Friday, 13 April 2012
Is God Unfair? Part 3 - Does God Condone Slavery?
I realize it has been several months since I posted part 2 of this series, but unfortunately I have been so busy with school that I have not had the time to devote to trying to research this next question. I had a difficult time with this one, it is indeed a very tough question to answer. After discussing it with my father and my professor (who is also a pastor) among other people, I finally feel ready to tackle it. So..here we go.
Does God Condone Slavery?
Exodus 21:20-21 says this 'Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' This seems, at first, to be a puzzling case law to find in the bible. If God does not condone slavery, why would he put forth a law about it? But let's back up a bit....two very important question needs to be addressed before we decide whether or not God truly condones slavery.
What Is Slavery?
When we think of slavery, we often think of the vile practice of kidnapping people and selling them to others. However, this kind of slavery, otherwise known as 'man-stealing' is expressly forbade only four verses before. Exodus 21:16 says ' He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.' So then, whatever biblical slavery means, it does NOT mean the kidnapping of another person and forcibly selling them.
What Was The Cultural Context?
In the culture in which Exodus was written, it is important to remember that it was a time in which it was actually quite normal for a man without money to sell himself into slavery to someone he owed. Exodus 21:2 says ' If you buy a Hebrew servant...' It is interesting, is it not, that the section dealing with the treatment of slaves begins by saying 'If you buy a Hebrew servant'? This seems to refer more to the cultural practice of slavery to pay debts, rather than to a kidnapping and selling of people from other places as slaves. Another question that may come up in the slavery issue may be Exodus 21:7-11, in which it talks about a father selling his daughter as a slave. A friend of mine recently asked my opinion on this passage, and I must say, I was very grateful to him for bringing it up, since it is a very important aspect of the issue, and maybe a difficult one to understand as well. I will tell you basically the same thing that I told him. Again, you MUST understand the cultural context of the time. Men and women were thought of very differently then than they are now. Men were leaders, while women were always owned, and thought of as possessions. A father had protection of his sons until they came of age, but he owned his daughters forever, and he therefore had the right to choose her fate. In the Old Testament times, if a man married a woman he had to pay her father for her, whether that was by labor or by material possessions. Given this idea of ownership, in a culture where a man would sell himself into slavery in order to pay a debt, it makes a great deal of sense that a father would sell his child into a form of slavery instead of himself, thereby enabling the father to continue supporting the remainder of his family. Also, Exodus 21:7-11 does not imply at all that this slavery is to be a brutal one. On the contrary, verse 10 states that 'If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one'. This would imply that this 'selling into slavery' was really more along the lines of a marriage agreement, rather than a slave. There is one more question that may come to your mind when reading the passage. Why does the passage seem to allow for the beating of the slaves? That can't be right, can it? Again, think of the cultural context...a man owned his children and any servants that were in his household, and he was completely within his rights to discipline them in any way he saw fit. This did indeed include beatings, as harsh as that may seem in today's anti-disciplinarian society.
In Conclusion:
So, does God condone slavery? Yes, in fact, I believe he does. I also believe that 'slavery' as we think of it today does not in any way equate with the slavery of the bible. In today's society, it is not unthinkable for a man to 'work off' a debt with labor, and I believe this is exactly what is happening in Exodus, but in a culture where the agreement was not temporary, but permanent.
><>RileyRose<><
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Is God Unfair? Part 2: Does God Condone Human Sacrifice?
Well, it has been a few weeks, but I am finally going to attempt to write the second part of this series..
As I said in the first post, I am following the structure set by a youtube video entitled 'Morality Without God' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCovYF51qHE (There's the link if anyone wants to see the actual video) So the next thing I am to tackle is going to be Human Sacrifice.
Does God condone Human Sacrifice? Well, according to the Atheistic mindset portrayed in this video, He does! Where do they get this? The example used in the video was the story of Jephthah in Judges 11, who went to war, and made a vow to God that if he truimphed he would make a burnt offering out of the first thing that came out of his door on his return home. Unfortunately, the first thing that came out of his door when he arrived home was his only daughter. The passage goes on to speak of how the daughter requests two months so that she could go away and 'mourn for her virginity', after which she returns, and Jephthah 'Did to her as he had vowed.'
So, does it then follow that God condones human sacrifice? I should think it would be obvious to the logical thinker that the answer to that question is 'absolutely not!'. To be entirely clear about this, one must realize that just because something happens in the bible, it is not proof that that act is approved by God. There are many stories in the Old Testament that serve to teach us what NOT to do. For example, King David commits adultery with Bathsheba, and murders her husband in order to do so. Does this story show us that adultery and murder are alright in God's eyes? Of course not! The story merely shows that even a truly saved individual, (David, a 'man after God's own heart') can fall into sin and do things that are incredibly stupid and contrary to God's law.
I would argue that this is what is happening in the story of Jephthah. Jephthah makes a vow to the Lord without giving thought as to what the consequences of that vow might be. This is what we would call a 'rash vow'. The story of Jephthah teaches us very clearly that if we cannot be sure that we will be able to successfully carry out our vow without infringing on the law of God, we ought not to make it in the first place! There is a great deal of argument as to whether or not Jephthah actually did end up sacrificing his daughter, since there is some evidence that he may have given her as a temple servant instead of killing her, thus taking the phrase 'Burnt Offering' in it's metaphorical context of dedicating something to God, as opposed to it's literal context. Whether he did so or not is, however, really beside the point. The point is that God is not to be held responsible for our sinful and/or thoughtless actions.
So, does God condone human sacrifice? Not at all! He is, in fact, vehemently against it. The only Human Sacrifice in the history of the world that has ever been necessary was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our saviour, who came to earth to sacrifice himself in order to save his sinful people from the mess that they had created. This sacrifice was necessary because the only thing that could possibly stand in the place of a man, had to be a man. Praise God Almighty, who does great things for His people!
><>RileyRose<><
As I said in the first post, I am following the structure set by a youtube video entitled 'Morality Without God' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCovYF51qHE (There's the link if anyone wants to see the actual video) So the next thing I am to tackle is going to be Human Sacrifice.
Does God condone Human Sacrifice? Well, according to the Atheistic mindset portrayed in this video, He does! Where do they get this? The example used in the video was the story of Jephthah in Judges 11, who went to war, and made a vow to God that if he truimphed he would make a burnt offering out of the first thing that came out of his door on his return home. Unfortunately, the first thing that came out of his door when he arrived home was his only daughter. The passage goes on to speak of how the daughter requests two months so that she could go away and 'mourn for her virginity', after which she returns, and Jephthah 'Did to her as he had vowed.'
So, does it then follow that God condones human sacrifice? I should think it would be obvious to the logical thinker that the answer to that question is 'absolutely not!'. To be entirely clear about this, one must realize that just because something happens in the bible, it is not proof that that act is approved by God. There are many stories in the Old Testament that serve to teach us what NOT to do. For example, King David commits adultery with Bathsheba, and murders her husband in order to do so. Does this story show us that adultery and murder are alright in God's eyes? Of course not! The story merely shows that even a truly saved individual, (David, a 'man after God's own heart') can fall into sin and do things that are incredibly stupid and contrary to God's law.
I would argue that this is what is happening in the story of Jephthah. Jephthah makes a vow to the Lord without giving thought as to what the consequences of that vow might be. This is what we would call a 'rash vow'. The story of Jephthah teaches us very clearly that if we cannot be sure that we will be able to successfully carry out our vow without infringing on the law of God, we ought not to make it in the first place! There is a great deal of argument as to whether or not Jephthah actually did end up sacrificing his daughter, since there is some evidence that he may have given her as a temple servant instead of killing her, thus taking the phrase 'Burnt Offering' in it's metaphorical context of dedicating something to God, as opposed to it's literal context. Whether he did so or not is, however, really beside the point. The point is that God is not to be held responsible for our sinful and/or thoughtless actions.
So, does God condone human sacrifice? Not at all! He is, in fact, vehemently against it. The only Human Sacrifice in the history of the world that has ever been necessary was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our saviour, who came to earth to sacrifice himself in order to save his sinful people from the mess that they had created. This sacrifice was necessary because the only thing that could possibly stand in the place of a man, had to be a man. Praise God Almighty, who does great things for His people!
><>RileyRose<><
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Is God Unfair? Part 1: Does God Condone Rape?
How can you believe in a God who condones rape, incest, and murder? This was the basic premise of a video on youtube that I recently watched. The video seeks to 'prove' that if God truly exists, then he is actually not at all a good moral compass. But is this really true? Does the same God who forbade murder and sexual sin actually condone those things in his actions in the Old Testament?
This is obviously a bit of a hefty topic for me to take on, but I will do my best. Considering the largeness of the topic and my own lack of time (too much homework waiting for me! :S ) I am going to separate the issue into several posts and write it over several days or weeks (or months). We shall see how much free time I have. I very much hope that the reading of this will be helpful to you who may have struggled with any of these questions. They aren't easy questions, and I most certainly don't have all the answers....but, onward and upwards we go, attempting to understand and explain the difficult issues of scripture.
Part 1: Does God Condone Rape?
The first subject approached in the video was the issue of rape and incest. The video points out that Lot offered his virgin daughters to a mob of lustful men in order to protect the two angels that were currently in his home. This, says the video, is God condoning rape. But is that really true? I cannot say that I have the absolute proof on this one, but I tend to think that Lot's offering of his daughters to the men was completely sinful on his part. God did not tell him to do it, and the story illustrates Lot's lack of faith in God. Instead of trusting God to protect him, his guests, and his family, he leans on his own power, and tries to placate the men on his own instead of trusting God to protect him. The story does in no wise show that God approves of rape. (For the full story, see Genesis 19)
Later on in the story of Lot, we see that Lot's daughter's, afraid that they will never get married and will therefore not continue their father's line, get Lot drunk and rape him in order to get pregnant. This, says the video, is God condoning both rape and incest. I don't know if I even need to explain that one, it seems pretty obvious to me that the action that Lot's daughter's took was most definitely not sanctioned by God. Their actions were completely sinful, and the consequences of those actions are readily apparent later on in the Bible. Lot's daughter's both gave birth to sons, and those sons became the father's of the Moabites and the Ammonites, both great nations. These two nations were later cursed by God, and became bitter enemies of the israelites, who were God's chosen people.
So, does this show that God condones rape and incest? Not at all! In fact, it shows the opposite! Rape and incest are obviously condemned by God. If people insist upon falling to these sins, the consequences may not appear right away, but we can be sure that somewhere down the road someone is going to get hurt because of them.
><>Rosie<><
This is obviously a bit of a hefty topic for me to take on, but I will do my best. Considering the largeness of the topic and my own lack of time (too much homework waiting for me! :S ) I am going to separate the issue into several posts and write it over several days or weeks (or months). We shall see how much free time I have. I very much hope that the reading of this will be helpful to you who may have struggled with any of these questions. They aren't easy questions, and I most certainly don't have all the answers....but, onward and upwards we go, attempting to understand and explain the difficult issues of scripture.
Part 1: Does God Condone Rape?
The first subject approached in the video was the issue of rape and incest. The video points out that Lot offered his virgin daughters to a mob of lustful men in order to protect the two angels that were currently in his home. This, says the video, is God condoning rape. But is that really true? I cannot say that I have the absolute proof on this one, but I tend to think that Lot's offering of his daughters to the men was completely sinful on his part. God did not tell him to do it, and the story illustrates Lot's lack of faith in God. Instead of trusting God to protect him, his guests, and his family, he leans on his own power, and tries to placate the men on his own instead of trusting God to protect him. The story does in no wise show that God approves of rape. (For the full story, see Genesis 19)
Later on in the story of Lot, we see that Lot's daughter's, afraid that they will never get married and will therefore not continue their father's line, get Lot drunk and rape him in order to get pregnant. This, says the video, is God condoning both rape and incest. I don't know if I even need to explain that one, it seems pretty obvious to me that the action that Lot's daughter's took was most definitely not sanctioned by God. Their actions were completely sinful, and the consequences of those actions are readily apparent later on in the Bible. Lot's daughter's both gave birth to sons, and those sons became the father's of the Moabites and the Ammonites, both great nations. These two nations were later cursed by God, and became bitter enemies of the israelites, who were God's chosen people.
So, does this show that God condones rape and incest? Not at all! In fact, it shows the opposite! Rape and incest are obviously condemned by God. If people insist upon falling to these sins, the consequences may not appear right away, but we can be sure that somewhere down the road someone is going to get hurt because of them.
><>Rosie<><
Friday, 20 January 2012
The Little Things
It truly is the little things that make life great. The two major things that I have done today were homework, and philosophy class...both things which I do not spectacularly enjoy. But to my suprise, it was indeed a very good day despite that. My class is entered in a volleyball tournament which is taking place tomorrow. Although I am an utter failure at the sport, I look forward to spending the day with my classmates, all of whom I have come to love dearly over the past school year. I was also very blessed this afternoon, when my parents and my brothers came to visit me at school. They didn't stay long, but it was a wonderful visit all the same. After my parents left, I spent a while with some school friends, painting our team logo on t-shirts to wear to the game tomorrow. They ended up looking a lot better than I thought they would.
Some of my homework this week was to read and journal on the biblical book of Acts. I'd never read it straight through like that before, and a lot of things really struck me. One of those things was how totally and completely amazing the conversion of Saul (later known as Paul) is. When you are first introduced to Saul, he is holding the coats for a bunch of Jews who are stoning Stephen, a Christian. You then learn how Saul, 'Breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord' requests permission to go to Damascus to persecute the Christians. It is while he is on this journey that Christ appears to him and tells him exactly who he has been messing with. We get a glimpse into just how amazing Christ is through this story. Saul wasn't just mildly anti-Christian...he was pretty much the Christian's worst nightmare at that time. Now compare that to the man that he became after his conversion. He preached boldly in the name of Christ everywhere he went, and he went on to write at least half of the New Testament! This man went from being the Christian's worst enemy, to being the Christian's best friend. How in the world is that possible? Well....if you must know, it is possible only through the saving power of Jesus Christ our great saviour. He loved us, He died for us, He took our sins completely on himself so that we wouldn't have to go to Hell because of them, and He, and He alone, is able to take a man who completely hates God, and turn him into a man who would suffer and die for the gospel. Pretty cool huh?
><>TheRileyRose<><
Some of my homework this week was to read and journal on the biblical book of Acts. I'd never read it straight through like that before, and a lot of things really struck me. One of those things was how totally and completely amazing the conversion of Saul (later known as Paul) is. When you are first introduced to Saul, he is holding the coats for a bunch of Jews who are stoning Stephen, a Christian. You then learn how Saul, 'Breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord' requests permission to go to Damascus to persecute the Christians. It is while he is on this journey that Christ appears to him and tells him exactly who he has been messing with. We get a glimpse into just how amazing Christ is through this story. Saul wasn't just mildly anti-Christian...he was pretty much the Christian's worst nightmare at that time. Now compare that to the man that he became after his conversion. He preached boldly in the name of Christ everywhere he went, and he went on to write at least half of the New Testament! This man went from being the Christian's worst enemy, to being the Christian's best friend. How in the world is that possible? Well....if you must know, it is possible only through the saving power of Jesus Christ our great saviour. He loved us, He died for us, He took our sins completely on himself so that we wouldn't have to go to Hell because of them, and He, and He alone, is able to take a man who completely hates God, and turn him into a man who would suffer and die for the gospel. Pretty cool huh?
><>TheRileyRose<><
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
Nothing New Under The Sun
Nothing New Under the Sun
In a recent printing of the 'Woodstock Sentinel-Review' paper, I read an article entitled 'Desperate Christians Lose Message'. In the article, the author expressed an interesting view on modern day evangelism. He states that the way in which the church communicates to non-believers is 'virtually incomprehensible' to most modern people. He goes on to say that if we are to continue preaching the gospel in the modern world, the 'core message' of the gospel must be 're-thought and re-cast', that 'Old ideas and forumlae have either to be dumped or radically reinterpreted', and that 'every religion is a metaphor for God and the innate divinity of every human being on the planet', since humans are undergoing a ‘constant evolutino to a higher state of being and a maturity of wisdom.’ This wrong view of God and of man echoes the ideas that are so prevalent amongst much of unbelieving society today, and it brings up a couple of questions. One, Is the world of today truly so different that it needs a completely different gospel? And two, even if the world is different, has God, the author of the gospel, changed in such a way that the core gospel message is no longer relevant?
To answer the first question, we must take a look at the statement that man is undergoing a 'constant evolution to a higher state of being and a maturity of wisdom'. Is there actually evidence that man is becoming wiser as time progresses? It is certainly true that technology has advanced with time, but that is to be expected...a man may go for a walk and get further and further with every step without changing the core makeup of his body. The exercise may strengthen the outer shell of the man, but the inside stays the same. In the same way, mankind may get further and further in the fields of scientific and technological discoveries, and yet the core structure of mankind and society stays basically unchanged. Man is still just as much driven by pride, love, hate, lust, greed, selfishness and power as it has ever been. As high-tech as the outer packaging may become, the core of man stays just as 'immature in wisdom' as it has ever been.
The second question is an interesting one. Has God changed? Is the God that we know now the same God who sent his son to die on the cross for the sins of a lost and sinful people? Let us think through the implications of such a claim. Harper would have us believe in a God who can be found in every religion in the world. In this case, this is a completely different God than the one about whom Christ says in John 14:6 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but by me'. We must assume, then, that we are now speaking of a God removed from the God of the Bible. We are speaking of an abstract God of whom there is no biblical or any other sort of evidence. What society has done is separated God from the saving work of Christ. The 'God' that modern man wishes us to preach is now either a God of judgement, who has no means of saving his people, or a powerless God who looks down at the world and cannot do anything about the mess that man has made of it. If God has indeed changed in such a way, every person living on the face of the earth may as well hang their heads in despair and consign themselves to hell, for a God such as the one described here is not the loving, saving Father of the Bible. If men wish to allow for the saving work of Christ, then they cannot believe in the God they profess. This God cannot logically exist.
However wrong the premise of the article may have been, that is not to say that it didn’t have a nugget of truth within it.. William Cowper said ‘A fool must now and then be right by chance’. In this case, I tend to think the only thing this particular fool was correct about was his statement that religious communication can be difficult to understand for many modern people. Although his way of making the language ‘understandable’ to the modern ear was to change the meaning completely, there is still something to be mined from his statement. A fairly new comer to the reformed church myself, I know firsthand how confusing it is to be thrown into the world of the ‘Catechism’ and the ‘Proto-evangelium’ and many other technical terms common in reformed theology. As far as communicating the faith goes, I would encourage the church of God to make sure every new-comer to the church has a simple, but working knowledge of the gospel before filling in the technical information. At the same time, however, it must be understood that the church is not a place to feed milk to infants...it is a place to feed good strong theological food to growing Christians. When I say that the church should make new-comers comfortable with the foundation of their faith before building on it, I do not mean to say that the church services should always be kept simple for the sake of new Christians. However, it would be a wonderful if every church had more opportunities for these new Christians to be taught the basics, thereby allowing them to better understand the Gospel in its fullness. Perhaps something as simple as an elder who takes a moment to walk up to a guest and say, ‘did you understand everything in the sermon?’ or, ‘is there anything about the message that you would like me to explain?’. It would also be a very wise thing to have a ‘Introduction to the faith’ bible study available to those who need it.
In conclusion, what the article called the ‘lost message’ has not been lost at all, except by those why reject it and try to change it as much of modern society has done. Man has not changed, and God has not changed. The Gospel message is just as relevant today as it was when it was first written.
><>RileyRose<><
In a recent printing of the 'Woodstock Sentinel-Review' paper, I read an article entitled 'Desperate Christians Lose Message'. In the article, the author expressed an interesting view on modern day evangelism. He states that the way in which the church communicates to non-believers is 'virtually incomprehensible' to most modern people. He goes on to say that if we are to continue preaching the gospel in the modern world, the 'core message' of the gospel must be 're-thought and re-cast', that 'Old ideas and forumlae have either to be dumped or radically reinterpreted', and that 'every religion is a metaphor for God and the innate divinity of every human being on the planet', since humans are undergoing a ‘constant evolutino to a higher state of being and a maturity of wisdom.’ This wrong view of God and of man echoes the ideas that are so prevalent amongst much of unbelieving society today, and it brings up a couple of questions. One, Is the world of today truly so different that it needs a completely different gospel? And two, even if the world is different, has God, the author of the gospel, changed in such a way that the core gospel message is no longer relevant?
To answer the first question, we must take a look at the statement that man is undergoing a 'constant evolution to a higher state of being and a maturity of wisdom'. Is there actually evidence that man is becoming wiser as time progresses? It is certainly true that technology has advanced with time, but that is to be expected...a man may go for a walk and get further and further with every step without changing the core makeup of his body. The exercise may strengthen the outer shell of the man, but the inside stays the same. In the same way, mankind may get further and further in the fields of scientific and technological discoveries, and yet the core structure of mankind and society stays basically unchanged. Man is still just as much driven by pride, love, hate, lust, greed, selfishness and power as it has ever been. As high-tech as the outer packaging may become, the core of man stays just as 'immature in wisdom' as it has ever been.
The second question is an interesting one. Has God changed? Is the God that we know now the same God who sent his son to die on the cross for the sins of a lost and sinful people? Let us think through the implications of such a claim. Harper would have us believe in a God who can be found in every religion in the world. In this case, this is a completely different God than the one about whom Christ says in John 14:6 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but by me'. We must assume, then, that we are now speaking of a God removed from the God of the Bible. We are speaking of an abstract God of whom there is no biblical or any other sort of evidence. What society has done is separated God from the saving work of Christ. The 'God' that modern man wishes us to preach is now either a God of judgement, who has no means of saving his people, or a powerless God who looks down at the world and cannot do anything about the mess that man has made of it. If God has indeed changed in such a way, every person living on the face of the earth may as well hang their heads in despair and consign themselves to hell, for a God such as the one described here is not the loving, saving Father of the Bible. If men wish to allow for the saving work of Christ, then they cannot believe in the God they profess. This God cannot logically exist.
However wrong the premise of the article may have been, that is not to say that it didn’t have a nugget of truth within it.. William Cowper said ‘A fool must now and then be right by chance’. In this case, I tend to think the only thing this particular fool was correct about was his statement that religious communication can be difficult to understand for many modern people. Although his way of making the language ‘understandable’ to the modern ear was to change the meaning completely, there is still something to be mined from his statement. A fairly new comer to the reformed church myself, I know firsthand how confusing it is to be thrown into the world of the ‘Catechism’ and the ‘Proto-evangelium’ and many other technical terms common in reformed theology. As far as communicating the faith goes, I would encourage the church of God to make sure every new-comer to the church has a simple, but working knowledge of the gospel before filling in the technical information. At the same time, however, it must be understood that the church is not a place to feed milk to infants...it is a place to feed good strong theological food to growing Christians. When I say that the church should make new-comers comfortable with the foundation of their faith before building on it, I do not mean to say that the church services should always be kept simple for the sake of new Christians. However, it would be a wonderful if every church had more opportunities for these new Christians to be taught the basics, thereby allowing them to better understand the Gospel in its fullness. Perhaps something as simple as an elder who takes a moment to walk up to a guest and say, ‘did you understand everything in the sermon?’ or, ‘is there anything about the message that you would like me to explain?’. It would also be a very wise thing to have a ‘Introduction to the faith’ bible study available to those who need it.
In conclusion, what the article called the ‘lost message’ has not been lost at all, except by those why reject it and try to change it as much of modern society has done. Man has not changed, and God has not changed. The Gospel message is just as relevant today as it was when it was first written.
><>RileyRose<><
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Poetic Meta-dialogue
Well, here we are again. Greetings all!
Tonight I am putting up some completely random poetry! My friend (A.) and I (B.) were chatting on facebook, and for some reason we began talking in rhyme. This, of course, led to a poetical conversation about poetry. I found it very interesting, so I decided to document it. Hope you like it!
><>RileyRose<><
A Poetical Meta-dialogical conversation.
A.
I will miss you very much
But still, I revel in the lush
Sound of silence that I hear
Dearest girl, please never fear
You will always be my friend
But conversations have to end
B.
Well done, well done oh darling Dear,
but not as good as me I fear.
For poetry is my forte,
although not modest for to say
A.
In poetry class I have the highest mark
Rhythm and meter are just a lark.
B.
Poetic speech is not technique,
it's passion makes the words unique.
To the heart the words must talk,
if poetry it's not to mock
A.
Poetry requires a lot of study
Or else the meter will be muddy.
B.
But all the meter in the land,
can't bring love from heart to hand.
If the feelings that you tell,
are understood then all is well
But if there is no feeling there,
the poem makes not the reader care
A.
I would beg to disagree
Just between you and me
Without some knowledge it's just trashy
But an expert's work can be quite smashing.
B.
But, dear friend, you will agree,
the expert's work shows both to thee.
technique, feeling, all is there,
both the meter and the care
Love is present with the Rhyme,
If 'tis not it is a crime
A.
Verily, verily, that is true
But I must admit to you,
That people who think meter doesn't matter
Are completely mad, mad as a hatter
B.
I agree with what you say,
words are really like a clay
molded in the form we want,
as encouragement or taunt
Words do mighty power hold,
harnessed only by the bold
Tonight I am putting up some completely random poetry! My friend (A.) and I (B.) were chatting on facebook, and for some reason we began talking in rhyme. This, of course, led to a poetical conversation about poetry. I found it very interesting, so I decided to document it. Hope you like it!
><>RileyRose<><
A Poetical Meta-dialogical conversation.
A.
I will miss you very much
But still, I revel in the lush
Sound of silence that I hear
Dearest girl, please never fear
You will always be my friend
But conversations have to end
B.
Well done, well done oh darling Dear,
but not as good as me I fear.
For poetry is my forte,
although not modest for to say
A.
In poetry class I have the highest mark
Rhythm and meter are just a lark.
B.
Poetic speech is not technique,
it's passion makes the words unique.
To the heart the words must talk,
if poetry it's not to mock
A.
Poetry requires a lot of study
Or else the meter will be muddy.
B.
But all the meter in the land,
can't bring love from heart to hand.
If the feelings that you tell,
are understood then all is well
But if there is no feeling there,
the poem makes not the reader care
A.
I would beg to disagree
Just between you and me
Without some knowledge it's just trashy
But an expert's work can be quite smashing.
B.
But, dear friend, you will agree,
the expert's work shows both to thee.
technique, feeling, all is there,
both the meter and the care
Love is present with the Rhyme,
If 'tis not it is a crime
A.
Verily, verily, that is true
But I must admit to you,
That people who think meter doesn't matter
Are completely mad, mad as a hatter
B.
I agree with what you say,
words are really like a clay
molded in the form we want,
as encouragement or taunt
Words do mighty power hold,
harnessed only by the bold
Monday, 5 December 2011
I'm a Christian...Unless you're gay?
I'm a Christian...Unless you're gay?
The other day I read an article on someone's blog entitled 'I'm a Christian, unless you're gay.' The article was written by a non-christian, and it really got me thinking. The author of the article was basically trying to say that most religions (not just christianity) have some sort of teaching about loving others, and yet so many people from every religion seem to completely forget about that part of their religion and concentrate merely on the things that people disagree with them about.
The article obviously had something of a non-christian slant, and some of the things that the author said absolutely cannot be accepted by a Christian. However, the basic message was very applicable, and I think it is a message that really needs to be taken to heart by many people, and especially Christians. I was completely shocked by some of the comments that had been posted on the the article. Many 'Christians' had commented and said absolutely terrible and un-Christian things. One man, in his comment, said:
'those people who are having such a hard time being gay? it's only cause they don’t want to let it go. If they actually wanted to let it go I bet life would get a lot easier for them. After all, being gay is going against what god made us naturally to be and doing what is natural is a whole lot easier.'
Another person commented that:
'homosexuality is unnatural and a choice they simply make because it’s easier for them to get some action that way......It’s not my job to love the people who pervert God’s laws. It’s not my job to love people who purposefully defile the things that I hold sacred.'
I find it extremely unsettling that people who call themselves Christians can say things like this and yet believe that what they are doing is in accordance with God's will. The repeated idea that people 'choose' homosexuality because they want to makes no sense to me at all. It is possible that some people may be pressured into 'trying' homosexuality by our culture, (bi-curious) but it is also true that many people who have never experienced any sort of pressure do struggle with homosexual tendencies. I think all Christians will agree that every human on the face of the earth is born into the world with a tendency to a certain sort of sin. Some have the tendency to have a flaming hot temper, some have a tendency to be attracted to and addicted to porn. Sinfulness comes in every shape and form and attacks us in every part of our life, whether that may be our temperaments, our sexuality, our mentality, etc.
As Christians, we need to realize that every single sinful thing that we do is enough to put us in hell for all eternity. We also need to realize that if we are proud of ourselves for struggling against and controlling our hot temper, we should also be proud of the man or woman who struggles against homosexuality and does not give in to it. It makes me sick when I hear stories of people who admit to their friends or to their churches that they struggle with gay tendencies and who are immediately discarded by their friends and shunned by God's people.
I am not talking merely about people within the church though, there are, of course, people outside of the church who are openly homosexual, and do not struggle against it at all. Well, since they do not fight against it, then we can hate them, ignore them, and insult them, right? Wrong! The first thing we have to ask ourselves is this, 'if this person is not a christian, then how can I tell them that it is wrong for them to be gay? What do I base that on?' We need to realize that telling a gay person that they are sinning because they are gay is completely abstract for them. To explain to them why it is wrong, you have to explain EVERYTHING to them. You must explain who God is, why there is sin in the world, what sin is, what happens to sinners, and how they can escape. Only on this foundation can you explain to anyone in an understandable way that what they are doing is wrong. And guess what? It's going to take a while! This is not something that you can explain to someone in a day, and it is not something that should be said in an aggressive way. Christ commanded us to 'Speak the truth in love.' It is impossible to truly love a person if we do not understand anything about them. Sometimes you have to 'eat with tax collectors' in order to explain the truth to them.
Another thing to keep in mind is that once (and if) a person admits that homosexuality is indeed a sin, you CANNOT just leave them to fend for themselves. To tell someone that they are doing something wrong, and then leave them with no support as they attempt to struggle against it is cruel. I encourage you to think of sins that you may have/have had a problem with. What do you think is better, trying to struggle through that sin on your own, or having Godly friends to encourage you in the battle? I would definitely argue that it is always easier to fight against sin when you have people that you trust there to put an arm around you and tell you that you are doing well.
In conclusion, I would like to go back to one of the comments that I earlier quoted. The one commenter said 'It’s not my job to love the people who pervert God’s laws.' But isn't that exactly what our job is? I hope that every person who reads this can see the problem with this man's statement. What is evangelism about? Is it about preaching God's love to those who look righteous enough? Or is it about gathering up lost, filthy sheep and lovingly leading them to a savior who has the power to wash them white as snow? You decide.
The other day I read an article on someone's blog entitled 'I'm a Christian, unless you're gay.' The article was written by a non-christian, and it really got me thinking. The author of the article was basically trying to say that most religions (not just christianity) have some sort of teaching about loving others, and yet so many people from every religion seem to completely forget about that part of their religion and concentrate merely on the things that people disagree with them about.
The article obviously had something of a non-christian slant, and some of the things that the author said absolutely cannot be accepted by a Christian. However, the basic message was very applicable, and I think it is a message that really needs to be taken to heart by many people, and especially Christians. I was completely shocked by some of the comments that had been posted on the the article. Many 'Christians' had commented and said absolutely terrible and un-Christian things. One man, in his comment, said:
'those people who are having such a hard time being gay? it's only cause they don’t want to let it go. If they actually wanted to let it go I bet life would get a lot easier for them. After all, being gay is going against what god made us naturally to be and doing what is natural is a whole lot easier.'
Another person commented that:
'homosexuality is unnatural and a choice they simply make because it’s easier for them to get some action that way......It’s not my job to love the people who pervert God’s laws. It’s not my job to love people who purposefully defile the things that I hold sacred.'
I find it extremely unsettling that people who call themselves Christians can say things like this and yet believe that what they are doing is in accordance with God's will. The repeated idea that people 'choose' homosexuality because they want to makes no sense to me at all. It is possible that some people may be pressured into 'trying' homosexuality by our culture, (bi-curious) but it is also true that many people who have never experienced any sort of pressure do struggle with homosexual tendencies. I think all Christians will agree that every human on the face of the earth is born into the world with a tendency to a certain sort of sin. Some have the tendency to have a flaming hot temper, some have a tendency to be attracted to and addicted to porn. Sinfulness comes in every shape and form and attacks us in every part of our life, whether that may be our temperaments, our sexuality, our mentality, etc.
As Christians, we need to realize that every single sinful thing that we do is enough to put us in hell for all eternity. We also need to realize that if we are proud of ourselves for struggling against and controlling our hot temper, we should also be proud of the man or woman who struggles against homosexuality and does not give in to it. It makes me sick when I hear stories of people who admit to their friends or to their churches that they struggle with gay tendencies and who are immediately discarded by their friends and shunned by God's people.
I am not talking merely about people within the church though, there are, of course, people outside of the church who are openly homosexual, and do not struggle against it at all. Well, since they do not fight against it, then we can hate them, ignore them, and insult them, right? Wrong! The first thing we have to ask ourselves is this, 'if this person is not a christian, then how can I tell them that it is wrong for them to be gay? What do I base that on?' We need to realize that telling a gay person that they are sinning because they are gay is completely abstract for them. To explain to them why it is wrong, you have to explain EVERYTHING to them. You must explain who God is, why there is sin in the world, what sin is, what happens to sinners, and how they can escape. Only on this foundation can you explain to anyone in an understandable way that what they are doing is wrong. And guess what? It's going to take a while! This is not something that you can explain to someone in a day, and it is not something that should be said in an aggressive way. Christ commanded us to 'Speak the truth in love.' It is impossible to truly love a person if we do not understand anything about them. Sometimes you have to 'eat with tax collectors' in order to explain the truth to them.
Another thing to keep in mind is that once (and if) a person admits that homosexuality is indeed a sin, you CANNOT just leave them to fend for themselves. To tell someone that they are doing something wrong, and then leave them with no support as they attempt to struggle against it is cruel. I encourage you to think of sins that you may have/have had a problem with. What do you think is better, trying to struggle through that sin on your own, or having Godly friends to encourage you in the battle? I would definitely argue that it is always easier to fight against sin when you have people that you trust there to put an arm around you and tell you that you are doing well.
In conclusion, I would like to go back to one of the comments that I earlier quoted. The one commenter said 'It’s not my job to love the people who pervert God’s laws.' But isn't that exactly what our job is? I hope that every person who reads this can see the problem with this man's statement. What is evangelism about? Is it about preaching God's love to those who look righteous enough? Or is it about gathering up lost, filthy sheep and lovingly leading them to a savior who has the power to wash them white as snow? You decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)