Peace, Love, & Understanding

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 13:13 . . Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and
drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and envy.

"in the day" could be construed to mean "in that day" which would indicate life and
society as it will be in the kingdom God. Well; needless to say, people then won't be
acting like they do now, so maybe we should start preparing for that day by putting
these instructions into enough practice to make them become a habit.

The Greek word for "envy" is somewhat ambiguous. It includes-- along with envy -
jealousy, indignation, and outrage.

The Greek word for "strife" is somewhat ambiguous too. It includes-- along with
strife --quarrelling, wrangling, contention, debate, and a whole other bunch of ugly
stuff associated with variance.

"in the day" probably refers to daytime when the sun is up as opposed to nighttime
when the sun is down; which is usually when people are out partying, drinking, and
picking each other up for one night stands.

Though strife and envy can be seen during both day or night, they're listed as
nighttime behavior due to their being shameful.

NOTE: What I find interesting about Christ's commandments is that his followers
have to be instructed how to properly conduct themselves; viz: it's never assumed
they can be trusted to instinctively and/or intuitively know how.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 14:1 . . Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
disputable matters.

A strong faith consists of the elements of knowledge, confidence, assurance, and
conviction. A weak faith can be defined as vacillating; viz: one that's not all that
sure whether something is wrong for a Christian; or even that something is right; in
other words, a weak faith lacks the elements of knowledge, confidence, assurance,
and conviction.

Disputable matters are matters of opinion rather than matters of fact. Opinions are
often subjective, biased, and arbitrary, rather than objective, unbiased, and by-the
book. Opinions inevitably invite perpetual debating that never really gets to the
bottom of anything; which, in matters of spiritual significance is strictly forbidden
within the context of the 14th chapter of Romans; because debatable matters are
not matters of doctrine; but rather; matters of conscience.

We're not talking about black and white doctrines and principles here. Those are
not open to debate. We're talking about gray areas.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is black and white; while issues like video games,
music, fashions, foods, cosmetics, movies, self defense, gambling, swim suits,
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, fasting, religious art, crucifixes, couture, and holy days
of obligation are debatable. In regards to those areas; let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind rather than somebody else's mind.

Those are things about which each has to decide for themselves according to the
dictates of their own conscience; and God forbid they should impose their personal
dictates upon others and thus become dictatorial because that's playing God and
usurping Christ's sovereign prerogative to make the rules for his own church.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 14:2-4 . . One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not
look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must
not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.

If somebody sincerely believes that fast food, GMO, high fructose corn syrup, non
organic produce, processed foods, grain-fed beef, raw oysters, sushi, and/or
anything fried in lard is sinful; well; more power to them; but God forbid they
should condemn others who disagree.

So then; whether or not to eat grass-fed beef or grain-fed beef is your call;
although in my judicious estimation; you run a much higher risk of contracting
E.coli 0157-H7 by eating grain-fed beef. But the choice to run that risk is yours
alone; not mine. The important point to note is that either way, God will accept
one's diet just so long as they are convinced in their own mind it's not a sinful diet.
And God forbid that we should undertake to pressure someone via debating and
sophistry to violate their conscience.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 14:5 . . One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man
considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Common Christian holy days are The Lord's Day (Sunday), Solemnity of Mary the
Mother of God, the Epiphany, Solemnity of Saint Joseph Husband of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, the Ascension Trinity Sunday, Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul,
Good Friday, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, All Saints, the Feast of the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Nativity of our Lord Jesus
Christ (Christmas), and the Sabbath. Some would probably include Easter and Ash
Wednesday, et al.

If your denomination, or your church of choice, rules that days like the above are
sacred, then for you they are. Whether God himself really and truly rules them as
sacred is irrelevant. What matters is whether you are convinced He does because
the focus of the 14th of Romans is upon matters of conscience rather than matters
of fact.

NOTE: The Jehovah's Witnesses' personal opinions about birthdays, holidays, and
holy days are protected by the 14th chapter of Romans; and forbids debating with
them about it.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 14:13a . .Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

Within the context of the 14th of Romans, "passing judgment" pertains to criticizing
others for refusal to accept and/or comply with your own personal gray-area beliefs
and practices.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 14:13b . . Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in
your brother's way.

The Greek word translated "stumbling block" means a stub. For example: one year
I cut down a troublesome bush in my front yard and left a bit of a stump sticking up
out of the ground that later damaged my lawn mower when I accidentally ran over
it while cutting the grass; which had grown tall enough to conceal the stump. In
that respect, stumbling blocks are hazards not easily detected.

Within the context of the 14th of Romans, I would equate stumbling blocks to the
clever sophistry that silver-tongued Bible thumpers employ to persuade people to
do things contrary to their convictions and their conscience; and if you get pulled
into a debate with one of those thumpers you'll probably lose.

NOTE: The beginning of the Star Wars era spawned a pertinent colloquialism that
goes like this: "Let the Wookie win one." When it comes to gray-areas, that
colloquialism is pretty good advice.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 14:14-16 . . I know and am perfectly sure on the authority of The Lord Jesus
that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong,
then for that person it is wrong. And if another Christian is distressed by what you
eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don't let your eating ruin someone for
whom Christ died. Then you will not be condemned for doing something you know
is alright.

For example: We may believe that there is nothing wrong with eating freaky,
barbarian foods; but our Christian dinner companion might feel very strongly about
it. Well; sure, we can get by with eating freaky, barbarian foods; but Rom 14:14-16
is saying don't. In other words; it is Christ's wishes that we restrain ourselves from
eating distasteful stuff in front of our Christian companions in thoughtful and
sympathetic regard for their feelings about it.

I'm pretty sure this principle isn't restricted to diet, but can be applied to any
debatable issue with the potential to drive an unnecessary wedge between
ourselves and other Christians. For example; if you have friends over for an
evening of entertainment, and know they're uncomfortable with movies saturated
with crime, cruelty, obscenity, vulgarity, deviance, indecency, and violence; then
accommodate their feelings by selecting something a bit more tolerable for them.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 14:19 . . Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and
to mutual edification.

The Greek word for "edification" is oikodome (oy-kod-om-ay') which is a word
related to the building trades; and in this instance would be related to structural
improvements like a new wing, or a bedroom, or another floor; and in many
instances adds square footage to an already-existing structure and/or improves its
appearance, its value, and it's utility. Edification then, is just the opposite of
demolition, i.e. it builds up instead of tearing down.

Webster's defines "peace" as a state in which there is no war or fighting; viz:
harmony and mutual concord. In other words: there are times when it's appropriate
to accommodate people's feelings about certain things for the sake of us all getting
along together.

NOTE: An important element in the practice of love is deference; which, in a nutshell,
implies regarding the wishes of others as trumping yours; viz: submission. (Eph 5:21)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 14:20-21 . . Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is
clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to
stumble.

The critters that God lists in the Jews' covenanted law as unsuitable for food aren't
intrinsically unsuitable. They're only unsuitable for the Jews because that's how God
wants it for His people. But outside the covenant; and for everybody else: whatever
you'd like to eat can be eaten; all flora and all fauna.

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green
plants, I now give you everything." (Gen 9:3)

"The voice spoke to him a second time; "Do not call anything impure that God has
made clean." (Acts 10:15)

But still; we wouldn't want to invite someone over for dinner serving foods that
they sincerely believe are wrong for them to eat; and thus lead them to contradict
their own personal convictions about what's right and what's wrong for Christians.
Prepare something else that you both can eat without feeling guilty. That's the
Christian way to go about it; it's also the sympathetic way to go about it.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 15:1-2 . . We may know that certain things make no difference, but we
cannot just go ahead and do them to please ourselves. We must be considerate of
the doubts and fears of those who believe certain things are wrong.

Webster's defines "considerate" as thoughtful of the rights and feelings of others,
i.e. deferent, gallant, chivalrous, sensitive, yielding, and diplomatic.

NOTE: The subject of "yielding" is currently very relevant; especially in this day and
age when certain elements of American society are perpetually clamoring for so
called equal rights in matters relative to wealth, race, gender, and sexual preference.

Consideration is almost a dirty word among strong-willed, bossy Christians who
perpetually insist upon having everything their own way; even in trivial issues that,
in the grand scheme of things, mean nothing at all. But these folk are militant;
every disagreement is an act of war to be won at any cost; even to the destruction
of the dignity and self respect of their fellow Christians for whom the Lord gave his
life.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 15:7 . . Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to
bring praise to God.

That's a bit tricky but I think it just means all Christians should acknowledge each
other as Christians, and treat one another as Christians though they may differ in
opinion about what constitutes a real Christian.

For example: it's not unusual to hear a Christian pontificate that real Christians
would never watch R-rated movies, gamble, wear a speedo or a string bikini, use
cosmetics, smoke marijuana, expose cleavage or wear skin tight yoga pants in
public, stop for a beer on the way home from work, have a glass of wine before
bedtime, listen to RAP music, ditch church and Sunday school for years at a time,
or go in a bar or a nightclub where there's topless female dancers up on a stage
twining themselves around a pole while leering men stuff currency into the hems of
their skimpy little costumes.

Too many Christians are bigots; they have the opinion that unless others believe
and practice the very same way they believe and practice, then those others are
not Christians. Well; the easiest way to settle this is to follow Webster's definition
that a Christian is simply someone who professes a belief in the teachings of Jesus
Christ. That's it: no more, no less, and no qualifiers. They don't even have to
practice The Lord's teachings; they only have to profess to believe in them.

An internet forum I was on in the past made it even easier. In order to qualify as a
Christian on that forum; one only had to believe they were a Christian; viz: they
didn't have to prove they were a Christian; no, they only had to be convinced in
their own minds that they were a Christian. If we all followed that rule it would put
a stop to a lot of unnecessary quarreling, name calling, and bad feelings.

NOTE: Heresy is subjective. In other words: what's heresy to a Catholic may not
be heresy to a Methodist, and vice versa. And what's heresy to a Mormon may not
be heresy to a Jehovah's Witness, and vice versa. And what's heresy to a Baptist
may not be heresy to the Church Of God, and vice versa. So my advice is: never,
ever call another Christian a heretic.

Just to be on the safe side; edit that label from your remarks because it just might
be that you yourself are the one infected with heresy and don't know it; viz: be
circumspect with your choice of words because the hapless day just may arrive
when you are forced to eat them.

It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
(Mark Twain)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 15:27 . . For if the Gentiles have shared in the Israelite's spiritual blessings,
they owe it to the Israelites to share with them their material blessings.

Within the context of Rom 15:25-27, the Israelites to whom Paul refers are not
those who believe and practice Judaism; but those who believe and practice
Christianity. It is unbecoming for Christians to support religions that undermine
their Master's; especially when it's taken into consideration that 1Cor 16:22
requires Christ's followers to regard the followers of religions opposed to his as
cursed.
_

 

[brian100]

See I listen to Jesus.. and you guys ==only follow Paul?

 

[Bluezone777]

See I listen to Jesus.. and you guys ==only follow Paul?

You speak as if Paul contradicted Jesus somewhere and if you think he did then please show it to us with both chapter and verse.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 1:10 . . I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and
that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Official belief systems-- e.g. the Nicene Creed and/or proprietary church covenants
and statements of faith --are very effective for achieving the unity required by 1Cor
1:10; and should always be imposed upon new people applying for membership in
a local congregation. A church composed of an amalgam of beliefs and practices
isn't a unified church: it's a forum.

NOTE: I would have to say that after belief in God and His son, then next thing that
church members need to believe in is each other; and if they can't believe in each
other, then I really think they ought to disband. I'm not kidding around about this;
without trust and loyalty a church is just as dysfunctional as any other maladjusted
family.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 6:1-6 . . If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the
ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints
will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to
judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more
the things of this life!

. . .Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even
men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there
is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But
instead, one brother goes to law against another-and this in front of unbelievers!

Apparently some of the Christians in the church at Corinth let the Sermon On The
Mount go in one ear and out the other.

"But I say unto you: That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and
take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." (Matt 5:39-40)

"Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? As you are going with your
adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may
drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer
throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last
penny." (Luke 12:57-59)

The Lord began his teaching in Luke with the words "Why don't you judge for
yourselves what is right?" In other words; if someone threatens to take you to
court over a tort matter, and you know darn good and well he's in the right; don't
force him to go to law. Instead, admit to your wrong and settle out of court.
According to The Lord, it’s unrighteous to tie up the courts when you know your
own self that you are the one who's in the wrong. There's just simply no righteous
reason why Christian defendants and plaintiffs can't be their own judge and jury in
tort matters.

"Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with
another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves
to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren." (1Cor
6:7-8)

The Greek word for "defraud" is apostereo (ap-os-ter-eh'-o) which is an ambiguous
word with more than one meaning, and more than one application. The meaning
that seems appropriate in this instance is "deprive".

It works like this: Were I to trip and fall because of a crack in the walk leading up
to the front door of the home of one of my kin; I wouldn't haul them into court over
it because we're related; viz: any injury I might incur by tripping and falling
because of a crack in their walk would be a family matter rather than a legal
matter; and they have a right to be treated by me as family rather than as enemies
in a lawsuit because we're related. Were I to sue them for tripping and falling
because of a crack in their walk; I would be depriving them of the love that kin
have a right to expect from one another.

Well; Christians are supposed to be brethren; in the highest possible sense of the
word.

"We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.
. . We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay
down our lives for the brethren." (1John 3:14-16)

I think it's safe to say that if somebody is comfortable taking a fellow Christian to
court; then they certainly are not prepared to lay down their life for the brethren.

It's sad to see relatives suing each other in court; but it happens all the time. When
the world does it; well, that's to be expected; but when Christians sue each other;
that's dysfunctional.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:3-4 . . Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and
likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not authority of her own
body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not authority of his own
body, but the wife.

What we're talking about in that verse is the principle of private property in
marriage that was established right from the get-go.

"And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be
called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
(Gen 2:23-24)

There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that passage
comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah. The possessive pronoun
"his" identifies an 'ishshah as somebody's wife. The same grammar works for
husbands too, for example:

"And Leah said: God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband
dwell with me, because I have born him six sons." (Gen 30:20)

The Hebrew word for "husband" in that verse is 'iysh which is a nondescript word
for males. The possessive pronoun "my" identifies a male as somebody's husband.

So Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man. They quite
literally owned each other: consequently they had a right to all that a conjugal
relationship with each other implies.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:5 . . Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,
that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that
Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

It's not uncommon for wives to withhold intimacy from their husbands as a strategy
to manipulate them. God forbid that any woman believing herself to be one of
Christ's followers should ever pull a stunt like that! Same goes for the husbands.
There is just no excuse for that kind of behavior in marriage. It's deplorable and it's
unbecoming.

The Greek word translated "defraud" is apostereo (ap-os-ter-eh'-o) which means:
to despoil; which Webster's defines as: to strip of belongings, possessions, or
value; viz: pillage.

In other words, married people who withhold intimacy from their spouses without a
valid reason to do so are nothing less than thieves, and in violation of the 8th
commandment.

"Thou shalt not steal." (Ex 20:15)

The temptation in question is of course adultery. In other words; if one spouse
denies the other spouse's conjugal rights for too long a time they run the risk of
pushing them into another's arms.

I heard a story recently about a rather conniving Christian woman who wanted a
divorce from her Christian husband; but seeing as how God only allows death or
adultery to dissolve the marital bond; she deliberately denied her husband his
conjugal rights in order to force him to think about taking a lover; and when he did;
she proceeded to divorce him on the grounds of unfaithfulness. That way, in her
mind's eye, she was the victim and he the villain. (chuckle) What people won't do
to circumvent the laws of God.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:36 . . If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is
engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he
should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

We have a saying in America that goes like this: So and so married what's her
name and made an honest woman out of her. Well, most grown-ups know what
that means without me having to say so. The point is: if a Christian man finds
himself on the brink of exceeding the limits of propriety with his best girl; it's time
to either break up or tie the knot.

And then too there's the so-called biological clock that stalks women during their
productive years. It's cruel, unthinkable, and utterly selfish and psychopathic of a
man to keep a girl on hold during those years if and when he's fully aware that
she's longing to settle down and have a family of her own. A man who does that
has no clue as to the meaning of words like love and honor.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 8:4-13 . .We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is
no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth
(as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one
God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but
one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

. . . But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that
when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and
since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God;
we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

. . . Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a
stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who
have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what
has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is
destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and
wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes
my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him
to fall.

That passage can be said to be a codicil to the 14th chapter of Romans.

Putting this into a modern context is pretty simple; e.g. here in Oregon we have
tavern-style restaurants; viz: a section of the tavern is a bar, and another section is
dedicated to dining. The bar sections usually host State-sanctioned gambling
machines too and typically off-limits to minors.

Suppose you have Christian friends who sincerely feel it's wrong to dine in a
tavern-style restaurant because of the alcohol and the gambling. Though you
yourself might be comfortable in your own mind that there is no sin in dining at
taverns, your friends are not so sure. So if you were to take them to a tavern, they
would be committing sin in compromising their conscience; and you would be
committing sin by knowingly leading them into a situation that causes them to
make that compromise.

"We may know that these things make no difference, but we cannot just go ahead
and do them to please ourselves. We must be considerate of the doubts and fears
of those who think these things are wrong. We should please others. If we do what
helps them, we will build them up in the Lord." (Rom 15:1-2)

Another pertinent example is Hooters; where the waitresses are cute buxom girls
filled out in all the right places clothed in short shorts, and clingy tops; so that the
situation is a double whammy of babes and alcohol. Supposing your Christian
buddy sincerely feels it's wrong for Christian men to dine at Hooters? Then you
would be wrong in taking him there for a burger even if you were convinced in your
own mind there is nothing wrong with Hooters because you would be leading your
Christian buddy into a situation that's below him and causes him to feel guilty
and/or less of himself.

The Bible says that Christians should accommodate others to their edification
(edification means to build someone up as opposed to tearing them down), Well,
when we please ourselves to their detriment; that's being selfish. Some guys feel
that cute buxom girls and yummy gams are a God-send, while other guys regard
them as the Devil in disguise. The correct route here is to accommodate the more
sensitive conscience.

This is one of those situations that requires that each individual to be convinced in
their own mind whether Hooters is wrong for themselves or okay for themselves
(Rom 14:5) and God forbid that Christians should criticize a fellow Christian who
frequents Hooters because this is indeed one of those gray areas; and just who are
you to legislate the rules for others in gray areas (Rom 14:3-4). It's unfortunate
that there are some very imperious, domineering Christians out and about who see
nothing wrong with bullying others to compromise their convictions just so long as
they get their own way and everybody conforms to their way of thinking.

For example: it is my own personal feelings that Luke 22:35-36 makes it okay for
Christ's followers to own firearms for self defense. Well; a rather opinionated
Christian in one of my Sunday school classes sneered at me for feeling that way
and proceeded to pontificate that Jesus' instructions were only "preparatory" for the
upcoming confrontation with Judas and the crowd that came with him that night to
arrest Jesus. Okay; that's fine with me if that's the way he feels about it; but
sneering at me for feeling my way about it was not only thoughtless, but improper
too.
_