A few weeks ago, I saw this video linked on Facebook. I found the title intriguing, as I've often thought the same of a great many gods. For instance, a god who is not sovereign is not an all-powerful god, and certainly not the God of the Bible. A god who is only managing things is what I would consider a weak god. There's also the idea of the god who has created everything and then has, in great indifference, decided that, although he COULD do anything, he simply has no interest - that god also strikes me as too small because he has no larger vision.
However, the argument that this video makes has nothing on the triune God of the Bible. I find it rather humorous that the very foundational things that we must believe have so baffled the minds of everyone who tries to comprehend them, and yet this video makes the claim that OUR imaginations have outgrown God. Have we come up with something more complex than Three separate, divine Persons existing as ONE essence? And we've imagined something more mysterious and wonderful than the omnipresent One taking on humanity - somehow fully and completely containing both a human nature and a divine nature? No. We haven't and we never will.
The video takes the universe as evidence that God is small, but how does that make any sense if you take Genesis 1-2 into account? You know how much time the Bible gives to the creation of the universe? "He made the stars also." All the trillions upon trillions of stars out there and how much does the Bible say about their creation? They got a single sentence. Why? Why is this immense thing given such little time and thought? Because God didn't know about it? Or because the universe is not the epitome of God's creation? The narrator is missing one of the key points of Genesis - the universe was not made in the image of God; humanity was. We are not the center of the universe, it's true; but we are the most important things that God created.
Now I'm all for realizing just how small we are and I'm all for realizing just how vast and amazing the universe is. But not in light of the universe - in light of the God Who MADE the universe!
The narrator brings up a few points of interest about the Bible - things like "we now know that the blanket of stars above us is not placed upon a firmament as the writers of Genesis would have had us believe." I wonder if the narrator would think it dishonest to say, "There are so many stars in the sky tonight!" It isn't by the way. "The sky" doesn't just refer to the atmosphere. It refers to "above" us, to anything from the tops of trees to the galaxies and vast empty spaces in between it all. "The sky" is a not a scientific term and neither is "firmament."
He then compares the power of the greatest volcano to a super-nova, once again forgetting that the God of the Bible made BOTH. So how exactly does this make God small???? No, the whole argument is actually proving just how vast God really is. It's a matter of common sense that you cannot make something greater than yourself. Therefore, everything that shows the immensity of the universe is simply showing that God is even greater.
It's telling just how large of an impact that believing or not believing that God is THE Creator has on everything else throughout the Bible. You can see this easily when the narrator says that (paraphrasing here) "at God's most wrathful, the worst He could do is flood a world that was already covered in 2/3s water." Even if we KNEW that that was true (which we don't, by the way; there's this great big theory about the water canopy before the Great Flood), who put the water there to be used as a flood?? God did! Is that a picture of His lack of strength, or is that a picture of His sovereignty in Creation?
And then the narrator goes on to talk about the destruction of our galaxy. It puzzles me to think that this person who talks with such wonder about the universe can then sit there and practically say that our doom is secured because one day we're going to collide with another galaxy. I don't understand how that is not a depressing thought to him.
In case you couldn't tell it was coming, the narrator comes right out then and suggests that we should pay homage to the universe. How does that make any sense whatsoever? Even if you don't believe in a deity, how does it make sense to pay homage to a THING? Do you pay homage to a painting? Sure, you can admire it, but don't you usually praise the painter? You say something like, "I love Van Gough. His paintings are so beautiful." Do you pay homage to a home run, or to the player who hit the home run? Do you praise the football for landing in the receiver's arms or praise the receiver for catching it?
Last point: After he's just talked about how our galaxy is going to collide with the neighboring one which will result in total annihilation, he says something about how we will "never run out of opportunities to explore our own potential." I pretty much wanted to facepalm at that point. He's either assuming that we'll all be well out of our galaxy by that point (since we're colliding with the next nearest one), or that somehow we'll have developed a way to survive colliding galaxies.
Anyway. The video does have two things going for - the music and the narrator's voice. But overall, that's got to be one of the worst arguments ever for the God of the Bible being too small.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Prayer: Part Three
This will probably be the last post on prayer. I saw something else today that I may end up doing a post on perhaps next week. For today, I'll be writing on Prayer and Faith.
They are completely linked. If you do not believe that God can, you wouldn't bother asking. If you believe that God is able, only sin would keep you from asking.
Faith, however, seems to be a very slippery topic. Misunderstandings of faith lead to misrepresentations of prayer. Much of this is due to the idea of the "prosperity gospel" - the idea that if you believe it enough and ask for it, God WILL give it to you. This idea, once again, puts God in a box. If I believe the mountain will move, God must make it move, right? No.
How does this put God in a box? Well, it takes a great many variables about we fallen, sinful human beings, and simplifies them down to two things - Do I believe? and, Did I ask? Jeremiah 17:9 doesn't let us get away with that. Our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked! We don't know them. And so many times what happens is people think they believe and people think they ask God and people think that they are doing it all according to the Bible, and then God does not give them what they asked for. And their faith crumbles.
Rather than questioning themselves, or simply realizing that what they were asking for must not have been in line with God's will, they often question God. They think that He didn't keep His side of the deal, that He broke a promise.
But that in itself shows how weak their faith really is. "He that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." The very foundation of Christian faith is believing that God IS. That God is what? That God is Who He said. That God is GOD - perfect. If you can't believe that God is God because God didn't give you what you asked for, where is your faith really placed? It's not in God. Most likely, it's in your own understanding.
You reasoned it out; you believed that Bible said such and such; you came to this conclusion. Such a foundation is not faith in GOD - such a foundation is faith in YOUR abilities to reason, to understand, to discern spiritual things. But why are Christians able to understand spiritual things? Because the Holy Spirit is with them. We don't suddenly understand because Christians are suddenly smarter people. We understand because the Holy Spirit reveals it. But if you're trusting in your own abilities, not the leading of the Holy Spirit, you will be just as blind as you were before God saved you.
Oftentimes, we're so oblivious to our sins, our faults, our own deceitful purposes that the only way we ever realize that we're doing something wrong is when God DOESN'T do what we asked.
This is not to say necessarily that we shouldn't have asked - not at all. Rather, the point is that GOD is not unjust, unfair, or dishonest because He didn't give us what we asked for. FIRST, we must believe that God is. If God is not answering any of your prayers, the problem does not lie with Him - the problem lies with you and your prayers. God only gives His children what is best. Sometimes we think that God has said He will do things that He never actually said He would do. That problem is not with God; it's with us. A lot of people get angry about that. They get mad because they misunderstood, because in their minds it should have been made clearer, when really, it's their fault for assuming and presuming.
And in the end, such a response shows that their faith was NOT in God.
So where does this little series leave us with prayer? We are to pray to God the Father, Who is the Giver of all good things and Who answers our prayers on the basis of loving us. We are to pray as Jesus would pray, putting the glory of God always first. We are to pray in faith, not that we will receive what we ask for, but faith that God is God and can therefore be trusted to do all He has said, whether or not we understand what exactly that is.
They are completely linked. If you do not believe that God can, you wouldn't bother asking. If you believe that God is able, only sin would keep you from asking.
Faith, however, seems to be a very slippery topic. Misunderstandings of faith lead to misrepresentations of prayer. Much of this is due to the idea of the "prosperity gospel" - the idea that if you believe it enough and ask for it, God WILL give it to you. This idea, once again, puts God in a box. If I believe the mountain will move, God must make it move, right? No.
How does this put God in a box? Well, it takes a great many variables about we fallen, sinful human beings, and simplifies them down to two things - Do I believe? and, Did I ask? Jeremiah 17:9 doesn't let us get away with that. Our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked! We don't know them. And so many times what happens is people think they believe and people think they ask God and people think that they are doing it all according to the Bible, and then God does not give them what they asked for. And their faith crumbles.
Rather than questioning themselves, or simply realizing that what they were asking for must not have been in line with God's will, they often question God. They think that He didn't keep His side of the deal, that He broke a promise.
But that in itself shows how weak their faith really is. "He that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." The very foundation of Christian faith is believing that God IS. That God is what? That God is Who He said. That God is GOD - perfect. If you can't believe that God is God because God didn't give you what you asked for, where is your faith really placed? It's not in God. Most likely, it's in your own understanding.
You reasoned it out; you believed that Bible said such and such; you came to this conclusion. Such a foundation is not faith in GOD - such a foundation is faith in YOUR abilities to reason, to understand, to discern spiritual things. But why are Christians able to understand spiritual things? Because the Holy Spirit is with them. We don't suddenly understand because Christians are suddenly smarter people. We understand because the Holy Spirit reveals it. But if you're trusting in your own abilities, not the leading of the Holy Spirit, you will be just as blind as you were before God saved you.
Oftentimes, we're so oblivious to our sins, our faults, our own deceitful purposes that the only way we ever realize that we're doing something wrong is when God DOESN'T do what we asked.
This is not to say necessarily that we shouldn't have asked - not at all. Rather, the point is that GOD is not unjust, unfair, or dishonest because He didn't give us what we asked for. FIRST, we must believe that God is. If God is not answering any of your prayers, the problem does not lie with Him - the problem lies with you and your prayers. God only gives His children what is best. Sometimes we think that God has said He will do things that He never actually said He would do. That problem is not with God; it's with us. A lot of people get angry about that. They get mad because they misunderstood, because in their minds it should have been made clearer, when really, it's their fault for assuming and presuming.
And in the end, such a response shows that their faith was NOT in God.
So where does this little series leave us with prayer? We are to pray to God the Father, Who is the Giver of all good things and Who answers our prayers on the basis of loving us. We are to pray as Jesus would pray, putting the glory of God always first. We are to pray in faith, not that we will receive what we ask for, but faith that God is God and can therefore be trusted to do all He has said, whether or not we understand what exactly that is.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Prayer: Part Two
"I pray it in the name of Jesus!"
It's a saddening thing to me (and one of those things that makes me sort of squint my eyes and think, "You've got to be kidding me") that there are people, claiming to be Christians, who seem to think that there are magical words. And what makes it worse is that so many of these ignorant ideas come from pastors who are supposed to be shepherding God's people. . . . But that's a different topic all together. Maybe that's something for after this little series.
Maybe you're wondering what exactly I'm talking about. Here's an example. Some time ago now there was a big storm (possibly a hurricane) that was going to hit land soon and someone I knew on Facebook asked people to remember that area of the country in their prayers. There was a comment on that status that was a prayer for safety and then after, it said something that meant basically this: "Because I prayed "in Jesus' name" God will keep everyone safe tomorrow and there will be no loss of life from this storm."
I was ticked when I read that for many reasons. Trying to put God in a box does not work, is a sign that you're putting your faith in the wrong thing, and has the potential of confusing a LOT of people. Trying to put God in a box is BAD. I really hope the person who wrote that rethought their position after at least eight people died the next day.
Maybe you're wondering about John 14:13-14 that say, whatever we ask in Jesus' name, He will do it. Well, think about it for a minute and answer this honestly: Do you really believe that what Jesus was saying is that if we use a special phrase, God has to give us what we asked for?
Two things to take note of from those verses: One, Jesus is talking about doing greater works than He did. He wasn't talking about just asking for anything. He certainly wasn't talking about asking for a new car; He was talking about us asking for divine help in doing greater works than Jesus had done on earth. Two, the last phrase of verse 13 makes it very clear what the purpose is - that the Father may be glorified.
Those verses and every other verse about God giving us what we ask for should be taken in conjunction with Psalm 37:4, "Delight thyself also in the LORD and He shall give thee the desire of thy heart."
I've heard a lot of good explanations of this verse; I've heard very few people explain what "in Jesus' name" means. But they are very connected in a way. See, in Psalm 37, we're given this wonderful promise of getting what we desire, IF we are delighting in the LORD. How can God make that promise? Because if we're delighting in the LORD, we won't be desiring anything we shouldn't be. What we desire for ourselves will be what God desires for us. What we desire for others will be what God desires for others. Delighting in the LORD could be also called walking with the LORD; it means we're in step with Him, going the same direction. Our wills line up with HIS! And that means, that above everything we could ask for, we desire His glory. So above all our requests - whether they be for physical or spiritual - what we desire MOST is that God be glorified. And suddenly, we can see that God is answering EVERY one of our prayers and He's being tremendously glorified.
When Jesus talked about praying in His name, He wasn't talking about saying the words. He was talking about actually praying IN HIS NAME, or in step with His will. Think of it this way - if a child goes to their father and says, "Would you come help me with my math?" they may or may not get a positive response, depending on what is best for the child at that time. If it's bed time, they're probably not going to get help with their math. If the same child goes to their dad and and says, "Mom told me to ask if you can help me with my math" - that is a totally different thing. One is just the child's will; one is in line with the will of their authority.
And that illustration follows through to people who just say the words. Because if the little kid says, "Mom asked you to get me three cookies" the dad is probably going to notice that something isn't quite in line with the established practice of his wife. It's not the WORDS that matter - it's whether or not the request is actually in line with the will.
Praying in Jesus' name means that we are praying as Jesus would pray, as if we were a herald sent by Jesus with such and such a message. It means that we ask what He would ask with the same attitude that He would have. And what did Jesus ask for over and over? That God be glorified. What did He pray in the garden when He was in agony over the coming cross, knowing that this thing was going to come, knowing already what the answer was, but asking the Father anyway? "Nevertheless, not My will, but Thine by done." Always, always, always Jesus put the glory of the Father first, even before His desire to escape the cross.
It's a saddening thing to me (and one of those things that makes me sort of squint my eyes and think, "You've got to be kidding me") that there are people, claiming to be Christians, who seem to think that there are magical words. And what makes it worse is that so many of these ignorant ideas come from pastors who are supposed to be shepherding God's people. . . . But that's a different topic all together. Maybe that's something for after this little series.
Maybe you're wondering what exactly I'm talking about. Here's an example. Some time ago now there was a big storm (possibly a hurricane) that was going to hit land soon and someone I knew on Facebook asked people to remember that area of the country in their prayers. There was a comment on that status that was a prayer for safety and then after, it said something that meant basically this: "Because I prayed "in Jesus' name" God will keep everyone safe tomorrow and there will be no loss of life from this storm."
I was ticked when I read that for many reasons. Trying to put God in a box does not work, is a sign that you're putting your faith in the wrong thing, and has the potential of confusing a LOT of people. Trying to put God in a box is BAD. I really hope the person who wrote that rethought their position after at least eight people died the next day.
Maybe you're wondering about John 14:13-14 that say, whatever we ask in Jesus' name, He will do it. Well, think about it for a minute and answer this honestly: Do you really believe that what Jesus was saying is that if we use a special phrase, God has to give us what we asked for?
Two things to take note of from those verses: One, Jesus is talking about doing greater works than He did. He wasn't talking about just asking for anything. He certainly wasn't talking about asking for a new car; He was talking about us asking for divine help in doing greater works than Jesus had done on earth. Two, the last phrase of verse 13 makes it very clear what the purpose is - that the Father may be glorified.
Those verses and every other verse about God giving us what we ask for should be taken in conjunction with Psalm 37:4, "Delight thyself also in the LORD and He shall give thee the desire of thy heart."
I've heard a lot of good explanations of this verse; I've heard very few people explain what "in Jesus' name" means. But they are very connected in a way. See, in Psalm 37, we're given this wonderful promise of getting what we desire, IF we are delighting in the LORD. How can God make that promise? Because if we're delighting in the LORD, we won't be desiring anything we shouldn't be. What we desire for ourselves will be what God desires for us. What we desire for others will be what God desires for others. Delighting in the LORD could be also called walking with the LORD; it means we're in step with Him, going the same direction. Our wills line up with HIS! And that means, that above everything we could ask for, we desire His glory. So above all our requests - whether they be for physical or spiritual - what we desire MOST is that God be glorified. And suddenly, we can see that God is answering EVERY one of our prayers and He's being tremendously glorified.
When Jesus talked about praying in His name, He wasn't talking about saying the words. He was talking about actually praying IN HIS NAME, or in step with His will. Think of it this way - if a child goes to their father and says, "Would you come help me with my math?" they may or may not get a positive response, depending on what is best for the child at that time. If it's bed time, they're probably not going to get help with their math. If the same child goes to their dad and and says, "Mom told me to ask if you can help me with my math" - that is a totally different thing. One is just the child's will; one is in line with the will of their authority.
And that illustration follows through to people who just say the words. Because if the little kid says, "Mom asked you to get me three cookies" the dad is probably going to notice that something isn't quite in line with the established practice of his wife. It's not the WORDS that matter - it's whether or not the request is actually in line with the will.
Praying in Jesus' name means that we are praying as Jesus would pray, as if we were a herald sent by Jesus with such and such a message. It means that we ask what He would ask with the same attitude that He would have. And what did Jesus ask for over and over? That God be glorified. What did He pray in the garden when He was in agony over the coming cross, knowing that this thing was going to come, knowing already what the answer was, but asking the Father anyway? "Nevertheless, not My will, but Thine by done." Always, always, always Jesus put the glory of the Father first, even before His desire to escape the cross.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Prayer: Part One
I've been thinking about some things to keep this blog going even when I have nothing specific to respond to, so today I shall start a short series on Prayer. As of right now, I'm not sure how long it will be. That will probably depend on how much time I have and how many points I come up with.
Prayer is a topic of lots of debate and, in my opinion, a lot of wrong thinking. I've heard a great many people completely misunderstand a lot of things about prayer, and I'm going to try to hit on the ones that have stuck out most to me. Basically, it seems that people like to put God in a box with prayer, and that doesn't ever work out well - for the people.
I don't claim to have it all figured out, or to understand fully how prayer and God's sovereignty work together so beautifully, but there are some things of which I am convinced that they are Biblical and right.
One: We pray only to God; and specifically, we are to pray to the Father. (John 16:23-24)
This is an interesting thing, and a new thing for me, because for most of my formative years, I didn't distinguish between one Person of the Trinity and another. I knew that Jesus died, not the Holy Spirit, but I also thought that Jesus came to live within me (He doesn't; the Holy Spirit does). The roles of the different Persons of the Trinity were confused in my understanding, but God is gracious.
For about the past two years, my home church has been going through the gospel of John, and two weeks ago, we went over chapter 16 and the verses mentioned above jumped out at me. We pray in Jesus' name but we're supposed to be praying to the Father. I didn't realize when I was little and my mom taught me to begin my prayers addressing the Father that there was a good reason behind it. There is.
Something else about this struck me quite squarely. The reason we don't pray to Jesus (or anyone else) is because God the Father is the One Who answers (James 1:17). Jesus doesn't send every good and perfect gift; that's not His role. In fact, the ONLY good gift that I believe the Bible mentions Jesus sending to us, is the Holy Spirit. He's more than able, but that is something that the Father does. They each have their jobs and roles. It's God the Father Who answers prayer, and we don't pray to Jesus because the Father loves us enough to answer our prayers by virtue of us being His children. He answers us because He loves us!
The only reason that our prayers might not be answered the same way that God the Father answered Jesus' prayers is because we aren't praying like Jesus did - not because the Father doesn't love us enough to give it to us without someone else asking as well.
This flies in the face of Catholicism, which teaches it's practitioners to pray to Mary and other saints. Not only do they misunderstand that it's the Father Who gives all good gifts, and say that we should pray to Mary because Mary undoubtedly has the ear of Jesus (as if Jesus is the One answering our prayers); but they also misunderstand that the Father loves US enough to answer our prayers without anyone else praying for it, not even God the Son!
Part of the reason that Jesus died was so that we could have direct access to God the Father through prayer. There is no priest we need to go through now. Not only are we neglecting to make use of this great gift that we've been given if we pray to someone else, we are also distancing ourselves from God the Father by not speaking directly to Him! Think about always talking to your best friend through a messenger - that's a pretty blah relationship. If I could only talk to my husband or my mom (or anyone really) through someone else, that would be horrible! Good relationships are open; good relationships are communicative; good relationships are direct.
And we've been given the opportunity for a good relationship with GOD, if only we will make proper use of prayer.
Prayer is a topic of lots of debate and, in my opinion, a lot of wrong thinking. I've heard a great many people completely misunderstand a lot of things about prayer, and I'm going to try to hit on the ones that have stuck out most to me. Basically, it seems that people like to put God in a box with prayer, and that doesn't ever work out well - for the people.
I don't claim to have it all figured out, or to understand fully how prayer and God's sovereignty work together so beautifully, but there are some things of which I am convinced that they are Biblical and right.
One: We pray only to God; and specifically, we are to pray to the Father. (John 16:23-24)
This is an interesting thing, and a new thing for me, because for most of my formative years, I didn't distinguish between one Person of the Trinity and another. I knew that Jesus died, not the Holy Spirit, but I also thought that Jesus came to live within me (He doesn't; the Holy Spirit does). The roles of the different Persons of the Trinity were confused in my understanding, but God is gracious.
For about the past two years, my home church has been going through the gospel of John, and two weeks ago, we went over chapter 16 and the verses mentioned above jumped out at me. We pray in Jesus' name but we're supposed to be praying to the Father. I didn't realize when I was little and my mom taught me to begin my prayers addressing the Father that there was a good reason behind it. There is.
Something else about this struck me quite squarely. The reason we don't pray to Jesus (or anyone else) is because God the Father is the One Who answers (James 1:17). Jesus doesn't send every good and perfect gift; that's not His role. In fact, the ONLY good gift that I believe the Bible mentions Jesus sending to us, is the Holy Spirit. He's more than able, but that is something that the Father does. They each have their jobs and roles. It's God the Father Who answers prayer, and we don't pray to Jesus because the Father loves us enough to answer our prayers by virtue of us being His children. He answers us because He loves us!
The only reason that our prayers might not be answered the same way that God the Father answered Jesus' prayers is because we aren't praying like Jesus did - not because the Father doesn't love us enough to give it to us without someone else asking as well.
This flies in the face of Catholicism, which teaches it's practitioners to pray to Mary and other saints. Not only do they misunderstand that it's the Father Who gives all good gifts, and say that we should pray to Mary because Mary undoubtedly has the ear of Jesus (as if Jesus is the One answering our prayers); but they also misunderstand that the Father loves US enough to answer our prayers without anyone else praying for it, not even God the Son!
Part of the reason that Jesus died was so that we could have direct access to God the Father through prayer. There is no priest we need to go through now. Not only are we neglecting to make use of this great gift that we've been given if we pray to someone else, we are also distancing ourselves from God the Father by not speaking directly to Him! Think about always talking to your best friend through a messenger - that's a pretty blah relationship. If I could only talk to my husband or my mom (or anyone really) through someone else, that would be horrible! Good relationships are open; good relationships are communicative; good relationships are direct.
And we've been given the opportunity for a good relationship with GOD, if only we will make proper use of prayer.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Chick-fil-A
As you will notice, this post has no link. My friends over on Untwisting have been silent for a bit, so I thought I would take this opportunity to talk about something very recent and controversial.
First, let me be very clear. I don't think this is a Christian issue. "Family values" are not limited to Christianity. Mormons have lots of good family values - they're not Christians (don't even refer to themselves as such). I've heard/read things from Christians calling people to support CFA and I've heard that Christians shouldn't get involved. Honestly, I have a hard time saying that it's a "should" OR a "shouldn't" as far as Christianity is concerned. Do I support family values? Yes, but I don't go give my time, money, or vote to every person who says, "I support family values." So what's the difference? We'll get to that.
Second, I've been extremely (Extremely!!!) impressed and grateful for the responses I've read from multiple Christian sources regarding their take on this. There has not been name-calling, any kind of hate-speech (from the people I've read - I'm sure the bad stuff is out there), degrading of homosexuals, etc. It's been such a breath of fresh air to me, considering some of the things I've seen and blogged about recently. It really has been a wonderful source of encouragement.
On to the meat: Unfortunately, if you stand for "family values," you automatically get linked with Christianity, which is a highly dangerous thing for Christians. If you think that all those people who stood in line for so long the other day were ALL Christians, you have a VERY optimistic view of our country. They weren't. People who believe in "god" but don't do anything to try to follow in Christ's steps - those people don't know God. Those people showed up at CFA appreciation day, too.
Personally, if we'd had a CFA nearby (and not spent too much money this month already), I would have gone. But my reasons have much less to do with supporting family values, and much more to do with the fact that I don't like mayors of cities taking on more power than they have the right to. It's because the government started a boycott, and I would want to show my dissent with the GOVERNMENT - by supporting with my dollar what they have denounced with their words. I don't want to support CFA because I think their stance is right (although that's a danger, only supporting the ones that you agree with); I want to support CFA because I think they should be entitled to expressing their beliefs without it being called intolerant, without government officials declaring that they're going to try to shut them down or keep them out.
Honestly, CFA doesn't discriminate between the gay and the straight; they serve both alike. But government officials discriminated against people who support gay marriage and people who support traditional marriage. If you can't see who is really being intolerant here, you have a serious problem with logic.
THAT is why I would support CFA. And, I hope, that if such an issue comes up on the opposite side, if the government tries to shut someone down for their personal beliefs about something like, say abortion, I would again show my dissent with the government. So if the CEO of Nike (for example) said that he was pro-choice, the government absolutely should not try to shut them down, and I would want, again, to show my dissent with the government for such action.
People are allowed to believe what they want. God established that from the beginning. Our country has stood for the freedom to speak those beliefs, and I think that is a good and right freedom, and I will fight for it - when it means fighting for the rights of people who I agree with and for the rights of the people that I disagree with, even if they hate me.
For me, this is not about family values and my response is not dictated by my Christianity; this is about freedom and my response is dictated by my desire for our country to be the land of the free.
First, let me be very clear. I don't think this is a Christian issue. "Family values" are not limited to Christianity. Mormons have lots of good family values - they're not Christians (don't even refer to themselves as such). I've heard/read things from Christians calling people to support CFA and I've heard that Christians shouldn't get involved. Honestly, I have a hard time saying that it's a "should" OR a "shouldn't" as far as Christianity is concerned. Do I support family values? Yes, but I don't go give my time, money, or vote to every person who says, "I support family values." So what's the difference? We'll get to that.
Second, I've been extremely (Extremely!!!) impressed and grateful for the responses I've read from multiple Christian sources regarding their take on this. There has not been name-calling, any kind of hate-speech (from the people I've read - I'm sure the bad stuff is out there), degrading of homosexuals, etc. It's been such a breath of fresh air to me, considering some of the things I've seen and blogged about recently. It really has been a wonderful source of encouragement.
On to the meat: Unfortunately, if you stand for "family values," you automatically get linked with Christianity, which is a highly dangerous thing for Christians. If you think that all those people who stood in line for so long the other day were ALL Christians, you have a VERY optimistic view of our country. They weren't. People who believe in "god" but don't do anything to try to follow in Christ's steps - those people don't know God. Those people showed up at CFA appreciation day, too.
Personally, if we'd had a CFA nearby (and not spent too much money this month already), I would have gone. But my reasons have much less to do with supporting family values, and much more to do with the fact that I don't like mayors of cities taking on more power than they have the right to. It's because the government started a boycott, and I would want to show my dissent with the GOVERNMENT - by supporting with my dollar what they have denounced with their words. I don't want to support CFA because I think their stance is right (although that's a danger, only supporting the ones that you agree with); I want to support CFA because I think they should be entitled to expressing their beliefs without it being called intolerant, without government officials declaring that they're going to try to shut them down or keep them out.
Honestly, CFA doesn't discriminate between the gay and the straight; they serve both alike. But government officials discriminated against people who support gay marriage and people who support traditional marriage. If you can't see who is really being intolerant here, you have a serious problem with logic.
THAT is why I would support CFA. And, I hope, that if such an issue comes up on the opposite side, if the government tries to shut someone down for their personal beliefs about something like, say abortion, I would again show my dissent with the government. So if the CEO of Nike (for example) said that he was pro-choice, the government absolutely should not try to shut them down, and I would want, again, to show my dissent with the government for such action.
People are allowed to believe what they want. God established that from the beginning. Our country has stood for the freedom to speak those beliefs, and I think that is a good and right freedom, and I will fight for it - when it means fighting for the rights of people who I agree with and for the rights of the people that I disagree with, even if they hate me.
For me, this is not about family values and my response is not dictated by my Christianity; this is about freedom and my response is dictated by my desire for our country to be the land of the free.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Fear-mongering vs. Warning
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)