Well, first, Dad and Belinda were correct - It was Vladimir Putin's motorcade that I was able to see yesterday. Kind of cool. I want helicopters to follow me where ever I go :) And Skoobi, thankfully, seems back to normal today. Yeah!
Anyways, I haven't posted a serious blog in quite a while. So, I have decided to post a blog and hope to get some dialogue going. (Ok, is that how you spell dialogue? That's what it says at dictionary.com, but looks weird to me.) Well, let's get some conversation going :)
So, I received this email a few months back. If it came to you - how would you respond?
"No offense, but I think the Bible is the biggest problem with Christianity. There is just something about a 2000 year old doctrine that is constantly, like you said, misused to prove opinions, governing my personal beliefs, and way of life. I look at it like this. I don't murder people because I feel in my heart murder is wrong. Not because the Bible tells me so. I feel homosexuals are perfectly normal people, that live perfectly normal lives, and are not committing any sort of injustice religious or otherwise because of my interactions with gay people. A truly good person is capable of deciding what is right or wrong by using their own judgment. The Bible is a great guide line for that, but has many obvious flaws and has to be accepted as fallible. Not to mention that time, and information change the way things are perceived. Let's say, just for arguments sake, that homosexuality is a disease, should people with cancer be cast from God's hand since they are diseased as well? Let's say for arguments sake it's a choice, should all Christians other than Roman Catholics be cast from his hand because they chose to interpret the Word differently. I just find it rather hypocritical that a religion whose in it's early days followers were cast to the lions dens, and sought acceptance and the right to believe as they saw fit, would show the same lack of acceptance to a group who seek only acceptance. Acceptance and fair treatment. They want to marry and enter into a monogamous loving relationship, and the government, because of it's Christian influence, denies them that right. There is no other form of couple denied that right. Gays are constantly labeled as wrong, immoral, dirty, permiscuous, and spreaders of disease. All of which are completely ignorant. And that is where my problem lies. The ignorance of the masses. The masses that in this case are Christians. People who can put so much faith in a 2000 year old document, but not in scientific findings as recent as this year. If you are willing to accept some finds and not others where is the line drawn? Where it suits you. And if it continued to be preached that gays are wrong and immoral, ignorant masses will continue to hate and mistreat them."
So, what are your thoughts?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Something to think about...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Oh man I jumped ahead and you scared me. I didn't get that it was a quote immediately.
The Bible is the inerrant word of God and it transcends time and language. Oh, and people aren't good they are evil. God is good.
Is the word inerrant (or its Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic counterpart) actually in the Bible? I do believe it's trustworthy, inspired and holy, but that particular word always gets used as a rallying point.
And you're right, people aren't basically good which seems to be the heart of the whole problem.
Thats a good point. Inerrant could be dangerous leverage for bad theology. However at it core I believe from the perspective of considering the whole Bible it truly is without error. It has to be, if we also want to consider it the word of God. But if you don't consider all the bible then there will be problems.
How would I respond.....thats a hard one as this person is trying to discredit the bible to support his position on a particular issue. This person is upset because he feels that Christians are not loving their neighbors. This person is merely taking his frustration out on the authority of the scriptures.
The classic response to something like this would be to launch into an apologetical diatribe. It would seem to me that this tact would be ineffective in this situation. The better course would be to lovingly affirm our beliefe in the Bible's teaching about homosexuality but also acknowledge that Christians have mistreated homosexuals and hence pushed them away from the church rather than drawing them too the church for help and support.
Unfortunately, I think Christians are far too eager to take a stand on social issues and forget to follow Jesus' example of loving the unlovable. The bible says that while we were yet sinnsers Christ died for us.
The major problem I have with political activism and the "religious right" within the US is that they seek to change individuals via legislative and social pressure rather than the power of Christ. I think postmoderns are not as concerned about our theology as much as are we "walking the talk" Perhaps if we loved more, proselytized a little less and let Christ change people from the inside out we would not be facing this cultural crisis in the US.
Dave
Apologetically, I would say this: Suppose there is a creator God. He designed the human body. He designed males, and he designed females. We can see from nature that he designed them to be together, as together they make more humans. Now, if he designed them, then he should prescribe what is good for them. Since he specifically designed males to be with females, it is therefore not good for males to be with males or females with females. That isn't hate, it's just instructions for proper usage of the human body.
However, I agree with Dave P about handling the issue. Christians are guilty of hate, discrimination, and misinformation when it comes to people in the homosexual life style. We need to demonstrate God's love to them, not demonstrate our political and social power, or even our reasoning capacity.
I don't have to accept that a person is "born" or "designed" as homosexual to accept that they can't help that tendency. And, I don't have to change them first before I can love them. If I can show them that Jesus loves them, then they may enter into relationship with him, and then the Spirit can work on their sin issues just as he does with my own.
The email writer says "No offense, but I think the Bible is the biggest problem with Christianity." whereas I believe the arguments that are put forward show actually that Christians are the biggest problem with Christianity. It isn't the Bible that is the problem it is the way it is (mis)used by Christians.
When it comes to Homosexuals, I believe that we need to look to what Jesus said about the woman caught in adultery - let he who is without sin cast the first stone: love you neighbour (it doesn't say love them when they aren't sinning, it says love them period!) and I believe that when we use the Bible to condemn homosexuals that we actually condemn ourselves.
I don't say that homosexuals should be accepted to be ministers or bishops, as I do believe that the Bible is clear that it is a sin, and people who live in sin shouldn't be in leadership, but there needs to be more tolerance as we realise that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.
My church is actually having a split right now over this issue: My minister believes what I believe and others are not so tolerant and unfortunately it is coming out in all sorts of ways and so this is a touchy subject right now for me!!!
These are all very intertesting responses, and this is exactly what the intention of my email to LeAnne. I'm not trying to discredit the Bible. I'm trying to credit Christians with the gift of free will that God gave you. We all know that God himself did not pen the Bible. It was penned by man, therefore, making it "fallable". In the grand scheme of things most sin is quite easily recognized without the help of the Bible. For instance I don't believe anyone would have trouble defining murder, rape, theft, or adultery as wrong without the use of the Bible. However, I challenge any of you to do so with homosexuality. How is love wrong? Sex with one you love isn't wrong, nor is it adulterous if you are married. By not allowing them to wed Christianity is forcing them to sin, and by this standard single gays are no more wrong than single heteros who engage in premarital sex. I agree with Donovon, to an extent, when he says the female and male body were made to work together for the purpose of procreation. Love, however, comes from the soul not the genitals. Does a soul have gender?
To The Teez,
Well, we could go back and forth on this for a lifetime. You are arguing a point that has no foundation. You seem bent on justifying certain actions, if you really believe those actions are valid and pursuable then why are you still arguing? Shouldn't you be out there having the sex? My point is this. Christianity and the Bible at their core are not about the rules. Yes, there are a lot of rules in it. The core of the Bible is Jesus, Old and New Testament. We are all sinners in the strictest and loosest sense of the word. We all break the rules... a lot. If your going to argue the right and wrong I myself will not try to defend what is already laid out in the Bible. If you want to talk about intrinsic moral compass go meet with Hitler. If you want to really argue about sex or whether or not I can eat ham, go talk to a follower of Judaism they follow parts of the Bible and seem to care about that stuff more.
If you are going to argue about something lets talk about Jesus. Ask me if Jesus really did all the things he did. Ask me if he really was the son of God come to save us from ourselves. Ask me why you need Jesus.
But for the love of God, cut the crap and drop the nitpicking.
Yet another very interesting response. Sassy even. I don't feel I'm nitpicking though. I am merely adding an opposing view to the current responses. The original text that based this blog comes from a series of emails between LeAnne and myself. She chose a snipet of said series, and made it public. You had your say concerning the subject, and I rebutted. The subject of the email is homosexuality. Hence the referal to the subject.
I would have to take issue with the statement, "In the grand scheme of things most sin is quite easily recognized without the help of the Bible." There are four ways morality is defined: by oneself, by culture, by religion, or by God. Religion tells us what is right, but a false religion isn't very reliable for that. Culture tells us what is right, but it varies wildly from culture to culture (for instance, in some cultures they regularly mutilate the female genitals in order to prevent pre-marital sex). Some people decide for themselves what is right - we call them egomaniac dictators, child molesters, and serial killers and rapists.
Finally, there is God. Suppose, once again, that there is a God. He creates the world and puts life in it, and then he tells the living beings what is the best way to use that life according to his grand design. Can you see a problem with that?
When I was young, I didn't really realize how fragile life was. I would climb on anything, taking dangerous risks. My mother would forbid me to do so, and she would discipline me if she found me climbing something dangerous. She knew it was fun for me, yet her insight into the delicate nature of the body, combined with her love for me, caused her to prohibit me from doing what I wanted. Was it unfair that she would let my brother do what he wanted (play video games) but not let me do what I wanted (climb everything)?
Post a Comment