No Political Correct Statement Here

[Contented]

Several years ago a friend of mine said to me, Have you ever seriously read the 16th chapter of Ezekiel where God described Israel’s unfaithfulness. Recently I have been studying this chapter and one thing which comes out loud and clear is that God uses language that we as humans understand.
This chapter outlines God’s love for Israel and the way she turned to idolatry which God called “spiritual adultery”. I believe that marriage is something that is sacred in God’s sight and he has zero tolerance for unfaithfulness and infidelity . The church has been described as a pure woman whom Christ will marry.
Recently I made a post on adultery and I was amazed at the politically correct answers some people gave, e.g. We all sin, there are sins of adultery in other churches yada yada. As a Christian I know that that all this true. But since reading this chapter I have come to realize that God spoke to Israel through the Prophet Ezekiel in no uncertain terms.
The words God used for Israel were, harlot, harlot, whoredoms, fornications, lewd, adultery
Two of the verses that really caught my eye were verse 25 and 33
Ezekiel 16:25 Thou has built thy high place at every head of the way, and has made thy beauty to be abhorred, and has opened thy feet to everyone that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.
Ezekiel 16:33 They give gifts to all harlots, but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom. (We are all aware of what these statements mean)
What if a husband had made these statements to his unfaithful wife I am sure, I myself might say, Don’t used those terms that is not nice. God used them to show his abhorrence for unfaithfulness and since the only physical relationship between a man and a woman that God used to describe Christ love for his church is marriage, I believe it is a something that I view very seriously.

 

[JohnMarsten]

of course God is using language that we can understand, in one verse of the bible he uses term of a woman wearing jewelry in a definite context...

as far as political correctness is concerned, well, forget about it, God is not bound by human political correctness, which in turn is foolishness often times...

Nowadays it is politically incorrect to call things sin, imagine gays, abortions and stuff, are we allowed to say something negative about it?? can we even openly share Gods view on it?

 

[JohnMarsten]

just btw, if a wife has cheated on her husband, in what way would be politically incorrect to call her a harlot??


In the moment when we have learned about our wife cheating on us, we feel hurt, disgust etc. and by using such a word we just let off steam... that is the natural we to go... we could definitely pray on it and turn the other cheek which could be done for example by telling her to do it again with somebody else... I wonder if there is anybody out there who would remain calm...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

God has the perogative for such language as judgement and vengence are His alone. We are given the example of how to act through Jesus when He addressed the woman caught in adultry.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

God speaks through other people though, and the only admonition he gave to the people who caught the woman in adultery was not kill her.

 

[Princessdi]

He did more than that, SOTK. When He got through with them they left her alone comletely. It was also a lesson on passing judgement. First thing.........she could not commit adultery by herself....where was the man? That was injustice! There wer quite a few things Jesus addressed with that one simple act.

ContentedI have to agree with JM and ECR. God always talks to us in terms we can understand. Remember, the disciples asking Jesus why he used all of those parables to teach the people. They were nto used to that, the priests/pharisees, etc. only taught/read from the Bible(OT at that point), however, God always did speak to man in terms he could understand.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

... the priests/pharisees, etc. only taught/read from the Bible(OT at that point), however, God always did speak to man in terms he could understand.

So Jesus used alot of 'commentary'... it makes me wonder if some of the brethren on here would have listened to what He said if they had of been there.

 

[Princessdi]

You know, ECR, I don't believe it was "commentary" per se. Even though he would be the one who is truly qualified to do so. The priests had been just reading from the scriptures basically, andnot really explaining what the scriptures meant. I believe that is why they got so far off track. The prophecy of Christ coming especially, were not emphasized in favor of the very rituals meant to accompany those prophecies to point to Christ. Therefore, only a few knew Him and what His arrival meant. God being portrayed as being an exacting, vengeful, differing very little from the heathen and pagan gods of those around them. I don't believe the people ever got why they kept straying or why God kept on delivering them. They only got used to a certain type of deliverance and expected that of Jesus, also.

god has only ever wanted a relationship with the man he created. This is what was supposed to be emphasized to the Jews and was not, therefore Jesus used the parables, something from their everyday lives that would help them understand.........God, The Father going to extraordinary measures to find lost sheep, coins, children, etc.

So Jesus used alot of 'commentary'... it makes me wonder if some of the brethren on here would have listened to what He said if they had of been there.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I was more commenting on the use of the word 'commentary' by some of the members on the forum. If you think about it, what we today quote as scripture, was once commentary. Paul, in writing his letters and in his teachings was commenting on the life of Christ and what it meant to be a follower of Him. Other apostles were paraphrasing what they had learned while at the Masters feet. Yes, these men were inspired and had the Holy Spirit in them, but doesn't the Holy Spirit work today in mens hearts as it did in apostolic time? If Ellen Whites writings were inspired, then how can it be commentary at the same time? Why is what she was shown about the last days any less significant than what John was shown?

 

[JohnMarsten]

I was more commenting on the use of the word 'commentary' by some of the members on the forum. If you think about it, what we today quote as scripture, was once commentary. Paul, in writing his letters and in his teachings was commenting on the life of Christ and what it meant to be a follower of Him. Other apostles were paraphrasing what they had learned while at the Masters feet. Yes, these men were inspired and had the Holy Spirit in them, but doesn't the Holy Spirit work today in mens hearts as it did in apostolic time? If Ellen Whites writings were inspired, then how can it be commentary at the same time? Why is what she was shown about the last days any less significant than what John was shown?

theoretically its not less significant, the problem however is that, EGW interpretes scripture in a way that does not leave any room for interpretation, people just believe in what she wrote and thats it, if one has a different interpretation he will have to face gran opposition from the EGW camp and this is the sad part, EGW forces an interpretation on us, and we are supposed to believe it no matter what, and if we do question it we will never get a satisfactory response...

now imagine she was all wrong. Where does that put us? I would be very careful putting her on the same level as bible writers...

 

[JohnMarsten]

sorry, wanted to open a thread...