A married man is at the beach. His wife is at a cabana getting changed into her bathing suit. It’s an awfully hot day and the beach is crowded. He spies a group of 20-somethings dressed in bikinis and playing volleyball. He is impressed for a moment on the beauty of their female form. He then settles in and enjoys watching the competition inherent in their fiercely contested volleyball game.
Has this man already sinned? Has he already committed adultery? Does the condemnation of Christ apply to him when Christ said, “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28)”?
Thus far, the answer is no. In merely reflecting on the beauty of the female form, this fellow showed spontaneous appreciation of the sexual beauty of females. The sexual beauty of females is a deliberately created element of our humanity expressly done by none other than our Creator, God. The same is true for males . . . after all, women are attracted to men sexually for a good reason. In both cases, the creative hand of God is at play.
What if, instead, the man went a bit further than the spontaneous appreciation of female sexual beauty? What if instead, he imagined the 20-somethings without the bikinis? What if he warmly embraced a sexual fantasy about them in the privacy of his own mind, unbeknownst to his wife or the 20-something, bikini-clad volleyball players?
In that case, the man is guilty of adultery according to none other than Jesus Christ . . . “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her had already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28).” Is this too prudish a standard for our era, post the sexual revolution? If you do consider it too prudish, then don’t blame me. The issue you have is with Christ, who sees and knows all, up to and including the not-so-private thoughts of the man in my little day-at-the-beach story.
In my beach scenario, the man moved from spontaneous appreciation (not a sin) to lust the moment he, in thought, objectified the 20-somethings by dreaming of sex with them. That violates their dignity and it also violates the dignity of future spouses and children of that group of 20-something, bikini-clad volleyball players. This kind of sin, fornication (which is what adultery is), is not an isolated incident bottled up in the mind of that one man. It is more akin to a stone thrown into a still pond . . . there is a widening ripple effect that spreads to the rest of the pond. St. Augustine considered fornication to be in violation to love of neighbor (cited by Christ as one of the greatest commandments). Augustine said that it is “contrary to the love of our neighbor because it is opposed to the good of the child to be born.” That’s just another way of saying, “ripple effect.”
Now, how about the bikini-clad 20-somethings? Are they culpable too? Well, it all really depends on their thoughts and intentions. Samuel Smiles, the poet, stated it quite concisely:
Sow a thought, reap an act.
Sow an act, reap a habit.
Sow a habit, reap a character.
Sow a character, reap a destiny.
Did any of the girls sport their bikinis with the express intention of being the object of sexual fantasy? Or, was it simply a choice of fashion, commonly worn on beaches. A woman who stands before a mirror in a bikini and reflects, “Gee, I look pretty good in this,” is a far cry from a woman who fondly hopes that many men will return to their homes from their day at the beach wishing they were having sex with her rather than their spouse. The former case (the “Gee, I look pretty good in this.”) is not lust while the latter one is lust and an active participation in adultery (two are indeed tangoing in this case).
So, is Carrie Prejean guilty of lust when she competes in the swimsuit event of a beauty pageant? Should she instead be wearing a burka or at the very least a burkini? The answer is “No.” Carrie Prejean is competing in a competition that highlights the beauty of the overall female, with events that stress physical beauty, intellectual prowess, poise, and talent. When Carrie Prejean walks out in her bikini during the swimsuit competition, her intentions are not fornication.
On the other hand, when a woman decides to pose in Playboy or Penthouse or any other “skin” magazine, she is indeed engaging in what Jesus Christ condemned. She, in effect, has thrown a fornicating stone into the pond of life. The men who buy the magazines also have a pocket full of stones themselves. This has a real, damaging effect on marriages, families, and children (as St. Augustine would be quick to point out).
Carrie Prejean is right not to wear a burka during her swimsuit competition, and furthermore, if you happen to sense a wrongness about the burka itself, well then you are on the right track there as well. The burka puts the entire onus of the sin of fornication squarely on the backs of women. The male is rendered guiltless by virtue of . . . simply being a male. This too is, in a way, insulting to the creative act of God in making man in His image and likeness. It, in effect, attacks the free will of man (which is part of the Image of God imprinted on every human soul). A man is not doomed to the sin of lust simply because Carrie Prejean is wearing a bikini. He chooses to do so by his free will the moment he covets her sexually . . . the moment he departs from a simple, spontaneous and completely normal appreciation of the beauty of the female form to a rank desire to bed her down.
Carrie Prejean, at personal cost, bravely and rather politely stood up for traditional marriage (something that’s rather near and dear to God). Insisting that she is somehow a harlot for competing in the swimsuit competition of a beauty contest is a gross misapplication of the sin of lust. It is taking lust and spreading it so paper thin that it is meaningless with regard to the genuine sin of lust and achieves the unsavory byproducts of (1) predominantly blaming women for lust and (2) negating the importance of human free will by assuming all men are the equivalent of a bull or quarter horse stud, rather than a being created in the image and likeness of God and destined for eternity.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
5X5!
TxTess (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 1:45PM EST (link)We should appreciate all of God’s gifts to us. The gift of free will is priceless.
Because I walk softly and carry a big Lipstick – Lori_Z at Red State
What do you think about
dantes (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 3:20PM EST (link)her topless modeling photos? Or her sex-tape?
dantes, yours are good questions . . .
mailloux (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 3:55PM EST (link)Prejean’s topless photos are probably dancing on the line if not over the line of soft core pornography. Her X-rated tape is an outright mistake as Prejean admits herself.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a person who is no different than you or me or Saint Augustine. In this life, we all sin, each and every one of us and it is only by God’s grace that we are able to overcome sin, especially the habitual variety of sin. We can choose to go the route of Larry Flint or we can choose to go the route of St. Augustine (who also had serious problems with lust). The decision is ours . . . not so much to surrender our free will to God, but to offer it to Him freely in a relationship of love rather than slavery.
Prejean has made some mistakes, but haven’t we all? But what we haven’t all done is fess up to them with a contrite heart before God our maker and judge.
I’d rather be branded a hypocrite (someone who knows a moral standard exists yet fails to meet that standard through the faults of his sins), then someone who is incapable of hypocrisy (that is, someone who decides the moral standard simply doesn’t exist at all . . . here you will see a man who has deified himself).
My prayers are with Miss Prejean that she may grow closer and closer to God and by doing so grow in virtue, especially love. Just because she did an X-rated video doesn’t mean that we won’t someday possibly refer to her as St. Prejean . . . to be a saint is a calling shared by every human being; a call though, is only half of the equation. Calls must be answered. Miss Prejean may be doing just that.
Thanks for the excellent questions.
Take Care, mailloux
It was more than just one mistake
passerby825 Saturday, November 14th at 7:22PM EST (link)Since it appears that she actually did multiple tapes. Though I did find your thoughts on hypocricy interesting, I suppose I never thought of it that way (I consider: what if the person does not merely understand that a moral standard exists, rather than denying it, but I digest).
But if she is a hypocrite, does she have a right to go out a flaunt it? What I mean is, if you are living a life of sin, then you should not be out telling people how to live their lives, you should be silently trying to fix your mistakes. Perhaps what she is saying is true (which is debatable), but she shouldn’t be trying to tell other people how to live her life.
That being said, I don’t see the big deal. She was attacked by some on the left for saying something that they believe was offensive, she got fired from her job because she was not fulfilling her duties, and she was not a good “Role Model”, and that should be the end of it. People should just accept it as it is and forget about it, rather than try to continue to attack her, or make her into a martyr.
Augustine was no Paul
toudoulouautou Monday, November 16th at 10:16AM EST (link)Hope that grabbed your attention.
Overall I enjoyed your attempt to balance the fine line between sin and well, for lack of a better term, not-sin. Christians do seem to be a bit binary on the topic.
I could write a long response to your work. As a means of peaking your interest, I’ll just say a couple—okay, four—things:
1) As a Christian, the last person I would ever cite for support for a moral or theological argument is your Augustine of Hippo. In my estimation he derailed Christianity from what it was and forced into what it is now—a caricatured form of Judaism. (Much of the comments attached to your article show the fruits of his ideas and the effects on people today.)
2) As regards women in bathing suits, I don’t care who, are guilty of but one thing: of not loving their neighbors as themselves. Really, ladies you have to know that men have such a weakness when it comes to your attractions—your curves. A woman who wears one is “not acting in love”—even if her motive is pure.
3) Nobody is “doomed” where God is concerned (I know you will disagree with me on that point).
4) Your belief in free will makes you out to be an Arminist type of believer. (Yet Jakobus Arminius was but a theological offspring of Augustine. He never refuted most of Augustine’s pernicious teachings.) So far as I am concerned, you are celebrating the wrong thing about God. You can celebrate God giving men free will—I’ll celebrate Him giving us His Grace—and ultimately Himself.
MRM
So you believe
GremlinJones (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 4:36PM EST (link)that if a woman puts on an outfit hoping to inspire lust in men, and a married man sees her and imagines himself having sex with her, that they are both adulterers? Isn’t the Old Testament punishment for adultery death by stoning?
Interesting diary, thanks!
We are not under the law now.
tcgeol (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 7:35PM EST (link)Different dispensation, different rules, different earthly punishments. Jesus said to look after a woman with lust was the same as adultery, but this wasn’t part of the Mosaic Law. If it were, every man that ever existed would be condemned to death. You gotta have a few of us around to keep humanity going.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
GremlinJones,
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 10:05AM EST (link)According to Christ, adultery begins in the thoughts (Mt. 5:28). If the woman’s aim is to inspire genuine lust, then she too is guilty. If on the other hand, the woman is single and wants to attract a man, not with the intention of inspiring lust or getting sex that very evening, but instead with the motive of meeting someone who finds her sexually attractive (a necessary component of a romantic relationship) as well as attractive in personality, with the hopes of marriage someday, then the woman has not sinned by wearing a dress that best highlights her figure. Context and intentions (thoughts) mean much.
The man’s sexual fantasy is a little more obviously in the category of lust.
As for stoning? We are living in New Testament times. The specifics of some of the Old Testament laws are as applicable now as the rules you once lived by when you were a child (say, for example, when you were 5 years old). Man’s relationship with God in revelation (both old and new testaments) is a lot like the raising of a very unruly child. The rules lived by when the child was young are not appropriate to when the child is older. Remember, God has made covenants with man, and covenants are the stuff of families. We don’t get to call God, “Father,” for nothing.
Thanks for reading, leaving thought provoking comments, and the reco too!
Take Care, mailloux
Interesting question Gremlin ...
Blue_Collar_Muse (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 12:53PM EST (link)and one that is usually answered incorrectly.
While the others responding to your questions are correct to point out that we are under the New Testament dispensation of Grace, that in no way does away with the penalty for sin – any sin.
The Old Testament teaches that “The soul that sins shall die” and the New Testament confirms and upholds that truth when it says not only that “The wages of sin is death” but also “For all have sinned”.
The difference in the dispensations is not that the law is suspended or done away with. It is the reality that Christ has interposed Himself between the demands of the law (death) and the one breaking the law (sinner).
The substitutionary nature of Christ’s redemptive act has two applications.
It allows those who will to accept Christ’s sacrifice of His life to stand in the place of his own life when that debt comes due … because the law is not done away with and all sin will be paid for by death – either the sinner’s own life or Christ’s in place of his.
The second aspect of Christ’s sacrifice is the postponement of carrying out the sentence. While the wages of sin are still death and as all of us have sinned and deserve that death, the Grace and Mercy of Christ puts off carrying out that sentence. That was not the case in the Old Testament.
It also gives rise to the warning in the New Testament not to consider God weak or uncaring because He has delayed Christ’s return in order to extend even more Grace to mankind. That He did not return today does not mean He is not coming (as Judge to hand down and carry out the deserved death sentences) it means He is both Just and Loving. His delay grants even more sinners the opportunity to take advantage of His Grace and take advantage of the first part of my comment, the offer by Christ to die in his place.
But have no fear … the punishment of adultery in the Old Testament is, indeed, death. It’s the same in the New Testament as well. It will be carried out. All that remains to be seen who does the dying.
Blue Collar Muse
Smaller Government! Lower Taxes! Stronger Defense! More Liberty! Complete Transparency!
Lucky for you, you're NOT an Israelite
toudoulouautou Monday, November 16th at 10:31AM EST (link)If you were an Israelite, we should have to take you out today and stone you. Oh wait a minute. We’re not Israelites either. The “imagines” aspect or level wasn’t brought up until Jesus made it a point. So you’re mixing the two covenants–you, know–putting new wine into old wine skins. That itself is wrong. But since 1) you’re not an Israelite, and 2) since the Law was nailed to His cross, 3) the church is NOT Israel and 4) since for freedom Christ set you free, why don’t you rather ask for forgiveness when your flesh wins and move on. In general, all efforts to merge both covenants is to wrong God. He separated them for a reason. We should honor His teaching in this matter.
MRM
Agree and disagree, Mailloux
tcgeol (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 7:31PM EST (link)God did purposely make women attractive to men and vice versa and there is nothing wrong with appreciating that beauty. You are right on the money here.
However, I see a definite difference between appreciating a woman’s attractiveness while wearing clothes and appreciating it while she is wearing a bikini, which is basically nothing. If any normal man can look at a woman in a contemporary bikini and have nothing sensual occur to him, I would feel somewhat sorry for him. He has to be somewhat desensitized to that God-given attraction.
There is a difference between this man actually committing adultery in his heart and acting the fool by setting himself up to do so by letting his eyes wander where they probably shouldn’t be. As a political matter, this makes no difference, but since it was posed as a Christian issue, it seems best to err on the side of caution.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
Agreed. nt
Xasteius (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 12:20AM EST (link)Don’t leave the party, hijack it back!
The only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box.
I don’t want to be Reagan. I want to be a Chance/Soros hybrid.
tcgeol, never sell . . .
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 10:21AM EST (link)God short.
A man enlivened and empowered by Grace is capable of feats completely alien to a strictly natural, fallen man (just look at the lives of the saints). It is quite possible to appreciate the sexual beauty of the opposite sex in general and not dance into the realm of lust. But, only by God is this possible. For example, for couples striving to live marriage as God intended, real intimacy is reserved for genuine love . . . that total giving of oneself to another so that the two may become one flesh. This by the way is reflective . . . in a physical and material way . . . of the Trinity (3 distinct persons in one Divine nature). This sort of ideal isn’t a desensitization to God-given attraction. It’s accordance to God’s wonderful plan for human sexuality.
As far as the diary’s relationship to politics? As a social conservative, I believe you can’t disconnect the moral issues (like the sin of lust) from the political. If the society that makes up the body politic is ill, then no policy will ever be effective . . . it would be like putting a Band-Aid on a gangrene limb.
Thank you for your comments. I really do appreciate your critique.
Take Care, mailloux
Thank you
tcgeol (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 2:14PM EST (link)Iusually love your work, and I heartily agree that you can’t disconnect moral issues from political. My point was that politically it is the actions that are judged, not motives. In other words, as long as a man doesn’t act on impulses or illegally, the law doesn’t care whether he stares with appreciation or with lust. As Christians, it does matter to us.
While God can do anything He wants and will do great things in those who trust Him, He warns us specifically as men to avoid lust and approves of modesty. The implication of this is that we don’t push the envelope, so to speak. The idea isn’t to get as close to sin without going over, but to stay as far away as we can. I can’t speak for women, but as men, we usually do the exact opposite. While it might be possible to appreciate a woman not your wife wearing almost nothing without sinning, it seems a less than ideal act and not in step with the holiness of God.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
tcgeol, I understand your point . . .
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 3:53PM EST (link)especially when it applies to the average human being. As you stated, the near occasion of sin is to be avoided, because, after all, the near occasion of sin can quickly descend into sin. Just ask any alcoholic in AA. To that effect, the example of bikini-clad women on the beach was perhaps not the best choice for my scenario. But, I wrote this diary as a response to the controversial diary slamming Carrie Prejean. So, the bathing suit was a handy launching point given its inclusion in beauty contests. But, again, I see and appreciate what you are saying here.
Thanks for pointing this out!
Take Care, mailloux
What is your definition of a Saint?
toudoulouautou Monday, November 16th at 10:52AM EST (link)Two quick things:
1) There is no such thing as “fallen” man. Just post a single scripture for me stating this to be the case to prove your point. I may be wrong but the idea of man being “fallen” may have originiated in the writings of your pal Augustine. It was church tradition that has “added” this concept to its teachings. It is an extra-Biblical thought–a man-derived thought.
2) You seem to think that saints are pious. In my Bible, Samson was a saint.
And it is exactly why your claim that all people are called to be saints is off-target. I would be interested to see what Scripture supports your beliefs.
toudoulouauro, solely to your point (1)
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Tuesday, November 17th at 7:37AM EST (link)You stated:
I know you addressed this to mailloux, but I cannot let such a bald error go uncorrected. The idea of man being fallen was certainly not original with Augustine. Before getting to the Scripture(s) you requested, though:
1) If you have any inclination to play the game of “show me where the phrase ‘fallen man’ occurs in the Scriptures”, well … you’ve already lost. I will simply retort “show me where the phrase ‘extra-Biblical thought’ occurs in the Scriptures”. Not accusing you of that, but if that is your intent, you’re either going to have to refrain from summary propositional encapsulations of revealed truth as well, or agree that there can be a valid reason for such encapsulations if carefully defined.
2) By absolutely denying the concept of fallen man, are you proposing instead that the state of humanity in relation to God post-Genesis 3:6 is
2a) static, or
2b) risen, or
2c) are you denying the historicity of Genesis 3:6, or
2d) are you denying the unity of humanity in Adam?
Logical minds really want to know.
Now to the Scriptures.
I. “Fall/Fallen” is used throughout to indicate the irreversibility of death. Whence death? Romans 5, for those who missed it the first time around, takes us back to Genesis 3–ie “The Fall”; Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13 refer explicitly to all outside of Christ as dead–ie fallen.
II. “Fall/Fallen” is used to indicate the irreversibility of yielding to temptation and sin–ie exactly what Adam did in Genesis 3, and we in him. Just a few to make the point:
Psalms 9:15 The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug; their feet are caught in the net they have hidden.
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
Ezekiel 44:12-13 But because they served them in the presence of their idols and made the house of Israel fall into sin, therefore I have sworn with uplifted hand that they must bear the consequences of their sin, declares the Sovereign LORD. They are not to come near to serve me as priests or come near any of my holy things or my most holy offerings; they must bear the shame of their detestable practices.
1 Corinthians 10:12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!
Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
III. “Fall/Fallen” is used to indicate the utter inability of man, apart from the sheer grace of God in His Son Jesus Christ, to escape His coming wrath–again, traceable back to Adam’s sin:
Hebrews 10:31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Revelation 14:8 A second angel followed and said, “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.”
IV. Finally, the doctrine of the Fall is epitomized in:
Romans 3:23 All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
On the centrality of this verse to the doctrine of Total Depravity, John Piper refers to the whole dreadful downward plunge–ie, the Fall–detailed from Romans 1:18-3:22. The key to understanding all of the ruin in which we find ourselves begins with what Adam did, and all his children in him and in imitation of him:
Romans 1:21-23 Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Fallen.
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
Dear Cinco Solas,
mschmitt (Diary) Tuesday, November 17th at 7:40AM EST (link)May I steal this line?
Sincerely,
usque ad finem
It's on the house ! -nt-
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Tuesday, November 17th at 7:48AM EST (link)Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
Poetry with an attitude, I love it. nt
mschmitt (Diary) Tuesday, November 17th at 7:53AM EST (link)usque ad finem
Thanks for the complement,
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Tuesday, November 17th at 7:59AM EST (link)but if you had
a) my 2 pastors who studied under Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri,
b) listened to The White Horse Inn for years, and
c) lived in The Bronx as long as I have—
you could do far better!
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
By all means steal it.
toudoulouautou Tuesday, November 17th at 12:19PM EST (link)Oops. I think I just abetted sin. MRM
MRM
Doctrine? or Scripture? Are they equal?
toudoulouautou Tuesday, November 17th at 12:11PM EST (link)Greetings Fallen, son of Augustine
Looking at your thoughts I have to go with the context of my original comment which was tied to mailloux’s original context:
A man enlivened and empowered by Grace is capable of feats completely alien to a strictly natural, fallen man (just look at the lives of the saints).
Look at her words. Completely alien is an experience and existential reality. She’s talking about how a person cannot respond due to their “fallen” state. Now comparing her context to the four items you have associated with the idea of fallen we see that the only one that matches the context is … none of what you have written. The fall I’m talking about is that idea that mankind’s basic nature was changed by Adam’s sin.
Item I is the sentence for sin God imposed. It doesn’t say God changed man’s basic nature from what it was, to use your words, static to a new state of “fallen.”
Item II It is interesting that none of the verses you cite argue for your definition of “irreversibility of yielding to temptation and sin.” I’m not even sure I know what you mean here. If by irreversibility you mean “inability” then one wonders why Scripture would give a warning that no one can heed. If on the other hand you are speaking to the effect of not yielding to temptation and sin has produced the world we live in now, that’s fine, but it still doesn’t answer her or my original assertion. None of these verses argue that man’s fundamental nature has been changed as a result of Adam’s sin. (By the way, in my estimation you have grossly misquoted Galatians 5:4 and taken it out of its proper context. Paul was not trying to support your argument about man’s “fallen” nature. I’m getting the feeling that all you did was put the word “fall” in you search engine and then just threw up a mosaic of verses whether or not they actually apply to our discussion. And why you’re quoting 1 Corinthians 10:12 totally escapes me. This is just a warning to be alert. It’s not a statement about the “irreversibility of yielding to temptation and sin” nor a declaration of support for the idea that mankind has a fallen nature.)
Item III Again by your own definition, this has nothing to do with my response to maillioux. (You know, in passing, Paul urges all believers to join the ministry of conciliation (2 Cor 5:18-21). How is that you’re out trumpeting God’s wrath? Do you enjoy striking fear in the hearts of non-believers? God has bought the right to be at peace with and to be kind to all mankind. Funny. Paul opens up all 13 of his letters declaring just that: Grace and Peace to you from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.)
Item IV You didn’t give me a useful definition to work with here, just a declaration. However, this item and these verses you cite say nothing against my original objection. (Actually in Romans 3:23, you’re a lot closer to the right view of this matter than you know—at least that’s my view.)
In closing you did get one thing right and you did agree with my original position whether you meant to or not. You referenced, “the doctrine of the Fall” and so it is—a mere doctrine of men—and not of God. And yes, I’m still waiting for a single scripture which illustrates “the Fall” as defined as that which changed man’s basic nature because of the sin of Adam.
Lastly, you should consider calling yourself “deprived” instead of “fallen.”
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. But scripturally, I have absolutely no reason to change my “bald error” nor do I consider myself to have been corrected. But thank you for trying. By the way, as I am “folicly-challenged” perhaps you should pick a different adjective, perhaps “blatant.”:-)
I really was hoping you weren't playing the game. I was wrong.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Tuesday, November 17th at 1:14PM EST (link)Every propositional utterance you have made is … a doctrine. Until you can see the gargantuan hubris in employing your own extra-biblical terminology to tell others not to use extra-biblical terminology, there’s no real point going on.
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
I knew you would be able to explain this, Mailloux.
penguin2 (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 7:35PM EST (link)Intuitively, I understood the difference in that diarist’s post, but could not explain it. I kept thinking, I hope Mailloux sees this diary and can clarify what so many of us were trying to say. I now can explain it in terms of intent and what is in the heart of the individual.
Thanks so much for writing this.
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills
Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List
Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
penguin2,
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 10:39AM EST (link)Thank you for you very kind words and support!
Take Care, mailloux
Once again, Paul goes to the heart of the matter...
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Tuesday, November 10th at 9:05PM EST (link)…and the man:
It is impossible to helpfully discuss whether, in a given circumstance, one is sinning, without distinguishing at the outset whether the person is living by faith in the justifying work of Jesus Christ, having been regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God. Until that radical translation from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh has occurred, an unbeliever can do nothing but sin. So even if he passes your test and turns his eyes before the magic moment has expired, he has sinned by not having any God-honoring motivation for doing so.
The believer, on the other hand, motivated throughout his lifelong sanctification to an increasing love for the glory of God, will be increasingly motivated to test every thought, bringing it captive to the obedience of Christ. When he does sin and is brought once again to renewed repentance and faith, his love for his Savior will grow, and knowing more of the depth of his remaining corruption, he will more fervently pray to be led not into temptation, because he can bear less than he did before the thought of dishonoring his Creator, Redeemer and Lord.
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
CincoSolas_del_Bronx
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 10:33AM EST (link)Thank you for reading and taking the time to comment with your thoughts on Total Depravity.
I have a few questions for you. Please do not interpret it as a taunt or an attack of any sort. I simply want to know your thoughts on the matter (I respect that you’ve done much homework in the area of Theology).
What happens to souls who have never been evangelized? For example, pre-Indian populations in the Americas before its discovery and colonization by Christian Europeans. Or, another form of the question is: “Is it possible that Socrates (the philosopher, not the RedState diarist) could be in Heaven?”
Finally, if we jump to our own time, what is the possible eternal fate of a buddhist monk that well lives the cardinal virtues or a Muslim man in the wilds of Afganistan who also well lives the cardinal virtues?
Thank You! mailloux
Such questions reveal Pelagian assumptions about inherent righteousness
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 1:34PM EST (link)Of course that root of Pelagianism resides in all; it is humanity’s default self-reference setting. But biblically-faithful orthodox Christianity has always stood against those assumptions.
Rather than attempt to establish my own authority to speak on these matters–and our answers do always reveal that which has binding authority over us–I yield rather to the Savoy Declaration of 1658, which lays out the fundamental principles underlying your questions in fatihfulness to the Scriptures:
The answers are in there, but they cannot be had without building on the right presuppositional foundations.
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
CincoSolas_del_Bronx, then can I infer from your response . . .
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 2:56PM EST (link)that salvation is impossible for folks like Socrates or the pre-colonization American Indian or the modern day Muslim or Buddhist that embraces and lives the cardinal virtues? If this is so, were they predestined for eternity without God (which is roughly the definition of Hell)?
Please explain in your own words.
Thank You, mailloux
Your examples again reveal an underlying Pelagian assumption
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 4:30PM EST (link)namely, that it is possible for fallen man to please God. You have again substituted an extrabiblical reference to “cardinal virtues” as the foundation of salvation, while remaining silent about the work of God in Christ’s life, propitiatory death, resurrection, ascension, intercession, reign and return, and the application of that work upon individual persons in election, predestination, calling, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification, and the necessary means of communicating that work through the preaching of the Gospel once delivered to the saints.
In that light, in answer to your questions, yes and yes. In my own words, simply, there is no way to reconcile the entire counsel of the Word of God on all these matters with the Pelagian anthropology you have presented.
And now that we have both explained, once again, where we stand, I am quite sure the gracious owners of this site would prefer we return to our common and necessary work of promoting what they have dedicated themselves to.
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
CincoSolas_del_Bronx, fair enough, but . . .
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 4:52PM EST (link)I am not a Pelagian. I’m a Catholic and I do not accept Double-Predestination (that in addition to electing some people to salvation, God also sends others to damnation).
Vatican II put it in this way: “Since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.” [Gaudium et Spes 22]
Is it then possible that a moral Buddhist is in some way responding to the Grace of God made sufficient and available through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? I believe, with God and through God, it is possible.
On the other hand, is Hell empty? No, it is not.
Thanks again for the exchange of ideas. Even if we do disagree, please know that I do respect your commentary and your scholarship.
God Bless, mailloux
Not a continuation of the dispute, but source material
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 7:35PM EST (link)which should have been provided as the framework in which your questions about predestination can be answered. Back to Savoy:
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
I'm uncomfortable arguing theology on Redstate ...
Joshua Persons (Diary) Thursday, November 12th at 3:45PM EST (link)But since I’ve seen no admonishments from the mods this time around, I’l jump in.
I completely disagree with the doctrine that the ‘elect’ are a group foreordained by God. They are foreknown due to His omniscience, but not foreordained. Christ died for all on earth, not just the elect.(John 3) Salvation is open to all who repent and believe.(Acts 16:31) I’m specifically disagreeing with point 7 above. God has ordained NONE for dishonor and wrath. He wishes for all to come to repentance.(2 Peter 3) Those who suffer eternal damnation will do so due to their own sin and depravity, not due to a sovereign decision by God. Those who are saved from Hell are saved due to Jesus’s salvific work on the cross and their belief and confession of the same, not due to their works or a sovereign decision by God.(Romans 10)
Now, we can argue back and forth about Ephesians 1. I don’t have a Strong’s on hand at the moment, but I’ve been through the chapter before in a Bible study led by a Calvinist. I remain convinced that the references to being “predestined” and “chose[n]” would be better translated in terms of foreknowledge. Additionally, I point out that even at the core of this difficult text, the seal and guarantee of our inheritance is the Holy Spirit, provided to us at the moment of belief.
Formerly jpers36
NARF
Fearing the wrath of Neil I will make this reeaall short
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Thursday, November 12th at 4:52PM EST (link)A recommendation, an observation, and a rhetorical.
1) there’s a ton of material online which concisely and coherently presents the actual core doctrines articulated by the magisterial reformers and those of succeeding generations known, often disparagingly, as Calvinists, and less often remembered as the root and stock of the major Protestant branches of Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregational and Baptist. (Lutherans and Anglicans came to the party too early to be so branded, but would share broad agreement if not the name). Here are a few places to start for dispelling the flood of misrepresentation that has developed over the centuries:
Any of the links under the “Confessions” header at the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics
The Calvinism and the Reformed Faith section at The-Highway.com.
At the same time, more specifically to your question, the Predestination section.
My favorite, for the most penetrating, far-reaching discussions–especially on the unstable state of contermporary evangelicalism and its impact on, among many things, politics–from a multi-denominational reformed perspective, The White Horse Inn weekly downloadable roundtable.
The position you have described, I’m sure you are aware, is Arminianism. A brilliant and pastoral contrast of the enormous implications of the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism was penned by the evangelically-renowned J.I. Packer 50 years ago and is a must-read: An Introductory Essay to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
2) As normally happens in these debates, the primary voices here fell out along Calvinist/Reformed, Catholic, and Arminian lines. What is fascinating to a Reformed person is the ease with which Arminian evangelicals–traditionally no friend of Roman soteriology–rush to argue from a position nearly indistinguishable from Rome’s! This bolsters my position that a pervasive Pelagianism is at work in both branches.
3) A good test for the strength of one’s Arminian convictions can be had in this question: Assuming that you receive salvation from the grace of God and your neighbor Fred does not, and since you refuse to make God the determining actor in that outcome, and since you also acknowledge that God is bound to have provided Fred with all of the advantages you had, can you then honestly say that ultimately you were more moral (having made a more moral choice), smarter (having made a wiser choice) and more spiritual (having made a more spiritual choice) than Fred the whole time? For your Arminianism/Pelagianism to hold true, you must say that there was indeed SOMETHING IN YOU which forced God to elevate you above Fred. (Some call this the Sound of Music fallacy based on Maria’s song: “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could–but somewhere in my youth or childhood, I must have done something good”)
For the record, is it any wonder that a predominantly Arminian evangelical church has such a hard time trying to convince unbelievers that they don’t actually think of themselves as morally superior without degrading the absolute holiness of Christ in the process? Think how that could have affected the responses, let’s say, to the substance of the OP?
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
"same time" should be "same site"
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Thursday, November 12th at 5:00PM EST (link)And now best wishes to all on that most Calvinistic* of holidays now approaching!
*as much as I, born-and-bred New Englander, love John Adams, by his time the name had been seriously degraded, and it gives me no end of Schadenfreude to hear of his letter to dear son John Quincy, who was resisting the old man’s new ways, in which the elder John urged him to get with the times, boasting that there would not be Calvinist alive in New England within a generation. Have I got some friends I’d love him to meet on the last day!
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
Great response Mailloux ...
Blue_Collar_Muse (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 1:11PM EST (link)I would add to that two thoughts on Total Depravity.
The first is that I have never seen that doctrine separated from a Calvinist view of the cosmos. Said another way, I’ve never seen it applied in a world view that takes into account the Free Will of man and personal responsibility for our actions.
This is key because of the second thought which is related to Mailloux’s excellent observations (probabably because they spring from the same root). Though #2 is a question. Where do Christians come from? The answer is that they come from non-Christians.
When Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to Him as righteousness; when he became the Father of Faith as it were, he was moving from a place of not being right with God to a place of being right with God. It was, indeed, based in his faith which CincoSolas properly notes.
But how can faith to please God arise in a heart that is totally depraved? This has always been to me the point where Calvinism breaks down. For an unbeliever to go from death to life, from disbelief to faith – something has to be able to penetrate his unrepentant heart and be the catalyst for his conversion.
Mailloux also points us to Romans, chapter 1, where it says that those living without the law are capable of having the same relationship with God that Abraham had since the keys to relationship with God are clearly seen in creation all around him. Consider Melchizidek. Where did his priesthood unto the Most High come from pre-Abraham? Finally consider the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple. He asks God to hear the prayers of unbelievers who have heard of the glory of God abiding in the temple and who turn to Him in prayer and to answer those prayers.
If man is totally depraved as I understand the Calvinist arguments, how is all this possible?
Blue Collar Muse
Smaller Government! Lower Taxes! Stronger Defense! More Liberty! Complete Transparency!
Short answers only ...
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 2:21PM EST (link)using a current example. I have Free Will at this moment to, among other things,
a1) answer your questions in depth
b) go back to work
c) do neither
As a card-carrying Calvinist, unlike what you may have heard, I am indeed able to choose among those options. However, the limiting factor of will (btw, Jonathan Edwards developed this brilliantly, and John Piper is his best living expositor) is not that it doesn’t have or act upon options, but rather that it ALWAYS WILLS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEEPEST INCLINATION OF THE HEART.
So now my freedom is self-constrained by the relative weight I find among
1) the satisfaction of knowing that I could point someone in the direction of Biblical truth
2) the satisfaction I have from following my God-ordained calling in work
3) the dread I have of having my bosses yell at me.
So (c) is out–and I settle for a compromise between (a) and (b). Was I Free to do (c)? You tell me.
Gotta go. There’s more, but (3) is kicking in. You’ll do best by going ad fontes–Edwards, Piper, Calvin, Luther–and not settling for the caricatures you have presented. Not saying you’ll agree, but at least you won’t be misrepresenting your opposition.
Your last question–”how is all this possible”–I must answer, however:
Salvation is of the Lord.
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
And now a Kowalski from the Savoy Declaration
CincoSolas_del_Bronx (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 2:28PM EST (link)This would be a really good place to start untangling the popular charge that “Calvinists don’t believe in Free Will”:
Those dreading urbanization should remember that though the Kingdom of God first appeared in a temporal Garden, at the end of the book it is established in an eternal City. (paraphrase, James M. Boice)
soli Deo gloria
Just for the record, I am not a five-point Calvinist
tcgeol (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 3:09PM EST (link)but more like a 3.5 pointer. Total Depravity is Biblical, though, and independent from Calvinism as a doctrine. Romans 3:12, Romans 3:23, Isaiah 64:6 and a host of other passages indicate that there is nothing good or holy about an unregenerate man. We are totally depraved without God.
“But how can faith to please God arise in a heart that is totally depraved? This has always been to me the point where Calvinism breaks down. For an unbeliever to go from death to life, from disbelief to faith – something has to be able to penetrate his unrepentant heart and be the catalyst for his conversion.”
Exactly, and easily answered – Romans 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” Faith comes from God and HIs word, always and without exception. We are granted the faith to believe as in Acts 11:18 “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
Out of context
toudoulouautou Tuesday, November 17th at 12:45PM EST (link)In my estimation, you’re quoting Romans 14:23 completely out of its context.
MRM
Nudity is not always sexual
Finrod (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 4:01AM EST (link)Nudist camps and nude beaches run into this all the time; guys (usually younger guys) go there thinking “oh boy, naked girls!” only to realize that the world doesn’t look like a Playboy centerfold.
I wonder how many nudists subscribe to Playboy? I do remember reading once that significantly more Republicans subscribe to Playboy than do Democrats.
Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?
Oh PLEASE...this diary is partisan rationalization...
Hoosier Economist (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 9:04AM EST (link)Essentially, what this diary is saying is that Carrie Prejean’s immoral acts are justified because she opposes gay marriage – and that by virtue of God’s agreement with her on that issue, her immorality regarding matters of the body is therefore acceptable.
That is tantamount to saying that God will look the other way when I steal, so long as I feed the poor with it. Immorality is immorality – regardless of a person’s views on gay marriage.
Hoosier_Economist, Oh PLEASE read it again . . .
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 10:03AM EST (link)This diary is not about putting Carrie Prejean on a pedestal. Only Christ belongs on a pedestal (that is, it is just and good to worship Him). This diary was about one of the seven deadly sins, lust. I also spoke of male and female culpability in the sin of lust, which by the way is an easy one to slip into in our modern ‘God-is-for-Sundays-only’ era . . . take God out of the equation (by disinviting him) and combine that with much readily available temptation and you get exactly what we’ve got: an explosion in the vice of lust. And, the deadly sin of lust not only injects evil into human sexuality, it also grossly distorts what is good and Godly about human sexuality.
God has a plan for human sexuality and that plan has been all but lost in our era. Pope John Paul II was a shining beacon who tried to tackle this problem. His body of work is referred to as the “Theology of the Body.” It’s basically God’s plan for human sexuality.
This diary made no such connection as you suggested (i.e. God will look the other way when I steal, etc.). Of course, you are completely entitled to your own opinion. I don’t expect to change it . . . you seem quite adamant. But, I can reject it and I am.
Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion concerning this diary.
Take Care, mailloux
Wonderful answer, mailloux. This response to a comment
janis (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 10:58AM EST (link)and the diary you did about the “Invasion of the Sloths” led me to mull over a central point that affects all areas of our life today. And it is that we have drifted so far away from the basic truths that we often have no idea what those truths even were.
Sexual desire is given free rein in our culture and we are seldom confronted with the notion that we should be able to control it. Hence, unwanted pregnancies leading to abortion, the rising number of STD’s and children born to parents who never planned for them and have no idea how to take care of them.
In politics, truth is just an accident at best. We elect people who lie to us while campaigning and then continue to lie while in office. And the results of all this lying are laws and mandates on our freedom, our economy, our national security, our foreign policy that drive us so far away from what America was founded upon all those years ago that Ben Franklin would be appalled if he were to see this country now. In truth, he wouldn’t even recognize it.
The other day you mentioned that it was ironic that we have all the nutritional supplements and focus on health that we do here, yet we are more unhealthy than we’ve ever been. Again, a huge drift away from the basic truths— you can’t be healthy in body if you’re sick in spirit. And yet rather than adhere to that, we do all we can to heal the body and neglect its connection to the spirit.
In all these areas, we neglect the spirit from which flows the basic truths– that we are only healthy when we are balanced in mind, body and spirit. Just as conservatives consider the three-legged stool as their principle symbol, just as Christians consider the Trinity, so, too, must we realize again that we are three-part beings, not just flesh.
janis, I could never possibly put it any better than you just did . . .
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 11:15AM EST (link)You connected the truth, beauty, and goodness of God with man as not just flesh, but body and eternal soul. And then, you tied that into society (and thus politics). It is clear, precise, and just perfectly stated. If your comment were a diary, I’d sprain my finger clicking the reco button with such enthusiasm.
Thank You! mailloux
Mailloux, janis is certainly someone who should write more.
penguin2 (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 11:56AM EST (link)Wonderful application to our society at large today. And exactly why
we are struggling so much. The spirit of the individual is not being nurtured and we as a whole are afflicted.
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills
Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List
Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
penguin2, the same very much applies to you as well!
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 12:08PM EST (link)Your diaries are excellent and quite valuable, as is your commentary. If you’ve got the time and the inclination, please write more diaries. RedState will be the better for it!
Take Care, mailloux
No, she's not a "harlot" or hypocrite for her actions at the pageant
In The Hook (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 4:03PM EST (link)But there’s way more to it than this. Obviously gay marriage and her posing topless and having a sex tape out there are totally separate issues, so there’s no hypocrisy there.
The problem is when this woman is caught in repeated lies. First she says she never posed topless. Then the pictures come out. Then she says the “wind” caused her to be exposed. That’s proven false with additional pictures. Then she says she made a juvenile mistake. Fine. But THEN she gets involved in a lawsuit when she loses her crown and is forced to settle because this sex tape is revealed.
Good people make mistakes and good people commit sins, especially in the area of sexuality where it is so easy to slip. I’ll cop to that without hesitation. But people who genuinely believe what they preach don’t pose topless, lie about it and have masturbation tape she sent to her boyfriend get loose in the public eye. Period.
I genuinely believe Miss Prejean doesn’t oppose gay marriage because she believes strongly in the Bible and its tenets on sexuality, but because she personally finds it “icky.” I also don’t think we on the right should hold her up as a model of a good, conservative woman. Everyone deserves a second, third and fourth chance when he commits personal sins. But that doesn’t mean we should aide this young lady in profiting from her stance on gay marriage in light of her repeated lies on this issue. God forgives her and so should everyone else if she asks for it, but she shouldn’t be a conservative celebrity by any means. Let her fade into the background where she belongs.
“Hello? You play to win the game.”
Support conservatives that can win.
http://www.marcorubio.com
AngryMatt, It was never about putting Prejean on a pedestal . . .
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 4:22PM EST (link)I did say that she bravely stood up for traditional marriage when answering the infamous question during the pageant. I said this because she had to know who the judges were and that her answer would not be politically correct. She went with the non-PC answer. Was her answer more motivated by the “ick” factor than anything to do with Christianity? That I cannot say. Only Prejean could answer that with certainty.
The diary didn’t get into anything else Prejean has done except the swimsuit competition of the pageant. This I spoke of in relation to the sin of lust.
Has Prejean been inconsistent and has she sinned. Sure. You well pointed that out. Did my diary say that she is a role model or a conservative celebrity? No, it did not. Again, the diary was about lust and I used Prejean as a launching point because of another controversial diary that appeared on RedState recently.
My personal view of Prejean? I pray she grows closer and closer to God each day, but a role model? No, I don’t personally view her that way.
Thanks for commenting!
Take Care, mailloux
Oh hey no criticism of you intended
In The Hook (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 4:43PM EST (link)I think your post was well thought out and no it didn’t address any of the issues I brought up, so don’t think my reply to be a criticism at all.
Personally, I think people who believe you’re sinning or intentionally causing others to sin by dressing in a bikini need to really lighten up. I mean, my very Catholic wife did some modeling stuff when she was in college, even while we were engaged. I didn’t think anything of it; she did mostly clothing stuff and though she does have a few snaps of her in a swimsuit, it’s nothing provocative and nothing different than if you saw her out on the beach. So what?
It’s all about how you present yourself. If you’re presenting yourself in an overtly and inappropriate sexual manner it almost doesn’t matter what you’re wearing or not wearing. If, on the other hand, you’re more reserved or simply being yourself while wearing what you’re wearing then you’re modest. I’m not one to think a woman can be modest while wearing a g-string or strutting around topless or nude in public, but you certainly can while wearing a two piece bathing suit or athletic wear.
What’s next? Overly zealous Christians saying it’s immodest to exercise in a sports bra and athletic shorts?
“Hello? You play to win the game.”
Support conservatives that can win.
http://www.marcorubio.com
AngryMatt, sorry . . .
mailloux (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 5:08PM EST (link)if my response to your comment came across as too abrasive. If it did, it’s a function of my sometimes quite poor communication skills. And, I do apologize as it was not my intention to come across as hostile.
Thanks again for taking the time to drop on by my diary and to comment.
Take Care, mailloux
Absolutely outstanding, mailoux. While certainly
eburke (Diary) Wednesday, November 11th at 6:13PM EST (link)women have to search their conscience to discern *why* they choose their attire, I have often thought that the “woman shouldn’t dress that way ’cause they’ll cause men to lust” a giant cop-out for men and I believe you hit that nail on the head. While certainly not excusing women for dressing ‘slutty’ and conducting themselves in a seductive manner, no one can *make* a guy decide to fantasize about her except, well, the guy.
Awesome job, as always.
“All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Unified Patriots
eburke,
mailloux (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 11:42AM EST (link)Sorry for the late response . . . I want to thank you for reading, your kind comments, and the reco too.
Take Care, mailloux
Very too often, men are given a license
marshmom (Diary) Thursday, November 12th at 8:08AM EST (link)by society to behave in depraved, immoral fashion and we are told to accept it because they’re “just men”, as if they have no control whatsoever over what they think or feel.
Women, on the other hand, were “asking for it” when they are raped because they were dressed in a certain way and should’ve known better than to entice the animal that is “a man”. Because everyone knows that the “man” can’t control his sexual urges and desires.
Thank you SO much mailloux for writing this diary to prove that there are still choices in this world and that we all have control over over our thoughts and actions, whether male or female. And for the record, I agree wholeheartedly about the distinction of appreciating the opposite sex physical form and LUSTING after another or wanting to be lusted after and dressing in such a fashion.
Thank you!!
marshmom,
mailloux (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 11:48AM EST (link)The image of God upon our souls is what makes us so qualitatively different from any other creature on earth. Men are not the equivalent of a mere beast acting on instinct. Unfortunately, post the sexual revolution, this is one of the messages that has found purchase in the psyche of western culture. But, there’s always hope . . . because there is always God!
Thanks for reading, commenting, and the reco too (and sorry for the delayed response!)
Take Care, maillloux
Hard for me to disagree with you, Mailloux
CodeRedinPA (Diary) Thursday, November 12th at 2:22PM EST (link)as you are so well spoken and thoughtful,
But I still do….
I do agree with your point that to use her prior behavior as a brush with which to paint Miss Prejean as a moral hypocrite in her stance against gay marriage is a shill.
Those on the other side already have their straw man that being against gay marriage is actually homophobia.
Pointing to Miss Prejean’s photos or swimsuit appearance are criticism more deftly defeated with the simple statement that if there is any moral equivalence one need look to artistic standards– not political ones
We need not delve so far into Christian/Catholic theology to find other ways to to show that what might be hypocritcal only looks hypocritical but really isn’t hypocritical.
In both the practical and theological sense no one on that side buys any of those premises anyway. To them it smacks of Christian Talibanism (Not meant to be provocative, but you were the one who brought up Burqas….) To us, it really is preaching to the choir, but maybe just placing the podium higher up on the altar.
Furthermore, being a good Christian is about truth to one’s self as much as it is about truth to others. In other words, God gave all of us a dark side. Your post reads to me as being from the fundamentalist school whereby we shun all our natural impulses as sinful.
My thinking is that it is better for one to own my his/her dark side than to go on in conflict with himself by simply denying it. According to you, I’ve already committed a sin right then and there in challenging God’s will for simply thinking that.
……I can’t agree
God made us what we are for a reason and the exploration and, sometimes, indulgence of our ‘evil’ streak, in those instances where it doesn’t hurt others is harmless.
…In fact, I would argue God wants us to do this once in a while to appreciate the free will with which he endowed us in order to better know His truths. And we can only live politically and in community (which is what I think God wants) when we understand and accept our nature as living beings.
One can read that as a thin Branch-Davidian sort of justification for Sin.
And it is self -serving, somewhat.. I freely admit it.
But, I don’t wish to be impugned as a glutton for enjoying an extra piece of fried chicken once in a while, or for sloth because I watched an Eagles game while the the bathroom faucet drips a little.
I do not consider myself wanton (or even a bad Catholic) for letting my eye linger once in a while on a beautiful woman in a bikini. Or pondering a “what-if” for a second when I meet an attractive woman.
ACTING on such impulses is anathema to the code of conduct with which I run my life. Simple, fleeting thoughts should never be considered sin when that person conscientiously observes a countervailing morality before any deed ever occurs.
If Sin originated in thought, then why would God endow our minds to be so expansive and capable of so much conception with which we can advance ourselves, our brethren and come to know Him?
While we are His creatures, I do believe Christians sometimes have it wrong in believing that He would go so far as refuse us the “personal space” required in letting our minds attempt to reckon the truths of existence.
The standard of what is and is not Sin must be practicably amenable to the real nature of our consciousness which is both good AND evil — selfless AND selfish.
…..else, we do not truly have free will, OR human beings can never truly be moral (or Godly) OR the concept of God falls victim to the “Divine Command Criticism”
I can’t live in a reality like that one….
….but that’s just me. Maybe I’ve just been among the damned for too many years to count or to apologize.
CodeRedinPA,
mailloux (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 10:25AM EST (link)As we live and breath before our judgment by God, we are, gratefully, not yet among the damned, for God truly is merciful.
Thank you for your honest viewpoints concerning the subject material of this diary and, I’m sure, the trail of comments it inspired.
I will have to disagree with your ideas. God did not purposely create an evil side to our nature, nor does He want us to or does He condone indulging that evil side as a way to exercise our free wills and explore our human natures.
Where does that leave man? It’s actually a lot more hopeful than you may realize (that’s why, by the way, Hope is a theological virtue!). Only with God is the supernatural possible, but poor man is too often mired in only the natural. It’s kind of like this: imagine a rich fellow sees a poor and ragged soul eating scraps salvaged from a garbage can. He invites the fellow to return home with him, bathe, and then join a feast. The poor and ragged fellow refuses out of distrust and a strange fondness for his existence as it is now. He goes on rummaging through the garbage. Man, basically, cannot possibly imagine the wonders and the majesty of God and what he is capable of, though grace, when he trusts and loves God above all else. If only the poor and ragged fellow had accepted the rich man’s gracious invitation!
In a nutshell, you’d be surprised what you are capable of with God fully and completely in your life.
Thanks again for your comments.
Take Care, mailloux
In the spirit of (Matthew 23:24) let’s stop straining at gnats (bikinis, videos, and photos)
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Thursday, November 12th at 3:52PM EST (link)I have truly struggled over the last couple of days in how to respond to this very thought provoking discussion; so I offer some humble opinions (although I am no theologian) for consideration after much thought and soul searching:
The reason the Bible does not go into detail about every little sin we can commit is that it’s not necessary for the salvation of mankind when there are much larger sin items that will lead us to conclude that we are all under the curse of sin.
My opinion as to the main post, not that it matters, is that there is a major sensuality problem in our nation that is destroying our young people and therefore our nation. I certainly think that this type of dress for believers does more damage to the cause of Christ, than the exercise in the liberty we have in the wearing of it does good.
Some Truth in regards to Sin
The curse of Adam is upon all mankind (as manefested in murder, fornication, wars, etc), therefore all are under its penalty (the penalty being placed upon us at the age of accountability), and henceforth on our way to an eternity apart from God. However, it is not God’s will that any should perish, so the call for repentance of sin goes forth from the Spirit of God to every person (this includes the Indian, the Muslim, the Buddhist, and even Socrates), and every person has the same choice to accept or reject placing their faith in the promise of God to provide salvation (just as Adam, Abraham, Job, etc). So if having a choice nullifies the concept of total depravity, I’m fine with that, but having simple depravity upon mankind is enough to condemn us all.
As to the man that embraces and lives the cardinal virtues: if you mean that the cardinal virtues can only truly be manifested by the working of the grace of God, then yes the man would be saved for the grace of God cannot work in a soul that has not placed its faith in God for salvation, but if you mean that salvation was “obtained” by self-will apart from the grace of God, then no the man is not saved for no man can be justified by their own works they are as filthy rags. Salvation can only be of God’s working alone, and when God begins a work He must finish it, for if He begins a work and then changes His mind (oh I don’t want Harold to be saved now) He is not God.
Application
God does not send souls to damnation!
Committing sin (murder, rape, fornication, lusting after a woman, dressing inappropriately, etc) does not send a soul to damnation for all are already under the penalty of sin from the curse of Adam!
Rejecting the Spirit of God’s call for repentance by not placing one’s faith in God’s promise of salvation from the curse of sin sends the soul to damnation!
Salvation is the work of God alone.
Harold Vaughn,
mailloux (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 9:56AM EST (link)Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. We are in agreement about the economics of salvation. But, I want to add a clarification. When I referred to a virtuous Buddhist, I did not mean that he is capable of salvation without Christ.
Christ’s sacrifice sealed the new covenant and made Christ the spiritual head of humanity. He in effect replaced Adam as our spiritual head. He paid an infinite debt that finite creatures could never repay and his sacrifice is of infinite merit. It is an inexhaustible repository of grace and it is not limited by time or place (for God is the Lord of time and its creator . . . it does not limit Him).
The virtuous Buddhist is as human as any and is imprinted with the image and likeness of God from the moment of his conception. He is built for eternity for he is body and eternal soul, and the only source that can satisfy the eternal soul is God. There is no real and lasting joy apart from God. The virtuous Buddhist or really anybody for that matter will naturally wonder how he got here, where he is going, and what is his purpose in life . . . this is our built in radar for God. It is our eternal self . . . the soul . . . naturally seeking its ultimate fulfillment, God.
Apart from God, the fallen human soul is weak and rather stupid. It cannot save itself (for how can a finite creature repay an infinite debt?). The virtuous Buddhist doesn’t save himself. He, despite how he conceptualizes it, is responding to Christ’s saving grace. God is touching that soul and the virtuous Buddhist is virtuous because of God. Even if he remains a Buddhist his whole life, he will know the full truth of reality upon his death. Then, he will know Jesus Christ is Lord . . . and he will know that God really is love. And, it is God who will ultimately judge the soul of the Buddhist who lived a virtuous life.
Thanks again for the well thought out comments.
Take Care, mailloux
Mailloux, I cannot begin to thank you for the discussion,
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 12:13PM EST (link)it has been very profitable to me. Yet while I know we view things from somewhat different perspectives, we still agree on many of the fundamentals. (My internet explorer forbides me to recommend the post and also to reply directly to your response)
I can agree with “anybody for that matter will naturally wonder how he got here, where he is going, and what is his purpose in life… this is our built in radar for God”, but I cannot agree with this “It is our eternal self . . . the soul . . . naturally seeking its ultimate fulfillment, God.” The soul is seeking fulfillment, but it looks in all the wrong places (hence why we have social ills within our societies: abortion, sensuality, fornication, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc). I believe we are in agreement, correct me if I’m wrong, that the soul is in a corrupted state from the beginning of one’s life, but based on Romans 3:10-12 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” one can conclude that the corruption of the soul leads us astray from the truth of the real answers to the above questions (hence Darwinism, Atheism, Buddhism, Muslims, as well as many of the denominations of Christianity). Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” The reason it is so difficult to find the right way is because sin fills the heart with pride and lust (which we don’t tend to let go of without a fight), and saving faith always begins with humility before a Holy God.
If the hypothetical virtuous Buddhist has responded to the call of God’s grace he cannot continue to be a Buddhist, anymore than Abraham could stay in the land he was born. In order for anyone to know of God’s grace they must acknowledge their misplacement of faith in other things besides God for their salvation, and once a person experiences God’s grace in even the smallest amount it drives them to change, to put off the old and put on the new. If the virtuous Buddhist has acknowledged his personal sin of misplacing his faith in Buddhism in humility before God he would be pulled away from Buddhism into seeking out this new truth that ran in direct conflict with what he used to believe. The very fact that he stays a Buddhist the remainder of his life reflects the fact that he never fully accepted the call of repentance upon his life, in my humble opinion, and therefore never changed his eternal destination.
Harold Vaughn,
mailloux (Diary) Friday, November 13th at 4:23PM EST (link)Thank you sir for you commentary and insights.
I think we do agree on much. Where we do have different understandings can probably be explained by the differences in Catholicism and Protestantism regarding what happens after death. For Catholics, there are 3 possibilities: Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. It’s the Purgatory part (what Catholics call the “Church Suffering”) that explains my take on the virtuous Buddhist.
I don’t mean to open this up as a Catholic vs. Protestant debate on Purgatory. I only shared this as an explanation for maintaining what I’ve been saying all along.
I also want to make it clear that I respect and very highly value the friendship of all my Christian brothers and sisters regardless of denomination. Where our understanding of the faith agrees is far greater than where it differs.
Thanks again for reading, your well thought out and civil comments, and the reco too!
Take Care, mailloux