Forgive me brother but one thing you stated I must disagree with.
You said: “I very much agree that fear is a bad choice to draw people unto the Lord.”
If it was not for a healthy fear; who pray tell, would turn from their wicked ways. As we discussed earlier evil is in the heart of the child and the rod of correction is needed to drive it from them. And may I say from all of us. This is done in a large part by the fear of pain, or discomfort of some sort; in short, correction.
Proverbs 1:5-9
5. A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
6. To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
He will seek out wise counsels because he is acting in a wise manner. You know this is the same reason you are in this class.
What is it you ask that makes him wise, wait for it here it comes.
7. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge (wisdom): but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
8. My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
9. For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.
Now does this apply to the Old Testament time only? I think not. I believe it does assume though, that your parents are following God. But the big picture here as I see it, is that with fear comes wisdom. And because God is great then I will equate that with greater fear comes greater wisdom.
Only wisdom and happiness can come to the man who is in awe of God. To think of His majesty, or as it was termed when I was young, His “awful greatness”. These words seem to have lost something over the years.
We should fear Him because of “His ineffable holiness, His perfect righteousness, His irresistible power, and not the least, His sovereign grace.” Only one who is so truly great can be so truly full of grace.
Today people say that it is only those outside His grace who should be in fear of Him, foolishness I say. Those who are in Christ are admonished to work out their own salvation with "fear and trembling."
There was a time and not so long ago that men who believed on Him were said to be "God-fearing men." Sadly this label has become rare and if used only as scorn.
Remember these wise words from the Psalms, 103:13, “Just as a father has compassion on his children, So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.”
If a man has a healthy Godly fear it is not a servile fear he has. Servile meaning that you are too willing to agree with somebody or to do anything, however demeaning that the one above wants. Like that of the heathen with the worship of their gods. (This is not in the nature of our God.)
The meaning is that the humbled spirit the Lord pledges to bless or exalt is the spirit Isaiah spoke of, 66:2, “My hands have made both heaven and earth; they and everything in them are mine. I, the Lord, have spoken! I will bless those who have humble and contrite hearts, who tremble at my word.” And Peter wrote, "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king" (I Pet: 2:17).
So I say again, fear is what makes men fall before our Great and Terrible God. My fear of Him is also what brings me to love Him so. Imagine the only true God, awesome and great; that He is being merciful and loving to someone like me. “Amazing love, how can it be that you my king would die for me? Amazing love, I know it's true it’s my joy to honor you.”
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Proverbs 22:15
15. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
“Beat him it won’t kill him”, as my mother used to say.
True discipline is one of the purest forms of expressing love for a child. (I was loved a lot as a child.) This is evident in the fact that God chastens those whom he loves. We are born with this heart of rebellion and the rod of discipline is God’s way of turning us from that rebellion. “Foolishness” is contrary to right reasoning. It is in every child at birth, and it will not be driven out by gentle measures. This truth is applicable to all generations and all cultures.
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
“Beat him it won’t kill him”, as my mother used to say.
True discipline is one of the purest forms of expressing love for a child. (I was loved a lot as a child.) This is evident in the fact that God chastens those whom he loves. We are born with this heart of rebellion and the rod of discipline is God’s way of turning us from that rebellion. “Foolishness” is contrary to right reasoning. It is in every child at birth, and it will not be driven out by gentle measures. This truth is applicable to all generations and all cultures.
20/20
After 20 years of researching and waiting patiently, I finally went through with it. Yup, yesterday I had the surgery. They cut the top layer of my eyeball off, flipped it back then burned off some of the epithelial tissue with a laser beam.
Way Cool!
For those who don’t know how this works let me enlighten.
The cornea is a part of the eye that helps focus light to create an image on the retina in the back of the eye where all the receptive cones and rods are located. The cornea works in much the same way that the lens of a camera focuses light to create an image on film.
The bending and focusing of light is also known as refraction. Usually the shape of the cornea and the eye are not perfect and the image on the retina is out-of-focus or blurred. In the case of Astigmatism the picture is distorted or bent.
These imperfections in the focusing power of the eye are called refractive errors. There are three primary types of refractive errors: myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism.
Persons with myopia, or nearsightedness, have more difficulty seeing distant objects as clearly as near objects.
Persons with hyperopia, or farsightedness, have more difficulty seeing near objects as clearly as distant objects.
Astigmatism is a distortion of the image on the retina caused by irregularities in the cornea or lens of the eye. Combinations of myopia and astigmatism or hyperopia and astigmatism are common.
My problem was the combination of Astigmatism and hyperopia.
As we all know, glasses or contact lenses are designed to compensate for the eye's imperfections. Sadly with astigmatism this is not easily corrected. The lens companies tell you that your vision can be perfect with those super expensive contact lenses for astigmatism. Believe me, they don’t work as well as the commercials say they will. Lenses like these are weighted at the bottom so they will stay in proper alignment to correct the flat spots on the cornea. If the contact moves slightly the vision is distorted; even worse then without the contact in.
The only way for the lenses to give you that crisp vision is to keep the lens from moving or floating around on the cornea. The hitch is to accomplish this you have to allow the eye to dry so the lens will adhere to the eye. This is painful to do, but hey you can see.
Glasses on the other hand fix these problems very nicely but there is the problematic weight of wearing them. Their up keep can be costly, and in my profession the countless broken pairs due to one physical altercation or another. Hey, not to mention the glare problems with night driving or trying to see in the rain at night. Also there is the problem of them fogging when you go from the car to the outside environment. I think the Greek term for this is (Optic tukus pain eritis).
Surgical procedures aimed at improving the focusing power of the eye are called refractive surgery. In LASIK surgery, precise and controlled removal of corneal tissue by a special laser reshapes the cornea changing its focusing power. There are different types of LASIK like PRK which scrapes the epithelia’s from the cornea. I’ll pass on that one thank you.
Now if you think you may want this done you want to make sure your Doctor uses the Interlace laser instead of the old method of using the Microkeratome to cut the initial corneal flap. The Interlace laser is 100 times more precise then Microkeratone. Those aren’t my words that I got from the research done on these procedures over the last 30 years. The old hand cut should be a thing of the past but there are still some who haven’t switched over yet. Most likely due to the cost of these advanced machines.
When it comes to the reshaping of the cornea be sure that your Doctor uses the custom Wavefront laser. The Wavefront can get rid of the higher order aberrations. This means that you will get sharper vision after the surgery and lowers your chances of having halos, starburst or other complications that you would sometimes get from LASIK
You should consider a Doctor who invests in these technologies because the chances are he or she has your best interest in heart. In fact there are many studies that I have read that show most problems associated with LASIK have been eliminated since the use of these new interlace and Wavefront lasers.
24 hours after surgery I am seeing like never before. I have been reading and know writing without any glasses. I can’t wait to work a rainy night to see what it will be like. Lord willing it only gets better from here.
Way Cool!
For those who don’t know how this works let me enlighten.
The cornea is a part of the eye that helps focus light to create an image on the retina in the back of the eye where all the receptive cones and rods are located. The cornea works in much the same way that the lens of a camera focuses light to create an image on film.
The bending and focusing of light is also known as refraction. Usually the shape of the cornea and the eye are not perfect and the image on the retina is out-of-focus or blurred. In the case of Astigmatism the picture is distorted or bent.
These imperfections in the focusing power of the eye are called refractive errors. There are three primary types of refractive errors: myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism.
Persons with myopia, or nearsightedness, have more difficulty seeing distant objects as clearly as near objects.
Persons with hyperopia, or farsightedness, have more difficulty seeing near objects as clearly as distant objects.
Astigmatism is a distortion of the image on the retina caused by irregularities in the cornea or lens of the eye. Combinations of myopia and astigmatism or hyperopia and astigmatism are common.
My problem was the combination of Astigmatism and hyperopia.
As we all know, glasses or contact lenses are designed to compensate for the eye's imperfections. Sadly with astigmatism this is not easily corrected. The lens companies tell you that your vision can be perfect with those super expensive contact lenses for astigmatism. Believe me, they don’t work as well as the commercials say they will. Lenses like these are weighted at the bottom so they will stay in proper alignment to correct the flat spots on the cornea. If the contact moves slightly the vision is distorted; even worse then without the contact in.
The only way for the lenses to give you that crisp vision is to keep the lens from moving or floating around on the cornea. The hitch is to accomplish this you have to allow the eye to dry so the lens will adhere to the eye. This is painful to do, but hey you can see.
Glasses on the other hand fix these problems very nicely but there is the problematic weight of wearing them. Their up keep can be costly, and in my profession the countless broken pairs due to one physical altercation or another. Hey, not to mention the glare problems with night driving or trying to see in the rain at night. Also there is the problem of them fogging when you go from the car to the outside environment. I think the Greek term for this is (Optic tukus pain eritis).
Surgical procedures aimed at improving the focusing power of the eye are called refractive surgery. In LASIK surgery, precise and controlled removal of corneal tissue by a special laser reshapes the cornea changing its focusing power. There are different types of LASIK like PRK which scrapes the epithelia’s from the cornea. I’ll pass on that one thank you.
Now if you think you may want this done you want to make sure your Doctor uses the Interlace laser instead of the old method of using the Microkeratome to cut the initial corneal flap. The Interlace laser is 100 times more precise then Microkeratone. Those aren’t my words that I got from the research done on these procedures over the last 30 years. The old hand cut should be a thing of the past but there are still some who haven’t switched over yet. Most likely due to the cost of these advanced machines.
When it comes to the reshaping of the cornea be sure that your Doctor uses the custom Wavefront laser. The Wavefront can get rid of the higher order aberrations. This means that you will get sharper vision after the surgery and lowers your chances of having halos, starburst or other complications that you would sometimes get from LASIK
You should consider a Doctor who invests in these technologies because the chances are he or she has your best interest in heart. In fact there are many studies that I have read that show most problems associated with LASIK have been eliminated since the use of these new interlace and Wavefront lasers.
24 hours after surgery I am seeing like never before. I have been reading and know writing without any glasses. I can’t wait to work a rainy night to see what it will be like. Lord willing it only gets better from here.
The question asked by the professor was "Do these things still apply today"?
1 Corinthians 7:25-28
25. Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
26. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. Paraphrased, God did not tell me what to tell you, but this is my opinion. Listen because God has given me wisdom and genuine concern for your well being.
I believe the application is relevant to both cultures, as the Corinthian was said to be of loose morals and far from being chaste, (I know your saying that’s not like our culture today.)
Paul touches on the ”distress” of the present time which was that Christians were persecuted and marriage would have made life more difficult for those having to also care for spouse and family.
On the other hand Paul is saying that despite the “distress of the times” married people were not to divorce simply to make their life easier; a very relevant lesson for our day as well, no?
Paul goes on to say that despite the distress of the time it was not a sin to marry nor would it be so in this time; he was affirming the value of marriage, and the value of the celibate life. Paul had much to say about marriage as the scriptures show he felt people should stay unattached to better spread the gospel. He also clearly stated that it was better to wed then to burn with desire, which can cause us to sin. Clearly appropriate for our day as well as his.
Proverbs 22:15
15. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
“Beat him it won’t kill him”, as my mother used to say to my father.
True discipline is one of the purest forms of expressing love for a child. (I was loved a lot as a child.) This is evident in the fact that God chastens those whom he loves. We are born with this heart of rebellion and the rod of discipline is God’s way of turning us from that rebellion. “Foolishness” is contrary to right reasoning. It is in every child at birth, and it will not be driven out by gentle measures. This truth is applicable to all generations and all cultures.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
2. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9. for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
10. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15. but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
Well here we go, let me first say “In Christ there is no male or female”. What that has to do with our position in the family is irrelevant. But as sure as I know that the sun will rise in the morning, someone will throw that out there to negate every other scripture that puts positions on men and women. All these things stated in the scriptures are relevant for this day as well as the time this was written.
There are, however, differences in the manner in which these things apply. In this culture we believe that hair length or head coverings are not relevant to positional submission. When I was a young boy positional submission reflected by head coverings still was very much the case. Culture has changed our out look but I am not convinced culture is right on this point. I believe women have a subordinate role to men still just as men are subordinate to Christ, still. And being that God is unchanging I believe that Christ’s head is still God the Father.
Women in the Corinthian Church apparently were usurping their place over men just as women do so in the Church today. We have changed with the times in the pop-culture riddled Church of today. This change has not brought us closer to Christ-likeness. This is seen by a divorce rate that is equal to that of the world, and the blurred lines between TV religion and Hollywood stars. No longer are men encouraged to be manly or women to be lady-like. No, instead we are all equals and we should all be thought of as such. I strongly disagree with this liberal way of
thinking. This is the same mindset that gives us Gay rights.
I believe that God is first, supreme in all, then Christ, who has subjected Himself to the Father. Then there is man, who is blessed with the subordinate helpmeet, who is the completion of the man.
Now just because I believe in Patriarchy don’t think me to be a caveman. I don’t drag my wife around by the hair (much anymore) and I don’t make all the decisions in her life for her. I do however, take responsibility for the final decision after we discuss things and compare them to Biblical principles. I have not always made right decisions but as a submissive subordinate she voices her disagreement and leaves the decisions to me. God has given us a wonderful relationship from this adherence to His Word. I am blessed in her and I know she feels this way too, because we talk about it on a regular basis. She, like me, believes this Patriarchy is Biblically correct.
Numbers 18:21-32
21. "To the sons of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they perform, the service of the tent of meeting.
22. " The sons of Israel shall not come near the tent of meeting again, or they will bear sin and die.
23. " Only the Levites shall perform the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity; it shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, and among the sons of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
24. " For the tithe of the sons of Israel, which they offer as an offering to the LORD, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance; therefore I have said concerning them, 'They shall have no inheritance among the sons of Israel.'"
25. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
26. "Moreover, you shall speak to the Levites and say to them, 'When you take from the sons of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall present an offering from it to the LORD, a tithe of the tithe.
27. 'Your offering shall be reckoned to you as the grain from the threshing floor or the full produce from the wine vat.
28. 'So you shall also present an offering to the LORD from your tithes, which you receive from the sons of Israel; and from it you shall give the LORD'S offering to Aaron the priest.
29. 'Out of all your gifts you shall present every offering due to the LORD, from all the best of them, the sacred part from them.'
30. "You shall say to them, 'When you have offered from it the best of it, then the rest shall be reckoned to the Levites as the product of the threshing floor, and as the product of the wine vat.
31. 'You may eat it anywhere, you and your households, for it is your compensation in return for your service in the tent of meeting.
32. 'You will bear no sin by reason of it when you have offered the best of it. But you shall not profane the sacred gifts of the sons of Israel, or you will die.'"
Deuteronomy 14:22-28
22. "You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field
every year.
23. "You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
24. "If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you,
25. then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses.
26. "You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
27. "Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is in your town, for he has no portion or inheritance among you.
28. "At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town.
Here is where I stand on tithing:
Tithing was a part of the Mosaic Law. But, tithing was established long before the Law was given. Abraham tithed (Genesis 14:20). Jacob tithed (Genesis 28:20-22).
"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. Malachi 3:8 is probably one of the most critical passages on this matter.
This passage shows that if we withhold the tithe we are guilty of stealing from God. God says that the tithe belongs to Him.
Now does this apply today? While many Christians say that the tithe was under the Law and it was done away with at the cross, this is not clearly stated. It cannot be shown that it is now abolished simply because we are no longer under Law. Abraham and Jacob were not under the Law and they gave their tithe to God. (People tend to forget that time line thingy.)
A “new principal” in giving is said to be modeled in 2 Corinthians 9:7 which states, “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” The problem is that the context for this giving is set in earlier in 2 Corinthians 8:4, the purpose was to meet needs outside of their local church body. “For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints” It goes further to say that they gave “first gave of themselves to the Lord…” meaning they gave the Lord the tithe first, then they gave to the cause of helping the saints.
These are special offering to meet the needs of the saints in Jerusalem. They are note using money that has been collected previously this is not a tithe. This of course coincides with Malachi 3:10, the tithe is to be used for the maintenance of the temple. “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the
LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. To say there is no need for tithing is to say there is no need for God’s blessing. The Church of the New Testament full of former Jews would say this too was absurd.
This Old and New Testament practice of tithing meets the needs of the local church. Also there is the argument from silence here. The saved Jews in the New Testament church would have understood that the lack of tithing would make them guilty of stealing from God. This is evident that there were no new writings from the Jesus, the apostles or elders that this practice should be stopped, unlike circumcisions which was written of extensively.
Go ahead, rob Him and see where it gets you.
25. Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
26. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. Paraphrased, God did not tell me what to tell you, but this is my opinion. Listen because God has given me wisdom and genuine concern for your well being.
I believe the application is relevant to both cultures, as the Corinthian was said to be of loose morals and far from being chaste, (I know your saying that’s not like our culture today.)
Paul touches on the ”distress” of the present time which was that Christians were persecuted and marriage would have made life more difficult for those having to also care for spouse and family.
On the other hand Paul is saying that despite the “distress of the times” married people were not to divorce simply to make their life easier; a very relevant lesson for our day as well, no?
Paul goes on to say that despite the distress of the time it was not a sin to marry nor would it be so in this time; he was affirming the value of marriage, and the value of the celibate life. Paul had much to say about marriage as the scriptures show he felt people should stay unattached to better spread the gospel. He also clearly stated that it was better to wed then to burn with desire, which can cause us to sin. Clearly appropriate for our day as well as his.
Proverbs 22:15
15. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
“Beat him it won’t kill him”, as my mother used to say to my father.
True discipline is one of the purest forms of expressing love for a child. (I was loved a lot as a child.) This is evident in the fact that God chastens those whom he loves. We are born with this heart of rebellion and the rod of discipline is God’s way of turning us from that rebellion. “Foolishness” is contrary to right reasoning. It is in every child at birth, and it will not be driven out by gentle measures. This truth is applicable to all generations and all cultures.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
2. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9. for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
10. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15. but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
Well here we go, let me first say “In Christ there is no male or female”. What that has to do with our position in the family is irrelevant. But as sure as I know that the sun will rise in the morning, someone will throw that out there to negate every other scripture that puts positions on men and women. All these things stated in the scriptures are relevant for this day as well as the time this was written.
There are, however, differences in the manner in which these things apply. In this culture we believe that hair length or head coverings are not relevant to positional submission. When I was a young boy positional submission reflected by head coverings still was very much the case. Culture has changed our out look but I am not convinced culture is right on this point. I believe women have a subordinate role to men still just as men are subordinate to Christ, still. And being that God is unchanging I believe that Christ’s head is still God the Father.
Women in the Corinthian Church apparently were usurping their place over men just as women do so in the Church today. We have changed with the times in the pop-culture riddled Church of today. This change has not brought us closer to Christ-likeness. This is seen by a divorce rate that is equal to that of the world, and the blurred lines between TV religion and Hollywood stars. No longer are men encouraged to be manly or women to be lady-like. No, instead we are all equals and we should all be thought of as such. I strongly disagree with this liberal way of
thinking. This is the same mindset that gives us Gay rights.
I believe that God is first, supreme in all, then Christ, who has subjected Himself to the Father. Then there is man, who is blessed with the subordinate helpmeet, who is the completion of the man.
Now just because I believe in Patriarchy don’t think me to be a caveman. I don’t drag my wife around by the hair (much anymore) and I don’t make all the decisions in her life for her. I do however, take responsibility for the final decision after we discuss things and compare them to Biblical principles. I have not always made right decisions but as a submissive subordinate she voices her disagreement and leaves the decisions to me. God has given us a wonderful relationship from this adherence to His Word. I am blessed in her and I know she feels this way too, because we talk about it on a regular basis. She, like me, believes this Patriarchy is Biblically correct.
Numbers 18:21-32
21. "To the sons of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they perform, the service of the tent of meeting.
22. " The sons of Israel shall not come near the tent of meeting again, or they will bear sin and die.
23. " Only the Levites shall perform the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity; it shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, and among the sons of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
24. " For the tithe of the sons of Israel, which they offer as an offering to the LORD, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance; therefore I have said concerning them, 'They shall have no inheritance among the sons of Israel.'"
25. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
26. "Moreover, you shall speak to the Levites and say to them, 'When you take from the sons of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall present an offering from it to the LORD, a tithe of the tithe.
27. 'Your offering shall be reckoned to you as the grain from the threshing floor or the full produce from the wine vat.
28. 'So you shall also present an offering to the LORD from your tithes, which you receive from the sons of Israel; and from it you shall give the LORD'S offering to Aaron the priest.
29. 'Out of all your gifts you shall present every offering due to the LORD, from all the best of them, the sacred part from them.'
30. "You shall say to them, 'When you have offered from it the best of it, then the rest shall be reckoned to the Levites as the product of the threshing floor, and as the product of the wine vat.
31. 'You may eat it anywhere, you and your households, for it is your compensation in return for your service in the tent of meeting.
32. 'You will bear no sin by reason of it when you have offered the best of it. But you shall not profane the sacred gifts of the sons of Israel, or you will die.'"
Deuteronomy 14:22-28
22. "You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field
every year.
23. "You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
24. "If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you,
25. then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses.
26. "You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
27. "Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is in your town, for he has no portion or inheritance among you.
28. "At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town.
Here is where I stand on tithing:
Tithing was a part of the Mosaic Law. But, tithing was established long before the Law was given. Abraham tithed (Genesis 14:20). Jacob tithed (Genesis 28:20-22).
"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. Malachi 3:8 is probably one of the most critical passages on this matter.
This passage shows that if we withhold the tithe we are guilty of stealing from God. God says that the tithe belongs to Him.
Now does this apply today? While many Christians say that the tithe was under the Law and it was done away with at the cross, this is not clearly stated. It cannot be shown that it is now abolished simply because we are no longer under Law. Abraham and Jacob were not under the Law and they gave their tithe to God. (People tend to forget that time line thingy.)
A “new principal” in giving is said to be modeled in 2 Corinthians 9:7 which states, “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” The problem is that the context for this giving is set in earlier in 2 Corinthians 8:4, the purpose was to meet needs outside of their local church body. “For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints” It goes further to say that they gave “first gave of themselves to the Lord…” meaning they gave the Lord the tithe first, then they gave to the cause of helping the saints.
These are special offering to meet the needs of the saints in Jerusalem. They are note using money that has been collected previously this is not a tithe. This of course coincides with Malachi 3:10, the tithe is to be used for the maintenance of the temple. “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the
LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. To say there is no need for tithing is to say there is no need for God’s blessing. The Church of the New Testament full of former Jews would say this too was absurd.
This Old and New Testament practice of tithing meets the needs of the local church. Also there is the argument from silence here. The saved Jews in the New Testament church would have understood that the lack of tithing would make them guilty of stealing from God. This is evident that there were no new writings from the Jesus, the apostles or elders that this practice should be stopped, unlike circumcisions which was written of extensively.
Go ahead, rob Him and see where it gets you.
Hate speach
Hate speech
False analogy
False analogy is an informal fallacy applying to inductive arguments. It is often mistakenly considered to be a formal fallacy, but it is not, because a false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument.
In an analogy, two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property.
The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B).
In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). Thus, even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. One who makes an invalid analogy or comparison is often said to be "comparing apples and oranges".
Examples
The following are examples of false analogies:
Access to firearms should not be severely restricted, as access to kitchen knives is not severely restricted and yet, like firearms, they are sometimes used to kill “innocent” people. This analogy deliberately ignores critical differences between guns and kitchen knives. Such an example might have some value as a figurative analogy (the purpose of a figurative analogy is illustrative and metaphorical) but it is obviously flawed if it is intended as a literal analogy advanced as a proof.
Note however, that in much of Asia, knives and forks are restricted to kitchen use by the cook and the less-dangerous chop sticks are used instead by diners. (Cultural differences play a role in these types of arguments as well.)
A more relevant argument might involve the use of firearms between criminal and non-criminal personnel.
The treatment of Arabs by the State of Israel since 1967 resembles South Africa during the apartheid era. This analogy deliberately ignores the differences between the Arab-Israeli conflict and South African apartheid.
For example, Arab citizens of Israel have the right to run a business wherever they please, have freedom of movement, and have full voting rights. This was not true of black South Africans during the apartheid era.
If we legalize gay marriage, what's stopping us from legalizing so-called "marriages" based on bestiality? This foolish analogy deliberately ignores the differences between homosexuality and bestiality. A marriage (queer and straight) can be argued, that it is based on a mutual agreement between two consenting adult humans. A marriage between a human and an animal would be impossible because one of the two parties cannot give consent in the matter.
A proper argument instead would be that Homosexuality is a sinful abomination before God and this perversion will be judged.
Or that it is contrary to natural law, because males/females do not pair off to procreate to insure the survival of a species. There are many good arguments against this homosexual perversion of God’s perfect design of marriage; bestiality is not one of them. This would be a separate perversion of God’s marriage plan.
Another false analogy is that if I speak against this sinful perversion of homosexuality I am speaking hate-speech. The falsity here or false analogy would be that every one who speaks out against wrong must hate the person who is committing the wrong when in fact those who speak out many times due so in loving concern for the person who is perpetrating this destruction on their lives and on their soul. This in fact should be considered in any type of speech as love speech and should be spoken boldly to all in humility to spread not only the word of this sin but the furtherance of the One who can save from this sinfulness, Christ Jesus.
Incorrectly classifying an analogy false
Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge of fallacy". But as analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.
AD HOMINEM
We have all seen if not used the personal attack rebuttals in an argument. Ad Hominem is a Latin term which means, ”to the man”. The advocate attacks his or her opponent rather then the argument put forward by the opponent. When personal abuse of this kind is put forward, the content of the attack does not relate to the objective facts about such things as the opponents membership of a particular group or the profession they practice. Rather the abuse is directed at the person’s character or other personal attributes.
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua.
This term originated in the Middle Ages in Europe when Christians suffering from the Bubonic Plague falsely accused Jews of poisoning their wells in order to infect them. In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result.
For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.
An even simpler example of poisoning the well is by tautology and definition, or circular reasoning. This is similar to equivocation, where the use of words can, or was intended to communicate a confusing meaning (often called a subtle lie). For example, if one starts an argument with "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say", the well is poisoned and nothing a person says (be it true or false) will matter by the initiator's definition.
In comparison, this poisoned well has been perpetrated on the American public and even on the so called Church in that we are lead in some small way by these preemptive strikes at our wells to taint are belief that homosexual perversion is good and those who speak differently are speaking in hate. We as Christians should dose the well by saying that this is love speech and that everything we stand against is done out of a genuine loving concern for all mankind.
False analogy
False analogy is an informal fallacy applying to inductive arguments. It is often mistakenly considered to be a formal fallacy, but it is not, because a false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument.
In an analogy, two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property.
The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B).
In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). Thus, even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. One who makes an invalid analogy or comparison is often said to be "comparing apples and oranges".
Examples
The following are examples of false analogies:
Access to firearms should not be severely restricted, as access to kitchen knives is not severely restricted and yet, like firearms, they are sometimes used to kill “innocent” people. This analogy deliberately ignores critical differences between guns and kitchen knives. Such an example might have some value as a figurative analogy (the purpose of a figurative analogy is illustrative and metaphorical) but it is obviously flawed if it is intended as a literal analogy advanced as a proof.
Note however, that in much of Asia, knives and forks are restricted to kitchen use by the cook and the less-dangerous chop sticks are used instead by diners. (Cultural differences play a role in these types of arguments as well.)
A more relevant argument might involve the use of firearms between criminal and non-criminal personnel.
The treatment of Arabs by the State of Israel since 1967 resembles South Africa during the apartheid era. This analogy deliberately ignores the differences between the Arab-Israeli conflict and South African apartheid.
For example, Arab citizens of Israel have the right to run a business wherever they please, have freedom of movement, and have full voting rights. This was not true of black South Africans during the apartheid era.
If we legalize gay marriage, what's stopping us from legalizing so-called "marriages" based on bestiality? This foolish analogy deliberately ignores the differences between homosexuality and bestiality. A marriage (queer and straight) can be argued, that it is based on a mutual agreement between two consenting adult humans. A marriage between a human and an animal would be impossible because one of the two parties cannot give consent in the matter.
A proper argument instead would be that Homosexuality is a sinful abomination before God and this perversion will be judged.
Or that it is contrary to natural law, because males/females do not pair off to procreate to insure the survival of a species. There are many good arguments against this homosexual perversion of God’s perfect design of marriage; bestiality is not one of them. This would be a separate perversion of God’s marriage plan.
Another false analogy is that if I speak against this sinful perversion of homosexuality I am speaking hate-speech. The falsity here or false analogy would be that every one who speaks out against wrong must hate the person who is committing the wrong when in fact those who speak out many times due so in loving concern for the person who is perpetrating this destruction on their lives and on their soul. This in fact should be considered in any type of speech as love speech and should be spoken boldly to all in humility to spread not only the word of this sin but the furtherance of the One who can save from this sinfulness, Christ Jesus.
Incorrectly classifying an analogy false
Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge of fallacy". But as analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.
AD HOMINEM
We have all seen if not used the personal attack rebuttals in an argument. Ad Hominem is a Latin term which means, ”to the man”. The advocate attacks his or her opponent rather then the argument put forward by the opponent. When personal abuse of this kind is put forward, the content of the attack does not relate to the objective facts about such things as the opponents membership of a particular group or the profession they practice. Rather the abuse is directed at the person’s character or other personal attributes.
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua.
This term originated in the Middle Ages in Europe when Christians suffering from the Bubonic Plague falsely accused Jews of poisoning their wells in order to infect them. In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result.
For example, if a woman tells her friend, "I think I might buy this beautiful dress", then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.
An even simpler example of poisoning the well is by tautology and definition, or circular reasoning. This is similar to equivocation, where the use of words can, or was intended to communicate a confusing meaning (often called a subtle lie). For example, if one starts an argument with "Everything I say is correct, no matter what you say", the well is poisoned and nothing a person says (be it true or false) will matter by the initiator's definition.
In comparison, this poisoned well has been perpetrated on the American public and even on the so called Church in that we are lead in some small way by these preemptive strikes at our wells to taint are belief that homosexual perversion is good and those who speak differently are speaking in hate. We as Christians should dose the well by saying that this is love speech and that everything we stand against is done out of a genuine loving concern for all mankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)