Originally posted by dO|pH|n3 a.k.a JaMiE:
Up to your to think loh. I got nothing to say abolut your thinking. If you think you are a true christian, you should'nt be posting here.
Really waste my breathe. If you don't believe, then forget it.
If you are a christian, and furthermore you condemn CHC. You think you really is a christian. You are just a talk big no action people. Did God say you can condemn people. Did God say it is right to condemn people/church?
You just don't like to dance,does'nt mean it is wrong to dance before HIM
You are serving a living God and not a dead God.
The action you do say a lot.
1) I won't reply to your comment about how 'true Christians shouldn't be posting here' because I think that it is patently ridiculous.
Suffice it to say, there is nothing about this forum that in and of itself would suggest to me that it would be wrong if I were to 'post here'; just as there is nothing that would be in principle wrong with my communicating with persons who may not agree me with on every issue.
2) I am not going to judge anyone in a way in which it might be reserved to God alone to judge him (and that would be to judge him as regards the state of his soul, with a view to deciding whether or not he has been numbered amongst the elect); but I am certainly going to judge the moral quality of his deeds.
Christ has asked us to be wary of the false prophets, and to test them by their fruits; and I submit that testing them in this way would require us to examine carefully the claims that they make for themselves to represent Christ, and to examine as well the moral quality of whatever they do or sanction.
So God certainly has told us that we can and should engage in sifting the true from the false; and it follows therefore that if 'CHC' does not authentically represent Christ (that is, we believe that it fails to represent Him because of what we perceive is the morally and theologically objectionable character of its practices and teachings), we would then be bound to expose 'CHC' as an organisation that has inaccurately styled itself as a 'church'.
3) So if I object to your dancing before God, would that imply that I think of God as 'dead', as opposed to 'living'?
There is nothing in principle wrong with dancing when it is considered as a form of artistic expression; but the sort of indecorous dancing that occurs in your sanctuary can hardly be considered to be a specimen of authentic artistic expression.
Moreover, even if it is in itself morally legitimate for a person spontaneously to peform a dance (say, upon being told that the woman he has proposed to, has finally agreed to marry him), I believe nonetheless that there are contexts in which it would be immoral for him to engage in this activity and that one of these contexts would certainly be the very public context of a sanctuary wherein Christians have assembled to worship God.
In such a context, the kind of dancing you engage in will not be just witnessed by God Himself, but also by the people by whom you should be surrounded; more particularly, the sort of music which elicits this dancing (and the character itself of the dancing in question) makes it evident to any reasonable person that this whole business of 'dancing before God' which you and your 'church' sanction, is very much an affair of the senses: specifically, an affair of providing and then glutting your senses with so rapidly changing and bewilderingly vast an array of auditory and visual stimuli, that you find yourself carried over with your carnal exuberance into forms of behaviour that are likely to strike the cursory observer as unbecomingly sensual, but which you yourself would want to present to him as an expression and indeed index of your 'holiness' and your 'love of God'.
4) You want evidence, do you?
The evidence is to be had in the form of your various postings here and in the form as well of publicly accessible information about your church, its teachings and the way it conducts its services.
Finally, YOU HAVE YET TO RESPOND TO MY DIRECT QUESTION (WHICH ITSELF IS BASED ON A PIECE OF IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE).
WAS THE PUBLIC DRESSING OF A PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVE OF 'CHC' (i.e. the dress in which she was photograped, with the relevant photographs appearing in the media) A SIN OR NOT?
WAS SHE DRESSING HERSELF UP FOR GOD?
PLEASE STOP EVADING THE QUESTION; ALL OF US IN THIS FORUM WANT TO SEE YOU ANSWER IT.
Ben