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."
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
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)