unworthyservant

Sorry, this was originally a link to a YouTube video until I learned that was not allowed here, so if anyone is curious Acres of Diamonds is a speech by Russell Conwell and is available on YouTube, Thanks, sorry and God Bless

To further clarify what I mean I sometimes refer to the core point as one of Preaching or teaching a "Convenient Gospel" instead of the "Full Gospel". The convenient Gospel consists of lots of condemnation for the sins that don't really hit home and comparatively little about those that do. It's all about preaching hot and heavy on those "Heathen Witch Doctors" to somehow assuage themselves that those sins are greater than their own and then glossing over their own by creative interpretation of the Scriptures to convince themselves of their own righteousness. I believe that aside from the Parables Christ's teachings are to be taken literally (and He even gave a literal interpretation of several Parables) and that they apply equally to everyone of us all the time.

BTW, I have posted several threads on different angles of the same discussion

That's exactly what I mean. And there are millions more who don't have access to enough money from Christian donations to even have the necessities of life. They are dying for lack of Christian donations (either time or money), while Western Christians live a life of relative luxury and preachers accumulate small fortunes of personal wealth. As for my calling, it is ever evolving as God reveals it one day at a time. Presently, it is indeed primarily focused on addressing what I believe to be two of the biggest sins prevalent if not rampant today's modern Christian churches(MONEY AND SEX) and calling out those who ignore these things in favor of preaching on "Heathen Witch Doctors" in the context of the story. As for how little we should keep for our NEEDS, the number will vary depending on geographical differences as well as individual needs. So, someone in NYC who has a lot of medical bills would need more than a healthy person living in a rural southern area. That said, the widow in the Bible had hardship yet she gave her last two mites and that is the sacrifice that God delighted God. It's not about the amount but the fact that she sacrificed all that she had. I believe that God wants us to have a stable and happy life so we will be better able to do His work. As to whether or not a Christian should accept the charity of others or work for what they have, I can only say that if able one should either work to earn a living and use any increase beyond what is necessary to live a stable life for God's work or should devote their talents to doing God's work on a full time basis and live by faith which by necessity relies on the generosity of those in the first category. And if unable to earn a living for whatever reason, then those are the ones that Christ indeed told us to help and there's no disgrace in receiving that help as long as the Glory for it is to God. I hope that helps clarify my ramblings.

First I'm not claiming that you are a "Heathen Witch Doctor". That's a reference to a story that I've posted a couple of times already. I guess I shouldn't arrogantly assume that anyone has read those posts and thus understands the term so, I'll post it once again here for context. As to what I've sold, I've now sold most of the trappings of my old life. Still have a few that I can't find a buyer for so, if you know any antique collectors (I'm old enough that some of my treasures are considered antique) I've got a few left and the proceeds would benefit those in need. Ditto, not to be cliche but what follows is the story I referenced. The story is of a preacher from up north who had the opportunity to serve a one month trial period for a job with a church in KY. The deal was that he'd preach 4 sermons (one per week for a month) and then the deacons would decide if he got the job as full time pastor. Being an old fashioned prohibitionist teetotaler kind of fellow, he preached his first sermon on the evils of strong drink. After the service he was approached by the deacons who advised him that it was unwise to preach abstinence there as many of the congregation worked at the local distillery and some were farmers who sold their corn there. So, the next week he came back with renewed determination and preached on being good stewards of your money and mentioned the evils of gambling it. Again the deacons approached him and advised him to stay away from denouncing gambling because many of the congregation worked at the local racetrack and some were breeders whose horses raced there. SO, discouraged but still determined he came back the third time and this time he preached about how our body is the temple of the Lord and we shouldn't defile it with such nasty habits as tobacco. Guess what? Again the deacons protested because many of the congregation were tobacco farmers. The preacher was at a loss and asked "since you have objected to all three of my sermons, have you any suggestions? After a little thought they replied, "Why don't you preach on heathen witch doctors? We don't have any of those for miles around." It's amazing how ALL of Christ's teachings go together and are just as relevant today as they were some 2000 years ago.

It's an old hymn. I posted it on another post but don't remember if I noted the source. It's widely available on the internet and YouTube. There are many really good versions, check them out, enjoy and God Bless

Having having spent several years in Phoenix I'm convinced that man really isn't meant to live in the desert. It's somehow not right to have to shake out your shoes in the morning to be sure there's no scorpion hiding in them. And as for dry heat, it's actually worse because there's no humidity to assist in cooling your body and it gets so hot that the sweat evaporates before even having the chance to help cool your body. It also leads to quicker dehydration. And for comparison purposes, your oven is dry heat, stick your head in and see if it's not hot.

I'm a NOMAD in this world! This world is not my home I'm just passing through my treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue the angels beckon me from Heaven's open door and I can't feel at home in this world anymore O Lord you know I have no friend like you if Heaven's not my home then Lord what will I do? the angels beckon me from Heaven's open door and I can't feel at home in this world anymore They're all expecting me and that's one thing I know my savior pardoned me and now I onward go I know He'll take me through though I am weak and poor and I can't feel at home in this world anymore Just up in Glory Land we'll live eternally the Saints on every hand are shouting victory their song of sweetest praise drifts back from Heaven's shore and I can't feel at home in this world anymore I have a loving mother just over in gloryland And I don't expect to stop until I shake her hand She's waiting now for me in heaven's open door And I can't feel at home in this world anymore O Lord you know I have no friend like you if Heaven's not my home then Lord what will I do? the angels beckon me from Heaven's open door and I can't feel at home in this world anymore

I just wanted to make an entirely different point in the Scripture that you use as the basis for your discourse. It's the last line where it says "In his joy, he goes and SELLS ALL THAT HE HAS, and buys that field. Now the point is that just as the man had to sell "ALL THAT HE HAS" to buy that hypothetical field, if we wish to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, we must give up "ALL THAT WE HAVE" on this earth in order to have that treasure in God's Kingdom. I'm always baffled by those who quote Scripture to make a point and skim right over another just as valid point as the one they focus on. It might be the old "Heathen Witch Doctor" syndrome, where they make no mention of the points that might hit closer to home.

Melinda, while I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in your post I must take umbrage to the idea of using the adjective triune to define God. While I do believe in God, the Father and believe that Christ is indeed the Son of God and that the Holy Ghost was sent of God, I strongly resist the notion that God can be described with human words. So why not just call Him God? When God described Himself to Moses he simply said, "I am that I am". I even question the idea of using masculine pronouns that seem to ascribe to God a human sex, but can't really think of an acceptable alternative, so simply use them for lack of options. The limitations of human thought and words will never explain God. So, all I'm saying is, Why can't we quit trying?

Thank you lovethelord. You encapsulated a long drawn out point very well. Sodom's sin was great enough to incur the wrath of God but it's not necessarily the case that is was so great because of homosexuality. Truth is we may never know why it was so grievous until that day when God reveals all. Meanwhile, all I'm saying is if we want to be there on that day, we need to follow Christ in our own lives and stop raving about others sins until we have dealt with the sin in our own backyard. You said in a previous post that I can only guess that you use the term "due to their ONE sin as noted above" to denote that because the text to which you refer is using the phrase "because their SIN is very grievous", that it refers to a singular sin. That's not at all necessarily the case. I pointed out three sins that were part of the one incident in the following chapter. And the use of the word sin isn't always used as singular, the term sin is also used as a umbrella type word to refer to sin in general and the translators could have chosen to use sins or sin and either could mean more that a singular sin. The Bible doesn't say "one sin" as your statement seems to imply. All I'm really saying is to your first point, that we should beware the pitfalls of attaching too much significance to someone else's sin (whether singular or myriad) that we miss the real point, our own sin and that of those with whom we come into contact everyday. It's easy to preach against the sins of those with whom we rarely have contact, so we need to take the harder look at the sin close to home and once it's eliminated, then go and share the good news of the Gospel with others.

, only posed a what if scenario. At any rate it would have been a better use of the money, you have to admit.

That's another part of the point. The word abomination DOESN"T mean a sin any worse than any other. I didn't go into the translation of all the words that were translated abomination in the Old Testament, because that would have triples the words to an already wordy post. It was simply a way for the writers of the KJV Bible to translate a myriad of words to one English word, possibly for simplicity purposes. And the three instances that I quoted from the Proverbs are just a small sampling of the 76 Old Testament references to the word. It's not about a word, it's about what's in your heart.

God surely won't judge you and he surely won't judge me. But He'll rain fire and brimstone, on that guy behind that tree. Now, BTW that's an old repurposed cliche, but it that's how it sometimes sounds to me when people come up with their own reason why someone else's sin is worse than their own and why someone else "would be addressed more sternly". That's my point but more to the point is what Christ said "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Yep, it just so happens that I do!

I've read that passage many times but it just slipped my mind when thinking on this issue. Thank you. Christ said it all! And if Christ said it, then there's no discussion to be had aside from a mystery that doesn't actually affect my daily walk with God, so that settles the matter completely for me. Thanks again

I don't want to seem insensitive and while it disturbs me every time I hear of such things, I can't help but wonder if the woman was a Christian. If so, I wonder if she had spent that $200,000 doing what Christ taught and used it for the poor, in the process who's to say that God might not have led her to the one that he had chosen for her and thus she would have never been vulnerable to the scam. It doesn't negate the horrible scams that are being perpetrated every day, and bravo for exposing them, it's just another angle. I'm all about all the angles.

This is my take on God's vengeance or retribution on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and how it relates to sexual sin but there's another point to this and I want to begin with a story I may have already posted but that illustrates kinda cleverly the second point that will hopefully be clear by the time I'm done. The story is of a preacher from up north who had the opportunity to serve a one month trial period for a job with a church in KY. The deal was that he'd preach 4 sermons (one per week for a month) and then the deacons would decide if he got the job as full time pastor. Being an old fashioned prohibitionist teetotaler kind of fellow, he preached his first sermon on the evils of strong drink. After the service he was approached by the deacons who advised him that it was unwise to preach abstinence there as many of the congregation worked at the local distillery and some were farmers who sold their corn there. So, the next week he came back with renewed determination and preached on being good stewards of your money and mentioned the evils of gambling it. Again the deacons approached him and advised him to stay away from denouncing gambling because many of the congregation worked at the local racetrack and some were breeders whose horses raced there. SO, discouraged but still determined he came back the third time and this time he preached about how our body is the temple of the Lord and we shouldn't defile it with such nasty habits as tobacco. Guess what? Again the deacons protested because many of the congregation were tobacco farmers. The preacher was at a loss and asked "since you have objected to all three of my sermons, have you any suggestions? After a little thought they replied, "Why don't you preach on heathen witch doctors? We don't have any of those for miles around." Now, I'll not elaborate on the story at this juncture but promise I'll bring it back around at the end. Now back to Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have become synonymous with homosexuality to the point that Sodom is the origin of the word Sodomy. The only thing the Bible account of the incident tells us definitively about the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is found in Genesis 18:20-21 where we read in the KJV: 20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. So, no particular sin is mentioned here and after the pleading of Abraham, although God doesn't turn His wrath from the cities, He agrees to save Lot and his family because of their faith. Then in Chapter 19, the story unfolds. To conserve space in what's becoming a lengthy discussion, I'll quote the only the parts relevant to this discussion. The story begins with Lot convincing the angels sent of God to come to his house and dine. Then in verses 4-11 we find the portion of the story that has for centuries linked the incident and thus the cities with homosexuality. The KJV reads 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. The key verse that links the story to homosexuality is found in verse 5. It starts with the fact that the question is "Where are the MEN which came in to thee this night" Much of the emphasis of those who use the story as a condemnation of homosexuality starts with the use of the masculine word "MEN" that's used by the town folk to refer to the Angels. Now, regardless of whether you ascribe to the idea that Angels have sexual identity or believe that it may simply be the inclination of the patriarchal society of the day to simply use masculine descriptions for them is really neither here nor there, as since the men outside identified them as male and wished to engage in non consensual sexual acts with them, their intent was indeed homosexual in nature. But the fact that it was non consensual constituted a sin in itself, and then the fact that it was fornication regardless of whether it was consensual or homosexual. So, there's three sins in one verse.I've heard others go on about how the sexual abuse of a stranger was a act of exercising power and not sexual but it's clear to me that even if the underlying end was a power trip it was through sexual sin that this was to be accomplished. So, what was really their sin (or sins, as related above) and why all the focus on the homosexuality when we can see three different sins in the same verse? The first question I can't answer beyond the three sexual sins that are found in this single act but as to how the homosexuality became the focus is related to the story that began this discussion. It's the idea of preaching on HEATHEN WITCH DOCTORS or in other words preaching a message that alienates as few as possible instead of the complete truth in God's word. It's a more convenient Gospel when you can lambast and curse the evil homosexuals and at the same time wriggle around the sexual sins that may hit closer to home. In Matthew Chapter 5 Christ tells us "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Maybe that could be interpreted, get the sin out of your own life and your own church and only then can you go after the "Heathen Witch Doctors" or "Evil Homosexuals" I believe that sin is sin and if God ranks sin, I doubt that Homosexuality is any worse that Adultery or Fornication. I hear folks who rave that Homosexuality is worse because it's an "ABOMINATION" unto the Lord, but what really is the difference between an abomination and any other sin. It's something I'll not expand on but there are several Hebrew words in the Old Testament that were translated as abomination. The put it in perspective, the Blue Letter Bible search resource found 76 references to the word in 69 verses in the Old testament alone. Just in the Proverbs alone we read the following: Pro 11:1 A false balance is ABOMINATION to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. Pro 11:20 They that are of a perverse heart are ABOMINATION to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight. Pro 12:22 Lying lips are ABOMINATION to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. So, cheaters and liars are just as much an abomination to God as the Homosexual by that metric. So, why don't the same preachers scream quite as loud or put the same emphasis on cheating and lying? Again, I believe it's Heathen Witch Doctor syndrome. They're preaching a convenient Gospel instead of the full Word of God. It's a pretty deep dive I know, but it's just another example of how men monkey with God's word to make it suit their circumstances. "Straight is the gate and narrow the way." ''"

All I know, now that I've had a chance to view the entire episode, is that whatever your politics, whatever the point and whatever the reason, I just don't think turning you eyes toward heaven and saying "I guess I am the chosen one" is an acceptable way of making any point for any reason, much less a political one for personal political reasons and don't feel it should be done in jest either. Let me add that it's not because the actions and statements are from Mr. Trump that I find them offensive (don't want to mix politics with moral questions in this context). I would find them just as offensive if anyone else had been the culprit. It just happens that since Mr. Trump is the President, what he says is on TV and so it was him that I saw and heard so it was him that I quoted. So, it matters not whether or what anyone else has done or whether or not it's used as political fodder. It's not about a singular person, Mr. Trump just happens to be the most singular person in the news so his every word is heard. And, regardless of politics, I do believe that someone in his position should take extra care about his words and actions for the very reasons enumerated above.

Aside from the Bible quotes these are my own words based on much scholarly study and research by others that I have myself have studied over the years. A couple of websites that I find myself returning to for some perspective on Biblical issues are the Biblestudytools site and biblehub.com. They both have good reference tools and reading material. I also have and still occasionally refer to an old fashioned printed, red letter, Cambridge Concordance and a Scofield Reference Bible. I have also studied everything I can glean about historical data from the time of Christ til the present day. (And pre-Christian as well, I'm a history buff). There are so many good sites for historical perspectives that I only caution to check several references for verification of ANYTHING! As for the actual words in this post they are my own thoughts on what I've read elsewhere but are not direct quotes from anywhere.

All I know for sure and all I need to know is that Heaven is where God is and Heaven is where Christ is and Heaven is where Peter and the early martyrs will be, too, so it's where I want to go. With that in mind, all I then have to do is see that I go there. Then I'll see for myself where it is and what else is there (aside from the few mentions in the Bible I don't know). So, whatever it is, and I'm told it's more wonderful and beautiful than I can ever imagine, I'll just spend my time doing what Christ taught so that I'll be sure to experience it for myself someday.

The 50 days I'm referring to are the days from the Resurrection til Pentecost. To fully understand the impact of that period requires a little historical perspective. Historically, the Roman Empire had tolerated and allowed people to practice their own religion (as was the case with Judaism in Christ's day) and only interfered when the leaders of a religion went against Roman occupation or law. One of those exceptions was the "messiahs" who occasionally popped up in what was then occupied Palestine. Invariably these so called messiahs would be claiming that God had sent them to lead a revolution and free His people from Roman rule. That was a NO NO and the Romans had a pretty effectively way of dealing with such movements before they got out of hand. They would crucify the leader (messiah) and usually the followers would disappear from the face of the earth (metaphorically speaking). They went into hiding because their leader had been killed and they now feared the same fate might befall them if they persisted. The Romans believed in nipping things in the bud, so to speak. It was in this backdrop that along came another messiah. Jesus of Nazareth. He was different in several ways. First, Jesus of Nazareth, since he didn't advocate for overthrow of Roman rule, wasn't even on the radar of the Roman authorities. They probably just saw another Jewish zealot who posed no threat to their authority. It was the Jewish authorities at the temple who were so upset with Christ that they brought Him to the attention of the Romans. We read in the Bible that even then Pilot tried to dissuade them by offering a choice between crucifying Christ or a contemptible criminal, Barabbas who was already convicted and awaiting crucifixion. T at the insistence of the here's a high probability that Pilot thought the choice would be simple and thus he wouldn't have to deal with what he considered to be an internal Jewish church dispute. Well, of course the Jews chose to crucify Christ and free Barabbas. Pilot, we're told relented but even then washed his own hands of the matter as Christ hadn't really broken any Roman law. He hadn't even spoken against the Empire. So, as with other messiahs in the past, Christ was crucified. And as with other messiahs, after He had been crucified, His followers were nowhere to be seen. They seemed to be in hiding, cowering and wondering if the same fate was awaiting them at any moment. So, what was different this time. What happened was that Christ arose from the grave and HE FOUND THEM. In Luke we read: Luke 24:36-43 36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and He took it and ate it before them. Notice that the first thing it says after Christ appeared and spoke to them, "they were startled and frightened and thought they were seeing a spirit". Now remember, they had just seen Christ crucified. They were already traumatized and like the followers of previous messiahs, found themselves devastated as their leader had been taken from them and now here He was standing before them. I can only imagine what they must have been thinking at that moment, but startled and frightened. He then asked them why they were startled and why they had doubts. I believe that the disciples hadn't really fully comprehended from Christ's teaching that He would be physically killed and then be physically resurrected. So, He showed them His hands and His feet, He was indeed flesh and blood resurrected. The next line tells a big part of the story. They still could not believe it because of their JOY AND AMAZEMENT. In just a few minutes after Christ appeared to them they had gone from "startled and frightened" to joy and amazement. Quite a transformation Christ can make. The rest of the story is history. Christ continued to appear until His ascension 40 days later. The disciples had a renewed hope and began to rethink the impact of the message that they had been blessed with and began again to spread the Gospel. Then on day 50, God gave the final gift that would turn these frightened disciples into dynamic apostles and give them the courage to spread the word even though they now were in violation of Roman law because they were now preaching that indeed Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and had been resurrected from the grave after being executed by the Empire. To make matters worse they were preaching that Christ (who the Romans knew as the human, Jesus of Nazareth and thought they had eliminated) to be above even the Roman Emperor. Now that was a BIG NO!NO! The gift that God gave them 10 days after Christ had ascended to Heaven was the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. After that, the Apostles went boldly across the Empire with the full knowledge that they were now more than ever going against the biggest Roman rule (No one person is above the Emperor EVER) and thus all the more likely to face persecution and even crucifixion. Over the period of 50 days, Christ had given them deliverance and God had given them the Holy Ghost to strengthen them, and with that they risked their very lives on a daily basis so that we today might know of the Gospel of Christ.

You talk a lot about some difference between free will and self will and I see them as one and the same. You seem to be bogged down in circular logic that is based on human definitions of words. As someone stated earlier, they can both be possible given the nature of God and His creation, namely man. I think it's good to remember when trying to think on such things the words of Christ in Matthew 19:26 and Mark 10:27 when he said, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible".

I have another take on the issue. It's pretty simple, I just pray that God will lead me to wherever in His word that He wants to reveal to me and then pray that he will provide the wisdom to understand it and the strength to follow through with whatever He shows me. So, whether or not you are just beginning the study of God's word or have been at it for many years that method has worked for me for many years. Sometimes I just pray, God I don't even know where to start so I'm trusting you to show me, then I just open the Bible to a random page and sure enough there's something there that relates to my particular situation at that time.

I took this quote out of context on purpose because the rest of your message is everything that I believe. This line I disagree with. The best things in life are INDEED FREE. Salvation is free for us because Christ already paid the price. Joy in serving Christ is free and our testimony should be shared freely. After reading the rest of your message I'm not sure if this statement was intentional, since as I said, it seems to be the opposite of the point it sounded to me that you were making.