Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, or so the saying goes. But if you are homeless, I suppose you can have a hay-day. And that's just what's happening to the "controversial" Miss California, Carrie Prejean. It seems she didn't keep her shades pulled down in her glass house, then dared to criticize Homosexual Marriage.
But here's a twist that I think is easily missed while watching this unfold. Pay attention to who's throwing the stones. Do they have a home somewhere that might have some glass in it; some shortcoming, some standard unmet? It may appear not, but where does that put them? As perfect? If one has no standard or virtue to contradict, perfection might very well be possible. The problem is, they do have a virtue: thou shalt not impose thine standards on others. This raises the question to her accusers: were the photographs immoral? Judging from all the hoopla over Prejean's professed Christian beliefs and so called nude photos, I'd say that they also evidently hold as a virtue: Thou shalt not be hypocritical. This deserves the same question, is her hypocrisy immoral? For those who reject morality altogether, these can be very difficult questions to answer, lest their own subterranean morals and standards surface. So a circular argument ensues as they point back to her failure to hold herself to her own standard. But we all know that they're not interested in her standard, at least as it applies to her posing nude. Rather, it's the standards she holds as it applies to homosexual marriage that caused these photos to surface. Otherwise, they couldn't care less how nude she posed, or what personal standard she violated in the process; in fact the further the fall from righteousness, and the more perverse the layout, the better.
This whole thing is reminiscent of the self righteous pharisees bringing before Jesus an adulterous woman, not because they were worried about her adultery, but because they sought to discredit Jesus. It would appear at first that his command "let he that is without sin cast the first stone" is aimed at hypocrites. But it isn't, because we are all technically hypocrites. Christians simply embrace that fact as they, hopefully, work toward becoming less so. It is aimed at self-righteousness, even if that self-righteousness is the result of meeting a standard akin to that of an ally cat. Because the motivation to throw stones does not come from a heart of neutrality, but from a heart of indignation of failure. Miss Prejean's ultimate failure was not hypocrisy or posing nude; it was simply that she did not meet their doctrinal standards on homosexuality. So she is dragged by her accusers before Christendom to be stoned; to which it's reply should be "let him who is without sin cast the first stone", followed by an admonition to Miss Prejean, go, and stop that immoral behavior.
Right vs Real - A longtime friend of mine has always drawn a distinction between "right" and "real". Ask a Christian a plainly-known question like "Are we saved by faith o...