Church was interesting today. When I got there, I had a discussion with a member of the church named John. We had a civil discussion on why I don't believe. I explained that I had began an inquiry into other points of view, because only hearing one point of view doesn't allow one to hear a dissenting opinion and see if they could be wrong. He was one of the very few Christians(I could count the number on one hand) that have agreed with that. The rest have said something to the tune of "that is dangerous" or that it is from Satan. Then again, I expected such an intelligent response from him. he is a brilliant man.
The sermon was given by Robert, my personal favorite of the people on the sermon rotation(possibly because he is a bit of a geek like me). It was over the point that we should respect our leaders, but not revere them to the point where their actions are what makes ones belief in god. He makes the point that they deserve respect for being a leader, and because they were appointed by god. I disagree, because a leader deserves no inherent respect just for being a leader. They deserve the respect that is given to any human being, and earn or lose it based upon their actions thereafter. And to say they were picked by god seems rather foolish. I don't think he would accept the priests who use their position as a tool to rape children was chosen by god. He does, however, make the valid point that being a leader puts you in a spotlight that practically begs you to be attacked. Finding fault with the guy who is visible is much easier. Just look in a tabloid to see how true that is. He makes the point that we shouldn't nitpick on the things we see as a problem with our leaders. I agree that we should not nitpick and gripe over every little thing we hold as a problem, but we also should not discard any potential serious issues on the fear of being 'nitpicky.' He then transitioned into the point that we should not revere our leaders to the point where we do not think for ourself. This is very true, and common of many people. Blindly accepting what your pastor says, or what Glenn Beck says, or Keith Olbermann, or Obama, or Richard Dawkins is a stupidly ignorant act. Inquire for yourselves, and do not blindly accept what you are told. He gave a brief history on how for over a thousand years no one other than the priests had access to the bible, so they couldn't examine it themselves. He made the point that many people feel they do not need to read the bible, because they have the preacher to explain it for them.
Class was largely uneventful. It was over chapter 3 of 1st Corinthians. The only interesting thing was a comment. John, the speaker, and the same one I talked to before class, made the comment that if people are too hardline in their beliefs, they can become incapable of changing their viewpoint. If new evidences are presented to them, they will either try to incorporate it in what they already believe, or throw it out. I immediately thought "Isn't that what fundamentalist Christians do in regard to evolution?" I did not say this, because I learned last time that such things are not tolerated. There were a few other comments, but I cant quite remember them exactly, and I don't want to paraphrase wrong and make anyone look unduly bad.