LBmuskoka
The Dangers of Preaching Hate
Posted on: 07/10/2009 06:00
In another thread Actually asked for stories from people who had been made to feel unwelcome due to their sexual orientation, the following was one reply. To honour Actually's request not to derail her thread from the stories I open this one.
When I was Catholic and 10 or so I remember my priest saying that gay people are evil and everyone has to fight gay marriage. I decided that religion was stupid and I stopped believing in God.
True story.
Why do you think you turned against religion and God? Why didn't you just stop believing in Catholicism?
Kinst's response is a natural one to the contradictory teachings of love and hate within the Christian context. Regardless that he was 10 years old - indeed it shows that he was a very astute child - he recognized that what was being preached was incompatible with his views on humanity.
Jae's response is also natural - just change denominations. This is an obvious answer however it may not be a reality for many.
In Kinst's case he was 10 years old. The only church he would have known would have been the one he attended therefore he would be basing his rejection on the known facts. The Church (note the capital C) preaches a doctrine of hate against a specific group of people, therefore all churches and members believe this doctrine. In order to reject the doctrine one would have to reject the religion as those preaching set this as very the rule that must be followed.
Such doctrines of hate against another human being, whether it be their orientation, skin colour, ethnic origins, creates an environment for rejection. Taken to the extreme it becomes impossible to reconcile the contradictions of the inclusive love taught by Jesus and the exclusive teachings of the human religions.
If people care about evangelizing the Good News, then they must recognize that one can not have their cake and eat it too. One can not talk about the all encompassing love of Christ while forcibly shoving people away from those loving arms based on nothing more than who they love, what they believe or how they look.
One should not disregard the rejection without looking at the root cause.
LB
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Mahatma Gandhi
- Login or register to post comments
- Add new comment
Search
Recently Active...
Comments
revjohn
Hi LBmuskoka, LBmuskoka
Posted on: 07/10/2009 06:24
Hi LBmuskoka,
Kinst's response is a natural one to the contradictory teachings of love and hate within the Christian context. Regardless that he was 10 years old - indeed it shows that he was a very astute child - he recognized that what was being preached was incompatible with his views on humanity.
It certainly does illustrate the unattractiveness of that particular perversion of the gospel. If a 10 year old can grasp and reject the inherent injustice one wonders why others affirm and accept it?
Jae's response is also natural - just change denominations. This is an obvious answer however it may not be a reality for many.
You mean a 10 year old isn't going to have any say in where they get their spiritual direction from? So they would just continue to be dragged out to a toxic environment and treated to the same sort of injustice for another six or so years hearing that this was what "true" Christianity was like and then, after all that time of corruption they have been conditioned not to react with hostility to anything that claims to be gospel?
Such doctrines of hate against another human being, whether it be their orientation, skin colour, ethnic origins, creates an environment for rejection. Taken to the extreme it becomes impossible to reconcile the contradictions of the inclusive love taught by Jesus and the exclusive teachings of the human religions.
And that is the kicker isn't it. When the only gospel you live makes hate a requirement nobody will believe you when you try to present that gospel as one that is fundamentally love based. There appear to be some miles of difference between the talking and the walking.
If people care about evangelizing the Good News, then they must
Ooops. Now you are doing it too.
Of course, in this instance I affirm that your use of the word "must" as indicating an absolute applies.
then they must recognize that one can not have their cake and eat it too.
Indeed. I believe in the Christian context that one can serve their cake and have it too. Grace is the only thing that multiplies the more of it you give away.
One can not talk about the all encompassing love of Christ while forcibly shoving people away from those loving arms based on nothing more than who they love, what they believe or how they look.
I think it safer to say that "one should not" rather than "One can not" since it is obvious, even with the traffic we have here in the WonderCafe that some folk have developed the ability to excel at this level of hypocracy. They take the cup of cool water Christ talks about and instead of offering it freely to the thirsty to drink it becomes an instrument of "allegedly" holy terror.
One should not disregard the rejection without looking at the root cause.
No. One should not. Of course, that kind of diagnostic work takes valuable time away from the important optics of looking like you are accomplishing something worthwhile. Of course that reminds me of one child demoniac brought to Christ and the child's dad relating that nothing the Apostles were able to do could drive that particular demon out.
Jesus drives out the demon and the Apostle's in head-scratching befuddlement want to know the secret of his success.
"This demon can only be driven out by prayer" is the low-tech answer.
Demons apparently aren't impressed with notches on belts.
Grace and peace to you.
John
LB
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Mahatma Gandhi
[/quote]
LBmuskoka
revjohn wrote: Hi
Posted on: 07/10/2009 06:59
Hi LBmuskoka,
Smiles at RevJohn....
It certainly does illustrate the unattractiveness of that particular perversion of the gospel. If a 10 year old can grasp and reject the inherent injustice one wonders why others affirm and accept it?
A question that I ponder on many a day. Why is it that children are often so capable of cutting through chaff (look, I do know how to spell it, waving at RevJames)
You mean a 10 year old isn't going to have any say in where they get their spiritual direction from? So they would just continue to be dragged out to a toxic environment and treated to the same sort of injustice for another six or so years hearing that this was what "true" Christianity was like and then, after all that time of corruption they have been conditioned not to react with hostility to anything that claims to be gospel?
And the longer the toxicity of confusion and contradiction goes on, the greater the aversion will become. People are so surprised at the venom expressed by the opponents of such doctrines - yet I am more surprised that there are so few and this in itself sets up yet another contradiction.
And that is the kicker isn't it. When the only gospel you live makes hate a requirement nobody will believe you when you try to present that gospel as one that is fundamentally love based. There appear to be some miles of difference between the talking and the walking.
Agreed.
If people care about evangelizing the Good News, then they must
Ooops. Now you are doing it too.
My bad - too early in the morning, not enough coffee.
Of course, in this instance I affirm that your use of the word "must" as indicating an absolute applies.
I graciously bow to the out you provide.
then they must recognize that one can not have their cake and eat it too.
Indeed. I believe in the Christian context that one can serve their cake and have it too. Grace is the only thing that multiplies the more of it you give away.
As you say, this is the kicker is it not?
LB - dashing to work, I'm late, I'm late...
Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried. G. K. Chesterton
revjohn
Hi LBmuskoka, The
Posted on: 07/10/2009 07:56
Hi LBmuskoka,
The Chesterton quote was well played.
A question that I ponder on many a day. Why is it that children are often so capable of cutting through chaff (look, I do know how to spell it, waving at RevJames)
Children, once they get past the "mine" stage appear to move on to a a very rigorous sense of "fairness" if only because that is the only way to ensure that what is "mine" is universally recognized as "mine" and I in turn become part of the universe that recognizes what is "yours" as irrevocably, "yours."
Part or maturity is to disabuse ourselves of that simplicity.
At some level we begin to comprehend that there is stuff that is "ours" meaning it is both "mine" and "yours." Then we get to see how terrible the two year old within is.
The Reverend Fred Phelps for all his apparent maturity and agedness is one hellion of a two-year old.
I suspect he isn't even the stop point on that end of the spectrum.
And the longer the toxicity of confusion and contradiction goes on, the greater the aversion will become.
That which makes you sick, if continued, will kill you.
People are so surprised at the venom expressed by the opponents of such doctrines
I suspect that even in Jonestown there were some who were confused about the willingness of others to drink the kool-aid. Just as it would appear there were some at Jonestown who didn't balk at the idea of drinking the kool-aid.
That is an extreme situation and yet, does it not find applicability in things less extreme? Maybe I wouldn't kill myself for my clergy. I might be prepared to hate someone for them, that doesn't seem so extreme eh?
yet I am more surprised that there are so few and this in itself sets up yet another contradiction.
The 10 year old who questions and rebels can only do so if they have a home that permits it. Vicious dogs have usually been beaten into aggression. I find it odd that they usually are killed before they turn on the actual attacker. Instead, they turn their aggression outside of what they percieve as pack.
The simple effect is that if one doesn't rebel one accepts that brutality against the other is not only warranted, it is justified.
WonderCafe allows the evidence of that mentality to be seen.
As you say, this is the kicker is it not?
When rubber meets the road and progress is made. The rubber can get uncomfortably hot.
Grace and peace to you.
John
Kinst
I get a thread about me?
Posted on: 07/10/2009 13:24
I get a thread about me? Neato.
revjohn
Hi Kinst, Kinst wrote: I
Posted on: 07/10/2009 13:47
Hi Kinst,
I get a thread about me? Neato.
It isn't so much about you as it is inspired about you.
I guess.
Grace and peace to you.
John
The Squire
The Bible condemns the act,
Posted on: 07/10/2009 15:36
The Bible condemns the act, but not the person -- correct?
----------
The Squire wrote: The Bible
Posted on: 07/10/2009 15:59
The Bible condemns the act, but not the person -- correct?
What exact acts do you think the Bible condemns?
Pilgrims Progress
When I was in my early teens
Posted on: 07/10/2009 18:57
When I was in my early teens I went through an evangelical Billy Graham Christian stage. I dutifully went to church and irritated my family by wanting to convert them and have them "declare Christ as their personal Saviour." I could recite John 3:16 in my sleep!
But there was a problem, my mother was an athiest and my father an agnostic. I arranged to see my Scottish Presbyterian minister, to discuss my dilemma.
I told him that there was no way that either parent would accept Christ as their personal Saviour, and did this mean that they couldn't go to Heaven? "I'm afraid so", was the answer.
"Well, what's the point of me going there, if they can't? I'm only a kid, but you can tell Jesus He's not fair."
I flounced out of the church, and stayed away for many years.
Kids can see through b.llsh.t.
LBmuskoka
RevJohn wrote: Hi
Posted on: 07/10/2009 22:42
Hi LBmuskoka,
The Chesterton quote was well played.
It is one of my favourites.
Chesterton was an interesting man. He considered himself an orthodox Christian yet he questioned constantly throughout his life. He and George Bernard Shaw conducted a series of debates on Christianity, with Shaw taking the atheist position, that were considered brilliant during their time and I think still are today, not just for the view points expressed but on how a debate should be conducted... but I am seriously digressing and I could easily start evangelizing that everyone! should read those debates.
At some level we begin to comprehend that there is stuff that is "ours" meaning it is both "mine" and "yours." Then we get to see how terrible the two year old within is.
The Reverend Fred Phelps for all his apparent maturity and agedness is one hellion of a two-year old.
I suspect he isn't even the stop point on that end of the spectrum.
Oh I agree that Phelps is only one of many extreme examples of the preaching of hate, but is he/they really any worse than those who obscure it with a thin veneer of civility?
I suspect that even in Jonestown there were some who were confused about the willingness of others to drink the kool-aid. Just as it would appear there were some at Jonestown who didn't balk at the idea of drinking the kool-aid.
That is an extreme situation and yet, does it not find applicability in things less extreme? Maybe I wouldn't kill myself for my clergy. I might be prepared to hate someone for them, that doesn't seem so extreme eh?
For me it indeed seems extreme. I see a greater danger from those who mask their hate in palatable language that reasonable and intelligent people find agreeable. Their motivations are the same as Phelps and Jones, yet their subtlety hides the true nature of their message. Wrapping hate up in words of love does not make it any less hateful although it allows the individual to deny to others, and perhaps themselves, that the intent is to harm, to dehumanize the target of their loathing and fear.
The simple effect is that if one doesn't rebel one accepts that brutality against the other is not only warranted, it is justified.
WonderCafe allows the evidence of that mentality to be seen.
I agree that this medium encourages the mask to slip. I suspect that some of the opinions expressed here would not be shared in face to face conversation with anyone other than like minded individuals. This may not be such a negative for exposure to the contradicting opinions may, hopefully, lead to questioning and questioning may, hopefully, lead to introspection.
The questioning may also lead, as it did for Chesterton, to discover that the problem is not what is written in holy books, the problem is how those words are used against others, both those loved and those not.
LB
Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson
jon71
The Squire wrote: The Bible
Posted on: 07/11/2009 04:42
The Bible condemns the act, but not the person -- correct?
If you mean homosexuality then, no. The Bible condemns neither.
jon71
Pilgrims Progress wrote: When
Posted on: 07/11/2009 04:45
When I was in my early teens I went through an evangelical Billy Graham Christian stage. I dutifully went to church and irritated my family by wanting to convert them and have them "declare Christ as their personal Saviour." I could recite John 3:16 in my sleep!
But there was a problem, my mother was an athiest and my father an agnostic. I arranged to see my Scottish Presbyterian minister, to discuss my dilemma.
I told him that there was no way that either parent would accept Christ as their personal Saviour, and did this mean that they couldn't go to Heaven? "I'm afraid so", was the answer.
"Well, what's the point of me going there, if they can't? I'm only a kid, but you can tell Jesus He's not fair."
I flounced out of the church, and stayed away for many years.
Kids can see through b.llsh.t.
It wasn't b.s., just a painful truth. The only thing wrong was to assume there was/is no hope for your parents. There is always hope. Your pastor told you the truth and you responded with petulance. Not trying to be harsh, I've been plenty petulant too and I'm not saying just as a kid, but fairly recently in my life.
RevMatt
jon71 wrote: Pilgrims
Posted on: 07/11/2009 06:24
When I was in my early teens I went through an evangelical Billy Graham Christian stage. I dutifully went to church and irritated my family by wanting to convert them and have them "declare Christ as their personal Saviour." I could recite John 3:16 in my sleep!
But there was a problem, my mother was an athiest and my father an agnostic. I arranged to see my Scottish Presbyterian minister, to discuss my dilemma.
I told him that there was no way that either parent would accept Christ as their personal Saviour, and did this mean that they couldn't go to Heaven? "I'm afraid so", was the answer.
"Well, what's the point of me going there, if they can't? I'm only a kid, but you can tell Jesus He's not fair."
I flounced out of the church, and stayed away for many years.
Kids can see through b.llsh.t.
It wasn't b.s., just a painful truth. The only thing wrong was to assume there was/is no hope for your parents. There is always hope. Your pastor told you the truth and you responded with petulance. Not trying to be harsh, I've been plenty petulant too and I'm not saying just as a kid, but fairly recently in my life.
With all due respect, that is bullshit. I am fascinated that you are able to take a critical view of scripture with regard to homosexuality, and one post later you are taking the brainless approach to scripture with regard to those of other/no faith.
LBmuskoka
jon71 wrote: Pilgrims
Posted on: 07/11/2009 07:53
But there was a problem, my mother was an athiest and my father an agnostic. I arranged to see my Scottish Presbyterian minister, to discuss my dilemma.
I told him that there was no way that either parent would accept Christ as their personal Saviour, and did this mean that they couldn't go to Heaven? "I'm afraid so", was the answer.
It wasn't b.s., just a painful truth.
Jon71, this is only a truth to those who believe it to be. However it is a complete unknown and therefore can not be claimed to be truth when held against another. Neither you nor the preacher can prove categorically that this is the final outcome so the blatant assertion that anyone is going to be rejected or accepted by God is false.
I acknowledge that you hold this as a self evident truth but there are others who will require more concrete evidence that the God they are taught is loving and infinite would withhold that love on the basis of one aspect of the human whole.
Here is something I came across - some food for thought....
God's Rain
by Rod Smith
God sends rain on the just and the unjust. I have often heard this verse quoted. It is almost always quoted out of context and completely misinterpreted. Rain is interpreted as troubles and trials. This verse is often used to explain why good people have to face trials.
Maybe people think of rain as bad because it interferes with our camping and picnics. But these words were spoken to mostly farmers living in a land with low rainfall. They depended on rain for their survival. To them, rain was a picture of God's blessing. Reading the phrase in context makes it clear that Jesus is talking about God's blessings.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:43-45 NIV)
The Squire
Preaching hate is perfectly
Posted on: 07/11/2009 08:21
Preaching hate is perfectly safe unless you are the target of that hate, but future generations always suffer the fallout. Like radiation or toxic waste, the harm caused by preaching hate is always persistent, always generational. And as people move around, they take their hatred with them.
chansen
jon71 wrote: Pilgrims
Posted on: 07/11/2009 08:52
When I was in my early teens I went through an evangelical Billy Graham Christian stage. I dutifully went to church and irritated my family by wanting to convert them and have them "declare Christ as their personal Saviour." I could recite John 3:16 in my sleep!
But there was a problem, my mother was an athiest and my father an agnostic. I arranged to see my Scottish Presbyterian minister, to discuss my dilemma.
I told him that there was no way that either parent would accept Christ as their personal Saviour, and did this mean that they couldn't go to Heaven? "I'm afraid so", was the answer.
"Well, what's the point of me going there, if they can't? I'm only a kid, but you can tell Jesus He's not fair."
I flounced out of the church, and stayed away for many years.
Kids can see through b.llsh.t.
It wasn't b.s., just a painful truth. The only thing wrong was to assume there was/is no hope for your parents. There is always hope. Your pastor told you the truth and you responded with petulance. Not trying to be harsh, I've been plenty petulant too and I'm not saying just as a kid, but fairly recently in my life.
Of course it was BS - nobody really knows what happens after death. Worse, it instilled fear in a child, which is the second-worst thing priests and ministers often do to children.
No wonder, then, when kids use moments like these to re-evaluate this whole Jesus thing, and escape without the fears and the prejudices on the other side. Kids are bright.
Pilgrims Progress
jon71 wrote: Your pastor
Posted on: 07/12/2009 01:59
Your pastor told you the truth and you responded with petulance. Not trying to be harsh, I've been plenty petulant too and I'm not saying just as a kid, but fairly recently in my life.
jon71,
Perhaps I should have replied with pestilence, a term this particular minister was more familiar with!
As I was doing the responding, I think I'm in a better position to understand why than you. As a kid I was still dependant on my parents - the thought of going somewhere that wasn't an option for them frightened me. Also, through love, I felt a loyalty to them.
I hope God would understand, and, frankly, what you think, isn't a worry to me.
Sebb
@jon71 what i want to know
Posted on: 07/12/2009 04:31
@jon71
what i want to know is...does god really care about being worshiped? your god is all powerfull and can creat a universe and destroy it and then creat it again just for fun (that's what i'd do atleast :3) why should he care? and if he cares so much why didn't he send a bunch of Jesus' all over the world to convert people all over the world to one of the many forms of christianity? it's something that has allways made me think. but srsly does god really want/need to be worshiped?
also if that doesn't make sence don't blame me, it's almost 5am (that's also why there may be some spelling mistakes, it's also why i might sound like a troll lol)
Sebb
like the Rev said, it's not
Posted on: 07/12/2009 04:37
like the Rev said, it's not really about you but inspierd by you, but don't worrie! i'll make a thread all about you ^_^
EDIT:this was meant to have a quote in it but i messed it up or something haha any how Kinst, i've made you a thread of your own ^^
jon71
RevMatt wrote: jon71
Posted on: 07/12/2009 05:08
When I was in my early teens I went through an evangelical Billy Graham Christian stage. I dutifully went to church and irritated my family by wanting to convert them and have them "declare Christ as their personal Saviour." I could recite John 3:16 in my sleep!
But there was a problem, my mother was an athiest and my father an agnostic. I arranged to see my Scottish Presbyterian minister, to discuss my dilemma.
I told him that there was no way that either parent would accept Christ as their personal Saviour, and did this mean that they couldn't go to Heaven? "I'm afraid so", was the answer.
"Well, what's the point of me going there, if they can't? I'm only a kid, but you can tell Jesus He's not fair."
I flounced out of the church, and stayed away for many years.
Kids can see through b.llsh.t.
It wasn't b.s., just a painful truth. The only thing wrong was to assume there was/is no hope for your parents. There is always hope. Your pastor told you the truth and you responded with petulance. Not trying to be harsh, I've been plenty petulant too and I'm not saying just as a kid, but fairly recently in my life.
With all due respect, that is bullshit. I am fascinated that you are able to take a critical view of scripture with regard to homosexuality, and one post later you are taking the brainless approach to scripture with regard to those of other/no faith.
I'm not critical of the scripture with regards to homosexuality, I reject the false translations and interpretations that some hold to. Getting back to point the pastor spelled out mainstream Christian theology, nothing more.
jon71
LBmuskoka wrote: jon71
Posted on: 07/12/2009 05:10
But there was a problem, my mother was an athiest and my father an agnostic. I arranged to see my Scottish Presbyterian minister, to discuss my dilemma.
I told him that there was no way that either parent would accept Christ as their personal Saviour, and did this mean that they couldn't go to Heaven? "I'm afraid so", was the answer.
It wasn't b.s., just a painful truth.
Jon71, this is only a truth to those who believe it to be. However it is a complete unknown and therefore can not be claimed to be truth when held against another. Neither you nor the preacher can prove categorically that this is the final outcome so the blatant assertion that anyone is going to be rejected or accepted by God is false.
I acknowledge that you hold this as a self evident truth but there are others who will require more concrete evidence that the God they are taught is loving and infinite would withhold that love on the basis of one aspect of the human whole.
Here is something I came across - some food for thought....
God's Rain
by Rod Smith
God sends rain on the just and the unjust. I have often heard this verse quoted. It is almost always quoted out of context and completely misinterpreted. Rain is interpreted as troubles and trials. This verse is often used to explain why good people have to face trials.
Maybe people think of rain as bad because it interferes with our camping and picnics. But these words were spoken to mostly farmers living in a land with low rainfall. They depended on rain for their survival. To them, rain was a picture of God's blessing. Reading the phrase in context makes it clear that Jesus is talking about God's blessings.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:43-45 NIV)
I like that about the rain. Because of something my sister said my dad never uses the term "bad weather" anymore. They were talking and my sister said "well who made the weather? GOD. Who are we to call it bad?". I don't argue with that.
jon71
Sebb wrote: @jon71 what i
Posted on: 07/12/2009 05:17
@jon71
what i want to know is...does god really care about being worshiped? your god is all powerfull and can creat a universe and destroy it and then creat it again just for fun (that's what i'd do atleast :3) why should he care? and if he cares so much why didn't he send a bunch of Jesus' all over the world to convert people all over the world to one of the many forms of christianity? it's something that has allways made me think. but srsly does god really want/need to be worshiped?
also if that doesn't make sence don't blame me, it's almost 5am (that's also why there may be some spelling mistakes, it's also why i might sound like a troll lol)
I'm not sure if this is a whole answer but we have free will. Why does that matter? Because we have a choice to worship GOD or not, we have a choice to love GOD or not. HE could have made us robots who would automatically worship HIM. If HE did though it would mean nothing. Because we have a choice, when we choose to love and worship GOD it's meaningful. It may also help to look at GOD as our heavenly father. I love this analogy because my baby girl (9) is so precious to me. I want her to love and respect me. I would never however try and force her to do so. That's wrong and it would make any response from that meaningless, at best. I love and adore her and hope for that in return. I imagine it's a similar principle on a cosmic scale. I hope that's a least a good start on an answer.
Sebb
that is a pretty good answer,
Posted on: 07/12/2009 07:12
that is a pretty good answer, thank you jon : ) i'm sorry if my orriginal comment came off as trollish haha but i was really sleepy when i found this thread :3
Tyson
RevMatt wrote: With all due
Posted on: 07/12/2009 07:51
With all due respect, that is bullshit. I am fascinated that you are able to take a critical view of scripture with regard to homosexuality, and one post later you are taking the brainless approach to scripture with regard to those of other/no faith.
I think I am offended just a bit by this post. This approach to scripture is hardly brainless and I am offended to be lumped in with thoses who truly take a brainless approach to the word of God. The "brainless approach to scripture" is an oft used arguement and kind of reeks of the same intolerance that other's accuse Christians of.
"You have a different interpretation of scripture than I do? Bah, that's brainless"
That's bullshit.
LBmuskoka
A couple of interesting views
Posted on: 07/12/2009 08:38
A couple of interesting views on sin and the bible....
click for complete article Not a Sin: the Bible Says...
In fact, as I read scripture, the climactic achievement in moral reasoning in the Bible is the shift toward teleological or virtue based ethical modes. The principle of love is lifted up in the New Testament as the means to discern what is in line with God's will. By being concerned that your motivation is loving, and the consequences are consistent with that love you can be assured that you are already fulfilling all of God's commands. This teleological approach is also seen in the emphasis on "fruits of the Spirit". A virtue ethics approach is exemplified by Paul's insistence that if you develop the virtue of charity in yourself you will automatically fulfill the law.
and
click for article Issues of Sin: The Bible and the Holy Spirit
Through the Acts story, we can see within our own religious history that the Holy Spirit can call us to move in a direction that is not condoned by Scripture. As radical as that sounds, and as frightening as it is, it cannot be ignored. Indeed, Jesus himself acted on several occasions against Scripture. He abrogated the requirements of the Sabbath in Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5, and he violated almost all of the “thou shalt not touch” laws relating to leprosy, the dead, menstruating women, and Samaritans. While it is true that he came “not to abolish the laws but to fulfill them,” he made it clear that fulfilment does not come from external observances but from within himself.
Thus, the Biblical witness shows us that on at least one occasion God has, through the Holy Spirit, made it clear to us that certain actions once thought to demonstrate our sinful nature do not actually do so. In other words, certain things we once thought sin are not sin anymore.
Patrick_qc
The Bible condemn homophobia
Posted on: 07/12/2009 09:20
The Bible condemn homophobia but God still love homophobic people. God just condemn hate and false doctrine.
I pray for those can't understand God's will and think gay and lesbian saved in Christ didn't have Holy Spirit.
The Church already did this mistake when they think non-jewish people can't receive Holy Spirit. Peter go to them and see holy spirit working in non-jewish.
The Squire
LBmuskoka wrote: A couple of
Posted on: 07/12/2009 09:50
A couple of interesting views on sin and the bible....
click for complete article Not a Sin: the Bible Says...
In fact, as I read scripture, the climactic achievement in moral reasoning in the Bible is the shift toward teleological or virtue based ethical modes. The principle of love is lifted up in the New Testament as the means to discern what is in line with God's will. By being concerned that your motivation is loving, and the consequences are consistent with that love you can be assured that you are already fulfilling all of God's commands. This teleological approach is also seen in the emphasis on "fruits of the Spirit". A virtue ethics approach is exemplified by Paul's insistence that if you develop the virtue of charity in yourself you will automatically fulfill the law.
and
click for article Issues of Sin: The Bible and the Holy Spirit
Through the Acts story, we can see within our own religious history that the Holy Spirit can call us to move in a direction that is not condoned by Scripture. As radical as that sounds, and as frightening as it is, it cannot be ignored. Indeed, Jesus himself acted on several occasions against Scripture. He abrogated the requirements of the Sabbath in Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5, and he violated almost all of the “thou shalt not touch” laws relating to leprosy, the dead, menstruating women, and Samaritans. While it is true that he came “not to abolish the laws but to fulfill them,” he made it clear that fulfilment does not come from external observances but from within himself.
Thus, the Biblical witness shows us that on at least one occasion God has, through the Holy Spirit, made it clear to us that certain actions once thought to demonstrate our sinful nature do not actually do so. In other words, certain things we once thought sin are not sin anymore.
Very clever. The cleverest of lies come from Satan himself.
The Squire
Patrick_qc wrote: The Bible
Posted on: 07/12/2009 10:01
The Bible condemn homophobia but God still love homophobic people. God just condemn hate and false doctrine.
I pray for those can't understand God's will and think gay and lesbian saved in Christ didn't have Holy Spirit.
The Church already did this mistake when they think non-jewish people can't receive Holy Spirit. Peter go to them and see holy spirit working in non-jewish.
Do you know why God created the man Adam and woman Eve?
boltupright
The Squire wrote: Patrick_qc
Posted on: 07/12/2009 17:14
The Bible condemn homophobia but God still love homophobic people. God just condemn hate and false doctrine.
I pray for those can't understand God's will and think gay and lesbian saved in Christ didn't have Holy Spirit.
The Church already did this mistake when they think non-jewish people can't receive Holy Spirit. Peter go to them and see holy spirit working in non-jewish.
Do you know why God created the man Adam and woman Eve?
You're not here to make friends, eh? LOL
Mate
Actually humans invented Adam
Posted on: 07/12/2009 17:57
Actually humans invented Adam and Eve. The story is a myth.
Shalom
Mate
Mate
I have to agree with RevJohn
Posted on: 07/12/2009 17:57
I have to agree with RevJohn on the bullshit business. He is right on.
Shalom
Mate
boltupright
Mate wrote: I have to agree
Posted on: 07/12/2009 18:11
I have to agree with RevJohn on the bullshit business. He is right on.
Shalom
Mate
I think you are referring to RevMatt.
I don't recall John saying anything about bullshit.
Bolt
Pilgrims Progress
The Squire wrote: LBmuskoka
Posted on: 07/12/2009 18:15
A couple of interesting views on sin and the bible....
click for complete article Not a Sin: the Bible Says...
In fact, as I read scripture, the climactic achievement in moral reasoning in the Bible is the shift toward teleological or virtue based ethical modes. The principle of love is lifted up in the New Testament as the means to discern what is in line with God's will. By being concerned that your motivation is loving, and the consequences are consistent with that love you can be assured that you are already fulfilling all of God's commands. This teleological approach is also seen in the emphasis on "fruits of the Spirit". A virtue ethics approach is exemplified by Paul's insistence that if you develop the virtue of charity in yourself you will automatically fulfill the law.
and
click for article Issues of Sin: The Bible and the Holy Spirit
Through the Acts story, we can see within our own religious history that the Holy Spirit can call us to move in a direction that is not condoned by Scripture. As radical as that sounds, and as frightening as it is, it cannot be ignored. Indeed, Jesus himself acted on several occasions against Scripture. He abrogated the requirements of the Sabbath in Mark 2:23-28 and Luke 6:1-5, and he violated almost all of the “thou shalt not touch” laws relating to leprosy, the dead, menstruating women, and Samaritans. While it is true that he came “not to abolish the laws but to fulfill them,” he made it clear that fulfilment does not come from external observances but from within himself.
Thus, the Biblical witness shows us that on at least one occasion God has, through the Holy Spirit, made it clear to us that certain actions once thought to demonstrate our sinful nature do not actually do so. In other words, certain things we once thought sin are not sin anymore.
Very clever. The cleverest of lies come from Satan himself.
One of these two comments appears to be substantiated with research and reasoning.
Mate
bolt You are correct it was
Posted on: 07/12/2009 18:18
bolt
You are correct it was RevMatt. Apologies to John.
Shalom
Mate
Patrick_qc
The Squire wrote: Do you know
Posted on: 07/12/2009 20:16
Do you know why God created the man Adam and woman Eve?
Because if God created Adam and Steve... it would be impossible to have child and give original sin to it.
Witch
The Squire wrote: Very
Posted on: 07/12/2009 20:47
Very clever. The cleverest of lies come from Satan himself.
Typical meaningless and empty religious rhetoric.
Witch
The Squire wrote: Do you know
Posted on: 07/12/2009 20:48
Do you know why God created the man Adam and woman Eve?
Surely you're not suggesting that we should be using a mytholigical story as a reason to discriminate......
Oh, I forgot to whom I was speaking....
RevMatt
consumingfire V3.0
Posted on: 07/12/2009 21:11
With all due respect, that is bullshit. I am fascinated that you are able to take a critical view of scripture with regard to homosexuality, and one post later you are taking the brainless approach to scripture with regard to those of other/no faith.
I think I am offended just a bit by this post. This approach to scripture is hardly brainless and I am offended to be lumped in with thoses who truly take a brainless approach to the word of God. The "brainless approach to scripture" is an oft used arguement and kind of reeks of the same intolerance that other's accuse Christians of.
"You have a different interpretation of scripture than I do? Bah, that's brainless"
That's bullshit.
No, it's brainless because it is a conclusion that literally cannot be reached by the use of one's critical thinking abilities. If I wanted to be kind, I could say that it is taking the heartful approach to scripture perhaps - going simply with the desires of one's heart. But thoughtful engagement leads to different conclusion.
Was "brainless" a little impolite? Probably, but I don't reatract it. I give you credit, CF, because you live by the call of your heart through and through. I even admire that in you at times. The poster I reacted to, on the other hand, earns the brainless title at least in part because he can't decide how to approach his faith. He does both of us a disservice in doing so.
jon71
Sebb wrote: that is a pretty
Posted on: 07/13/2009 04:42
that is a pretty good answer, thank you jon : ) i'm sorry if my orriginal comment came off as trollish haha but i was really sleepy when i found this thread :3
You're welcome and your question seemed perfectly valid. I'm glad I could help a little.
jon71
RevMatt wrote: consumingfire
Posted on: 07/13/2009 04:53
With all due respect, that is bullshit. I am fascinated that you are able to take a critical view of scripture with regard to homosexuality, and one post later you are taking the brainless approach to scripture with regard to those of other/no faith.
I think I am offended just a bit by this post. This approach to scripture is hardly brainless and I am offended to be lumped in with thoses who truly take a brainless approach to the word of God. The "brainless approach to scripture" is an oft used arguement and kind of reeks of the same intolerance that other's accuse Christians of.
"You have a different interpretation of scripture than I do? Bah, that's brainless"
That's bullshit.
No, it's brainless because it is a conclusion that literally cannot be reached by the use of one's critical thinking abilities. If I wanted to be kind, I could say that it is taking the heartful approach to scripture perhaps - going simply with the desires of one's heart. But thoughtful engagement leads to different conclusion.
Was "brainless" a little impolite? Probably, but I don't reatract it. I give you credit, CF, because you live by the call of your heart through and through. I even admire that in you at times. The poster I reacted to, on the other hand, earns the brainless title at least in part because he can't decide how to approach his faith. He does both of us a disservice in doing so.
Ever heard of faith? I don't have to put things in a test tube or under a microscope to evaluate them. That works for some things. For some things that's probably the only thing that works. It doesn't work for theology. On the original matter at hand, salvation, I accept on faith mainstream traditional Christian theology. On issues where I don't take the oldest, most traditional viewpoint I have very specific reasons for doing so, primarily accessment of the scripture. That is not the case here. I know PRECISELY how I approach my faith. I also know I'm kind of an odd fit by being liberal on the more political issues like gay rights and abortion and more tradional on things like the nature of GOD and salvation. It remains what I believe because my mind, my heart, my faith, has led me to this and I am o.k. with that. You don't have to agree with me of course but you'll never make me feel bad about or apologize for taking the most mainstream Christian view on this matter.
LBmuskoka
And Jon71 has brought us back
Posted on: 07/13/2009 05:50
And Jon71 has brought us back to the original point - the contradictions of faith and the dangeorus path they can lead one.
Personally I don't have any difficulty with Jon71's contradictions (and Jon, I'm not signaling you out here) , very few thinking humans are not a complex host of opposing thoughts. However when those contradictions affect another person that is where one's personal contradictions need to be either examined or set aside.
In ministries that preach the love of Christ on one hand and then their chosen exclusions on the other, the contradictions become far more dangerous. It sets the stage for their followers to do one of two things: Leave the church, usually full of anger and bitterness that will likely be inflicted onto others. Stay with the church, usually to become alienated and therefore angry and bitter and likely inflict that hostility onto others.
The end result is the same - the creation of hostile people armed with righteous indignation. The source is the same - a religious authority that instills the righteousness. It doesn't even matter whether it is Christianity, it happens whenever humans and that unknown quantity God become involved in the equation.
With very few exceptions religions have at their base the same philosophy and goal, peace. Of the major religions being practiced today, all have a commandment that invokes the Christian concept of "love your neighbour" - we Christians did not invent that one btw.
The preaching of exclusion that ultimately leads some to hate their neighbour goes counter to the very core of the teachings of the founders of a faith. So that ultimately the real danger is not that such preaching separates us from one another but it also separates us from God.
When it comes to who God will or won't embrace, the only answer that can accurately be given is "God only knows"
LB
One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.
Hinduism: 3200 BC, From the Hitopadesa
revjohn
Hi LBmuskoka, LBmuskoka
Posted on: 07/13/2009 07:42
Hi LBmuskoka,
I am seriously digressing and I could easily start evangelizing that everyone! should read those debates.
I agree. Not that you are seriously digressing, that everyone should read those debates.
is he/they really any worse than those who obscure it with a thin veneer of civility?
Good question.
I don't know enough about the man's history on this issue to see if he has always been this extreme, suddenly became this extreme or if he began with a thin veneer of civility and has been sliding downhill ever since.
And even if I were to do the work neccesary to figure that out it would only apply to the Reverend Fred Phelps until I was able to do the same for a sizeable sample to see if the relationship between extremism and thin veneer is causal or correlational.
If the thin veneer is really just the thin edge of the wedge then it is as dangerous as the thick edge as it is all really just the same thing.
In this case we discuss difference of degree.
What if it is not a difference of degree that is at play but rather a difference of kind?
When the thin veneer is cracked does the owner break down and pony up for the real deal or, is the ugliness lifted up as beautiful? What does the veneer hide? Does it hide cheapness or does it hide falseness?
Six of one and half a dozen of the other I suspect.
I see a greater danger from those who mask their hate in palatable language that reasonable and intelligent people find agreeable. Their motivations are the same as Phelps and Jones, yet their subtlety hides the true nature of their message. Wrapping hate up in words of love does not make it any less hateful although it allows the individual to deny to others, and perhaps themselves, that the intent is to harm, to dehumanize the target of their loathing and fear.
For the most part I agree with you. When hate uses such craft to hide the truth of its message it is always, in the end far more destructive.
What happens when it is not hate so much as ignorance?
Doesn't that change the motive? Does that make the damage worse, the same or forgiveable?
I agree that this medium encourages the mask to slip. I suspect that some of the opinions expressed here would not be shared in face to face conversation with anyone other than like minded individuals.
Exactly, if speaking one's mind is going to offer even odds on a punch in the mouth silence is golden. In which case hatred or ignorance goes underground.
This may not be such a negative for exposure to the contradicting opinions may, hopefully, lead to questioning and questioning may, hopefully, lead to introspection.
True. Give some enough rope and they do hang themselves with it.
The questioning may also lead, as it did for Chesterton, to discover that the problem is not what is written in holy books, the problem is how those words are used against others, both those loved and those not.
I would argue that this idea is continuously lifted up here in the WonderCafe. The problem experienced here, as it no doubt was in Chesterton's realm, is that there is a tremendous difference in ideas about interpretation.
We have, in operation here in the WonderCafe individuals who believe that scripture is: a) nothing but myth, b) nothing but truth and c) some curious mixture of both.
We have in operation her in the WonderCafe individuals who are: a) confident that God speaks directly to them and they never fail to hear God clearly, b) confident that anyone who claims to hear God speak to them must be delusional and again, c) some curious mixture of both.
These two pre-existing conditions are never adequately dealt with prior to launching into any particular issue and it shows.
Worlds collide. People are hurt. It is all about what we will do to survive.
Grace and peace to you.
John
revjohn
Hi Mate, Mate wrote: You
Posted on: 07/13/2009 07:45
Hi Mate,
You are correct it was RevMatt. Apologies to John.
If I go potty mouth I tend to do it in the Greek like God wanted.
I have repeated the word Skubula more than once here.
Your apology is not necessary yet I thank you for it.
Grace and peace to you.
John
revjohn
Hi LBmuskoka, LBmuskoka
Posted on: 07/13/2009 08:05
Hi LBmuskoka,
A couple of interesting views on sin and the bible....
Thanks for both.
In fact, as I read scripture, the climactic achievement in moral reasoning in the Bible is the shift toward teleological or virtue based ethical modes. The principle of love is lifted up in the New Testament as the means to discern what is in line with God's will.
Amen. I wonder how the deontologist responds?
Thus, the Biblical witness shows us that on at least one occasion God has, through the Holy Spirit, made it clear to us that certain actions once thought to demonstrate our sinful nature do not actually do so. In other words, certain things we once thought sin are not sin anymore.
Amen. I really wonder how the deontologist responds?
Grace and peace to you.
John
The Squire
jon71 wrote: The Squire
Posted on: 07/13/2009 09:41
The Bible condemns the act, but not the person -- correct?
If you mean homosexuality then, no. The Bible condemns neither.
The Bible condemns homosexuality, as we all know very well. It is what it is, regardless of what the cult of political correctness wants it to be. The Bible also condemns calling good evil and evil good. It condemns misrepresenting the words of scripture as you have just done. I'm speaking out like this because I don't think anyone else will. No one else seems to have the courage.
Patrick_qc
The Squire wrote: The Bible
Posted on: 07/13/2009 10:46
The Bible condemns homosexuality, as we all know very well. It is what it is, regardless of what the cult of political correctness wants it to be. The Bible also condemns calling good evil and evil good. It condemns misrepresenting the words of scripture as you have just done. I'm speaking out like this because I don't think anyone else will. No one else seems to have the courage.
We can reverse you affirmation because it contain no argument:
The Bible don't condemns homosexuality, as we all know very well. It is what it is, regardless of what the cult of political correctness* wants it to be. The Bible also condemns calling good evil and evil good. It condemns misrepresenting the words of scripture as you have just done. I'm speaking out like this because I don't think anyone else will. No one else seems to have the courage.
* In a lot of christian group, political correctness is to condemn homosexuality.
Witch
The Squire wrote: The
Posted on: 07/13/2009 11:48
The Bible condemns homosexuality, as we all know very well. It is what it is, regardless of what the cult of political correctness wants it to be. The Bible also condemns calling good evil and evil good. It condemns misrepresenting the words of scripture as you have just done.
Gotta love them weasel words... political correctness... ROFLMAO
Weasel words and hatemongering don't take courage, just ignorance and arrogance.
If you really had courage, you'd be actually showing the furits of the spirit, like you Bible says, instead of showing the fruits of prejudice and bigotry.
Witch
Drpepper50 wrote: God is
Posted on: 07/13/2009 11:46
God is holy, sinners are in need of salvation from the guilt of their sin found only in the death of Christ, displaying the wisdom of God to the world.
Good thing I'm not a sinner then.
The great work accomplis...(I may have to sharpen these scissors, they leave some of that crap behind)...stood by all believers.
Yes, yes, we all understand that you believe all that. What you don't seem to understand is that not all Christians believe the same way you do. Since you don't have any way to show that you are rioght and they are wrong, I'm not sure how you figure all this inane preaching is going to do any good, other than your own chest puffing, of course.
Good thing I'm a believer than. Not the same beliefs as yours, of course, but a believer nonetheless
boltupright
The Squire wrote: jon71
Posted on: 07/13/2009 12:47
The Bible condemns the act, but not the person -- correct?
If you mean homosexuality then, no. The Bible condemns neither.
The Bible condemns homosexuality, as we all know very well. It is what it is, regardless of what the cult of political correctness wants it to be. The Bible also condemns calling good evil and evil good. It condemns misrepresenting the words of scripture as you have just done. I'm speaking out like this because I don't think anyone else will. No one else seems to have the courage.
It's not about courage Squire, it's about relationship.
These people have no clue who we are.
We are words on a computer screen & we are judged by these words.
Just like God is judged by the words He provides.
But until one has relationship with One who writes these words of God.
It just is not revieled as such, & is not trusted.
The fullness of understanding of God is revieled in relationship with Him, Who came & lived in the same conditions as us, & made friends with people in the same conditions as us.
How can people know us through words we print on a monitor screen?
People can first understand that we wish relationship with them regardless of their stand on some issues that may or may not be aligned with scripture.
This is How we show love for people.
Because this is how Jesus loved people.
Are we to gain relationship with words that will push people away?
Or with words of interest that will draw people closer to an understanding as to why things are the way they are.
Are we to put our words that will repel those who desire relationship with God even further away?
Or are we here to offer a more acceptable form of understanding of the whole purpose of our calling. & where this relationship leads us.
If we all by faith trust in what scripture really says, this world would be so different.
And so it will be in time, this will be a much different world some day.
Bolt
Arminius
The greatest danger in
Posted on: 07/13/2009 12:57
The greatest danger in preaching hate is that those who do it don't see themselves as preachers of hate. They don't preach hate as the highest virtue, the way Jesus preached love as the highest virtue. They are idealists who believe their ideals to be absolutely right, and they preach what they think is right.
From The Importance of Being Wrong by Arminius.
Witch
boltupright wrote: It's not
Posted on: 07/13/2009 13:09
It's not about courage Squire, it's about relationship....
This is How we show love for people.
Because this is how Jesus loved people.
Are we to gain relationship with words that will push people away?
Or with words of interest that will draw people closer to an understanding as to why things are the way they are.
Are we to put our words that will repel those who desire relationship with God even further away?
Or are we here to offer a more acceptable form of understanding of the whole purpose of our calling. & where this relationship leads us.
If we all by faith trust in what scripture really says, this world would be so different.
And so it will be in time, this will be a much different world some day.
Bolt
Well said Boltupright