Are you guys getting the new banner ads on Tribe? Gone are the belly dancers wearing who knows what and now we've got the "Glam Ware" girls wearing half a shirt over there quite obviously enhanced chests.
It's actually quite a stumbling block for us men. How does everyone else feel about it? Life on the internet, I guess.
Brings up an interesting topic: dress code in church, specifically, modesty for women.
Is it important? Who should make the rules? Who should enforce them? Do Christian women understand the effect that their clothing and modesty has on their brothers in the Lord?
It's actually quite a stumbling block for us men. How does everyone else feel about it? Life on the internet, I guess.
Brings up an interesting topic: dress code in church, specifically, modesty for women.
Is it important? Who should make the rules? Who should enforce them? Do Christian women understand the effect that their clothing and modesty has on their brothers in the Lord?
-
Re: Racy Banner Ads
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 3:19 PMRE: Racy banner ads
You can probably configure your firewall (if you have one) to block the site where the banners are coming from. My work does that automatically and makes this a much better environment.
To me the topic of dress code in church shows the sins of the people asking for it more than the sins of those whom the dress would be changed upon. Are they coming naked, or close enough to be a bother to the children? If not, don't worry about it. For anything else, the one being bothered needs to seek help from the LORD on his/her own issues (IMHO). -
-
Re: Racy Banner Ads
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 1:55 AM<<Geppy: To me the topic of dress code in church shows the sins of the people asking for it more than the sins of those whom the dress would be changed upon. Are they coming naked, or close enough to be a bother to the children? If not, don't worry about it. For anything else, the one being bothered needs to seek help from the LORD on his/her own issues (IMHO). >>
Hmmm, what does Romans 14 say about matters
that are not consequential to our salvation but trouble our
brothers and sisters? Are we walking in love when eating
meat (or wearing revealing clothing) disturbs our brethren,
but we insist on doing so anyway?
Just something to muse over... -
-
Re: Racy Banner Ads
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 4:41 AM<what does Romans 14 say>
But that is different that trying to come up with rules and authorities to enforce dress code. That is a brother saying to a sister that their dress is troublesome and would you please consider wearing something more.
But as Ricardo says, for a male with this sort of trouble the amount of clothing is irrelevant as he will lust one way or the other. The problem is within the weaker member and the weaker member should ask the LORD for assistance with his troubles, as well as the church. If he doesn't, the trouble will always be there and he will always sin.
Also a difference between this and Romans 14 is in knowledge. In this case, the man is knowledgeable of his sin. In Romans 14 they speak of issues in which the person is not knowledgeable of their sin (they don't know it is sin). -
-
Re: Racy Banner Ads
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 1:50 PMI can understand your point about dress codes, Geppy. I was just wondering whether asserting that nakedness was the only state of dress to be forbidden, and then saying of men distracted by alluring clothes on women that they just "need to seek help from the Lord for his own issues," was a loving response. I thought the principle that Romans 14 teaches is to favor loving indulgence regarding these insignificant issues rather that press ahead with your Christian liberties. Paul said, if meat offends my brother, I will forgo it even though there is no sin for me to indulge. I'm asking why we couldn't say, if my muscle shirt entices my sister or if my halter-top entices my brother, I will discard it even though there is no sin for me to wear it.
Personally speaking, I am not so wrapped up in carnality that I fantasize about and lust after the women in my church. But if all of them, especially any well endowed sisters, were wearing low-cut tops or clothes that otherwise accentuated their cleavage, I would be rather seriously distracted. Call me a weaker brother if you will, but I would have to make a covenant with my eyes. I'd start paying much closer attention to the carpet! And I don't think I'm that much different from other men these days. An exposed ankle, thigh, and nape of a neck are not alluring. The sisters don't have to wear a burqa to keep me in line. -
-
Re: Racy Banner Ads
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 2:35 PM<was a loving response>
It was as loving as wanting to force men's rules on women where they may or may not be necessary. I agree with what you say Romans 14 is teaching, but it was not meant to me that if one person has trouble with something that all others must bend their lives to the one.
<An exposed ankle, thigh, and nape of a neck are not alluring.>
Speak for yourself. A well covered and well dressed woman that shows just an ankle or neck is many times much more alluring to me than half naked women. Most times the half naked is a turn off due to their inability to show propriety. But those who show propriety are much more attractive. -
-
aversion therapy
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 4:18 PMi seriously have the cure for ya... hangout with topless women that you respect for days at a time, over time you'll never have a problem again with low cut blouses, you wont even think about it.... i swear! ; ) -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 11:32 PMBut how will I ever make the suggestion without having these women I respect club me upside the head! -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 7:34 AMnever make the suggestion,,, just put yourself in the situation...
go to a strip bar and see the girl on the pole as someones daughter. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: aversion therapy
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 9:01 AMDaFlew,
<go to a strip bar and see the girl on the pole as someones daughter. >
I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from, DaFlew. How can I go to to a strip club that exploits women and reduces them to eye candy and then claim to have any respect for myself?
You seem to either not be affected by lust for naked women or you are trying to justify a lifestyle that allows you liberties you know aren't compatible with your faith. Either way, I think most people on this forum would not consider haqnging out with our female friends while they are topless as being acceptable. Adam and Eve grabbed fig leaves for a reason and our "modern sensibilities" (read: lawlessness) does not change the fact that "uncovering our nakedness" is meant for the covenant of marraige alone, at least in societies where clothing is the norm.
. -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 9:15 AMmy point is this;
if you have a problem with a girl fully clothed whether in advertising or church, desensitize yourself. i think that advice is very sound psychologically speaking. its a type of aversion therapy and its used for smoking and sexual agression... but just so you know, i was joking.
i dont go to strip clubs because of that reason, i used to and i have no problem with them. but i know some strippers and they are great girls.
another point i'd like to make;
Jesus had prostitute friends, maybe even some dancers and more.
if modern christians think that they should only have "good christian" friends. they are wrong.
-
-
Re: aversion therapy
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 10:05 AMA wise old preacher once told me back when I was a teenager that when it comes to provocatively clad members of the opposite sex you can't help the first glance... but you can help the second one. The first look isn't a sin. The second one is. -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 11:14 AM<A wise old preacher once told me back when I was a teenager that when it comes to provocatively clad members of the opposite sex you can't help the first glance... but you can help the second one. The first look isn't a sin. The second one is. >
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Gal 5:16 ¶ [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 11:39 AMRicardo,
<Gal 5:16 ¶ [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. >
Do you think Paul would have permitted "walking into a strip club" in this admoniton?
Could you walk into a strip club and be "in the Spirit" and not fulfill the lusts of your flesh?
I'm not looking for some extreme exception to the rule but rather whether you think the two can mix, in general. I'm trying to determine where the spiritual meets the physical for you. -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Fri, May 2, 2008 - 1:41 PMI don't think the point is whether or not you are walking into a strip club, but why would you? laws and rules don't consider motivation, if we had a rule that none shall enter a strip club, and I go to one to pick up a drunk friend so that he won't drink and drive, I have failed to keep the letter of the law, yet I have done good. In truth, I found my self in that exact situation, I did see nude women dancing, I did not, and probably could not, find it sexually simulating. I was too aware of the reality , Instead of being compelled to lust, I was compelled to offer my jacket, so they might cover up. If you see women as people, mothers, sisters, family, nudity is not alluring in of itself. I am not trying to put you down here or say that your faith is not good enough but rather that you can find a solution to your lust that is within you and not dependant on the acts of others. It helps to be married and have a outlet for that energy which is normal and healthy. When I see a beautiful women I can't engage in fantasy becuase the image of my wife and daughter being hurt interupts it. I do however avoid unecessary contact with women I find attractive. -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sat, May 3, 2008 - 3:38 PMRicardo,
<I do however avoid unecessary contact with women I find attractive. >
Precisely. This is why I didn't want an extreme exception to the rule (which you offered anyway in your post).
My point is that walking in the Spirit will automatically mean choosing a life of holiness and denial of the flesh. I don't know about you, but my flesh likes looking at naked booty. Believing that I am so spiritual that I wouldn't be stirred up looking at dancing naked women is pure pride and self-deception. For this reason, I flee temptation and deny my flesh so that I can truly walk according to the Spirit of God.
The "spirit of the Law" will never be in conflict with the "letter of the Law" if I am truly in the Spirit and have acquiring His laws for my life and not just what I come up with in my flesh. -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sat, May 3, 2008 - 7:05 PM<<I flee temptation and deny my flesh so that I can truly walk according to the Spirit of God. >>
did Jesus flee temptation or confront it in the desert. i believe he fought it and won.
its dangerous policy to build a list of things you have to avoid and run from, cause the carnal nature is complex. it doesnt just stop with asking people to dress accordingly. the list will only get bigger. and i am not proposing tempt yourself. just saying that there are deeper things to be explored if your being turned on all the time by culture. i mean there are still primitive cultures that live together naked and topless. what are the ramifications of that? does the bible apply there? -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sat, May 3, 2008 - 7:07 PMby the way, i'm not directing anything at any one person, just debating the issue.
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sat, May 3, 2008 - 7:24 PMwell no, DaFlew,
I would not bring an alcoholic to a bar, nor would tempt a dieter with cake.
In todays advertising, women wearing next to nothing are meant to promote sexuality. it is simple advertising tools. A woman who dresses promiscuously is sending a message. If she does not wish to send that message she should put more clothes on. I am NOT saying she deserves a man to act on said message.
And Jesus is Jesus, we aren't. -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sat, May 3, 2008 - 10:00 PMhmmm reread my message, i said nothing of taking an alcoholic to a bar. i said i served wine, at dinner, at home even if a person who does not drink was there.
<<And Jesus is Jesus, we aren't.>>
Jesus prayed and told us to be like Him... that is the goal and the prize. -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 7:23 AM
Jesus was led of the Spirit into the desert to be tempted of the devil. But when the devil tempted Jesus to lap from the pinnacle of the temple, Jesus said It is written, You shall not tempt the Lord your God (Matthew 4:1-7)
It is not wisdom, nor Christ-like to purposefully leap into situations where one knows one might fall.
Jesus taught his disciples to pray "lead us not into temptation" (Matthew 6:13).
It is especially important for mature believers to take care not to stumble new believers.
"He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble" (Luke 17:1)
Paul explained,
"For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." (Galatians 5:13-14).
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 9:39 AM<<It is not wisdom, nor Christ-like to purposefully leap into situations where one knows one might fall. >>
hmm yes, which leads us to a more important debate.
do we as "christians" hold ourselves up in our little "christian" culture
where we are clean and shine with light and have no sin, walking six inches from the ground
or do we walk amonsgst the world saving souls. do we take action without worrying about laws?
do we follow a lost soul looking for the right time to reachout?
do we rush onto the battle field, blind to bullets and bombs
on the average it takes years to save a soul.
do we actually work for a soul?
and where are those souls? in the ads? next door? at the gas station? in the gangs? at the strip clubs? the bus stop? -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 10:41 AMdaFlew,
<which leads us to a more important debate. do we as "christians" hold ourselves up in our little "christian" culture
where we are clean and shine with light and have no sin, walking six inches from the ground >
I can agree this also an important discussion. But, it’s probably a different thread.
You have suggested that a man struggling with lust spend time in the presence of naked women. That relates to Anne’s comment of taking an alcoholic to a bar. These are different issues from asking Christians, “Who will minister to strippers and alcoholics?”
Also, the Way differs from secular psychology. You have attempted to relate freedom from sin to "aversion therapy." As you are not a psychologist, you may not be aware that aversion therapy is a form of psychological therapy where a negative or “aversive” (causing a strong feeling of dislike or disgust) stimulus is paired with an undesirable behavior in order to reduce or eliminate that behavior. Walking in the Spirit and walking in love is not aversion therapy. Christianity is Agape therapy. ;)
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 11:54 AM<<As you are not a psychologist, you may not be aware that aversion therapy is a form of psychological therapy where a negative or “aversive” (causing a strong feeling of dislike or disgust) stimulus is paired with an undesirable behavior in order to reduce or eliminate that behavior. Walking in the Spirit and walking in love is not aversion therapy. Christianity is Agape therapy. ;) >>
ya i see your point and raise you a point
when you have a fear of snakes, you are not advised to streer clear of them that only increases the fear and misunderstanding
same with fear of flying
when you get thrown off a horse you should back on
walking in the spirit means just that, walking in the spirit. that is not something you learn stickly from reading the bible and hanging out with only christians. i think my point might be getting lost because its complex and there are really no rules or laws. it takes experience.
maybe i should start a post on this. i wonder if it should be walking in the spirit, or "mere christianity" -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 2:27 PMdaFlew,
<ya i see your point and raise you a point>
LOL I'm feeling a bit jokey today ;)
<when you have a fear of snakes, you are not advised to streer clear of them >
You don't need to be advised. When you hear the rattle, it's a natural reaction to stay clear.
<that only increases the fear and misunderstanding>
What is the misunderstanding? Snake bites kill people.
Most people don't know the difference between a coral snake and a king snake. What needs to be taught is wisdom and discernent.
<when you get thrown off a horse you should back on>
By "horse" do you mean heroin, or something else? Everybody aint a cowboy, and don't need to be.
<walking in the spirit means just that, walking in the spirit. that is not something you learn stickly from reading the bible and hanging out with only christians... it takes experience. >
I agree with you completely.
<i wonder if it should be walking in the spirit, or "mere christianity">
I don't know. Is Mere Christianity about the Holy Spirit, or a C.S. Lewis apologetic for non-believers? I'm not sure, as I've have never read it.
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 2:43 PM<<You don't need to be advised. When you hear the rattle, it's a natural reaction to stay clear. >>
LOL Touche! -
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 7:46 PM<<<You don't need to be advised. When you hear the rattle, it's a natural reaction to stay clear. >>
LOL Touche>
Its funny that snakes got worked into this conversation, my Daughter and I were out catching snakes today for fun. We didn't see any rattle snakes and though we saw several other snakes, all we managed to catch was one old water snake blind in one eye. The snake musked me pretty good and my wife didn't want to let me back in the car. Anyway I guess the point is we are all different and it takes some effort to realize that just because something is not a problem for ourselves that it isn't a real problem for someone else.
-
-
TANGENT on RATTLERS
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 8:05 AMOn a side note Peter:
Research is showing that fewer and fewer rattlers are actually rattling nowadays. Presumably because of Rattlesnake Round-Ups, millions of rattling rattlers have been removed from the gene pool to satisfy human blood lust, and those rattlers that for some reason don't rattle or have small or absent rattles (genetically not from accidents) are the ones left to do the breeding. Therefore, more and more rattlers are becoming genetically different than what we grew up with and soon, we will lose the vital warning aspect of a rattle before you get bit by a deadly Eastern or Western Diamondback. Also, as catchable numbers keep dwindling in local areas, many folks have begun to stray to neighboring states and counties to steal their snakes and bring them in, thus mixing the different venoms "collected" at these farcical arenas, rendering any potential anti-venom created useless. (not that they actually send any of the tainted venom off to foreign countries to make the anti-venom anyway) Remember to thank your local Jaycees and Chambers of Commerce for keeping the changing face of our environment going! WOOHOO!
www.rattlesnakeroundup.net/main...page/ -
-
Re: TANGENT on RATTLERS
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 8:43 AMWendy,
"An easy method of telling the difference between a venomous or poisonous versus a non-poisonous snake is to look at the shape of the pupil. Non-poisonous snakes all have a round pupil (in the center of the eye) whereas all poisonous snakes have a vertical elliptical (cat-like) shaped pupil. All pit-vipers (poisonous) also have a small hole (pit) between the nostril and the eye."
When I read stuff like tihs, I imagine two people hiking on a wooded trail, when they come across a snake coiled beside the road. One asks, "Is that snake poisonous?" The other says, "I don't know, let me get closer so I can get a good look at it's pupils." Easier read than done! LOL
In any case, Rattlesnake Round-ups are a new one on me.
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: TANGENT on RATTLERS
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 10:22 AM<Wendy,
"An easy method of telling the difference between a venomous or poisonous versus a non-poisonous snake is to look at the shape of the pupil. Non-poisonous snakes all have a round pupil (in the center of the eye) whereas all poisonous snakes have a vertical elliptical (cat-like) shaped pupil. All pit-vipers (poisonous) also have a small hole (pit) between the nostril and the eye."
When I read stuff like tihs, I imagine two people hiking on a wooded trail, when they come across a snake coiled beside the road. One asks, "Is that snake poisonous?" The other says, "I don't know, let me get closer so I can get a good look at it's pupils." Easier read than done! LOL
In any case, Rattlesnake Round-ups are a new one on me.
>
Being an amatuer herpetologist and having kept just about every snake at one time or another, I am always amazed at what people mistake for a venomous snake is amazing. While there are many subspecies, there are only four or so general types of venomous snakes in this country and they are easy to identify. It's either a rattle snake, water moccasian, copper head or coral snake. Some water snakes are easy to confuse with water moccasians to the lay person, but generally speaking venomous snakes stand out, body size is much thicker and larger. It only takes about five minutes on line to familiarize ones self with the all the venomous snakes in this country. One general rule that is good to go by, if the snake doesn't flee when you approach it, it is probably venomous. The term poisonous by the way applies to something you eat, as far I know there is no such thing as a poisonous snake. -
-
Re: TANGENT on RATTLERS
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 10:59 AMAgreed, poison is ingested, while venom is INJECTED. There are no poisonous snakes in the world.
Hognosed snakes are also venomous and are rear-fanged.
There are 27 species of rattlesnakes, including the tiny Pygmy Rattlesnake.
There are 2 species of coral snakes in the U.S. There are coral snakes in Central America that look just like milk snakes with the red touching the black, so always be careful, especially in and around cities where there is an active pet trade. People like dumping exotic species in the wild just outside of town on a regular basis.
-
-
Re: TANGENT on RATTLERS
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 11:24 AM<Hognosed snakes are also venomous and are rear-fanged.>
There are several rear fanged species, but none are actually dangerous, there are hognose, night snakes, lyre snakes, ringnecked,and occasionally by the Rio grand, Cat-eyed snakes and vine snakes(look at my pics for an example of this one) all are harmless.
<There are 2 species of coral snakes in the U.S. There are coral snakes in Central America that look just like milk snakes with the red touching the black, so always be careful, especially in and around cities where there is an active pet trade. People like dumping exotic species in the wild just outside of town on a regular basis. >
Personally I wouldn't even say that you should worry about coral snakes, since they are fixed fanged and can't bite through clothes even if you step on one, which would be hard to do because they are brightly colored. The only venomous bites from these snakes come from handling them and mistaking them for harmless milk snakes. Good advice on the introduced species, beware in florida, were several importers were hit by hurricanes and a substantial amount of exotics were released into the wild. You could see anything there from king Cobras to Kraits and it wouldn't suprize me. -
-
Re: TANGENT on RATTLERS
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 12:15 PMHognosed snakes ARE harmful if you are bitten and yes people have been bitten, and yes it was their fault. However, don't assume that because it isn't as fatal on a regular basis as a western diamondback that it is harmless. I trust the herpetologists over the herpetoculturists any day on this one.
Coral snakes are more likely to harm children and pets than adults, because most kids see brightly colored and think oooooooooooh. We have destroyed what God created as a warning instinct and turned it into a toy instinct. Bad mojo that. -
-
Re: TANGENT on RATTLERS
Tue, May 6, 2008 - 8:05 AM<Hognosed snakes ARE harmful if you are bitten and yes people have been bitten, and yes it was their fault. However, don't assume that because it isn't as fatal on a regular basis as a western diamondback that it is harmless. I trust the herpetologists over the herpetoculturists any day on this one.>
I have never heard one single case where a hognose snake resulted in anything more then localized swelling. Rear fanged snakes, for those that are unfamiliar with them have grooved rear teeth that point backwards. They are not intended as a defensive weapon but as a means of killing prey which they are swallowing. They do not inject their venom but rather they have to chew it in. I can tell you from personal experience, that aside from the risk of having an allergic reaction, they are absolutely harmless. I have let them chew on me for up to 15 minutes, which is really hard to do considering they are very docile, with no effects what so ever. I have done the same with several rear fanged snakes, Boiga species will produce serious swelling and nausea, false water cobra's likewise, I avoid bites from those. As far as herpetologist over herpetoculturists, some are both, one of the best is Dr. Frey in Australia, his work on snake venom is ground breaking. What he has found is that most harmless colubrids have toxins in their saliva, even simple garter snakes produce potentially dangerous substances, but the important distinction between what we consider harmless and dangerous is the delivery method.
<We have destroyed what God created as a warning instinct and turned it into a toy instinct. Bad mojo that. >
I never thought of it that way but your right, kinda of ironic.
-
-
-
Re: TANGENT on RATTLERS
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 11:41 AMWendy: "People like dumping exotic species in the wild just outside of town on a regular basis."
That's a major problem here in Florida(major tangent now!), because so many critters like to live here and thrive so well. There are boas and pythons all over the 'glades now. Back when I worked at a state park there was a lady who came up to me one day and calmly informed me that there was a dragon in the women's bathhouse. Turned out it was a big iguana. We've also recently gotten quite a number of jaguarundis living in the Southeast, and many (if not all) reports of Florida Panthers in areas other than extreme southern Florida are likely to be jaguarundis. The may have migrated from South/Central America but I think it's more likely that they are escaped/abandoned pets.
Although after seeing one I can honestly say I want one too. Sadly, Sarah says I can't have one even if I could find one (mostly, I think, because it might eat her mom's dachshund and all the neighbors' pets). They're like mountain lions, but much more manageably sized :)
-
-
-
-
Re: TANGENT on RATTLERS
Mon, May 5, 2008 - 10:11 AMI've fighting the rattlesnake round up with other amatuer herpers for years, it's a disgrace.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 8:01 PM<<<It is not wisdom, nor Christ-like to purposefully leap into situations where one knows one might fall. >>
>
Love will often lead you into places where you might fall. Whats the difference between tempting the lord and trusting in his power? You tempt the lord when you risk for yourself or no reason at all. You are trusting in the lord when the risk in necessary for a goal that fullfills the will of God. When Jesus stepped out on the water, he knew that the water naturally should swallow him up, but he trusted in the lord because he knew it was the will of God that he cross over and deliver his message.
-
-
-
Re: aversion therapy
Sun, May 4, 2008 - 8:16 AM<i said i served wine, at dinner, at home even if a person who does not drink was there.>
Nor did you say this person had trouble with wine - only that the person does not drink. It is not a stumbling block if a person chooses not to drink without have trouble with drink.
I don't drink, but I don't care if people drink around me. Drinking is not a sin either; though drinking to excess is - as is anything to excess.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
