Faith

Last week, zTruth posted a similar story, except that the religions were reversed…

If this doesn’t take the prize for being two-faced, I don’t know what does.

… a very controversial Islamic organization wants an investigation because a little toy of Jesus was handed out in a kids meal at a Long John Silver in the Mall of America in Minnesota that offended the Muslim parents of a 3 year-old boy.  A 3 year-old boy, folks.

At the end of the post, zTruth rhetorically asks, “isn’t this totally two-faced?”

I don’t know, is it? Perhaps. But consider this: If it had been Christian parents of a 3-year-old boy who had just found a Muslim “toy” in their Long John Silver’s kid’s meal, do you think they might be offended? If so, would they and/or any one of the fundamentalist Christian organizations who would undoubtedly join the uproar be considered “totally two-faced”?

Also consider that this wasn’t just a toy. The local news reports about this story describe the “toy” as “a notepad that featured a quote from the Bible.” Also worth noting is that the parents requested an alternative toy, but was told “only notepads with Bible verses were available.”

This wasn’t just a toy figurine. It was “a notepad” with Bible verses. Now, again, imagine if this were a notepad with passages from the Koran and Christian parents found it in their child’s meal. Would they be offended? Would it be considered “totally two-faced” that they were offended?

If Christians are offended by the encroachment of other religions — especially Islam — into “our” spaces, especially in non-religious settings where we don’t expect to be confronted by religious expression, how then can we ridicule and lament people of other faiths and religions who get offended by Christian symbols found in non-religious settings?

What was Christian literature doing in a Long John Silver’s kid’s meal anyway? Seriously? Are we going to be proselytized at the restaurants that we eat now? Is that what we want?

I can tell you that I don’t want to find a Muslim or any religious item in my child’s meal at a fast food restaurant. Do you want a local fast food restaurant to add Muslim, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Scientologist or Kabbalah symbols or evangelistic materials to your meal?

Just some food for thought.

Oklahoma Lefty posted this Quote of the Day.

“If people look only to their own interests, our world will certainly fall apart.”
— Pope Benedict XVI

Not surprisingly, Jim Martin at Fried Green Onions posted his own version of this quote.

If people would look out for their own interests. The world would be a better place.

I would be interested in seeing how Mr. Martin would defend such a position scripturally, especially given Jesus’ command(s) regarding looking out for one’s own interest versus others’ interests…

Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” (Matthew 22:37-39)

The Apostle Paul said it this way…

The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Romans 13:9)

The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14)

It would seem that Oklahoma Lefty’s version would more closely reflect the Christian faith that Mr. Martin claims to profess.

Meanwhile, Sinister says both are wrong.

I guess it’s just interesting that both of these bloggers profoundly misunderstand the reality of their respective quotes.

While I understand and respect Sinister’s viewpoint, the quote by Oklahoma Lefty of Pope Benedict is not in and of itself wrong. The sentiment expressed in that statement is absolutely correct. What Sinister’s real objection to, whether he realizes it or not, is to the person who said it and the actions that don’t necessarily measure up with the words expressed.

Sinister’s point about FGO’s inconsistency is spot on. His point about Oklahoma Lefty’s “Amen” is not. I don’t believe Oklahoma Lefty was endorsing Pope Benedict’s track record as much as he was agreeing with the quote itself. It is indeed possible — and I would argue well within Jesus’ command — to look after the interests of others without imposing one’s own agenda upon them and infringing upon their free will.

Leave it to the Oklahoma GOP and people like Jim Martin to make the Christmas holiday — the holiday of “peace on earth and goodwill to all men” — a partisan event.

Wishing You A Merry Red OK Christmas! click on link for flash animation

*

Un-be-liev-able.

This partisanship by the party that so often likes to believe it’s more “Christian” than others certainly doesn’t reflect the spirit of this Christian holiday or the Christ whose birth is being celebrated.

This was sent to me this morning from a pastor friend of mine…
(Sung to the tune of “Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas“)

Have yourself a peace and justice Christmas,
Set your heart a-right.
Flee the malls and focus on Christ’s guiding light.

Have yourself a peace and justice Christmas,
Give your time a way.
Share God’s love, And serve “the least of these” today.

Here we are, as we pray for peace,
We’ll live simply and give more.
We care for those far and near to us,
Which brings cheer to us, once more.

God brings down
The haughty from high places,
And lifts up the low.
God cares for the hungry and the humble, so –
Forget the stress and let the peace and justice flow!

Yesterday, Dave at Oklahoma Lefty asked the question, “What is wrong with ‘Happy Holidays’?” In his post, he said:

For as long as I can remember the term “Happy Holidays” referred to the time of the year from Thanksgiving through New Years and was an inclusive way of wishing folks well. Somehow “Happy Holidays” has become demonized by those who believe that Christmas and Christianity are under attack in this country.

I say we take “Happy Holidays” back from those who would demean and demoralize its inclusive, hopeful, and true nature.

*

Dave is absolutely right. “Happy Holidays” doesn’t dishonor “Merry Christmas.” Rather, it honors the plethora of holidays during this season, including Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, the Winter solstice, Festivus, Christmas, and the New Year. There is nothing wrong with saying “Happy Holidays” to others. There is nothing wrong with saying “Merry Christmas” to others — even non-believers and/or non-participants in the Christian holiday, as long as you don’t mind them wishing you Happy Rosh Hashana or Merry Ramadan. We are, after all, a democracy and not a theocracy.

Just as Dave remembered, I too recall “Happy Holidays” being commonplace for as long as I can remember — even as a little kid. Granted, I’m not as ancient as others (like Mr. Martin), but I’m no spring chicken either. This phrase is not something brand new.

The fact that so many Christians choose to be offended by the term “Happy Holidays” is more of a reflection on those Christians than on the purported persecution of the Christmas holiday — and by extension the Christian faith. It is a classic speck-and-plank scenario Continued

[Editor's note: I'm introducing a new feature on this blog. Each Saturday, I'll re-publish the blog post that I deem the "highlight of the week" — whether because it received the most hits, generated the most discussion or had the most impact on readers and/or on my personally. This week's "highlight" was a post written by Brian, one of my regular readers, that generated some interesting discussion and received quite a few hits. Brian had a lot to say about some recent posts between various blogs discussing Christians and hate. I invited him to share his thoughts on this matter here on this blog as a guest contributor. Here is his post again, originally published on Wednesday, December 10th. You can read the comments that original post generated here.]

*

I was intrigued today by a rather verbose post regarding Christianity and hate. Rather than addressing the challenger’s post line by line, it seemed a good opportunity to address the concepts of Christianity and hate more generally. Something the poster seemingly wanted to do but didn’t seem to accomplish very effectively.

This is one of those topics that I think would apply to the idea that many Christians are not really ready for the “solid food” — milk is still much more palatable (1 Cor 3:2, Hebrews 5).

Is hate a part of Christianity or more pointedly, does God hate?  The old adage that most try to prove theologically is God hates the sin while he loves the sinner.  The question at hand is, is that entirely true?  While I am not sure I can agree with much of the challenger’s post, he seems to be trying to challenge the idea that hate is antagonistic to Christianity or God.

If one wants to be a mature, truth-seeking follower of God, one must be willing to open themselves up to uncomfortable subjects and be willing to consider them through the filter of God’s Word.  What often keeps Christians from maturing in their faith is that they know something to be theologically true whether they have invested the time to truly study the issue. This leads inevitably to prooftexting scriptures to find support for their already understood position.

So, at risk of alienating those who will not continue reading after stating this uncomfortable fact, I will state that God not only hates the sin, but there is scriptural evidence that he does indeed hate sinners as well.  I will offer my support for this in a moment but let me first state that only God is God and just because there is evidence that God’s divinity creates a strong enough disdain for conscious disobedience does not provide license to his followers to apply any form of judgment over His creation.

Let us start with the scripture that can be uncomfortable to many since it does demonstrate that God himself not only hates the sin itself but also the individual associated with the sin Continued

Okie blogger Dr. Bruce Prescott points to an essay by Robert Tapp posted at Religion Dispatches that raises a quite provocative point:

A major controversy in contemporary culture is the question of when human life begins. Religions have given different answers and the consequences that have followed have been very divisive. Does life begin at conception, or at implantation, or at quickening, or at birth, or…? Family planning and contraceptives have further complicated these controversies. Is pregnancy the normal/natural purpose/result of our sexuality—or is it an outcome that can be either intended or accidental (and thus probably undesired)?

We know now that perhaps 30 percent of fertilized human eggs spontaneously cease development and are thus aborted in the early stages of pregnancy—often undetected. A considerable number of embryos miscarry during later stages of pregnancy. If we use the phrasing of the country’s founders—Nature and Nature’s God—what do we make of this reality? Should we view Nature or God as the supreme abortionist? A friend of mine who is a churchgoing fertility specialist speaks of such events as “accidents” but the theological and philosophical implications are enormous. A current metaphor is that not every acorn can or does or should become an oak tree.

…

As we help US culture emerge from its anti-scientific faith moment, we need to stress a rational morality. One in which the playing fields become more level. One in which children are intended—by persons who are prepared to assume parenthood roles emotionally, intellectually, and economically. To bring an unintended zygote into embryohood and birth sets the stage for childhood deprivation, a form of child abuse. A moral society will help young persons learn to avoid this. Premature parenthood entails tremendous costs—to mother and father as well as the child.

*
Dr. Prescott asks on his own blog:

If nature is so wasteful toward human embryos, how can anti-abortionists be so sure that there is a divine imperative to preserve embryos that were produced by rape, incest and in instances where the life and health of the mother is at risk?

[Editor's note: Brian, one of my regular readers, had a lot to say about some recent posts between various blogs discussing Christians and hate. I invited him to share his thoughts on this matter here on this blog as a guest contributor.]

*

I was intrigued today by a rather verbose post regarding Christianity and hate. Rather than addressing the challenger’s post line by line, it seemed a good opportunity to address the concepts of Christianity and hate more generally. Something the poster seemingly wanted to do but didn’t seem to accomplish very effectively.

This is one of those topics that I think would apply to the idea that many Christians are not really ready for the “solid food” — milk is still much more palatable (1 Cor 3:2, Hebrews 5).

Is hate a part of Christianity or more pointedly, does God hate?  The old adage that most try to prove theologically is God hates the sin while he loves the sinner.  The question at hand is, is that entirely true?  While I am not sure I can agree with much of the challenger’s post, he seems to be trying to challenge the idea that hate is antagonistic to Christianity or God.

If one wants to be a mature, truth-seeking follower of God, one must be willing to open themselves up to uncomfortable subjects and be willing to consider them through the filter of God’s Word.  What often keeps Christians from maturing in their faith is that they know something to be theologically true whether they have invested the time to truly study the issue. This leads inevitably to prooftexting scriptures to find support for their already understood position.

So, at risk of alienating those who will not continue reading after stating this uncomfortable fact, I will state that God not only hates the sin, but there is scriptural evidence that he does indeed hate sinners as well.  I will offer my support for this in a moment but let me first state that only God is God and just because there is evidence that God’s divinity creates a strong enough disdain for conscious disobedience does not provide license to his followers to apply any form of judgment over His creation.

Let us start with the scripture that can be uncomfortable to many since it does demonstrate that God himself not only hates the sin itself but also the individual associated with the sin Continued

This quote from Mahatma Gandhi seemed appropriate in light of the recent discussion…

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Jim Martin at Fried Green Onions is once again on a crusade against fellow bloggers who don’t share in his fundamentalist views. And again, in the comments on this blog and in commentary on his own blog, he has called out yours truly on my last post, twisting the words written to infer something never implied and drawing conclusions based on self-derived fallacies.

Typically, I would continue the debate within the comment section where his comment was left, but he has created two posts on his own blog taking the dialog to the public stage, so it is in a dedicated post that I will address some of Mr. Martin’s points, challenges and questions. (I apologize in advance that this will likely be a lengthier post.)

This discussion began with my pointing to and quoting of a post by Otter, in which he ultimately proclaimed, “I say, you should be ashamed of yourselves and I find myself ashamed to call you all my Christian brothers and sisters.” I agreed with his comments with a simple, “Amen.” (Keep in mind that I was quoting another blogger’s commentary.) I knew when I posted it that I would get a response from one of my faithful opponents. Mr. Martin did not disappoint, leaving this comment Continued