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premarital sex," "We are required to honor our parents," "The Bible prohibits homosexuality" -- that many feel is outdated and irrelevant.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.
Uhhh...you're right, you don't. Say "good-night," sunryse.
Nice little misdirection there. I'm trying to figure out why you hate gays so much you don't discourage a behavior that results in a deadly contagious disease.
I see ArGee was right.
You said: I will send you links to PHYSIOLOGICAL studies that show that homosexuality is genetic, not mental.
I won't play your game. You said you would send the links so do it. Support your position or stop supporting the homosexual agenda.
I'm interested because compared to most people in the world, nearly every single American would be considered "rich". I'll go out on a limb here and assume you you'd be included in that group. (You do have a computer and Internet access after all.)
Or rather define Christs idea of "rich". What? Cant do it? So how do you know when you've reached that magic point where you've become "rich" and can no longer get into heaven, EVEN through the blood of Christ. You're insisting that there is such a point aren't you?
Your arguments indicate to indicate that you have little to no understanding of Christian theology. Or perhaps you do, but are just being intentionally confrontational.
Are you suggesting that a Christian must have NO material possessions? No house, cloths, or shoes? No food? Don't you have to posses food before you can eat it? Unless you're naked, sleeping outside and starving to death there will always be someone with less than you and you'll then be "rich" compared to them.
Or do you think Jesus might have been making some other point?
The point is that if Jesus has given us what amounts to a rule, (rich men can't get into heaven) and provides no way to determine if we've violated that rule (the definition of "rich" is VERY subjective) the either we're misunderstanding his words and intent, or he's being very cruel indeed.
I say, there's another explanation other than the one you seem to be expressing.
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.