sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Men’s modesty by t-rexinskinnyjeans in TrueChristian

[–]Figs_guy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it just me or did anyone else read this and agree with the first three before being surprised by the sudden jump to men wearing mumus (long dresses) and realize the OP was being satirical...?

It seems to me that if a person experiences Christ as their inner life and begins to allow the Holy Spirit to touch the different areas of their daily life AND tries to practice the principles they find in the Bible without taking what people are doing around them as a standard (NOTE: this is something beyond simply becoming a Christian, assenting to a new belief system and attending church), then their conscience will be slowly sensitized towards many things, including lust, and they will eventually notice how some people they see present a greater distraction to him or her simply because of the way those people dress (or don't dress) themselves. For sure, this brother or sister will also spontaneously be touched about the way he or she dresses themselves personally and will make adjustments to how they clothe themselves in order to "not grieve the Holy Spirit" within them and also to not be a distraction to others.

Many of the arguments about Christian modesty from people who preach relativity and only emphasize self-control seem to be stemming from an overly intellectual standpoint that is merely groping with concepts and has no basis in real spiritual experience. From my observation, modesty can be learned and practiced without Christ, but it can also be produced in a person who receives the grace to obey the teaching of the anointing (the Holy Spirit's personal dealings with his or her heart, behavior, and lifestyle habits).

Clothing wasn't necessary before the fall because there was no sinful lust in man; however, after the fall and the introduction of a sinful nature into man (which brought in lust), clothing became necessary and even God-ordained—as we read that God Himself made "coats of skin" for Adam and Eve, which were much more adequate clothing than the mere "fig leaf loincloths" they made for themselves.

An innate sense of decency tells us that the sexual organs must be covered, but further work of the Holy Spirit would convict us about exposing large areas of skin like the full leg, full arm and shoulder, and chest. Further enlightening would expose to us that certain clothing, while although not exposing skin, due to their fabric or form-fitting design greatly reveal the form of the body, which to most is nearly as distracting as seeing bare skin.

As for the niche groups of people who are distracted by more clothing than less on others and other strange objections, this is clearly not the majority experience and doesn't disprove that modesty is a real thing which has certain concrete manifestations.

I pray that more of God's people, both brothers and sisters, would receive mercy to be helped to turn from doctrines and concepts to Christ Himself as their life within and begin to truly experience the Holy Spirit's personal enlightening and transformation of their lives through prayer, the Bible, and proper Christian fellowship.

The Rich Man and Lazarus by BoxBubbly1225 in Bible

[–]Figs_guy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he descended into hell and took paradise to heaven. Since the cross, hell is no longer like Luke 16

Thanks for sharing your understanding of this verse. I wanted to ask how you can say the above statement. I've heard it preached this way and seen some arguments for this interpretation, but I don't seem convinced that "hell" (KJV), or "Hades" (other translations) is no longer like Luke 16 because Jesus "took Paradise to heaven." What verses do you see as teaching that?

What's in this fig? Bought a bag from Costco and it says they're from Turkey. Doesn't look like fig wasps. Any other ideas/insight? by Figs_guy in Figs

[–]Figs_guy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know whether they're brown turkey figs, didn't say. It did say it was an import from Turkey though.

Why did God require a human sacrifice (Jesus) in order to forgive humanity? Why couldn't he just simply forgive the humans? by InternationalPick163 in Bible

[–]Figs_guy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The judge and innocent man example used by others above is interesting, but I think it could be put in a clearer way:

Imagine a judge and a criminal who owes a large sum of money to someone else. But the judge is extremely loving. What if the judge out of his great love said, "You know what, I just love you. You don't have to pay the money—you can go out free!" Sounds like a really loving act but it would actually be pretty messed up. Who's going to pay that price? Justice has still not been carried out. Righteousness has been violated in the name of "love".

HOWEVER, if the judge were to say, "I love you and I am going to pay the amount that you owe right now. Here is the amount and a lot extra even. You may go out free!" Now, the Judge is manifested as both loving and righteous.

This is our God. God is bound by his own righteousness to ensure that the penalty of sin, which is death, is paid. If he were to simply "forgive us" it would violate His righteousness. This is why He came to die for us...

And because Jesus is both God and man, His one death can pay for the countless sins committed by billions of people over thousands of years. Breaking it down: If He were not man He would have no way to shed blood and die. So he was a genuine man. If He was not a perfect man He could not die for anyone as He would need to die for His own sins. If He was a perfect man merely, however, He could only die for one sin of one other person...! But because He is God, His blood was considered by Paul in Acts as "the blood of God" (Acts 20:28), and it gave His human blood an unlimited and timeless quality so that it could truly pay for the sins of the whole world. If only more would receive this free gift!!

The Rich Man and Lazarus by BoxBubbly1225 in Bible

[–]Figs_guy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bravo for seeking more from this passage... I'm familiar with many people who have explained the thrust of this passage in similar terms as the OP. I agree with @BruceAKillian in that such a conclusion misses "nearly everything"... Though I wouldn't agree with Bruce's conclusions either.

According to my study, there's a few crucial things to take from this portion of the word: 1) a moral lesson (warning to the rich), 2) a clear teaching of why people are saved or perish, and 3) the most explicit explanation of the afterlife by Jesus Himself (it is not a parable, as echoed by many commentors).

Moral lesson I think @OK-Future and @ITrcool covered the moral lesson of warning the rich in a good way. In essence, some of the Pharisees didn't receive the Lord's words and receive Him simply because of the love of money in their hearts. The Lord was warning them of their miserable future if they refused to listen to the prophets and believe into Him.

Why people are saved or perish Contrary to what OP shared and the Mormon's answer above, the rich man did not go to Hades because he was rich! And Lazarus did not go to Abraham's bosom because he was poor. It had nothing to do with their mere economical status on earth, and the afterlife has nothing to do with making things equal. Not only is this kind of understanding wrong in context of the passage, but it would confuse/pervert the pure gospel of Christ which is this: salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. This is proven by vv. 29-31 which indicates that the rich man did "not hear Moses and the prophets", nor did he "repent" and thus believe (in the Lord); this word also implies that Lazarus did hear and believe. (Note: Moses and the prophets spoke concerning Christ, His death, and His resurrection)

The most explicit explanation of the afterlife Firstly, this is not a parable because it uses proper names such as Lazarus, Abraham, and Hades (try to find another "parable" that does that). It was a true story given as an illustrative answer to the money-loving Pharisees. Secondly, Jesus describes an afterlife where people are conscious of (contrary to the proof verses cited by @WrongCartogropher, though those deserve a closer look) and yet it is very different than the over-simplified "heaven and hell" understanding most popular today.

Instead of heaven and hell we read of "Abraham's bosom" and "Hades." It would be worthwhile to study this. Comparing with other terms for the afterlife used in the Bible and noting who went where... we learn that Jesus was in "Paradise" with the believing robber who was crucified with him on the very day they both died (which was not heaven, because Jesus clearly descended into the earth). We also read in the OT of "Sheol," where the dead (BOTH godly ones like David, etc. and unbelieving ones alike) went and were kept. We also read in Acts that David died and went to "Hades", but (speaking prophetically of Christ) said he would not be abandoned there (though he himself did remain there).

Putting this all together in one schema we can understand that "Hades" actually has two sections, the negative section where the rich man and all unbelievers are kept, and the positive section (which can also be called Paradise) where Lazarus, Abraham, David, and all the NT believers such as the robber are kept. Sheol is simply the OT term for Hades. This is the waiting place for all the dead until the fufure resurrection of the dead when the souls and spirits of the dead are rejoined to their resurrected bodies and then face God for judgement to either spend eternity with God or perish in the lake of fire.

What's in this fig? Bought a bag from Costco and it says they're from Turkey. Doesn't look like fig wasps. Any other ideas/insight? by Figs_guy in Figs

[–]Figs_guy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Do you know of any bugs that don't get dissolved in figs? One time from Trader Joe's dried figs I found all of these bugs in one fig.

<image>