The Temple of God & Us

I Cor 6:19

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 

I Cor 3:16 

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 

2 Cor 6:16 

Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? 

What is the temple? 

In Judaism, the ancient Hebrew texts refer not to temples, the word having not existed yet, but to a “sanctuary”, “palace” or “hall”. (The Jerusalem temples were called Beit Hamikdash, the Holy House or more commonly, Beth El (the House of God) or Beth YHWH (the House of YHWH)). (Wikipedia) 

The 3 quotes all come from Pauline works and, oddly enough, are all framed as questions. The idea seems to be quite simple – the Spirit of God dwells in the temple – and in each case the temple is our human bodies. Paul seems to make this case for one simple reason – infidelity or immorality of those temples – and your body should be used to glorify God – not shame Him. 

(a) 1 Cor 3 is a whole chapter on the confusion of the Corinthian people (and ensuing problems) with belonging to “Paul, Cephas, or Apollo’ and which school of thought was most respected.  

(b) By 1 Cor 6 we see a whole new set of problems being addressed but it basically has to do with making a fool of God via immorality. People are taking one another to court, there seems to be a problem with adultery, and other varying ‘sins’ – which seem to be rampant enough for Paul to write a letter about.  

(c) In 2 Cor 6 we see Paul talking about idols and the temple – basically people in Corinth being involved in acts with people not of the faith – basically allowing the culture of the time to dictate their moves and not their teachings. 

If we are the temple of God (metaphor) – I think Paul is simply addressing the idea of acting immorally as a representative of God (your faith). The temple idea, for me, seems like a partnership of sorts – between you and God. You help adorn the temple or help to destroy it – only via immoral actions against other people – which disgraces you to others and the very name of your God. Paul also makes it personal – you are the temple – by which he signifies a responsible morality with others is ‘up to you’ as the sole residing priest (meeting with God).  

But we hear this passage used for a lot of other ideas – like smoking and using the body for tattoos. Recently, I have heard it used for being anti-abortion. Maybe your personal temple does signify these things – I don’t know – but the passage does not inherently say that – what it says is ‘you decide your morality in communion with God’ (sharing that temple you know?).

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “The Temple of God & Us

  1. Man, I was in agreement with you until: “…what it says is ‘you decide your morality in communion with God’….”
    —–That is a big can of worms. Like, “God told me to divorce my wife and marry [you put in the name.”

    —–God told me to be a “stripper” for Him. I heard that one with my on ears.

    —–A whole lot of sin goes on in the name of “communion with God.”

    —–Tell me I am misunderstanding your intent with that statement.
    fishon

  2. Society,

    You may have explained this in your post, but it’s been a long day, so I’m not sure. You mention that people being the temple of God is a metaphor, but I’m curious as to how you mean it. The idea seemed to be that God was literally in the sanctuaries in the Tanakh, and then after Jesus, the sanctuary/dwelling place literally became people, rather than some building. So in what way would you mean that as a metaphor?

    I, for one, find the contrast interesting. Paul makes a mention in Acts that in God we “live and move and have our being.” So the idea is that we are “in” God. Yet here, Paul is saying that we are the dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Yet we were already in God, so how would we then be a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit?

  3. “Tell me I am misunderstanding your intent with that statement” (fishon)

    If people are saying those things then they should be able to back that up with teachings from Jesus (or Paul) and if not – then it is questionable if said person is pulling said idea from communion with God.

    “So in what way would you mean that as a metaphor?” (OSS)

    Well honestly – we are not actually temples – we are human bodies – so in that regard it is a metaphor meant to compare us with the temple of God. God resides in us – so to speak – and then we commune from there (again I am open to what the temple was and all that – knowing little of it’s meaning in it’s time).

    “So the idea is that we are “in” God. Yet here, Paul is saying that we are the dwelling place for the Holy Spirit” (OSS)

    I can’t truly answer that aspect – not having studied it much depth – but I am addressing the Spirit of God indwelling us – like temples. Which in essence would make us priests of that temple – and we are to judge the basis of the teachings and how we use them. I think Paul addreses that each time he mentions this idea about the temple – usually in regards to challenging immorality in ourselves.

    For me, the idea does not address being healthy or what not – it’s an added in aspect of this – but maybe this is also upkeep of the temple? To me, the important aspects are what the temple was and meant – and I do believe their was priests who served the community of God – sort of taking care of the rituals and ideas of the faith. It was also the place God met with the priest once a year (or however that worked) – maybe our lives is where God meets with us now – personal in a way.

    What’s just as odd as the questions you are asking – is the temple of God attending a church building…just more proof the actual church is not the institution and its rules – but truly is the community of people. And I think Paul is simply addressing the singular aspect of faith we have as our responsibility – I still think meeting as a community is a good thing (fellowship) – but Paul seems not to be addressing that in these quotes.

  4. Minor points to make here: I’ve only ever heard the temple referred to as Beit HaMikdash. Beit-El is a different location. Traditional Jews never pronounce the name of God but instead substitute Adonai or HaShem so the use of the last name mentioned makes me cringe.

  5. societyvs said: “If people are saying those things then they should be able to back that up with teachings from Jesus (or Paul) and if not – then it is questionable if said person is pulling said idea from communion with God.”
    —–Oh, I totally agree. But I believe there is a problem with your statement::: “…what it says is ‘you decide your morality in communion with God…”’ I believe there is WAY too much “you decide,” and not enough “The Bible says,” and when a weak Christian reads what you said, it gives them a way out. There are many does and don’t in the Bible, and in those cases “decide[ing] your morality in communion with God” is not an issue to be discussed with Him.

    “Thou shall not commit adultry.” No decision to be made there. He didn’t give us the freedom to do it as a Christian. Hope I make sense.
    fishon

  6. Society,

    Got it. We’re not literally a building where people gather. Yet could we literally be considered dwelling places, depending on what’s dwelling?

    **Which in essence would make us priests of that temple – and we are to judge the basis of the teachings and how we use them.**
    Which is an interesting picture, since if we would be considered “priests,” that would give the impression that we control the dwelling place. Yet with the Holy Ghost in the dwelling place, we couldn’t in turn say we’re in control. Especially with the idea of “You are not your own.”

    **And I think Paul is simply addressing the singular aspect of faith we have as our responsibility – I still think meeting as a community is a good thing (fellowship) – but Paul seems not to be addressing that in these quotes.**

    Maybe he’s hinting at it, with his word-choice. If the temple is to be open to everyone, and where people gathered, perhaps it’s also a call to be not closed-off from everyone else, but rather embrace them.

  7. Without getting into the issue of context and the specific issue that Paul was trying to address, although it is important.

    It seems to me Paul is deliberately using the word temple for a reason. Maybe his audience is familiar with temples in and around Corinth or his audience is familiar with one temple in particular, that being the one in Jerusalem. His audience would then understand that only certain things happen within a temple and you being that temple should act or conduct your life in a manner that would reflect how you would conduct yourself within a temple.

    Wheras we are not as familiar with temples and may not truly understand the metaphor and how it relates to our faith. Perhaps a better metaphor is needed for us to understand the concept that we are “the temple and the Holy Spirit dwells within us”. The troubling thing about our North American society is we don’t have anything that we can use to help us understand the whole temple idea.

    A church is really not a credible comparison, since the church no longer has that sense a sacredness about it as it used to years ago. So saying “don’t you know that you are the church” is almost like saying “don’t you know that you are the movie theater, so be entertaining”.

  8. I don’t know whether the Greek “you” is singular or plural, as the plural is missing from English. Paul might mean “you all” as in all of you. We are spoken of as stones in a temple, so the temple might not mean each of us personally. I should look this up sometime. If it is in the plural, it changes the application that many people make.

  9. “so the use of the last name mentioned makes me cringe” (Yael)

    Sorry about that – I changed it to something more sensible.

  10. “I believe there is WAY too much “you decide,” and not enough “The Bible says,” and when a weak Christian reads what you said, it gives them a way out.” (Fishon)

    That’s quite alright in my opinion – if someone wants to find a way to dis-obey the ideas held within scriptures – they can – I am not asserting some ‘law n order’ idea of faith here. I personally turn to Jesus’ teachings for ways to build values into my paradigm/value structure as I live my life in the 21st century – if someone else feels that is burdensome to them – it’s their faith to question and their integrity/sincerity on the line – so be it.

    “There are many do’s and don’t’s in the Bible, and in those cases “decid[ing] your morality in communion with God” is not an issue to be discussed with Him.” (Fishon)

    Name a do or a don’t that we don’t have to dig deeper into for what it truly means to us in the 21st century? Thou shalt not committ adultery is a wonderful example of deciding your morality in communion with God. I take the stand ‘I shoud not cheat on my wife’ – however – even saying that – that is between my and my wife (and our relation with God) to decide and look into and no one else – we decide what ‘adultery’ means. Is it holding someone else’s hands? Is it ‘kissing’? Is it ‘heavy petting’? Is it oral satisfaction? Is it just sexual intercourse? You would be quite amazed at where certain people draw the line on this one in relationships.

    I chose my words very carefully for this blog and that sentence ‘decide your morality in communion with God’ was the one sentence I truly thought through before I wrote it. I think it is each person in this faith’s total responsibility to interact with the teachings and what bearing this has on them in the present world. I can tell you this ‘do and don’t’ but what does that matter – you still need to internalize the idea – and that’s an ‘only you can do’ thing. I guess when I say ‘in communion with God’, for me, interaction with the scriptures is inherently included in that.

    Why should we fear people struggling with deciding their personal morals – it happens in churches all the time – even with the strictest of checks and balances. I have brought up ideas of war and gun control a few times – and who praytell takes a much different stand than me…other Christians. I guess their morality is quite selective/personal after all – and there is nothing so wrong with that – is there?

    If I have one drawback on what I wrote – it’s that I did not include in communion with others also in the sentence – this seems just as important to me.

  11. “We are spoken of as stones in a temple, so the temple might not mean each of us personally” (Steve)

    Great Point Steve – maybe the ‘you’ is plural? I like your thinking on this issue – maybe it needs to be plural for it to mean ‘body’?

  12. Societyvs wrote: “That’s quite alright in my opinion – if someone wants to find a way to dis-obey the ideas held within scriptures – they can – I am not asserting some ‘law n order’ idea of faith here….it’s their faith to question and their integrity/sincerity on the line – so be it.”
    —–I do believe scripture somewhere, “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.” God isn’t saying, “Come in and tear down that temple [dis-obey[dent], but He is tell us to be a repairer of my temple [the faith sugglier,]” when we see the need and have the means.

    That’s quite alright in my opinion – if someone wants to find a way to dis-obey the ideas held within scriptures – they can – I am not asserting some ‘law n order’ idea of faith here. I personally turn to Jesus’ teachings for ways to build values into my paradigm/value structure as I live my life in the 21st century – if someone else feels that is burdensome to them – it’s their faith to question and their integrity/sincerity on the line – so be it.

    You say, “Name a do or a don’t that we don’t have to dig deeper into for what it truly means to us in the 21st century? Thou shalt not committ adultery is a wonderful example of deciding your morality in communion with God. I take the stand ‘I shoud not cheat on my wife’ – however – even saying that – that is between my and my wife (and our relation with God) to decide and look into and no one else – we decide what ‘adultery’ means. Is it holding someone else’s hands? Is it ‘kissing’? Is it ‘heavy petting’? Is it oral satisfaction? Is it just sexual intercourse? You would be quite amazed at where certain people draw the line on this one in relationships.”
    —–My friend, you are now playing a very dangerous game. A game as dangerous as the the “Self-appointed sin police.” They will stone you at a moments notice at a perceived sin, and it sounds by your above statement as if, in the case of adultry, it is only between, husband, wife, and God; therefore, you have tossed out Gal. 6:1.

    Are you telling me by your above statement that you would not “warn” a MARRIED, Christian brother that you knew was having sex with a woman/man, not his wife? I use your quote: “Name a do or a don’t that we don’t have to dig deeper into for what it truly means to us in the 21st century? Thou shalt not committ adultery is a wonderful example of deciding your morality in communion with God. I take the stand ‘I shoud not cheat on my wife’ – however – even saying that – that is between my and my wife (and our relation with God) to decide and look into and no one else.”

    By the way, Paul didn’t have trouble dealing with the Corinthians problem where sin could have destroyed the community. He didn’t leave it to the sinners to work it out. He had definite directions. He didn’t say, “Oh, it is between those who are sinning. This is the first century, we’ll have to dig deeper into what Jesus means by sexual immorality.”

    This staying out of the way and leaving it between them and God is a cowards way out. And in the end of the matter, it is not love for a brother.

    I am sorry that I am on my high-horse, but what you touch on here is a big deal. And to many brothers and sisters [temples of God] in the Lord have been destroyed because a fellow believer has stood back and said, “It is [sin] between them and God.”

    You say, “I can tell you this ‘do and don’t’ but what does that matter – you still need to internalize the idea – and that’s an ‘only you can do’ thing.”
    —-#1. God wants us to confront sin in His children
    —-#2. It is truely love for the sinner to show them, in scripture, God’s “do and don’t.”
    —-#3. Then they can internalize the idea [truth].

    And, thought this will come off hard, I will say it.
    I don’t believe you truely believe half of what you write. Example: You say, “…that is between my and my wife (and our relation with God) to decide and look into and no one else – we decide what ‘adultery’ means.”
    —–But Societyvs, you have had no trouble with telling me and others about our {Huckabee included} immoral stand on guns and war. For you, the lines where not blurry, so many words have been written to us about we being WRONG!

    Yet if I was to interject myself in your married if I was to see what I considered adultry, you would say, “It is between me, my wife, and God. It ain’t your business, Jerry.” That is, based on what you have written to me.

    Enough. I have moved quite far from the main subject; well, maybe not. We are talking about Temple restoration.
    MAKE IT a great day.
    fishon

  13. Fishon, to respond – I did add that I would put also in communion with other people as part of the idea also – so in some senses – where your points are leading I am game for the discussion.

    ““Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.” God isn’t saying, “Come in and tear down that temple” (Fishon)

    I am not advocating the ‘tearing down of the temple’ either – I have not so much as stated that as an idea (ie: destroying someone’s life). I think if someone you personally know is struggling with a ‘sin’ – then I see no problem with discussing that with the person. However, there is little your words can do to make the person change their actions/behavior – except serve as an enlightening path.

    To me, sin is something we see caused in breaking of relationships – one with another – so someone’s sin is going to effect at least one person adversely. I would address the situation to specifics and what the problem or remedy might be. Shpwing someone the ‘way’ is as easy a waving your flashlight in the direction you see quite clearly – and needs to be done gently.

    “and it sounds by your above statement as if, in the case of adultry, it is only between, husband, wife, and God; therefore, you have tossed out Gal. 6:1” (Fishon)

    First off, Galatians 6:1 says nothing about ‘adultery’ per se – but helping to restore the problem one has with another. I am talking definition of ‘adultery’ in my comment and where certain couples draw the line concerning that idea. That has nothing to do with restoration but with evaluation of an idea (adultery being the term).

    However, concerning your point from Galatians 6:1 – I agree – we should be restorative people and sometimes this requires ‘bearing one another’s burdens’ – however the higher goal is verse 5 “For each one will bear his own load (Gal 6:5)”. And verse 5 is what I am suggesting in my post and that idea ‘communion with God – and now – with others also in defining one’s morality’ (my addendum to my own blog idea). Can’t have One without the ‘other’ – in my opinion.

    “Paul didn’t have trouble dealing with the Corinthians problem where sin could have destroyed the community. He didn’t leave it to the sinners to work it out” (Fishon)

    I’ll say 2 things:
    (a) True – we cannot remain silent – so I added in to my idea discussing morality one with another (also in communion with God).

    (b) I think we need to define things for people better also – ie: definitions of religious reasoning- and in most churches this is the biggest thing lacking…we can feed people a bunch of ‘do’s and dont’s’ but if they don’t understand them in any depth – why would they so much as bother keeping them?

    I have to go – work calls – but I’ll reply a little more later also.

  14. “many brothers and sisters [temples of God] in the Lord have been destroyed because a fellow believer has stood back and said, “It is [sin] between them and God.”” (Fishon)

    There is a problem with this statement in general – it supposes to say another person’s communion with God can be destroyed (or is at the least assisted) by the inactions of another. I am not sure I agree with that point.

    It is problematic for any person of any integrity to blame another for their in-actions in a situation as a reason for their demise. What is actually ironic is it is usually the direct actions of another that is blamed for someone’s demise and then we call that ‘them playing the blame game’ (never someone’s casual in-action). I would say – is anyone responsible for someone else’s decisions? If no, then I think I made a valid point…if not…then I need to stand corrected.

    I know what you are saying about us caring about those around us – but by saying nothing we are not intentionally doing something to ‘hurt the other’. We are a community of people in the church – if someone is struggling then they are the one’s that need to decide what their course to take is – not anyone else. If they need help – they should befriend others and have no fear in asking their questions. I think we can give advice – or even just listen – but we cannot be held responsible for someone else’s faith (namely by our in-actions) – I personally will not live by such a dictate. Now if I wronged someone then I am responsible to ‘remedy’ the situation…but that’s about it. I say to all ‘ask away’.

    “—-#1. God wants us to confront sin in His children
    —-#2. It is truely love for the sinner to show them, in scripture, God’s “do and don’t.”
    —-#3. Then they can internalize the idea [truth].” (Fishon)

    (1) Confront is such an interesting choice in words – as in confrontation – seems so harsh/judgmental for some reason. Why is this #1 and where do you get this from?

    (2) Love is showing someone a list of rules? I disagree. Love is showing someone how the rules function in one’s lives and then living the example for clarity – maybe also showing them faith isn’t about all the rules but the values and how they can be passed from one generation to the next. Rules are so callous and as a child I needed them – but as someone grows – they should start to define the rules also.

    (3) I think internalization is simply up to the person being presented the idea – but the best way to internalize something is to show someone ‘how to do it’. We mentioned ‘adultery’ earlier – no they don’t need help in figuring out the ‘how to’ part – but what they need is a good example of why and how marriage works. Isn’t the best path to not committing a wrong – seeing (and even sometimes knowing) the other alternatives?

    “For you, the lines where not blurry, so many words have been written to us about we being WRONG!” (Fishon)

    Good point. I am not sure I have stated it was wrong as much as I have stated the ‘show me’ part – but nonetheless – I take personal stands on guns and war (and to a minor degree politics) – but I do not suppose a list of a ‘do’s’ and ‘don’t’s’ for anyone from my list (although some can say it is suggested via the writings). My personal stand conflicts with yours (and a few others) on some issues – that much is perfectly true – however it does show the selectivity of each of us determining our personal morals in interaction with those texts before us.

    “Yet if I was to interject myself in your married if I was to see what I considered adultry, you would say, “It is between me, my wife, and God. It ain’t your business, Jerry.”” (Fishon aka Jerry)

    I would welcome the discourse – I have no problem doing that obviously – thus the reason I have a blog. But if you start stating what is adultery – ie: rules and regulations – and then work to impose that upon me and my wife – I have wonder why? Can we not define what adultery is to us – on our own -based on our studies?

    For example, my wife and I have decided that even kissing is considered an act of betrayal (on some level) and we know this is ‘not right’ to do – based purely on our love for one another and exclusion of other partners in the mix. But what if – someone else does not think that is adultery? What if to them the actual physical act of sex is only counted. For some people even thinking adulterous thoughts is cheating. For others it takes a mixture of those things – and even then – this is not enough to dis-solve a marriage (by which we have the teaching from Jesus as the sole reason to dis-solve the marriage). That’s why I think morality, even with a foundational good idea, needs to be decided by each person on what it truly means to each person.

    The other great example I gave a while back is ‘murder’ (Thou shalt not kill). For me, murder is intentionally taking someone’s life – or setting in motion the path to it. The law only says ‘thou shalt not kill’ – that is vague – because we see people justify murder in a lot of circumstances (ex: war or a cop shooting a civilian). What seems very clear to me is the intent of the law – the value of that ideal. Cal it a rule ot a ‘don’t’ but the intent is what truly matters. Even in Jewish law we see refuge places for accidental murders that happen. War seems to be the greatest conflict for a literalist – since how can we honestly say someone aiming a gun through a scope is not intending to kill the person on the other end? ‘Thou shalt not kill’ as an intent/foundation is a good moral – but even that needs deeper explaining – and most of the time – this comes down to our personal studies.

  15. Societyvs,
    I wrote: “many brothers and sisters [temples of God] in the Lord have been destroyed because a fellow believer has stood back and said, “It is [sin] between them and God.”” (Fishon)

    Your responce: “There is a problem with this statement in general – it supposes to say another person’s communion with God can be destroyed (or is at the least assisted) by the inactions of another. I am not sure I agree with that point.”
    —–We can bicker about what you think my statement should say, but the point is, when a Christian sees another Christian in sin:::”My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins” {James 5:19-20}.

    You write: I would say – is anyone responsible for someone else’s decisions?
    —–No, but God does call on His children to warn, admonish, rebuke, reprove, and caution those in sin. That is true love. The very first warning and caution gave to mankind was disobeyed, and look where it got us.

    YOU–“I know what you are saying about us caring about those around us – but by saying nothing we are not intentionally doing something to ‘hurt the other’.”
    ——Sure we are. When we know the Word of God in connection to a brother sinning, and we do nothing, say nothing, we have made an intentional decision to #1. Disobey God’s revealed Word.
    #2. When I say nothing, I have ‘intentionally’ made a decison not to.
    I will qualify this: If a person is a babe in Christ, and has not learned as of yet the biblical principles of real love, then ‘intention’ may not be involved.

    I am going to stop here and start a new post, answering more of your post #14.
    fishon

  16. “I am going to stop here and start a new post, answering more of your post #14” (Fishon)

    Copycat – LOL – I’m kidding

    “We can bicker about what you think my statement should say” (Fishon)

    True – I, in general, agree with your assertion about talking with another person about some problem they have that is hurting others – plus you used James (a letter I personally have affinity towards).

    “but God does call on His children to warn, admonish, rebuke, reprove, and caution those in sin. That is true love” (Fishon)

    Good question coming – since not only people in the church community are in sin – does this mean any and everyone? I have no problem talking with people I know about things they share – not to judge them but to help in any way I can – cause I think if we used this as a ‘rule of thumb’ one could become exhausted on the verbal part and not on the compassion part.

    “When we know the Word of God in connection to a brother sinning, and we do nothing, say nothing, we have made an intentional decision to #1. Disobey God’s revealed Word.” (Fishon)

    I said earlier this is not something I would live by as a dictate for my life – reason being – I am not responsible for someone else’s decisions. For me the big question is who do we approach? Should I approach someone I barely know and never shares stories with me? If it’s someone I know – I am wiling to both approach and be approached – since that makes sense – we share with each other anyways.

    I think if we follow that rule to a religious ‘tee’ – we can see true problems arise. It’s like the problem in the church right now – everyone thinks its their godly duty to judge everyone else – and at some point – that just flies in the face of ‘do not judge unless you want to be judged’. I guess if I live by the dictate I can expect to be judged – by everyone I judge – in the same manner I do it – and eventually be a friend to none.

  17. Societyvs,—–I continue from your post #14.

    YOU—-(1) Confront is such an interesting choice in words – as in confrontation – seems so harsh/judgmental for some reason. Why is this #1 and where do you get this from?

    —–Confrontation in the biblical sense can be harsh.
    “You are like whitewashed tombs….” I wonder who said that?
    —–“Get behind me Satan.” I think I know who said that!
    —–“Go, and sin no more.” ?????
    —–“Expel the wicked man [brother] from you.” ????
    —–“…how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit….”??????
    —–“Look! The feet of feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”?????
    —–“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you….”????
    —–“You stiffnecked people, with uncircumcised heart….” I think that got a Christian killed!

    YOU–(2) “Love is showing someone a list of rules? I disagree. Love is showing someone how the rules function in one’s lives and then living the example for clarity – maybe also showing them faith isn’t about all the rules but the values and how they can be passed from one generation to the next.”
    —–Yes. I suppose I didn’t finish off my short statement as I should have. But it is hard to deny that the biblical writers didn’t give lists. Gal. 5:19-21. And of course, they taught how to live them out by faith.

    YOU– “Rules are so callous and as a child I needed them – but as someone grows – they should start to define the rules also.”
    —–‘Callous.’ “…you must not eat from the tree of….”
    I don’t call that callous. I call that the love of God.
    Now the rules of man, they can become callous.

    YOU–“Isn’t the best path to not committing a wrong – seeing (and even sometimes knowing) the other alternatives?”
    —–Oh yes. But millions have seen good marriages model, and millions know other alternatives, but though you won’t like this statement: A good case of the “fear of the Lord” may be the only thing that stops a person from sinning. “To obey is better than….”

    I will stop now. Much of what you have wrote that I have not address is good stuff. Some we would agree upon–others–chasing tails.

    Got a big meeting tonight, so I am done for the day.
    MAKE IT a great evening.
    fishon

  18. “Confrontation in the biblical sense can be harsh” (Fishon)

    That is true – but is that how you see Jesus – as confrontational? Obviously he was in certain circles – this much is quite clear from the gospels – but what this needs to be weighed out also. Jesus rarely if ever takes that same tone with anyone not religious – for some odd reason.

    “But it is hard to deny that the biblical writers didn’t give lists.” (Fishon)

    Oh they did – to Gentile communities that knew little about the roots of this faith. You rarely see Jesus or even the disciples tossing around the same lists.

    “I don’t call that callous. I call that the love of God.
    Now the rules of man, they can become callous.” (Fishon)

    That being said, even the scripture is interpreted by ‘humankind’. Top that off, Churches have so many rules on top of rules and many of them make no sense. Also Paul makes a few quotes that are interesting about ‘all things being lawful’ in Corinthians and it appears in more than one letter. Paul gave rules but wasn’t so hard and fast about it all – namely the food and idols controversy in Corinth.

    “A good case of the “fear of the Lord” may be the only thing that stops a person from sinning” (Fishon)

    I know this is true – but those same people also don’t gel themselves to this faith either (unless they realize the love of God to some depth) – and I would say some of them (the one’s I personally know) almost act schozophrenic or very superstitious due to that ‘fear’ not being put into some progressing frame-work on the idea. I actually came to this faith due to fear (namely of hell) but it would of never kept me around unless there was a God that was greater than that fear. Needless to say, I found a God of Love (as used by John) was quite accurate concerning the God I have come to know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s