Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is kind of a cool story. At a gay pride event in Georgia, you had the usual anti-gay folks protesting and telling everyone at the event that they were going to burn in hell if they didn't magically stop being gay and convert to Christianity. But they were joined by other Christian groups embracing the attendees and even apologizing to them for the way they've traditionally been treated by the church:
For the past two years, local churches who affirm gays have mounted a counteroffensive. Their members stand near the conservatives, holding signs saying that God accepts gays just as they are."We are letting people know that there is an alternative message," said Lisa Costen of Atlanta.
She attends Trinity United Methodist Church, which affirms gays though the United Methodist denomination has not taken that step.
The battling groups reflect much of what is happening inside American Christianity, as churches grapple with how to treat gay members. Some reject them. Some welcome them with open arms. Others are trying to find a balance.
Inside the park, local churches, from a born-again, charismatic gay congregation to mainline churches, such as the Episcopal Church, have taken vendors' booths and invite gays in without demanding they change.
This year, two evangelical ministers who are walking a middle path between outright condemnation and full affirmation of gay people took a booth and surprised those stopping by with apologies.
"I just want to say I'm sorry," Jason Harper, an assistant pastor from Sacramento, Calif., told a man as he handed him a white rubber bracelet with "We're Sorry" indented into it.
Harper continued, he is sorry for the way many churches have treated gay people, making them feel like outcasts. The man paused, looked Harper in the eye and thanked him before disappearing.
Very cool.
Politics
Comments
Heartbreaking.
Posted by: Andrea | November 4, 2009 9:23 AM
I want to like this more than I do. I keep thinking "Why are you sorry? What did you do?"
It is wonderful that more churches are accepting of gays. But assigning meaning to the apologies of people who may have done nothing wrong, is to let the those who have done wrong off the hook. I assume that the "middle ground" preachers are being honest and do regret things that they may have done in the past. But they can not make apologies for the actions of others. It just seems sort of like a reverse "no true Scotsman" to me.
Posted by: Joshua White | November 4, 2009 9:29 AM
The sad thing is that so many people in the ScienceBlogs community consider these people part of the problem, not the solution.
Posted by: Brandon | November 4, 2009 9:30 AM
Why would we consider them part of the problem? I'm as atheist as they come, but I recognize that we need the faith community to be on our side (in regards to LGBQT rights). I think most agree. Those that don't are idiots.
Sadly, Maine just voted down the rights of the minority. So this post is bittersweet.
Posted by: marilove | November 4, 2009 9:36 AM
This is yet another example of how religion as practised differs from religion as dictated by scripture, in this case, the Bible. It used to be that capital punishment, was the norm and the Bible supported it, but now it's unacceptable or sharply circumscribed in what are deemed to be civilized countries.
Along the same lines, the Bible is unequivocal about homosexuality, yet we see more and more that Christians are learning to accept it. So is there going to be a point, somwhere in our future, at which Christians realize that they've essentially abandoned scriptural dictates so much that it's nothing short of hypocritical to claim adherence to that religion any more?
Posted by: IanW | November 4, 2009 9:53 AM
I think you'd be surprised. I pretty much always side with the so-called "New Atheists" here (check my blog link if you have any doubt how I feel about the "accomodationism" debate and other issues). And yet I'm pretty down with this.
At the gay pride parade in our town, there are always quite a few churches marching. It probably takes up a third of the parade. I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me feel uncomfortable seeing all those churchies marching past, but I'm damn glad they are in the parade and working towards doing the right thing.
Now that doesn't mean I am giving up the right to criticize these same churches in a different context. As shocking as this might seem to those who vilify the "New Atheists", it is possible to passionately disagree with a group on one issue, and yet applaud them on other issues. Hell, that's how I feel about Ed's blog too...
See here for more thoughts on this.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 9:56 AM
The movie For the Bible Tells Me So has some interesting apologetics to twist the Bible into a not-anti-gay stance. In particular, they have an interesting spin on Sodom and Gomorrah that sounds plausible to me. The rest of their apologetics are hooey (Leviticus is pretty unambiguous, I think), but I'm glad somebody is making that case anyway. People are suffering today as a result of anti-gay bigotry (hell, check the vote in Maine last night) and if a sweet lie about the Bible keeps a few people from going down that path, I'm not going to complain about it too much :D
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 10:00 AM
IanW- Most American Christians already lead secular lives and are what you would find to be hypocrites. Christianity in America is no longer a religion, it is a political block intended to strip Americans of freedom in they'r personal and sexual lives. God is just a convenient excuse to rule over others.
Posted by: rex | November 4, 2009 10:04 AM
And to add, James Sweet, there are many churches that are gay focused. I even know of a catholic gay church in Chandler, AZ, with a lesbian priest. No lie! She's pretty awesome.
There is a LGBQT Christian church right next to my apartment that I keep meaning to hit up after service (and I may even sit through a service, as I'm curious) to network (I volunteer heavily within the LGBQT community, and gay churches are a great way to gather fellow volunteers).
They ALL know I'm an atheist and, guess what? They don't care. They don't try to convert me. They accept me. They just don't give a shit that I don't believe, because my non-belief has nothing to do with their belief in god.
It's kind of amazing, really, and made me re-think my disdain for religion as a whole. They aren't ALL bad.
(Still a staunch atheist, though, no worries about that!)
Posted by: marilove | November 4, 2009 10:12 AM
The best justification I've heard is that in ancient Hebrew society, there was no such thing as a homosexual relationship. Any male on male action was basically one guy claiming dominance on another guy. Keep in mind two things: men were sticking their dicks in basically any hole they could find, and there was very little socially accepted, consensual sex. Married women had no say in when they could have sex, and women who had sex outside of marriage (even if they were raped) were treated as human trash. So the idea of two people getting together, falling in love, and expressing their love physically was an alien concept. (This is actually a huge generalization, but the point still stands.)
So basically when God says, "Do not lie with a man," he was really saying, "Don't ass-rape other dudes."
Posted by: Brandon | November 4, 2009 10:17 AM
Christianity is certainly not the only religion that does this. Also, the wingnut Christians stray as far from the Bible as the moderate Christians. It's kind of nice to think that the good Christians don't really count and we should condemn the whoel thing because of the wackos, but they're just as hypocritical or even more so. For example, the Bible seems to imply that abortion is just fine, but when you get extreme Evangelical groups going on about how abortion is murder, a lot of people will still use that as an excuse to hate all of Christianity. Also, there's really nothing at all that is unequivocal in the Bible, even the condemnation of homosexuality. Some parts are just lists of rules, but most parts aren't. No, I'm not a Christian; I just hate it when people say the good Christians don't really count, as an excuse to condemn Christianity or Christians or religion in general. It's as bad as defenders saying that the Fundagelicals don't really count so everyone should love Christianity.
Posted by: catgirl | November 4, 2009 10:29 AM
Hmm.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 4, 2009 10:29 AM
The bible (as has been noted) is pretty clear about how god looks at homosexuality. So things like this make me wonder which other parts of the bible they are willing to overlook for expediency, and which parts they would still cling to, insisting that it's the word of god. I have this argument with my wife all the time. If you are going to claim to be a Christian, you can't pick and choose which of god's rules you are going to observe and which you aren't. I wonder how these apologizing churches feel about people who wear cotton and wool concurrently.
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 10:31 AM
IanW, #5,
No such abandonment is required. The old testament commands the sacrifice of animals for sin atonement. In the NT era, such practice would be an abomination of, well, old testament proportions. That is probably the best example of the following point. Saying the Levitical laws do not apply today does not require hypocrisy. It simply requires actually reading the New Testament, such as when the writer of Hebrews, referring to Jesus as the new (and better) high priest, states,
The law has changed as the Sermon on the Mount clearly teaches. The law which will always exist, to the last jot and tittle, is the fuller revelation provided by Jesus, (Love your neighbor as yourself) not the shadow provided by Moses.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 10:31 AM
James Sweet @7: The movie For the Bible Tells Me So has some interesting apologetics to twist the Bible into a not-anti-gay stance. In particular, they have an interesting spin on Sodom and Gomorrah that sounds plausible to me.
Never seen the movie, but can I guess that the "twist" is that S&G's sin wasn't teh gay, but a lack of hospitality? That's actually the traditional Jewish interpretation of that passage.
It's even canon. Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy."
Unfortunately that won't hold water with many Christians. It does get mentioned that Sodom's problem involved strange lusts. In the book of Jude in the New Testament.
That's a whole different ball of wax, though. It creates a question, specifically, of whether or not Christians can re-interpret the Bible to come up with lessons the Jews don't take from it. The answer, of course, is, "Yes." Exhibit A: Jesus as the Messiah...
Posted by: Geds | November 4, 2009 10:41 AM
The bible (as has been noted) is pretty clear about how god looks at homosexuality.
An assertion that has been proven false, by Christians and non-Christians alike. The only references to homosexuality are found in parts that aren't considered relevant in the modern age (the ancient laws of Leviticus), or peripheral references in chapters that are actually talking about other subjects entirely (Romans).
If you are going to claim to be a Christian, you can't pick and choose which of god's rules you are going to observe and which you aren't.
Excuse me, but if you're a Christian, then you HAVE to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are relevant and helpful in your life, and which aren't. It's called judgement, and it's something grownups are forced to do every day.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 10:43 AM
I tend to agree somewhat with Joshua White: it's cool that Christian ministers are apologizing for what others have done, but those who have perpetrated these offenses are the ones who really need to be apologizing (and, sadly, probably never will). It would be equally empty if I addressed all LGBTQ people and said, "As a straight person, I apologize for all of the threats, violence, and deprivation of rights that have been perpetrated by straight people," would it not?
Still, this apology is better than nothing, like Gordon Brown's apology for what was done to Alan Turing. It might be frustrating to see only baby steps, but even baby steps in the right direction still constitute progress.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 4, 2009 10:45 AM
In retrospect, it's not as clear as I asserted. Correction accepted. However, if what you assert in the above is truly the case, why are so many Christians, the apologizers notwithstanding, so hateful and bigoted toward homosexuals, using the bible as justification? How can so many people who claim to be Christians fail to have noticed, as you have, that Leviticus is not relevant in the modern world? What have Phelps and Hutcherson, et al missed, and how can we help them understand the truth?
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 10:53 AM
Yep, you got it.
Brandon at #10 has an interesting spin on Leviticus. For the Bible Tells Me So's take was that "abomination" in Hebrew just meant something that was prohibited in that particular society in that time, so that God's commandment explicitly applied only to the Jews allegedly wandering in the desert at that time, and not to anyone else, or even to later Jews.
This sounds intriguing on the surface, but generally the penalty for violating club by-laws is not DEATH. So I don't buy it.
@Raging Bee: Not that I disagree really with anything you say, but your sarcastic comment about adults "exercising judgment" is a little unfair to those of us pointing out the Bible's stance on homosexuality. Many American Christians -- even non-fundies -- if asked, would say that it was not okay for (hu)man to "exercise judgment" in regards to the Bible. Obviously they don't really mean that, but they might say it.
What is the latest statistic about how many Americans believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? It's a pretty high number... and uh, I don't think that "inerrant word of God" is compatible with "they only said that in Romans, which is not really an important part of the inerrant word of God anyway." :p
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 10:59 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 4, 2009 11:00 AM
However, if what you assert in the above is truly the case, why are so many Christians, the apologizers notwithstanding, so hateful and bigoted toward homosexuals, using the bible as justification?
Because the irrational hatred is so deeply ingrained that the bigots hear only those parts of the Bible that support it, and ignore (or rationalize away) those parts that don't. These are the same people who quietly and steadfastly ignore countless years of countless studies and observations disproving nearly all of their images and stereotypes of gays.
How can so many people who claim to be Christians fail to have noticed, as you have, that Leviticus is not relevant in the modern world?
They DO notice this -- a fact that is proven by their consistent failure to observe (or even remember) the rest of the rules in Leviticus.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 11:01 AM
BTW, after reading some comments about those saying that an apology from liberal Christian groups is not appropriate, I have to say I think I agree. When I first read this, I mentally lumped it in with the churches I see marching in our town's Gay Pride parade. That I think is really positive thing, even though I admitted earlier that the sight of so many churchies in one place makes me vaguely uncomfortable :D An affirmative message of tolerance is great, but an apology for other people being intolerant is a little weak..
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 11:02 AM
Baloney heddle, seriously that is silly. The law didn't change, Jesus said so explicitly. But what you essentially arguing is that God(Jesus) decided to give older generations partial law for no real reason and then a fuller version later- again for no real reason.
Moses didn't provide anything, God(Jesus) did, so he changed his mind?
Posted by: GH | November 4, 2009 11:03 AM
No no, I think chris has it right... judging from both personal experience and widely available statistics, it appears to me that a disturbing number of American Christians have failed to notice that Leviticus is not relevant -- probably because they haven't read the entire thing.
This explains why almost nobody (except some ultra-Orthodox Jews) observes the rest of the rules in Leviticus: For many people, it isn't because they are consciously exercising judgment; it's because they assume that they are following all the rules, because they haven't read it.
I believe I can back this up with numbers if necessary... Not that this is the majority or anything, but this ignorant-but-all-trusting attitude towards the OT apparently describes a disturbingly large minority.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 11:06 AM
Hmmm...
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 11:08 AM
Admittedly without reading all the responses, all I could hear was:
"Wrong was done (but not by me personally)", so I can be forgiven for any hateful thing I might have said, because I say so. Such a position would be by a range of external factors thus the native8ve contagions sag on not opposed utterly by word and deed., slavity supported, no metter how vile, or untrue it is because I;m really not a [interest irrational fear here] .... some of my best friends & eyc. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 4, 2009 11:12 AM
Baloney heddle, seriously that is silly.
No, actually, that's one of the LEAST silly things heddle has said here.
The law didn't change, Jesus said so explicitly.
Jesus said many things, but together, they all amount to a pretty clear statement that yes, the law -- and the spirit and intent with which it is applied -- has indeed changed.
But what you essentially arguing is that God(Jesus) decided to give older generations partial law for no real reason and then a fuller version later- again for no real reason.
God (if he existed at all, of course) gave the ancient Hebrews one set of laws for one historical situation. Then the times changed, and Jesus came along to amend the laws and steer their interpretation in another direction. And yes, there was a reason in both cases: the laws change to reflect changing circumstances and evolving understanding.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 11:12 AM
To those who talk about how unequivocal the Bible is on homosexuality, I would just like to point out that nobody actually keeps all Biblical laws, unequivocal or not, nor could they. At a minimum, the laws are collected from many times and places and often do not agree.
The real issue for Christians would be more whether this particular law is a universal for all times and places or not. We (Christians) find good excuses to eat shellfish, pray in public, and keep records of our giving for tax purposes despite the plain commands of Leviticus (in the first case) and of Matthew 6 in the second.
"What the Bible plainly teaches" is really not all that plain without first acknowledging one's framework for interpretation. Even the most fundamentalist person has such a framework, else there is no way to make any sense of it at all.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | November 4, 2009 11:13 AM
...judging from both personal experience and widely available statistics, it appears to me that a disturbing number of American Christians have failed to notice that Leviticus is not relevant -- probably because they haven't read the entire thing.
If they haven't read it, don't apply it, and don't go out of their way to read it, then, de-facto, it's not relevant. As in international law, de-facto recognition matters, de-jure recognition doesn't.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 11:16 AM
#13, 16, 18, 21, and 24.
Tacking on to this exhange, I'd like to clarify what I meant by picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you believe and which you don't.
Raging Bee has a point that people who read the Bible for guidance can find some parts relevant for them while others may not, and find something else of value. Non-believers can still find meaning and beauty even in the Bible, at least in the NT. But that's not really what I meant. I was thinking of those people who are opposed to homosexuality because of what it says in Leviticus, but then don't adhere to the rest of that book's rules. For example, if you are opposed to homosexuality because of the first part of Lev. 20:13, you can't ignore the second part, which as I understand it, proscribes death for active homosexuals. You also can't ignore Lev. 20:9-12 and Lev. 20:14-18. To do so renders your original argument solely against homosexuality powerless.
Don't get me wrong, you can still hate gays. But you can't do so because of what it says in Leviticus, which many people do, if you aren't willing to accept all of Leviticus, which most of those people don't. You just have to find another reason to be hateful.
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 11:22 AM
FWIW, the fact that most Christians recognize the prohibition against selfish to be archaic at best does not change the fact that Leviticus is unequivocally and unambiguously prohibits shellfish.
If you are going to consciously apply your own moral judgment to which parts of the Bible are worth obeying and which parts are absolutely despicable, I applaud you for that. Seriously, I do. As you point out, everybody, even the most literal-minded fundie, applies their own judgment in regards to which parts of the Bible they follow -- but not everybody admits that, and doing so is critically important, because a failure to do so ends up with self-justifying beliefs. I don't really have a problem with people who are aware they are exercising their own moral judgment. So kudos to you. Really.
(of course, a part of me is asking why you bother with it in the first place, when you are already using your own judgment to decide what is right and wrong, but hey, what do I know...)
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 11:24 AM
GH,
Jesus did not state that Moses' law was inviolate (How could he?--he himself violated it, such as in how he handled lepers.) As I said before, the jot and tittle refer to his law, the law, not Moses'. New and better covenant. New and better priesthood. New and better law. It is completely self-consistent.
And the law surely changed, with the stark contrast being made by Jesus himself. You have heard is said do not commit adultery, but I tell you do not even lust etc. Time and time again he said that the law was being upgraded, including laws on divorce, on giving money, and the Sabbath, all of which which were radically different from what Moses gave.
Let me tell you what you really want to say: We will insist that Christians are bound by Levitical Law, in spite of Jesus clearly overturning it, Paul teaching contrary to it, Peter having visions that were in opposition to it, The Jerusalem Council abrogating it, and the writer of Hebrews explicitly stating that the law has changed --because that allows us to characterize them as "cafeteria Christians", and that's just too convenient to give up.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 11:28 AM
I attend a fairly typical Southern Baptist church. While I have mostly taught children's Sunday School classes, I have spent three years or so teaching adults over the years. Less than 10% have even a passing knowledge of what's in the OT, other than the bits that are brought up as prophesies of Jesus. They more or less blindly accept whatever picture of the text that the teacher chooses to present. They don't want to read, and they prefer not to think for themselves.
As Heddle notes, what Jesus presents in the Sermon on the Mount is actually radical: Don't just use the commandments of God as a list: Instead, look to God's purposes and follow. God is not a legalist: He wants His will to be doe, not to see if we can follow a list
Posted by: kehrsam | November 4, 2009 11:44 AM
As far as the Levitical Law goes, the best response I heard was from a Jewish friend. I have no idea if her interpretation is correct, but when I brought up how ridiculous it was to be following the Levitical Law, she said "well, yeah, because you aren't part of the Levitican Priesthood." Apparently those rules were originally only for select Jewish leaders - who knew?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | November 4, 2009 11:45 AM
heddle:
We will stop insisting they are bound by Levitical Law when they stop invoking Levitical Law to impose their own beliefs on the rest of us, cf Maine, California, etc.
Certainly some of the people so adamantly opposed to gay rights take that position for other reasons (although I have yet to hear any good ones), but most of those who voted Yes on 1 and Yes on 8 I would submit did so because they believe that homosexuality is a sin because of what it says, or what they think it says, in the Bible. And most of them would cite Leviticus.
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 11:48 AM
I'm pretty sure ancient people could understand it just fine if it was presented the same way both times. This is apologist dodge.
Not really, once you understand what Jesus was saying about divorce he essentially affirms Moses.
I don't think any such thing. God(Jesus) says one thing and then a little while later says another. Relative morality. No problems here.
Posted by: GH | November 4, 2009 11:51 AM
chris,
That makes no sense to me. You will stop willfully stating error when a subset of Christians change their attitudes? Why are they dependent?
And wouldn't it make more sense, if for no other reason than political expediency, to encourage the "you are no longer under Levitical law" argument, pointing to Christian leaders who do make such arguments, similar to what I made, rather than agreeing with your opposition that Levitical law still applies? Is that not counter-productive? It seems to me a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I see no logic at all in your position.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 11:56 AM
Boring. Didn't heddle swear off this blog and scienceblogs some time ago? He comes back and the conversation already drops down to the same old stuff he always argues- aimlessly.
Posted by: JeffR | November 4, 2009 11:57 AM
Some reject them. Some welcome them with open arms. Others are trying to find a balance.
Rejecting them with open arms? It's a start, but "accepting them, sort of, but moreso than the other guy" isn't the same as "accepting them".
Not harassing an unpopular minority with firey rhetoric while not granting them their civil rights is still not granting them their civil rights.
"I'm sorry. You're not equal." isn't much of an apology.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 4, 2009 12:02 PM
The Bible is even more clear how its god views slavery. He thinks it is fine and dandy, as long as some religious rules are observed. Despite that, some Baptist churches in 19th century America started preaching abolition. Other Baptist churches, appalled at this deviation from clear scriptural teaching, disapproving the non-scriptural condemnation of slave owners, and intent on upholding the literal and inerrant interpretation of scripture, broke away and formed their own convention. And thus the Southern Baptist Convention was born, in 1845.
Posted by: Russell | November 4, 2009 12:06 PM
Ah, but Russell, those Christians were wrong...eventually.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 4, 2009 12:09 PM
I'm pretty sure ancient people could understand it just fine if it was presented the same way both times.
That's what happens when you try to judge ancient peoples by modern standards: you completely ignore and/or misunderstand the circumstances in which the ancient people lived. Here, let me give you a hint: people in warring tribal societies CANNOT follow the same rules as people living in relative peace under a more civilized empire. Also, ancient peoples like the Hebrews in Moses' time simply had FAR less documented historical experience to guide them than did Judeans in the Roman era.
GH, Your disdainful use of the phrase "relative morality" just sounds idiotic. ALL morality is "relative," to the extent that its purpose is to guide people to the best collective responses to their particular circumstances; and when circumstances change, moral codes have to change to address them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 12:23 PM
ALL morality is "relative," to the extent that its purpose is to guide people to the best collective responses to their particular circumstances; and when circumstances change, moral codes have to change to address them.
Of course, which is why I used the phrase relative morality. Your mistaking it for disdain is idiotic.
BUT an all knowing powerful God who presents timeless laws/rules would have no need for the reality of relative morality.
Posted by: GH | November 4, 2009 12:35 PM
heddle:
What error am I stating? That Levitical Law applies when you say it no longer does? You are entitled to your interpretation of Scripture, of course.
Yes, it would make sense for everyone to reject Levitical Law entirely, just as it would make sense, frankly, to reject the entire Bible, but that's just my opinion. My point is, as long as people are resorting to Levitical Law to support their opposition to homosexuality, I would like them to be consistent and support all of Levitical Law. I would love to have some gay-hating Bible-believing politician come out and say not only does he reject same-sex marriage, but he proposes that any such couple agitating for marriage can be considered actively sinning against God's Word and must be executed. I wonder how O'Reilly and Beck, et al, would spin that one.
Ultimately, of course, I would like them to see that the whole thing is ridiculous and reject Levitical Law, and the Bible, altogether. I'm not encouraging full adherance to Levitical Law. I'm encouraging those that pick and choose parts of it to define their worldview to take a hard look at the rest of it.
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 12:41 PM
Fair enough kehrsham, but if you take one more step it does bring up the question why God presented them as a list in the first place instead of specifically instructing them at the time to look to God's purposes.
Because Jesus being God is not bound by these laws I'd guess, any more than God is when he kills and steals in violation of his commandments in the OT.
Doesn't, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" in the verse before jot or tittle refer to Moses law? Yes, the adultery prohibition has been upgraded to a lust prohibition, which obviously covers adultery. The prohibition against shellfish has been upgraded to what? It seems like it's just been eliminated. This elimination seems to be countered by Paul referencing the prohibition against homosexuality in the NT, which I assume, probably incorrectly, is echoing Levitican law. When you say that Jesus clearly overturned 'the Levitical Law', is it clear what parts of Levitical law he specifically overturned? Why is Paul still harping on homosexuality?
Posted by: Spartan | November 4, 2009 12:46 PM
Although I don't know from experience, I suspect one could commit adultery sans lust. Boredom, perhaps. Or propinquity.
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 12:51 PM
BUT an all knowing powerful God who presents timeless laws/rules would have no need for the reality of relative morality.
He would if his creation were less than perfect and were unable to comprehend all of the timeless absolute laws at one gulp.
I would love to have some gay-hating Bible-believing politician come out and say not only does he reject same-sex marriage, but he proposes that any such couple agitating for marriage can be considered actively sinning against God's Word and must be executed.
What good does it do ANYONE to have our right-wing politicians act even crazier than they already are? Only a stupid uncaring asshole, ensconced in his gated "community," would demand more irrational extremism for his own entertainment. You want more consistent theocratic extremism? Move to Iran, and stop demanding that my country entertain you with your blood-sport of choice.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 1:09 PM
Spartan asked:
Jesus addressed this as well:
In other words, because we are better at following lists than exercising judgment.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 4, 2009 1:15 PM
Spartan, you're asking questions that have already been answered here. See #14, 16, 19, 27, 32, and 33 above.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 1:22 PM
Lighten up Francis.
When I say I would love to see that, I mean of course that it would be despicable. But apparently the extremists in this country haven't gone far enough to alienate enough people that they become irrelevant (the extremists).
All I am suggesting is a thought experiment for those people that invoke Leviticus when denying civil rights for gay people. And the politician I described would be the necessary outcome of that deliberation. I would hope that most people, barring the unreachable clinically insane, would reject such a proposal. In so doing, they would have to reject their own position on homosexuals in general, if they wish to be considered intellectually honest. And for the ones that accept it, at least we know where they stand on the issue.
For fuck's sake, do you really think I'm advocating the death penalty for gays? And as for living in a gated community, I live in a medium sized town, in a typical neighborhood, on a typical street, in a modest single-family home that just happens to be in Minnesota's 6th district, which is maybe why I'm so pissed off at right-wing extremist cunts.
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 1:24 PM
It's good to see at least some Christians in this country possessed of empathy.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 4, 2009 1:30 PM
Spartan,
That’s a very good point and no it doesn’t refer to Moses’ law. “The Law” and “The Prophets” refers to the Old Testament—or rather a major part of it. “The Law” is the traditional name (used in Jesus’ time) for the five books attributed to Moses, and “The Prophets” are the books of the major prophets. Thus a reasonable paraphrase of “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.” is “Do not think I have come to abolish the Old Testament (or its prophesies), but to fulfill it.”
Likewise consider Luke 16:16: "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached… It makes sense to interpret this as “The OT prophecy was proclaimed until John, but now the good news is being preached.”
In neither case is it demanded, nor is it better, to interpret “The Law and the Prophets” as “Moses’ Law.”
As for the law prohibiting lust including a prohibition against adultery, I agree—but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a replacement. As for shellfish—the dietary laws are simply gone—as Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and Paul’s teaching, e.g., regarding food sacrificed to idols makes clear.
As for Paul discussing homosexuality, I see merit and weakness in both arguments—that he teaches that homosexual activity is sinful, and its competitor that he teaches only that a depraved hedonistic lifestyle is sinful. But in any event a Christian's views toward homosexuality should not be guided by Leviticus. Paul's teaching being, in my mind, ambiguous--personally I choose to enjoy full Christian fellowship with homosexual believers--though of course many Christians would not. But even in the latter case there is no Christian biblical teaching at all consistent with denying homosexuals the same civil rights the rest of us enjoy.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 1:40 PM
I think there is a difference between a pastor apologizing in providing pastoral care and a pastor apologizing in a public politcal sense. I don't know if public apologies matter.
I do know that in indivdual or small group relationship, it can be very healing for someone to hear "I'm sorry that people treated you badly in God's name. We believe that is wrong and you are welcome here just as you are."
Posted by: katydid13 | November 4, 2009 1:44 PM
I would hope that most people, barring the unreachable clinically insane, would reject such a proposal. In so doing, they would have to reject their own position on homosexuals in general, if they wish to be considered intellectually honest. And for the ones that accept it, at least we know where they stand on the issue.
Why the Hell can't we deal with the nutjobs as they currently are, without wishing they'd get even nuttier? As crazy as they are already, do you really want them to get even crazier, just to make it easier for you to refute them? If the job is too hard for you, maybe you should change yourself, instead of wishing for our opponents to change for your convenience.
We went through this sort of cynical extremist stupidity in the last century, when the Communists suported Fascist movements, at the expense of democratic ones, just to make sure the people saw how bad capitalism was. The result was not beneficial to anyone.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 1:46 PM
Um. I don't care what "tribal warfare" or wandering through the desert or whatever you are doing, I still don't understand how it is just to execute a person for having homosexual sex. Sorry, just not buying it.
And in any case, the historicity of the story of Moses is ah, shall we say, extraordinarily dubious. So saying, "It was a different time and place" doesn't cut the mustard anyway, because that different time and place didn't exist.
If you want to reject the various despicable things in Leviticus because you know from your own moral sense that they are wrong, and if you want to still consider yourself a Christian and embrace those parts of the Bible that your own moral sense tells you are good, I am more or less okay with that. But please, don't try to explain to me how it was A GOOD THING to execute people for homosexuality, in ANY time and place (especially a fictional one). That's crazy talk!
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 1:51 PM
Should read 'Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to your wives but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever your wife except for sexual........the rest of it. Putting away in that day and age was very different from divorce and a practice still used in the middle east today. Jesus was advocating for fair treatment of women here as much as anything to do with marriage itself.
This does nothing to enhance kershams point at all.
Posted by: JimC | November 4, 2009 2:00 PM
I think James Sweet is correct. Like I said previously if the same God is making both sets of rules and we pretend that they are for two different cultures- how would the killing of homosexuals make sense in either? Or unbelievers?
It doesn't and shouldn't to a sane person.
Posted by: GH | November 4, 2009 2:05 PM
In an earlier thread, heddle admonished me for trying to put words in his mouth (which I did NOT do).
This:
"Let me tell you what you really want to say: We will insist that Christians are bound by Levitical Law, in spite of Jesus clearly overturning it, Paul teaching contrary to it, Peter having visions that were in opposition to it, The Jerusalem Council abrogating it, and the writer of Hebrews explicitly stating that the law has changed --because that allows us to characterize them as "cafeteria Christians", and that's just too convenient to give up"
is not, apparently a case of heddle putting words in someone else's mouth. What're ya gonna believe, a statement by heddle, or your lyin' eyes?
There was a perfectly good discussion going on about what a church, any church's role might be in the battle for gay rights and heddle, as is his wont, has turned it into another talmudic exercise in proving the intent and logic of his imaginary sky daddy.
Posted by: democommie | November 4, 2009 2:08 PM
...and heddle, as is his wont, has turned it into another talmudic exercise in proving the intent and logic of his imaginary sky daddy.
Yeah, but in this case, he's made a point that is both morally sensible and relevant, especially the last paragraph of #52 above.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 2:13 PM
democommie,
In post #5 IanV wrote:
I responded precisely and accurately to that comment in my first post, #14. If I went off topic, it is because that comment first went off topic. But that is of no interest to you, all you care about is variations of your "heddle is an idiot, a jackass, and a KKKristian" mantra. I get it. You don't like me. I think everyone gets it.
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 2:20 PM
Bee, I assume you're just trying to be helpful, but I obviously disagree that my questions were answered, especially since I was responding to something said in the last comment 33 that you listed. Apparently both kehrsam and heddle agree since they both responded with more than, 'see above'. Thanks to both for their responses, which did address my questions.
Posted by: Spartan | November 4, 2009 2:24 PM
Because not enough people see them as nutty, yet?
I have no idea what you're saying. How should I change myself to refute intractable right-wing religious kooks? What approach should I use that will show them their error.
Let me ask this, generally. What justification is given for opposition to homosexuality that is not based on religious interpretations? In other words, outside of it being a sin, what's wrong with being gay? I don't mean specifically same-sex marriage, where you hear all sorts of specious arguments about undermining "traditional" marriage, "redefining" marriage, etc. I mean opposition to the very idea of homosexuality that comes from some inspiration other than the Bible (or the Koran).
If anyone can provide some examples, I'd love to hear them, because I sure can't think of any.
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 2:31 PM
Because not enough people see them as nutty, yet?
In that case, we (as in liberal politicians, activists and interest-groups) need to do a better job of exposing the facts and making a case that ordinary people can understand and appreciate, that the gay-bashers are indeed both insane and not good for society. And yes, we CAN do this without waiting for the gay-bashers to get more extreme.
Posted by: Raging bee | November 4, 2009 2:35 PM
heddle wrote:
Spartan replied:
heddle wrote:
The New Testament writers repeatedly refer to the Old Testament law as "Moses' Law". "The Law", "The Old Testament Law" and "Moses' Law" all mean the same thing. Do you mean something different when you say "Moses' law"?
Matthew 5:17-18
In verse 17 Jesus says he has not come to destroy Moses' law. The next verse is a follow-up. The reason he has not come to destroy Moses' law, says Jesus, is because not one jot nor tittle of Moses' law will pass away.
How can you claim, then, that 'jot nor tittle' doesn't refer to Moses' law? It plainly does.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | November 4, 2009 3:00 PM
Wasn't Jesus addressing a group of men who were well-versed & invested in the old laws? Of course he would try to reassure them. He was doing something like Heddle did back there in #52: deny that there is any Biblical injunction to violate the promptings of one's own conscience even if other Christians believe that one exists.
Posted by: Apocheir | November 4, 2009 3:11 PM
Apocheir: I suspect many of Jesus' followers were looking for someone to lead them in a POLITICAL rebellion, and Jesus saw this and had to assure everyone -- Judeans and Romans, rebels and loyalists -- that no, he wasn't trying to overthrow any regime or code of laws (which would have caused a civil war and lots of killing), and could everyone please put down the pitchforks and stick to peaceful good works? This is precisely the sentiment he had to defuse with his "render unto Caesar" rule, which he gave in response to the direct political question "Should we pay tribute to Caesar?" The overall thrust of his teaching was about applying "the law" (whichever law was applicable) with common sense and mercy.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 3:45 PM
David R #64,
It does not plainly refer to Moses’ law. “The Law” or even “The Law of Moses,” it is well established, usually refers to the Pentateuch—especially when used in conjunction with “The Prophets”. There are probably 20 or so instances in the NT. Another example:
I submit that “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the the Old Testament” is clearly a more sensible paraphrase than “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Levitical Law, or the Ten Commandments, or the Prophets and the Psalms” And the first is consistent with the contemporary use. So here “Law of Moses” refers to the first five books. As it usually does in the NT.
Why would Jesus use The Law or the Prophets if he was just referring to Moses’ law? Why mention the Prophets?
But the additional (I would say overwhelming) evidence comes it what immediately follows in verses 21-45. This is a complete and radical recast of the law—away from the legalism of Moses to Jesus’ emphasis on the heart, not the action. It would have been unrecognizable to the Jews who were hearing it. There is no counterpart for what Jesus teaches here, when he expounds on the law, in Moses’ law. How can he be talking about Moses’ law being inviolate when in what would be his next breath he teaches that it is out of date, with repeated you have heard it said [OT law related to an action], but no, I tell you [NT law related to the heart] It’s these commandments that must not be broken (fat chance.) That is why we must be even more righteous than the Pharisees who were pretty good at keeping the 10 commandments. (Again, fat chance.) These commandments are now “the Law”. For crying out loud, the OT law allowed gentiles to be taken as slaves. The NT law given by Jesus demands that they be loved. Most Jews would have flipped out at that teaching. This is a radical change, and reading all of Matthew 5:17 to the end (rather than just one or two verses) makes it clear that Jesus is completely replacing the OT legalism. (Not to mention the many other places where the same message is taught, such as Hebrews 7:12).
Sorry folks, but with no cafeteria selection required Christians are not bound to stone adulterers or homosexuals, avoid shell fish, sacrifice animals, tithe, avoid interracial marriages, or keep the sabbath. We are, however, bound to "love our neighbors as ourselves."
Posted by: heddle | November 4, 2009 3:50 PM
It is interesting that this conversation has been had 1000 times on this blog and the same tired arguments made between the same people- myself included. Can we just all agree to disagree and not subject this otherwise excellent blog to another round of this pointless trash?
Posted by: GH | November 4, 2009 4:01 PM
Brandon @ #10:
But apparently raping women is fine, any way you like it, even young girls whose parents you've just murdered, even your own daughter. Or, at least, this supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect and loving creator of all things couldn't be bothered to say a single word against it.
Russell @ #40:
And now they try to sweep that origin under the rug. Just like the mormons with their official dogma until the seventies being that black people weren't really human. They just pretend they never supported slavery, because anyone who does is rightly recognized as a bigoted, inhuman lunatic.
I think in at most a century or two, christian churches will be openly claiming that it was THEIR work that made same-sex marriage and general equality for gays possible, much like they like to pretend christians were all abolitionists and civil rights supporters when there is documentation to the contrary (like the very existence of the fucking KKK). Maybe some of them will even believe the bullshit. Self-reflection isn't a religious strong suit.
It remains to be seen whether anyone outside the cult will buy this tripe. Hopefully by then education will have improved to the point where the majority of the population isn't so eager to believe blatant lies.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 4, 2009 4:03 PM
chris:
The English translations are much more clear than the original texts. It's unnatural, it's gross, homosexuals are pedophiles, etc.Posted by: e | November 4, 2009 4:06 PM
I reluctantly agree with GH: heddle was originally trying to point out that Christians could follow Jesus' teachings and still disregard archaic OT laws without being hypocrites. Now that that case has been made, and defended, there's really no further need to argue about doctrine.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 4:25 PM
It always cracks me up that the OT had to be retconned (or "upgraded" as per heddle) in the NT by an all knowing all powerful god. Whoopsie! I made a boo-boo in the laws! I didn't see any of this coming, so I've had to change some stuff given the changing circumstances. My bad. Sorry. No, I'm still all powerful and all knowing. I just had to "upgrade" the law a bit. Service pack 1 to iron out a few undocumented enhancements.
hardee freakin har har har.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | November 4, 2009 4:29 PM
I'll just never understand these kind of gripes coming from anyone but Ed, requests to "stop leaving comments that don't interest me". I definitely fail to see how anything in this thread takes away from this blog's excellence.
Posted by: Spartan | November 4, 2009 4:31 PM
Islam/Mohammed: "Hey! I've just been given a new vision from God! And it's the last new prophecy he'll ever give, so this is really the right one!"
LDS/Smith: "Hey! God gave me these cool magic goggles and some golden plates in a hat that contain a new prophecy! It's different and better than the old one!"
The Jewish Messiah-cult would certainly be expected to claim a new and improved variant on the old. Otherwise, what would be the point?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 4, 2009 4:44 PM
Here's what I don't understand. In Action Comics #869 it says that the residents of Argo City are killed by green kryptonite. But Adventures of Superman #444 established that kryptonite has no ill effect on non-super powered Kryptonians. Some say it was actually anti-kryptonite that doomed Argo City. But that's always smacked of heresy to me. Action Comics #869 is very clear that it was green kryptonite.
Posted by: TSFN | November 4, 2009 4:46 PM
@72: haha, Service Pack 1, I like that...
Also, if you fail to upgrade by the Second Coming, in addition to customer service being cut off, you also burn in a lake of fire. Man, I bet Microsoft wishes they could put that in their EULA...
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 4:55 PM
You can search this exact same topic with the exact same responses several times on this blog.
Posted by: GH | November 4, 2009 6:30 PM
I don't believe the Bible was divinely inspired. You're bitching at the wrong person.
By the way, Leviticus 18:10 explicitly prohibits sleeping with your daughter. In fact, the entire family within two generations is off limits. Leviticus 18 is a laundry list of who you're not allowed to sleep with. And Deut 23:18 prohibits relations with any unmarried women. As far as I know, the only women who aren't protected are your own wife, your slaves, and prisoners of war. By no means is this morally justifiable, but it was fairly enlightened compared to other cultures at the time. But it does blow a huge hole in the theory that every word of the Bible is still relevant today.
Posted by: Brandon | November 4, 2009 8:20 PM
heddle:
You horse's ass. What you did is EXACTLY what you accused me of doing, in a comment that you made yesterday. You put words in someone else's mouth. I give not a damn about you're "going off topic". What I give a damn about is that you piss and moan about people doing to you EXACTLY as you do to them. Do you have a sense of irony?
You're right, I don't like you; more precisely I despise your refusal to honestly answer questions that are asked by people and your characterization of those who disagree with you as delusional or incapable of logic.
Posted by: democommie | November 4, 2009 10:49 PM
---------------------
(A) see Mark 7:13
Posted by: DingoJack | November 5, 2009 2:24 AM
Democommie is right. In another thread, heddle did complain about Democommie putting words in heddle's mouth, and perhapswith some justification--Democommie may not have meant to, but it could reasonably have been taken that way. Then in this thread heddle wrote, "Let me tell you what you really want to say," which is explicitly putting words in someone's mouth. It's not even a matter of interpretation. This is real speck of dust vs. log in the eye behavior.
I have to agree with Democommie that heddle has a tendency to condemn, when committed by others, the very same behavior he exhibits.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2009 7:21 AM
James Hanley,
Fair enough, though I would like to think that my explicit lead-in: Let me tell you what you really want to say, signaled that my comment was meant to be sarcastic. Something akin to the "here, fixed that for you" tactic. In the future I'll be more careful with that charge and with my practicing what I preach and/or less subtle when employing sarcasm.
Posted by: heddle | November 5, 2009 7:50 AM
TSFN @ 75 wins the thread.
Posted by: Joshua White | November 5, 2009 9:40 AM
James Hanley:
I'll accept your comment with the caveat that what I wrote was:
"(I think that would be one of your ways of saying that someone might be stupid?)."
the question mark at the end of the sentence would, to me, at least indicate that it was not a quote from heddle's comments.
Posted by: democommie | November 5, 2009 10:05 AM
Sarcasm--the bane of the intertoobs. I often think that the difficulty of successfully employing sarcasm on the internet brings the web's value down to near zero.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 5, 2009 3:08 PM
James Hanley
Down to near zero?
Wait--was that sarcasm? I don't know.
Posted by: heddle | November 5, 2009 3:12 PM
Riiiiight...
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2009 3:26 PM
I myself feel uncomfortable around clergy, even 'nice' ones. It's the same way I feel around Scientologists or UFO Cultists.
They all believe crazy things. I know I should be more tolerant.
Posted by: TikiHead | November 6, 2009 8:44 AM
I am not so enamored of these guys after reading the linked article. I don't accept their icky 'apology.' -- 'We're sorry, but do keep in mind you are second class.'
Lovely! I'll stay with The Church of Nothing Sacred.
Posted by: TikiHead | November 6, 2009 9:16 AM