Post from NSFJoJo -
Ok, You know what? I thought about that now for about 15 minutes. I came to the conclusion "Unspotted from the world" could mean two things:
1. Consciousness without existence.
2. Individuality.
View Quote
Or 3. Not a partaker in sin.
Unblemished by worldy sins. It's easier if you try to refrain from new-age-think, when trying to understand scripture.
The first one would state that your aware of what you are doing but you feel your not really "in this world" but in another, perhaps heavenly world, and are just biding your time in this "illusion" comes to an end.
View Quote
No. If that was what was meant by James, he would have said keep yourself 'unconnected to this world.' How can you get from what James is saying to some sort of 'life is but a dream' meaning? I'd say you need to think about this for more than 15 minutes. I've known folks who've spent a lifetime trying to understand and put into effect what James has proposed.
Or it means do your own thing. It means that you choose your own way, not of what others are doing, but what you know is right and morally sound. That I have no problem with.
View Quote
'Do your own thing'? Well, gee, what earthly creature could possibly pass on a religion that simply said 'do your own thing'? No wonder you would have no problem with that interpretation! It requires nothing from you at all!
But the whole "visit widows... in their afflictions" nonsense seems to be a bit irrational. Why should I fawn over them if I wasn't the one who caused their affliction? Shouldn't you blame God for being fatherless or a widower? Does their suffering hold some sort of guilt over me for not suffering? Please elaborate.
View Quote
Hmmm. NSFJoJo are you trying to bait me or something? Surely you must understand this!
Let's get personal.
If [s]you[/s] Joe Blow, fireman for the City of New York, had been at the World Trade Center that fateful day in September, and on duty, would [s]you[/s] Joe Blow have been right/correct/moral/reasonable to have gone up the stairwell to attempt to rescue as many souls as [s]you[/s] he could, without giving much thought to the fact that, say, a couple of hundred thousand tons of building materials might come crashing down on [s]you[/s] him, as a reward for [s]your[/s] his efforts?
Could [s]you[/s] Joe Blow, fireman, have not rationalized the decision to death - 'Why should I fawn over them if I wasn't the one who caused their affliction?' [s]You[/s] Joe Blow asks.
I am fairly certain that [s]you[/s] Joe Blow could have remained on the ground and saved [s]your[/s] his own life in the tragedy, and gone home at the end of [s]your[/s] his shift.
By the same token I suppose that you [u]could[/u] walk past a truly needy widow and orphan and not take care of them in [i][b]some[/b][/i] manner, but the question becomes '[i][b]Why would you?[/b][/i]
Let me know when you've given more than 15 minutes to this issue, and we can continue.
Eric The(Disappointed)Hun[>]:)]