Re: It seems...
Submitted by JohnDoe420 on 2002-09-4 01:10:10, Wednesday
In reply to Re: It seems... submitted by ATN on 2002-09-3 23:39:58, Tuesday
|
All right -- and that is certainly interesting for discussion in itself, but you will forgive me if I don't allow myself to consider any argument based purely on it particularly important. By all means. :) Oh, my... now you're ascribing to me a religion, a hatred of another religion, and an intent to attack Christianity? Such was the opinion I had formed based on other posts; if it was incorrect I apologize. Well, this looks like where I tell the story of my life in as much brevity as possible. As a young child, my family ensured that a bible was present (I started reading at 2 1/2, got decent at 3, and devoured everything in print - the bible was well among them) and gave me the option to go to church (tried it once, I declined)... ...which leaves an overly 'sensitive' boy alone with a bible to decide that yes, it's a good thing, and following Jesus' word is a rather good idea. Chatted with God occasionally, and on a side note, always wanted an imaginary friend - were I the aetheist you ascribe, I guess my wish would have been fulfilled, from a viewpoint such as that. :) Then my parents sent me to a Christian school. With all due fairness and respect to the Bible teacher, the one individual whom I can actually call a Christian in retrospect amongst the lot... well... ...swiftly followed a final prayer : 'Dear God, I apologize, but I cannot follow a religion of hatred.' Seven years later, God follows up with a message of his own : 'Actually, that is not particularly my fault; I created human free will, you see - which I note you seem to hold in exceptionally high regard...' ...and it was made clear that the way between me and Him had always been clear, irrespective. In the interim, I had friends expelled from school under slander of their religious beliefs - for being non-Christian. I had friends who spoke in fear for their refusal to gather in prayer around a flagpole before school each morning. These are all PUBLIC, STATE-RUN schools, mind you... ...and I had met many individuals, including a fascinating gentleman who insisted that he would 'kick my ass' if I did not join him in 'hating queers' because 'it is against God, you know.' ...but the way to God was clear; He told me himself that this is not his fault - and, having held since earliest childhood ideals surrounding human free will, that each be free to their heart's own happiness, which need conflict with the happiness of none, in the furtherance of the human potential which has been ordained unto each - well, (God has seemed to pardon the arrogance herein) I suppose I can accept and, for that matter, deeply admire with every ethic in my body God's exceptional tolerance. ...and then I started getting back into the bible, after long absence, and what did I find but a heretic of the first order, loafing about with pariahs, saying that love and human goodness is all that really matters, and telling off those who are too puffed up with their own superiority and Godnliness to do anything but, well, condemn the people that Jesus spent his free time with. Yes, the path by which I come has probably shaped me; that is likely its purpouse. I feel, however, an obligation to speak as much heresy as possible to the heart of the church - the Law is dead, crucified in a criminal's death, and the whole of it is now fulfilled thus : love one's fellow being as one's self. Spread the good news. :) First of all, Samaritan is an ethnic designation, and Jesus never condemned anybody for that (although during the duration of the Old Covenant He continued to favor the Jews in a few instances). An ethnic designation derived, as memory of the sole Christian in the 'christian' school serves, from the violation of law, Jews intermarrying with an invader - though which invading group escapes me at the moment. The violation of now-dead Law, embodied in the flesh. :) It has nothing to do with behavior. True - but he also told a thief that he would see heaven, exalted a harlot for her ministrations, told the Church - and, more specifically, its priesthood - to go to hell, and told the world that their children were inherently superior to them - and woe to the one who looked down on them. ...I'm rather fond of that last one, but He made me biased. ;) Nonetheless, the point is that I have here listed the least of his heresy, and some of these pariahs are pariahs of behavior - violations of the now-dead Law - and yet His concern was not categorical contempt. Indeed, he held these sinners up... He was using a despised individual (a Samaritan) to drive home the importance of loving our fellow men and treating them that way... ...and I shall e'er love him for it. ...and if you mean to suggest that many in the modern church have lost sight of that, I will not try to argue. I do, and such is why I now know I must speak the heresy which was placed in my heart in its fullest. :) I will also point out, though, that many have not... I will hold you to be right - though I might quibble with the 'many;' populizing a religion seems to degrade it, and those who might be many by themselves become few when lumped with a horde. ...and have even managed to embrace it and orthodox Christian theology at the same time. This I have seen (Dakota, for example), and it amazes me every time... but so too exist those who put heavy burdens foremost enough as to forget that the whole law is fulfilled in love. ...and even amongst those who honor both, somehow serving two masters it does seem, are many who would deny that it was for freedom which Jesus set us free. I don't think it was upstanding, important citizens who earned ire; look at the rich young ruler and the centurion ("I have not seen such faith...") The ones who had received their reward in full were those who were doing good works, but with the motive of getting praise. Thank you for signifigantly clarifying what I sought to express. I would go so far as to say that anybody who linches somebody for being homosexual is no Christian at all or, worse, is a Christian who has spit in the face of God's mercy. I thank you for going so far. My beliefs, perhaps tragically, tend towards the latter. ...and this has caused me to query whether "taking God's name in vain" truly means saying "Oh, God" - or whether it is taking the mantle of Godly righteousness to work for His enemy. I suppose that depends... in the case of some pedophiles, their fear would be well justified, and so if ignorance causes them to expand the fear to all, the only motive may yet be genuine love and concern for the child. Just out of curiosity - did you know that more str8 people engage in sexual acts with minors than pedophiles? I can give a page or two of citation, if you'd like. But this leads to another question - even if one grants that all adult-minor sexual interaction is sin by means of wicked harm (laying aside for a moment both OT laws on betrothal by intercourse and whether or not presumption that a child is too incompetent to decide for themselves is despising a child, as in 'Woe to the one...')... and even if one takes the moderately-rediculous notion that every pedophile will invariably inflict this harm on one or more children... ...even with all this, in nations which often alledge do be Christian, where is the call for compassion unto even a pariah? Surely, so many Christians, we would have heard something by now? (truth be told, in light of history am I ashamed of the part those who seem to spit in the face of God's mercy have played - hiding the crimes of the family (>90% of all abuse is intrafamilial) by disparaging non-Christian religions as a hotbed of evil sexual deviants... wresting power from where the debate began...) ...where the calls for compassion? The more understanding may appreciate the genuinely good work the pedophile is doing, and love him for it, but mourn at the loss he is causing himself through his continuing sin (if he is active). This I would welcome to see - and I note you understand the detriment of sin (at least, by what I have been shown) better than the pharisees of this age. There is. And for the last 2000 years, it has existed in its best and purest form among the rank and file, with a few exceptions among the prominent; it continues so today. Hard for a rich man, harder still for one rich in the power of this world? I think it is important to maintain the distinction between what is required of a Christian (a great deal) and what is required in another for a Christian to love him (nothing whatsoever). Indeed, I can see the importance of this... but foremost in importance have I been given unto not confusing the voice of an age, or the voice of a church, with the voice of God. I made that mistake once, and it cost me many, many years. If I do it again, it will likely cost me my soul, until death or repentance. I cannot for the life of me discern which fate is worse |
Follow ups: