Comments on: Loving God is Bad? http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/ Engaging the depths of God and life in the Kingdom Wed, 23 May 2012 19:01:01 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: iggy http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17508 iggy Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:14:44 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17508 WOW! I finally read Perry's whole article and it is great! What a powerful testimony and a great example of "gutless grace girliemen" standing firmly on Grace and purity. Funny that he is attacked for his article that is clearly stating that men need stand up and be men... but then all "sex" is dirty to those who decided that this was just a post was unbiblical that one should actually be passionately "in love" with Jesus... In fact as I pointed out to be against "living in love" with God... is anti-biblical... and is promoting a lie from Satan. Stand up "gutless grace girliemen"! be blessed, iggy WOW!

I finally read Perry’s whole article and it is great! What a powerful testimony and a great example of “gutless grace girliemen” standing firmly on Grace and purity.

Funny that he is attacked for his article that is clearly stating that men need stand up and be men… but then all “sex” is dirty to those who decided that this was just a post was unbiblical that one should actually be passionately “in love” with Jesus…

In fact as I pointed out to be against “living in love” with God… is anti-biblical… and is promoting a lie from Satan.

Stand up “gutless grace girliemen”!
be blessed,
iggy

]]> By: Theology for the Masses » Blog Archive » Of Bond-slaves and Lovers http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17430 Theology for the Masses » Blog Archive » Of Bond-slaves and Lovers Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:50:35 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17430 [...] or does God want “lovers?” Yes, according to this post, God prefers slaves rather than people who are in love with Him. That would come as a surprise to Jesus, I guess, who in John 15:15 said, “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” It also misses the point of much of the Biblical narrative. It seems to me that even in the Old Testament, God was looking for people who loved them with all their hearts. When David wrote, As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God? was it sickening to God? Too wishy-washy and touchy-feely? [...] [...] or does God want “lovers?” Yes, according to this post, God prefers slaves rather than people who are in love with Him. That would come as a surprise to Jesus, I guess, who in John 15:15 said, “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” It also misses the point of much of the Biblical narrative. It seems to me that even in the Old Testament, God was looking for people who loved them with all their hearts. When David wrote, As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God? was it sickening to God? Too wishy-washy and touchy-feely? [...]

]]> By: Coop http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17395 Coop Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:13:58 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17395 And then there's this post at CRN... http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=3130 A house divided against itself... And then there’s this post at CRN…

http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=3130

A house divided against itself…

]]> By: iggy http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17381 iggy Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:47:21 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17381 I think the point that is being missed about the "punch him in the throat" comment it that he sees that his daughter is settling for less than what she could have if the guy was 'in love" with Jesus and had true passion for God. Now, the image is a bit brutal, yet I think that he is expressing that passion. The "good" Christian boy he is talking about most likely is one that think that by his being "good" (don't drink, smoke or chew or date girls that do) does not truly express that passion... it shows he can have a sense of self purity, but it also means that he may not care to get a little dirty to love others as Christ got dirty loving mankind. It is that he is expressing that he would rather be violent than let his daughter not have a greater life in Christ... I mean, John MacArthur took some of Jesus' words and twisted them to say Jesus was pro war... which was far from the truth or the meaning of the passage he used. So here a guy uses a brutal phrase to express his passion and another who teaches Jesus was pro war because he wants to justify his own agenda... So which is worse? Be Blessed, iggy I think the point that is being missed about the “punch him in the throat” comment it that he sees that his daughter is settling for less than what she could have if the guy was ‘in love” with Jesus and had true passion for God.

Now, the image is a bit brutal, yet I think that he is expressing that passion. The “good” Christian boy he is talking about most likely is one that think that by his being “good” (don’t drink, smoke or chew or date girls that do) does not truly express that passion… it shows he can have a sense of self purity, but it also means that he may not care to get a little dirty to love others as Christ got dirty loving mankind.

It is that he is expressing that he would rather be violent than let his daughter not have a greater life in Christ…

I mean, John MacArthur took some of Jesus’ words and twisted them to say Jesus was pro war… which was far from the truth or the meaning of the passage he used.

So here a guy uses a brutal phrase to express his passion and another who teaches Jesus was pro war because he wants to justify his own agenda…

So which is worse?

Be Blessed,
iggy

]]> By: Coop http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17376 Coop Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:21:53 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17376 I think our servitude to Christ is a matter of choice, that comes out of our love for Him and gratitude for what He has done for us on the cross. But I could be wrong. I think our servitude to Christ is a matter of choice, that comes out of our love for Him and gratitude for what He has done for us on the cross.

But I could be wrong.

]]> By: Phil Miller http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17372 Phil Miller Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:03:50 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17372 Brendt, You are correct, it is not an either/or proposition. I think though it comes down to how we think we are valued by God. If we think God values as more as servants than sons, we will tend to think His love for us is based on what we do for Him. I've seen some Christians who view God almost like a reactionary dad watching his kids play sports. They feel valued only when they make the "big play", but then fear His wrath when they mess up. They have a very hard time accepting God's love. I think it is Biblical for us to consider ourselves slaves for Christ, but in the sense that we trust that we are dying to ourselves. It's not that Christ only values us for what we produce. Brendt,
You are correct, it is not an either/or proposition. I think though it comes down to how we think we are valued by God. If we think God values as more as servants than sons, we will tend to think His love for us is based on what we do for Him. I’ve seen some Christians who view God almost like a reactionary dad watching his kids play sports. They feel valued only when they make the “big play”, but then fear His wrath when they mess up. They have a very hard time accepting God’s love.

I think it is Biblical for us to consider ourselves slaves for Christ, but in the sense that we trust that we are dying to ourselves. It’s not that Christ only values us for what we produce.

]]> By: Brendt http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17356 Brendt Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:54:17 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17356 Point, though -- it's not a either/or situation. It's not simply "servant" or "friend". Jesus said, "I don't call you servants"; He didn't say "you aren't servants". If that's what He meant, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:1&version=50" rel="nofollow">then</a> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:1;&version=50;" rel="nofollow">several</a> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201:1;&version=50;" rel="nofollow">epistles</a> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:1;&version=50;" rel="nofollow">start</a> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:1;&version=50;" rel="nofollow">off</a> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:1;&version=50;" rel="nofollow">wrong</a>, as the author refers to himself as a servant of Christ. Also, His teachings and modeling of servanthood would also be wrong. God's view of His relationship with us is unchangingly altered by Jesus' blood. Yes, we are His servants, and perhaps that should be our primary view of ourselves, but it's not His primary view of us. To be clear, this means that the mysterious Editor's comments are fallacious. I'm just trying to point out that his idea isn't completely off -- it's just a massively illogical conclusion. One can be a servant who loves his Master. I'd probably agree that the portion of Psalm 42 that you quoted is a picture of someone who is in love with God. But "in love" is a fairly modern phraseology, and it's been demonstrated quite clearly at CRN that any concept born after Charles Spurgeon is of the devil. Put another way, to "love" is moreso the will, whereas to be "in love" is moreso emotion. While large chunks of the church have taken a viewpoint that's purely emotional toward God, to react to that (as CRN does) by cutting out all emotions toward God is just as wrong. Point, though — it’s not a either/or situation. It’s not simply “servant” or “friend”.

Jesus said, “I don’t call you servants”; He didn’t say “you aren’t servants”. If that’s what He meant, then several epistles start off wrong, as the author refers to himself as a servant of Christ. Also, His teachings and modeling of servanthood would also be wrong.

God’s view of His relationship with us is unchangingly altered by Jesus’ blood. Yes, we are His servants, and perhaps that should be our primary view of ourselves, but it’s not His primary view of us. To be clear, this means that the mysterious Editor’s comments are fallacious. I’m just trying to point out that his idea isn’t completely off — it’s just a massively illogical conclusion. One can be a servant who loves his Master.

I’d probably agree that the portion of Psalm 42 that you quoted is a picture of someone who is in love with God. But “in love” is a fairly modern phraseology, and it’s been demonstrated quite clearly at CRN that any concept born after Charles Spurgeon is of the devil.

Put another way, to “love” is moreso the will, whereas to be “in love” is moreso emotion. While large chunks of the church have taken a viewpoint that’s purely emotional toward God, to react to that (as CRN does) by cutting out all emotions toward God is just as wrong.

]]> By: keith http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17354 keith Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:37:16 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17354 I think you can be both. Paul addressed himself as a "bond-slave/servant" in Romans, Philippians, and Philemon ("prisoner"); James, Peter and Jude also used the term. I think you can be both. Paul addressed himself as a “bond-slave/servant” in Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (”prisoner”); James, Peter and Jude also used the term.

]]> By: Kevin I http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17353 Kevin I Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:30:13 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17353 To hold to the belief that we should be only like bond-slaves and not as people in love with God would require omitting a great deal of verses, especially about being the bride of Christ. Sure a bond-slave is one image among many in the Bible, but I wouldn't call it the primary image or even the bigger theme of it all. I've been thinking of a way to extend the benifiet of the doubt to the "editor" on this one and the only thing I can arrive at is that the "editor" may have difficulties in expressing love in general and this may cloud their reading of scripture. To hold to the belief that we should be only like bond-slaves and not as people in love with God would require omitting a great deal of verses, especially about being the bride of Christ. Sure a bond-slave is one image among many in the Bible, but I wouldn’t call it the primary image or even the bigger theme of it all.

I’ve been thinking of a way to extend the benifiet of the doubt to the “editor” on this one and the only thing I can arrive at is that the “editor” may have difficulties in expressing love in general and this may cloud their reading of scripture.

]]> By: Sandman http://prophets-priests-poets.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-17349 Sandman Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:47:52 +0000 http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/09/12/loving-god-is-bad/#comment-17349 Just wrong on so many levels. Perry is off in the flesh and "editor" seems to have a personal issue. Just wrong on so many levels. Perry is off in the flesh and “editor” seems to have a personal issue.

]]>