Posted on 12/10/2003 12:56:09 PM PST by NorCoGOP
PRINCETON, N.J. -- In the debate over gay marriage, Christians tend to be dismissed by their opponents as fools who live by an ancient book, and they use that only selectively. (Last week's Nicholas Kristof column in The New York Times is an example.) So what if God condemns homosexuality, they say, the Bible also says to stone people for working on the Sabbath and that eating shellfish is wrong! They then congratulate themselves for turning Christians' own book against them, expecting Christians' jaws to drop in awe. "Gee, that never occurred to me!" they would exclaim in this fantasy. "Maybe this God fellow isn't so reasonable after all!"
Arguments like these reduce Christians to caricatures -- Bible-thumping, finger-wagging rednecks too brainwashed to see the obvious "flaws" in their religion, too ignorant to know as much about their own beliefs as even their opponents do. To ridicule Christians, proponents of gay marriage have resorted to a tactic that shows no regard to historical context or how and why the majority of Christians live out their faith.
The tactic is as common as it is cheap. Christians make a statement -- "God forbids premarital sex," "We are required to honor our parents," "The Bible prohibits homosexuality" -- that many feel is outdated and irrelevant. To discredit such beliefs (and perhaps also the entire religion and all its followers), they respond by mocking obscure Jewish civil laws from the Old Testament, and claiming they invalidate all Christian moral teaching.
(These champions of tolerance should note that orthodox Jews do try to obey the commandments literally, all 613 of them, including strict observance of the Sabbath and dietary laws that these freethinkers may find silly and arcane. Although there is no longer a theocracy that imposes civil penalties, this minority keeps the commandments central in their lives. So much for being politically correct.)
Why compare laws regarding a broad area of life such as sexual behavior to trifling civil laws? Why not compare one rule about sexual behavior -- homosexuality -- to others, such as premarital sex, bestiality, rape, and incest (all prohibited by the Bible)?
But that is not the main issue. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't that Christians don't know such "ridiculous" laws exist, and therefore can take the Bible seriously. In order to be made righteous by the law, Christians believe, we would have to obey all the commands perfectly. Since we are unable to do so, making the law ineffective for gaining salvation, Jesus died in our place and his righteousness is accepted by God instead of ours. While the law's requirements do apply to us, it is only by taking on Christ's righteousness through his death that we are able to fulfill the law. Thus, the laws of the Old Testament (before Christ) are not directly applicable to us as Christians. (However, the New Testament, whose moral teaching is directly applicable to Christians, does talk about sexual morality; see Romans 1.) While the law is no longer the means for salvation, it remains a guide for what God's will is.
Certainly, some who profess to be Christians are also known to appropriate Bible verses and use them out of context for their own agendas. But however widespread it may be, this behavior is not a reflection of God, the Bible or Christianity, but rather that of the individuals. There will always be people who hide behind faith, profession, circumstance, love, insanity -- whatever means necessary -- to justify actions and lives that are far from admirable. Besides, "Some Christians misuse the Bible too" is hardly an excuse for others make superficial, inaccurate readings.
Not only is it shortsighted to think all who oppose you do so because they lack intelligence, sense or plain sanity, you won't win people over to your side through condescension. You won't convert those who are pro-death penalty by saying, "Guess what, you're ending a life prematurely," just as pro-lifers won't do much by saying, "Look, a fetus is a potential human being." All you gain through making a contemptuous, obvious argument is a minority of sheep and the hearty backing of those who already agree with you. You haven't neared understanding; you've added fury to the debate.
Christians know there are easy-to-ridicule Old Testament laws that they do not follow, and they have their reasons for not following them. Gleefully pointing it out is not only trivial and fruitless, it also makes you look ignorant -- of your opponents' point of view, of the historical context of the Bible, of the entire basis of Christianity, which is the birth and death of Jesus Christ.
The important issues of our day should be debated with less condescension, more research. Less mockery, more arguments. If you're going to criticize (and be scornful while you're at it), at least take the time to be accurate.
Premarital sex and incest can occur between two consenting adults. Bestiality can occur between a consenting adult and property - an animal.
So why again can't they be compared ?
Thus proving the author's point. The Bible does contain valid prohibitions which we still accept. Does our prohibition of incest unconstitutionally entangle the Church with the State? Does it force religion down someone's throat? NO? Then we can discuss the prohibition of homosexuality without bringing up that stupid nonsense - which was what she was trying to say.
Shalom.
Why just two? Can't three, four, five, six ad libitum consent? Why don't we institutionalize Roman orgies?
What really scares me are all these right-wing kooks who take the Second Amendment literally. What's the point in walking around with a gun? Or these guys who think that "free exercise" of religion means they've got a right to wish me "Merry Christmas," or expose children---children!---to prayers and Nativity scenes. Or these hate groups that think the literal language of the First Amendment allows them to utter hate speech or display offensive symbols. Scary, scary, scary! BRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!
If you don't take the bible literally, then how can you be a Christian? In other words, if the bible is not true, why claim to follow Christ? Why not follow Plato, Socrates, or Mohammed? HOw about Budda, or Hari-Krishna. They are all equally legitimate, if none of them can be taken literally.
I am spooked by Christians who don't believe the bible.
Asian Christian Bump!!!!
Why?
Have you read Romans or the other Pauline epistles? You wouldn't ask such an ignorant question if you had.
And #2, granted that the above is the case, Jesus made it clear it was nearly impossible for a wealthy man to get into heaven. Surely this disease afflicts more Christians in the US than homosexuality, and yet I never hear US Christians admonishing rich men that camels will be crawling through a needle's eye before they enter the Kingdom. Why is that?
More "b'li ya'al" [Hebrew for "worthless," transcribed in the Bible as "Belial"] ignorance. If you and your fellow liberals put the quote from Jesus in context, instead of cherry picking verses you think fit your agenda, you'd realize that Jesus was speaking about the choice between materialism and spirituality---serving Mammon instead of God. When the disciples misunderstood his comment (as you do) as meaning that the rich were condemned to Hell simply by virtue of being rich---Jesus replied quite aptly (and no doubt with an indulgent sigh): "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Do I need to explain that last part to you, "Satan"? [no, I'm not being abusive---"satan" means "adversary" in Hebrew])
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.