<Satire>
Point: We should be tolerant of people who disagree with us (Perspective presented by Bishop Moss, an ecclesiastical leader and progressive social media activist)
Not everyone has the same preferences, opinions, or orientations... And that's OK.
I was talking to a guy who uses an anonymous account on twitter, which is understandable because of his unpopular stance... You see, he is a practicing homosexual.
Certainly, this type of activity goes against everything that my faith, that the prophets, that the apostles, that the scriptures, and that Jesus himself taught regarding marriage. In spite of this, I feel compelled to speak up in defense of this individual. His feelings are important, and he is a real person, in spite of the way he hides behind a clever alternative nickname and smiling picture on social media.
Jesus said to love our neighbors, so doesn't this count?
What's important is that we embrace the things that make us different than us, because we are all children of God, and we can all try harder to be like him.
Even those who don't share my faith should feel loved and welcomed for who they are, for as long as they seek to associate with me. And even if they reject every teaching of my church, I can't imagine not forgiving them or wishing them anything but happiness.
Counter-Point: We should relentlessly attack people who disagree with us (Another perspective presented by Bishop Moss, the same guy who gave the point)
Not everyone has the same preferences, opinions, or orientations... And that's NOT OK.
I was talking to a guy who uses an anonymous account on twitter, which is inexcusable because of his unpopular stance... You see, he thinks that it's OK to be modest.
Certainly this type of activity is in line with everything that my faith, that the prophets, that the apostles, that the scriptures, and that Jesus himself taught regarding how we should present ourselves. In spite of this, I feel compelled to speak up and mercilessly and repeatedly berate and condemn this individual. His feelings don't matter, because he's not even a real person; he's using a dumb fake name stupid Lego figure picture on social media.
Jesus said to love our neighbors, but he's not very neighborly, so he doesn't count.
What's important is that we ridicule anyone who has views that are different than progressives, because even though we are all children of God, some of us are more like him than others.
Even those who share my faith should be exposed and humiliated for who they are, for as long as they seek to promote principles that I like to ignore. And even if they apologize for defending legitimate teachings of my church, I can't imagine forgiving them or wishing them anything but hellfire.
</Satire>
Showing posts with label #homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #homosexuality. Show all posts
Monday, May 6, 2019
Monday, November 9, 2015
Shocking Details From the Other Mormon Handbook
Recently, my Facebook feed has been filled with comments, memes, and images regarding some shocking changes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints made to a handbook of instructions for church leaders regarding homosexuality and apostasy.
The headlines in blogs and from the stories of news organizations emphasized only one possible outcome of the changes: that Mormon Leaders would refuse baptism to the children of gays.
I read a number of reactions that ranged from people encouraging trust in the leaders of the church to posting apologetic explanations to people considering leaving the Mormon church because of this shocking truth.
I was a bit surprised at the volume of reactions to this news. It seemed to me that after the headline had drawn traffic and people saw what it was really about, some new bit of information would draw attention away and it would be rapidly forgotten. Days later, I still see numerous posts, comments, and reactions to this news. I have read posts wherein people still express shock and surprise that the Mormon church would implement such a policy that seems to target individuals based on their sexual orientation.
If you are among those who were shocked by the new details from the Mormon Handbook of Instructions, then perhaps you could particularly benefit from learning the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook. You know, the one that no one seems to be talking about, but that makes policies on apostasy seem as shocking as the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes in Jesus Christ... Even if you are not among those shocked by the recent policy news, the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook, will still be beneficial.
Of course, by Other Mormon Handbook, I mean The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
The circumstances of this books arrival and the claims made in this book are more shocking than any policy decision the church has ever made (and that includes decisions regarding plural marriage, priesthood availability, or sticking with the Boy Scouts). Think about it. A young man in upstate New York was personally visited by an Angel and told about a book of scripture, hidden for centuries, written in a language that no one spoke, and that the record had been inscribed on plates of gold. Additionally, this record represented proof that peoples who had inhabited the American continent ages earlier had been Christians, and that they had fallen apart when they rejected Christ.
If these claims are not shocking enough, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith Junior, an uneducated laborer, was able to translate this record into English through the power of God himself. As miraculous as the use of diverse tongues on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), this young man not only produced a translation in a short time, but did it while enemies tried to attack him and his supporters. He also persuaded friends to help finance its publication, which was not an inexpensive investment. After it was done, he stood behind the work that he claimed God had helped him perform by saying: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Introduction to the Book of Mormon)
The idea that it is the most correct book is certainly shocking, but that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book, is incredibly bold.
Rational individuals should immediately demand (in light of these shocking details and claims) what the Mormon Church intends to do to back them up (if they haven't already).
Of course, the way in which the Mormon Church backs up these claims is perhaps more shocking than anything else. This translation is not in some "leaders-only" handbook or kept in a vault in the mountains near Salt Lake City. The Church has gone to great lengths and great expense to make this handbook available to everyone. If you like to read physical books, check here: https://www.mormon.org/free-book-of-mormon. You can read it online for free here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng. Yes, there's an app for it too: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_day_Saints_Th?id=oAkd9j3xSqoC. Additionally, volunteer missionaries across the world are eager to provide individual support as you put the shocking claims of the Mormons to the test by reading this book and praying to God to come to your own conclusion.
For those who are already members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the need to read the Book of Mormon has not diminished. Shocks from changes in church policies (or any other aspect of the faith) are best handled by returning to this handbook, which laid the foundation of the Mormon Church. If you have read it, read it again. If you have not read from it today, read from it today. If you have not prayed to our Heavenly Father regarding the shocking claims that it makes and that it represents, pray today. If you have prayed, but you have not been willing to act according to the answer you have received, then read it some more. If you have prayed, but you do not believe that God will answer your prayer, then read it some more.
Ultimately, the more that you read, study, consider, and pray about the Book of Mormon, the more you will see that the claims, practices, policies, and traditions in the Mormon Church are not shocking at all. The real shock is that Jesus Christ (who is very much alive and well) is reaching out to you in a personal way through this book. Joseph Smith was not exaggerating or being rhetorical when he said that you could get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. Whatever other news headlines arise in the future, you can be confident that God lives and that he will make sure everything works out in the end. In the end, he is coming to save us all.
The headlines in blogs and from the stories of news organizations emphasized only one possible outcome of the changes: that Mormon Leaders would refuse baptism to the children of gays.
I read a number of reactions that ranged from people encouraging trust in the leaders of the church to posting apologetic explanations to people considering leaving the Mormon church because of this shocking truth.
I was a bit surprised at the volume of reactions to this news. It seemed to me that after the headline had drawn traffic and people saw what it was really about, some new bit of information would draw attention away and it would be rapidly forgotten. Days later, I still see numerous posts, comments, and reactions to this news. I have read posts wherein people still express shock and surprise that the Mormon church would implement such a policy that seems to target individuals based on their sexual orientation.
If you are among those who were shocked by the new details from the Mormon Handbook of Instructions, then perhaps you could particularly benefit from learning the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook. You know, the one that no one seems to be talking about, but that makes policies on apostasy seem as shocking as the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes in Jesus Christ... Even if you are not among those shocked by the recent policy news, the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook, will still be beneficial.
Of course, by Other Mormon Handbook, I mean The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
The circumstances of this books arrival and the claims made in this book are more shocking than any policy decision the church has ever made (and that includes decisions regarding plural marriage, priesthood availability, or sticking with the Boy Scouts). Think about it. A young man in upstate New York was personally visited by an Angel and told about a book of scripture, hidden for centuries, written in a language that no one spoke, and that the record had been inscribed on plates of gold. Additionally, this record represented proof that peoples who had inhabited the American continent ages earlier had been Christians, and that they had fallen apart when they rejected Christ.
If these claims are not shocking enough, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith Junior, an uneducated laborer, was able to translate this record into English through the power of God himself. As miraculous as the use of diverse tongues on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), this young man not only produced a translation in a short time, but did it while enemies tried to attack him and his supporters. He also persuaded friends to help finance its publication, which was not an inexpensive investment. After it was done, he stood behind the work that he claimed God had helped him perform by saying: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Introduction to the Book of Mormon)
The idea that it is the most correct book is certainly shocking, but that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book, is incredibly bold.
Rational individuals should immediately demand (in light of these shocking details and claims) what the Mormon Church intends to do to back them up (if they haven't already).
Of course, the way in which the Mormon Church backs up these claims is perhaps more shocking than anything else. This translation is not in some "leaders-only" handbook or kept in a vault in the mountains near Salt Lake City. The Church has gone to great lengths and great expense to make this handbook available to everyone. If you like to read physical books, check here: https://www.mormon.org/free-book-of-mormon. You can read it online for free here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng. Yes, there's an app for it too: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_day_Saints_Th?id=oAkd9j3xSqoC. Additionally, volunteer missionaries across the world are eager to provide individual support as you put the shocking claims of the Mormons to the test by reading this book and praying to God to come to your own conclusion.
For those who are already members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the need to read the Book of Mormon has not diminished. Shocks from changes in church policies (or any other aspect of the faith) are best handled by returning to this handbook, which laid the foundation of the Mormon Church. If you have read it, read it again. If you have not read from it today, read from it today. If you have not prayed to our Heavenly Father regarding the shocking claims that it makes and that it represents, pray today. If you have prayed, but you have not been willing to act according to the answer you have received, then read it some more. If you have prayed, but you do not believe that God will answer your prayer, then read it some more.
Ultimately, the more that you read, study, consider, and pray about the Book of Mormon, the more you will see that the claims, practices, policies, and traditions in the Mormon Church are not shocking at all. The real shock is that Jesus Christ (who is very much alive and well) is reaching out to you in a personal way through this book. Joseph Smith was not exaggerating or being rhetorical when he said that you could get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. Whatever other news headlines arise in the future, you can be confident that God lives and that he will make sure everything works out in the end. In the end, he is coming to save us all.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
What Type of Marriage Discrimination Will Gay Marriage Advocates Continue To Support?
I have seen many rainbow picture profiles on Facebook and many "love wins" sentiments after the 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in which they used the 14th amendment to discover a "right to marry." There are numerous legal reasons why this move represents a dangerous precedent, and how wrong it is for justices to find "implied rights" are more important that explicitly stated rights (such as in the 10th amendment). For those that have interest in the legal side of this (or those who claim that defense of traditional marriage is indefensible), reading the dissents of the four justices who did not support this finding is illuminating.
I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad. I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.
It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage. In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:
I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad. I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.
It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage. In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:
- That I "probably don't have a lot of gay friends"
- That I have a phobia of homosexuals
- That I am a bigot
- That I am hateful
- That I don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That I might be gay myself if I am "threatened"
- That I am fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That I am encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That I am being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
The list is not comprehensive, but it never ceases to amaze me how many accusations are made about any person who believes in traditional marriage.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to be married, the question I have for gay marriage advocates is whether they plan to extend these rights to everyone. (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want you to tell me about it, I want you to actually open your mind to the consequences of "love" "winning.")
Take for example the polygamous group. (Now before you say that this is a straw man argument, and no one is advocating for it, read this article) So if seven people decide that they are in "love", how can a person say that they should be denied the right to marry? Obviously not because we adhere to a standard of traditional marriage. If you are opposed to polygamy, let me suggest the following reasons:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of polygamous friends"
- That you have a phobia of polygamists
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have polygamous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the biological brother and sister that have fallen in love, but that the state will not issue a marriage license because they are related. If marriage is a right, then who are you to say that being related should deprive a person of this right? If you still disagree that incestuous relationships should be able to have legal recognition in the form of marriage, may I suggest the following reasons that you believe this:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of incestuous friends"
- That you have a phobia of incest
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have incestuous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the man that has fallen in love with his pet dog. They would like to make their love officially recognized in the form of marriage. Who are you to say that the dog doesn't love its owner. I have spoken to many vegetarians who insist that animals have all the same feelings that humans have, and that the most important of those feelings is love. Who are you to say that this type of relationship is "not natural." For thousands of years the majority of civilization believed the exact same thing about homosexuality (and many still do.) Just because Leviticus 18:23 says "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" doesn't mean anything. After all, the Bible also forbids eating pork or women speaking in church, so you can't accept everything in the Bible... right? Certainly this form of "love" may not be traditional, but the man has a right to be married, and if you try to discriminate against the form of his love, it can only be because:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of animal-loving friends"
- That you have a phobia of human-animal relationships
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have bestiality desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
Take for example the forty-year-old man that has fallen in love with a twelve-year-old boy. The boy says that he is happy with the man, and who are you to say their relationship is taboo? Of course, the boy may not be an adult, to which traditional marriage relationships typically are limited, but tradition is not the basis for love anymore, right? It's only love. Nothing else matters, right? And who are you to say that the boy is not capable of being in love? If young people are not capable of love, then are you advocating banning relationships in high school between students who are under the age of eighteen? No more "cutest couple" in the year book, right? Your "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" is not allowed. There are no gay teens, right, since they are too young to understand or participate in sexual activities, right? Or perhaps you truly believe that "love" should win? Perhaps the pedophile is just another "non-traditional" relationship that has been negatively stereotyped by society. No? Then perhaps you say this because:
- That you "probably don't have a lot of pedophile friends"
- That you have a phobia of pedophilia
- That you are a bigot
- That you are hateful
- That you don't understand the Bible
- That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
- That you might have pedophilia desires yourself if you are"threatened"
- That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
- That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
- That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell
If you are a gay marriage advocate, you may be tempted to let me know about how these ideas are totally different than those of gay marriage. You may be tempted to shout "slippery slope" or "no one is going to advocate that" or "straw man" or whatever else makes you feel better about the fact that you believe (as I do) that there should be some discrimination in who we permit to marry. Please, before you begin sending me messages about how awful a human being I am... consider for just a moment that perhaps gay marriage advocates are not so very different from the traditionalists, cake bakers, and people of faith that many of them tend to demonize.
If the reasons for why you might be opposed to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other unnatural relationships are not accurately represented by the bullet point lists... then consider for a moment the possibility that the reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage may not be accurately represented by these things either.
Additionally, if you have thrown "traditional marriage" out the window as a valid reason to discriminate against other unorthodox types of unions, consider for a moment the actual reasons that you are opposed to them. Examine why you believe that some types of unions are not good, and should not be condoned by society.
It is my earnest hope that perhaps, in the moment when you struggle to define why it is OK to discriminate against some marriages, that you will see that advocates of traditional marriage are not the demons they are painted to be.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Tolerating Unethical Behavior
John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks. He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down. He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
The format of this post will be in the form of a conversation between a hypothetical individual that is a proponent of homosexual marriage and believes that homosexuality is natural and harmless. This post may make some people angry, so I issue the following warning to proponents of homosexuality before proceeding:
Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong. It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong. This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you. This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking. Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made. If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance. Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.
That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
Jesus is the son of God. He created the heavens and the earth. He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death. I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals. He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us. Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.
You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.
That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance. It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.
So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.
You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents? I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important. Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful. Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ. After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf. In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)
But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that... Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?
Of course not. Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded. Also... pork is delicious.
And what about the New Testament? Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15... Do you believe that?
Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes? Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he? Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy? Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church? To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent. I have no problem with women speaking.
So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow... Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?
So Christians are limited only to the Bible? Is that what you think? As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that. As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it. It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles. That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...
So is that the Pope? Is that someone else? How do you know which prophet is right?
You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot... Jeremiah 23 is worth reading. Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15). The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.
But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?
Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help. (James 1:5-6) Prayer should always be a part of the process. Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18) Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)
If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay. What harm does it do?
That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything. By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him. The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed... It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge. The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.
You didn't answer my question again. What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?
Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?
That's not specific.
We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?
Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.
That's the real issue then, isn't it? Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful. Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.
That's a bad example. You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone. You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.
How about radiation? How about other diseases? Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.
Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...
So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?
Yes.
So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful? If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?
Well...
Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful. Take smoking and drinking. Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort. Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?
Well...
Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad? A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies. Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?
That's a different kind of harm... It's more like potential harm or risk... Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.
But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that. Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads? Do you fasten your safety belt? You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.
I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...
I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone... How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?
Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...
True enough. Jesus Christ is the example.
What? What does that even mean?
Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals. In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ. The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin. (Luke 22:44) I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.
Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus... Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.
You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes. I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.
Fine then. So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?
That's right.
So is homosexuality a natural mutation?
I believe it's natural. I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity. Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals. How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?
I... well...
So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.
I never thought of it like that...
And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?
But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?
So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool? You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?
When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...
Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds. Am I missing any options?
Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.
You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful? I will concede that point. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency. It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.
Yeah, so take that bully! You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad! Also, judgmental people will go to hell!
You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?
I see your point. I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.
Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach. One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs. Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners. Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life. Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.
Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong. It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong. This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you. This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking. Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made. If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance. Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.
That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
Jesus is the son of God. He created the heavens and the earth. He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death. I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals. He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us. Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.
You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.
That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance. It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.
So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.
You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents? I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important. Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful. Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ. After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf. In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)
But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that... Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?
Of course not. Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded. Also... pork is delicious.
And what about the New Testament? Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15... Do you believe that?
Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes? Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he? Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy? Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church? To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent. I have no problem with women speaking.
So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow... Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?
So Christians are limited only to the Bible? Is that what you think? As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that. As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it. It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles. That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...
So is that the Pope? Is that someone else? How do you know which prophet is right?
You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot... Jeremiah 23 is worth reading. Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15). The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.
But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?
Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help. (James 1:5-6) Prayer should always be a part of the process. Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18) Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)
If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay. What harm does it do?
That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything. By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him. The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed... It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge. The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.
You didn't answer my question again. What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?
Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?
That's not specific.
We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?
Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.
That's the real issue then, isn't it? Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful. Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.
That's a bad example. You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone. You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.
How about radiation? How about other diseases? Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.
Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...
So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?
Yes.
So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful? If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?
Well...
Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful. Take smoking and drinking. Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort. Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?
Well...
Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad? A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies. Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?
That's a different kind of harm... It's more like potential harm or risk... Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.
But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that. Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads? Do you fasten your safety belt? You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.
I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...
I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone... How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?
Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...
True enough. Jesus Christ is the example.
What? What does that even mean?
Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals. In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ. The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin. (Luke 22:44) I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.
Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus... Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.
You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes. I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.
Fine then. So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?
That's right.
So is homosexuality a natural mutation?
I believe it's natural. I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity. Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals. How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?
I... well...
So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.
I never thought of it like that...
And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?
But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?
So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool? You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?
When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...
Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds. Am I missing any options?
Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.
You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful? I will concede that point. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency. It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.
Yeah, so take that bully! You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad! Also, judgmental people will go to hell!
You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?
I see your point. I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.
Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach. One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs. Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners. Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life. Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Let homosexuals into scouting!
I have seen and heard a lot of conversation regarding the Boy Scouts voting to accept homosexuals as leaders and members. I have made no secret of my opposition to almost everything associated with homosexuality, or my stance that homosexual behavior is wrong.
With respect to the decision of the Boy Scouts, I feel to withhold my opposition. After careful consideration, I have found I have a difficult time opposing the inclusion of homosexuals within the ranks of the Boy Scouts of America. That's right, I think I am in favor of this.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not changing my stance on the fact that homosexuality is wrong, nor am I renouncing the fact that those who encourage its practice or approve of altering marriage laws to include other groups are misguided. I view homosexuality as a corrupt practice. Its corrupt nature is precisely why it fits well with Boy Scouts.
I recall being involved in the Scouting program. I was the beneficiary of dedicated leaders who honestly worked to help young men develop skills and understand principles that are potentially important. At one point in the past, I had the ambition of becoming an Eagle Scout. Thanks to the support of parents and leaders, I was able to advance to the rank of First Class.
At this point, the nature of advancement changed. The requirements involved waiting for periods of time and earning numbers of merit badges, which was not the emphasis of prior ranks. At first, this concept was appealing. It seemed as though advancement had opened up, and there was choice involved in learning skills and principles tailored to personal interests. At this point, there was also an increased involvement in Scout Camps.
In these new environments that were less structured, I had the opportunity to meet a much larger group of scouts and leaders. Gone were the times of being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, or friendly. The scout motto "Be Prepared" seemed to have a universally understood and unspoken addendum of "to lie, cheat, and steal your way to merit badges." Merit badge "councilors" signed cards as though they were liberally handing out autographs. I would be remiss if I did not confess that some of the merit badges that I "earned" were obtained using the indulgence of such individuals rather than acquisition of skills and knowledge.
I had been shielded from the details of the costs associated with uniforms, badges, and participation, but as I became older, the existence of the "Friends of Scouting" movements that went around begging for additional money to fund camps that perpetuated everything corrupt in the scouting organization. A scout, I had been told, was supposed to be thrifty, but I discovered that the upper echelons of the organization had more greed than thrift.
As freely as camp councilors pardoned themselves from actually instructing young scouts in the skills and principles required for awards, they seemed compulsively obsessed with practicing strange ceremonies and rituals as though they had Native American heritage. Perhaps there were some that did have such heritage, but the majority of them did not.
I obtained the rank of "Star" scout before I determined that my time was better spent away from those that loved tight green scouting shorts. I was also gifted in that I did not have parents who were determined to measure their success by my scouting rank, or who were so determined that I obtain the Eagle Scout award that they performed the work on my behalf.
Though the LDS church has been a longtime ally of the scouting program, I confess that I have secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) wished that they would sever this relationship. Certainly the stance of Mormons, Catholics, and other Protestants on homosexuality has been a contributing factor in the Boy Scout organizations longtime policy of rejecting homosexual leadership. There have been several cases where this policy has been challenged in the past, and it seems to have been close enough that the LDS church's young men program (Duty to God) was revised to provide a scout-like path. Of course, the leadership was quick to say that this was not a replacement program for boy scouts, and that work towards an Eagle Scout award would fill much of the requirement for the Duty to God award, but the fact that the award represented a framework that could easily replace scouting was impossible to ignore.
As noble as the Scouting program's origins may have been, I am in favor of severing the connection to what has become a parasitic and corrupt group. Homosexuality may be the catalyst that allows religious organizations to treat BSA for the cancer it is.
With respect to the decision of the Boy Scouts, I feel to withhold my opposition. After careful consideration, I have found I have a difficult time opposing the inclusion of homosexuals within the ranks of the Boy Scouts of America. That's right, I think I am in favor of this.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not changing my stance on the fact that homosexuality is wrong, nor am I renouncing the fact that those who encourage its practice or approve of altering marriage laws to include other groups are misguided. I view homosexuality as a corrupt practice. Its corrupt nature is precisely why it fits well with Boy Scouts.
I recall being involved in the Scouting program. I was the beneficiary of dedicated leaders who honestly worked to help young men develop skills and understand principles that are potentially important. At one point in the past, I had the ambition of becoming an Eagle Scout. Thanks to the support of parents and leaders, I was able to advance to the rank of First Class.
At this point, the nature of advancement changed. The requirements involved waiting for periods of time and earning numbers of merit badges, which was not the emphasis of prior ranks. At first, this concept was appealing. It seemed as though advancement had opened up, and there was choice involved in learning skills and principles tailored to personal interests. At this point, there was also an increased involvement in Scout Camps.
In these new environments that were less structured, I had the opportunity to meet a much larger group of scouts and leaders. Gone were the times of being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, or friendly. The scout motto "Be Prepared" seemed to have a universally understood and unspoken addendum of "to lie, cheat, and steal your way to merit badges." Merit badge "councilors" signed cards as though they were liberally handing out autographs. I would be remiss if I did not confess that some of the merit badges that I "earned" were obtained using the indulgence of such individuals rather than acquisition of skills and knowledge.
I had been shielded from the details of the costs associated with uniforms, badges, and participation, but as I became older, the existence of the "Friends of Scouting" movements that went around begging for additional money to fund camps that perpetuated everything corrupt in the scouting organization. A scout, I had been told, was supposed to be thrifty, but I discovered that the upper echelons of the organization had more greed than thrift.
As freely as camp councilors pardoned themselves from actually instructing young scouts in the skills and principles required for awards, they seemed compulsively obsessed with practicing strange ceremonies and rituals as though they had Native American heritage. Perhaps there were some that did have such heritage, but the majority of them did not.
I obtained the rank of "Star" scout before I determined that my time was better spent away from those that loved tight green scouting shorts. I was also gifted in that I did not have parents who were determined to measure their success by my scouting rank, or who were so determined that I obtain the Eagle Scout award that they performed the work on my behalf.
Though the LDS church has been a longtime ally of the scouting program, I confess that I have secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) wished that they would sever this relationship. Certainly the stance of Mormons, Catholics, and other Protestants on homosexuality has been a contributing factor in the Boy Scout organizations longtime policy of rejecting homosexual leadership. There have been several cases where this policy has been challenged in the past, and it seems to have been close enough that the LDS church's young men program (Duty to God) was revised to provide a scout-like path. Of course, the leadership was quick to say that this was not a replacement program for boy scouts, and that work towards an Eagle Scout award would fill much of the requirement for the Duty to God award, but the fact that the award represented a framework that could easily replace scouting was impossible to ignore.
As noble as the Scouting program's origins may have been, I am in favor of severing the connection to what has become a parasitic and corrupt group. Homosexuality may be the catalyst that allows religious organizations to treat BSA for the cancer it is.
Monday, August 27, 2012
God loves homosexuals, but he also loves racists
"Hate the sin but love the sinner."
This phrase seems to be increasing in popularity. Nowhere is it more popular than in debates about homosexuality. The phrase is among the more tame used to tell those that believe homosexuality is sinful that they should be more accepting of its practitioners. In less tame debates, those that condemn the practice are called "homophobic," "bigoted," "hateful," or some other unsavory name.
In more civil conversations, those that are more defensive of the homosexual position will use the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase persuasively. Particularly when they themselves are Christian and they seem to apply this principal in practice. Those that do not believe in God or in the concept of sin are far less persuasive.
The phrase is typically used to convey a sense of understanding. Those that defend homosexuality imply that they are aware of the concerns of those that view it as sinful. Those that argue against homosexuality are in a difficult situation when the phrase is used because it is true that God hates sins, but loves those that commit them. Jesus Christ himself was not afraid to mingle with those that had gone astray, although it brought disdain from the Pharisees and others of his contemporaries. To reject this argument would be to reject Christ.
The problem with this phrase is credibility. It is not difficult to tell people that they should be more accepting of a group you have already accepted. It is currently politically correct and in many circles socially acceptable to practice homosexual behavior. Defending a popular and politically correct point of view does not make those of us who embrace a more traditional view think that we are understood.
Exactly how do you hate the sin but love the sinner? Is not practicing it oneself enough? Is speaking out against the sin appropriate? If so, how does one speak out against a sin in a loving manner? How can a person express love toward an individual that embraces or perhaps even identifies themselves by their practice of something abhorrent?
Rather than tackle the homosexuality debate, I would like to discuss the difficulty of the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase by applying it do something that is not politically correct or popular: racism.
God hates racism, but loves racists. By extension, you should hate racism, but love racists.
Racism is perhaps the most politically incorrect ideal that a person can have. In fact, by writing this post, I have probably precluded myself from a political career. That having been said, I have known racist people that I would consider to be good people, certainly as much as those defending homosexuality can think of examples of good people that are gay.
I also believe that racism is a label that is frequently assigned to ideas that are not actually racist. Racism is not synonymous with prejudice. I have a bit of experience with this.
In high school, I was a scrawny-built geeky kid. As such, I occasionally feared that I would be victimized by bullying. I recall spending extra time to avoid areas where I knew certain Hispanic students gathered. It was not the fact they were Hispanic that bothered me, it was the culture of particular groups that seemed to embrace brawling that was distasteful. I also avoided the Caucasian jock culture or the Caucasian punk-rocker culture that seemed to embrace similar practices.
I definitely pre-judged these groups. It is possible that the members of these cultures in high school might have treated me with respect and dignity in spite of my social ineptitudes and lanky build, but I was afraid to take that chance. My prejudice was not based on race, it was based on culture. In fact, I had friends that were Hispanic, black, and Asian with whom I got along well. They were typically the less popular and more studious types to whom I could better relate, and by whom I felt less threatened.
True racism is a prejudice based on no other characteristic other than race.
During my high school years in southern California, a controversial proposition appeared on the state ballot that dealt with preventing illegal aliens from obtaining health and education benefits. There were a large number of Hispanics that came to school with their faces painted or wearing shirts that had the no symbol over the proposition number, 187. Many of them decried the measure as racist. Rumors spread even to less social circles such as my own that there would be an attempt by those in opposition to the measure to walk out of school. During my PE class, I recall seeing a series of automobiles drive past the school brandishing large Mexican flags and shouting at us. Since I did not speak Spanish, I did not understand many of the things that were shouted, but I do recall one. I was standing next to a black boy and several Hispanics when I heard a passenger in one of these cars shout "F___ you white boy! F___ you n_____! Viva Mexico!!"
I found it ironic that they were out protesting a measure they considered racist, but had no problems judging myself or using the n-word to refer to the black boy in my class. That having been said, it was not difficult for me to dismiss this behavior. While I knew such racism was wrong, I did not feel compelled to shout back a suggestion that they not yell demeaning slurs regarding the race of others. Perhaps because I was afraid that such action would subject me to some retaliation after school, and perhaps I believed that the measure would likely fail anyway. In the end, proposition 187 passed, but was later declared unconstitutional. The very next year in high school, most students had forgotten about it life returned to normal.
I recall another instance of racially motivated violence at my high school between a black boy and a Hispanic boy. There were many expletives and slurs used before the two brawled, but the tamer among them involved the black boy telling the Hispanic boy to "go back to his country" and the Hispanic boy replying that the black boy should "go back to Africa." I did not have any desire to interfere in the conflict.
While the behavior in the previous examples is genuinely racist, the more socially detestable forms of racism are those that are held by whites against minorities. I know of individuals that have harbored such feelings.
I recall a conversation with an individual that believed he had been robbed by a group of Hispanics. The one experience had caused him to view all Hispanics as thieves. He told me that he did not want to be racist, but that they "made" him racist. Even though I was young at the time, I knew that it was probably an unfair generalization to make. I was certain that my Hispanic friends did not participate in theft, and seemed to be good religious people. I also knew the man that confessed his racist feelings to me was also a good man that selflessly helped others. Should I have shouted "racist" at the top of my lungs and never spoken to him again? Should I have tried to quote the Book of Mormon where it says "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile"? (2 Nephi 26:33) I did nothing.
Outside my rather mild anecdotal sources, there are more serious accounts of racism. There exist people that believe crimes against certain people are justifiable because of their race. There are those who do not wish to have others in their neighborhood because of their ethnicity. There are those that ridicule, humiliate, and abuse others for no reason but their skin color.
It is easy and politically correct to see the harm that can exist when race becomes a criteria for judging someone. That having been said, I believe that God loves racists. God loves people that do awful things. God cares about the well being of those that abuse others. God truly hates the sin, but loves the sinner. With respect to a sin that is nearly universally despised, who will stand up and tell people that they ought to love racists? Who will tell people that decry racism that they should be more loving and kind toward the KKK or neo-Nazis?
What about the people that have racist beliefs that feel they cannot help it? What about the people that feel others made them racist? You and I may believe it is a choice, but perhaps those that have racist feelings genuinely do not. It could even be argued that racism is a naturally occurring feeling that has existed in many civilizations throughout recorded history, just as there are those that make claims about the natural existence of homosexuality.
In the end, these arguments do not matter, because racism is wrong. Modern prophets have been clear regarding the position of Mormons and racism: "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)
The ultimate question is how to hate the sin but love the sinner. The type of sin is not important to this principal.
Are those that stand up in defense of homosexuality in the name of loving the sinner as eager to stand and defend those that commit sins they recognize as wrong? Or are those that oppose homosexuality really being asked to hate the sin but love the sinner as long as the sin is trendy and/or politically correct?
If you do not believe that racism is a sin, then substitute racism for some other practice that you believe is sinful. How do you show Christian love and fellowship to someone while simultaneously denouncing the sins they embrace?
There is no perfect answer to the question. Even God uses different approaches with different people. Consider the following:
Perhaps there are cases when people ought to condemn that which is wrong boldly. Perhaps there are other cases when avoiding conflict is preferable. The constants however must be maintained.
In no case are we to begin hating the sinner. God said "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10) He also said "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." (Matthew 5:7)
In no case are we to begin loving the sin. Alma taught "for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (Alma 45:16) Jesus himself said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)
In the end, there was only one who did not have a problem with loving sin and hating sinners. Everyone else can benefit from the advise to hate the sin and love the sinner.
This phrase seems to be increasing in popularity. Nowhere is it more popular than in debates about homosexuality. The phrase is among the more tame used to tell those that believe homosexuality is sinful that they should be more accepting of its practitioners. In less tame debates, those that condemn the practice are called "homophobic," "bigoted," "hateful," or some other unsavory name.
In more civil conversations, those that are more defensive of the homosexual position will use the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase persuasively. Particularly when they themselves are Christian and they seem to apply this principal in practice. Those that do not believe in God or in the concept of sin are far less persuasive.
The phrase is typically used to convey a sense of understanding. Those that defend homosexuality imply that they are aware of the concerns of those that view it as sinful. Those that argue against homosexuality are in a difficult situation when the phrase is used because it is true that God hates sins, but loves those that commit them. Jesus Christ himself was not afraid to mingle with those that had gone astray, although it brought disdain from the Pharisees and others of his contemporaries. To reject this argument would be to reject Christ.
The problem with this phrase is credibility. It is not difficult to tell people that they should be more accepting of a group you have already accepted. It is currently politically correct and in many circles socially acceptable to practice homosexual behavior. Defending a popular and politically correct point of view does not make those of us who embrace a more traditional view think that we are understood.
Exactly how do you hate the sin but love the sinner? Is not practicing it oneself enough? Is speaking out against the sin appropriate? If so, how does one speak out against a sin in a loving manner? How can a person express love toward an individual that embraces or perhaps even identifies themselves by their practice of something abhorrent?
Rather than tackle the homosexuality debate, I would like to discuss the difficulty of the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase by applying it do something that is not politically correct or popular: racism.
God hates racism, but loves racists. By extension, you should hate racism, but love racists.
Racism is perhaps the most politically incorrect ideal that a person can have. In fact, by writing this post, I have probably precluded myself from a political career. That having been said, I have known racist people that I would consider to be good people, certainly as much as those defending homosexuality can think of examples of good people that are gay.
I also believe that racism is a label that is frequently assigned to ideas that are not actually racist. Racism is not synonymous with prejudice. I have a bit of experience with this.
In high school, I was a scrawny-built geeky kid. As such, I occasionally feared that I would be victimized by bullying. I recall spending extra time to avoid areas where I knew certain Hispanic students gathered. It was not the fact they were Hispanic that bothered me, it was the culture of particular groups that seemed to embrace brawling that was distasteful. I also avoided the Caucasian jock culture or the Caucasian punk-rocker culture that seemed to embrace similar practices.
I definitely pre-judged these groups. It is possible that the members of these cultures in high school might have treated me with respect and dignity in spite of my social ineptitudes and lanky build, but I was afraid to take that chance. My prejudice was not based on race, it was based on culture. In fact, I had friends that were Hispanic, black, and Asian with whom I got along well. They were typically the less popular and more studious types to whom I could better relate, and by whom I felt less threatened.
True racism is a prejudice based on no other characteristic other than race.
During my high school years in southern California, a controversial proposition appeared on the state ballot that dealt with preventing illegal aliens from obtaining health and education benefits. There were a large number of Hispanics that came to school with their faces painted or wearing shirts that had the no symbol over the proposition number, 187. Many of them decried the measure as racist. Rumors spread even to less social circles such as my own that there would be an attempt by those in opposition to the measure to walk out of school. During my PE class, I recall seeing a series of automobiles drive past the school brandishing large Mexican flags and shouting at us. Since I did not speak Spanish, I did not understand many of the things that were shouted, but I do recall one. I was standing next to a black boy and several Hispanics when I heard a passenger in one of these cars shout "F___ you white boy! F___ you n_____! Viva Mexico!!"
I found it ironic that they were out protesting a measure they considered racist, but had no problems judging myself or using the n-word to refer to the black boy in my class. That having been said, it was not difficult for me to dismiss this behavior. While I knew such racism was wrong, I did not feel compelled to shout back a suggestion that they not yell demeaning slurs regarding the race of others. Perhaps because I was afraid that such action would subject me to some retaliation after school, and perhaps I believed that the measure would likely fail anyway. In the end, proposition 187 passed, but was later declared unconstitutional. The very next year in high school, most students had forgotten about it life returned to normal.
I recall another instance of racially motivated violence at my high school between a black boy and a Hispanic boy. There were many expletives and slurs used before the two brawled, but the tamer among them involved the black boy telling the Hispanic boy to "go back to his country" and the Hispanic boy replying that the black boy should "go back to Africa." I did not have any desire to interfere in the conflict.
While the behavior in the previous examples is genuinely racist, the more socially detestable forms of racism are those that are held by whites against minorities. I know of individuals that have harbored such feelings.
I recall a conversation with an individual that believed he had been robbed by a group of Hispanics. The one experience had caused him to view all Hispanics as thieves. He told me that he did not want to be racist, but that they "made" him racist. Even though I was young at the time, I knew that it was probably an unfair generalization to make. I was certain that my Hispanic friends did not participate in theft, and seemed to be good religious people. I also knew the man that confessed his racist feelings to me was also a good man that selflessly helped others. Should I have shouted "racist" at the top of my lungs and never spoken to him again? Should I have tried to quote the Book of Mormon where it says "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile"? (2 Nephi 26:33) I did nothing.
Outside my rather mild anecdotal sources, there are more serious accounts of racism. There exist people that believe crimes against certain people are justifiable because of their race. There are those who do not wish to have others in their neighborhood because of their ethnicity. There are those that ridicule, humiliate, and abuse others for no reason but their skin color.
It is easy and politically correct to see the harm that can exist when race becomes a criteria for judging someone. That having been said, I believe that God loves racists. God loves people that do awful things. God cares about the well being of those that abuse others. God truly hates the sin, but loves the sinner. With respect to a sin that is nearly universally despised, who will stand up and tell people that they ought to love racists? Who will tell people that decry racism that they should be more loving and kind toward the KKK or neo-Nazis?
What about the people that have racist beliefs that feel they cannot help it? What about the people that feel others made them racist? You and I may believe it is a choice, but perhaps those that have racist feelings genuinely do not. It could even be argued that racism is a naturally occurring feeling that has existed in many civilizations throughout recorded history, just as there are those that make claims about the natural existence of homosexuality.
In the end, these arguments do not matter, because racism is wrong. Modern prophets have been clear regarding the position of Mormons and racism: "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)
The ultimate question is how to hate the sin but love the sinner. The type of sin is not important to this principal.
Are those that stand up in defense of homosexuality in the name of loving the sinner as eager to stand and defend those that commit sins they recognize as wrong? Or are those that oppose homosexuality really being asked to hate the sin but love the sinner as long as the sin is trendy and/or politically correct?
If you do not believe that racism is a sin, then substitute racism for some other practice that you believe is sinful. How do you show Christian love and fellowship to someone while simultaneously denouncing the sins they embrace?
There is no perfect answer to the question. Even God uses different approaches with different people. Consider the following:
- To Ninevah, God sent Jonah saying that within forty days the city would be overthrown (Jonah 3:4)
- To Jerusalem in the days of Zedekiah, God sent Lehi to tell them they would be destroyed (1 Nephi 1:13, 18-20)
- To the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul wrote "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Corinthians 2:9)
- To the seven churches of Asia, the Apostle John wrote "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21)
- To the people of Israel, Isaiah wrote "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18)
- To the people of Israel, Isaiah also wrote "But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." (Isaiah 57:20-21)
- When his Apostle Peter tried to tell Christ he would not be killed, Jesus rebuked him saying "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew 16:23)
- When a sinful woman came and worshipped him, Christ forgave her in spite of the disaproval of the Pharisee in whose house he was saying "Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." (Luke 7:38)
Perhaps there are cases when people ought to condemn that which is wrong boldly. Perhaps there are other cases when avoiding conflict is preferable. The constants however must be maintained.
In no case are we to begin hating the sinner. God said "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10) He also said "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." (Matthew 5:7)
In no case are we to begin loving the sin. Alma taught "for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (Alma 45:16) Jesus himself said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)
In the end, there was only one who did not have a problem with loving sin and hating sinners. Everyone else can benefit from the advise to hate the sin and love the sinner.
Friday, November 18, 2011
I'm Christian, unless you're a child molester
Recently, I have seen several people share a link to a blog post titled "I'm Christian, unless you're gay."
(http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html)
I finally read the post. While the author makes an attempt to tackle a difficult issue, and promotes kindness toward others (both laudable acts), in the end, Christianity was oversimplified and misrepresented.
One of the first examples used is that of Westboro Baptist Church, the group that has become famous for outrageous protests. The vast majority of Christians with whom I associate find this behavior distasteful at best. Protesting at the funerals of soldiers or hypocritically condemning corporations whose products they use (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/312445) is a poor representation of Christianity. Fortunately, the author quickly moves from this topic.
The author makes reference to a personal friend who feels lonely and avoided because he is a homosexual. He points out that many Christians will actively reject, ignore, avoid, and worse any that do not believe the way that they do, even to the point of courageously admitting that he once did himself because of his Christian beliefs.
The author asserts that these judgements are based on self-righteousness and that they do not represent the true roots of religion. He says that Jesus taught "love one another" and "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her ("Her" being a woman who cheated on her man)." Christ did say both of these things.
Finally after examining the teachings of several other faiths, the final conclusion made is that they all focus on love. Not love unless a person is homosexual, but just love. The author's point is that "The greatest spiritual leaders in history have all preached love for others as the basis for all happiness, and never did they accompany such mandates with a list of unlovable actions or deeds."
After oversimplifying religion, the author then proceeds to discuss sin. He points out that regardless of where you live or how strongly you believe, someone else somewhere believes that you are wrong. Ultimately the claim is as follows:
"It doesn’t matter if you or I think anything is a sin. It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a sin or not. In fact, it doesn’t matter if anything anybody else does is a sin or not.
Because sin is a very personal thing! It always has been and it always will be!
And it has nothing to do with love."
This point is certainly popular. It is politically correct. As of right now, the post has been shared more than 32,000 times. Notwithstanding the popularity of this concept, it is wrong.
To the secular observer, Christianity might be reduced to a philosophical concept of love. It is a common misconception. Christ certainly preached love, forgiveness, kindness, and humility. None of these concepts represent the core of Christianity however. The true root is Christ himself. He is never wrong. He is the way the truth and the life. He is the only way men can reach their potential. Sometimes accepting Christ means learning to love others. Sometimes it means recognizing and avoiding evil.
Sin is not a personal thing at all. It is universal. It is general. It is determined by God himself. While there may be those that disagree on what the will of God is, or how to interpret the words of prophets, the beliefs of men do not shape right and wrong. The tail does not wag the dog. In the end, every person will be judged on their actions by Jesus Christ.
A fair point is to say that Christians should not demean or hate those that are guilty of sin. An unfair point is to say that Christians should not consider politically correct activity to be sin.
"I'm Christian, unless you're gay" is really not all that different from "I'm Christian, unless you're a child molester."
Of course there are those who will say that homosexuality is nothing like child molestation. While it may be said these acts are different, in the end, they are both sin... as is adultery, as is murder, as is theft, as is bearing false witness, as taking the name of God in vain. Christ taught that all of these people should be treated with kindness on an individual basis. This says nothing about the responsibility of society as a whole, or even important judgements to be made on an individual basis.
It would be foolish for society to simply forgive child molesters and serial murderers and let them wander free. That does not mean a Christian society should strive to draw and quarter those that are guilty of these crimes, but just punishment is appropriate.
On an individual basis, the stance of Christianity is to forgive, even those guilty of crimes so awful as child molestation. This does not mean that Christians should hire them as babysitters for their kids. We should not feel forced into accepting the incorrect choices of others in the name of kindness. Avoiding those that openly propagate wrong is not always unjustly cruel, even if it is perceived as such.
It is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin, but finding the line that divides mercy and acceptance of sin is not easy. How does a person express kindness and simultaneously make it understood that they cannot condone wrongdoing? That is the real question.
Certainly there are many Christians that do not have it right. I can think of many occasions where I personally have failed either by being cruel to a person I deemed sinful, or by failing to stand for what is right in an effort to fit in with the politically correct.
Christians are not perfect... but our master is. When he comes again to save us, it will not be to save us in our sins... it will be to save us from our sins. He will not come to save those that demand acceptance, but those that plead for forgiveness. He will not come with love in the form of a blanket pardon; he will come with fire and fury and he will destroy those that have maligned and abused his disciples - and he will be right in all that he does.
Christians must strive to remember that we are not Christ. We do not know all things. We are all guilty of sin. We need forgiveness for our shortcomings as much as the homosexual and the child molester because sin of any kind should be avoided. Promoting good and rejecting evil should be done carefully... standing for what is good does not have to mean being cruel... and fighting against sin does not have to mean bullying.
Declaring "I'm Christian, unless you're gay" is obviously wrong... but not just when it comes to being unkind. It is also wrong to cast off Christianity in the name of accepting a lifestyle that is immoral. A Christian should never accept relativistic concepts of good and evil. A Christian believes there is one truth, one way, and one Lord for all people, and his name is Jesus Christ.
(http://www.danoah.com/2011/11/im-christian-unless-youre-gay.html)
I finally read the post. While the author makes an attempt to tackle a difficult issue, and promotes kindness toward others (both laudable acts), in the end, Christianity was oversimplified and misrepresented.
One of the first examples used is that of Westboro Baptist Church, the group that has become famous for outrageous protests. The vast majority of Christians with whom I associate find this behavior distasteful at best. Protesting at the funerals of soldiers or hypocritically condemning corporations whose products they use (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/312445) is a poor representation of Christianity. Fortunately, the author quickly moves from this topic.
The author makes reference to a personal friend who feels lonely and avoided because he is a homosexual. He points out that many Christians will actively reject, ignore, avoid, and worse any that do not believe the way that they do, even to the point of courageously admitting that he once did himself because of his Christian beliefs.
The author asserts that these judgements are based on self-righteousness and that they do not represent the true roots of religion. He says that Jesus taught "love one another" and "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her ("Her" being a woman who cheated on her man)." Christ did say both of these things.
Finally after examining the teachings of several other faiths, the final conclusion made is that they all focus on love. Not love unless a person is homosexual, but just love. The author's point is that "The greatest spiritual leaders in history have all preached love for others as the basis for all happiness, and never did they accompany such mandates with a list of unlovable actions or deeds."
After oversimplifying religion, the author then proceeds to discuss sin. He points out that regardless of where you live or how strongly you believe, someone else somewhere believes that you are wrong. Ultimately the claim is as follows:
"It doesn’t matter if you or I think anything is a sin. It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a sin or not. In fact, it doesn’t matter if anything anybody else does is a sin or not.
Because sin is a very personal thing! It always has been and it always will be!
And it has nothing to do with love."
This point is certainly popular. It is politically correct. As of right now, the post has been shared more than 32,000 times. Notwithstanding the popularity of this concept, it is wrong.
To the secular observer, Christianity might be reduced to a philosophical concept of love. It is a common misconception. Christ certainly preached love, forgiveness, kindness, and humility. None of these concepts represent the core of Christianity however. The true root is Christ himself. He is never wrong. He is the way the truth and the life. He is the only way men can reach their potential. Sometimes accepting Christ means learning to love others. Sometimes it means recognizing and avoiding evil.
Sin is not a personal thing at all. It is universal. It is general. It is determined by God himself. While there may be those that disagree on what the will of God is, or how to interpret the words of prophets, the beliefs of men do not shape right and wrong. The tail does not wag the dog. In the end, every person will be judged on their actions by Jesus Christ.
A fair point is to say that Christians should not demean or hate those that are guilty of sin. An unfair point is to say that Christians should not consider politically correct activity to be sin.
"I'm Christian, unless you're gay" is really not all that different from "I'm Christian, unless you're a child molester."
Of course there are those who will say that homosexuality is nothing like child molestation. While it may be said these acts are different, in the end, they are both sin... as is adultery, as is murder, as is theft, as is bearing false witness, as taking the name of God in vain. Christ taught that all of these people should be treated with kindness on an individual basis. This says nothing about the responsibility of society as a whole, or even important judgements to be made on an individual basis.
It would be foolish for society to simply forgive child molesters and serial murderers and let them wander free. That does not mean a Christian society should strive to draw and quarter those that are guilty of these crimes, but just punishment is appropriate.
On an individual basis, the stance of Christianity is to forgive, even those guilty of crimes so awful as child molestation. This does not mean that Christians should hire them as babysitters for their kids. We should not feel forced into accepting the incorrect choices of others in the name of kindness. Avoiding those that openly propagate wrong is not always unjustly cruel, even if it is perceived as such.
It is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin, but finding the line that divides mercy and acceptance of sin is not easy. How does a person express kindness and simultaneously make it understood that they cannot condone wrongdoing? That is the real question.
Certainly there are many Christians that do not have it right. I can think of many occasions where I personally have failed either by being cruel to a person I deemed sinful, or by failing to stand for what is right in an effort to fit in with the politically correct.
Christians are not perfect... but our master is. When he comes again to save us, it will not be to save us in our sins... it will be to save us from our sins. He will not come to save those that demand acceptance, but those that plead for forgiveness. He will not come with love in the form of a blanket pardon; he will come with fire and fury and he will destroy those that have maligned and abused his disciples - and he will be right in all that he does.
Christians must strive to remember that we are not Christ. We do not know all things. We are all guilty of sin. We need forgiveness for our shortcomings as much as the homosexual and the child molester because sin of any kind should be avoided. Promoting good and rejecting evil should be done carefully... standing for what is good does not have to mean being cruel... and fighting against sin does not have to mean bullying.
Declaring "I'm Christian, unless you're gay" is obviously wrong... but not just when it comes to being unkind. It is also wrong to cast off Christianity in the name of accepting a lifestyle that is immoral. A Christian should never accept relativistic concepts of good and evil. A Christian believes there is one truth, one way, and one Lord for all people, and his name is Jesus Christ.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Law of Chastity
The law of chastity is a religious law that has brought increased scrutiny, and in some cases, malevolence to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Whether this comes from the misconceptions about the practice of polygamy in church history, or more recent attention to the stance of Mormons on homosexual marriage, few people outside the church understand the context behind the LDS perspective on chastity. It does not help when those of our own membership misconstrue, misinterpret, or misunderstand the law.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, it is actually quite simple. Sexual relationships of any kind are only permissible between a husband and wife.
Polygamy is a subject for another post perhaps... and is currently a non-issue since no member can remain in good standing with the church.
In general, chastity is perhaps one of the least popular commandments. Men seem especially vulnerable to falling beneath its standard. Perhaps this is because men are biologically programmed to have tremendous desire for female companionship. Even the sight of a woman can arouse powerful feelings that impair judgement. What man has not said something that later sounded totally stupid because they were trying to make conversation with a beautiful girl? In the most serious case, remember King David, who had been hand-picked by God to rule over Israel, who bravely stood up to Goliath of Gath, and who killed tens of thousands of enemies of Israel, but when he saw Bath-Sheba bathing, he eventually fell so far as to arrange for the murder of her husband to claim her for himself...
God has bound intimacy to the commitment of marriage. Because the feelings of attraction are not similarly bound, and the intensity of these feelings can cause even good men like David to do things they would never otherwise do, and because there are so many ways to violate this law, it is perhaps the greatest difficulty of men. Compounding the frustrations of natural temptation is the prevalence of blatant disregard for the law of chastity in the form of pornography, infidelity, and homosexuality.
Even among members of the church, there are those that believe they do God a service by attacking his Apostles when they affirm the commandments prohibiting homosexual behavior and/or homosexual marriage. Whether they are well-meaning misguided individuals caught up in the fervor of rainbow-flag-waving activism, or they are just full of crap, let me affirm my belief that just as he did in Biblical times, God reveals his will and law via his Apostles. The stance of the church on homosexuality is not just a policy, or the opinion of a high-ranking member of the faith... it is the will of Jesus Christ himself.
One of the fundamental concepts behind the pro-homosexual movement is the devaluing of gender. If gender does not matter, then there are no grounds for denying marriage to couples based on gender. Apostles of Jesus Christ have declared the following on this subject: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" (The Family: A Proclamation to the World) It should not be difficult to see that gender differences are more profound than other cultural or ethnic distinctions. The "separate but equal" methods that required blacks and whites to have separate bathrooms in some areas are widely considered unethical today, however, we do not see women's rights organizations fighting for combined bathrooms or locker rooms. This is because the importance of gender is common sense. Men and women are supposed to be different, and they need one another, not just for the continuation of the human race, but for the fulfilment of our individual purposes. "Orientation" or "preference" do not override "identity" and "purpose."
Christians that oppose homosexual marriage or other violations of the law of chastity are often confronted with the "harm" argument. The idea behind this is that in a free society, an individual should be free to do anything so long as it does not cause harm to themselves or others. Christians might be challenged with questions such as "what did they ever do to you?" or "how do two people loving each other hurt anyone?" The basic challenge to the belief in chastity is that breaking this law does not harm anyone so long as it is practiced by consenting adults. In some cases, harm caused by unchastity is easy to see. Who thinks that broken marriages, costly divorces, and custody battles are positive experiences? Putting a child up for adoption, or the tragedy of abortion might be even more harmful for those that find themselves in such circumstances. More difficult to see is the harm caused by pornography, although men that find themselves addicted to it find themselves dealing with more than annoying pop-ups or expensive media. Perhaps the most elusive harm to see is that caused by the acceptance of homosexual marriage.
Having previously discussed the importance of gender, there is an opportunity cost for those that participate in homosexuality of fulfilling the purposes for which they were given their gender.
Additionally, many homosexuals misconstrue marriage as a right. All states in the US already restrict this so-called right by a variety of other criteria. The number of persons being married has been limited to two individuals for quite some time, effectively prohibiting polygamous unions. There are also age restrictions, which thankfully deny pedophiles the right to have their awful crimes justified. There are restrictions against the relationship of involved parties, so that a brother and sister, even if they feel they are truly in love, are not permitted to marry. A person cannot marry inanimate objects, otherwise, we might have people marrying their motorcycles or their guitars. A person cannot marry non-humans... which means that the crazy cat lady that would like to be eternally bound to her pets cannot legally call her bond a marriage. Homosexuals would like to re-draw the line to allow them to receive marriage, but have put forth no arguments as to why this privilege should be denied to others from which both law and common sense currently protect.
The greatest harm caused by unchastity in any form, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, is religious. This is often ignored by those that engage in these practices since these reasons can be seen as the forcing of beliefs on the unwilling. Just because there are those that do not believe that God does not condone these behaviors does not mean that God has not commanded them to be chaste. This is particularly true for those of us in America. An important theme of the Book of Mormon is that this is the promised land. God swore in his wrath and fierce anger that whosever should "...should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them. And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off." (Ether 2: 8-10) The Book of Mormon tells the tragic stories of two groups of people that failed to heed the commandments of God, and that he destroyed. It is a witness that God will not endlessly tolerate those that mock his servants and his laws. On individual basis, those that openly fight against him will be cut off from spiritual blessings. On a collective basis, those that openly fight against him invite destruction. I plead with those that disagree with me to avoid attempts to call God's bluff... because he is not bluffing.
Finally, no one knows the harm of unchastity more than Jesus Christ himself. Though he lead a pure and virtuous life, he paid the price for those that have not with his own blood. The pain and anguish were so great that even the only begotten son of God plead with his Father that he might escape the torture... a torture that our sins caused. And yet in spite of our crimes causing him pain, he begs us to come back to him... to believe in his power to heal... to believe that he can free us of our crimes if we will swear to serve him with all our hearts. Even though our mistakes burdened him with unspeakable torment, at the last day, when our Heavenly Father looks at our mistakes, he offers us to be the one to beg the Almighty to forgive us if we have faith in him. I submit that if no other reasons are persuasive, or if the harm of unchastisty is still inconclusive, that Christ has done more than enough to earn a "because I said so" explanation.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, it is actually quite simple. Sexual relationships of any kind are only permissible between a husband and wife.
Polygamy is a subject for another post perhaps... and is currently a non-issue since no member can remain in good standing with the church.
In general, chastity is perhaps one of the least popular commandments. Men seem especially vulnerable to falling beneath its standard. Perhaps this is because men are biologically programmed to have tremendous desire for female companionship. Even the sight of a woman can arouse powerful feelings that impair judgement. What man has not said something that later sounded totally stupid because they were trying to make conversation with a beautiful girl? In the most serious case, remember King David, who had been hand-picked by God to rule over Israel, who bravely stood up to Goliath of Gath, and who killed tens of thousands of enemies of Israel, but when he saw Bath-Sheba bathing, he eventually fell so far as to arrange for the murder of her husband to claim her for himself...
God has bound intimacy to the commitment of marriage. Because the feelings of attraction are not similarly bound, and the intensity of these feelings can cause even good men like David to do things they would never otherwise do, and because there are so many ways to violate this law, it is perhaps the greatest difficulty of men. Compounding the frustrations of natural temptation is the prevalence of blatant disregard for the law of chastity in the form of pornography, infidelity, and homosexuality.
Even among members of the church, there are those that believe they do God a service by attacking his Apostles when they affirm the commandments prohibiting homosexual behavior and/or homosexual marriage. Whether they are well-meaning misguided individuals caught up in the fervor of rainbow-flag-waving activism, or they are just full of crap, let me affirm my belief that just as he did in Biblical times, God reveals his will and law via his Apostles. The stance of the church on homosexuality is not just a policy, or the opinion of a high-ranking member of the faith... it is the will of Jesus Christ himself.
One of the fundamental concepts behind the pro-homosexual movement is the devaluing of gender. If gender does not matter, then there are no grounds for denying marriage to couples based on gender. Apostles of Jesus Christ have declared the following on this subject: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" (The Family: A Proclamation to the World) It should not be difficult to see that gender differences are more profound than other cultural or ethnic distinctions. The "separate but equal" methods that required blacks and whites to have separate bathrooms in some areas are widely considered unethical today, however, we do not see women's rights organizations fighting for combined bathrooms or locker rooms. This is because the importance of gender is common sense. Men and women are supposed to be different, and they need one another, not just for the continuation of the human race, but for the fulfilment of our individual purposes. "Orientation" or "preference" do not override "identity" and "purpose."
Christians that oppose homosexual marriage or other violations of the law of chastity are often confronted with the "harm" argument. The idea behind this is that in a free society, an individual should be free to do anything so long as it does not cause harm to themselves or others. Christians might be challenged with questions such as "what did they ever do to you?" or "how do two people loving each other hurt anyone?" The basic challenge to the belief in chastity is that breaking this law does not harm anyone so long as it is practiced by consenting adults. In some cases, harm caused by unchastity is easy to see. Who thinks that broken marriages, costly divorces, and custody battles are positive experiences? Putting a child up for adoption, or the tragedy of abortion might be even more harmful for those that find themselves in such circumstances. More difficult to see is the harm caused by pornography, although men that find themselves addicted to it find themselves dealing with more than annoying pop-ups or expensive media. Perhaps the most elusive harm to see is that caused by the acceptance of homosexual marriage.
Having previously discussed the importance of gender, there is an opportunity cost for those that participate in homosexuality of fulfilling the purposes for which they were given their gender.
Additionally, many homosexuals misconstrue marriage as a right. All states in the US already restrict this so-called right by a variety of other criteria. The number of persons being married has been limited to two individuals for quite some time, effectively prohibiting polygamous unions. There are also age restrictions, which thankfully deny pedophiles the right to have their awful crimes justified. There are restrictions against the relationship of involved parties, so that a brother and sister, even if they feel they are truly in love, are not permitted to marry. A person cannot marry inanimate objects, otherwise, we might have people marrying their motorcycles or their guitars. A person cannot marry non-humans... which means that the crazy cat lady that would like to be eternally bound to her pets cannot legally call her bond a marriage. Homosexuals would like to re-draw the line to allow them to receive marriage, but have put forth no arguments as to why this privilege should be denied to others from which both law and common sense currently protect.
The greatest harm caused by unchastity in any form, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, is religious. This is often ignored by those that engage in these practices since these reasons can be seen as the forcing of beliefs on the unwilling. Just because there are those that do not believe that God does not condone these behaviors does not mean that God has not commanded them to be chaste. This is particularly true for those of us in America. An important theme of the Book of Mormon is that this is the promised land. God swore in his wrath and fierce anger that whosever should "...should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them. And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off." (Ether 2: 8-10) The Book of Mormon tells the tragic stories of two groups of people that failed to heed the commandments of God, and that he destroyed. It is a witness that God will not endlessly tolerate those that mock his servants and his laws. On individual basis, those that openly fight against him will be cut off from spiritual blessings. On a collective basis, those that openly fight against him invite destruction. I plead with those that disagree with me to avoid attempts to call God's bluff... because he is not bluffing.
Finally, no one knows the harm of unchastity more than Jesus Christ himself. Though he lead a pure and virtuous life, he paid the price for those that have not with his own blood. The pain and anguish were so great that even the only begotten son of God plead with his Father that he might escape the torture... a torture that our sins caused. And yet in spite of our crimes causing him pain, he begs us to come back to him... to believe in his power to heal... to believe that he can free us of our crimes if we will swear to serve him with all our hearts. Even though our mistakes burdened him with unspeakable torment, at the last day, when our Heavenly Father looks at our mistakes, he offers us to be the one to beg the Almighty to forgive us if we have faith in him. I submit that if no other reasons are persuasive, or if the harm of unchastisty is still inconclusive, that Christ has done more than enough to earn a "because I said so" explanation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)