Thomas Sums Up the Bible

In the course of expressing his dismay with the Episcopalian Church (for ordinating gay bishops) and with Jimmy Carter (for holding liberal political views), conservative pundit Cal Thomas provides an apt summary of the Bible:

Inclusivity has nothing to do with the foundational truths set forth in Scripture. The church, which belongs to no denomination, but to its Founding Father and His Son, is about exclusivity for those who deny the faith. The church is inclusive only for those who are adopted by faith into God’s family. There are more biblical references to this than there is room to cite here, but for the Episcopal leadership, biblical references no longer have the power to persuade, much less compel them to conform. That’s because Episcopal leadership has denied the teachings of Scripture in favor of, well, inclusivity, a word that appears nowhere in Scripture. Even if it did, Episcopal heretics — for that is what they are — would choose another word to make them feel more comfortable, since accommodation with the world seems to be a more important objective than the favor of God.

Thomas is right. The Bible was not written by social liberals. The proper response to this fact is to reject the Bible as a sound source of information about morality.

Comments

#1 Erp
July 23, 2009

Well to be exact some parts were probably written by people who were social liberals of their day. Some of the prophets complained bitterly about those who took from the poor and treated them unjustly. Or the writer of Deut 17:16-20 which states a king should not multiply wives, silver, gold, or horses and that he should not lift his heart up above his brethren.

Other parts were definitely written by people who were conservative for their time.

However both groups probably thought women being subordinate was a good idea and that there was one true religion.
#2 dean
July 23, 2009

The other problem (larger problem, in my view) is that people like thomas hold the view that the bible hasn’t been altered since people first began to organize those stories, and concludes that since its message has endured all these years, it must have meaning today.

Jason, I think you could have extended your final sentence to include rejection of people like thomas as a source of information on morality (or really, anything) as well.
#3 fair Game
July 23, 2009

What do liberals know about anything? They always revise history to meet their secular worldview (even banning Christmas and the words BC and AD to conform).

Where do atheists get morality from? Only Biblical teaching provide the basic understanding and foundation of morality.

Why do aethists insist on arguing over something that they believe does not exist. They often tell conservatives to mind their own business, why can’t liberals follow their own advice?

In other words, if you so choose to be an atheist, liberal, marxist, facist, nazi, socialist, communist, whatever, then go for it.

I choose the Bible and Christianity becuase it has a deep meaning and I do take the creation story literal. So what. Does that affect your pathetic secular life in such a way that you cannot function from day to day?

Why don’t you atheist do you thing and we’ll leave you alone. Then we’ll do our thing and you let us alone? Is that too much to ask?
#4 Dave M
July 23, 2009

“Ordinating”? I think the word you’re looking for is “ordaining.”
#5 James F. McGrath
July 23, 2009

Alas, Cal Thomas seems to have missed much of the Bible, not least the fact that Paul the apostle was willing to set aside Scripture in order to include the Gentiles, those previously excluded, as part of his definition of the people of God.

What baffles me is why conservatives are taken at their word when they make claims about the Bible, even by those who would not accept their claims about science, morality, the Constitution and many other subjects so uncritically.
#6 AL
July 23, 2009

Why do aethists insist on arguing over something that they believe does not exist.

Look, unless you are schizophrenic and enjoy arguing with yourself, it takes at least two individuals to argue. Atheists argue over something they believe does not exist because theists argue that it does. Now if you personally feel as a theist that it isn’t worthwhile to argue with an atheist, then don’t. I mean, I too abstain from debates I don’t find worthwhile, like arguing over favorite sports teams, or make of car, and such. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other theists out there arguing, because there are, and some atheists are going to argue back, and not simply keep quiet because you are made vaguely uncomfortable by all the arguing.
#7 Pseudonym
July 24, 2009

In further news the Constitution of the United States was not written by people who were socially liberal by today’s standards. Clearly it is not an appropriate legal basis for a modern nation.

(Oh, and what James McGrath said. Fundamentalists have a nasty habit of being ignorant or sometimes outright deceptive.)
#8 slpage
July 24, 2009

Cal Thomas is a repugnant human being, and I cannot understand why such a scumbag still has a national voice.

Almost 20 years ago, a gay music teacher in a Grand Rapids, MI, suburb was outed by some disgruntled students. A local right-wing fundy pastor took it upon himself to harrass the teacher, the school, and the community into firing him. Which the school district finally did – based on what were later understood to be fabricated charges. The teacher was so distraught that he committed suicide – and the pastor celebrated. This got him some negative publicity, but hold on – Cal Thomas caught wind of the incident, and decided to come to the pastor’s church to offer encouragement – he even called him a hero.

Scumbag. Degenerate. Cal Thomas.
#9 SLC
July 24, 2009

Re fair game

Mr. fair game is apparently unaware that his rights end where my nose begins. We have no problem with Mr. fair game believing anything he wants to believe. The problem comes in when the fair games of the world insist on imposing their beliefs on others. As for instance when they insist on public schools teaching their version of Christianity, which, for instance, is not Prof. McGraths’ version of Christianity.
#10 Bayesian Bouffant, FCD
July 24, 2009

fair Game: Why don’t you atheist do you thing and we’ll leave you alone. Then we’ll do our thing and you let us alone? Is that too much to ask?

Sounds like a good deal to me, so long as “your thing” doesn’t involve forcing your religious beliefs and practices on me. So I presume you’re not going to try to get your religious ideas about creation inserted into the public school curriculum, or put religious monuments on public property, or insert your pious platitudes into a pledge that my children would be required to recite, or smear your godliness all over my money, or interfere with a woman’s right to control her own body, or attempt to regulate the sex lives of others, etc.
#11 Glazius
July 24, 2009

“They don’t do what we say when we attach Scripture to it, therefore they must be evil.”

Because it’s not like the devil has ever quoted Scripture for his own purposes or anything.

Cal Thomas, you are why Poe’s Law works.
#12 Michael Kremer
July 24, 2009

One wonders if Mr. Thomas has heard of the parable of the Good Samaritan — and thought at all about its point.
#13 eric
July 24, 2009

Wow. Okay I agree with the other posters that the bible says many (contradictory) things, but how do you get ‘this is an exclusive club’ out of Jesus’ reported conduct?

I get the feeling that Cal thinks all sinners are equal…but some are more equal than others.
#14 FastLane
July 24, 2009

Wow, these assclowns keep making the accomadationist more and more untenable by the day, don’t they?

Not that I’m complaining, mind you. I like the religiots to expose their bigotry for all the world to see (this opinion extends to ‘fair Game’).
#15 Tony
July 25, 2009

The books in the Bible were written by Authoritarians, the antecedents of the Cheney Administration who were compelled to write down all the laws that the rest of us supposedly must follow.

For the record, Jesus (assuming he even existed) never wrote down anything and his biography was written second or third hand, so it’s veracity is hard to decipher and the intentions of the evangelists must always be questioned.

Monotheistic religion is historically about social control and Cal Thomas is stating the obvious and should be commended for his honesty.
#16 Robert O'Brien
July 28, 2009

Alas, Cal Thomas seems to have missed much of the Bible, not least the fact that Paul the apostle was willing to set aside Scripture in order to include the Gentiles, those previously excluded, as part of his definition of the people of God.

The seeds of which are contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. The same cannot be said of the doctrines of the modern Episcopal Church, which is apostate.

What baffles me is why conservatives are taken at their word when they make claims about the Bible, even by those who would not accept their claims about science, morality, the Constitution and many other subjects so uncritically.

Because we have better arguments. Your effete, soulless, post-Modern Christianity does not withstand scrutiny.

The books in the Bible were written by Authoritarians, the antecedents of the Cheney Administration…

You are a dullard; I get it.
#17 Philip H
July 29, 2009

Thomas is right. The Bible was not written by social liberals. The proper response to this fact is to reject the Bible as a sound source of information about morality.

Two counterpoints:

1. The Bible may not have been written by modern social liberals, but if you actually read the New Testament (and I doubt Mr. Thomas really has), you find Jesus breaking all sorts of human created rules of the day on God’s behalf, and squarely poking a log into the eye of the religious fundamentalists of his day. And lest we forget, Christians are supposed to follow his teachings, and only use the Old Testament to set the stage for his ministry. Oh wait, most modern fundamentalist Christians have forgotten this.

2. If you are going to make short, hard assertions about what the “proper response” is, please provide something more for us to chew on in terms of a reason. Simple declarative statements for a presumed position of authority are what get too many people in the religion vs. science debate in trouble, and close off meaningful discussion.
#18 James F. McGrath
August 5, 2009

For what it’s worth, I responded at greater length on my blog:

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/07/inclusivity-and-bible.html