I don’t see many C’tian fund’ists calling for gays to be put to death either. The few I do know of in the “Christian Reconstructionist” camp do think that both adultery & gayness can be capital offenses.
“:rolleyes:” is hardly a refutation of the fact that the Bible DOES condone genocide ( and slavery, the oppression of women, and any number of other nasty things ), and does condemn shellfish along with homosexuality. Your religion really is evil, and stupid, and your holy book an inconsistent collection of ignorant nastiness, regardless of how you mock people for pointing that obvious fact out.
But then, it’s not like you could actually defend the Bible, now is it ? All you can do is try to shout down the people who point out how awful it is, and ignore the parts that would get you arrested or killed if you actually tried to follow them.
I’m just responding to Sampiro’s OP.
First, the prevalence of easy divorce & remarriage among conservative Christian is lamentable. There are three Biblical reasons for divorce- adultery, abandonment (I Cor 7) and abuse. Too many instances of divorce among Christians are not Biblically justified.
Second- what was Jesus protesting? All remarriage after divorce or specific instances?
Torah Law & rabbinic commentary allowed divorce & remarriage in certain circumstances. Among the Pharisees, the School of Hillel (the teachings of which often seem reflected in the teachings of Jesus) allowed it in a wide variety of cases for trivial reasons. The School of Shammai only in cases of adultery. This is a rare instance where Jesus seems to take the Shammai position instead of the Hillel one. In any case, Jesus’ teachings & commentary on Torah was often to take the more gracious & forgiving stance. If he was forbidding all divorce & remarriage (even for adultery), he was taking a harder, more condemnatory stance that the religious traditionalists he usually opposed.
I have to go now- more later.
Chronos writes:
> I got into this exact discussion with my dad the other week. He insisted that
> McCain’s adultury wasn’t relevant, since Christianity is all about repentance and
> forgiveness for sin, and he thinks that McCain has truly repented. “Oh, so he’s
> back with Carol?”, I asked. Dad’s response was that it would be even worse to
> break up two families.
It’s even more complicated than that. His first wife Carol was married before she married McCain:
So if you believe that all divorce is wrong, McCain was wrong in marrying Carol in the first place. Also, has McCain repented of breaking up his first marriage? Did he ever say anything like, “I now realize that cheating on my first wife was wrong, and I would like to apologize for it”? If not, in what sense has he repented?
I didn’t say that they did, but fundamentalists will more often than not say that they don’t decide what’s in the Bible, they can’t pick and choose which bits they follow etc etc but that’s manifestly NOT TRUE. If you’re condemning homosexuality because the Bible tells you it’s an abomination then you should also be proposing to put adulterers to death. Either the Bible is the word of God and you follow all of it or you don’t, which is it?
The whole point to being a hypocrite is so that you don’t have to justify a blatant discrepancy.
The bible doesn’t strictly prohibit divorce. You can get a divorce in the case of adultery for example. Maybe that part of the bible is contradicted by another though.
I’ve had the same argument with several conservatives. I’ll point out that none of the 4 gospels has a word about homosexuality. Then they will bring up the Sodom story. Then I"ll point out that Sodom was destroyed for not being hospitable to the travellers and why would Lot offer his daughers to them?
The real reason? I think most of those who oppose same sex marriage simply see the stereotype of gay people from clips on tv of the most outrageous participants in a gay pride parade.
A question for you when you get back; what among conservative Christians is the definition of adultery? I’ve heard the opinion before that even thinking about adultery is equivalent in moral terms, but I don’t know whether that’s a popular opinion, who among, or even if that’s what’s meant.
It’s obvious to me that the answer to the OP is money. Lots and lots of people who fill the pews every Sunday are divorced and remarried. If the church took a strong stance against them, as strong as their stance against gay people, a lot of those people would stop attending, and more importantly, stop putting money in the collection plate.
A friend of mine that is a former Catholic was just commenting to me the other day how ridiculous it is that a child molester can go to a Catholic church and be forgiven and take communion, but she can’t because she is remarried. She stopped going to a Catholic church for that reason alone.
I think the point in the OP was that remarrying after a divorce is strictly prohibited, and there are no exceptions to this rule, despite Friar Ted’s desperate grasping at straws to create one.
Even they probably don’t follow the entire Bible. This just shows that everyone ignores the teachings of the Bible - some people just ignore more than others. As far as morality goes, we’re all atheists - but some of us justify their independently arrived at moral code with one verse or another.
Same reason they wear cotton-poly blends and eat shrimp. “Oh, that’s just some old cultural thing; it doesn’t apply to us now.” They love to pick and choose in Leviticus.
Of course, the divorce thing is all up in the New Covenant, so I don’t know how they can excuse it - but they do. After all, the only moral abortion is my abortion, right?
This one drives me nuts. I had an argument with my sister about it just last weekend when she was telling me that “Clay Aiken is going to hell”.
When I pointed out that we were too as we’d had a pork roast for dinner she informed me “that’s ceremonial”. When I pointed out that God himself said that the sin of Sodom was arrogance and hubris (Ezekiel 16:49)- “well it was also homosexuality” per John Hagee. (From “What God Meant to Say But I Can Say Better” evidently, by John Hagee.)
When I pointed out that John Hagee (who she adores) is living in adultery (not that this is anything new since he divorced his first wife due to his affair with a church member) she said “he’s forgiven”.
Pressed for “where does it say that eating shellfish or pork or wearing mixed fabrics or planting corn and potatoes in the same field are just ceremonial” she said “Jesus and Paul stated that it was”.
Asked the significance of Jesus’s statement that he came to fulfill the law and not to destroy it, “That was before the crucifixion”. Asked “on whose authority did Paul alter the commandments when not only did he never meet Jesus [save for a quick sighting on a road trip] but when Jesus had specifically said Peter was the rock on which he’d build his church”, she basically told me “I’m not a theologian, but read the Bible, it’s all in there”. In other words, “Get away kid, you’re botherin’ me”.
Drives me nuts.
My sister worries about my soul because I’m friends with homosexuals. (The fact I’m almost 42, never married, love show tunes, have a shirtless picture of Hugh Jackman as my desktop background, and that St. Vanna is currently standing at the letter board reading
YOUR BROTHER JON IS G_Y
doesn’t prompt her to buy a vowel and solve the puzzle- “Let’s try a B, Pat”.)
It’s such a cowardly thing. Bob Barr/John Hagee/others are probably straight- homosexuality is not/never will be a temptation (unless they’re like the particpants in the UGA hompophobia study), so it’s a pretty damned easy sin to condemn while saying “that stuff I do- just ceremonial- and ignore the man behind the green curtain”. Arrago*@a&@#&ugoig!!
That is so gby.
Sampiro,
As a Christian who has read the bible front-to-back, I couldn’t agree more. One thing that struck me during reading the Gospels is that, while Jesus is usually on the side of forgiveness, he sometimes gets pissed off when people just don’t seem to “get it.” (moneychangers in the temple: he wasn’t mad about the desecration, but because the people had seem to forget the whole point of having a freaking temple in the first place.)
See, he’s pissed off at them, saying essentially, “yes, yes, divorce is not verboten, but you are still an asshole if you do.” It’s like people who divorce just don’t understand the whole point of marriage.
I personally think Jesus would be in favor of gay marriage, but still pissed off about divorce.
(p.s., your sister had already tried ‘B’)
Ummm…they ARE against divorce.
Just not to the same extent as gay marriage, right? Why not?
Well, that you’re a goy isn’t news; isn’t the point of the thread about the flaws in the application of Christianity?
Jews permit divorce, by the way. It’s the upstart latecomer gentiles that screwed things up for themselves.