sky4it

oldie and the song remains: Your comment: I don't have a problem with him believing he's right and saying so. He's got that right, just like anyone else. So your saying he's got the right to be right and there's nothing wrong with that. I agree. The songremains: Your comment: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof .. But does extraodinary proof require extraordinary intelligence or the extra terestrial? Yes i was humoring yah, if that makes me a "wise guy" tell me to shut up. :)-->

Anyways, this brings up another "issue" along the same theme. That issue is the one of masturbation and wether it is wrong or not. Some of said that the Bible does not address the issue. I think it does, both in the new testament and in the old, however it is not in doctrinal format and I think wisely so. Weather (as in climate) or not to discuss it is the cliff hanger, because if the concept of "circumcise" draws ire, this one may draw a mad house.

houseis rockin: your comment: That devil being saved is first I've heard of that. Rather wild isn't it! Yea that's about as corny as it gets, fact is tho this small group believed it. I think your right about not starting a topic about salvation. I think its best to just let everyone "work out there own" as the scripture says. Sorry it took so long to get back to yah.

JohnIam: I read that post about your sons being autistic. You have my sympathies. My daughter was also the victim of leukiemia at age 5. She is today however considered cured of it. Naturally the radiation treatment gave her some learning disablities and stunted her growth. I understand how difficult it can be to have health problems. Certainly we should all be praying for you and your sons.

Oak: Your comment: Without looking up Greek words, if the word "keeping" is accurately translated it carries the meaning of "doing", rather than "possessing" as in "I am keeping my Black Sabbath records no matter what my minsiter says". Well I gave it a whirl, if your right I dunno. Niether am I gonna scury to look it up. I certainly dont want to try and be an apologistist for New Testament works. My thoughts were something like this. If you keep something you put it away. Certainly one might build a house around it to protect it, and the building the house is work, but that dont mean you have to build the house to protect it. Uffda, I dunno know for sure. :)-->

Goey: Your comment: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the placement of the actual act is insanely obvious". Maybe if you explain why this is "insanely obvious" to you, I might better understand what you are trying to say here. Stating that something is obvious does not make it so. What may seem obvious to one person may be not so obvious or may even seem nonsensical to another. I mean that the placement of the actual circumcision on the male genitalia is insanely or ridiculous inferred or obvious. Perhaps , I ought to have said ridiculously inferred. The ridiculous or insane part being that it is in fact the male body part which I perhaps was poking fun at. I did not mean this comment, however , in deferance to peoples knowledge or as you said "suggested ignorance" of the matter. Therefore I fail to see how the comment was condescending. I simply say that because the placement of the circumcision is on that area, that ought to make the concept of sexual purity, more obvious. ok? In addition and somewhat insanely, talking about sexual things has always been rather difficult for folks to do, yet God kinda let his intentions be rather well known on the subject. Also when I say insanely, I mean we are always kind of wild on the subject. Also Goey, I agree with you that the circumcision has some parallels to the new testament babtism stuff. The other odd thing about it Goey, was that it was commanded to be performed on the 8th day of birth (no I didnt look it up , I think it says that tho). Since there were only 7 days in a week, we can certainly know that God was looking for more from this act than the literal circumcision itself. Your comment: However, the fact that it was the foreskin is quite interesting. Yea, I agree. Thats kinda why I brought it up. That and the stuff in the Why Christianity thread.

Geo: (and Oak) I may have messed or missed on that one. My understanding of some eastern religions was that they actually pray to a statue of Budda. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps also some eastern religions have modified the way they practice over the years. I am not a expert on the matter. Perhaps you could give me that perspective because I really don't know. Yes, Geo, it was a shot in the dark, and I am presuming it was a good "shot in the dark." With respect to the Hindu topic, no response is necessary as I would not find anything to appealing about living the next life as a cow. As far as the sabatical goes (and humorously) , my sabatical is always determined by the level of my wife's crowing (I am woman hear me roar) to which I proclaim, I will be a mouse in the house if you simply give me my quite corner. Oak: We have had some fun, no? :)-->

Raf: I wonder if some of the descrepency doesnt sort itself out in the context of what John said about "keeping" the commandments of God. Ie( that we love one another). I fail to see how keeping something is a work. If its well kept you simply don't let go of it.

Look , as a practical matter it shouldn't matter whether one thinks the circumcision was about moral purity or not; as long as one adheres to the new testament doctrine of the Apostles or the Apostle Paul. That doctrine was that one "should abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornication and things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20) By the Apostle Paul restated, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication." (I Thessalonians 4:3) Was my commentary about the moral meaning of the circumcision unpractical then? No, I don't think it was. Furthermore, my argument was chiefly to those who state that the plurality of religions was due to God being deliberately unclear. Ie.(Why Christianity thread) I simply stated that there were clear parallels between the two covenants, that reconcile religions to the true meaning and that God has not been obtuse but has been direct. In my mind the topic of the circumcision brings up some real fun stuff to talk about. The Lord himself clearly describes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as sitting down in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt.: 8:11, Luke 13:28) The bible describes Jacob as a "plain man". (Gen 25:7) Jacob was not a complex sort of guy. (Interesting that the covenant of the true circumcision was in Jacob and not in Esau, and presumably both were literally circumcised. ) The true covenant then is one of promises , not one of the literal act of the circumcision. (The fact that they were twins may also be indicative of how false religions can mimic the true.) There is also an intriguing question in this. If the circumcision was good enough for Abraham, Issac and Jacob, ( that is to make it into the kingdom of heaven), why did God give us more than what they simply had? One can only speculate and perhaps this is a good question for another topic. The concept that I mention about moral purity, was therefore I think directed to "plain men" problems.It's not overly complex and I simply stated that the true doctrine of God is pretty "plain" stuff. I apologize to some of you for scriptural recitations. I did it bearing in mind that some always assert engaging in "private interpretation", so the recitations were made and directed to those whose reasoning are such. Lastly, I said the concept of "circumcise"parallels new testament thinking. For example, circumcise your lips (not literally ok?), isn't a whole lot unlike the Apostle Paul saying, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouths." (Eph 4:29) Yes, I deliberately avoided talking about "sexual purity", because that ground has already been covered.

Goey: your comment: Insanely obvious? Isn't that kind of like saying if you don't see what I see and understand it my way that you are insanely ignorant? Anyway, If it were God's way of saying to folks to be sexually pure, then it would seem to me that it would have been commanded done at an age where the person had a sense of morality, rather than upon infants with no absolutely no sense of morality whatsoever. There is some scriptural basis for it. Right prior to the circumcision covenent, God said to Abraham to be perfect in his walk before him. Walking perfect before God would seem to encompass quite a few things no?In addition God said of Abraham, that he knew him and that he would order his children after him. Futhermore Abraham after the circumcision, was very much involved in preaching righteousness to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain that God overthrew. Therefore one might reasonably say that Abraham had a well developed sense of righteousness when it came to matters of sexual purity. By saying it was insanely obvious I was not infering anyone was ignorant. Simply that the placement of the actual act is "insanely obvious". For if the only theme was the circumcision of the heart refered to in the new testament why not have men cut off a piece of flesh on there chest. Goey, I really don't think by saying that I was trying to be condescending, sorry if it appeared that way.

House is rockin: We should probably start a topic on salvation in the doctrinal form. I always like to think of salvation in terms of what it means to us today, not just at death. Sometime ago I ran into a once saved always saved and everybody gets saved including the devil ministry. Interestingly they were using that doctrine as an excuse to live in unrighteousness.

One thing commonly mentioned is that if you had proof or a sign you would believe. I dont believe that would do it. These things can be rationalized away also. If they werent rationalized away, some folks take it as a sign of God's approval which they are not. Other folks would think its time to start a religion.

MJ: Your comment: as I said before and you just do not get it , this is a story of real live actual PEOPLE not just ideals and thinking and maybe I will chose this way or not. I never said that one could. Your comment: religous identification has very little of nothing to do with our spirit filled life worshiping God in reality. to be religous about anything takes on any number of motives correct? YET to have a God and a spirit and a relationship that connects to something larger than humanity is also complex and rich and deep . I agree. Your comment: We no longer need our males to be cut open to prove we belong to the blood of our Father Abraham ... we have a spirit within us now if we believe in Jesus christ and His accomplishments. I agree. Invisible Dan said: If there was a universal consensus of a true meaning behind circumcision - such would have seemingly eluded the various sides in antiquity. I agree with what he said also. The misunderstanding and misapplication of the circumcision has caused no end of differing religions. That is my point number 1. MJ, I did not say you must be circumcised to be saved. You talk like you think I did. All I am saying in point number #2, is that there is a moral lesson in it as well, in addition to the things you said. If you disagree and don't think there is, then we disagree on that.

MJ: I do not disagree with your last post. All I am saying is that it (the circumcision) can mean more than that as well. I did not say that Jews without Christ are on friendly terms with God. I understand and believe that without Christ no man can come unto the father. My point of illustration , MJ, in this particular area was to illustrate to those in the Why Christianity thread, that many religions have sprung up out of one man and God. Ie(Abraham) (Althought Islam is patently plageristic of Moses and lacking any meaningful Godly authority and in my opinion completely false) I fully agree with you that those that deny Christ also deny God. I am simply illustrating that if the Godly standard of the circumcision(cutting off the flesh and making no provision) had been kept, that folks of the other religions (Judiasm & Islam) would accept the things of God and Jesus Christ much easier and there would not be so much conflict and so many different religions. ok?

Oak: I thought you might get a charge out of the circumcision arguement. In the end some people were thinking I was going in the circumcision business. Uffda. Anyway, it reconciles three religions, but leaves Islam holding the cat in the bag, due to there own embodiment of false law. And by the way, Buddahism and most early eastern religions were generally not unlike praying to a God of molten stone. Anyway, I may take a week or two break from posting, be cool.

MJ: Your comment: here is the problem... you must be wrong or the same RULE would apply to Gentiles and we would all have to be cut for God to be honored. I never said that the cutting away of the flesh or foreskin was a rule that still needed to be applied. You make it sound like I did. In fact, I agree with you and the gospels that the ritualistic act of circumcision means nothing by itself. That the true circumcision is of the heart. All I say is the insanely obvious, that there was a moral lesson in itabout sexual conduct. I fail to see how your comments about it as identification purposes, in any way modify what I said. I understand and agree with you that it was for idendtifation purposes and for God to call out to himself a seperate people. The point is simply this MJ, God's people were seperated to what? To Holiness and Sanctification. The things I said are consistent with that.

Invisible Dan: I actually saw 2 young bald eagles today, it was quite a site. More interesting on the topic of the circumcision is what David was doing. When David returned from the "slaughter of the Phillistines" he came back with "foreskins". Was David out killing Phillistines and then taking there foreskin as proof? Doesn't really say does it? The law was very much oreinted towards letting the Gentiles participate, as converts. David was perhaps the greatest Minister ever of the Circumcision to the Gentilies? Me thinks so. Moreover David lived at Gath for quite a spell with one of the Philistine Kings. If he was actually (killing "10,000's) and not circumcising them certainly he would have ran into there relatives in Gath. This also reconciles the God of Old testament somewhat with the God of the new.

Rachael: After trying to clear everything up in an excessive way, I think I more than obliged. Therefore I agree with the other poster (or posters if that was the case) and think your methods were very condescending. Don't concern yourself to much with it tho, us bottom dwellers got no where to go but up.

Evan: Missions work then? May God Bless and reward you.

Evan and ckeer: Evan your comment: The fact that circumcision is performed on the sexual organ is significant. This organ is representative of the body’s urges and this procedure indicates that we must control and sublimate these urges and conform them to the Will of God." Thank you for saying in brevity my point all along. My illustration went a little further to illustrate that sexual purity is not a work. Like you also, I am somewhat annoyed at the prospect that mean what it says and says what it means theologists cannot come to such a simple conclusion on a simple matter. Be ye holy for I am holy is new testament stuff as well, so I do not understand where the conflict arises. ckeer: I dont disagree with much of what you said. All I say is that it also means sexual purity because it was a piece of flesh close to mens heart that need to be cut off. I could quote to you numerous scriptures about holiness and godliness in new testament and the old as well, but most of us have read them already so I dont see the necessity. Interestingly the children of Israel upon entering the promised land were circumcised a 2nd time. Duet 5:2 Inticating that the true circumcision, is the one of the heart (putting off the old man and flesh and putting on true holiness). My analogy is fully consistent with this. Even the words that you picked from the concordance testify that this is so. For example you used token as meaning a warning. Warning of what? Not keeping yourself pure in that area I say. I could drivel on with other words but i wont.

Rachel: Your comment: Does anyone read the Bible, believe what it says and practice it? Here, I mean. Yes Rachel, I do, and I believe every word of it. I will try to be more careful to cite references in the future, but then it gets so long winded. I think people are tired of proving doctrinal points by scriptural multiplication. ok?

Darrell and Geo: Geo: My point for bringing up the circumcision was facilitated in part by the arguements of the Why Christianity thread. Particular the parts where some arrgue if there is one God then why are there so many religions to make the point that they believe God to be obtuse about what his real intentions are. Much of this conflict is resolved in the circumcision, and understanding what is error and what is truth. The covenant of the circumcision was a covenant. Therefore it must be an embodiment of truth. Furthermore it does much to resolve the conflict some assert of various religious teachings. Darrell: I didnt take what Rachel said as offensive. (but i thank you anyways) I can understand how if one quicked over what I wrote one might presume I was talking in gest. Of course, I agree with Rachel that what the Bible says about it is also true. ie(circumcise your heart) I was simply trying to expand upon the circumcise your heart concept. Furthermore, the circumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Rachel quoted that one. The term but being an exception, so then you must ask yourself which commandments do I keep. Even more intriguing is the word keep. The word keep was commonly used by Jesus and John the apostle. I do not believe to keep something is a work, which speaks volumes as to why the new testament church could tell people not to commit adultry or fornication and not call that bieng justified by the law. Lastly Darrell is a wonderful promise with all the doctinal funneling that we so speak. Jesus said quite categorically that if any man will to do his will, he will know of the doctrine. (Yes I paraphrased and did not look it up) Therefore a man's doctrine is limited or expanded correctly according to his interest in wanting to do his will. Pretty simple stuff. The bottom line is then the focus is on what my attitude is and wether I am doing God's will (as I understand it) in order to obtain "proper doctrine".

Rachel: Your comment: token of that faith in the promise was the circumcision. It has NOTHING to do with sex, perversion or the 10 commandments. I disagree with that statement of yours, I believe it does, it was just a simpler way of God saying it to man. Furthermore tokens were used in dowry in Hebrew culture as a sign of virginity. Therefore the "token of the circumcision" was sexual purity. Re-read the post. There is no mockery intended, nor any inferred. I am to the point serious and genuine in my belief that the circumcision, was God's way of saying, don't commit adultry, don't defile yourself or your neighbor. Does that clear it up? You are right on the transgression word, I meant to say trespass and changed it thanks. I also added the illustration of work not to be funny ( althought it may well be) but for a very serious reason. Some folks say we are saved by grace alone and not works. My arguement is that keeping oneself sexually pure, is not a work(but of faith in Christianity even tho a law in Judiasm), therefore I thought a vitally important issue to bring up. I apologize to you Rachel for the lack of clarity, but I assure you my motive was not mockery. I really didnt want to long of a letter.

Just thinking: We had a local case, I dont remember all the details.(It was in the papers and I dont even remember the names) I thought however that the Pastor was charged criminally and the church and pastor sued civily. When a Pastor (or one in authority in a religious organization) seduces someone he is coounseling or one that he has control over through preaching, my gut feeling is that it may reach (or possibly could) reach to a criminal degree. I am not a lawyer. Certainly if someone has been effected in this way they need to seek a district attorney's advice. You would think if there is precedent in churches, (where people can roam from one church to another), that in an org like TWI, (where movement was restricted due to doctrinal differences with churches), that the influence of people in TWI would be scrutinzed legally far greater. (This is my opinion tho, I am no lawyer)

Satori: ok. Don't stay gone too long, I enjoy your stuff.