What Do You Believe?

In our culture today, so many times the question is asked about what we believe, especially in politics and religion.  Do believe in Jesus as your personal lord and savior?  Do you believe that a woman has the right to control her own body?  Do you believe in the death penalty?  Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?  Do you believe in fiscal responsibility?

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you're going to do about it.

That's my stand.  In the bible, James said:  "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."  "Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?"  So I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what you believe because what you say you believe makes you a liar unless what you do backs it up.  If James calls it useless, than it is useless.  Apart from the Bible, I still say if you can't back up what you believe by what you do, then it truly is useless!

The American Christian (you know what I think about these people) culture today is one in which you are defined by what you believe, or at least what you say you believe.  Are you against abortion?  Are you against gay marriage?  Are you against taxes?  Are you a fiscal conservative?  Yes?  Well then by Jove, you're okay in my book!  But like I said, so?  What I want to know is what are you going to do about it?

Conservatives have been against abortion for forty years.  They have used it for forty years to gain votes, but in the end, what have they done about it?  Little more than nothing.  Well, they won elections, so I guess that counts.  I have recently been encountering atheists who are now approaching the ability to discuss moral issues in a playing field which for so long has been dominated by people of faith.  Jen Roth is a so-called pro-life atheist and she has such a powerful case against abortion that usually argumentative commentators can't but sit and listen to her lay it out.  I'm currently reading a new book by atheist Sam Harris called "The Moral Landscape."  And it's hard to fathom, but atheists are now, at least in my view, making better cases for moral issues than the staid Christian apologists. 

If this plays out, American Christianity is in some sh!t!

P.S.  I really hope it's deep!

But how could I say these things?  I'm a follower of Jesus after all, I believe all the stuff I'm supposed to believe right?  The difference is what I am going to do about it.

Jen Roth with her "Pro Peace" makes the best case, and I'm gonna mix hers and my stuff here for a minute to make an aggregate case for thought, action, and nuance.  Okay, so we all, on all sides can agree that abortion is not a good thing.  Even pro-choice people can usually agree that having less abortions is better.  There's something about the psycho-physical interaction that is a woman that says that the loss of a child is a damaging event.  But pro-choice people still want the option to be there just in case, and typical pro-life people think the benefit of life to the being is more important than the emotional or other state of the woman. 

Okay, so we want less abortions, now what?  The belief is out of the way, so what should we do about it because it's the doing that is the important part is it not?  That's what I said up there, so that's what it is.

What are our options?  Some say overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Truth be told, this is not a viable option.  It's a decision that gives federal rights to people, a whole bunch of people aren't gonna let that happen.  There will be riots and if it does succeed, it will be driven by the American Church and the Church will lose the American people for generations, and probably forever.  In short, it isn't going to happen.  It's just not.  It's not a viable option, it's not a peaceful option.  Likewise, making abortions on demand and free is not going to make their numbers go down like we all want.

Now if we come to the table to form a solution in the spirit of cooperation and reason, you know, being reasonable, both sides need to make some concessions.  This is how cooperation and negotiation works.  This is how it is done.  You can take power by force and alienate your opponents, or you can meet in the middle and step by step, progress can be made.  By the way, that is my definition of progress, moving forward, getting things done piece by piece, thing by thing.  That's why I can be against the health bill because it doesn't do what we need, but for it because it takes several steps in the right direction.

First of all, we just have to abandon abstinence only education.  It doesn't work.  It simply doesn't work.  Teens are gonna have sex.  The good parents can have a good lifelong effect on that, but the schools are gonna have a really rough time getting that to be effective.

People gotta stop trashing Planned Parenthood simply for fun.  Where I grew up, Planned Parenthood handed out condoms on demand.  That was a good thing.  Who knows how many pregnancies were avoided because of that.

The rights of women to not get pregnant if they choose such must be held high.  There are a lot of women who are coerced into getting pregnant.  This creates a lot of strife and is not a peaceful option for the world.  Also, a great many women are coerced into having an abortion by their boyfriends or their families.  That's unacceptable. 



What I mean to say with all this is very important.  We're not going to get abortion illegalized, at least not in my lifetime and not peacefully.  So let us put our beliefs into action to realistically reduce the number of abortions.  Let us change militant attitudes and single issue voter status quos to affect real change.

Because it doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you're going to do about it.

Shalom
WiredForStereo

Find some common ground in the abortion debate.

I was out mowing the lawn today and as usual, I was thinking of ways to solve problems in the world, because that's what I do.

So here's what I came up with.

The abortion debate as you know is a heated one, and I feel that most of the discord comes from both sides' unwillingness to actually do anything about the problem. Secondly, both sides are entirely unwilling to come together to solve the problem and are unwilling to make any sort of concession or give up any power.

First the democrats. The democrats need to stop fighting so much for choice and start fighting for social change. We need the kind of social change that tells a young woman that there are better options than killing the baby. The democrat mission statement or whatever it is says safe, legal, and rare. We have save and legal, let's actually work on rare now.

To get anywhere, the conservatives must give up control. What I mean by control is that conservatives seem to want to go about the problem by controlling everything, especially things they got no business controlling. They must give up the gay marriage debate. That single issue is the one that tells the rest of the world that conservatives (and by extension Christians) want to control you and what you do in your own private life. There is no scriptural basis for such a supposition. Sinners will sin, and Christians must allow sinners to do what sinners do. It is not nor has ever been our job to with the law correct others' sinful behavior. Remember, the major corrections meted out by Jesus were all directed toward the religious leaders of the day.

Unfortunately, the conservatives are not going to win this battle. You cannot legislate your version of morality. You cannot call someone immoral simply because they disagree with your version of morality. In case you have missed it, over time, governments and laws just about always trend in the liberal direction. It's the new, the progress, the adventure in people. We find new and better ways to do things, and so we do them in those ways. The old, the tried and true things will slowly pass away. The key is to work within the progress to affect positive change.

Do what's best, work together.
WiredForStereo

Are you Gay or just Lazy?

It has come to my attention recently that the conservative right has been hounding issues related to homosexuality. You know, the good old ones like gay marriage, gay rights, and I'm not sure, but I think they may just want all the gay people to move away to somewhere.

As a Christian, I have a few problems with hounding gays. Firstly, homosexuality is listed in the Bible somewhere around 12-16 times (not sure exactly, I've found evidence for both, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with 16.) However laziness is mentioned a bunch more. So who should we be going after?

Secondly, the idea of a Christian using a governmental position to attack anyone or otherwise attacking anyone at all seems a bit foreign to me. Jesus never attacked sinners, he never said "Hey you prostitutes, I'm gonna outlaw yer business." No, he hung out with them, he love them and he told them not to do it anymore.

And what's this crap about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? What is this crap? This is ridiculous. You want to take what our most important document and spray horse $h!t all over it by putting that nonsense in there? It's ponderous. It's frakkin' ponderous. Again, Christians don't control or attack other people. This kind of thing gets me incensed. Jesus told us to go into the world and teach what we were taught. The only people who Jesus attacked were religious professionals who were doing a $h!tty job of what God put them in charge of. Real Christians let people do what ever they want, and if they want to take it in the butt, that's what they want to do. We are supposed to be there to help bring people out of sin, not to force them to not sin.

And why gay marriage anyway? What's the big deal? They're already gay for frak sake. It's like saying "You got a car but I'm not going to give you a drivers license!" How exactly does that work, you'll drive it anyway. And they say it ruins heterosexual marriages. Wrong, selfish straight people ruin heterosexual marriages. That's facts.

Here's a well reasoned idea for you to ponder. I've thought about this for a long time. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Marriage is between you and your spouse and God. Government and religion should be separate. Therefore, government should have no control whatsoever over marriage. It should not decide who gets married, or how many, or what gender, or what species. It's between you and God, not you and uncle Sam. If your church wants to marry Chuck and Larry and you don't like it, then find a different church. As far as legally, a company should not be required to provide any benefits to your spouse. Your spouse doesn't work there. If they do, it should be a simple perk, something to draw you to the job or to keep you there. And if you have eight wives and your company likes you so much that it will provide benefits for all of them, then by all means you should stay at that company, because I sure ain't gonna have that kind of benefit at my company.

One more time, it is completely nonsense that Christians should by trying to control people through political means. This is why we have separation of church and state, and not just so that the church doesn't control the state, but also the other way around. Corruption travels both ways.

Sorry for the swearing, I need to blog more often to keep the anger down.
WiredForStereo

Divorced from the Wings

I am becoming more and more moderate.

I used to be a bit to the right, conservative and all. Then in my massive intake of data, I found Jim Wallis. I clicked the little link on the Veritas Forum that said "Politics" and found a message by Jim Wallis. Now, coincidently I had listened to this message last year some time, I don't remember, but it didn't really stick then, and I think it was because then I was not as interested in politics as I am now.

So Wallis I guess is more of a left wing Christian guy, though I would probably classify him as left center or center left, maybe even Center Moderate if I wanted to classify him with me. At any rate, conservatives think he is left.

Jim's message is that the real contemporary Christians are no longer accurately represented by the conservative religious right who's flagship issues are abortion and gay marriage. He contends that those issues are not as important as poverty. He says that both sides of the aisle would agree that fewer abortions are better than more, and none would be better still, but the differences lie in the fact that the left wants rare, safe and legal, while the right wants rare and illegal. Jim himself just wants there to be no abortions, preferably because no one wants them. I would agree, now how do we make no one want them. Fixing poverty and education. Fabulous! As far as gay marriage, Jim would say that all agree on what the gay marriage people want, rights to personal property, hospital visitation, and medical care decision making. I am ok with this as well, though I'd take it a step further and say that government should have no interference or control whatsoever in marriage, and I'll post on that later.

So I hear about the bickering the political maneuvering on the news and talk radio all the time. The Democrats will fund the war as long as there is a timetable for withdrawal, then back down on the withdrawal proving again that they have no spine. The Republicans are very unwilling to compromise, and can be very harsh, but I guess both sides are very harsh.

So I am caught in the middle, and at this point am very happy to be there. I am a registered independent. I consider myself a Center Moderate, because in politics, you can ride the fence. But the reason I am in the middle is not because I want to pick and choose which side I'll side with on a particular issue, but because I am absolutely repulsed by both sides. I look at Democrats with the things they have stood for in the last 20 years and say "Not bloody likely," and I look at the Republicans and the things they have stood for and are standing for now and I say "forget it." None of you people represent me. I wash my hands of all party affiliations and all claims to conservatism or liberalism.

But, remember, you can't fly a bald eagle without both wings, and you darn sure can't without the head and the rest of the body. So, you Republicans and Democrats just flap away, and I'll fly this bird, and maybe we'll get somewhere.
WiredForStereo

The Fundamentals of Fundamentalists

Fundamental, noun: A leading or primary principle, rule, law, or article, which serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part, as, the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Wikipedia says:
Christian fundamentalism: A movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to Modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

So, let's compare the definition with the group, but first, what are the real fundamentals of the Christian Faith? Think for a second. I think we could consider a subject that is mentioned more often than others in the Bible a fundamental don't you? Ok, what is mentioned most in the Bible? Is it the inerrancy of the Bible? No, I don't think that's in there. Is it Sola Scriptura? No, the Bible even quotes other books. Is it the Virgin Birth of Christ? A few times, but still no. Is it the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement? More times but still no. Is it the bodily resurrection of Christ? Closer, but no. Finally, is it the imminent return of Jesus Christ? No, money is still mentioned more than that.

So what is it?

What is mentioned more than anything in the New Testament, and comes in second in the Old Testament? Simple. Poverty. What? No, surely not, you mean it's not abortion or gay marriage or immigration or even Islam? Number one in the Old Testament is idolatry by the way.

Poverty. Poverty is mentioned over 2000 times in the Bible.

So we have a case here of missing the fundamentals by the Fundamentalists. How ironic, don't you think? A political party that claims a monopoly on Christianity and Faith, yet seems to be pro war, pro rich, and only pro American to quote Jim Wallis.

Other reasons I am not a fundamentalist are the first two on the list under the definition, inerrancy of the Bible, and Sola Scriptura. First I'd like to say that the "Word of God" is inerrant. But the Bible is not so much the Word of God as the Word of God and some history according to a number of authors. This is why we have the "Gospel According to ..." not "God's Inerrant Word About Some Stuff That Happened." Was there one Gerasene Demoniac or two? Don't let me discourage you however. The Bible contains the inerrant Word of God, but the whole thing isn't the whole of the inerrant Word of God. This leads me to the second point. Sola Scriptura was created in response to people trying to add onto the scriptures. However, I believe in Sola Scripture insofar as it does not preclude the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And of course as the Bible says, spirits must be tested in light of scripture.

So what's the message here? The prime fundamental of the Christian Faith should be Jesus' work on the cross, because without that, there is nothing else, but then care for the poor, you know, widows and orphans, and then we can add all those other things. Because after all, if we are not following God's most mentioned command, what's the point of trying to pretend we are following the rest?

Inspired,
WiredForStereo