A good article on spineless Christianity

We’ve rewritten Paul’s words today. Our rule is, “Preach what the
people want to hear! Avoid controversy! Stroke, soothe and pacify the
people so they will come back next week!” Is it any wonder that this
low-protein spiritual diet has produced an anemic church?

Paul’s preaching in the first century was unquestionably
confrontational. He didn’t hold back from addressing sin, nor was he
afraid to call sin what it is. Paul knew that a spineless Christianity
would produce spineless Christians.

After exhorting the Thessalonians to practice abstinence, he rebuked
them sternly by saying that anyone who opposes God’s laws about sex “is
not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you” (1
Thess. 4:. Those are strong words. They need to be repeated in our
pulpits today.

Paul wasn’t trying to win any popularity contests, and his comments
about sex would get him blacklisted today if he tried to buy airtime.
Yet when he penned those tough words, he was speaking from God’s
heart—with love—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to all of us.

It’s time for us to grow a backbone. Let’s get rid of weak
Christianity, spineless preachers and jellyfish morals. Let’s preach the
message of the Bible instead of a neutered version. Let’s not only
point out sin but also point people to the only hope they have of
overcoming it—our strong Savior, whose death on the cross was the
ultimate confrontation of sin.

Darth Cheney wrote:Amen!

Any time the Bible is bastardized, we move farther away from Christ's teachings. The direction for salvation is written in the Bible and people need to realize it isn't debatable or open for liberal interpretation.

BladeRunner wrote:

There have been a lot of discussions here and on GPLV about what a "sin" is. These have been mostly about homosexuality, but it applies to others as well.

We’ve rewritten Paul’s words today. Our rule is, “Preach what the
people want to hear! Avoid controversy! Stroke, soothe and pacify the
people so they will come back next week!” Is it any wonder that this
low-protein spiritual diet has produced an anemic church?

Paul’s preaching in the first century was unquestionably
confrontational. He didn’t hold back from addressing sin, nor was he
afraid to call sin what it is. Paul knew that a spineless Christianity
would produce spineless Christians.

After exhorting the Thessalonians to practice abstinence, he rebuked
them sternly by saying that anyone who opposes God’s laws about sex “is
not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you” (1
Thess. 4:. Those are strong words. They need to be repeated in our
pulpits today.

Paul wasn’t trying to win any popularity contests, and his comments
about sex would get him blacklisted today if he tried to buy airtime.
Yet when he penned those tough words, he was speaking from God’s
heart—with love—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to all of us.

It’s time for us to grow a backbone. Let’s get rid of weak
Christianity, spineless preachers and jellyfish morals. Let’s preach the
message of the Bible instead of a neutered version. Let’s not only
point out sin but also point people to the only hope they have of
overcoming it—our strong Savior, whose death on the cross was the
ultimate confrontation of sin.

Abstinence?....but I thought it can't be accomplished and providing free birth control is a much better alternative!


What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.

BladeRunner wrote:Either they believe the Bible is the inspired WORD of God or they don't. They can't pick and choose what verses they believe and support.

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Liberal wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Either they believe the Bible is the inspired WORD of God or they don't. They can't pick and choose what verses they believe and support.

Do you support this verse?

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Furthermore, as is explained in the oral Torah, "cutting off the hands"
is not meant in the literal sense, rather it refers to monetary
compensation. In the words of the great biblical commentator Rabbi
Sholomo Yitzchaki -Rashi: You shall cut off her hand: [This
verse is not to be understood literally, but rather, it means:] She
must pay monetary damages to recompense the victim for the
embarrassment he suffered [through her action. The amount she must pay
is calculated by the court,] all according to the [social status] of
the culprit and the victim (see B.K. 83b). But perhaps [it means that
we must actually cut off] her very hand? [The answer is born out from a
transmission handed down to our Rabbis, as follows:] Here, it says לֹא
תָחוֹס,“do not have pity,” and later, in the case of conspiring
witnesses (Deut. 19:21), the same expression, לֹא תָחוֹס, is used. [And
our Rabbis taught that these verses have a contextual connection:]
Just as there, in the case of the conspiring witnesses, [the literal
expressions in the verse refer to] monetary compensation (see Rashi on
that verse), so too, here, [the expression “You must cut off her hand”
refers to] monetary compensation. — [Sifrei 25]

Liberal wrote:So if a woman touches a man's junk while trying to break up a fight, you think she should have to pay the man for his embarrassment? Sounds a little ridiculous to me, but whatever floats your boat.

Liberal wrote:This discussion got pretty quiet. I wonder why?

Liberal wrote:This discussion got pretty quiet. I wonder why?

BladeRunner wrote:

Liberal wrote:This discussion got pretty quiet. I wonder why?

That usually happens when liberals use an argument and they can't think of a derogatory comment about the people they were having a discussion with.

So if a woman touches a man's junk while trying to break up a fight, you think she should have to pay the man for his embarrassment?

Liberal wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Liberal wrote:This discussion got pretty quiet. I wonder why?

That usually happens when liberals use an argument and they can't think of a derogatory comment about the people they were having a discussion with.

So is that a yes or a no on this question?

So if a woman touches a man's junk while trying to break up a fight, you think she should have to pay the man for his embarrassment?

Liberal wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Liberal wrote:This discussion got pretty quiet. I wonder why?

That usually happens when liberals use an argument and they can't think of a derogatory comment about the people they were having a discussion with.

So is that a yes or a no on this question?

So if a woman touches a man's junk while trying to break up a fight, you think she should have to pay the man for his embarrassment?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Freeking presentists. In studying history one has to be careful not to fall in to the trap of presentism where you introduce modern day ideas and perspectives into the interpretations/depictions of the past. Libs seemed to be the most adversely affected with this practice due to their pathological ignorance. Pity them, they can't help themselves.

 

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Freeking presentists. In studying history one has to be careful not to fall in to the trap of presentism where you introduce modern day ideas and perspectives into the interpretations/depictions of the past. Libs seemed to be the most adversely affected with this practice due to their pathological ignorance. Pity them, they can't help themselves.

 

You need to explain that to some posters here who try to do that with the Bible.