I see the Pope
Isee the Pope's name in the headlines quite a bit recently, and I know that a lot of people, even those outside of the Catholic Church, think he is a wonderful example of what Christianity should look like, and he is a good man. But I have some serious issues with a lot of the things he has been throwing out there for the public the last couple weeks, and any Christian should.
I know homosexuality is a big topic in today's world, and the Pope put in his own two cents last week when he mandated that the Catholic Church change all its policies and teachings concerning homosexuals and their practices, making it "legal", per se, to now be openly gay in the Catholic community.
And for the most part I don't disagree, except I do, and big time. For one thing, since when do we, as followers of Christ, have the authority to try to step up and say, "God's Word was wrong here. Let's fix it." ? The Bible says in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is a sin (1Corinthians 6:9-10), but I see nowhere where God says, "If you are not fans of what I have to say, by all means, change it to fit your social status quo." However, it also does not say anywhere that we are to hate all sinners with a vile passion and do our best to make sure they avoid Christianity at all costs because we are awful, judgmental people that only try to tear others down. Quite the contrary. We are to love every sinner, partly because even born-again believers are still sinners, but also because we are supposed to model Christ, and He loves all of us as if we were without sin. What He despises is the sin itself, not the person committing the sin, and as Christians, we should all get that through our heads pretty quickly, or we will never add another brother or sister to our ranks. Here the Pope and I agree, but only here: hating anyone will not win any souls. Jesus said "Love thy neighbor (Matthew 22:39)," not, "Love thy holy neighbor," or "Love thy straight neighbor, " or "Love thy unadulterous neighbor." But it also doesn't say, "Love thy neighbor's sins." What the world is demanding we do is to love their sin, and the Catholic Church is bowing to that by rewriting their own statutes (which somehow outrank the Word of God). So yeah, I have a big problem with that. If any human being can supersede the authority of Jesus, either they're way too full of themselves, or we're following the wrong God.
"If you are not fans of what I have to say, by all means, change it to fit your social status quo.
And most recently, the Pope has gone against tradition in saying that he supports science's theories of evolution and of the Big Bang, which created the most ungodly (no pun intended) uproar in churches across the world.
Understandably. The belief in creation is one of the biggest controversies in the church anymore, after homosexuality. What both sides of the debate seem to believe is that science and Christianity just simply can't coexist, and that has been a traditional thing for generations. Well, I've never been one much for traditions, and I'm pretty sure a lot of churches still follow this one because of this one point on which we disagree: creation vs. evolution.
And I think that's kind of silly. To discount all of science just because one theory doesn't match up is like discounting the English language because a grammar rule doesn't make sense. But, I am a big fan of common sense, and I am under the impression that a lot of scientists are lacking in this particular area because they "have" to believe in evolution and the Big Bang theory. Again, silly. One of the biggest rules in biology is that rotten meat doesn't produce flies on its own; in other words, living things can only come from other living things. With that in mind, please take a good long look at the Big Bang theory................ Done? Okay. So what's wrong with that picture? According to science, at some point billions of years ago, an incredibly dense pocket of assorted gases and dusts couldn't handle the close proximity of each other and flung themselves out across empty space to form what we now call the universe. And as millions and billions of years continued to pass, one of those specks from the initial explosion, later called Earth, suddenly began to house millions and billions of little organisms that started growing out of the water. Now, without worrying about how the atoms managed to arrange themselves into such a hospitable environment, turn your attention back to the last two sentences. Condensed, they say that a piece of that original dust (or a thousand pieces grouped together, whatever) produced life. A simple form of life, grant you, but life nonetheless. I could be mistaken, seeing as I don't read all the newest articles on dust, but the last verdict I was aware of was that dust is very much not alive. "But I thought science had a law (not a theory-this has been proven) that only live things can make live things," you say. And to that I would say, you are correct, and that is why the Big Bang is called a THEORY. I personally believe creation is, for this reason, much simpler to wrap your head around than this widely accepted theory.
"One of the biggest rules in biology is that rotten meat doesn't produce flies on its own.
As for evolution, it is also a theory, and yet another one they have been unable to prove. The biggest issue scientists have run into with this is trying to find evidence of cross-species evolution. There is a mountain of evidence for interspecies evolution (also known as natural selection), which is simply variations within a species that make it more likely to survive in a certain area, but we have found nothing to corroborate the idea that reptiles at some point turned into birds, or that fish learned to walk on land and became reptiles. Sure, some reptile fossils have imprints of feathers in the stone, and fish and reptiles do have scales, but that does not prove they are related, only that they have similar features. Humans and dogs both have hair, but we are not related. Hair and bird feathers are even made from the same protein, but they are in no way the same. We have been studying this for hundreds of years, and we are still no closer to finding any "missing links." Mayhaps because there are none? Just a thought.
But my biggest issue with the Pope's endorsement of both of these theories is that he seems to be under the impression that God just couldn't have done all this work by Himself, so He must have just done the basics and left the rest to sort itself out. Here is his actual quote:
|"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything — but that is not so. He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality, and so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."|
On the surface, it makes some sense. God could have engineered it so that life would run its course and make new things along the way. I would not say no to that notion if it weren't for the Bible expressly saying that He created things just the way they are now.
If you take a trip through Genesis, God made birds and beasts and creeping things and creatures in the sea and plants. Notice how everything is plural? He did not make one bird and it turned into many kinds; He made many kinds. But aside from that, the Pope appears quite certain that God is "not a divine being" and isn't "a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything." I'm sorry, Mister Pope, but how big is your God? I would be worried you may have misplaced your trust if an ALL-POWERFUL God is not able to make a world, a universe, by the words of His mouth. Sure that doesn't make sense with what science says is possible, but again—ALL POWERFUL. If God is that big, why does He have to go along with what humans have deemed possible and impossible? If He created the laws of nature, who is to tell Him He cannot work outside of them?
"The Pope appears quite certain that God is "not a divine being" and isn't "a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything."
So my warning to all those who call themselves Christians is now this: when we exalt ourselves above our Creator and Savior, we not only spit in the face of God, but we open ourselves up to a very rough humbling. Proverbs 16:5 warns us, "Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; though they join forces, none will go unpunished." If you feel worthy to amend the Word of God as you see fit, to call His words lies so that you can earn approval from the world, and to demean Him as powerless so that you can try to build a bridge, you are trying to take His place as THE God, and He will not suffer that.