a critique of my fanaticism
Recently there has been a lot debate in the papers on �accepting� people in the church and who should be allowed to fill which roll. The debate has centered around homosexuals and the people on the side of the church (whatever church is debating it at the time) allowing them to do whatever it is that they aren�t allowed to do (which varies by church group) make this argument every single time: Jesus accepted the outcasts.
I�m not critiquing homosexuality � I�m critiquing that argument
That�s true. It�s also true that Jesus didn�t come here to save the righteous (whoever that happens to be because no one is righteous) but at the same time that he hung out with people guilty of every immoral and amoral activity under heaven he�s tell them, �Go and sin no more.�
This is the point is God accepts us where we are � not matter where we are � but loves us too much to let us stay there. Just like your parents loved you no matter what you did, they just weren�t proud of what you were doing. You know what I�m talking about, don�t act coy with me.
That argument is absurd. God loves everyone just not how we act. The whole idea of philosophy, of religion, is to first understand ourselves as humans and then improve upon what we find. We need some validation of who we are but do we really want to stay there? Who can, honestly, find no room for self-improvement among us?
