Burnt Orange Report

I think what scares me most about assholes that spew that kind of of trash, is that they honestly believe that it is their job to pass judgement... something that I was taught in Sunday school as being up to God. Whatever their sins, it is between that being and the God of their understanding. So personally, because it burns me so much, I would very much like to see them tied to a post, beaten, and left for dead... "an eye for an eye", I believe that is in the Bible too.

Erin, I'm assuming from your reference to Sunday School that you are a Christian or at least referring to the Christian Bible and as such Christ tells us that the old standard of "an eye for an eye" is no longer valid- he tells us to turn the other cheek and to have compassion for those that hate us. That is what I find to be so repugnant about these types- that they take the message of compassion and acceptance of Christ and turn it into a message of hate.

Was Matthew Shephard living in sin? I don't think so but some Christians would say so. But the fact of the matter is that the Bible makes it clear that we are all sinners and as such none of us reserves the right to pass judgement on someone regarding their sins and nobody but God knows who is in heaven and who in hell. We must reclaim our faith from those who would turn it into a way of hurting others.

Andrew,
Please understand that I am venting. I am not serious about seeing someone get killed for their beliefs... the post was cathartic (possibly inappropriate).
Actually my religious affiliation, to me is not really valid. I believe in the God of my understanding... by Sunday school I was reffering to when I had religious studies at St. Thomas Episcopal. Also, for the record, I don't really care if Matthew was living in "sin"... it isn't my call to make. Personally, I don't think he was living in sin, and I don't care if the "pastor" believes otherwise.
I unfortunately, lack what you possess... compassion for assholes spewing right-wing crap. I wish I could tolerate ignorance and down right disregard for human life, based on a belief system that has so many loopholes in it that the only way to back it up is by useless quotes in the Bible. When I quoted the Bible in my post it was meant to be more of a jab than literal.
Also, I agree with your sentiment hate cannot be fought with hate. Sometimes it feels good to feel it, name it, and discuss it.
Normally I am a "live and let live" type of person. However, when I see someone throw that out the window in a public forum, knowing that Matthew Shephard's parents will probably hear it, pisses me off. I am not very docile when it comes to hurting others... but that is what makes me, me.
Also, I think what makes me so "frothed up" about it is when I was in high school a close friend of mine was gay. He was teased relentlessly, told he was a sinner, and basically pushed away by everyone... even his own "family". He killed himself 4 years ago.
My best-friend in college and still today, is gay. The shit she went through just to try to live her life without ridicule is just flat out unfair. I have never met someone more intelligent and fun to be around. Her wife is just as great of a person.
I am not right in my thinking b/c when something confronts me with hate, I do not back down. It makes me want to fight harder... I become blinded by my own need to stick up for the people I couldn't stick up for before. So Andrew, you are right... it is too close to home for the likes of me. I could never be objective about it... I am glad that you are though. That means there is hope.

I'd like to ask Mr. Phelps if he is wearing any clothes that contain two fabrics, because the bible also describes that as an abomination, in the same section of Leviticus, no less.

Joshua,

You ought to know that is misleading. The Mosiac law is inapplicable to gentiles today, since salvation does not come through the law. If Leviticus were the only scriptural prohibition against homosexuality, then Christians would be on very sketchy ground claiming that it is wrong. However, while the Apostles make it clear that gentiles do not have to follow the Mosiac law (ie. Do not need to be circumcised, can eat whatever food we wish, etc) they also repeatedly reinforce the fact that God condemns homosexual behaviour. Ref: Romans 1: 26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9, for a few examples. They are pretty straightforward, without much room for alternate "interpretations". You might not believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but Christians who condemn homosexuality are not being hypocrites if they "wear any clothes that contain two fabrics." Leviticus isn't the scriptural authority here, the New Testament is.

That said, I largely agree with Andrew D, at least on the part about being compassionate and loving. The challenge for Christians is to love the sinner while hating the sin. As Paul writes "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Christians are commanded not to hate homosexuals (or anyone else, for that matter), they are equally children of God, and Christ died for their sins just as much as he did for everyone else's. Rather, we need to show them Christ's love, and help them to overcome their destructive lifestyle.

I know a number of you almost certainly don't like that last part, but, creative reinterpretations aside, the New Testament is pretty clear that homosexual behavior is wrong, and you can't pick and choose which sections of the bible are "relevant" today if you are going to take your faith seriously. Morality doesn't change from generation to generation.

Awaiting the invevitable flaming,

Sherk

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says."

1 Corinthians 14:34

How do you feel about that little passage? Should all Christians keep their women silent in church?

"Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ."

Ephesians 6:5

Sounds like a pretty damning endorsement for slavery to me. If the New Testament does not condemn slavery, that means it is wrong. If the NT is wrong on this point, it can be wrong on others, namely homosexuality. QED

I've been saying it for some time: Why on earth anybody listens to the wingnuts like Phelps, Falwell, Robertson, ad nauseum, is beyond my comprehension. Howls of a dying breed, perhaps?

Sherk, Joshua, et al.

I think that the comments of you two highlights the key difference between conservative Christians and liberal Christians. Conservative Christians tend to believe that the bible is the infalible word of God. Liberal Christians (myself included) tend to believe that the bible was written by humans, but inspired by the word of God, so that it's necessary to take into account the customs, biases and prejudices of the people in the time in which the bible was written. Rather than being infalible, liberal Christians see the bible as a guide for living life and treating others, as opposed to conservatives who see it as literally the words of God and believe that everyone who doesn't subscribe to the their view of the bible is damned (of course, I'd also take issue with Sherk's interpretation of Paul's writtings regarding homosexuality, however, some research from my book "What the Bible Reall Says about Homosexuality" ought to be done first). That's why liberal Christians often see the bible as a justification for economic liberalism - helping and showing compassion for the less fortunate. Conservative Christians, on the other hand see the bible as a justification to force their values upon the rest of us. But it's ok. God loves everyone, even Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and George W. Bush... and even.. even Fred Phelps... *cringe*

I'm actually an atheist, but I don't hate anyone for their religion... except for Scientologists.

What I don't understand is how the Apostles were allowed to overrule Mosaic law. In the absence of Jesus's own statement on each particular rule, I have to ask, "Who died and made them God?"

(only giggling a tiny bit)

Byron, Joshua, et. al,

A few clarifications. First, it wasn't the Apostles who overruled Mosaic Law. The Law was fulfilled in Christ, and God made it clear that this had occurred. I could go in to detail, but I don't think that it is terribly relevant to the topic at hand, so I will just reference Mark 7:19, where Christ declares all foods unclean. There is a lot more on the topic in Acts, and the Epistles, on how works don't get you anywhere, etc., but the point is that the "Apostles" aren't making this declaration on their own power, God is revealing it to them.

I also want to clarify that I *Do Not* believe in using the government to force people to stop sinning. The essence of Christianity is Faith in Christ, and faith, by its essence, is voluntary. If you don't have faith, on the other hand, a life that is largely free from sinful behavior still won't save you. I go into more depth on why Christian's shouldn't try to use the power of the state to coerce righteous behavior in an article on the website linked to below (Christian Charity). Of course, Byron, I don't think you'd like how I apply this reasoning: I argue that government spending and welfare programs are not legitimate venues for Christian love and compassion towards the poor.

While I don't want to outlaw homosexuality (I am in total agreement w/Thomas's dissent in Lawrence, the TX law was bad but constitutional), I believe that it is important that homosexuality be regarded as the sinful behavior that it is, and I believe the government shouldn't take actions that would tend to legitimize it, ie. homosexual marriage, civil unions, etc. Homosexuals should not be beaten, killed -- what happenned to Mr. Shepherd was a tragedy, regardless of his personal failings -- and they are entitled to the full protection of the law. I just don't want to see laws enacted that go beyond that and encourage, promote, or treat as morally acceptable and normal, homosexual behavior.

Sherk

Byron,

I will agree you are pretty much dead on in the dividing line between us, although I wouldn't say everyone who doesn't subscribe to my view of the bible is damned. Rather, I would say that anyone who doesn't place their faith in Christ has cut themselves off from salvation. There is plenty of room for theological discussion and debate within the context of faith in Christ and accepting God's free forgiveness of sins.

But yes, I do believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, since it is. What I would be curious to know, since you are a theologically liberal Christian, is what you mean by viewing the Bible "as a guide for living life and treating others." The Bible is the Word of God, or it isn't, there are no halfway stops here. The Bible itself makes it clear that "...all scripture is God breathed." Citing the Bible as an authority might not persuade a non-believer, but if you are going to say the Bible contains Truth, it seems pretty clear that that Truth is presented as an all or nothing proposition. i.e. Christ was the Son of God, or he was not. If he was, we ought to follow his commands. If not, if he was an ordinary man who *thought* he was the Son of God, he was nuts, and we have no reason to take anything he said seriously.

As for homosexuality, it isn't just a casual mention in the New Testament. Paul repeatedly says "No! Bad! Don't do that." (Well, that's not a verbatim quote :) Check out 1 Romans. Paul uses the example of homosexuality as the example of the total depravity and sinfulness of mankind, people had separated themselves so completely from God's love that they engaged in homosexual behavior. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Similarly, in 1 Corrinthians, homosexuality is placed right up there with fornication, idolatry, prostitution, and adultery. While your side goes nuts whenever conservatives compare homosexual behaviour, I am (seriously, not just rhetorically) curious as to what justification you have for condemning the above evils but not homosexuality. Why is the one normal and acceptable and moral, but the others are to be condemned, and how dare conservatives compare homosexuals to them?

Briefly, as I have to get back to cramming for my Macro midterm, as to Joshua's point on Slavery. At the time of the writing of the New Test., Christians had zero infuence over the secular government and the institution of slavery wasn't going anywhere. A condemnation of slavery by Paul would have made no sense to the Ephesians or to anyone else. Rather, given that slavery existed, and at the time wasn't going anywere, Paul explained how Christians should behave. Paul and the other writers in the New Testament weren't endorsing slavery or saying that it is moral or acceptable. They were instructing Christians who find themselves caught in slavery how they should live their lives. In brief, they were to be commendable examples of righteousness, and serve as a witness to their masters and those around them. That doesn't mean slavery itself is OK. Recall, Christians are commanded to pray for those who persecute them. That doesn't mean that said persecution is moral, rather, Christians have a higher calling that transcends this world, and that governs how they are to behave in this world and its institutions. In summary, claiming that Paul's advice to slaves means that homosexual activity is moral and acceptable behaviour is, umm, less than persuasive.

Regards,

Sherk

I don't buy your defense of slavery, but you still didn't respond to my question about women speaking in church.

Or the point about wearing mixed cloth.

Byron,

I'm sorry, but I believe you've set yourself in the position of being a shopping cart Christian. You pick and choose what from the Bible you'll accept and what you will not. This is not to say that everyone doesn't falter in adhering to scripture, just that it's difficult to call oneself a committed Christian while openly denying the morality laid down in the Bible.

After all, if we claim that condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible are mere 'cultural prejudice,' then we have a sound basis for rejecting all of scripture, and thus our only connection with the word of Christ. What you present as the 'liberal Christian' position therefore makes Christianity virtually incoherent. It makes it an ends-based excercise of selectively rejecting whatever morality one doesn't like.

This differs, of course, from legitimate issues of interpretation, where one verse can be read to say different things. However, that's a far cry from rejecting them entirely.

All this talk about the "all or nothing" approach to the Bible and Christianity is disheartening. If one can't be a "shopping cart" Christian, then I guess I just won't be a Christian because I cannot reconcile those elements of scripture that seem fundamentally contrary to rational thinking.

If you are saying that if I want to eat the Bread then I have to stomach the mold as well, then I would choose instead to go hungry.

Karl-T,

Well, if you only accept what you personally like out of religion, it becomes incoherent. Religion just becomes a matter of your preferences; you might as well create your own and make yourself chief prophet.

Byron,
I like your "shopping cart"... where can I get one?

I think it is worth making two valid points here in my mind since somehow (odd how that happens in discussions like this) it has gotten off on quoting the Bible. To me it is real simple... a "Pastor" is walking around delving out INCOMPASSIONATE [the opposite of compassion, which I see has been used quite often in this post]statements about someone deserving to die. Now how does he know what the divine plans of God are? How does he know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that God intended for Matthew to be beaten and left for dead b/c he was gay? He doesn't... and making statements, completely void of compassion, if not for Matthew, then his parents is not the act of what I would imagine a Pastor to be doing with his spare time. It is a double standard, and I don't care what the Bible says, a Pastor is not God, nor does he assume to know God's plans for anyone... it is arrogant and it is downright impossible. I don't buy that load of crap for one second. "Pastor" Phelps can take his "good ol' day" mentality and keep it the heck away from me.

Byron et al,
the latter half of the previous post is intended for everyone, not aimed at you. Just clarifying.
:)

Here is a great site compiled by a gay Biblical scholar.
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html

My own views are:
1) Even the most radical fundamentalists don't believe that God himself sat down and wrote the Bible. The text was supposed to have been composed by writers inspired by God.
Just how do we know if they accurately transcribed the text?
Have you ever relayed a message incorrectly?

2) It's curious that it was HUMANS who decided just what went into the Bible. Texts which promoted the teachings of the Gnostics were left out because the early church bureaucrats were eager to suppress teachings which eliminated the need for a formal church hierarchy.
Martin Luther thought nothing of tossing out portions of the Bible which he didn't agree with. Even now, the Protestant Bible is smaller than the Catholic Bible.
If Luther can edit the Bible, what's to keep a 21st century scholar from editing it as well?

3) As frequently pointed out here and elsewhere, folks ALREADY pick out and promote verses that suit their own agenda.
Southern slave owners grew especially fond of Biblical verses which seemed to glorify slavery.
There's an odd cult which likes to play with poisonous snakes because of some obscure Biblical reference to handling snakes.
Of course homophobes like Phelps have made a career out of anti-gay verses.

4) And the number of areas where the Bible contradicts itself in some major ways is legendary. Even the four gospels do not completely agree with each other.

If you just take the words of Jesus and toss away all the chaff, you'd have the basis for a sound way of life.
I mean, just what do you really need to know besides "Love thy neighbor as thyself."?

"Shopping cart" is a terribly reductive way to describe what happens when Christians choose to ignore certain parts of the Bible.

For example, the precept to "love thy neighbor as thyself" -- surely a far more fundamental direction for life than "don't have sex with anyone except your husband or wife" -- is one with which liberal Christians agree.
At the same time, that doesn't mean it's easy to live by. Get a roomful of liberal Christians and remind them that President Bush is their neighbor, and you will see some squirming over the notion of loving him as they love themselves.

Just because people choose to live by some rules, and not by others, doesn't mean that they have no rules at all. If anything, I think the advice Jesus gave is much harder to adhere to at all times than the laundry list of "don't wear clothes of two fabrics, don't eat pork," etc. that was laid down in the Old Testament.