|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2012 21:37:39 GMT -5
But ... but ....... BUT!
The whole Bible is littered with messages about sex and how it is and isn't to be handled. Half the book of Song of Solomon is about sex, and from reading it it's fairly obvious it's for enjoyment, not just procreation. And Paul teaches all about this whole thing, and especially in 1 Corinthians where we find this gem of a verse:
"The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." - 1 Corinthians 3-5
It's a lovely verse talking about sex and how both partners are equal, and reminding those with ascetic tendencies that sex was made by God and is therefore a good thing to be celebrated and respected.
If there's a Catholic or someone of a Catholic background lurking out there, I'd really like some rebuttal for my post. I'm curious to know the Catholic interpretation of this and other similar verses dotted about the place.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2012 7:34:37 GMT -5
Saeryena, would you feel that I'm responsible for the bacteria in my intestine? If one of them breaks their pseudopod, am I liable? No. That would be like holding the planet responisble because someone has a car accident. (and for confirmation I'm speaking of the planet as an ensouled being)
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Oct 21, 2012 8:19:43 GMT -5
The above is from the poll results of an Evangelical Christian statistics organization known as the Barna Group. So, how did this happen? How did the religion who's 'Greatest Commandment' teaches Love for God and Neighbor become seen as a religion of hate and contempt? Fred Clark of Slacktivist has some ideas on why this might be which I found to be pretty interesting. I'd be interested to hear from those inside American churches or this matter. Do the pole results reflect your experience with the church? Do you think that churches should be actively attempting to change their image based on this information? Is this image of Christians as contemptful at odds with the admonition to in Ephesians 5 to "walk in the way of love" and "Live as children of light", or does it fall under " But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity" from the same chapter?
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Oct 21, 2012 16:09:59 GMT -5
I didn't read that full article, mostly skimmed it to get the jist of that guy's five theories. I think, for the most part, they suffer from lumping Christians together into one big group. Considering that there are about 2-3 billion people in the world who self-identify as Christian, or 1/3 of all peoples, plus dozens upon dozens of different denominations who believe quite different things, it's a little impossible to theorize why Christians as a whole seem to be anti-gay. Like when the Pope says this, that, or the other thing, why exactly are we saying that Christians are suddenly anti-birth control? Half of Christians aren't even Catholic; the Pope might as well be the president of the Beiber fanclub, for all his judgements mean to any Protestants. Consider that some denominations, like Episcopal Church, have openly gay priests.
Really, I think the reason for the perception can be a few things.
One, the squeakiest wheel gets the grease. Or the media attention. Everyone pays attention to the guy spouting hate on a street corner because he's being antagonistic. Not like there's going to be any media coverage about people who are open and loving to everyone. I mean, there was a little coverage of the 300 Mormons marching in a Utah Pride Parade, but that's only because the Mormon Church is perceived as very strict and conservative, like not being able to drink coffee because of the caffeine. But all the other churches who are quiet and open and welcoming, they're not getting a ton of fanfare. The quietness could probably be partially attributed to the fact that the Bible instructs its followers to be humble and quiet about their good deeds. If the open Christians bragged about how open they were, then they're doing it wrong. XDD
Two, it's pretty easy to claim to be Christian. It's a pretty big chunk of people, it doesn't really require any specific ceremonies, and it encompasses so many different beliefs that some people who just "believe in God" identify themselves as Christian, despite never really reading a page of the Bible.
It's really easy to just hide prejudices behind flimsy reasoning. The same sort of people who are anti-gay were also anti mixed-race marriages only a decade or two ago. (There are still pockets of people who even today are anti mixed-race marriage. :/) There are plenty of Bible verses you can take out of context, so it's far too easy to arm these bigots with things that sound right to their own belief systems, despite its true context. As we're all fairly aware with the election season going on right now, it's way easy to make your discriminatory cases with sound-bytes and out of context clippings. Just too many people who don't like things they don't understand, really.
Finally, I think part of it is that, it's sort of a sin that people find easy to condemn in others because they don't see it in themselves. (I mean yes, there are verses in the Bible that seem to support the idea that homosexuality is a sin. It doesn't seem as clear-cut as the 10 Commandments, but there's an argument there.) Lying's a sin as well, but everyone lies. You're not going to get whole groups of angry people protesting lying because they've all done it themselves. In fact, a ton of sins exist that people can't really protest about because they're guilty of the same. But when someone's straight, they feel they can rag on homosexuals hypocrisy-free, since they're not gay themselves.
Also, the verse about "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity" applies to people within the faith. Ie, other Christians. There's no point condemning non-Christians for any sort of sin. The idea is, that if you become a true believer in Christ, you're supposed to be trying to live the life that Christ wants you to live. That is, not sinning. (Not that that's possible, really, since everyone's fallible. You're just supposed to be trying to do that, out of a feeling of gratitude toward's Christ's forgiveness of all your sins.) If you're still purposely going out and living a sinful life as a professed Christian, then there's trouble there. But condemning sins in non-Christians? There's really no point to it.
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Oct 21, 2012 17:34:11 GMT -5
A question from the curious then: what defines a Christian, to you?
Is it someone who simply believes in the idea of God? Someone who follows the Bible? Someone who goes to Mass, respects Christian holidays, prays, goes to Confession, etc.? Is the latter any more 'Christian' than the second? Someone might follow the Bible and use religious passages as excuses to discriminate, but they would be no less of a Christian than a priest?
I've always thought of it as 'someone who just happens to believe in God', but I've never really grasped how loose and varying the defintion can be to different people.
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Oct 21, 2012 17:38:16 GMT -5
I didn't read that full article, mostly skimmed it to get the jist of that guy's five theories. I think, for the most part, they suffer from lumping Christians together into one big group. Considering that there are about 2-3 billion people in the world who self-identify as Christian, or 1/3 of all peoples, plus dozens upon dozens of different denominations who believe quite different things, it's a little impossible to theorize why Christians as a whole seem to be anti-gay. Like when the Pope says this, that, or the other thing, why exactly are we saying that Christians are suddenly anti-birth control? Half of Christians aren't even Catholic; the Pope might as well be the president of the Beiber fanclub, for all his judgements mean to any Protestants. Consider that some denominations, like Episcopal Church, have openly gay priests. Well, the article specifies Evangelical Christians. Barna (the institute doing the polling) defines this as conservative Protestantism with a number of specific traits. The author is also a Christian himself, and actually makes a lot of the same arguments that you do. The idea of homosexuals as a safe target because it's not a universal sin, and the idea of a super loud minority. Thanks for responding!
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Oct 21, 2012 17:59:36 GMT -5
Teow: Oh, sorry, I guess I did a poor job skimming then. ^^;;;; See, this is what happens when I want to respond to a thread but I'm too lazy to read, haha. A question from the curious then: what defines a Christian, to you? Is it someone who simply believes in the idea of God? Someone who follows the Bible? Someone who goes to Mass, respects Christian holidays, prays, goes to Confession, etc.? Is the latter any more 'Christian' than the second? Someone might follow the Bible and use religious passages as excuses to discriminate, but they would be no less of a Christian than a priest? I've always thought of it as 'someone who just happens to believe in God', but I've never really grasped how loose and varying the defintion can be to different people. Well, to me a Christian is a follower of Christ. After all, God is the same god of Jewish faith, so Jesus Christ is the key element that differentiates between Judaism and Christianity. So the main idea is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and He came to Earth and died for our sins. It's accepting Him as your personal savior that allows you to be forgiven for your sins and spared from Hell. That's mostly all there is to it. If you've accepted Christ as your savior, you're a Christian. If you haven't, you're not. There aren't shades of being "more" or "less" Christian, because you're either going to Heaven or you aren't. You don't have to go to church, but the Bible does recommend it so that you can be strengthened in your faith. Mass and confession are mostly Catholic, so neither has ever been a part of my Christian life. There's a lot in the Bible that instructs Christians on what they should and shouldn't do, and how they should and shouldn't act, but that's more of a lifestyle guide than rules for defining who is or isn't a Christian. Denominationally, I'm probably closest to Baptist because I've spent the most time in those churches, though my most recent church I attended was non-denominational. As an aside, Baptists use baptism as a voluntary way of declaring your faith. They also like Wednesday potlucks, hehe. But thank you, Westboro, for making it look like Baptist is another word for bigot. =_= But anyway, by my definition, there are way more professed Christians than are actual Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Breakingchains on Oct 21, 2012 18:20:19 GMT -5
First off, thanks for posting that article! As one of said young church-goers, I found it equal parts enlightening, inspiring, and damning.
For the record, I want to echo from the very start that not all of the church is remotely like this. As Komo says, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I just happen to have lived my entire life in an area full of squeaky wheels, and I'm ticked off and my ears are ringing.
I grew up in a heavily evangelical area, and dealt a lot with the cognitive and moral dissonance that comes from simultaneously being taught, "Everyone sins, and sin separates us from God, but everything will be okay because God is love!" and, "Gays are ewww!" Growing up around that, you end up wrestling with a lot of internalized, second-hand homophobia that you never wanted and didn't ask for. And with that going on in your skull, heaven help you if you actually feel homosexual urges at any point in you life, especially if you don't end up abandoning your faith and actually believe it. There is no open dialogue, there is no unconditional love, even while both are there for thieves and drug addicts. There is just shame and secrets and confusion, and it is appalling.
I think the poll results are pretty predictable. There is excessive contempt, it's inexcusable, and church leaders who think they can hide it or justify it and sway anyone are living a lie. The Bible may indeed say that homosexuality is a sin (although I've heard even that contested--let's face it, we're dealing with ancient texts that sometimes look like Babelfish got hung over and threw up on them) but most Christians who meet, say, a divorcee or the like are gracious and willing to live and let live. Put many of those same people in the room with a gay guy, and it's gonna be awkward at best and explosive at worst.
I think all the theories that article offers are accurate to some degree, but especially the panic defense. In some circles, anything that is not stated directly in scripture which makes you examine or changes the context of one or all of your beliefs, no matter how reliable or demonstrably true, is likely to be shouted down as a lie from Satan or somesuch. New information is treated like something evil that will lure you away from the One True Truth. A lot of honestly nice and understanding people go white-knuckled at homosexuality, and fear is the likely culprit.
And at the risk of getting sick while at the keyboard, that reminds me of another fear-based rationalization that I'd like to add, because I see it around an awful lot. The article doesn't mention it outright, but it lies somewhere between 3, 4 and 5--the Sodom and Gomorrah defense. In a nutshell: "God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because it had gays in it. He'll destroy America, too, if we legalize gay marriage!" (A more careful reading suggests that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because their whole culture was entirely cool with rape, and even then, he got the non-totally-evil people out alive.) This argument puts less critically-thinking Christians in the uncomfortable position of being terrified that America's going to go up in flames, and being too scared to form their own opinions on the matter, because so much is allegedly at stake and they've been conditioned to listen to this sort of thing from these sorts of people. It's a bald-faced scare tactic and I hate it.
That said, again, it's all a bit of a stereotype, though an understandable one. There are a lot of Christians who don't consider homosexuality a sin, and a lot who do, but who aren't raging nutjobs, hateful, or remotely "homophobic" at least in the sense of actual phobia.
(Edited for clarity, as I typed this whole thing out in a flipping hurry. Sorry.)
|
|
|
Post by Coaster on Oct 21, 2012 19:19:48 GMT -5
After reading the first 6 pages and the last 4 (sorry, but 53 pages over 5.7 years is a bit much for one afternoon ) I'd like to join in on the topic. Most of my life, I fancied myself Christian. I watched VeggieTales (and still love it!), went to church, did crafts in Sunday school, shared the basics with my friends (which at the time I only understood as "do you believe in a God?"), but it was superficial at best. Around the end of middle school, because we went to a church with an aging population and a shrinking worship team, I was conscripted by my dad to play drums. At first, I detested it (especially since the practice kit sounded like a Mutant Kadoatie in a lawnmower, and it was all 4/4 80's rock like AC/DC-- interesting story there, ask later) but it marked the start of a shift- for a change, following Jesus was more than going to church and singing. Nonetheless, my theology by that point had twisted into something like "Do what you like, Jesus'll forgive you anyways." Most of my class went to the largest, most contemporary local church's youth group every week for the entertainment, whether they cared about the message or not. Most of my best friends were in "religious limbo" or loosely inheriting any of their parents' beliefs; in that place, it meant that they were the least "cliquey" and most inclusive of my classmates. I went to a smaller church's youth group, took a couple weekend-long youth retreats, but, looking back, I basically just did my own thing while maintaining a facade of being a generic goody-two-shoes, some sort of saint because I actually read a page of my Bible every week. Around then, we moved from that very mainstream, middle-to-upper-class, "Bible Belt" city to a very alternative-lifestyle, transient sort of town, population ~10k. More on-topic, this town had a much lower percentage of traditional Christians (yet somehow, just as many churches. Separate debate) and a base for most any belief system I had heard of up to that point, but mostly New Age philosophy. The first year was... interesting, to say the least. Thankfully Jesus got a tight hold of me. For the first time, keeping the faith was a challenge, not the norm. Honestly, and in no way trying to be offensive, I will say that I re-evaluated my faith because of the "kooky stuff" that was out there. Perhaps it was a symptom of my brainwashing, but I could tell there was something different and unfriendly surrounding the superficially open and welcome culture, not just apathetic, like where I had come from. The second, and easily more tangible, factor was having less distraction. Our house was thick in the forest down the highway about twice as far out of town as the town was long (which is "way out there" on the scale of most cities). No TV (although we did get satellite TV near the end). Dial-up internet (no more WoW, and I missed AotA on Neo ). Older sister going to college and having her own faith building spiritual journey. I kept drumming at the new church and going through life with this discomfort through the school year. I went to the youth group, but, seeing as my old group of friends was mostly linked by shared gaming tastes, I was distinctly out of place with the first-person shooters and the alien concept of a non-gamer. But even more absurd was the idea that someone actually wanted to get to know me as a person, not just as a classmate or someone to hang out with. I joined a small group with my dad (I would highly recommend Youth Alpha, Truth Project, or Firm Foundations, for anyone curious-- Truth Project was the first one I did) and managed to make some not-just-at-youth-group friendships, but they still weren't particularly deep. What did change through that was my knowledge of--and hunger for--the God that actually wrote the bible. The next turning point was at a junior camp I helped out with during the summer (under the incentive of volunteer hours for the high school's graduation transitions program). I had been acquainted with church politics before at my old church. Can't play this song. Be quieter. Do more hymns. No, not that arrangement, you're ruining our favorite song. We need a new pastor, this one is too young, too old, too social, too private, and worst of all, too offensive. Even when I overheard the planning for kids' club, it was always about whether the memory verse was too hard to remember, or if the songs were catchy, or if kids would actually take the craft with them when they went home. Here, at this camp's leadership meetings, the priorities were different. There was an interest in how the leaders were doing in their walk with God, and whether the kids would understand what the pastor was actually saying. When someone was having difficulty, they actually--get this, it blew my mind the first time too--gathered around them, laid hands on them, and prayed for them. Everyone, not just the pastor. And I kept hearing mentions of something called the Holy Spirit. Yeah, I knew it was part of the Trinity, and it came inside us when we were saved or something, but nobody used to ever talk about it, or any spiritual problems for that matter, because it's too personal. After that, out of the blue, through a link of acquaintanceships spanning from my sister to our church to most every denomination in town, a group had come together to plan an evangelistic event in the city park, with a live band, hot dogs, etc. I was asked to attend, but I figured it probably wouldn't pan out, considering the city's demographics (as mentioned earlier). But I kept hearing good news--someplace had donated all of the hot dogs, someone else donated all the pop... and of course, it rained a bit halfway through, but there was still quality live entertainment, sharing of testimonies, lots of food, a decent crowd, and an all-around good time. Most surprisingly, there were none of the expected legal issues from "noise complaints" (which I had learned, from accounts of people in the ministry, were the most common way to quash open-air events). What completed the 180-degree spin was actually an informal volleyball game with the organizers that I was invited to the next day. I had always hated sports with a passion. Now I can stand it if it's with the right people. Lo and behold, they were open and transparent--quite unlike anyone I had met in my hometown--and, of course, they invited me to help junior lead at another kids' camp. It happened, and I was poorly skilled, but again, the same thing: real prayer for each other, more attention to the kids' spiritual and emotional concerns than a good time, though there was still plenty of that, etc. Over the next year, it amounted to something of a secret society. Starting with Youth Alpha, we had gotten a group of Christ-seeking young adults together who shared real, honest, open fellowship, not pinned to a denomination, but still maintaining the foundations. Anyone we met who showed some interest in God but was frustrated from lack of community ended up meeting. After Alpha was over, it wasn't even a regular meeting time. Telephone, word of mouth, and (least reliably) Facebook were all it took to get a party started for the next day. Our family somehow ended up going to three (!) churches a week, one of them meeting at someone's home. But growing deeper in faith and knowledge, we started to notice issues forming at some of the churches. Whenever we noticed something sketchy coming off the preacher's pulpit--and it happens; mostly when people use the bible as a diving board for their own argument--we discussed it, and from someone who was completely outside that discussion, it was confirmed as such. To be honest, that can easily be attributed to coincidence, but it happened far too often for me to see it as anything but confirmation coming from the Holy Spirit. That basic pattern continued through several small groups, camps, prayer nights, short-term missions trips, and even a visit from an evangelist from South Africa on a missions trip to Canada. Eventually, I wound up finished school and ready to go to university. From what I hear, they're still doing the same thing. From the outside perspective, I can see why people choose not to follow a Christ-filled lifestyle, or in many cases, even take a serious look, though I do respect people who are at least willing to do the latter. Every source conflicts with another over historical accuracy (remember that any secondary source was authored people who weren't there), other religions seem to offer the same thing or were invented as part of culture (face it, at least one of the guys who had a one-on-one divine encounter or enlightenment or revelation had to be partially incorrect, or else they'd say everyone can get along), or it's just not worth applying to life right now. But at least take a look for yourself, or ask someone who's got that "something different", who actually cares what they believe in. I can guarantee that you won't be truly satisfied if you decide to stay wherever you're at; I know I won't. ...*cough* so much for having not enough time in one afternoon. I won't make the blanket statement that every aspect of what I believe is true, is true. I may think it is, but I am imperfect person, clearly not omniscient, or else I would have realized ahead of time how much time that took.
Some of what I do believe "is true is true" is that God exists, is all-knowing and all-powerful, good and holy (mathematically speaking, the difference between a slope of 1/10^n and a slope of 1/0, if you get my meaning), has a perfect will and plan, always fulfills his promises, and exists in perfect fellowship as one with three distinct, yet inseparable persons, all eternal and uncreated, being God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He revealed himself to mankind as written in the bible in its original form (things do get mistranslated, unfortunately), Old and New Testament. The climax is with Jesus, who, as God, existed eternally (siding with the "Angel of the Lord" argument), then took on the form of man he created, fulfilling the promises he made with man.
God authored the bible through several dozen human recorders (40, if I'm not mistaken), and I tend to take it literally except when the language denotes otherwise. He created in six real days; finished with man and woman; had a perfect relationship with them, but gave them the ability of choice; they were tempted by the devil, gave in, and, disobeying God, sinned and introduced death into the world, became separated from God, and gained the knowledge of good and evil. A recurring theme starts here that echoes through into the gospel: they hid and tried to cover themselves up, but their attempts were insufficient, since God is holy (as in the earlier used mathematical comparison, any effort to get "good enough" still falls short of an infinitely good God). Still, when they responded to God and confessed what they had done, God promised a redeemer (the oft-lost in translation "Seed" in 3:15) and made covering for them from the skin of an animal (the first sacrifice). So that they would not live forever chained to sin, he blocked the way to the tree of life.
The rest of the Old Testament shadows, repeats, and expounds on this basic pattern (Passover, the fate of Israel, etc.). Although it requires studying the idea of a Hebrew covenant, God shows in his covenant promise with Abraham that, even if mankind sinned, God would pay the price mankind owes.
Eventually, this was fulfilled in the life of Jesus, who is fully God and fully man; as he showed symbolically in his last Passover, he sacrificed himself to pay, for those that accept him, the penalty they deserve, thereby rescuing them from eternal death. This was confirmed by his resurrection from the dead, and later when he filled the disciples with the Holy Spirit that Pentecost. As he promises, he is coming again to make an end to sin.
Not-so-short summary there. If I am overlooking something obvious, please point it out in a reply, or better yet, send me a private message. As for the most recent topic, as one member of the Canadian church (close enough to American, right?), I believe that ultimately God will be everyone's judge, and it's not a Christian's job to force doctrinal issues on people outside the church, partially because they won't understand. Instead, the job is to direct people to God so they can see for themselves. This doesn't mean saying that some particular wrong is okay, much less actually practing it, it just means not letting it get in the way of the person. Among Christians, though, the bible says to take any issue to the person involved, and, when hearing what God says about it, if they decide not to turn away from it, escalate; but if there's no change, they should be considered as back in the flood with the rest of the world (paraphrased from Matthew 18:15- and 1 Corinthians 5:12; not to bible-bash, just saying I believe it). People have a lot of interpretations regarding the New Testament verses about homosexuality (even within the American church, nowadays) but I tend to go with the more "fundamentalist" view, that any reference that deals with "sexual immorality" includes homosexuality as part of it. Even in the old testament, it's worded a bit too strongly (and directly) for me to think of it as one of those "safety first" commandments (i.e. since you're wandering through a desert and all, don't eat stuff you can't cook properly, and if you're sick or have a mold problem, see the doctor about it), though unfortunately many members of the American church neglect the Old Testament as still in effect. EDIT: And seeing that several people have posted since I started writing it, the point has probably been repeated, but it bears mentioning.
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on Oct 22, 2012 12:14:54 GMT -5
Also, the verse about "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity" applies to people within the faith. Ie, other Christians. There's no point condemning non-Christians for any sort of sin. The idea is, that if you become a true believer in Christ, you're supposed to be trying to live the life that Christ wants you to live. That is, not sinning. (Not that that's possible, really, since everyone's fallible. You're just supposed to be trying to do that, out of a feeling of gratitude toward's Christ's forgiveness of all your sins.) If you're still purposely going out and living a sinful life as a professed Christian, then there's trouble there. But condemning sins in non-Christians? There's really no point to it. Re: "There's no point in condemning non-Christians for any sort of sin." Why? Do you not believe that I (an atheist) am actually, literally going to Hell after I die? And if you cared about me, would you not care whether I'm going to Hell or not? (Not that you have to care that deeply about me specifically, but I assume there exists SOMEONE you care about who's not a Christian). It sounds like a philosophy of saying "Screw 'em, they're doomed anyway, why bother trying to save them", am I wrong? To be honest, at least within the logic of Christianity, the statements I've heard arguing that the Bible is AGAINST homosexuality seem a lot more compelling than the opposing side (again, this is within the logic of Christianity -- I have no problem with homosexuality, but that's partly because I'm not a Christian). In my experience, those against homosexuality tend to argue from scripture, and those not against it tend to argue from science and history. And I'm all for learning about science and history, but if you're going to give them priority over scripture, then why bother with the scripture to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Oct 22, 2012 12:54:05 GMT -5
Also, the verse about "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity" applies to people within the faith. Ie, other Christians. There's no point condemning non-Christians for any sort of sin. The idea is, that if you become a true believer in Christ, you're supposed to be trying to live the life that Christ wants you to live. That is, not sinning. (Not that that's possible, really, since everyone's fallible. You're just supposed to be trying to do that, out of a feeling of gratitude toward's Christ's forgiveness of all your sins.) If you're still purposely going out and living a sinful life as a professed Christian, then there's trouble there. But condemning sins in non-Christians? There's really no point to it. Re: "There's no point in condemning non-Christians for any sort of sin." Why? Do you not believe that I (an atheist) am actually, literally going to Hell after I die? And if you cared about me, would you not care whether I'm going to Hell or not? (Not that you have to care that deeply about me specifically, but I assume there exists SOMEONE you care about who's not a Christian). It sounds like a philosophy of saying "Screw 'em, they're doomed anyway, why bother trying to save them", am I wrong? That sounds kinda like an apples to oranges sort of reasoning. The way I get it, non-Christians are all hellbound according to Christian scriptures, yes, but the entire idea is to save us from Hell first, and then we should live in accordance with the scriptures as converted Christians. And most Christians I've heard talk about the whole hell-deal aren't condemning nonbelievers (well, I don't really hang out with the condemning sort xD) but more like concerned. Komori's got a point, anyway, most of the time it does seem to be a case of "you're going to Hell and you should not be doing this and that and that". Although it's probably somewhat interlinked all the same, because if a nonbeliever is to be saved, they should at the same time give up all the things a Christian shouldn't do.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Oct 22, 2012 16:32:52 GMT -5
Cow: I must not have explained myself very clearly. In my belief as a Christian, you go to Heaven by accepting Christ as your savior, not by not sinning. In fact, the whole idea is that it's impossible to be sinless, so we all need Christ's forgiveness for our sins, both past and in the future, even as a Christian. So making a non-believer stop sinning isn't going to help them get into Heaven. Unless they personally accept Christ, they're still going to Hell, gay or not. Basically, trying to stop the sins of the unsaved isn't helping them get saved at all.
So no, I don't want anyone to go to Hell. But telling them to stop being gay (or stop lying or stop eating pork/shellfish/whatever) isn't doing anyone any good. It's like telling someone to wear a helmet when they're about to drown.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 18:56:07 GMT -5
Cow: I must not have explained myself very clearly. In my belief as a Christian, you go to Heaven by accepting Christ as your savior, not by not sinning. In fact, the whole idea is that it's impossible to be sinless, so we all need Christ's forgiveness for our sins, both past and in the future, even as a Christian. So making a non-believer stop sinning isn't going to help them get into Heaven. Unless they personally accept Christ, they're still going to Hell, gay or not. Basically, trying to stop the sins of the unsaved isn't helping them get saved at all. So no, I don't want anyone to go to Hell. But telling them to stop being gay (or stop lying or stop eating pork/shellfish/whatever) isn't doing anyone any good. It's like telling someone to wear a helmet when they're about to drown. A counterpoint: I've never liked the idea of "original sin". In my eyes, it states that the world is dark, and my experiences have taught me differently. First of all, I don't really believe in a God that sends people to eternal torture just because they didn't believe in Him. I mean, it just seems tyrannical to condemn someone to that when, for example, they saved a hundred kittens from drowning. All that would teach me is to never rescue a kitten again, which I think most Christians would define as "sinning," i.e. just watching something helpless die. Secondly, in my personal life experiences, I've felt the love of this planet itself (again, this is personal for me, I know very few people share this view) and I've learned that She weeps, only weeps, for those who exploit Her and others and who do wrong, because we are Her children and she cannot simply stop loving us. My mother, who is only human, has said that she could never stop loving me, no matter how horrid I turned out to be. And I know she meant it. So, if God is supposed to be "better" than humans, than apparently it's amoral in the Christian sense to continue to love someone even if they do horrible things. But that can't be controlled, because a strong parent-child bond like that can't just stop with the waving of a magic wand. Also, isn't love supposed to be the greatest holy virtue? So this is my view: God, who I interpret as both one and several feminine forces (queens of the four elements, a song goddess, a triple goddess, and a couple Muses), does not get angry. She only weeps and hopes and forgives and gives everyone a second chance through reincarnation, until one day this dimension will finally become a paradise, and no one will hate one another anymore for any reason. Sorry if any of this offended you. This is solely my belief and everyone is different. Also, my ultimate dream for this world is for 1.) the environment to become lush and green again with singing oceans, roaring waterfalls, lush rainforests, and uncontaminated skies and 2.) for everyone to dance and sing of love, together, and to live each day in joy and without acting upon anger and without hating on one another. I believe it can happen.
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Oct 22, 2012 19:01:17 GMT -5
Of course your own religious views are always welcome in this thread, but (and please don't be offended) I really have to question their appropriateness as a response in this particular vein of discussion. I'm not sure how your unique personal views of your decidedly not Christian religion serve as a counterpoint to an interpretation of a tenet of Christianity.
I mean, by all means please feel free to explain your personal religion to us. But When you frame it like that, it comes off like you're saying
Counterpoint: Your God is cruel and mine isn't. Here's why.
Like if I had said
Counterpoint: It doesn't matter because there's no God and no Hell anyway.
Just kinda comes off as rude! Though I know you didn't mean it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 22, 2012 19:31:56 GMT -5
I've become a great deal less anti-homosexuality as time goes on. Frankly, like Breakingchains mentioned, it's really easy to just accept it as wrong just because when you grow up just sort of not knowing about it. I remember being somewhat shocked at the concept. Like others have said, though, there are plenty of churches out there who are fine with it. Christianity is such an incredibly broad religion, and we really don't learn from each other enough. I don't really have much to say on the topic that hasn't already been said, or doesn't need to be said. In general, while I feel that, like Cow said, if you're going to give science and history priority over scripture, what's the point of scripture? that there are a thousand things the Christian church should be spending it's time on other than homosexuality. Poverty, hunger, education - the list goes on and on and on. I'm not saying that we don't work on those issues, too, because we do, but if we put our efforts toward eradicating poverty, instead of condemning homosexuality, we might be way closer to what Jesus taught than the other way around. Just IMO, I guess. Re: the caring about people going to Hell thing, at some point you really do have to accept that it's their choice and you can't do anything about it that wouldn't just hurt your case any further. But in general, I've found that I'm motivated less from the idea of going to Hell, which is such an abstract concept, and more from a sense of grief, from watching a friend slowly losing their faith and being unable to do anything about it. So, if God is supposed to be "better" than humans, than apparently it's amoral in the Christian sense to continue to love someone even if they do horrible things. But that can't be controlled, because a strong parent-child bond like that can't just stop with the waving of a magic wand. Also, isn't love supposed to be the greatest holy virtue? So this is my view: God, who I interpret as both one and several feminine forces (queens of the four elements, a song goddess, a triple goddess, and a couple Muses), does not get angry. She only weeps and hopes and forgives and gives everyone a second chance through reincarnation, until one day this dimension will finally become a paradise, and no one will hate one another anymore for any reason. I don't even know where to start. The idea that God loves you even though you do horrible things is actually sort of the point of the entire Christian faith, and it's one of the more unique ones. In general, most major religions focus more on works than faith. But leaving that aside, why does your goddess never get angry? There are a lot of different types of love, and discipline is one of them - righteous anger and justice are powerful and good traits. While weeping, hoping, forgiveness and second chances are all good, without the other side of it wouldn't it be altogether too easy to merely exploit her goodwill?
|
|