...polls find that the most common impressions of Christianity are that it's hostile, judgmental and hypocritical. In particular, an incredible 91% of young non-Christians say that Christianity is "anti-homosexual", and significant majorities say that Christianity treats being gay as a bigger sin than anything else. (When right-wing politicians thunder that same-sex marriage is worse than terrorism, it's not hard to see where people have gotten this impression.)
The things I most despise about articles such as the one linked to above is that they judge based upon popularity and they defy logic.
Look, Christianity has never been about filling pews regardless of what anyone claiming to have been, or still be, Christian has said about it. Jesus himself said openly, honestly, and directly that "few there be that find it." The "it" there is Christianity and the path to God and God himself (even though the Holy Spirit is not confined to having a penis).
It is completely illogical to judge Christianity by non-Christians claiming Christianity as it is to judge all atheists by the Stalinist purges in Russia and other such atrocities committed by various atheists down through the ages.
The real issues are spiritual versus the mundane and what constitutes the real spirit. The term "real" there is used in a very specific Jesus-Christ context.
I am a Christian. I try not to be coercive. When I fall into coerciveness, I am at that time not being Christian. I then must repent. Jesus was not and is not coercive, in spite of the fact that he prophesied the coming of a universal world leader/ruler who will purge humanity of those who work, and worked (unrepentantly so), iniquity. This is not hypocritical on Jesus's part. It is not illogical.
It is too abstract for the atheists and so-called conservative, Republican self-styled Christians. They aren't Christians. They are Christians in name only. There's a huge difference between just claiming Christianity and truly believing in it.
Christianity is both absolute and relative at the same time. This is too abstract for many to grasp and to reconcile. This is why the language of the revelation of Jesus remains a foreign language to atheists and so many claiming Christianity and other religions. This is why "few there be that find it."
That "few there be that find it" in no way proves anything about the wrongness of Jesus's teachings and works or deeds. Anyone who believes otherwise does not understand logic even in the most mundane sense — and there is divine logic well above it.
The youth are suffering from shorter attention spans. They are being overwhelmed by input. They are being drugged up to supposedly counter act it. How much deep reflection and consideration is going on? It was bad enough before.
Consider these things. There are exceptions, of course; but how deep are they really going?
The linked-article though focuses specifically on homosexuality. Look, as I said, Jesus was not coercive; but that doesn't mean that he held that homosexuality was not iniquitous. He was very specific in stating that various sexual behaviors were errors. He gave a laundry list if you will. There is no doubt that he considered sex out of wedlock to be an error, wrong, iniquitous, harmful, a sin (term it as you will). Why it is such is too abstract for many. They don't dig deep enough (seek) to discover the interrelationships, the cause and effect, of the behavior with eternally wrong outcomes. There is also no doubt that homosexuals were engaging in sex and were not married to each other.
Marrying them to each other though does not remove the error, but many people are not interested in finding out in any profound sense why that is. They are much too interested in a superficial treatment to support their own selfishness (which is evil).
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)