The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 21 -- Final Thoughts

This has been an interesting journey. My effort was to apply conservative methods to a subject that the 'conservative' tradition proclaims to have already figured out. Using one of the most conservative and methodical Bible study methods, I began to take apart the issue of nakedness and the Bible.

I began by observing what the Bible actually says about the subject. My initial inquiries were to get a definition of nakedness and to see if the there was a difference in what the Bible considers nakedness and what Christian culture considers nakedness. I had one particular issue in mind because of current cultural debate -- are women's breasts considered naked by the Bible. Going from the beginning to the end of Scripture I looked at every time I could find and think of where nakedness, breasts, women, etc. were mentioned to see if those passages would shed some light on the subject.

The interpretations and conclusions I was forced to draw based on what I was seeing were definitely different. I had to conclude that the Bible's definition of nakedness was far different and deeper than what contemporary conservative tradition has. Nakedness is the spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that is caused by sin and a human being is made of aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God. Conservative tradition focuses on the externals of nakedness, but the Biblical definition doesn't to focus on this at all but on the spiritual loss of innocence due to sin. The fact was that on the issue of physical nakedness the bible is back and forth. Adam and Eve are covered by God but Isaiah is told by God to strip naked and David dances naked before the ark and both are vindicated because of obedience. Physical nakedness is only shameful if accompanied by spiritual nakedness due to sin. When it came to the specific issue of women's breasts -- I could find no verse of Scripture that directly connected exposing them to being naked. If anything I found many verses singing their praises.

Applying this to real life became a challenge in the light of traditional conservative thinking. But one verse, a quote from Christ, kept going through my head. "Do not judge after the outward appearance, but judge righteous judgment." When it comes to this issue the church as a whole has the issue backwards. The average Christian is constantly making judgments about people's spirituality based on outward appearance when it comes to exposure of physical skin, but Biblically, in more ways than one, this is unsupportable. No one that I can see is judging things based on spiritual state. Nakedness of spirit is rarely dealt with effectively. I have seen many who were lost in sin fully clothed in body they were naked before God but the church ignores such people in favor of what going after what they can see. This changed my perspective on many issues including art, porn, public nudity, spiritual life and ministry in this world when nakedness is more and more common. I also had to conclude that the public perspective that a women exposing her breasts is nakedness is cultural not Biblical. It is no more nakedness for a woman than exposing her legs or face, but culturally this seems to be a last frontier of a culture war.

To contextualize all this became issues of living faith, liberty and the nature of sin and temptation for the believer. In the end i had to conclude that change the definition from physical to spiritual changes a lot mostly though it is about where the battle is really fought with lust -- in our hearts. It ultimately means that physical nakedness has no power unless the believer because of their own sin allows it to do so through spiritual nakedness. What makes a painting of a naked figure art or porn may greatly depend on the perspective. Is it viewed through the eyes of sin or innocence.

My largest final thought is how a person with a Biblical perspective is going to deal in our world and culture. This issue is both about the church culture as well as the world's

The great irony is that the greater difficulty is going to come from the church culture. Those of us focused on spiritual nakedness are going to look like we are not truly 'conservative' in our outlook. In truth, we are facing an issue of Christian liberty verses not making our weaker brother or sister stumble. We are going to have to think about how to walk a line between effective ministry where the strategy is about being in the world and not of it; and the other side where the strategy that is traditionally employed is legal action and isolation. This second strategy is going to ultimately fail and we must begin to exercise influence to a more Biblical way of doing things -- applying grace and truth to the true nakedness of this world -- the shame and exposure of sin.

To the world, we simply have to suspend our self-righteous opinions and oddly enough I think most people in the world would consider this a breath of fresh air compared to what we normally do. To actually rub shoulders with people who may be unacceptable to Christian culture but then effectively minister the grace and truth of Christ is the ultimate goal. To be able to go to places and be in situations where nudity is present but unaffected by it; to be able to look past the fashion and clothing issues to see real nakedness of spirit would be a more effective strategy than what is currently employed. It would also reflect more fully the ministry that Paul did in his world in the book of Acts.

I only have a couple of negative thoughts on these possibilities 1) nakedness being spiritual is going to be more nebulous -- it is much easier for people to define things by sight even though this is not truly accurate. 2) The church at present very likely lacks the spiritual maturity to reexamine themselves in the light of these Biblical understandings. I just think that the church culture is easier to accept than true Biblical definition. The later actually requires us to think.

For myself, I simply wait , pray and change my own attitude -- it is all I really can do. One thing is for sure though -- the nature of nakedness is changed in my mind and as much as possible, given those around me, I will walk in the liberty and truth of it.

Finis

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 15 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Public Nudity

I debated long and hard about whether or not to use this picture, but it illustrates the current modern debate about public nudity so well ... I couldn't resist using to make a point.

The issues questions on this one are very current. Particularly the issue of women going topless or topfree (depending on who you talk to) in public. When I did my study I paid considerable attention to the issue of women's breasts and how the Bible views them and if in any way are they connected to nudity. Part 7 of this series I focused on it in particular along with scattered references in each of parts 1 to 12. The issue of physical nakedness I looked at also. Observation over. Interpretation I gave in Part 13 -- The Biblical Definition of Nakedness. Now to the second area of application -- public nudity.

The Questions for the Christian concerning public nudity:
1. If a woman were to show her breasts in public would it be considered a sin by the Bible?
2. At what point does the Bible consider a person naked physically and thus publicly unacceptable?

Before I begin answering these questions back to conservative ideals vs. conservative tradition:
The traditional 'conservative' position I grew up with and which many still hold today in many Christian circles is that a person who displays their body's skin of inappropriate places was inciting sin and sinning themselves. The problem is the definition of 'inappropriate places' has changed over the years. During the Victorian Era any man or woman who showed in public more than their face or hands was considered 'loose'. I remember during my childhood it is why I always wore pants (no jeans) to church with dress shirts (short sleeved was OK for boys but not for girls). My teen years saw a few changes -- jeans were OK but they better not be tight ones. Girls broke the mold of always having to wear dresses and jeans and slacks appeared in church among the girls. Now to be considered loose in my generation meant you wore tight jeans or a girl showed *gasp* a little cleavage. As time has gone on, I can faithfully observe that women have shown more and more in the church setting as the years have gone by. Just this last summer a woman visiting my church wore a sun dress that was well above her knees and showed more than a little cleavage and was sleeveless as an example.

Despite all these changes a couple things have remained constant. 1) Showing of anything involving the bathing suit (trunks for guys and a bikini for girls) area of the body has been forbidden and 2) For a girl or woman to show too much of her breasts, in particular, to show her nipples in any context would be considered inappropriate. I did hear of a story of one pastor that allowed women to breastfeed without blankets in his church, but lets be honest this is not an activity that would be accepted in most Christian churches.

Question #1: If a woman were to show her breasts in public would be considered a sin by the Bible?
Short answer -- No. The problem Biblically with this notion is that there is absolutely no verse of Scripture that says this. By you say: what about the modesty passages? My position on them is posted here. Read it an come back so I don't have to repeat myself. Simply put these passages do not deal with this question at all but an entirely different problem. In addition there is no verse that connects women's breasts with nakedness or nudity. In fact the majority of verses that talk about women's breasts are either neutral about them to illustrate a point or praise them for their appearance or function a symbols of nurturing and motherhood. The few that do place women's breasts in sexual connotations do not connect them with nudity, nor are do they indicate that a women bearing her breasts would be a sinner. There is simply no way to BIBLICALLY support the idea. In fact it might be said the Bible supports the goodness of female breasts and says nothing of how they are bad. If someone were to ask me to build a case from the Bible to prove that woman should always wear tops in public, I would be at a loss as to how to do it.

Question #2: At what point is a person considered physically naked according to the Bible and thus publicly unacceptable? Honestly there is only a few verses that deal with this and the definition would be probably anything covered by a swimsuit bottom. Buttocks included. The issue here is that this definition arrived at by observing a few passages not because the Bible explicitly says so. The way Adam and Eve cover themselves and a few verses from the Old testament Prophets lead us to this definition. The problem is there are also verses where prophets are ordered by God to be naked and in public and where David dances naked before God. We may know what physically the Bible constitutes as nakedness but the Bible makes interpretation difficult when determining, if it is always a sin. In the case of Adam and Eve it is a result not the sin itself and in the case of the prophet and David it is actually symbolic of obedience and worship of God. Once again is what real nakedness in light of the whole Bible's teaching spiritual rather than physical? Very likely.

In short, the Biblical definition of nakedness being spiritual evil as a result of sin, but good is in the context of being sinless makes the issue of public nudity cloudy. It is once again dependent on the consciences of the persons involved. It is more likely to be an issue of culture than a Biblical one and that is something the current 'conservative' tradition cannot accept.

Just a note here even though my positrons on this fall very much outside the positions of 'conservative' traditions, the reality is that I am more conservative than they are because I have followed the conservative idea of the Bible as authority and in looking at it found a position that stands firmly on those ideals. The truth is the 'conservative' tradition on this issue has not a single bit of God's Word to stand on for its authority, but remains purely traditional understandings to uphold a certain religious culture. I am not going to say at this time that its position is wrong or not beneficial, but I am going to say for a group of people who claims to hold no position without Biblical support, they have very little here here.

Next: The Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 6 -- 'Provide for the Common Defense'

National Defense has always been a big issue for me because a lot of people think as a person of the cloth I should be pacifist or something. I will say this I do not like war. War as I have experienced it from the sidelines is not a good thing. I often hold mother's hands as they watch their sons go fight for their country. The stress is enough to drive the best of us mad and I can absolutely say I do not understand what soldiers go through but I respect them with the highest respect.


Bottom line, I am not a pacifist. War is a part of the Bible from almost the beginning. The people of God found themselves at war from The Law under Moses to the very end when Jerusalem was destroyed. Many times it was the direction of God that they were at war. I am not a pacifist because God and I might add Jesus were not a pacifists.

That said, I understand the need that drove the founding fathers to put this line in as well. A nation that does not have the means or desire to defend itself will not exist for long. We live in a world where everyone is not so nice.

Under that Articles of Confederation 'common defense' really did not exist. There were a lot of states who had their own militias but the Continental Army was a problem. In the end one of the founding fathers chief concerns was to address this problem.

The constitution not only allows for the maintenance of the military -- it requires it. Later when the Bill of Rights was created, there was a need to affirm the militias as well. Thus the Second Amendment that allows any citizen to bear arms and keep them without infringement. Every citizen is constitutional empowered defend this nation if necessary because it is --"We the People"

Politics of the Week: The Politics of Fair Play

Sportsmanship. Civility. Both seem to be topics of the week involving this concept of 'fair'; whatever that is? Two incidents caught my eye this week and it illustrates how things have gotten out of control.

1. Taylor Swift accepts award and Kayne west Interrupts.

2. Chaminade-Madonna defeats Pampano Beach 83-0 in High School Football down in Florida.

Now I am taking a different take on both.

In the West-Swift incident everyone has been talking about how uncivil it was for West to steal Swifts moment by interrupting and interjecting that he thought some other video should have won. West thought it was Unfair. The reason he was uncivil is not that he was a jerk necessarily but that he has been indoctrinated with this false notion of 'fair'. it was not fair that Taylor won and his candidate did not.

In the second, it is apparently OK to win but not be too much. It is not fair when a team beats a team by too much, but what is too much? Talk about nebulous.

What gets me here is the hypocrisy. On the one hand, in entertainment if a loser or their fans cries foul it is uncivil. If the loser of a sports contest cries foul, it is OK. See the problem.

Sorry, both Taylor and the C-M football team work hard, set goals for themselves and went out to achieve them. Both succeeded I great ways and both should be applauded. The fact is it is the nebulous concept of 'fair' that everyone has that seems to be to blame.

What is a coach supposed to do? 'Now guys if we get up by 40 or more were just going to knee the ball and give it to the other team.' Come on. You coach kids in football to play well so that you can win. Some of those Backups who played late for C-M got not only a chance to play but score and their thunder should not be stolen from them for some stupid concept of fair. In the case of C-M football they did all things well -- offense, defense and special teams. There should be line out the coach's door to ask him -- "how do you do it coach so we can be a better team?" Instead, the man is defending himself for being TOO SUCCESSFUL. As I read Dallas Jacksons story and the coach defended his action I said a hearty 'Amen' after every line he said.

A note to the media -- quit whining. Dallas Jackson get a life, this story shouldn't be about how unfair things were it should have been about how great a program C-M is. It is also unsportsmanlike to whine as a loser too. Quit whining for them.

For the story go here: http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=989089

If I was Kayne or Pampano Beach I would not whine. It is not the time for whining; it is the time for introspection. What can we do to be better?

I know Kayne West was whining about Beyonce but that isn't his job. He should have been asking himself what he could have done to help Beyonce be better next time so she can win, not stealing Taylor's thunder.

For Pampano Beach, I would ask this of myself -- what can we do better so that this never happens again. Take it as an opportunity to change yourself. Remember: TO WHINE ABOUT A LOSS IS UNSPORTSMANLIKE!

Like it or not competition makes us better -- win or lose. No matter what the score was.

Rant of the Week: Obama's Plan For Me

I was glancing at the magazine rack at work early this morning and saw the cover of Men's Health. "Obama's Plan for You". The issue of course is his health plan but the title is what got me. It was subtitled: For you Health, For your Finances and at that point I turned away.

Why in the world does this man think he has the right to plan my life in any way? Who does he think he is? This is the arrogance of liberals that somehow they think they have the right to plan your and my life. The purpose of government is not to plan my life and control it in this country. The purpose of government is to uphold and defend my right to plan and control my own life for myself. Who are these people that they think they have a better plan for me than me.

This is why the current health care plan must be stopped because it is a step in the direction of government directed health care and when that happens government begins to plan your life. That means that anything that could be deemed health related would fall under government jurisdiction. What you eat, what you drink, your activities suddenly fall under the governments regulatory power.

How huge will government be? It is already too big and it is the reason the country is struggling right now. Let the people be in charge of themselves and their health. This means private sector.

I only have one question: how people support this? I will tell you -- it is the same I want something for nothing attitude and someone else should take care of me. Such people who support such an idea are in support of the death of liberties in favor of their own selfish wants. Get a life liberals, you can't control your own life, leave mine alone.

Politics of the Week: Barak Obama's Speech to the Children

The whole hubbub this week was about Barack's speech to our children in School. When I read the speech after getting up today I was amazed at how conservative it was. Lets see 'personally responsibility, work hard and stay with it'. Where have I heard that before?

Now I want to remind us conservatives that if we do not acknowledge when Barack does do something right, we are going to be justly accused of just being antagonistic. I did not like Clinton either, but the fact was he did do some conservative things and they needed to be pointed out. The issue is credibility. Creditability is gained when you give an honest assessment of things as they come up pointing out the pro and con.

I know that right now with Republicans out of power, it is easy for every conservative to be fearful of the future. The reactions have been typical for people in fear. Protests, tea parties and the like. I am all for it, but let's not loose our heads and acknowledge when the man does right. The fact is I have heard some leftist criticism of the speech -- 'too conservative'. That is a good thing but it could have been better if we had just let the man speak first and then fired our guns.

What bugs me here is the missed political opportunity. If everyone had not been having a fit and we let Obama give the original speech --we could have pounced on it and used it to show Obama's agenda for education. Because we fired before the man actually did anything he reacted and covered himself. Sometimes in politics the best action is to let your opponent hang himself. Missed a good opportunity here to do so.

Many Presidents have addressed the schools and so I have no beef with Him or any other doing so. The man, like it or not, is the President and if he has any influence to encourage our kids to work harder, stick with it and take responsibility for themsleves, then more power to him.

Rant of the Week: The Greed of the Welfare State

Capitalism, like democracy, is a great system when it works. To make it work, people need to take action and develop both themselves and their business.

Currently the Left in this country have been assaulting rich people and corporations for their greed. I admit that in capitalism the possibilities for greed are good but greed is not limited to any one type of economics nor is it limited to any social class.

One thing no one talks about is the greed of the welfare class because apparently because they are on welfare they can't be greedy. Greed is a spiritual state that results from the relentless pursuit of your own wealth or pleasure at another's expense. It is when you use your position to take somethings that does not belong to you to further your own agenda and selfish desires that one becomes greedy

What can be more selfish that to deem yourself so important that because you live others should take care of your basic needs and you shouldn't have to do anything to earn that support but fill out paperwork. But, I can't work I have 'X'. It is amazing how many 'X's are accepted these days. It is also interesting how many families all have these 'X's in the entire family. For three generations even. Sorry, the I have looked for a job excuse doesn't work for me either. I have seen applications these people fill out -- they sign their name but there are a lot of blank spots or they give false information that actually drives an employer away from them. Or they claim some medical condition or injury. Now I have seen people who are legitimately hurt at work and need help and I have no beef with them, but many times it is not legitimate. It is just excuse

I am now personally convinced that poverty is not a state of economics, it is a state of mind. To be rich you have to do a few Biblical things:
1. Save your money, sacrificing a few things of comfort to get to larger goals. It is amazing how many poor people when they do get some sort of windfall waste it by buying junk entertainment items. Thus, they waste any opportunity to better themselves long term -- it is a pleasure now mentality in the poor.
2. Stay out of debt. I can't count the number of people I have heard that are poor that have both a credit card and are on a first name basis with the telemarketers on the shopping network. Many elderly poor and struggling are of this class. But also you do have those who run up cards and then bail on the debt on purpose.
3. Work hard: There is no shortcut to success -- you have to work hard to get there. most poor folks are just plain lazy and they will blame it on fate or other people who have done them ill. I have seen it. The people that are successful in life have one thing in common -- a good work ethic. Yeah they have nice things and enjoy them but they have earned them.

It wouldn't be so bad but I hear social workers complain that they need more money for programs or the rich don't do their fair share. I hate that. One, I once asked a social worker where in their office they have a board where they show the numbers of people they have helped off welfare into a productive state. She stared at me with a blank look on her face. Sorry folks, the system is not designed to do this. Social workers do not really help people become better people, they are mainly distributors from the haves to the have nots. Any person who leaves the welfare rosters often does so because they have decided to change not because of anything a social worker did. It is also not in the best interest of a social work to get a person off welfare. The more welfare recipients their are the more job security they have.

The odd things is the sense of entitlement the welfare state has. 'We deserve better than this and someone else should pay for it' is the mentality.

Another thing I hate as a pastor is when people use the church and the Bible to try to justify this. They point to all the passages about rich people for ammo. But the Bible is not silent of why poverty exists either. Read Proverbs sometimes -- poverty has a willful cause, the mindset of those who are poor. I would also point out the welfare in the Bible that is provided for in the law required the poor to work. 1) The rich were to leave the corners of their fields and leave grain that fell behind for gleaning by the poor, but the poor still had to go out and harvest it themselves. 2) Every third year, an additional tithe was given for the poor but it was distributed by the priests and that required the poor to come to the temple an ask a priest for it -- personal connection. There is nothing personal about the current welfare system. 3) As much as Jesus talked about helping the poor, when the disciples yelled at Mary for anointing the feet of Jesus his response was one of 'the poor you have always'. Indictating the problem of poverty will never end but it is not an economic problem. It is a question of which expression of greed you can see. 4) Much of the Biblical message is about taking personal responsibility for yourself so you are not a burden to others. It is a message of helping one another to be sure, but the best help you can be to others is to limit how much of a burden you are to others. 5) I also find it interesting in how many people I have helped with church money or programs who complain about how much or the quality they receive. Isn't it a form of greed to think you deserve more when your getting a freebie? It did cost something to someone else you know?

I have been on welfare, when I was in school and in the early days with a young family. It was a hand up to me because I didn't look at it as permanent -- there was a little shame to it for me and I have worked very hard to not need it. Now I am making too much money but it takes two jobs. The one thing I see with many however is generation after generation who have a system of gaining support and money for doing nothing. That also is a form of greed. It is gain at someone elses' expense. I leave you with some famous words that more need to take to heart:
'There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch'. (TANSTAFL).

Would the Real Republican Leadership Stand Up

In the past years I have watched the Republican Party attempt an experiment to move to the left and become more centrist -- the result -- Obama in the White House and a Democrat Congress. To make matters worse I have also seen no leadership step forward to present the conservative agenda in a hostile media world. Everyone seems afraid to stand forward and stand for what we believe in.

This is supposed to be the party of Ronald Reagan, I don't remember Ronald being squeamish about what he believed or what he stood for. Oh yeah, and those two totally dominating landslide elections were great too. I think the republican takeover of Congress had a lot to due with Reagan's ideology being reasserted after Clinton's election. Think those things are coincidence? I don't think so. The real issue is if the Republicans will see it and go back right.

The one thing I am really asking is --where is the leadership to do this? Name me a name. Sarah Palin? Maybe? The one thing for sure is Collin Powell isn't it. We need someone soon because we are not gain ground as far as approval. As much as it tickles me to no end that Obama and Congress' approval numbers are dropping, the Republican numbers are not rising either. Leadership would change that.

The Irony of Pacifism

As I was bringing my son home today form Alma College, I saw a bumper stick that said -- "Stop the War". I see many people that support one notion of pacifism or another and i wander if they understand the irony of their position. They live in a nation where they have such peace an prosperity they can both afford and have the ability to speak out freely for their cause. They can do this because we have a strong defense force to protect both.

I am a Christian and I believe that God does not preclude war. Christ will go to war someday and is at war with spiritual darkness so warfare in and of itself is not evil and sinful. In the law is both a commandment not to murder but also laws regarding division of spoils in war. For all you New Testament people -- remember John the Baptist's address to the soldiers -- he never tells them to give up their job.

History now shows that many soldiers in the Roman army were Christians. Seems like the issue is one of personal conscience but no one is going to say god told you to be a pacifist and have true Biblical support.

That said, the pacifist assumes all violence is evil but he or she is wrong. What needs to be considered is why the violent action is performed -- to defend hearth and home to remove oppression to protect yourself from death -- all good in my book.

Pacifism cannot exist in a country that is involved directly in war where the country itself is overrun with violence -- why? Because the pacifist, will probably find himself dead. If not, he will be accused of being 'good' but not doing anything to stop evil. In short, pacifism either disappears or becomes discredited in a land of violence. Only in a country such as the USA where there is peace over a long period of time and people do not have to struggle to survive can pacifism live. This is only possible where a national defense is strong.

You can be a pacifist, but remember the irony.

Higher Criticism and Revisionist History: An Interesting Parallel

Robert Heinlein, the Grandmaster of Science Fiction, wrote this of revisionist history in his last book To Sail Beyond the Sunset through the character Maureen Smith:

"In the twentieth century Gregorian in the United States of America, something called 'revisionist history' became popular among 'intellectuals'. Revisionism appears to have been based on the notion that the living actors present on the spot never understood what they were doing and why, or how they were being manipulated, being mere puppets in the hands of unseen evil forces....But why are the people of the United States and their government always the villains in the eyes of the revisionists? Why can't our enemies ... take a turn in the pillroy? Why is it always our turn?" p.67.

He has a good point -- revisionist history claims to be recovering the truth about our history but every time I read one of these people what I get is not revision but anti-USA. They start with the assumption that the USA is the bad guys.

In a similar way the 'scholars' of Higher Criticism assumes that the Bible is not history. They claim to be trying to uncover the real history of Biblical times but in reality they do much the same thing.

1. Both assume that we here have a better perspective to the events in question than the people who were there or knew people who were there. There is a chronological and philosophical arrogance to both groups.
2. Both assume that the original or ancient accounts are in error or outright lies if you take them to their logical conclusion. Must be hard to believe that everything you read is false.
3. Eyewitness accounts cannot be trusted. But then why are non eyewitness accounts more trustworthy?

Recently I received a copy of Bart Ehrman's book -- Misquoting Jesus which I plan to read as soon as I can. I engage Bart because he represents a new kind of scholar in higher criticism. The ideas he presents are not new, but what is new is the way they are being packaged -- to mass audience appeal so that doubt is created. They are 'pop' in their orientation. I feel very sorry for them in a way -- doubt is all they know, but at the same time their views are fallacious and need to be confronted. I am not the first to take their ideas on but right now this is the battleground -- if the Bible is stripped of history then everything we believe is built of falsehood and we might as well do something else. The same is true with US history and our beliefs in this nation.

The battle is in history and faith -- The Bible must be a product of both to believed. This is the battle of our day. Fight on.

Vegetarians -- Killers of Plants.

Every once and a while you have to have fun and this is a fun post.

It has come to my attention that there are certain people in this world that only eat plants.

I wonder what the plants think and feel about this. There they are just enjoying the sun growing, living, breathing and enjoying there existence with their fellow friends the other plants and WHAM. Suddenly their one someones plate and being eaten. Destroyed in the prime of life so some human can exist.

OK, if you think that is ridiculous so is the same argument about animals.

The vegetarian lifestyle I have always wondered about. It strikes me as weird.

If you want to be a vegetarian -- I am OK with that but :
1. Don't go moral on me. There is nothing Biblically or morally superior about being vegetarian. If life is life, than don't plants count with animals?
2. Don't start saying it is superior as a diet.

In the first place, while in the beginning mankind was vegetarian or at least we assume so only because their is no record of animals being killed by man (God does clothe Adam and Eve with animal skins -- wonder how that happened?), but that dos not mean it didn't happen. In the end God opened up animals to be both eaten and enjoyed for sure after the flood -- He also used animal sacrifice (and plant sacrifice through the grain offering) as part of worship. No moral high ground.

Second -- do you ever notice how thin vegans are? The fact is without our food transport system, true vegetarianism is not possible. Overall nutrition requires using all nutrition sources in an area to get it done. Without those oil using ships, transports and trucks -- full nutrition with only vegetables is not possible. Particularly protein.

In short -- keep hunting and keep the cattle, pigs and chickens coming because I can't keep the grill fired up without you.

Meat and plant eating blessings.

Why I Am A Conservative Christian

I am starting a series of posts based on my profile and the list :"conservative,evangelical, pentecostal, creationist, open theist, God-loving Christian". It seems that some of these things should be very clearly defined so everyone understand where I am coming from..

Webster isn't really helpful in this as they define conservative in it's original form of --"traditional, following the established view". I am not sure conservative Christians define themselves this way anymore as in the USA --conservative Christianity is not the norm. If you were to say one that follows historical beliefs then maybe your getting closer. Traditional views are not really at stake but traditional morality. For me conservatism goes deeper than even this.

1. A conservative Christian believes the whole Bible is the revelation of God to man. It is complete, totally accurate and should not be subject to change simply because culture does not like what it says or its popularity drops.

2. The Bible describes God as a Trinity of three persons who are all God -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A traditional view here but it's supported by Scripture.

3. Salvation is accomplished through the atonement of Jesus Christ's work on the cross and the empty tomb. This is acquired by faith. The elements of faith are repentance, believing the resurrection of Christ and submission Christ's Lordship.

4. Christ will return to judge the earth and his saints in how they have applied or rejected his word. Therefore we should fear God and obey him. Each person is personally responsible before God.

Let's contrast this with liberalism:

Liberals treat the Bible as flexible in part or not to be believed in other parts. Miracles are explained away. If a revelation of God in scripture does not agree with their idea of God they have in their heads, they explain it away.

Liberals also conceive of God as something they like and want and often it resembles themselves. As a conservative I fight very hard not to do this but let God stand as he reveals himself.

Liberals view salvation as universal in many cases with no conditions -- God is love after all and He wouldn't condemn anyone. Always nice to reassure oneself that your on the way to heaven when based on the Bible it may not be so.

Liberals are social activists -- believing through their efforts they can bring about a human utopia. In 6000 years of recorded history there is no evidence this has been achieved, but they go on believing it anyway. Personally, I think it is going to take God to clean up this mess ultimately and no amount of human striving is going to change that. There is often a cheap grace in liberalism so God is our buddy and not the One to fear or obey. Obedience becomes optional. The church becomes a vehicle for social activism rather than a place of discipleship and empowerment to reach the world with the gospel.

In the current political climate in the USA being a conservative Christian now means you are an enemy of the state because of its stand on personal responsibility -- no Big Brother government is needed to bail you out. It's stand on God being in authority over Government is also a no no as there is definitely a desire to be a law unto one's self in the current administration, God would just get in the way. There is also that sin thing -- saying abortion, homosexuality, adultery, etc. is sin is just hate speak to them. Sin should be defined by man not by God to liberals.

I remain a conservative Christian because I feel maintaining truth is more important than just bowing to government or culture. To me this is the definition of what it means to be a conservative Christian.