Homosexuality, sin, righteousness, and the abhorrent behaviour of mainstream Christianity.

Aside

There’s no easy way to write this article. It’s not a task I feel particularly comfortable about performing but, I believe, it is necessary to write this article. As the title suggests, I’m going to be covering a range of topics that are undoubtedly, surrounded by controversy.

Image

I figured it’d be easiest to outline my context for clarity’s sake. I am a self professing Christian, I adore Jesus and it is my life’s goal to make his name known throughout the earth. I want to see lives transformed and I want to see hearts soften. I know that the majority of people who are likely to read this article will not share my contextual perspective and I wish to urge you to hear me out, I want to right some serious wrongs. This article itself shall not attempt to convert you to Christianity, I believe that, in order to share the gospel and bring people into a loving relationship with Jesus, a personal touch is needed that just cannot be actualised digitally.

Speaking as a Christian, I do uphold the doctrine of sin, I think it is real, apparent and abhorrent to God. I do however, want to make some distinctions about sin which I think mainstream (by mainstream I mean the stuff we read about in papers, see on the TV etc.) Christianity has failed to make apparent in today’s society. I write this article because I am desperate to dispel some myths and eager to see the name of Christianity dissociated with words such as, ‘bigotry’, ‘intolerant’, ‘homophobic’, ‘racist’…

Image

I think it’s vital to approach this argument by defining some terms. Society as a whole, especially secular society, has a widely false understanding of what sin actually means. This is largely the fault of outspoken Christians who have made a point of fighting against, what they perceive to be, sin.

Biblically, the Christian doctrine of sin is strongly established with a whole sweep of scriptures aiding our understanding. The big danger is when people take one or two isolated verses out of their context and use them to build their doctrines.

In his book, Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem, defines sin succinctly, ‘Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature’. One glaringly obvious point to note with this definition is that the emphasis is on God’s moral law and not man’s moral understanding. It is when the emphasis is placed on the latter rather than the former that some of the bigger issues pertaining to our subject matter arise. Sin isn’t attributed to only individual acts but, to the much wider area of attitudes we hold towards things.

Jesus really was a radical man when he spoke on God’s moral law and sin. The super-spiritual, highly religious attitude towards sin in first century Judaism was to loudly and violently oppress it. Speaking into this Jesus addressed the layman, and persecutors alike by saying things like this:

‘You have heard that it was said, “you shall not commit adultery”, -One can imagine the religious folk would have begun looking round the crowd and sneering at those they believed to be guilty but, then Jesus adds- ‘But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matthew 5:27-28) again, I can imagine the looks of horror that might have crossed the religious folks’ faces as Jesus spoke this damning addition to the moral law.

So sin is way more than any one particular thing and, Jesus broadened the scope of sin by telling us that sin concerned even the heart condition of humanity.

I think, part of the problem when we talk about homosexuality, sin and the church is that, for too long, the church has treated homosexuality like it is the biggest problem on the earth today. I do not see how any rational person alive today can carry those perceptions. My younger brother is gay, I love him to bits and, whilst he’s far from perfect (neither am I), I can hardly say he is part of the biggest problem on earth today. Far from it in fact. I look at the shocking treatment of homosexual athletes in Russia that has become a predominant feature in the media recently. I look at that and cannot help but think the persecutors are a way bigger evil in the world today than any, ‘evil’ a gay person might or might not be capable of.

Sin is all encompassing. The bible teaches that God created things to work in a specific way. He created out of love and a desire to see relationships bloom. In order to get true love from his creation he had to give his creation a choice (love has never been involuntary and always requires choice). Now, the bible also teaches that sin was not part of the intended creation but is a consequence of choice. In Adam, the choice was made to disobey God and enter rebellion, a heart condition that persists today.

However you look at it, humanity is in rebellion against apparent moral laws. This isn’t something that a Christian perspective can claim exclusivity on, there’s plenty of atheists, humanists, secularists, agnostics, Buddhists etc. who also share the view that humanity as a whole rebels against a standard moral code. Those who disagree might want to tell me why rape, murder, and other depraved acts are perceived as so.

It is this state of rebellion that keeps us separated from God. Not because God wants to punish us to an eternal hell but, because we don’t want that relationship with God. And, that is the true meaning of sin. Sin is the rebellion. It isn’t specific.

Being a Christian isn’t about going to church on a Sunday, it isn’t about dressing or behaving in a certain way. There is only one thing that makes somebody a Christian; they recognise their utter hopelessness to do what is morally sound in the eyes of God, they see that Jesus has made a way for us to restore our relationship with God and they take seriously Jesus’ call to, ‘follow me’.

That’s it. A Christian is called to follow Jesus.

Here’s the interesting thing, Jesus was a radical man (and that is putting it lightly). His call to, ‘follow’ him consists of some pretty tough stuff to act out upon. The most important aspects of a life dedicated to following Him include a desire to give up all traces of one’s life before that moment, a desire to love everybody (Jesus died for gay people too!) and an earnest desire to live according to God’s moral law.

That isn’t to say we can’t make mistakes, any true follower of Jesus knows that it is really tough living in this world without caving to the pressures of it. We can all get sucked into idol worship in the form of consumerism, lust in the form of pornography addiction and exploitation of men and women. We can all get sucked into anger and hatred (dare I say it, the culture of hating the church for their treatment of homosexuals is equally as depraved as the church’s treatment of them). The beauty of Jesus is that his Mercy is renewed daily and, once saved, always saved!

Humanity is not righteous. Gay people are not righteous. Feminists are not righteous. Straight people are not righteous. Christians are not righteous. The pope is not righteous. Jesus is righteous. The only way we can hope to be made righteous is by following this Jesus.

I want to conclude by making some things clear. IT might seem I’ve skirted around the question of whether or not I think homosexuality is a sin. I haven’t and shall answer it now but, I needed to say the above beforehand (context really is a wonderful thing). I take Jesus seriously. I take what he said seriously. When Jesus spoke about sexual immorality, he referred to the moral code we see in the old testament book of Leviticus. If I am to take Jesus seriously, then I must also take seriously the teachings of Leviticus (some might be quick to quip about some of the more culturally absurd teachings of Leviticus, stoning for example but I’d have to say that is a conversation that would require a much more considered response than what I am capable of offering here without detracting from the intended purpose of this article) and, Leviticus makes it clear that homosexuality is listed as sexual immorality.

I need to make this crystal clear: whilst I think homosexuality (the act of homosexual sex in specific, not the attraction between two people of the same sex) is a sin, I do not think it deserves special ranking in a list of sinful behaviours. My own sin is equally as rebellious to God’s moral code as anything a homosexual may do. I am entirely against the persecution of Gay people and think that they have as equal a right to live life as a straight person does. I am entirely against -for that matter- the persecution of any people group for any reason, persecution never betters anything! Jesus solved the world’s immorality by sacrificing himself, his perfect righteousness, so that those who believe may be made righteous in Him. We need to follow that example, fighting against immorality by sacrificing ourselves and loving unconditionally our fellow human beings!

I understand that this issue is broad, I welcome conversation on subjects I might not have covered in this article as well as, points of contention you may wish to make in regards to points I did make in this article. I do ask however, that it be kept civil. I am all for healthy debate, I am fully opposed to bigotry, anger, hatred and name calling. Any comments I deem to fit into the categories stated will be deleted.

🙂

Advertisements
Standard

My lil Bro trying to achieve his dream!

sendbenguinhome

Dear “big companies with big hearts and even bigger funds.”

I am writing to share a passion, inspire a vision and involve you in a dream. My name is Ben Whittaker and I am 23 years old. Of those 23 years I have spent a huge proportion having an obsession with Penguins.

Nicknamed Benguin and equipped with all manner of Penguin related merchandise I am, unfortunately missing the key to my obsession. You might be thinking “Why are you telling me?” and the answer is simple; My dream will inspire your consumers, remind them of why your product is special and massively increase sales and marketing. It will also help me fulfil my ambition.

I love Penguins more than the gentle sway of a brittle leaf on an oak tree, more than the first sip of a refreshing beverage, even more than the prospect of a Duck singing hey jude…

View original post 463 more words

a reflection on something I read recently…

Standard

Straight off the bat, It’s been ages since I last sat down to write anything so, I ask you to be a little patient with me as I progress with this post!

What stirred me enough to sit down at my computer and write a blog post I hear you ask?

Of course you are not asking that, chances are you are reading this in passing and don’t avidly follow my on-line musings. Allow for my little flourishes of personality though, I find that sometimes the things I write about are quite heavy going and need to be balanced with a lighter, chattier narrative voice!

Well, I was sat in the hospital the other day (long and entirely unexciting story believe me), and found myself with a stinking headache and several hours to kill and only a handful of books at my disposal (via my I pad). I found myself attracted to a really well known book that I bought earlier in the year but forgot about: God is Not Great by the wonderfully witty and sophisticated late, Christopher Hitchens.

download

I only managed to get the introduction out of the way before my reading was interrupted by, ‘hospital stuff’ and shall base this article only on the little I’ve read.

I will assume that Christopher deals with the points of contention I currently hold in a little more depth later on in the book and, when I finish the book shall write a more elaborate and lengthier engaged discourse but, for the time being I wish to air my current point of contention as the points made by Hitchens are shared almost universally across the atheist community.

So, without further ado, I shall present the passage I am going to counter as it is printed:

‘There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded in wish-thinking.’

As I have said, I’m sure Hitchens goes into great lengths throughout the book to substantiate all of these objections and I fully intend to engage with them on that wider level in the near future but, for now (call it a taster of a larger essay if you like) I shall be drawing only on the above passage to level my criticism.

Of these four objections, the first is by far the easiest to counter. It will suffice to say for now, without going in to great detail, that I reject that objection on the grounds that it is based entirely on an subjective assumption based on  some objective evidence. it is the same as me saying that, atheism is a flawed view because it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos. It’s a poor argument that I’d be making in the face of contrary evidence and I wouldn’t expect to find it in a leading atheist thinkers’ opening thesis.

I always like to assert the following when debating anyone on the subject of my religious faith verses their atheistic outlook:  My fundamental assumption that cannot be empirically substantiated is this: There is a creator God.  However, let’s not draw upon this assumption as our grounds for debate because, your fundamental assumption: there is no creator God, is equally as empirically unsubstantiated.

I believe Hitchens is making a similar error here when he asserts the first of his four objections.

The second objection can be dismissed quickly when one notes that it is based on the assumption that the first objection is factually correct. However, I don’t think this quite rises to the deeper underlying objection that religious faith can be perceived as combining,’the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism’. 

I would like to commend Hitchens on his use of language here as it really manages to capture not only a personal objection but also a hyperbolic form of expressing ones’self. Using the words, ‘maximum’ alongside a word contextualised in excess really is quite provocative. It is problematic though because it expresses a mistrust of,  ‘Abjectly submissive’ (http://goo.gl/FuS78rbehaviour. This mistrust is personal and doesn’t belong outside of the context in which it was written.

I hope i’m beginning to demonstrate that Hitchens’ second objection is entirely subjective and cannot be used as grounds to argue against religious faith. Just as my subjective experiences of God’s presence cannot be used in a similar discussion to substantiate my claims.

Hitchens’ third objection is interesting.

It can and will be noted here that there is a contextual extent to which Hitchens’ assertion holds some merit. I can only argue from my own perspective and therefore am only going to defend the Christian faith here on this blog. Because of this I can only say in passing that most major faith groups in the world have and are still actively involved in acts of sexual repression. The church is no different.

I have a theological position to take here that requires a blog post of its own to outline. I don’t want to detract from the central theme of my post so I shall not be going into detail about that position here (here’s an article I relate to concerning That debate: http://goo.gl/32IdKf).

This objection is difficult to address as it all depends on definition. Sexual repression is a dangerously ambiguous term as it is entirely dependant on several sets of contextual circumstances.  As it is Hitchens’ own objection I must wait until I write the larger article concerning his book. Because it is a personal thing though I can discredit it generally as it doesn’t pack any real punch to the debate on God’s existence or even his greatness.

And we come to Hitchens’ final and potentially most lethal objection. Religious faith is wish thinking. This is a polite way of saying exactly what Dawkins asserts: “Such delusions of grandeur to think that a God with a hundred billion galaxies on his mind would give a tuppenny damn who you sleep with, or indeed whether you believe in him.” (http://goo.gl/zpnFdh). 
Either way, the assertion is the same, in thinking wishfully rather than objectively, we (people of faith) are completely and entirely deluded. My brother, in a somewhat harsh tone, during a debate resorted to the following language to describe the extent of that delusion, ‘The very fact you describe yourself as a witness too [sic]  god healing people suggest signs of mental illness and I’d advise medical assistance, as hallucinations could be detrimental to your very existence.”. this is a very damaging way of talking to somebody else, it puts the asserter (that Christians etc. are deluded) into the position of superior and the assertee into the position of inferiority thus, making the field of conversation/debate entirely unfair and biased in favour of the side dealing the biggest blow.  Calling out somebody as being deluded without substantiating it is actually fallacious (Argumentum ad hominem).

I suppose it would be wise to draw some conclusions.

I was entirely surprised reading Hitchens’ introduction to his best seller that has been described thus: ‘the ultimate case against religion’.  It doesn’t appear to present anything of the sort. Instead, what I observe, is a series of arguments from a very personal position that make a case against Hitchens’ own view of what religious faith consists of but, it doesn’t attack the faith I personally have nor does it attack the faith I know millions of others follow.

I look forward to reading the book in its entirety and contemplating the bigger challenges it may present.

Things that made me think this week…..

Standard

I was sat in Church on Sunday morning and Tony, the elderly gentleman who was preaching gave a fantastic talk  based on the start of the book of Hebrews.

My post today is not related to that preach. Rather, it is related to an attribute of God that Tony mentioned that struck me quite profoundly. The attribute is, ‘upholder’ or, ‘sustainer’.

In Bill Bryson’s incredibly thought provoking and accessible book, A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bryson opens his book with this,

51BTXCDCQPL

Welcome. And congratulations. I am delighted that you could make it. Getting here wasn’t easy, I know.
In fact, I suspect it was a little tougher than you realize.
To begin with, for you to be here now trillions
of drifting atoms had somehow to assemble 
in an intricate and intriguingly obliging manner to create you.
It’s an arrangement so 
specialised and particular that it has never been tried before and will only exist this once.
For the next many years (we hope) these tiny particles will uncomplainingly engage in all the billions of deft,
cooperative efforts necessary to keep you intact and let you experience the supremely agreeable but generally
underappreciated state known as existence. 
Why atoms take this trouble is a bit of a puzzle.
Being you is not a gratifying experience at 
the atomic level. For all their devoted attention,
your atoms don’t actually care about you indeed, don’t even know that you are there. They don’t even know that they are there.
They are mindless particles, after all, and not even themselves alive.
(It is a slightly arresting notion that if you were to pick yourself apart with tweezers, one atom at a time,
you would produce a mound of fine atomic dust, none of which had ever been alive but all of which had once been you.)
Yet somehow for the period of your existence they will answer to a single overarching impulse: to keep you you.
The bad news is that atoms are fickle and their time of devotion is fleeting-fleeting indeed.
Even a long human life adds up to only about 650,000 hours. And when that modest milestone flashes past,
or at some other point thereabouts, for reasons unknown your atoms will shut you down, silently disassemble,
and go off to be other things. And that’s it for you. Still, you may rejoice that it happens at all.
Generally speaking in the universe it doesn’t, so far as we can tell.
This is decidedly odd because the atoms that so liberally and congenially flock together to form living things
on Earth are exactly the same atoms that decline to do it elsewhere.

Interesting huh? It’s so true as well. Having said this, I think he neglects to make inference to a predominant world view that adds so much light to this (frankly) bleak sounding reality.

atoms love you

I’m sure you can guess what I am talking about but, i’ll gladly spell it out for the sake of absolute clarity. I’m making reference to a sustainer God.

The link, as you’ve probably figured out, is that, there is room in a secular understanding of particle physics, for an unknown force to bind these atoms together.

Obviously, the secular view would wish to not attribute these unknowns to a specific intelligence however, I find the bible contains information that directly relates to this notion.

As far back as David, the bible contains pointers to this being true.

In Psalm 54, David is hiding away and is engaged with some pretty deep soul searching in a desperate place. He writes the following beautiful musing,

Surely God is my help; the Lord is the one who sustains me. (verse 4). 

Here, David finds himself certain in the notion that it is God who upholds him. It’s important to note here that when David says, ‘sustains’ he means that thoroughly. David was in a place where he relied entirely on God’s provision. With no certain access to food, shelter and water, he had to trust that God would sustain him. This is why I find the psalm’s example to be so striking!

In Hebrews, the writer begins to reflect on who Christ is and emphasises Christ’s divinity. In and amongst this, the writer tells us that,

‘He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.’

Paul, in his letter to the church in Colosse, writes of the preeminence of Christ. He writes the following telling line,

And He [Christ] is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17)

The Bible is littered with references to God being not only, creator but also, sustainer.

A lot of people argue that a secular, scientific worldview contradicts a faith driven world view entirely. This argument is one of the reasons I feel so inspired when I spot little bridges between the gaps. As most of you know, I was very much of the ‘secular’ persuasion for a good portion of my life. And so, when I spot these bridges of understanding between the old world view I used to hold so close and the new world view I value even more, I feel excited. I get excited because, it is my deepest belief that there are evidences for God embedded in the most contradictory of ideas about this universe and how it operates.

I’m not out to convince those of a secular disposition on my perspective i’m just pointing out that, where you might find gaps in which you have to accept an unknown, the bible suggests that the unknown is God.

In a debate where neither side can prove their perspective is correct, we must, as logical and rational people, examine the evidence. I always base my assumptions and conclusions on the argument that presents to me the most compelling of evidences.


 

 

The Matrix is a system Neo….

Standard

Morpheus-Red-or-Blue-Pill-the-matrix-1957140-500-568

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

-morpheus

The global conspiracy is out there people (or should I say sheeple?). There is a dark power behind the curtains pulling all the strings and keeping us enslaved. This power seeks to control us and render us mindless drones to its will.

I’m not going to lie, I get irritated at this kind of attitude. It’s absolutely everywhere right now. Ever seen the global phenomenon that is the zeitgeist movement? Or, heard the powerfully worded messages purported by notable figures like David Ike or Alex Jones? It’s everywhere. People talking to us as though they are enlightened and have uncovered this dark power behind everyday society. They use excitingly loaded language that implies we really do live in a matrix-like simulation.

images

I have, in my friendship group, a list of friends (almost too many to count) who subscribe to this way of thinking one way or another. They will claim that institutions (or, as Louis Althusser would have called it, ‘ideological state apparatus’) such as our government, organized religion, the financial system etc, exist purely to control and manipulate the populace. They, rather smugly, spout that, they have removed themselves from this system and have become free people in the process. Far too enlightened for church, they lead us to believe that a life without religion is a liberated life. They proclaim that science has advanced beyond the need for blind faith and that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their worldview is naive, misinformed and delusional.

I find this insulting. But, it is also a very clever play in their argument. In applying the deluded filter to any debate with a person of faith, you instantly tip the field of debate in your favor. If deluded becomes a premise rather than what it actually is (a misinformed assumption), then anyone of faith brave enough to subject themselves to a debate is fighting a loosing battle from the offset.

This is all slight digression, the reason I am writing this article isn’t to level the playing field once again. I am writing to suggest an alternative to the global power-struggle theory that dominates modern western pseudo philosophical thought.

I was watching an Attenborough documentary the other day and something struck me in his commentary.  It was a show about the origins of life and, right at the start, without a falter or hesitation Attenborough states the age of the earth as absolute fact without providing any evidence to support this claim.

SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH

Before this article is scoffed at, I would like to make some clarifications. I am not going to say, one way or the other, what side of the debate my own views fall on and I am not saying their isn’t evidence available for the theory of evolution. What I am saying is this, we are bombarder with information on the television, in the news and even in school that is presented to us as absolute fact when it simply isn’t the case. It is akin to me presenting to you the story of Jesus Christ as fact without providing evidence to support my assertion. Now, when a Christian does this, they are instantly dismissed for not having evidence however, the same can be applied to the non-believer.

I was in conversation with my brother, an ardent atheist and evolutionist (well, that is the world view he subscribes to, he certainly hasn’t contributed scientifically towards the theory nor does he practice in that field) regarding the subject of faith. He dismissed any points I made as whimsy and refuted by sighting that the theory of evolution is proven fact and destroys the need for a creator God. This is just not true. Evolution isn’t and has never been, proven fact. It is a well evidenced and supported theory with a lot going for it but, unless you are an expert in the field, it is ill-advised to quote conclusions made by practitioners and philosophers in the field as fact.

It is an act of faith to say in a debate with a person of religious faith, ‘I know we evolved from so and so because there is proof of it’ without knowing the evidence intimately. To refuse to believe in God because of what Dawkins, or Stephen Fry, or Ricky Gervais or, Sam Harris or any other famous Atheists say is as much an act of faith as to say I believe in God.

I’m not saying you must believe in one thing or the other. I’m saying, whatever you chose to believe in, do it because of your own research, your own investigation and not just pick the side with the loudest voice and argument.

I gave my life to follow Christ not because I was deluded or coerced, not because I was part of the brainwashed masses. I did it because I examined the world I lived in, I examined the evidence before my eyes and recognized room for a creator God. I examined the evidence put forward by people of faith and found that the Bible was entirely relevant to the way the world works. I found the evidence matched and was left with no choice but to admit, however improbable it may seem on the surface, Jesus did live, he did die and, to my astonishment and surprise did rise again. With this, I had no choice but to recognize this as truth and devote myself to God.

the evidence of God is everywhere romans 1 18 24

I cannot force you to believe this, I can’t even try. However, examine the evidence for yourself. There is nothing out there that I have seen that has been able to disprove God. There has been nothing I have seen to prove there is a God. However, the evidence appears to me to point towards God and Jesus.

I’d like to end with my alternative to the cultural paradigm offered above.

There is a conspiracy to control and subdue the masses. This evil lusts for a new world order in which the shadowy forces behind the scenes rule over mankind. People really do live in the matrix with the wool pulled tightly over their eyes. They are sold a false freedom by the new world order. This Freedom comes in the guise of freedom of consciousness, freedom to not believe.

This force is known as sin, it is controlled by the purveyor of evil, the deceptor, the serpent. It seeks to blind us to the truth that we can be free.

Someone has come to free us from the matrix, his name is Jesus and he defeats the deception. He opens our eyes to freedom and gives us an eternal future in paradise free from the manacles forged by the enemy.

“and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” – Galatians 5:1

Finally, I’ve replaced the word matrix with sin.

The-Matrix-Neo-Wallpaper-the-matrix-6100683-1024-768

“Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?

Sin

Do you want to know what it is?

Yes.

Sin is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

What truth?

That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.”

Religion sucks: Why I am not Religious.

Standard

‘Wow’ I hear you shout, ‘he’s renounced his faith and turned back to his atheistic ways’,

I’m sorry to disappoint but, this is far from the case.

This post arises from my need to address something that comes up all too frequently in my discourses with non believers.

I always end up faced with an argument against religion or a religious institution and, find myself unable to mount a retaliation because I tend to agree with the arguments I face!

I think organised religion is one of the biggest problems this world faces.

Please don’t get me wrong though, I’m not out to fight a corner or even defend a corner. I’m not out to stir a pot or to accuse. This article is to simply dispel some myths regarding Christianity and organised religion!

I have just deleted a huge chunk of writing because I decided that I can tackle this topic much more succinctly by being simplistic.

Some of you might be surprised to learn that some of the most ardently and passionately anti religious texts exist within the Bible. One of my favourites has to be Galatians as it really bares down to the beautiful truth of being a Christian (Read that before you read this as Paul is much better at explaining things than I am).

Religion, in a modern/secular understanding of the word seems to me to mean something along the following lines:

A series of rules set out by a spiritual text and followed by people who believe this text to be divinely written. 

I think there’s obviously a bit more to it either side of the argument but, in essence I think that is how it is perceived, a process of rule following. 

I was skimming through Youtube just before bed last night (part of my nightly unwinding process) And I came across a video in which Ricky Gervaise talked about Religion.

gervaise.

Ricky talked a little about his upbringing in a deprived area in which a mother’s hope for her child wasn’t found in said child becoming a Doctor or Lawyer etc but, instead, being that the child wouldn’t die in a bar-room brawl or something of a similar nature. He continued to explain that, for his family and I guess (by means of inference) plenty of other families, the best way to ensure a child’s survival was to instill good honest Christian Morals.  He goes on to explain that Christians don’t hold the monopoly on goodness and that he is perfectly capable of doing good things without a biblical incentive offered.

Whilst Ricky Gervais is, by no stretch of the imagination, a figurehead for atheism; nor, a leading thinker on these kinds of issues, he does sum up a popular secular view on Christianity.

479pxMotivationalreligion

The problem with this view of Christianity is that it warps the priorities of any Christ Follower. You see what happens is, people start looking at Christianity as a moral example of lifestyle designed to control and manipulate and, that leads to an absolute perversion of the truth behind Christianity.

I might start sounding like a broken record here as I mention this fairly often but it is worth a recap. In Archery to, ‘sin’ is to miss the bullseye. Well, it is sort of like that in the bible.

Untitled

God created us to be in relationship with him eternally in perfection but, in disobeying God we chose to turn our backs on the created standard God set. In doing so, sin enters the world. Now sin is not simply bad behaviours and evil. Sin is ANYTHING that misses the bullseye set before us by God.

Now, to cut a biblically long story exceptionally short, Jesus is God’s incredible restorative solution to the problem of sin.

So, to turn back to the point at hand; the purpose of a Christ follower is a simple one. It is to follow Christ, accept that salvation comes through faith in Him alone and not by our deeds good or bad. That’s it. It isn’t about doing good stuff to get into heaven and it isn’t about casting judgement on those who don’t do good things.  When you accept the gift God has willingly given you and grasped how much we totally don’t deserve it your emotional centre can’t help but engage with that. When I was saved I said, ‘I want to follow Christ’s example” not, “I want to obey the 10 commandments”. Religion is the decision to observe the latter.

End rant.

Conversations with other Atheists….part 2

Standard

Right, gotta be more on point this time!

It’s so easy to get carried away isn’t it?

So, just a quick recap…

I have decided to respond to, “tweets” sent to Richard Dawkins with the hashtag #Imanatheistbecause.

twitterkins

Without further ado, let’s jump straight in with this one:

I became an atheist when I was told at church that it doesn’t what you do if you aren’t Christian you go to hell @RichardDawkins #Imanatheistbecause.
Well, this one’s  a fairly straight forward one to respond to.
There are two possible reasons why this person has come to this conclusion.
  • The leaders at this person’s Church were incompetent and taught a fundamentally flawed doctrine of salvation.
  • This person has drastically misunderstood the doctrine of salvation.
Just so we’re all on the same page, here’s what the bible has to say about it.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
So, because of the fall, the cost of mankind’s shortcomings before God is death. We all die! This verse refers to a little more than just physical death of course.
Let me use an illustration (I’m not the greatest of artists!) to show what I’m getting at here:
illustration of seperation
So we are one side of this huge  chasm that separates us from God.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23) 
I’ve added my own emphasis there because, ‘all’ is the key to this. There is no one on earth better than anyone else. We all come short of God’s standards.
It says a little later, in revelation:
Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:15) 
Basically, you get your name in the book of life when you realise the following:
  • That is you up there in that picture! You are separated from God by a huge gaping chasm of sin. But, don’t worry, we’re all in that position, you’re not alone!
  • God  has come up with a way for us to be reconciled to him, through Christ

 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18)

  • Accept this gift from God…… this is the easy bit, it’s a free gift (the best we’ll ever receive)

That’s it, your names down on the list….

simples

So you see… Despite wether this is a misinterpretation on the tweeter’s part, the Church who taught him about it or whatever, the point was lost in translation.

It isn’t a message of: If you’re not a christian you will burn in hell, that is such a warped interpretation.

The truth is much more elegant and beautiful. God loves us, always has, always will; we overlooked that in favour of self gratification. We rejected God. God says, that’s cool, if you want that then you can have that for eternity. However, if you want to regain that original relationship, you can do it simply by receiving the gift of Christ on the cross.

I’ve done it again haven’t I?

I picked out a simple one at the start with the hope of having time and space for a few tweets and responses but, i’ve gone off on one!

Consider this a bonus, it means you will get loads more posts! You lucky so and so’s…

Love.