They installed my dishwasher on Saturday. :) It looks wonderful compared to the other one, but I haven’t used it yet because the valve for the hot water connection is still leaking a bit and I don’t want to blow a valve and have water everywhere. Turns out, the one that had been in there before (for apparently decades) was a portable! Yep. They took the top off an old portable dishwasher and ... jury-rigged it as a built-in. That certainly explains the fake oak panel on the front!! Because it wasn't intended to be a built-in dishwasher, it took the installation guys an hour to do what would otherwise have been a 15-20 minute job. (Sigh!)
I’m going to check the valve again at noon. If it’s still leaking, I’m going to go down in the basement and turn off the hot water and then take the valve apart and get 2 new valves – one for the one I know I need to replace and one for the other one. Then, I can replace the valve, check it to make sure it doesn’t leak, and then run the dishwasher. The guys who installed it tested it, so it should be fine, but I will feel more comfortable using it if I have a new valve that doesn’t leak.
Of course, once I got the new dishwasher in, the hardware on the cabinets didn’t look right. The new dishwasher has a stainless steel-looking front panel, which totally clashed with the 1970s country oak look, so I went to Home Depot and bought a new brushed pewter looking one and tried it out. It looked very nice with the new dishwasher, so I replaced all 24 handles (at $4/each, that was about $98). Now that the handles are in, the cupboards don’t look too bad. I probably will still strip them and stain them a cherry color, but they look OK for now.
Frankly, everything looks OK. I will need to replace my refrigerator in the next year or so, but I’m hoping I can hold off on that until next year. The refrigerator is about 18 years old, and it's making those noises. I had to disconnect the ice maker because it was leaking all over the floor, but that wasn't a big deal because I never used the ice anyway. Once I replace the refrigerator, I will probably replace the stove, since if I don't, it's going to feel left out anyway. The floor will be replaced eventually, too, once I decide what I want to replace it with. Then, of course, the walls will need to be painted - and then the light fixtures....... All because of a dishwasher.
Right now, however, the only problem is the water coming down into the window well. I think it’s leaking into the basement, which makes me so mad. When they redid the sump pump overflow thing, they directed the overflow right back toward the foundation – which was SO galactically stupid! – and the water had no place to go but right down into the window well (and thus right into my basement).
Once that matter gets resolved, I will have no choice but to fold laundry and put it away. Euwww. That’s going to require alcohol, I think.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Threaten Them
Move America Forward is doing a national caravan from California (leaving on Thursday, March 8, 2007) to Washington, D.C. where they will join "The Gathering of Eagles" for a giant pro-troop rally on Saturday March 17, 2007.
Individuals and groups are invited to join them for part of the route or the entire caravan, or to attend one of their patriotic pro-troop rallies across the nation. At each stop they are asking participants to bring an American Flag (homemade or store-bought), which they will pack with the caravan and take it to Washington, D.C. They will use the flags to create a giant "Flag City" - a sea of red, white and blue patriotism to surround our war memorials and show that we will not turn our backs on our troops as they serve bravely overseas. Children can make homemade flags, people who knit can knit a flag, or you can bring a flag that has special meaning or significance to you, because these flags are going to be given to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I will be flying to D.C. to join my sister and others at the rally on March 17th. I've been thinking about it for a couple of weeks, but I didn't decide until this morning. My sister sent me a copy of an article by Michelle Malkin at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin022807.php3. I wrote and asked if she was going, and then I just invited myself along. :)
The other thing is, there is a caravan driving from California to D.C. that week. There will be stops along the way, so if you are close to one of the caravan's stops, they can use all the support and help they can get. Go to www.moveamericaforward.org for more information on the caravan, or to www.gatheringofeagles.org for more information on the rally itself.
Individuals and groups are invited to join them for part of the route or the entire caravan, or to attend one of their patriotic pro-troop rallies across the nation. At each stop they are asking participants to bring an American Flag (homemade or store-bought), which they will pack with the caravan and take it to Washington, D.C. They will use the flags to create a giant "Flag City" - a sea of red, white and blue patriotism to surround our war memorials and show that we will not turn our backs on our troops as they serve bravely overseas. Children can make homemade flags, people who knit can knit a flag, or you can bring a flag that has special meaning or significance to you, because these flags are going to be given to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I will be flying to D.C. to join my sister and others at the rally on March 17th. I've been thinking about it for a couple of weeks, but I didn't decide until this morning. My sister sent me a copy of an article by Michelle Malkin at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin022807.php3. I wrote and asked if she was going, and then I just invited myself along. :)
The other thing is, there is a caravan driving from California to D.C. that week. There will be stops along the way, so if you are close to one of the caravan's stops, they can use all the support and help they can get. Go to www.moveamericaforward.org for more information on the caravan, or to www.gatheringofeagles.org for more information on the rally itself.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Unpardonable Sin
I don't know if you have heard of this, but my dad told me about this blasphemy project that is encouraging young people to blaspheme on video. This is from Challenge Blasphemy's website:
ChallengeBlasphemy.com was created in response to BlasphemyChallenge.com; a website designed to target the faith of people all around the world. However, the site is mostly directed at teens. People are being asked to post videos in which they deny the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. By doing this, they are told they are committing the “unforgivable sin”. Blasphemy Challenge has promised to give the first 1001 people who post these videos a free DVD called “ The God Who Wasn’t There.”
Challenge Blasphemy is issuing several challenges to Christians and non-Christians worldwide!
It's simple. You record a short message answering the given challenge, and then you simply upload it to YouTube, and then challengeblasphemy.com will post your video on this website.
It's that easy.
Here's What You Do:
You can make your video however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must answer one or more of our given challenges.
Once you have shot your video, just follow these two easy steps: 1. Go to this link on YouTube to upload your video as a Video Response to the Challenge Blasphemy. You can log in or register on that page if necessary. Then if you could please type in the URL www.challengeblasphemy.com somewhere in the text description when you upload your video.
2. When the video appears on YouTube, send the URL to this email address: contact@challengeblasphemy.com.
That's it.
We are certain that people who took the blasphemy challenge, have not committed the 'unforgivable sin' and we are standing for Christ, as blasphemy challenge attempts to steal the hope of salvation!
[End quote].
I can't tell you how horrified I was about the "blasphemy challenge" when I first heard about it. The idea of anyone distorting the Word of God in a way deliberately designed to draw people away from the hope of salvation took me to tears. There's a reason for that which I may share another day, but how truly evil!!
My first reaction was tears - my second was prayer that God would not allow young people to be corrupted by that project, that He would protect kids who didn't know what kind of evil they had stumbled upon, and that He would stop this organization. After I'd prayed, slept on it, and did some research, I felt a little better, but the lawyer in me wondered whether the "project" had any legal merit.
I remembered that Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and that he loves to twist God's words to try to get human beings to lose their way. That was his tactic in the Garden of Eden, and he's used it quite effectively since then.
I started doing a little more study about the "unpardonable" sin, and I found this on Bible.org:
Question:
What is the unpardonable sin?
Answer:
Matthew 12:31 Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.” [Ed. Note: There also are references in Mark and Luke].
The unpardonable sin is the sin of rejection. The unpardonable sin is defined as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, because when Christ was on earth, the religious leaders were attributing his miracles to demonic powers when in fact they were the product of the Holy Spirit working in the life of Christ (Matt. 12:12-32). This demonstrated a heart that had become so hard that it precluded repentance because Christ’s words and works were a clear evidence of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in Him as the Anointed One, the Messiah of the Old Testament. To reject Christ and claim His works were from Satan was a clear evidence of both unbelief and an unrepentant heart. That’s why it was considered unpardonable.
The one sin that is unforgivable is unbelief or rejection of Christ. Note in the passage quoted below that the convicting work of the Spirit is related to giving demonstrable proof that it is the sin of rejection that is the issue.
8 And He (the HS), when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged (John 16:8-11).
[End quote].
I also found this commentary passage at Biblegateway.org:
"The equivalent today would be someone who remained so committed to rejecting Christ that she determined to find alternative explanations for any obvious proof (such as miracles) attesting him. Even in what seems to be that case, however, Paul exhorts one of his students and coworkers to remember that we humans cannot judge who has forever crossed that line (1 Tim 1:12-20). Not uncommonly young Christians read about the "unforgivable sin" and fear they have committed it. We therefore must reiterate the point in this context: the sin is unforgivable only because it reflects a heart too hard to repent. Those who desire to repent, troubled by the fear that they may have committed this sin, plainly have not committed it!"
That was what I thought, because once Jesus died and rose from the dead, the concept that there would even be one sin that His blood couldn't atone for would call into question the efficacy of His entire substitutionary death, burial and resurrection, but it was nice to see it put into such simple and understandable language. The time for accepting His sacrifice is before death, because "it is appointed unto men once to die, and then the judgment," but while there is life, there is hope.
"God wanted to make known to them the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim him by instructing and teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person mature in Christ." Colossians 1:27-28 (NIV).
Thanks be to God for His remarkable gift!!
ChallengeBlasphemy.com was created in response to BlasphemyChallenge.com; a website designed to target the faith of people all around the world. However, the site is mostly directed at teens. People are being asked to post videos in which they deny the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. By doing this, they are told they are committing the “unforgivable sin”. Blasphemy Challenge has promised to give the first 1001 people who post these videos a free DVD called “ The God Who Wasn’t There.”
Challenge Blasphemy is issuing several challenges to Christians and non-Christians worldwide!
It's simple. You record a short message answering the given challenge, and then you simply upload it to YouTube, and then challengeblasphemy.com will post your video on this website.
It's that easy.
Here's What You Do:
You can make your video however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must answer one or more of our given challenges.
Once you have shot your video, just follow these two easy steps: 1. Go to this link on YouTube to upload your video as a Video Response to the Challenge Blasphemy. You can log in or register on that page if necessary. Then if you could please type in the URL www.challengeblasphemy.com somewhere in the text description when you upload your video.
2. When the video appears on YouTube, send the URL to this email address: contact@challengeblasphemy.com.
That's it.
We are certain that people who took the blasphemy challenge, have not committed the 'unforgivable sin' and we are standing for Christ, as blasphemy challenge attempts to steal the hope of salvation!
[End quote].
I can't tell you how horrified I was about the "blasphemy challenge" when I first heard about it. The idea of anyone distorting the Word of God in a way deliberately designed to draw people away from the hope of salvation took me to tears. There's a reason for that which I may share another day, but how truly evil!!
My first reaction was tears - my second was prayer that God would not allow young people to be corrupted by that project, that He would protect kids who didn't know what kind of evil they had stumbled upon, and that He would stop this organization. After I'd prayed, slept on it, and did some research, I felt a little better, but the lawyer in me wondered whether the "project" had any legal merit.
I remembered that Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and that he loves to twist God's words to try to get human beings to lose their way. That was his tactic in the Garden of Eden, and he's used it quite effectively since then.
I started doing a little more study about the "unpardonable" sin, and I found this on Bible.org:
Question:
What is the unpardonable sin?
Answer:
Matthew 12:31 Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.” [Ed. Note: There also are references in Mark and Luke].
The unpardonable sin is the sin of rejection. The unpardonable sin is defined as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, because when Christ was on earth, the religious leaders were attributing his miracles to demonic powers when in fact they were the product of the Holy Spirit working in the life of Christ (Matt. 12:12-32). This demonstrated a heart that had become so hard that it precluded repentance because Christ’s words and works were a clear evidence of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in Him as the Anointed One, the Messiah of the Old Testament. To reject Christ and claim His works were from Satan was a clear evidence of both unbelief and an unrepentant heart. That’s why it was considered unpardonable.
The one sin that is unforgivable is unbelief or rejection of Christ. Note in the passage quoted below that the convicting work of the Spirit is related to giving demonstrable proof that it is the sin of rejection that is the issue.
8 And He (the HS), when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged (John 16:8-11).
[End quote].
I also found this commentary passage at Biblegateway.org:
"The equivalent today would be someone who remained so committed to rejecting Christ that she determined to find alternative explanations for any obvious proof (such as miracles) attesting him. Even in what seems to be that case, however, Paul exhorts one of his students and coworkers to remember that we humans cannot judge who has forever crossed that line (1 Tim 1:12-20). Not uncommonly young Christians read about the "unforgivable sin" and fear they have committed it. We therefore must reiterate the point in this context: the sin is unforgivable only because it reflects a heart too hard to repent. Those who desire to repent, troubled by the fear that they may have committed this sin, plainly have not committed it!"
That was what I thought, because once Jesus died and rose from the dead, the concept that there would even be one sin that His blood couldn't atone for would call into question the efficacy of His entire substitutionary death, burial and resurrection, but it was nice to see it put into such simple and understandable language. The time for accepting His sacrifice is before death, because "it is appointed unto men once to die, and then the judgment," but while there is life, there is hope.
"God wanted to make known to them the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. We proclaim him by instructing and teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person mature in Christ." Colossians 1:27-28 (NIV).
Thanks be to God for His remarkable gift!!
Friday, February 23, 2007
New shoes
Because it's Friday, and because I got the remaining items I'd ordered in the mail a couple of days ago, I am happy. I have nice new shoes that don't have scuffed heels or toes, and I'm wearing a freshly dry-cleaned sweater with my nice new skirt that is long enough, and everything matches!! :)
The only thing that would make this day perfect is if I could be not sick anymore. I have the standard "expected to be useless" appointment with my doctor on Tuesday. She is actually very good; it's my stupid symptoms that render her advice generally useless. I have nothing that couldn't be cured with a week on a beach someplace very warm and breezy, with lots of peace and quiet and sunshine to bake the crud out of my system. Unfortunately, she hasn't prescribed that yet.....
The only thing that would make this day perfect is if I could be not sick anymore. I have the standard "expected to be useless" appointment with my doctor on Tuesday. She is actually very good; it's my stupid symptoms that render her advice generally useless. I have nothing that couldn't be cured with a week on a beach someplace very warm and breezy, with lots of peace and quiet and sunshine to bake the crud out of my system. Unfortunately, she hasn't prescribed that yet.....
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Impatience
I know it's not that critical to life as I know it, but doggone it, why haven't the dishwasher installation guys called? They're supposed to call to schedule the installation of my new dishwasher (since I am ready to tear the old one out of the kitchen with my bare hands and strew its pieces across the lawn), and they haven't called yet.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Reconciliation
Thinking about the post from yesterday, I started wondering about the words "reconcile" and "reconciliation." Merriam-Webster defines "reconcile" as:
1 a : to restore to friendship or harmony b : SETTLE; RESOLVE
2 : to make consistent or congruous ;
3 : to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant ;
4 a : to check (a financial account) against another for accuracy b : to account for intransitive verb : to become reconciled.
I thought it interesting that two of the four definitions assume an objective referent - "to make consistent or congruous" and "to check against another for accuracy."
Two of the definitions seem to have arisen by usage, but the other two were intriguing because of the use of the words "reconcile" and "reconciliation" and "to become reconciled" in Scripture. Depending on which definition you use, you could really screw up your theology.
The words are used in Scripture in three places that I could find on NETBible; I am citing the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because of the various versions out there, it's the more linguistically accurate:
Job 22:21
"Yield now and be at peace with Him; Thereby good will come to you."
Eph 2:16
"and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."
Col 1:20
"and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
The verse citation to Job came from the New International Version (NIV). It's technically a decent translation, but it's "tweaked" to make it more understandable. I don't like it as well as the NASB, but that's 'cuz my brain is wired for linguistics and "getting it right."
The Hebrew word used in that verse is translated "reconcile" in the NIV and "yield" in the NASB. In neither of those words is the concept that there is any "settlement" or "negotiation" - it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for the one who is doing the yielding or reconciling. Too often we use the term "reconcile" to imply a concession on both sides. In the theological sense, the sole concession on God's side was His willingness to accept Christ's blood in lieu of our own. For us to escape the penalty of death (i.e., eternal separation from God), we must accept God's terms. There are no other negotiations.
There are 2 Greek words in the New Testament for "reconcile": apokatallasso and diallasso.
"Apokatallasso" means 1) to reconcile completely, 2) to reconcile back again, 3) bring back a former state of harmony. "Diallasso" means 1) to change, 2) to change the mind of anyone, to reconcile, 3) to be reconciled, to renew friendship with one.
In a way, these words add to our understanding of why the need to accept God's terms is on us. "Apokatallasso" carries with it the original state of man - one in which Adam and Eve talked with God directly, had daily fellowship with Him and enjoyed His company. The reconciliation with God carries with it a sense of that renewal of harmony between two parties who are estranged because of the actions (sin) of one of them.
"Diallasso" also adds the realization that for us to become reconciled to God, we need to change - we need to change our minds (as Paul reminds us in Romans 12:2, when he says we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds) and we need to take the steps that are necessary to renew our friendship with God. No matter how you parse it out, the act of reconciliation with God is that we move closer to God by accepting His terms - He doesn't change His ways to suit us or to entice us to come back to Him.
I hear people talk and sing about being a friend of God - it sounds a bit presumptuous to me, although I remember singing a similar hymn or two in my childhood like, "what a friend we have in Jesus" and "Jesus is my friend..." The difference is probably not obvious to a lot of people, but the earlier hymns are describing Jesus's being our friend, and the basis for that is that He loved us enough to lay down His life for us. How many of us can say that we are truly His friend, when we can't even lay down the remote control for Him? Just a thought.....
Anyway, that was where yesterday's post led me this morning.
I should also mention that I finally got to church this past Sunday - after almost a year of not going anywhere - and I'm cautiously optimistic.
1 a : to restore to friendship or harmony b : SETTLE; RESOLVE
2 : to make consistent or congruous ;
3 : to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant ;
4 a : to check (a financial account) against another for accuracy b : to account for intransitive verb : to become reconciled.
I thought it interesting that two of the four definitions assume an objective referent - "to make consistent or congruous" and "to check against another for accuracy."
Two of the definitions seem to have arisen by usage, but the other two were intriguing because of the use of the words "reconcile" and "reconciliation" and "to become reconciled" in Scripture. Depending on which definition you use, you could really screw up your theology.
The words are used in Scripture in three places that I could find on NETBible; I am citing the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because of the various versions out there, it's the more linguistically accurate:
Job 22:21
"Yield now and be at peace with Him; Thereby good will come to you."
Eph 2:16
"and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."
Col 1:20
"and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
The verse citation to Job came from the New International Version (NIV). It's technically a decent translation, but it's "tweaked" to make it more understandable. I don't like it as well as the NASB, but that's 'cuz my brain is wired for linguistics and "getting it right."
The Hebrew word used in that verse is translated "reconcile" in the NIV and "yield" in the NASB. In neither of those words is the concept that there is any "settlement" or "negotiation" - it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for the one who is doing the yielding or reconciling. Too often we use the term "reconcile" to imply a concession on both sides. In the theological sense, the sole concession on God's side was His willingness to accept Christ's blood in lieu of our own. For us to escape the penalty of death (i.e., eternal separation from God), we must accept God's terms. There are no other negotiations.
There are 2 Greek words in the New Testament for "reconcile": apokatallasso and diallasso.
"Apokatallasso" means 1) to reconcile completely, 2) to reconcile back again, 3) bring back a former state of harmony. "Diallasso" means 1) to change, 2) to change the mind of anyone, to reconcile, 3) to be reconciled, to renew friendship with one.
In a way, these words add to our understanding of why the need to accept God's terms is on us. "Apokatallasso" carries with it the original state of man - one in which Adam and Eve talked with God directly, had daily fellowship with Him and enjoyed His company. The reconciliation with God carries with it a sense of that renewal of harmony between two parties who are estranged because of the actions (sin) of one of them.
"Diallasso" also adds the realization that for us to become reconciled to God, we need to change - we need to change our minds (as Paul reminds us in Romans 12:2, when he says we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds) and we need to take the steps that are necessary to renew our friendship with God. No matter how you parse it out, the act of reconciliation with God is that we move closer to God by accepting His terms - He doesn't change His ways to suit us or to entice us to come back to Him.
I hear people talk and sing about being a friend of God - it sounds a bit presumptuous to me, although I remember singing a similar hymn or two in my childhood like, "what a friend we have in Jesus" and "Jesus is my friend..." The difference is probably not obvious to a lot of people, but the earlier hymns are describing Jesus's being our friend, and the basis for that is that He loved us enough to lay down His life for us. How many of us can say that we are truly His friend, when we can't even lay down the remote control for Him? Just a thought.....
Anyway, that was where yesterday's post led me this morning.
I should also mention that I finally got to church this past Sunday - after almost a year of not going anywhere - and I'm cautiously optimistic.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A Matter of Perspective
A 41-year-old woman goes into a Magnolia’s Mystery* store in her local mall. She selects a few items, heads toward the dressing room and almost walks into a man coming out of the dressing room area.
“What is that man doing in the dressing rooms?” she asks a saleswoman.
“Oh, don’t mind him,” the saleswoman says calmly. “He’s an employee.”
“Well, what is he doing in the dressing rooms?” she asks again.
“I told you – he’s an employee.”
“Well, I don’t want him in the dressing room – I’m going to be in there trying on bras, and I don’t want him in there.”
“The idea that a man can’t work in the fitting room and not leer at the customers, not start panting with lust, is beyond insulting; it's ignorant! What kind of hate-monger are you?” the saleswoman fumed.
“What difference does it make if I hate men or not? I just don’t want them in the dressing room when I’m taking my clothes off! I’m supposed to give up my rights just because you didn’t have the sense to hire a woman? I’d feel the same way if you had a lesbian in the dressing room – it isn’t about them, it’s about my right to determine who might see me without my clothes on!”
“Just for that, we’re going to take away your Magnolia’s Mystery credit card! We don’t want to do business with someone as bigoted as you!”
[End scene].
*Magnolia's Mystery is a renaming of a famous women's lingerie store..... :)
Sound familiar? I know, it’s a bit of stretch. But think about it: don’t men have as much “right” to work in “Magnolia’s Mystery” or anywhere else that sells women’s clothes? By the same token, Tim Hardaway – agree with him or not – has the right to express his opinion about who he shares a locker room with.
The problem we get into whenever we tackle these topics is the difference between state and action, and by “state” I mean “who (or what) you are” as opposed to “what you do.” (I could have said “who you do” but that would have been a) poor grammar, and b) poor taste….)
People on both sides of the discussion miss a very important point: there is no question that God hates, and the Bible rightfully condemns, homosexuality. Anyone who disagrees with me should read Romans 1 and any number of other passages I could point to. [While I’m on the subject, heterosexual sexual behavior between people who aren’t married to each other is just as bad – and no, there is no “exception” if you’re “really in love” with the person you’re having sex with.]
What we miss is the fact that God hates all sin – not just homosexuality. He hates lying (even the little white ones), cheating, stealing, murder, envy, lust, gluttony, disobedience to parents and rebellion against His authority – just to name a few. All of those behaviors and attitudes are sin that God hates – not just homosexuality.
But in spite of our status as sinners by nature and by choice, God loves us so much that He sent His only Son to pay for our sin with His own blood.
Think about it. God hates sin so much that He requires blood (death), but He loved us so much that He, through His Son Jesus Christ, volunteered to pay that penalty for us so we could be reconciled to Him.
Here’s the thing, though. Maybe because we’re sinful human beings, maybe because we’re lazy, or maybe because we haven’t been taught, we equate hating the sin with hating the sinner. If you really think about that, it’s like hating your child because he disobeyed you.
What reasonably normal mother would tell her, say, 16-year-old child, “I hate you! I don’t even want to be in the same room with you! You disgust me!” just because he stole money from her purse, got drunk and ran the family car into a tree? Would the mother be angry? Sure! Would there be consequences for the child? Absolutely! But would the mother’s love be extinguished? I would hope not – maybe in some families, yes, which is sad, but likely not.
Here’s the thing, though: as humans, we can understand the difference between being angry with a child for doing things like I’ve described or worse, and still loving the child and wanting what is best for the child. How much more does God, who is perfect and therefore loves perfectly, feel the same way? It is not inconsistent to say, on one hand, that God hates homosexuality and on the other that He nevertheless loves the homosexual.
Going on with that thought, does the mother who loves the child who steals money from her purse, gets drunk and runs the family car into the tree want her child to continue doing those things? Not at all! Why? Because those behaviors are dangerous for the child, harm the family unit, and are illegal in most states. The mother doesn’t sit around wishing or lobbying for laws that will allow the child to have an endless supply of money, alcohol and motor vehicles so that the child can continue his or her behavior.
God’s will for us as human beings is that we will become reconciled to Him (by our acceptance of the gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ), that we will be holy as He is holy, and that we will tell other people about how they can become reconciled to God, so that we can all enjoy a relationship with Him.
We can’t do that if we sit around redefining sin so that it doesn’t offend anyone. I don’t agree with Tim Hardaway’s hatred of homosexuals – I don’t think they’re right, but I don’t think hatred of homosexuals is right either. We can hate the sin without hating the sinner. But at the same time, by refusing to call sin “sin”, we’re blocking the path for people to come to God. Regardless of our “sincerity”, lying to people about what the Bible says is as much sin as homosexuality.
“What is that man doing in the dressing rooms?” she asks a saleswoman.
“Oh, don’t mind him,” the saleswoman says calmly. “He’s an employee.”
“Well, what is he doing in the dressing rooms?” she asks again.
“I told you – he’s an employee.”
“Well, I don’t want him in the dressing room – I’m going to be in there trying on bras, and I don’t want him in there.”
“The idea that a man can’t work in the fitting room and not leer at the customers, not start panting with lust, is beyond insulting; it's ignorant! What kind of hate-monger are you?” the saleswoman fumed.
“What difference does it make if I hate men or not? I just don’t want them in the dressing room when I’m taking my clothes off! I’m supposed to give up my rights just because you didn’t have the sense to hire a woman? I’d feel the same way if you had a lesbian in the dressing room – it isn’t about them, it’s about my right to determine who might see me without my clothes on!”
“Just for that, we’re going to take away your Magnolia’s Mystery credit card! We don’t want to do business with someone as bigoted as you!”
[End scene].
*Magnolia's Mystery is a renaming of a famous women's lingerie store..... :)
Sound familiar? I know, it’s a bit of stretch. But think about it: don’t men have as much “right” to work in “Magnolia’s Mystery” or anywhere else that sells women’s clothes? By the same token, Tim Hardaway – agree with him or not – has the right to express his opinion about who he shares a locker room with.
The problem we get into whenever we tackle these topics is the difference between state and action, and by “state” I mean “who (or what) you are” as opposed to “what you do.” (I could have said “who you do” but that would have been a) poor grammar, and b) poor taste….)
People on both sides of the discussion miss a very important point: there is no question that God hates, and the Bible rightfully condemns, homosexuality. Anyone who disagrees with me should read Romans 1 and any number of other passages I could point to. [While I’m on the subject, heterosexual sexual behavior between people who aren’t married to each other is just as bad – and no, there is no “exception” if you’re “really in love” with the person you’re having sex with.]
What we miss is the fact that God hates all sin – not just homosexuality. He hates lying (even the little white ones), cheating, stealing, murder, envy, lust, gluttony, disobedience to parents and rebellion against His authority – just to name a few. All of those behaviors and attitudes are sin that God hates – not just homosexuality.
But in spite of our status as sinners by nature and by choice, God loves us so much that He sent His only Son to pay for our sin with His own blood.
Think about it. God hates sin so much that He requires blood (death), but He loved us so much that He, through His Son Jesus Christ, volunteered to pay that penalty for us so we could be reconciled to Him.
Here’s the thing, though. Maybe because we’re sinful human beings, maybe because we’re lazy, or maybe because we haven’t been taught, we equate hating the sin with hating the sinner. If you really think about that, it’s like hating your child because he disobeyed you.
What reasonably normal mother would tell her, say, 16-year-old child, “I hate you! I don’t even want to be in the same room with you! You disgust me!” just because he stole money from her purse, got drunk and ran the family car into a tree? Would the mother be angry? Sure! Would there be consequences for the child? Absolutely! But would the mother’s love be extinguished? I would hope not – maybe in some families, yes, which is sad, but likely not.
Here’s the thing, though: as humans, we can understand the difference between being angry with a child for doing things like I’ve described or worse, and still loving the child and wanting what is best for the child. How much more does God, who is perfect and therefore loves perfectly, feel the same way? It is not inconsistent to say, on one hand, that God hates homosexuality and on the other that He nevertheless loves the homosexual.
Going on with that thought, does the mother who loves the child who steals money from her purse, gets drunk and runs the family car into the tree want her child to continue doing those things? Not at all! Why? Because those behaviors are dangerous for the child, harm the family unit, and are illegal in most states. The mother doesn’t sit around wishing or lobbying for laws that will allow the child to have an endless supply of money, alcohol and motor vehicles so that the child can continue his or her behavior.
God’s will for us as human beings is that we will become reconciled to Him (by our acceptance of the gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ), that we will be holy as He is holy, and that we will tell other people about how they can become reconciled to God, so that we can all enjoy a relationship with Him.
We can’t do that if we sit around redefining sin so that it doesn’t offend anyone. I don’t agree with Tim Hardaway’s hatred of homosexuals – I don’t think they’re right, but I don’t think hatred of homosexuals is right either. We can hate the sin without hating the sinner. But at the same time, by refusing to call sin “sin”, we’re blocking the path for people to come to God. Regardless of our “sincerity”, lying to people about what the Bible says is as much sin as homosexuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
