What happens when you insult the Bible accurately?
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian family, deep in the heart of the Bible belt. I was an altar boy, the kind of kid who prayed while he walked home from school.
When I was nine or ten years old, I got out of being thrashed silly on the playground by lecturing another kid — the biggest kid I’d ever seen in my life — about Jesus Christ.
I’m not making this up. The bully later approached me when nobody else was looking and asked, in an awed voice, if I really believed all that stuff about God. I gave him an earful.
I have long been a close and diligent reader of the Bible. I rank it not only as one of the most profound books on my shelf, but also one of the most beautiful.
Which is why my ears perked up when Dan Savage, one of the most prominent gay rights activists in the country, sparked a furor by talking trash about the Good Book.
Speaking to a group of young people recently, Savage argued that it’s time to discount Biblical teachings about homosexuality, in the same way that we casually discount so much else that’s in Scripture. Here’s what he said:
“We can learn to ignore the bull%#$ in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bull#$* in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bull@#@ in the Bible about all sorts of things.”
Savage’s comments have been described as anti-Christian bigotry and as a form of hate speech.
On first listen, they slot neatly into the take-no-prisoners culture war that rages in America, fitting somewhere between the war on Christmas and the effort to ban gay marriage in North Carolina.
But as someone who reads and thinks and grapples with the Bible a lot, I think it’s important to point out that on the basic facts, Savage is absolutely correct.
The Bible contains a lot of profound wisdom, but it also articulates moral points of view about slavery, about women, about human sexuality, about science, and about mundane things like diet and daily ritual that most of us would find shocking today.
The problem, of course, is that so few Christians actually read the Bible. And when they do, they often digest it in tiny, out-of-context Bible verses, each carefully packaged with a modern, fuzzy-minded exegesis.
We used to be made of tougher stock. In 1843, the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard grappled at length with the story of Abraham’s decision to murder his own child at the behest of a God so jealous that He wanted proof of Abraham’s loyalty.
Kierkegaard confronted the creepiness and the moral nausea that the story conjures up today, titling his own book “Fear and Trembling.”
These days, the folks in the pews rarely wrestle with the deep quandaries, the ugly bits, the parts of the Bible that to modern eyes seem flatly unacceptable.
Take, by way of example, the idea of “traditional” marriage. The truth is that a healthy marriage, as we understand it today, is completely unlike the Biblical version.
The Old Testament casually accepts polygamy, absolute patriarchal dominance, the treatment of women within marriage as property, and the beating of children with “a rod.”
And consider the Bible’s treatment of rape, one of the crimes we now see as among the most brutal.
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver,” commands the book of Deuteronomy.
Then there’s this additional prescription. The rapist “must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
Yikes. The point here isn’t that the Bible is crummy or bad. It’s not. It’s just really complicated.
And Savage is correct in that gays and lesbians are in an almost unique position in our society, in that they are still being asked to live by strict Biblical teachings. Indeed, many conservative Christians want those teachings codified in secular law.
Savage made his point, well, savagely. One can question him, even condemn him, on style points. He’s been crudely provocative before and will be again.
But he is also asking a fair and even a vital question. If we insist that the gay community be judged by a Gospel that most of us never read, are we willing to do the same?
Will we submit ourselves to state and Federal laws that would punish us brutally for adultery or premarital sex? Should we accept a Constitutional ban on divorce, in the way that many Christians want a ban on same-sex marriage?
Would we — and in the context of religious teachings, this is no small thing — be willing to have the government intervene to restrict our sinful diets, or restructure our sinful sabbath-defying schedules?
Are we willing to see a clear and unambiguous primacy of men over women enshrined in secular law?
The bottom line is this: The Bible was written as a moral and spiritual guide, and some of its teachings are timeless and universal.
But it was also scripted as a worldly teaching, laying out laws and edicts that were highly specific to a time and a place and a culture that existed roughly two thousand years ago.
Yes, those laws include a firm condemnation of homosexuality. But they also condemn many of the habits, customs and lifestyles that we all take for granted.
Tags: culture war, politics, religion
“Paul: “JDM, you don’t mean that it should have some influence on them all in general do you?””
“Those who name the name Jesus as their God should allow the Bible to have influence on their decisions (that goes for men and women in every profession, by the way).”
So the short answer to my question above is NO. That makes sense.
And for these folks you mention that “name Jesus as their God”. You think they SHOULD but they do not have to, and of course, many of them (probably most) do not.
My guess is that vast majority don’t even think about the bible as they go about their day to day business. They probably have some moral upbringing from their religion (like I do) that influences their behavior but that is about it.
Paul: “Those who name the name Jesus as their God should allow the Bible to have influence on their decisions ”
So far as I know, President Obama has named Jesus as his God…. or is that position evolving, too?
I previously pointed out, President Obama quoted the book of Luke in making his tax position point.
I figured he would also use his knowledge of the Bible in rendering his position on this issue.
Some think Obama is Muslim. That would be inconsistent with his claims to date.
I guess Obama must have been reading JDM’s comments, so he set the record straight.
JDM, sorry, I thought you were talking about legislators in general. But it doesn’t matter. Even if it is just the president you are referring to like you said that he “should”. Just your opinion and even that doesn’t mean they must in your view, right? And like I said most legislators, the president included, try and keep their religion out of their politics.
The founders were right on the mark with that thinking. Unlike you they thought that legislators “should not” allow religion to dictate politics. Now don’t try the old “in god we trust” spin. There is a huge difference between that and thinking that ONE religion’s bible should help to dictate law.
Jim, I take exception to your characterization of the Bible as a “political anthology” and that its contents were shaped by a theology intended to serve the Emperor Constantine’s affairs of state.
Constantine did not have a theological agenda. It’s uncertain exactly what he believed apart from his desire for Christian unity which he didn’t get. The decisions at Nicea in 325 were contested for many years afterwards including by Constantius, one of Constantine’s successors.
It was messy. Emperors did not have a “command and control” ability that we might want to ascribe to them.
Nor did those who prevailed at Nicea influence which books would be considered part of the New Testament.
The present books of the Bible do not contain a key term necessary to the party that prevailed at Nicea, a fact that their opponents used in opposition.
I appreciate your contributions to this thread and to others on the In Box blog, and am sorry to have to take issue with you just now.
“I appreciate your contributions to this thread and to others on the In Box blog, and am sorry to have to take issue with you just now.”
Wow, that is incredibly gracious. It makes me feel bad for enjoying disagreements so much.
Knuck,
That 6:38 comment is silly. Stick to the topic.
Look, we live in a representative democracy, I expect my legislators (pres included) to listen to the constituents and the facts and make smart choices. Not to just get in there and worry about what he or she may have heard in religious school or at their church, mosque, synagogue (whatever).
In a free society we are allowed to go off topic.
I don’t think Savage has insulted the Bible. He has commented about people who do not follow every point of the law as described in the Bible. He says therefore homosexuality should be tolerated in the same way. Does he see the authors of Biblical documents pointed out the impossibility of obeying every jot and tittle? It doesn’t diminish the laws of the bible. The law is still in effect. Christ said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets not to abolish it. And if one wants to delve into why critters in the water that don’t have scales are forbidden there are books about it.
Christianity teaches that salvation is not through what people do but by their belief in Christ as the savior. Christ saves through grace not following a laundry list. And that by the “fruit” of the saved we will know them to be followers, in other words are they changing their lives accordingly because they believe not because they have a law.
Christ pointed out that the law said eye for an eye and then went on to say the spirit of the law is that if one even verbally curses a person he is as guilty as a murderer. That is a very high standard.
There are people who have desires for the same sex but do not act on them because they believe in Christ. To those who say they are believers but want to be married I say that isn’t what scripture calls for. Why are you intentionally walking contrary to clear instructions? Just because society tolerates divorce doesn’t mean it is right or acceptable to God.
Man looks on the outward signs, God looks on the heart.
Do Christians have a right to act on their beliefs and vote accordingly? yes in this country. And so does the president. Sometimes to our detriment.
to those who say they are believers but don’t want to stone adulterers i say that isn’t what scripture calls for. why are you intentionally walking contrary to clear instructions? just because society tolerates not stoning adulterers doesn’t mean it is right or acceptable to god.
jeff, i think you’re getting some of what savage is saying, but not all of it.
JDM, I would hope not.
We need to make it a felony for any politician to quote from the Bible or any other religious document.
If you can’t make an argument without out it, you shouldn’t argue.
Christianity teaches that salvation is not through what people do but by their belief in Christ as the savior.
Pope Benedict disagrees: “there are people who, moved by love for it, contrive to ensure peace, temporal peace, without nourishing another hope in their hearts than the joy of working for peace. And we see them make every effort to be useful to the earthly society. However, if they are committed with a pure conscience in these tasks, God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance. … He sees their service and will show them the other city, toward which they must really long and orient all their effort” (“Esposizioni sui Salmi” [Commentaries on the Psalms] 136, 1-2: “New Augustinian Library,” XXVIII, Rome, 1977, pp. 397, 399).
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2806
Pete Klein: “We need to make it a felony for any politician to quote from the Bible or any other religious document. If you can’t make an argument without out it, you shouldn’t argue.”
What do you make of this? Is Obama a felon?
“For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,” Obama said, quoting the Gospel of Luke.
You could argue that this scripture has become part of basic speech, except he seemed to use the sentence construct of the old Bible translation, meaning that he really was trying to quote a Biblical passage.
Interesting how deep the assumptions are in this thread – that the Bible has something to teach all of us, that we should accept the idea that some people use the Bible as a guide in their lives, that Biblical values are somehow reflected in the laws of our country.
I question all of these assumptions. The laws of this country, the actions of our leaders are no more influenced by the Bible than by any other cultural phenomena. Those who claim to be influenced by Biblical teachings are engaging in post-hoc rationalization: this is what I want to do, what I think is right and looky, looky the Bible says I’m right.
As for believing that the Bible articulates universal truths, well, so does Moby Dick and it’s much more entertaining to read. Although, I admit the twists and turns of Genesis would make it a page-turner, if the style wasn’t so abysmal.
By-the-by, though it is still a radical viewpoint, there are a number of biblical/ ancient history scholars who question the historicity of Jesus, i.e., whether he ever existed as a man. While it is impossible to prove a negative, the sources necessary to confirm the biblical accounts of Jesus seem vanishingly thin. Google Jesus mythicism for more on this topic.
JDM, I’m not saying a person who believes in this, that or the other religious texts wouldn’t/shouldn’t be influenced by it. I am saying quotes from any of them should have no value whatsoever when it comes to arguing for or against a secular law.
When you do this, you are breaking the separation between the church and the state. In a very real sense, you are violating the Constitution.
While the Declaration of Independence does begin with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” The Constitution says no such thing and never even mentions the word ‘God.'”
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words “God,” or “Creator,” “Jesus,” or “Lord.” Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. The use of the word “Lord” here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts.
By the way and for the record, whenever I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I always use the pre-Eisenhower version by dropping the “one nation under God” part.
And also by the way, I do believe in God. I just don’t feel the need to constantly prove how “Godly” I am or what a “good Christian I am.
I do believe some people “protest too much.”
In a way I agree with erb on this. The Christian bible leads to one defining event in all of human history, the miraculous virgin birth, life, death and physical resurrection of Christ. We have witnesses who claimed that they saw these events and we have apostles and a Church that recorded these events in what we call the biblical cannon.
Now if you don’t believe that you have to accept that these guys were mainly all liars, that indeed Christ was a liar about who He said He was (following Lewis’s argument). If that is the case you certainly would not want to use what Christians believe is the Word of God, as a guide for anything; in that at its core it is based on a lie.
Moby Dick imputes universal truths in a more interesting way, the moral teachings of Ghandi are easier to read and more direct.
What we don’t need though are non-Christians telling Christians about their faith and theology when they are like Savage simply ignorant of Christian theology and belief. It is a much better argument to claim that Christian spiritual teachings should not apply in secular laws in a country of laws. Then you could and should move the arguments about gay-marriage away from Christian or Islamic thought and belief.
What we don’t need though are non-Christians telling Christians about their faith and theology when they are like Savage simply ignorant of Christian theology and belief.
Why do you assume that non-Christians are ignorant of Christian theology?
I don’t in many cases, however in this case Savage is ignorant of it or intentionally misleading; given his arguments.
I think he is making a mistake though to go down the path in the first place. Instead of trying to argue Christian theology with Christian believers, how about the insanity of using any biblical argument at all in making secular law in the US.
I would agree with him on that. But if he wants to argue theology once he gets done with the Christians he will have to move on to Islam, then he will have to go to Orthodox Judaism, its just a tough road to go down in making his argument and will tick more people off than gather support.
Many Christians even conservative ones; are open to the idea that we should not use government power to control private lives, this is the best argument. Unless you just want to fight, which is what I think he wants to do.
I think we need to coin the word “Christianphobe”.
You libs sound like your scared to death of this religion thing.
Not scared to death. Just slightly unimpressed.
The Constitution says no such thing and never even mentions the word ‘God.'”
But the state constitutions do. All the states.
And how is it that every significant building in our nation’s capitol has biblical quotations and the 10 commandments etched in stone?
People “protest too much” because they are adamant about preserving what is clearly evident in my above citations.
The Separation of Church and State is to prevent a national church like the Church of England. Now there is an enforcement of religion! Isn’t it common sense, since we became a free nation in 1776, that the Founders had this national church thing in mind?
It’s not the Church affecting the state – its the State affecting the Church.
Now savage would have an argument (and maybe he made this argument?), if he wanted to talk about laws to help marriage. The biggest threat to marriage has been the destruction of our marriages and our families through adultery, divorce and promiscuity. You don’t need to look at the ancient laws given to the Tribe of Israel to find what our Lord has to say about these sorry and sad situations which afflict our nation. These three things have materially hurt the country and our children, academically, physically, emotionally and economically. It is doubtful gay marriage would have any of those material impacts on society.
Savage quote: “We can learn to ignore the bull%#$ in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bull#$* in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bull@#@ in the Bible about all sorts of things.”
1) Personally, this is a head’s up for Christians to be everything we’re supposed to be. Far too many well-intentioned (and not so well-intentioned) Christians have come on strong with the letter of the Law and have not showed compassion and mercy. They have forgotten where they have come from.
2) If this comment was made about the Koran, it would make headlines.
JDM-
We “libs” are not scared of religion, we just don’t like the hypocrisy of religion.
But it also shows a misunderstanding about the bible and Christian theology in general. In general we believe that the teachings of Christ and His apostles shed light on the Old Testament, and gave us a new understanding that we did not have before; thus we do eat shellfish and pork, and we don’t stone people for adultery and so forth. According to scripture Christ showed us what we should do and how we should act, today and 2000 years ago. Not to throw out the the Old Testament but to read those inspired writings through the lens of Christ.
Mervel, I have a question. All those people in the old testament that followed biblical laws, stoning etc. or for that matter – Are they going to burn in hell forever?
St. Paul tells us not to speculate about who will go to heaven or hell.
It would be very arrogant and relatively insane of me, a human, basically dust, saved only by the mercy and grace of Christ to speculate about the souls of people who lived thousands and thousands of years ago. I would only know that the nature of Christ and again St. Paul tells us that mercy beats judgement (paraphrase).
If Christ wishes to save them He will and we know Christ wants to save all human beings.
PNElba: Answer – salvation is always by faith in the atonement paid by Jesus, whether it be old or new testament.
In the old testament, those that kept the law, having faith that it pointed to their salvation, looked ahead to the cross. Those will have eternal life.
In the new testament, those that by faith, look back to Jesus paying for their sins looking back to the cross, have eternal life.
Nothing we do determines our destiny. Only what we believe.
With JDM’s latest post, this conversation has ceased to be rational.
Here is a perfect example of what I said a few weeks ago when we were debating the purpose of In Box comments, and I complained that religious contributors were not bothering to articulate their positions in a way that could make sense to anyone else: on this topic we have gone from discussing a very clear question of religion’s place in public policy… to JDM’s incoherent assertions that nothing we ‘do’ matters, only what we ‘believe’.
I’m sorry again to be rude, but if JDM really believes that his actions are meaningless, he should stop commenting and let everyone else have an intelligent conversation.
Hey Terence, I was answering a question. If you don’t like the conversation, change the channel.
I will also speak to your if…then assertion.
“if JDM really believes that his actions are meaningless”
I don’t believe that. I believe that our actions determine our reward, or punishment. Therefore, it does matter what we “do”.
What we believe determines whether or not we have eternal life.
JDM, I was too rude — sorry! And yet… you did manage to go from saying (in one post right after the other) the following:
1. Nothing we do determines our destiny. Only what we believe.
2. I believe that our actions determine our reward, or punishment. Therefore, it does matter what we “do”.
Surely even you will concede that these are inconsistent statements. And since Brian’s original question asks whether Bible advocates are inconsistent in applying one standard to others and a different one to themselves, I venture to say that you have illustrated this sort of double-think very well. With no disrespect: I like your irrational defense of your religion because it reminds me why I gave it up.
“In general we believe that the teachings of Christ and His apostles shed light on the Old Testament, and gave us a new understanding that we did not have before; thus we do eat shellfish and pork, and we don’t stone people for adultery and so forth.”
Mervel, could you give me chapter and verse in the New Testament where it says that it’s OK to eat shellfish and pork? I must have missed it.
I actually know this one, Walker — believe it or not! It’s a beautiful passage in which Jesus says that we are not made unclean by what goes IN, but rather by what comes OUT. It occurs in Peter’s vision on the rooftop when he is faint with hunger and has a vision of unclean foods being offered from above. He protests that he would never touch unclean things, and is told not to dismiss as unclean anything that comes from the hand of God.
Despite no longer being a believer, I still cherish passages like this one.
I also can’t help wondering what would happen if the loudest Bible-thumpers spent more of their time pondering bits like this one, rather than hunting for ways to judge the rest of us.
Terence: “Surely even you will concede that these are inconsistent statements.”
Let me add a little prose, to see if this will clarify.
John 3:16 ….whosoever believes will have eternal life
If you believe in Jesus’s redemption, you will live forever (have eternal life). This is a result of your belief. The reward you get when you get there will be commensurate with the things you did (according to your belief).
If you don’t believe in Jesus’s redemption, you will die (not live forever). However, there is a punishment that will occur prior to that, again, commensurate with your deeds done in unbelief.
That’s the best I can do to condense it.
No one is judging you, by the way.
Thanks, JDM, for offering your grain of clarification. I will add it to my mountain of Catechism, decades of church attendance and extensive reading on the topic.
I continue to maintain that absolutely NOTHING that you have said makes sense unless your listener also shares a belief in a supernatural being who punishes or rewards us after death. A being who takes an intimate interest in public policy decisions such as same-sex marriage, and yet doesn’t do us the courtesy of posting here to tell us exactly what he or she means. But who will still be very, very angry with us if we misinterpret the jumbled collection of documents we call the Bible.
Your belief is your own. Your conclusions about what your Bible obligates the rest of us to do, however, are fair game for our criticism and pointed questions.
Hmm… On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air, And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice; and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate.”
Perfectly clear and unambiguous! Go ahead, enjoy! Anyone can eat whatever they like!
That’s really not how I would interpret that passage, but it must be because I’m not infused with the holy spirit.
Hey Walker,
There are several passages, but of course we have Christ instructing His disciples not to worry about what they ate or not, that nothing we eat defiles us but that what is inside of us is what defiles us not what goes through our digestive tract; what comes out of our heart is what defiles us.
Christians for 2000 years have understood this to mean that the dietary restrictions between God and His Chosen people would be understood differently after the revelation of Christ.
The problem you guys are facing is that the largest Christian Church in the world and in the US holds that the Church itself plays a role in understanding what scripture means as guided by the Holy Spirit and Tradition. Picking chapter and verse in strange biblical duel of snippets is never how the vast majority of Christians over our generations have understood or read scripture (when we could read at all).
Ironically the small minority of Fundamentalists who read the entire bible literally and atheists; often view the bible the same way.
What JDM is getting at is pretty straight forward theological thought on grace and faith. I would have a little different interpretation, however he does not mean that you can do whatever you please without consequence, but that if you have faith you will want to do what is taught by Christ and will try to do that, not for a reward but because you honestly want to do it to serve Him.
Anyway this gets at the problems with combining a spiritual discussion with a secular one. I do agree that to make an argument against gay marriage and to base it on well God wants it that way, is NOT a valid argument to make in a secular argument about the issue. Jesus does not want divorce either and to savage’s point, no one seems overly worried about that.
Oh I was thinking of Verse 7 from Mark
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
Arguing faith is weird. I have to keep in mind what Thomas Merton, one of my personal hero’s said.
“One of the first things you learn if you want to be a contemplative is how to mind your own business. Nothing is more suspicious, in a man who seems holy, than an impatient desire to reform other men. A serious obstacle to recollection is the mania for directing those you have not been appointed to direct, reforming those you have not been asked to reform, correcting those over whom you have no jurisdiction. how can you do these things and keep your mind at rest? Renounce this futile concern with other men’s affairs! Pay as little attention as you can to the faults of other people. And none at all to their natural defects and eccentricities.”
Christians are not hear to judge other people or to tell them how to live. According to scripture we are to have an explanation of why we believe and we are to spread the Gospel, but that is it.
Terence: “Your belief is your own. Your conclusions about what your Bible obligates the rest of us to do, however, are fair game for our criticism and pointed questions.”
Fair enough.
Thanks, mervel, that’s a much better passage!
Would that your idea that “Christians are not here to judge other people or to tell them how to live” was honored by more who call themselves Christian!
Judgement is a horrible burden, you can’t ever have peace if you hold to judging others.
“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Succinct enough, but essentially just a special case of “Do unto others…”
Pete Klein-
The issue of excising people who hold religious beliefs from secular discourse begins with segregating those who believe and those who do not. There is a lack of common ground because of lack of common foundation. Like the former Methodist minister who was interviewed last week who decided she no longer believed in God. Her foundation for being is not God. She may understand others but does not have the same motivation.
The constitution says our government shall not establish religions and although it was Jefferson who wrote about the high wall, I would describe it as government being in the pit and everyone else above looking in and allowed to have their say.
I have to tolerate a governor who cohabits and makes declarations about something that, predates our government and is not in the realm of government except for the contractual issues. The right side of history is not for us to declare.
That is true walker, also there is another passage that says the degree of judgement that you use on others is the degree you will face!
PENELBA
The pope is expressing church doctrine not the Bible. I agree with you, the Pope and I disagree.
Mervel –
A couple of points….
“St. Paul tells us not to speculate about who will go to heaven or hell.”
Then why do we get so much judgement on others from “Christians” today?
“Ironically the small minority of Fundamentalists who read the entire bible literally and atheists; often view the bible the same way.”
If the bible is literal truth from God, why not read it literally? If it needs to be “interpreted” how are you or JDM or anyone else for that matter qualified to do so?
Also, please don’t lump us (atheists) with fundamentalists. If this whole Christian religion thing is “true”, it seems to me that a great many fundamentalists are not going to be “saved”.
What I meant was that many atheists read the bible in the same elementary school manner as some extreme fundamentalists ( who are a small minority of the world wide Christian community of 2 billion people).
I do think that there is a creation of a straw man Christian which simply not accurate for the vast majority of Christians. But I can’t help how people feel I can only try to tell you what I believe and I think Christianity teaches. But I don’t see the judgement you are talking about in a big way?
I believe the bible certainly is the Word of God, but when Christ tells us that it is better to pluck out our eye than to look at someone with lust, He does not mean to pluck out our eye. Much of the bible is poetry, some of it is history, some of it is prayer, some of it is wisdom, Christ used stories and parables to make His points. That is what I mean by the problems with picking out say passages/snippets. I mean we can compare books and look at what they are telling us as a whole.
I am really not that qualified to do much of anything except express the reason that I have hope in Christ and part of that is found in scripture. Scripture should not be used as a hammer or a weapon certainly we can disagree about it and many Christians disagree about issues in scripture.