;)
Abominations
Posted by Les Puryear in Bible & Theology
When God called me to preach, He called me to preach His Word, not my word. When God called me to preach, He called me to preach what He says, not what I want to say. When God called me to preach, He called me to preach His truth, not my opinion. And early in my ministry, God showed me a Scripture that has formed the basis of my preaching ever since.
That Scripture is Jeremiah 26:2, which reads “Thus says the LORD, ‘Stand in the court of the LORD’s house and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word.”
God expects those of us who have been called to preach, to preach all of His Word and not to leave anything out. That means that we must preach the whole word of God. As I was praying for God’s leading on what to write about today, God impressed one word on my mind. God would not release me from thinking about that word until I committed to Him to write about it. As I began to look in the Scriptures, I found that this word is used many times. As a matter of fact, I found that this word is used in one form or another a total of 176 times. Now, doesn’t it seem reasonable that if God spoke a certain word 176 times, that God would have something important to say about that word? That’s the conclusion I came to.
And so, as I began to prepare my research for this post, it dawned on me that I had never heard a sermon preached on this topic before. I was certain that I was mistaken. Surely many sermons had been preached about this very important word. And so, to satisfy my curiosity, I got on the Internet and searched a popular sermon database to see how many sermons had been preached on this topic. I searched this database which has over 40,000 sermons and do you know what I found? Not a single sermon, out of more than 40,000, was preached on this word.
Now, just because I could not find a sermon on this word does not mean that there has never been a sermon preached about it. But what it does show is that this topic is not one of the more popular things to preach or write about these days. What is this word that God wants me to talk to you about? It’s found in Rev. 21:23-27.
The word that God uses 176 times in the Bible is found in verse 27. The word that has not been preached in over 40,000 sermons is the word “abomination.” Verse 27 says, ” But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.” And so, according to verse 27, no unclean thing or no abomination will enter the city of God. Onnly those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life will be allowed to enter. And so, it seems to me that if abomination is a barrier to being with God, then we need to understand what is an abomination to God. What does Scripture mean when it refers to “abomination”? What kinds of people and things are an abomination to God?
The word in the Bible that is translated as “abomination,” literally means “something that is filthy,” or “something that is detestable.” And so, something that is an abomination to God is detestable to God. What are these things that are abominations to God? Here are about five things that are abominations to God.
1 – SEXUAL PERVERSION IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD.
Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”
The Bible says that homosexuality is detestable to God. It doesn’t matter how much the Gay and Lesbian crowd tries to justify it, homosexuality is filthy to God. It is not acceptable to God. The Bible says that a practicing homosexual will not enter into the city of God because it is an abomination. But homosexuality is not the only sexual perversion that is abominable to God.
Deut. 22:5 says, “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.” Men who like to dress up like women and women who like to dress up like men are an abomination to God. This verse is not talking about fashion, but it is talking about deviant behavior. It is talking about a deviant sexual behavior which adopts the dress and behavior which is unnatural to one’s own sex. God made a distinction between men and women. Any attempts to erase that distinction is an abomination to God.
Another sexual perversion is found in Deut. 23:18. Deut. 23:18 says “You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the LORD your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.” Now this verse is not talking about a dog like a German Shepherd. The word “dog” in this verse refers to a male prostitute. And so, prostitution, whether male or female, is an abomination to God. There are some people in our country who are trying to get prostitution legalized because they say that it is a victimless crime. They say that nobody gets hurt. But God’s Word says that it is not a victimless crime and that the victim is God. And that is what sin is. Sin is violating a standard of God. Sin is committed against God. And so, it is an abomination to God. It is detestable to God and so it should be detestable to His people. God’s people should not participate in these things.
2 – WORSHIPING OTHER GODS IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD.
Deut. 7:25 says, “You shall burn the carved images of their gods with fire; you shall not covet the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be snared by it; for it is an abomination to the LORD your God.” Deut. 7:26 says, “Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be doomed to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is an accursed thing.”
God warned His people not to worship other gods. The people who lived in the promised land worshiped gods made of stone and wood. Many times these images had precious stones in them. But God said for His people to burn the carved images. He did not want them to keep them because of the jewels. They were an abomination God and so God did not want His people to have anything to do with false gods. He even warned them about bringing these carved images into their homes. His people were to detest these things because they were cursed by God. Any carved image which people worshiped were an abomination to God.
I wonder how many of our homes have idols in them. Some of these things have become so much a part of our culture that we use them for decoration. At Valentine’s Day, how many of us have images of Cupid in our home? Did you know that Cupid is a pagan god? This is an abomination to God. How many of us have oriental statues such as Buddha in our homes? This is an abomination to God. We may think these things are innocent, but this is deadly serious to God. These things are an abomination to God and they are accursed. But this abomination goes beyond having little statues for decoration.
Anything that we put before God is an abomination to Him. God demands first place in our hearts. When we place more importance on something else before God, then that is an abomination. It can be our family, our job, our sleep, our recreation, our money, or any other thing. Anything that is more important to you than your relationship with Jesus is an abomination.
3 – PAGAN PRACTICES ARE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD.
Deut. 18:9-12 – “When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you.”
Have you ever been to a Palm Reader? Have you ever been to someone who told your future through tarot cards? Have you ever been to a séance? All of these things are an abomination to God. There used to be a show on TV called “Crossing Over with John Edward.” At one time, this was one of the most popular shows on TV. What this guy claimed to do was to communicate with the dead. Well I don’t know what this guy can do, but I do know one thing. He cannot communicate with the dead. He might be communicating with demons, but he’s definitely not communicating with the dead. The Bible says that once we die, we go to our eternal destination and there is no communication with anyone on earth. (Luke 16:19-31) We know for sure that John Edwards is not communicating with the dead. But John Edwards is trying to call up the dead and that is an abomination to God. This passage is very clear that all of these pagan practices are an abomination. You and your children may think that Harry Potter is nothing but a cute story, but withcraft and sorcery is an abomination to God and you and your children should stay away from it.
4 – OFFERING FALSE WORSHIP IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD.
Deut. 17:1 says, “You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God a bull or sheep which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the LORD.” The LORD demands your firstfruits. That means that God should be first on the list to receive what we have to give. We should give God the very best that we have, but so many times we give Him our leftovers.
Do you give God your leftovers? If you do, God won’t take them. They are an abomination to Him. What do I mean by leftovers? Leftovers are things like your time. When the way you lives says “Well, I’ll do what I want and if I have any time leftover I’ll give it to you, Lord,” that’s giving God your leftovers. Leftovers are things like your money. When the way you give says, “I’ll pay my bills and buy what I want first and if I have any money to spare I’ll give it to you, Lord” that’s giving God your leftovers. Your tithe is supposed to be the first thing you give, not the last. Leftovers are things like your heart. When the way you live says that you love anything or anyone more than Jesus, then you’re giving Him your leftovers.
God doesn’t want your leftovers. They are an abomination to Him. When you come to worship Jesus, you need to worship Him with all your heart, mind, and soul. Anything less is unacceptable to God.
5 – LIVING A WICKED LIFESTYLE IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD.
Prov. 6:16 -19 says, “These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.”
When we don’t practice what we say we believe, we are an abomination to God. If we get all hung up in our pride, we are an abomination to God. If we tell lies, we are an abomination to God. If we shed innocent blood, we are an abomination to God. If we plan and scheme to hurt other people, we are an abomination to God. If we can’t wait to do evil, we are an abomination to God. If we give false witness against someone else, we are an abomination to God. If we stir up trouble and strife, we are an abomination to God. When we just talk the talk and don’t walk the walk, we are an abomination to God. God wants us to live a life that glorifies Jesus Christ. When we live any other way, we are an abomination.
Everything that is an abomination to God can be summed up in one verse. Deut. 25:16 – “…all who behave unrighteously are an abomination to the LORD your God.” And so, unredeemed sinners are an abomination to God.
As long as we are slaves to sin, we are an abomination to God. The holy nature of God will not allow Him to come into fellowship with unclean people. Our sin separates us from God and we are abominable to Him. We are detestable to God and we cannot be in His presence as long as we are covered with the stain of sin. Rev. 21:27 says, “There shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination.” As long as we are unclean, we cannot enter into the presence of God. As long as we are unclean, we cannot have fellowship with God. As long as we are unclean, God will not accept our offerings of worship. God will not allow any abomination into His presence. And there is nothing we can do on our own to cleanse the stain of our sin.
Is there any hope for us? Oh yes, dear friend, there is abundant hope. You see, even though our sin has made us abominable to God—somehow God still loves us. God loves us so much that He wants to have a relationship with us.
God loves us so much that He wants to hold us and talk with us and walk with us and care for us. And the Bible tells us, in John 3:16, that because God loves us so much, that He sent His one and only Son to die on a cross so that we could be saved from our sin and have eternal life with Him. God loves us so much that His Son Jesus received all of our abomination on the cross and washed it all away with His blood. And that which was abominable in the sight of God can now be completely clean and acceptable to Him.
The blood of Jesus can wash you as white as snow.
The blood of Jesus can remove all of the stain of your sin.
The blood of Jesus can write your name in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
And by the blood of Jesus, you can enter into the city of God because no abomination will remain in you.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
great teaching brother Les…right on brother.
Sounds like you have your sermon ready for Sunday!
That’ll preach!
Thanks Les,
That does help clarify the purpose and need for the gospel of God.
Good stuff,
Blessings,
Chris
I wish Christian radio would have more messages like this. This post needs wider dissementation than just this one forum. I hope other bloggers will allow this as a guest blog on their site.
And might I add…you don’t sound “bitter” at all
I imagine this will be preached in churches all over the US in the coming weeks (mine included! )
I don’t think you sound bitter, either!
I really doubt that God finds my small cultural collection of Buddhas (little gifts that friends and family picked up for me when on various trips here and abroad) to be an “abomination.” Similarly, I doubt that God finds the Cupid cards that little kids exchange on Valentine’s Day to be an “abomination.” I also doubt that God wants me to burn the books on Greek and Roman mythology in my personal library.
If an abomination is anything that we put before God. I’d suggest that none of these things are necessarily an abomination. I don’t worship Cupid. Who does that? I don’t worship Buddha. I collect funny-looking Buddha’s just like I collect Bobble-Head dolls and autographed baseballs. Along these lines, I wonder if you view the celebration of the holiday Christmas and all the food and gifts to be an abomination. After all, the origins of the holiday Christmas are thoroughly pagan and pre-date the birth of Christ. If you’re going to throw around the A-word and hate on Valentine’s Day because of Cupid and the origins of that holiday, I figure that consistency would also demand you do the same for Christmas.
Les,
Thank you for this thoughtful and thoroughly biblical post.
B. Diddy,
I think you bring up some interesting points, that are worthy of reflection. In countries with a Roman Catholic tradition, such as Spain, most Evangelical believers tend to be a bit more sensitive to external trappings of idolatry than we tend to be here in the States. I believe this is true in places with Hindu and Buddhist majorities as well. In Italy, for instance, many Evangelicals have traditionally not celebrated Christmas at all, for this very reason. In Spain, most Evangelicals would never have a statue of an angel in their home.
Yet, it seems to me that these are precisely the type of questions Paul was referring to in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 where he talked about doubtful practices, and, specifically, eating meat sacrificed to idols.
As I understand it, a biblical balance on this question is to avoid judging others, and let them follow their own conscience toward God on matters like this. However, at the same time, I think we do well, to point out, as Les has ably done here, what the Word of God clearly teaches about abominations, and urge believers to search their own hearts to make sure they are not deceiving themselves in an attempt to justify their actions.
In the end, we will never all come to exactly the same position on what is admissible and what is not. But, we must guard our own hearts, and avoid judging others.
B. Diddy,
One of the very first things that new believers do in Asia is to throw out their idols. This includes ALL representations of Buddha. They see this as offensive to the God whom they now serve. Same as in Africa, new believers will burn their fetishes and idols as a symbol of their allegiance to Jesus.
For Asians, to see a collection of “souvenir” Buddha’s in the home of a believer would be incomprehensible. They would think that the person is not truly following Jesus.
Personally, I would never have a Buddha in my home. I traveled throughout Asia and Africa, and to the best of my knowledge the only souvenirs I brought home were of a non-religious nature. I was offered many Buddhas and many African fetishes, but I politely declined them. That, however, is MY take on it.
I agree with David’s comment above, esp the last two paragraphs.
Fox, Steve, Chris,
Thanks for the encouragement. If you wish to use the sermon, you’re welcome to it.
John and Rick,
Thanks for your support. No, I’m not bitter at anyone, much less about what happened in Indy. I never thought I would win. My purpose for running was to get out the message about the small church. I believe I accomplished my goal.
B. Diddy,
You sound sort of like someone who gave one of my members advise about having sex outside of marriage. She was told, “What the Bible says is the ideal, however, it’s not realistic today.” How can we say we believe the Bible and not practice its teachings?
I would also say that God used this sermon to shake my Filipino daughter-in-law out of her complacency about her family idols back in Mindanao. She called her mother and told her what the Bible said about carved images. You see, her family back home claims to be Catholic but they keep little idols around to ward off evil spirits. My daughter-in-law heard God’s word and challenged her family’s syncretistic beliefs. I understand the carved images are now gone.
David,
Good words as usual.
Les
Les,
Thanks for addressing the substance of my comment. Not really. Poor analogy too.
Here’s the deal, I obviously don’t interpret and apply that passage in the same way that you do. Your subheading stated that “Worshiping Other Gods Is An Abomination To God.” I don’t worship my fat tongue-sticking-out Buddha or the Valentines-Themed Cupid stuffed animal that I purchased for my fiancee. Nor do I worship the old college textbooks on my shelf on the subject of Greek Mythology.
I’m not in violation of the passages you cited from the Torah. Those aren’t idols. I have not put those trinkets and V-day gifts above God. We also should be aware of the culture which we live in. Comparing this WASP to your Filipino family member is like Apples and Oranges. Cultural context has to account for something as does the meaning placed on said trinkets. I agree that worshiping other gods is an abomination to God. But it’s illogical to conclude that merely owning a Cupid doll or Buddha statue (etc. etc) is somehow an example of “worshiping other gods” especially in our cultural context. We ain’t in Southeast Asia.
However, using your seemingly legalistic logic, I’d posit that you were in violation of your own argument put forth here when you paid $$ to see The Dark Knight. Batman, Gotham City, and the Occult undoubtedly go hand in hand! I dozed off during the film so I guess I at least agree with you on something…
B. Diddy,
take a hike. you’re attitude sucks.
that’s my ever humble opinion…”not really”.
In Jesus Name,
gary fox
B. Diddy,
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree as usual. I guess this is why I’m SBC and you’re CBF. We view scripture very differently.
Oh well, have a great day.
Les
Lew,
I’m glad that God has called you to teach about abomination. I would like some clarification on a few things that you’ve written.
1.1b – Deut 22:5 says “wear anything” how can you justify “wear anything” to mean “deviant behavior”?
1.1c – Deut 23:18 seems like God is saying that the abomination is bringing the wage of the prostitute, not the actual act of prostitution. Why do you feel like this verse is saying that prostitution is the abomination? By the way, I’m not condoning prostitution, I’m just trying to get a better understanding of how you are interpreting this specific verse.
2.1 – I don’t necessarily disagree with you that “anything that we put before God is an abomination to Him”… in fact I believe that all sin is ultimately an abomination to God. However, I think there is a difference between hanging up a picture of Cupid – a meaningless cartoon – and worshiping a false god.
4.1 – Duet. 17.1 is talking about blemishes and defects, not about first-fruits. There is definitely Biblical precedent for giving our first-fruits, but I don’t think it comes from this verse. Plus, Jesus gave our best for us, now we just need to follow him.
I look forward to any clarification you can provide me on these questions/comments.
Thank you.
Gary Fox,
I wouldn’t cast stones just yet…
God’s Glory,
Lew
Les… that should be to you.. not me
.
Sorry, I’m just use to typing my own name
.
Lew
Aaron,
So sorry, I didn’t know you were going by another pseudonym. Had I known that, I would have commented to you a bit differently.
I will adamantly disagree with you and say that God DOES find your little collection of Buddha trinkets to be an abomination.
I don’t think Les’ analogy was a poor one. Instead, I think you didn’t want to hear it. His analogy was, in fact, spot on.
Legalistic logic? How convenient.
Good words here Les.
Lew,
I’ll try to answer your questions.
Deut. 22:5 “wear anything pertaining to a man.” The principle here is men shouldn’t try to be women and vice versa. As i said, this verse isn’t about fashion.
Deut. 23:18 – “both of these are an abomionation.” The wages aren’t the abomination, the sexual perversion is.
Cupid – To know that he represents a pagan God and embrace the present cultural application of him is naive at best.
Deut. 17:1 – I said, “We should give God the very best that we have, but so many times we give Him our leftovers.” I’m using “firstfruits” in the context of our best. Perhaps I could have used a better word.
Thanks for your comment.
Les
Les,
Classic. Oh well, I’m sorry for wasting my time attempting to address the substance of your thesis.
Mr. Irreverend,
Best be careful with your language. Not positive, but the word “sucks” may be considered an “abomination” to God by some here.
Mr. Boyner,
Agree to disagree. And I strongly disagree. Legalistic was a good adjective choice. It is somewhat curious when someone desires to tailor their initial response based on the commenter rather than the comment.
Aaron,
I “tailored” my initial response to you because from your initial comment, you presented yourself as being either very young in the faith or being very uneducated in the faith. Once I realized it was you, I tried to give it something that would get your attention, since you a doctoral student and are simply “young”.
Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being young. My oldest is 12. Her attitude was bad today, too. Quite obstinate, in fact.
In spite of the vocabulary choice that Gary made, the essence of his statement is true; your attitude is showing.
No, “legalistic” was not a good adjective choice. You almost sound like some of the Chinese I have witnessed to who didn’t want to give up their idols. I know this isn’t the case, but the similarity is uncanny. They will say anything and do anything as long as they don’t have to give up their Buddhas.
Take a mission trip young man. See what it’s like for people to be enslaved to gods and demons. Then I promise you won’t see your “cultural trinkets” in the same light.
You can strongly disagree all you want. That doesn’t make you right.
I’m sarcastic.
You are passive-aggressive – at least each and every time that I’ve encountered you. I don’t think we’ve ever had a “conversation” where you haven’t made a point of emphasizing my age, 25. I am indeed a 25 year old soon-to-be-married doctoral student/research assistant. Why you have made a habit of harping on my age is um, odd. If you got that something to say, just say it.
As to the Chinese and their idols: I can’t give up what I don’t have. By definition, an idol is “something” that is worshiped. I don’t worship my handful of Buddha figurines anymore than you worship your “paper money collection.”
I’ve been on mission trips, thank you old man.
Let me conclude with this: You can strongly disagree all you want. That doesn’t make you right.
Wise words there, Rick.
As we “youngins” say, Later Man.
Debbie,
Thanks.
Les
Les,
I understand that Deut. 22:5 is not about fashion and I agree. But I don’t understand how you came to determine that it was about men trying to act like women (and vice-versa). Deut. 22:11 reads, “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.” I don’t think this has to do with fashion either. Some people believe that 22:11 is a symbol of purity. So why can’t 22:5 be a symbol of purity? Or perhaps some other alternative like the one you’ve come up with. My question though is, how and why did you come up with your interpretation? I don’t see any contextual evidence to suggest that God is talking about women trying to be men (and vice-versa).
Deut. 23:18 reads, “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.” I see “both” being, the “bringing the hire of a harlot” or “bringing the wages of a dog”. Especially since the command is about what you are bringing to the House of God. So again, how did you come to arrive to the conclusion that God is calling the profession of harlot and dog an abomination?
I think most people don’t know who Cupid is and what he represents… and today, he doesn’t represent a God. He represents a baby-like angel that shots heart-tipped arrows at people to fall in love. And I seriously doubt anyone actually believes he exists. But, if you are in a context where there are actual worshipers of Cupid, then it would probably be advisable to steer clear of celebrating the Hallmark Holiday.
Deut. 17:1 – Oh, ok.
God’s Glory,
Lew
B. Diddy,
why are you here? are you really a CBF’er? if so then why bother us? do you just like to argue or something?
of course I don’t mind interaction…the more heat the better…it’s what I’m picking up in the tone of your writing that angers me. and if you are 25 that’s all the more reason why you should have some more respect here. many of these men have been preaching the Word of God longer than you or I be alive dude. just can the snarky tone dude…it’s very immature.
give me a call if you’d rather me explain this to you in a conversation…330.703.4235 is our church number, call me if that would be helpful. if with a few hours of Akron Ohio I’ll meet you and explain this to you face to face if you’d like. But slow down…you’ve got way too much to learn to come off this way.
to the administrators…I’d boot this guy if he can’t be humble in here…I don’t think anyone is amused (and certainly not impressed) by some sarcastic 25 year old “doctoral” STUDENT…that’s my opinion. Boot me if I’m out of line cause I know I’m being aggressive, I hope I’m saying what the rest are thinking and no more.
Fox,
What is the Index of Prohibited Blogs?
BTW, better people than you have tried to tell us how to monitor this blog.
If people don’t like how we handle the blog, they don’t have to come here.
Les
Gary Fox,
I haven’t seen anything too harsh from B. Diddy. I’ve seen much worse from others in other posts on this blog. Part of the problem may be how we are reading the text. I cannot speak for him… I have no idea who he is. But I know that sometimes people have a way of writing/speaking that seems to come off jerkish, but in reality they are not trying to be. I have this problem all the time and continue to seek the Lord in improving my communication skills.
With that said, I do not think you have been a good example for B. Diddy to follow. If you want to see him change, perhaps you should model the way that you are asking him to act.
Just some thoughts, I know it is concerning you.
God’s Glory,
Lew
Foxy,
I’ve been “conversating” in the blogosphere with Baptists of all stripes since early 2006. I even made friends with a few fundamentalists along the way. Too bad they don’t stop by and save me from the irascible irreverend foxes of the Baptist Blogosphere! That’s sarcasm, buddy.
Showing respect goes both ways. I’m not sure you’ve offered any my way in this particular conversation. Emphasize my age and status as a student. Last I checked, the author of this particular post is pursuing a graduate degree just like myself. Your tactics are odd, I think.
You know, Fox, usually when I or someone like me offers a dissenting point of view, I receive a somewhat warm welcome. That is the case at almost every blog in the SBC blogosphere. But there is always someone like Rick or yourself who doesn’t care for my presence, doesn’t care to hear a different perspective, and belittles me for my age. I’m used to that. So pardon me if I’m don’t offer respect to those who have no intention of returning the favor. As to my tone towards Les (who I do respect), we in the blogworld all get a little snarky at times. Those who know me well in the blogosphere like Tim Rogers understand that I am quite sarcastic at times. Angry, I am not.
Clearly, you believe SBC Impact should be a place where only a certain type of Baptist can discuss theological issues. I hope that is not the case.
As to your phone number, I try not to make a habit of calling strange men that I don’t know for reasons really unclear. So, um, no thanks.
This is my last comment.
brother Les,
brother Les, the Roman Catholic church had a list of books a few centuries ago named “the index of prohibited books” or sometimes simply called “the index”. That warning makes Church history buffs smile I’m sure. I’m sorry you don’t take kindly to the way in which I jumped to your defense…but I’ve learned no good deed goes unpunished, lol…
brother Lew,
we just have to disagree. The young man flat out told us all he is sarcastic…I’m not being sarcastic, I’m being flat out confrontational. There is a difference which I’ll not get into now lest I be totally blasted for being mean to the student. I think healthy confrontation is a lost art in our chic-a-fide Baptist/evangelical circles.
Diddy,
you are wrong man…totally wrong. I’m confronting your tone which came right off the bat here dude.
that’s it man. please don’t misrepresent my issue with you.
Foxy,
Alrighty then man.
Stop by BaptistLife.com sometime if you’re interested in some “healthy confrontation”
Fox,
I didn’t mean to disrepect you. My comment had a smiley
at the end of it so there was an element of kidding there. It was more a comment about certain other people, not you.
Peace.
Les
YEA FOX,
Lighten up and take your Wife’s Dog for a walk and let us know how you area coping with the little beast.
Wayne Smith
B. Diddy,
You write well and you ask interesting questions.
Les’ sermon is indeed great. Application of the principles is more difficult. David Rogers had what I consider some useful comments in response to your (B. Diddy’s) questions about application.
I have some old circa 1910 Valentine postcards with Cupid pictures. I honestly don’t see that as an abomination.
Bro. Les, do you ever have a Christmas tree and lights or celebrate birthdays? My Jehovah’s Witness relatives said it was an abomination to do that. Holiness acquaintances of mine think it is an abomination to have a wedding ring because of pagan connotations.
Is it fair to say that the word abomination simply equates to the word sin? Is not what makes something an abomination is that it is sinful? We use the word to connote some kind of greater degree of sinfulness, but I think if you look at the usage of the word beyond Leviticus and Deuteronomy is seems pretty clear that any sin qualifies.
After all, Leviticus says that eating shrimp and lobster and eels is an abomination. Obviously most Christians don’t even consider eating them sinful, much less an abomination. But it was sinful for the Jews of that time.
We have to be careful here. If we are really going to issue a call to purge our lives of everything with a pagan background, we are going to have to give up a lot more stuff than we realize. Our calendars for one. Astronomy books and charts. Lots of holiday stuff.
Aaron,
I sincerely apologize for my disparaging comments regarding your age. I won’t do it again.
What I consider to be more important, however, is the issue of the Buddhas. You call them cultural trinkets; I call them idols.
I think the issue is about compromise and justification. You don’t see anything wrong with them because you don’t see them as idols or an object of worship. I see them differently because I have lived among Buddhists and watched their daily sacrifices to their ancestors and their devotion to Buddha. I’ve seen very young boys devote themselves to temples as novice monks. I’ve seen old men, having wasted their entire lives in devotion to Buddha, continue the deceit. Buddha described himself as being the “savior of the world”.
Now, with that in mind, think about the list and description of the kings in the OT. Remember how they were described as being “good” because they tore down the altars in the high places? They didn’t worship there themselves and didn’t acknowledge the idols as gods, but they tore down the idols/altars nevertheless. There were other kings who were described as “good”, but with the caveat that they did NOT tear down the altars in the high places. I think it is significant that it was specifically mentioned that they failed to do this.
Aaron, I think these Buddhas are in the same vein. Most of the world sees Buddha statues as idols. They are inherently religious in nature. I had the opportunity to acquire some antique African masks when we were missionaries in West Africa, but because of the inherent animistic use of these masks, we chose not to, on the basis that we didn’t desire to hold anything that people worshiped instead of God. We could have justified having them as being incredibly wonderful cultural artifacts.
For me, it would be the same as having a Baal, or an Ashurah, or Cali, or Rah in my possession. Why would I do that? If I compromise in that area, I believe it is a slippery slope in compromising in other areas of life.
I realize that you have made up your mind regarding this and no amount of pleading from me will change your mind. However, I urge you to reconsider.
One thing to consider is how we see some of these things does matter. Someone sees little Buddha as idols and another does not. It could be a matter of conscience.
Consider: Paul allowed believers to eat the meat of animals sacrificed in real worship of real idols. It no doubt scandalized some believers, who couldn’t believe a Christian would do such a thing. But Paul said it was fine, under certain circumstances.
brother Les, no sweat at all…none.
brother Wayne, my wife doesn’t have “a dog”. she has “precious angles from Jesus”…THREE OF THEM! And I’m not allowed to take them for walks cause I rush them too much and jerk their chain to hard when they want to sniff around every 5 feet. “You stop being mean to them Gary, they’re just babies and they just want to explore…”
Bill brings up a good point. Where is the line in eleminating such “idols” in our life? After all, most of the names we use for days of the week and months of the year refer back to pagan idols. If I say “Sunday,” does it mean I am worshipping the sun instead of the Son? Or Monday, for the moon god, or Saturday, for Saturn? How about January, for worshippers of Janius, or the present month dedicated to a deified Augustus Caesar? To be this thorough is barely a step beyond eleminating Valentine cupids or cultural art. And the alternative is. . . what, using the Henrew names for days and months, or the old Quaker method of simply saying “Month 1, 2, 3, etc.,” “Day 1, 2,3, etc.”?
And BTW, if being 100% SB is a criteria for participating in this blog, you’d better get some filters or a special password or handshake or something. Otherwise: take the great Baptist, John LeLand to heart, “think and let think,” develop a thicker skin, and take a chill pill, folks. Hey, it’s time for worship, so blessings to all!
John
There are some things we cannot do anything about (e.g. names of the months) then there are things in which we do have control over. Can one assume, by your reasoning, that since we can’t eliminate all of them, don’t worry about any of them?
Cultural art? I wouldn’t want a relief of Buddha hanging in my church foyer (or my living room, for that matter) would you? There is cultural art and there is religious art. A Buddha is clearly a religious item.
The point is that one see an idol where another sees a cultural artifact. One sees an animal sacrificed to an idol, another sees bbq. We have Moses, but we also have Paul. We rely on preachers of God’s word, but we also acknowledge the priesthood of every believer.
Well of course! I get it now! My narrow-mindedness got in the way.
Is it like this?
Some see pornography; others see creative expression.
Some see prostitution; others see entrepreneurism.
See see adultery; others see open marriages.
Some see homosexuality; others see alternative lifestyles.
You mean like that??? I guess it’s kind of like that commercial on the Discovery Channel, huh? I never realized it was just a matter of perspective…
Rick: It’s that kind of response that discourages fruitful discussion. You are right and I am wrong.
Of course, cupid valentines and pornography, prostitution and adultery are the same thing.
If someone were an unrepentant prostitute in our church we would have to exercise church discipline. Would you do the same for people who exchange cupid valentines or have a tin buddha on their mantle?
No attempt to even engage the passages about eating meat sacrificed to idols. No need, I suppose.
Bill,
I was simply trying to take your statement to the extreme. I can completely see your point of view. Can you not see mine?
Aaron, in comment number 6, specifically mentioned that he didn’t think God would find his collection of Buddhas to be abomination. I took exception to that.
If it is just cultural art, then why don’t we have pictures of Buddhas and other deities in our churches? Because we know it would be offensive to God. Why, then, would we have them in our homes? That is all I am trying to get across.
Ever eaten in a Chinese restaurant? More than likely you have eaten meat offered to idols. We are told how to handle that. But this isn’t about MEAT offered to idols. It is about the IDOLS.
Is that more fruitful?
“There are some things we cannot do anything about (e.g. names of the months) then there are things in which we do have control over.”
Like Pulpits, altar chairs, altars and even our special church buildings that many mistakenly call the house of God. Those are traditions, some even from Greek pagan temples that were brought into the church by the father of the state/church: Constantine.
)