5 posts tagged “christianity”

The book meme.  Open the book closest to you to page 123, count down five sentences and then post the next three.  I thought this would be interesting, since the book that is actually closest to me is a Bible.

    Leviticus 18:3-4a

       You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do what they do in Canaan, where I am bringing you.  Do not follow their practices.  You must be careful to follow my decrees,

For the sake of discussion, I'm going to post just a little more.
    Leviticus 18: 4b-5

       I am the Lord your God.  Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them.

I found it interesting that the meme happened to trigger that particular passage.  It's an interesting one, not only because of what it leads in to (a whole load of laws which are often mocked) but because of what it truly represents.  OId Testament Law, like all law, was primarily about protection.  The phrase "for the man who obeys them will live by them" initially seems redundant, until you read the footnote and see that "by" could be translated as "because".  Those who obey, will live because of the law.  There are laws about how to deal with black mold, about how to plant and harvest, about what foods can and can't be eaten.  All of these laws truly served to protect the people of Israel.  Pork has a much higher risk of disease than beef.  The same is true of poultry.  I find it interesting that by the time Jesus came and said that there is a higher law, the cooking and curing practices of people as a whole had advanced to the point that fear of disease didn't need to be as much of a governing factor.  The same is true of handwashing and the like.  Those laws, while ridiculous for us, were a necessary thing in the governing of a healthy and thriving nomadic society such as Israel's was at the time of the law giving.
    Not blending two kinds of fibers in clothing may also seem ridiculous, until you look at the method of fabric making utilized by the Israelites at the time.   Blending fibers of two lengths and properties actually would have made a much weaker weave, and their clothing would have fallen apart much more easily.  One could ask, "does God CARE about the quality of your clothing?"
    I don't know.  Jesus does caution his followers to not worry about their riches.  He says, "look at the Lilly of the field, see how God clothes it..."
    I think that on some level, if you're going to believe any part of the Bible, go whole hog.  I don't think it's any more ridiculous to believe in a loving God who cared that the people of Israel not live in tents full of mold, eat disease infected pork and have holes in their clothing than it would be to believe in an angry spiteful God who made all of those laws just to torment his faithful.

Enough.  I MUST go work.

I'm really in a mood today.  I don't know why.

    In any case, I was washing dishes and ruminating about the whole Christian Nation thing and how much it goads me- and it really, really does.

    So, to continue my thoughts:

    If you legislate morality, moral choices lose their value.  For example:
Bob chooses not to drink because he believes drunkenness is a sin.  Larry chooses not to drink because he doesn't want to pay a fine.  Who does the better thing?

Susan chooses to dress modestly because she honors her body.  Leticia dresses modestly because she's afraid of a public flogging.  Who does the better thing?

George prays every day during the lunch hour because he believes that partaking of food without praying shows disrespect for God's gifts.  Tony prays during the lunch hour because he is told to by the voice on the loudspeaker.  Who does the better thing?

    I think the answers are obvious.  When a decision is forced, it loses it's moral merit.  I say that because I believe that morality comes from choice, not law.  That isn't to say that both choices are good- obeying the law is always good.  And that isn't to say that some moral choices shouldn't be made in the law as well.  It is good that murder and rape are crimes.  It's good that they are crimes because those that murder or rape should be treated as criminals- for the protection of the populace.  There is also a difference between drinking to drunkenness and doing it in a way that could hurt others.  It's not wrong to be drunk, it is harmful to others to drink and operate machinery or to drink and strip to the nude and parade around publicly- which is why there are laws to prohibit those behaviors.
  
    One should also keep in mind that while morality is subjective to the believer, ethics aren't.  One can make both moral and ethical arguments for things like the value of personal property and the inherent wrongness in stealing.  So there's nothing wrong with arguing that certain behaviors (like stealing) should be prohibited on ethical grounds.  Those laws are also about protection.

    We as a society should ask ourselves questions like, who are we protecting if we ban gay marriage?  Is there an ethical argument for teaching creationism in schools?  Does the ethical argument weigh more towards allowing or banning stem cell research? 

    Do we really have a moral obligation to stop things like abortion- and if we do, would our energies be better spent banging our heads against the legislature or simply going out and helping meet the needs of the pregnant women?  (Realizing that the number one reason a woman gives for seeking an abortion is the inability to adequately provide for a child.)

    There.  I feel better now.  I can let you all ruminate on this stuff and wash my dishes in peace.  :)

This was going to be a comment on Toe-Knee's outstanding post today, but then I realized that it was better done in a post of my own.

    The United States of America was not founded on "Christian Principles."  So, everyone that says that in such a pompous self-ingratiating tone, just STOP.  One can reasonably argue that it was founded on "godly" principles, since God loves freedom and is the giver of freedom of choice, but one cannot argue for Christian Principles- especially since in the founding of our Government we were withdrawing from a very God-loving England.  To be a fly on the wall!  I imagine that England was saying that the United States was going against God, just as much as citizens of the United States would have been invoking God as their protection.
    But- Christian Principles?  Many of the founders were Christian, I won't argue against that.  I won't even argue that their faith in God and love for God and especially honor for the Freedom of Choice that God gave us informed their work.  Sure, that's all true.  But they never intended for our nation to be a Christian one.  Their intention that was that it be free, for everyone.
    Freedom of Religion, now, that is a godly principle.  It is Godly, in fact, with a capital G.  Why?  Because God was the one that gave us free choice!  We need to be able to make choices in order to have true faith, and those choices include the way we worship and who we worship.  Freedom of Religion not only protects the Buddhist and the Taoist and the Hindu and the Luciferian (I know, sore subject for a lot of people).  It also protects the Christian.  Again, a lot of people will look at me in bafflement when I say that.  If we are a Christian Nation and those Christian Principles are upheld, why would we need protection?  Well, because some Christians believe that women should only wear long skirts and cover their hair.  Do we all want to be forcibly made to do so?  I think not- we're fighting against that elsewhere, aren't we?  Some Christians believe that we should only worship God with our voices.  Do we want them coming in to our churches to take our guitars?  Some Christians believe strongly that it is a sin to touch alcohol or allow it to be drank.  Do we want them taking our beers out of our hands?  Oh, wait, we tried that and it failed.
    So- which Christian Principles should we be upholding?  That women be made to stay home?  That birth control be outright banned, in it's many and various forms?  That women be forced to marry to leave the home? Whose Christian morals should we be upholding?  The Evangelicals?  The Baptists?  The Lutherans?  The Catholics?  The Eastern Orthodox?  The mainline Protestant? The Mennonite?  The Amish? The Mormon? The Jehovah's Witness?  Because, when it comes down to it- the Abolition proved that the vocal cries of a minority can tie the hands of the majority, and should the decision be made that this be a Christian Nation, do we really want to risk the voice being heard not being ours, because it very well might be.
    If you want to live in a free and moral society, my advice would be to keep to the Constitution as strictly as possible.  Those guys knew what they were writing it for.  They knew it much more strongly than we ever could today.  It's my personal opinion that they did a bang-up job!

And because I'm in a mood today, a spritely ode to the consumerist attitude by the late, great, Five Iron Frenzy:

I'm tiring of getting forwards telling me to not go see the Golden Compass.  I'm going to go see it.  Okay?  Here's why:  It looks like an interesting movie.  Want another reason?  There are pretty graphics and explosions.  Want a third reason?  It has Daniel Craig in it.  Still not enough reasons?  I want to be able to discuss the movie, the intent of the movie, the premise of the movie and the possible consequences of the movie with intelligence, thought, and personal knowledge.
    I wish that people would stop attacking (what appear to be) beautiful creations simply out of fear- or even worse- because Focus on the Family tells them to.  I'm tired of Christians constantly going on the offensive every time they sense a potential threat.  We should be able to defend our faith articulately and compassionately.  We shouldn't EVER feel the need to attack veiled threats.  Allow God, Love, and our actions to act as our armor.
    This morning I got another one of the "Sympathy for the Devil" forwards.  It's a link to an article on a Focus on the Family affiliate site that goes by the same title.  The article is actually better thought out than other forwards I've received.  It still bothers me.  Why?  Because this is the evidence they provide of why Pullman's attitude is so "venomous" (their word.)  [the following quotes the article's quote of Pullman himself]

"Atheism suggests a degree of certainty that I'm not quite willing to accede. I suppose technically, you'd have to put me down as an agnostic. But if there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against. As you look back over the history of the Christian church, it's a record of terrible infamy and cruelty and persecution and tyranny. How they have the bloody nerve to go on Thought for the Day and tell us all to be good when, given the slightest chance, they'd be hanging the rest of us and flogging the homosexuals and persecuting the witches."

    Okay.  Is Pullman aggressively against Christianity, both as a concept and as an institution?  Undoubtedly.  He also openly admits to taking joy in portraying Catholicism as evil and killing God.  So, yes, he's aggressive to say the least.  But what about his specific complaints?  Rather than biting back, we should sit on our heels a moment and think about the implications of both his words and our actions.  He says that Christianity practices cruelty, that we flog those we perceive as sinners.
    Now- let me get it straight.  That means we should flog Pullman?  I just want to be sure I've got the marching orders right.
    I think we should all go see the movie.  I don't think a meager protest on the part of those who like to forward warnings and those who frequent FotF's affiliate sites is going to keep it from being a blockbuster.  So, let all the Christians go see it.  Then, be spontaneously nice to the other moviegoers.  Invite someone out for coffee.  Talk about the movie.  Apologize for the parts of it which are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of the way some Christians  and some parts of times past are portrayed.  Let's allow ourselves to be humbled and humiliated by the fact that our religion still hasn't completely moved out of the dark ages.
    Come on, peoples.  Let's at least be nice about our criticism.  Let's not attack some poor guy who has obviously been hurt.  All he did was write a book.  It's not like he actually killed God.  God is bigger than all of that.

    And, for the record, if seeing a movie is all it takes to destroy your faith you need a bigger one.

There are Christian Buzz words that make me want to stand up and scream profanity just to clear my head.  Yes, I realize that is another one of my quirks that probably makes me a bad Christian.  It's just the way I am.  I find it easy to be compassionate to people who are still out there and struggling.  When it comes to self-confessed believers my patience just goes.

I can't think of anything to blog about today.  So, I'll do a laundry list of buzz words and why they bother me.

BELIEVER:

    James 2:19
       You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

Why do we call ourselves "believers"?  Just the fact that we believe in something does not make us special.  After all, the Bible makes it pretty clear that Satan is a "believer", too.  I also get annoyed when people refer to the "brethren".  I know we're all supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ, but that sort of terminology annoys me as well.  Especially things like "Church Family."  When people talk about their "Church Family" I just think...  Oh, God, here we go.  Another person who is so into their church they probably don't know anyone who isn't a Christian... 
    The problem, I suppose, isn't with the language itself.  It's more with the attitude.  We have made the Church our home, to the exclusion of all of those who aren't part of "the Family".  I also sometimes imagine Pastors speaking in overdone Italian accents, saying things like, "go against the Family and you will BURN!"

THE LOST:
   
    *ahem* Believers often refer those who don't 'believe' as the Lost.  This bothers me.  Lost?  Do you really think they are lost?  Are they sitting in their living room scratching their heads and asking how the heck they got there?  Are you kidding me?  Most of the Lost know exactly where they are and are perfectly happy there.  Brian McLaren, notable Christian author (I say that because he's worth noticing, he's actually rather good) says that he would rather say that they are "missing", as in that we miss them.
     I like that better.
    Or we could be honest about how we feel and call them dirty-low-down heathen scoundrels.  Or go back to Tent speak and call them "those in danger of perdition."  Or we could stop talking about them in those kinds of terms and just refer to, "you know, the rest of the world."

INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY:

    The reason this bothers me is because we actually feel the need to TALK about INTENTIONALLY living together.  If we don't do it intentionally, will we forget to have community?  Do we not like each other enough to not do it without especially devoting thought to it?
    And, Dear God, what if we UNintentionally find ourselves in community? Is that bad?
    And then we need to figure out what community is.  I'm not kidding.  There are leadership focus meetings to talk about what community is and how to find it.  Most people don't seem bothered by the fact that Christians, the people who are supposed to love as Christ himself loved, don't seem to know how to live together.
    God Help Us.

RELATIONAL:

    We are encouraged to find ways to be "relational" with each other and the Lost.  This bothers me, because it is proof that for a very long time relationships came last.  I believe that our priorities should flow thusly:

God-Love-Relationships-Life-Love-Evangelism-Love---etc---fear of Hell should not be a factor

    For a very long time, priorities went like:

Fear of Hell-God-Fear of Hell-Evangelism-Fear of Hell-Relationships-Fear of Hell---etc---who has time to love anybody?

   Do I really need to point out how messed up that is?

UNPACKING:

    Oh.  Man.  I HATE that word.  "Unpacking" is what pastors have started to call a close examination of a word, phrase, metaphor, etc.  Let me give an example.
    See Spot.  See Spot Run.  Run, Spot, Run.
    Let's "unpack."  The first word is see, which means to visualize.  We are meant to visualize Spot.  What is Spot?  An animal, probably a dog, one can reasonably infer that Spot has, you know, spots.  The following sentence tells us to see Spot run.  That means that we- all of us- are meant to see that Spot is moving quickly.  This is what we are commanded to do.  The next command is to Spot himself, to continue running!  Now, what if we all put ourselves in Spots position?  We are commanded to see ourselves, running.  Why are we running?  From what?  To what?  Well, we're running from our Godless pasts towards our futures in Christ.  Look at us all, on our Christ-Journey!  Go, us, go!
    Wow!
    DEAR GOD MAKE IT STOP.  We do not need to "unpack" everything.  Not everything requires or even benefits from such close examination.  And half the time, when pastors unpack a verse all they are really finding is their own interpretation, and it's dishnest to pretend that if all of us looked that closely it's what we'd all find on our own.
    Just.  Make.  It.  Stop.