Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org
My friend David has a knack for cutting through the smokescreens people throw up when they’re trying to avoid making commitments, be they commitments to God or to other people. Last week, with one comment, he blew away all the smoke that a young agnostic was hiding behind. It was a demonstration of tremendous insight, and it required some courage to say.
For several weeks David was teaching through a series on Christian apologetics, which involves providing evidence for the truth of Christianity. In addition to the biblical mandate to provide such evidence, David thought it would be wise to do so because 75 percent of Christian youth stop attending church after age 18. Many of them abandon the church because they’re bombarded by secularism in college and they’ve never been taught any of the sound evidence that supports Christianity.
Last week, after David finished a presentation refuting the “new atheists”—Dawkins, Hitchens and the like—a young man approached him and said, “I once was a Christian, but now I’m an agnostic, and I don’t think you should be doing what you’re doing.”
“What do you mean?” David asked.
“I don’t think you should be giving arguments against atheists,” the young man said. “Jesus told us to love, and it’s not loving what you’re doing.”
David said, “No, that’s not right. Jesus came with both love and tuth. Love without truth is a swampy, borderless mess. Truth is necessary. In fact, it’s unloving to keep truth from people, especially if that truth has eternal consequences.”
David was absolutely right. In fact, if you look at Matthew chapter 23, Jesus was more like a drill sergeant than he was like Mister Rogers.
But the young man would have none of it. Without acknowledging David’s point, he immediately brought up another objection to Christianity. David succinctly answered that one too, but again the kid seemed uninterested. He fired a couple of more objections at David, who began to suspect something else was up—something I’ve noticed as well.
I’ve found that the machine-gun-objection approach is common among many skeptics and liberals. They throw objection after objection at believers and conservatives but never pause long enough to listen to the answers. It doesn’t matter that you’ve just answered their question with an undeniable fact—they’ve already left that topic and are rattling off another objection on another topic as if you hadn’t said a word. They don’t really seem interested in finding answers but in finding reasons to make themselves feel better about what they want to believe.
After all, a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs.
David recognized that’s exactly what was happening in his conversation. So after the kid fired off another objection, David decided to end the charade and cut right to the heart. He said, “You’re raising all of these objections because you’re sleeping with your girlfriend. Am I right?”
All the blood drained from the kid’s face. He was caught. He just stood there speechless. He was rejecting God because he didn’t like God’s morality, and he was disguising it with alleged intellectual objections.
This young man wasn’t the first atheist or agnostic to admit that his desire to follow his own agenda was keeping him out of the Kingdom. In the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul revealed this tendency we humans have to “suppress the truth” about God in order to follow our own desires. In other words, unbelief is more motivated by the heart than the head. Some prominent atheists have admitted this.
Atheist Julian Huxley, grandson of “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley, famously said many years ago that the reason he and many of his contemporaries “accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn‘t want God to interfere with our sexual mores.”
Professor Thomas Nagel of NYU more recently wrote, “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.”
Certainly the new atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have problems with cosmic authority. Hitchens refuses to live under the “tyranny of a divine dictatorship.” Dawkins calls the God of the Bible a “malevolent bully” (among other things) and admits that he is “hostile to religion.”
It’s not that Hitchens and Dawkins offer any serious examination and rebuttal of the evidence for God. They misunderstand and dismiss hundreds of pages of metaphysical argumentation from Aristotle, Aquinas and others and fail to answer the modern arguments from the beginning and design of the universe. (Dawkins explanation for the extreme design of the universe is “luck.”)
Instead, as any honest reader of their books will see, Hitchens and Dawkins are outraged at the very thought of God. Even their titles scream out contempt (god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The God Delusion). They don’t seem to realize that their moral outrage presupposes an objective moral standard that exists only if God exists. Objective morality—as well as the immaterial laws of reason and science—cannot exist in the materialist universe they attempt to defend.
In effect, they have to borrow from a theistic worldview in order to argue against it. They have to sit in God’s lap to slap his face.
While both men are very good writers, Hitchens and Dawkins are short on evidence and long on attitude. As I mentioned in our debate, you can sum up Christopher’s attitude in one sentence: “There is no God, and I hate him.”
Despite this, God’s attitude as evidenced by the sacrifice of Christ is: There are atheists, and I love them.
Tags: atheism,
christianity,
christopher hitchens,
Frank Turek,
God,
Jesus,
morality,
rebellion,
richard dawkins,
science,
sin,
TownHall
Possibly Related Posts:
Thank you Frank.
It seems the bottom-line of any, and possibly every, debate about the existence of God or the humble submissiveness required to be “right with God,” is selfishness. Selfishness is Pride; which, is the reason people come up with any excuse to reject Him. Many unbelieving people give to this, give to that… they give to get, even if it’s recognition, kudos. Or it may make them “feel” good and if it didn’t reward them in some way, they would not be so benevolent. Unfortunately, many believers give to get, tithe for a tax deduction or use God as a stock broker. We are all selfish people, some to a greater degree than others.
People want to sound so intelligent with their reasons for not believing. The philosophical jargon, for most folk, is formed so complex it sounds almost intellectual. But it’s a jumble of rhetorical brain cells splattered on a piece of paper. I must say, however, it is fun. I had a great time debating philosophy in college. But to what gain!!! There were just as many questions, sometimes more, than when first started. But for those “ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth,” it’s a blind language, leading the blind. It’s intellectual sounding and cunningly devised. It goes nowhere. Its perverted twisting of one’s understanding and confusion of the intellect, keeps the light of truth off those selfish, looking for an excuse to reject the truth. Anytime communication is cunningly devised, embellished, and uses words that are beyond the audience, beware!!! Other belief systems that heavily embellish language is: humanism, atheism, Darwinism, evolution…. When science, or anything else, rejects the existence and authority of Father Yahweh God, then reject it. It may have much truth, but the end is false and dangerous.
For every one that does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light that his works may not be shewn as they are;
(John 3:20)
To me, these Blogs are, not only respond to the article, but that through the substance reach those looking for the truth. However, to those “perishing,” Christians will never satisfy. Actually, it’s only the Father, through His Spirit, that can break through the darkened mind. But, that’s only to those with a love for the truth. That means, “I want truth more than I want my own way or desires.” Those who respond in direct opposition to the God of the Bible, don’t want to give up anything. They want god, spirituality and to do anything want. It’s the ole, “god in man’s image.” Mankind, since the beginning, have created gods in their own image. Anytime morality is brought up, the issue is skirted or vehemently argued. Their god is a direct replica (image) of themselves and their lusts.
2 Thessalonians 2
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The world’s idea of mankind being accountable to Yahweh, is totally rejected. But, spirituality needs a diety; we all know that mankind has become very spiritual. So, a diety is created in the laboratory of the mind. Mankind is without excuse. It’s blindness, but more than that it’s “raging, blind selfishness.” Mankind is so selfish, they would shake their fist at a God they knows exists, but denies anyway and could snuff them out in a flash. He created life, and those clay pots throw a fit because He is a “Righteous God, the Holy omnipotent Creator” who calls the shots, defines right and wrong, good and evil and demands total obedience. But, of course, one doesn’t need obey, but the end will not be very pleasant.
It’s like this, an ant claiming the elephant doesn’t exist, because it can’t see it. If it got real close, it would sense its presence. Regardless of what the ant believes, this world is teeming with life, but it can’t see it. Some chose to humble themselves, put away their selfishness and believe in the one true God and His Son Yeshua. They got close enough to sense His existence and His love just poured out. The only way to believe is to put away the selfishness, for it keeps one from accepting the Truth and submitting to the accountability required to grow in Faith. To label God as a “malevolent bully” or a “divine dictator” proves the absolute insanity of the unregenerates. Not comparing God to a dictator, but if He were, what would possess a person to shake a fist at Him. In order to have peace in eternity, don’t make it hard by calling God names. If Ahamadinijad were to come before you, while your arms were held tightly by his choicest guards, would you spit in his face? OK, that’s not a fair question, because I just may do a stupid thing like that. But, my point is made. We know that our God is long-suffering, patient that no one would perish. His loving arm will reach to the farthest harbors in existence.
Bottom-line, there is a reason people don’t believe in the “one True God,” love of self. Every excuse and every sin boils down to selfishness. The original sin was selfishness. For many of us, we know that absolute love of God and His laws are not burdensome and we miss out on nothing, having a very wonderful, abounding life. It’s too bad people will not let go of those lustful things that so hinder them and come unto the True Life Giver, Jesus, God’s Messiah our Saviour.
The thing I liked about this article was the sentence: “After all, a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs.” Thought that was a really concise way of making a good point.
I also think you said a good thing, John, when you said, “His loving arm will reach to the farthest harbors in existence.”
Marc
OK, one question about this for you:
I consider myself a believer and I am sleeping with my girlfriend (who considers herself to be a believer as well).
Our rationale is that we think of ourselves as married before God (we never had any other sexual relationship), we will marry officially the next year, but that as for now, certain obstacles (including her parents, who like me but don’t want her to marry “so quickly”) hold us up.
So, the question is: Is it wrong for me to sleep with her? Should we stop it now and continue next year?
I’d really appreciate honest answers. Thank you.
Anonymous Coward,
By all means, you should stop sleeping together. You are not, in fact, married, either in the eyes of God or man, and therefore you are committing fornication and guilty of sexual sin. (Fornication is sex outside of wedlock by an unmarried person; adultery is sex outside of wedlock by a married person.)
If you’re not ready to be “officially” married (to use your word), then you’re not ready to be having sex. It’s really quite simple.
Clear and honest enough?
Dear Dr. Brown,
definitely honest enough. Thank you.
Anonymous,
Have you ever read Corinthians? If you haven’t, the church at Corinth was in a culture ‘immersed’ in sexual immorality. In the temple to Aphrodite, there were professional prostitutes who served in pagan worship. So much so was the culture of Corinth a sexually immoral one, that in English, in some uses the word ‘Corinthian’ means perverted or sexually immoral.
I write this because I think I am right in assuming you’re from Germany. I lived in Kreuzberg (Berlin) last year and I know that the culture of Berlin (in particular) is very similar to Corinth. I know lots and lots of German christians who sleep with their girlfriends or are gay – in fact, in a city like Berlin, with such a liberal culture, it’s quite common.
BUT! Do not imagine that because it is culturally acceptable that it is permissible in God’s eyes! Even if your church leader does not call it a sin, God does. Even if your Sofagruppe leader says that it’s OK to sleep with your girlfriend, God does not.
Time and time again, Paul in writing to the early churches, says that it is sinful and that those people who continue in sexual sin, won’t inherit the Kingdom of God.
I want to exhort you to do one of two things:
Stop sleeping with your girlfriend – it’s not honouring her and it’s not honouring you. There are many people who would say that sleeping together before marriage actually has a negative effect on marital relations later on in life.
If you cannot stop sleeping with her, get married – Paul actually says in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that it is better for you to marry her than to burn with lust for her.
I would say this, I don’t think many people ever feel ‘ready’ for marriage because it’s a life changing decision, so you should think about whether you really love her, or the idea of sex with her. Please forgive my frankness in this. Evaluating your own relationship is hard because it has such a big effect on you, so maybe you could seek the guidance of an older more mature leader.
I would love to speak to you about this if you still have any questions (Und ist’s mir egal im welchem Sprache denn ich kann beide :D – aber wenn auf Deutsch per e-mail ist besser und höfflicher für Alle die nicht Deutsch können).
Do the right thing. Dr Brown is completely right in this. It may be hard in your culture, but the Corinthian culture was far worse than yours and they managed to be culturally distinctive after Paul corrected them. Do the same now.
Marc
Also, you didn’t say whether you and your girlfriend are both Christians and love Jesus. If you or her are not, you’ve got worse problems.
Anonymous,
You’re quite welcome. And be assured that God’s ways are best, and as you honor Him before your marriage, He will honor you in your marriage.
Marc,
thank you for your detailed answer. Indeed, I am German (and not too proud that this came out that quickly). And, maybe I should have said this before, my girlfriend is also my fiancée (quite officially, i.e. everyone knows this and we are wearing rings to that effect), and we are 100% certain to marry each other — no question there! (Also, none of us ever had sex with a third person, nor will that ever happen in my or her lifetime.)
I don’t live in Kreuzberg or in any area that “liberal” (to use the word in the American way). I don’t even know exactly what a “Sofagruppe” is, and I have not yet found a church I am happy with so I didn’t speak to any church leader about this either. I am also a bit surprised one of your first associations with my question is (the sin of) homosexuality…
Anyway. I am considering your stand on this. If it doesn’t spoil the main theme of this article (Dawkins on religion, etc.), may I ask some more questions about this and play the devil’s advocate for a moment?
The main point for me is, what constitutes marriage? From a christian perspective, it cannot be the act of a secular civil servant, can it? So it has to be the ceremony of a priest or something of this kind. Now, I think we agree that there are plenty of churches and priests out there that don’t preach according to God’s word. So would you argue that marriages conducted by those priests are not true marriages before God? I don’t think that would be correct.
I understand that Martin Luther is not necessarily the ultimate authority, but I do remember a quote by him along the lines of “Wenn ein Bub zu seinem Mädel hinaufsteigt in die Kammer, und die beiden sind sich einig vor Gott, so beginnt in dem Augenblick die Ehe” (rough translation: “When a lad gets into the chamber to his maid, and the two agree before God, then the marriage begins at that moment”; I am unable to find the exact source at the moment, I hope you believe me I didn’t make this up).
This seems to me to be a more practical approach, for otherwise christians in (say) North Korea cannot be rightfully married at all. (I am not trying to compare my situation with these poor people, I just try to fully understand your position.)
In any case, quite probably you are right. One more reason to really get married quickly. Thanks again for your honest and thoughtful (and thought-provoking) answers. I will have this on my mind in prayer, and also talk to my girlfriend/fiancée about this.
re: linking this to homosexuality – I was not intending it to sound like that. It wasn’t my intention. I was only referring to the fact that while I was in Berlin, I knew a lot of people who either a) sleep with their boyfriend/girlfriend or b) have a homosexual relationship. The two seem prevalent in the German Church of today – more so than in any other place I have lived.
Out of interest, where about are you living now (nearest city)? I may be able to suggest a good church for you to get plugged in to. I know it’s a very personal choice but perhaps I could suggest somewhere to you (perhaps.)
Marc
(And a Sofagruppe is a bible-study group.)
Dear Marc,
(this is getting a bit to non-anonymous for me being the anonymous coward, but anyway, I can go that far):
Living in Dresden at the moment, will soon be living near to Munich.
No problem!
In Munich: http://jesusfreaksmuenchen.de/
In Dresden: http://jfdd.jimdo.com/
I have some really dear friends who go to Jesusfreaks congregations. Some of the best people I met in Germany are people going to these congregations.
And if you ever go to Berlin, try: http://www.berlinprojekt.com/
Marc
Marc,
one more thing: Berlin is not a good way to judge the rest of Germany. I am not saying we are not sinful or anything like that, it is just that Berlin (both the western and the eastern part of it, for different historical reasons) is not representative of the rest of Germany.
About whether we are Christians and love Jesus. As I said, we consider ourselves believers in Jesus Christ. I did so for quite some time, and my girlfriend does so too, after talking and thinking this over for some time.
This is not to say that I am certain God is content with us. (I wonder whether you would think this about yourself?) But I am willing to try to be God’s tool in this world.
Anonymous,
Thanks so much for opening up and seeking different thoughts on this subject. The big thing, as I see it, is not civil acknowledgment of marriage, but covenant (though there are very good reasons to have civil acknowledgment). Have you made a public covenant of life-long commitment in marriage to your fiancee before God and man? If not, then sex is not an option.
Here are some thoughts from a relationship guru [http://www.crosswalk.com/987572/]:
Praying for God’s best for you Anonymous!
Marcus,
thanks so much for your comment. (And thank you all for the ability to discuses this here!)
This seems true to me. And I see that there is hardly any way to make a “public covenant of life-long commitment” except by “official” marriage. In that sense, a simple walk to the authorities to enter into marriage (in the secular sense) seems enough for the “before man” part. I don’t know how “public covenant” relates to the “before God” part. We (my fiancee and I) certainly made a promise to God and each other of life-long commitment, and people who know us know this. But I assume this is less than what you are talking about.
Thanks also for the of quotation. I carefully read those Bible verses. However, without wanting to seem ignorant, unthankful or unteachable, I fail to see most of them apply to my situation. What most of them speak of, in the German translations, is “Hurerei” (= harlotry, prostitution), the English translations render this as “fornication” (KJV) or “sexual immorality” (ESV). Now, fornication is used here in a more general sense than in the defintion of Dr. Brown above (e.g. Jude 1:7, where the people of Sodom and Gomorrha are said to have given themselves over fornication and having “pursued unnatural desire”).
I think 1 Corinthians 7 (the whole chapter) is extremly interesting here. 1 Corinthians 7:2 reads in the KJV: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. As far as I could find out, the greek word for “fornication” here is Strongs G4202, “porneia” with the translation given as “from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:–fornication.“. Also, it seems the words “wife” and “husband” don’t necessarily imply state-controled marriage contracts but rather hold the meaning of “one fixed lifetime fellow” (at least that is what Strongs G435, “aner” seems to mean to me, but I’m very unlearned and would appreciate correction from any of you learned Bible readers).
However, having said all this, you convinced me that it is best for us to marry quickly now. This way I don’t have to rely on that kind of sophism as above.
(One more thing, totally unrelated, but I want to say it anyway: Dr. Brown, I really like your books. They are intelligent and scripturally sound. These two properties, sadly, don’t always go together. So, thank you so much for writing them!)
Thank you so much, Marcus! I do feel I need it.
On a side note, my wife and I (in addition to the pastor that married us) were so wrapped up in the wedding that we actually forgot to sign the marriage license until after we came back from our week-long honeymoon in Costa Rica. Thus we were not technically married in the sight of the state while we were engaged in the sort of acts couples engage in on honeymoons! But the key thing of course were the covenantal vows we swore to each other publicly and before the man of God that married us. We and everybody else considered ourselves married.
Something to consider regarding state vs. Christian marriage, from C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:
I think he’s right to draw the difference between them.
Anonymous Coward,
Just to give you the other side of the story, consider this:
There is no law in the Old Testament against pre-marital sex. It tells you not to have sex on a woman’s period. It tells you not to have sex with animals. It tells you every single member of your family you’re not allowed to have sex with, as if saying “do not commit incest” was not enough. In fact, it even repeats most of these laws for the women, in case they were thinking they were off the hook because the sexual laws were stated for men first.
However, there is no law ever given about premarital sex. None whatsoever. Anytime someone is punished while having sex with someone they’re not married to, there’s always either a rape, incest, adultery or other sexual crime involved. For example, there’s a scene where a woman is stoned when she’s discovered to not be a virgin on her wedding day. Seems simple at first, until you realize that her new husband just discovered that day that she’d been lying about her virginity, so she’d entered a marriage contract on false pretenses.
For someone who might say “well pre-marital sex wasn’t common enough back then to make a law,” I would answer “And fornicating with your cattle was?” I have a hard time believing there was a bigger population of animal sexers than normal unmarried lovers.
Because the OT is definitely not against pre-marital sex, this is how you must interpret Paul and Jesus’ saying in regard to “sexual immorality.” As Paul says, the law taught us what sin was, which didn’t include premarital sex. Therefore, all references to “sexual immorality” and “coveting” should be looked through the lens of what was allowed in the Torah.
By the way, the actual word “pornea,” used for sexual immorality, has a number of possible meanings. I’ve contacted New Testament professors at a variety of highly ranked religious programs and several have said it does not apply to pre-marital sex itself. Do a little research yourself if you feel compelled.
Next, you can’t take Jesus’s “Do not lust for another woman.” at face value. For a man who’s had so much influence on society, Jesus has let his words be hotly debated and disturbingly ambiguous for thousands of years. Everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt, as it’s hard to figure out the meaning. Even “Turn the other cheek” and “Give to all who ask of you” are hard to understand.
When Jesus said “Lusting for another woman is the adultery of the heart,” does that sound a little odd to you? Adultery, by definition, involves the breaking of the marriage vows. If you and your girlfriend are single, how could you possible commit adultery? It’s like calling lusting for your friend’s house “Shoplifting of the heart.” If there’s no shop, there’s no shoplifting.
In my opinion, Jesus was talking about lusting for women who were married, and possibly lusting for another woman if you were married. It could be other things, but him using “adultery” in the sentence is a clear sign that you cannot take this as a simple “Do not lust.”
Also remember “Do not covet” is short for “Do not covet they neighbor’s wife, property, etc.” If your girlfriend doesn’t belong to another man, then you’re full in your rights to want her. A woman is only off limits if she “belongs” to a man in marriage.
Paul’s sayings have to be taken with a grain of salt too. He talks about sexual immorality in Corinthians. Do you know what Corinth was like back then? It would make the biggest pimp in Las Vegas blush, let’s put it that way. There were orgies everywhere, temple prostitues, combining idolatry and paying for sex in a bizarre union, etc. They had WAYYY bigger problems than a guy sleeping with his girlfriend.
This is why our definitions of “lust” do not mesh with what Paul and Jesus were talking about. After all, it’s ok to lust for your wife on your honeymoon, right? If you agree with that, then that’s a sign that lust is only a problem if it’s for the wrong person, i.e. your friend’s wife, a family member, a prostitute, etc.
I say you’re good to go, whether or not you plan on marrying your girlfriend. Don’t take my word for it though, look at both sides of this issue, as it is a little complex, and took me a lot of research to establish my conclusion on it. Just use protection, for crying out loud :-)
–Dan
Dan,
thanks for your thoughts on this. I actually feel a bit bad about hijacking this thread for my personal questions, while the main point seems to be Dawkins and Hitchens. (And while the people in Iran have bigger problems than any of us!) So remember: This is what happens if you come up with the title “Sleeping with your Girlfriend”.
However, Dan, your statement “Everything [Jesus] says should be taken with a grain of salt, as it’s hard to figure out the meaning.” makes me more than a bit unsure. It’s possibly quite correct what you are trying to say, however it is also potentially quite misleading. Of course, certain requests of Jesus are hard (if not impossible) to comprehend by the natural mind (e.g., “love your enemy”). So what Jesus addresses there is the supernatural mind. But there is a risk of “discussing away” everything one does not like to hear. This is what I meant with “sophism” above. My first way to address this problem is by trying to be really honest and intellectually sound with myself. However, I reading 1 Corinthians 1:18 and the following verses, I am not so sure about this approach. It seems to me Paul condemns a certain kind of intellectualism there. (But still, having a thoughtful, intellectual approach to all things comes natural with me, that’s why I like the books of Dr. Brown so much.)
On the other hand, there also is a risk evangelicals have to be aware of, namely, not to exaggerate biblical and Godly laws by themselves. One standard example in the bible is Genesis 3:3, where Eve says to the snake “God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it“, whereas there had been no command not to touch the fruit. One could see this exaggeration as the first step Satan was able to use to make Eve disobey the true command “Ye shall not eat of it”. However, it also does not seem practical to actually touch a fruit you are not allowed to eat, so the stricter rule allows for a broader “margin of error” and might thus as a personal rule of thumb be quite useful after all.
As you can see, I am not making any points I want to hold up, I just use this thread to write about my various thoughs, in the hope someone with better understanding will sort them for me. Speaking of this, many thanks to all those that have answered up to now!
Anonymous Coward (And you are no coward by any means),
In the end, do what you feel is right. One thing Paul said is “Prove all things,” which to me means that you should use your own mind to understand what’s going on.
So I would just suggest getting opinions from other sources, even secular ones, to get the right answer on this.
–Dan
Marcus,
thank you for that amusing story, and also for the quotation of C.S. Lewis. It raises some questions, though: What if two people non believing are nonetheless married (by the state) and after several years find Jesus and become saved. Are they then married before man, not before God, and should separate until a priest and a church to marry them before God has been found? I know this is quite a constructed example (although I’m sure such things happen!), but a definite, Godly law has to answer to the corner cases as well.
All in all, I think the two main questions are: First, what is the true, biblical concept of marriage? Second, what exactly does the bible mean by words like pornea? The problem with the second question is that some of the sins the bible talks about are so heinous and outright extreme that it’s not easy to subsume the problems of “normal” people who “try there best” under these concepts. However, Dr. Brown is right in saying that we should not ask about the standards of man but the standards of God.
Dating, kissing and touching, has created many social problems in the church. However, is it possible for our culture, in this day and age to “kiss dating goodbye forever,” which is the name of a book and video series. They believe it’s not only possible, but have a wonderful track record to back up. Joshua Harris and Rebecca St, James, the Authors, challenge today’s society and aid couples in seeking God’s will in romance from the process of meeting to marriage and after. They bring back the principles of the Jewish tradition of betrothal and courtship. the will of God must be sought and realistic standards must be applied to couples seeking to live godly lives. Dating and romance, within the parameters of today’s Christianity has lead to an unhealthy amount of pre-maritial sex which comes from excessive touching, kissing and being alone together. The world needs Jesus first so this topic is more for unbelievers.
Christian men and women (boys and girls) are meeting together, conducting their relationships much like the world. Part of a Christians discipleship in the Lord is to address this particular topic. Watchman Nee has a wonderful three part discipleship course and addresses this and all topics of life. I have read this and many works by Watchman Nee and very HIGHLY suggest reading them. The place you can get his on-line discipleship course named, “Messages for Building up New believers,” is at: http://www.ministrybooks.org/collected-works.cfm . Also, all his works are available. I mention this only because I have found Watchman Nee to be like Paul, God’s Apostle. He is totally Biblical on the topic of dating and the appropriateness of today’s very unscriptural enablement of ungodly dating principles. It is so important to be sold out to Father God, in Yeshua and His abiding presence in us. It is time to hold up scriptural appropriateness, regardless of society’s constant redefing “right and wrong.” We must be a peculiar people, a people that defies culture, enjoining a society of the counter – culture standards of biblical living, not today’s appropriate candy-coated sub-culture the church has become. The Church must run counter to today’s culture.
Because of the church’s lack of enforcement of Biblical standards of relationships leading to marriage, there are pregnancies, abortions (yes many christians have abortions and experience tremendous guilt and shame), premature marriages, marriages without personal discipleship programs, a high level of divorce almost at the level of the world’s and messed up children we are supposed to disciple for Jesus. discipleship and courtship is from God, Dating and any level of physical contact is the devil’s idea. Physical contact releases chemicals into the brain and body. Like a drug, as time goes on, the effect of the drug diminishes by an acquired tolerance, so more intimate touching needs to occur to get the chemical high. This goes on and on till the only way to get that high, is to have sex. Then, all is changed. Leaders of the True Church of God must disciple and enforce God’s will for romance. It is impossible to have a sexual relationship with someone and have a good relationship with God. It can be restored. When you stop having sex, if the relationship breaks apart, then sex was it’s glue. If it doesn’t, God is the glue.
Our entire life and existence surrounding us, all circumstances and human interaction has its intention in God. He is our all in all. All things work together…….. We are to submit our entire life to God; if it is in His plan and Will, He will put His stamp of approval on it and sends it back to us. Tha is very important to realize when considering a mate or whether to consumate your relationsip in an improper way (fornication/adultery). We need to be discipled!!! We exist by Him, for Him and through Him. (1cor 8:6 & Rom 11:36)
It’s discipleship –> Betrothal –> courtship –> take each other in Marriage (personal vows to each other) –> Marriage supper and presentation of each other to the families. Hebrew tradition has a wonderful “Betrothal” story , portraying the story of the “bride of Christ.” This is the Biblical standard of man/woman relationships.
Though I take a firm stance on my views, I do welcome teaching, correction and other views that add to or prove to be more correct than my stand. But I am firm in what I learn, pray about and expouns on. just wanted to state that and that I enjoy reading many peoples views on this website.
I’d like to add that both in Orthodox Jewish and Christian communities, I’ve seen couples rush to get married as they find their hormones raging and don’t want to have sex before marriage. How often this happens, I can’t say, but I have seen enough situations to know there is a risk of marrying the wrong person because your biology is telling you to get laid. This results in some unhappy marriages down the road.
Witholding sex from yourself is not healthy, assuming you would have protected sex with safe partners otherwise. There’s been many health benefits to sex discovered that you don’t receive from masturbation.
This is all irrelevant if it’s God’s law that you don’t have sex before marriage, but I wanted to make it a point that you can definitely end up marrying the wrong person if you let the need for sex play a role in your decision to get married.
The problem is that it’s impossible to know this is the case until after the fact. If you’re witholding sex from yourself, it’s easy to rationalize that this person is the right one for you, cause your biology is demanding you get some, as it were.
–Dan
Good article.
As an athiest I am always amused at the tactics of an increasingly polarized Christ-centric right as it fades into obscurity. Even more amusing is that these tactics are encouraged to their own detriment. I could not help but chuckle when the author said that “liberals and atheists” tend to ask rapid-fire questions without taking time to consider the answer. This is a typical Christian viewpoint, so self-righteous in assuming its own correctness that anyone that can’t see it must not be thinking about it hard enough. The paradox that arises is this: religion, by definition, does not make sense. No Christian will deny this. It does not make sense to blindly obey a musty tome handed down by an unseen god through countless civilizations with questionable agendas. But it is faith in something so irrational that Christians believe will grant them eternal happiness. They ignore all the contrary evidence in the ‘creation’ they temporarily inhabit. The issue is not that atheists do not think about the Christian responses to their questions, but rather that they have many times, and each time have found the answer to be insufficient. Far from being “unwilling to listen”, athiests have simply grown tired of being accused of the same ignorance and insensitivity we have come to expect from religious extremists. It is not “loving” to think that everyone that disagrees with you just hasn’t thought hard enough about it.
Dan –
I don’t know you, but I have certainly encountered many who sound like you and my experience tells me that you are either a) a shill for another group whose purpose is to undermine Dr. Brown and his efforts or b) one who is harmed & too educated for his own good.
Your constant critique of every article and position betrays you as the very thing that you rail against. It is certain that you have been injured by the “church” (small “c” quotated), even if you are only a shill.
Forgive me for being a frail person in a fallen world and forgive those who have hurt you. As I counsel many people with your same concerns, “Please don’t go to hell because we don’t yet fully function as the Genuine Body.”
No clever argument can change your mind, nor would I want it to.
I have added you to my prayer list in that you might encounter the Living God and be apprehended by the Holy God.
Let us ENCOURAGE one another to love & good deeds. And, yes, that encouragement maybe in the form of a rod or a hug, but it is administered in Love…..finally…..to paraphrase Tozer…to concentrate only upon one aspect of God while diminishing the other aspects; it is the road to denominationalism.
I skimmed, then skipped most comments, but i agree with the general value|protection of freedom of speech and of belief.
I wouldn’t expect any “side” to “convert” another “side”, because both talk past each other. most people think they can convince by applying what are invalid arguments to the other “side”. eg, quotes from quran-bible are useless to me. you may as well be quoting dr suess (although dr seuss is more amusing), or random madlibs.
another example of why you cannot “win”: you don’t speak the same language: “(Dawkins explanation for the extreme design of the universe is “luck.”)”
you have misused the dictionary definition of “design”, so your “argument” is instant fail.
“It does not make sense to blindly obey a musty tome handed down by an unseen god”
or more accurately: various translations of something, as sold by various publishers.
selfishness: if pursuing the truth because it’s the best we can do to be correct is “selfish”, then pursuing religiousness in order to be “good” is just as selfish.
a “Sofagruppe” is a bible study group? a rather funny name when read by english-speakers :-)
Me and my girl sleep together but we are not having sex of any sort. We usually sleep together. Is that a sin to cuddle with your girlfriend and give kisses to your girlfriend even though we are not yet married.
Wing Wah,
If sin, as 1 John 3:4, is transgression of the law, then lying down with your girlfriend is not sinful.
However, there is also a ‘sub-clause’ on Christian freedom: Everything is permissible [that is not sinful], but not everything is beneficial. (1 Corinthians 10:23 clarification of permissible is my own) Ask yourself this: 1) Do I struggle with sexual thoughts about my girlfriend? 2) Does it honour her to sleep with her? 3) Does it honour her future husband – whoever that may be – to sleep with her?
That would be my advice to you,
Marc
Marc,
Is sleeping with your girlfriend, according to your knowledge, violation of the Old Testament Law? I’ve done a lot of research and never found a case where it was forbidden or punished, without there being an additional sin such as rape, incest, or lying about the status to secure a marriage.
Thanks.
–Dan
Is it righteous to say that since we live in a more progressive society, more things can to be indulged in without it being sin? Or ask this, what would Paul have answer if you asked him the same question? I will guarantee this, men and women did not have any physical contact before marriage 2000 years ago (the godly Hebrews). But we say, “O, it’s was a different culture, we are much more developed in our mind and able to restrain ourselves than in those days. In our American culture, we have deemed it OK to have physical contact with the opposite sex” … well, now days it’s with anyone. The list of sins is being whittled away. We are told to avoid the very appearance of evil. Just because we are a “modern,” more intelligent and sophisticated culture, doesn’t mean that God’s morality has changed in the past 2000 years, or ever. Even 100 years ago it was not socially acceptable to have physical contact before marriage, but kissing and hugging continued. In Ward and June Cleaver’s day (a symbolic point), people lived a more consecrated life. They weren’t Prudes, just moral.
From the ascension of Jesus till the end, sin was to abound more and more. The only way for that to happen is to make society increasingly less godly, watered down, less sanctification… basically apostatized. What we see as acceptable today was, without a doubt, abhorrent when Jesus was here. The same things happened then, but wasn’t socially acceptable, especially in the Church. The passing of time does not change the morality of God. He never changes, but the Church seems to accept a moral decline as secular society orally declines.
Today, deep kissing, petting and basically being glued to each other is acceptable behavior for supposed Christian people, as long as there’s no sex. That was an “no-no” in Jesus’ day. Why do we want our spirit to acquiesce to the soul and flesh? (rhetorical question). That’s all it is, pure flesh. Read “The Spiritual Man,” by Watchman Nee, it is purely Biblical and astounding, the revelation one will get by seeking God and reading Scripture and this book. There is an on-line site where one can obtain all his works at:
http://www.ministrybooks.org/collected-works.cfm . He has an awesome testimony and wrote many of his works on prison and had them smuggled out. Almost like a “John on Patmos” story.
It’s important to feed the spirit man. Jesus said, “deny self (soul), take up our cross (our daily dying to self) and follow (obey, trust, believe, rely on) me.” Whoever said it wasn’t sin to lay with another, cuddle and kiss… today’s candy coated, watered down, laodicean “christians.” Don’t mean to offend anyone, just stating my understanding on this matter.
Dan,
Is this how you read what I wrote?
Marc
Marc,
When you posted “If sin, as 1 John 3:4, is transgression of the law, then lying down with your girlfriend is not sinful,”
I took that as you saying something is not sinful unless it transgresses the law. Therefore I was curious if you thought having premarital sex was a transgression of the law. Did you mean something else?
–Dan
Dan,
Oh right. I misunderstood what you were saying. I’m sure you already know this, but Jesus says that anyone looking at a woman lustfully commits adultery in his heart. If Jesus says that looking at a woman lustfully is transgression of the law, then I suppose that asides from any argument you could offer, premarital sex is transgression of the law.
It’s interesting that the word used for sexual immorality (porneia) is also linked intrinsically to similar root words for all kinds of sexual immorality. In fact, the King James puts translates words relating to immorality of this kind as: “concupiscence.” This word shows the breadth of the actions covered by this word.
I think you’ll find the evidence if fairly conclusive in scripture: premarital sex is forbidden.
Marc
Thanks Marc,
Actually discussed those very points in an earlier comment above: http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/2009/06/19/sleeping-with-your-girlfriend/#comment-5406
Still haven’t found any real scriptural evidence, but to each his own. One thing I know for sure of is there is little threat to non-believers from Church members abstaining, so it’s not something anyone should fret about. :-)
However, I know too many Christians who feel guilty over very natural sexual thoughts, and are afraid to even admit them to themselves, so maybe it’s a good idea for Christians to make sure their resistance to safe sex with a caring partner has a true Biblical base.
–Dan
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
(Genesis 2:24)
Marriage is the only place that sex is to occur. The act of being married is becoming one, cleaving with each other. Love hasn’t been the only reason people have gotten married but it was honored by God as marriage. Nevertheless, the cleaving, joining, having sex is what makes a couple ONE. That’s why, sex other than with your spouse is forbidden.
15 Do ye not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then, taking the members of the Christ, make them members of a harlot? Far be the thought.
16 Do ye not know that he that is joined to the harlot is one body? for the two, he says, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit.
1Corinthians 6:15-16
If anyone says they can’t find any Biblical reference condemning sex outside of marriage (fornication) and other partners than one’s spouse. Here’s some:
Let marriage be held every way in honour, and the bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers will God judge.
(Hebrews 13:4)
knowing this, that law has not its application to a righteous person, but to the lawless and insubordinate, to the impious and sinful, to the unholy and profane, to smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers; to murderers,
fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,
(I Timothy 1:9-10)
Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
(I Corinthians 6:9)
There are many, many more scriptures that put sex in it’s proper perspective. When sex was honored in a godly sense, no one heard of STDs. But as time went on so did the avoidance of godly principles and the elevation of “self.” Now look! Now, look at all the benefits of doing our own thing.
I became a disciple of Yeshua 25 years ago and found it difficult to live a godly life. My perseverance, love for Jesus and desire to live a godly life, created a new life in me and I am so thankful. The joy I now have is infinitely more than when I was having sex with anyone who would. For 20 years, if it felt good I did it. I couldn’t imagine how a loving God would condemn me for having sex, taking drugs… I didn’t hurt anyone. Everyone was having a great time. How could something that felt so good be so bad? That’s the mind of a selfish, godless, unregerated sinner.
that they said to you, that at the end of the time there should be mockers, walking after their own lusts of ungodlinesses. These are they who set themselves apart, natural men , not having the Spirit.
(Jude 1:18-19)
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(II Thessalonians 2:12)
He that practises sin is of the devil; for from the beginning the devil sins. To this end the Son of God has been manifested, that he might undo the works of the devil.
(I John 3:8)
As Christians, are to disassociate ourselves with unrepentant fornicators.
I have written to you in the epistle not to mix with fornicators;
(I Corinthians 5:9)
I don’t know, if that isn’t clear, then there’s trouble is ahead. The only hope is a new life in Jesus, the Messiah, mankind’s Savior who paid the penalty… satisfied God’s justice on sin so we wouldn’t have to (because we couldn’t anyway). But if you don’t want that and would rather live according to the cravings of your flesh and soul then I am very, very sorry for you.
John,
I was actually looking for Old Testament legal references on the subject, not including creation statements up to interpretation.
Provided that the greek word “pornea” is translated as “sex before marriage fornication,” you have made your case with flying colors, in terms of New Covenant rules.
However I’ve emailed several New Testament department heads and professors with PhD’s on the subject, and it’s not that simple. Pornea is often translated as “sexual immorality,” which, in a Jewish context, would likely refer to whatever is already defined as sexually immoral in Leviticus and other parts of the Law. Also, the harlots of Corinth weren’t the cheerleaders in your school who slept with the football captain. They were just a bit worse than that. ;-)
Also, it’s a little odd for it to be completely legal until Jesus came, isn’t it? Anyway, you took some good effort in putting your case together and I appreciate it. Thank you.
–Dan
It really is a simple subject. Gentiles are in a New Covenant with Jesus, we never had a first or Old covenant. The ‘law’ was written on our hearts. Simply put, if a man LOOKS at woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery in his heart. It is true that the moral law is still in effect because it defines God’s character and His desire for mankind. It seems to me that sexual immorality is sex apart from the Will of God. God has never changed.
Jesus taught the truth about the Torah to people following the Rabbinical law, the Talmud. Totally incorrect. The Apostles always amplified the Scriptures (Torah), everything taught by Jesus and His disciples were the correct interpretation of the Mosaic Law, the moral law, the Torah. Th teachings of the New Testament cannot be separated from the Old. We are in an age of grace and mercy. The works and curse of the law, including God’s justice, have been finished. The scripture is not just one dimensional or simply words; it’s 3 dimension and Spirit. Unless one is a regenerated believer, God’s word will not make sense. Also, going to church doesn’t make one a christian, just like going to a football game makes one a quarterback. It’s very hard to put spirit down in writing, that’s a miracle of the Bible.
John,
I agree with you that Spirit can only be experienced, not proven or argued. However, this is the very thing that makes other spiritualities equivelant to Christianity in plausibility. When I was discussing with Dr. Brown how there was no logical way God could be pure love, while having most of the world burn in hell, he ended up just saying if I knew God like he did, all objections would vanish.
There is no way to logically answer certain objections to the Bible. I guess you just need to believe in Christ enough where it makes sense in your heart, even if it’s not something you can explain in your head.
–Dan
Fornication
Hebrew:
2181 zanah zaw-naw’
a primitive root (highly-fed and therefore wanton); to commit
adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple
fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively,
to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the
spouse of Jehovah):–(cause to) commit fornication, X
continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be,
play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go
a-whoring, whorish.
(02181)
8457 taznuwth taz-nooth’
or taznuth {taz-nooth’}; from 2181; harlotry, i.e.
(figuratively) idolatry:–fornication, whoredom.
see HEBREW for 02181
(08457)
Greek:
4203 porneuo porn-yoo’-o
from 4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (literally) indulge unlawful lust
(of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry:–commit
(fornication).
see GREEK for 4204
(04203)
4202 porneia por-ni’-ah
from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively,
idolatry:–fornication.
see GREEK for 4203
(04202)
1608 ekporneuo ek-porn-yoo’-o
from 1537 and 4203; to be utterly unchaste:–give self over to
fornication.
see GREEK for 1537
see GREEK for 4203
(01608)
Dan
The worlds definition of love contains an emotional element. God is love, therefore everything that describes Him in the Bible is Love (and that is limited to our puny ability to undrstand). Mankind has a selfish understanding of love. God’s love has the best in mind for His people. So, how can we attempt to understand Him. He is our Creator. That’s like an ant trying to understand Nasa’s Shuttle project. That’s why we must have faith and a self-less attitude about life. If,( in order to believe, trust, obey and have faith in God), Jesus atoning sacrifice and continuing empowerment, grace and mercy cannot be received like a child’s trust, then …..
John,
Thank you for the extensive list of word translations and definitions. I can tell you chose non-biased sources, which I appreciate. We are both committed to Truth instead of reinforcing our opinions.
A couple of things I’d like you to consider:
Several instances of non-premarital sex offenses being lumped in with adultery, incest, and other sins into one word. Therefore, when these words are used in the Bible, we cannot assume premarital sex is what the author is talking about, unless clarified specifically to be pre-marital sex. This includes “pornea,” the word most used for “fornication” and “sexual immorality” in the New Testament.
Several instances of idolatry lumped into the sexual offense. Remember that in the first century, especially in Corinth, there was much temple prostitution, where sleeping with a harlot was tantamount to worshiping another god. This also includes “pornea”
You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you’ve listed a single Hebrew or Greek word that means unequivocally “pre-marital sex,” meaning sex between two single people without some other offense being committed.
This is why I say it is so ambiguous what Jesus and Paul meant.
As for Jesus’ famous quote: “Whoever looks at another woman with lust has committed adultery of the heart,” consider what follows.
Imagine if Jesus said “Whoever looks at an object with lust has committed shoplifting of the heart,” would you assume he was talking about wanting any object altogether, or specifically items found in retail stores, with the desire to steal?
Adultery without a married person involved is as possible as shoplifting without a shop or store involved. It just doesn’t make sense.
Put that quote in with “Turn the other cheek,” and “Give to all who ask of you,” as a statement of Jesus that is not straightforward or easy to understand. If you don’t believe in pre-marital sex, that’s fine, but Jesus is not your clear witness to that statement.
–Dan
Thanks John,
You’ve cleared up a lot of what I was saying. Let me see you if I understand you correctly. You mean to say
God, by definition, is love. Therefore everything he does that would be evil, cruel, or wrong by human standards, is automatically with love because God did it.
By this logic, if at the end of this age, God sent only Christians to hell, and everyone else to heaven, it would be in love, just because he rethought it and changed his mind, this would be in love.
You basically have said everything God does is love because God did it. This is an assertion with absolutely no logic behind it. God says he is loving, so he is loving.
God has what’s best in mind for his people. Therefore, if most of the world ends up in hell, this is the best possible option for the people in this universe. Any solutions that could bring everyone in the world into grace and heaven are, by definition, inferior to most of the world going to hell because God knows what’s best for us.
According to this, if God sent all Christians to hell at the end and no one else, it would be what was best for the world, and you’d be 100% ok with it. Even if he lied in the scriptures, this would be what was best for the world, because he is God and God is love.
God is infinitely smarter than us, therefore we can’t judge him as treating us unfairly. If someone is infinitely smarter than us, then it’s impossible for him to do something cruel, evil, or unfair to anyone infinitely stupider.
By this logic, if the smartest man in the world tortured a mouse for 6 hours, the mouse would have no right to judge the man as being unfair. After all, the mouse doesn’t even know what “fair” is. Similarly, since Satan has enough power to cause unspeakable harm to the entire earth at once, he is also at least 100,000 times smarter and more wise than any of us. Therefore, the dispute between God and Satan is not one we mortals can understand and choose a side on. It would be like an ant judging whether NASA is a better spaceship enterprise than the Soviet Space Program.
To sum up, you’re basically asserting that you were told the Biblical God is always loving, so everything he does is loving. He could have decided in a Calvinist fashion that you would never enter heaven since the day you were born, and that would be loving.
Someone could say the same about Stalin, Hitler, or Mohammad, that they were the most loving men to ever exist on this earth, so all the millions who died from each were out of love, because you say so.
This statement you have begins with the conclusion in mind.
How do you know God is love? Because the Bible says God is love. How do you know the Bible is true? Because God wrote it. How do you know that God wrote it? Because the Bible says so. Wait… huh?
This is why non-believers do not agree with your God is Love statement. There’s no basis behind it, just an assertion from the beginning that “God is Love because he said so.”
–Dan
You understand it through a darkened, unregenerate mind. Go ahead ant think he is an evil God. What we as humans think is evil is not. You, like the god of the knowledge of good and evil twist and develop your own understanding, creating God in your own image to fit the lifestyle you want for yourself and humanity. There were things that happened before the flood that would take too long too explain. But would give much info on why the races of humans had to be destroyed. You can shake your fist at God, but He is all powerful and if He is as evil you say He is, you can suffer greatly. But He is not and His love and mercy is evident in the fact that you are still breathing. So, no… your take on what I said is your own imagination and not in any sense what I said. You must be a lawyer.
“You must be a lawyer.”
Haha, thanks John.
I’m actually the son of two lawyers, and I considered the profession, though I have not the desire nor endurance to work 60 hour weeks for anyone.
You have boldly stated that I cannot understand how God is loving because I am not Christian like you. If you have no logic to back it up, then I appreciate you confirming for me that there is little true evidence for Christianity.
And as for my darkened, unregenerate mind, I am actually speaking through what makes rational sense in the real world, instead of asserting my reality to be true over yours because Buddha or Lao Tzu said so. I could have easily said “you are speaking this way because you are brainwashed by the church,” but I have been much more respectful of your character than you have been for mine.
I won’t dialog with you further, unless you can answer my points logically, particularly about the Hebrew and Greek words.
Thank you, and believe me, I do have more love for you then you imagine right now.
Be well,
–Dan
Dan,
Thank you for your kind words. Understand, I write these words with compassion not anger; I just write bluntly. I love your immortal soul. I have been in the place of a person who lived and believed in the “New Age” philosophy. My days were filled with the pursuit of self. I was a studio musician, played with a number of up and coming bands in many genres and my days filled with SDR. My mind was very worldly, I could have gained it all. But in the midst of a soul-full of self-ambition and pleasure, I had an emptiness I could not explain.
The reason you can’t be satisfied with anyone’s explanation of Christianity is because it must be witnessed from within, by God’s Spirit. Unless the Spirit of God is drawing you, understanding and the Will to believe is impossible. You challenge Dr. Brown! Wow! He is one of the top apologists in the world, and more than that, he has an spiritual understanding of the Bible very few have. Plus, his love for others is extreme. He really cares for people. So, rejecting what Michael Brown says shows me that, because you have not perceived an emptiness in your life and reached the end of yourself, you will not come close to understanding what anyone says regarding Christianity.
There is a scripture that explains why I cannot get into lengthy discussions about Christianity, but because of today’s social emotional dwarfism it would be taken aback and misunderstood. Look up Matthew 7:6. Basically, Christians are not to argue endlessly with unbelievers or bring God’s wisdom to scoffers and mockers. It is just a waste of time. You must be drawn by the Holy Spirit. And I pray that you are! God Bless
Just in case some of you came here about sleeping with you girl/boy-friend
unmarried sexers , you bear the abortion guilt. Whether or not in your particular instance a baby is conceived and aborted is really irrelevant. If you have unmarried sex there is a high likelihood any resulting unborn baby will be painfully excruciatingly aborted. You even subconsciously or consciouly know this and it is part of the gruesome act. On top of leaving your partner emotionally high and dry you also bear the guilt of the damn spot of bloodguiltiness the driven insane by it lady Macbeth could not wash away. And for what? Saving the few $ a marriage license costs and enjoying the offspring as God’s gift. Instead you get God’s everlasting judgement on yourself, your partner and the murdereee.
We need a little of this talk or else, “how in the world were we supposed to know better?” will be set before us who are supposed to be watchmen on the wall for our youth.
Noirman,
You said that those partaking in sexual relations outside of marriage bear abortion guilt – what makes you say this? There is not always a high chance that the baby will be aborted either. Isn’t that an assumption?
Marc