Ignorance Is Bliss?
Today I want to share my thoughts about something I've been reflecting on for a while.
If you invited me to a party, or a concert, you would probably think it very rude of me if I simply ignored the invitation. So why does it seem acceptable for people to ignore invitations to events which have a Christian theme?
I am a practising Christian and believe that the Christian message is of great importance; it's something everyone should consider. I find it infuriating when some people ignore invitiations to church or to events which might give them a better understanding of what Christianity is about. If people don't want to come I just wish that they'd say so.
Personally I've been thinking about why some people like to simply ignore us as Christians and I think that there are several reasons. For some people I'm guessing we're just an irritant which might go away if ignored. For others we're probably seen as a waste of time and space. And I'm sure that there are some to whom the Christian message is of interest, but fear getting sucked in and becoming like "one of us" with all the unfortunate stereotypes that's perceived to involve.
If you're not a Christian, I'd love to hear what you have to say on the matter, so please leave a comment below. I'd also love it if you would take some time to consider for yourself the Christian message - being a Christian is not about going to church religiously every Sunday and singing "I'm so joyful" in the most miserable voice you can manage. It's not about being self-righteous, and it's not about wearing open-toed sandals. It's purely about accepting Jesus, and I'm sorry for the times that we as Christians have screwed up and made Christianity conform to the stereotype; everyone makes mistakes...
A slightly cheesy summary of the Christian message can be found here and if you're not sure about the existance of God, why not pray and see what happens?
Right, preaching over. Sorry if that was a bit heavy for 10am on a Thursday, but I did feel the need to get that off my chest. I look forward to reading the comments...
If you invited me to a party, or a concert, you would probably think it very rude of me if I simply ignored the invitation. So why does it seem acceptable for people to ignore invitations to events which have a Christian theme?
I am a practising Christian and believe that the Christian message is of great importance; it's something everyone should consider. I find it infuriating when some people ignore invitiations to church or to events which might give them a better understanding of what Christianity is about. If people don't want to come I just wish that they'd say so.
Personally I've been thinking about why some people like to simply ignore us as Christians and I think that there are several reasons. For some people I'm guessing we're just an irritant which might go away if ignored. For others we're probably seen as a waste of time and space. And I'm sure that there are some to whom the Christian message is of interest, but fear getting sucked in and becoming like "one of us" with all the unfortunate stereotypes that's perceived to involve.
If you're not a Christian, I'd love to hear what you have to say on the matter, so please leave a comment below. I'd also love it if you would take some time to consider for yourself the Christian message - being a Christian is not about going to church religiously every Sunday and singing "I'm so joyful" in the most miserable voice you can manage. It's not about being self-righteous, and it's not about wearing open-toed sandals. It's purely about accepting Jesus, and I'm sorry for the times that we as Christians have screwed up and made Christianity conform to the stereotype; everyone makes mistakes...
A slightly cheesy summary of the Christian message can be found here and if you're not sure about the existance of God, why not pray and see what happens?
Right, preaching over. Sorry if that was a bit heavy for 10am on a Thursday, but I did feel the need to get that off my chest. I look forward to reading the comments...
Comments
are the way forward.
Check out Acts 13:13 -> and you will see that Paul's preaching of the message to the synagogue in Antioch does not add anything at all to the Christian message. In fact, verse 38 couldn't put it more simply "through this man [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the Law of Moses".
Paul's letters contain lots of advice to the early church (much of which is still relevant to us) about living in response to that message, and 'Loving God with all your heart soul and mind, and your neighbour as yourself'. Nothing he says however adds or detracts from the fundamental Christian belief.
Sadly people have used Christianity as a tool for their social and political aims, but I don't condone or embrace that, and neither did Paul.
You should however consider that Paul's comment about women speaking in church could simply be asking them not to sit and chat in the corner. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but he never uses a term as strong as 'abomination' in this context.
And when it comes to dealing with prostitutes you need to think very carefully about how Jesus 'associated with prostitues' and what Paul meant when he told the Corinthians not to go near them.
Jesus quite clearly never slept with prostitutes - he merely showed love and compassion towards them and valued them as people.
It is well known however that one of the problems with the Corinthian church was that sexual immorality was rife. Paul is not saying "hate the prostitutes" and neither is he deriding them as people. It is however fair for Paul not to condone 'associating' with prostitutes in the way they did in Corinth. After all, I can't think it would be conducive to avoiding sexual temptation and immorality.
As for his alleged play on the word 'member' - he is talking about prostitutes you know...
My Point about Paul being a man of his time is that he was influenced by his cultural norms and views, which are not the same as now. Therefore Paul's writings should be taken with a pinch of salt. They aren't Gospel! :)
But Paul was still a major influence in the early Christian world, and his writings still have a lot to say to us. Paul doesn't contradict Jesus. His use of the word 'member' clearly implies that in this context he is talking about more than just chatting with them, and treating a prostitute in a respectable manner doesn't mean sleeping with them.
Also, I would have thought that Luke was also 'a man of his time', and is just as likely to be influenced by cultural norms as Paul.
When it comes to St Paul, his writings - along with others in the New Testament - are very important as they help us to understand how and why the first church developed from scratch as it did. And if it wasn't for Paul I still believe that God's plan would have prevailed and that the church would still have grown as it did, and as it continues to do worldwide. If you read the book of Acts, you will note that it is not just Paul who plays a big role in the spread of the Gospel. I also think that Chapter 5 vs 34-40 will help you to consider whether or not removing Paul would have made a difference.
1. G-d is omnibenevolent, but why did he send His son so long after the fall, thus not giving many people the chance to repent? What about people living in Mongolia at the same time as Jesus? G-d loves us all equally, so why not have numerous sons to send to all people? He would want the greatest number to be saved, yet made it impossable for many.
2. G-d is imutable, He cannot change, so where was Jesus before his incarnation? He could not have 'popped' into being, so was he just twiddleing his thumbs?
3. A couple of other things. I'll get back to you.
Anyway, I now offer what I hope will at least be satisfactory responses to your questions.
1. The first thing to remember here is that 'God's ways are not man's ways'. It is therefore not right to box God in with human parameters and expect him to act in a certain way. My friend Chris summed it up quite nicely when he pointed out that 'God's greatest concern is not that as many people as possible are saved.
That's a really common mistake, which people have because they think that God exists to serve humans. God's highest goal isn't based in humanity, but in Himself, which is right, since He's the most important being in the universe.'
After the Fall, God provided His people with ways of repenting and righting their relationship with Him – sacrifices and the like. Jesus is described as 'the ultimate sacrifice' and as such, many sons around the world would detract from the important uniqueness of this.
One thing to remember is that 'those who hear the Good News [about Jesus] should repent and believe'. I am not God and therefore cannot say how he will deal with those who have not heard – such as those in Mongolia at the time – but that's not our concern. We have heard, and therefore should act accordingly.
2.John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
'The Word' here refers to Jesus. We need to think here about the idea of the Trinity, God as three in one. If you really want to get to grips with this idea then you need to find a better theologian than me. However, John makes it pretty clear here that Jesus was (is) God and was around from the beginning.
Jesus always existed, along with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, but He chose to leave heaven and be born on Earth and die for us when He came on His “rescue mission”. Now He has returned to Heaven with God the Father and the Holy Spirit until the day comes when He will return again in judgment to the Earth.
3. Bring it on...