The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

So it's not biblical, So what? part 2

(Page 6 of 7)
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James,
Jesus was passing by his place of business, the scripture does not say that He went into his place of business.
Oh, the straining for gnats! OK, let's go with that nonsense. First, remember you to me:



"If I were to see you go into a bar, or a brothel, my opinion of you and your faith would diminish rapidly."



Now, what if instead, you just saw me standing outside a bar, talking to an obvious hooker, would your above response be any different?



Better yet, what if you came up behind me, close enough to hear the conversation and you heard me say, "I'll be over at your house tonight about 7." And say you also overheard the address and went there. Sure enough, at 7 I showed up and went into her house. Would your above response be any different?



Now, I'm assuming you'll be honest (although you've not always given me a reason to make that assumption). Personally I don't believe your response would have been any different in either of these scenarios.

Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James:

Quote:"Jesus was passing by his place of business, the scripture does not say that He went into his place of business."


Oh James, give it a rest. Once again, you show your lack of understanding of Scriptural times. This was a 'booth' or 'table' often set up in the city 'gates', where they could levy the requisite taxes and duties on any goods entering or leaving the city. According to you, I suppose, Jesus gave him a 'call' on his cell phone from a roadway 1/2 mile away....but the fact that He merely 'said' to him, and he responded, obviously implies a close range.



However, the balance of my post remains unchallenged and unrefuted. How do the gnats taste anyway? Almost as good as 'camel'?



Blessings,
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Have you all heard the one about the Protestant Pastor seen going into the brothel by the Roman Catholic.



Such scandall, only to be expected of those Protestants though, said the Roman catholic believer to his friend.



Next day the Rabbi was seen going into the same place.



Oh! the scandal. But only to be expected of that sort of Jewish unbelieving person though.



Next day the Roman Catholic Priest was seen entering.



Ah! said the Catholic believer to his friend, the poor woman must have been on her death bed, and the priest was obviously called to give her the last rights.



It's all in the mindset folks!



Just goes to show, just entering a place does not reveal your reasons for doing so and it's that which God is aware of, not your mere presence there.



Love Chris.
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James,



In amongst your feasting on gnats and camels, consider the merchants selling sacrifical animals in the temple. They obviously had tables from whence they were selling. At what point does passing by constitute "going in" when there was no place to go into?
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
 lvnjames (disciple_2003)



You wrote:I wasn't aware that Zaccheus worked out of his own home.

Still no evidence that Christ entered into the business of "ill-repute"




Are you trying to say that there were places on earth that Jesus could not go in case he became 'defiled'?



What a low estimation of Christ's Divinity and ability to cleanse you must have James.



In any event your purity ethic notions are blown out of the water when it is taken into consideration that Jesus numbered in his own lineage, a prostitute, a murderer, an adulterer and a Gentile and still yet remained blameless before God.



Are you trying to tell us that as a medic you cannot go into certain places to bring medical assistance, in case you become defiled by association with the people or premises.



Sounds like the reasoning of the Pharisee to me James.



Love Chris.





Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James,
"If I were to see you go into a bar, or a brothel, my opinion of you and your faith would diminish rapidly."
When I shared this with my wife, her only comment was: "What was he doing in the red-light district in the first place?" Good question.



Oh and by the way,
I didn't know that you work in a bar...or is it a brothel?
I work in a warehouse, not a whorehouse. But then again, according to your Gnats-Camel Bible Dictionary, a whorehouse is probably defined as a "wareshouse."



If we where to translate into modern times, the "places" that Christ went to, it would not be the nice surburban neighborhoods, but all the dispicable areas that according to fundamental Christians, SDAs, and JWs no true Christian would ever go to or be seen in. And please, don't go spouting off "motives" nonsense, you've made it clear you're only focused on "appearances." The Pharisees certainly were and accused Jesus of so many things based on that. How are responding any differently. I mean:



"Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1Th 5:22)



Isn't that what you're saying?
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Ron:

Since James wouldn't think of going into a 'bar', lest someone see him and assume he's a 'drunkard'.....I suppose he ALSO avoids RESTAURANTS like the plague too, since I'm SURE that anyone seeing him enter one would AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that he's a GLUTTON. Sounds logical to me!!!!

Blessings,
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Ron,



you wrote:
"Now, what if instead, you just saw me standing outside a bar, talking to an obvious hooker, would your above response be any different?



Better yet, what if you came up behind me, close enough to hear the conversation and you heard me say, "I'll be over at your house tonight about 7." And say you also overheard the address and went there. Sure enough, at 7 I showed up and went into her house. Would your above response be any different?



Now, I'm assuming you'll be honest (although you've not always given me a reason to make that assumption). Personally I don't believe your response would have been any different in either of these scenarios."




Why would I not feel differently about the scenario you presented? Of course that would raise a flag in my mind.



That's exactly why Jesus sent out His disciples in numbers. He said go by 2's. First of all, there is safety in numbers, and also Jesus said that where there are two or three witnesses, there is validation.



I personally would not approach a prostitute alone. I would have other church workers with me. And especially going to their house to witness to them I would have not only another church member, but most likely it would be a female. and our intent would be broadcast in plain view for all to see, i.e. our dress, our demeanor, and our bibles would be displayed in obvious fashion.



And as far as your wife wondering what someone was doing in the red-light district in the first place...that was addressed to YOU...not me. So I guess your wife's response is directed at you.
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Walt,



you wrote:
"This was a 'booth' or 'table' often set up in the city 'gates', where they could levy the requisite taxes and duties on any goods entering or leaving the city. According to you, I suppose, Jesus gave him a 'call' on his cell phone from a roadway 1/2 mile away....but the fact that He merely 'said' to him, and he responded, obviously implies a close range."




I can't help but LOL!!!



Christ did not venture into His booth, or place of business...He called to him to follow Him from the outside. Nowhere does it say that Christ entered in.

Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Ron,



you wrote:
"consider the merchants selling sacrifical animals in the temple. They obviously had tables from whence they were selling. At what point does passing by constitute "going in" when there was no place to go into?"




First of all...that was IN the temple. Secondly, what did Christ DO when He viewed that scene?

Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Chris,



you wrote:
"Are you trying to say that there were places on earth that Jesus could not go in case he became 'defiled'?"




Of course not!!!



But Christ also inspired Paul to instruct that we "lay not a stumbling block" before our neighbors.



Jesus is our example, and the example of our savior intentionally visiting a place specifically designed for EVIL behavior is not what He portrayed...ever.



Even if the intention is to build a bridge to help those who are dying in their sin...that bridge is not a one-way bridge...it goes both ways. And the example you set for the young impressionable teen who observes a pastor, priest, or minister going into a bar, or a brothel, could shape their entire future.



The teen could say to himself; "Well if the pastor goes to bars then it must be ok for me to also. If the priest goes to hookers then it must be an ok thing to do."



"But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak." (1 Corinthians 8:9)
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Walt,



you wrote:
"I suppose he ALSO avoids RESTAURANTS like the plague too, since I'm SURE that anyone seeing him enter one would AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that he's a GLUTTON. Sounds logical to me!!!!"




Of course it sounds logical to you, considering the approach YOU take with scripture. but you're comparing apples to oranges. A restaurant is not a business of ill-repute. People have to eat to survive, but they do not have to visit prostitutes to survive or even drink alcohol to survive either
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Ron,



you wrote:
"don't go spouting off "motives" nonsense, you've made it clear you're only focused on "appearances.""




Well, the new testament specifically teaches us to not have any dealings with anything that even appears evil.
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James,
And as far as your wife wondering what someone was doing in the red-light district in the first place...that was addressed to YOU...not me. So I guess your wife's response is directed at you.
This is a classic example of the predominant manner in which you respond. Let's first review what I said:



I started off by quoting you: "If I were to see you go into a bar, or a brothel, my opinion of you and your faith would diminish rapidly."



Then I said: When I shared this with my wife, her only comment was: "What was he doing in the red-light district in the first place?" Good question.
We can see my wife's comment was in response to your comment. Now, if she were talking about me, she would have said "What were you doing ... instead she said "what was he doing ... She is obviously talking about you, but you've twisted it. And you do this all the time, in fact most of the time. So why are not to believe that you also do this with scriptural interpretation? This whole little sub-discussion on where Jesus did or didn't go is a prime example of doing just that.

Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James,
He called to him to follow Him from the outside.
Outside of what?
First of all...that was IN the temple. Secondly, what did Christ DO when He viewed that scene?
Don't sidestep this issue. You're the one getting into technicalities. The outer temple chamber was their place of business and Christ not only went in there, but ripping to shreds some of the booths, table, etc. You can't get any closer than that. Oh, it was the house of God, you say and that somehow makes its different? Not according to Jesus who said:



"It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you make it a den of robbers." (Matt 21:13)



They turned it into a place of ill-repute.
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James
Of course it sounds logical to you, considering the approach YOU take with scripture. but you're comparing apples to oranges. A restaurant is not a business of ill-repute. People have to eat to survive ...
First of all, you just couldn't help yourself in taking a cheap shot at Walt, could you? Oh my, such Christlike behavior! And you talk about stumbling blocks? What blatantly hypocritical behavior you display.



Second, our logic is derived from your obvious complete focus on appearances. So be it. Let's consider that. Explain (away) those gluttonous "all you can eat" nights at those restaraunts. We certainly don't need them to survive. Ever been to one?



Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James,
The teen could say to himself; "Well if the pastor goes to bars then it must be ok for me to also. If the priest goes to hookers then it must be an ok thing to do."
Then again, he may not. It really depends on the underlying motives and the particular circumstance, but you've made it clear you always assume the worst, because your focus is soley on appearances. Just as the Pharisees constantly did with Jesus.



And we know full well what Jesus thought of appearances. For example:



"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence." (Matt 23:25)
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Oh, I've stayed out of this one for a while, but this line you wrote, LvnJames, was just too much:

...our intent would be broadcast in plain view for all to see, i.e. our dress, our demeanor, and our bibles would be displayed in obvious fashion.


And this method, or style, of evangelism has worked for you how many times, James? How many "lost sheep" have you led back to the Great Shepherd by appearing pious and holy?



Now, before you twist what I've written like you've twisted everyone else's words, I am not advocating looking like a prostitute to witness to a prostitute, or drinking like a drunkard to witness to a drunkard. I am agreeing, however, with others here who have asserted that if the motive of your heart (Oh no, not the heart...what has that to do with witnessing to others?) is winning the lost for Christ, then if you happen to be in a place where sinners are (workplace or otherwise), that sin won't contaminate you. That only happens when you partake of the sin...Beholding sin or a sinner does not cause a person to sin. But, if a person is weak in an area, whether it be temptation to drink excessively, have immoral sex, or whatever, yes, of course, it would be wise for them to avoid those situations. Otherwise, LvnJames, let folks be.



Oh, in case you didn't get Ron's wife's point, she meant that if you were in visual range to see someone go into a "bad place", then it's obvious you're there too (for whatever reason).



Hmmmmm....



But of course, you've made it plain that you wouldn't be caught dead in a place where sinners are.

Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Angie,
You asked James: And this method, or style, of evangelism has worked for you how many times, James? How many "lost sheep" have you led back to the Great Shepherd by appearing pious and holy?
Well, I think you've already supplied his answer based on what he has said:
But of course, you've made it plain that you wouldn't be caught dead in a place where sinners are.
This is precisely why so many sinners are turned off by churches, they just aren't welcome. Too many churches, SDAs among them, are just for the "righteous," just the opposite pattern of Jesus, who attracted sinners.
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Ron,



Yeah, that last statement was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek.



How does one reach the lost if he won't go near them for fear of "defiling" himself?



It's interesting how those who are unsaved are drawn to those who emit the love of Jesus. They're certainly not attracted to dapper clothing, polished speech, or big Bibles "in plain view". They just want the real love of the Father. Not another phony-baloney religion that they could order from any magazine or access from any website.
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Hi Angie:

Quote:"then if you happen to be in a place where sinners are (workplace or otherwise), that sin won't contaminate you. That only happens when you partake of the sin...Beholding sin or a sinner does not cause a person to sin."


Are you SURE?

Maybe THAT'S why James seems to have such a low opinion of me....I spent 25 years in a maximum security jail.....'associating' with murderers, rapists, pimps, drug dealers, assaulters, baby-diddlers, and much more. Does THAT make ME any of these things???



Hey James, you haven't addressed my comment/question as to whether going into a restaurant makes you a 'glutton'.



By the way, I went into a 'Blues' BAR last night AND tonight.....but don't worry. I looked up and down the street....didn't see YOU....or any other 'identifiable' SDA....so I don't think I 'stumbled' anyone. Now..my question is....does THAT make ME a 'blues man'? A drunk? Or a hybrid....a drunken Bluesman? Also....IF I eat food in a place like that....a place that sells 'alcohol'....does that contaminate the food? If not...then why would it contaminate ME? It is SO hard to keep all of this legalistic claptrap separate!!!!



Blessings,
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James:

Quote:"Of course it sounds logical to you, considering the approach YOU take with scripture. but you're comparing apples to oranges. A restaurant is not a business of ill-repute. People have to eat to survive, but they do not have to visit prostitutes to survive or even drink alcohol to survive either."


Sigh!!! I guess I'll have to break it down into itsy-bitsy little words for you....once again....in a forlorn hope that THEN you just MIGHT understand.



You equated 'going into a bar' with automatically being thought a 'drunkard'. I extended your judgment to that of food....going into a restaurant, by your logical extension, then, would automatically make people 'think' that you're a 'glutton'.



NOW, the OBVIOUS INFERENCE (to anyone but you), is simply that going into a bar..or even having a beer or something, DOES NOT make one a 'drunkard'.....and, obviously, going into a restaurant and eating....does not NECESSARILY make one a glutton. These conditions are INTERNAL ones, and begin on the spiritual level...and not the physical.



Besides....up here, (and, if I recollect correctly, down there as well), 'bars' ALSO serve food, and often it is very good food, and quite reasonably priced...in much the same way as Restaurants ALSO serve alcohol. Other than legalistic, Pharisaical appearances...what was the point once more????



Blessings,
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
James:

Quote:""But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak." (1 Corinthians 8:9)"


Well....I guess you know YOURSELF better than anyone...eh? That's why I looked up and down the street tonight....BEFORE I entered that 'den of iniquity'....the 'Blues bar'. No SDA's in sight!!!



By the way....by your own post.....you tacitly admit that IT IS A LIBERTY...AND NOT NECESSARILY SINFUL!!!

(By your own words, you are 'hoist by your own petard')



Blessings,
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
Ron:

I guess according to James' 'lights', Tony Campola 'sinned' greatly when, in Hawaii, he wandered into an all-night cafe.....one that was frequented by hookers in the middle of the night....and wound up organizing and throwing a 'Birthday Party' for a hooker the next night. The 'guests' were her hooker friends and the restauranteur, and, when Tony led in prayer before they 'ate', the owner got quite irate with him, because he hadn't told him he was a 'minister'. He asked what kind of minister he was, and Tony replied that he was the kind of minister that threw a birthday party for a hooker at 3 AM. The guy didn't believe he could be connected to ANY church...because, he said, IF there was such a church...he just might go to it. Obviously it wasn't such a church as James', I guess.



Me? I think that in that moment.....Tony was more like 'Jesus' than most of us are in our entire lives....in our 'holiest' moments.



Blessings,
Quote Reply
Re: So it's not biblical, So what? part 2 In reply to
hiyall (Angie B)



You responded to 'James the undefiled'



But of course, you've made it plain that you wouldn't be caught dead in a place where sinners are.



That is because, in truth, James does not really believe himself to be a sinner but fears the possibility that some of it might rub off on him from others, or that other 'righteous folks' that he wants to keep in with might get the wrong idea about him and think of him the way he thinks of sinners. And he couldn't bear that. (That's pride).



It's all about keeping up a good 'immage'. Outward appearance seems to be the motivational factor here for James. He lacks the inner confidence to place himself within a sinful environment while on God's business, and rely upon God's Grace to keep him undefiled.



That is the essence of spiritual paucity prevalent in the superficially self righteous.



It is known and identified as the spirit of the Pharisee.



Jesus said 'They did not have the love of God in them'.



Remember it was these that accused Christ himself of being a drunkard and associating with drunkards and sinners, as if association in itself, was a deplorable thing to do.



Where does James imagine these Pharisees had seen Jesus consorting with these drunken riff raff?



Were there ale houses in Israel? Did they have alcoholic wine at public weddings? Were there taverns in Jewish towns?



Of course there were! and Jesus almost certainly ate and drank in them and at them with his friends.



And now I've set James (the abstainer) off about 'new wine' being non-alcoholic all over again. Noooooo!!!!!! Please don't respond James!



Love Chris.