Flip Wilson is famous for the line, "The Devil made me do it". Many Christians also believe the devil talks to them. I believe God speaks to us via His Holy Spirit. The devil, not having a similar representation of himself, does not speak to us in the same manner. The devil is neither omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent. Most of those "negative" voices we hear are our own, influenced by our fallen nature and sin. Others are memories of things spoken to us by people from our past.
Christians need to stop giving the devil more power than he already has. That may be useful to fire up a congregation to throw more in the offering plate, but it's not valid.
© Emittravel 2015
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Doing Time
What follows may be a little odd, coming from a person who is on a sabbatical from "intellectual Christianity", but I think it will stimulate your thinking. This follows closely in hand with a talk I gave to a group of men at a breakfast a few years ago. Since the subject matter was up to me, what I presented was a passion of mine: time and time travel. I know, a weird topic for a group of Christian men. I posted my talk (as a transcript) to my blog: "I Grasp It, But It Keeps Slippin' Outta My Hands!". Please take a moment to read that before continuing, or what follows may seem even more outrageous than it does on the surface. May I suggest skimming down until you reach the paragraph that starts with "Anyone who has gotten to know me knows that I am hooked on the concept of time and time travel", as the beginning is more of an introduction for the guys at the breakfast.
Okay. Ready to go on?
When I first embraced Christianity's Protestant flavor, one of the notable differences between it and the Catholic upbringing I had, was their view of the cross. If you have never seen one, a crucifix is a cross with Jesus on it. The Protestants embrace a cross with Jesus notably absent. The reason for the difference is that Catholics want to keep the crucifixion in front of their attention, whereas Protestants believe that, since Jesus is no longer on the cross, and has risen from the dead, the cross should be empty.
Which is right? In a sense, both.
As a quick overview, Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for their sins. The bible says that the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). This "payment" is commonly known as the grace of God: you didn't earn it - you just accepted it - God did all the work. The alternative is paying the penalty yourself.
Here's the question: What does the bible mean by "death"?
If the answer is physical death, than once you physically die, you've made the payment and "bam!" you're in heaven with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time - you can do that payment on your own!
If the answer is spiritual death, than once you sin, you've died spiritually (become separate from God), made the payment, and again, "bam!" you're with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time as well. Since we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
As a quick aside, the reason spiritual death is separation from God is that God is absolute holiness. It is not that God cannot be in the presence of sin, but sin cannot be in the presence of pure holiness. God's purity would "annihilate" the sinner. So, it is the love of God that keeps a sinner separate from Him. (Make sense?)
In the account of Adam and Eve, they were told in the day that they eat of the fruit (of the knowledge of good and evil) they would die. They ate, and didn't physically die. Actually, in pre-Jewish tradition, God slew an animal (shed the blood of an animal - killing it) and made tunics for them (Genesis 3:21). That "payment" was a temporary patch, if you will. In the Old Testament Laws, animals were sacrificed to pay for the sins of the people almost continuously. This was to cover the spiritual sin of the people temporarily, until he could send Jesus to make the payment once and for all on the cross.
So, if it is neither physical nor spiritual, what kind of death are we talking about?
Here is where I may seem a little cray-cray, and why I suggested you read "I Grasp It … "
The only kind of death that fits the penalty is "eternal separation from God". That's it. No other kind of death would fit the bill. Because of a person's sin, that person would be eternally separated from God - because like I said above, sin cannot be in the presence of a holy God.
So how did Jesus' hanging on the cross for a few hours, and dying there, pay the penalty of eternal separation? Let's look at three statements made by Jesus while on the cross:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." (Luke 23:34)
"… My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46)
" … Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit …" (Luke 23:46)
Did you see what happened there? Jesus went from calling Him "Father", to "God", to "Father" again. The only time Jesus did not refer to God as "Father" was while on the cross. It was at that point that God "turned His head" and did not look upon Jesus, who had taken the sin of the world upon Himself (you can lookup the doctrine of the "scapegoat" on your own).
How long a time went between those statements is not known, but no matter how long, it does not add up to "eternal separation", since Jesus DID go back to calling God "Father" while still on the cross. So how DID He pay that price?
Remember at the beginning of this particular blog article, when I said that both the Catholics and the Protestants were correct in their view of the cross? They both ARE!
As I said in "I Grasp It … ", eternity is not defined as "time without end", but as "NO time". God lives outside of time. That is why He is without beginning or end (if He had beginning and end, he could not be God - as that would mean He is caused, and not cause-LESS).
In God's eyes, Jesus is "still" on the cross - separated from Him, and ALSO sitting on His right hand (Luke 22:69)
But J.P., the bible says that without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). I'm sorry, you are so right. As a matter of fact, I cut myself shaving this morning - therefore I shed blood and paid for my sins. Of course not! The shedding of blood is another way of saying DEATH.
So, the Catholic crucifix is right, because for God, Jesus is eternally separated from Him on the cross (in eternity - get it?), and the Protestant "empty" cross is right, because Jesus is no longer there.
I guess this makes me either a Catholestant, or a Protatholic. And now, back to my sabbatical.
("Doing Time" is the title of a song by Bad Religion, from the album "How Could Hell Be Any Worse?" - catch the irony?)
© Emittravel 2015
Okay. Ready to go on?
When I first embraced Christianity's Protestant flavor, one of the notable differences between it and the Catholic upbringing I had, was their view of the cross. If you have never seen one, a crucifix is a cross with Jesus on it. The Protestants embrace a cross with Jesus notably absent. The reason for the difference is that Catholics want to keep the crucifixion in front of their attention, whereas Protestants believe that, since Jesus is no longer on the cross, and has risen from the dead, the cross should be empty.
Which is right? In a sense, both.
As a quick overview, Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for their sins. The bible says that the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). This "payment" is commonly known as the grace of God: you didn't earn it - you just accepted it - God did all the work. The alternative is paying the penalty yourself.
Here's the question: What does the bible mean by "death"?
If the answer is physical death, than once you physically die, you've made the payment and "bam!" you're in heaven with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time - you can do that payment on your own!
If the answer is spiritual death, than once you sin, you've died spiritually (become separate from God), made the payment, and again, "bam!" you're with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time as well. Since we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
As a quick aside, the reason spiritual death is separation from God is that God is absolute holiness. It is not that God cannot be in the presence of sin, but sin cannot be in the presence of pure holiness. God's purity would "annihilate" the sinner. So, it is the love of God that keeps a sinner separate from Him. (Make sense?)
In the account of Adam and Eve, they were told in the day that they eat of the fruit (of the knowledge of good and evil) they would die. They ate, and didn't physically die. Actually, in pre-Jewish tradition, God slew an animal (shed the blood of an animal - killing it) and made tunics for them (Genesis 3:21). That "payment" was a temporary patch, if you will. In the Old Testament Laws, animals were sacrificed to pay for the sins of the people almost continuously. This was to cover the spiritual sin of the people temporarily, until he could send Jesus to make the payment once and for all on the cross.
So, if it is neither physical nor spiritual, what kind of death are we talking about?
Here is where I may seem a little cray-cray, and why I suggested you read "I Grasp It … "
The only kind of death that fits the penalty is "eternal separation from God". That's it. No other kind of death would fit the bill. Because of a person's sin, that person would be eternally separated from God - because like I said above, sin cannot be in the presence of a holy God.
So how did Jesus' hanging on the cross for a few hours, and dying there, pay the penalty of eternal separation? Let's look at three statements made by Jesus while on the cross:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." (Luke 23:34)
"… My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46)
" … Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit …" (Luke 23:46)
Did you see what happened there? Jesus went from calling Him "Father", to "God", to "Father" again. The only time Jesus did not refer to God as "Father" was while on the cross. It was at that point that God "turned His head" and did not look upon Jesus, who had taken the sin of the world upon Himself (you can lookup the doctrine of the "scapegoat" on your own).
How long a time went between those statements is not known, but no matter how long, it does not add up to "eternal separation", since Jesus DID go back to calling God "Father" while still on the cross. So how DID He pay that price?
Remember at the beginning of this particular blog article, when I said that both the Catholics and the Protestants were correct in their view of the cross? They both ARE!
As I said in "I Grasp It … ", eternity is not defined as "time without end", but as "NO time". God lives outside of time. That is why He is without beginning or end (if He had beginning and end, he could not be God - as that would mean He is caused, and not cause-LESS).
In God's eyes, Jesus is "still" on the cross - separated from Him, and ALSO sitting on His right hand (Luke 22:69)
But J.P., the bible says that without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). I'm sorry, you are so right. As a matter of fact, I cut myself shaving this morning - therefore I shed blood and paid for my sins. Of course not! The shedding of blood is another way of saying DEATH.
So, the Catholic crucifix is right, because for God, Jesus is eternally separated from Him on the cross (in eternity - get it?), and the Protestant "empty" cross is right, because Jesus is no longer there.
I guess this makes me either a Catholestant, or a Protatholic. And now, back to my sabbatical.
("Doing Time" is the title of a song by Bad Religion, from the album "How Could Hell Be Any Worse?" - catch the irony?)
© Emittravel 2015
Monday, July 21, 2014
Too Much of a Good Thing?
"Everything in moderation" is a piece of wisdom we've all heard many times. If you haven't, welcome to the wisdom club. Too much of anything is bad for you. Too little as well. Take oxygen for example: too much and you get cell damage, problems with the lungs, and seizures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity). Too little and … well … you die.
Most commonly that piece of wisdom focuses on not having "too much" of something. Don't believe that too much of something is hazardous? Outside of the oxygen reference above, have too much prune juice and see what happens. Or, have too much cheese and see what doesn't!
This wisdom is found across cultures, countries, and even religions. The bible makes reference to moderation in many areas. Actually, most things considered "sin" in the bible are just taking things to an unhealthy extreme. What is lust? Natural attraction on steroids.
There is one area I want to focus on in this article: alcohol. It is a topic of much discussion in the church, and there are people on both sides of it. In America, there is a serious problem with alcoholism. When it comes to discussions concerning legalizing marijuana, the harmful effects are often compared with the harmful effects of alcohol.
What are some of the things the bible says about alcohol?
"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard …" (Isaiah 24:20a NKJV)
"Thus says the Lord God: 'You shall drink of your sister's cup. The deep and wide one; You shall be laughed to scorn and held in derision; it contains much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of horror and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You shall drink and drain it, you shall break its shards, and tear at your own breasts; for I have spoken,' says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 23:33,34 NKJV)
"But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly." (Luke 21:34 NKJV)
"Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness …" (Romans 13:13a NKJV)
"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard …" (1 Corinthians 5:11a NKJV)
"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit," (Ephesians 5:18 NKJV)
"For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, …" (1 Thessalonians 5:7,8a NKJV)
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles - when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." (1 Peter 4:3 NKJV)
Apparently, quite a lot. It is such verses as the above, and the affects of alcoholism on families and individuals touted in the media, that the church uses to condemn ANY drinking whatsoever. But is the condemnation of alcohol biblical?
I have a great pastor. One of the great things about him is that he puts up with the likes of me! As I've mentioned previously, I like to poke a stick at things. One time he was mentioning in part of a sermon that, according to science, we all had a little bit of Neanderthal in us. I texted him after that sermon asking him, "Does that mean Adam and Eve were Neanderthals?" (He never responded.) He is a fastidious teacher/preacher. He has often said that you must look at scripture in the context in which it was written, and to not add meaning that the writer did not intend. He is also not afraid to condemn alcohol from the pulpit based on the destructive qualities it has on families (his family in particular). I say those two ideas are in conflict with each other.
Alcoholism is a destructive thing in our society to be sure. But you can't use the bible to condemn it. The bible does not condemn drinking: it condemns drunkenness. And what is drunkenness? Drinking that is not in "moderation". Excessive.
"And put a knife to your throat if you are a man given to appetite." (Proverbs 23,2 NKJV)
"Do not mix with winebibbers, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags." (Proverbs 23:20,21 NKJV)
"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness …" (Ezekiel 16:49a NKJV)
"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Luke 7:34 NKJV)
As is shown in the above verses, gluttony, or overeating, is also a sin. In fact, in the bible it is on the same footing as drunkenness. Yet I've never seen a church who shunned pot luck dinners.
Once, at a men's advance (or "retreat"), a group of us went out to dinner at a local steakhouse. We had a rather long table with guys on both sides. I sat at the end. As the waiter went down one side of the table taking drink orders, he was told, "Coke", "Coke", "Diet Coke", "Pepsi. No Pepsi? Okay, Coke", "Iced tea", "water", "water", etc. He got to the guy across from me who ordered in a similar manner. He then started up the side I was on with me. I said, "I'll have a 'Corona'." The guy across from me asked me, "You're ordering a beer?!?" I said, "Yes. Beer and steak go well together." He turned to the waiter and said, "Can I change my order?"
Culture has a major impact on how the church handles itself. In places where the water isn't the greatest, wine and beer are preferred due to the sterilization that occurs during processing. We in America don't have that concern. But the church shouldn't add to scripture what wasn't intended. You can preach against alcohol in light of drunkenness, but don't condemn.
Like I like to say, if you consider one beer drunkenness, than you have to consider that small order of fries gluttony.
Moderation is the key to everything.
© Emittravel 2014
Most commonly that piece of wisdom focuses on not having "too much" of something. Don't believe that too much of something is hazardous? Outside of the oxygen reference above, have too much prune juice and see what happens. Or, have too much cheese and see what doesn't!
This wisdom is found across cultures, countries, and even religions. The bible makes reference to moderation in many areas. Actually, most things considered "sin" in the bible are just taking things to an unhealthy extreme. What is lust? Natural attraction on steroids.
There is one area I want to focus on in this article: alcohol. It is a topic of much discussion in the church, and there are people on both sides of it. In America, there is a serious problem with alcoholism. When it comes to discussions concerning legalizing marijuana, the harmful effects are often compared with the harmful effects of alcohol.
What are some of the things the bible says about alcohol?
"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard …" (Isaiah 24:20a NKJV)
"Thus says the Lord God: 'You shall drink of your sister's cup. The deep and wide one; You shall be laughed to scorn and held in derision; it contains much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of horror and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You shall drink and drain it, you shall break its shards, and tear at your own breasts; for I have spoken,' says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 23:33,34 NKJV)
"But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly." (Luke 21:34 NKJV)
"Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness …" (Romans 13:13a NKJV)
"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard …" (1 Corinthians 5:11a NKJV)
"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit," (Ephesians 5:18 NKJV)
"For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, …" (1 Thessalonians 5:7,8a NKJV)
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles - when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." (1 Peter 4:3 NKJV)
Apparently, quite a lot. It is such verses as the above, and the affects of alcoholism on families and individuals touted in the media, that the church uses to condemn ANY drinking whatsoever. But is the condemnation of alcohol biblical?
I have a great pastor. One of the great things about him is that he puts up with the likes of me! As I've mentioned previously, I like to poke a stick at things. One time he was mentioning in part of a sermon that, according to science, we all had a little bit of Neanderthal in us. I texted him after that sermon asking him, "Does that mean Adam and Eve were Neanderthals?" (He never responded.) He is a fastidious teacher/preacher. He has often said that you must look at scripture in the context in which it was written, and to not add meaning that the writer did not intend. He is also not afraid to condemn alcohol from the pulpit based on the destructive qualities it has on families (his family in particular). I say those two ideas are in conflict with each other.
Alcoholism is a destructive thing in our society to be sure. But you can't use the bible to condemn it. The bible does not condemn drinking: it condemns drunkenness. And what is drunkenness? Drinking that is not in "moderation". Excessive.
"And put a knife to your throat if you are a man given to appetite." (Proverbs 23,2 NKJV)
"Do not mix with winebibbers, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags." (Proverbs 23:20,21 NKJV)
"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness …" (Ezekiel 16:49a NKJV)
"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Luke 7:34 NKJV)
As is shown in the above verses, gluttony, or overeating, is also a sin. In fact, in the bible it is on the same footing as drunkenness. Yet I've never seen a church who shunned pot luck dinners.
Once, at a men's advance (or "retreat"), a group of us went out to dinner at a local steakhouse. We had a rather long table with guys on both sides. I sat at the end. As the waiter went down one side of the table taking drink orders, he was told, "Coke", "Coke", "Diet Coke", "Pepsi. No Pepsi? Okay, Coke", "Iced tea", "water", "water", etc. He got to the guy across from me who ordered in a similar manner. He then started up the side I was on with me. I said, "I'll have a 'Corona'." The guy across from me asked me, "You're ordering a beer?!?" I said, "Yes. Beer and steak go well together." He turned to the waiter and said, "Can I change my order?"
Culture has a major impact on how the church handles itself. In places where the water isn't the greatest, wine and beer are preferred due to the sterilization that occurs during processing. We in America don't have that concern. But the church shouldn't add to scripture what wasn't intended. You can preach against alcohol in light of drunkenness, but don't condemn.
Like I like to say, if you consider one beer drunkenness, than you have to consider that small order of fries gluttony.
Moderation is the key to everything.
© Emittravel 2014
Friday, March 29, 2013
D.O.M.A. is D.U.M.B.
The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is back in the news once again. The Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not it is constitutional. And like so many things, DOMA has its supporters and detractors. In a nutshell, DOMA states that marriage is recognized by the government as between one man and one woman. The question is, should it?
Let me remind my readers of the title of this blog: My Humble But Accurate Opinion. This is my opinion, and one that I think has merit. You may disagree. That is fine. I'm speaking for ME. I am coming at this as a bible-believing Christian. And if you haven't shut me off yet, you will find that those this particular article will most-likely offend ARE Christians. For those of you who know me, you know that I tend to poke things with a stick - because I think we should.
I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but I think DOMA is dumb (clever title, eh?). For all of the screaming about the (so-called) Separation of Church and State, there is this seeming need to have the government validate a religious preference when it comes to marriage. According to our Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " Marriage is not a religion, nor is it an exercise of an established religion. It is the definition of a union between a man and a woman, recognized in the eyes of GOD. It is not a union recognized by a particular church, nor is it a union recognized by the STATE. Therefore it falls outside the "jurisdiction" of the government - and should not freak out religious folk.
"Wait a minute, J.P., the state DOES recognize marriage. I have a marriage license to prove it!" You are correct, and incorrect. In this case, we are dealing with semantics. The state licenses the union of two people for one main reason: recognition of shared benefits. Oh, another reason may be is that they charge for the license . . . you know . . . taxes! The state calls it "marriage" for lack of a "better" or more "accurate" term.
I was having a discussion on this topic with a friend at work and he had THE solution to the whole debate: the government should state that they will no longer recognize marriages. They will only recognize civil unions. For the government's purposes, whether you are in a union recognized in the eyes of God, or whether you stood before the Justice of the Peace, they only need to know that you have a legal civil union.
Let me put it this way: civil unions vs. marriage. One recognized by the State; one by God.
"What about 'gay marriage', J.P.? As a Christian, aren't you supposed to oppose it." I am? What is the main issue here? Is it the fact that two individuals want to have all of the benefits and responsibilities of civil unions, or that their relationship is recognized by God? If we are talking civil unions and NOT marriage, then does it really matter if the union is heterosexual or homosexual?
I remember a minister friend of mine talking about a time when he was out with a friend picking up hitchhikers, getting on the freeway, running the car up to 80+ miles per hour, and telling the hitchhikers they must be saved (I think he was kidding, but it's a good story nonetheless.) One time a hitchhiker was smoking a cigarette and wanted to pray to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. This minister's friend said to put out the cigarette first. The minister said, "God can hear through the smoke!" He said that sinning was the "job description" of a sinner. Once they got saved, THEN we can "skin 'em alive!" (He's a funny guy, my minister friend.)
Christians have this view that the world needs to function within the framework of Christian morality, ethics, and rules of conduct. Why? Does it really matter if a sinner sins? At that great day of judgment, will God be concerned that a non-Christian behaved outside of Christian dogma? Or will His only concern be that they knew Him and His Son Jesus? There is only one sin that is worthy of eternal damnation (a.k.a. "eternal separation from God"): denying Jesus Christ. No other sin will matter. Once a person becomes a Christian, THEN will the sins that you commit have weight. The letters of correction (Epistles of the New Testament) that the apostles wrote were for the church, not the world. It is we Christians that must live our lives in accordance with God's ways, not force that upon the world.
I'm not anti-gay. I'm not pro-gay either. When it comes to the world, I'm ambivalent-gay. I don't care one way or the other. Just don't call a civil union "marriage" - God doesn't recognize it between two people of the same gender (that's clear in scripture.)
Listen, DOMA is already on the books. The only two possible options: enforce it, or rescind it. Don't ignore it. If the Supreme Court determines it unconstitutional and wants it struck down, so be it. Marriage in the eyes of God won't change either way.
Of course, removing the word "marriage" and changing it to "civil union" would eliminate the argument and give politicians one less thing to bludgeon each other with . . . which is precisely the reason why it will never happen!
© Emittravel 2013
Let me remind my readers of the title of this blog: My Humble But Accurate Opinion. This is my opinion, and one that I think has merit. You may disagree. That is fine. I'm speaking for ME. I am coming at this as a bible-believing Christian. And if you haven't shut me off yet, you will find that those this particular article will most-likely offend ARE Christians. For those of you who know me, you know that I tend to poke things with a stick - because I think we should.
I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but I think DOMA is dumb (clever title, eh?). For all of the screaming about the (so-called) Separation of Church and State, there is this seeming need to have the government validate a religious preference when it comes to marriage. According to our Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " Marriage is not a religion, nor is it an exercise of an established religion. It is the definition of a union between a man and a woman, recognized in the eyes of GOD. It is not a union recognized by a particular church, nor is it a union recognized by the STATE. Therefore it falls outside the "jurisdiction" of the government - and should not freak out religious folk.
"Wait a minute, J.P., the state DOES recognize marriage. I have a marriage license to prove it!" You are correct, and incorrect. In this case, we are dealing with semantics. The state licenses the union of two people for one main reason: recognition of shared benefits. Oh, another reason may be is that they charge for the license . . . you know . . . taxes! The state calls it "marriage" for lack of a "better" or more "accurate" term.
I was having a discussion on this topic with a friend at work and he had THE solution to the whole debate: the government should state that they will no longer recognize marriages. They will only recognize civil unions. For the government's purposes, whether you are in a union recognized in the eyes of God, or whether you stood before the Justice of the Peace, they only need to know that you have a legal civil union.
Let me put it this way: civil unions vs. marriage. One recognized by the State; one by God.
"What about 'gay marriage', J.P.? As a Christian, aren't you supposed to oppose it." I am? What is the main issue here? Is it the fact that two individuals want to have all of the benefits and responsibilities of civil unions, or that their relationship is recognized by God? If we are talking civil unions and NOT marriage, then does it really matter if the union is heterosexual or homosexual?
I remember a minister friend of mine talking about a time when he was out with a friend picking up hitchhikers, getting on the freeway, running the car up to 80+ miles per hour, and telling the hitchhikers they must be saved (I think he was kidding, but it's a good story nonetheless.) One time a hitchhiker was smoking a cigarette and wanted to pray to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. This minister's friend said to put out the cigarette first. The minister said, "God can hear through the smoke!" He said that sinning was the "job description" of a sinner. Once they got saved, THEN we can "skin 'em alive!" (He's a funny guy, my minister friend.)
Christians have this view that the world needs to function within the framework of Christian morality, ethics, and rules of conduct. Why? Does it really matter if a sinner sins? At that great day of judgment, will God be concerned that a non-Christian behaved outside of Christian dogma? Or will His only concern be that they knew Him and His Son Jesus? There is only one sin that is worthy of eternal damnation (a.k.a. "eternal separation from God"): denying Jesus Christ. No other sin will matter. Once a person becomes a Christian, THEN will the sins that you commit have weight. The letters of correction (Epistles of the New Testament) that the apostles wrote were for the church, not the world. It is we Christians that must live our lives in accordance with God's ways, not force that upon the world.
I'm not anti-gay. I'm not pro-gay either. When it comes to the world, I'm ambivalent-gay. I don't care one way or the other. Just don't call a civil union "marriage" - God doesn't recognize it between two people of the same gender (that's clear in scripture.)
Listen, DOMA is already on the books. The only two possible options: enforce it, or rescind it. Don't ignore it. If the Supreme Court determines it unconstitutional and wants it struck down, so be it. Marriage in the eyes of God won't change either way.
Of course, removing the word "marriage" and changing it to "civil union" would eliminate the argument and give politicians one less thing to bludgeon each other with . . . which is precisely the reason why it will never happen!
© Emittravel 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)