is a slave of the state for a period of years, sometimes even his whole life. And during this time he is forced by the state to do things he would rather not do. His choices cost him his freedom. This is a morally acceptable revocation of freedoms which could accurately be described as slavery.

The Israelites were forced to deal with the nations that they encountered by destroying them completely, but when they were unable to do this, they had to do something with the survivors. Usually, they put them in Servitude or under tribute. They were allowed to live but under slave conditions.

What is better: complete eradication from the face of the earth or a life of servitude?

God does not condone slavery. He simply regulated it in scripture to allow for the humane treatment of people who would otherwise have been left to suffer under the discretion of man.

“Don’t Sound a Trumpet” – Lesson Response

The following are a few notes and comments I made from a sermon that is available to you online on the topic of “Put down your trumpet”. It includes some interesting points that I believe are worth noting. I hope you find it interesting.

42:45 – 43:16 – Does it matter why we do something? The speaker suggests yes because it “causes problems later”. Here is the Transcript from this timestamp:

“Does it matter why we do what we do or does it just matter that we do the right thing? Well I guess you could ask this in a number of different settings couldn’t you?

If you asked within a marriage to a husband or a wife does it matter what you do in a marriage or does it matter why you do it?

I think every husband and every wife would say of course it matters why my husband or why my wife is doing something. I don’t just want them to do the right thing I want them to do it for the right reason”.

“I think” – Note that this is not a fact. This is what the speaker thinks. Based not on reason but emotion. He begins to make a point about what a wife or husband would want. I suppose this is an attempt to translate it into something God would want. For example, “If a wife or husband acts this way then God would act this way too”. This is not a position supported by scripture [Is. 55:8].

“Right Reason” – The speaker refuses to define what the right reason is. Who has the boldness to define such a thing? What is the reason? We seldom take time to define the “right reason” because it would require some combination of biblical evidence and rationality – something we try to avoid in religion if we can. A biblical bit of evidence for this entire cited section is lacking. Not that the evidence is not there, but this is something to note.

What about some comments on rules and motivation?

43:21-43:53 – In a family does it matter why a mother and a father give rules? Does it matter why they discipline? Does it matter why they give their children structure? It certainly does. Because the wrong motivation can lead to to some wrong things occurring in that family. Within that same family, does it matter why children obey or does it just matter that they do what they’re told? Well, it certainly matters why – because if they’re not obeying for the right reasons then that obedience is certainly not what God’s looking for”.

Let’s analyze a few of the statements made here.

“The wrong motivation can lead to some wrong things occurring in that family”. I always enjoy when a speaker takes the following stance “Well if you don’t do it my way, then bad things will happen later. I won’t specify them, but they are things, and they are very, very bad”. It is very common for a speaker to take this stance when discussing sexual discipline. “Don’t have sex before marriage or baaad, very bad things will happen“. This may be true, but the fact that the “problems” are not specified and then the cause of those problems is not identified nor the progression from faulty motivation to negative outcome analyzed, this statement is relegated to opinion.

“That obedience is certainly not what God is looking for”. Well, then what type of obedience is God looking for? Again, what are the so-called “right reasons”? If these are not specified, the entire speech runs into problems because underlying motivation is a core tenant of the speech. But we cannot make assumptions about that topic. But because the speaker does not address the topic, we can only assume.

I also enjoy when people speak for God without BCV [book chapter verse]. If you are going to say God is or is not looking at something, you better immediately back it up with scripture or you are speaking in the place of God without authorization.

Again, this is a doctrinal matter when we start to talk about acceptable and unacceptable forms of obedience – and it demands a “God Said”.

Jeremiah 23:16 – “Thus says the Lord of hosts:

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you.
They make you worthless;
They speak a vision of their own heart,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.”

When it comes to our actions, it is possible to do:

Good things for the bad/wrong reasons.
Good things for good/right reasons.
Bad things for the good/right reasons.
Bad things for bad/wrong reasons.

These are the 4 possible permutations of this viewpoint. Perhaps there can also be combinations of motivations, which is an intellectually rigorous topic that will not be discussed here.

To analyze the motivations/intents etc. behind actions is of secondary importance as opposed to looking at the outcomes or actions themselves. This is not binary thinking – I am not suggesting that motivations do not matter at all. What I am suggesting is a hierarchy, where the actions themselves are primary and the intentions/motivations are secondary.

I understand that there is a delineation between the old and new laws of the Bible. While the old law focused primarily on the action of the individual, the new law focuses on a person’s attitude and inner person, their thinking center, in conjunction with their actions [because a person’s action will show his heart – Matt 15].

I’m not suggesting an OT style of what might be labeled legalism by the uninformed. At the risk of seeming to be a reductionist, I am suggesting that when a person’s intentions, motivations, attitude, or heart may seem to be opposing what he wants to do, as in temptation, it is his actions that are most important.

Does it matter if your intentions were good if you fail to resist temptation?

Does it matter what you were motivated by or the reason behind why you did something if you failed in the end? No, because at the end of the day you failed, you sinned.

On the other hand: what if I do what’s right despite my intention and motivations?

What if I hold on to righteousness by the skin of my teeth through vicious spiritual warfare [Eph 6]?

What if I’m very motivated to do what’s wrong yet I do what’s right anyways out of love for God?

Or what if I’m very tempted and have a strong desire to sin, but even though I’m not feeling the so-called “loving” emotion at the time, out of an obedient, action-based love for God I keep his commandments [John 14:15, 21]?

As you can see there are times when intentions or motivations are opposed to the righteousness of God and to the lives He requires us to live.

Nevertheless, it is primarily our actions that determine rightness. Actions again are primary while intentions are merely “a shadow of the thing, but not the very image of the thing”.

It perturbs Me when speakers come to moral conclusions without biblical evidence or logical sequencing of events. If someone dares to place a moral requirement on members of the church, he better do so with the explicit authorization of God as evidenced by scripture – the BCV.

It is critical to understand this point about the Bible, and about placing religious requirements on individuals, that each of those requirements has the authorization of the word of God.

Doctrinal matters demand a “God said”. Without “God Said” in conjunction with a logical argument, the religious requirements placed on individuals are relegated to the category of “Opinion”. Worse yet, they should be relegated to the category “doctrines of men”, which by biblical definition constitute vain worship [Matt 15:9]

48:50 – 49:04: “Beware of practicing your righteousness [that’s an entire category of good works that you and I might do publicly or maybe even privately]. Beware of practicing your righteousness – this is not the righteousness that that the Holy Spirit helps us develop in our lives that’s kind of inward righteousness, or the righteousness that God attributes to us when we obey the gospel.”

The speaker also makes a comment about inward righteousness that one develops inwardly with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Unless the speaker means that the Holy Spirit assists the individual through the word of God, then He has no evidence for his statement. Because the only way the Spirit works today is through the word of God. That is the only way the Spirit works that we have biblical evidence for [Heb 4:12, Eph 6:17] which means that all other alleged ways He is claimed to be operating are relegated again to the category of opinion.

If I do not have a book chapter and verse for what I believe, it is an opinion.

While there is nothing wrong with opinions, and we have to use discretion and logic regarding non-black-and-white issues in the scripture, we still have to be careful to not pass off our opinions as biblical facts.

50:14 – 52:25 – “When you give to the needy – did you see that? When you give to the needy. Not if. There’s an assumption being made here by Jesus. The idea of being generous to the poor and the needy, especially among God’s Own people is something that is all through scripture from beginning to end. You certainly find it commanded in the law of Moses and we don’t have time to list all of those passages, but Exodus chapter 23:10-11; Leviticus chapter 10:10; Deuteronomy 15:7-11; etc etc. The law commands generosity to the poor and needy in a variety of ways. The prophets reminded God’s people about the necessity of this in places like Amos chapter 2:6-7; Isaiah 3:14-15; Ezekiel chapter 16:49. We’re reminded of it in Proverbs in the wisdom literature Proverbs 14:31; Proverbs 21;13.

Jesus taught about it His teaching about it. Here he teaches about it in Luke chapter 6:37-38; Matthew 19:21; Mark 14:7. And you certainly see it in the life of the first-century Christian in the first-century Church, don’t you? We see it in Acts chapter 2; Acts chapter 4; James chapter 2:14-16; First John 3:17-18. So it’s an assumption that God’s people are going to give to the needy. And so when Jesus talks about this he’s not saying ‘you really need to be giving to the needy’ – they’re already doing that. In fact, even people who did not even believe in Jesus were practicing this. They were giving alms. They were giving to the poor and needy. That’s an assumption. We’re going to come back to that in just a moment but Jesus assumes that everyone’s doing this. The problem is their motivation they’re doing this before people in order to be seen by them”

Regarding point B on the PowerPoint: The assumption.

The speaker begins to talk about this passage, Matthew 6:1-4 and describes the fact that there is an underlying assumption that Christians will be giving to the poor and needy. Especially those of the household of faith. And I would agree with that statement.

What I don’t agree with is an Inception-style assumption within the assumption. So often you hear speakers today talk about the poor and needy and they’re often indirectly or even directly describing the people you might come across in the street or on highways. I have known of some speakers to even make it a point to suggest that you are neglecting a Christain duty if you drive past the panhandler on the highway. They then place some moral judgment on you based on how you view those people and what you do for those people.

Here’s the problem: these speakers have no idea if those people are actually poor or needy.

The assumption within the assumption is that panhandlers are actually poor.

But as I state frequently, those so-called poor and needy are often better off financially than most of the members of the congregation that are being shamed for not supporting those allegedly poor, needy people.

Panhandlers have a good business going, and they’re providing value to people who give them money. This is a point in and of itself and a side note that deserves further elaboration.

I’ve often wondered why panhandlers and loiterers receive so much money. I wonder this because my underlying belief has always been that if a person receives money he/she must be providing something of value in return. And what value are panhandlers providing?

This question disturbed me for some time until a potential answer became quite clear. People aren’t just giving these loiterers money. No, people giving money are purchasing the right to feel good about themselves. It’s Self-Interest.

They are purchasing a feeling of altruism. They are purchasing the freedom from the guilt they feel when they ignore those panhandlers.

Panhandlers allow donors to lift their spirits and feel morally superior to those who don’t mindlessly donate money. Not that everyone behaves or thinks this way after giving money, but it is a common theme among religious people.

Giving money to the allegedly homeless person provides you with the feeling that you are righteous. And that’s what you’re doing. You’re attempting to purchase righteousness.

It’s not about helping another person primarily, it’s about the emotional and spiritual elevation of the self with the secondary benefit of doing a good deed. Whether or not this is done on a conscious level is irrelevant – because this is based on an analysis of human nature. We are pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding organisms. We seek to avoid the pain of guilt we feel when we drive by those people and seek the pleasure we feel from giving them money. It is an emotional proposition all the way around.

When it comes to the discussion on generosity, and being generous to people, giving of our means, it is important to note that this first extends to people inside the faith.

Being taken care of by religious people is first and foremost one of the benefits of being religious yourself. The religious community is a tight-knit community and they take care of one another. This is one of the benefits of belonging to a religious group – Other people will take care of you when you need it and you have a responsibility to take care of them when they need it. However, this benefit should not be blindly applied to everyone outside the religious community.

Obviously, as resources allow, people outside the community of the religious can and should be taken care of with the application of discretion, but not before the religious themselves have been taken care of – and certainly not without encouraging those people to join the religious community.

You can’t blindly provide people with food and expect them to join the religion. You are just training them to look for a handout.

If they’re getting all the benefits of religion without being a part of religion what is the incentive for them? People will respond to incentives.

55:29 – 55:54 – “What’s the compensation for that what are you going to get out of that? Well, that’s where Jesus says you will have no reward from your father who is in heaven. Later on the same passage, ‘they have received their reward’. In other words, the reward that you get [and there is one] but the reward that you get when you seek the praise of other people for doing good works terminates on itself. That’s it.”

Regarding point E: “Compensation”.

Indeed, everything we do has a reward. everything we do provides us with something or we wouldn’t do it.

Or it provides us the opportunity to even further maximize the benefit in the future of the process of delayed gratification. We as human beings respond to incentives – and this is a good point.

59:55 – 1:00:25 “But let’s move on to what probably is a bigger issue for most of us, and that’s the issue of motivation and sounding a trumpet. The Pharisees are a bold and extreme example of this, but I believe Jesus is encompassing every kind of hypocrisy that this would involve – right down to [listen to this] the secret desire to have all of our Good Deeds discovered and praised by other people.”

“I believe” – Again, what we have is a personal opinion stated without an accompanying “God said”. The speaker does not provide the BCV for this opinion. And he is again committing what I believe to be the intellectual crime of binding moral, and religious requirements on people without the requisite authority. That is not to say the authority for his statement is not in the scripture, but rather that he simply does not cite his authority here while binding a moral requirement on others.

“The secret desire” – The speaker makes the following Point by asking the crowd if we sound a trumpet before our good deeds. He then talks about the secret desire to be seen. I see this frequently in speakers, who condemn the very desire of a thing rather than the thing itself. And maybe that has merit. certainly, there are times we need to analyze behavior to eliminate it down to the very root which would be the desire. But overly demonizing the desire misses the entire point of what it means to resist temptation.

Temptation comes primarily from desire, we learned that in James chapter 1.

We are constantly fighting the desire, the want, the temptation [all synonyms] to do what’s wrong. How many times do we choose God out of loving obedience, yet our emotions and desires pull us toward sin? What would demonstrate greater love to God, that our desire is for Him and that we don’t desire evil at all, or that we have a strong pull towards sin yet out of love we still choose God? It seems to me the latter would be the most noble. Accidental goodness is not better than hard-fought righteousness.

There’s no honor, no nobility, in resisting temptation if we aren’t desiring to do what’s wrong.

That’s what makes it a Temptation in the first place. And if Temptation comes from desire, desire itself cannot be sin. Because we know from Matthew chapter 4 that Christ was tempted. Therefore, Christ was tempted – that means that Christ experienced desire. Do you think after not eating for 40 days that He desired to turn stones into bread and eat? Certainly. Was the desire itself a sin? If it was, we have no hope for salvation.

The discussion on desire and temptation is a linear path of logic that no one can deny. Therefore it is logically and morally incorrect to suggest that desire itself is a sin.

It’s not wrong to desire/want to do wrong. At times we have strange desires that pull us toward evil – but it is in our choices and our actions that we demonstrate that love to God.

There’s no nobility in doing what is right if there is no desire to do what’s wrong. It’s that war against nature that God demands – for he himself is a man of war [Exodus 15:3]. Therefore like Him, we should be people of war: at war with their own desires and temptations.

So when it comes to the alleged “secret desire to be seen” – it’s always going to be there because it will act as a temptation that must be resisted. Even the speaker himself will later acknowledge that it is human nature to want to be seen [1:04:17].

But what do we do with that desire? In other words, even the speaker himself acknowledges that it is the action following the desire that is the critical component of righteousness. We have the desire to be seen, and that’s true, but what do we do with it? What action do we take based on that desire? Do we give into it or do we fight? It’s in the fighting that we find righteousness – and as the speaker would suggest, and rightfully so, humility.

Again, I believe that this lesson was good overall. I just wanted to point out a few of the things that come out in these lessons.

Too Many Social Events Kill Religion

There are far and away too many social activities happening in the modern religious world. This leaves little time for solitude and quiet reflection on God’s word, which is the only Bible-backed tool that leads to increased faith [Rom 10:17].

It is not far-fetched to suggest that imitation of the habits and behaviors of Christ would be likely to result in spiritual development. Why then do we refuse to acknowledge the frequent practice of Christ to withdraw Himself from the crowd, take Himself to a secluded place to be alone and pray?

Matthew 14:22-23: “Immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, while He sent the multitudes away. And when He had sent the multitudes away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray. Now when evening came, He was alone there.“

Mark 1:35: “Now in the morning, having risen a long while before daylight, He went out and departed to a solitary place, and there He prayed.”

Luke 5:16: “So He Himself often withdrew into the wilderness and prayed.”

Luke 6:12: “Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.”

This freed His time and renewed His mind and energy to engage in the most valuable activities. Not VBS. Not social events within everyone’s specific age groups. But the direct preaching of the word of God, the confirmation of that word through the use of miracles, the salvation of souls in addition to the constant war against the urges of the flesh that allowed Christ to be perfect, able to carry our sins to the cross with Him.

In stark contrast to the practices of Christ, many churches today find themselves engrossed in an unending cycle of gatherings and social events.

We are concerned with being entertained. The modern man is interested in “engaging” worship sessions, discussions, mixers, and other events supposedly more “lively” than hearing the simple truth of God preached from a pulpit.

The focus has shifted from the direct preaching of God’s word to a preoccupation with entertainment.

While these activities allegedly create a sense of community and provide enjoyment to some [which is not the purpose of the church or worship], they constantly fall short in terms of fulfilling the primary purpose of a religious institution – which is the spreading of the gospel of Christ and subsequent salvation of souls.

We do ourselves a great disservice by excessively concentrating on these empty activities. They yield very little when it comes to our main purpose in life which is to fear God and keep His commandments [Ecc 12:13-14] and preach the gospel to every creature [Matt 28:19-20].

“Consider your ways,” says the prophet Haggai [Haggai 1:5 & 7] to the people of Israel who did not have their minds and lives centered on God.

As the temple of God sat in ruins, they took plenty of time to construct their own homes. In this section of scripture, the prophet makes it a point to mention twice the importance of considering one’s ways.

Considering one’s ways requires quiet.
It requires solitude.
Reflection requires a calm, deliberate spirit of focus directed inward.

It is a delicate and weighty matter to reflect on our own sins. Solitude is critical in understanding the gravity of sin – an understanding that cannot come without deliberate, effortful thought.

Understandably, engaging in this type of deliberation and effortful thought is not encouraged, nor is it possible with the incessant arbitrary events that many churches today schedule.

Not only are these events simple social gatherings with little to no spiritual emphasis – but additionally religious people have found a way [as they so often do] to make moral judgments about people who do not attend these events.

In their minds, it is as if skipping the summer festival means you are a bad Christian who does not care about God. Skipping the fall festival is equivalent to skipping Sunday morning worship.

Forget the fact that these same judgmental individuals have likely not read the Bible but manage to find a way to attend every social event that provides free food and acts as pseudo-childcare for their poorly behaved and undisciplined children.

Consider the simple practicality of the business of modern-day life. The average man works 45 hours per week [counting his lunch break] and then loses another 5 hours with commute and morning preparations for work. He is left with a respectable amount of time to attend to his family and most importantly develop his relationship with God including the time spent at Sunday morning worship. After this time there is much less left for other important matters of life such as professional development, rest, and recreation.

While some might consider these events “recreation”, I consider them entertainment. And as such they profit little and cost much – both in money and in time, that most precious asset.

These pseudo-spiritual social gatherings manage to eat away several more of the working man’s weekly hours and provide him with nothing in return but the sensation of being drained and the illusion of spiritual growth.

The working man certainly did not develop his thinking apparatus during these events.

Nor did his children develop spiritually because they were too busy “Dunking the Deacon” in the dunking booth and falling down the inflatable slide after eating twelve cupcakes to have any cognizance of that 5-minute devotional someone attempted to lead after an equivalent 5 minutes of preparation and study for that “devo”.

The development of the spiritual mind is a difficult task requiring focused, concentrated effort by all parties involved. The use of constant social events cleverly disguised as spiritual events does not aid, but rather hampers the spiritual development of the individual from the level of the smallest child even to the adult.

This is because the vast majority of spiritual development happens with concentrated, purposeful bible study in the home. To constantly take the family out of the home leaves less time for this most important formative activity – the study of the mind of God.

But other families who were spending little to no time studying the mind of God are all too happy to attend these social events. They are not losing out on spiritual growth because they were not growing spiritually, to begin with. They were decaying slowly while laboring under the delusion of growth.

They think they are improving but they mistake fun and excitement for genuine spirituality. These people are the ones who keep the social events up and going. They plan them, schedule them, participate in them, and think they are great. But these are “sugar” events that lead to nothing more than the rotting decay of the spirituality of the church.

All to say that social events in the church are more of a hindrance than they ever were a help. I would argue that the health of the church would be increased if the frequency of these events were reduced by a minimum of 50%.

Not only would this lead to an improvement in the spiritual growth of families [assuming they use this now free time to study the Bible instead of binge-watch television], but it would counterintuitively improve relationships among the church members. This is due to the fact that many members of religious communities become tired of seeing one another.

Proverbs 25:17 – “Let your foot rarely be in your neighbor’s house, Or he will become weary of you and hate you.”

We were not designed to constantly be around one another.

Yes, I am aware that someone will bring up the passage of first-century Christians being in one another’s homes every day [Acts 2:46], and that is a fine ideal, but it is simply that, an ideal. We will become weary of one another if we are around one another too often.

Anyone who lives with another human being for any length of time learns this lesson swiftly and accurately. Whether it is a wife or a roommate, there are many times when tensions develop because of close quarters and the constant presence of each other.

Take advantage of the fact that being home and separate will allow us to regain that sense of longing to be together. That is a sensation that many in the church lack – and they could easily get it back if they were not spending every waking moment together [only a slight exaggeration].

Reducing arbitrary social events will increase the overall morale in the church by allowing us to have some time to breathe, reflect, and have separate moments away from each other – which is to the benefit of all.

Page 8 of 38

« Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 … 38 Next »