|
Is Dilbert really mocking Jesus?
Editor’s note:In April’s Readers’
Forum, we included a letter from Leslie D. Saul under the title ‘Why
is it okay to mock Christians?’ The letter detailed a complaint which
the writer had sent to Victoria’s Times
Colonist. Recently, BCCN received a copy of a
reply to his complaint:
Iwish to respond to your suggestion that the Dilbert comic strip of March
8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 was intended to mock Christians.
You are not the only person to react strongly. The
comic strip’s creator, Scott Adams, has said:“I got a lot of
email about this strip. Comments were about evenly divided between people
who are deeply offended, and people who think it was my best work yet.
Interestingly, the people most amused often described themselves as
religious, and those offended often noted that they were not especially
religious.”
I read a different message than you did into the
comics. In them, the character named Jesus is mocked and faces disbelief,
in spite of the miracles he performs. Isaw in them a parallel to
Jesus’ own life, and was reminded of Matthew 13:57:
“And they were offended in him. But Jesus said
unto them:‘A prophet is not without honour, save in his own
country.’”
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Lucinda Chodan, Editor in chief, Times
Colonist
While Leslie D. Saul is correct that the media mocks
and belittles Jesus with impunity, Ibelieve the Saviour would not be
offended. He would pray:“Father forgive them, they know not
what they do.”
In John 15:20, Jesus warns us:“Remember the word
that I said to you:‘A servant is not greater than his master.’
If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”
As for the question, “Must Christians take
punitive action to get respect?” No.
Cherryl Katnich, Maple Ridge
Tithing is a blessing to the giver
Re ‘Christians not obligated to tithe’
(Readers’ Forum, April): It is true the New Testament does not
directly make reference to tithing; but neither does it say not to tithe.
The New Testament does not negate the teachings of the
Old Testament.
I’ve found 28 references to tithing throughout
the Old Testament – which, to me, means this is something God wants
us to do.
Money we put in the offering plate is intended for
God’s work. But paying those who conduct ministry is the same thing
as supporting his work. If we don’t pay clergy and other staff, how
will they live?
Yes, sometimes funds can be misused. But does that mean
we should deny our own blessing? Does it mean we should ignore what God has
asked of us?
Ibelieve that, once money is put into the offering
plate as God asks of us, it is no longer our concern. It is now God’s
concern. Those who steal or misuse it are accountable to him, we have done
what he wanted us to do.
I believe we should give God the first fruits of all we
do, as a sign of devotion. Does he need our money? Not at all. What he
wants are hearts willing to do as he commands.
The blessing of tithing is not for God, nor for the
person who may receive the money; it is a blessing for us, the givers of
the tithe.
In Malachi 3:10, God actually invites us to test him
and see. By not giving, you are only cheating yourself.
T. Moorthie, Surrey
ACC property claim questionable
In ‘Anglicans face off over scripture and
property’ (March), Peter Eliott’s claim that St. John’s
was “set up as part of the ACC”is incorrect. It began as a
parish of the Church of England, in the Dominion of Canada.
This raises an interesting question regarding the
secular legality of the Anglican Church of Canada. When the ACC took over
from the General Synod of the Church of England, was the ACC’s
identity affirmed as a continuation of the General Synod, or did the ACC
become a new organization?
If it was a new organization without written
affirmation of its identity with the General Synod, how could any
ACCdiocese possibly own the property of any churches established under the
General Synod?
Indeed, how can the Diocese of New Westminster call
itself Anglican, when it does not conform to traditional Anglican
doctrine?
Ralph D. Johnson, Lynden, WA
Continue article >>
|
Solving the mysteries of religion
After reading your article ‘TWU institute
reflects growing interest in religion’ (March), I was struck by the
fact that of the scholars mentioned at the conference, no psychologist was
included.
If there is a scholar of one discipline that should
have something meaningful to say, it is a psychologist – bearing in
mind the article begins by acknowledging that “we know very little
about the subject.”
What can be truthfully said is that religion has never
been adequately explained in scientific terms. Its purpose, its belief
systems, its rituals, its stories, have been exhaustively expressed; but as
yet, there is no clarity concerning the formation of religious ideas in the
mind, and what they really mean.
Of all discoveries made by the human mind, by far the
most important will be the unravelling of how the mind functions – and finally, why. The agency of psychology holds the
key and the promise that the riddle of religion will be solved; other
disciplines will provide affirmation of its findings.
Dennis Sutherland, by email
Some new Bibles ‘misquote’ God
Which Bible should I use? Now that I’m retired, I
am looking for a Bible which is both true to God and meaningful to me.
As I was reading a popular modern paraphrase, I noticed
Luke 2:33 describes Jesus as only a human being – very Gnostic.
Reading further, this version of Philippians 2:7 tells us Jesus Christ is
nothing – he is annihilated. Now, that’s a stretch! Totally
humanistic.
In Colossians 1:14, it says the blood of Jesus Christ
has no part in our redemption. That is very New Age. I noted more than 100
places where they play fast and loose with what God says. I’m not
happy when people misquote me. I wonder how God feels?
When translators make a mistake, it’s forgivable
and correctable. But God promised to punish deliberate changes and
perversions.
The more I research this matter, the more I am
convinced that the NIV, ESV and some new paraphrases are copied from the
same source as the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World version. Is
there anyone out there who could confirm or dispute that?
Feel free to contact me at: gg13@shaw.ca.
Gilbert Gerbrandt, Abbotsford
Two answers to extreme poverty
The early Christians were literal followers of Jesus,
who sold their possessions and gave to the poor before beginning their
life’s mission.
What a contrast to Christians in Canada, who live in
large homes with every conceivable comfort – and with only token
offerings to their church and its missions.
Many pastors have a similar lifestyle, and feel no need
to warn their congregations of the possibility they may be lost – in
spite of the Bible’s warning that few will eventually be saved. Even
those who have a list of good works will be rejected by a Lord who never
knew them (Matthew 7: 22-23).
Are today’s Christians expected to sell all they
have and give to the poor?Perhaps not; but they could at least rid their
homes of all signs of opulence, and give the money saved to church missions
– until the problem of feeding the 25,000 Africans who are dying
daily from starvation has been solved.
David Gale, Burnaby
As I watch the cost of fresh fruit and produce in
markets soar, I wonder how Christians can assist food banks, community
kitchens and ‘feeding the hungry’ campaigns.
What are we doing to assist these social ministries, as
the costs of serving the widow, the orphan and the poor continue to rise?
I believe that if each church planted two fruit trees
on its property, and home owners planted one tree in their yard, a great
harvest would be shared within our communities.
One tree can produce much fruit that can be donated to
local charities. A fruit tree can be planted at a minimal cost of about
$20.
Think of the harvest for the kingdom, which can come
from generous hearts – and rich soil, which God himself will
tend.
Garden supply stores are preparing for spring and
inventory will be arriving.
Go and spread the good news one tree at a time –
and by bushels and baskets!
Melaney Gleeson-Lyall, Surrey
May 2008
|
