Where Do These Ideas Come From (Part 2)?
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Not much from A (one of our college students) was recorded in last week's article, since mostly we examined what B (a college student from another religious group) had to say. However, A did present B with several things to consider—not that it did much good. Following are a few of the things that A wrote back.
A: "Well, then where do YOU get your standard for morality?" [She then cited 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and added that both God and His Word are rational (Isa. 1:18). She showed the chief problem with morality having a subjective basis]:
"So one person could say, 'Oh, it's okay for 2 people to live together who are not married. Yay.' However another person might have a different view, such as, 'No, that's stupid; we shoot them all.' Who do we use for truth and morals? They both sound good to the person who's saying it, and it's not wrong in their view."
[A further challenged B to provide her source for women who wore pants being lynched, along with other outlandish claims that B made.]
"Sure, in the Bible there were slaves, but some volunteered for such service, and the Bible teaches that they are to be treated fairly. Of course there is always someone who will not abide by God's word and wrongly treat people. God created us equally, and we should treat others as we want to be treated. However, man is the problem for unjustified treatment of slaves and people of other ethnic races in general."
G (editor's comments): The response of A to B closed with an appeal to select one subject and discuss it thoroughly rather than just sending several scattered, unrelated comments. In that way, adequate answers and arguments could be offered. Instead of abiding by this request, B loaded up her shotgun and blasted away.
B: In history, women were expected to wear dresses. Any woman that didn't was shunned. That is common knowledge. I will not go out and present you facts, but you are capable of doing so yourself.
G: This is a totally bogus way of presenting argumentation. B has no evidence and no sources, then challenges A to do her work for her. B made the foolish claim that women were lynched for wearing pants. It is her responsibility to find one instance of such a practice. If she cannot find it, she should admit that it was an exaggeration and not a valid point.
B: I get my standard of morality from what I believe is right. Not everyone believes the Bible, because we ALL know that there are different religions. America is not a Christian nation, it is a nation with no religion! There is a reason for a separation of Church and state, because we are a country founded on the belief that anyone with any religion can come here. And be proud of their religion. And be proud of their own choices.
G: Getting one's standard of morality from what one believes is right (instead of from God) is exactly the problem that A presented B (shooting those with whom we disagree); she did not even attempt to answer the argument. No one ever said that everyone believes the Bible, but everyone needs to because everyone will be judged by what is taught in it (John 12:48). God gave people the free will to believe anything they want to—even false world religions. But He also warned that there is a price to pay for rejecting truth (2 Thess 2:10).
B ought to know that this country was founded on Christian principles—not those of Muhammad, Buddha, or anyone else. Had they been founded on Muhammad or the Qur'an, every man would have been allowed four wives. No laws were passed making cows sacred. Let B move to Saudi Arabia and try to practice Christianity there. They don't practice our principles.
It is doubtful that B even realizes that "the separation of church and state" is not in our Constitution, but is a phrase from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson. If she actually did some research into matters before she started talking about them, she might not look nearly so bad in her reasoning.
B: Let's be honest here. Would you rather a young woman live alone? I wouldn't. Would I rather she live with a group of girls? Yeah. But guess what? Girls in our world don't always know how to fight back. I would rather, in my opinion, if I had a daughter, I would rather her live with someone that was strong, and able to defend himself, and her, rather than her live alone, or with a group of girls that can't defend themselves. That's what I'm talking about here.
G: This is almost too silly to comment on. So are we to understand that her cousin moved in with a guy just for his protection? Is he a one-man swat team? Does he never sleep? What if the girls are all karate students? This is one of the poorest rationalizations for two people living in fornication that anyone has ever invented. Even if the reason made sense, it would still qualify as fornication and be wrong (Heb. 13:4).
B: It is not our place to judge anybody. In any way. Regardless if we have known them our entire lives, or met them last week.
G: The reader probably knew that this sentiment would surface sooner or later. It always does when someone feels a need to justify sin. So, let's all condemn John the Baptizer because his message to the people was: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). B would have to rebuke John and say, "How dare you assume that these people are sinners! You have no right to judge anyone in any way! And anyway, John, you have never even met these people before. How can you be so judgmental!"
But we not only have a problem with John, we have one with Jesus as well. Jesus also told people to "repent." He told the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more (John 8:12). And He had never even met her before that day! Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites in Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. He also called them blind guides, fools, serpents, and a brood of vipers. B understands what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 7:1-5 almost as well as she does His morality (Matt. 5:27-28).
B: Matthew 19:5-6. There is where abusive husbands say that their wife is bound to them. Believe it or not, some men say that God gave them the power to control their wives once they said, "I do," because it is in the Bible.
G: No one is arguing over what people say. The question is, "What does the Bible teach?" Does it authorize husbands to mistreat their wives? Absolutely not! The fact that God designed marriage to be permanent does not imply or condone abuse.
People misuse the Scriptures all the time. The fact that they are misapplied does not negate their truths. Besides, B should be pleased that these abusive husbands are getting their source of morality from what they think is right. Maybe they were taught and believe that a husband has absolute authority over a wife and can treat her any way he desires. They are wrong, but if they are their own standard of authority, how can B complain?
In fact, why couldn't they argue that not everyone is a Christian and not everyone believes the Bible; so it cannot be used to judge them? Suppose a guy says, "I think I ought to have total control over my wife and make her conform to my thinking any way I can." Is such a thought horrible? Yes. But what can B say about it? According to her own argumentation, she cannot judge him and tell him that he is doing wrong.
B: If God says I'm bound to someone because I had a child by accident, I'm going to not be happy, because I already know I made a mistake. I apologized and begged for forgiveness, and now I will be forced to spend the rest of my days with this man. What if he's my rapist and I get pregnant? That implies I'm still bound to him. And I will have to break that God's law.
G: In the Christian era, a woman is not required to marry a man by whom she is pregnant—either willingly or unwillingly. Where B got this idea, she does not say. It was neither from A nor from the Bible. Marriage is a lifetime commitment and should not be entered into because of adverse circumstances. It is difficult to determine where B gets her ideas from. However, she does presume to sit in judgment on God when she thinks they disagree.
B: I do not believe in following everything the Bible says [Really? gws]. I keep close my trust in God, and my faith. But I will never look down on anybody, and I will never judge anybody. If Gay people want to get married, go ahead, and let 'em. They're not going to affect MY life. If I have a child, I'll say, "They wanted to be happy like mommy and daddy," but you're not going to do that.
G: It is clear to see that when B disagrees with God, it is obviously God who is wrong and B that is right. She chastises people right and left about being judgmental; how does she think God feels about her judgmentalism? Yes, she will not presume to judge any other human being, but she will sit in judgment on Almighty God! B is seriously in need of help, but it is doubtful that she would listen to anyone.
She erroneously speaks of faith and trust in God. But she has no faith. What kind of trust is it to slap one's Savior in the face and tell Him that He is wrong? He created man and has condemned homosexuality, but is B willing to trust His judgment on that sin? She does not! She has not faith. She probably has not read Luke 6:46, but Jesus asked, "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not the things that I say?"
B: Simple! Simple as pie! I do not want to deny another human being the same happiness I have, just because the Bible tells me it's wrong. I want people to treat me with kindness and gratefulness, because I wasn't cruel to them, because I didn't judge them, because I said, "Let them do what they will, I won't be ashamed or bothered." It's not my place to be ashamed or bothered by what someone else does, and it's not their family's place either. Only they can be embarrassed of themselves, and if they're not, okay, then.
G. These simplistic and contradictory views are just too naïve to believe—except B is probably serious. Okay. Since adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are all okay—despite the Bible condemning all of them as sins which will cause people to abide in eternal torment—let's see how B does with a few scenarios that might disrupt her blissful illusions. Let's say that B is dating Y, and her friend, C, knows that she's in love with him, but seduces him anyway. Did anyone get hurt? Will it change their relationship? Now let's say that B is married to Y, and C does the same thing. Will she now become judgmental against C and Y? Or will she say, "They just wanted to be happy."? Carry it a step further and say that Z doesn't like B and feels that he would be a better lover to Y, even though Y is not interested. If Z forces Y to be intimate with him, will B just shrug her shoulders, or will she want to "judge" Z and call the police?
One reason that God condemns sin is that it involves unholy and impure conduct; another reason is that it introduces problems and sorrows into the lives of people who are innocent and not deserving of what happened to them.
Once again, B sits in judgment on God. Who is likely to know what makes human beings truly happy—B or the One Who created all mankind? Yet B is using her own definition of happiness to assume that those who violate God's law can achieve it. Jesus defined happiness in Matthew 5:3-12. Perhaps, if B read the Bible more and consulted her own opinions less, she would be a more humble person.
Is it kind or cruel to people to tell them that they are all right when their actions are wrong? B has once again made an unwarranted assumption that she is kind. It is doubtful that anyone in eternal torment will agree with her. "Why didn't you tell me that I was wrong? Do you think an eternity of hopelessness can compare to a few moments of fleshly satisfaction?" Don't people have a right to know on this side of death what God's standards are? But B blathers on, having no clue what she is saying.
B: I am not going to push my religious beliefs on a nation that was founded on religious freedom. That would be presumptuous of me to do so. That would be cruel of me. Because then, I would not be the person that accepts all kinds. That accepts, appreciates, and respects all kinds. That's what I learned from the Bible. After loving God, accept all kinds, like Jesus did.
G: Of course, it is not presumptuous for B to tell A that she is wrong in "forcing" her beliefs on others. B can tell others what they should or should not do—but she doesn't grant that right to anyone else.
Jesus did not accept all "kinds" (by her definition). He "accepted" them in that He gave them an opportunity to repent; He did not EVER accept their sins. Instead He preached that people needed to repent. He told them that doing what they wanted to do (walking in the broad path) leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-15). Jesus told people that false prophets would come to them in sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15). Given His stance on fornication and adultery, He would not have agreed that young women need big strong men to protect them and that giving her sexual favors to the guy in return is an okay price.
B: Always be kind. Always be loving. Strive to help others.
G: It's taken a long time, but B finally said something we can agree with. The reason is that she finally said something that agrees with the Word of God, which is the only way that we know any principle is correct. Paul wrote that Christians are to be kind to one another (Eph. 4:32) and "to pursue what is good" for themselves and for all (1 Thess. 5:15). The same verse forbids rendering evil for evil to anyone. Christians must always act in these ways. The same God who commanded these attributes, however, also condemned sin. Christians do not punish those who are immoral. B seems to think that Christians are out to do others harm. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want the best for all; we want every individual to be happy both now and in eternity. But that is not achieved through telling people, "If it feels good, do it." People will only be truly happy when they respond to their Creator in a positive manner.
B: I would not hate a homosexual because the Bible tells me so, because the Bible also tells me to love my neighbor I would not find disgust and annoyance in a woman that moves in her boyfriend, because I don't want her to find disgust and annoyance in me.
G: Does B have any idea what she is saying? First (as already noted), the Bible does not tell us to hate anyone. How did B come to make such reckless assumptions? Or did someone teach her these things? Even more important, however, is that she thinks the Bible contradicts itself. Hello! Apparently, she thinks that God talks out of both sides of His mouth. He tells people to love their neighbor but to hate homosexuals. This is an indictment of both God and His Word. This issue is separate from disgust and revulsion. Does B get disgusted when she hears about child molestation? God is disgusted by the acts that homosexuals commit. But Jesus still died for them.
How could someone miss what the Bible teaches on so many fundamental issues—and then think they have a good grasp on matters!? People are still being destroyed by a lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).