I think that democracy works well, without tension, when the society is uniform in its beliefs and its beliefs are based on the same theology. Tension builds when the convictions are diverse.
Take, for example, the issue of gay marriages. They now call this "marriage equality" as though as though heterosexual marriages are unequal ... but this is a different matter.
In my society, those who favour "marriage equality" are thinking that the church is wrong to believe that God ordained for marriage to be the union of man and woman. They think that people should be allowed to choose any way they think is right.
Does the determination of right and wrong lie with the people? Or is it in believing what God has said? Is society righteous enough to make this determination? Or does democracy fall in a heap when the majority of the people believe that they have the power to choose right and wrong ... and then they believe that the wrong is right?
What do you think?
19 April 2013
11 April 2013
Greed and selfishness
Sheikh tweeted that ""humans biggest downfall is selfishness and greed"". Would you agree? Why or why not?
Sam disagreed. He thought that "staying away from GOD is the biggest downfall.". What do you think?
Is there a difference between what Sam said and what Sheikh said?
I think that selfishness and greed either leads us to stay away from God, or staying away from God leads us to selfishness and greed. It is part of our human nature to want to think that we are good enough ... and our egoistic nature brings out the selfishness and greed that is a part of us. Simply put, we have a sinful nature within us that causes us to want to do things that displease God even though deep down, we know better. Or we should know better.
Rob769 ran a blog under the title "People are fools because of greed and selfishness". He listed many examples of where selfishness and greed has let us down.
So why are we like this, even so? Can we get out of our bad nature, and change our ways for the better? Are some of us better than others? Who is good enough for God?
What do you think?
Sam disagreed. He thought that "staying away from GOD is the biggest downfall.". What do you think?
Is there a difference between what Sam said and what Sheikh said?
I think that selfishness and greed either leads us to stay away from God, or staying away from God leads us to selfishness and greed. It is part of our human nature to want to think that we are good enough ... and our egoistic nature brings out the selfishness and greed that is a part of us. Simply put, we have a sinful nature within us that causes us to want to do things that displease God even though deep down, we know better. Or we should know better.
Rob769 ran a blog under the title "People are fools because of greed and selfishness". He listed many examples of where selfishness and greed has let us down.
So why are we like this, even so? Can we get out of our bad nature, and change our ways for the better? Are some of us better than others? Who is good enough for God?
What do you think?
05 April 2013
Sex education
How do our children and young people learn about sex if not from us? What are we teaching them?
I am remembering a time when we used to talk about AIDS and other STDs. It was at a time when the rate of infections were lower. Why have we stopped? Is it because there is now a cure in some cases? I heard a case on ABC radio where somebody is living longer than what the doctors told her to expect.
But there are still the morality issues. Fiona Philips said that "our children are being failed by a lack of proper, structured information about loving partnerships and how to negotiate them because a squeamish, ignorant few would rather their children found out the hard way.". They learn from porn, etc. because their parents and school teachers forget or are too squeamish to tell them the real story. Would you agree?
Does church have a role to play also?
Another article that caught my eye is a father's letter to Victoria Secrets. The letter basically said that advertising, etc. has made the work of the parents a lot harder, in upholding morality when manufacturers and sales encourage our young people to "flaunt it". What do you think of that?
Because we who should know better are not educatiing your younger ones the way we should, Rebekah Maxwell reckons that our youth are more likely to get STDs than to get a job. Do you think she is exaggerating?
What is the truth about this matter? How should young people behave sexually? Who has the power and right to teach them? What do you think?
I am remembering a time when we used to talk about AIDS and other STDs. It was at a time when the rate of infections were lower. Why have we stopped? Is it because there is now a cure in some cases? I heard a case on ABC radio where somebody is living longer than what the doctors told her to expect.
But there are still the morality issues. Fiona Philips said that "our children are being failed by a lack of proper, structured information about loving partnerships and how to negotiate them because a squeamish, ignorant few would rather their children found out the hard way.". They learn from porn, etc. because their parents and school teachers forget or are too squeamish to tell them the real story. Would you agree?
Does church have a role to play also?
Another article that caught my eye is a father's letter to Victoria Secrets. The letter basically said that advertising, etc. has made the work of the parents a lot harder, in upholding morality when manufacturers and sales encourage our young people to "flaunt it". What do you think of that?
Because we who should know better are not educatiing your younger ones the way we should, Rebekah Maxwell reckons that our youth are more likely to get STDs than to get a job. Do you think she is exaggerating?
What is the truth about this matter? How should young people behave sexually? Who has the power and right to teach them? What do you think?
30 March 2013
Guards at Jesus tomb
Who were the guards outside Jesus' tomb?
Matthew 6:62-66 says that the chief priests and Pharisees requested of Pilate that Jesus' tomb be guarded. They thought that if word breaks out in the future that Jesus had come back to life, then "all hell would break lose". People would believe in Jesus. The religious leaders would lose control. So to make sure that such a rumour would not be fabricated, they wanted the tomb sealed and guarded.
Pilate consented. He either said "You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." or "Take a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." (according to the ESV version of the Bible, and noting the footnote).
The two possible meanings leave us some ambiguity. Were the guards from Pilate's Roman soldiers? Or were they temple guards? Does it make a difference to the story?
I read an article that studied the difference, and thought about it.
In a way, yes, it does make a difference. Roman soldiers are better trained, and more committed to the tasks assigned to them. They face a penalty of execution if they slept on the job. Temple guards can be forgiven more easily. Temple guards report to the chief priests. Roman guards report back to their centurion, and ultimately back to Pilate. Hence Matthew 28:11 could imply that they were temple guards instead of being Roman guards, although the word "some" leave the ambiguity there.
For Jesus' followers to steal the body would be less likely to happen in the case of Roman guards. However, Jesus' followers were feeling sad, depressed, confused and afraid at the time. They were not in a position to overcome either guard or to roll away the stone. Matthew 28:2 says that there was an earthquake, and an angel of the Lord rolled the stone away.
The story about the guard stopped at this point. It was deemed to be no longer significant enough to write about, as in either case, their story was no longer credible. The main point, regardless of which guard, is that Jesus did rise from the dead.
If Jesus' followers did fabricate the story, then the details of the fabrication would have come out during torture or threat of death. But they were too afraid at the time to try something so heroic at the time anyway. If Joseph of Arimethea changed his mind and moved the body before the guard was placed, then either he or his accomplices would have confessed ... or the body would have been found at some stage.
I think Jesus' resurrection really happened. What do you think? What plausible stories can you think of to say it didn't happen if you don't believe it? What convinces you that the story is true if you believe it? Please share.
Matthew 6:62-66 says that the chief priests and Pharisees requested of Pilate that Jesus' tomb be guarded. They thought that if word breaks out in the future that Jesus had come back to life, then "all hell would break lose". People would believe in Jesus. The religious leaders would lose control. So to make sure that such a rumour would not be fabricated, they wanted the tomb sealed and guarded.
Pilate consented. He either said "You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." or "Take a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." (according to the ESV version of the Bible, and noting the footnote).
The two possible meanings leave us some ambiguity. Were the guards from Pilate's Roman soldiers? Or were they temple guards? Does it make a difference to the story?
I read an article that studied the difference, and thought about it.
In a way, yes, it does make a difference. Roman soldiers are better trained, and more committed to the tasks assigned to them. They face a penalty of execution if they slept on the job. Temple guards can be forgiven more easily. Temple guards report to the chief priests. Roman guards report back to their centurion, and ultimately back to Pilate. Hence Matthew 28:11 could imply that they were temple guards instead of being Roman guards, although the word "some" leave the ambiguity there.
For Jesus' followers to steal the body would be less likely to happen in the case of Roman guards. However, Jesus' followers were feeling sad, depressed, confused and afraid at the time. They were not in a position to overcome either guard or to roll away the stone. Matthew 28:2 says that there was an earthquake, and an angel of the Lord rolled the stone away.
The story about the guard stopped at this point. It was deemed to be no longer significant enough to write about, as in either case, their story was no longer credible. The main point, regardless of which guard, is that Jesus did rise from the dead.
If Jesus' followers did fabricate the story, then the details of the fabrication would have come out during torture or threat of death. But they were too afraid at the time to try something so heroic at the time anyway. If Joseph of Arimethea changed his mind and moved the body before the guard was placed, then either he or his accomplices would have confessed ... or the body would have been found at some stage.
I think Jesus' resurrection really happened. What do you think? What plausible stories can you think of to say it didn't happen if you don't believe it? What convinces you that the story is true if you believe it? Please share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)