Answers to a "Pagan Christmas"

(posted previously at Ignitum Today)

Charlie gave Linus the pop quiz: what is Christmas all about? Of course, Linus proclaims the birth of Christ (was Linus named after the second Pope?)

Today it would have looked more like this:

The modern Catholic, and most Christians for that matter, has many fronts to defend, one of them being the so-called “pagan roots.” This accusation is made on many facades of the faith. For example, an objector might tell you that Christians adopted the Holy Day of Easter from the pagan celebration of the fertility goddess, Ishtar (sounds a little like Easter, right?). This time of year though, you are likely to hear the objection that Christmas is a christo-pagan holiday, a mash-up of pagan belief and Christian celebration. Here are some of the objections or accusations you might meet, and a helpful way to respond.

1. Christians invented Christmas from the winter solstice celebration of Sol Invictus.

Yes, there were mid-winter celebrations in religions outside Christianity during the time of the Early Church. In fact, like Easter, the East and the West were observing Christmas differently, while until recently, the Armenians didn’t celebrate it at all. The West led the way with a distinctive nativity-based celebration, concluding with Holy Mass. That’s the same as how you see it today. The development of Christmas was not an assimilated celebration until the 4th century. Does that mean that the Apostle John, and Sts. Polycarp and Irenaeus, three men who were apostolically connected, did not celebrate Christmas? Probably so, but there is nothing wrong with this. Merely because a Christian celebration is similar to that of a pagan one proves nothing. There is either coincidence of the celebrations in the same time period or there is influence on one another.

The objector has to ask himself the following: 1) after centuries of persecution for not observing pagan holidays, where is the proof of influence? Or/and, 2) who influenced whom? Did Christianity have the influence on pagans to begin adopting a more public and concrete celebration or did we “Christianize” a pagan event? We can observe that the two were present at the time but neither scenario is a problem with the Christian because the Church has the ability to Christianize people and celebrations alike. Light was overcoming darkness at the celebration of Sol Invictus and in Christ, darkness was defeated by the real luminousness of Christ. Paganism had a hint, but Christianity had the answer.

2. The Christmas tree comes from pagan origins and is condemned in the Bible.
The objector can have a field day with this one. Evergreens are a near-universal symbol of hope in the winter season. They represent resurrection (triumph of live over death) for the Egyptians, everlasting life for the Scandinavians and Druids, and still, agricultural anticipation (to the god Saturnalia) for the Greeks/Romans. But the tree is not recognized as a use of Christmas celebration until the time of Luther. More closely connected to the ancient church is the use of evergreen wreaths. Your objector might say that it came around the same time as the popularity of the pagan celebration Saturnalia. Let him know that Tertullian wrote as early as A.D. 190-220, that Christians hang more “wreaths and laurels” than the pagans (who hang it for the “gate gods”) at their doors. He was condemning the wreath as something worth putting hope in like the pagans did with their temples, over that of Jesus who is the true Light in which we are the actual temples of the Spirit. He wasn’t condemning the décor! He ends with, “You are a light of the world, and a tree ever green.” READ TERTULLIAN “ON IDOLATRY“ HERE (see Chapter XV)
The passage in the Bible your objector is referring to comes from Jeremiah 10:3-4.

Thus says the LORD: Learn not the customs of the nations, and have no fear of the signs of the heavens, though the nations fear them. For the cult idols of the nations are nothing, wood cut from the forest, Wrought by craftsmen with the adze, adorned with silver and gold. With nails and hammers they are fastened, that they may not totter (NAB).

Let’s get one thing straight up front: Jeremiah was not talking about Christmas trees because he was writing hundreds of years before Christmas became a celebration. He was pointing out the idolatry of the people of that day, and much like Tertullian, was warning against the idolatry of those who put there hope in earthly gods and things.

Near to this, the objector must understand that Christians are not intent on worshiping their trees and are certainly not putting them in their living rooms and entryways to deter spirits. Perhaps for some carolers and eggnog, but not for protection.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with the Church “baptizing” certain practices of other religions. The objector is confusing the Church of deriving its beliefs from these celebrations, with the assimilation of seasonal celebrations and symbols. Like St. Patrick did with the clover to illuminate and demonstrate the reality of the Trinity. Akin to St. Paul explaining the “unknown god” at the Areopagus. Paul did not derive the idea from the Greeks that day, and Patrick did not derive the Trinity from a leaf.

We don’t believe that Christians hold the patent on Truth. Instead, we believe that God has riddled himself to other religions. In other words, just because a specific religion does not contain the whole truth, does not mean it contains no truth. If you witness to a pagan who believes a wreath will save him, maybe you can show him how Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise of everlasting life. Then, just as with the cross that hangs from our necks, we can display a wreath to remind us what is true. In this way, Christianity has the distinct ability to assimilate the “hints” of other religions.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker writes, “If a religion is not only true but more true than all the other religions, then it should connect with all those other religions at the points where they are true.” Read “Paganism, Prophecies, and Propaganda” HERE.

- See more at: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/12/05/answers-to-a-pagan-christmas/#sthash.L3VDBdeW.dpuf

Summa Blogologica - Question 6: The Goodness of God

Now we get to the good stuff. The previous Summa Blogologica posts were the roots, the foundation of the rest of the understanding of God and His nature. The rest is vital as well but now we get to learn about the love of God, the good of God, and more. All the things Christians say about God that matter.

The Summa Theologica Question 5 reasons with Goodness in General, now Question 6 answers the Goodness of God. I will include the objections given by Thomas Aquinas because they help unfold the understanding a little bit.

Here we go:

-------------------------------------------------------

Article 1 consists of whether God is good. The objections state that God cannot be good because (1) good belongs to things of order, species and order, to which God is not, and (2) God cannot be good because good is desirable but God is not desirable by all as all do not know God. The reply is that God is the first and final cause, and thus he is also the cause of goodness and all good comes from Him. Why is that? Remember in Question 5 we learned that anything that has being has goodness? Well if God created everything then all goodness comes from Him. The mode, species and order are found in the essence of the cause, God is the cause. One does not need to know God as Himself, but can have natural knowledge of divine intelligence, and also all things seek their own perfection (goodness) and subtly seek God in this way.

Article 2 consists of whether God is the supreme good. The objections state that God is not the absolute good because, (1) supreme good adds something to good, but God has nothing added to him (he is not a compound being) but is simple, (2 & 3) to say God is the supreme good is to say there are other good things, but “God alone is good”. The reply to these is that the good between God and man are not univocal, that is, they are not the same thing. As creatures, we only “have” this good as imparted from the creator and is therefore limited, but God is not. God is the good - it is His very nature to be good, and not have good like us.

Article 3 consists of whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone. We know that, as all good comes from God, we must remember that God is His essence and anything coming from His emanation into thing is only possesses that thing which in this case is goodness; we have good, God is good.

Article 4 consist of whether all things are good by the divine goodness. God caused the goodness in things, and creatures are therefore good by reason of the divine goodness.

----------------------------------------------------------

Simple? What you need to know is in Articles 1, 3 and 4. What we must understand is essence/nature. For lack of easier terms, essence is nature, and they are what a thing is. We are human and so we have a human nature which has attributes. God does not have a nature, He is His nature. That is everything in understanding God. Because He is the cause of things, and nothing causes Him, He just is - period. .

Therefore, in the case of Goodness, we know that God does not have goodness, but is Goodness. The Goodness in the world is an effect of His act and will.

God - Is - Good . Its not just a nice thing we say to complement Him Questions? Comments? Gripes?

"Led" to be tempted

Hey all. This is the first of my crack at using my webcam to record a little lesson for you. I hope you enjoy.

This less on is on the temptation of Jesus as it is peculiarly presented by Matthew. Matthew says that Jesus is "led" to be tempted; a pretty unique choice of words among the Evangelists. So enjoy. Comment if you would like to discuss, share, or suggest something to me.

An unpopular opinion, perhaps

In the recent weeks and certainly the last 10 years, American have had the trial of seeing things I thought they would never see. This country is going through such radical changes within a culture war. We're also dealing with cultural changes in a religious war and this is the sort of war that takes place on our streets as well as overseas.

Most Americans share a will that believes in religious liberty and we truly want people to practice their faith in freedom. I still believe that Americans are among the most caring network of humans on the planet but in the recent years we have certainly been hurt, wounded, scarred - whatever you want to call it.

In the wake of the recent attacks on the Boston City Marathon I myself am in some sense shocked and leveled by the reaction of some people but in a way I guess I'm not surprised at all. The suspects that committed these crimes are apparently Muslim and possibly al Qaeda sympathizers set against Americans and our way of life, which means they feel in their mind they need to take action and harm others. Now you'll have to react in some way too, and there are several choices in front of all of us:

We could be apathetic and think of somebody else will solve our problems. We could protest peacefully, electing community leaders and government officials that share our views, hopefully in sincerity. Others might take action to themselves during their own fits of rage and taking violence back to the people who think they think deserve it. Or other numerous option.

But we each personally have to also react. Each one of us has the desire, the innate will to act with justice in this situation. The problem is, for each of us, that justice might look different, to be one thing for one person and something completely different for another. In a recent article showing the body of the first suspect dead in his autopsy room, which leaked, there's a string of comments which are 90% hate. Yes, consider the source, consider the audience (this is not the consensus among Americans). Some people saying that pig's blood should be spread all ever body as to damn him forever in his own religious beliefs. Others making jokes about the 72 virgins suddenly bearing resemblance to Hillary Clinton. These certainly are creative ways of dealing with the suspect.

Most of us don't have that wish; most of us have the wish that these things simply don't happen again and that we take actions that would prevent the sort of thing from happening, the loss of life the death, of her children, the career of a young security officer/police, would be secured without a senseless act of violence. And that's not too much to ask because it too is justice.

So what is justice?

Believe it or not justice has been debated for a very long time. Socrates himself was prosecuted, tried, and put to death because of his radical views on justice. Much of those akin to Jesus Christ our Lord, the views of Socrates were not pacifist but nor were they vengeful. In his day, if someone did you evil, you did them 2 to 10 times the evil in return, and that was considered justice by the overwhelming majority of citizens in Greece, not just Athens. Is well known and well documented in Greek history that what you and I would call genocide was voted on and carried out by the generals of Greece against certain city-states, completely eradicating the population, and this was considered justice.

But with Christians know different was, as Socrates did. We know that the correct reaction to this are the very words spoken by Jesus: the radical phrase, "love your neighbor and pray for those who persecute you" which includes those who kill your neighbor which you loved. There is nothing wrong with labeling terrorists according to the professed religious belief, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. What is wrong however, is too wish the same hateful condemnation on those individuals who have done arm to us. And this teaching is tough. Only so many people in history have had the guts, the willpower, and the endurance to truly live it out. You and I can do our best to react in such a fashion, too, perhaps better than we already have. In Jesus' own words, "if you only love those who love you what reward is there in that?"

My charge to each Christian  is to act in a way of Christlike justice in the wake of these terrible disasters. It does no harm to pray for the souls of those that are working against us even if they wish to harm us. How are we going to change the world and bring an everlasting goodness if all we do is react in anger or perhaps violence for some. As a veteran and a Catholic, by all means I believe in a just war. By no means do I mean to say did each of us should not be appalled, but let us be stricken with the right sort to fear and let us react with the right side of justice.

And the snow continues to fall, by Jessica McAfee

"Snow! I don't even like the sound of it!" What is Christmas by Trans Siberian Orchestra

 

  Mid April and today we had more snow. It seems that this is the winter that will never end! Having lived in Alaska for 6 years, I take a lot of flack for even mentioning that winter seems long- in my defense, I have to say that in Alaska it's expected. This is the lower '48 people! Shorter winters are part of the reason I agreed to move thousands of miles south.

 



  It's hard to listen to people complain about day after day, however I can't help but love some of the creative humor it has caused. I will admit that the grey skies have gotten to my mood a little. Tanning beds beckon with their rays of warmth, and cause one to weigh the risk of getting cancer with being warm and getting a nice bronze going instead of this washed out look.

  Huge events have been going on around the world and here in the good old USA this week. North Korea's constant threats of nuking us have become slightly more civil, however it's the Boston Marathon bombings and a fertilizer plant in Waco Texas exploding that are on our minds most. When the news of amputations and children dying are playing in our minds there are two things that immediately come to my mind: 1) Evil is a reality 2) Evil is outnumbered.

 

  I can only hope to live up to the example set by the mother of Fred Rogers when my own children look to me for answers and perspective when horrible things happen. We hear people asking the question, how do we respond and not allow fear to grab hold of us? Cartoons have pictures of people simply turning off the news as one way to shut out fear. Staying informed without the medias constant spin and focus on the horror of these events is hard, but not impossible. It is a good idea to limit how many times you stare at the carnage and continue on with life as you are needed in the present.

 

  Although I believe in stepping up and doing what we can, I do believe that going on with our lives is one of the best ways to move past this. Not forgetting, but continuing on. Where do we get our confidence from to do so? Personally, I get my confidence from my faith in Jesus Christ and God the Father and the presence of His Holy Spirit. When I cross myself, I am making a commitment (as well as showing reverence to my Lord) to my purpose of being here on earth. Tragic events happen in our fallen world, however I have hope, purpose to keep on keeping on, and can trust that in the end each horrific event will be placed before a great and just Judge, whether or not we handle it correctly in the hands of our own law in the present time.

 

  I have actually found peace in watching the snow continue on. There is only so much that I can control, the weather and free will are two of the things I cannot. The world will carry on. Seasons will change in their own timing instead of ours, and I can learn to see the beauty of that. That there are limits to human control is somehow comforting. Good and evil will continue their battle until the end of the world- but eventually that day will present itself, and with it comes a victory so blindingly brilliant, that I find myself anxiously waiting for it.

 

  In the meantime, the snow continues to fall.

 

This post is written in its originality by Jessica L. McAfee. You can follow her blog at: http://godtruthfamily.blogspot.com/

Vikings; Odin, Ragnar, and Catholic Priests.

A tandem premier with "The Bible" started about seven weeks ago on the History Channel called "Vikings." Big success these two were. A double shot of awesome, these two took up a three hour block on Sunday nights. In true Viking fashion, the show ransacked and pillaged the ratings for Sunday night television.

The previews were intense and made the show appear to be a worthwhile broadcast, so I DVR'd the first show and checked it out the Monday after the premier. I was hooked. The main character Ragnar and his family draw anyone in with their charisma, will to succeed, and defy the corrupt Earl Haraldson who struggled for power against Ragnar who is a natural leader and consequently a threat to the chair. The series really got me interested with the introduction of a Catholic priest. During an unauthorized rain on England, Ragnar sacks a settlement of monk priests, stealing everything including one particular priest. He gets back to the village expecting a warm welcome but because of Ragnar's deception, the Earl confiscates all the treasure and lets the raiding party retain one item from the lot. Ragnar chooses the priest as his slave. Ragnar recognized the priest is no fool, as demonstrated with his linguistic skills, resourcefulness, and willingness to serve. The priest, in the least of words, is inspiring to any viewer; steadfast in his faith, accepting of this place God has allowed him to be, and so-on.

After an episode, the priest makes a foolish mistake though. He tells Ragnar everything about his homeland and its churches, leading Ragnar to propose a raid on the next village and subsequently, its priests.

I wont ruin the story because you have to watch it for yourself. The show is not a family oriented series by any means. The first episode contains passionate love-making with Ragnar and his wife, where his son is asked "where are your parents" and with a semi-embarrassing frown replies "they're having sex." Be careful little eyes what you see, but no nudity. This show is mature. Regular battle scenes depict gruesome deaths but do not show distinct blows or cuts necessarily. It is not the Saw or Sin City of television but attempts to bring accuracy to the brutality of war and life in 9th century Europe.

As I mentioned, the priest is easily the most dynamic and worth while part of the show, to see his faith endure though he is surely put to the test. He regularly defends his faith though mocked, threatened, and tempted by the open sexual lifestyle of pagans.

Other than ratings, it has reached the social media as well. After the recent attacks at the Boston Marathon someone commented to the effect of "they better convert, worship Thor, or they will not enter Valhalla." If they knew their Norse religion better, they would know Odin occupies the Hall of Valhalla. But anyways...  So this show is good in the sense of entertainment and the priest is a nice addition that keeps me watching week-to-week but the historical depictions in the show let me to research very briefly the historicity of the real Vikings. In America we hear of Leif Erikson having sailed here centuries before Columbus and Juan Ponce de Lion, so I had to see what the real story was.

Ragnar Lothbrok was apparently a real person, commander, and Viking. I'll let the reader educate themselves better on the details, which spoil in-part the show. Vikings though... a different depiction you and I have known our whole lives, is a whole world different from what most historians and experts and evidence portrays as a real Viking. Yes they raided, probably raped, and were generally feared by all. Roman, English, French and other European source confirm the terror of the Vikings but what you and I missed is their common willingness to settle, trade, and become partners with neighboring city-states. The feudal age was just upon the world and unless you have some historical education with you, and even then, it is tough to understand and to grasp life in the those times. Like the difference between 19th Century India and 21st Century America.

Bottom line, the historical Viking has been altered in the last 100-150 years. The only depiction of a Viking wearing horns is two drawings among hundreds or more and experts say it is most likely ceremonial in some way. The most common depictions and descriptions is of the likeness to that of decently dressed Europeans for the time. So were they they blood thirsty, ever combative nomads bearing animal skins and dressed like demons? Probably not and the experts say definitely not. Their seriousness for the Norse religion though, is true until Scandinavians Denmark and Sweden and other seafaring Germanic people were converted into Christianity.

Vikings, particularly the Scandinavians convert but not without some time and resilience. Many tried and offered their lives in the effort to preach the Gospel. It took over 400 years to convert all of the Scandinavia and until the 19th century, the Samis, a European remnant of the Norse religious populous, held out on conversion. Denmark in 1104, Norway in 1154, and Sweden in 1164, established their own Archdioceses, responsible directly to the Holy See.

Criticism exists. Some suggest a religious conversion offered a political opportunity. Kings, who like Ragnar were driven by the apparent value of Christian sacramentals and seeing this as wealth, would have converted. Others cite the reception of a bright white baptismal gown worth the conversion alone. Because of the allegiance to their lieges, lords, or vassals during the feudal age, many would have felt compelled to convert if their masters did. Either way, it happened.

 They were different times. Freedom and daily life were so far from what it means to you and me. The Vikings director commented behind the scenes, "I want it to be as if we are brushing shoulders with the real Vikings." With the proper dose of Hollywood, he might just have done that, or come close. Enslaved priests, power struggles, heavy devotion to pagan Gods mythical and contemporary are a part of each series as they were in each day circa 1000a.d.

Apostles and Nicene Creeds Part 4

Hey everybody. Hope everyone in America reading this had a great 4th of July weekend. I get some views from others in other countries. Not sure if they actually read it. I'll never know and wont let it bother me either. Thanks for reading this, anyways.


Alright, back to the creeds:

I don't know how I made this mistake before, but the Apostles Creed according to my source, does not have "according to the scriptures." A very important part of the Nicene Creed nevertheless.

Apostles: "he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead."

Nicene: "he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end."

       First, I want to touch on a piece from a previous part of the Nicene Creed, the part that says, "he descended into hell." We have mention of this, for what reason? Did Jesus go to hell? Did he make a visit to the devil and beat him up for his lunch money? No. He didn't. The term "hell" is used in our culture as the place that people go who do not have salvation, the people who choose a life other than with God. Historically, and in the particular meaning of this creed though, "hell" is meant to mean nothing more than the place that the dead go - which is in the ground. It simply means that we believe Jesus was buried. It is mentioned to give further edification that Jesus really died, not just passed out or something else. He really died, and was thus buried as such.

       I wanted to touch on that because we have in today's blog "he ascended into heaven." Now, when we read "he descended into hell... he ascended into heaven" we want to weigh these two places with equal measure simply because of our understanding, our lexicon, and its cultural inputs. Try not to do that, ever. Understand first what that writer was attempting to say, period. Doing otherwise gets us into the hermeneutical anarchy we have among the Body today.

       The rest of this part of the creed(s) places emphasis on the place and purpose that Jesus has in our salvation history. It is both historical and prophetic. "he ascended... he is seated... he will come again in glory to judge..." Here we have what Jesus did, what he is doing, and what he will do.

       The Nicene creed mentions that Jesus will come in "glory." You should understand this word to mean "power, might, etc,."

       Lastly you must agree as any sort of Christian that "his kingdom will have no end." This is one part of the Church that I didn't completely understand before I was Catholic. James Cardinal Gibbons relays in his famous book "The Faith of Our Fathers" that the Church has five distinctive (and extremely biblical) characteristics - one of which is perpetuity which essentially means "never ending." Hebrews 12:26 reads "since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken." In Matthew 16:18 Jesus indicates to Peter that "upon this rock" Jesus will build his church, not yours and mine, and that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it." "Prevail against" is actually one Greek word, katischyō, which means that this other "hell" or "hades" will not "over power" or "be superior in strength." Notice that Jesus as Jesus said to Peter about "my church" we believe the same about "his kingdom."

       This was actually a huge argumental win for Catholicism for me when I was investigating. The idea, biblical, that in order to be a real part of the body which is the church, that church has had to have existed forever - which only the Catholic Church can claim. Protestants, orthodox, and others cannot claim this as they chose to separate from the church in differing millenia. But as sadly mistaken by many protestants, the Catholic Church teaches that each of the true followers of Christ regardless of denomination are part of the Body of Christ - not just Catholics. Again, it was a huge win for me when I learned what Catholics actually believe and where they actually come from.

Jesus will be king of all, and will reign for all time.

Nicene and Apostles Creed x2

This is part two. Welcome back.

Apostles: And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  

Nicene: I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the father before all ages. God from God, Light  from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. 

So why the expanded profession of faith? Was it not enough for the Council of Nicaea to only believe in the three facts surrounding Jesus as we see in the Apostles creed? Surely, outside of this creed we believe many things; but why place something into a creed? What is so important about a creed?

What the average follower might not consider is the progression of the faith. Jesus tells the apostles in John 14:26 that "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit —the Father will send Him in My name—will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you." The first century Christians surely believed in the risen Christ and Peters confession of Him as the Son of God, but these beliefs were challanged in time and added to with heresy. The Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus was flesh, and therefore we have institutions of faith in the creed that say "and became man."

The Council of Nicaea devoted its efforts to many controversies but the chief reason for the council was to address Arianism. Arius was a priest in the late second century who eventually denied the deity of Christ - that he was not God. Much of his debate was with the relationship of Jesus and God, making one lesser than the other. Arius ended up convincing many people of this great lie.

Without boring the reader, can you now see why the Nicene creed places more emphasis on the person of Jesus, His relation to the Father, and His nature as the God-Man?

Meditation: focus and ponder on the progress of the Christian faith. We come to understand our faith more clearly when it is challenged by a heterodox teaching. We did not see much in the Bible about an argument for or against a trinitarian God, or a dispute about His birth of a virgin because while those were beliefs of orthodox Christians, there was no need to defend it because there was no adversary to its teaching. Chew on it.

Nicene and Apostles

 

I'm going to be comparing the Apostles Creed with the Nicene Creed over the next month as well as some interesting facts and meditations. Enjoy.

Apostles: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth.
Nicene: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible.

The Apostles creed is as early as the close of the first century. It was created to be interogative as well as a profession of faith. The Nicene creed was created at the Council of Nicea in 325ad shortly after the Edict of Milan as signed into law by Constantine which legalized Christianity in the Empire.

Your medetation: why did the Nicene creed add "one" before God and "all things visibe and invisible"?

Martyred for an Name

Catholics have what is called a liturgical calendar. I can’t get into the full use of it here but one of the facets that the liturgical calendar has is the feast days of Saints. Now, there are to what I know, more canonized and beatified Saints than the liturgical calendar can fit, but does reserve feast days for those Saints we admire the most. Two weeks ago, on 7 March, the feast day of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity took place. Yes, perhaps I should have written about it then, but these are two saints that we should remember and reflect on throughout the year.

During the reign of Septimius Severus the persecution of Christendom was horrifying. One such punishment to temp others away from the faith was to tie two legs, each to a bent tree. Once the martyr was given the chance to submit to pagan practices and renounce their faith the soldiers would let free the bent trees, ripping the body in two. Others were nailed to crosses, while others were fed to lions and bears. The persecution under Severus was widespread. Edicts were systematic to persecute the clergy, then the deacons, then the laity, and even their children.   

Felicity and her friend/slave Perpetua were of this persecuted lot. They were arrested along with two other men (Saterninus and Secundulus), and were all what is called catechumens which are those entering the church along with a baptism. Felicity recorded all that occurred during their imprisonment up to their eventual martyrdom. She records that her father tried to convince her to give up her faith, for the sake of the family (namely disgracing the name). Under the law at the time of their execution, a pregnant woman could not be killed – which saddened Felicity that she might not get to taste the pains of her suffering in Christ. She had her baby just two days before the games and was then shipped out for the games.

Of the two men, one does in prison, and the other fell to the wild beasts before the crowd. The two women were also scourged as to attract the bloodlust of the wild animals. Finally, after many wounds, they gave each other a kiss of peace and took their final blows by a sword. The year was 203.

The rest of the account, their death, was recorded by an eyewitness. "But Perpetua, that she might have some taste of pain, was pierced between the bones and shrieked out; and when the swordsman's hand wandered still (for he was a novice), herself set it upon her own neck. Perchance so great a woman could not else have been slain (being feared of the unclean spirit) had she not herself so willed it."

                Their story is one of vivid memory, but is also one that can have a patrons effect on specific individuals. Mothers, for example, can recall their pregnancy and thank God that Jesus’ words weren’t fulfilled in their lives while carrying his cross, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and your children. Look, the days are coming when they will say, ‘The women without children, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed, are fortunate!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 23:28-30, HCSB)

                Others whom these martyrs might be patrons for are the elect, and the modern catechumens. These are the groups of those seeking to enter into communion with the church, baptized and not baptized. As we are all on our journey to know Jesus, find our way through the church, and to learn of our history and our faith, we are vulnerable and sometimes even unfaithful. But here we have a group of believers who never got to taste the Eucharist, did not have the Water of Life flowing in them, and had not been anointed with the chrism oil. There are some who claim the glorious title Christian; but here are four who took on the name as an insult – with their lives. Amazing faith to die for a church and a religion an idea and a faith that they hadn’t yet even come full circle on!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:

“Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized” (1281).

Praying to the Saints for Intercession

One of the oldest beliefs of Christians is the invocation of the Saints. Others might refer to this similarly as the “cloud of witnesses” or the "Communion of Saints." Before the close of the first century this became a prominent part of what is now known as the “Apostles Creed.” This creed is the oldest creed known to the primitive church and until the recent past, most Christian denominations held close to this creed and recited it regularly. The professions of faith in the creeds are not mere religious utterance – they are claims and beliefs that the early martyrs thought worthy of death and torture. Justin Martyr is a notable figure who was known for his many letters to the Caesar at the time, defending and clearing up the claims behind the notorious creed.

But many Christians most prominently the Protestant believers will say off hand that they believe in the Communion of Saints but toss away its true meaning. Now I must not write this with the reader thinking that what I am writing is a predominately Roman Catholic belief, it is, but the true meaning I will explain and defend is a belief of the most primitive of Christianity, and even the most primitive of the people of God. The more one study’s the primitive church, the more that person will come to see the Catholic Church as it still is today, unchanged, just as promised, “and the gates of hades will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). So let us explore the true and original meaning of the “Communion of Saints.”

I could begin by quoting the voluminous quotations from the ecclesiastical writers of the early church as to the beliefs of the intercessions of the angels and dead saints in our daily prayers, but since the Catholic Church and the Protestants have a common ally in the Bible I will start there.  First, the reader should consider that the Angels and Saints in heaven do not hear and listen and understand the picture as we humans of flesh and blood do here on earth. We are confined to a small spectrum of frequencies recognized by our limited senses produced and interpreted by the body. I suppose there would be no one who would think man on earth is limitless. But those residing in heaven we know from scripture have much more clarity, communion with Gods plan, and more. James Gibbons, an early american apologist, Cardinal of the Church and Archbishop of Baltimore, compares this to the bird who is caged and then is suddenly released from its confinement and one his spirit rises into the air he can now see everything and his understanding is that much better. St. Paul writes, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor 13:12). Think of this time we live in 2012 compared to only 200 years ago. If you lived back then and had a friend who said that in a short time, we will be able to communicate from San Francisco to New York instantaneously, that person would be called a fool, and today would be called a prophet. Not only can the message be understood, but recognition of that person’s voice can be distinguished and also today we have video calling where we can see everything.  How hard is it to see that sort of capability here on earth and yet be led to believe that in heaven there are greater limitations – especially when concerning the body of Christ, which we have a personal guarantee from Himself that that body could not be broken and will last forever.

The Saints and Angels do intercede on our behalf in prayer.

As early as man has known God, man has known the angels. Let us not forget that man did not reside on earth as we know it in the beginning, but Eden was in some ways a perfect earth before the fall. The point is, the angels knew us, and us them. We see very early in sacred scripture that the Patriarch Joshua on his deathbed asks “may the angel who delivered me from all evils bless these boys” (Gen 48:16). Joshua was a man who God singularly blessed and Joshua surely could have asked for God alone to bless the children, but Joshua understood that it is useful to have others intercede on ones behalf as well. The Angel Raphael says in the Book of Tobit, “Now when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and likewise whenever you used to bury the dead” (Tobit 12:12). How would the angel have presented the petition to the Lord if he could not hear the prayer? (you may also surely notice that I have included a reference from a book known as “apocryphal” but bear in mind that the six books included in a Catholic Bible are included in the Septuagint LXX which is quoted from every single New Testament writer and from the mouth of Jesus Himself – just a quick lesson on why the primitive church held close to 72 books, and not just 66 books which Martin Luther authorized according to his own doctrinal convenience).  Back to the subject of Angels hearing our prayers. Our Lord spoke often about the angels. In Luke 15:10 he says that all the angels in heaven celebrate more for one sinner doing penance. But what is penance? It is an interior alteration of the heart and will. Therefore, the Saints are acquainted with the heavens – we do not know how – not only with actions and words, but with our very thoughts. I have to borrow a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet “words without thought do not reach heaven.” What did St. Paul mean when he said “we are a spectacle to the world, to the angels, and to men”? It means as clearly as we can see others, those is heaven can as well (perhaps even more so).

We have discussed Angels which are easy to hold in high regard and it is somewhat more convincing to think them supernatural to us. But our Lord Jesus also says that we who enter heaven will be like the angelic spirits (Matt 22:30). Paul even says that we will have authority over the angels and judge them (1 Cor 6:3). That blows my mind to think of. We know that here on earth the Saints can intercede for us as Abraham petitioned God to save some from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and God replied gracefully, even though there were none righteous (Genesis 38). Moses also interceded with his arms raised while fighting off the Amalekites (Exodus 17). We see all over the Book of Acts and in the example of Jesus himself that we should pray for one another, asking God for blessings, mercy, healing, forgiveness, and even resurrection.

Now I ask you, how we as sinners can pray for one another and God to grant those petitions, why it is so hard to believe that the Saints in Heaven, in whom only charity abounds, cannot lend their prayers on our behalf? Is the power of the Saint relinquished only because they have passed into eternal glory? Or does an unbeliever in the Communion of Saints believe that the Saints in heaven are so caught up in the Glory of God that they are ignorant of their brethren on earth? Paul tells us in many places (not to ignore the quote I provided earlier) that we will have many responsibilities in heaven, and we see in revelation that the bowls are the prayers of the Saints which are delivered to God (Rev 8:4). In heaven charity is triumphant, and yet how can there be charity without mindfulness of those still on earth, especially when those who are in heaven know firsthand the travail Saints on earth experience?

I’ll borrow a quote from James Cardinal Gibbons once more. “To ask the prayers of our brethren in heaven is not only conformable to Holy Scripture, but is prompted by the instincts of our nature. The Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints robs death of its terrors, while the Reformers of the sixteenth century, in denying the Communion of Saints, not only inflicted a deadly wound on the creed, but also severed the tenderest chords  of the human heart. They broke asunder the holy ties that unite heaven with earth – the soul in the flesh with the soul released from the flesh. If my brother leaves me to cross the sea I believe that he continues to pray for me. And I he crosses the narrow sea of death and lands on the shores of eternity, why should he not pray for me still? What does death destroy? The body. The soul still lives and moves and has its being It thinks and wills and remembers and loves. The dross of sin and selfishness and hatred are burned by the salutary fires of contrition, and nothing remains but the pure gold of charity.”

Even though it is charity and faithful to do so, to ask Saints to pray, and to pray with the Saints, other of a more Pharisaical nature will condemn you saying, “you dishonor God with your idol worship, and your make void the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. You put the creature above the Creator.” How groundless and objection. Though I once too believed so, I was ignorant and assumed too much about the Catholic faith. To dishonor God would be to pray to Saints independent of God, but such is not the teaching or the practice of a Catholic. We know true and well that God is the source of all good gifts, and His perfect will supersedes all. So when we ask a Saint to pray for us, we beg them in them to pray through the merits of Christ, while we ask Jesus to help up though His own merits. We pray always in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But if this is all folly and useless then Jacob was wrong, and so was Paul, and what did Jesus mean? You deem it useful and pious to ask your pastor to pray for you. If St. Paul is with Jesus and Jesus can hear me can it not also be true that St. Paul can hear me? Speaking of Paul, do not forget how intact the body of Christ is after death and in this world as well. Think back to his revelation on the road to Damascus for Paul. When the spirit asked Paul why he was persecuting him, Paul asked who the voice was, and it was none other than Jesus. Now think a moment about this. Paul did not firsthand ever even meet Jesus in the flesh. Paul condemned and killed Jesus’ followers. I don’t think anyone has a better idea (and no one spoke more of it) of the meaning of the Body of Christ because of this occasion. See, Jesus is the body, and the body is in Jesus, and therefore when we persecute or are persecuted, Jesus is persecuted. How then can that body be separated in Heaven if it is also here on earth – as we know it as the Body of Christ? The answer is: it is not separated.

Remember that while the Catholic Church declares it necessary for salvation to pray to God, she merely asserts that it is “good and useful to invoke the saints” (Council of Trent, Sess. xxv). We ask them merely to pray to their God, which is our God, for the same things we ask each other here on earth to pray for.   

I will not depart this topic without giving some more evidence that this is an original Christian teaching. It is no mere opinion of the modern or medieval Church or some "invented" doctrine. We can disagree about the interpretation of scripture, but I submit to you to consider what the earliest Christians recorded as common faith (which by the way is the very essence of the word Catholic, meaning “universal”). I don’t think there is a single Christian who doesn’t want to be in doctrinal communion with the apostles. The Catholic Church is the only who calls themselves “apostolic” because she claims that the teaching and the authority are handed down straight from the apostles of the NT. This is a tough one for a protestant but let me at least provide your with prominent names and quotes from the primitive church. Bear in mind that when I date these, the earliest Gospel I believed even by the most faithful scholars to be 90ad, so these writings have to be very primitive. I will let the reader decide then who nowadays is in conformance with the earliest Church fathers.

Hermas of Rome – 80ad

“But those who are weak and slothful hesitate to ask anything from the Lord. But the Lord is full of compassion and gives without fail to all to ask him. But having been strengthened by the holy angel, and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do you not ask understanding of the Lord, and receive it from him?”

St. Clement of Alexandria – 207ad

“In this way is the true Christian always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already angelic of rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of Saints standing with him.”    

Early Christian Inscription – 250ad

“Blessed Sazon who aged nine years, may the true Christ receive your spirit in peace, and pray for us.”

St. Cyprian of Carthage – 250 AD

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides pray for one another. … that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go from here first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brothers and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy.”

St. Augustine – 400ad

“It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them, and to obtain a share in their merits and the assistance of their prayers.”

“For even the souls of the pious dead are not separated from the Church, which even now is the kingdom if Christ; otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the altar of God in the partaking in the Body of Christ, nor would it do any good in danger to run to baptism, that we might now pass from this life without it.” (City of God, 419ad).  

Baptism: Where Sins are Forgiven

There is an issue with the substance of Baptism between the Catholic and Protestant believers. Getting straight into the lesson here is the positions of each:

Protestant: Baptism is the public display of faith done as a Christian’s willingness to follow the example of Jesus. It is not required but should be accomplished early in one’s conversion. As a pastor once stated, “it is an outward symbol of an inward change.” NOTE: Protestants are not unified on this or any definition.

Catholic: Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word" (CCC, #1213). NOTE: Catholics are united on this definition.

The Catholic Church is a huge advocate of scripture and also are protestants. I would love to give the many references from first, second, and third century Christians regarding their agreement with the current Catholic view, but as I know I am defending the Catholic view to Protestants, primarily, I will stick to the Bible. I think personally that John and Acts are the two most stalwart scriptures referencing the need for Baptism. To begin, the Gospel of John mentions the act of Baptism with the word “baptize” four times in just the first chapter; two more times in Ch. 3. John the Baptist says that he baptized with water, but the Messiah will baptize with the Holy Spirit. In Ch. 3 we have the well-known conversation with Nicodemus about being born again. Jesus says, “I assure you, unless someone is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is born of the flesh, and what is born of the spirit is born of the spirit.”  Jesus says these things in response to Nicodemus simply looking at the flesh perspective and not the spiritual perspective. There are in fact two separate baptisms in the Gospel of John: one of the spirit and one of water; one from John and one from Jesus. We know from John 1:31 and especially Acts 19:4 that John’s baptism was to prepare hearts for the coming of the Lord. He preached in this order: 1) repent, 2) be baptized (also reflected in Matt 3:6, Mark 16:16). This is part of “Gods plan” in Luke 7:30 and part of “Gods way of righteousness” in Luke 7:29.

Before we leave the gospels we need to remember an important thing. The Catholic Church has sacraments. These are seven things the RCC holds that Christ instituted.  As an important supplement to this conversation, do not forget that before Jesus left the disciples, He then instituted baptism, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And that’s what Catholics do. Jesus gave three things for them to do as a closing statement: 1) baptize, 2) teach, 3) remember He is there with them forever.

All of this is echoed in Acts. 2:38, the crowds asked, “brothers, what must we do.” “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Again, the story of the Eunuch in Ch.8 shows how the man had to believe “with all his heart” and then could be and was baptized. Peter in 10:48 commands the people to be baptized. Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, 19:5 all show how baptism was urgent to the Apostles, and also could not be accomplished without believing. I would look up those and see the narrative conveying urgency and requirement. We continually see a common “when they heard this, they were baptized.” Finally, we observe as Acts closes in 22:16, “…be baptized, wash away your sins by calling on His name.”  

I see a continual message: believe, be baptized. I opened by pointing how the RCC views baptism, and that its purpose is twofold: 1) for the remission of sins, and 2) to be raised with Christ. The second is a tradition of the protestant churches as well, which I don’t think you will disagree with. So, the real contention is the first point – that baptism is for the remission of sins. When I was baptized, and I have heard this put no other way besides in the RCC, I was told that it was a mere symbol and that we only do it cause we should, and to follow Gods example. In that opinion I do not see the urgency, the requirement, and I do not hear remission of sin.

I have reviewed the Catechism, #1213-1284, which discuss baptism as a whole issue (it is well worth the read) and do not see where it states that Baptism is required for salvation. I do see however in #1281 that “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.” This is one of several misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Faith, that baptism is required to be saved. You said “if baptism is a requirement for salvation…” but please do not be confused by my words, I was pointing out that baptism is for the remission of sins, and not a requirement for salvation.    

The thief on the cross! This was my last straw against the Catholic teaching of Baptism (finding out later that I was mistake in what they actually teach). I looked at everything, and the last stand I took versus baptism the RCC way was the question, “if the thief on the cross was saved and guaranteed entrance into paradise, why was he not baptized?” First, there is no telling that he was not baptized. Many, many, Jews were baptized by John and others. The other important factor many overlook is that the Gospel was not in effect until Jesus was raised from the grave, which is the chief reason we are baptized – to be raised again with Christ, in His baptism (Romans 6:3). Again, John’s baptism was not for remission of sin but for the preparedness of the coming of the messiah; Jesus baptism was for the remission of sin. Third, and most importantly, baptism by the Church and the Apostles in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was not in effect until Pentecost.  How could the thief have been baptized by a Church that was not existent? How could the thief be baptized in Christ’s death and resurrection before Jesus had died? He didn’t need to be and he probably wasn’t. 

                For a more comprehensive understanding of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches regarding the sacrament of baptism, see The Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can find this online, and look for particularly #1312 thru 1380ish.

How I Wish The Homosexuality Debate Would Go

Just once, I’d like to see a TV interview go more like this:

Host: You are a Christian pastor, and you say you believe the Bible, which means you are supposed to love all people.

Pastor: That’s right.

Host: But it appears to me that you and your church take a rather unloving position when it comes to gay people. Are homosexuals welcome to come to your church?

Pastor: Of course. We believe that the gospel is a message relevant for every person on the planet, and we want everyone to hear the gospel and find salvation in Jesus Christ. So at our church, our arms are outstretched to people from every background, every race, every ethnicity and culture. We’re a place for all kinds of sinners and people with all kinds of problems.

Host: But you said there, “We’re a place for sinners.” So you do believe that homosexuality is sinful, right?

Pastor: Yes, I do.

Host: So how do you reconcile the command to love all people with a position on homosexuality that some would say is radically intolerant?

Pastor: (smiling) If you think my position on homosexuality is radical, just wait until you hear what else I believe! I believe that a teenage guy and girl who have sex in the backseat of a pick-up are sinning. The unmarried heterosexual couple living down the street from me is sinning. In fact, any sexual activity that takes place outside of the marriage covenant between a husband and wife is sinful. What’s more, Jesus takes this sexual ethic a step further and goes to the heart of the matter. That means that any time I even lust after someone else, I am sinning. Jesus’ radical view of sexuality shows all of us up as sexual sinners, and that’s why He came to die. Jesus died to save lustful, homo- and heterosexual sinners and transform our hearts and minds and behavior. Because He died for me, I owe Him my all. And as a follower of Jesus, I’m bound to what He says about sex and morality.

Host: But Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality outright, did He?

Pastor: He didn’t have to. He went to the heart issue and intensified the commands against immoral behavior in the Old Testament. So Jesus doesn’t just condemn adultery, for example, as does one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus condemns even the lust that leads to adultery, all with the purpose of offering us transformed hearts that begin beating in step with His radical demands.

Host: You say he condemned adultery, but he chose not to condemn the woman caught in adultery.

Pastor: That’s right, but He did tell her to “go and sin no more.”

Host: But who are you to condemn someone who doesn’t line up with your personal beliefs about sexuality?

Pastor: Who am I? No one. It’s not all that important what I think about these things. This conversation about homosexuality isn’t really about my personal beliefs. They’re about Jesus and what He says. I have no right to condemn or judge the world. That right belongs to Jesus. My hope is to follow Him faithfully. That means that whatever He says in regard to sexual practices is what I believe to be true, loving, and ultimately best for human flourishing – even when it seems out of step with the whims of contemporary culture.

Host: But you are judging. You are telling all the gay people watching this broadcast that they are sinners.

Pastor: I’m not singling out gay people. I’m pointing to Jesus as the answer to all sexual sinfulness.

Host: But you are referring to gay people. Why are you so focused on homosexuality?

Pastor: (smiling) With all due respect, you are the one who brought up this subject.

Host: Are you saying that you can’t be gay and Christian?

Pastor: No. I’m saying that you can’t be a genuine Christian without repentance. Everyone – including me – is guilty of sin, but Christianity hinges on repentance. We agree with God about our sin, and we turn from it and turn toward Jesus. When it comes to Christianity, this debate is not about homosexuality versus other sins. It’s about whether or not repentance is integral to the Christian life.

Host: But do you see why a homosexual watching this might think you are attacking them personally? You’re saying that something is wrong with them.

Pastor: I think Jesus’ teaching on sexuality shows us that there is something wrong with all of us – something that can only be fixed by what Jesus did for us on the cross and in His resurrection. That said, I understand why people might think I am attacking them personally. Most people with same-sex desires believe they were born with these tendencies. That’s why they often see their attraction as going to the very core of who they are, and so they identify themselves with the “gay” label. So whenever someone questions their behavior or desires, they take it as an attack on the very core of their being. That’s usually not the intent of the person who disagrees with homosexual behavior. But that’s the way it is perceived. I understand that.

Host: If it’s true that a person is born with one sexual orientation or another, then how can it possibly be loving to condemn one person’s orientation?

Pastor: Well, we really don’t know for certain about sexual attraction being innate and set from birth. All we have is the testimony of people who say that they’ve experienced same-sex desires since childhood. Christianity teaches that all people are born with a bent toward sin. It’s possible that some people will have a propensity toward alcohol abuse or angry outbursts, while others may have a propensity toward other sins. Regardless, Christians believe people are more than their sexual urges. We believe that human dignity is diminished whenever we define ourselves by sexual urges and behaviors. Consider this: married men are sometimes attracted to multiple women who are not their wives. Does this mean they should self-identify as polygamists? Not at all. And surely you wouldn’t consider it hateful for Christians to encourage married men not to act on their desires in an effort to remain faithful to their spouses. It is the Christian way, after all.

Host: No, but it still seems like you are telling people not to be true to who they are.

Pastor: It only seems that way because you believe sexual desire reflects the core of one’s identity. It would help if you and others who agree with you would understand that in your putting pressure on me to accept homosexual behavior as normal and virtuous, you are going to the very core of my identity as a follower of Jesus. The label most important to me is “Christian.” My identity – in Christ – is central to who I am. So I could say the same thing and call you intolerant, bigoted, and hateful for trying to change a conviction that goes to the core of who I am as a Christian. I don’t say that because I don’t believe that’s your intention. But neither should you think it’s my intention to attack a homosexual person or cause them harm merely because I disagree.

Host: But the problem is, your position fosters hate and encourages bullying.

Pastor: I recognize that some people have mistreated homosexuals in the past. It’s a shame that anyone anywhere would mock, taunt, or bully another human being made in God’s image. That said, I think we need to make one thing clear in regard to civil discourse: To differ is not to hate. I hope we can still have a real conversation in this country about different points of view without casting one another in the worst possible light. The idea that disagreeing with homosexual behavior necessarily results in harm to gay people is designed to shut down conversation and immediately rule one point of view (in this case, the Christian one) out of bounds. As a Christian, I am to love my neighbor and seek his good, even when I don’t see eye to eye with my neighbor. Furthermore, the picture of Christ on the cross dying for His enemies necessarily affects the way I think about this and other issues.
I didn't write this, but i sure agree --

From:

"How I Wish the Homosexuality Debate Would Go." Kingdom People. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://trevinwax.com/2011/10/18/how-i-wish-the-homosexuality-debate-would-go/?utm_source=feedburner>.