amalgamate
While reading through a rather large compilation of ultra biased Neo-Christian essays, oddly found while skimming over a fellow Ubuntu forum members web site, I couldn’t help but notice the protective defense emotions flaring in response. If there’s one thing I’ve noticed during bouts of introspection it’s my uncanny lack of never ending presumptions. In some ways I value this character trait, usually when my staunch beliefs allow me the strength and clarity to defend something I hold true. Other times these hidden ideals tend to impede all attempts to accept new ideas. This is a growing problem considering the trend to disallow new ideas could theoretically result in a hollow narrow-mindedness full of arrogance and self-importance. I personally feel that path has already been set and am fully prepared to dissuade myself from such a worthless destiny.
I find some comfort in the idea that acknowledgement is the first step in effectively changing, however unproductive as it may be.
The instigator of this random cogitation is the group of essays I mentioned earlier. I humorously found most subjects to fly completely against my theological assumptions. Lucratively debatable topics ranged anywhere from abortion to Missionary dating. I found a particularly interesting section within his gay related writings, which got me not only thinking, but further evaluating my predispositions on the subject. Until now, I have been fairly unswayable regarding my beliefs of gays and gay marriage, admittedly based purely upon a totally biased cultural upbringing. (Who’s wasn’t to some extent) What struck me as interesting was this excerpt:
As Christians, I think we need to recognize that being gay is only sinful if you are a Christian… I mean, sure, you could argue non-Christians can be sinful, too, they just don’t realize it, but that’s the whole point–they don’t realize it! Just as it behooves everyone to use proper grammar, I’m not in the place to correct everyone’s mistakes, because not everyone has agreed to that arrangement–only my students have. We may all be subject to God’s judgment (and redemption), but if people have not entered into a contract (or covenant) with God, it won’t make sense to them when we chastise them for not living up to laws they don’t agree with.
I was taken off guard by the simplicity of this statement, especially after allowing it to erode some fairly strong convictions. I’m not a practicing Christian nor do I propagate the ideals of the Christian church, but that’s immaterial when viewing the logic behind this rationality. How can I, or anyone for that matter, denounce a person for not abiding by moral rules they don’t agree to It’s obvious our culture claims Christianity as our moral de facto standard and subsequently our compass for legislature is somewhat symmetrical. But, only recently have I started to second-guess this assumed moral bias in our country. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for moral turpitude and would loathe a majority transition to anarchy and agnosticism, but does that warrant the legal oppression of others who don’t follow suit
The essay linked to an interesting sermon on gay marriage, check it out. Dave Schmelzer’s sermon on gay marriage
If anything can come from expeditions into the dark side its certainly a much more rounded perspective on the world itself. Hopefully I’ll find it to be much more interesting than an existence plagued with false absolutes.
Related posts: