Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Note to Chick-Fil-A Bigots: If You’re Going to Quote God, at Least Get Him Right
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.” – Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-Fil-A
Pauline Hylton writes on CBN that she ate at Chick-Fil-A on Chick-Fil-A appreciation day “because I want to stand for something. Not against someone.”
Even though by supporting Chick-Fil-A she is standing against someone: she is standing against the rights of people to get married like she can, to the partner of their choice.
She tells us,
You see, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Not a Word from God, but the Word of God. And as far as my menopausal brain can tell, God’s Word says one man, one woman. Not two men and two women. And frankly, as a Christian, I’ve struggled with that.
Maybe her “menopausal brain” does tell her that, but I would very much appreciate it if she pointed out the relevant passage to me, because my Mark I Human Eyeballs can’t find it. God is very precise about a great many things in the Old Testament including men not shaving, but he is troublingly vague about marriage.
Nowhere does he come out and say in those clear, precise tones adopted by today’s religious bigots, “biblical marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Nowhere.
Let’s do a quick run-down…we have man + woman where bride proves her virginity or is stoned to death (Genesis 2:24); we have man + woman + concubines (Judges 19:1-30); we have man + woman + woman (the most common form of biblical marriage – polygyny); we have rapist + victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29); we have son-less widow + closest male relative (Gen. 38:6-10); we have male soldier + prisoner of war (Numbers 31:1-18, Dueteronomy 21:11-14; we even have male slave + female slave (Exodus 21:4) and man + woman + woman’s female slave (Gen. 16:1-6, Jacob Gen. 30:4-5) because of course, slavery is also permitted in the Bible – it is not condemned and forbidden, as some southern bigot wishful-thinkers have reminded us.
So admittedly, we don’t have examples of male + male or female + female marriage in the Bible, but we also don’t have any place that says that Biblical marriage is man + woman. Obviously, there are a great many variations. In a strict sense, all these examples above are of biblical marriage and fundamentalist Christians should be fighting for all of them, not only your basic man + woman marriage.
Consider this request:
“Really? You’re going to tell me Abraham, Gideon, Nahor, Jacob, Eliphaz, Caleb, Manassah, Belshazzar and even Solomon could have concubines in their marriages and I can’t? But it’s only biblical baby. And throw in a female slave too.”
I mean, WTF? The thing is, that request is entirely, 100%, wholly biblically supported while this,
“Marriage is only between one man and one woman”
Is not.
Can you dig it?
So my question to Ms. Hylton would be this: in what precise way are you standing for something?” Can you actually stand for a Bible passage that exists only in your imagination? Or is your imagination the inerrant word of God as well?
Hylton comforts herself with this thought, which elevates her, she thinks, to some sublime position above the fray:
“I’m standing for Someone, too. Not against a people group.”
Apparently by saying you’re “standing for God” you can say “I am not standing against gay people” but that’s just words. She is standing against gay people.
The more so since she is putting words in God’s mouth in the process.
I know for a fact that word games can get you far in fundamentalist life. Look at Pat Robertson telling us just last month on 700 Club that we should forget the Bible’s support of slavery: ”We have moved in our conception of the value of human beings until we realized slavery was terribly wrong.”
Well gosh, if we can just pick and choose which of God’s words to obey, why can’t we just admit that all religion-based bigotry, including homophobia, is wrong, and put this phase of the culture war behind us?
We hear a lot of non-biblical crap like “love the sinner, hate the sin” but of course that’s nothing God ever said either even though we’re told those are words right out of Jesus’ mouth. Not only is it not biblical, it is anti-biblical – heretical even. But they say it. I’ve heard it myself from a fundamentalist Assembly of God-going relative.
But even Jesus said to focus on your own sins, not the sins of others (See Matt. 7:5 and Luke 6:42) – and if you’re paying any attention at all you know that what Jesus said is not very important to America’s current crop of fundamentalists – mostly because Jesus said – and did – some very inconvenient things. Nowhere, for example, do you see evidence that Jesus hated any sin. He never said so. He just talked about love. Love even your enemies.
As Reverend Patrick S. Cheng wrote in the Huffington Post a couple of years ago, “Jesus never made repentance a precondition of loving sinners. Rather, he loved sinners unconditionally, even to the point of risking his own physical safety in defending them from the self-righteous. (See, e.g., John 8:11).”
You begin to wonder how many fundamentalists actually read the book they say is the word of God or if they just heard about it (I think the latter is most likely). Look at some of the crazy things people believe are in the Bible but are not, like,
“God helps those who help themselves.”
“Spare the rod, spoil the child.”
We hear these all the time. They’re not in the Bible.
God helps those who help themselves is actually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, and like loving the sinner but hating the sin, goes against biblical teachings. The whole self-reliance thing is very popular and chic among conservative Christian Republicans these days but the Old Testament teaches that when you harvest your crops you leave some “for the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:9-10). Can you imagine a Republican urging farmers to do this?
No, I can’t either. They won’t even help put out the flames when your house catches on fire. Can you imagine Jesus standing by and watching a house burn?
Sidnie White Crawford, a religious studies scholar at the University of Nebraska says, “We often infect the Bible with our own values and morals, not asking what the Bible’s values and morals really are.”
I don’t know what Ms. Crawford would say about the marriage equality debate but I think that is what is happening here, with the fight over Chick-Fil-A’s embrace of religion-based bigotry. These people hate the idea of same-sex marriage so they’re taking the opportunity to seize on the Bible as proof of not their hate, but their love. People who oppose Chick-Fil-A are the bigots; people defending anti-gay bigotry aren’t bigots because they’re not against anybody. They’re just obeying God.
Which is fine, I suppose, if God actually ever said any such thing. But he didn’t, just like he didn’t say a great many things they would insist he did. And many of the things they say God says they take out of context or misinterpret even if they do get the actual words right.
Why? Because they don’t actually read the Bible.
They are told what it says. Preachers tell them, friends tell them, they hear it here and there. They memorize sound-bites but they don’t memorize the actual Bible. You can’t memorize something you haven’t actually read and bits and pieces of verses don’t provide the needed context.
Jennifer Wright Knust wrote something very insightful in the Washington Post last year:
“Since the Bible never offers anything like a straightforward set of teachings about marriage, desire, or God’s perspective on the human body, the only way to pretend that it does is to refuse to read it.”
It seems to me fundamentalist Christians have taken that principle to heart and simply refused to read the Bible they insist we all obey. As Ms. Knust put it, “not a single biblical book endorses marriage between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation.”
This leaves Ms. Hylton’s excuse, “I’m sorry, but this is what God wants” on very unstable ground, because she can’t prove that this is what God wants.
And that’s just the simple liberal-friendly fact. Ms. Hylton can convince herself that she is standing for God but she is not. She is standing for herself and using God as a crutch, and a rather weak crutch at that, in support of her own bigoted beliefs; that, or she is simply misguided and lazy and hasn’t actually bothered to read the Bible she is telling us we must all obey. I find it difficult to forgive either position.
Image from ABCNews
Related Posts :
I'm beginning to think it's time for an entirely new definition of patriotism. Then again, maybe it's jus ...
O for a day to go buy in which we don't have fundamentalist Christianity's ideas about "God" shoved down our ...
Republicans, even Republicans who try to sound moderate in appraising the causes for the Republican defeat i ...
Michele Bachmann might want to lay off the Hurricane talk; you'd think she'd have learned her lesson after s ...
Warren Throckmorton Ya gotta give it to him: extremist fantasist David Barton has no quit in him - unfortu ...
81 Responses to Note to Chick-Fil-A Bigots: If You’re Going to Quote God, at Least Get Him Right
Public Service Advertisements
Janice
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:44 am
Do you think Chick-fil-A is the only one?
The List: food companies that mix business with conservative agendas
gigabiting.com/the-list-f...
Lindert
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 9:06 am
The author of this article pretends to know the Bible better than conservatives, but does not actually demonstrate any familiarity with the Bible himself.
Many errors here, for example:
He claims “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” is not the Bible, but in reality it is a close paraphrase of Proverbs 13:24: “He that spares his rod, hates his son”
More importantly, the main premise of the article, that marriage is not defined in the Bible is nonsense. Jesus said:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”” – Matthew 19:4-6
Here Jesus points out God purposely made people ‘male and female’ and that these two shall become one flesh, i.e. be united in marriage. Clearly this definition only fits heterosexual, monogamous marriage.
Also, the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:4:
“The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Such a mutual submission is only possible in a monogamous relationship, and this point is affirmed by the rule that leaders in the church should be a ” husband of one wife” or a “man of one woman”. (Titus 1:6 etc.)
The fact that polygamy and concubinage was tolerated in the Old Testament (though never approved of or encouraged by God), does not prove that it is right, just like in Old Testament times, divorce was allowed by divine law. Jesus explained that this was only because of the ‘hardness of their hearts’, and it is actually a great sin. Likewise, slavery was permitted, but regulated in a humane fashion. For example, it was expressly forbidden to return a runaway slave to his master.
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:49 am
I would say that Hrafnkell knows Jesus a lot better than the dominionists do. A LOT better.
Regarding those two passages… you’re putting a lot of authority on OT texts and doing like always… ignoring Jesus. Jesus didn’t write the OT, although he knew it well (he WAS a Jewish Rabbi after all). In the second passage you quoted, didn’t you see the beginning of the sentence “Have you not read” – he was quoting text to rebuke them for their selfishness and lack of care for the Other (in this case women). BTW… if He was quoting the OT, only one tiny part of that quote is actually IN the OT… the rest is not. If Jesus was a Rabbi (and most authorities accept that, including dominionists), he would be quite familiar with the scriptures. If he DID say it, his purpose was not to define marriage but to rebuke those who made a commitment and then wanted an “easy out”.
Look at the things he focused on. I will say that the two texts you’ve quoted have been turned into sources of living hell for people. Maybe you haven’t talked with (or tried to help) someone whose childhood consisted of beatings for even the slightest infraction, but I have. Many times. (Some have physical scars, but all have severe mental/emotional scars.) You haven’t listened to the pain of people rejected because of something they have little control over – they DID try to keep it hidden but it was ferreted out.
You haven’t seen the agony in their eyes as they describe the violence and persecution at the hands of “Good Christians”.
I have. Not only in LGBT eyes, but in women trapped in abusive relationships (rather common in dominionist households).
The abuse is what Jesus opposed. Did He not say “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone”?
I believe quite firmly that Jesus sees the very things I have, and is as much opposed to the “Good Christians” as He opposed the Pharisees who put rules before people. “Good Christians” and the judgmental Pharisees* ARE one of a kind, after all.
*- Contrary to “Good Christian” teaching – and even mainstream Christianity, there appears to have been a lot of kind Pharisees in Jesus’ time whose attentions were inward and not coercive on the outside.
Danny
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:02 am
huh? Lindert largely quoted from the NEW testament, not the old.
Lindert
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:52 am
@A Walkaway
First, I have no idea what a dominionist is.
Second, The fact that Jesus rebuked the people by quoting scripture and expanding on it, does not negate the fact that in doing so, he provided a definition of marriage, and that is the definition Christians use.
Third, if you were familiar with textual criticism, you might know that the story of the woman caught in adultery (about throwing the first stone) is not found in the oldest manuscripts, and is most likely not authentic.
Fourth, much of your post is just based on emotion and personal experience, which is highly subjective. The reason that Christians oppose homosexuality is because it is destructive, not only to society, but most of all to the people engaged in it, both physically (STD’s etc.) and spiritually.
Considering that the Bible is clear that homosexuals will “not inherit the kingdom of God”, but that there is hope for change (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), the most loving thing towards homosexuals is to warn them and call them to repentance.
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:56 am
Now you’re quoting Paul and lifting him up to be equal to Jesus in authority – when he didn’t even KNOW Jesus (and contradicted him on several issues).
If you want to argue, use Jesus own words, and that’s it. Otherwise, if you believe that Jesus is God, you’re lifting other people up equal to God.
Lindert
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Paul did know Jesus, by special revelation. Christianity has always accepted his writings as divinely inspired. But don’t take my word for it. Peter, the chief of Jesus’ hand-picked apostles, calls Paul’s letters scripture:
“our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Did we distort the scriptures, or DID YOU?
Do you know ancient Greek and Hebrew? Do you know the culture, the proverbs, the beliefs, the, as I put it, the “Given’s of the culture” (those things that are taken as true)???
I doubt it, because you wouldn’t be arguing the way you are.
You obviously don’t have a clue as the the problems and difficulties in translation (and please don’t start that old bullshit about the “Holy Spirit” guiding people – it’s common to hear conflicting understandings of the Bible, based on highly erroneous English translations and claiming special revelation). If Paul had a “Special Revelation”, he wouldn’t have contradicted Jesus.
You claim to be a Christian, but you have just committed idolatry by elevating Paul to be equal to God.
Give it up. You “Good Christians” (and your murders and arson and poisonings and slander and libel and interfering in people’s lives and jobs and forced conversions and harassment) are the bane of existence. You drive people from Christ and make God into worse than a demon. I should know… not only have jerks like you tried and tried and tried to do that to us (over the last 34 years – including the entire nearly 29 years of our marriage), but we also have had to try (and succeeded in a few cases) to undo the damage people just like you have done to others.
You claim to be Christian, but you don’t draw people to Christ – you drive them away. Think about that.
Lindert
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
@A Walkaway
First, I did not accuse anyone of distorting the scriptures, Peter did. If you feel you are among those people he is referring to, your issue is not with me, but with the apostle Peter. If you are implying that I distort the scriptures, then please give a specific example. By the way, I know a little bit of Greek, and am now learning Hebrew, currently I am able translate most passages with the aid of a lexicon. Nevertheless, there are excellent translations available by top scholars, so one does not need to be a language expert to read the Bible. It is however recommended to consult multiple translations if in doubt.
Second, you’re again claiming that Paul contradicted Jesus. I challenge you to give an example.
Third, you are claiming that recognizing Paul as divinely inspired consitutes idolatry. However, Jesus in John 10:34-35 quoted Psalm 82 (which was written by Asaph), then states that ‘the Scripture cannot be broken’. Did Jesus commit idolatry here by elevating Asaph’s word to be equal with God’s?
Finally, you come with a whole load of unfounded accusations of murder, arson, poisoning, slander, forced conversions etc., which are not worth responding to.
A Walkaway
Aug. 11th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Some of those things happened to us. It’s also well documented that it’s happened to other people… like Darla Kay Wynne and David Mullins (two I can think of off of the top of my head).
So they’re not only well founded, but documented (for those who were lucky enough to have the “Good Christians” slip up and leave evidence).
David29073
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:05 am
So, according to what you are saying in this “rod and child” argument is that if my grandson does what 5 year old’s usually do, (which is get into some sort of mischief, usually egged on by his 12 year old sister) I need to discipline him with an object by hitting him??? Can’t use my hand now, has to be a “rod” (whatever that is??)
My usual discipline is “time out”, where he sits on the stairs for a few minuets (pouting or playing with his shoe laces) and then is let loose to be 5 again. That’s wrong, according to the Bible now. I have to “hit” him with something, otherwise I hate him. Great logic there Lindert.
I suggest that if you are going to accuse Hraf of “pretending” to know the Bible, that you read more of his articles and write a lengthy piece on what he is “pretending” to know.
I have my differences with many of the writers here, including Hraf, but one thing I know without a doubt, Hraf knows the Bible better then most. I think it would be a lively debate, but you would have to back up your arguments with documents the same way Hraf does, and I think, for what I have just read, that you fall short of that because the only document you use is the Bible, and I bet it’s the King James Version. That’s a problem in itself, but I’ll let Hraf explain that to you.
Lindert
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:34 am
@ David29073
Concerning the ‘rod’ thing, the only thing I did was point out that Hraf got his facts wrong about it not being in the Bible. I am not interested in starting a debate about effective punishments, which is totally besides the point.
And about the KJV, that’s laughable. I strongly disagree with KJV-only advocates and in my post, (as you might have noticed), I even quoted the NASV. My first language is not English, so I usually do not even use an English version anyway.
David29073
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
To Sara and all the rest at PoliticUS USA, you really need to get rid of this garbage on the bottom of the screen. It’s total bullshit, and I choose only to use “off color” words when absolutely necessary, but if I am trying to correct a misspelling in this “comment”, the “Share this post” is what is active, and the Comment section won’t work!!!!! It was better if you just left it as a box at the bottom of the page without the “Share this post” and if you really must know, I would love for it to all go away!!!
Sinaku
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
The author knows the bible a lot better than most theists I have spoken to. However, what I do find interesting is that you use the new testament to disprove the old testament concept of marriage; but, it is the old testament that tells us homosexuality is wrong.
So again, like the author, I have to ask: how can you pick and choose? What made you the person who gives you that right? In essence, “who made you god?”
molly malone
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 9:07 am
Many thanks for another most excellent post.
David29073
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 9:14 am
My problem with all of your Bible articles is the research I have to do to all the links you provide. Pain in the tush because I end up reading all of these attached articles and spend a couple of hours here and there finding out all sorts of historical facts that basically blow what the Fundies say out of the water.
I am beginning to get the idea that the Bible is a set of documents that, depending on the version your are reading, says very different things!
I know there are no passages about one man and one women, but isn’t there a passage that says something about a man not lying with another man??
Don’t get me wrong, I totally support all of your writings. Having to delve into all of your back-up materials is an eye opener for me, and I am enjoying the historical journey, the twists and turns are fascinating. (Can’t wait to take on the Bible thumpers at the State Fair this year that want to tell me the world is 4000 years old…but I don’t think my wife wants me too, she just wants to enjoy the Fair and leave those “guys” alone. “Come on David, all your going to do is upset yourself and I want to see the photo exhibit without you grumbling!”)I just wonder if that (the man lying with a man thing) is what the Fundamental Christens are using as their excuse to go all crazy about our country delving in sin. Just asking!!!
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Yes, the Pentateuch condemns male-male relations but Josephus’ only example of homosexuality as an issue among Jews had to do with the possibility that Marc Antony might use a Jewish prince sexually. Lesbian sex, on the contrary, gets no condemnation in the Bible since no seed is wasted. So is woman-woman marriage then permissible and if so, why are fundamentalists condemning it?
And condemning male-male relations is not the same as saying marriage is only that of one man and one woman when obviously a very great many types of marriage were condoned in ancient Judaism. Fundamentalists condemn Romney and Mormonism for polygyny but polygyny IS biblical marriage as much as one man + one woman.
With so much else being condemned by the Pentateuch, why are we focusing on male-male relations? Why aren’t all fundamentalist men heavily bearded since shaving is as much a sin as lying with another man?
Danny
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:59 am
The Bible in 1 Timothy chapter 3, suggests that monogamy is more holy than polygamy.
Danny
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Although like most stuff in the Bible, not everyone agrees on the interpretation, but it’s not uncommon for Romans 1:26 to be interpreted as condemning lesbian sex.
David29073
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Had to look up “Pentateuch”. I have one of those “talking” dictionaries. First five books of Jewish and Christen Scriptures. Well, guess I have some MORE research!!
Thanks Hraf,(I sincerely mean that) the Biblical articles are really a history lesson, and history, real history is so much more interesting!
But…what else is condemned??? or is that another article or two??
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:08 am
Maybe it’ll take a book? (GD&R!)
Seriously, I’ve read the list, and it’s quite lengthy. Many of the laws were common-sense (especially for the day and region), but many were a bit harder to understand. From what I’ve read, many of those rules were to emphasize the difference between the Babylonians (the books were written during the Captivity), and by coming up with rules that were the opposite of Babylonian thought and practice, they would set themselves apart from them.
Churchlady
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:12 am
The more basic point, I think, about male-male sexual encounters is that the original language focused on abusive or self-indulgent ones. Particularly in the New Testament, the reference to homosexuality (a very contemporary term, BTW) drew on the Greek word for self indulgence rather than any reference there or in the Old Testament to committed relationships. In the classic story of Jesus preventing the stoning of the woman who had an adulterous relationship, it’s pretty clear that the “sin” is not sex but the breaking of a commitment. His prohibition against divorce is the same. The New Testament focus by Jesus on committed free will relationships (in Jesus’ few references to the issue) coupled with the total absence of his prohibitions against same sex issues opens a wide range of understanding. COMMITMENT is a powerful force in mature Christian relationships, never mind the parameters of who is making said commitment.
And yes, sigh, Paul undermines a great deal of Jesus’ teachings and move toward equality. He has proved ever so useful to right wing lovers of power and hierarchy, reinforcing slavery, female subordination, etc. But he never even knew Jesus and wrote from his own views as a Roman citizen protected by that status and unwilling to relinquish it. It gave him a highly skewed view of the world that, most contemporary theologians believe, distorted Christ’s teachings but found favor with the powerful determined to keep the status quo that upheld hierarchy and power. So those who quote the prohibition against same sex relationships in Corinthians are citing not Jesus but Paul, a man of little courage and less foresight with respect to the revolutionary vision of Jesus.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:16 am
Knust, an Assistant Professor of Religion at Boston University, makes the following points:
“Directed at men, the laws attributed to Moses assume that Israelites will marry as many wives as they can reasonably support. By contrast, when Jesus speaks about marriage, he largely warns against it, presenting family life as a distracting waste of time. The apostle Paul follows suit, teaching that celibacy is the best choice for Jesus’ followers. He recommends marriage only as a concession to those unable to keep their sexual impulses in check. Later New Testament writers do sanction marriage, but not for the sake of procreation and romantic love. Instead, marriage is portrayed as a venue for testing the fitness of male church leaders, who are told to love their wives and to be kind to their slaves. Wives, children and slaves, however, must obey the men in charge, no matter what, and this in a culture where the sexual access of masters to their slaves was simply presupposed. Biblical books never speak to marriage as currently practiced in the US and what they do say is totally contradictory.”
As I said, context is everything.
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:03 am
That is, if the attitude towards marriage wasn’t a later addition.
The general understanding of the (official) Jewish attitudes towards marriage of that time was that it was necessary and a good thing. I don’t think Jesus was hostile towards marriage at all, but I do firmly believe that He insisted on faithfulness and keeping commitments. Indeed, from what I’ve read, the attitudes towards sex and gender were such that the ideas put forward by the dominionists would make no sense to the people of the day and place. The ideas of breaking faith or commitments, on the other hand, would have been a central concern.
George
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:48 am
The answer to your question of where in the Bible marriage is defined is simply answered as Genesis 2:24 and requoted in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7. “For this reason (referring to the rib of the man used to make the woman) a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” It is also worth noting that Christians do not live by the Old Testament law (most of the book of Galatians deals with this along with multiple other NT references), which you referenced repeatedly as being ridiculous and not followed. Thought I’d point out the reason for that. It is easy to say something isn’t in the Bible by pointing out other passages that aren’t as well. However, it is worth noting that while “Spare the rod, spoil the child” isn’t in there, I would point out that “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.” is in Proverbs 22:15, “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.” is in Proverbs 23:13, “Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.” is in Proverbs 23:14, and “The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.” is in Proverbs 29:15. I’d call that a paraphrase. “God helps those who help themselves,” however, is definitely not there, however, so well done on that one.
Barry Roope
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:55 am
Jesus loves all people including gay people, so each person claiming faith in the Lord Jesus, needs to get over this “were against gays crap, because showing how much you oppose gays, does not please the Lord, go out and do something kind for someone needy, that is what God finds important. On Judgement day, what do you think the Lord will find more revealing, your harassment of gay people, or your love and kindness that you extended to those that needed help? I would rather explain to the Lord, that I was busy helping the homeless and the hungry, instead of I stood on the street with a sign, letting all the gay people know that they are doomed. Christians that follow Jesus’s teachings, need to let others know, Jesus stands for love, not to be a weapon used on people, that you may disagree with. Any preacher that spends most of their sermon, condeming gays is not truly delivering The Lord’s words, I feel his most important message was, love your neighbor, as you would love yourself. love the Lord with all your heart, and his grace will save you.
Darin
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:04 am
Love the article, was hoping for a source on the…
“we have man + woman + woman (the most common form of biblical marriage – polygyny)”. I have a monthly doorbell from the Baptists and/or Jehovah’s witnesses. I’d love to ask them their opinion on these verses. =)
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Darin, for biblical polygyny see for example Josephus, who in commenting on Herod the Great’s ten wives says “marrying many was permitted by Jewish custom and the king enjoyed having many” AND “It is an ancestral custom of ours to have several wives at the same time” (BJ 1.477; AJ 17.14) and the Mishnah does not condemn it but talks about the practical problems of managing multiple wives (the claims of the first wife come before those of the second, etc).
We even have the testimony of a widow named Babatha whose documents have been found in the desert, who married her second husband, Judah, who already had a wife named Miriam (this was on July 9, 131 CE).
For passages see Genesis 4:19; 2 Samuel 12:8; 1 Kings 11:3 for starters. See also Isaiah 4:1.
Polygyny might have been rare since multiple wives is expensive but God nowhere condemned the practice and Deuteronomy 21:15 even recognizes it.
Jewish literature even had a name for a multiple wife: “associate wife” (see Adiel Schremer, “How Much Jewish Polygyny in Roman Palestine?” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 53 (1997-2001), 181-223).
Darin
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Thank you for the great reply.
William Blackwood
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:07 am
Although love the sinner hate the sin isn’t in the God Book, Jude 23
Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives. (NLT)
Thats pretty true to the concept…
Great Post…
William Blackwood
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:08 am
I Meant”GooD BooK, But God works too !!
Geimle Burzeen
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 11:38 am
One can hardly disagree with the thinking here. Pointing out religious hypocrisy is rarely a bad thing. But one might wonder at the tone, which partakes in its own way in a self-rigteousness more like what it condemns than in that of the book whose morality it seems to applaud–at least in the truly Christian idea of loving ones enemines and not condemning sinners. Does the tone advance the debate or piss off one’s enemies? And if the latter, what would be the effect other than the further entrenchment of those enemies, who are wonderful at using things like this to prove they are being persecuted? Also as far as the “Spare the rod…” quotation, while it’s not word for word in the Bible, the sentiment certainly is: “Proverbs 13:24, we find:
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
There really isn’t a debate. What we have are trolls coming in and trying to preach at us. That’s offensive and not acceptable. (Look at Lindert… his reactions are typical).
What I find unusual are the children of the “Spare the rod, spoil the child” set. I’ve noted two reactions.
Either they’re so repressed that as adults, they have big problems expressing themselves or even in some cases accepting praise – and they usually hate their parents, sometimes for the rest of their lives. (That is, if they can’t or don’t get help to deal with the injuries to their psyche.)
Or they are the most obnoxious brats imaginable and act out their rage at the injustice forced on them. Those often grow up to be just like their parents.
You might be interested in knowing that many cultures not infected with “Good Christian” “Christianity” do not punish their children in any severe or physical way. The children do not grow up spoiled or repressed… and they almost always take their places (that they choose) in society as adults. They weren’t “spoiled” or bad at all.
In fact, I’d say that crime is less known among those cultures than they are the “Good Christians”.
Danny
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Could you list one or two examples of these cultures please, Walkaway?
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
The !Kung (I think I have that spelled right) are supposed to be one of them.
There are several others, but I’d have to have the time to go read articles that don’t have any bearing on the stuff I’m doing today to find the others.
Danny
Aug. 7th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Well according to this report: orvillejenkins.com/profil... the !Kung people used corporal punishment. I respect that you lack time, but unless you can provide hard facts, I tend to think you are mistaken about any non-western cultures existing who had firm and lasting policies against physical punishment of children.
A Walkaway
Aug. 7th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Well, I don’t believe your source and you know what? I’m not going to waste my time on a troll.
Don’t bother replying, and don’t “speak” to me again.
Danny
Aug. 8th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Translation: “I’ll believe whatever I like, irrespective of the facts.”
A Walkaway
Aug. 11th, 2012 at 10:18 am
No, it means that so I made a mistake… got the wrong name.
I didn’t look it up and I’m not going to waste my time on a damned “Good Christian” troll. The group I was thinking of… I thought they were the !Kung. Of course, the “Good Christians” are very active in Africa and they probably introduced beating up children to correct them.
I know of another group where physical discipline used to be very rare (especially before “Good Christians” came along and started committing ethnocide), but to protect their privacy that’s all I’m going to say.
BTW… I suggest you look up the law. When I tell you to not respond, that is a legal warning. It means shut up and stop trolling (harassing me) or the site owners (or myself) could have you arrested for internet stalking – at the least harassment is legal grounds for being banned.
labman57
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
I always have to heave a sigh and roll my eyes whenever self-proclaimed Christians indignantly declare that gay marriage defies “the word of God”. This argument is both cowardly and disingenuous — using biased interpretations of cherry-picked biblical passages to justify their brand of social intolerance and religious self-righteousness.
Debra
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
What both sides seem to forget as they throw bible verses around is “GRACE”. As Christians, we are no longer bound by the laws of Moses “old testament” by we are saved by the Blood of Christ and are covered under GRACE (New Testament)…. Using Old Testament scripture isn’t applicable in most cases i.e.: food restrictions. I’m just tired of all of it. Politics in a church will divide a Church, Religion in politics will divide a nation…. It’s happening. If anyone wants to use the bible to make a point, make sure you know it’s relative to the group you’re addressing.
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
I relate. I’m tired of people harassing and attacking me and mine, trying to convert or drive us away.
I’m tired of being forced to hear some jackass preacher ranting against something or other when I go into a public store (on their store PA system).
I’m tired of being insulted and belittled because of my education… or because it’s in a subject that the “Good Christians” don’t value. I’m tired of hearing young college students (women) being called whores and sluts by preachers, for instance because they wore shorts – to class, in the summer, in Florida. I’m especially tired of their hateful ranting whenever a young Muslim woman comes along, or hearing things like “If you talk to your pet, you’re going to hell!!!” (There is a huge long laundry list of things that the preachers insist are taking us to hell – even if we didn’t do the things they claim.)
I’m tired of encountering people who think that their religion is primary and all should at least obey the dictates of said religion (fundamentalist Christianity), if not convert.
I’m tired of the pain and suffering that those “Good Christians” have caused my wife and I. I’m tired of weeping over poisoned kitties, or having to struggle because some “Good Christian” (evidence strongly supports they are responsible) torched my workshop. I’m tired of living in fear that someday they’ll try something worse – and from the growth of “Good Christian” rhetoric, that day may be approaching.
I’m the most tired of having to fight for freedom. I’d like to feel like I could take a break and get away from politics and religion for a while.
I wonder. Whatever happened to “Live and let live”???
Anthony
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Genesis 2:22
“Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”
The Lord made him a women to live with, not another man.
Proverbs 18:22
“He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.”
Mark 10:6-9
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Clear as day! I don’t understand why people say that it’s not in the Bible, Because it is.
jeff_000
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
I find it amazing how people who claim to believe in God and claim to be religious are so hypicrital…
I have been sober a long time and have gone to AA meetings off and on for several years… It is supposed to be a spiritual program, but a lot of people make it about God and religion… I am not religious, and not a God person so a lot of people get irritated with me over some of the things I say and do…
In the AA Big Book there is a chapter that talks about acceptance and gets referred to all the time… There is a passage that states:
“Acceptance is the answer to ALL of my problems today. When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing or situation- some fact of my life- unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing, or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment. Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God’s world by mistake. Until I could accept my alcoholism, I could not stay sober; unless I accept my life completely on life’s terms, I cannot be happy. I need to concentrate not so much on what needs to be changed in the world as on what needs to be changed in me and in my attitudes.”
Being the A-hole that I like to be at times, I use this passage against the overly religious people who alway think I need preached at…
I tell them to read that passage and then remember that I am exactly the way God wants me to be or I would be different… I figure it is the same with the LBGT people and that is what I tell the religious hypocrites all the time…
They hate it when you use their supposed beliefs against them and they have nothing to use back in the arguement…
So, basically, all you even have to tell someone who is preaching at you about how you are wrong in the eyes of the Lord, just remind then that if God is really in charge as they say, then you are exactly how he wants you to be or you would be different…
Keep smiling and have a great day all :)
LANMind
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Further suggested reading would be the first chapter of Romans. It’s context is quite on point for this discussion.
Hrafnkell, you make a logical error when you equate standing with CFA and standing against those who are homosexual. The two have a clear, semantical difference. You may receive those words as net sum of zero, but they are totally separate in the mind of the believer. Do yourself and your readers justice by trying to understand the workings of the Christian mind. You do not have to agree with it to understand it. Don’t feel bad for getting this wrong; the vast majority of people refuse to recognize their responsibility to correctly receive the idea behind the communication.
Also, I see in the comments where someone claims that to use Paul’s words is to elevate him to Jesus’ level. It’s easy to see how someone could make that conclusion. It comes from a misunderstanding of who the author is. Regardless of who is holding the pen, God is the author.
Just so we’re clear, I’m a conservative Christian, but I don’t give two figs who marries who. If someone isn’t a believer then it isn’t appropriate to try to deal with the sin in their lives as if they were.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Sorry to say you missed the boat, LANMind – I grew up a Lutheran (LCA) and spent the first 22 years of my life in your religion (my mother was on the church council). I am a thorough understanding of the Christian mind, having been one and having married an Assembly of God member.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on the point in contention. My concern is not how believers perceive the world, given that by definition that view is skewed by faith in the absurd (Kierkegaard). I am talking instead about the real world, history, and context.
LANMind
Aug. 7th, 2012 at 10:26 am
You can “choose to disagree” and have it settled in your mind, but by doing so you blithely dismiss my points. The base premise of your article is that “it isn’t in there” and “they don’t actually read the Bible” but these are factually wrong statements. You equate that in choosing to stand on an issue, one actually stands against it’s opposite. I acknowledge that you you probably see it as a net of zero, but you are wrong because the two have a semantic difference. The difference is painfully obvious when you look at those people who protest at funerals as opposed to the way CFA stated what it did.
You say that you do understand the Christian mind, because of your early experiences. That only gives you a limited insight into a very small segment of people who call themselves Christian. “Christian” is a term that gets thrown around a lot and it often doesn’t describe the person in question or their beliefs.
You are talking about the real world, history, and context. Great! Stay in the conversation then. You may do so by not making blatant factual errors.
Mark Bousquet
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
The Bible is not the Word of God, Jesus is. God had only one begotten son who was perfect and inerrant and he wasn’t a book.
Check out this site I found:
www.all4god.net/word_of_g...
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
I see this thread has drawn a lot of preacher-wannabes.
I wish they could see themselves as others see them – as I see them! They might sing a different tune. They all turn people off to Jesus and cause the discord and dislike that they decry. It’s sad that they cannot see this.
Their own actions lead to people rejecting Christ and being hostile to Christianity, and you cannot blame those people in the least.
Their “preaching” is the cause of the reaction they don’t like.
Christianity and faith are supposed to be inward things… instead of trying to change others, change yourself! (I’m speaking to the ersatz preacher-wannabes.) If others are supposed to change, that’s their business (and if you believe in God, God’s business). So butt out and stop trying to turn us into poor imitations of yourself. (I might add that you have no right to “correct” us, even if we’re wrong. What did Jesus say about taking the log out of your eye before you even begin to try to take the speck out of ours?)
I remember when I fell into the Assemblies of God cult. I was living in an apartment and “on fire”… a real hazard to anyone near me. I remember a couple telling me “We’ve heard all about Jesus and we’re tired of having Jesus talked about all the time. You Christians need to show that it’s REAL!” I didn’t understand then, but after I walked away from those types of churches, I realized what they met and it’s good advice (and in line with the essence of Christianity).
Of course, there is this point – they’re exposing the falsehood of their belief system by their actions, for all to see. That in itself provides a warning to not trust “Good Christians” and could help to prevent their “Taking over the world for Jesus”.
Lindert
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
“Christianity and faith are supposed to be inward things… instead of trying to change others, change yourself!”
Whatever happened to “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”?
“They all turn people off to Jesus and cause the discord and dislike that they decry.”
That is is the effect of the message that Jesus preached:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.” – Matthew 10:34-35
If correcting people is wrong, why did John the Baptist rebuke Herod for his adultery (which eventually cost him his head)?
And why did Jesus do the same thing: “[the world] hates me, because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil” – John 7:7
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Thanks for proving my point.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Except: www.politicususa.com/grea...
Lindert
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
@Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Ok, you’re right, I should have cited Matthew instead of Mark, but the gist of it is the same:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Matthew 28:19-20
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
My point is that Jesus never told anyone to teach among the Gentiles – it goes against everything he preached in the gospels, referring to the Gentiles as “dogs” and “swine”. The Great Commission was added to the first gospel written long after the other gospels had been penned and likely to bring it in line with the new teaching.
1voice1vote
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
I forget chapter and verse, Lindert, please, refresh my memory. It is written in the scriptures, where exactly, the part when Jesus picks up the first stone and encourages the angry mob to kill the prostitute/gay/Muslim/non-white/different dressing/liberal/socialist/lazy/poor man…?
“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” – Jesus
To walk your talk, Lindert, you must listen to the message.
Danny
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
1voice1vote, where did Lindert claim that Jesus encourages an angry mob to kill the prostitute/gay/Muslim/non-white/different dressing/liberal/socialist/lazy/poor man…?
Lindert
Aug. 7th, 2012 at 3:54 am
@Hrafnkell Haraldsson
The Great Commission was added to the first gospel written long after the other gospels had been penned
And the historical and textual evidence of this is? (hint: there is none)
@1voice1vote
Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus pick up a stone or encourages people to kill anyone. Jesus’ statement “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” comes from Luke 23:24, where people had just nailed Jesus to a cross.
Lindert
Aug. 7th, 2012 at 4:01 am
Clarification: I understand ‘the first gospel’ to mean Matthew. I agree that the ending of Mark is likely not original. That the great commission is authentic in Matthew and Luke is quite sufficient, however.
Alan
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
You know this gets to be really sick the bible says god says this is true this is not. You can’t do that do as I say! Who are any of you to pass judgement? Look into your own lives and don’t pass judgement on others that is what your god will do to you! None of you have a right to play god none of you! If you believe in your god so much than he will take care of what they did this is NOT up to you.
Shalie
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
@ Walkaway. I’m wondering why you keep referring to the people who may have torched your workshop or did other violent acts to you as “Good Christians”. I don’t think any actual Good Christians would say that violence is something one should do. Nor would they condone the act of torching someone’s workshop.
I also have never been to a business that has quoted scriptures over the PA system. I don’t think that most businesses do that, unless you were in a Christian book store or something.
As far as what the bible says: There are passages that do say that marriage should be between a man and a woman especially those that quote Jesus. There are also passages that do allow polygamy etc.
You also try to indicate that what are called “good Christians” beat their children half to death. I don’t know of any actual good christian that would advocate that one should beat their child. As far as the scripture of Proverbs etc., the rod here is a metaphorical rod. The rod here is discipline, guidance. Those scriptures are saying, don’t let your child run around without any authority. You should discipline your child when they do things contrary to what is good for them. Most children who go without discipline run around having tantrums when they don’t get what they want, taking from others, and being very maladjusted to society because they have no guidance on how to behave. They need discipline and guidance and they need to be taught ethics and morals, otherwise they don’t care.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
The trick is who are you looking at. There are fundies who call themselves the best of xtians who have no problem with not sparing the rid. But I think we know good xtians dont really do bad things, but people calling themselves good xtians do. Some southern baptists are the most horrid bigots you can find, but they call themselves good xtians. All the while “real” good xtians would never think that way
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
The Klan are a perfect example of what you’re talking about.
I’ve heard a saying to the effect that a Southern Baptist preacher could be pulling on the rope (or leading a lynching) on Saturday night and preaching Jesus on Sunday morning. The implication was that many of the “Good Christians” were the same… and those are exactly what I mean by “Good Christian”.
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
“Good Christians”: people who claim to be Christian and think they’re “Good Christians” but hurt others in Jesus name and are usually world-class hypocrites. That includes all fundamentalists and dominionists. They’re harsh, judgmental, quick to “correct” others, and often don’t have a clue as to the harm they do others (sometimes they DO, and have a vicious delight in the suffering of innocents). You’ll sometimes find them trolling blogs like this, trying to beat people over the head with the “Gospel” – and their “Gospel” is NOT good news. They think they have to force the world to be like them and scream “discrimination” if people resist. They literally are the enemies of freedom.
There are other types, of course. The pew sitters who support the preachers but don’t actively hurt others (pretty common in mainstream churches). Those might actually try to help someone every now and then, but usually they’re not willing to stand up to Bible-based bullying if and when they encounter it (they do tend to reject more fundamentalist thinking). There are also people who are good at heart, but they don’t listen to what their preacher is actually saying and are in some sort of haze. They’re the light version of the “Good Christians” and they sometimes do damage too… usually because they never stopped to question the things they were ‘encouraged’ to do. These often are the people who beat their children because they’d been taught it was needed for them to grow up as decent human beings. In other words, easily manipulated and controlled.
The real Christians, who value what Jesus taught and not what the churches teach (they put people before ideology). They’re rare and like Mother Teresa is said to have said “Witness always. Speak only when absolutely necessary.” They earn respect from others by their kindness and acceptance and sometimes wisdom. They despise injustice and exploitation, and usually are champions of the poor. They’d rather be found helping someone than preach or sermonize.
In this area, “Good Christians” dominate.
As far as the things that happened to us… they happened. I’m only reporting it. I believe some of the people here have seen some of the evidence that those things really happened, and I’m no longer willing to take it with a smile from the “Good Christians”. I find what was done to us invaluable in trying to stop the goals of the dominionists… if they did it to me, they’ll do it to anyone. BTW… I am nowhere near alone in these experiences, and some people have had it far worse. Some didn’t survive. Others… well, their stories are horrific.
Ask the other people here. With the exception of the “Good Christian” trolls, most of the people have witnessed at least part of what I’m talking about. They have their horror stories too.
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
BTW… some of the “Good Christian” leaders teach people how to beat their children but in such a way as to not leave evidence. Their advice is considered by child advocates to be support for child abuse and the fact that they try to hide the evidence shows that they know they’re wrong. I can think of one example right now that I’ve heard about – the “Pearls”. Not nice folks.
Believe it or not, a child doesn’t have to be punished to grow up to be a decent human being – or I should say that their are effective ways to discipline children (not as in punishing them) and help them to take the best path.
Carrie
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Shalie. Idk where you live but I’m in the south and they have biblical lessons at the dr office in the gym at the coffee shop
Plus christian leaders write books on corporal punishment if children. CBS did an exposé of kids who died because of it and they were big time preachers not fringe types.
I have friends who were fired for not being a Christian.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
And Heathens have to be careful because over-zealous Christian social workers can take away our children because they think our religion is “weird” and harmful (apparently teaching kids to worship a zombie makes more sense…)
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I’ve heard that from several different individuals. What has been said locally is that Wiccans are especially targeted in this area (and a friend has mentioned a couple of other areas in the country where they seem to seek out Wiccans to steal their children).
The things they do to try to gain custody are about as un-Christian (the inverse of what Christians are supposed to be like) as can be imagined.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
I agree, Walkway. The firings for being found out you’re Pagan and even losing the roof over your head for the same reason pales in comparison to such legalized kidnappings.
A Walkaway
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
I agree. While being the victim of arson is bad enough, and having members of my family (our kitties) poisoned is also really heinous (and horrible and soul-tearing), stealing the children like that… usually combined with destroying the person’s life… that’s worse.
I’ve known three people who went through it, and I hate to say it, but I may know of a fourth going through it right now.
Frieda Landau
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Whatever happened to Jesus’ admonition to pray in your closet?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Frieda, I’ve noticed our fundamentalist Christians have an almost pathological aversion to anything Jesus said or did. The admonition against public prayer is just one of the many things to which they answer “I’m not hearing this!”
jeff_000
Aug. 6th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Ok, forget whatever denomination is whatever… The FACTS are if you are a true believer you should know the difference between right and wrong… It is wrong to make fun of people… It is wrong to point out peoples short comings… It is wrong to make fun of people just because they are different than you… IT IS WRONG TO ACT THE WAY WE ARE ACTING!!!!!
So, if you really are a true beliver in something that you claim to base your life on, then when it comes to organized religion regardless of the demonination, they all speak of RIGHT and WRONG!!!AND I have been to most of them and they all talk about doing the RIGHT THING not the WRONG THING!!!
Shalie
Aug. 7th, 2012 at 1:58 am
Well, I’m not sure where you guys are living or what churches you are living near, but again, I have never seen such a thing or come across that attitude from the Christians that I have met.
I think it is important to separate the “Christian” cults, like what the Pearls Greater Joy ministries seems to have become, or Fred Phelps hate filled church, or Ku Klux Klan, from the actual Christians. Your posts seem to indicate that all Christians and all “Good” Christians behave this way or secretly believe this way. This is simply not true.
I have gone to several Christian churches, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutherin, Morman, messianic Jewish, Catholic, non-denominational etc mostly in the mid-west, but also some in Virginia and California. And none of them behaved in the manner that you are talking about. Although one church I went to (I don’t remember the denomination) seemed a little prejudiced against the Native Americans that they had recently went on a mission to preach to. I could tell because when they were talking about their missionary trip they talked about them patronizingly. But none of the things they said they did constituted any type of violence towards them.
As far as The Pearls, most Christians are apalled by what the Pearls think is good child raising.
Here’s something from an article written on
www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va...
“I have been open about being a witch for over twenty years and the only instance I faced of intolerance was having old Italian women cross themselves when they saw me coming out of The Occult Shop in Toronto, Canada. I have had employers know about my faith and was even able to take personal time off for sabbats. But until now I had also always lived in large cities on the east coast.
So when I moved here to Texas, I was surprised by the horror stories I heard and the general atmosphere of fear that is prevalent among many pagans here in the south. Pagan parents were afraid of having their children taken away. “Don’t drive in this county with a pagan bumper sticker.” “If they find out I’m Pagan, I’ll get fired.” These were things I heard frequently. And the fear was contagious. I found myself wondering if I could loose my children simply because I am a public witch. I found myself starting to go back into the broom closet. When I realized what I was doing, I decided it was better to become even more public, time to learn the facts and become involved. What I found out surprised and reassured me.
In most cases involving government agencies, if a pagan has lost custody of children, there were other major factors involved. It may have been emotional abuse, neglect caused by alcoholism or drugs or very poor living conditions. Usually, there has had to have been a history of some kind consisting of at least one other complaint. It is very unlikely for a state agency to remove children from a home on the first visit.”
A Walkaway
Aug. 7th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Well, you must live in an area that I’d consider nearly heaven on earth. However, I hear similar stories all over the country. Look into what happened to Darla Kay Wynne. Read about the poisoning of David Mullins’ dog (Colorado Springs area – he was a professor at the Air Force Academy and because he resisted the “Good Christians”, someone poisoned his dog). Another incident I can bring to mind “right off the top of my head”… the Jewish family up north somewhere who were run out of town because they resisted proselytizing attempts in the schools. I could tell a lot more stories myself, but I’m not going to. I’ll just say that the churches and the “Good Christians” stole 25 years of my life and made life hell on earth for us.
You might also do some other reading if you think “Good Christians” are rare or not the norm. Go to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and read some of the reports they have from cadets (and others) who see the “Good Christians” forcing their religion on others and taking over the US military. Go to Talk2Action and read some of the reports there… it’s a huge problem. Go to Leah Burton’s blog (I’ve posted a few things there). Ask the people on this blog… shoot… read what Hrafnkell has written again. It’s all over the country and common. There are other sources that I’m not familiar with.
I’ll be blunt. I suspect that you’re part of the problem too… you may not realize it and that’s why I’ve replied.
“Christianity” (quotes deliberate as always) has brought far more misery to this planet than done good. Another area I won’t even begin to get into is the deliberate ethnocide of minority cultures and the history of the church and how it treated my people. Let’s just say that “Christians” need to do a lot of repenting and self-examination.
tim shawver
Aug. 7th, 2012 at 11:59 am
okay, just where in the bible did god actually WRITE something. i’m not talking about divine inspiration,intervention, or the words of prophets, or even jesus, for that matter. you could take ALL of it as heresay. the only THING i can find in the whole book that god ACTUALLY wrote was the ten commandments which he handed down to moses. he carved them into stone, WROTE them into stone for us to live by. (and how many of you do)he’s a jealous god, so he says, but that’s not my god. if you wish to follow that reasoning, more power to you, but don’t shove it my face, and don’t try and subjugate me with YOUR beliefs. (oh and i see nothing WRITTEN on those tablets about marriage.)
Todd
Aug. 8th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I don’t post this to bash, but if you’re going to say the Bible doesn’t say much about homosexuality, then you should be aware of these verses:
Leviticus 20:13 (paraphrase: homosexual acts are an abomination to God) www.biblegateway.com/vers...
Genesis 2:24 (which says nothing about proving virginity or stoning, as the author states above, but instead says that man is to be married to a woman) www.biblegateway.com/vers...
1 Corinthians 11:11 (a man is nothing without his wife, and vice-versa) www.biblegateway.com/vers...
D. Lowrey
Aug. 8th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Don’t see anything from Jesus in there…so your point is what?
D. Lowrey
Aug. 8th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
I have a simple question I’ve never heard a fundamentalist answer…if present day marriage were actually ordained by God…why does the state require a license to get married? They keep saying America is going to be judged…but if God actually wants people to get married…I should be able to do so without the state/government getting involved in my decision.
Ron Henzel
Aug. 13th, 2012 at 9:13 am
Mark Bousquet wrote:
“The Bible is not the Word of God, Jesus is.”
Actually, the Bible calls itself “the word of God” in several places. I’ve summarized the historic Christian (and biblical) view of the inspiration of Scripture in a video I’ve uploaded to my readingscripture.org web site, and it’s also available on YouTube at www.youtube.com/watch?v=G....