Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
If a picture is worth a thousand words, sometimes words can speak volumes as well. Look at this report from the Bilerico Project about what happened on day one of same-sex marriage in California. Here's the setup:
I was front and center at San Francisco's City Hall today, on a photo assignment for The Bilerico Project and IN La Magazine.There were maybe a tad under a thousand people outside City Hall and maybe a dozen who were anti-gay protesters. They were very course and ugly individuals.
One gentleman, a supporter dressed head to toe in leather, was playing his guitar and suddenly dropped like a tree at my feet, before I could bend down to check his pulse, cops swarmed the guy and started CPR. They were very professional.
Sadly, I think he might have died. They resuscitated him for 20 minutes and he did not respond. They started an IV of 1 liter of saline and gave him O2. About 10 minutes in, he swallowed and kinda of coughed and the crowd cheered.
And here's the disgusting ending:
One of the Christian protesters (pictured below) was chanting at his body - "Satan Got You!" "What is the Devil whispering in your ear about now?"I yelled at the guy, "If you are such a Christian, why aren't you praying for the guy dying on the concrete?" The protester replied, "God killed him for loving fags!!" The cops even stepped in and told the guy to shut his mouth.
Here's a picture of the piece of shit who said it:
Politics
Comments
Ah, feel that Christian love.
Posted by: Hypatia | June 20, 2008 9:31 AM
I really hope someone at his deathbed is heckling him. What an asshat.
Cue the "Well, he's not a TRUE Christian(TM)!" comments in 3, 2, 1...
Posted by: Shygetz | June 20, 2008 9:36 AM
And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love.
They will know we are Christians by our love
EVERYBODY!
By our love! .... oh never mind...
Posted by: yoshi | June 20, 2008 9:41 AM
I think the best part is not just that the guy survived but that it made the christian asshole look like god was on the side of gays! :D
Posted by: llDayo | June 20, 2008 9:41 AM
One of the commenters on that blog/story said: "They are simply venting hatred because they are consumed by it. If they weren't hating LGBT persons, they would find another "them" to hate."
Some of the "them's" that "True Christians" (TM) have felt good about hating:
Jews
Romans
Gypsies
Gays
Blacks
Commies
Native Americans
Arabs
Saxons
Celts
Scientists
Catholics
Protestants
In short, ANYONE who is not in their little cult, yet they preach about 'brotherhood', and 'unity', and 'forgiveness'...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | June 20, 2008 9:46 AM
That made me throw up in my mouth a little.
I'm Christian and am appaled that there are people out there who use the term and don't comprehend that they are saying they are like Christ. Christ who healed leppers and talked to, healed, and worked with the outcast and low of society. Christ who raised a man and a child from the dead without asking who their friends were and whether they had done anything to deserve life or death. Christ who did not ask or demand that anyone other than himself die for our sins.
That sneering fuckwit couldn't be further from Christ-like if he was actively trying.
Excuse me, I'm going to go and talk to my church about what we're doing to make sure we are never conflated with bastards like this.
Posted by: kodiak | June 20, 2008 9:47 AM
I am very upset that the cop told the guy to shut up. Doesn't he realize that we have free speech protection in this country?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 20, 2008 10:19 AM
Hey Ed. While I totally agree with the emotional sentiments, according to the article the guy in the picture is not the christian protester. The guy in the picture is a priest who let the author know that the guitar player was breathing when they got him into the ambulance.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 20, 2008 10:21 AM
Nevermind. I'm the idiot who needs to read more carefully. It is the protester. Sorry.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 20, 2008 10:23 AM
Kodiac said:
"I'm Christian and am appaled that there are people out there who use the term and don't comprehend that they are saying they are like Christ"
Hey, man, if you are going to cite the Man, you have to quote both sides.
After all, Christ is the one who said (just like the nice fundamentalist man) :
Matthew 5:19
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Not mention...
"10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
11:23 (A particular beauty this one - Jesus is going to destroy an entire city, here, because they did not like his preaching)
"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."
Christ isn't all about love, and that asshat wasn't wrong to do what he did, if you can believe what the Bible says Jesus wants.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 20, 2008 10:34 AM
Gingerbaker,
i would venture a guess that the disgusting man was told to shut his trap for his own protection. after all, his kind was outnumbered 1000 to 12, right?
Posted by: coreydbarbarian | June 20, 2008 10:36 AM
Okay, so now, I'm like totally confused. Is the gentleman staring into the lens a bad guy?
Posted by: democommie | June 20, 2008 10:42 AM
Gingerbaker: Re Mt 5:19, did Jesus keep kosher? Did He honor the Sabbath by doing nothing? No, so this verse apparently means something other than what you think it means.
Mt 10:34 is similar. Did jesus lead a military movement? Did he establish a compound under strict security with teenage girls assigned to Himself and the chief Apostles?
Really, just because some of the wingnuts among the fundies don't know how to read is no excuse for you.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 20, 2008 10:44 AM
Haven't we gotten the point yet that, as Chesterton pointed out, "A philosophy should not be judged by its abuses"? Amazing how comments to this effect always (to my recollection) come from commenters and never from Ed himself. Methinks he gets it.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 20, 2008 10:55 AM
Hey, Jesus threatened people with hellfire. Not any homosexuals that I know of, but he did do it. That in itself is enough to make me not particularly want to hang out with the guy, let alone worship him.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 20, 2008 11:03 AM
Cynic - Ah Chesterton, "The work of a queasy undergraduate, scratching his pimples". -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 20, 2008 11:11 AM
Kehrsam said:
"Gingerbaker: Re Mt 5:19, did Jesus keep kosher? Did He honor the Sabbath by doing nothing? No, so this verse apparently means something other than what you think it means."
Jesus was saying here that ALL the Old Testament laws must be adhered to, and that the various sects ( Pharisee, etc) must drop their differences and adhere to the old ways. Jesus was a very conservative guy.
So, yes, Jesus wanted everybody to honor the Sabbath and be kosher. As for himself? Who knows - I don't even think a cohesive argument can be made that Jesus Christ was an actual person at all, let alone an itinerant preacher, let alone a miracle-working son of God.
"Mt 10:34 is similar. Did jesus lead a military movement? Did he establish a compound under strict security with teenage girls assigned to Himself and the chief Apostles?"
Don't really follow you here, kehrsam, although I like and appreciate the Christian Compound reference. :D
My point is that what the New Testament has to say through the (supposed) words of Jesus is not much different than what the Old Testament has to say about God. Both God and Jesus are petty, insecure, violent schizophrenics and it is in plain black and white splattered like blood across the pages of the Gospels.
Kodiak's understanding of Jesus as love is commendable,and highly preferable to the truth, but is at variance with what is on the printed page. As the invariant direct word of God, of course.
So, the asshat who was speaking delicate niceties into the ear of the dying man, was as justified in his interpretation of the words of Jesus as was Kodiak. More so, if we are to read scripture with any lasting comprehension.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 20, 2008 11:22 AM
I KNOW THAT GUY! I saw him New York protesting a Billy Graham rally. Even Billy Grham wasn't extreme enough for this guy. It was a few months after the Asian tsunami and he was holding up signs that said "God caused tsunami" and such all because we aren't godly enough! Ha! He must be an aspiring Fred Phelps.
Posted by: Bill C. | June 20, 2008 11:28 AM
@ democommie
I was confused too (and still a little confused). The part where he says "This priest..." in the update made me think that the guy in the lower picture was the priest. Maybe because I am used to the news framing a "bad person" in a way to create a negative emotional impact. The fact that this seems to be a picture taken at a more random moment is a little confusing.
Or alternatively where he says "One of the Christian protesters (pictured below)..." could mean the whole photoset.
I had to go through the photoset (it's worth it anyway) to find a shot of that guy with his sign. Yep, he's an asshat.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 20, 2008 11:30 AM
Gingerbaker, I don't for the slightest moment think that we will agree on this (and I almost put a disclaimer on my original post saying this) however, those who call themselves Christian *should*, through reading the full text of the Bible have some understanding of what the word "Christian" is supposed to denote. The vile person being discussed is not doing anything that would stand as evidence that he is living up to the descriptions found there.
I'm not going to argue theology or Biblical interpretation with you because that would just invite an inevitable pile-on here and I'm not interested in being told what I think and believe and how wrong it is, which is how all the not-the-same-believer-or-unbeliever-as-someone-else threads here invarriably go.
(also, my name has 2 k's... like the bear...)
Posted by: kodiak | June 20, 2008 11:32 AM
Ah, Chesterton, the favorite author of Kentucky-Fried Sophist Martin Cothran. I've never read Chesterton myself, but everything Cothran quoted convinced me he was, at best, an airhead. Specifically, the kind of anti-rational obscurantist who makes a big deal of the "fact" that we can't really "see" physical laws, therefore we're all acting on nothing but faith when we "assume" such laws are in effect.
Speaking of Cothran, I notice he's now posted a set of "rules of conduct" (of which he's the most consistent violator); and falling back on the usual creationist tactic of making jaw-droppingly stupid, dishonest and insulting statements and then banning respondents who call him out on it. In other words, just another DI Blog contributor.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 20, 2008 11:32 AM
About Jesus, I'd hang out with him if he was around and real. At least if he was as anti-authoritarian and open as he's described. Yeah, there's some stuff he spouts that I'd ignore, but there's some thing about every one of your friends that you know you don't like. Still, he'd be cool to spend a day with.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 20, 2008 11:33 AM
The hater's name is Kevin Ferrer. If you google him you'll find loads of information about him pulling this kind of thing. He ought to be arrested for assault.
Posted by: Adam G. | June 20, 2008 11:45 AM
@Blaidd Drwg: You forgot to include the Hippies, the Dirty F*ing Hippies. Sigh. Talk about missed opportunities.
But Jill Scott says it far better than most:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw3Z8Oa7E3Y
Posted by: Matt Platte | June 20, 2008 11:52 AM
I've been reading about Mr. Ferrer. He has his own website with a few fellow haters also contributing to it. He wrote a nice sermon about how he isn't really calling people "names", instead he's just a poor guy using limited language abilities to get God's word across.
I'm of the opinion that he has the hots for a Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist girl and is trying to be worthy of her. So far, so good!
Posted by: Calladus | June 20, 2008 11:55 AM
Sorry, Kehrsam, but you're using question-begging logic here. What you've done is notice an inconsistency in the Gospels. But your conclusion boils down to "Well, Jesus can't be inconsistent, so obviously Matt. 5:19 must mean something different than what the words on the page clearly say."
But that logic only works if you presuppose that Jesus can't be wrong about something--ie, if you presuppose the point you're trying to make against Ginger.
And Ginger was not quoting out of context. Here's the verse in context:
He's definitely talking about Jewish law, which includes all the horrible stuff in Leviticus. And he's threatening hell for those who would disobey the law. In fact, the subsequent verses of Chapter 5 go on to increase the breadth of the law--whereas the law had previously applied only to action, Jesus claims it applies to THOUGHT as well.
The fact that Jesus himself is portrayed (in other passages) as in fact breaking those very laws (such as the Sabbath law) is just one of the many contradictory messages found in the Gospels.
Posted by: Wes | June 20, 2008 11:58 AM
Doesn't Jesus go on, in both Matt. and Luke, and directly reference the Flood?
Posted by: Josh | June 20, 2008 12:04 PM
I am very upset that the cop told the guy to shut up. Doesn't he realize that we have free speech protection in this country? Posted by: Gingerbaker
I don't know, heckling a guy in the middle of a heart attack? Sounds damn close to attempted murder to me.
Posted by: Drekab | June 20, 2008 12:23 PM
Drekab - Isn't one of the Miranda Rights a right to silence? Perhaps they should have arrested him (Offensive Language/Disturbing the Peace/Disorderly Conduct) then he would have clammed up, but fast, I bet. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 20, 2008 12:32 PM
Drekab said:
"I am very upset that the cop told the guy to shut up. Doesn't he realize that we have free speech protection in this country? Posted by: Gingerbaker
I don't know, heckling a guy in the middle of a heart attack? Sounds damn close to attempted murder to me."
I should have put a " ;)" after that remark - it was meant to be funny. Sorry about that, and I pretty much agree with you. Vile, probably pathological behavior by that fundamentalist, and I am glad the cop told him to shut up.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 20, 2008 12:42 PM
I wonder if the piece of shit in question was from Fred Phelps' clan? His behavior would seem to indicate it.
Posted by: CHV | June 20, 2008 12:56 PM
The fact that this argument always breaks out and that both sides can cite scripture that supports the "Jesus just wanted us to love each other" and "Jesus was a judgmental bastard who doomed people to hell" positions is that the Bible contains enough of both verses for someone to read it any way they please. Decent, caring people find plenty of support for being decent and caring; hateful, oppressive people find plenty of support for being hateful and oppressive. That's why I always say there is not one Christianity but many Christianities (just as there are many Islams). And while I don't believe any of those Christianities is true, at least the former type has better ideas in it and encourages people to be decent. Thus I gladly welcome those people to my side while I bash the second group.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 20, 2008 12:57 PM
I always wonder why neither of those groups revise the Bible. Jefferson did it. Get rid of the parts that don't align with your views. Then you never have to explain things away.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 20, 2008 1:03 PM
Wes: I have no desire to keep this silly argument going, but I am not begging the question. The author of Matthew most certainly did not believe there were any contradictions in his story, and I am merely accepting that premise.
Frankly, your reading is just as legalistic as that of the Fundamentalists you are critiquing.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 20, 2008 1:19 PM
Very true.
I certainly don't want my comment to be interpreted as implying that all Christians can be lumped together. I'm not bashing Kehrsam. I'm disagreeing with his reasoning, because it appears to be circular. Though I applaud the work of Christians (such as Ken Miller) who help in the fight against the religious right, I don't think that means that in the instances where I do disagree with them that I should bite my tongue and not say what I think.
To me, the important part is to avoid dividing everything into two camps, "us" and "them", and to recognize that reasonable disagreement can take place even between people who are otherwise allies. I have no intention of "bashing" moderate Christians or other moderate religious people. Like you I save the real vitriol for the people who are trying to tear down the separation of church and state, or who use religion as a tool of suppression. But I also have no intention of biting my tongue on the issues where I have disagreements with moderates merely because we agree on other things.
My attitude towards moderate religion is that we can work together, get along, and agree to disagree, so long as it's understood that everyone is free to speak his or her mind, even when what's on their mind involves criticism of beliefs. And, on a side note, I'm opposed to the people who automatically label anyone who criticizes moderate belief as a "militant atheist". That's nonsense. Being critical and skeptical of ideas is not militancy. In fact, I fear living in a world where free thought is labeled as a form of violence.
Posted by: Wes | June 20, 2008 1:26 PM
First, comparing me to a fundamentalist is a cheap shot. If you don't want me to lump you in with fundamentalists, don't do it to me either. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Neither one of us is a fundamentalist, so such false name calling and false labels contribute nothing to the discussion.
Anyways, the premise "The author does not believe he's contradicting himself" does not contradict the premise "The author is contradicting himself", because the author could contradict himself without realizing or believing that he's contradicting himself.
If, however, you are presupposing "The Bible contains no contradictions", then you are in fact employing circular reasoning. It is that very alleged reliability of the Bible that is being impeached here, so presupposing it is question-begging. You say that, since Jesus broke the Law, when he said "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" he must have meant something other than what he said, which only works if you include the hidden premise of "because there can't be any contradiction." That just begs the question.
Posted by: Wes | June 20, 2008 1:40 PM
Ed, Thanks for highlighting the post from our site. I thought I should point you to Storm Bear's update:
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/06/god_killed_him_for_loving_fags_updated.php
I should point out though that Storm isn't usually a regular blogger or photographer. He's our cartoonist and happened to be in town at the right time. We drafted him. *grins* (Hence the toon at the top of the update post.)
The man in green is the protester. There are lots of other hateful shots of him in our photostream of Monday and Tuesdays weddings from around the state. Storm's update also includes links to the man's website, etc as well as an update on the celebrant who went into cardiac arrest.
Posted by: Bil Browning | June 20, 2008 1:47 PM
"All Athenians are liars
I am an Athenian."
Yep got you there Kehrasm, If Matthew said that Jesus said (talk about hearsay) "All who break the rules are bad" and he broke the rules himself, is Jesus bad? -Curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 20, 2008 1:49 PM
DJ: No, I just think you and Wes are not reading broadly enough (and, no, Wes, I did not call you a fundy; I said your reading of bits of text out of context was similar to the particular legalism they employ). Viewed as a whole, Jesus' argument in the Sermon on the Mount is not, "Keep the law or go to Hell": It is, "You don't even keep what is demanded by the Law, and yet the requirement for salvation is much steeper."
Again, I neither have time nor patience to argue the issue, especially not with fundies; I imagine you will at least smile during the discussion. ;-) We'll have to agree to disagree.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 20, 2008 2:04 PM
So typical of you all. One guy who calls himself a Christian acts like a complete punk and you characterize all Christians as being like that. I could introduce you to 50 Christians who would have been on the ground giving the CPR to the guy. Pathetic.
Posted by: mroberts | June 20, 2008 3:16 PM
What a surprise, mroberts comes late to the discussion and gets everything wrong.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 20, 2008 3:19 PM
mroberts -
Anyone who could actually read this post and comments and make that statement is either lying or has incredibly poor reading comprehension. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you didn't read most of the comments, you just found one statement with which to feed your overblown persecution complex.Posted by: Taz | June 20, 2008 3:56 PM
Define irony: Criticizing folks for making an inaccurate sweeping generalization by making an inaccurate sweeping generalization about them.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 20, 2008 4:06 PM
I thought irony was rain on your wedding day...
Posted by: Josh | June 20, 2008 4:08 PM
Arguing about what Jesus said is somewhat irrelevant, since all we have is stuff that other people said he said. Inconsistency, in this case, is to be expected.
Posted by: mandrake | June 20, 2008 4:39 PM
Truthfully, it's a waste of time to apply any sort of scripture (pro or con) to the actions of this individual.
IMO, he is moronic slime, and does not deserve comparisons to a normal human being.
Posted by: CHV | June 20, 2008 6:03 PM
Why would Satan get him?
I thought these shitbags were saying that GOD is going to get them.
Posted by: wheyghey | June 20, 2008 6:07 PM
Well, we weren't talking about YOU in this case. But if you feel the statements, feel free to indulge in your Pharisee complex...
Posted by: gwangung | June 20, 2008 7:25 PM
So you make a false generalization about us all claiming that we all make false generalizations, succinctly proving 1.) your own prejudice, 2.) that you didn't read or comprehend anything in the thread, and 3.) you have no comprehension of the meaning of words like "hypocrisy" or "irony"...
Comments like this make me wonder if perhaps you're some kind of extremely clever Steve Colbert type character, just playing the role of a fundamentalist idiot who projects his own faults onto his opponents and is completely impervious to logic or reason. I'm calling Poe's Law on your entire internet presence, and especially on that comment. That comment was the perfect storm of semi-literate stupidity, oblivious psychological projection, and glaringly obvious hypocrisy. I just have to wonder if it's too good to be true.
Posted by: Wes | June 20, 2008 7:29 PM
kersham to a degree your correct but so is Wes, there is no doubt(or at least there shouldn't be)that the verse from above is not taken out of context but a reaffirmaton of OT law. Jesus was a jew after all. I would also take issue with the 'requirement for salvation being steeper part', Jesus was illustrating the fraility of the human condition to fail but the redemption possible through faith. Seems much less steep than trying to keep a million obscure laws hence the 'light yoke' verse.
Again, I neither have time nor patience to argue the issue, especially not with fundies; I imagine you will at least smile during the discussion. ;-) We'll have to agree to disagree
Posted by: GH | June 20, 2008 8:19 PM
While no one is maintaining that all xians echo the sentiments of this asshat, all of them do bear at least some of the responsibility for allowing their brand, their figurehead, their raison d'etre to be misused in this way. Similarly, moderate muslims are also somewhat responsible for their strain of extremists.
Every time one of these bozos open their mouths, it is up to his/her co-religionists to speak up publicly and emphatically to disavow whatever the fucktardery. To remain silent is to tacitly approve.
Posted by: raindogzilla | June 20, 2008 8:29 PM
Raging:
Is this supposed to be of any consequence to the Chesterton quote I gave, RB? I cited Chesterton to give proper attribution (assuming the quote is his), not really to give any force to the quote (I'm really not familiar with anything he's written outside of this particular quote, which I heard quite a while back). Even if this is true, you know the saying about a stopped clock, and I see no reason to think the quote untrue.
And actually, now that I look further, it appears that the quote is "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse" and is properly attributed to St. Augustine. All the better.
P.S. kehrsam, your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Havest thou a blog or other communicative tools? Feel free to E-mail me if you don't wish to publicize here.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 20, 2008 8:51 PM
Matt 5:17-20 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
The passage doesn't say that Hebrew law will never change, it says it won't change until Jesus has completed his mission. The old law "will not disappear until everything is accomplished." The passage hints at his death and resurrection as pivotal events in the future status of the law.
This isn't a small matter to Christians. To most Christians, the death and resurrection of Jesus is the "until" that makes salvation possible without adherence to the external purity codes.
Posted by: Dr X | June 20, 2008 8:52 PM
Hey it's Simon Cowell's evil twin.
Posted by: Phil | June 20, 2008 9:11 PM
>> What a surprise, mroberts comes late to the discussion and gets everything wrong. >>
Sorry guys, I only read Ed's post when I commented. Some of you were giving Christians overall the benefit of the doubt and I appreciate that. Maybe I am a little sensitive to the incredible one-sidedness that comes from the media on this issue. They often portray the nice people on the gay side and nastiest people on protesting side. That is not honest, and I think Ed has often played into that a bit when he posts on this issue. As for Wes, I think you need to get out a little more:
>> Comments like this make me wonder if perhaps you're some kind of extremely clever Steve Colbert type character, just playing the role of a fundamentalist idiot who projects his own faults onto his opponents and is completely impervious to logic or reason. I'm calling Poe's Law on your entire internet presence, and especially on that comment. That comment was the perfect storm of semi-literate stupidity, oblivious psychological projection, and glaringly obvious hypocrisy. I just have to wonder if it's too good to be true. >>
Wow, sounds like you were writing a term paper there. Relax and get out a little more. What I said wasn't THAT big of a deal.
Posted by: mroberts | June 20, 2008 9:37 PM
Dr. X,
Are you saying that the heavens and the Earth disappeared when Jesus was resurrected?
Even Christian theology does not hold that "everything is accomplished". There's still the old second coming and rapture thing to be accomplished. More importantly, Jesus' quote clearly indicates that the end of the Law will coincide with the end of the World.
I suppose that one might adopt a "realized eschatology" and claim that the kingdom of God is somehow already accomplished and we're in it (some kingdom...), but that requires a reading of the text so remotely divorced from what the text actually says that it might as well be, "The text says whatever I want it to say".
Robert M. Price has written some pretty good critiques of this type of biblicism, where a liberal theologian will develop a theology which has nothing to do with anything in the text (or, in fact, actually denies what the text says and asserts exactly the opposite), but then attribute it to the text anyways. In cases like this the book itself, rather than the content of the book, has become a type of idol. It's not at all like fundamentalist literalism (which merely takes whatever the text actually says as absolute truth), but it's still a form of biblicism.
I find it odd that even among certain liberal Christians there is often a very strong resistance to the suggestion that maybe the Bible is just plain wrong about a lot things. Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that a hodge-podge compilation of books written thousands of years ago by individuals of an oppressed society of goat herders with differing agendas might contain a lot of inaccuracies and contradictions? That doesn't mean you can't still read the book and find inspiration in it (Hell, I've been an atheist for years, but I still read the Bible from time to time). It just means you shouldn't take it too seriously. Read it for what it is, not for what you want it to be.
Posted by: Wes | June 20, 2008 9:38 PM
>> I find it odd that even among certain liberal Christians there is often a very strong resistance to the suggestion that maybe the Bible is just plain wrong about a lot things. Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that a hodge-podge compilation of books written thousands of years ago by individuals of an oppressed society of goat herders with differing agendas might contain a lot of inaccuracies and contradictions? >>
Say what? It doesn't even sound like you've read the Bible. And you think that liberal Christians are the ones who are resistant to saying that the Bible is wrong about things?? Wow. It isn't the conservative Christians denying traditional Christian doctrines, it is the LIBERAL ones. LIBERAL churches are the ones saying that there are multiple ways to salvation, or that Jesus is not divine, or that homosexuality is not wrong, or that all religions are equally valid.
Posted by: mroberts | June 20, 2008 10:04 PM
mroberts, that describes some liberal Christian churches. There are other liberal Christians that would take strong objection to the Bible being described Wes did. I have seen it many times myself. As that's not the sort of thing you'd be likely to say to another Christian (fair assumption?), it's no surprise you might not be as familiar with the common reactions of liberal Christians to it or something similar.
And didn't you just learn your lesson about generalizing? ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 20, 2008 10:39 PM
Mroberts said:
I would humbly suggest that that's because supporting civil rights for gays is nice, whereas opposing them is nasty.
Liberal Christians are resistant to a lot of what the Bible says, and so are conservative Christians. The liberals tend to emphasize "love your neighbor" over "worship me or go to hell, and women are inferior, gays should be killed, wearing mixed fabrics and working on a Sunday should cause you to be stoned," etc. Conservatives tend to ignore "love your neighbor," unless of course your neighbor is not just like you. I'd say both are pretty equally guilty of ignoring the parts of the Bible they don't like, which is why I'd recommend ignoring the Bible altogether.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 20, 2008 10:43 PM
mroberts wrote:
What's pathetic is this ridiculous and inaccurate tirade. Quote one thing in my post that even implied such a thing. Not only did I not say anything even remotely implying that this man represents all Christians, I put up a picture of him specifically so you would know precisely who I was talking about. You don't have to introduce me to 50 christians who would have been giving CPR to the guy, I know far more than 50 myself. I have never, ever, under any circumstances, said or implied anything like what you said. In fact, I have said the exact opposite hundreds of times on this blog - including on this very thread, if you'd bothered to read before flying off the handle.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 20, 2008 11:04 PM
"One of the Christian protesters (pictured below) was chanting at his body - "Satan Got You!" "What is the Devil whispering in your ear about now?"
I yelled at the guy, "If you are such a Christian, why aren't you praying for the guy dying on the concrete?" The protester replied, "God killed him for loving fags!!" The cops even stepped in and told the guy to shut his mouth."
Sigh. In a 20 minute period of time, this slug manages to:
a) mess with the enjoyment of all those present that day.
b) misrepresent 99% of christians.
c) equate anyone who disagrees with states legalizing gay marriage with his "die sucker" mentality.
d) convince many to react just as this poster did on the linked article: "Christianity has become a religion of Hate. They worship the Devil, not Jesus."
Perhaps he will one day achieve his likely goal of being martyred.
Posted by: Rich | June 21, 2008 1:54 AM
For one thing, I have read the Bible. All of it. More than once. I have read it in almost every English translation. I've even translated portions of the New Testament from the original Greek, and portions of the Old Testament from the Septuagint Greek. I've also read a lot of the apocryphal books that didn't make it into the Bible. I know more about the Bible than a hypocritical blowhard like you ever will.
If you had bothered to read my post, rather than just blurting out a knee-jerk reaction, you would have noticed that I was only speaking of "certain" liberal Christians. My comment in no way applies to all liberal Christians. Just certain groups. There certainly are liberal Christian groups who have no problem saying the Bible is simply wrong about certain things. There are others, however, who don't. It differs from group to group. As Ed said several posts above, there is not one single Christianity; instead, there are multiple Christianities.
Also, your selective quotation of me completely skipped over the part where I explain how liberal Biblicism differs from conservative Literalism. Liberal Christians do NOT interpret the Bible literally, and yet some liberal groups still insist the Bible is entirely true.I said:
From your fundamentalist point of view, anyone who doesn't interpret and believe the Bible absolutely literally is saying the Bible is false. That is the source of your resentment of liberal Christians.
But you're wrong. There are many different Christian traditions that read the Bible in different ways, and your conservative literalism version is on the bottom rung of the Christian ladder, as far as I'm concerned. It's just about the dumbest form of religion there is.
Oh, and conservative Christians in America ARE denying traditional Christian doctrines by being so Bible-focused. That's part of why they're called PROTESTant. Traditionally, Christianity put as much authority in Church hierarchy as in the Bible, and the Catholic church continues this tradition. The Protestants revolted against that and gradually evolved into a "Bible-based" church, which completely repudiated the ecclesiastical tradition.
Posted by: Wes | June 21, 2008 3:01 AM
Christianity has become a religion of Hate Rich quoting Thomas Mc
Become a religion of hate? It's only since it began to lose state power and cultural influence that significant parts of it have ceased to be such!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 7:18 AM
It has been done, many times. See Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, and The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos for more details.
However, now that I think about it, Avalos and Ehrman show more how things have been added than snipped over the centuries.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 21, 2008 7:21 AM
I'm staying out of the main disputes here, since they are being well covered, but I have to defend GKC -- and I have read all -- I think of his fiction and a good amount of his non-fiction. I disagree with him on almost everything (I don't even like beer that much and think that cheese goes better on crackers than on bread) but he is still a true delight to read for his style alone.
And I think that "The Crime of Gabriel Gale" and "The Honor of Israel Gow" are two of the finest short stories of the last century. They are both available on the net, btw, "Gale" is in his collection THE POET AND THE LUNATICS and "Gow" is a Father Brown story -- can't remember in which book, probably the first or second.
I've even said that while I don't believe in an afterlife, if there was one, the only thing I'd ask is that i'd wind up somewhere where I could hold conversations with him.
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | June 21, 2008 1:59 PM
kehrsam:
My understanding is that when Jesus says the Law shall never pass away (Matthew 5:17-19), he's not contradicting himself in Matthew i.e. AFAIK Matthew modifies the gospel story to avoid situations where Jesus breaks the Law. For example there's a scene in Mark where Jesus starts by defending his disciples' eating with unwashed hands and ends up implying that the Law on unclean foods is no longer valid:
Mark 7:18-20
As the bolded text shows, Mark claims Jesus was repudiating the Law on unclean foods with this statement. But Matthew, copying Mark, quietly drops this implication:
Matthew 15:16-19
See, no more parenthetical claims that the Law is invalid. So to claim that Matthew's Jesus contradicted himself (on a literal reading of 5:17-19), you have to show an example in Matthew where Jesus clearly breaks the Law.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 22, 2008 2:53 AM
I'm no biblical scholar, however my understanding is that Mark was a friend of John's, that he met after the Jesus' dissappearance. Thus Matthew was not meakly following Mark, but rather, Mark was adding his own hearsay to Matthew's story. Really only John and Matthew can claim to direct evidence, Luke and Mark are mere hearsay. Note how well they agree with each other, like "coached" testimony. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2008 4:03 AM
AFAIK, the Two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory about the origin of the gospels. The idea is that Mark wrote the first gospel, sometime around 70AD; Matthew and Luke both independently copied him, extending him with some other material (the "Q source") in the 80s; and John wrote his gospel independently of the other three (though maybe after a look through Mark) around 90AD.
All these writers, of course, were anonymous Greek-speaking Christians: none of the disciples wrote a gospel.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 22, 2008 8:49 PM
What a piece of shit....but at the same time, his parents are a millions times worse for actually raising a child to think that way.
Posted by: stevogvsu | June 26, 2008 1:26 PM