The reason conservative Christians invariably give for asserting that homosexuality is an egregious sin against God is that the Bible says it is.
"God said it; I believe it" is the conservative Christian's credo. And it's an understandable one. It's easy enough to deride Christian conservatives for taking the Bible too literally -- but believing words is, after all, what we all most readily do with them. Especially if we think those words come from God. Talk about your well placed source.
Oh, sure, it's Paul rather than Jesus who in the Bible says anything at all about homosexuality -- but we can put that aside (for now). The fact remains that the language in the Bible that condemns homosexuality (or at least the way that language is most typically translated into English -- but can we please stop quibbling?) is unequivocal. Its forceful clarity simply leaves no room for debate about its meaning.
And again: fair enough. Christians look to the Bible -- and particularly, of course, to the New Testament -- for direction from God on how they should live, and in what they should believe. They find it there; they try to make their lives worthy of it. It's not a dynamic anyone should too readily scoff at. Cliche or not, it is in large part what built this country.
But here's my question: If you're going to look to the Bible and words of Jesus for critical input on how to live your life, then don't you need to very assiduously attend to the actual words of Jesus? Especially when he's perfectly clear on a particular issue (which, let's face it, doesn't happen nearly as often as Christians are wont to pretend it does)? If you're trying to live your life in obedience to Christ, then you're all about anything Christ actually says, right?
Christ said it; you believe it. If you're a Christian, that's your deal. And if you're a conservative Christian, then you most certainly look to Jesus for guidance about anything in your life that's of particular importance to you.
Like, say, money. Talk about your core life issue, right? Who doesn't care about money?
Here is what God incarnate, Jesus the Christ, said about money:
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:33)
"You cannot serve God and Money." (Matthew 6:24)
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." (Matthew 6:19)
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)
If anywhere in the Bible Jesus is more clear about anything than he is about money, I'd like to learn of it. Talk about slamming shut the door on the wiggle room. And that's not the mortal Paul giving financial advice, either. That's Jesus. That's the very (as they say) God of Gods, being as clear as language allows him to be.
I don't see how it's possible to avoid the conclusion that there is something very definitely wrong with any Christian, who is not himself as poor as the proverbial church mouse, pointing to the Bible as grounds for his condemnation of gays and lesbians. How can any Christian take what Paul said about homosexuality literally, and at the same time ignore or seriously waffle on what Jesus Christ himself said about money?
******************************************************************
Follow John Shore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnshore
What about beastiality? Can Christians not be against that if they are not poor?
What about stealing? Can a Christian not be against that if he is not poor?
The post was not against having opinions, it was against hypocrisy and forcing your beliefs selectively on other people. Don't claim that your god says gay people are excessively naughty, so they should be denied basic human rights, unless you are willing to give up the same human rights when you violate your own god's rules.
Have you divorced? You should not be allowed to marry again, since the Bible says you are in the same category as gay people now. Have you committed adultery? The same applies. Have you lent money at interest? Jesus really disliked that, it should be legal to deny you a job or housing for violating your biblical admonitions. Have you worked to aquire a lot of money? Or bragged to anyone about a charitable act? Or prayed in public? You have violated your god's injunctions, and, following the logic of the fundamentalists I have spoken with, should be denied basic human rights.
Those are OK for non-perfect Christians to be against, but not homosexuality, in your opinion. Glad that's cleared up.
What struck me was that, by and large, evangelicals are middle class to lower class. It's the mainline and liberal protestants who are the truely wealthy ones. A sizeable percentage of liberal Christians make $70K + a year. It seems a little disingenuous then for liberal christians to warn evangelicals about the perils of wealth.
Evangelicals are an easy target in the sense that they are hypocrites about wealth. This article is correct in implying that evangelicals should show more support political and social causes to help the poor as this is in the spirt of Jesus's teachings. I can not however stomach the smug sense of self-righteousness coming from many of the liberal Christians and secular people here. They don't follow Jesus's teachings on wealth eiether. They're not about to sell all of their possessions and give them to the poor. They're not about to stop hoarding wealth in the form of their retirement savings or 401K's. They may support the poor through political causes, but how many of them would devote their time and effort to volunteer at a soup kitchen or at a homeless shelter?
To condemn a hypocrite and yet share in his hypocrisy is to be an even greater hypocrite.
To say that I, a non-believer, don't follow Christ's teachings, so I can't criticize Christians for not following Christ's teachings, is ridiculous.
I'm not the one claiming to be a Christian; I don't claim to be following rules laid down by the Christian god.
You claim to be a Christian, though. Why do YOU not follow all of Christ's teachings? That's a real question - most of you sound like Paulists, not Christians, since whenever Paul and Christ say conflicting things, you follow Paul and ignore Christ. Unless you don't like what Paul says, either - then you ignore both.
You guys should really find a different name for your religion, or start following the god you say you believe in. As things stand, you are guilty of profound and pervasive hypocrisy.
Anyone who has ever sinned has fialed to measure you the the standard Jesus set. The Bible tells us that " all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The truth is there are no good people. Everyone of us does evil things, everyone is a sinner. I do not pretend to be a good person. In fact I deserve to go to hell because of my sin and lack of sympathy to the poor.
But the entire point of Jesus coming to earth was to save sinners. He sufferered the same punishment on the cross that you and I deserve beacuse of our sin. He himself lived a perfect life, and was the only one ever to live a perfect life. God therefore put the sin of people like you and me and put in on Jesus's shoulders and killed him instead of us. We who believe in him on the other hand recieve the righteousness that Jesus earned by living a perfect life and recieve the gift of salvation and everlasting happiness in heaven with God.
So you're right. I am a hypocrite. I am not a good person. But Jesus christ has died for my sins and has made me righteous in the eyes of God. The truth is that no one truely and completely follows the teachings of Jesus or the law of God. This is why Jesus himself had to do it.
Liberal Christians with money GIVE it to all manner of causes and concerns for people less fortunate than they. A great number go out to work in soup kitchens, and I personally know several who are still working hands-on in New Orleans. Conversely, they are nowhere to be found in Anti-Tax riots and tea-parties, being more than willing to give a little more to the government if the government will give more to people who need it. They support single-payer health care and social service agencies--both of which are apparently the bane of the religious right--poor or otherwise.
Get a clue here. There are hypocrites everywhere; while you apparently disdain them in religious circles, you support them in government. How does that work, exactly?
What I keep asking these people is, "Where is the manuscript kept?". Where is this original bible, inspired by God? Why don't you show it to us?
The answer is, they lost it. Didn't bother to keep it around. Probably put it in a jumble sale to raise money for swords to slaughter apostates.
No two old copies of the bible agree with each other. And many of the stories in the New Testament, including what happened after Jesus's tomb was discovered empty, are not in the oldest of the copies - they were added later by monks, who thought the copies they inherited weren't good enough stories.
So biblical literalists don't have any way of knowing what was actually in the text they claim to believe is the literal truth.
This does not seem to bother them. Which is why the rest of us tend to listen to their arguments like we'd listen to a child describing what he dreamed about last night. Sure, there are monsters and bad men and rules and revelations - but no evidence that any of them have any foundation in the real world.
Where is your proof that the original texts were not heavily revised at some point between the first writing down and the earliest copies? It's widely known that the current texts that constitute the bible were just a selection of the available texts in the 6th century, selected by just one man as the "legitimate" texts to teach from. How does this fit in with biblical literalism?
There is no actual evidence supporting the veracity or completeness of any part of the Bible, if you claim that it represents the original writings.
Prophets used to do the same thing.
You and your brethren claim that your "moral" values are Christ-inspired, but you happily violate many of the moral rules actually laid down by Christ, because they would interfere with your own desires. Like getting divorced, or amassing wealth, or impressing other people with how much you give to charity.
When you do this, you sound like a self-serving hypocrite who uses God to validate your prejudices. You do not sound like a dedicated follower of Christ.
I still think Mr. Shore has put together an unreasonable standard for Christians in that Christians should be silent or quiet on one moral standard if they are not following another moral standard perfectly or with serious wafling.
According to Mr. Shore's standard, William Wilberforce was a hypocrite for speaking against slavery. Sir William Blackstone was a hypocrite for speaking about natural rights, such as life and liberty, and for writing "Commentaries on the Laws of England" which was one of the chief sources used by Thomas Jefferson and the members of the Constitutional Convention. And Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a hypocrite for speaking for civil rights.
First, the Bible is unambiguous when it comes to certain immoral conduct, such as homosexuality, adultery and so on. While Jesus was not recorded as speaking the word "homosexuality," his teaching on the foundational human relationship was clear as in Matthew 19: 4-6.
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." KJV
Second, I agree that Christians who call Jesus 'Lord' while they are fully content to continue living in complete defiance of His desires is hypocritical. However, it does not follow that if a person cannot follow a moral law, then another moral law should not be followed or that this other law becomes invalid. The basic teaching of Christianity (first known as "The Way") is that none of us are perfect, which is why we needed salvation through Jesus Christ. Would we say "stealing" is okay because we cannot perfectly follow the standard of not lying? Of course not.
Second, show me where Jesus said "Condemn others even if your own life is not perfect in any way"
Third, show me where in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION it says that we need to have laws according to what someone thinks they see in the Bible.
Second, immoral conduct is being spoken of here, not people. Jesus clearly accepted people who came to Him that were sinners was because they knew they were sinners and they acknowledged it openly, but He was critical of those who opposed truth.
Third, show me where in the United States Constitution it says that we need to ignore moral principles in society.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:
Acts 9:3,4,5
But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Luke 6:24
The problem that Jesus has with wealth is that wealthy people tend to put their faith in money rather than God which at that point money becomes a god. It goes against the first commandment which says:
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:2,3
I was around when the Southern Baptists were claiming that the Bible prohibited school racial integration. It was pathetic then, it's pathetic now.
In addition to his proclamations about what to do with material wealth, Jesus also had a few things to say about the religious hypocrites.
You are certainly right that the Bible has been used and abused as a weapon against people. But you have not shown that it can be used on both sides of the argument concerning homosexual conduct.
If you're simply deciding that you don't like gay sex, then the solution is to never have gay sex. If you are truly hateful and bigoted then you will try to make it ILLEGAL to have gay sex!!!
Further, you do not trust anyone outside of your collective bubble to speak the truth to this--you give no credibility to any anecdotal evidence supplied by intelligent and thoughtful gay people of organic predisposition, nor do you accept any science that suggests this is not a choice or a psychological or sociological aberration. In a way, it could be said you are faithless before the evidence God himself has laid out for you.
Jesus is explicit when he says "Judge not." He is also explicit when he says, "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you are a New Testament Christian (which is the only kind there is) you haven't got a leg to stand on here. Your war on gays is illegal, immoral and unsanctioned, across the board.
Second, I would agree that too many Christians completely disregard Christ's teachings on the attachment to money. But it's not just money - it's power, lust, gluttony - any number of vices that come between ourselves and our relationship with Christ to which Jesus was referring.
-Susan B. Anthony
Other than that, great post!
Your statement (and maybe I am misinterpreting it, I will confess), seems to imply that Jesus came and saw what was going on and said, "Wait a minute...I know what I can do...I'll change things up for these people".
The reality is that, if you believe the bible, the whole thing was laid out from the beginning. Jesus fulfilled what was designed and built up to in the Old Testament.
Jesus on hell: Luke 16: 23-25, Matthew 13: 41-42, Matthew 25: 41, Matthew 5: 29-30, Luke 12: 5
Jesus on the exclusiveness of heaven: Matthew 7: 13-14, John 14: 6
Jesus on the rapture: Matthew 24: 40-41
Jesus ont the apocalypse (his "second coming"): Matthew 24: 29-31, pretty much all of Matthew 24
Jesus on prosletyzing: Matthew 28: 19
I think the average "progressive Christian" would be surprised just how much the teachings of Jesus conflict with his worldview. Jesus talked about more than just helping the poor.
Two of the mentions of hell were in parables about helping the poor, though.
Another was about adultery. And just before the Lazarus parable about hell, Jesus said, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commiuts adultery." Jesus was not a fan of divorce, apparently.
I really appreciate that rapture cite. I had been led to believe it was all manufactured.
The apocalypse stuff is scary, I'll grant you.
Most Biblical scholars attribute the verses you cite on the rapture as actually the removal of unbelievers from the earth prior to the millenial reign of Christ where only believers remain. See the previous example in verse 39 where Noah and his family came through the flood but unbelievers were removed. A clear-cut rapture passage is 1 Th. 4:16
I have yet to see a Christian do that.
Do a little research and you will see that there are myriads of prison ministries out there. I went to a bible college and there was even a program to participate through that.
There is a reason that we lock people up...they break laws. Is there an underlying reason that they are doing those thing...of course. But we, as a society, are largely to blame for that. Our society has stripped away many of the things that were the glue to helping our communities grow in a healthy manner. To blame Christians is merely a cop out and a way to make you (used in a general manner, not pointed at you directly) feel better about your own failure to be a part of the solution.
Am I letting Christians off the hook...not at all. As a Christian, I see that we believers have allowed ourselves to be sucked in by the selfish tendencies that rule most people in this country...it is a sad reality.