April 02, 2008

Somebody Gets It

It's always heartening when I read something written by someone that reflects something that I've been saying for a long time. this LA Times opinion piece does just that.

Darwin fish annoy me as nothing else does. Maybe because I understand why the fish became a Christian symbol, and remember that people died because the believed. Or maybe because, as Jonah Goldberg says, Christians are an easy target for intolerance like this.

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

Christians aren't rioting in the streets over Darwin fish. There are no official pronouncements decrying this co-opting of an ancient religious symbol. No drivers displaying Darwin fish have been targeted for elimination.

But the most annoying aspect of the Darwin fish is the false bravado it represents. It's a courageous pose without consequence. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap.

Darwin fish folks are trying to show the world their opposition to the "oppression" of organized religion. How about trading in that tired old Darwin fish for something hitting Islam? Oh, yeah -- Muslims will kill you for that.

Wimp.

Christians have died for millennia for daring to speak out against people who could kill them. We've practiced our faith in places where even owning a Bible meant death. We have the courage of our convictions -- well, at least most of us do (that's a post for another day, I think). If you really believe what you think is true, put your money where your faith is.

People of faith do it every day, all over the world. Atheists haven't yet. Guess that says something about conviction, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm in a foul mood. Inconsistency bothers me, no matter where it comes from. I have a lot more respect for an atheist who consistently lives by his convictions than a Christian that doesn't. Unfortunately, I find very few of the former, and a whole lot of the latter.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 12:05 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

June 02, 2005

The Latest Pewie!

Who will it be???

more...

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

May 09, 2005

The Washington Post vs. Ergun Caner

I'm sure that the Post intended this as a nice story -- everyone knows how much they love Liberty University and Jerry Falwell. But they can't help but be critical of Caner -- he's not politically correct, the way he's supposed to be.
more...

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

April 16, 2005

The 'View From the Pew' Get a Clue Award

I now have two awards -- the Pewie for Conspicuous Intolerant Tolerance (and I've changed the name of that one at least twice!), which I've awarded twice now, and the new VftP Get a Clue Award for conspicuous misuse of a religious term.

The very first Clewie goes to Byron Williams at workingforchange.com. Byron calls himself a fundamentalist Christian who "trusts women to make the right choices with their bodies, supports marriage equality and opposes the death penalty." He then procedes to illustrate exactly how little he know about the history of the term fundamentalist in its Christian context.

The term fundamentalist was coined in reaction to increasingly liberal theology which was infecting mainline denominations in the early 20th century. There is a very clearly stated creed (though many fundamentalists would cringe at that term) -- a statement of beliefs that everyone who is a fundamentalist Christian would agree with.

From the preface of this work:

In 1909 God moved two Christian laymen to set aside a large sum of money for issuing twelve volumes that would set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and which were to be sent free to ministers of the gospel, missionaries, Sunday School superintendents, and others engaged in aggressive Christian work throughout the English speaking world. A committee of men who were known to be sound in the faith was chosen to have oversight of the publication of these volumes. Rev. Dr. A.C. Dixon was the first Executive Secretary of the Committee, and upon his departure for England Rev. Dr. Louis Meyer was appointed to take his place. Upon the death of Dr. Meyer the work of the Executive Secretary devolved upon me. We were able to bring out these twelve volumes according to the original plan. Some of the volumes were sent to 300,000 ministers and missionaries and other workers in different parts of the world.
Fundamentalism is about doctrinal purity, and consistency with "the faith once delivered to the saints." Admittedly, many modern "fundamentalists" are a far cry from the original writers of the books, and many have strayed from the fundamentals as originally stated. And, also admittedly, modern fundamentalists (and not a few evangelicals) have been a bit light in showing the love of Christ to the world. And far too many are focusing their attention on the political process to the exclusion of evangelism.

But fundamentalism, and evangelicalism for that matter, is far more than "to be living examples of a strict adherence to love, justice, hope and opportunity, thereby authentically being fundamentalist Christians in word and deed." If that is fundamentalism, then there was no difference between the original fundamentalists and the liberals that they fought against. Any student of history will tell you that that is certainly not the case.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 11:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.

April 15, 2005

"Christian" Extremist?


Double Toothpicks has a MUST READ post about Eric Rudolph.

Eric Rudoplh is being billed as a "fundamentalist Christian." That is a lie, plain and simple. I cannot believe that the MSM would do such little research that they wouldn't know the difference between a fundamentalist Christian and a member of the Christian Identity movement. It seems to me that the information is readilly available, and the differences are obvious. Christian Identity denies that Christ died for "whosoever believes on Him" and is a racist organization. They may agree with conservative Christians on the abortion issue, but they have been roundly (and rather vocally) condemned by all evangelicals as a heretical sect.

I'm not usually this paranoid, but it seems to me that "the press" is intentionally downplaying the fact that CI is anathema to orthodox Christians, and emphasizing the "Christian" part of the name. Trust me -- Christian Identity has no real Christian identity.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

March 28, 2005

Downright Pigheaded

I don't like PETA much at all. That should come as no great shock to anyone, given my carnivorous tendencies -- I won't be eating any veggie Ramen any time soon. I ate meat on March 15 (International Eat an Animal for PETA Day), but that wasn't much of a special event for me; I regularly consume copious quantities of cooked animal. If God hadn't meant for us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them so darn tasty, after all.

PETA is known for it's poor taste (pardon the expression), and it's decidedly antagonistic attitude toward Christians (the What Would Jesus Eat campaign comes to mind here, with its vegetarian Jesus -- PETA is ignorant of Passover tradition and the associated consumption of lamb, I suppose). But their stunt this Easter takes the cake, and has earned them my neverending scorn.


This picture really does say a thousand words. Jesus Christ with the head of a pig. My contempt cannot be expressed at this type of sacrilege. I'd say that we should write to PETA, but they really don't care what we think. This is just another illustration of the contempt in which the loony left holds Christians of all stripes and persuasions.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 06:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

March 07, 2005

Bill Moyers and the End of Time(tm)

The New York press seems to have attracted a cadre of top-notch Christophobes. Nicholas Kristof, of course, has taken on this issue before (and I took him to task for it as well). Now that paragon of tolerance Bill Moyers has taken another shot at the faithful, in the form of a New York Review of Books article titled "Welcome to Doomsday."

Moyers starts with the typical "I can't believe people actually believe the Bible is true" statement. Then he slams Christians for their "take dominion over the earth" philosophy before admitting that many Christians are fairly conservationistic when it comes to the environment. See, we realize that the command God gave Adam and Eve implies that we should take care of what we have, make the best use of it that we can, but not to trash the place. See, the idea of stewardship means that you manage your resources so that they will be of use to you for a longer period of time than they would be if they were left to themselves. I would hazard a guess that the majority of Christians (and not a slim majority at that -- perhaps as much as 85-90%) would say that poluting is wrong, and that we are commanded to take care of what God has given us. Of course, if you read Moyers, you'd think that this was a new idea, championed mainly by the Christian left.

Then he embarks on a quest to explain Christian eschatology to his readers. You may not have known this, so brace yourselves -- most of us agree with Lehaye and Jenkins. Those who don't really don't matter to folks like Moyers and Kristof, because they don't fit the stereotype. And, as I mentioned before, the characterizations of Christians who are pretrib dispensationalists are incredibly unfair and uninformed. Moyers has spent a lot of time reading books about people he doesn't like, written by people who agree with his assesment. Maybe he should actually talk to a few people, and find out what they actually believe, and not what the latest Newsweek poll says they believe.

Moyers DOES introduce an earth-shattering factoid in his column that may just rock the foundations of dispensational eschatology -- the word Rapture never appears in the Bible! GASP!!!! Next thing you know, he'll be critical of Christians' belief in the Trinity, since that word isn't in the Bible either. He obviously has no clue about the purpose of theology, and can't really be bothered to find out.

For about the millionth time, let me explain something to everyone. Pretrib dispensationalists do NOT think they are making Jesus come faster. They believe that Jesus is going to show up whenever HE wants to, and we'd better be about our business while we wait, so He isn't ticked at us when He gets here. Premillenialists in general believe that. I'm not as familiar with post-mil or a-mil eschatology, but it seems that one of them teaches that we bring about the millenial kingdom -- something that Reconstructionists agree with. There are no pre-mil Reconstructionists -- and Reconstructionists don't agree with LaHaye and company.

Of course, it's much easier to just rag on people, without actually finding out the facts about them. After all, Bill Moyers does it, and he's a "respected journalist." Maybe next time he wants to write about evangelicals or fundamentalists, he'll actually go out and find a few, and talk to them, rather than misrepresenting their beliefs and insulting everyone's intelligence.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

January 22, 2005

Intolerant Tolerance

When I get a blog host that allows it, I think one of my blog categories is going to be Intolerant Tolerance. I've done several posts on this subject, and yet it just gets worse, and more obvious. The theme seems to be, "Why don't those silly Christians get over their ignorance and realize they should all be just like us?" Sounds like tolerance for a conflicting worldview to me, doesn't it to you?

Or maybe an award. The View From the Pew Award for Incredible Intolerance. You could call it a Pewie for short. And I know who'd get one this week, thanks to Sarcasmagorical.


Michael Ventre, YOU are this weeks Pewie Award Winner!!

In my humble opinion, Jesus Christ was an important and influential figure in world history, and I respect that. Because he was a symbol of love and understanding, the term 'What Would Jesus Do?' resonates powerfully. If we all acted as Jesus would, I believe the world would be at peace, and love would wash over all of God's children.

But of course, not all Christians are alike. Many, if not most, Christians understand the true message of Jesus. But there is a frightening number of so-called Christians who can be best described as creepy, rigid, arrogant, cruel, know-it-all, pompous, obnoxious and treacherous - better known by the acronym C.R.A.C.K.P.O.T.
Now let's examine Ventre's article, because I'm concerned that HE may be exhibiting some of these symptoms -- he may be a C.R.A.C.K.P.O.T too!!

He's upset about the hoopla over the We Are Family foundation's video and tolerance pledge, and the use of popular cartoon characters in this video which is intended for use in classrooms throughout the country. He's REALLY upset about the criticism of Spongebob. I don't like Spongebob, never have -- but I do like some of the other characters, and my daughter watches some of the shows they're on. I don't like having these symbols appropriated by someone who is intent on teaching my kid that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle alternative.

The mere fact that Ventre glosses over what the real controversy is about, focusing instead on the protest over cartoon characters, is a bit creepy. It's as if he wants discussion of the issue to be deflected from where it really is -- the teaching of someone's morality to elementary school kids. If Christians were doing this, we'd be hauled into court. Because it's someone else, and someone else's morality, it's obviously OK.
The first step for the CRACKPOT Christians is to accept that they have a problem. I know programs exist that can reprogram the insufferably preachy and transform them back into normal people like the rest of us. They have to get the message that taking the Good Book, living by the parts they agree with and disregarding the parts they don?t, is a learned behavior and can be cured. They need to be taught that looking for secret messages where none exist is an urge that should be resisted.
There's the rigid part -- obviously, it's Ventre and folks like him who are right, so why should they change? WE are the ones with a problem.

For arrogant, well, just read what he has to say. He reminds us repeatedly of how tolerant he is normally, and how compassionate he is. Show, don't tell.

Anyone who is obviously as hung up on telling Christians they're sick is cruel -- religious faith is an important part of someone's life, and their psyche. Any abuse or misrepresentation of that belief is incredibly cruel.

Know-it-all, pompous -- just read the article. It's amazing that he knows so much better than someone who has actually studied the Bible what it's really all about.


Obnoxious --
I've only caught bits and pieces of SpongeBob, but I never noticed any Bette Midler playing in the background. Nor have I seen SpongeBob shopping for china at Williams Sonoma, or French-kissing another male sponge. He does, however, hold hands with his sidekick Patrick and enjoys watching the imaginary TV show, 'The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy,' so I can see why the CRACKPOT Christians might get their knickers in a knot believing that the moral foundation of our nation's schoolchildren is in grave peril because a couple of cartoon characters touched each other.
I rest my case on that one.

That leaves treacherous. This country was founded on the idea that people could hold their own religious beliefs, and were free to practice them, without interference from anyone. Ventre's belief that we should all go into a 12-step program to "cure" us of our faith is an attack on the Constitution itself! Treacherous doesn't begin to describe him!

Was that over the top? Yep. I look forward to a time when Michael Ventre decides to talk about the real issue -- that kids' cartoon characters are being used to teach them that their parents are intolerant idiots and that they should not listen to them OR their ministers about homosexuality and what the Bible teaches about it. That is what I find most offensive. I could care less about Spongebob. Discuss the facts, sir, and try to do it without the ad hominem attacks on people who actually believe in something.

{edit: Fixed a really bad sentence fragment in the last paragraph. Sorry.}
{UPDATE: Take a look at this over at Imago Dei if you want an even better treatment of the issue. Note that I'm not defending anything that Dr. Dobson may or may not have said, I'm trying to show that Christians are protesting the content of the video, not the alleged sexuality of the cartoon characters}

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 06:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 948 words, total size 6 kb.

December 08, 2004

Christaphobiacs Annonymous

{Hat tip to Christianity Today's Weblog}

The Vatican is pressing for the UN to recognize hatred of Christians as "an evil equal to hatred of Jews and Muslims," and some Christians think it's a bad idea.

"Obviously we have seen many countries where Christian minorities are in danger, but we don't think this is the appropriate way to really ensure protection," said Alessandra Aula of Franciscans International, a Catholic pressure group.
"What we fear is that this is the way to start eroding universal human rights," she said from her office in Geneva. "You will then have Sikhs and Buddhists and all the others coming and claiming rights. Where does it end?"
Haven't heard of the term before? Not surprised.
This campaign has been so discreet that the term was hardly known until the Vatican's foreign minister, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, said last Friday that the Holy See had insisted the U.N. list it along with anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
"It should be recognised that the war against terrorism, even though necessary, had as one of its side-effects the spread of 'Christianophobia' in vast areas of the globe," he told a U.S.-organised conference on religious freedom in Rome.
I've thought about starting a list of Christophobic blogs that are out there. I've run into a couple through BlogExplosion (including one who was offended at my "Would be nice if you had a clue" comment), but I really don't think that anyone cares about hatred of Christians.

For the record: I hate nobody based on their actions or behavior. I don't hate homosexuals (even though I wish they would stop trying to impose their morality on me, and expect me to approve of their lifestyle). I don't hate Muslims (had a good friend in Georgia who converted from Christianity to Islam. Never stopped liking the guy). I don't even hate hypocritical Christians (there are a few out there). I hate what people do. Heck, I hate people drinking too much, but some of my best friends partied their way through a few years of high school. They knew I didn't do that, and didn't bug me to go drinking with them (that much), and knew who to call if they needed a ride home (though they never called me). There are a few Christians who carry the stupid "God Hates Fags" signs, but they're rejected by most Christians -- even my ultra-fundamentalist friends at the FFF think they're disgusting and an embarassment to real Christians. But if you read some of the media, and a few blogs, we're all alike.

Maybe someone should start Christaphobics Annonymous. But I doubt anyone would come, because there aren't that many people who think it's a problem.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 04:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

December 05, 2004

AH, Tolerance!

Just when I thought that I would never have to talk about something like this again. Just when I thought that Kristof's articles were starting to get through (the two I have agreed with so far, I mean).

The Philly Inquirer reported that a WHYY reported called the offices of a conservative group and left the following message (emphases added)

"Hi, my name is Rachel, and my telephone number is... I wanted to tell you that you're evil, horrible people. You're awful people. You represent horrible ideas. God hates you and he wants to kill your children. You should all burn in hell. Bye."
She apologized later, saying that it was a "personal matter that was turned into a public issue." Yeah, I guess saying that over 150,000 people (the subscribers to laptoplobbyist's newsletter) AND their children should go to hell is a personal matter.

There's a difference here between Christians and this garbage, by the way. Christians are trying to get people to NOT go to hell. Maybe we go oer the top sometimes, but the goal is to get people out of hell. We all deserve it -- that's what God's justice is about. We don't have to get what we deserve -- that's called grace. That's what the Christian message is -- or should be, at any rate. And, in case you're interested, God doesn't want to kill your children, or mine. Just thought I'd clear that up.

But I'm the intolerant one. Yeah, right.


{Almost forgot -- tip o' the hat to James at the PCCBoard Forums

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 01:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

October 31, 2004

Left-Wing Tolerance

Next time you hear about how tolerant the Left is, read this article.

And note -- this wasn't done by National Review, or The American Spectator. It was done by Slate -- not exactly a paragon of conservative reporting. This guy probably went out thinking he'd get a neat story about how conservatives mistreated him when he wore the Kerry/Edwards stuff.

I just appreciate the fact that he wrote the story anyway, since he essentially indicted his readership.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 03:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

September 30, 2004

Joan Rivers Loves Us!! She REALLY Does!!

Or maybe not. Tip o' the hat to Get Religion

Now for the new. From the Oct. 1 issue of Entertainment Weekly, comedian Joan Rivers continues her work as an ambassador of love:

Resplendent in a silver jacket, luxe fur scarf, black pants, and rhinestone-studded heels, Joan Rivers is angry as ever. As she frenetically paces the stage at the Stardust in Las Vegas, the crowd eats up her barbed mots on this steamy night in June. She tosses out a few zingers about Donatella Versace's face -- punctuating the joke by scrunching up her own famous enhanced visage -- and Rosie O'Donnell's hygiene (not printable in a family magazine) before directing her rage at born-again Christians. "I hate Jesus freaks," she declares. "They're ugly, she seethes, her huge cocktail ring bouncing sparkles around the room with every pointy gesticulation. "'Jesus loves me,' they say. If he loved you so much he would have given you a f----ing chin." If anyone in this blue-hair Vegas audience is offended, their qualms are buried by a room exploding in laughter.



A blue-haired Vegas audience bellowing at cheap-shot humor? Can it be? And if poor beleaguered Brad Stine were to do that last joke, aiming it at any other faith and its adherents and (of course) substituting freaking for Rivers' F-bomb, how long would his next Promise Keepers gig last?

Hey, Joan -- if you have another face lift, your belly button will be in your left nostril!! I agree with one of the commentors over at GR -- someone who's had that much surgery shouldn't EVER mock anyone else's appearance.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

September 11, 2004

Cheap Shot to the Right

Steve Gushee has a great article in the Palm Beach Post. He talks about Noah and the Flood, the covenant that God made with man after the flood, what caused the flood, etc. Unfortunately, he ruins the whole article (at least for me) in the second paragraph.

Some conservative Christians will insist that Hurricanes Frances and Charley were (and Ivan might be) the result of God's will to punish us for some litany of behavior of which they disapprove. They are not only mistaken about divine climate control, but they make a mockery of the very Scripture they believe is without error.
Is anyone else wondering who the heck he's talking about?

I'm a conservative Christian. I hang out with conservative Christians. Heck, I'm married to a conservative Christian. I read lots of things written by conservative Christians. I haven't heard this one. Nobody I've heard of has mentioned the whole punishment for sin thing -- mainly for the exact reason that Gushee mentions in his article. God promised not to punish us that way any more. That's how we know that the storms that have battered Florida are because of odd weather patterns, not divine justice.

Unfortunately, Gushee takes a wonderfully-written column, a piece rare in journalism in that it takes theological truth seriously, and turns it into a vicious and (from what I can tell) unfounded attack on a LOT of people.

Maybe, somewhere in the middle of nowhere, there's a preacher who is writing his sermon for tomorrow. He's got the only satelite dish in his little town, and he's been watching the events taking place in Florida. His flock is familiar with Florida -- they've heard about Baywatch, after all, and Doc Sanders went there for that convention, so they KNOW the immorality that goes on there. So he decides to tell them that God has decided to judge these evil Floridians for their fornication and perversion. As he writes this, he can hear the AMENs ringing out in the pews.

Maybe this is the guy that Steve Gushee has in mind. Maybe Steve Gushee even believes that this guy is representative of "conservative Christians". But I can assure him, and you all, that conservative Christians aren't this stupid. And we're getting pretty tired of people treating us as if we are.

Maybe if Gushee had started the column off with something like this:
I was listening to Preacher X the other day, and he said something that disturbed me. He said that the hurricanes in Florida were ...
I'd have had less of a problem with that. I'd have an idea that there was actually someone that he had in mind, who said this idiotic thing, and I could go off on them about their stupidity. Unfortunately, all we get is "some conservative Christians will" do this.

I wonder if he even heard anyone say this, or if he just decided that it sounded good, and would get him some praise from the people who read his column. If that's the case, he's no better than the hypothetical preacher in my story -- changing and shaping the facts to suit his audience, with no regard for the truth.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 05:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 3 kb.

September 01, 2004

More on "Tolerance"

Maybe that should say "moron tolerance."

Just read this little piece about a terrible hate crime. Unfortunately, you won't hear an uproar about it. The ACLU probably will ignore it. The Washington Post and the Atlanta Constitution probably won't say a word about it. And if there WERE hate-crime legislation on the books, I doubt that this particular crime would apply. Because it's against us.

I'm a proponent of free speech. I'm a fairly peaceful man. But if MY kid was at that daycare, and I found out who'd been threatening them, I might have to be reminded of the whole "love your enemy" thing, because some non-lethal violence might start sounding awfully good to me. And I have an oversized driver I don't use anymore .... Titanium hurts when applied forcefully to the head.

The sad thing is -- nothing will be done. They'll get the people on a trespassing charge -- maybe. If they find them at all. If it had happened at an abortion clinic, or at a gay bar, or a porn shop, they'd be all over those 'intolerant Christians'.

So let's raise a fuss about those intolerant atheists who run around threatening kids. Bunch of cowards.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 02:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

July 20, 2004

Jesus, Jihad, and the New York Times

Nicholas Kristof strikes again. (free membership required).
 
For those who don't want to register, or just don't feel like clicking the link, I'll cut and past a bit for you, but I recommend reading the whole thing.  And remember -- this is the guy who not long ago was talking about how the left should be more tolerant of us.
 

These [the Left Behind books] are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.
I wasn't aware that Christians were an ethnic group, Mr. Kristof.  I'm sure the many Jewish, Arab, Mexican, Asian, African, etc. Christians in the world would like to know WHICH ethnic group Christians are supposed to be.  Also forgotten are the thousands of evangelical Christians who don't agree with the eschatology in the books. 
These scenes also raise an eschatological problem: Could devout fundamentalists really enjoy paradise as their friends, relatives and neighbors were heaved into hell?
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason for evangelism.  Make sure that they DON'T get heaved into Hell.  Thanks for the reminder, though I doubt that many would see it as an eschatological problem.

 
I was listening to the radio last night as a preacher was talking about Revelation.  He said that it's a book about God's wrath on sinners.  He mentioned a bumper sticker that I had seen before -- God's coming back, and He's not happy.  The whole point of Revelation is that God is not happy with humanity in general.  He's laid out the rules, and we patently refuse to play by them.  He gives us His Son as a sacrifice, so that our sins can be forgiven.  Our attitude?  "Thanks, but no thanks.  We'll get along just fine without you."  There has not been a time in history when God has been worshipped even by a majority of the poplulation of Earth -- even now, when so many people profess Christianity. 

 
To sum up the rest of Mr. Kristof's article, it is an impassioned plea for tolerance -- including religious tolerance.  Not the kind he talked about before -- he wants Christians to give up the whole "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No man comes to the Father except by Me" bit, continue to do good things for people everywhere, and play nicely with others.
 
If we do that, we condemn people everywhere to hell.  I'm not willing to let my friends, family members, or neighbors get "heaved into Hell", Mr. Kristof, so I won't be taking your advice.  I'm going to continue to live my life dedicated to making sure that if someone I know does end up going there, it won't be because I allowed it to happen.  If you know a Christian who is willing to do that, just so that people think they're nice or tolerant, then that person has a warped sense of Christianity, and you should run from them.

 
 

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 3 kb.

April 24, 2004

Intolerant Tolerance

OK, the title to this entry has been used over and over again. But it fits. This article in the NY Times is one of the first I've read to express the sentement from the other side of the aisle, so to speak. Someone admits that if liberals expect Christians to be more tolerant, then they need to be more tolerant of us.

Tolerance has been notoriously one-sided. Every day is open season on conservative Christians, but we cannot open our mouths to protest anyone else. Understand, I don't believe that Christians are undergoing undue persecution, at least not in the US. We have far more rights than believers in, say, China, for example. However, we are often singled out and ridiculed for our beliefs -- and that isn't what my dictionary calls tolerance.

I don't even care if everyone likes what we're saying -- in fact, if they start liking it, I may have to change my opinions on some things. All I want is the same thing everyone wants -- I want to be able to state my opinions without being marginalized because of my religious background. I want to be able to vote for the candidate of my choice without hearing "You shouldn't take your religion into account when you vote -- that's imposing your morality on us all." I want everyone to stop imposing their morality (or lack thereof)on me. If you want me to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with me, then you had better show me how to do it.

Because as things stand now, if this thing I'm being shown is tolerance, we're doing it just as well as you are, sometimes better.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 06:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

April 01, 2004

THIS is Tolerance

Ok, I just finished reading this, and I can't resist commenting. Now Christians must allow people who do not share their basic beliefs to join their organizations? I know this is in England, so they don't have any legal protection under a constitution like we have in the States, but this seems REALLY foolish. (Besides, the folks in England have no problem commenting on stupid things they see here, so I'm just returning the favor.)

Next thing you know, the campus Jewish student organization will be required to include neo-Nazis in their group. The local Nazi group will have to have a rabbi at their meetings. These sounds ridiculous, and they should! This isn't a social club -- this is a group of Christians who meet together. They have a statement of faith that many Christians in the US wish they could live up to, and now they are being required to choose between violating their beliefs and disbanding their organization.

There is a global culture of tolerance, that says everyone should allow everyone else to do whatever they want to. This idea flies in the face of any form of Biblical Christianity (remember, Jesus told the woman 'Go, and sin no more', NOT 'Go on your way, you're doing fine!'). It amazes me that any nation that claims to be enlightened can force people to violate deeply help beliefs in this way.

For those of us in the States, we need to pay attention to what is happening at Hull. Because it has happened here before, and it will happen again.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 04:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
62kb generated in CPU 0.09, elapsed 0.153 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.0943 seconds, 140 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.