Will I be judged as a bad person for voting no in the upcoming Referendum?
If youâre planning on voting no, chances are there are many others around you who have decided to vote no and will be happy that you are like-minded. However, this vote is simply asking whether you believe in the principle that âyou should have a say in government decision that directly impacts youâ - yes or no?
Most Australians donât know that the Australian Constitution is about how our Government is organised and its powers and doesnât include a bill of rights like the American Constitution has. Despite all the things being said about what this Referendum is or isnât, this is not about fundamentally changing how the Government and existing laws apply to the majority of Australia, nor setting up new sets of laws or entitlements for the Indigenous people. This vote isnât even about changing the Constitutionâs ability for any Australian government to continue to discriminate against any particular race, including but not limited to our Indigenous people. So most of the known or unknown details donât matter because we are only being asked about whether we agree with applying the principle of allowing Indigenous representatives to have a say in the decisions that directly impact them.
The proposed outcome is nothing that directly impacts the rest of Australia. It is an advisory body that has no power to compel the government to do anything and will not result in any immediate meaningful change to Indigenous people, who already have lesser legal rights and life outcomes. The exact makeup of the body and how they will be chosen, etc - like all details of the Constitution will be decided by Parliament and can be changed by Parliament at any time by their usual processes. There is nothing controversial about the body, as other nations already have similar permanent advisory representative bodies that have not caused them to be divided societies but have helped improve harmony and greater equity for their citizens.
Some even question why the whole of Australia is even being asked to decide on this when it doesnât directly impact them, as at the heart of it is the principle: should Indigenous Australians have a say in any government decision that directly impacts them?
The Voice is an idea by the Indigenous for the Indigenous with broad Indigenous support. Despite the misimpression the Voice was proposed by a Labour PM, it is Indigenous Australians that proposed the Voice (with the then Liberal PM facilitating that idea) with the best scientific estimate of 80% of Indigenous Australians in favour of it. This is because the bulk of government decisions and financial spending about the Indigenous throughout Australian history has not consulted nor listened to the views of the Indigenous. The Indigenous have had things done to them rather than with them resulting in lots of plans that just didnât work and money wasted or misdirected. The Voice will not be made of politicians nor members of parliaments who are voted to represent other interests than their own cultural backgrounds. The Voice will not make up for all the generational injustices nor the disparity in life outcomes, but is about saying there is value in listening to those being directly affected.
Yes, there have been some consultation bodies and efforts in the past resulting in some amazing and effective programs co-designed by Indigenous people, but thereâs been no such body always running which has impaired the long-term success of any of those programs. The main point of the Voice is to make sure a body like that always exists for the Indigenous people to ensure continuity of appropriate progress.
So, if you believe in the principle that you should have a say in government decisions that directly impact you, then at some point voting no for this Referendum wonât make sense to your own values.
Society and civil leaders advocate for liberty of conscience and inclusiveness but seem increasingly intolerant of people with opposing views. Freedom of religion to a growing number of people requires religion to follow the changing values of society. Why are âChristian' churches expected to demonstrate their inclusivity while nobody would ask or demand a leader of another large faith group to come out declaring a pro-homosexual stance⊠in fact, some football codes praising a player/s for making a stand?
Discover & share this Black GIF with everyone you know. GIPHY is how you search, share, discover, and create GIFs.
Jesus is widely recognised by both those within and outside the church as a model of unconditional love, crossing cultural, gender, bodily, economic and other societal expectations and laws to embrace those often forgotten, powerless or hated. Jesus was radically inclusive, choosing unexpected people as his 12 named male disciples and other women in his regular entourage. Coming seemingly from nowhere special, Jesus was a viral sensation of his time.
Jesus also showed continued intolerance towards a certain group of people, being highly critical about certain views they held and often publicly viciously slagging/insulting them (even inventing the term hypocrite to slam them). His targeted group were various privileged and entitled sectarian religious leaders within his âreligionâ - the Pharisees, Sadducees, other teachers of the law and the executive priests (and at times their agents). However, Jesus didnât paint these religious leader all as one-dimensional villains, but encouraged others to emulate some of their examples, and Jesus accepted their social invitations, welcomed interactions with them and even gave them some personal blessings/miracles. But there is no hypocrisy or disconnect between Jesus being wholly inclusive and still finding the views and practices of these people offensive, especially when they impacts the rights and freedoms of others and how others view who God favours.
Beginning as a land that was first populated by the ancestors of modern Indigenous Australians, and then much later invaded/colonised by the British, who brought their colonial form of Christianity with them, contemporary Australia is now a democratic, secular, liberal and aspiring-pluralist country with laws, governance structures and expectations evolved from that British base. As such, Australia has many differences to other countries like the US, for example, Australia does not have an explicit statement protecting freedom of speech.
Think about a state school as an analogy for the state and the principal akin to the Prime Minister or a state premier. Despite the claims made sometimes by the private school sector, state schools are not value-free nor value-denying places but promote and enforce certain values based on the common laws of society and have aligned behavioural expectations of all those within their school.
Whereas most private schools have exclusionary selection of students and staff and idiosyncratic value systems depending on their main donor bases, state schools are open to all that wish to attend it (zoning pending). As a pluralist community, consideration to allow freedom for the expressions and practices of various beliefs and ideologies are usually accommodated (e.g. personal choices to pray at certain times in a private setting, clothing choices, celebration of certain festivals). Students can hold and express whatever views they wish as individuals and also practice them⊠but not everything is acceptable.
The freedom to express also means the freedom to disagree. You can express any views in a school but donât always expect to have a ready audience nor be applauded. Particularly for certain individuals not used to others disagree with them, being in a pluralist community can be a difficult adjustment.
And then there are certain views and practices - especially if they are unaligned to common law - that just will not be tolerated by the leadership of the school. As such, state schools are not permissive about everything.
An example of this is with the âtraditional misogynistic viewsâ often expressed by certain boys regarding sexual consent. It doesnât matter whether those views/beliefs are rooted in long-standing sporting traditions or certain religions, in most/all state schools, they are no longer approved of nor tolerated.
Now certainly the school does not require everyone to personally believe in line with the schoolâs views/practices, but everyone has to acknowledge them and accommodate themselves to them. And the common values of the school are expected to be espoused and promoted by their leaders. Of course, school leaderships can and do make mistakes but these are often resolved in the court of public consensus.
Similarly, government leaders never claimed to be value-free and often are expected by the public to make comments on whether government decisions or other organisations/corporations are acting in the âpublic interestâ and consistent with expected values of modern society and laws. In fact, politicians and government leaders - such as the current prime minister and the opposition leader - are voted in precisely because of their stated values and priorities (even if they only cater to certain sectors of the Australian population). In their leadership roles, however, whatever their personal beliefs, they need to act consistent again with societyâs common laws or trajectories.
The AFL and the NRL (and all other organisations) are brands focused on selling products that carries certain values. Sporting organisations have not been value-free for a long time but instead promote themselves as an all-aged unifying-society-force where all is welcomed and included (hence the public scorn for a clubâs racist practices). Every paid AFL/NRL player and leader is an employee/ambassador that has to assent to the values of the corporation they choose to work for - they don't have to believe in it themselves but they have to acknowledge that is what they have signed up with. For many employees and volunteers, we often treat code of conducts or our organisationâs values statements like online account signup agreements, that is, we just want to get what they offer rather than always read what we have actually pledged our lives to, but that still doesnât mean we can claim ignorance if we suddenly find ourselves on the wrong side of that agreement.
In our secular pluralist society, there is freedom of religion - that is, everyone is able to believe and practice whatever they want as long as it is consistent with the law of the land. Accommodations have been and continue to be made to how the legal and other system operates for certain cultural and religious groups, but as long as the overall intentions of the law are largely maintained. Allowance is also often made for conscientious objectors, that is, someone can excuse themselves from participating. These do not oppose the community, they merely step to one side to allow that community to proceed.
Because of the British base of law, Christian organisations have been traditionally favoured but increasing efforts to equalise opportunities for other religions and diverse beliefs have resulted in losses of previous exclusive privileges. Additionally, allowing others to have an equal voice in contrast to traditional bases of power, means that those claiming to speak for Christianity are increasingly finding vocal disagreement by others that previously didnât have a voice or platform. Additionally, where secular government funding is involved, greater demands for accountability and transparency means any body that wishes to receive public funding needs to be more aligned with public expectations for their practices and who they serve. When Christian figures are questioned about what practices core to their faith are being lost (that are not related to exclusionary practices or imposing their beliefs on those outside their membership), very few specifics are given. To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.
In a pluralist secular society, all religions are not required to be pro-something that is against their core beliefs. But if a religion continues to promote certain beliefs and practices (whether core or not) that violate othersâ legal rights or standing and they receive public funding/accommodations, that religion might not want to go out of their way to actively promote those practices nor expect public approval if they do. And particularly when it comes to sexual diversity, there is no universal agreement across Christianity that it is a core aspect of their faith, that is, central to the gospel of Jesus, nor has historical emphasis (unlike Christianityâs greater continuous targets against the sins of idolatry, pride, greed, inhospitality or lacking compassion for the powerless, shunned and despised).
Historically, all modern-day religions have evolved since their initial founding. The Apostle Paul would be very shocked and find the experience and life of any contemporary Australian church unfamiliar.
The God of the Bible, in fact, seems to continually push all Godâs people from the first couple to the various New Testament churches, into new cultural contexts and is pleased with the evolution of expressions and practices and trajectories of inclusiveness for more and more people and practices previously shunned and condemned. In fact, until relatively more recently the Christian Church and theology were widely credited for the many victories of increasing freedoms and rights for all, especially those outside its membership. These days, society tends to view the Church as prioritising its membership and its privileges over the rights of others.
In some ways, one could say the church is returning to the also pluralist liberal days and circumstances of the New Testament society in which the Christian Church was birthed and had limited standing, influence or favour. Maybe God has ordained once again the circumstances so that Godâs people can return to resembling the humility of a rural tradieâs bastard son in an urban metropolis without privilege, entitlement or institutional authority to engage once again with radical inclusiveness and proclaim the good news that God is focused and interested in people anew no matter their identity, standing, circumstances or behaviours, and whose only main intolerance is against those that deny that God wants the very best fullness of life for every single human and the rest of creation.
Why is the media making such a big deal about one church holding views that are homophobic, when there are actually some churches that are affirming of LGBTIQA+ communities?
For most of the public, the church means a monolithic unit similar to a multinational corporation like MacDonalds, successfully selling itself as a cohesive unit that maintains the same values and emphasis since its inception. It is a unit that claims to deliver the same products and services as designed by divine authority.
Similar to franchises, the public expects some central body to ensure that every church operates in a consistent fashion. Of course, insiders know there are actually big differences in the actual reality of experience, priorities, practices, community and distribution of finances. And many personalities and groups use and claim Godâs authority to have standing in society and income, to promote their own idiosyncratic values, biases and practices.Â
The Church instead is better pictured as a very large extended family network, that never meets as a whole family these days. Sure, different key people might occasionally talk, but like most extended families there are many branches that donât talk to each other, or refuse to talk to each other or ever meet - only sharing the family name in common. While some try to convince others to connect or at least speak kindly of another, many just regard other parts as that kooky uncle or aunt we avoid talking about because their views are just too extreme for us.Â
Most individuals in one denomination or branch of Christianity rarely even knows what others in their own sector is doing or prioritising as there is often as much diversity in each of those sectors as across these different divisions of Christianity. Like how social media curates what we are exposed to based on our likes and clicks, most peopleâs church experiences are bubbles - with some smaller than others - where each person believes that everyone elseâs experience of Christianity is close to their own bubble except for those they regard as fringe or extremes. And while some churches might apply tags like âBible-believingâ or âNew Testament communityâ or other titles to claim superiority over other churches or Christians, letâs just say they vary widely in their resemblance to the non-property-owner non-married non-white non-endorsed-by-institutions often-heretical arrested-and-detained friend-of-sinners and his vagabond groupies inner-circle. Letâs just say most Church parents would not want their kids spending too much time with a guy like that.Â
So while the insiders donât want to offend their relatives by speaking out against them to the media or others, Church and Christian leaders on the whole are instead enabling idiosyncratic church leaders to speak on behalf of the whole family, the whole unit and more seriously, represent God to the wider community.
To be clear, we are not just talking about private citizens or one service provider among many. There are power structures and hierarchies in society, and the Church has for a long time occupied a high level of influence and control over what society believes and practices about who is worthy and who should be despised.Â
While there has been a lot of good, there is also a long history of the church either being complicit or leading the charge towards societyâs judgment against certain demographics and their subsequent rights, freedoms, opportunities and standing in society: single mothers, working mothers, certain ethnic and cultural communities, inter-racial marriages, women leaving marriages because of domestic violence, sex workers, spiritually-divergent and the LGBTIQA+ communities.Â
So when one church says God and Godâs book condemns all people of a particular identity or circumstance, no matter their positive contributions to their local communities or families, as unworthy members of Godâs grace, blessing and favour just as they are, this has immense practical and destructive consequences that has torn apart families, destroyed vocations, lost lives, robbed societies and generations of valuable contributions to the fabric of humanity, as well as encouraged and empowered violence, neglect, hatred, division and championing the idea that âimage of Godâ is not in all human beings. That is why a popular view of Christians is judgmental and intolerant rather than unconditional love (or inclusiveness). Rather than being a sanctuary or safe space for all, increasingly churches and what they offer are gated communities to distance the âchosenâ minority from the pagan majority.Â
Even if you believe the church is being marginalised in todayâs society, churches and their policies and values still reach and impact a significant majority of Australia through sectors like education, hospitals, aged care, health providers, and community services. The Church continues to impact the lives of those outside its voluntary membership, and significantly more importantly it impacts the lives and experiences of the young people and other dependents of its membership.
For most of its history, the people that the Church condemned were mostly outside their membership or at least without power or influence within it. Increasingly their primary contemporary targets (google âhistory of Republican Party evangelicalsâ, or particularly regarding Paul Weyrichâs role in recruiting evangelicals) are able to voice dissenting views - even from a position of powerlessness against the structural might of the church. And surprising these victims and their allies are pointing out the sin of the church in promoting fear, division, and hatred against people made in the image of God and the resultant behavioural consequences, particularly to young people. Schools are where the majority of bullying of the sexually diverse occurs. Encouragingly, all students (not just those sexually diverse) in schools that promote sexual diversity inclusiveness feel a greater sense of wellbeing and freedom. Ironically, the media are accusing the contemporary church of resembling the Pharisees rather than Jesus - that is putting barriers in the way for people to see and experience God truly.
Like previous colonisers to communities they believed were pagan, some Christian leaders are trying to take a softer-approach to homosexuality: âyou can retain your identity but no longer engage in any of the practises associated with that identity, and anyway you can let the bigger identity as a âchild of Godâ eclipse all your other identifications.â However, the people who speak these are rarely paragons of blank-identifications - expressing constantly about their own sexual and romantic orientations and practices (as well as cultural, family, sporting team, etc) with most congregations signficantly more homogenous in make-up then the demographics of their locality.
God has never promoted identification-free identities and, in Jesus, was distinctively sexually counter-cultural in expression and practice, embracing those engaged in counter-cultural sexually diverse behaviours and esteeming them above the moral and always-rule-obeying religious leaders.Â
Any Bible-believing pastor will know that Jesus only publicly criticised religious leaders. Any Bible-believing teacher knows that Jesus never publicly condemned any individual for their sexual behaviours no matter how âwrongâ they were according to the word of God. Any Bible-believing leader will know that rather than acting like a judge or police officer, Jesus engaged and lived from a position of humility. And significantly, unlike other adults of his time, Jesus valued and respected children, and made every single one of them know they were loved and valued by God, no matter their circumstances or behaviours or goals or dreams or identity but esteemed them over adults.
Jesus and the Christian leaders of the Bible also redefined loyalties. If someone else is doing Godâs work even without being associated or attached to their name, that was ok. And Jesus says we also donât need to be loyal to family if they are inconsistent with Godâs love and actions. It is ok to love a sibling without agreeing with them or even needing to defend them in public. Â
So thank you to all the churches and Christian leaders that are sharing the good news that God loves, embraces and is cheering on every person regardless of their identity and circumstances and choices. This should be the primary experience and belief that a person encounters from every representative of the God of the Christian Bible. Sure, there are always alternative and better choices all of us can make for our futures, but the starting point is that God wants us to know that we are loved and trusted and every story of life is a worthy one to share. And likewise, all these churches and Christian leaders have their flaws and room for improvement too.Â
To all other churches and Christian leaders that talk about loving all but yet still come across as judgemental in wider society. Rather than defending yourself first, consider why society sees you more as the Pharisees than Jesus. While I continue to fail to reflect Jesus in so many ways, I continue to welcome the views of all others on how I can continue on that journey. And hey, maybe weâll meet at one of our familyâs BBQs some time.Â
A melbourne church has been in the recent news being branded as homophobic. The lead pastor disputes the claim saying while he thinks practising homosexuality is a sin, that they and Jesus are all about love. Are they being unfairly misrepresented as bigots?Â
A lot of popular teen coming-of-age movies when released are criticised for being crass and depraved, but the ones that stick at least a decade later in the minds of their fans are because the main teen characters are multi-faceted people worthy of empathy and being emulated.Â
Jesus said that the world will know who his followers are by their love of others. Like modern day social media celebrities, Jesus had many titles but the one bestowed originally by his enemies - âfriend of sinnersâ - is relevant here.Â
Sinners were people being judged by the moral leaders of the day as not being acceptable to God nor the general community - that is, not worthy of empathy nor emulating. However like many historical slurs, Jesus reclaimed and redeemed the title. Jesus didnât just talk about loving these âsinnersâ, he was invited into their spaces and they spoke about his acts of grace to them. He didnât expect them to change or conform to his standards before he embraced them and blessed them. They never felt the âstingâ of the label sinner from him. Sinner instead became a stand-in for those truly loved and blessed by God. Jesus helped them see how valued and worthy they were to God just as they were, no matter their current relationships, appearances, activities, life goals or circumstances. Even if he gave directions on what they should do next (which he rarely did), they didnât all carry them out nor were they condemned by him publicly for that divergence. The kingdom of God is often spoken as the âgreat reversalâ - flipping all of societyâs values on its head - those that were in the ârightâ were no longer those deserving favour from God.Â
Even today the majority of the world who donât go to church can and will talk about how âJesus just lovesâ even if they donât know any specific parts of the Bible with accuracy. Jesusâ âbrandâ is unconditional love.Â
In contrast, the perceived âbrandâ of Christians is not love but judgements/condemnation of others. Now as a âperson-of-colour with a manly nameâ Christian leader, I have visited many churches and been warmly welcomed and listened to. As a stranger with no title turning up to a church, my experiences of being welcomed at churches has been less enthusiastically warm. Medium to big churches rely on you to self-identify as ânewâ to be noticed and you have to make an effort to engage others. Churches are where you find âlike-mindedâ people these days rather than diversity. Many people feel they have to do âimpression managementâ at church rather than freely speak their mind.Â
Having previously been involved significantly with youth, I now hear a lot of single late 20s-40s individuals that struggle to find a church they feel loved and accepted at - instead sharing stories of how difficult it has been for them to fit in despite the effort they make to get involved; how difficult it is for them to share honestly their doubts and differences of opinion to those in church leadership on issues like sex before marriage. Many of these reports come from cis straight white men. For people of colour, it is harder to find churches of diverse leadership that is not catering to a specific ethnic congregation. Likewise for single women, to see single female leaders responsible for the whole congregation is a small minority to the whole church scene. You can probably imagine how difficult it would be for a person of LGBTIQA+ identification to find a church that is not catering to that specific population to find a leader clearly identified as such and whose hopes of finding a romantic monogamous partner of their choice affirmed. If you donât think representation of leaders like you is important, then ask why most Australian churches continue to show and promote media that depicts Jesus as a tall Anglo Saxon man rather than a more historically accurate racial depiction of Jesus.Â
For any minority or person on the margins of society growing up, they already have a strong sense of difference and marginalisation, and often a degree of internalised phobia because of that difference. Discrimination can be either direct or indirect. Anyone growing up as an eastern European migrant in 1980s in Australia, can tell stories of how they were looked down on or shunned in many little ways - what is now termed acts of micro-aggressions - rather than always outright racist behaviours (though many will have stories of that too). For a long time Australia was more characterised as being a tolerant society rather than a society embracing of difference.Â
It is understandable for any church to have a history towards difference mirroring the society it exists in. Many of the abuses the church has been responsible for only mirrored the society of the time. But unlike the historical church with a reputation of being out of step with society and leading society into changes for greater equality and celebrating diversity, the modern church has a reputation for being behind society in equality and acceptance of diversity. Thankfully, there are many exceptions of individual Christians and Christian communities and even denominations to this. Christianity as a global movement is not a hive mind in its approach to sexuality, abortion, economic inequality or other issues.Â
Sure there is a spectrum between bigoted and unconditional love⊠but a person marginalised can tell you what it truly feels to be loved versus other responses. For living public examples of unconditional love, we can look at media. Increasingly we have authentic depictions where diverse people and their lives are represented, flaws and all, but still held as worthy role models for their communities and more broadly.Â
Asking whether a particular church is guilty of bigotry is the wrong question. Jesus asks the better question instead: as people claiming to be Jesus followers are they known for their love of others or just talkers of love? If this church (or any other church) does not have a brand where sexually diverse people (or any other labelled people groups) are raving about those Christians being good guests in their spaces and the acts of grace committed by this church towards them, then perhaps Jesus does not recognise this church as Jesus followers at all. Hopefully this particular sin or failing matters more to this church than just managing their current public image. If their brand truly is love, like Jesus they donât have to defend themselves from criticism, but those they love will already be their defence.Â
My church has recently announced a split, with one side claiming they follow the traditional view of marriage versus the other side that seems to be more loving and inclusive of my non-church friends. How can I stay true to the Bible and love others?
The movie âBook of Eliâ is set in America where society has broken down after a nuclear war and Eli is on a quest to deliver a book westward. A warlord wants the book because he believes it contains words of power to control others. Eli knows that those words in the wrong hands can abuse others and is willing to fight and die to ensure that the warlord does not have the book.
Since the establishment of the Christian church, throughout history there have always been people who have questioned its leadership about how true to the Bible or Jesusâ teachings that leadership and the subsequent actions of the church has been. Thatâs why Christianity now has two main divisions from the initial Catholic Church: Orthodox and the Protestants. Thatâs why Believers of the Apostle Creed recite âI believe⊠in holy Catholic Churchâ still. Protestants, who get their name and identity from being protesters against wrong teaching in the broader Church, therefore has a continual history of âsplittingâ or separating themselves further from other believers of Jesus on that basis. While, practically any idea that defines a protestant movement has some mirror in some Catholic somewhere, letâs just say unity and acceptance of others with different theological views has not always been a defining trait of many Protestant churches or movements.
Every leadership championing a split has always done it in the name of being more faithful to God and the Bible than their opposers. Increasingly these leadership claim their position as âtraditionalâ labelling their opposers as either progressives (that is, steering away from the text) or, increasingly using a sneering term from conservative politics, revisionists (that is, claiming to rewrite the original text with ideas not present there). This also parallels the increasing alignment of religion and conservative/right-leaning politics (search âRepublican Party and evangelicals historyâ). An alignment that has only been really active in Protestantism in the last 50 years. Prior to that religion and politics were generally regarded as separate. Of course, Christianity has a long history of challenging tradition and bringing âprogressiveâ social change to all of society - driven by the theological view that human society has never reached the pinnacle of Godâs values where all people are seen as equally worthy and valued children of God deserving of all opportunities to thrive and so therefore changes need to occur (e.g. search âsocial gospelâ or early church non-conformity to society). This 'fresh' marriage of Republican and evangelicals has contributed to churches being more the defenders of traditional power structures and values rather than challenging them (search âliberation theologyâ). The underlying assumption is that âtraditionalâ view of the past is the best version of life there is, and anything progressive or revisionist challenges that and therefore is âbadâ, 'disruptive' or âsinful.â
In history circles, the term revisionist history is embraced as a common and non-controversial approach to understanding and defining history. The challenge to previous âorthodoxâ history through introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved is embraced as just how the study of history is done well (e.g. the movie âBraveheartâ). Revisionism is not a dirty word in history. The real problem is historical negation, which is attributing false conclusions to books and sources, ignoring valid contradictory information or inclusion of false documents, or deliberate misinterpreting of the text (e.g. denial of the Holocaust or perpetuating Australia Terra nullius).
When a church says they claim to be a champion of the Biblical traditional view of marriage - I wonder how much they actually understand the history of the Biblical traditions of marriage. Womenâs choice in marriage? Marriage for love? Being a good/better follower of God as a married person versus single? Rape in marriage is wrong? Not using marriage to avoid masturbation? Abuse as a valid reason for divorce? Divorce due to personal incompatibility? Sex as a holy and honourable act? Non-procreative sex as good? Women seen as an equal partner? If you didnât know all of these âtraditionalâ views are revisionist and are not easily supported by explicit âtranslate as isâ verses.Â
The Bible has always championed learning history and shaping our lives from that. While Jesus championed staying true to the ideals of old, he also said that those that stuck to the details of the old often missed the âspiritâ of those details and that God was always creating and making things new and that new wineskins were necessary. God and Jesus championed revisionism in getting its followers not to see the world through the eyes of established traditions and values but to see a new kingdom or way of being much greater than anything that existed before, that radically loves in new ways than before. Worry less about labels, love like Jesus did and still does.
Most movie endings are predictable. We generally know who will win and lose even if the stakes become impossible. The ending of humansâ movie or story with God has been foreshadowed to be the greatest mind-blowing twist. However, for most humans, depending on their idea of Godâs character, the ending is sadly predictable.
Historically there have been great and many mass debates about whether the Christian God intends that all be saved or only a select few. These days, like American politics, people seem to argue along party/theological affiliations where you would be a heretic to believe beyond your affiliation.
Those aligned with Calvinist ideas already are committed to only a few will be saved (limited atonement) that have nothing to do with their own decisions (unconditional election) or concepts of free will... and often like political conservatives they are already convinced they are already saints and part of the elect few... even though generally their claim is based on their family heritage (I grew up within a Christian home) rather than anything else... (of course, Iâm generalising). But despite their often entitled beliefs, if these people are truly committed to Calvinâs TULIP, no matter how moral a lifestyle they lead, within their system they are still inherently depraved and therefore unlikely to know whether they have been truly elected as it is beyond their choice or any action they have done or will do.
Even if someone doesnât claim to align with Calvin, or even know about Calvin, increasingly a lot of churches, particularly those aligning to conservative values, are essentially perpetuating that only a select few will be saved, and that it will be dependent instead on the choices and works of the followers. Only âreal Christiansâ will be saved, as if God only cares about those that join âthe clubâ and abide by its membership rules. Those that disobey the rules can have their membership cancelled and join those who arenât members as being excluded from Godâs eternal retirement home/paradise.
Jesus talks a bit about a select few, however he constantly challenges those that feel entitled to be in the club to not assume that they will be included. In passages like where God separates the sheep (the saved) from the goats (the excluded) in Matthew 25:31-46, the culmination of other stories of those âinâ versus âoutâ, Jesus announces that both within those chosen and excluded will be surprised about the selection criteria, and how they are categorised âin the endâ. This is consistent with how throughout the Bible, the most surprising (that is, the individuals people including expert teachers, priests and leaders least expected) are chosen by God to be favoured and esteemed â breaking expectations of race, family standing, gender, sexuality, age, faith affiliation, past or current actions or lifestyles, health and capabilities, character, social standing, citizenship or legal status, or even species.
I started my answer with the word sadly⊠because too often our ideas of God are limited by our own ideas of what human character is applied to the omnipotent divine. We often limit Godâs justice, grace, and love to how we would live it out. Our forgiveness and acceptance of other humans is limited to only what we are prepared to give based through our own emotions and hurts⊠in sharp contrast to the exponential degree of forgiveness that is beyond human liking (Matt 18:21-22; the whole book of Hosea). God somehow exceeds whatever we can imagine with forgiveness⊠and acceptance⊠and embrace⊠which includes who is saved in the end (Revelation 21).
In the end, we will have our minds blown in a good unbelievable way of who and the sheer diversity and numbers of that. It will be more like a large-scale music festival where you are surprised at the diversity of others in sync with yourself as fans of the same band, versus a high school reunion of a small number of mostly familiar faces.
Fortunately, we donât have to police, moderate, or limit Godâs fan base. God can be trusted to manage Godâs own fan membership. Our job is to enjoy the music and spread its possible value to others⊠and to be prepared in the future for the most surprising twist ending of all eternity of who are embraced by the eternal artist as valued fans.
Jesus said âBlessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earthâ (Matthew 5:5). As a Christian, how do you reconcile this profound affirmation and the absolute humility of our Lord and Saviour, with your own arrogance and narcissism?
For the last six years, Iâve had chronic jock itch with cracked scrotal skin, I often have blood in my stool from recurring issues with haemorrhoids, and the last time I had diarrhoea I soiled my pants. Iâm very human with the same physical, psychological and spiritual conditions as the next person.Â
âIf we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.â 1John 1:8-10Â
I am someone who knows I have my flaws and seeks to be better. Sometimes people see my progress, other times people donât. I certainly donât think there is much evidence of a persistent pattern of boasting on my part. Happy for someone to compile a list that I can review, repent and ask forgiveness for.
What matters is what the people that know me well in my lives say about me because they have lived and shared a lot of life with me and see how I interact, care and sacrifice for them and people around me. We all know enough in this day and age to not give to much credence to judgments made by an anonymous internet poster who doesnât have courage to own their own words.Â
I am always careful when I find myself tempted to label someone, to think about what that label says about me and my own judgments first. Whereas narcissism has objective psychological measures, arrogance can sometimes just be in the eye of the beholder. What is clear assertive behaviour and healthy pride, can be labelled by those uncomfortable to being challenged, as arrogance. A person who continually bullies will use negative terms against anyone who doesnât put up with their disrespectful behaviour. It seems thereâs a rising tide of people who traditionally would have been entitled that suddenly feel disempowered.Â
Call me for a hug if you fall into that category. Equality has a cost. Iâm sorry you are paying for it.
Your messages seem to have the intent of echoing Christ's words to Pharisees in the Gospels, so it seems clear to me that you have a strong idea of who "modern day Pharisees" might be. I'm wondering if you have an idea of who "modern day Sadducees" might be in this age, and what would be your message to them?
Modern people often forget the historical context of Jesusâ own lifeâŠ. and somehow make a long-haired, unemployed, property-less, gender-non-conforming, social revolutionary as their mascot of moralistic consumeristic nationalistic compliant citizenship. People like to distance the enemies of Jesus from anything that could resemble themselves, when the truth is much more closer to home⊠including my own tendencies.Â
The wealth of the government of the day was built on conquered and stolen resources of the indigenous and exploitation of others. There was significant inequality economically with the wealthy being the dominant public voice, and significantly influencing all areas of public and communal life. The government was made up of elites and made decisions primarily to advance their business interests. Sure, the infrastructure geared towards the wealthy had trickle-down benefits to the rest of the population (in line with what has the Romans ever done for us)⊠roads, aqueducts, enforced language that facilitated communications between cultures, enforced peace through militarised policing, clear social rules and structure so people knew their place and had clear ideas about the aspirations they could have (or not), etc. But the welfare of the whole was secondary to the aspirations of the wealthy despite their rhetoric. The economic inequality impacted the education, health, relationships, working conditions, lifestyles, short-term and long-term opportunities and resources of the broader population. Your family, cultural-ethnic background and social circles influenced greatly your employment and opportunities.Because of the societal structure, the Jewish religious leaders were predominantly men of wealth and status too. The main groups were the Herodians, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. Herodians were those that loved the government and supported whatever their government did - even if it seemed out of line with their Scriptures. They thought the survival of their own status/race/religion was most likely if they were aligned and cooperative with the governmentâs directions and priorities. As long as they had their own freedoms, it didnât matter how the rest of the population were affected. The Sadducees only gave authority to a certain part of the Scriptures - affluent fundamentalists who didnât like the more miraculous parts of God and the Bible. Life, here and now was their focus. They didnât think long-term - particularly beyond their own life - so what impacted after didnât matter. Again, as long as they had their freedoms, they were cooperative and appreciative to their government. The Pharisees, however, were seen as the purest and most fervent adherents to the Scriptures - dedicated missionaries, sticklers to being seen as doing the right thing, avoiders of the wrong people, primarily consistent and dogmatic to their stated beliefs even prepared to speak against the values espoused by the government. They were well recognised and admired for their dedication to their beliefs. They even believed in miracles. These three groups didnât always agree. But a young upshot that talked about having allegiance to another government, another set of values that challenged the existing economic and social structure and stability, and asked his followers to do the same, united these three groups out of fear of disrupting the existing government and social structure. Jesus talked about the sharing of wealth so that the poor would be seen as having equal standing and access to resources. Jesus talked about the sharing of power and status so that all may be equal. Jesus spent time with the socially wrong and undesirables, destabilising the codes of morality and who should be shunned. He violated gender and sexual expectations and gave acceptance and prominence to those against gender norms. He publicly criticised biological family allegiances. He gave medical treatment freely, particularly to those that would never have the means to pay for it. He shunned reciprocal arrangements and rarely showed gratitude to those that gave him free lavish meals. He violently disrupted legitimate businesses endorsed by spiritual leaders. Rather than publicly condemn the spiritual or socially unclean and wrong, he instead publicly debated and fought with those that influenced the public discourse of who had worth and who did not. He pointed out the lack of consistency between those who claimed to take actions for the good of society and God, and their lack of compassion and actions to truly support the vulnerable and the undesirables in long term sustainable ways. He attacked the spiritually prideful for missing Godâs spirit of seeking the lost and disenfranchised from God because of the actions of his so-called representatives. And he was popular with the people as the dream he wove was a compelling one⊠an alternative lifestyle and values to the prevailing culture, a restructuring of how society should be economically and socially organised⊠and he lived out his dream in how he lived and interacted with others. But sometimes the demands he made of those to live consistently with that dream was too much out of the comfort zone and familiarity they were used to. With him, they had new identities different than what they were born as. He redefined families beyond traditional rules. He made them see they were responsible for people beyond who they had been raised to believe in. With him, their prejudices were challenged, their measures of success were redefined. He demanded them to fundamentally give up a lot of what they had been raised to value. He demanded their whole lives to be realigned out of sync with the prevailing culture and politics. He demanded honesty and humility about their own inability for self-sufficiency and independence. He stripped people of their status, pride and self-importance⊠and helped them see their commonalities and affirmed their worth and ability to contribute to a new interdependent community of symbiosis.The conspiracy and engineered murder of this country popular preacher werenât initiated by the government, but by people claiming to represent God. They were worried his claims would not only disrupt the publicâs trust and esteem of themselves but also threatened the social and economic stability of their life under their earthly government. Yes, he called out sin - but it was at systems and Godâs representatives⊠not at the people that had been previously identified by the government or those religious leaders to be condemned. His justice was different than what these leaders and systems propagandised. Strangely, these days, modern people that are pro-birth but not supportive of equitable sharing of resources so that people can have equal opportunities for sustainable lives (e.g. they value economic restraint over welfare programs), these people that want freedom to say what they want but complain if others exercise their freedom to disagree and disapprove (whereas Jesus welcomed persecution onto death), these people that readily judge certain others as less worthy, these people that often value effort and accumulated resources as measures of a successful life,⊠now claim this long-haired, unemployed, property-less, gender-non-conforming, social revolutionary as their mascot of moralistic consumeristic nationalistic compliant citizenship.
After reading Matthew 8:18-22 I feel an urge to do missions and proclaim the gospel overseas. But I'm also headed to do a bachelor degree in business, which may lead to me being an office worker for the next 40 years of my life hahah. Is it ok for me to leave missions until after Iâm set? âIs salvation dependent on God's grace through faith, or whether or not/how much we have given our lives and "bore our crosses" in order to follow Jesus so to speak. Please refer to Matt 8:18-22 in your answer.
How often do you have a cocktail of cereals for breakfast? Iâm a big fan of muesli, which is already a variety of different ingredients. Increasingly, there are a wider range of premixed muesli available, but with the broader range of cereals available, Iâm a big fan of buying multiple cereals and mixing them together with rolled oats as my base to eat each morning. Iâve seen a lot of people eat breakfast, but the majority seem to just choose one pre-packaged cereal to eat at a time, even when a variety are available. Trying to decide a career path can always be confusing or uncomfortable, especially when your whole life is wide open with possibilities. We often are raised with stories and notions that we should just choose one career to be dedicated for life. Like we have to choose the right tightrope and stay on that to be truly happy. Certainly there is a lot to be said about what you can achieve working in one career and field for your whole life. But according to social researchers McCrindle, the average Australian will have 17 different employers and 5 separate careers. If youâre under 35, you will generally voluntarily stay in a job for under 3 years. In modern church circles we tend to elevate full time church ministers, then overseas missionaries, and then full time Christian workers as people who are truly surrendered âto follow Jesusâ. The rest of us that âhavenât given our livesâ fully, can at best give resources to support the âreal spiritual workersâ. The early Church didnât have as clear distinctions about who was being more spiritual. And there was never the sense that God had picked only one specific tightrope for each of us that we each had to strictly follow. Even Jesusâ own life seems to just meander randomly from location to location. So firstly I want to address your urge to do missions and proclaim the gospel overseas. Why do you have that urge? Where are you planning to go and work? Is it a chance to leave your boring or messy life behind to have a seemingly more simple and clearer purpose to your life? Is it a 'white saviourâ complex where you can bring your more enlightened ways and resources to an impoverished uneducated people who will welcome you and make you feel significant? In what way are you actually planning to contribute to their lives? How will you support your work and living expenses? How prepared are you to learn local language, customs and understandings, open to learning from the locals themselves and be there for the long term? How prepared are you to partner with locals and give them the credit for progress made? How are you currently contributing to and enriching peopleâs lives around you now? How clear are you about your own closeness to God now, and revealing him to others here and now? Most western missionaries are going to countries and places where there are already local churches, and wanting to leave their own personal mark, rather than supporting the local workers there to be more encouraged and effective in their work to their fellow citizens. As a missionary-focused God, God as Jesus went to a specific country and cultural group, and became one of them, growing up with them and being very embedded in that culture and language. He spoke about God in their specific context and honoured many of their traditions even if it wasnât vital. Reading Chapter 8, he clearly understands the context of all he interacts with, making references to their settings and circumstances. Although he challenges a couple of people in vv19-22 to leave behind the security theyâve known, he doesnât tell all of his disciples to leave their homes and countries. Vv28-34 tells a story of the healing of two demon-possessed men. In the parallel stories in Mark 5 and Luke 8 the healed wants to join Jesusâ road tripping entourage, but Jesus instead insists that he return home. Even the Great Commission (Matthew 28) was initially understood by his Jewish followers as encouragement to go to other Jewish people wherever they were found in the world. It took the Apostle Paul to really clarify this later in Acts 15, but even then Paul was already well versed in the language, customs and cultural understandings of the foreigners he was reaching out to (Acts 17)⊠and also a business man⊠running his own business to largely support his efforts.Paul is sometimes described as being a marketplace missionary, or employing BAM (Business as Missions). Itâs a cool way of describing using whatever skills, training and qualifications you have to be a missionary with whoever you are in contact with⊠again to model yourself from Jesus or Paul, and be embedded in the culture you are reaching. And you can do that at any age. If you skate, reach other skaters. If you dance, reach other dances. Whatever youâre into, you have a way of connecting with othersâŠSo the question isnât should I do mission overseas or no mission at all and just focus on a non-spiritual endeavour. It could instead be how do I do mission in whatever context I am already? How do I do that authentically with meaningful relationships? Simplistic and inauthentic mission work (especially a lot of overseas mission work) can be described as drive-by mission work where we drive into a neighbourhood that we have no real relationships with or respect for, and just fire at them with words that often donât convey what we hope they do, hoping to shock that culture from living the way they do, to hopefully see us as the superior model for their lives, and then want to join our gang, leaving their old identity behind. Christian disciple making has always about helping guide people over time to understand, experience and be more like God, and then help others to pass that on in the similar ways. Like all aspects of our lives, how we understand and do mission grows and develops, just like how we grow older and develop in how we approach our friendships, or understanding of people groups unfamiliar to us, or applying grace in our lives to others and ourselves. Or at least we should be growing if we are actually experiencing more of how God wants us to experience life. Ideas of a static life tends to be seen as stunted, whereas all of Godâs people should be continually transforming, and improving. And part of that transformation is being more involved in other peopleâs lives, especially in serving them as we continually understand more of how to improve theirs and our own lives in interconnected ways like how God wants us to. So any work for God and others, should be like when we are in love with another⊠we just want to do more to delight them, not because we have to, or are being judged for how much work we do for them, but because itâs a natural outworking of wanting all to enjoy more of life together. I enjoy life the more the people I care about also enjoy life. Yes, this involves a sacrifice or dying to ourselves. But thatâs the same whenever we decide not to live selfishly by choose instead to deepen our connections with others. And these choices can be and are available to be made every day and every second of our lives.Fundamentally, it is less about what exactly you choose to do for a career, but the attitude you live your life in relation to others, your priorities and your motives for doing what you do. So like eating cereal, we can live as others expect or arranged for us, or choose to create life more along the open possibilities God blesses us with.Â
Should Christians watch/enjoy secular movies/television? Because i have read passages in the Bible such as 1 John 2:15 or Colossians 3:2. Have I taken these verses out of context? I happen to have a love for entertaining films and I realize that they don't really help me in my relationship with God but i genuinely enjoy watching these films/shows. Thanks Chua!
You have taken these verses out of context, but youâre not the only one that has⊠and there are many fearful and doubt-filled Christians that promote the kind of simplistic thinking of Christians vs the rest of the world. Remember the author John also wrote John 3:16.  We love to see things in a binary way - that is either something is good or bad; like us or not like us; for us or against us⊠and it helps makes life simple⊠until it doesnât. Thinking of everything as purely Christian vs secular (non-Christian) is like talking about music vs non-music. Secular doesnât mean empty of Christian values or anti-Christian, it just means thatâs not its main focus. But if you see music as core to who you are, you will hear music everywhere you are and in everything, and could be inspired in your music in any thing, whether it be in the rhythms of everyday life (e.g. heartbeats or car indicators or people coughing), or the antics of your dog, mathematics, or house paint colours. Similarly if you truly view God as the creator of the universe, who has breathed Godâs spirit into all creatures including humans, and especially created humans to be Godâs image bearer and resemble God - then humans whether they realise it or not, will still continue to reflect God and the yearnings placed within us. As the majority of stories out there are very human stories containing those yearnings and joys, they often then have parallels to the vast range and number of stories and themes recorded in the Bible. Most media branded as âChristianâ feels like they need to have 'Christian conversionâ as a main theme, however that limits the Biblical story one can parallel. How many stories of 'Christian conversionâ are there in the Bible versus the other stories in there? Also there are more Christians involved in 'secular mediaâ than we are aware of - e.g. thereâs a well known successful horror movie director who sees 'evilâ as largely distorted good, and his films are based on his informed Christian theology. We can sometimes forget that Christian theology is much broader than what our local Christian community might promote. Additionally the Bible is filled with Godâs people gaining wisdom from 'secularâ sources - some chapters of Proverbs, and the life of Moses, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - because God choses to use the most unexpected people and even animals at times to show or experience Godly experiences, ideas or emotions. Often 'secularâ media does a much better job of helping us feel and be inspired about Christian themes than the majority of sermons today - e.g. the centrality of sticking to oneâs beliefs, the difficulties of remaining true to oneself, the need and cost of personal sacrifice for the greater good, the possible redemption of the worst, the pain and ecstasy of undeserved grace and the resultant abandoning of a previous life to live a life of devotion to the one who saved them. TV shows are increasingly where we learn more practically how to stay committed to friendships and relationships in the long-term despite all sorts of obstacles (often as a result of misunderstandings or miscommunications) than variations of simplistic 'be nice to each other and forgive when you are hurtâ sermons. Humans often learn better when we get shown rather than told.Of course secular media includes stories of people who are against God or donât believe in God at all, or striving for goals against Godâs values - but so does the Bible as well. Some of the stories are based on people questioning, insulting or even challenging the values of decency and acting in ways that are dehumanise and destroy others⊠but so does the Bible as well. Ask yourself in whatever situation you are presented with by the media you watch whether you know exactly how Jesus or his fans would have or already have acted? Most human media often can't see past violence or revenge as the solution to great evil. Avoidance or dishonesty is often used when a person is confronted with their shortcomings. Do you discuss with other fans about what alternative ways could have resolved conflict or differences? Itâs about whether you have a narrow focus and want a small unquestioning self-centred life or always strive to see things beyond yourself⊠and of course, the biggest idea beyond us, beyond all of creation, is always God. It's not always about knowing what God would do, but asking how God would like people to have responded? If you keep your focus on God, whatever you watch or experience should always point you back to God. Sure, not all things are good for us to witness, and can lead us to forget that all are created in God's image and worthy of dignity and justice, or that there is always hope and redemption for all, or even though some situations are complex God still does act. But we will only forget if we choose to forget who we are. Jesus was someone immersed in the 'secularâ world, but kept his connection because he was certain of who he was, and of who the God he lived for was about. Jesus always saw the world through Godâs eyes. And when we do that we will find God in everything and everyone - whatever labels they have. We will find inspiration and connection because God truly is in everything and everyone, and always wants to connect with us again deeply. So keep alive your personal ongoing active relationship with God and Jesus, and donât lose sight of what God is striving to do with our lives and all of creation, and whatever entertainment you consume wonât ever cause you to lose perspective of what is truly worthwhile in life, and where we come most alive in our lives with. If you are consuming more or spending more time thinking about what you consume than you are actually living and experiencing for yourself⊠then turn off and go change a life for Jesus again... and truly live again.Â
I keep letting God down but I want to be like Jesus. In speaking, sharing, loving others, putting other's interests infront of my own i think im fine with. But when it comes to pornography or random sexual desires or thoughts (im a teenager by the way) I cant seem to stand firm in my faith, I turn into someone else that i know ill hate after I sin. In some cases, I tend to question my faith. I do realize that there is a similar post below, but I want a separate answer for my question. Thanks
When the movie âThe Last Temptation of Christâ came out in 1988, there was widespread picketing and calls to ban this movie from Christians (largely Catholics). These protesters claimed the movie was sacrilegious because it contained a dream sequence in which Jesus had sex. Of course, all this publicity resulted in more people going to see this movie than probably would have seen it otherwise. Within the context of the movie and the Biblical story the dream sequence made perfect sense. The story wasnât about the temptation of sex, but his last temptation in the garden for Jesus to avoid the sacrifice of the cross and live an ordinary life where he married and had kids (which relies on sex happening) and raised his family. This was more faithful and more relatable to the general public about the enormous sacrifice Jesus made rather than the torture-porn of 2004 âThe Passion of Christâ.
Iâm sorry for the shame you feel deep inside you⊠the memories of being darkness and filth, the helplessness and emptiness of overindulging your guilty desires yet again⊠especially when so much of who you are on the outside seems so good to people around you. However that can sometimes makes it harder when you are that, to really be able to share with others how you really do feel inside. When so much of you seems right, and you feel rotten in the core. âGod loves you. God truly loves you. No matter how bad or wrong you think of yourself. God loves every one of Godâs creation with great intensity.â I so much want you to hear that on infinite loop. I want it to be the first thing you hear when you wake up, and the last thing on your mind when you fall asleep. I want it drowning out whatever others tell you about their ideas about you. I want you to hear it whispered lovingly in the middle of your fears about yourself, in the middle of your sin, and in that deep pit of despair and disgust you find yourself after the aftermath of your sin yet again. God sees all of you, and loves you. God sees all of you, and wants you to know you are so much more than your sin. I bet God forgives you quicker than you forgive yourself (if you ever do). Ideals are noble and worth striving for. Being like Jesus would have to be the highest goal of all humanity, and continues to inspire every human in every generation and socio-cultural-circumstantial context. There are some historians that believe that living out what Jesus taught are still the greatest ideals never fully practiced by any that claim to follow Jesus. But being sinless has never been the mark of judging how much someone is like God or Jesus. Being sinless, or âcleanâ enough for God, was always about humans judging each other⊠or more accurately, humans condemning others and self-justifying themselves as being more righteous. The Pharisees, and other public opposers of Jesus spent most of their time condemning people for their lifestyles or behaviour or if they couldnât fault those people publicly, they attacked the company they kept. Godâs focus has always been primarily about peopleâs heart, and how much they reflect what God is passionate about. âGod loves every one of Godâs creation with great intensity.â Jesusâ heart is not about how 'perfectâ or 'sinlessâ he was, but about focusing directly on the people around him, to see wholeness in their lives, to bring about more justice to others. It was never a privatised form of religion like the Pharisees that largely cared about how clean they were themselves.Additionally, Iâm guessing a big part of your problem of sexual sin is actually incorrect views of sexuality instilled by Christians with a distorted view of Godâs intentions for sex and sexuality. The Jewish roots of Christianity had a more positive approach to sexuality, whereas the Greek and Roman philosophies were the roots of the puritan approach that saw sexuality negatively, only tolerable for its outcome of babies. They promoted the ideals of sex being endured, not enjoyed, in order to achieve procreation. This puritan approach has spawn the only two sides we believe exists now - a confined approach (tight boundaries) vs a libertarian approach (where anything goes) - where everyone is told to be on only one side of the fence and to disagree/pity with anyone on the other side. But life, religion and Christianity is not simply us vs them, especially when 'usâ isnât really consistent with God to begin with.Sex and our bodies are spiritual and worthy of respect, but that doesnât mean we make them something to be afraid of and taboo. Genesis 1-2 paints a picture of how 'perfectâ God made the world and how perfect humans were made in Godâs image. They were naked and there was no shame. Our bodies are not something we should be ashamed about, and yet the church rarely ever teaches that. When was the last time the word vagina was said in your church? Could you imagine talking about it positively? Or the word penis? Or the anus? God wasnât ashamed of those body parts, after all God did create them. God made the penis a huge identifying feature of the people God chose. God told them to cut off their foreskin of their penises, so that every time they held their penises they were reminded who they were. The appearance of their penis was something worthy - not the size, or what they did with it - but to be proud of it. In the New Testament, the early Christians fought over penises, and wanted to exclude those that didnât cut their foreskin. How and who was doing the checking?⊠because it didnât seem to be based on a honesty system.And we are just talking about individualsâ anatomy here, without even getting into talking about erections, sexual feelings, attractions, and practices. Iâm not trying to be vulgar⊠and the fact I have to even have to give an excuse about talking about this⊠highlights how poorly many Christians and churches deal with this whole area. And when you grow up with this secrecy, and sense of taboo about this, itâs easy for us to get more obsessed, and hung up, and guilty about all this than we need to. Itâs like trying to ban movies - we often give a movie more undeserved publicity and incentive to the public to attend it then if we just ignored it being released.
The bottom line is think less about how 'badâ and unlike Jesus you are because of your sin, because by focusing on sin, you are already not reflecting Jesusâ priorities. As a teenager your body will be more sexually heightened at times out of your control, and thatâs ok. You donât have to always take responsibility for that. Just be aware more of how you are feeling and your emotions around the times you feel you are more tempted or give in, and if they are negative, have a deep conversation with someone approachable and mature about how to handle those emotions differently. Make sure whoever you talk to is comfortable with this area of their life, otherwise they will give you simplistic answers that might not actually be practical in the long run. Increasingly itâs being accepted that masturbation is not a sin. And sure people will quote Matt 5:28, but again it is about context. Recognise that the Bible and God is a lot less repressed about sex than the modern Christian church is, and the more you have a healthy sense of your own sexuality and how you can be confident about that and express that now at your age, the more you will find your 'sinâ will disappear anyway.Focus instead on âGod loves you. God truly loves you. No matter how bad or wrong you think of yourself. God loves every one of Godâs creation with great intensity.â Then think more about what it actually means for you to love others as much (or more) as you worry about your own 'cleanlinessâ status. Your faith is fine at this point. God loves you and others. Do likewise.
I hear a lot of Christians talk about a relationship with God, but I often feel that when I pray, or read the bible, it is just me there. Sometimes I think God is telling me something, but it is usually in my own minds voice... is there something more I should be doing?
From an early age I wanted to be in a romantic relationship. In primary school I tried to serenade another with a love song but was too scared to sing out loud, which resulted in them asking me whether I was saying something at all. Later on in high school, I had many crushes, some I pursued, while others I didnât. This pattern continued for much of my life. My problem was that often when I was in a relationship I wasnât so much in that relationship with the other, but thinking too much about how the relationship should be or who my partner should be more like. I often looked at the partners my friends had and wished my relationships were more like theirs. I was a terrible boyfriend. I didnât experience the moments as they were enough. I didnât appreciate the other for who they were. I didnât always realise that was what I was doing at the time, I just expected them to be what I thought I wanted. My distorted thinking often went as far as convincing myself my partner had wanted the same things I wanted even when they hadnât, and then getting upset at them later when they tried to explain how they never wanted from the beginning what I thought they had. Confirmation bias is the term given to when you only notice what you want, and ignore the contradictory evidence. I found friendships and relationships were great when I thought the other always agreed with me and met what I wanted. They were much more difficult when I noticed the other had different ideas. I also found I approached my relationship with God similarly. Often I wanted the relationship others were having with God rather than the one I had, so I was focussed on what I thought God should be relating to me like, versus recognising that all relationships are different. Whenever I have big news to share with people close to me, I often share that news very differently with each of them because of the different people they are and our history together. With some there is more build up, with others there is more guessing involved, while others itâs just the bare facts. The same goal is still achieved just approached differently, reflecting each unique combination of people. God does employ different methods with communicating and being present with me, but has gotten used to me not always responding to particular methods. If God is particularly keen on telling me something, I usually get that from the message being repeated and done through a few ways and different people. Also it sounds like something that comes from God (ever get a text from a friend that you know is just a bit off, and discover later that someone pranked you with your friendâs phone? - mostly the closer you are, the more you are able to recognise not only how they say something but the types of things they generally talk to you about). God is big on communicating with us constantly⊠does it matter if our own mindâs voice is being used? Isnât it more important that we ARE being communicated TO⊠and WHAT is being communicated rather than the means used? If you think God is telling you something, have you thought more about it and now doing something about it? Especially when it seems like the godly thing to do? Do you really know if what you are being told is actually godly - or just something you like or want or hope God wants for you? Do you, like me, have a confirmation bias about what we want God to be about with us? Do you feel you really know God? Do you really feel like you have a deep relationship with God (itâs weird how sometimes we can have a really deep relationship with someone we havenât spent a whole lot of time with - we just know itâs there and we both get each other) so that you can just tell if itâs God or just your own desires? I have a friend who generally knows itâs God talking to him when itâs something he doesnât like. Iâm guessing at the moment (though I could be totally off track here) that youâve made a decision at some point to be a Christian but you donât feel close at all to God, and largely feel like you are just talking to thin air. That you have been praying and reading the Bible and the communication seems largely one way. And now youâre wondering whether you should be doing something else to connect with God. I would ask you why you decided to become a Christian in the first place and why you continue to choose that? I would be interested in what it felt like when you did, and what you hope from the relationship. What does it mean for you to be a Christian? What does it mean for you to surrender your life? In what ways have you ever felt connected with God in the past and recently?  As youâre probably part of a Christian community, approach someone that you feel is close to God in a way that you can relate to. Ask them more about how they recognise Godâs voice in Godâs communications with them. When has God challenged them in not just how they live, but how they think and how were they sure it was God? A big part as I mentioned of recognising God is knowing itâs usually something I donât want to hear and some ways I can change further. If Iâm still travelling in exactly the same direction at the same pace in life⊠Iâm suspicious that Iâm not listening enough⊠because Iâm not enough like God yet to just cruise for the rest of my life. Also looking into ways of prayer - just like we donât just sit down with our friends every time exactly the same way and relate to them like a stereotypical prayer session, God also copes and sometimes likes to communicate in all sorts of ways too. For a while now, I pray and communicate a lot with God while riding my motorbike, or walking around. Most importantly, our God is one of action. I actually believe we hear God most when we are doing the Fatherâs business, that is, when we are actually serving others. When we are focused in actually living in ways that bless and honour others, is when we most see and experience God most, and our spirits come alive. God never wanted our lives to just be inner self-focused spiritual experiences. Christianity, like any real relationships is never about just the one. This is not to say God is wanting us just to do or judging us on the basis of our actions, but as you know in any friendship or relationship, without some action, there is no relationship. We act not because we have to or are demanded to by the other, but because we feel loved and want to give love. Love always acts⊠and thatâs why God is constantly reaching out to all of us and blessing us in so many ways, no matter how we are towards God. Live in the moment and just let yourself experience Godâs love more.
What's your view on the use of medical marijuana in Australia?
In the Medical Journal of Australia, February 2015 Professor David Penington of the University of Melbourne argued that âAustralia is behind the times on the medicinal use of cannabis compared to the international scene. There is no international evidence that reducing prohibition by allowing medicinal use would lead to a surge in general use nor is cannabis highly addictive. Medicinal use provides relief from painful conditions such as muscle spasm in multiple sclerosis; reduces seizures in Dravet syndrome, a rare genetic myoclonic epileptic encephalopathy beginning in infancy (84% of parentsof affected children report much lessened frequency or abolition of seizures with medical cannabis); and helps those in the later stage of a battle with painful cancer (those with problems with morphine, other analgesics and nausea with chemotherapy). Yes, there are definitely Australian and New Zealand longitudinal studies that show significant social, behavioural, educational and mental problems with frequent use of cannabis by young people (aged 15â25 years). But even with the current criminalisation of cannabis, young people in general have relative easy access to it in Australia. So, young people need to be strongly dissuaded, on health grounds, from frequent or even regular use of cannabis, but this has little relevance to cannabis used for medical purposes or the debate surrounding it.â
Iâm happy not to argue with a well regarded doctor on medical issues.
Hey Chua, I have been a christian for most of my life now (im 16 by the way) and I realize that a lot of the things i find funny like in videos , movies or all sorts of entertainment involve inappropriate jokes, swearing, sexual innuendo's and I find these funny. As a christian, should I be laughing or finding these things funny? It is a sin to find these things amusing, is it a sign that I am not purely washed by the blood of Jesus?
When I was about 20, I checked out Balwyn Baptist as a possible option for my regular local church. The Church Secretary at the time asked me why donât Baptists have sex standing up? I really canât even remember what the context that led to that. The answer was so no one would think they were dancing. Needless to say, I became a member there. Christian culture over the ages, including today, are embedded in a broader cultural context. And all cultures and subcultures have their expectations of what is âacceptableâ and not. The problem is that Christians have not always been able to tell the difference between what is unacceptable because of the cultural contexts they exist in and what is unacceptable to God. For a long time, Baptists werenât allowed to dance. In the 70s, long hair and rock music were judged of the devil. It wasnât until the 2000s before it was ok for edgy Christians to have tattoos unless it was a result of their bad past that they are now no longer a part of. Often Christian church culture have swung really hard to the other side of the pendulum on ensure no one inside had any signs of unacceptable behaviours to ensure they were not seen as being part of the 'unsavedâ society. This is not really that far from the Jewish society at the time of Jesusâ life. Like our society, that society considered certain people as unacceptable. Tax collectors, sex workers, lepers, Samaritans and other foreigners were judged as not good, not nice, not quite right, or just unsafe to be around. That society also had their celebrities, people that should be noticed. Some of those were judged as righteous and ethical people. Sure they were a little snobby, but everyone thought a certain group of them knew their religious scriptures well, and lived them out faithfully. It was actually quite controversial when a young upstart preacher by the name of Jesus started attacking these religious people as missing the point of following God. Jesus accused these religious people of being too obsessed with 'right and cleanâ behaviour rather than having the heart of God. He said it wasnât about how you appear but how you love. These Pharisees counter-attacked Jesus for being too much of a party animal - getting drunk, eating too much and probably indulging in all sorts of bad behaviour because of the people he spent most of his time with - the âunacceptableâ ones. They accused him of being exactly like the company he kept. Part of the reason Jesus spent time with these âunacceptableâ people was because those people actually liked spending time with Jesus. He didnât make them feel bad and rejected, or even unacceptable. He somehow fitted in with them and helped them see how they could improve. Jesus didnât treat them like the snobby Pharisees, who not only avoided being near the 'unacceptable onesâ, but made a real public point of avoiding them. Itâs not hard to imagine thinking of being in those circumstances and those he hung with that Jesus had a wicked sense of humour that easily made others feel at home with him. In fact a lot of what Jesus says is actually funny, especially when he attacks the Pharisees. Even the famous born again statement of John 3:3, is interpreted rightly by the Pharisee as a reference to a female reproductive part by his reply. Even Paul gets in the act of body humour with his comeback in Galatians 5:12. Jesus is also credited for coining insults like hypocrite to begin with. He was the ultimate stand-up comic with the snappy and often scathing comebacks. The modern Christian church however often reads Bible statements with all the humour leached out of them. After all the Jews are well known for their humour for all aspects of life, including the spiritual aspects too. Iâve often thought about the statement that Jesus was tempted in all the ways all humans have been or will be (Hebrews 4:15) - in fact, the notion is that, not only just what is within the 'normalâ range of temptations of 'normalâ humans, but all the possible ranges beyond what is 'normalâ. Which means that he would have imagined a lot more than we ever could, or even beyond anything lurking in the Darknet or 4chan. But this of course isnât meant to suggest that Jesus indulged in all this stuff, but he certainly wasnât ignorant of them. The dark side of life wasnât where Jesus chose to focus his mind on, rather he chose instead to keep refocussing himself on God and what God wanted to achieve in this world. This was more entertaining, more enjoyable, more valued and more important to Jesus than the other stuff. Jesus did that through communicating with God through prayer often in the midst of all his dealings with others. It wasnât to ignore the other stuff, but give him the right filter in which to view all of humanity and his interactions with humans. I think Jesus on earth also needed to be reminded by God (or at least showed us the example of how to do it) to love, respect, want the very best and empower other humans to realise Godâs dream of where everyone loved God and others as much or more than the importance they placed on their own interests. God wants us to be filled over flowingly with the desire to care for and want whatâs best for all, especially the vulnerable, forgotten, not nice, not quite right and unsafe people. God doesnât want us to separate respect and wellbeing from sex, to not take cheap shots at the different but embrace and celebrate them, to not target those already feeling bad and discriminated again but lift them up and esteem them. But I think God would be having a lot of chuckles along the way, because thereâs a lot about humans that are just plain funny. My partner laughs a lot at me in bed⊠and thatâs fine by me and I think God too. So if youâre trying to work out how like Jesus you are right now, think about how much you think of others wellbeing versus your own. If itâs mostly about your boredom, comfort, pleasure, insecurity or even own righteousness⊠then as someone that claims to be a Christian (or Christ-imitator), start finding out more about others⊠especially those not cared about (especially by nice Christian people)⊠and do more about that. Be like God - love and laugh well.
As a teenager, I have sexual desires and thoughts during the day, yes this is part of puberty but this leads me to doing things like watching pornography, thinking in perverse/lustful ways about girls/women I see. I make promises after watching porn never to do it again, but I eventually do it again. Will these lustful thoughts and desires be with me forever, I know that Jesus saves but it seems like I cant escape from this way of thinking. What is your advice as to how i can overcome this.
Every now and then there are movies that come out that everyone tells me I must see. It seems like everywhere I turn everyone is talking about it, and I get genuinely caught up in the excitement, and want to see it too. However I donât always get around to seeing these movies through life being busy and other more urgent tasks get dealt with, and after a few months the movie is no longer talked about or even showing and my urges and enthusiasm are no longer strong for that particular movie. Like so many of my desires, wanting to see certain movies come in waves, which often lose their power with time.Thanks, by the way, for raising this topic. Itâs not always easy to get the courage to admit and ask about oneâs own sexual stuff. With anything regarding our sexuality I think it is important to define what is healthy sexual wellbeing first, as too often the Christian notion of this is being asexual or sexually ignorant until marriage, and then being expected to know everything about it because itâs something too private to talk to anyone else about. I believe Christians, their communities and churches should be a lot more open about sexuality and their own personal experiences and all the complexities involved. A big part of this is the uncertainty of how sexuality and spirituality are linked. How is God present during every sexual act? How spiritual is orgasm? How proud is God of erections? This is significant because it often makes sex into a bigger guilt and taboo issue in the lives of Christians than those that donât identify as Christians - leading to Christians thinking more about it incorrectly. Trying to ban an upcoming movie in the past often just results in raising more awareness and interest in that movie. Also in talking about movies in my introduction, the more attention and thinking one does about something, the stronger we nurture the desires to act on them. Everyone is individual in their sexual responses and desires, and then sometimes external influences can even impact that. In general, however feeling and thinking sexually is something that will be with you all your life. That is not a curse, it is a gift from God, built from the very beginning into all living beings. The good news is that Godâs intention for all aspects of humanity has always been to see Godâs image in each other, to not just see body parts in isolation or want sexual satisfaction out of the context of loving relationships, but to care for each otherâs short-term as well as long-term empowerment and fulfilment. When you have a clear and strong vision of what Godly sex is like, and dream about and thirst for that, then youâre less likely to use cheats or short-cuts to get what you want. Having that vision will also allow you to be confident in yourself, your body, and your friendships to make confident relationship and sexual choices that put all aspects of sexuality in the proper context.But the good news is that you donât have to be there yet. Itâs easy in religious circles to think whenever you âfailâ God is disappointed and wants to disown you. Donât think whenever you 'failâ that God loves you less. God doesnât see you as a failure and beyond hope, but is always cheering you onto being all you were created to be. You are still a work in progress and that is how God is proud for you to be right now. God is less focused on how sexually (and your other behaviours in life) pure you are versus where your heart is. God continually looks forward to our minds being more transformed to have the same priorities as God - focussing on others rather than our own desires, to wanting the best for others. But as a more practical start: what are your relationships like with people of both sexes? how deep are your friendships with both sexes? how much do you know about their own insecurities and fears about themselves, their bodies and what they want out of relationships? what can you do to improve your relationships with them? Itâs important not to just view people of the sex you are interested in from a distance, but to get to know them as friends first⊠even if your first 'instinctâ if to see them as people to possess and own. A Godly view of any friendships is really wanting to know the other for them⊠not you first. If youâre part of a youth group, ask your youth leaders how to develop friendships, if you have some leadership role, encourage more mixing in real ways - such as serving together the local community. Look for the divine in the other to value but also their humanness. Donât approach others with your list of ideal characteristics, but keep praying for your God to show you them as God sees them.The more we see people as God sees them, the more we want whatâs best for them, and the less we are likely to see any of them as just sex objects. God wants you to help realise Godâs dream for all⊠and the more you are captured by that dream, the more priority you will put on thinking and acting on those desires, and the less other desires out of line with that has life and power over you. And then all aspects of your life, including your sexuality, will be aligned and want to be realised in ways that honours God⊠and no matter what other distracting or alternative ideas emerge and come at you, you will just see them as another fad or wave of desire that will just pass with time. Talk to others as well about this. Ask them and donât settle for easy simple answers. Itâs not about just praying the lust away. Itâs about acting for a better life for all.
Did Jesus death save me from something? What did it save me from, and how?
About a month ago it was a dark and stormy night. I was riding home on my motorbike and discovered my back tyre was flat. The first petrol station I pulled into frustratingly had their air pump vandalised and so couldnât help me. The second petrol station also had one of their air pumps vandalised but fortunately had another one, which although didnât work initially, with the help of two attendants, was able to pump up my tyre. However I then discovered I had a pretty significant puncture which wouldnât allow my tyre to hold any air in. I was about 30km away from home. I struggled to think of who I could get to help until I allowed myself to be saved again by the same father and son team that rescued me two years ago from a similar predicament. My life was then able to continue as I had hoped.Â
I am in constant need of saving practically - in that I would be severely disadvantaged, lost or just totally incapable of living life as I expect to. The reality of life today is that we rely a lot on others. Thereâs a youtube video about how a lot of the plot crises in many classic Hollywood films would be non-events if the characters had mobile phones. People and technology have saved me from a lot of practical crises in my life continuously. But just because there are solutions doesnât always mean I choose them. But more importantly, so much of my life would be different with the absence of or lack of investment by other people. With key people, I wouldnât have had the key opportunities that define my life today, or the right inspiration to aim for the goals that I have achieved or still hope for. My life would be so fundamentally different, to the point that I wouldnât be the same person I am today without those people. I for one need to be saved from life without connection, inspiration and love. Again, just because their presence and influence are available, doesnât always mean that I choose them. Because the greatest stage of maturity isnât independence or dependence, but interdependence⊠and sometimes Iâm still not mature enough to allow myself to be saved.But in some ways, I am less interested in what I am saved from, but what Iâm saved to⊠that is what is my life going to be about, rather than looking at ways to maintain the status quo or continue to live an expected life. My lifeâs trajectory continually gets adjusted. Because frankly, the majority of humanity often doesnât look like it is headed anywhere that would be ideal for all of existence. Humanity, including myself, donât always make the most effective and beneficial choices for the whole of existence. We are more on track to destroying this planet and each other than we are to creating utopia for all. We have such incredible technology and resources right now to feed everyone on the planet daily and give everyone access to basic health care and education but we donât. Rather than look out for each other, we are more intent on separating people into haveâs and have-notâs (so we can be the ones that have), finding distinctions to define those like us vs those unlike, or otherwise focusing on the minute differences in order to avoid acknowledging all humans as being part of the same race. We could choose to put priority on all humans receiving basic care so that humanity not only survives, but thrives in the universe. However we believe it is more important for our society to elevate a few as celebrities and ensure they get the lionâs share of resources⊠so that large numbers of children instead get deprived. We forget how putting all our resources there, means there is less to put in the other area - or at least think itâs someone elseâs responsibility. Like Ancient Egyptians and other older civilisations and empires, we forget our lives of luxury are lived continuously on the backs of slaves we donât even consider as fellow humans.  Jesusâ life, which frankly was as important or even more important than his death, was to highlight to all humanity not what we are saved from (that is humanityâs inherent flaws and insecurities) but what we are saved to - a new reality that truly achieves uniting all of humanity and put us back in the centre of caring for all lifeforms and other environments so that Godâs original dream for all of creation (that is much bigger than some little garden on a ball of dirt) can be fully realised. And God doesn't just inspire us, but through Jesus we are empowered to live this dream out.  God and Jesus, like so much of the technology we have access to, at the end of the day is available to us to improve our lives and possibly save all of creation. We are continually presented the choices to choose to try to advance our small individual life or choose something bigger. We arenât always going to choose the best choices⊠but at least we have the option. St Xavier said something along the lines of âgive up your small ambitionsâŠâ in order to join with him to save the world.Â
Can you honestly say that you are continually living a life that doesnât hurt others and actually improves all of creation? I know I cannot. And thatâs why I need to be continually saved to a bigger vision and empowered by others outside my life to work towards that. Jesus is at the core of how that works in my life. But hey, you might miss some parties and really cool stuff happening in society if you choose that⊠so you just might want to stay with the crowd on that. How could millions of humans be wrong, eh?
What are your thoughts about humans being created through nature and nurture both of which are of and have been determined by God? Does this mean that the self and all subsequent actions are predetermined? In other words God created everything and knew exactly how it would interact in the future so is there such thing as free will?
Iâm currently a big fan of chocolate brownies. I donât think I was when I was a kid â possibly because I just didnât have access to them or the people that had them on offer. Nature might determine I like sweet things with chocolate making up a large part of sweet things humans like. But nurture has conditioned me to temper eating lots of sweet things because of the negative impact on my health as well as the cost involved in buying a high priced non-essential snack that could instead provide main meals for a few starving children. But nurture has also taught me that if someone is offering me a chocolate brownie freely or that I wanted to be hospitable to others that there are other considerations involved in my choices. If we look enough at all the variables involved we might be able to predict how nurture and nature also plays a part in which specific types of chocolate brownies I like or dislike at a particular moment of my life. However although they may influence my choices, I donât think nature or nurture by itself will always predetermine at what time I will eat a specific chocolate brownie or the overall quantity I will consume for the rest of my life.Sure, I believe most humans will act predictably most times. Whole economies and industries are based on predictable human behaviours. I believe in predispositions and preferences. I do however believe that God gave humans free will. Even though we often are predictable, God created us with the possibility of something beyond the programmed scripts of nurture or nature. God was too much of an artist to just create us to be mindless robots or puppets that follow set patterns, but rather set in motion events and lives that could bring surprise and delight.  There are many with too simplistic a view of a control-obsessed God that micromanages everyone and everything to have everything work like an intricate domino chain reaction or Rube Goldberg machine. I donât believe that God has set up a tightrope course for each of our lives, that anyone who deviates automatically threatens the destruction of the whole fabric of existence. I donât think God has to take over a few or many human consciousnesses or engineer a few counter âacts of godâ just to nudge everything back to an intricately balanced structure and plan when people act outside âGodâs planâ. I think God is actually counting on a few of us breaking out of that mould and looking forward to what happens when we do. In fact God continually invites humanity to join in the fun, rather than already has a limited seating arrangements that can be deviated from. Somewhere is the original recipe for the first chocolate brownie, and although there are many that follow a recipe strictly, there are many that use a recipe as a starting point of a plan of approach, and so we have a multitude of chocolate brownie recipes and variations of chocolate brownies across the world over time⊠which I dearly thank God for. So when the Bible speaks of Godâs grand plan for creation, with the ultimate fulfilment described as a wedding feast attended by all tribes and nations - the plan is more like a starting recipe rather than something that has to be tightly controlled and managed from the start. God is so unlimited in resources and love that no restrictions apply to God. God invites all in Creation to contribute to the variations of achieving the greatest chocolate brownie feast⊠ahem, I mean, the greatest non-stop party ever⊠where all finally gets to enjoy all that life has to offer to everyone and everyone gets their fair share too. Looking forward to seeing you there (despite of or inline with your nature or nurture tendencies)⊠if you choose to.
