Sorry about beating a dead horse

I know we are kinda running this topic of the church being responsible for the world and natural disasters being punishment for sin and stuff into the ground, but I would still like to throw a couple hats in the ring that anyone can try on and see how they fit.

In our discussion/debate on Tuesday I felt that it lacked a couple of foundations needed to make the arguments we were making.

1. We are kept arguing about the "church" being responsible. We said that the "church" was christians as a whole. But that can't be right because not all christians have the necessary skills and tools to be helpful to a non-saved world, and therefore it would be completely unreasonable to place any fault on them at all. For example: I go to downtown Mobile and get a homeless man saved. He has no money, no car, no friends, no nothing. However he is still a part of the "church" because he is a believer. But we cannot expect him to be able to contribute to "helping the world" in any way at all; so then we can't put the blood of the world on his hands. So the word "church" probably isn't the best term to use in this discussion. But anyways this is the point where you say, "Well it's not just about money it's about giving time and effort and having a 'good heart.' If your heart is in the right place you must be helping. Don't you know the story about the woman giving all she had to the church even though it wasn't that much." Well sure I do, but for someone to be responsible for something happening they must do one of 2 things: A) Be heavily invested in the outcome and acting towards an inerest or B) Do absolutely nothing. Both options make you responsible. If you act to influence an outcome you are obviously involved and if you do nothing even though you could do something, you are influencing the outcome by not acting; for example if I see a man drowning in a lake and I know that I can swim and save his life, but I choose not to and let him drown, I have just become responsible for his death (even though I did nothing I am still held responsible for his death, you would go to jail for this). So is it fair to say the church is responsible for the world being a bad place? No. It is much more reasonable to say that the "part of the church that is involved in influencing the outcome of society" is responsible.

2. This kinda goes along with the last one. Can I choose to forgoe my responsiblity and wipe the blood of the world from my hands? Pilot did it with Jesus didn't he? Pilot was clearly partially responsible for the death of Jesus, because he could have acted to save the "drowning man" but chose not to. He washed his hands. Is this option acceptable in our post-christian society that we live in? I think that all Christians should be heavily involved in reaching the lost and helping the world, but are they in the wrong if they choose not to? I haven't 100% made up my mind on that one yet. But if Christ will not force himself on any man, does that mean that he will not force the responsibility of taking care of the world on us? People argue this, "I accepted Jesus as my savior. I didn't accept or apply for the position of social worker to the world." Is that a valid argument? Can you still be a christian and think like this and have no compassion for the world what-so-ever? So can we again save the church is responsible if they have the option to cast aside their responsibilities? And if they do refuse them, who becomes responsible? Is every man responsible for his own life and tending his own garden?

3. Is sin 100% always wrong and punished? Now I am about to get really far out and say alot of bad things that will question Christian principles, but let me assure you I am a Christian and I don't believe this necessarily, but I am just playing devil's advocate and throwing it in to the deiscussion. The Bible says, "All have sinned..." and, "There is a season for all things..." Combine the context of these verses and a couple others you can find, and you may sumise one or two of two things: A) You will sin regularly and B) It is ok to sin regularly. How long do seasons last? Once in a lifetime? No, they happen every year. Does that mean that we are expected to sin on a regular basis? Because according to this, there is a (recurring) season of sin that we go through. Does this imply that we should expect to sin? Yes it does, we are human. All humans sin. But does this imply that it is ok when we do sin because it will be for a "season" that we are supposed to go through? Is it ok to justify sin like this. I heard this quote, "Do not be too moral. The straightest trees are cut down first." "Do not rob yourself of life by being too virtuous." That coupled with the scriptures kinda lead me to believe that sin in moderation is ok. And if we are expected to sin and go through a season of sinning, surely all those sins can't be punished. God is just and surely he wouldn't punish people for a season he is setting them up to go through? That doesn't sound too just to me, setting up someone for failure. So if all sin can't possibly be punished, we can't say that disasters are punishing the world for sin. A more accurate statement would be, "the world might possibly be punished for SOME of the sins committed by the people."

So my point is in all that is that we need to clarify those things before we can accurately have this debate. Otherwise we are arguing about something that has so many un-answered questions it in, our ending summation will be completely biased on one persons opinion, not the ending result of agreed upon facts.

But after saying all that.....this is what I think lol.

God knows all the plans he has for everyones life. He sees the end result, I don't. Who am I to argue about why he does or doesn't do stuff, and who he does or doesn't punish. So can we say the church is responsible? Sure/ofcourse not. Whatever floats your boat. Either way you're probably right. I'll leave you with this:

Everything happens for the good of the master plan, but is everything planned by the master? It says He will use everything for his good. It doesn't say he creates things that happen to use to his good. He can turn any situation (a hurricane, earthquake, whatever) into a path to reach his ending point that only He knows. A good general doesn't plan every point in a battle. But a good general does use all the points that comes up to his advantage. I think God may do the same. Not send a hurricane, but use the hurricane that happens to his advantage.

I didn't get to say all I wanted to but it's cool. This would be much better in person I promise lol. Peace.

I commented on Kaylie's I think.