Religion
How do animals and women fit into the bible? Why does evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood? Why doesn't God intervene?
What is the trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? What about the errors? Only containing 'God's' words?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be a legend? Help from outside the bible?
The next section of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions engages with how Christians are supposed to behave.
Q.6 How dangerous is wealth? What are the moral issues surrounding the topic of wealth creation?
The mantra that money is a corrupting influence is a common one. "Sell your souls to the highest bidder," is a derogatory term that we use regularly. However, Bewes argues that:
"there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wealth in itself. And poverty is not an indispensable mark of the believer. It is not God's will that poverty should be the rule of life across the world."
Bewes then mentions Max Weber's book The Protestant Ethic and the Spread of Capitalism. Weber argues that the "ethos of Protestantism, promoted, as nothing else could have done, the spirit of the entrepreneur." It encourages wealth creation for charitable purposes and not for self-development.
I completely agree with this thinking. We tend to see money, as the root of all evil. it is a corruptible, cruel force that can turn friends against each other. But it isn't money that is doing this, but greed and the love of money. What we need to remember is:
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:10
There is nothing wrong with having money, but there is something wrong with squandering your money on yourself. If you're buying yachts and caviar, while your fellow man is starving, then that is a problem. The bible tells us that we have a Christian duty to use our money to help our fellow man. After all, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God," (Matthew 19:24)
My Christian friend Naomi poses the interesting argument that "money gets dangerous when it becomes your God." If you are poor, then you shouldn't feel a desire to chase money. Money does not make you. Rather you should be worried if you have a desire to make money, not for charitable purposes, but materialistic ones.
Q.64 What about forgiving the unrepentant? Is it biblical to forgive those who show no remorse for their actions?
One of the greatest things that Christ taught us is to forgive our enemies. It is easy to be nice to our friends, but the true make of a man is whether he can be kind to those who wrong him.
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Matthew 5:39
But how can you forgive someone who feels no guilt for his crimes?
Bewes argues that journalists often ask victims this question? Do they forgive their attackers? Bewes thinks this question is unfair. as it unnecessarily pressures the victim. How could you expect them to forgive a burglar for stealing things, especially if they have showed no remorse for their actions.
However, Bewes believes that the most important thing is that we are willing to forgive in the first place, regardless if the ones we're forgiving feel no remorse. Jesus Christ forgave those who crucified him and we should follow in his example.
Naomi believes that whilst we shouldn't forgive the unrepentant in the same way we forgive the repentant, what we should do is put aside our anger for them. Holding a grudge against them is dangerous, as it is easy to become bitter towards them.
I can see the logic behind both of these arguments. Whilst it is far easier said than done, forgiveness is important. It signifies understanding and and maturity on your part. It is also important for your own mental progression. Holding onto the same grudge for years on end could damage your mental health. You could go mad through your own resentment and bitterness.
65. Can euthanasia be Christian? Is it not only human, but compassionately Christian, to follow the Dutch medical trend towards assisting in the termination of a life not worth living?
This is a hotly debated question amongst Christians and Atheists alike. Is it ever right to help somebody to die? If they are in agony, wouldn't the right thing to do would be end their suffering?
Richard Bewes provides 4 arguments as to why this might not be the case. Firstly, he argues that it should be nobody but the patient's decision as to whether they want to die. Doctors have no right to say when a person's life is no longer worth living.
Secondly, he argues that there is a difference between removing suffering and removing the sufferer. Doctors who follow the hippocratic oath are breaking it by killing their patients.
Thirdly, he asserts that "there s a difference between valuing someone for who they 'once' were, and valuing them for who they always are."
Lastly, he argues that we always need to consider the effect on those left behind. The death of someone will undoubtedly affect their loved ones. Instead we should offer palliative care to allow people to live out the rest of their days.
Bewes' first argument is perfectly logical. We should all be allowed to die on our own terms. Nobody has any right to tell us that our lives worth living. If somebody asked me to help end their suffering, then I would do it. Otherwise, I'd be keeping them in pain, which is unfair and cruel. However, things become muddier, once we begin discussing non-voluntary euthanasia. But if a person if beyond hope, their closest family should make the decision.
As for Bewes' last argument, the problem with palliative care would be the sheer cost. I know this may sound cold-hearted; how could you possibly put a price on somebody's life? But surely it's just as cold-hearted to use supplies on somebody who is beyond hope, at the expense of somebody who could be saved.
Q. 68 What makes a church a sect? Any church is surely prone to error? But at what point does false teaching turn a church into a sect?
It is no secret that there have been some sects inspired by Christianity. I've already mentioned the People's Temple, but there is also Mormonism and the Church of Latter-Day Saints.
Bewes provides a few explanations as to what makes a church a sect.
Firstly, he argues that they warp the truth. Instead of telling their followers everything, they tell them part-truths, or even lies. They also target certain Christians: the young, the elderly, the ignorant. As they have no spiritual power backing up their beliefs, they are forced to piggyback legit groups and pick off their most vulnerable members.
Next, they attach a novelty to the bible. They dazzle their followers with some false truth, before distorting common Christian beliefs to deceive and divert the unwary. They also exclude themselves from the rest of society and Christianity. They disregard common Christian beliefs, claiming they have the one and only truth. Lastly, they're power-brokers. Power is concentrated in one charismatic individual whose authority can never be questioned. More often than not, these preachers will see themselves as gods.
This description certainly matches the People's Temple. Its charismatic and mentally unstable leader Jim Jones amassed almost 1000 followers before moving them all to a secret hideout in Guyana. They were forced to leave behind their old lives and families and weren't allowed to leave the group.
Naomi argues that whilst different churches teach different things, they all have the same core beliefs: the bible is the infallible word of God, Jesus died for our sins et. Any church that teaches anything different is a sect.
No comments:
Post a Comment