Ban Divorce to Protect Marriage?
Posted on October 27th, 2009 by The Reformer into the Politics categoryA Sacramento California man, John Marcotte, has started collecting signatures to place a new piece of legislation on the 2010 California ballot. He wants to make it illegal to divorce in the state. Why? He contends that this is a natural extension of what people did when they voted "Yes" on a ballot measure to ban gay marriage and protect the institute of traditional marriage.
He has a website http://rescuemarriage.org/ in promotion of the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act" and some public service announcements on YouTube.
Number 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqe4mx2N7E0
Number 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LnIDwx9M_s
Although Marcotte has denied this is a joke, it's kind of obvious what he's trying to do here. His use of satire is illustrating how the 2008 California Protection of Marriage Amendment, more commonly known as Proposition 8, which passed with a statewide majority vote, wasn't really about restoring marriage or protecting children as their website http://www.protectmarriage.com/ proclaims. The primary emphasis behind the measure was to stop the advancement of gays and their influence on society. However, as Marcotte points out, divorce is a huge threat to marriage and children as well, yet it is widely accepted and often practiced by the same people who are against gay marriage. So why haven't they put up the same sort of effort to stop it? Well I guess now someone has, and he raises a good point in doing it.
RSS feed for posts
October 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am
I found that site a few weeks ago and I love it. The commenters are pretty genius in joining in the satire. "Joe the Plumber" is my favorite as his satire is so subtle & so hilarious. Also, there are many commenters who think it is for real, and they are *almost* as hilarious as those who know it's a joke. Even though I do think it is just a joke - I also think, like you said, that he is calling attention to the absurdity of outlawing gay marriage and yet doing next to nothing to fight against divorce.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Strike that….he is not subtle, he is glaringly obvious. But people still believe he is being serious. Oy.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:20 am
I do not understand why people can not except that the majority of Americans do not want Gay Marriage. It seems that Democrats only favor democracy when it favors them.
It doesn’t matter if you do not get why.
It doesn’t matter if you think your right and want to impose your morals on the rest of us.
It doesn’t matter if it is not “just”.
The people of this country do not want it. Do not force it on us. Do not try to control us. Do not try to impose your morals on those of us who disagree with you.
____________________________________
That being said: Nobody is hurt by not changing the law. Guys can still “shack up” - give power of Attorneys to each other that give them all the inheritances of a marriage. Most states including California, Oregon and Washington all have Domestic Partnerships. - And I support Demestic Partnerships.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Does Revelation 22:11 have anything to say in the matter?
Any reason not to “LET HIM” or “LET THEM” like scripture says?
Likewise:
Ezekiel 3:27 “But when I speak to you, I will open your mouth and you will say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ He who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.
Daniel 12:10 “Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand.
We aren’t in the world to prevent anyone from sinning or to legislate away that which offends us … we’re here to be salt and light …
Another consideration for me on that subject, is found in the remarks of Joshua, who said “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” … there was a man who understood the real scope of his authority … he did NOT attempt to dictate the godly behavior / devotion to the Lord for anyone else … plenty of examples of Jesus telling people to MYOB, too …. so why do Christians try to legislate gay marriage ?
Lastly, it also weighs on me that Judas’ sin was in trying to strong-arm Jesus into carrying out his political agenda … isn’t the conservative assault on gays in the name of Jesus kind of the same sin?
November 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
isn’t the conservative assault on gays in the name of Jesus kind of the same sin?
What laws are “Christians or Conservatives” trying to change? Because I was under the misconception that the law has always been marriage between a man and a women. I do believe that people who are in opposition are in opposition of changing the status-quo. It is the progressives and liberals who are trying to enforce their morals on the rest of us.
Your whole argument is a lie. It doesn’t address what I said at all. You again are using my bible and my faith to guilt me into your manipulation and control. You are trying to change things to fit your morals. We are not trying to change anything. When democracy fails you, you run to the courts. When that fails you come on forums like this and belittle us because we do not have the same morals you do.
You are everything you say in your post that you hate. You are a defined hypocrite. Your whole post is a personal attack.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Freudian slip - you are indeed under misconception …
But for the sake of argument, let’s explore the issue … IF what you say is true and the gays are trying to expand the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, then WHY the discussion of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to define marriage as between one man and one woman? And why are states passing constitutional amendments to outlaw gay marriage?
There can be only one conclusion. Marriage between one man and one woman is TRADITION, not law, hence all the amendment legislation / efforts / referendums. And who is behind the legislation / referendums / amendments? Christians and conservatives.
Here’s some reading material for you, to help you get you up to speed on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/status_N04.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-118697966.html
You should also google “constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage” or “constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman” for a couple million web pages on the subject.
NBCC, my view is simply this: there’s the world and the Church. The Church is called out of the world to walk in the Spirit. The Lord’s kingdom is NOT of this world. So, why do Christians try to change the world? Specifically, why do Christians try to force Christianity / Christian morals on the world via civil law?
I’ve seen gays come to know the Lord through the love of Jesus via believers, but I have NEVER seen a gay come to know the Lord by legislative campaign to condemn their sexual orientation / gay marriage.
Does the “God hates fags” campaign(s) ever produce fruit?
November 1st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
An Unscrupulous Man:
misconception was not a Freudian slip. It was sarcasm. Marriage between a man and woman is not a “Christian” thing. Its a world thing. No government in the history of man has ever sanctioned such a thing as “gay marriage”. No religion in history.
The Roman Empire during Christs age was quite favorable to gays, and yet they never had “Gay Marriage”.
Its not a bad policy just because of the bible. It is bad policy by the world’s standards too.
Even so. Please name the state that passed Gay Marriage by democratic vote? Yes the liberals are pushing their morals on us. Not us conservatives, us as in everyone from every walk of life.
I clearly said I supported and still support domestic partnerships. That is compassion, that is giving people freedom to have relationships and partners and “love” who they want. It is different then redefining marriage. Where do we stop? Do we start to sanction polygamy? The bible sanctions polygamy why not change our laws for that?
Its not good civil law. At no point have argued a biblical reason although there are many. If my state passed gay marriage by democratic vote I would except your assertions that we just live in the world, and should except the worlds ways. But laws are being changed by courts.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 am
EXACTLY!
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
NBCC, you’re changing horses midstream. Since apparently you have trouble conceding the point, allow me to remind you of what you said, before calling me a liar:
In reply, I linked 4 web sites out of 2 million that came up on Google where an Amendment to the US Constitution (the ‘law of the land’ if you’re unfamiliar with it) is being discussed to DEFINE marriage as between one man and one woman. Likewise, numerous states are drafting amendments to their constitutions to define marriage between one man and one woman.
So, if the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman was already a LAW as you asserted before calling me a liar, WHY are so many states and the US federal government working up amendments to so define it?
Anyway, your evasiveness and deflection just go to show who is really lying.
And regardless of your silly history lesson, Revelation 22:11 stands. What say you to the ‘Word of the Lord’, son?
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 am
Really? Wow, so what state could have 2 gay or lesbians walked into a courthouse to get a Marriage licence 15 years ago? I mean this is settled law that has always been on the books from 1776 right? What year was the 1st Gay Marriage in the US? I guess nobody wanted to get married between 1776 - 2004.
I called you are lying because you are. Liberals are using the courts instead of the legislators and referendums to change marriage. Its the same thing with Abortion. When you cheat your going to be called a cheater and far fewer will except it. If Abortion became legal by legitimate means far less people would be opposing it. If Gay Marriage is legal by legitimate means far more people will support it.
The oddest part of this whole argument is that 10 years ago when I supported Domestic Partnerships I was called a liberal. I was considered compassionate by the Liberals and logical. 70% of Americans support/supported Domestic Partnerships. Now the liberals moved the goal post. They changed what they want. 70% of Americans do not support gay marriage. The thing is Americans have not changed. I have always been consistent on this issue. But once a friend now you call me a bigot.
Now your calling me a bigot? Because I do not support gay marriage? My goodness. Your judgmental, rude and vindictive. Personally if you are what represents Christiandom I am surprised anyone would ever come to Christ.
So am I a bigot against people who are “shacking up” because I think its a sin? Am I a bigot against Buddhists because I believe they will go to hell with out Christ? What other fundamental Christian beliefs make all of us Christians bigots?
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Guys…guys… We’ve rehashed this a zillion times. Just agree to disagree because I doubt that neither of you will change the other’s mind.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
NBCC,
You realize of course, that I originally asked a couple questions in context of 3 scriptures I quoted, in response to which you called my WHOLE argument a lie?
You have yet to address the scriptures I cited, but have instead staked your frothing objection to gay marriage based on politics, history, tradition, an obvious hatred of liberals and what seems like a bad case of homophobia.
What does the WOG say your response should be as a follower of the Lord?
Remember, we’re talking about the world and people of the world who want to do what they want to do.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Yes, this post was not meant to raise a debate about whether we should or shouldn’t have gay marriage. We all know…conservatives think gay marriage is wrong because being gay is wrong and no matter what you tell them, they cannot support it. Fine. We also all know, liberals think gay marriage should be allowed in a free society, because there is nothing wrong with being gay and no matter what you tell them they will disagree. Fine. Both sides are entitled to their own opinions.
However, the purpose of this post was to address a very good point for both sides. Why is the focus to “save marriage” solely on stopping gay marriage, when divorce causes just as much harm? Why has there been so much time, money, and effort put into stopping gay marriage and virtually no effort into stopping divorce? Why aren’t the same people who march against gay marriage also marching against divorce?
Read Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Jesus was pretty clear. So why does a society with 70% of the population claiming they have Christian values, have over a 50% divorce rate? This again is where the hypocrisy of religion puts a black eye on real faith.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Hi reformer:
I’m not sure you really do want an answer to your question, but in case you do, I will offer one from the Word:
1. Sodomy is unequivacably condemned in both Testaments:
O.T.: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22, NASB).
N.T.: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Rom. 1:26-27, NASB)
2. Divorce — though not God’s perfect Will — was allowed (under certain restrictions) in both Testaments:
O.T.: “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house….” (Deut. 24:1, NASB)
* In addition……..Ezra chapters 9-10 record the restored Israelites divorcing their heathen wives in order to re-obtain the Lord’s favor, which apparently was subsequently given by Him…..and Jehovah Himself divorced National Israel (see Is. 50:1 with Jer. 3:8).
N.T.: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mt. 5:32, NASB)
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Mt. 19:9, NASB)
* Also (in addition to Jesus’ allowance for unfaithfulness) most conservative expositors hold that Paul adds a 2nd allowance for divorce in cases of abandonment in 1 Cor. 7:10ff.
So, to sum up…..your question involves — IMO — apples and oranges.
-joe
November 5th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Excellent point Joe, for the most part I do agree. However, do you think that the 50% divorce rate among Christians in our country is all due to infidelity? And what I find troubling is the thought that gay marriage is harmful but divorce is just part of society. I mean, what is more harmful to marriage: two gays, who have zero faith in God, tying the knot or two God fearing believers who made "till death" commitments to each other simply walking away because they grew apart?
Personally I think both are problem issues, but what bothers me the most (and hence the reason I brought this up) is the hypocrisy in it all. If a person is going to fight to protect "the institute of marriage," fight to protect it against ALL it's harms, not just one. Be consistent, that's all I ask.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
According to Islam, all Christians are infidels, so I suppose the answer to your question is, yes.
Reformer, I suspect if you were to get an honest confession out of church members, you’d find a staggering number of them who are guilty of sexual sins: fornication, adultery, lust / covetousness, etc. And you’ll find even more 10 years from now thanks to increasing promiscuity and an ever younger church …
Why aren’t heterosexual sexual sins condemned / singled out with the same froth as homosexuality?
To be clear, homosexuality is a sin, just as are adultery, fornication, et al. That the church really only focuses on homosexuality, when there are countless adulterers and fornicators in the midst of the church, when pastors and men in the church have porn addictions, just goes to show that the root of the movement is NOT “God’s Word”, but homophobia.
And what I am suggesting is, that the same privacy and turning a blind eye to adulterers, fornicators, porn addicts, et al, should also be accorded to the homosexuals - lest the Church add “hypocrisy” to the long list of apostasies and ways they have compromised the faith.
If I had to guess, I imagine the Lord is more pissed off at the hypocrisy of Christian divorce, adultery, fornication, porn and a Church that turns a blind eye to it all, than he is angry about homosexuality. At least the homosexuals are honest about it.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:53 am
You’re right Reformer, I’d say the vast majority of divorces among “unbelievers,” especially when the man instigates it, are due to issues other than infidelity on the woman’s part (although I say that from personal knowledge of others’ situations, not from statistics).
As far as divorce among “believers,” I imagine other issues — like perceived “un-Christian” behavior — predominate.
While, as both you and ‘Scrupe point out, hypocrisy definitely plays too large a part in the IC’s attitude towards it, I sometimes wonder if many people’s attitude towards sodomy — like if it is acceptable or not — is influenced more by personal reaction against the church leadership who publicly opposes it?
On the other hand, the militant posture of those espousing not only the acceptance of sodomy but also its legalization probably exacerbates the “conservative” response, wouldn’t you agree?
I mean, you don’t see thousands marching/chanting in the streets for the acceptance/legalization of theft, lying or even murder…other than abortion of course.
So I think the “pro-gay” activists probably bring much of this attention/opposition upon themselves.
______________________
Good points ‘Scrupy, as the Father surely hates all sin, whether it be covetousness, hypocrisy, adultery or sodomy.
I would only add that as regards sodomy, it seems to me the Father holds a special repugnance for it, as evidenced by the Sodom and Gomorrah judgment:
“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7, NASB)
My question has always been…..why hasn’t He seen fit to rain down “liquid fire” from heaven upon other cities — where sins like covetousness, theft, or even adultery have surely been practiced wholesale — like London, Beijing, or Moscow? IOW, why did He seem to emphasize the sin of sodomy more than any other as deserving of this special judgment/punishment?
-joe
November 6th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Hi anna (”grace”):
Playing the peacemaker (Mt. 5:9) again I see, you “child of God” you.
You must have teenagers….
November 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Hi joe, thanks, yes I do have teenagers, and need grace in an increasing supply!
On topic: I had an interesting discussion with a Christian professor of philosophy on Sunday. We were talking about government and other things and he made an interesting observation that I’m still thinking about.
He said that America is one of the first governments to have a separation of church and state. Even today there are many governments who derive national identity from their main religion. That is why Islam considers America “Christian” — because they consider themselves “Muslim.”
So when they see “Christians” acting like Americans do, they feel correct in naming Christians as infidels, ie, if this is what a Christian is like, then it is a poor religion. That is also why they see no inconsistency in imposing Sharia law as the law of the land in their states.
Looking back to the founding of the US: the laws were originally based on Scriptural principles for the most part. But now we have a situation where the church is far from the state, and the gap widens further. So to what extent do we expect the laws of the state to line up with the principles of Scripture?
I don’t know. I don’t see an answer. My heart tells me that what laws God gave were ultimately for man’s good, and are therefore worthy to be the law of the land. But I can see sinful man chaffing at those same laws.
So if we divorce the Scripture from the state laws, which ones do we keep and which ones do we toss? And there lies the “sticky wicket.” It’s enough to make one’s head spin.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Having divorced for the cause of infidelity, you can bet I spent some time thinking about the vows taken “before God” and the Church. Where the proclamation “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder” was spoken by the minister, I often wondered how it was that a marriage performed by and in a Church could be dissolved by the state - seems to me there is no separation in matters of marriage / divorce if the one can dissolve the actions performed by the other.
It amused me at the time to imagine the state saying to people who want a divorce “you’ll have to go back to where you were married and ask them for a divorce” …
Joe - about “raining fire” - I do wonder why it is that people continually point to the OT story of Sodom as an example to support their present beliefs … when there has been no occurrence of “raining fire” since Jesus and in fact he rebuked James and John for suggesting they call fire down upon a village that refused them … or why the Sodom story is preferred over the example of Jesus sending the woman caught in sexual sin on her way with a warning … or why we ignore the command in Revelation 22:11 to “let them who are wicked continue to be wicked” …
In calling Lot and his family to leave Sodom - was that a foreshadow of Revelation 22:11 - a kind of a “let them be” or “don’t try to reform them” type message? And was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed homosexuality or was it rape? We forget that the men of Sodom demanded Lot send out the 2 (?) angels who were with him to have forcible sex with them … so it is difficult for me to compare Sodom - men roaming the streets like a mob, intending to gang rape angels - with monogomous homosexuals … even the new testament passage says “homosexual OFFENDERS” not “homosexuals” or “homosexuality” in general …
So it just seems to me that believers see what they want to see in the scriptures to justify their dislike of gays …
That I’m aware, there’s been no fire rained down on any city for the cause of abomination since Jesus was crucified … might there have been a change in how God deals with the sins of the world, what with the advent of Jesus and all? If so, isn’t it time we got with the program?
November 8th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Are you saying that two men choosing to be in a monagamous gay relationship is acceptable in the eyes of God and their actions do not violate scriptures?
November 8th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Kudos to you ‘Scrupe in offering a novel (to me) interpretation…never heard it justified like that.
‘Scrupe, as is often the case with the O.T. historical account, Genesis 19 doesn’t provide all the details, whereas the N.T. does, specifically the Books of Peter and Jude. In consulting them, we see your theory isn’t supported by Peter, who says Lot was “vexed” with Sodom’s “filthy” lifestyle “day after day” (2 Peter 2:8). Thus, the sodomites’ were punished for actions which were an ongoing lifestyle, not for a one-time incident with the angels as you hypothesize.
Nor is it supported by Jude, who relates S & G’s destruction as an example of punishment for “giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh…suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. “ (Jude 1:7). The Greek construction Jude uses here is participles, signifying on-going behavior. So again, the “vengeance” upon them was not merely for a one-time incident.
_____________________
I can’t speak for others, but for me, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking anyone…it’s simply a matter of continuing to submit to what the Word says, and accepting it regardless of if it offends my sensibilities (which it often does). But I can relate to what you said, but with a slight change of words:
So it just seems to me that believers who don’t like what they see in the scriptures try to explain it away to justify their dislike of what it clearly says
____________________
Agreed….until 2 Thess. 1:7-9.
“the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”
As well as Rev. 20:9.
“And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”
__________________
Agreed:
“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30)
Sure is.
-joe
November 8th, 2009 at 7:17 am
‘Scrupey-do, you sure do like to quote Rev. 22:11 a lot! And not just under this thread, as I recall you referencing it many times before
I don’t think you are seeing it properly though, bro.
Especially in light of the rest of biblical teaching, because as you know, we must take what the Word teaches on the totality of any subject under discussion, and not build a doctrine on any one verse. I learned that the hard way in often doing the same thing myself during teaching sessions, building a strong case on one verse, only to have someone raise their hand and ask “Yeah, but what about these verses over here?” Followed by lots of hemming and hawing on my part
Rather than espousing an attitude of futilely throwing up one’s hands in frustration and indifference at the sin of others, leaving them to go un-admonished on their way, Rev. 22:11 instead refers to patterns of behavior becoming permanent one day, as the New English Translation brings out the idea from the Greek:
“The evildoer must continue to do evil, and the one who is morally filthy must continue to be filthy. The one who is righteous must continue to act righteously, and the one who is holy must continue to be holy.” (Rev. 22:11, NET)
IOW, in the face of continued sin and unrepentance, one eventually becomes hardened in heart, as also mentioned by Paul:
“But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” (Rom. 2:5)
And not only in being hardened to sin, but also in not even being able to truly repent of it at all, as with Esau in Heb. 12:15-17. The true meaning of your verse in Revelation is also borne out by Daniel:
“Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.” (Dan. 12:10, NIV)
Quite to the contrary of closing an eye to evil, not only is the N.T. replete with verse after verse after verse admonishing men and women to repent and turn from evil while there is still time to do so, but also replete with commands for us as Believers to warn, admonish and even rebuke them.
To give just 3 such examples:
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Eph. 5:11)
“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” (1 Timothy 5:20)
“Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” (Titus 1:13)
[[If you’re interested, see also:
– Commands to repent in the Gospels, by Jesus: Matthew 3:2, 4:17; Mark 6:12; Luke 13:3-5, etc.
– Commands to repent in Acts, by Peter and Paul: Acts 2:38, 3:19, 8:22, 17:30, etc.
– Commands in the Epistles to rebuke/admonish those who sin: 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 2:15, etc.
– Commands to repent in Revelation, by Jesus: Rev. 2:5,16,21-22, 3:3,19.]]
One last thought ‘Scrupe: how would you explain your notion of non-intervention in light of the principle of Ezekiel 3:18-21??
Oh wait…that’s the Old Testament.
-joe
November 8th, 2009 at 10:20 am
No Nina, I’m not. However I do observe that Christians have singled it out for condemnation, when seated right next to them in the pew and quite possibly even true of their own current / past behavior and thought life, is a fornicator, adulterer, porn addict, someone who readily goes into lustful fantasies …
Now imagine what the Church would look like if there were a complete house cleaning of all them who are guilty of any manner of sexual sin.
There is a recurrent theme in NT scripture, that of Jesus teaching people to MYOB … like the woman caught in adultery … the picture of clearing the kangaroo court of men who had NO standing before the Lord to accuse a sinner as sinners themselves, and then privately and with great sensitivity for the woman, dealing with her sin.
In accusing someone, whether saint or sinner, believers are USURPING the singular place of the Lord.
Now where that person who is living in open and unrepentant sin is attempting to straddle the fence between the world and the Body of Christ, the lesson of 1 Corinthians 5 (?) seems clear enough, “expel the immoral brother” … that however ain’t before a mob with torches and pitchforks or making the brother (or sister) “walk the plank” - to me it means simply saying to the person that it is by their decision to continue to court sin, they can’t remain in the fellowship - their expulsion is in reality their own decision - a kind of ’self eviction’ if you will. I imagine it is grievous for the body, but necessary to expel the immoral brother for the good of the body.
My observation about all that is simply the church seems to have compromised about every sexual sin but homosexuality. Accepted by the church and with a blind eye turned by all, are adulterers, fornicators, idolators, the lustful, gluttons, thieves, blasphemers, etc. It just seems to me that those sins are of the sort that they can be carried out in secret, whereas homosexuality is painfully obvious. Well, perhaps not gluttony, but certainly obesity is tolerated if not socially acceptable.
I recall reading a letter in the local paper, when a church split in town over the attempted hiring of a lesbian minister, the pastor of another church wrote a very self-righteous letter claiming in closing “this is where we draw the line - homosexuality in the pulpit will not be tolerated” … and I remember thinking as I read that “I wonder why they waited so damn long to draw the line” …
Joe - I appreciate the Sunday school lesson ‘n all, but you still haven’t come to grips with the heart of the matter. And that is the blatant hypocrisy of a church at large, who has sold out to every sin but one. That and the lunacy of thinking that by condemning homosexuals who are in / of the world - homosexuals who aren’t even believers - that somehow they’re either doing a work for God by ’standing up for the word’ or evangelizing the ’sodomites’ …
The love of God in Christ is messy, sometimes painful, reunification and reconciliation sometimes requires the shedding of blood, self sacrifice.
We seem to do great at loving someone who uses an off color word on occasion or farts in Church, as there’s little required of us to ‘cover over that sin’ with love … but what of someone who commits a sin that is socially / culturally reprehensible - is there enough of Christ-likeness in us to love in spite of it and thereby potentially introduce them to Jesus who can, like the woman caught in the act of adultery, deal with their sin privately and with sensitivity and love?
I do not understand where the Church gets off condemning the world of sin and likewise, not dealing with the sin within their midst.
“The Church of the blind eye - accepting of all sins, save one” … Me thinks I hear Jesus working up a big spit …
November 9th, 2009 at 5:04 am
“when seated right next to them in the pew and quite possibly even true of their own current / past behavior and thought life, is a fornicator, adulterer, porn addict, someone who readily goes into lustful fantasies …”
I do not think that homosexuality is any more “singled” out then the rest of these things. Certainly in my church we have programs for all of these things. I currently teach a class on marriage for married couples.
That being said Adulterers, porn addicts, are not asking for the rest of the world to accept what they do.
I have been accused of being homophobic because I still believe that marriage between a man and a women, the way its always been for the tens of thousands of years of human civilisations, should be held in a more reverent position then that of 2 men or 2 women. I am not saying that the state should have any right to stop, inhibit or prosecute them for anything. I am just saying that marriage between a man and a woman should be held in higher value. Especially with kids, foster, adopt situations. Just as it current is in foster care over a single parent scenario.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I agree marriage traditionally has been between one man and one woman, though with the effort to amend the US and state constitutions to define marriage, it seems clear to me the conservatives feel the tradition needs to be made law …
Joe has cited my oft mention of Revelation 22:11 which says “Let them who are wicked continue to be wicked” … and that is a valid observation - though I am not sure I’ve been sufficiently clear about WHY I cite that often as I do, when it comes to the conduct of the world.
Scripture makes 2 distinctions - a person is either IN Christ or IN the world - a person either in the kingdom or in the world. A person who is IN Christ is righteous, by virtue of Christ’s righteousness which covers them. The person who is NOT in Christ is wicked / a sinner / etc.
So Revelation 22:11 makes the distinction between saint and sinner, between those who are IN Christ and those who are IN the world. The message of Revelation 22:11 to the person who is IN Christ is to let the person who is IN the world BE. To that end, doesn’t the scripture also say that “The Holy Spirit will convict the WORLD of sin”? Together with other scriptures, such as the woman caught in the act of adultery, there emerges a theme from scripture that it is the LORD who will deal with the sin of man … where the person is ‘in the family’ as was the woman caught in the act of adultery, the Lord clears the court of all her accusers and deals with her personally. And it strikes me that the Lord says “where are your accusers … neither do I accuse you” … so the Lord deals with the sin without accusation - but instead, with mercy, with love, with sensitivity, yet with the instruction to “sin no more” - so that the person refrains from sin NOT because of threat of punishment, but love for the one who saved her from accusation and who showed mercy, love, forgiveness …
Paul concludes 1 Corinthians 5 (’expel the immoral brother’ with:
To my way of thinking, Paul’s words are in sync with Revelation 22:11, etc., in that he understands it is NOT his place to judge the world, but only to deal with the Body of Christ to which he belongs.
And so when I see Christians ignoring clear Biblical principles concerning separation of the world and the Church, to leave the world to God to work conviction and judgment, I just don’t understand the Christian campaigning intended apparently to stop the world from sinning. Do Christians somehow think that is pleasing to God or that the soul is saved in preventing the wicked from sinning?
The other thing that aches me, NBCC, is that this debate has a way of rendering believers ineffective for Christ - it tangles believers up in the debate of sin rather than lifting up the Lord in a lost world … in my observation, men seem to go about the work of evangelism and salvation by first confronting and cleaning up the sin and THEN bringing the cleaned-up sinner to Christ … whereas the Lord seems to go about salvation by first extending love, grace, mercy, sensitivity, etc., and then through loving relationship, deals with the sin in HIS way.
Though not in the Bible, I still believe it is a truthful saying that “if the devil can’t make you bad, he’ll make you busy” … the homosexual issue has made a lot of believers ‘busy’ and thereby sidelined in the real battle of simply being ‘Jesus with skin on’ to a lost world.
It would be sobering to take inventory of the unsaved and in particular unsaved homosexuals, to ask what they think of the Lord as represented in the world by the Church. It aches me that the world in many cases hates the Lord, not on account of the Lord, but on account of the Lord I’ve presented to the world. If I lead with “Jesus HATES your sin” will the sinner stick around to hear about the Jesus who loves them?
I hope that gives a better picture of why I suggest we “let them be” - and why I believe that the Christian conservative effort to ban gay marriage is in fact an act of disobedience to (what to me is) the clear instruction of scripture.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
PS - after hitting “Post” had one more thought on the matter.
In the so-called “Great Commission”, the Lord said:
Instead, it seems like the Church has often done this:
Shalom, friends.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Hi ‘Scrupey:
You say I still don’t get the point. I think you’re the one who continues to miss it, bro.
Cause it ain’t about hypocrisy. It’s about sodomy. You let the lesser issue sidetrack you from the bigger issue.
You all but directly come out and say “monogamous homosexuals” and those who practice “‘homosexuality’ in general” are somehow not as bad as “homosexual offenders,” nor those in Sodom and Gomorrah who were out to rape.
And even when I showed you how the Word clearly shows in Peter and Jude that S & G were not destroyed by God for a one-time attempt at rape, but rather for their persistent homosexual lifestyles, you said nothing.
When even when someone said “I do not think that homosexuality is any more “singled” out then the rest of these things….Adulterers, porn addicts, are not asking for the rest of the world to accept what they do,” which even I had said earlier in this thread, you didn’t address that either, my friend.
And not only that, but in throwing out the baby (the sinfulness of sodomy) with the bathwater (the attitudes of those who march against it), you’ve painted yourself into a corner, ‘Scrupe. Using your reasoning one could endorse anything so long as the protestors didn’t march just as vehemently against everything else, too.
Example? Take murder. Your rationale would leave the murderers alone, and instead oppose those who were against murder if they themselves held bad attitude towards the ones doing the murdering.
{{Oh wait, we’ve already fairly beat to death the abortion debate on this blog.}}
:P
-joe
November 10th, 2009 at 10:15 am
‘Scrupe, while you do bring up a good example from the Gospels, that of the woman taken in adultery, you don’t seem to want to answer the many examples I provided from the Epistles where the Apostolic writers did in fact command us to PUBLICLY rebuke sin. The N.T. consists of more than just the Gospels, yaknow.
But I’ll address your Gospel example, as it actually works against your theory.
No, Jesus didn’t have the woman stoned. But it wasn’t because what she did was OK. He didn’t overlook her sin. Nor did He allow Himself to get sidetracked by the hypocrisy of the crowd either, and just “let” her sin “be,” as you mention we should do.
After first seeing her repentance — she called Him “Lord,” and probably was weeping — He forgave her, AND THEN admonished her to stop doing that “sin.”
You rightly mention His love and compassion towards her. Why did He do this? Because God treats those who are truly repentant for their sin with love and forgiveness. But when they are not, He opposes them, sometimes violently. Think Lake of Fire, ‘Scrupe.
Two Gospel examples of Jesus confronting the unrepentant:
1) His public whipping of the moneylenders in the Temple.
2) Jesus publicly opposing the Scribes and Pharisees.
He wasn’t so loving and understanding towards any of them, ‘Scrupey. Why? Because they weren’t repentant, but were adamant in their sin.
So, when we see the unrepentant sodomites, who refuse to turn from their sin, but what’s more, seek to defend it, compare it to marriage, proudly march in the streets over it, wave placards in support of it, and then take to the schools, Boy Scout Troops, all the different media, even the halls of government to seek the forced acceptance, inclusion and legalization of sodomy….after seeing all that, you say we should walk up to them and give them a big group hug?
Dude, that sure ain’t what Jesus did.
-joe
November 10th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Lastly Jackson, you give Paul as an example in 1 Cor. 5:12.
Excellent point, seriously. I had forgotten about it. It definitely must be fit into the overall picture.
But like I always say, we gotta take the totality of what the Word teaches, not just one verse.
So then, how would you answer….
-John the Baptist publicly preaching to “repent” not to the saints, but to the unsaved?
-Or his publicly attacking (unsaved) Herod, many times, over his adultery with Herodias?
-Or Jesus publicly preaching to the (unsaved) crowds who followed Him to “repent”?
-Or His aforementioned scathing, public denunciation of the (unsaved) religious leaders, even publicly calling them terrible names in the process?
(I’d provide references, but this ain’t Sunday School.
And I’ll save for later to ask for your response as to the real meaning of Rev. 22:11, as I’d like to hear it if ya got one) 
Your bud,
-joe
November 10th, 2009 at 10:22 am
My gaaaaaawd.
I wish I had never commented on this thread.
Is there any way to STOP getting notices every time someone comments? They are making me insane. Someone - please help??
November 10th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I’m LOL over here, Lindsey. Sorry if all my jabbering is overloading your mailbox.
Try marking them as spam?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Noooooo it’s OK :/
I just shouldn’t read them when they come into my inbox but I am overcome with curiosity hoping someone will say something that will surprise me but I just get frustrated and it’s pointless.
I think it’s good y’all can discuss & debate amicably (mostly - you & Scrupe are the most mature debaters in this forum and I’m not just referring to this particular discussion)…it just make me crazy that no one is pointing out (and I don’t want to do it but oh man here I go and I KNOW I am gonna get a Scripturally based lecture on this one): that y’all are interpreting the same scriptures and coming up with very different meanings. Oh great and now I have come to a question (dangit!): what does this say to you? If either of you tells me that to you it just means that the other person is “wrong” or “in error” I may very well scream at my computer screen. Another scream inducer would be to use the Scripture to “prove” the Scripture. Does that make sense?
Also, to me, the Bible is a book that has been ripped apart & cut up countless times and sewn back together again. Interpreted, re-interpreted and then interpreted back using Babel Fish. Soooo, I don’t believe it is the perfect, infallible word of God. To me it is a book of lessons the best of which are held in Psalms & Proverbs. This is usually where conversation breaks down because if everything you have to say in terms of debate comes from the Scripture, it holds little meaning for me. I don’t mean that to be offensive because I know it is so much more than that for you - just want you to know where I am coming from in case you reeeeeally want to convince me of something and only use the Bible to do it
November 10th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Lindsey, you bring up some really good points.
Since I’ve been hogging a lot of the comments on this thread, I’ll let someone else try and answer your questions for now.
Rest assured, someone will be along directly. Hopefully, you’ll even hear from a good one like anna or reformer.
-joe
November 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Lindsey, you should be able to uncheck the box at the bottom of this thread that says "send me emails" or something like that. That should stop them coming to your email, it does for me.
In regards to this I kind of agree with you. I have been a Christian for over 15 years, however for almost 10 of those years I was the type of Christian I now despise. I do believe the Bible is the Word of God and fundamental to my faith. However, I also believe (as you have pointed out) that because its been ripped apart, put back together, interpreted and re-interpreted so many times, it's hard to find what the real truth is in it all. And since the Old Testament is everything pre-Jesus, most of that stuff I don't even pay attention to outside of historical context.
My best way to "explain away" the confusion of the Bible is to ignore what others say and read it for yourself. In fact I tell people all they time who are struggling with Christianity to avoid all things Christian. Why? Because a majority of what we as society have come to know and teach about Christianity is false! Its years upon years of man made traditions, customs, beliefs and political bs designed with a purpose to relieve people from guilt, reserve a seat in heaven, and create a sense of self-importance that Jesus spoke out against many times. You see deep down none of us really knows the truth about who God really is and what He really cares about. Jesus even said himself that many will stand before Him with the idea that they know God based on how they lived their lives, yet God will say to them “away from me for I never knew you.” That’s why I decided some 7 years ago that Jesus' death and resurrection to cover all of my past, present, and future sins is all that really matters; everything else is insignificant junk that clogs the pipeline of truth.
So I agree we constantly butcher scripture to make it fit into what we think, however I also believe that if we understood all there is to know about God and the Bible, there would be no reason to have any faith in Him! Faith is what provides the missing pieces of the puzzle. Wherever there are holes and emptiness, faith in Christ is what fills it in because in the end, that’s all that really matters; more then interpretation of scripture and more then personal beliefs on what’s right and what’s wrong. That's why I neither support nor fight against certain political and societal issues like gay marriage or abortion. I mean they are important to be aware of but they can also a distraction to the truth of who God really is. All these fundamental conservative Christians are so lost in a world of "church" and being "righteous" and "holy" for God; they forget why they chose to serve Him in the first place. All I want to know about is Christ! So your frustration at a typical Christian argument for or against gay marriage is 100% legitimate. It frustrates the hell out of me too, and I have to hear it all the time!!
What’s a person to do in all this? Well I ignore all the hoopla and instead ask God everyday for the real Him. Not the one preached in mainstream churches or presented through political/pop culture, but the one who truly exists in my everyday life. And I’ve found that God will never disappoint anyone who truly just wants Him.
I know this is not really an "answer" (as I believe no one really has one) but I hope it helps open things up for you a bit. And btw, it’s nice to see an amicable discussion on gay marriage but lets be honest, when we all stand before His throne and see the mighty power and splendor of who God really is, we will all care less who did and didn’t get married.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Thanks Reformer
I appreciate what you said and would only say I disagree with the idea that “faith fills in the holes”. I don’t think it does but I do think it provides comfort in the face of not knowing things and often that is enough when we don’t know the answers (sometimes so much so that faith itself feels like an answer).
Faith is believing what cannot be proved and I don’t find fault with that when it comes to spiritual beliefs - I think it can be empowering and fulfilling. The only time I think it is not good is when people try to use science (or whatever) to “prove” their faith which isn’t possible and also undermines their faith in what they say they believe. I also think that when one’s faith begins to impose on others in a way that limits their freedom or well being, then it becomes a problem.
Thanks for sharing with me outside a Biblical context. I am not opposed to that - I have been reading the Bible my whole life and so it is familiar and interesting to me - but it’s nice to hear it from a different angle
November 10th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Lindsey, try going to the Subscription Tools at the bottom of the right column. If you forget to un-check the follow-up comment box, then you’ll start getting emails galore — very annoying, I agree.
As for the Scripture debate, IMHO the fact that people interpret it differently does not point to a problem with the Scripture, it points to holes in our own knowledge of God. When I run across something that doesn’t seem to make sense, I take the stance that I must not understand it.
So I don’t think “faith” fills in the holes, but an increasing knowing the Lord fills in the holes. Since I DO lean on Scripture, my favorite passage about this is the first few verses of Proverbs 2.
It seems to me that whenever people decide what stays and what goes, then they set themselves up as “judges” over the Scripture.
Also, I kind of think that if Scripture is important to God, then He will preserve it in such a way that it accomplishes His purposes.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Anna when you say “I kind of think that if Scripture is important to God, then He will preserve it in such a way that it accomplishes His purposes,” that’s the same thing as me saying “let faith fill the holes.” Faith that God will carry His purpose through no matter what humans do to try and destroy it. Faith that although I can’t understand why some people are gay and why others are not, God does and in the end He’s in charge of who is living right with Him and who isn’t. Faith in the fact that even though we are always going to be impure people no matter what we do, He still accepts us as pure in Christ.
So maybe you guys misunderstood the meaning of let “faith fill the holes,” but it’s very true. Faith is the reason we serve God! Without it, none of this stuff would make any sense.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Reformer, I hear you, and we probably agree.
But what I try to get away from is the idea that faith has no substance, no strings to attach it to reality — that it’s essentially wishful thinking or fantasy. I believe faith can be based on knowledge, which comes by revelation.
Think about when you became a Christian. Did you just sort of hope that there was a God and were kind of talked into the idea of atonement? Or did you have a realization of the state of your heart and a revelation of a God who was both holiness and love? Was it an exercise in philosophy or a gut experience?
The Scripture talks about knowing and then calls it faith. Does that make sense? It doesn’t negate what you said. I think I just see it from a different angle. KWIM?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Hi lindsey–
I’m not sure if you’re still around (especially if you haven’t yet figured out how to block responses from flooding your email), but I hope you are.
Reformer and anna both brought interesting perspectives and from what seemed to me differing extremes, but if you wouldn’t mind, I thought I might go ahead and try to answer your question about viewing and using Scripture….from my perspective. Which’ll be different from theirs cuz I’m an old dude, 52 years to be exact. (sigh)
Anyway, as I see it — and whether they admit it or not — everyone lives by absolutes, and usually one in particular. You can call it asking the “go-to” person, reaching the “bottom-line,” getting down to the “nitty-gritty,” getting the “inside word,“ or coming to the “final analysis.” But there is always some thing or some one which we ALL go to — either consciously or unconsciously — during decision-making time in order to arbitrate for us what’s right and what’s wrong, to know what to believe in or not to believe in. And because what someone believes will dictate how they behave, this is important.
And so, you have many in society today who, especially when they’re young, live their lives by what they’ve been taught by their parents/family while growing up. Thus, when someone offers you at 12 your first hit of pot, you might say “Ah, no thanks,” because your parents taught you it’s wrong. But when you’re 14 and hate your parents, you might take that hit. Then when you’re 16 might say “No way man, that’s illegal,” because you’re afraid of the campus cop. And then when you’re 25 you’ll say no, not because of your Dad or even the cops, but because you’re thinking of starting a family, and you just saw a cancer ad by Angelina Jolie on TV, and don’t want to mess up your lungs.
So we all reduce what we believe — and therefore how we will act — to some standard of moral rightness.
Still with me?
Well, the problem with most standards is that they aren’t absolute. Personal feelings, impressions, experiences, and opinions vary with each person, as do parental standards and T.V. commercials. I mean, there’s literally millions and even billions of ‘em out there. So, what’s right for you may not be right for me. I may think its OK to have sex outside of marriage, while you may not. Or you may be a teetotaler, while I imbibe regularly.
So then, to resolve this dilemma many of us chose religion or religious writings as our standard, and I in particular chose the Bible. Yeah, I know there’s different translations and versions of it, and that it was originally written in different languages a couple thousand years ago, but I do it anyway. Why? Because so many for so long have found it absolutely reliable and authoritative. And so that’s why I try and stick with the most literal translation I can find, because I want to read as closely as possible today what the biblical writers were saying to the people when they wrote it back then. Also, unless specifically given a reason from the context to do otherwise, I try to read it as literally as possible, because that’s the way the original hearers would have probably understood it. And not, like so many today, who try and scientifically explain away, mystically spiritualize away, indifferently ignore, or flatout deny the stuff it says which they don’t happen to like, or agree with.
I know that take isn’t too popular with many “Christians” today in our modern society, or in many churches, or perhaps even around an exalted place like City Business Church. But I do it anyway.
And what I also like about the Bible is, while most people will admit there’re not perfect, even in when it comes to giving advice, the Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God, supernaturally written and superintended by our Creator, and therefore sufficient for all our moral decision-making. So I feel totally safe in going to it as an unchanging absolute, and trying to base my life (not always successfully!) upon its teachings. And that’s why you’ll see me around here quoting or referring to a lot of Bible references when different subjects come up, touchy stuff that’s hard to figure out. Even like the thread under discussion.
Cause I think this stuff’s just too important to be decided by the personal feelings, inklings, whims, and inclinations of me, you, or the next guy, the Democrats, Republicans or Independents, by what this or that well-paid media celebrity or Hollywood guru might endorse, what my atheistic but brilliant poly sci professor pontificates on in class, what the Horoscope for today says, or which way the wind is blowing at the moment.
Hope this helps.
-joe
November 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
You laid that all out very nicely - I take issue with a lot of things but not that you believe what you believe. The only thing I care to argue with you about is this:
52 years of age is NOT old
November 12th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I can handle any disagreement…..just please don’t tell me you listen to Angelina Jolie.
Bless you.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I have no doubt that you can handle disagreement and handle it well - I just don’t have the emotional fortitude to debate these things in depth with people I don’t know personally, but who have opinions about how I live my life and what my choices “mean” about me as a human being. I can’t believe I even asked the questions I did in the first place…and I *kind of* don’t feel like my questions was answered (don’t feel bad - I think you did a good job trying, I just also think that we have a fundamentally different idea of what a good explanation for certain things is - what is sufficient for some, is not sufficient for others):
The one about how you & Scrupe, both “good” & moral people who basically believe the same things & base their morality on the same book, can read the same Scriptures and come to two different conclusions. I don’t think Scrupe has an agenda or is confused or wants to be able to excuse anyone of anything - his reading of the Scripture, to me, seems more straightforward and simple and topical than yours. I don’t think yours is really convoluted - but I do think it takes a little more fancy footwork to arrive at. Now I am starting to feel bad because I don’t think you have an agenda either when it comes to interpreting Scripture.
You just used the Bible to justify the claim that the Bible is the absolute authority on morality. I will now commence screaming.
OK, not really. I don’t think the Bible is a bad book to base one’s life on - there is a lot there that is great and wonderful and should be aspired to. However, I don’t think it should be given as much credence in EVERY setting imaginable (science, politics, school, etc). The Bible should be examined, questioned, analyzed, etc - just like any other text. It’s fine to adhere to it as a religious text and a guide for life - but I don’t think it should be used to mandate any law (morality IS possible and exists all over the world without the Bible - the Bible did not create morality, it simply promotes it - and of course I believe morality is completely subjective: what is moral to one is immoral to another), or to arrive at any conclusions about science. This shouldn’t weaken it in the minds of those who adhere to its teachings - it doesn’t have to be believed by the entire world for it to be entirely valid to you. I also think that if Christians want to have their religion involved in science, politics and schools - then they need to understand that those things require rigorous scrutiny and they shouldn’t cry foul when someone questions it. Though they do anyway.
Regarding Angelina Jolie, I have heard her speak (in movies) but I have never listened to or read any kind of interview with her so I don’t really know what kind of ideology she is espousing that you want me to ignore - so I guess you don’t have to worry. I don’t have television - so that would increase my chances of NOT seeing that cancer ad you referred to. However, when I was referring to you & Scrupe earlier and I put “good” in quotations it’s not because I question your goodness - I simply think that “good” and “bad” are subjective and that we make things good or bad depending on how we view the world. So, Angelina Jolie could be considered “good” for all her humanitarian work and her effort to bring notice to important causes around the world especially those that involve children (I am not referring to her adoptions) - but she could also be considered “bad”…for several reasons I am sure we can all think of one or two. But hey, isn’t that the truth about all of us? None of us is entirely blameless in life - we are the ones who assign a severity level to someone’s “bad”-ness or “good”-ness when really we are all pretty much the same in the eyes of God (supposedly).
OMG I am rambling now…and about Angelina Jolie no less. Look what you have done to me joebib - when I started writing this I was only going to say that I didn’t want to debate. Dangit
November 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Oh no!
And here I’ve always viewed him as one who fairly dances amongst the pages of the Bible — magic wand in hand — now allowing this verse, now rejecting that one.
Well, like I said, we all have our own standards….
Thanks for you thoughts, Lindsey.
P.S. The Angelina reference was totally tongue-in-check. You can feel free to admire her at will. I know ‘Scrupe and I do.
-joe
November 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
You are kind to not rip into everything I just said.
Aaaaaand….I am big enough to say that I may just view Scrupe’s interpretation that way simply because I prefer it (even at that I only prefer it to yours as I don’t think that homosexuality is a sin). I don’t really think that I prefer it for that reason BUT anything is possible. Our minds are amazing, frustrating things that can operate outside our own will at times without us even being aware.
Anyway - I lived the first 24 to 25 years of my life as a Christian and I fully support others believing what they want as long as it doesn’t impose on the freedom or well being of anyone else (unfortunately that is often not the case). I don’t want to convince people to not be Christians (or any other religion) but I do wish that more people were like Scrupe…though I do like you a lot joebib
p.s. I hope I didn’t give the impression that I admire Angelina Jolie?? I prefer to work at not having an opinion either way on celebrities (unless it’s to poke fun!) and there are many other people that I know personally who are worthy of admiration. Many of them Christians!
November 12th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Lindsey, I’m glad you said:
… because one in my life is enough. MDH’s good friend says he’s an anti-evangelist, and tries to talk me out of my faith. It’s not working. I think he might be giving up.
But now your story intrigues me. How did you give up being a Christian? I’m asking out of curiosity, and not out of a desire to argue you out of your decision. After all, you have the freedom to choose.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Hey Anna, I also know people who want to try and talk people out of believing what they believe (and I kind of understand the impulse), but think it’s fruitless/pointless. However, if you look at it like this: they are tired of Christians trying to talk them into believing something that they know they don’t believe. I know it seems very different to you, because to you this will save their soul & it is an act of love…but they often don’t see it that way.
Anyway, my transition from being a Christian to not being a Christian started around three years ago but it was a slow process as I took it very seriously and it wasn’t really until maybe the last 6 months where I could honestly look at myself, who I was, and say that I wasn’t a Christian anymore. I didn’t set out on a mission to not be a Christian - it was a natural process and I don’t even know if I can describe what it is that went through my mind over the last 3 years or so.
I think, ultimately, I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that because I was born in a certain place, to certain people that that means I have the “right” religion and so shall be saved from eternal damnation. I can’t reconcile myself to that idea that my religion (Christianity) is “right” and all other religions are ultimately “wrong”. There are Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and millions more religious folk who believe wholeheartedly that their religion is the “right” one and that everyone else is deceived/lost. That is something I simply cannot accept.
I now consider myself a Deist in the sense that I believe that there is one God/a supreme being/what have you & I don’t feel the need to find a religion that will explain him/her/it to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).
This also means that when it comes to a lot of things that people question in this life, I don’t feel that I have the answers and ultimately I don’t really think anyone else does either though it is not my place to point that out to people because it is a very personal thing that we all deal with (Who am I? Why am I? How am I? What is my purpose? etc) and it is not for me to say that it is wrong for other people to seek out those answers in religion. I will say that believing what I believe doesn’t make me comfortable - it is not comfortable to always have your answer to those big questions in life be, “I don’t know”…but it it what I believe to be most true. Being a Christian, for me, provided a huge sense of comfort and if I could ignore all the things that I listed above and just be a Christian, I totally would. Because I loved it. But that isn’t possible at this point in my life. I won’t say that I will never attend a Christian church again or any other final proclamation about my belief/non-belief because I am only 27 and the very nature of my life is that I don’t settle on absolutes (except of course in extreme cases such as murder, rape, etc).
My family reserved the trauma for themselves 
I can smile about it now because I am halfway through dealing with it). My point is that I have a soft spot for Christians because I understand where they are coming from (most of the time). I often envy them their surety & their comfort in feeling that surety. Anyway, I will stop now as I feel myself starting to ramble. I hope I answered your question? I can’t really explain HOW I got to where I am as it was a very organic process but I thought maybe in explaining what I believed it might give you a little bit of insight? Thanks for asking 
I believe that the world would still have morality without the Bible and without religion. I believe that humanity leans strongly toward what is “good” and that for most people in most situations their impulse is to do the “right” thing - even without religion. I don’t believe I am being naive when I say this. I also believe there would still be war and things that could be considered “evil” if there were no religion. Mostly I think religion (and I’m not just referring to Christianity), is a tool that people use to grapple with those big (sometimes scary) questions about the nature of life and there’s nothing really wrong with that until they insist that other people use those same tools to deal with those questions.
I hope I am not offending you - I was a serious evangelical Christian my whole life and I didn’t leave the church because I was angry or wronged (though once I left there was quite a bit of judgment but nothing traumatizing
November 14th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Thanks for answering. I hope you do not stop trying to grapple with the big questions. Because it can be difficult, some people just give up.
I just watched a 3-part Nova special on String Theory. It was really fascinating. But I also noticed how the physicists never rest trying to find out how reality works.
It may not seem all that practical, knowing how quarks behave or what the difference is between closed strings and open strings. But ultimately, understanding how these things work may change our lives dramatically.
Interesting stuff.