Back here, an anonymous commenter took gentle exception with my piece on defining traditional marriage partly in the context of the laws given in Leviticus. Wrote Anonymous (getting just a wee bit defensive at having to defend Levitical silliness, as Scriptural inerrantists are wont to do):
CC, anonymous #1, and m@ obviously don't have a clue about what Jesus' work on Earth meant in regards to the Levitical laws. Ignorant bigots are often like that.
Well, let's parse that for the English speakers among us, shall we?
Anonymous refers to "what Jesus' work on Earth meant in regards to the Levitical laws." This is a clear indication that A wants to ignore the hopeless absurdities in Levitical law, suggesting that Jesus' rules somehow supersede or nullify the most asinine of them. Fair enough -- this is a common enough defense amongst the devout who just don't want to have to explain why, according to the Old Testament, it's a sin to wear mixed fibres, and stuff like that.
But that strategy puts one in a rather uncomfortable position since the only condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible anywhere is in (you guessed it) the Old Testament. Which puts people like Anonymous in an awkward spot as they now have to justify cherry picking which parts of the Old Testament they like, and which parts they don't.
Some have argued that since Jesus said nothing whatsoever about homosexuality in the New Testament, then the original condemnation is still in effect. Using that logic, however, it's still forbidden to mix wool and linen then, isn't it? (You think I'm joking here? Not even remotely.)
And if one were to follow Anonymous' logic, then Jesus' explicit admonitions should override those in the Old Testament, no? What was it that Jesus said in Matt. 5:38-39?
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
That's seem to pretty clearly be telling folks to ignore what they heard before as Jesus is doing an override here. But I don't see a lot of fundamentalists taking that advice all that seriously.
In any event, Anonymous might want to rethink his position before embarrassing himself (herself?) again. Here at CC HQ, we take our Bible reading seriously.
WHEN IDIOTIC WINGNUTS ATTACK: This is probably the best argument for voting the CPC off the island -- lunatic election candidates like this.
First, CPC candidate Rondo Thomas is clearly a scientific illiterate when it comes to world history as he speaks of the definition of marriage:
"[it] has been in place since Adam and Eve — that's about 6,000 years ago for those that might not be aware."
So we've established that Thomas is a total fucking moron. But in terms of that marriage definition, what does it mean to say it's been in place "since Adam and Eve"? What does that mean with respect to all of the laws and admontions and abominations in both the Old Testament and New Testament which (last time I checked) sort of came after those two?
I have to stop reading stuff like this. Seriously. It just makes me want to go out and kill puppies.
8 comments:
Like I said: you're ignorant and a bigot. Instead of actually researching the subject, you've just once again reached into your posterior - carefully bypassing your head - and pulled out something completely made up out of nothingless (or flatus, perhaps), completely wrong, and insulting to Christians. You'd think you'd be embarrassed, but you're not, are you? You're quite proud of your arrogant bigotry and your ignorance. Considering your disdain for people who [supposedly] don't research things like evolution, I find this quite hypocritical. Completely unsurprising. It's what we've come to expect of you, CC.
Religion is for childeren.
Grow up.
Wow. A stunning rebuttal from cmax. Why, my faith is shattered! Thank you, cmax![/extreme sarcasm]
(p.s. - Atheism is for children. Grow up.)
Anonymous, you're an idiot. You probably think you write really eloquently, too.
The charge is: Christians have no logical basis for accepting or rejecting parts of the bible that they want to follow; instead, they accept the parts that they agree with and rationalise why they reject the parts they disagree with.
You've called CC a bigot, ignorant, proud, insulting to Christians (oh noes), hypocritical, and arrogant, and you have suggested that he has not researched the subject.
You also add a vague reference to someone who CC accuses of not having done any research on evolution. I'm not sure who you're defending there, but I'd love to know more. Of course, I'd also be interested to know about your standards of research too, as no doubt you've "researched" evolution and found it wanting.
What you have not done is provided anything at all to counter CC's points. Instead, you seem to have reached into your posterior, et cetera. I won't double the hilarity by repeating your little schtick, there.
So here, as I see it, are your options for ending this little tussle with any dignity:
- Provide a consistent rationale for determining which parts of the bible are to be followed or taken literally, and which parts are not relevant.
- Shut up.
However, I look forward to your dodging the question.
The previous anon. poster does not represent the rest of us at all.
Anonymous, you do realize you just posted something with absolutely no proof or rationale behind it.
Basically, it's all taunts, insults, and careful evasion of swear words.
This particular little Jew-cum-Atheist thinks that you're particularly proud of your buffet-style Bible interpretation.
You have a little bit of the New Testament, avoid the shellfish bit because it gives you gas, and leave a good chunk of it on your plate, because you don't want it anymore.
Please, give us some guide to interpreting that thing.
Because until there's a rationale behind interpreting Bible passages, it's just Holy Bibble.
Oh, Paul has lots of interesting things to say, some of which we interpret literally, and some of which we choose to ignore....
Oh, Wonderdog, will you never learn? It's quite simple to separate the parts of the new testament that we're supposed to listen to from the parts that we're supposed to take metaphorically. For example:
Luke 14:26 Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters . . . he cannot be my disciple."
Jesus said it, so it's to be taken as a hyperbolic, literary expression. And:
Corinthians 6:9-10 Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
This of course is to be taken not only literally, but extrapolated to the extent that our society can't let gays marry. Note that it's just the homosexual bits that are to be taken literally; adulterers, the greedy, swindlers, and so on are not to be treated as social outcasts. And no sobriety test is necessary for marriage either.
See? It's quite simple. I don't know what everyone's so confused about. Geez.
Anonymous, funny how you call someone ignorant and then fail to actually point out where he's wrong. He's not. I've had other Christians (I am one) shove Leviticus in my face before, and I always ask why they're ignoring the rest of God's laws, as if they know better than God somehow.
Face it, there is a societal context for almost everything in the Bible, and I was very happy to have the past TWO Popes back up Evolution as fact, and point out that the Bible was never meant by God to be a scientific statement. Of course, the Pope doesn't have to be your Biblical authority, but if you think you've researched these issues, and the scripture, more than the scholars in Rome, you're incredibly deluded.
Real Live Preacher has a few good blog posts about this whole Bible-says-gays-are-wrong thing, including about how most Christians completely ignore most of the Bible while touting it as 'proof' for their own feelings. Here is one: http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/55
Post a Comment