As Christians, we are called to walk on the side of Truth in EVERY situation. To that end, I've compiled a short list as to why we shouldn't be raising our voices to cheer on America in these 2012 Summer Olympics.
ONE
The whole concept of the Olympics has become a remnant of barbarism amidst these modern times. Look at what's been going on through these sports in the past few years; enhancement drugs, speculations of cheating, doping and what not. Not to mention those poor athelets. In some cultures, they pick prime candidates from children and train them for their entire lives just to compete in the games. That's their whole life. Unending practice, no social life, strict penalties for slacking off when national pride is on the line.
This is not exactly something that Christ would condone or cheer for.
Then there's the flailing morals of the atheletes themselves. London has supplied thousands of condoms to the participants in the games. After competition is complete, the olympic village might as well be called a brothel. Do you think Christians should really be lifting up a cheer?
TWO
The fact that this is a competition represents the sad fact that there will be other countries that will feel inferior due to their lack of medals. As of the 2010 Olympics, 80 countries have yet to win a medal in the olympic games. Eighty! That's a large number. All those preparations and training, all those atheletes who have spent their time and energy to compete, after all that, they still haven't tasted victory.
It's a sad testament to Christian values, which strive to embolden and build people up, when Christians support and cheer for an organization which, by its very nature, ensures that humiliation is heaped upon those countries who can't perform as well. They must endure their shame as they watch victors being adorned with precious metals and applauded for their accomplishments.
Christians shouldn't make themselves a part of something so degrading to the human spirit. In order to lift someone up and allow them to claim victory, someone must be torn down and allowed to experience defeat and humilation. Destroying self-confidence and nullifying years of hard work and training.
We shouldn't be supporting anything or anyone because it might be taken the wrong way from these countries. We shouldn't rub our greatness in their faces.
THREE
Simply cheering for America presents its own problems. Forget the fact that the rest of the world has a particular disdain for our Country, and by cheering for the US of A we solidify and cause ourselves to become in opposition with our fellow nations. When Christians cheer for America, we entrench the notion that American = Christian.
The world has cause to double hate American Christians. Go overseas and you will still find people upset at the whole Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. I mean, c'mon. We have to stop the hate somehow. We can't become associated with this because it only fuels hatred from countries that desperately NEED to be shown Christian love.
FOUR
This whole cheering for the olympics yields nothing productive for the kingdom. SO just don't do it. Jesus would probably condemn the way we sit idly by the television waiting to see our champions claim victory when there's work to be done, souls to save, people to love. We must do better.
CONCLUSION
False: Sorry, readers. I couldn't help myself. I don't agree with anything I have just written. There is nothing wrong, biblically, with enjoying sports, rooting for your favorite team, or anything like that. This farce was inspired by this guy's blog where he uses a similar (loosely based) biblical logic to explain why the church shouldn't have supported Chick Fil'a. You can check out his blog HERE and see if you agree with his lines of thought.
I don't believe that Christ wanted us to love others at the cost of supporting our brothers and sisters in Christ. I also don't think that God ever wanted us to chicken out on doing the right thing and standing for the principles of holiness, righteousness and redemption just because it might be taken the wrong way by observers or other people.
Go, GOD! Go, AMERICA! Go, DAN CATHY! Continue to stand up for what's right amidst the onslaught of nay-sayers and critics who only want to slow down the advancement of God's kingdom.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
I Hate Hate (Hypocrit)
It's about as polarized as they come. On either side there is a bitterness that cuts through any sensible logic or argument. Valid points lost amidst a fury of deeply rooted resentment. Insults hurled back and forth as trenches are dug deeper and deeper and the fight for the last few straggling followers who are yet undecided escalates to a frenzy.
I'm talking, of course, about the continued "dialogue" between the Homosexual rights activists and those who hold to Biblical Truths and morals. What probably started out with the best of intentions as a civil discussion quickly took a bathos turn and has now erupted as one of the biggest Hot-Button issues in our nation.
Why am I talking about this topic, you ask? Well, like everyone else, I have thoughts on this subject and even though my opinions are rarely popular, I am told that I am still entitled to share it at liberty.
So here goes.
There is one issue that I haven't quite been able to wrap my mind around. Maybe some of you can help me understand, and correct me if I'm WAY out of line in my perceptions on this thing called "Reality." But I saw, not too long ago, that the homosexual community strongly desires the right to marry. The right to have unions between man and man, woman and woman, stand on equal ground as that between man and woman. That's a whole can of worms in and of itself, and since I'm a Christian, I don't think there's any point in going into what I think on that aspect of this subject. BUT what I do want to comment on is the comparison the proponents had made about their quest. They said that their fight for equal rights is no different from that of the Black community searching for civil liberties.
Again, correct me if my powers of observation are lacking.
I understand why this comparison could be made. Both minorities lacking representation. Both groups feeling oppressed. Both groups desiring something that they do not have. But I think the comparison ends there...
Does anyone remember way back when, during the first thoughts about homosexual rights? Back in the late 80's early 90's? Anyone? They began talking about homosexuality as the "alternative lifestyle." This phraseology indicates a choice. Then they began to express that this was about "sexual preference." Again, a phraseology that seemed to indicate choice.
THEN, suddenly the phraseology changed. It's NOT a choice. Homsexuals are BORN this way. It's NATURAL. It no longer became about freedom of choice. They changed the rhetoric to say "We have no choice in who we are. Are we not allowed to express who we are?"
Now, I'm not one to say that homosexuals are or are not born the way they are. I'm not an expert on DNA, I cannot with any certainty deny or validate that claim. The thing is, neither can they; nor any expert in the genetic field...
But, from my particular viewpoint, I'm willing to concede on this point in this capacity - I believe that there are people who are born with the capacity and propencity to be attracted to members of the same gender. That assertion does not disagree with biblical teaching at all. But it also doesn't help the homosexual proponents' argument and this misplaced comparison either...
See, the whole point of the civil rights movement was to say (in a nutshell), "We ARE the same (HUMAN BEINGS) as you, and should be treated as such even though we LOOK differently." The crux of the argument for civil rights (and I should say, aptly supported by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.) was that people are people. We are the same despite color or outside appearance. The segregation and treatment of colored people during that period was grossly wrong and detestable. And our nation was made to see the light on that issue.
The whole point of the homosexual movement (in a nutshell) has been, "We are DIFFERENT, but we demand to be treated the SAME." All you have to do is look at the rhetoric leading up to the current time to see this is true.
But, even if someone is born with a predisposition to homosexual tendencies, that does not mean that people are born homosexual. Someone is homosexual when they engage in sexual activities with someone of the same gender. From the biblical perspective, EVERYONE is born with a predisposition to sin. Gay, straight, whatever. And sexual sin is a common one. You're not an adulterer until you engage in sexual activity or lust towards a woman who is not your wife.
All I'm saying is that even straight people have to deal with the sin nature given their apparent orientation.
This is precisely why, given my biblical perspective, I find it so wrong that the homosexual community has made this comparison. Black people truly have no choice. They are born with their color. And simply because of that, they were mistreated. That was wrong.
Homosexuals may be born with a predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex, but they (like everyone) have the choice to act on those impulses or not. I find it distasteful to liken the fight for equality in sexual preference to the fight for equality of a truly persecuted people group.
At this time, many states that have had laws against sodomy have looked the other way, or removed those laws. It's not illegal to be gay. There are no segregated washrooms for homosexuals. They are not second class citizens. They cannot be fired based on sexual orientation. They cannot be refused being hired either. Seems to me that they have the civil rights in the bag. The only thing they desire is this redefinition of marriage to allow them the same rights for what has been reserved solely for union between a man and woman.
Disintegrate the integrity of marriage based on sexual preference, and you open up the possibility of other, far worse, things. I know people have gone off the deep end and say, hypothetically, where will it end? People can get benefits for marrying animals? Who's to put a stop on love? More legitimately, what about people who decide that polygomy (something we have already taken a clear stance on as a country) is their sexual preference. That they simply have too much love for one man or woman?
What it boils down to is this; if you break the integrity of marriage on the weak argument for sexual preference which is hiding behind this call for "equal rights" then you may as well shatter the whole thing. It'd only be a matter of time. If 3% of the population is all it takes to make this change, then a million polygymists will push for their cause. Will we make an exception for them too? If they holler loud enough will we yield to their cry for equality? What if two hundred thousand who practice beastiality make a march on Washington, will we allow for animal lovers to receive similar benefits? Sexual preference... Equal rights... same thing as the Civil Rights movement? Maybe only in their resolve, definitely NOT in essence.
That's my two cents. Whether or not they're worth anything, only time will tell.
I'm talking, of course, about the continued "dialogue" between the Homosexual rights activists and those who hold to Biblical Truths and morals. What probably started out with the best of intentions as a civil discussion quickly took a bathos turn and has now erupted as one of the biggest Hot-Button issues in our nation.
Why am I talking about this topic, you ask? Well, like everyone else, I have thoughts on this subject and even though my opinions are rarely popular, I am told that I am still entitled to share it at liberty.
So here goes.
There is one issue that I haven't quite been able to wrap my mind around. Maybe some of you can help me understand, and correct me if I'm WAY out of line in my perceptions on this thing called "Reality." But I saw, not too long ago, that the homosexual community strongly desires the right to marry. The right to have unions between man and man, woman and woman, stand on equal ground as that between man and woman. That's a whole can of worms in and of itself, and since I'm a Christian, I don't think there's any point in going into what I think on that aspect of this subject. BUT what I do want to comment on is the comparison the proponents had made about their quest. They said that their fight for equal rights is no different from that of the Black community searching for civil liberties.
Again, correct me if my powers of observation are lacking.
I understand why this comparison could be made. Both minorities lacking representation. Both groups feeling oppressed. Both groups desiring something that they do not have. But I think the comparison ends there...
Does anyone remember way back when, during the first thoughts about homosexual rights? Back in the late 80's early 90's? Anyone? They began talking about homosexuality as the "alternative lifestyle." This phraseology indicates a choice. Then they began to express that this was about "sexual preference." Again, a phraseology that seemed to indicate choice.
THEN, suddenly the phraseology changed. It's NOT a choice. Homsexuals are BORN this way. It's NATURAL. It no longer became about freedom of choice. They changed the rhetoric to say "We have no choice in who we are. Are we not allowed to express who we are?"
Now, I'm not one to say that homosexuals are or are not born the way they are. I'm not an expert on DNA, I cannot with any certainty deny or validate that claim. The thing is, neither can they; nor any expert in the genetic field...
But, from my particular viewpoint, I'm willing to concede on this point in this capacity - I believe that there are people who are born with the capacity and propencity to be attracted to members of the same gender. That assertion does not disagree with biblical teaching at all. But it also doesn't help the homosexual proponents' argument and this misplaced comparison either...
See, the whole point of the civil rights movement was to say (in a nutshell), "We ARE the same (HUMAN BEINGS) as you, and should be treated as such even though we LOOK differently." The crux of the argument for civil rights (and I should say, aptly supported by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.) was that people are people. We are the same despite color or outside appearance. The segregation and treatment of colored people during that period was grossly wrong and detestable. And our nation was made to see the light on that issue.
The whole point of the homosexual movement (in a nutshell) has been, "We are DIFFERENT, but we demand to be treated the SAME." All you have to do is look at the rhetoric leading up to the current time to see this is true.
But, even if someone is born with a predisposition to homosexual tendencies, that does not mean that people are born homosexual. Someone is homosexual when they engage in sexual activities with someone of the same gender. From the biblical perspective, EVERYONE is born with a predisposition to sin. Gay, straight, whatever. And sexual sin is a common one. You're not an adulterer until you engage in sexual activity or lust towards a woman who is not your wife.
All I'm saying is that even straight people have to deal with the sin nature given their apparent orientation.
This is precisely why, given my biblical perspective, I find it so wrong that the homosexual community has made this comparison. Black people truly have no choice. They are born with their color. And simply because of that, they were mistreated. That was wrong.
Homosexuals may be born with a predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex, but they (like everyone) have the choice to act on those impulses or not. I find it distasteful to liken the fight for equality in sexual preference to the fight for equality of a truly persecuted people group.
At this time, many states that have had laws against sodomy have looked the other way, or removed those laws. It's not illegal to be gay. There are no segregated washrooms for homosexuals. They are not second class citizens. They cannot be fired based on sexual orientation. They cannot be refused being hired either. Seems to me that they have the civil rights in the bag. The only thing they desire is this redefinition of marriage to allow them the same rights for what has been reserved solely for union between a man and woman.
Disintegrate the integrity of marriage based on sexual preference, and you open up the possibility of other, far worse, things. I know people have gone off the deep end and say, hypothetically, where will it end? People can get benefits for marrying animals? Who's to put a stop on love? More legitimately, what about people who decide that polygomy (something we have already taken a clear stance on as a country) is their sexual preference. That they simply have too much love for one man or woman?
What it boils down to is this; if you break the integrity of marriage on the weak argument for sexual preference which is hiding behind this call for "equal rights" then you may as well shatter the whole thing. It'd only be a matter of time. If 3% of the population is all it takes to make this change, then a million polygymists will push for their cause. Will we make an exception for them too? If they holler loud enough will we yield to their cry for equality? What if two hundred thousand who practice beastiality make a march on Washington, will we allow for animal lovers to receive similar benefits? Sexual preference... Equal rights... same thing as the Civil Rights movement? Maybe only in their resolve, definitely NOT in essence.
That's my two cents. Whether or not they're worth anything, only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)