It is an amazing thing to me, sometimes, to read Untwisting. It is a marvel - not because of how wrong or right it is; but rather how convoluted the understanding of Scripture and Biblical teaching is. And I don't place this misunderstanding on Lalaith or Threnody or the unsaved in general alone. There is an overall tendency in the conservative Church to misunderstand the priorities things are to have and to take good things to extremes. This brings about so much confusion and it's being taught throughout the Church.
Lalaith wrote this post, which basically boils down to her story of rearranging priorities.
Priorities are difficult things; they're slippery and they don't like to stay. Reorganizing them is one of those things that seems to always be necessary. At the very least, checking up on them is, making sure that they are in the proper order. As with everything though, we have a perfect example in our Lord Jesus and we are told to follow in His steps (I Peter 2:21).
For the sake of clarity, I want to make a distinct separation between the priority itself and the action that flows out of it. Christ's purpose, His first priority, was always to bring glory to the Father; but this highest of priorities showed itself in a myriad of ways. It came out through mercy (John 8:1-11), anger (Matt. 21:12), judgment (Matt. 21:18-19), love (Matt. 20:32-34), etc. etc. Jesus never once lost His focus on doing the Father's will and bringing glory to God.
Christ also had the purpose of bringing sinners to Himself. This was another priority, but lesser. Because it was in line with God's will though, the actions that Christ took to save sinners were the same actions that He took to glorify the Father. This is the beauty of proper priorities: they work together seamlessly.
So when we look at that children's lesson of JOY - Jesus, Others, You - we have to keep in mind the end result. Putting others first doesn't mean that you send all your money to the poor, so much that you die of starvation. Because Jesus comes before Others, you seek the will of God first. And sometimes, the will of God is that you get away for an evening and spend it in prayer (Matt. 14:22-23). Jesus took time to sleep, even though He knew that the disciples were going to need His help in the middle of it (Mark 4:38).
Taking care of yourself is not necessarily putting yourself before others. It can be, but it doesn't HAVE to be. There are times when it is better for us NOT to do everything that we can.
I have never heard that the reason we are to put others first is because we're so selfish that we'll take care of ourselves anyway. I don't know anyone who would say that. The reason we're to put others first is that because even when I make sure that I get enough sleep at night, it's to be so that I can glorify God better tomorrow, so that I'll be more useful to people in the morning, so that I'm not exhausting myself to the detriment of my baby. It's because it's not to be FOR ME that I take care of myself, but so that I have more to give for others.
We are definitely supposed to care for ourselves - but only for the sake of optimizing how much we can give back. That is the priority, the focus. When God's glory comes first, helping others will automatically come second, and taking care of ourselves will often be the wisest choice, lest we lose our usefulness.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
An Opinion Post
I'm doing something different for this one; I'm going to write about my opinion on something. Specifically, my opinion on feminists and leadership.
Here's a link to the interview that sparked my post.
I had to laugh because the way this lady defines feminism is not anything CLOSE to any other definition I've heard of. By her definition, pretty much everyone I know is a feminist. But I don't know anyone who would refer to me or my circle as feminists; and I highly doubt that anyone in the circle would call themselves a feminist.
Why? Because, in my opinion, feminism is about leadership, and being required to be subordinate to something/someone irks them. What they miss though, is that following something does not make you less dignified or less respectable. In fact, EVERYONE follows SOMETHING. MOST people follow another person. Dianna Anderson defined them like this: "feminists believe that women are human beings and deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as men do." But I have to wonder if that's what she really meant, due to some things she says later.
It would be disrespectful for me to shout at my mother; it is not disrespectful for me to shout at my aging friend who is hard of hearing. Respect and dignity are not found in specific positions/actions of life, but rather in fulfilling the roles that God made for us. God made men, not women, the head of the home. This does not mean that women can't drive the car if the man is there; it doesn't mean that the woman can't earn more; it doesn't mean that she has to stay home and take care of the kids. The Bible says very nearly the same amount on men raising children as it does on women raising children - BOTH parents are supposed to be involved with the rearing of the children, just like they were with the making of the children.
None of that is bound to leadership. Leading is the last word in making decisions; leading is being the one to set the tone in a discussion; leading is being able to say "STOP" when things get out of hand. Leading is also listening and weighing options. The President doesn't have the time or the know-how to possibly figure out everything that he needs to before making huge decisions. The man would be forever studying if he had to do it all himself. He has TONS of advisers; and could probably have as many as he wanted. . . . If you ever watched the West Wing, you get a sense for how much the leader is really reliant on his help.
There are laid-back leaders and detailed leaders. My husband is very much laid-back; he gives me a lot of space. It's also a HUGE priority to him that we are on the same page about things and we talk about things a lot. Why? Because he respects me. He wants to know my opinion on things and he wants us to BOTH be happy with the direction we are going. That's leading. Good leaders know how to motivate, how to compromise, how to get to the bottom of issues, and how to bring about resolve. Or, at least, it's their job to do their best at bringing those things about. Men who are tyrannical in leading their homes are failing at their job and they often have no respect from those around them. If they have anything, it's usually fear.
Back to feminism. If feminism is really about equal treatment and NOT about equal roles, I have no problem with it. But if feminism is about equal roles, it's wrong and it will not be good for anyone - not men, not children, and especially not women. Because anyone who leaves the role God made for them or refuses to fulfill it will never have respect or dignity.
Since God never said anything about women in the work place, I, currently, have no problem with female bosses. Since God has commented on women leading the nation, women preaching/leading the church, and women taking the leadership of the home (when there is a man there) - those I take issue with on differing levels.
One last side note. The one reason I've wondered if I'm not more feminist than a lot of feminists is that when people call me, "Woman!" I get a warm, happy feeling. I don't think it has ever failed to make me smile. I do wonder, occasionally, how many strong-willed, activist, feminist women are actually HAPPY with the title of "woman." And if they all liked it, why is it that so many people still respond to that as a slight? If people meant is as a bad thing, don't you think they'd stop using it that way if all the women started responding to it like it was the greatest compliment that could be given them? Being a woman.
Just a thought.
Here's a link to the interview that sparked my post.
I had to laugh because the way this lady defines feminism is not anything CLOSE to any other definition I've heard of. By her definition, pretty much everyone I know is a feminist. But I don't know anyone who would refer to me or my circle as feminists; and I highly doubt that anyone in the circle would call themselves a feminist.
Why? Because, in my opinion, feminism is about leadership, and being required to be subordinate to something/someone irks them. What they miss though, is that following something does not make you less dignified or less respectable. In fact, EVERYONE follows SOMETHING. MOST people follow another person. Dianna Anderson defined them like this: "feminists believe that women are human beings and deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as men do." But I have to wonder if that's what she really meant, due to some things she says later.
It would be disrespectful for me to shout at my mother; it is not disrespectful for me to shout at my aging friend who is hard of hearing. Respect and dignity are not found in specific positions/actions of life, but rather in fulfilling the roles that God made for us. God made men, not women, the head of the home. This does not mean that women can't drive the car if the man is there; it doesn't mean that the woman can't earn more; it doesn't mean that she has to stay home and take care of the kids. The Bible says very nearly the same amount on men raising children as it does on women raising children - BOTH parents are supposed to be involved with the rearing of the children, just like they were with the making of the children.
None of that is bound to leadership. Leading is the last word in making decisions; leading is being the one to set the tone in a discussion; leading is being able to say "STOP" when things get out of hand. Leading is also listening and weighing options. The President doesn't have the time or the know-how to possibly figure out everything that he needs to before making huge decisions. The man would be forever studying if he had to do it all himself. He has TONS of advisers; and could probably have as many as he wanted. . . . If you ever watched the West Wing, you get a sense for how much the leader is really reliant on his help.
There are laid-back leaders and detailed leaders. My husband is very much laid-back; he gives me a lot of space. It's also a HUGE priority to him that we are on the same page about things and we talk about things a lot. Why? Because he respects me. He wants to know my opinion on things and he wants us to BOTH be happy with the direction we are going. That's leading. Good leaders know how to motivate, how to compromise, how to get to the bottom of issues, and how to bring about resolve. Or, at least, it's their job to do their best at bringing those things about. Men who are tyrannical in leading their homes are failing at their job and they often have no respect from those around them. If they have anything, it's usually fear.
Back to feminism. If feminism is really about equal treatment and NOT about equal roles, I have no problem with it. But if feminism is about equal roles, it's wrong and it will not be good for anyone - not men, not children, and especially not women. Because anyone who leaves the role God made for them or refuses to fulfill it will never have respect or dignity.
Since God never said anything about women in the work place, I, currently, have no problem with female bosses. Since God has commented on women leading the nation, women preaching/leading the church, and women taking the leadership of the home (when there is a man there) - those I take issue with on differing levels.
One last side note. The one reason I've wondered if I'm not more feminist than a lot of feminists is that when people call me, "Woman!" I get a warm, happy feeling. I don't think it has ever failed to make me smile. I do wonder, occasionally, how many strong-willed, activist, feminist women are actually HAPPY with the title of "woman." And if they all liked it, why is it that so many people still respond to that as a slight? If people meant is as a bad thing, don't you think they'd stop using it that way if all the women started responding to it like it was the greatest compliment that could be given them? Being a woman.
Just a thought.
Notes on Christianity
A post
I'm not going to get into a lot of what Threnody specifically wrote for multiple reasons, but there are a few things I want to touch on that she brought up, if non-directly.
Why is sin worth hell? If we assume that God exists and the Bible is His Word, I doubt that many people would argue with the declaration that all have sinned - openly even. Who hasn't lied, cheated, stolen, been unkind, etc. etc.? Often, however, we have a tainted view of sin. It's not that some aren't worse than others - they are. But our system is often very much different than God's. The reason is because our system starts with us. Sins that hurt people most are the ones that we find the most heinous. Murder and rape, for example. However, the city of Sodom was FULL of rapists (Genesis 19:5), yet Jesus says that the day of judgment will be more tolerable for Sodom than for the cities that did not accept the disciples. This is because God is worth infinitely more than we are; therefore, slighting God is a much worse offense than hurting us.
God doesn't bring hardship on His people for the SOLE purpose of glorifying Himself (Romans 8:28). God brings us through "the fire" of hardship to change us. It is ULTIMATELY for His glory; but it is also for our GOOD. Exercise hurts. It's also good for you.
Two hours can make the difference between something being sin and not. Here's an example: You go to someone's house, find them preparing to break into your house, and you kill them preemptively. Murder. OR, you don't go to their house, two hours later they break into yours and you kill them in self-defense.Time changes things.
I'll stop there. I don't want all my posts to be super long. :)
I'm not going to get into a lot of what Threnody specifically wrote for multiple reasons, but there are a few things I want to touch on that she brought up, if non-directly.
Why is sin worth hell? If we assume that God exists and the Bible is His Word, I doubt that many people would argue with the declaration that all have sinned - openly even. Who hasn't lied, cheated, stolen, been unkind, etc. etc.? Often, however, we have a tainted view of sin. It's not that some aren't worse than others - they are. But our system is often very much different than God's. The reason is because our system starts with us. Sins that hurt people most are the ones that we find the most heinous. Murder and rape, for example. However, the city of Sodom was FULL of rapists (Genesis 19:5), yet Jesus says that the day of judgment will be more tolerable for Sodom than for the cities that did not accept the disciples. This is because God is worth infinitely more than we are; therefore, slighting God is a much worse offense than hurting us.
God doesn't bring hardship on His people for the SOLE purpose of glorifying Himself (Romans 8:28). God brings us through "the fire" of hardship to change us. It is ULTIMATELY for His glory; but it is also for our GOOD. Exercise hurts. It's also good for you.
Two hours can make the difference between something being sin and not. Here's an example: You go to someone's house, find them preparing to break into your house, and you kill them preemptively. Murder. OR, you don't go to their house, two hours later they break into yours and you kill them in self-defense.Time changes things.
I'll stop there. I don't want all my posts to be super long. :)
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Wish I Could Say . . . .
A few weeks back now, I covered a post about a pastor who had made an unfortunate statement regarding the proper techniques to take with training up children. It was and is my opinion that he made a mistake but was also misunderstood. I wish I could say the same for this one, but I can't.
Here is Lalaith's take on it, and she also links to the news stories on the topic, which I would encourage you to go to as well.
It seems very clear to me that this man was aware of the uproar about the previous pastor and rather than being careful about what he said and taking the warning, he decided to get purposefully more offensive. I don't think that's something that Christians are ever supposed to be. These are words that are supposed to apply to Christians: humble, wise, harmless, meek, gentle, long-suffering, patient, kind (Gal. 5:22, Matt. 10:16). WE are not supposed to be offensive. Oh, we will without doubt offend, but it should never be because of the way we presented something or because we spoke when we should have listened, or because we didn't speak when we should have comforted and encouraged.
The gospel is offensive enough. We are not supposed to be. We are supposed to try to live peaceably with ALL men (Romans 12:18) - that includes gays and lesbians. And living peaceably is NOT putting them in a town with an electrified fence around it. That's not kindness or gentleness; that's not harmless and meek. That's certainly nothing close to LOVE. That's oppressive and cruel. It's wrong; it's sin.
And to be completely practical about it, it certainly would not end homosexuality. How many homosexuals came from homosexual homes? The vast majority don't; they come out of a heterosexual homes. That town of homosexuals might never reproduce to have their own generation, but you'd never run out of new tenants. It's amazing how many things that are wrong also make absolutely no sense. Some things do. Stealing - I want that therefore I take it. It makes a kind of sense. But that? No sense. It's just horrible.
Practicing homosexuality is sin, yes. Practicing shunning of homosexuals is ALSO sin. Seeing them as something less than a person is sin. Regarding them as anything less than made in the image of God is sin.
Now onto the things that Lalaith brings up from this.
First, a few things to get clear. One, God has made it very clear that homosexuality is wrong - that never changed. (Lev. 18:22; I Cor. 6:9) Two, the God in the OT and the God in the NT are the same. The difference is not in His Person, but rather in His dealings with people. In the OT, God is shown as the Head of a nation - therefore, the nation is generally held to His moral law. Whores, homosexuals, witches, etc. were not to be permitted within the nation. By the time of the NT, God had left Israel because they repeatedly turned from Him, and He, through Christ's death, was about to open the floodgates for all nationalities. Three, the edicts of the OT (how we are supposed to deal with one another and what our attitude is supposed to be) is summed up in the first commandment to love GOD with all our heart. That's OT - Deut. 6:5. That is the summary of all that Jesus taught in the NT - He says so in Luke 10:27.
There is no disconnect between the OT and the NT. There is no difference in God's Person. And there is no problem with taking the ENTIRE Bible all at once and following it to the letter. If you take the whole Bible all at once and follow it to the letter, you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. And in loving them, you absolutely will NOT try to force your beliefs on them.
Moving along, sex has multiple reasons - one is definitely for pleasure; one is definitely for reproduction; and I believe that one is to help couples with communication and a sense of oneness. But none of that has anything to do with why homosexuality is wrong. It's wrong because God made things a certain way. God made man for woman and woman for man. They go together. God did not make man for man and woman for woman. It doesn't matter if it's gays or lesbians. The "natural use of the woman" doesn't mean that women were created to be sex slaves to men or that sex is all about men. It's just saying that women and men were made to satisfy each other sexually. Not men for men or women for women. The Bible REALLY isn't being sexist with that wording. I get that it can sound that way, but it really isn't what it means.
I am a woman and it is ENTIRELY natural (and pleasing for me) for my husband to be sexually satisfied with ME and by ME (and only me). I am his helper, his friend, and his companion, and I am useful to him. And there's nothing degrading about being useful to him, in emotional or physical ways. In fact, it would be VERY disconcerting to me if I were NOT useful in the area of fulfilling his sexual desires, just as it would be if I were not useful in the area of fulfilling his desire for companionship. And I think it would be to any loving wife. God made us with sexual desires and God made a proper way for them to be fulfilled. That way is heterosexually. That is ALL that that verse means. It means that men left the way that God made (a wife for them) and used each other.
And that is the story of sin: leaving God's way and substituting your own way.
Here is Lalaith's take on it, and she also links to the news stories on the topic, which I would encourage you to go to as well.
It seems very clear to me that this man was aware of the uproar about the previous pastor and rather than being careful about what he said and taking the warning, he decided to get purposefully more offensive. I don't think that's something that Christians are ever supposed to be. These are words that are supposed to apply to Christians: humble, wise, harmless, meek, gentle, long-suffering, patient, kind (Gal. 5:22, Matt. 10:16). WE are not supposed to be offensive. Oh, we will without doubt offend, but it should never be because of the way we presented something or because we spoke when we should have listened, or because we didn't speak when we should have comforted and encouraged.
The gospel is offensive enough. We are not supposed to be. We are supposed to try to live peaceably with ALL men (Romans 12:18) - that includes gays and lesbians. And living peaceably is NOT putting them in a town with an electrified fence around it. That's not kindness or gentleness; that's not harmless and meek. That's certainly nothing close to LOVE. That's oppressive and cruel. It's wrong; it's sin.
And to be completely practical about it, it certainly would not end homosexuality. How many homosexuals came from homosexual homes? The vast majority don't; they come out of a heterosexual homes. That town of homosexuals might never reproduce to have their own generation, but you'd never run out of new tenants. It's amazing how many things that are wrong also make absolutely no sense. Some things do. Stealing - I want that therefore I take it. It makes a kind of sense. But that? No sense. It's just horrible.
Practicing homosexuality is sin, yes. Practicing shunning of homosexuals is ALSO sin. Seeing them as something less than a person is sin. Regarding them as anything less than made in the image of God is sin.
Now onto the things that Lalaith brings up from this.
First, a few things to get clear. One, God has made it very clear that homosexuality is wrong - that never changed. (Lev. 18:22; I Cor. 6:9) Two, the God in the OT and the God in the NT are the same. The difference is not in His Person, but rather in His dealings with people. In the OT, God is shown as the Head of a nation - therefore, the nation is generally held to His moral law. Whores, homosexuals, witches, etc. were not to be permitted within the nation. By the time of the NT, God had left Israel because they repeatedly turned from Him, and He, through Christ's death, was about to open the floodgates for all nationalities. Three, the edicts of the OT (how we are supposed to deal with one another and what our attitude is supposed to be) is summed up in the first commandment to love GOD with all our heart. That's OT - Deut. 6:5. That is the summary of all that Jesus taught in the NT - He says so in Luke 10:27.
There is no disconnect between the OT and the NT. There is no difference in God's Person. And there is no problem with taking the ENTIRE Bible all at once and following it to the letter. If you take the whole Bible all at once and follow it to the letter, you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. And in loving them, you absolutely will NOT try to force your beliefs on them.
Moving along, sex has multiple reasons - one is definitely for pleasure; one is definitely for reproduction; and I believe that one is to help couples with communication and a sense of oneness. But none of that has anything to do with why homosexuality is wrong. It's wrong because God made things a certain way. God made man for woman and woman for man. They go together. God did not make man for man and woman for woman. It doesn't matter if it's gays or lesbians. The "natural use of the woman" doesn't mean that women were created to be sex slaves to men or that sex is all about men. It's just saying that women and men were made to satisfy each other sexually. Not men for men or women for women. The Bible REALLY isn't being sexist with that wording. I get that it can sound that way, but it really isn't what it means.
I am a woman and it is ENTIRELY natural (and pleasing for me) for my husband to be sexually satisfied with ME and by ME (and only me). I am his helper, his friend, and his companion, and I am useful to him. And there's nothing degrading about being useful to him, in emotional or physical ways. In fact, it would be VERY disconcerting to me if I were NOT useful in the area of fulfilling his sexual desires, just as it would be if I were not useful in the area of fulfilling his desire for companionship. And I think it would be to any loving wife. God made us with sexual desires and God made a proper way for them to be fulfilled. That way is heterosexually. That is ALL that that verse means. It means that men left the way that God made (a wife for them) and used each other.
And that is the story of sin: leaving God's way and substituting your own way.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Marriage
If you've been paying attention to Untwisting while I've been absent, you've noticed that Lalaith has been linking interviews done by another blogger. They involve quite a few different religions and what I've read has been quite interesting, and I would recommend them. In my opinion, it's usually fun and insightful to hear how other people view things. It's especially useful if you find yourself talking to someone of that particular religion if you already have a good idea of where they're coming from and what they believe. All in all, knowledge is handy and that is free knowledge.
As much as I might desire to speak to those people myself about some of the answer they give, however, it doesn't make sense to me to put that on here. Therefore, I will be skipping those posts. If you read them and have any questions about them you'd like my take on, as always, feel free to email me.
Instead, today will deal with this, a (I'm guessing) tongue-in-cheek visual about how marriage is pictured in the Bible. I say it's tongue-in-cheek because for anyone who knows their Bible this is ridiculous.
Now, please understand something. It's not ridiculous in that all it's facts are messed up. (Although, there are some "facts" that are messed up.) The widow of a Levite WAS supposed to marry her dead husband's brother. It's ridiculous in the conclusion drawn from the facts because it comes from an improper premise.
The premise that they are starting from is that all these things that happen in the Bible are the way they are supposed to be when, in fact, NONE of the depicted descriptions have a theologically correct foundation. None of those ways are the way that marriage is SUPPOSED to be. You see, people were not meant to die. So a widow should not exist. But because of sin, people die, and that creates the eventuality of a widow. Therefore, there must be a route for the widow to take. Because of sin, all kinds of addenda had to be added to was created as a very beautifully simple thing.
This is exactly what Christ was speaking about when He addressed the topic of divorce. In Matthew 19:3-11, the Pharisees ask Jesus about the morality of divorce. Jesus then tells them how marriage OUGHT to be (verses 4-6; one man, one woman for their entire lives). So they ask why Moses (Moses who was so revered, Moses the man whose face shone because he spoke with God) allowed for divorce. Jesus' reply is the answer to all the marital issues the world has ever known.
Verse 8: "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Because of the hardness of their hearts - because we're all sinners. That's why there is a addendum for rape, for adultery, for premarital sex, for all of these things. Because without sin, there would be NONE of those things.
This is actually a sign of God's long-suffering. How do I figure that? Well, marriage is a picture of two very important things. One is the community within the Godhead. The other is the relationship of Christ and the Church. So when people remove the sanctity of marriage, they are inadvertently calling into question the sanctity of the Godhead. By saying that it's improper for wives to be required to submit to their husbands, they are saying that it is/was improper for the Church to have to submit to Christ. Therefore, the fact that God allows for so many people to twist and ruin it is an enormous evidence of how extremely patient He is.
Every time someone abuses marriage and all that it entails, that is more than enough reason for God to kill them immediately. He did kill at least one person for it - Genesis 38:8-9 records the story of Onan. His brother died and it was Onan's duty to raise up a son for his dead brother. But he was selfish and didn't want to have to raise a son that wasn't going to be legally his. And God killed him for it. Every time, EVERY time - THAT is the response that God could hand out when we abuse marriage.
I know this is getting long, but there is one side note that I feel is important. People seem to think that Christians who say that premarital sex is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong, that adultery is wrong are mean or bitter or hateful. It is (or should be) exactly the OPPOSITE that fuels us to say things. If I have a friend who is sleeping with her boyfriend, it is in HER best interest for someone to warn her that there is a God Who can righteously judge her and her sentence will be death. It is not hateful; it is not cruel; it is not intolerant. It is loving.
To be sure, there are some who are hateful; there are some who are prejudiced. But do not mistake a warning for slander or hate. Don't assume that calling something evil equates to hate or to prejudice.
Christians, we MUST be loving enough to make sure we call evil evil - no matter what the world will call us in return. John 16:33 "These things I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."
As much as I might desire to speak to those people myself about some of the answer they give, however, it doesn't make sense to me to put that on here. Therefore, I will be skipping those posts. If you read them and have any questions about them you'd like my take on, as always, feel free to email me.
Instead, today will deal with this, a (I'm guessing) tongue-in-cheek visual about how marriage is pictured in the Bible. I say it's tongue-in-cheek because for anyone who knows their Bible this is ridiculous.
Now, please understand something. It's not ridiculous in that all it's facts are messed up. (Although, there are some "facts" that are messed up.) The widow of a Levite WAS supposed to marry her dead husband's brother. It's ridiculous in the conclusion drawn from the facts because it comes from an improper premise.
The premise that they are starting from is that all these things that happen in the Bible are the way they are supposed to be when, in fact, NONE of the depicted descriptions have a theologically correct foundation. None of those ways are the way that marriage is SUPPOSED to be. You see, people were not meant to die. So a widow should not exist. But because of sin, people die, and that creates the eventuality of a widow. Therefore, there must be a route for the widow to take. Because of sin, all kinds of addenda had to be added to was created as a very beautifully simple thing.
This is exactly what Christ was speaking about when He addressed the topic of divorce. In Matthew 19:3-11, the Pharisees ask Jesus about the morality of divorce. Jesus then tells them how marriage OUGHT to be (verses 4-6; one man, one woman for their entire lives). So they ask why Moses (Moses who was so revered, Moses the man whose face shone because he spoke with God) allowed for divorce. Jesus' reply is the answer to all the marital issues the world has ever known.
Verse 8: "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Because of the hardness of their hearts - because we're all sinners. That's why there is a addendum for rape, for adultery, for premarital sex, for all of these things. Because without sin, there would be NONE of those things.
This is actually a sign of God's long-suffering. How do I figure that? Well, marriage is a picture of two very important things. One is the community within the Godhead. The other is the relationship of Christ and the Church. So when people remove the sanctity of marriage, they are inadvertently calling into question the sanctity of the Godhead. By saying that it's improper for wives to be required to submit to their husbands, they are saying that it is/was improper for the Church to have to submit to Christ. Therefore, the fact that God allows for so many people to twist and ruin it is an enormous evidence of how extremely patient He is.
Every time someone abuses marriage and all that it entails, that is more than enough reason for God to kill them immediately. He did kill at least one person for it - Genesis 38:8-9 records the story of Onan. His brother died and it was Onan's duty to raise up a son for his dead brother. But he was selfish and didn't want to have to raise a son that wasn't going to be legally his. And God killed him for it. Every time, EVERY time - THAT is the response that God could hand out when we abuse marriage.
I know this is getting long, but there is one side note that I feel is important. People seem to think that Christians who say that premarital sex is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong, that adultery is wrong are mean or bitter or hateful. It is (or should be) exactly the OPPOSITE that fuels us to say things. If I have a friend who is sleeping with her boyfriend, it is in HER best interest for someone to warn her that there is a God Who can righteously judge her and her sentence will be death. It is not hateful; it is not cruel; it is not intolerant. It is loving.
To be sure, there are some who are hateful; there are some who are prejudiced. But do not mistake a warning for slander or hate. Don't assume that calling something evil equates to hate or to prejudice.
Christians, we MUST be loving enough to make sure we call evil evil - no matter what the world will call us in return. John 16:33 "These things I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Well, I'm back.
It was a good week off. Due to traveling, I may be taking another one soon, but we'll deal with that when it comes along. For now, I'm actually going to cover three posts in one! I know, sounds crazy. You'll understand when you see them.
First
Second
Third
I actually have nothing to say about the first one. It's just a link to some advice. (Post covered in two sentences. New record?)
Second one: There's not a whole lot to say about this one either. It's another personal one. There is one important note that people (mostly Lalaith and Threnody, but I'm guessing others, too) can't seem to get straight though. I did not create this blog to debunk theirs; my blog is not about them at all. I created my blog to address from a Biblical perspective the ISSUES that they brought up. I understand how this could be confusing, considering that their blog is so much about their personal journeys and experiences. But mine is NOT about that.
This is not my journey, my diary, or my experiences. I did not start this blog for the purpose of agreeing or disagreeing with them. I started it because after reading a few month's worth of their posts, it seemed quite obvious that the Bible, Christianity, and God were being very misrepresented. Being a Christian, I love all of those and wanted to make sure that there was another option out there for blog-readers. Very few things that I've written have been about them or directed at them. What I write is directed to the public at large, not to specific people. This was an issue with another post of mine, something of a rant that I wrote, that multiple people took as being directed at them. To be as clear as I can, unless I address you specifically, I am not talking to YOU or about YOU. I am speaking to a general audience.
Third one: And we end again with a personal one. There are things I agree with, things I'm not sure about, and things that I disagree with; but all in all, there's very little to say. The only truly important point from my view is that Threnody is perfectly right about love being a choice. Love is an emotion, yes. But love is not only emotional; it's a matter of the will and of the mental processes as well. You do choose who you "fall in love" with. You do have a say. Because love is not ONLY a feeling; love is action.
John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Christ's love was not just a feeling; it was a choice. He chose to leave Heaven, to put aside His glory, to become human, and then to suffer Calvary for us. I John 4:19 "We love Him because He first loved us."
First
Second
Third
I actually have nothing to say about the first one. It's just a link to some advice. (Post covered in two sentences. New record?)
Second one: There's not a whole lot to say about this one either. It's another personal one. There is one important note that people (mostly Lalaith and Threnody, but I'm guessing others, too) can't seem to get straight though. I did not create this blog to debunk theirs; my blog is not about them at all. I created my blog to address from a Biblical perspective the ISSUES that they brought up. I understand how this could be confusing, considering that their blog is so much about their personal journeys and experiences. But mine is NOT about that.
This is not my journey, my diary, or my experiences. I did not start this blog for the purpose of agreeing or disagreeing with them. I started it because after reading a few month's worth of their posts, it seemed quite obvious that the Bible, Christianity, and God were being very misrepresented. Being a Christian, I love all of those and wanted to make sure that there was another option out there for blog-readers. Very few things that I've written have been about them or directed at them. What I write is directed to the public at large, not to specific people. This was an issue with another post of mine, something of a rant that I wrote, that multiple people took as being directed at them. To be as clear as I can, unless I address you specifically, I am not talking to YOU or about YOU. I am speaking to a general audience.
Third one: And we end again with a personal one. There are things I agree with, things I'm not sure about, and things that I disagree with; but all in all, there's very little to say. The only truly important point from my view is that Threnody is perfectly right about love being a choice. Love is an emotion, yes. But love is not only emotional; it's a matter of the will and of the mental processes as well. You do choose who you "fall in love" with. You do have a say. Because love is not ONLY a feeling; love is action.
John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Christ's love was not just a feeling; it was a choice. He chose to leave Heaven, to put aside His glory, to become human, and then to suffer Calvary for us. I John 4:19 "We love Him because He first loved us."
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Brief Hiatus
Due to allergies, pregnancy and some other things going on (like the fact that it's Thursday and I haven't blogged this week), I am taking a short break with the blogging. I hope to be back before the end of the month.
'Til then, I'll give you the same advice that my grandpa used to give to his kids whenever they would leave the house: Live for Jesus.
'Til then, I'll give you the same advice that my grandpa used to give to his kids whenever they would leave the house: Live for Jesus.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
In the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord
I'm skipping this post. There's nothing really there to address. I did read the linked article; but honestly, conversions, apostates, whatever you want to call them - it happens all the time. It's only weird when it happens to someone you know.
Instead, this one will be our focus today.
When I first saw the title of the post and read the article, I was sitting there thinking, "Oh, you've got to be kidding me! Really??!? What is wrong with people?" I was upset because it seemed like, once again, Christians were doing something really dumb and really just. . . naive. People are watching us. More people than we often realize. People watch each other. I watch my neighbors and my neighbors watch me.
Then I listened to the clip. And I have to say, I wasn't nearly as upset afterwards. Now, to be VERY clear, I definitely - DEFINITELY - think that this pastor said things that he shouldn't have. I think he was naive, and I think he wasn't thinking clearly and according to other sources, he regrets it, and I've heard that he apologized. The man made a mistake.
However, none of this means that, despite his words, that he was actually advocating punching children. In fact, the audio clip seemed to make it extremely clear to me that he WASN'T. When he gets to that part, his voice drops, he hesitates and you can almost see him punching as if to hit a friend on the shoulder as people do all the time.
As for the "snapping" the wrist - wrists snap. Not that the bones of a wrist snap. In my honest opinion, which was against him when I started listening, I believe he was talking, not about breaking a wrist, but about snapping something into place. If your shoulder is out of joint, snapping it does not mean BREAKING your shoulder - it means putting it back in joint. He was talking about boys who are acting feminine, acting in a way that he believed was out of place. Therefore, the example of snapping the limp wrist was not about breaking it, but about putting it in place. Personally, this is where I believe he was coming from.
Another thing to keep in mind is that people speak differently when talking to people they know. I would say things in a simple, non-complicated way to my mom that I would have to be VERY careful about saying to other people. With others, I would have to give conditions and qualifications in order to be clear about what I mean. With my mom, I can just say it because I know that she knows me, and therefore, she'll know what I mean without needing all that extra stuff. That's a relationship, something that every pastor ought to have with their congregation.
I say this because most people would be very unhappy if someone overheard them say something to their spouse and then that person went and took it all out of context and said that they meant something that they didn't, even if that IS what they said. It's a danger, and it's a danger to everyone. To an extent we can only go with what is said; but to another extent, we shouldn't jump to conclusions about what people mean. Words are very versatile.
Now onto the rightness of chastisement. Well, first, God chastens us (Hebrews 12:6), so chastisement itself cannot be wrong. Second, we're commanded to bring our children up a certain way (Ephesians 6:4; notice the words "nurture" AND "admonition"). Third, Proverbs has some very practical and general principles on the subject, as well as the fact that most of the book is written from a father to a son - which is an example of itself.
There's also the fact that before all this about physical punishment being "bad," kids, in general, were better behaved. How many times have we heard saved and unsaved people alike say, "I'd have NEVER gotten away with that. My dad (or mom or grandparents) would have [insert some kind of physical punishment]." By our own testimony, we learned not to do things, not to speak certain ways, not to engage in certain things - why? Because our parents didn't let us. Because the pleasure was not greater than the penalty.
So, in closing, discipline is both commanded and it has been proven. Yes, people can go to far - people can go to far with everything. But the easy way, the simple way, the lazy way is an extreme; either to not discipline, or to discipline when it gets you emotionally riled. It's HARD being consistent. It's HARD when you're exhausted and you just don't want to fight anymore. It's HARD when you really just want everyone to get along. It's HARD when they're annoying you, but they're not doing anything wrong; because then you want to discipline them. It's hard. It's tiring. It's difficult to do it well.
However, it's the way God laid out for us. Therefore, it is better - for us and them. And it has already been proven by those who put the time and effort in to do it right.
Instead, this one will be our focus today.
When I first saw the title of the post and read the article, I was sitting there thinking, "Oh, you've got to be kidding me! Really??!? What is wrong with people?" I was upset because it seemed like, once again, Christians were doing something really dumb and really just. . . naive. People are watching us. More people than we often realize. People watch each other. I watch my neighbors and my neighbors watch me.
Then I listened to the clip. And I have to say, I wasn't nearly as upset afterwards. Now, to be VERY clear, I definitely - DEFINITELY - think that this pastor said things that he shouldn't have. I think he was naive, and I think he wasn't thinking clearly and according to other sources, he regrets it, and I've heard that he apologized. The man made a mistake.
However, none of this means that, despite his words, that he was actually advocating punching children. In fact, the audio clip seemed to make it extremely clear to me that he WASN'T. When he gets to that part, his voice drops, he hesitates and you can almost see him punching as if to hit a friend on the shoulder as people do all the time.
As for the "snapping" the wrist - wrists snap. Not that the bones of a wrist snap. In my honest opinion, which was against him when I started listening, I believe he was talking, not about breaking a wrist, but about snapping something into place. If your shoulder is out of joint, snapping it does not mean BREAKING your shoulder - it means putting it back in joint. He was talking about boys who are acting feminine, acting in a way that he believed was out of place. Therefore, the example of snapping the limp wrist was not about breaking it, but about putting it in place. Personally, this is where I believe he was coming from.
Another thing to keep in mind is that people speak differently when talking to people they know. I would say things in a simple, non-complicated way to my mom that I would have to be VERY careful about saying to other people. With others, I would have to give conditions and qualifications in order to be clear about what I mean. With my mom, I can just say it because I know that she knows me, and therefore, she'll know what I mean without needing all that extra stuff. That's a relationship, something that every pastor ought to have with their congregation.
I say this because most people would be very unhappy if someone overheard them say something to their spouse and then that person went and took it all out of context and said that they meant something that they didn't, even if that IS what they said. It's a danger, and it's a danger to everyone. To an extent we can only go with what is said; but to another extent, we shouldn't jump to conclusions about what people mean. Words are very versatile.
Now onto the rightness of chastisement. Well, first, God chastens us (Hebrews 12:6), so chastisement itself cannot be wrong. Second, we're commanded to bring our children up a certain way (Ephesians 6:4; notice the words "nurture" AND "admonition"). Third, Proverbs has some very practical and general principles on the subject, as well as the fact that most of the book is written from a father to a son - which is an example of itself.
There's also the fact that before all this about physical punishment being "bad," kids, in general, were better behaved. How many times have we heard saved and unsaved people alike say, "I'd have NEVER gotten away with that. My dad (or mom or grandparents) would have [insert some kind of physical punishment]." By our own testimony, we learned not to do things, not to speak certain ways, not to engage in certain things - why? Because our parents didn't let us. Because the pleasure was not greater than the penalty.
So, in closing, discipline is both commanded and it has been proven. Yes, people can go to far - people can go to far with everything. But the easy way, the simple way, the lazy way is an extreme; either to not discipline, or to discipline when it gets you emotionally riled. It's HARD being consistent. It's HARD when you're exhausted and you just don't want to fight anymore. It's HARD when you really just want everyone to get along. It's HARD when they're annoying you, but they're not doing anything wrong; because then you want to discipline them. It's hard. It's tiring. It's difficult to do it well.
However, it's the way God laid out for us. Therefore, it is better - for us and them. And it has already been proven by those who put the time and effort in to do it right.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Short and (maybe) Sweet
Threnody's post is a short one, therefore, I think mine will be too.
The sarcastic, mocking tone seems pretty obvious to me. I suppose it could also be angry and bitter, but I think mockery more likely. To anyone who knows their Bible, there are obviously quite a few problems with the veracity of that little picture, and since most of it is stuff that I've already gone over, this'll be quick.
One, man was created perfect. We know this because in Genesis (1:31), the Bible says that God saw everything that He'd made and it was good. He created everything perfectly. Also, if we'd been made with sin, there couldn't have been a Fall - we'd have already been there.
Two, the wording "impregnate a woman with myself" sounds rather questionable. God did not have sex with Mary. Not any of the three Persons. Technically, it probably isn't false, but it seems to make things murkier, rather than clearer.
Third (and last), Christ did not die to save us from the perfection that Mankind was created in; it was to save us from sin (I Timothy 1:15) that we all commit (Romans 3:23) and the penalty of that sin, which is death (Romans 6:23).
I was told that I should include more Scripture references, so I'll be trying to do that from now on. Happy Tuesday. :)
The sarcastic, mocking tone seems pretty obvious to me. I suppose it could also be angry and bitter, but I think mockery more likely. To anyone who knows their Bible, there are obviously quite a few problems with the veracity of that little picture, and since most of it is stuff that I've already gone over, this'll be quick.
One, man was created perfect. We know this because in Genesis (1:31), the Bible says that God saw everything that He'd made and it was good. He created everything perfectly. Also, if we'd been made with sin, there couldn't have been a Fall - we'd have already been there.
Two, the wording "impregnate a woman with myself" sounds rather questionable. God did not have sex with Mary. Not any of the three Persons. Technically, it probably isn't false, but it seems to make things murkier, rather than clearer.
Third (and last), Christ did not die to save us from the perfection that Mankind was created in; it was to save us from sin (I Timothy 1:15) that we all commit (Romans 3:23) and the penalty of that sin, which is death (Romans 6:23).
I was told that I should include more Scripture references, so I'll be trying to do that from now on. Happy Tuesday. :)
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Discerning between the Unclean and the Clean
Picking up that one that I skipped, I'll be blogging about this post. It's kind of the continuation of what Lalaith was talking about a few posts previously, so if you haven't read that (or my response to it), I would encourage you to do so before diving into these.
I take issue with the first quote right off the bat - not because a sense of indecency comes from religion, but rather because indecency, used without any qualifiers like that, can refer to anything from what a person considers to be profanity or immodesty or something as serious and socially agreed upon as rape or child molestation. In which case, a sense of indecency is absolutely NECESSARY to the continuation of any kind of ordered society. There MUST be rules. Rules are based upon the sense of indecency of those with the power to do something about it.
For a moment, imagine that you are a woman living in a Middle Eastern country where the king has NO sense of indecency and there is no law, no rule, no punishment for rapists. If religion is what will bring a sense of decency to your country, you are going to be profusely blessing any missionaries you meet and begging them to talk to your king. A sense of indecency is necessary. In which case, religion (or the effects of it) all also necessary.
What should be addressed is not whether or not you need a sense of what is decent and what isn't, but rather where those lines are.
The second quote: I'm not sure where this comes from. I don't know anybody, Christian or otherwise, who thinks their body is evil, or a part of their body is evil. It's not a body that is evil; it's what you choose to do with your body that is either good or evil. If I choose to go around killing people, it's not my body that is wicked; it's me. If I choose to go have an affair, it's not my body that's cheating, it's me. If I choose to snatch a little kid out of the way of a car, it's not my body that saved him; it's me.
The post: Honestly, I don't think this is a huge deal. People teach their kids different things at different ages and I don't think there's a line about when a kid needs to know (or shouldn't know) all the ins and outs of their body. If you want to start teaching them everything when you do the normal "eyes" and "ears," I have no reason to think there's anything wrong with that. I would encourage you to teach them to be careful about how open they are with it though, else you may end up needlessly angering your neighbors when your kid starts sharing their knowledge.
As for the Celts and their way of doing things - that's very wrong. Sex was created within a specific framework, the framework of marriage. It is ONLY for marriage; and since God made it and us, He gets to set those kinds of rules. And they're not just rules in order to bother us and make us frustrated. It's for our good, our benefit. Like when our mothers used to say, "No, you can't have candy right now. Dinner is almost ready." We were told to wait because something better for us was coming. So God tells us to wait because it's better if we do. Also, any sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether it's agree upon or not, is adulterous. I'm not the one that made the rule that my husband can only have sex with me; God is; therefore, only God could grant that kind of freedom. And He hasn't.
People wait for a lot of things, and often it happens that waiting for it makes it more enjoyable. Christmas is more fun because we wait for it. Birthday parties and family reunions are more exciting because we wait for them - we look forward to them. But for some reason, people have it in their heads that waiting for sex is just TOO FAR! How dare you make my body wait for something it wants! Oh, wait. We make our bodies wait for things they NEED - like food, water, bathroom breaks, sleep, etc. It will not damage you to never have sex. It just won't. But how many people starve their bodies of sleep?
I Corinthians 7: The reason Paul says that it's better not to be married does not have ANYTHING to do with sex. It's because, as a wife, I now have to think about my husband. It is my duty and responsibility and joy to be his helper, to be his confidant, to go through life with him and support him and care for him. It's because he now takes up a good portion of my thoughts and time and properly so. A non-married person does not have that. They can devote all that straight to God. That's why it's better not to be married; not because there's something wrong with marriage or sex; but rather because it's BETTER to not have distractions from God. And for some (probably for most) it's NOT better to be single, because most people have a huge desire to have a partner through life, to be intimate in every sense with that person. Not just physically, but emotionally and intellectually and spiritually. And so, Paul says it's better to marry than to burn - to burn with desire.
Paul wasn't advocating indefinitely repressing your desires; just the opposite. Paul was saying, for the few people like him out there, if you don't HAVE a great desire for marriage and sex, don't worry about it. You're actually better off because you're less distracted. You will have fewer cares and less drama in your life. That's why he says multiple times to continue in the way that God called you. Don't feel you have to change your marital status because you're a Christian now. If you don't need to get married, if you don't feel a great desire to get married - don't get married! If, however, you do, don't try to repress it - just get married! "Better to marry than to burn."
I don't know anyone who advocates putting off sexual desires for an inordinate amount of time. People joke that their kids won't be allowed to get married until they're 26 or 42 or whatever, but it's a joke. Then they're kids end up getting married at 20. Sex is not necessary for us to function. Yes, the desire for it is natural. So is being hungry. That doesn't mean you SHOULD eat every time you are hungry. In fact, that leads to other problems for many people. Sexual desires should not be put off indefinitely; they should be put off until the proper time. Just like when it would be four o'clock and I would be hungry, but my host wasn't serving dinner until five. It was not the proper time for me to go looking for food.
I also don't know any responsible person who thinks that kids should be having sex as soon as they first want it. Children - kids eleven and twelve - should NOT be having sex. But obviously, they want it. So why is it okay for you to require them to put it off for five years, but not eight years or ten years? There is no line that way. If you shouldn't repress your desire for sex any more than you should repress your need to use the restroom, then there will be a great many pre-teens having a LOT of sex. If you can put it off for 3-5 years without doing any harm, then you can put it off for MORE years, until you get married, without doing any harm.
I really don't think the question is whether or not sexual desires need to be put off; the only debate is on how long and for what reasons. Practically EVERYONE agrees that sexual desires should be repressed - because there is something inherently saddening about a girl only eleven years old having to go through the process of giving birth.
I take issue with the first quote right off the bat - not because a sense of indecency comes from religion, but rather because indecency, used without any qualifiers like that, can refer to anything from what a person considers to be profanity or immodesty or something as serious and socially agreed upon as rape or child molestation. In which case, a sense of indecency is absolutely NECESSARY to the continuation of any kind of ordered society. There MUST be rules. Rules are based upon the sense of indecency of those with the power to do something about it.
For a moment, imagine that you are a woman living in a Middle Eastern country where the king has NO sense of indecency and there is no law, no rule, no punishment for rapists. If religion is what will bring a sense of decency to your country, you are going to be profusely blessing any missionaries you meet and begging them to talk to your king. A sense of indecency is necessary. In which case, religion (or the effects of it) all also necessary.
What should be addressed is not whether or not you need a sense of what is decent and what isn't, but rather where those lines are.
The second quote: I'm not sure where this comes from. I don't know anybody, Christian or otherwise, who thinks their body is evil, or a part of their body is evil. It's not a body that is evil; it's what you choose to do with your body that is either good or evil. If I choose to go around killing people, it's not my body that is wicked; it's me. If I choose to go have an affair, it's not my body that's cheating, it's me. If I choose to snatch a little kid out of the way of a car, it's not my body that saved him; it's me.
The post: Honestly, I don't think this is a huge deal. People teach their kids different things at different ages and I don't think there's a line about when a kid needs to know (or shouldn't know) all the ins and outs of their body. If you want to start teaching them everything when you do the normal "eyes" and "ears," I have no reason to think there's anything wrong with that. I would encourage you to teach them to be careful about how open they are with it though, else you may end up needlessly angering your neighbors when your kid starts sharing their knowledge.
As for the Celts and their way of doing things - that's very wrong. Sex was created within a specific framework, the framework of marriage. It is ONLY for marriage; and since God made it and us, He gets to set those kinds of rules. And they're not just rules in order to bother us and make us frustrated. It's for our good, our benefit. Like when our mothers used to say, "No, you can't have candy right now. Dinner is almost ready." We were told to wait because something better for us was coming. So God tells us to wait because it's better if we do. Also, any sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether it's agree upon or not, is adulterous. I'm not the one that made the rule that my husband can only have sex with me; God is; therefore, only God could grant that kind of freedom. And He hasn't.
People wait for a lot of things, and often it happens that waiting for it makes it more enjoyable. Christmas is more fun because we wait for it. Birthday parties and family reunions are more exciting because we wait for them - we look forward to them. But for some reason, people have it in their heads that waiting for sex is just TOO FAR! How dare you make my body wait for something it wants! Oh, wait. We make our bodies wait for things they NEED - like food, water, bathroom breaks, sleep, etc. It will not damage you to never have sex. It just won't. But how many people starve their bodies of sleep?
I Corinthians 7: The reason Paul says that it's better not to be married does not have ANYTHING to do with sex. It's because, as a wife, I now have to think about my husband. It is my duty and responsibility and joy to be his helper, to be his confidant, to go through life with him and support him and care for him. It's because he now takes up a good portion of my thoughts and time and properly so. A non-married person does not have that. They can devote all that straight to God. That's why it's better not to be married; not because there's something wrong with marriage or sex; but rather because it's BETTER to not have distractions from God. And for some (probably for most) it's NOT better to be single, because most people have a huge desire to have a partner through life, to be intimate in every sense with that person. Not just physically, but emotionally and intellectually and spiritually. And so, Paul says it's better to marry than to burn - to burn with desire.
Paul wasn't advocating indefinitely repressing your desires; just the opposite. Paul was saying, for the few people like him out there, if you don't HAVE a great desire for marriage and sex, don't worry about it. You're actually better off because you're less distracted. You will have fewer cares and less drama in your life. That's why he says multiple times to continue in the way that God called you. Don't feel you have to change your marital status because you're a Christian now. If you don't need to get married, if you don't feel a great desire to get married - don't get married! If, however, you do, don't try to repress it - just get married! "Better to marry than to burn."
I don't know anyone who advocates putting off sexual desires for an inordinate amount of time. People joke that their kids won't be allowed to get married until they're 26 or 42 or whatever, but it's a joke. Then they're kids end up getting married at 20. Sex is not necessary for us to function. Yes, the desire for it is natural. So is being hungry. That doesn't mean you SHOULD eat every time you are hungry. In fact, that leads to other problems for many people. Sexual desires should not be put off indefinitely; they should be put off until the proper time. Just like when it would be four o'clock and I would be hungry, but my host wasn't serving dinner until five. It was not the proper time for me to go looking for food.
I also don't know any responsible person who thinks that kids should be having sex as soon as they first want it. Children - kids eleven and twelve - should NOT be having sex. But obviously, they want it. So why is it okay for you to require them to put it off for five years, but not eight years or ten years? There is no line that way. If you shouldn't repress your desire for sex any more than you should repress your need to use the restroom, then there will be a great many pre-teens having a LOT of sex. If you can put it off for 3-5 years without doing any harm, then you can put it off for MORE years, until you get married, without doing any harm.
I really don't think the question is whether or not sexual desires need to be put off; the only debate is on how long and for what reasons. Practically EVERYONE agrees that sexual desires should be repressed - because there is something inherently saddening about a girl only eleven years old having to go through the process of giving birth.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Breaking Tradition
I'm going to cover two posts today and I'm going to skip one in between them because I think the other is more important right now. So, Post numero uno: Cheezburger
I actually read an interesting blog about this very topic recently, about how Americans don't like zealots. I mean, on one hand, I get it. A lot of a bad comes from radical people, especially in the venue of religion. America has been attacked by radicals, by zealots. So we're wary of it; we're cautious of anyone who talks too loudly or too emotionally. We distance ourselves from people who are so emotionally charged because, how do we know if they're going to "go off the deep end?"
But honestly, some zealotry is good. It's good to be zealous for your children, to be radically charged about your marriage. Those are good things that there's nothing wrong with being "over-the-top" about; and no one gets worried about that. To use Lalaith as an example (hope she doesn't mind), she's over-the-top about being married and about her husband, and it's great! It's wonderful seeing people so ridiculously happy in their marriage - particularly in the world we live in where so many are UNHAPPY in their marriage.
So if zealotry isn't bad, then it must be what you're zealous FOR that makes it dangerous. Being zealous for God is not dangerous to anyone but the Devil. It's uncomfortable for a lot of people, but not dangerous. Being zealous for God is not what brings about the bombing of abortion clinics - that's zealous for something else. Being zealous for God is not what brings about holy crusades - that's for something else. The only way being zealous for God effects the people around you? You love them more and treat them better. And that means being willing to listen to their opinions - even if you disagree and KNOW before they say a word that you're going to disagree; it means listening and thinking BEFORE you explain why you disagree. It means you don't brush aside their problems, even if you cannot empathize AT ALL. It means that you treat them with respect and do NOT patronize them or talk down to them. And that goes for everybody. Christians, non-Christians, family, people that you have trouble just being around because they bug you - everybody. If America was full of zealous Christians, it would be WAY better off. And if people want to call that nuts, oh well. :)
On to the other post and an apology:
Threnody, I did not mean to say that you MEAN to cause your friends or family pain. I apologize for not making that clear. I did make a comment - which was obviously not enough - about wanting the opinions of others on the topic because I was sure there were many other ways to see it. Thank you for posting your reasons.
To explain some, it was never my intent to accuse, malign, or make a statement of fact, as if I had PROVED why you would make a post mocking the Bible. My intent was only to draw it into question. I put forth the only explanation I had thought of, but I did not ever mean to indicate that that was the ONLY explanation possible. On this, I did not mean to judge your motives. I can see better now where you are coming from. One last note, I never meant to indicate that you should never post anything about leaving Christianity or why you find it illogical. I have absolutely no problem with you giving your reasons and arguments; I think it's actually very helpful. My problem was ONLY with the mockery.
The content of the blog: To an extent, I agree with her. If someone were to try to teach me that it's wrong to eat, say, marshmallows, I would be tempted to pull mine out of the cupboard and eat them in front of their face. The difference in my head, is that if my mom were to come to my house and tell me that she suddenly had a problem with marshmallows, I would end up getting rid of them if I couldn't change her mind - because it's better, in my opinion, to just let it go than to cause a problem over it. And I certainly would not make any kind of anything that was completely mocking people who think that marshmallows are evil.
Obviously, there's quite a difference between marshmallows and Christianity, but I think the principle is the same. And I think in the end, it comes down to what I value more - my marshmallows or my mom? My freedom of speech or my family?
I'm not a stranger to this problem - following what you believe is right or continuing in the way that you were raised and the way that you know EVERYONE expects. It's not fun. I ended up going down a path that I had heard argued against and mocked for YEARS. It hurt my parents; it frightened and worried them. I believe they are wrong, but because what my parents believe is not a danger to them or to others, I'm not going to argue with them. I'm not going to mock them, and I'm not going to try to change them. If it comes up, I will discuss it with them, but I'm not going to look for it. I hurt them and they hurt me when it happened, but I refuse to KEEP hurting them by mocking and degrading what they believe, no matter how much I disagree with it now, or how much I had to change my thinking.
That's my story and that's my choice. I don't bring it up for the purpose of condemning; I bring it up as something to think about. Not just for Threnody but for everyone who has been through something similar, for everyone who finds themselves on the opposite side of an issue as the people they love. Is it really worth hurting them? Is getting your argument in worth it? Is making that snide comment worth the pain you're going to inflict?
If nothing else, it's a good reminder for me.
I actually read an interesting blog about this very topic recently, about how Americans don't like zealots. I mean, on one hand, I get it. A lot of a bad comes from radical people, especially in the venue of religion. America has been attacked by radicals, by zealots. So we're wary of it; we're cautious of anyone who talks too loudly or too emotionally. We distance ourselves from people who are so emotionally charged because, how do we know if they're going to "go off the deep end?"
But honestly, some zealotry is good. It's good to be zealous for your children, to be radically charged about your marriage. Those are good things that there's nothing wrong with being "over-the-top" about; and no one gets worried about that. To use Lalaith as an example (hope she doesn't mind), she's over-the-top about being married and about her husband, and it's great! It's wonderful seeing people so ridiculously happy in their marriage - particularly in the world we live in where so many are UNHAPPY in their marriage.
So if zealotry isn't bad, then it must be what you're zealous FOR that makes it dangerous. Being zealous for God is not dangerous to anyone but the Devil. It's uncomfortable for a lot of people, but not dangerous. Being zealous for God is not what brings about the bombing of abortion clinics - that's zealous for something else. Being zealous for God is not what brings about holy crusades - that's for something else. The only way being zealous for God effects the people around you? You love them more and treat them better. And that means being willing to listen to their opinions - even if you disagree and KNOW before they say a word that you're going to disagree; it means listening and thinking BEFORE you explain why you disagree. It means you don't brush aside their problems, even if you cannot empathize AT ALL. It means that you treat them with respect and do NOT patronize them or talk down to them. And that goes for everybody. Christians, non-Christians, family, people that you have trouble just being around because they bug you - everybody. If America was full of zealous Christians, it would be WAY better off. And if people want to call that nuts, oh well. :)
On to the other post and an apology:
Threnody, I did not mean to say that you MEAN to cause your friends or family pain. I apologize for not making that clear. I did make a comment - which was obviously not enough - about wanting the opinions of others on the topic because I was sure there were many other ways to see it. Thank you for posting your reasons.
To explain some, it was never my intent to accuse, malign, or make a statement of fact, as if I had PROVED why you would make a post mocking the Bible. My intent was only to draw it into question. I put forth the only explanation I had thought of, but I did not ever mean to indicate that that was the ONLY explanation possible. On this, I did not mean to judge your motives. I can see better now where you are coming from. One last note, I never meant to indicate that you should never post anything about leaving Christianity or why you find it illogical. I have absolutely no problem with you giving your reasons and arguments; I think it's actually very helpful. My problem was ONLY with the mockery.
The content of the blog: To an extent, I agree with her. If someone were to try to teach me that it's wrong to eat, say, marshmallows, I would be tempted to pull mine out of the cupboard and eat them in front of their face. The difference in my head, is that if my mom were to come to my house and tell me that she suddenly had a problem with marshmallows, I would end up getting rid of them if I couldn't change her mind - because it's better, in my opinion, to just let it go than to cause a problem over it. And I certainly would not make any kind of anything that was completely mocking people who think that marshmallows are evil.
Obviously, there's quite a difference between marshmallows and Christianity, but I think the principle is the same. And I think in the end, it comes down to what I value more - my marshmallows or my mom? My freedom of speech or my family?
I'm not a stranger to this problem - following what you believe is right or continuing in the way that you were raised and the way that you know EVERYONE expects. It's not fun. I ended up going down a path that I had heard argued against and mocked for YEARS. It hurt my parents; it frightened and worried them. I believe they are wrong, but because what my parents believe is not a danger to them or to others, I'm not going to argue with them. I'm not going to mock them, and I'm not going to try to change them. If it comes up, I will discuss it with them, but I'm not going to look for it. I hurt them and they hurt me when it happened, but I refuse to KEEP hurting them by mocking and degrading what they believe, no matter how much I disagree with it now, or how much I had to change my thinking.
That's my story and that's my choice. I don't bring it up for the purpose of condemning; I bring it up as something to think about. Not just for Threnody but for everyone who has been through something similar, for everyone who finds themselves on the opposite side of an issue as the people they love. Is it really worth hurting them? Is getting your argument in worth it? Is making that snide comment worth the pain you're going to inflict?
If nothing else, it's a good reminder for me.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Worship the Creator, not the creature
Every time I think I'm catching up, they pull out a bunch of posts.... ;) Ah, well.
This is another post about the ever-journey by my friend Lalaith. It's largely personal in it's foundations and therefore, not a lot for me to say. There are a few interesting points to touch on though.
One, the comment about joy. I don't know which Christians she's referring to, but I don't believe I've said that other people can't experience joy. For the sake of clarity, I made a point of distinguishing between happiness and joy; however, joy is experienced by a great many people. It's the superlative that's missing for them. The ULTIMATE joy, ultimate peace, ultimate security, ultimate acceptance is found ONLY in Christ. You can find all those things in differing extents in other places. But the ultimate of each one, the perfection of each one, is what is unique to Christianity because perfection is of God.
Two, I have personally NEVER heard someone say they FEAR world peace. That one gave me a hearty chuckle the first time through. If I heard that, I would have a VERY difficult time not staring/laughing out loud in that person's face. The coming of the anti-christ, though a time of great upheaval and such, is NOT something to be feared, but rather welcomed. If the Anti-christ doesn't come, the Christ doesn't come. Gotta have the Tribulation before you get the Kingdom. Also, the world won't technically be at peace before the new earth because sin will still be around and that necessitates non-peace.
Three: homosexuality. Moving out to CA has brought me in contact with a LOT more homosexuals, and there is some problem with the way they are viewed by much of conservative Christianity. If you view someone as being so icky, like parents like to portray them, you forget that God saved YOU from something equally as icky. Honestly, I believe most of the damage has been done by people who are afraid that one of the young people they know (a kid or someone in their church) is going to end up having a tendency toward homosexuality. I understand - it's a daunting thought for a Christian parent. How do I handle that? But honestly, how would I handle something else? How would I handle it if my kid had violence issues?
Homosexuality is not the end-all of sins, and Christians need to be careful not to treat those who practice it like the plague. Christians tend to treat homosexuals worse than murderers - that's just stupid. However, homosexuality is a sin; it is in defiance of God, and it can be conquered through the power of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean you'll ever be entirely free of it on this earth, but it does mean that you don't have to DO it. Like people who have the urge, the tendency to lie no longer have to lie, people with the tendency toward homosexuality don't HAVE to do it. There are Christians have anger problems; there are Christians with gluttony problems, alcoholic problems, thievery problems, etc. etc. There are Christians with sexual problems - homosexual or heterosexual.
Lalaith then goes on to basically ask, "Why not sex in moderation?" Well, I have no problem with sex in moderation - in the proper timing. Sex is not a necessity to survival. No one NEEDS it to live. It's wonderful and enjoyable and a great many things - but it is not necessary for anyone on this globe to have sex again or else they will die. So, saying that it's just like eating or drinking is not true. There are a great many reasons why sex ONLY after marriage is better. There are psychological reasons, physiological reasons, emotional reasons - seriously, there are a plethora of reasons - but no one wants to talk about that because that means that doing things the Bible way - God's way - is not just right it's actually BETTER! And people have this bizarre (and fallacious) notion that being bad is somehow more exciting and enjoyable. (Email if you want some of those reasons. I'll send what I can remember.)
Love between husband and wife is not more pure without sex. God made sex just like He made everything else. It's a gift to be enjoyed; but He only made it for marriage.
For the record, the experience that Lalaith describes is very much the experience I had. I didn't know what sex was until I was old enough to have a baby. (Not mature enough; just physically developed enough.) Until that time I had thought that it was like a swear word because talk of it generated the same kind of reaction. However, I did not come away thinking that sex was evil. In fact, I ended up being terribly grateful to my parents that they didn't bother telling me about any of that until I had to know. I wished I could have gone longer without it - not because it was evil; just because I had a great childhood never thinking about grown-up stuff like where babies come from and how it all works. I truly believe that I enjoyed my childhood more because my parents left that topic alone until I needed to know what was going on and why. I say this just so people know there is another way to look at it. I'm not saying that's the route that SHOULD be taken, or even that that's how my husband and I are going to go about it with our kids. I'm just saying, for me, it was nice to never think about sex for the first decade or so of my life. Honestly, when else is that ever going to be true?
Lalaith has told me a great many times that she is so happy to be married; and she's obviously very much in love with her husband, and I am very happy for her. I fear though, that "love" has become her god. She seems to worship it, awed by it and just bursting with wanting to tell everyone the joys of it. And it makes me sad. I'm glad she's enjoying being married, that she loves her husband so much; but to worship the thing, rather than the One Who made the thing. . . is sad. The author is more impressive than the book he penned.
This is another post about the ever-journey by my friend Lalaith. It's largely personal in it's foundations and therefore, not a lot for me to say. There are a few interesting points to touch on though.
One, the comment about joy. I don't know which Christians she's referring to, but I don't believe I've said that other people can't experience joy. For the sake of clarity, I made a point of distinguishing between happiness and joy; however, joy is experienced by a great many people. It's the superlative that's missing for them. The ULTIMATE joy, ultimate peace, ultimate security, ultimate acceptance is found ONLY in Christ. You can find all those things in differing extents in other places. But the ultimate of each one, the perfection of each one, is what is unique to Christianity because perfection is of God.
Two, I have personally NEVER heard someone say they FEAR world peace. That one gave me a hearty chuckle the first time through. If I heard that, I would have a VERY difficult time not staring/laughing out loud in that person's face. The coming of the anti-christ, though a time of great upheaval and such, is NOT something to be feared, but rather welcomed. If the Anti-christ doesn't come, the Christ doesn't come. Gotta have the Tribulation before you get the Kingdom. Also, the world won't technically be at peace before the new earth because sin will still be around and that necessitates non-peace.
Three: homosexuality. Moving out to CA has brought me in contact with a LOT more homosexuals, and there is some problem with the way they are viewed by much of conservative Christianity. If you view someone as being so icky, like parents like to portray them, you forget that God saved YOU from something equally as icky. Honestly, I believe most of the damage has been done by people who are afraid that one of the young people they know (a kid or someone in their church) is going to end up having a tendency toward homosexuality. I understand - it's a daunting thought for a Christian parent. How do I handle that? But honestly, how would I handle something else? How would I handle it if my kid had violence issues?
Homosexuality is not the end-all of sins, and Christians need to be careful not to treat those who practice it like the plague. Christians tend to treat homosexuals worse than murderers - that's just stupid. However, homosexuality is a sin; it is in defiance of God, and it can be conquered through the power of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean you'll ever be entirely free of it on this earth, but it does mean that you don't have to DO it. Like people who have the urge, the tendency to lie no longer have to lie, people with the tendency toward homosexuality don't HAVE to do it. There are Christians have anger problems; there are Christians with gluttony problems, alcoholic problems, thievery problems, etc. etc. There are Christians with sexual problems - homosexual or heterosexual.
Lalaith then goes on to basically ask, "Why not sex in moderation?" Well, I have no problem with sex in moderation - in the proper timing. Sex is not a necessity to survival. No one NEEDS it to live. It's wonderful and enjoyable and a great many things - but it is not necessary for anyone on this globe to have sex again or else they will die. So, saying that it's just like eating or drinking is not true. There are a great many reasons why sex ONLY after marriage is better. There are psychological reasons, physiological reasons, emotional reasons - seriously, there are a plethora of reasons - but no one wants to talk about that because that means that doing things the Bible way - God's way - is not just right it's actually BETTER! And people have this bizarre (and fallacious) notion that being bad is somehow more exciting and enjoyable. (Email if you want some of those reasons. I'll send what I can remember.)
Love between husband and wife is not more pure without sex. God made sex just like He made everything else. It's a gift to be enjoyed; but He only made it for marriage.
For the record, the experience that Lalaith describes is very much the experience I had. I didn't know what sex was until I was old enough to have a baby. (Not mature enough; just physically developed enough.) Until that time I had thought that it was like a swear word because talk of it generated the same kind of reaction. However, I did not come away thinking that sex was evil. In fact, I ended up being terribly grateful to my parents that they didn't bother telling me about any of that until I had to know. I wished I could have gone longer without it - not because it was evil; just because I had a great childhood never thinking about grown-up stuff like where babies come from and how it all works. I truly believe that I enjoyed my childhood more because my parents left that topic alone until I needed to know what was going on and why. I say this just so people know there is another way to look at it. I'm not saying that's the route that SHOULD be taken, or even that that's how my husband and I are going to go about it with our kids. I'm just saying, for me, it was nice to never think about sex for the first decade or so of my life. Honestly, when else is that ever going to be true?
Lalaith has told me a great many times that she is so happy to be married; and she's obviously very much in love with her husband, and I am very happy for her. I fear though, that "love" has become her god. She seems to worship it, awed by it and just bursting with wanting to tell everyone the joys of it. And it makes me sad. I'm glad she's enjoying being married, that she loves her husband so much; but to worship the thing, rather than the One Who made the thing. . . is sad. The author is more impressive than the book he penned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)