Sin without Consequences
So many times when a Christian, particularly a conservative Christian, brings up something they believe is sinful–they’re treated as if they’re being hate-filled and unreasonable. When it comes to the same-sex marriage controversy, we hear that allowing someone else to marry doesn’t affect us. When it comes to teaching sexual abstinence to young people, we’re told that if we don’t believe in sex outside of marriage–then we shouldn’t do it ourselves. But we shouldn’t try to stop anyone else from doing it. We shouldn’t push our beliefs onto others. Over and over, we hear them say:
“It doesn’t hurt anyone.”
As Christians, we believe that sin has consequences. But the world says that it doesn’t. They say their life (a life of what we call sin) is actually a life free of such consequences. They’re free to pursue happiness, and can be happy in their choices–regardless of if we agree with them. Parents tell their children that their lifestyle doesn’t matter to them, as long as they’re happy. “Happy” has become the goal of our world. We (our nation as a whole) no longer seek holiness, and we believe our sin is harmless. We believe sin makes us happy, and that it doesn’t hurt anyone.
Last week a friend of mine filled in to teach our Wednesday night class at church. This same friend, along with his wife, did premarital counseling with my husband and I last year. We have so much respect for them! Last week he spoke on Genesis 3, which was a passage he had gone through quite a bit during our counseling. Lane and I had a great chance for a review of those things, and as we read the Scripture there was something that kept sticking out to me.
After eating the fruit, God called Adam, Eve, and the serpent to Himself; and He gave them consequences for their sin.
To the serpent, God said:
Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.
Hmm….it seems the serpent is still suffering from these consequences! But what about the man? After eating the fruit, God told Adam:
Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
We still see these consequences today, too. When farming the land to grow food–it is HARD work! Just ask any farmer! They may have machinery today, but still they labor and toil by the sweat of their brow as they harvest that food. And the final consequence is the physical death we all experience at the end of life.
Something struck me though, when I came across the consequences God gave to the woman. God said to Eve:
I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.
So because of sin, women were to experience great pain in childbirth, and in the pregnancy process as well. The woman’s husband would rule over her, but her desire would be to overpower him. (According to most commentaries & theologians, the phrase “desire shall be for your husband” implies that she will desire to have control over him.) When I look at our country today, very few women experience such great pain. There are a few women who choose to have a ‘natural’ childbirth, and some who arrive at the hospital too late for an epidural. But overall, science has given us such wonderful medicine that keeps women from experiencing the worst of the pain. I’ve even been called by a woman before, about 10 minutes before her baby was born. In my shock I asked her, “Aren’t you in the hospital and about to give BIRTH???” And to that she responded, “Girl–I don’t feel a thing!” I understand that many women experience a lot more pain that she did, especially outside of the U.S. But we’re well on our way to having the technology that will completely eliminate this consequence of sin. If you don’t want to bring forth your children in pain, then you don’t have to!
And the other consequence? That a woman would desire to have control over her husband, but that he would rule over her. In so many countries this is true. And it can be true in America as well. But here in our country it is so rarely seen. The rise of feminism has led women to take control, and has led men to allow it. It’s rare that a husband will ever refer to himself in a way that implies he has authority over his wife. Women have learned how to control their husbands, and society has embraced this as women’s role. I’ve been reading The Feminine Mistake, by Mary Kassian. The book is basically an overview of the history of feminism. She suggests that feminism began with a woman’s right to ‘name herself’. They did so by breaking down the Judeo-Christian view of womanhood, and then rebuilding the concept of womanhood to be whatever she wanted. After this evolution of womanhood, a conflict was created between this new idea of womanhood and the original view of manhood. They no longer complemented each other. In fact, they greatly clashed. And so women were then ‘forced’ to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian view of manhood. And men allowed it! (I believe that the men in these women’s lives loved them, and did not WANT them to feel as if they were oppressed. Men did not desire the role of “house-husband” and so felt guilty ascribing that role to their wives, knowing their wives did not want it.) I could go further in the journey of feminism, but as it relates to this post I see no need. Because of feminism, women no longer needed to strain for control. Men would no longer rule over them. Instead, they were now equal partners, and neither of them could ever ‘trump’ the other.
And so it would seem that women are basically free from the consequences of sin. In days past Christians could still use the consequences of sin as a way to urge righteous living. Those who had sex outside of marriage could get pregnant. Today, birth control pills and condoms are easily accessible–even to teens, and even without parental consent. Even if they haven’t used protection, they can now use the morning-after-pill. And even if they fail to take the morning-after-pill, abortion is allowed. No woman HAS to face this particular consequence of sex if she doesn’t choose to.
STD’s have also been a strong way to encourage refraining from sex outside of marriage. But today STD’s have become incredibly common, and most of them can be treated or even cured. Science gives us a way out of that, too. Young women used to know that it would be hard to find a husband if they had been sexually active with other men. But society has changed, and many men now expect that a woman has been sexually active. It’s rare that a person’s reputation is even affected by having sex before marriage. There are many other sins that I could examine that would display this same concept. Science, technology, and the changing of moral values have removed or lessened the consequences of sin in our society.
And so, looking through the world’s eyes, it may seem true to say that your sin “doesn’t hurt anyone.” But the truth is–it hurts you. It hurts your family. Your children. And the world around you. See, when looking only at the consequences God gave Adam and Eve for their sin, I failed to see the whole picture. If I look ahead in Genesis 3, I see that immediately after giving these consequences God proceeded to slaughter an animal in order to clothe Adam and Eve. This is the first physical death that is seen in the Bible. God slaughters one of His created animals (which He had said was “very good” in the previous chapter), and He does it to cover the nakedness (the sin) of Adam and Eve–His PRIZE creation! When we keep reading we see His plan that will restore fellowship with man. Man’s sin had created a rift in that fellowship. No longer could Adam walk in the garden with God. But God’s plan would allow the possibility of that fellowship to re-enter the picture. We see this many times throughout Scripture, but very clearly in Romans 5:12-21:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Wow! So through Adam’s sin, there were great consequences. But the toil of the land was the LEAST of these consequences. Much more importantly we see the consequences of death, judgment, and condemnation. In contrast though, we see that we don’t have to experience those consequences. God had a plan that can redeem us! Through JESUS CHRIST, we can instead have a free gift, the grace of God, justification (meaning YOU–a sinner–can be counted as one of God’s righteous!), righteousness, and eternal life.
We may be able to get rid of many earthly consequences of sin, but no level of science or technology can ward off these greater consequences. We simply cannot reconcile ourselves to God. We cannot escape His judgment on our own. But through faith in JESUS CHRIST we can experience His grace, and these many other blessings we see in Romans 5. Not only can we receive the free gift of eternal life and the grace that saves us from death, but we receive JUSTIFICATION. Through placing our faith in Christ and choosing to follow His path, he will both COUNT you as His righteous child, and He will MAKE you righteous.
Before deciding that your sin “doesn’t hurt anyone”, I beg you to consider your life in light of eternity. Do you have a life of sin that is separating you from God? Or have you relinquished that earthly ‘life’ in exchange for His gift of eternal life? Does your life lead your children toward faith in Christ, or away from Him? What about the world around you? Does your life make a statement to the world that “it doesn’t hurt anyone” to live in sin? If so, you could be living a lie that leads them to ignore God’s greatest gift.
For those who are Christians, I’d ask you why it is you choose to obey Christ. It shouldn’t be simply to avoid consequences. We accept Christ not as “fire insurance” but because we have faith in Him. We choose to follow Him because we want Him to make us righteous. Though we obviously want to escape judgment, our bigger goal is to please God. If we only follow God when His ways seem rational to the world, we’re actually showing that our “obedience” relies only upon what we want. When we want to escape consequences, we do what’s right. But when the consequences disappear, we do what brings pleasure in the moment. This, my brothers & sisters in Christ, is the very reason that the world labels us ‘hypocrites.’ Disobedience DOES have consequences, no matter how much we’d like to believe it doesn’t.
But OBEDIENCE is not lived out through the fear of those consequences. It is lived out through faith, and through a personal relationship with Christ.
For those of you who don’t have a personal relationship with Christ, I’d love to tell you more about why He’s so important to me! You can read my story here. Leave comments below, even if you disagree with this or have any questions about what I’ve written. And as always, feel free to email me at rachel@onetruewife.com anytime. I’d love to talk with you!
Hi Rachel, allow me to formally introduce myself.
My name is Andrew, and I am an atheist. I mention my disposition of belief because I want to be forthcoming and not make you feel like I pulled any cheap shots!
I wanted to offer another perspective. One of the most difficult aspects of good governance is the relationship of government to religious beliefs. At some point, the government (secular in nature) got itself involved with aspects of life that religious groups claim ownership of, such as marriage. Now, never mind the fact that marriage is not a Christian-owned or Christian-originated concept. Marriages were occurring in dozens of cultures long before the ancient Israelites began to adopt Biblical precepts for the practice.
And those precepts are less than clear. Many ideas of marriage are outlined in the Bible. Consider this chart, for example:
http://i.imgur.com/XROEJ.jpg
Now, I am not lost on the idea of context. Suffice it to say, however, that there was a time and place when these arrangements were wholly acceptable to the followers of the Judeo-Christian God.
So let’s fast forward a couple of thousand years. What SHOULD this mean to us, as voting citizens, in a country that is governed by the people?
First and foremost, I would argue that a Christian would need to cogently argue that legislating strictly Christian ideas is appropriate in the United States. Because if you believe it is appropriate, you would necessarily need to defend the practice of legislating, say, Muslim ideas. Or Mormon ideas. Or, you would need to argue that theocracy is an appropriate approach to good governance. I don’t think either of us thinks that’s a good idea.
So let’s swing back to same-sex marriage. Here is the deal: nobody is arguing that Christians, or churches, or any other faith-based group should be required to marry homosexuals. The argument is that, under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, all person must necessarily enjoy equal protection in the eyes of the law. That means that two people of the same sex, who choose to love one another (remember, they may or may not believe what you do. but that’s irrelevant.), may file taxes jointly, co-sign on mortgages, and / or extend their healthcare benefits to one another. That’s it.
I grew up in a strong Christian home (in fact I am the only defector haha) but I seem to remember Jesus’ message fairly clear and straightforward: love your neighbor.
If I were still a practicing Christian, my argument to fellow believers would be something like this:
“Let’s love our neighbors. We’ve got enough problems in our own lives without concerning ourselves with the sin of others. The Christian act to do would be to abstain from the ballot box that has the power to oppress those we disagree with.”
It’s not condoning their actions, it’s not agreeing with homosexuality, it’s following Jesus’ simple yet powerful command: love your neighbor.
Your called to love your neighbor…not ensure they can’t sin or can’t get married or have health benefits, or obtain mortgages. Just love your neighbor.
Imagine how much powerful the message of Jesus would be if Christians actually conducted themselves in that manner.
Andrew, thanks for being upfront with me in your comment. And thanks, especially, for the respectful ‘tone’ that you write with. I really appreciate that.
I’m sure you recognize that my posts are written from the perspective of the Bible being authoritative for every concept in this world. As a Christian I believe this is how I’m called to live, and believe, and think. With the Bible as that authority, I then see that in order to inherit eternal life, one must repent of sin and follow Christ. What kind of loving neighbor would I be if I did not try to pass on that message to the world, when I whole heartedly believe that they will perish without this truth? You said that Jesus’ main command was to “love your neighbor.” In Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus told us that loving our neighbors was the second greatest commandment. The first, is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.
John 14 says that those who love God are the ones who keep God’s commandments. And this is why I press obedience as of great importance in our world. To fully love God, we must keep His commands. The first command is to love God. The second is to love our neighbor. But there are other commands that Christ also gave. In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus Himself told us to go and make disciples, baptize them in His name, and teach them ALL the things He had taught during His time on earth. This is my goal. I fully believe that I cannot love my neighbor without telling them of Christ, and teaching of His ways. John 15:13 speaks of Christ dying on the cross, and says there is “no greater love” than that sacrifice. I seek to spread that love to a world that is without Him.
As for “ensuring they can’t sin”, I obviously have no power to forcibly remove sin from the lives of others. But I can teach truth. I can live with the Bible as the ultimate authority for my life, and I can teach the principles that I find in Scripture. I will always vote for leaders and laws who I believe are most-closely aligned with the Bible. I understand that may not be “fair” to those who have different beliefs. But honestly, I’m not trying to be fair. I’m trying to honor God with all that I do, even when that offends someone else. That offense is never my goal, though. I place God’s Word as truth, at the highest level of authority for all of my life. And I believe that in order to love God I must do so.
My priorities are first to love God and follow His commands, and second-to love my neighbor with the love of Christ and the truth of His gospel. You said: “Imagine how much powerful the message of Jesus would be if Christians actually conducted themselves in that manner.” In this I definitely agree that there are many Christians who carry themselves out in a manner that is very harsh and un-loving. We are definitely called to be kind, and I believe that we can (and should!) live out our convictions, and teach our beliefs, while still being kind, gracious, and loving. Thanks again for your kindness and your input. You are more than welcome to comment anytime!
“You said that Jesus’ main command was to “love your neighbor.” In Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus told us that loving our neighbors was the second greatest commandment.”
You’re absolutely right. I guess I was speaking in more of a generalization as far as commands related to people’s conduct on Earth go…
Thank you for the reply. Obviously we disagree on the matter of same-sex marriage on a fundamental level. I find it interesting, though, that Christians maintain that position with the knowledge that such a position serves as a wedge to winning people to Christ, as opposed to an opportunity for good witness.
Let me ask a direct question: Islam is a fast-growing religion in the West, especially in other democratic nation-states such as the UK, Spain, and France, in addition to the United States.
How would you respond to the potential of a Muslim-majority electorate endorsing laws including mandatory hijab or burqa wear, legalized polygamy, and the requirement that all state-recognized marriages occur between Muslims?
If I were to think according to what PEOPLE say is fair or right, then I would probably agree with you. But again, I make every decision, and seek to form every opinion, with the Bible as my authority. When the Bible says something is wrong, I will believe it is wrong. I will teach that it is wrong, and I will vote accordingly. As a Christian I cannot do otherwise. To fully follow God means that I follow Him regardless of the opposition I face and regardless of who I might offend. Again though, the offense is never my aim. I seek to please God, and teach His Word. The results are in His hands, not mine.
In saying this, I understand that it doesn’t seem to be fair or even logical to some. But I value God’s Word above human reasoning. I believe that if more Christians did the same, we would have both the truth of God’s Word being taught to the world, AND the love of Christ shown to the world. It is when Christians choose only one (either truth OR love) that we begin to be seen either as hate-filled & legalistic, or as nice/kind hyprocrites. Neither of those options is what God has called Christians to be.
What does the Bible say about voting?
I mean, more pointedly, what part of the Bible indicates that if you have a method (voting) to project (force) your ideals onto others (who may or may not agree with you) that you should go ahead and do that?
And if it doesn’t say that, how is voting different than force?
While the Bible doesn’t address voting as a right or wrong thing to do, it does give Godly principles as to how a government should be run. Proverbs 13:34 & 29:2 tell us that a righteous government is best for any country. This is why I vote the way I do–because I believe it to be what is best for our country.
As for your question, I’m not sure where you are coming from with the question. “what part of the Bible indicates that if you have a method (voting) to project (force) your ideals onto others (who may or may not agree with you) that you should go ahead and do that?” With the harsh wording laid aside, isn’t that what everyone does when they vote? To any American, their vote is their voice. Of course many of us disagree about many things, but we ALL have a vote. What about you? Did you vote in this past election, and if so–why did you vote the way you did? Do you hold any beliefs/values/ideals that caused you to vote that way? And if so–would you say that your vote was forcing your ideals on those who disagree with you? I don’t say this to imply you were wrong to vote. I’m sure you voted in the way that you believed was best for our country. But even so, you probably voted in the way you believed was right. And in doing so, you wanted your vote to override those who disagree with you. You wanted them to be ‘forced’ to live by your ideals, because you deeply believe your ideals are right. Isn’t that the same as what you believe me to be doing?
What it comes down to is this: My vote is my voice in America, and whenever I’m given a voice–I want to use it for the Lord. It’s not about condemning anyone or “forcing my ideals” on them. It’s about honoring God with everything I have. And that includes my vote.
Sorry about that! I did not mean to sound harsh. I think part of that is we’re discussing things that are important to each of us individually. Because we care, it can elevate the emotion of the discussion.
“With the harsh wording laid aside, isn’t that what everyone does when they vote?”
That is an excellent point. However, I think there’s an obvious aspect you’re overlooking.
While I do hold beliefs, values, etc (and these things shape my worldview and, thus, vote) my ideas are falsifiable. Yours are not.
Simply put, my ideas may change, perhaps even frequently, as we learn, grow, and evolve as a species. Your ideas, on the other hand, are pretty rock solid; I don’t expect that anything is going to make you suddenly assume God isn’t real or that the Bible is false, etc.
And this is a problem when it comes to public policy because your construct of supernaturalism, while very popular, isn’t the only one. Muslims, for example, derive their truths from the Koran. If you’re right, they’re wrong. If they’re right, you’re wrong. Who, in any objective sense, is qualified to translate that into public policy?
I understand what you are saying here. I’ve spent time in the Middle East, and even made friends with some Muslim women. I had great respect for them, and for how seriously they took their faith. Yet, they believed I was thoroughly wrong–and tried to show me why. I was the same with them. At the end of my time there, though–we were all still friends. Yes-I believe I’m right, which means I believe all other views are wrong. But I don’t see that as hateful at all. Even when I’m on the other side of things… (Spending time in the Middle East, my views were DEFINITELY not popular!) I never even got upset with those women when they TOLD me that they wanted to convert me to Islam. I knew what they believed, and so I saw it as a sign that they cared for my eternal soul. BUT I still disagreed with them. I never converted, and I continued to tell them about Christ. If I can do that in a Muslim country, and it not be considered offensive, I don’t see why Americans are so offended by it! This is supposed to be a free country, but it is here that I’m more condemned for my faith. There, they tried to convert me, but NEVER insulted me in any way. In America I’m treated (by non-Christians) as if my views make me hateful, or as if I’m just downright ignorant or stupid for believing such things. I’ve even been told once that if we “Christians” want the freedom to live out our faith in every area of our lives, that we should be forced to form segregated communities as the Amish have chosen to do! I KNOW that you don’t agree with that person, but my point is that in this free country I feel as if society is simply trying to silence those who are religious. One of the great things about America is that we EACH have a voice and EACH of us are entitled to vote according to our beliefs. And regardless of this fact, gay marriage is slowly becoming legalized in more and more states, abortion is still legal, and Obama is president. So you see, Christians exercising our voice has not forced anything. We’ve overwhelmingly lost every battle we’ve even sought to fight. At the very most, Christians have delayed things that we’ve considered sinful. But we haven’t stopped anything.
I value the Bible, above all else. And I think many today have something they value above all else, and that is relativism–or something similar. I don’t think it’s wrong to hold a rock solid belief in anything, and I really don’t understand that ANYONE can hold beliefs that they think are “falsifiable”. I just don’t see the point. If your beliefs are held so loosely that you even say “my ideas are falsifiable”, then why do you believe these things? Or do you really believe them at all? Are they just “ideas” that you kinda-sorta think might be true? And if so–why would you vote with those things as your authority? I vote with my conscious at peace, ONLY because I fully believe in what I’m voting for.
See, I think you and I BOTH have values that are authoritative for us. Mine is the Bible, as God’s Word. Yours would be something along the lines of relativism. Meaning you don’t believe any “truth” is authoritative, and so you are rock-solid in your stance to allow people to change and interpret moral values as they see fit. (which I’m sure isn’t how you would word it). There are of course some moral values that you would never consider compromising on. Murder, for instance. If our country wanted to make it legal to shoot people that they had a grudge against, I’m positive you would fight that. This is because you see this moral value as something that should NEVER be compromised in any way. Well, I believe moral values that were mainstream 40 years ago are values that should have never been compromised. The fact that I believe abortion and homosexuality are sins, are things people considered a positive moral value until recently. And just as you have some moral values that you think should never be compromised–so do I. Relativism for you. The Bible for me.
“Your construct of supernaturalism, while very popular, isn’t the only one.” This is true, but when it comes to public policy–MOST main religions lead to the same policies today. (With the exception of Muslim views on “killing the infidel”). Muslims, Christians, Jews, and I’m fairly certain even Buddhists, would politically say that abortion and homosexuality are both sinful. Obviously there would be SOME political differences. But in my experience these policies seem to have 2 sides in the United States: Religious and Secular. Most religions can agree on these policies. It is the atheists, agnostics, and relativists who seem to disagree with ALL the religions.
“I don’t see why Americans are so offended by it!”
You mentioned before that your goal is never to offend anyone. I believe you. However, at some point, you should acknowledge that that is precisely what you’re doing. I know you don’t mean to, and you’re following God as your authority, but people are offended. And not just offended but hurt. You’re free to interpret that in any manner you see fit…but it won’t change the fact that your actions hurt people. To be fair, I would say it’s the aggregate action of Christians that is hurting people. I don’t want to insinuate that you’re single-handedly responsible.
On the other hand, none of the decisions I make hurt you. You may not like them from a religious standpoint, but they in no way impede your ability to worship your god, attend your church, work your job, live your life, etc. Do you see the point of delineation here?
I mean what consequences will YOU suffer if / when homosexuals are permitted to share health coverage and file taxes jointly?
“I really don’t understand that ANYONE can hold beliefs that they think are “falsifiable”.”
Absolutely they can. In fact, the contrary position would be wholly irrational. Here’s why: what we know, or think we know, or understand, or think we understand absolutely SHOULD be dynamic and flexible when presented with competing knowledge or understanding…usually in the form of some kind of evidence. Consider this analogy:
Let’s say you taught your young son that the Sun revolved around the Earth. This is a very believable claim! The child accepts this information because he trusts you as his mother. As he grows, the Sun appears each day and cross the sky and it looks very much like it is revolving around the Earth. He believes very much this is a fact.
Later in his life, he discovers evidence that the Earth is actually the one revolving around the Sun. The evidence is compelling and is back up by charts, math, and eventually confirmed.
It would be irrational for your son to maintain that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Conversely, he would demonstrate rationalism by reasoning the evidence against what he knows and concluding that what he thought to be true is no longer the case.
Any other fact of life is no different than the disposition of the Sun to the Earth. What we think we know or understand is subject to new experiences that confirm or deny our presuppositions. In fact, any position that is is static in principle is irrational by definition. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that when early scientists actually claimed that the Earth revolves around the Sun (and not vice-versa), they were put on trial for heresy.
Moralism itself is a human construct. I’ve yet to meet a Christian who cogently argues the source of morality. Is it God? He’s an awfully ambiguous source, if we’re going by the Bible. Is it rooted in a “soul”? A soul cannot be demonstrated and, thus, cannot serve as a basis for any kind of law. So where is it?
You mentioned murder as a good metric of moral evaluation. You said:
“Murder, for instance. If our country wanted to make it legal to shoot people that they had a grudge against, I’m positive you would fight that.”
Yes, that is true. I would never argue that murder is a morally appropriate venture. Why is that? Easy: murder involves two parties, one of which has consented (the murderer). The victim’s ability to conduct his life in a manner he enjoys has been illegally impeded by the murderer. I use “legally” in a broad, common-law concept.
And the Bible often muddles the water of such clear concepts. It certainly should not be considered any kind of moral authority. Even now, Christians in Africa are killing people they perceive as witches because of Exodus 22:18 which reads: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” And sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/01/witchcraft-curse-africa-kristy-bamu
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html
So, I mention all that to return to my original point: You believe what you believe and there is nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with your legal projection of such beliefs onto everyone else. And the laws of the United States not following your idea of what they should is not oppression. It’s just not submission.
In my opinion, it is a Christian’s responsibility to concern himself / herself with their conduct before God and in matters related to the church and the faith. The public domain is, well, a separate domain and while Christians are welcome to participate in it, they should respect the separate domains and abstain on matters of religious persuasion.
To show the same respect, I would abstain from any matters in the public domain related to religious beliefs. Actually that isn’t true…if a bill ever came before Congress that tried to limit your ability to worship, I would join you and stop it. People should just have the ability to live their lives without others dictating how that should be done.
All I can say is what I’ve already stated many times. God is my authority. I follow Him FIRST. I will not choose to elevate my own wisdom, or the wisdom above other people, above God’s wisdom. I cannot choose to please man above pleasing God. I understand that can be offensive, but I cannot disobey God in order to please man. God is our Creator, and He desires for ALL to come to saving faith in Him. If I TRULY believe this, then I HAVE to live in complete obedience to God, and I HAVE to tell others about His Word. True worship of God comes not through private prayer life, but through obedience in all aspects of my life. I can’t apologize for living out that worship.
I welcome your discussion with me, but I would like to ask you to refrain from starting these conversations with my readers. I want my blog to be a place of spiritual encouragement for them, rather than a place of debate or controversy. I would really appreciate your respect in doing that.
Sure, I will respect that. It’s your blog after all!
Feel free to delete my response to Larry on the other post.
It is disappointing, though, that Christians view any dissent as a stumbling block. That tends to reinforce stereotypes like “faith in a vacuum.” I would think believers would actually be eager to defend their faith. After all, if God is for them, who can be against them?
Some are, and others aren’t ready for that. We all need a safe place where we can let our defenses down and just absorb God’s truth. Those are the times that help us to learn the truths from God’s Bible well enough to be able to defend our faith. I just want my blog to be one of those “safe places”, that will help them defend their faith when they step out of their churches & homes and into their communities & places of business.
You don’t have to delete your other comment. “Larry” is actually my Dad, and a pastor. I’m sure he won’t be bothered at all to talk with you. Though I might warn you…He just may be a lot bolder than I am! :)
Sounds good. And thanks again for the discussion!
Thanks Andrew! :)