A Sermon Inspired by The Real World: Washington, D.C.
A few nights ago I was reviewing previous episodes of MTV’s The Jersey Shore, the addicting show that has a “guidette” getting decked in the face by a gym teacher and fake-tanned, short-tempered, probably STD-bearing fist-pumpers that make a sport out of defiling the image of those who actually live at the Jersey Shore like I do.
As I did this, I saw a link for The Real World: Washington, D.C. After I got over my initial depression from not sending in an application tape after seeing its emphasis on politics, I actually saw a debate that sparked some deep thought about my Christian faith.
The argument features Ty, an atheist; Mike, a bisexual Christian; and Ashley, a pro-Obama Christian who tries to referee. Also present though not actively engaged is Emily, who grew up strictly religious in a cult-like atmosphere, as she describes it, who has predictably rebelled and turned against the faith. I originally thought the deck was stacked against Mike by the producers — and perhaps it was — and that the show would portray the conflict between his sexual orientation and faith as an expose of the intolerance of Christianity. Instead, Mike’s responses show the love and compassion of the religion, even if all of us who believe in it inevitably fail to uphold those qualities.
Watch clips two and three here to see the clash. Ty is immediately angry, obviously bitter at Christians and threatened by any potential credibility of the faith. He says “everyone who is religious is so narrow-minded” and challenges Mike to say God doesn’t exist. When Mike refuses to, that is proof that he isn’t open-minded, according to Ty. For the most part, Mike stays cool throughout, reflecting a confidence in his faith and position. To us “crazy Christians,” we have a relationship with God that feels not too different than that of a family member. To say He doesn’t exist doesn’t threaten us, because we feel His presence, see Him work, and, at least in my case, it is the best thing that’s ever happened to me. And by the way, when we share this with others, it’s not just because we are told to do so, but because we want to see other people’s lives improve as ours have. To not do this would be downright selfish.
But Mike makes a greater point, one that all Christians should embrace. Mike explains how the idea that his bisexuality means “you can’t be religious, you can’t follow the Bible, you can’t follow God … is stupid.” This may sound like a hippie version of Christianity that means there is no objective right and wrong, but he further explains.
Given some of your recent articles this one doesn’t surprise me.Have you been attending any recent Joseph Campbell seances?
It is pure straw man argument to say that the Christian community posits that homosexuality prevents access to, or communion with, God. What Christians are saying is that homosexuality is a sin, and must be faced. Christ’s forgiveness is not a license to continue in one’s sins. You seem to miss the point.
Furthermore, you appear to be using this person–and their pathetic rationalizations of their refusals to face their sin and immorailty–as some sort of soapbox to attack decent and moral Christians and behave as if their beliefs were somehow hind-bound superstitions or merely artificial social mores. Their beliefs are no such things. They are not immoral to hold them. It is a mark of your decadence that you think otherwise; it is a mark of you character that you seek to attack them so. Unwittingly or not, you are giving cover to the cultural Marxists who would see our civilization destroyed and seek to morally corrupt it by any and all means. If you are the Christian that you purport to be, then you are obliged to clearly recognize evil and to squarely stand against it. I will remind you that the path to perdition, famously, is paved with good intentions.
Before you start pontificating on the “true meaning” of Christianity to real Christians, I suggest that you actually learn something about actual Christianity (not to mention Western Civilization). Christianity has nothing to do with the false Christianity that progressives have used to infiltrate and pervert the mainstream denominations. Perhaps you need to come to terms with this. You appear confused here.
We reject the Judeo-Christian heritage at our peril.
As for this,
We won’t have every answer, but we don’t need every answer, and if we did have every answer, frankly that’d make me more skeptical of the Bible’s teachings about the nature and power of God.
Pure arrogant narcissism on your part. Frankly, no one in this world who cares about their soul is much interested in your “doubts” about the Bible. It is not about you. Here again you seem to miss the entire point of what Faith is about. It is not a intellectual suspension of disbelief by the rational mind, nor is it merely a “search for answers”. It is a gift of grace from God. One does not “earn it”, or think their way to it”.
In fact, it is not a “search” properly at all, it is a arrival after a long search.
Faith ecompasses the whole of the Human, not just the puny intellect of the ego.
If these sorts of sophomoric and soporific musings are example of what you consider “some deep thoughts” for you, I would suggest you stop listen to yourself and go spend some time actually reading that Bible that you would presume to “judge”. There you might encounter something larger, more meaningful and more enduring than than your egoism and its mutterings. You appear to be soreley in need of this encounter.
“Everybody is flawed, just do what you can” is not the gospel. Sorry Mike, sorry Ryan, you miss the very heart of Christianity. It isn’t about having faith, or loving everybody, or coming as you are and doing your best. The Bible explains it clearly, Christ died to pay for and take away the sins of His sheep. His sheep are given to Him by God, they hear His voice, and they do what He asks them to do. Christ asks them to “go and sin no more”, and the Bible says that if any man is in Christ he is a new creation.
This isn’t a “debate about specific tenants”, it is simply what Biblical Christianity is. So, while what your near sermon is telling us sounds good and kind and loving, it is American hippie religion, not Christianity. Most certainly, we are to love others as much as we love ourselves. But remaining in sin and making excuses for it is not the way, the truth, and the light.
How does being bisexual work? Is it half the time you are attracted to men and repulsed by women and vice versa? Or are you equally attracted to both sexes at all times (how about a 70-30 split?) Is there a bisexual gene? Or is it just a wacky commitment problem? Do bisexuals have trouble making up their minds about everything else as well? Are all bisexuals political moderates unable to choose a party? If a male bisexual marries a woman and sleeps with another man is that considered adultery or is he “just keeping it real” and “being true to himself”? If a bisexual man marries a woman and they have a child, does the child have a dad and two mommies? (Or is that a transgendered thing? It’s hard keeping up.) Do bisexuals only support 50% of the gay agenda? Is it possible that Brett Favre recently became a bisexual because he seems to have such a hard time determining whether he should retire? Do “male” bisexuals ever get confused and refer to a male partner in the feminine and a female partner in the masculine? If so, does the male partner hold you closer and does the female partner slap you in the face? Is the bisexual theme song “Love the One You’re With”, “Both Sides Now”, or “Dazed and Confused”? On second thought, bisexuals probably cannot come to a decision on a song. Do two bisexuals make a whole? Finally, how many bisexuals does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: It depends on whether they’re in the mood to screw or be screwed.
How is old Joe Campbell doing Ryan? Are bisexuals experiencing their own Nervana?
If you closely read my article, I’m not taking a position on homosexuality/bisexuality in my piece. Instead, I’m discussing how Christianity is tolerant, in that all sinners (which can include homosexuality) are capable of having a relationship with God. It isn’t an excusing of sin, but rather saying that every sinner is equal and so we are not looking down upon anyone as the stereotype often is.
And in regards to searching for answers, I don’t see that as arrogant or narcissistic. The faith of myself and other Christians is a thinking one. Critical thinking and searching for evidence to confirm the validity of the faith has strengthened my relationship with God multiple times over and is a rewarding process. For some, I suppose not addressing the questions of critics is acceptable, but it isn’t for me.
Way back in the early days of The Real World – possibly the second season – there was a cast member who discovered she was pregnant, and who decided to have an abortion. I remember being amazed by the frank discussion of abortion by cast members, and an interview with the girl’s mother who said that if abortion had been legal when she was pregnant, she would have had one, but now she was very glad it wasn’t. But I was even more amazed when MTV and its cameras followed this girl to the abortion clinic, as she met with the workers there, and then later as she stumbled out after the procedure. She spent the next couple of days in bed recovering, in pain, and expressing her doubts and regrets over what she’d done.
Whether intentional or not (most likely not) it was a very negative spin on abortion at a time when the subject was a lot hotter than it is today. The ironic thing is that almost 20 years ago, MTV turned their cameras on the subject of abortion in a way that other major networks have yet to do.
First of all, no one in their right mind should be looking to MTV’s The Real World for any advice, religious or otherwise. Secondly, the Bible is very clear that homosexuality in any form is a sin. The good news is that, although we are all sinners and fall short of God’s glory, we have an open door invitation to be part of God’s kingdom through faith in His son, Jesus Christ. (No man comes to the Father, except through Me…)
Jesus accepted the harlot, but told her to go and sin no more. To repent, which is an essential component to salvation, literally means to turn away. As long as we live in our mortal bodies, Christians will not be perfect. We must continue to repent and turn away from our sins on a daily basis. To begin to justify our sins, as challenging as they may be, is to deny the gospel of Jesus and follow our own path.
Just because Mike is young and brash and wrongly identifies his sexuality before his allegiance to Christ does not make him anathema. You must remember that this is MTV trying to orchestrate a train wreck. How do you know he does not struggle with what the Bible says about sexuality? Who is to say that the Holy Spirit will not continue to work on this young man’s heart and mind to sanctify his life?
The current crop of comments smack of semi-pelagianism. We don’t just choose to be good and live by God’s standards. Repentance is a life long process, in volitional beings, initiated and empowered by the Holy Spirit revealing the Risen Christ. Understanding the depths of sin is difficult; reaching for the heights of goodness is overwhelming. Thanks be to God that He gives us the ability to do such things, but it is always on His terms. It took 13 years after conversion for St Paul to become a man to be trusted. Plus if you read closely Paul’s letters, he softens towards the end of his ministry. He was a harsh murderer converted by God who struggled with anger in his ministry.
I truly hope that believers continue to question how they apply their morality. There are few things more pathetic than a Christian who believes they are perfect in their ways and don’t struggle with sin in their lives. If Mike continues to define himself by his sexuality, he will answer to God. But God sees him as more than object of sex and will show Mike his true place in the Kingdom.
We are all continuously falling and continuously rising in Christ. I am as broken and deluded in my sin as anyone on that panel. Christ is an expression of infintite mercy: the inevitability of failure and loss at a temporal intersection with eternal grace and mercy. If you accept the gift, then the gift calls forth a response – that we become the physical expression of the infinite gift. We always fail at it, because we must. Everybody fails at being a Christian, but we can strive toward it, and even the smallest success is an absolute miracle.
Woah most of these comments are ridiculous. Yes, the act of homosexuality is a sin, but I’d wager that the average times a gay person “gets some” in a month is less than the amount of times any other person takes the Lord’s name in vain in a day.
In other words: log.speck.
“You cheated on your wife,” she said. “I could never trust you.”
“Well, you cheated at Monopoly. So…”
That we are all sinners is a truism. Acknowledging it doesn’t excuse anything, even less does it make your sins acceptable to me because you invoke my sins.
To argue that one need not repent because we are all part of Adam’s fallen race is only pleading for everyone to do anything he wants on the same basis. It’s ridiculous, and the author’s acceptance of this non-reasoning exposes that he isn’t much of a thinker, let alone theologian.
I hope your day job is filled with real people and real facts
not contrived circumstances edited and rehearsed.
My faith is real to the point of effecting real change in
and around my life and those that I interact with, it also
is my reason for being, period.
If what is before me is fake I walk around it giving it the credence it deserves.
God bless and don’t give up your day job.
Ryan,
First of all I embrace you as a brother, a fellow pilgrim – and a sinner.
I believe you are right in that EVERYONE can have a relationship with God – but NOT on our terms – only His.
Jesus was very clear – “no one comes to the Father except THROUGH ME”. The story of Jesus’ conversation with the ‘woman at the well’ (as someone alluded to above) is very instructive here. This was by a woman who was an adulteress – but who obtained a relationship with God through her faith in Jesus. But he didn’t leave here there, rather he admonished ‘Go and SIN NO MORE’.
Faith is proven to BE FAITH when our actions demonstrate our conviction – otherwise WE DON’T HAVE FAITH. And as the Bible states ‘without faith it is impossible to please God’.
So what does faith IN ACTION look like? Faith is when I really want to pursue a wrong relationship with another person – but I don’t because I have faith that God has the power to make my marriage better. Faith is when I’m hungry and I consider stealing a loaf of bread – but in faith I abstain from stealing – believing that God will meet my needs – apart from stealing.
Or – faith is when I really want to pursue sexual relations outside of a marriage, but instead I wait – trusting that God will provide for my needs – both relationally, and sexually.
Or – faith is when I feel strongly attracted to a member of the same sex, but I abstain, because IN FAITH I believe that God in his love and mercy can CHANGE my heart and desires towards purity (just like he can change the heart of the thief or the adulteress).
Grace to you brother,
Jon
The largest problem with the article and the reasoning contained therein is that Mr. Mauro and Mike have no authority or basis to say what they say. Instead of appealing to Scripture and the Scriptural standard for Christianity, they have substituted their own reasoning and emotionalism for the authority of Scripture.
Scripture is quite clear that sin does actually separate us from God. In fact it makes us the enemies of God. Jesus died on the cross to reconcile sinners to God by paying their debt for sin. Scripture is also quite clear that because we are forgiven we are to go forth and sin no more. We are not to sin more so that the grace of Christ might abound more. (See Paul’s Letter to the Romans) When we do sin, which we all will, we are to confess our sin and return to the path.
Mr. Mauro and Mike are simply advocating a man-made feel good religion centered on the needs of man. Their apostate version of Christianity cheapens the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and denies the doctrine of sanctification. God is no longer Lord but rather a cosmic Oprah whose purpose is to make “you better” and requires nothing of you in the process. Matthew 13:33-35 compares the kingdom to leaven which eventually works its way through the dough and changes it. Mr. Mauro and Mike deny the ability of the kingdom to change the individual. It is the equivalent of Jesus telling the women caught in adultry to go forth and do the best you can rather than to go forth and sin no more.
The Bible is clear on the subject of mercy and God’s grace.
It is equally clear in regards to homosexuality.
The problem most “sunny day” Christians have is that they put their human desires above the wishes of the Heavenly Father.
We are all sinners, we all can be redeemed. If we use our free will to choose obedience to the word of God.
If young Mike continues to put his earthly desire for other men above the wishes of the Lord, his soul is in danger.
All the things that PEOPLE tell him to the contrary are but sly tricks of the dark one to keep him in sin, to keep him from obeying the WORD of the Lord.
“Rationalizing,” and finding reasons to justify continuing in sin is another of these tricks. It puts human desires above God, and the soul is at risk.
Don’t make excuses Mike. Obey the Word of the Lord, and have a blessed and happy life.
Ty continues to prove my theory that there is no such thing as a happy atheist and they are among the most intolerable people.
Jesus Christ required confession that he was Lord and Savior and well as repentence to be saved.
To repent means to change one view of sin, and as a result to turn away from that sin. However, the first step is the change of heart. Habits and patterns of life are hard to change, and all Christians mess up from time to time. But to repent is the desire not to sin; that desire to not to continue living in sin. Thus if a person claims to be a Christian, but continues in a lifestyle that is obviously condemned by the bible without a change in heart then that person needs to re-evaluate their salvation.
This change of heart is an act of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, no repentence indicates no relationship with God.
Salvation is more than an intellectual exercise to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, you also must submit to His lordship. Too many today miss that last point and go on living lives as the master of it. True Christians are not without sin, but struggle to submit their wills to Christ. That is what is meant in the bible by the verse: work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Salvation is a gift of God by grace, not works. However, we have a responsibility as well, and that is to submit our wills and acknowledge His lordship; that is the more difficult part.
I’m surprised ‘Real World’ is still airing.
Concerning ‘Mike’. Until he comes to terms/ accepts his sexual preference(s) doesn’t define him.. he’ll fall for these silly, go-nowhere discussions with atheists, nihilists and other myopic, self serving folk. Never happen.
Hence the confusion for this guy..
I think I will quote the famous Mr. Charles Spurgeon, maybe the greatest preacher of all time. Who I must say talked about hell more often than many today will even mention repentance.
“Oh and you alchoholics, what a battle you will have with your drinking!”
We should remember that it does not mean spiritual authority to hurt others feelings, but to bring them to the knowledge of Christ.
Really Ryan, you are altogether missing the point–in fact, several. Are you being willfully and intentionally obtuse?
You most certainly dodge mine points, and, again, you do so with this clownish attempt at dismissal based on an over estimation on your own powers of refection and a profound ignorance of what Christianity is in even the mere historical and cultural senses, Your response shows a rather weak formal grasp, just factually, and intellectually, of the theology, history and literature of Christianity, or, for that matter even basic philosophy or theology in general.
You in fact are putting words in my mouth. I suggest that you carefully read what I wrote; it seems to have gone right over your head the first time round. It is ludicrous to imagine that this sort of thing is “searching for answers” in any intellectual or existential sense nor is it much involved with the “pursuit” of faith (as if the success of such a thing were possible in any willful sense).
Of course this all it is narcissistic of you, and wildly so. You imagine that you can peer into the mind of God and somehow “judge” him, and thereby somehow “assent to faith”.
This you most surely cannot do. The word of God is rational because it is true; it is not true because it is rational. Faith is God acting upon you, it is not you “striking an agreement” with God. No one deserves their faith. It matters little what you imagine in your egoism you can “accept or reject”. If you had undertaken any real study of the history and thought of your supposed faith you would understand how juvenile your posture is. Read the early Church Fathers, Augustine or Aquinas. Read Lither. Go back and actually read the Bible. You imagine that this foolishness is some how new, or has not been address in the last 2000 years. Of course it has.
You appear to think that you are “plumbing some depth of profound thought”, but you are in fact echoing the sort of thing one hears from sophomores in some college Rathskeller somewhere.
Are you Christian at all, or are you some sort of mainstream Protestant version of a “Cafeteria Catholic”? It sounds to me that you are having the same sort of emotional experience that New Agers confuse with the “spiritual”. “Left-wing Christianity” is not Christianity at all. It is a sort of fabricated pastiche of Paganism made from tattered bits of Christian words and symbols. That is not God they are “praying” to, if prayers those be. Not at all.
And of course you are implicitly condoning homosexuality. Do not be ridiculous.
If you are not decrying it as a sin before God, you are condoning it.
I would also suggest that you read what you “write”. You appear to not be clear on the matter to your own self.
correction: “You most certainly dodge mine points, and, again, you do so with this clownish attempt at dismissal based on an overestimation oF your own powers of refLection…”
My church is come-as-you-are too. It’s not STAY as you are though. Any sex outside of marriage is morally wrong and as a person matures in his faith one expects that he’s going to become less sinful and more righteous. We should never become so comfortable with our own sin that we don’t seek to move past it. If I can do “all things” through Christ who strengthens me, then I can control my passions.
He gets the message of grace right though. God the Son died for all as a sacrifice for their sins. That simply cannot be improved upon by any good deed that we may do.
Many of the above commentators remind me why I am not a Christian, as if I needed a reminder. Getting their panties all in a twist over homosexuality, which to them is the scourge of the planet. I have seen so much injustice, barbarity and horrors in my life, that weigh down on me and have all but broken me – had nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact much of the horrific injustice I witnesses was perpetrated by Christians, but I guess that’s ok since they weren’t gay as far as I know.
You know who also gets their panties in a twist over homosexuality? – Muslim radicals. Whilst of course you guys don’t advocated throwing them down wells like they do, the fact is you have the same attitude to their sexuality as Muslim fanatics. But don’t give that any thought, just go back to the argument from authority – the New Testament, which is really just a book.
and no I am not gay. I just don’t give a fig. There are real barbaric sins in the world, self-righteous Christians contribute their fair share to that.
I don’t think the young man so casually discussing his sexual predelictions has truly repented, had a broken heat about his sin and changed his direction.
These are the essential elements of Christianity.
I know that when I now sin , after repenting and bding baptized, it truly crushes my heart.
Behaviors that have been well established die hard even after conversion and desire and commitment to read the scriptures and maintain a clean conscience.
The inference from this man’s account is that he has not truly repented because he doesn’t seem to struggle with his sin…of course he may be implying that his behavior is not sinful.
As difficult as it is we cannot compromise about how desperate we all are regarding our own ability to live a holy life.
That’s why it is a battle every day for the repenting christian.
I fail constantly in my own life and it really does burden me, but I don’t have a habitual, continuous lifestyle of sinful activity as I once had.
I think if you lose that sense of shame and honesty about sin you either have not converted or are espousing another watered-down version of christianity
It seems that the Christians on this page all see the bible as the literal world of God. I can’t get by the fact that men wrote the books of the bible. These were men with agendas and prejudices and I find it hard to believe that their own ideas did not influence the way they interpreted divine inspiration. I also point to all of the books that never made it into the book we read. Who decided what books belonged and what books don’t? Men decided this. In the end, God gave me a brain. I willl use that brain and seek my own relationship whit Christ. I will not ascribe to anothers interpretation blindly.
Many of you will call me a pagan, hippie, fake Christian. So be it. The Christ I follow has taught me to question the status quo because when men get too comfortable and self righteous, they no longer hear God.
Questions for C @26: How will you use your brain to seek your own relationship with Christ if you discount the authority of Scripture? Without Scripture, how do you even know who Christ is and what He requires of you? How did Christ teach you to question the status quo?
The Canon of Scripture is determined by several things. First, the author has to be recognized prophet, apostle, or an associate of known author. Second, the writings cannot cntradict previous Scripture. Third, a general consensus among believers that the writings are inspired. The books that never made it into the canon were rejected by the early church for good reasons.
“Many of the above commentators remind me why I am not a Christian… …homosexuality, which to them is the scourge of the planet.”
Larry70, it is not homosexuality that is the scourge of the planet. It is sin.
My Church holds that homosexual *sex* is sinful, but does *not* say that being attracted to the same sex is sinful, because there is no real scientific proof either way. While individual members may be homophobes, our church is not. And homophobia is just as much of a sin as racism or any other kind of bigotry.
We believe in the essential dignity of every human person. Every single one, the bad, the “useless,” and the unborn. Even those whose sins are so repulsive that the human response to them is furious and murderous.
And we believe in the redeeming power of Jesus Christ.
RZ
To 27,
I still read scripture. I just do not take everything literally. I read the stories about what Christ did and I know that he had the courage to say that the religious leaders of the time were wrong. I believe Martin Luther was doing this when he started the protestant revolution.
About the cannon. I still see the issue that people decided what is cannon and who should be listened to. I do what all Christians do to develop my relationship with the Divine, I pray and meditate. The difference is that I believe truth is revealed over time and I will not get it like some kind o data down load from the Lord above.
A couple of questions back at you, who decided who is a prophet an who is not? How do you explain the contradictions that exist in scripture that made the cannon (the two accounts of the creation for example or the three different accounts of the Crucifixtion)? I believe that God works through men and women through divine inspriation. Humans, being flawed, inevitable get mixed up. Thus, God, the embodiment of love (Agape), continually works on us. Sometimes we get it wrong and sometimes we get it right, but we are one continual quest for deeper understanding in our quest to be more like the Christ. For me it is not about the destination, it’s about the journey. Heaven will take care of itself. My responsibility is to live as Christ like an existence as i can and some times that means contraditing the masses.
I hope that I have explained my position well. I know that several readers will have all kinds of things to say about the folley of my ways and I have heard it all before. I will read and see if there is any insight that I can learn, and 27, thanks for posing the question. The process of thinking this out and articulating my beliefs is part of my journey.
Possibly, but you miss the point many are making. To accept the author’s premise, at least the way I read the article, makes a mockery of grace. There is no admission of sin that I read.
The only fair analogy would using your premise would be for the person using the Lord’s name to believe it does not separate them from God; therefore, their behavior is acceptable to God, even excusable.
I think God makes it abundantly clear to be Christian, one must be born again – and that means a willing and meaningful rejection of sinful behavior. Does the author do that?
Larry70, spoken like someone who can’t fathom nor contemplate the necessity of intellectual discussion.
Put your head back in the sand.. your sheepishness, aloofness defines you.
Well there is Political Preference, Religious Prefrence and Sexual Prefrence.
Some say they are all related. Some say they are all separate. I choose to keep them separate.
To engage in bi-sexual conduct is to sever ones’ relationship with Jesus Christ. If a christian sins, he must repent and pray for forgiveness. The heart of repentance is to forsake the sin.
Pr.28.13; Ezk.18.19-32; Acts 8.13-24.
And, Jn.8.31-32, if we will live in obedience to Jesus, we WILL know the truth.
Read IJohn and see if “we all sin all the time” is true; or a satanic lie.
Response to C @29: A prophet was a representative of Jehovah sent by Him to the nations to call them to turn from their evil ways and follow God. Although most of the prophets went directly to the Jews, some like Jonah went to the Gentile nations. Several who went to the Jews also spoke to the Gentiles. A true prophet spoke the words of God, did not contradict Scripture, and, if they made a prediction about the future, it came true. In Luke 24:27&44, Jesus accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament and thus accepted the writers, incluing the prophets, that it accepted.
No contradictions exist between the accounts of the creation or of the crucifiction. The different accounts are complimentary in that the present the same event with different witnesses emphasizing different elements. If you would like to pose what you think are contradictions then I will discuss each.
How do you know what points of Scripture to take literally? For examples, was Jesus Christ the Son of God and did He perform miracles or are those fanciful stories as well. My guess is that you do not accept the Genesis creation story but even Jesus accepted it. Was Jesus wrong? If so, then how could He be the Son of God?
Jesus also spoke to the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture for the Christian life. Was He wrong? Jesus challenged the religious leaders of His day not because they failed to have a mystical communion with God but because they failed to correctly understand the Scripture. Martin Luther directed his reforms against clergy who had abandoned the Scripture and eleveated their own subjective understanding of God to the level of God’s revelation of Himself.
The beauty of Scripture is that it was written by 40 authors, in numerous languages, and living amongst varous civilizations from Job (unknown date) to Moses to Paul (1st century A.D.). Yet, the message is consistent and without contradiction. Only the God who inspired these writings could superintend them through the ages. According to you God is not powerful enough to communicate to men, perserve His word through the ages, and speak with clarity to all situations. Why would you worship such a God? What percentage of Scripture is correct? How do you tell?
Thanks for answering my questions. I hope I have answered yours. I enjoy such friendly dialogue.
Kipling, thanks for your answer. I respect your point of view and I see your logic. But I have read several other text like the gospel of St. Peter that I have found to be enlightning but inthe end have not made the cannon. In the end, my study of history has lead me to believe that men have had quite an influence over what ended up being accepted. It speakes to the power of God that his messages still make it through.
You said the following of me:
According to you God is not powerful enough to communicate to men, perserve His word through the ages, and speak with clarity to all situations. Why would you worship such a God? What percentage of Scripture is correct? How do you tell?
To the contrary, I believe God will speak to whom ever he pleases in the way he pleases. So to me it is possible that God communicates to us as Westernes through the judeo-Christian way of thought but also is a le to make himself and his ways known through the Buddah as well. I am q christian bybirth and I believe God has community aged with me in his own way. For example, I was once an elite athlete. I knew it was time for me to retire to persue another path. I selfishly kept on competing. Then I got hurt and found it hard to climb a flight of stair let alone compete. So I retired. The pain went away. Instarted working out and got the idea to give competition a go again and pulled a hamstring on the day I was supposed to start my come back. Then my old pains returned and have been with me since. Scientist have there explanations but inknow the deal. God has a different plan for me. I am riddled with arthritis now, buf that painis a reminderto listen to God when he speaks to me. I knew I was done, refused to listen so God fixed it so I had to listen. I am happier today than I was before because my life has a divine purpose.
Finally, I don’t pretend to be a saint. I am far from it. I do believe that God gave me the power to reason. Thus, I am apt to read scripture and interpret it. I see the bible as a divinely inspired book that was written by flawed people so it is up to me to find truth using my power of reasoned thought. If I get it wrong. So be it. At least I get it wrong rather than blindly accepting the interpretations of others.
In the end, I believe your path and mine will lead us to the same place, enlightement. In the end, we could go round and round. I hope you believe that I respect your commitment to your faith.
Response to C @35: Thanks for your response.
To believe that there are many ways to God, you have to reject the statement by Jesus that He is the way the truth and the light and that no one comes to the Father except through the Son. You cannot believe in both Buddah and Christ and hold that Christ spoke the truth. He gives us no such option.
I would also contest your point that man can reach God solely through reason. The fall of man made mankind totally depraved and his reason is as flawed as his will and conscience. Reason has its place but it must give way to revelation in the form of Scripture. Paul and Jesus both make the point clearly when they refer to the Christian life and the Kingdom as a mystery that must be revealed to man.
Scripture is a wonderful thing to me because it is a direct communication from God that speaks to every area of life and reveals to us the divine purpose for creation. I rest in its assurance and its origin in an all-powerful God who loved man enough to communicate directly with him. Without Scripture we would be lost in the same self-deceptive mist that surrounds all of man’s attempts to gain enlightenment on his own.
I respect your willingness to step out and engage in dialogue. If you truly seek God – and I think you do – then I pray that He indeed may reveal Himself to you.
Kipling,
one point of clarification. I do not believe I reach enlightenment through reason alone. Reason helps me distiguish what is of God and what is not. In the end though my reliance on reason is our main point of disagreement. I hav ealeays been somewhat of a skeptic. I still hold that the book we read has been manipulated by men. If indeed you are right then I hope God will bring me full circle. If I am right, see you on the otherwise because if sense that you are a person who hears God.
Hat Tip:
But faith is not a gift from God.
Obedient faith, a faith that works through love, Gal.5.6, is our choice, and our responsibility. We cannot say, “But God didn’t give me faith, so I can’t believe and obey.” God wants all men to be saved, ITim.2.3-4 and so offers us His revelation,(scripture). Jesus Christ saves those who choose to obey Him, Heb.5.9, and one can do so by reading/hearing and following His commandments.
But I agree with your opening assessments. Tolerance of sinful conduct is hardly a virtue.
Mr Mauro: Sinners cannot have a relationship with God, Isa.59.1-2. Those who believe, repent and obey may have a relationship with God. God calls all to repent, Acts 17.30-31; believe, Rom.10.9-10; obey, Heb.5.9. He will not hear the prayers of the disobedient, IJn.3.22. Such will be eternally punished, ICor.6.9-10. Your protagonist is not a christian; he is an hypocrite in the extreme. IJohn 3 may clarify this issue for you.
You know almost nothing about scriptural christianity. You might try to click on Christian Courier for the basics.
Hattip:
Amen and extremely well said!!!
You apparently know little of history then – or you are some conspiracy theorist on par with Dan Brown. That statement is laughable.
We have manuscripts, or portions of manuscripts, of some 6000 copies, written in three different languages Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek that date to 125 AD – approximately 30 years after the New Testament completed. In addition, there are such extensive quotations from the New Testament from 1st Century Church elders that over 95% of the Bible could be translated without copies.
And the garbage that we didn’t have a New Testament until Constantine – more lies. Exactly what do you believe 1st century Christians used for the Bible? When the Council got together, they didn’t get together to find books to be in the New Testament, but merely to acknowledge the validity of the 1st Century Church by Apostolic authority.
You are either completely dishonest, or woefully misled.
Your’s are more lies propagated thru secular society.
Tex,
Tex, I never mentioned Constantine. I’m not arguing against your points at all. I simply offered my opinion. No conspiracy theroy here. I believe that the writers of the bible did so through divine inspiration, the key word is inspiration. Thus the original authors each put his or own “spin.” As I understand it, Jesus never wrote anything. Thus all of our records of his words are second hand. Given this I am apt to believe that it is possible that something was lost in the retelling. Again, this is simply my belief and not an attempt to change your mind. I believe as my heart and mind dictates. I assume you do the same. I shared my thoughts so others might understand where I am coming from.
My position has actually reinforced many of my person beliefs that there is a god. For example, I researched the design of the ark and learned that engineers determined that the design of the ark is one of the most worthly sea vessels designs ever devised. My study of science and belief in the possible validity of evolution has strengthened my belief in an intelligent designer.
You say mine are lies propagated through secular society. More likely, mine are delusional statements that secular society has propogated. Thank you for your dialogue and your perspective. You can keep your criticism, it tends to convince me that I am in the rigth path because part of the reason I left my more traditional church because my nature of questioning was continually put down. Kipling did more to influence through respectful dialogue. If your goal is to convert, perhaps you should take lessons from him.
C,
What you fail to understand is everything provided is from God. To believe otherwise is admittance that God is not in control and willing to let all people be misled. If I were to use your rationale, it would mean everything of history, every biography, every story not penned thru personal experience, every report of eyewitness account were inaccurate. Why do you not question anything you’ve learned and believe then? Your conclusions are irrational. Unlike any other religion, the Bible is not the words of one man, but 40 authors, over 1,500 years, of three languages. No other book of authority can make that claim. Did they all conspire? How?
I’m not putting you down. Just trying to convince you that you are being woefully misled. I added the Constantine reference (maybe mistakenly) because it is the common mantra of those who claim the Bible not valid – as if some 300 years later, men got together and decided what would represent God’s Word. That is historically inaccurate.
Finally, as to your charges of spin, I’ll just let the Bible defend itself:
2 Peter 1:16-21
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
And C,
I should have added this, as it is important. These eye witness accounts were written during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. Luke, for instance, was not only a physician but a historian too. Nobody stood up to refute them?
I’ll provide a little known fact. This has been several years ago, as I am sure the number now greater. Over 23,000 archeological digs have been influenced by historical accounts of the Bible. To this day, not word of text has had to be changed on account of the findings. Not one. I would call that historically accurate.
Does that not seem the least bit suspicious to you that the manuscripts could survive intact if all of it based on lies?
Tex Taylor, Since you seem to be a Biblical scholar, of sorts, what is your take on the strong parallels between the story of Noah and the Flood Story in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh?
And C, I had my students draw pictures of the two arks. As I recall, the Sumerian one is square. The Biblical ark definitely seemed more seaworthy (not that there was anywere to go.) In the Bible, the ONE God causes the Flood, in Gilgamesh, there are many gods; one wants to destroy the earth, while another one warns Utnapishtim. There are doves, ravens, and rainbows in both stories; a fascinating look at how two cultures respond to flooding in the Fertile Crescent (which to them, of course, was the whole world. Close enough, I guess. Abraham came from Ur and then went back to Haran for wives, both places mentioned in Gilgamesh. The Sumerians, polytheistic as they were, evidently were better providers of wives than the local riffraff at Sodom and Gomorah. So much for Judaism and the rise of cities. Cities are evil places, compared to living in the desert in tents, raising sheep. Judaism just ain’t what it used to be, eh?
?blockquote>Tex Taylor, Since you seem to be a Biblical scholar, of sorts, what is your take on the strong parallels between the story of Noah and the Flood Story in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh?
Unlike the secular who say, “See, just a myth perpetuated by superstition, stolen from the Sumerians”, I say, “Nope – more proof that a great flood did indeed happen long ago.”
In fact, almost civilizations of antiquity have a story of a horrific flood.
OK, Tex, but don’t study the parallels in too much detail, or the Lord may speak to you in surprising ways. Been there, done that.
Tex and Dwight.
Funny how we all look at the evidence differently. See the parallels as evidence that the people of the world have all been touched by the divine in some way, but each culture expresses the divine differently. This is why I say that for a buddhist, the Buddha serves the say divine purpose as the Christ.
In the end, I believe in a divine spirit. Dwight, iam curious, where do you stand on that one.
By the way, I watched the clip. The atheist going man suffers from what many young people suffer from, little experience, less humility, and an o er inflated sense of self wisdom. I have met plenty of theist who come at others with the same arrogance. dare I say that I was just as pig headed as a twenty something.
Homosexuality and being a bible-banger go together like anti-gun proponents with NRA memberships. It’s a complete paradoxical view to hold when one looks at the bibical scriptures.
His liberal church can spin it for him all they want but it won’t change the so-called god-given facts on the matter of homosexuality.