Our second topic for today is abortion, which has very close feelings to the death penalty. Is an abortion truly murder, or is it just a necessary part of life?
Another unanimous answer from the classroom: it is wrong, and it is equivalent to murder. We understand that not having an abortion has worldly consequences, but they are simply the 'just deserts' of your actions. By having an abortion, you suffer spiritual, and possibly mental, consequences. Regardless of what you choose to do, God will forgive you if you repent, but some paths are easier to handle than others.
One of our teachers/'adult chaperones' has actually had an abortion. She told us, in person, that she has felt the consequences of her actions. She has said that she thought about it, and after a while, the full effect of what she had done hit her. As to her character, repentance, salvation, etc., I have met very few people with the same amount of faith and passion for Christ as her. By all means, she should be saved, and it just goes to show that by giving a person time, they will repent and turn further to God, not to say that they were not faithful beforehand.
The bottom line is that abortion is wrong, but it's not going to cost you your salvation, as long as you repent.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Die Hard (Without Repentance)
Today's first topic is the all-debated death penalty. Is it okay to put a person to death, even if he/she is a mass murderer, or the sort?
The unanimous answer, in our class, was no. We found it to be completely wrong to put a criminal to death for his/her actions. The Bible specifically states in Exodus 20:13 "You shall not kill." Our Social Principles book that we've been using for the past few weeks is also strongly against the Death Penalty.
There was, however, one point of debate over the death penalty that split the classroom: child molesters. There were strong feelings within the classroom as to the right of such people to live, but we eventually concluded that they, too, had the right to live.
Our basic idea that led us to the belief that even criminals, and child molesters, have the right to live is that of repentance. We believe that God wants everyone to repent, and that if given the chance, most criminals probably would repent. If you put such a criminal to the death, then they may never have the chance to repent, and they may not be saved because of it. By using the death penalty, you are not only commiting a crime against humanity, you are committing a crime against God.
The unanimous answer, in our class, was no. We found it to be completely wrong to put a criminal to death for his/her actions. The Bible specifically states in Exodus 20:13 "You shall not kill." Our Social Principles book that we've been using for the past few weeks is also strongly against the Death Penalty.
There was, however, one point of debate over the death penalty that split the classroom: child molesters. There were strong feelings within the classroom as to the right of such people to live, but we eventually concluded that they, too, had the right to live.
Our basic idea that led us to the belief that even criminals, and child molesters, have the right to live is that of repentance. We believe that God wants everyone to repent, and that if given the chance, most criminals probably would repent. If you put such a criminal to the death, then they may never have the chance to repent, and they may not be saved because of it. By using the death penalty, you are not only commiting a crime against humanity, you are committing a crime against God.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The World at War
If anything has been present through the history of humankind, it is our nature to create wars between one another. Wars have been fought over land, resources, politics, and even people. Even the Bible records various wars that were fought throughout its existence.
One of the leading motivations that leads to war is that of racism. Germans during WWII, for example, listened to Hitler's preaching that Germans were superior to all other races in existence, and hence that they deserved more. This was one of many factors that contributed to the beginning of WWII. The Bible denies this concept in many different passages, claiming that all humans are equal under God. Leviticus 19:15 : You shall do no injustice in judgement; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. In other words, judge people by their faith, not their livelihood or social status.
As to the basic notion of war itself, the church, or at least the United Methodist Church, opposes the notion highly. I'll highlight some various passages from the book on Social Principles of the United Methodist Church from 2005-2008 to prove how greatly the church opposes war.
"We deplore war and urge the peaceful settlement of all disputes among nations." This is a very simple, but very clear statement highlighting the church's stance.
"Some of us believe that war, and other acts of violence, are never acceptable to Christians. We also acknowledge that many Christians believe that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may regretfully be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide." Basically, these sentences say that the church is divided on the issue of a 'just war.' I am 99% certain that our class could debate this subject for weeks on end without a clear resolution on the issue. As it is, we accept both points of view. Let us be clear, though, that a 'just war' is still a war, and as such should be a last resort purely to restore order and prevent a more massive bloodshed.
"We reject national policies of enforced military service as incompatible with the gospel." Simply, the church opposes the draft. We believe that one should never be forced to fight, as their beliefs may contradict their actions in service. However, later in the passage, a statement tells us that the church also supports those who volunteer. "We also support and extend the Church's ministry to those persons who conscientiously choose to serve in the armed forces or to accept alternative service." Despite what we may personally believe, we will never deny the message to a fellow Christian.
One of the leading motivations that leads to war is that of racism. Germans during WWII, for example, listened to Hitler's preaching that Germans were superior to all other races in existence, and hence that they deserved more. This was one of many factors that contributed to the beginning of WWII. The Bible denies this concept in many different passages, claiming that all humans are equal under God. Leviticus 19:15 : You shall do no injustice in judgement; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. In other words, judge people by their faith, not their livelihood or social status.
As to the basic notion of war itself, the church, or at least the United Methodist Church, opposes the notion highly. I'll highlight some various passages from the book on Social Principles of the United Methodist Church from 2005-2008 to prove how greatly the church opposes war.
"We deplore war and urge the peaceful settlement of all disputes among nations." This is a very simple, but very clear statement highlighting the church's stance.
"Some of us believe that war, and other acts of violence, are never acceptable to Christians. We also acknowledge that many Christians believe that, when peaceful alternatives have failed, the force of arms may regretfully be preferable to unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide." Basically, these sentences say that the church is divided on the issue of a 'just war.' I am 99% certain that our class could debate this subject for weeks on end without a clear resolution on the issue. As it is, we accept both points of view. Let us be clear, though, that a 'just war' is still a war, and as such should be a last resort purely to restore order and prevent a more massive bloodshed.
"We reject national policies of enforced military service as incompatible with the gospel." Simply, the church opposes the draft. We believe that one should never be forced to fight, as their beliefs may contradict their actions in service. However, later in the passage, a statement tells us that the church also supports those who volunteer. "We also support and extend the Church's ministry to those persons who conscientiously choose to serve in the armed forces or to accept alternative service." Despite what we may personally believe, we will never deny the message to a fellow Christian.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Church Gone Digital
Anyone reading this post would obviously say that the internet has become a major part of culture around the world. The internet is probably the most used source for information, and the data it holds is greater than anything anyone a century ago could have possibly imagined. Due to the turn from newspapers and books to the internet as sources of information, a big question has aroused in the church. Is it a good idea to have church online?
There are a lot of people out there who don't go to church, but they can spend hours online surfing the web. God wants everybody to come to him, and how they come to him is not what matters most. If we want to bring in everyone, then we need to try to reach out to internet surfers and the sorts of people who basically live around their computer. Buisnesses, celebrities, politicians, and even porn have started to use the internet as a propoganda and advertisement base. Why shouldn't church follow suit? Besides, there needs to be some balance given to everything un-biblical that's found on the internet.
I'll admit, there are a lot of points about virtual church that have been critizied. The main criticism of virtual church is that it does not provide the community of people that a real church can. In a sense, this is true because you cannot physically interact with other members of a virtual church. However, as technology improves, we can now use web-cams for speech and visuals of church and church-goers. You can't give a person a handshake, but the basic essence of a good community can still be provided by a virtual church. As with most technology, there's always a man (or woman) behind the curtain!
Nevertheless, there was a great debate in our classroom over the purpose of virtual church. Both of the two major sides agreeded that virtual church should reach out to people online. Past that, however, were some arguements. On the one hand, virtual church should be used to teach people about God on the internet, and to provide those people with the comforts of Christianity in a way that they can reach it. The opposing side to this arguement is that virtual church should be used simply to call people who are not attending a real church into church. This side argued that to get the full effect of Christianity and the Christian community, people had to attend a real, physical church. Both sides have valid points, so I will leave it up to you as to which side you agree with more.
One of the other major points of criticism that we discussed was over the implemention of communion. Obviously, clergy cannot enact communion online. The result is that virtual church-goers must either administer communion themselves or not partake in it at all. This is one point on which the critics are correct, as it will be centuries, if ever, before teleportation technology is developed. However, there is still one small claim that supporters of virtual church can make, although it is a bit radical. This claim is that communion is not necessary, or at least not the form of it that is used in church. The basis for this claim would come from the bible, when Jesus says "do this, as often as you eat/drink it, in rememberance of me." This passage can be used to say that communion is remembering Jesus whenever you eat or drink. In this interpertation, you would simply break the bread and pour the drink to remember Jesus at every meal. Remember, though, that this is just one of many possible interpertations of the scripture and does not reflect the overall belief of this class.
To sum everything up, almost everyone agrees that virtual church is good as a way to reach out to internet surfers. Some people continue to say that virtual church should be used to teach online people about God in a Christian community, but others say that virtual church should only be used to bring internet surfers into a real church and real community. As for our class, all but about one vote for virtual church as a way to reach and teach internet surfers about God and Christianity.
There are a lot of people out there who don't go to church, but they can spend hours online surfing the web. God wants everybody to come to him, and how they come to him is not what matters most. If we want to bring in everyone, then we need to try to reach out to internet surfers and the sorts of people who basically live around their computer. Buisnesses, celebrities, politicians, and even porn have started to use the internet as a propoganda and advertisement base. Why shouldn't church follow suit? Besides, there needs to be some balance given to everything un-biblical that's found on the internet.
I'll admit, there are a lot of points about virtual church that have been critizied. The main criticism of virtual church is that it does not provide the community of people that a real church can. In a sense, this is true because you cannot physically interact with other members of a virtual church. However, as technology improves, we can now use web-cams for speech and visuals of church and church-goers. You can't give a person a handshake, but the basic essence of a good community can still be provided by a virtual church. As with most technology, there's always a man (or woman) behind the curtain!
Nevertheless, there was a great debate in our classroom over the purpose of virtual church. Both of the two major sides agreeded that virtual church should reach out to people online. Past that, however, were some arguements. On the one hand, virtual church should be used to teach people about God on the internet, and to provide those people with the comforts of Christianity in a way that they can reach it. The opposing side to this arguement is that virtual church should be used simply to call people who are not attending a real church into church. This side argued that to get the full effect of Christianity and the Christian community, people had to attend a real, physical church. Both sides have valid points, so I will leave it up to you as to which side you agree with more.
One of the other major points of criticism that we discussed was over the implemention of communion. Obviously, clergy cannot enact communion online. The result is that virtual church-goers must either administer communion themselves or not partake in it at all. This is one point on which the critics are correct, as it will be centuries, if ever, before teleportation technology is developed. However, there is still one small claim that supporters of virtual church can make, although it is a bit radical. This claim is that communion is not necessary, or at least not the form of it that is used in church. The basis for this claim would come from the bible, when Jesus says "do this, as often as you eat/drink it, in rememberance of me." This passage can be used to say that communion is remembering Jesus whenever you eat or drink. In this interpertation, you would simply break the bread and pour the drink to remember Jesus at every meal. Remember, though, that this is just one of many possible interpertations of the scripture and does not reflect the overall belief of this class.
To sum everything up, almost everyone agrees that virtual church is good as a way to reach out to internet surfers. Some people continue to say that virtual church should be used to teach online people about God in a Christian community, but others say that virtual church should only be used to bring internet surfers into a real church and real community. As for our class, all but about one vote for virtual church as a way to reach and teach internet surfers about God and Christianity.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Taken by the World
Today, we continue our interpretation of 1 John by examining 1 John 4.
The first section of 1 John 4 that I would like to bring up is from 1 John 4: 1,5-6: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
The basic meaning of these verses is that Christians should not listen to everyone, but only those who speak the word of God. I find this to be a much bigger problem in everyday society than most people wish to acknowledge, especially within high school and teenagers. People today are easily hooked into the world and all of its material goods. They do not think about God at all when they do worldly things, but simply listen to what society tries to teach us.
I see this all too often within teenage society. I don't know how many of you have actually been to high school within the past decade, but school spirit and honor have deteriorated into almost nothing. It is unbelievable how many students curse, cuss, and speak with foul mouths! It is come to my conclusion that the only way I can manage to avoid these mouths during lunch is if I seclude myself in a far corner of the cafeteria! Cell phones are just another example of how teenagers have been tainted by the world. During school, students still try to check their texts and messages, even though the punishment of this crime is having their phone taken for the entire school year. After school, and even in places such as our own Sunday school class, there are people who I would be lucky to drag them away from a cell phone for five minutes! It is also my conclusion that cell phones have become the number one addiction in America; more so even than tobacco and nicotine! All of these un-Godly things are of the world and the false teachings of society, as portrayed through television and music.
It is our duty as Christians to avoid the temptations and addictions of our worldly society and listen to the teachings that God gives us in the Bible. I'm not trying to steer anybody towards becoming Amish or anything, but we need to realize who is in charge. God is the one in charge of everything, not cell phones and television.
As if this teaching was not enough for one chapter, John continues to talk more about loving your neighbors. 1 John 4: 11-12: Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
John may have included this in the same chapter as he talks about false prophets to have us remember that we are supposed to love even the worst of people. Just because people are taken away from God by worldly people and worldly things, that does not mean that we can forsake them. It is our duty, also, as Christians to love everyone equally, regardless of where they are from, what they do, or how they act. If a person is bringing a Christian down in his or her faith, then it may be necessary to turn away, but pure Christians should always try to help those that they can. As John says, our love in God is perfected through our love for each other!
The first section of 1 John 4 that I would like to bring up is from 1 John 4: 1,5-6: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
The basic meaning of these verses is that Christians should not listen to everyone, but only those who speak the word of God. I find this to be a much bigger problem in everyday society than most people wish to acknowledge, especially within high school and teenagers. People today are easily hooked into the world and all of its material goods. They do not think about God at all when they do worldly things, but simply listen to what society tries to teach us.
I see this all too often within teenage society. I don't know how many of you have actually been to high school within the past decade, but school spirit and honor have deteriorated into almost nothing. It is unbelievable how many students curse, cuss, and speak with foul mouths! It is come to my conclusion that the only way I can manage to avoid these mouths during lunch is if I seclude myself in a far corner of the cafeteria! Cell phones are just another example of how teenagers have been tainted by the world. During school, students still try to check their texts and messages, even though the punishment of this crime is having their phone taken for the entire school year. After school, and even in places such as our own Sunday school class, there are people who I would be lucky to drag them away from a cell phone for five minutes! It is also my conclusion that cell phones have become the number one addiction in America; more so even than tobacco and nicotine! All of these un-Godly things are of the world and the false teachings of society, as portrayed through television and music.
It is our duty as Christians to avoid the temptations and addictions of our worldly society and listen to the teachings that God gives us in the Bible. I'm not trying to steer anybody towards becoming Amish or anything, but we need to realize who is in charge. God is the one in charge of everything, not cell phones and television.
As if this teaching was not enough for one chapter, John continues to talk more about loving your neighbors. 1 John 4: 11-12: Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
John may have included this in the same chapter as he talks about false prophets to have us remember that we are supposed to love even the worst of people. Just because people are taken away from God by worldly people and worldly things, that does not mean that we can forsake them. It is our duty, also, as Christians to love everyone equally, regardless of where they are from, what they do, or how they act. If a person is bringing a Christian down in his or her faith, then it may be necessary to turn away, but pure Christians should always try to help those that they can. As John says, our love in God is perfected through our love for each other!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
