A link to the past! Also, to another blog. . . .
First things first. One, I totally agree that scare tactics and guilt-tripping are bad. They're usually mean, and overall, just harmful. Either it works and you've potentially damaged someone; or you just make people upset with you. Two, it's really, really, REALLY hard to get much context at all from a quote like that. I have no idea what the sermon was about, if the preacher even used strong/harsh words - honestly, we've got pretty much nothing but one person's take on one person's reaction.
And that take is worded very dramatically, which makes me question just how honest the whole thing is. Not that a boy didn't approach the writer with tears in his eyes and talking about his old school friends; more that I bet HE (and others who saw it) would relate it MUCH differently. I know people who are habitual exaggerators and this sounds a lot like that.
But putting all that aside, we'll get to the topic at hand. What is a warning? And what are scare tactics?
Is it using scare tactics to tell your child that if they put their fingers in the electrical socket that they will get hurt? Is it using scare tactics to tell them that if they touch the stove, they will get burnt? If they drink and drive they could kill someone and end up in prison for the next few decades? All those things, if they believe you, will scare them. But for what purpose?
There are things in the world that we ought to have a respectful fear of because it's healthy. The ocean is one. My uncle drowned in the ocean. The ocean can sweep you away. Fire is another. Having control of a vehicle. These are all things that are dangerous and require some kind of instruction. People aren't born knowing how to swim, how to handle fire, how to drive a car - they require teaching (or at least, experience).
So what's the difference? If fear is part of what keeps a child from touching the stove, how is it not classified as scare tactics? Well, parents usually don't tell their children not to touch the stove because they want the child to be afraid of the stove; it's because they don't want their child to get hurt. I don't want my daughter to burn herself, to drown, to kill someone with her car, etc. etc. I will warn her because there is danger, because I want her safe.
I think there are two major differences. One is the accuracy of the statement. Fire WILL hurt you. But a warning also has something else - a positive reason. People give warnings so that something bad doesn't happen. If you weren't worried about someone getting hurt, you probably wouldn't say anything about their dangerous activity.
Unless you had a more devious purpose in mind. Fear-mongering is exaggerated for the sadistic purpose of terrorizing people. For example, a warning about touching the stove might sound like this: "That's hot! Don't touch it. It will burn your hand and that will hurt a lot." Fear-mongering would sound like this (and I've heard things like this from parents): "If you touch the stove, your hand will start on fire and all your skin will melt right off! You'll be deformed for the rest of your life."
One is true; one is a gross exaggeration. (I know - I've touched a hot stove. I got a worse scar from my bunny.) One, the major purpose is protecting the child; the other, the major purpose is frightening the child. That fear-mongering goes on within Christianity is not something with which I would argue (although I've personally never heard it); but it's dangerous to assume because you don't believe in something (like Hell) that it can't hurt you.There are scores of people in prisons who didn't believe the warnings about driving drunk. They learned the hard way.
So did the pastor engage in fear-mongering? From that status, I think it's impossible to tell. Telling people that they are going to Hell can be a warning; it can also be scare tactics. THAT is why once Christians give the warning (all have sinned; sin requires Hell), we ought always to follow it up quickly with an offer of the Answer - Jesus saves. Fear-mongering would be preaching on an exaggerated description of Hell - or saying that everyone is going there and leaving it at that. There is no good that comes from either of those; the purpose is to simply frighten people. Everyone who believed it would live in terror and despair.
Quick aside: Some people are very sensitive and they will get very afraid from just a warning. That does not mean that warnings are bad. I had an irrational fear of lighting a match for a long time because my parents warned me not to play with fire; that doesn't mean that they were wrong for warning me.
The message of the Gospel is not one of fear or guilt. It's one of hope and the joy of reconciliation. But in order to be reconciled to someone, you have to be aware that there is a break in the relationship. In closing, why do you think that God tells us that we have sinned (Rm. 3:23) and that the wages of sin is death (Rm. 6:23)? It's a warning. He's not trying to just strike fear into us (there's a faster, easily way than using words); He's telling us what's coming if we don't change, if we don't trust Him. The Gospel is not that everyone is a sinner and on their way to Hell; the Good News is that Jesus SAVES us from our sin so we don't have to go to Hell.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Christianity
This is sort of a part two, so please check here for the "part one" along with the other links. :)
This one is going to focus on the quote in the third link. "I find it hard to believe that God created 7 billion humans if he intended to condemn 5 billion of them to hell."
I don't know who said it, if they claim to be a Christian, or anything else about it. But let's assume, since it appeared on a post about Christianity that it was, in fact, a professing Christian who said it. Within this post we see some very dangerous, non-Biblical thinking.
The first problem is this, "I find it hard to believe...." Don't get me wrong, you have to be able to actually believe the Bible for it to have any impact on you. However, if you DO believe the Bible, you can't go about putting restraints on it, and how you FEEL about something is not the test. The test is, does the Bible teach it? Either you believe it, all of it, or you don't. So if God SAYS that that's what He did, it doesn't matter if it's "hard to believe." Either you choose to believe it, or you choose to say, "Eh, that's too hard. That's too far." If you take that to the logical end, you will find you have a god that is partly like the God of the Bible and partly reflects your own take on things.
This kind of thinking (though I don't think most people take it to the logical end) is a major problem behind the disagreements about the doctrines of grace (also known as Calvinism). People don't LIKE certain things, and they think that because THEY are uncomfortable with it that GOD is uncomfortable with it. That's a silly assumption.
The second problem is that the author of this quote doesn't seem to take Biblical history into account. I kind of wonder if they've read Exodus. Why did Pharaoh not let the people of Israel go sooner? Because God wanted to show His power. It's also because Pharaoh was wicked and didn't want to lose his slave force and was too proud to yield; but the Bible says that Pharaoh didn't let them go so that God could exercise His might and show wonders in the land of Egypt.
It isn't God's wrath or lack of goodness that causes there to be so many people going to Hell; it's God's attribute of long-suffering, of patience. You can look and say, "Wow, God is mean to send all those people to Hell" or you can look at it from the other side and say, "Wow, God is so good to let those people live on His Earth for so long, even though they're ruining pretty much everything." Why were there so many people who died in the Flood? Because God gave them sooooo long to turn around and worship Him; but they didn't. They just kept getting worse.
Over and over we see this in the Bible. With the Flood, there was just Noah. With Sodom, there was just Lot. God doesn't deal out His judgment prematurely. He waits, He gives LOTS of "second chances." It's one thing to be patient with someone you know is going to come around; it's quite another to be patient with someone you know is never going to change. God is patient with the wicked every day; God is good to them every day by means of the natural order of the world He made. He sends HIS rain on the just and the unjust. Every day, God gives people a reason to turn and seek Him; and every day, they ignore Him. It's not cruel of God to eventually STOP exercising patience with them.
This one is going to focus on the quote in the third link. "I find it hard to believe that God created 7 billion humans if he intended to condemn 5 billion of them to hell."
I don't know who said it, if they claim to be a Christian, or anything else about it. But let's assume, since it appeared on a post about Christianity that it was, in fact, a professing Christian who said it. Within this post we see some very dangerous, non-Biblical thinking.
The first problem is this, "I find it hard to believe...." Don't get me wrong, you have to be able to actually believe the Bible for it to have any impact on you. However, if you DO believe the Bible, you can't go about putting restraints on it, and how you FEEL about something is not the test. The test is, does the Bible teach it? Either you believe it, all of it, or you don't. So if God SAYS that that's what He did, it doesn't matter if it's "hard to believe." Either you choose to believe it, or you choose to say, "Eh, that's too hard. That's too far." If you take that to the logical end, you will find you have a god that is partly like the God of the Bible and partly reflects your own take on things.
This kind of thinking (though I don't think most people take it to the logical end) is a major problem behind the disagreements about the doctrines of grace (also known as Calvinism). People don't LIKE certain things, and they think that because THEY are uncomfortable with it that GOD is uncomfortable with it. That's a silly assumption.
The second problem is that the author of this quote doesn't seem to take Biblical history into account. I kind of wonder if they've read Exodus. Why did Pharaoh not let the people of Israel go sooner? Because God wanted to show His power. It's also because Pharaoh was wicked and didn't want to lose his slave force and was too proud to yield; but the Bible says that Pharaoh didn't let them go so that God could exercise His might and show wonders in the land of Egypt.
It isn't God's wrath or lack of goodness that causes there to be so many people going to Hell; it's God's attribute of long-suffering, of patience. You can look and say, "Wow, God is mean to send all those people to Hell" or you can look at it from the other side and say, "Wow, God is so good to let those people live on His Earth for so long, even though they're ruining pretty much everything." Why were there so many people who died in the Flood? Because God gave them sooooo long to turn around and worship Him; but they didn't. They just kept getting worse.
Over and over we see this in the Bible. With the Flood, there was just Noah. With Sodom, there was just Lot. God doesn't deal out His judgment prematurely. He waits, He gives LOTS of "second chances." It's one thing to be patient with someone you know is going to come around; it's quite another to be patient with someone you know is never going to change. God is patient with the wicked every day; God is good to them every day by means of the natural order of the world He made. He sends HIS rain on the just and the unjust. Every day, God gives people a reason to turn and seek Him; and every day, they ignore Him. It's not cruel of God to eventually STOP exercising patience with them.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Christianity vs. The Bible
A One
A Two
And a Three
It's easy to see the common thread, I think. I put them all together because, the second one kind of explains the first one a little. And the third one just went with it. Rather than do them one at a time, I'm going to touch on certain things from the whole of it in a few different posts.
There's one thing that I don't really like about a lot of Christian jargon - and it's our usage of the words "true" and "real." It's not that they're used improperly or something - often they fit perfectly well. It's just that it seems there should be some better way of distinguishing between nominal Christianity and CHRISTianity. Sadly, I'm not sure what that way is.
Nominal Christians belong to a religion that is just like any other. It's works-based. It's man-centered. It's not Biblical. Christianity is supposed to be God-centered, grace-based, and Biblical. But the label of Christianity gets applied to a lot. And part of the problem is that even the real Christians aren't and won't be perfect (so long as this world continues). So, the active religion - the practiced part of it - can't be perfectly God-centered.
I suppose it's like music. You can get all the theory right, you can be able to name every note; that doesn't mean you're not going to make a mistake when it comes time to play the piece. So with Christianity - even if we KNOW everything correctly (which we don't), we still fail. We still mess up.
And this leads to trouble distinguishing between sincere Christianity and nominal Christianity, between the people who love God who slipped up this time and that time and the people who are just making use of a label. So we have an enormous umbrella known as Christianity that houses everything from Catholics to Amish, from Charismatics to Quakers. And then there's just that group who identify as being "Christian" simply because they believe in a god and were taught to respect the Bible. They don't go to church, don't partake in the foundational things like Baptism and Communion, know practically nothing about Jesus - but they somehow fall in the same category as David Brainerd and Jonathon Edwards.
Christianity as only a religion is just as harmful as any other, as Buddhism, Islam, cults, and that crazy thing about the lizard-people that was linked to a few posts back. The Pharisees had religion. But followers of Christ have Christ Himself.
In the end, what I really wanted to say on this part is that while Threnody is absolutely right that "Christianity" and the Bible are not the same thing - they should be. REAL Christianity follows Christ and the Bible is the greatest tool we have to help us do that.
And, of course, I disagree about the Bible being a flawed, human institution. Since I don't think you can prove (or disprove) the Bible though, that wraps this up for today.
A Two
And a Three
It's easy to see the common thread, I think. I put them all together because, the second one kind of explains the first one a little. And the third one just went with it. Rather than do them one at a time, I'm going to touch on certain things from the whole of it in a few different posts.
There's one thing that I don't really like about a lot of Christian jargon - and it's our usage of the words "true" and "real." It's not that they're used improperly or something - often they fit perfectly well. It's just that it seems there should be some better way of distinguishing between nominal Christianity and CHRISTianity. Sadly, I'm not sure what that way is.
Nominal Christians belong to a religion that is just like any other. It's works-based. It's man-centered. It's not Biblical. Christianity is supposed to be God-centered, grace-based, and Biblical. But the label of Christianity gets applied to a lot. And part of the problem is that even the real Christians aren't and won't be perfect (so long as this world continues). So, the active religion - the practiced part of it - can't be perfectly God-centered.
I suppose it's like music. You can get all the theory right, you can be able to name every note; that doesn't mean you're not going to make a mistake when it comes time to play the piece. So with Christianity - even if we KNOW everything correctly (which we don't), we still fail. We still mess up.
And this leads to trouble distinguishing between sincere Christianity and nominal Christianity, between the people who love God who slipped up this time and that time and the people who are just making use of a label. So we have an enormous umbrella known as Christianity that houses everything from Catholics to Amish, from Charismatics to Quakers. And then there's just that group who identify as being "Christian" simply because they believe in a god and were taught to respect the Bible. They don't go to church, don't partake in the foundational things like Baptism and Communion, know practically nothing about Jesus - but they somehow fall in the same category as David Brainerd and Jonathon Edwards.
Christianity as only a religion is just as harmful as any other, as Buddhism, Islam, cults, and that crazy thing about the lizard-people that was linked to a few posts back. The Pharisees had religion. But followers of Christ have Christ Himself.
In the end, what I really wanted to say on this part is that while Threnody is absolutely right that "Christianity" and the Bible are not the same thing - they should be. REAL Christianity follows Christ and the Bible is the greatest tool we have to help us do that.
And, of course, I disagree about the Bible being a flawed, human institution. Since I don't think you can prove (or disprove) the Bible though, that wraps this up for today.
Friday, July 20, 2012
The post.
There's not a lot to say about this. It's sad. It's angering. It's wrong. But it's not unexpected. It's not surprising. It's not special.
Every day, the world steps on the gift that God offered them. Every day, the world takes this view. Every day, they cheer because they proverbially threw away the Bible, because they got through another day of ignoring it. It's always sad; it's always upsetting; it's always wrong. It's also the way that it is, and Christians can't get stuck on it. It has to spur us forward, not debilitate us.
Not just in activity - I don't mean that we have to spend an extra hour every week handing out tracts or something. I mean internally. Because that's what love does. When love meets an obstacle, it doesn't shrink back; it works harder to move forward, to find a way through or around. Love feels the negative, but doesn't give up because of it. Love enjoys the positive, but doesn't get lazy from it.
A few side thoughts:
You know what's sad and somewhat weird to think about? People like Lalaith and Threnody - if God never saves them - who know so much in their heads about God, have condemned themselves by denying Him. And in being made to suffer for that decision when they die, they're going to be blaming Him the entire time for not doing more, and they still won't ever believe that God is Who He says. They will never call Him good; they will never acknowledge that they were wrong, that He is just, that they didn't know Him.
They'll call Him a liar, say that He didn't keep His Word. They'll make the same arguments to themselves that they've made here to us and it will just fuel them on to hate Him. And being in God's Hell, like He told them they would be, like He warned them so many times, they will STILL not see it. All the people in Hell? They're still evil and so they still curse Him, and the only one that it hurts is them.
That knowledge alone should give Christians all the energy they need to pray and witness. If we love God like we ought, it should be the most horrible thought that those people are cursing our God, our wonderful, glorious, matchless Savior, for eternity. If we love others as we ought, it should be the second most horrible thought that those people are condemned forever never to know God's love and goodness.
There's not a lot to say about this. It's sad. It's angering. It's wrong. But it's not unexpected. It's not surprising. It's not special.
Every day, the world steps on the gift that God offered them. Every day, the world takes this view. Every day, they cheer because they proverbially threw away the Bible, because they got through another day of ignoring it. It's always sad; it's always upsetting; it's always wrong. It's also the way that it is, and Christians can't get stuck on it. It has to spur us forward, not debilitate us.
Not just in activity - I don't mean that we have to spend an extra hour every week handing out tracts or something. I mean internally. Because that's what love does. When love meets an obstacle, it doesn't shrink back; it works harder to move forward, to find a way through or around. Love feels the negative, but doesn't give up because of it. Love enjoys the positive, but doesn't get lazy from it.
A few side thoughts:
You know what's sad and somewhat weird to think about? People like Lalaith and Threnody - if God never saves them - who know so much in their heads about God, have condemned themselves by denying Him. And in being made to suffer for that decision when they die, they're going to be blaming Him the entire time for not doing more, and they still won't ever believe that God is Who He says. They will never call Him good; they will never acknowledge that they were wrong, that He is just, that they didn't know Him.
They'll call Him a liar, say that He didn't keep His Word. They'll make the same arguments to themselves that they've made here to us and it will just fuel them on to hate Him. And being in God's Hell, like He told them they would be, like He warned them so many times, they will STILL not see it. All the people in Hell? They're still evil and so they still curse Him, and the only one that it hurts is them.
That knowledge alone should give Christians all the energy they need to pray and witness. If we love God like we ought, it should be the most horrible thought that those people are cursing our God, our wonderful, glorious, matchless Savior, for eternity. If we love others as we ought, it should be the second most horrible thought that those people are condemned forever never to know God's love and goodness.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Perspective
The Link.
Every response to people, to circumstances, to ideas - you name it - EVERY response we make is determined by our perspective. If you believe the Bible is false or has errors, there's no reason for you to believe it over anyone or anything.
But if you believe that the Bible is perfect and true, then rather than seeing it as at odds with reality, you see how it and reality are bound together. If God is Creator and Sustainer of all, then God is the foundation of reality. Reality is whatever God wants it to be, and whatever God makes it to be.
Your perspective will determine what happens when you observe something that seems at odds with what God has said. If you really do believe that God is and that He said it, you'll either not worry about it because it's too small a thing to be bothered about, or you'll realize that you NEVER have a complete picture. If you don't believe that God is or that He said it, you'll come to the conclusion that the Bible is erroneous, that God is a liar, or that God doesn't exist at all.
In short, you can't be blinded by the Bible if you're actually going BY THE BIBLE. Observation and experience aren't enough because we're limited; only God is not bound by those confines.
And a funny ending note: My husband read that blog from Untwisting and said something like, "You'll be blinded? Then why are their eyes are sticking out?" It gave me many giggles; hope you get some, too. =D
Every response to people, to circumstances, to ideas - you name it - EVERY response we make is determined by our perspective. If you believe the Bible is false or has errors, there's no reason for you to believe it over anyone or anything.
But if you believe that the Bible is perfect and true, then rather than seeing it as at odds with reality, you see how it and reality are bound together. If God is Creator and Sustainer of all, then God is the foundation of reality. Reality is whatever God wants it to be, and whatever God makes it to be.
Your perspective will determine what happens when you observe something that seems at odds with what God has said. If you really do believe that God is and that He said it, you'll either not worry about it because it's too small a thing to be bothered about, or you'll realize that you NEVER have a complete picture. If you don't believe that God is or that He said it, you'll come to the conclusion that the Bible is erroneous, that God is a liar, or that God doesn't exist at all.
In short, you can't be blinded by the Bible if you're actually going BY THE BIBLE. Observation and experience aren't enough because we're limited; only God is not bound by those confines.
And a funny ending note: My husband read that blog from Untwisting and said something like, "You'll be blinded? Then why are their eyes are sticking out?" It gave me many giggles; hope you get some, too. =D
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
One, Two, Three and We're Done!
This post I don't have anything to say about, but "Do your homework!!!" Hey, Lalaith is right. Even if you're looking into Christianity - do your homework. Always count the cost.
This post. . . . There is a lot I could say about this post. . . . Mormonism is freaky stuff. Really, devoted Mormonism is downright cultish. I found a book in an airplane on one of my trips back home called "The God-Makers" about Mormonism, written by two guys who had been in it and talked to a lot of people who had been in it. It was pretty nuts. I knew Mormonism was freaky - I didn't know it was THAT freaky. The super-undies are funny and ridiculous, but a lot of what Mormons believe and practice is not funny - it's harmful.
It's extremely controlling and demeaning, especially to women. The depression amongst Mormon females is horrible and rampant and covered up. It's a terribly repressive, hurtful thing, and in Utah, they don't even bother hiding some of the stuff, like polygamy. (Had a very recent report of this. One of my husband's co-workers went to Utah because the company was opening a store there. There was a guy who came in who talked about doing all the grocery shopping for his wives and then two sisters who came in talking about their ONE husband.) Why are they so open there? Because the Mormon Church has SO MUCH MONEY, that it basically runs the state.
And then there's this post. To be honest, none of these are much about Christianity or what Christians believe. These are social/political issues that Christians ought to compare to Biblical principles, spend a lot of time studying and praying (and discussing with a wide variety of folks) and then come a conclusion.
First, there's a problem with the way people understand the phrase "Separation of Church and State." It doesn't mean that religion is to have no place in politics. That's way off. What it means is that the STATE is not to interfere with the internal working of the Church (so long as it's not harming people), and the Church is not to try to run the government (like in Utah). It means that there isn't supposed to be a national church - like there was (is?) in England. We have freedom to believe what we want to believe. It doesn't mean that the morality of the Church isn't supposed to effect the government. The Church is not supposed to pass laws for the country and the government is not supposed to pass laws for the Church. We're not ancient Egypt where Pharaoh is god.
As for the equality thing, there seems to be something that most people skip over. And that is that the government has been pushing Christianity out for a long time. Yes, I would be against posting passages of the Koran up in our official buildings and I wouldn't be upset about the 10 Commandments - but please understand that what you're talking about is not putting up both or not allowing both. What's happened is they've taken the Christian ones down and people want to put something else up. It's not equality. It's replacement. That's far more offensive. Like when someone just breaks up with you because it's not working and when someone breaks up with you because there's someone else. You're being replaced. Emotionally, it's more upsetting.
Logistically, it's just not possible to equally represent every religion. Because every religion is not equal in size and voice. There's not a lot of Hinduism here in the States. Do we need to put up something about cows being holy if we have the 10 Commandments up? What about Toaism? What about Jedi-ism (it's a real thing, folks; probably has a different name, but I didn't feel like looking it up)?
Or do we display things based on popularity? Top three get a place on the wall of City Hall? You know what, I think most Christians would prefer no showing of the 10 Commandments to having that AND something from a different religion up. But don't be unfeeling enough to ask that we joyfully hold our tongues when something we hold dear is being removed from a place of prominence and honor or being banned from schools. We were there already. We had it for over 200 years; it was simply the way it was. It's not an excuse for bad behavior on our part, but it should be understandable and expected that such a loss would be upsetting.
This post. . . . There is a lot I could say about this post. . . . Mormonism is freaky stuff. Really, devoted Mormonism is downright cultish. I found a book in an airplane on one of my trips back home called "The God-Makers" about Mormonism, written by two guys who had been in it and talked to a lot of people who had been in it. It was pretty nuts. I knew Mormonism was freaky - I didn't know it was THAT freaky. The super-undies are funny and ridiculous, but a lot of what Mormons believe and practice is not funny - it's harmful.
It's extremely controlling and demeaning, especially to women. The depression amongst Mormon females is horrible and rampant and covered up. It's a terribly repressive, hurtful thing, and in Utah, they don't even bother hiding some of the stuff, like polygamy. (Had a very recent report of this. One of my husband's co-workers went to Utah because the company was opening a store there. There was a guy who came in who talked about doing all the grocery shopping for his wives and then two sisters who came in talking about their ONE husband.) Why are they so open there? Because the Mormon Church has SO MUCH MONEY, that it basically runs the state.
And then there's this post. To be honest, none of these are much about Christianity or what Christians believe. These are social/political issues that Christians ought to compare to Biblical principles, spend a lot of time studying and praying (and discussing with a wide variety of folks) and then come a conclusion.
First, there's a problem with the way people understand the phrase "Separation of Church and State." It doesn't mean that religion is to have no place in politics. That's way off. What it means is that the STATE is not to interfere with the internal working of the Church (so long as it's not harming people), and the Church is not to try to run the government (like in Utah). It means that there isn't supposed to be a national church - like there was (is?) in England. We have freedom to believe what we want to believe. It doesn't mean that the morality of the Church isn't supposed to effect the government. The Church is not supposed to pass laws for the country and the government is not supposed to pass laws for the Church. We're not ancient Egypt where Pharaoh is god.
As for the equality thing, there seems to be something that most people skip over. And that is that the government has been pushing Christianity out for a long time. Yes, I would be against posting passages of the Koran up in our official buildings and I wouldn't be upset about the 10 Commandments - but please understand that what you're talking about is not putting up both or not allowing both. What's happened is they've taken the Christian ones down and people want to put something else up. It's not equality. It's replacement. That's far more offensive. Like when someone just breaks up with you because it's not working and when someone breaks up with you because there's someone else. You're being replaced. Emotionally, it's more upsetting.
Logistically, it's just not possible to equally represent every religion. Because every religion is not equal in size and voice. There's not a lot of Hinduism here in the States. Do we need to put up something about cows being holy if we have the 10 Commandments up? What about Toaism? What about Jedi-ism (it's a real thing, folks; probably has a different name, but I didn't feel like looking it up)?
Or do we display things based on popularity? Top three get a place on the wall of City Hall? You know what, I think most Christians would prefer no showing of the 10 Commandments to having that AND something from a different religion up. But don't be unfeeling enough to ask that we joyfully hold our tongues when something we hold dear is being removed from a place of prominence and honor or being banned from schools. We were there already. We had it for over 200 years; it was simply the way it was. It's not an excuse for bad behavior on our part, but it should be understandable and expected that such a loss would be upsetting.
Monday, July 9, 2012
The Purposes of Sex
Here's the post.
First, gotta say - I grew up in church, with a Christian family and the views I got from THAT matched up very well with reality. The views I got from TV, from the internet, from working with some very vulgar people - those views absolutely did not. I was not taught that men are the only ones with a sex drive, that sex was not going to be enjoyable for me, or any of that other junk. But, here's the thing - again, that's not a "Christian" teaching. Do Christians teach it? Yes. So do other women who've had bad experiences with sex, and people who don't want their daughters to sleep around. If you got married to a guy who wasn't intent on GIVING pleasure as well as getting it, you'd probably start to hate sex to. And when your daughter grew up, you'd warn her about how awful it can be, because you wouldn't know how great it can be.
So, if you were to base things on experience, it's now a draw and it has nothing to do with Christian teaching or non-Christian teaching. The Bible does not teach that women have no sex drive or that men are the only ones who enjoy sex. The Bible doesn't tell me that my duty is to physically satisfy my husband every time he wants it. Nowhere to be found. My duty and my joy is to meet his needs. I was told by a Christian woman that sex is great and, if done right, I would really like it. I was also told that it can be harder for women to enjoy it and that some women ended up with five kids and no orgasm, and I understood where some of that ridiculousness about sex came from. It DIDN'T come from the Bible - therefore, not a Christian teaching.
Threnody gets SO CLOSE to the real answer. It's like when you're watching Wheel of Fortune and the person you're cheering for is on the right track and guessing all the right letters, but you can tell they have no idea what the phrase (or whatever) is. She gives three choices: pleasure, reproduction, an aspect of marriage. I don't know why there was no "D: All of the above."
For one thing, God is an infinite being. If I, in my limited capacity, can do something like load the dishwasher with more than one purpose in mind, I'm quite sure that three reasons is not too much for God when designing a species.
So, pleasure. Is sex about pleasure? Absolutely. This is an incredibly interesting thing that I read about - so many women in previous generations did not know what an orgasm felt like. But they still liked sex. Why is that? Well, when you love someone, you love it when they're happy. So even if you're not getting high on endorphins, you still have a massively happy time giving them to your spouse. Therefore, no matter what your sexual status is (say, if you couldn't feel anything below your waist), it's still fun.
Reproduction: This is hilarious that people might think reproduction isn't a major part of sex, since for how many generations, sex was the ONLY way to reproduce. Is it ONLY about reproduction? Of course not. Some people can't reproduce, but they still get to enjoy sex. But some people don't like sex (look it up; men and women); what if they want to have kids? For them, sex would be ALL about reproduction. Even on birth control, people have babies. I worked with a guy who said he and his girlfriend used three kinds of birth control because they were scared that she'd get pregnant. Why? Because sex produces babies! When God said, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28, for example), He was telling (not in a mean way; it's a blessing) people to get married, have sex, and make babies! Have a family! Fill the earth with people! He made the Earth for people, and He made sex to make more people. He didn't have to. He could have made us all like He formed Adam and Eve. Could have made a bunch of dirt statues and given them life, or made all the women out of ribs. Sex is for reproduction.
An aspect of marriage: I'm not sure what exactly Threnody is talking about here, and she didn't really explain it. Yes, sex is an aspect of marriage. It's to be enjoyed ONLY within marriage. Sex is part of what makes marriage special. If people could physically only have sex if they were married and to the person they were married to, you wouldn't need any other "marriage incentives" and marriages would not fall apart nearly so easily. That's the way it's supposed to be. That's the way most people used to look at it, back when marriage was the norm, not living together; when unfaithfulness was a disgrace; when children were wanted, not an inconvenience. Sex is beautiful, an amazing thing, and part of it's purpose is to hold two people together. Once you've enjoyed that intimacy with the person you love, you want it again - not just for the physical pleasure, but for the sake of the intimacy. For being alone with them, for the opportunity to physically love and be physically loved.
So, really. Sex? There's a lot of reasons for it. There's no reason to limit it to just one.
First, gotta say - I grew up in church, with a Christian family and the views I got from THAT matched up very well with reality. The views I got from TV, from the internet, from working with some very vulgar people - those views absolutely did not. I was not taught that men are the only ones with a sex drive, that sex was not going to be enjoyable for me, or any of that other junk. But, here's the thing - again, that's not a "Christian" teaching. Do Christians teach it? Yes. So do other women who've had bad experiences with sex, and people who don't want their daughters to sleep around. If you got married to a guy who wasn't intent on GIVING pleasure as well as getting it, you'd probably start to hate sex to. And when your daughter grew up, you'd warn her about how awful it can be, because you wouldn't know how great it can be.
So, if you were to base things on experience, it's now a draw and it has nothing to do with Christian teaching or non-Christian teaching. The Bible does not teach that women have no sex drive or that men are the only ones who enjoy sex. The Bible doesn't tell me that my duty is to physically satisfy my husband every time he wants it. Nowhere to be found. My duty and my joy is to meet his needs. I was told by a Christian woman that sex is great and, if done right, I would really like it. I was also told that it can be harder for women to enjoy it and that some women ended up with five kids and no orgasm, and I understood where some of that ridiculousness about sex came from. It DIDN'T come from the Bible - therefore, not a Christian teaching.
Threnody gets SO CLOSE to the real answer. It's like when you're watching Wheel of Fortune and the person you're cheering for is on the right track and guessing all the right letters, but you can tell they have no idea what the phrase (or whatever) is. She gives three choices: pleasure, reproduction, an aspect of marriage. I don't know why there was no "D: All of the above."
For one thing, God is an infinite being. If I, in my limited capacity, can do something like load the dishwasher with more than one purpose in mind, I'm quite sure that three reasons is not too much for God when designing a species.
So, pleasure. Is sex about pleasure? Absolutely. This is an incredibly interesting thing that I read about - so many women in previous generations did not know what an orgasm felt like. But they still liked sex. Why is that? Well, when you love someone, you love it when they're happy. So even if you're not getting high on endorphins, you still have a massively happy time giving them to your spouse. Therefore, no matter what your sexual status is (say, if you couldn't feel anything below your waist), it's still fun.
Reproduction: This is hilarious that people might think reproduction isn't a major part of sex, since for how many generations, sex was the ONLY way to reproduce. Is it ONLY about reproduction? Of course not. Some people can't reproduce, but they still get to enjoy sex. But some people don't like sex (look it up; men and women); what if they want to have kids? For them, sex would be ALL about reproduction. Even on birth control, people have babies. I worked with a guy who said he and his girlfriend used three kinds of birth control because they were scared that she'd get pregnant. Why? Because sex produces babies! When God said, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28, for example), He was telling (not in a mean way; it's a blessing) people to get married, have sex, and make babies! Have a family! Fill the earth with people! He made the Earth for people, and He made sex to make more people. He didn't have to. He could have made us all like He formed Adam and Eve. Could have made a bunch of dirt statues and given them life, or made all the women out of ribs. Sex is for reproduction.
An aspect of marriage: I'm not sure what exactly Threnody is talking about here, and she didn't really explain it. Yes, sex is an aspect of marriage. It's to be enjoyed ONLY within marriage. Sex is part of what makes marriage special. If people could physically only have sex if they were married and to the person they were married to, you wouldn't need any other "marriage incentives" and marriages would not fall apart nearly so easily. That's the way it's supposed to be. That's the way most people used to look at it, back when marriage was the norm, not living together; when unfaithfulness was a disgrace; when children were wanted, not an inconvenience. Sex is beautiful, an amazing thing, and part of it's purpose is to hold two people together. Once you've enjoyed that intimacy with the person you love, you want it again - not just for the physical pleasure, but for the sake of the intimacy. For being alone with them, for the opportunity to physically love and be physically loved.
So, really. Sex? There's a lot of reasons for it. There's no reason to limit it to just one.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Biblical Principles
Issue posts. There are a lot of issues that the Bible just doesn't address very much. Like dating - there's no sermon on the mount about how to pick your spouse. There are a few rules - if you're a Christian, they need to be; no sex pre-marriage - but really? There's just not a lot said about it. Personally, I think that's because for the most part, it doesn't matter. Dating, courting, arranged marriages - none of them are of themselves right or wrong.
Here are two links to two posts. These are those kinds of topics. Topics about which you rely on Biblical principles, rather than Biblical commands.
Link One
Link Two
The first one is about dating relationships. There's a lot of stuff that is taught about dating - and it seems like every different faction of family, religion, and culture has a dozen things that they think are best. Really, the only thing that seems to be stretched is saying that because SOME Christians use that, that therefore it's a Christian teaching. I wasn't taught what the author was. Does that mean I missed out on CHRISTIAN teaching? Or that I missed out on someone's VERSION of Biblical principles?
Principles are a lot harder to use properly. They require a lot more than commands. Commands are simple and straightforward. You pretty much just have to be able to read the instructions - like on a recipe card. Principles are when you call your grandma and ask her how she made her famous, delicious bread and she gives you measurements like "a dash of salt" and tells you to "knead it until it looks right." Principles require more understanding of what you're doing on the whole. If you're an experienced baker, you can probably make due with those instructions; if you're not, you're not going to have any idea. You might guess right, or you might ruin the dough - either way, you're guessing and experimenting.
Because a Christian taught something - because MANY Christians taught something - that doesn't mean that something is a CHRISTIAN teaching. It might be; it might not be. I know a lot of Christians who don't believe that God uses dreams or visions today. And I know a lot of Christians who believe that He does. Which one is the "Christian teaching"? The Bible doesn't say one way or another - it doesn't say that God will always use direct methods or that once the Bible is finished, that's all He will use. So people draw on Biblical principles.
I have found that making definite statements about those kinds of things doesn't turn out well. God didn't make a definite statement for a reason. Maybe we should try to refrain from making them for Him.
The point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christians are people; we are not infallible. We get it wrong. But because Christians aren't perfect, don't dismiss Christianity, and don't think that because the Christians in such and such a culture and place believe one thing that therefore ALL the Christians in the world believe it, or that that teaching is a tenant of Christianity. I mean really, in the broad, widely-used meaning of the word, Christianity includes everything from Catholicism, to Quakers, to Pentacostol. That is quite enveloping and there's a LOT of differing opinions about stuff.
One last point about this one and then we'll move on. I've been on both sides of this. I was in an emotionally abusive relationship where all he really wanted was sex and all I wanted was a friend, and I've been in a very balanced relationship where we both wanted each other - not just bodily. I honestly don't know what anyone could have told me that would have helped me either not get into that abusive relationship in the first place, or would have gotten me out of it earlier. I didn't want to be alone and I did not realize for a very long time how emotionally damaged I was getting. I picked up a LOT of bad things from that - some have gone, some have remained. But having been there, I don't know what you can possibly teach someone that's going to keep them out of that. Because most of the time, I think we walk into it, our eyes wide open because we think we know.
The second link really has no bearing whatsoever on Christianity. The point is basically that using ad hominem is bad. Not much to say about that one.
Here are two links to two posts. These are those kinds of topics. Topics about which you rely on Biblical principles, rather than Biblical commands.
Link One
Link Two
The first one is about dating relationships. There's a lot of stuff that is taught about dating - and it seems like every different faction of family, religion, and culture has a dozen things that they think are best. Really, the only thing that seems to be stretched is saying that because SOME Christians use that, that therefore it's a Christian teaching. I wasn't taught what the author was. Does that mean I missed out on CHRISTIAN teaching? Or that I missed out on someone's VERSION of Biblical principles?
Principles are a lot harder to use properly. They require a lot more than commands. Commands are simple and straightforward. You pretty much just have to be able to read the instructions - like on a recipe card. Principles are when you call your grandma and ask her how she made her famous, delicious bread and she gives you measurements like "a dash of salt" and tells you to "knead it until it looks right." Principles require more understanding of what you're doing on the whole. If you're an experienced baker, you can probably make due with those instructions; if you're not, you're not going to have any idea. You might guess right, or you might ruin the dough - either way, you're guessing and experimenting.
Because a Christian taught something - because MANY Christians taught something - that doesn't mean that something is a CHRISTIAN teaching. It might be; it might not be. I know a lot of Christians who don't believe that God uses dreams or visions today. And I know a lot of Christians who believe that He does. Which one is the "Christian teaching"? The Bible doesn't say one way or another - it doesn't say that God will always use direct methods or that once the Bible is finished, that's all He will use. So people draw on Biblical principles.
I have found that making definite statements about those kinds of things doesn't turn out well. God didn't make a definite statement for a reason. Maybe we should try to refrain from making them for Him.
The point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christians are people; we are not infallible. We get it wrong. But because Christians aren't perfect, don't dismiss Christianity, and don't think that because the Christians in such and such a culture and place believe one thing that therefore ALL the Christians in the world believe it, or that that teaching is a tenant of Christianity. I mean really, in the broad, widely-used meaning of the word, Christianity includes everything from Catholicism, to Quakers, to Pentacostol. That is quite enveloping and there's a LOT of differing opinions about stuff.
One last point about this one and then we'll move on. I've been on both sides of this. I was in an emotionally abusive relationship where all he really wanted was sex and all I wanted was a friend, and I've been in a very balanced relationship where we both wanted each other - not just bodily. I honestly don't know what anyone could have told me that would have helped me either not get into that abusive relationship in the first place, or would have gotten me out of it earlier. I didn't want to be alone and I did not realize for a very long time how emotionally damaged I was getting. I picked up a LOT of bad things from that - some have gone, some have remained. But having been there, I don't know what you can possibly teach someone that's going to keep them out of that. Because most of the time, I think we walk into it, our eyes wide open because we think we know.
The second link really has no bearing whatsoever on Christianity. The point is basically that using ad hominem is bad. Not much to say about that one.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Ex-Christiaity Doesn't Exist
An interesting thing happened to me today which is why I'm writing again on this topic. This is going to be a little different than the norm because this is experiential. Because part of being a Christian is experiencing God and all that entails.
This afternoon, I talked for two hours with a lady who, in that short time, I came to love. I was thinking about the afternoon over and over in my mind after I got home, connecting all the dots that brought the two of us to that place at that time, and something occurred to me. This overwhelming, overflowing joy that I had just shared with someone I had hardly spoken to before, that which I was and am still experiencing - this awe of God, this love, this peace, this sense of right and belonging - is not something you can walk away from.
You can cut your leg off. You can leave your beloved spouse. You can take your life. But you CANNOT walk away from God. If you know Him, you cannot leave Him because He's just TOO incredible. You cannot NOT want this feeling again and again. You think sex feels good? You think drugs are addictive? You think smoking is relaxing? You think alcohol is freeing?
Pick anything! It cannot compare. People are drawn to feeling good. And you know what? NOTHING feels as good as being in communion with God, as worshiping Him, as delighting in Him, as LOVING Him and being so enormously loved BY Him. And anyone who has actually felt that, who has lived without Him and then experienced life with Him, cannot WANT to leave it again. There's not a person who is wired that way.
Therefore, by virtue of God being so delightful, so pleasing, and so fulfilling, ex-Christianity cannot exist.
This afternoon, I talked for two hours with a lady who, in that short time, I came to love. I was thinking about the afternoon over and over in my mind after I got home, connecting all the dots that brought the two of us to that place at that time, and something occurred to me. This overwhelming, overflowing joy that I had just shared with someone I had hardly spoken to before, that which I was and am still experiencing - this awe of God, this love, this peace, this sense of right and belonging - is not something you can walk away from.
You can cut your leg off. You can leave your beloved spouse. You can take your life. But you CANNOT walk away from God. If you know Him, you cannot leave Him because He's just TOO incredible. You cannot NOT want this feeling again and again. You think sex feels good? You think drugs are addictive? You think smoking is relaxing? You think alcohol is freeing?
Pick anything! It cannot compare. People are drawn to feeling good. And you know what? NOTHING feels as good as being in communion with God, as worshiping Him, as delighting in Him, as LOVING Him and being so enormously loved BY Him. And anyone who has actually felt that, who has lived without Him and then experienced life with Him, cannot WANT to leave it again. There's not a person who is wired that way.
Therefore, by virtue of God being so delightful, so pleasing, and so fulfilling, ex-Christianity cannot exist.
Monday, July 2, 2012
People First, But Also Sinners
So this next post is a sort-of argument that Lalaith was once a Christian. Since I've gone over this topic pretty heavily in the past, I'm going to skip a lot and focus on a few main points instead of (again) proving from the Bible that that isn't possible.
First, I have to say, it's kind of funny. Because, the only people that are claiming that she wasn't a Christian are the people who claim to be Christians. So, the only people she's arguing with are the people who are NOT going to take her word for something over what the Bible says. I can't fault her for making her case. It just seems a bit pointless, logically.
Second, Lalaith cannot POSSIBLY KNOW that no one ever doubted her sincerity. She can know that no one told her, that multiple people have said that they didn't, etc. But to say, of a certainty, that NO ONE who came in contact with her EVER doubted her Christianity is just not quite possible. Also, what people think has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the state of someone else's soul. People said that Jesus did miracles through the power the Devil. . . .
Third, the article she linked has a good main point: Don't make assumptions. However, the article also seems to assume that MOST Christians haven't come in contact with atheists or homosexuals or whatever they are teaching against. I'm from an itty-bitty town in MI, not a very social person, home-schooled, but even I worked with a wide smattering of folks before I was 18. So, if someone like ME has come in personal contact with atheists and such, I would imagine that a lot more of them than the author would guess have also come in contact with a variety of people.
Fourth, you don't have to know someone to know that if they are "X" and "X" is sinful, that they are sinning and God condemns them. You might have to know them to know why they're okay with X, to know how they got into it, to know a lot of other stuff. But basically, when the Bible says that liars are going to Hell (Rev. 21:8), you don't need to know anything else about a person - if you know they're a habitual liar - to know that they're on their way to Hell. So you don't need to know one personally in order to say that they are condemned as a whole. The Bible condemns liars. I don't need to know any liars in order to say, "Liars go to Hell." That's just not the way it works.
[Side note interjection: Saying that the Bible condemns something/preaching that something is sin is a far cry from verbally abusing someone (unless they take being called a sinner as verbal abuse; some do). It's not slander or running someone down or anything like that. It's the truth and the truth is often uncomfortable. That doesn't make it malicious or mean. However, people like that pastor that I blogged about a few weeks ago - the guy who wanted to stick all the homosexuals in a fenced off area and drop food in to them - those kinds people are going to have issues. They are going to have a hard time not saying nasty things about people. Because they stop thinking of people as PEOPLE and start thinking of them ONLY as X. When that happens, there's a problem. People are PEOPLE; they are created in the image of God. That has to be what they are FIRST, otherwise you won't be able to treat them with the love that we're to have. People first; sinners second.]
This is what I think is behind that kind of thinking. People believe that if you get to know them, you will see that they are actually good people and therefore, you won't be able to condemn them based on something like them not believing that God exists. But for a true Christian, it doesn't work that way. I believed that atheists were going to Hell when I was ten (random age); I still believed it after I met and worked with an atheist when I was 16. Of the four people that I normally worked with at that job, she was the nicest, the least vulgar, and the most respectful. I liked her the best. The thing is, none of that matters to her soul. She didn't believe that GOD exists. You can't not believe in God and yet put your faith and trust in Jesus.
Same thing happened with a homosexual, with Mormons, etc. etc. People are NOT good. Not, non-Christians are not good; PEOPLE are not good. There is nothing anyone can do that makes up for not believing in God, for not following His Word.
In closing, I'm all for getting to know people. I'm all for doing your research and I'm all for asking people questions about what they believe. It's important not to make assumptions. However, we absolutely cannot substitute how we feel about people for the truth. I love Lalaith; she is my friend. She's a nice person, a very sweet girl; she's smart and funny. None of that makes her any more God's child.
It doesn't matter how much money you give to the poor; it doesn't matter how many species of animals you save, how much you take care of the environment, how kind you are to people around you - those are all "good" things. But like in I Corinthians 13, if you do it all without love (love of God) it profits NOTHING. God doesn't just look at actions; God looks at motive.
First, I have to say, it's kind of funny. Because, the only people that are claiming that she wasn't a Christian are the people who claim to be Christians. So, the only people she's arguing with are the people who are NOT going to take her word for something over what the Bible says. I can't fault her for making her case. It just seems a bit pointless, logically.
Second, Lalaith cannot POSSIBLY KNOW that no one ever doubted her sincerity. She can know that no one told her, that multiple people have said that they didn't, etc. But to say, of a certainty, that NO ONE who came in contact with her EVER doubted her Christianity is just not quite possible. Also, what people think has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the state of someone else's soul. People said that Jesus did miracles through the power the Devil. . . .
Third, the article she linked has a good main point: Don't make assumptions. However, the article also seems to assume that MOST Christians haven't come in contact with atheists or homosexuals or whatever they are teaching against. I'm from an itty-bitty town in MI, not a very social person, home-schooled, but even I worked with a wide smattering of folks before I was 18. So, if someone like ME has come in personal contact with atheists and such, I would imagine that a lot more of them than the author would guess have also come in contact with a variety of people.
Fourth, you don't have to know someone to know that if they are "X" and "X" is sinful, that they are sinning and God condemns them. You might have to know them to know why they're okay with X, to know how they got into it, to know a lot of other stuff. But basically, when the Bible says that liars are going to Hell (Rev. 21:8), you don't need to know anything else about a person - if you know they're a habitual liar - to know that they're on their way to Hell. So you don't need to know one personally in order to say that they are condemned as a whole. The Bible condemns liars. I don't need to know any liars in order to say, "Liars go to Hell." That's just not the way it works.
[Side note interjection: Saying that the Bible condemns something/preaching that something is sin is a far cry from verbally abusing someone (unless they take being called a sinner as verbal abuse; some do). It's not slander or running someone down or anything like that. It's the truth and the truth is often uncomfortable. That doesn't make it malicious or mean. However, people like that pastor that I blogged about a few weeks ago - the guy who wanted to stick all the homosexuals in a fenced off area and drop food in to them - those kinds people are going to have issues. They are going to have a hard time not saying nasty things about people. Because they stop thinking of people as PEOPLE and start thinking of them ONLY as X. When that happens, there's a problem. People are PEOPLE; they are created in the image of God. That has to be what they are FIRST, otherwise you won't be able to treat them with the love that we're to have. People first; sinners second.]
This is what I think is behind that kind of thinking. People believe that if you get to know them, you will see that they are actually good people and therefore, you won't be able to condemn them based on something like them not believing that God exists. But for a true Christian, it doesn't work that way. I believed that atheists were going to Hell when I was ten (random age); I still believed it after I met and worked with an atheist when I was 16. Of the four people that I normally worked with at that job, she was the nicest, the least vulgar, and the most respectful. I liked her the best. The thing is, none of that matters to her soul. She didn't believe that GOD exists. You can't not believe in God and yet put your faith and trust in Jesus.
Same thing happened with a homosexual, with Mormons, etc. etc. People are NOT good. Not, non-Christians are not good; PEOPLE are not good. There is nothing anyone can do that makes up for not believing in God, for not following His Word.
In closing, I'm all for getting to know people. I'm all for doing your research and I'm all for asking people questions about what they believe. It's important not to make assumptions. However, we absolutely cannot substitute how we feel about people for the truth. I love Lalaith; she is my friend. She's a nice person, a very sweet girl; she's smart and funny. None of that makes her any more God's child.
It doesn't matter how much money you give to the poor; it doesn't matter how many species of animals you save, how much you take care of the environment, how kind you are to people around you - those are all "good" things. But like in I Corinthians 13, if you do it all without love (love of God) it profits NOTHING. God doesn't just look at actions; God looks at motive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)