Suffering in the name of Christ or persecuting others?

There are currently countless American Conservative Christians believing that the end of their “divine” country is at hand.

Or believing that a terrible wave of anti-Christian persecutions is beginning.

All of us not living on another planet know what I’m talking about.

Gay marriage has been officially recognised as a legally valid (and hence also morally perfectly acceptable) sacred union between two human beings.

Gay marriage
Gay marriage

Of course, this drives all these fundamentalists nuts because recognising there is nothing wrong about two persons of the same sex committed to each other inevitably involves rejecting their crude notion of Biblical inerrancy (the alleged absence of errors in the Bible).

The ironic thing is that once we recognise that Biblical writers can speak with conflicting voices, we cannot fail to realise that the condemnation of homosexuality occupies an absolutely negligible space within both the Old and New Testaments in comparison to social justice issues .

For most Biblical writers, the real sin of Sodom was not to have allowed same-sex relationships but to have callously refused to care for the poor and the needy.

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49.
True sodomy.

While I strongly doubt that God’s wrath will fall upon America because John and James love each other and strive for a lifelong marriage, I do believe that neglecting the health care of poor kids in order to allow millionaires and billionaires to pay less taxes is a crime worthy of destruction.

I recently stumbled across a picture showing another aspect of the religious hypocrisy going on.

So Christianity is under attack? What if I told you that native cerenomies were considered crimes that were punishable by imprisonement until the Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed in 1978?
Anti-Christian persecution in America? What about native Americans?

I am myself a Germanic Frenchman coming from an ethnic minority in France which has been persecuted to such an extent that our language is now doomed to disappear.

Consequently, I feel a profound solidarity toward all people around the world whose culture and identity have been destroyed or devastated.

There is no doubt that the ordeals experienced by native Americans are worse, by many orders of magnitude, than those we went through.

Their men and women have been massively murdered, their languages and traditions have been forbidden and they have been treated as worthless foreigners on their own land.

And all those things were perpetrated by people calling themselves the worthy servitors of Christ.

Given that, it seems truly shameless to whine about having to “bear” homosexual couples being recognised in American society.

Now let me be clear about one thing. I respect other Christians believing that homosexuality is a sin, even if I believe they’re deeply wrong on that. I do appreciate there are many decent and loving people among them.

I also utterly reject the loveless and self-righteous liberal bigotry they’re often victim of.

I am, however, truly angry against inconsistent bigoted Christians who focus most of their God-given energy on combating homosexuality while refusing to address the injustices committed against native Americans and the atrocious suffering of poor children who are affected by diseases which can be easily treated in any developed country.

If a perfectly good God revealed Himself through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, I am afraid that American fundamentalists are unwittingly bearing false witness against him.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

Advertisements

Reclaiming the word “progressive”

This is probably gonna be the most embarrassing post I’ve ever written.

If I were allowed to “come out”, I’d say I can identify myself very well with many things this kid (who shares my condition) had to say.

I particularly like the end of his video where he reminds people that those children acting strangely and inappropriately have feelings too and that you shouldn’t put them down due to features they’re not responsible for.
If we, as PROGRESSIVES, want to strive for a just society where discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation no longer exists, we should also combat the systematic discrimination and bullying of those having a peculiar mental condition, the obese, disabled…
Of course, doing this might be A BIT more difficult than just putting the colours of the rainbow on one’s Facebook page in order to celebrate gay marriage and to show how “cool” and “modern” you are.

I am sickened by the endless number of pseudo-progressives focusing all their time and energy on institutional white racism (or remnants thereof), gay rights and misogyny while callously ignoring the suffering of children being battered because they’re white, men falsely accused of having committed a rape, divorced fathers missing their children, a qualified obese person being rejected after each interview or autistic, psychotic and hyperactive individuals being segregated owing to their “abnormal” mental features and behaviours.

Let us quote a wise Jewish prophet of the first century:

And if you greet only your brethren, what more than others are you doing? Do not even the Gentiles (the heathen) do that?

There is a clear general pattern which emerges here: there is no great merit in engaging in moral behaviour a large part of the society you’re living in takes for granted.

There was clearly a time where standing for gay rights was a revolutionary act.

I certainly still believe this should be done but it irks me seeing so many self-righteous people who feel great about themselves because they do so while at the same time passionately despising those whose physical or behavioural appearance do not fit societal norms.

For me, being progressive often involves being a lonely warrior challenging unjust states of affairs which are considered perfectly legitimate.

It doesn’t demand a lot of courage to assert one’s support for gay marriage while bashing Conservatives opposing it. You’re going to find countless people joining you and admiring you for doing so.

It can be much harder to fight the discrimination that people seen as unattractive face in the workplace and in their daily life.

It can be much harder to foster tolerance and acceptance towards individuals whose behaviour is perceived as weird or out of place because of  conditions such as ADHD, autism, social anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder and so on and so forth..

I really wish I’d see much more progressives waging war on these injustices.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

Gay marriage and the fall of American civilization?

I recently stumbled across a short article of prominent Evangelical philosopher, theologian and apologist William Lane Craig where he laments the inexorable progression of same-sex marriage into the heart of America.

***

https://i2.wp.com/commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/craig-smiling.png

Something very significant happened over this past weekend that we need to be alert to. As you probably know, several weeks ago the Supreme Court refused to hear a case concerning a federal district court’s decision to strike down all of the pro-marriage laws that have been passed by various states – Idaho, Oklahoma, and others out west. These were regarded as unconstitutional because they declared marriage to be between a man and a woman, or in other words, they prohibited same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court refused to hear the decision, thereby in effect ratifying same-sex marriage in the United States by judicial fiat.

When this happened, I just felt as if I had been kicked in the stomach. I struck me that the whole American culture had just shifted. Yet there was no outcry; there was no great protest. This event passed almost silently, it seemed. It is astonishing the degree to which people’s thinking about marriage has changed so rapidly. It made me wonder: where is the United States heading morally? The institution of marriage lies at the very foundations of culture. Have we passed a kind of tipping point, now that marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, and is our culture just going to continue to decline from here? It is very disturbing when you think about this sort of trend on into the rest of the century and the next century.

But then I was absolutely stunned to read in the newspaper last Saturday morning that a different federal district court has upheld the ban on same-sex marriage in Michigan and Ohio and certain other mid-Western states. This virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court is going to have to take the case now because you have got two federal district courts at least (actually there are more) that are in contradiction with each other on the question whether or not the states have the right to pass laws saying that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

So this is probably going to go to the Supreme Court. According the paper it will probably be heard around next April or so. For me, at least, this is a call for renewed and intense prayer about this Supreme Court case. I have personally decided to covenant with the Lord to pray every day about this decision until the Supreme Court renders it – to keep the Supreme Court in prayer that these justices will make the right decision, or that if God so wills he might remove one of these justices and replace him or her with a different justice who would make a right decision.

This is entirely within God’s power to do. The Lord hasn’t seen fit in the past to save us from our own folly in this way, but I don’t think that is a reason not to pray. I would encourage you to think about this in your own life, too – whether or not this might be a matter about which you would covenant to pray. For this case truly represents a huge cultural watershed for the United States.

I appreciate that Christians differ on the question of whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. I think a lot of younger Christians especially have a sort of inclusivist attitude, thinking: how does it affect heterosexual marriages if you also allow marriage between same-sex partners? It doesn’t make any difference. It is just wider and broader, but it doesn’t affect anything, so it is all right. This attitude is very naïve. Since marriage is not a private institution but a civic institution – a public institution –, it carries with it certain civil rights that must be respected in the public square. What this means is that those who continue to regard marriage as exclusively heterosexual in nature are going to have their civil rights infringed or trampled upon. This is already happening. There was a court case in Massachusetts where a wedding photographer declined to film a same-sex wedding ceremony because he didn’t believe in same sex marriage. He was taken to court and had to pay $6,000 for not doing this. There is a wedding chapel in Idaho that is now under threat of being closed because the owners don’t want to perform same-sex marriages in their chapel. Their decision is regarded as civil discrimination.

So the idea that there can be a sort of peaceful co-existence of two concepts of marriage is just naïve; it is not true. When I’ve talked to homosexual activists at academic conferences, they acknowledge this themselves. They say the peaceful co-existence view is a naïve view. If same-sex marriage goes through, it is going to change things. That is exactly the activists’ intention. One of them said to me, “Really, same-sex marriage is old hat. That is not really what this is all about. We don’t think that marriage is an institution that should be recognized by the government at all. It is discriminatory for the government to give special privileges and benefits to people because they are married.”

So the same sex marriage issue is really just a thin-entering wedge to deconstruct marriage altogether. How does one do it? By denying that marriage has an essence or nature. Marriage is not essentially between a man and a woman. Rather, on such a postmodernist view, marriage is a social convention akin to driving on the right-hand or left-hand side of the road. There is no objective truth about it. So you can define it any way you want. If we go that route – if we deny that marriage has an essence and is just a social convention – then, of course, it is completely malleable and can be turned into anything. So the drive for same sex marriage is actually an attempt to deconstruct marriage under the mask of obtaining equal rights, marriage equality, and so forth. But that is not the real issue.

I feel free to speak about this issue because I think it is not merely political. It seems to me that this issue is deeply spiritual and moral and, frankly, does represent a kind of watershed moment in American culture. The institution of marriage itself is under assault. So I hope that some of you will join with me in praying for our Supreme Court as we approach this decision.

https://actsoftheapostasy.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gay-marriage1.jpg

****

My response follows.
______

Dear professor Craig,

I thank you so much for allowing comments on your blog. Even if I don’t expect any answer from you, given your overloaded schedule, I want to let you know my own response to what you just wrote.

It is fair to say we’ve very different starting points. You hold fast to Biblical inerrancy (as defined by the Chicago statement) whereas I’m a progressive Christian believing that the different Biblical authors might speak with conflicting voices on some topics.

Nevertheless, both of us are sincerely trying to follow the Risen Christ and we both agree that the entire Christian ethics can be traced back to Love (for God and, which is equivalent, for one’s neighbor).

And this is why I am NOT opposed to Gay marriage.
God made the Sabbath for man and not man for the Sabbath. It stands to reason that a perfectly good God would not forbid us things arbitrarily , that is to say according to his good pleasure.
Therefore, if something is wrong and forbidden, it must be harmful either for the individual or for society (I don’t limit “harm” to physical pain but also include anything hindering us from becoming better persons and growing in Love).

Therefore, if homosexuality is wrong, it must be detrimental in some ways. But all available evidence shows us that lifelong committed gay couples are not being harmed or impaired in their cultivation of love when compared to heterosexual couples.

https://i0.wp.com/paoladepaolaweddings.com/wp-content/uploads/PaolaDePaola_Alex_Audr_Eng_LR_027.jpg

Since I reject the idea that a morally perfect being could issue arbitrary laws, I reject the idea that God prohibits Gay marriage.

You wrote that you “just felt as if you had been kicked in the stomach”.

Are you feeling the same way towards poor children not receiving any decent healthcare even if they suffer from life-threatening conditions?
Are you grieving about this Christian psychotic man who is going to be put to death in Texas for murders stemming from his sick and irresponsible mind?
Are you saddened by the prison industry which (by using the war on drugs) puts countless black and other socially disadvantaged people into jails, thereby ruining their whole lives?

Should these egregious and tragic states of affairs not be “a call for renewed and intense prayer”?
It seems to me that the priorities of American Conservative Evangelicals aren’t really the same as those of the Biblical writers.

Finally, let me say that I respect Conservative Christians disagreeing with me on homosexuality.

I do NOT approve of resorting to propaganda and judicial power to silence political opponents.

I radically oppose bullying opponents to Gay marriage.

I can’t fully sympathize with the Gay lobby due to all their excesses and lovelessness.

I agree that a part of the movement wants to abolish marriage and promote any lifestyle causing no direct and immediate harm. This is something I am strongly opposed to and I think that any form of relationship not fostering the growth of selfless love, commitment, humility and kindness should be rejected.
This is why I don’t approve of One Night Stands and of polygamy, even if for many Biblical writers, God had no problem whatsoever with the latter.

I am deeply convinced that your belief that combating Gay marriage should be one of the main priorities of modern Christians is profoundly misguided and dangerous for the Church.

To my mind, the greatest wickedness of the American society consists of caring more for the rights of a small wealthy minority while failing to meet the basic needs of the poorest part of the population.

This is objectively wrong and egregious. And this is something which should lead any Perfect Being to disapprove of (or even “curse” if you prefer) a culture.

Sincerely and fraternally yours.

Culture war: On loving one’s enemy and winning an argument

If you had the choice between both options, which outcome would you favor?

Keeping a friendly and respectful tone during the whole discussion, even if this might give to outsiders the impression that your cherished ideas aren’t quite airtight?

Or demolishing your adversaries with your words so that most people would perceive your rhetorical victory as the superiority of your beliefs?

Sadly, countless folks at the left and right side of the Culture War are passionately committed to option 2) and almost never wonder if their attitude might cause serious emotional harm to their opponents.

https://i2.wp.com/www.spiked-online.com/images/culture_wars3.jpg

This happens all the time for hot topics such as abortion or homosexuality where kind and respectful persons are constantly being bashed, insulted, humiliated and bullied on the ground of certain beliefs they hold sincerely.

I was really delighted as I found this refreshing post arguing for Gay marriage but in a spirit of love.

******

God Does NOT Define Marriage as a Man and a Woman

marriage2

“I am sorry if gay marriage attacks the sanctity of your fourth marriage.”

Does God define marriage as only for one man and one woman? You would think so by how often it’s claimed. But the answer is ‘no’ and I am reclaiming that truth today.

As marriage equality becomes the law of the land, pastors are seeking real answers for how to respond. As I said last week, there are people sitting in pews and pastors standing behind pulpits whose hearts are being changed by God. More than you can imagine.

Perry Noble, a pastor in South Carolina said this is one of his most frequently asked questions. He wrote about it on his blog, and I appreciated his loving tone and his focus on Christ. But I differed on his view of marriage equality and thought it worthy of a response, not just on directly to him, but for others working through this issue in their congregations. (Here is a link to his post.)

Here is my response.

Perry,

I appreciate your message about same-sex marriage, your heart of love, and not wanting to legislate morality – that you want to point people, with love, to Jesus. That is the call of a Christ-follower!

But I differed with you when you said, “And as far as we’re concerned, God clearly defined marriage as a relationship between a male and a female in Scripture.”

Biblical marriageIt’s simply not true.

We see various configurations of marriage (multiple wives, multiple wives plus concubines, marrying your dead brother’s widow, etc.) that are NOT condemned. They served a compassionate purpose in a period of time.

I’m not saying this to be a burr in your saddle, but to point out that your conclusion is not foregone. Pastors and scholars who have studied this disagree. I thank you for encouraging your people to love, not moralize. I want to encourage you that love is enough! Being the love of Christ is enough!

Jesus tells us to let the Holy Spirit lead in all truth, not to try it ourselves. We are not to be trusted with correcting. We have a poor track record at it!

Only a little legalism empowers people to take matters in their own hands, and soon you have bullies enforcing those views in the classroom and workplace, and parents kicking kids out of their homes.

I thank you for your kind heart. I implore you to make sure your people get the main message: love, love, more love, when they’re tiring of loving let Jesus love through them, and leave all the correcting and directing to Jesus.

Otherwise, they’re in danger of hurting someone Jesus loves dearly.

Marriage is not about religion. Atheists get married.
Marriage is not about reproduction. The infertile get married.
Marriage is about love. That’s it.

And that’s beautiful.

****

My response fellows.

I’m myself a progressive Christian having coined a very simple argument showing that Gay marriage is NOT against the will of God .

I believe that no law of God is arbitrary and that the whole Christian ethics can be entirely summed up by Love and its consequences, which is the central message of Jesus.

Even during my non-Christian youth, I believed (owing to prejudices) that homosexuality was a harmful and deviant lifestyle. But after having done thorough researches and read the testimonies of real people, I realized it is not a condition one chooses and that committed homosexual relationships are as harmless as heterosexual bonds.

I loudly affirm that two persons of the same sex can be married while fulfilling their God-given commission which is to grow in Love .

I’m bitterly grieved by the fact so many Conservative Evangelicals focus so much on homosexuality while ignoring real and devastating sins.

But I also know that numerous Conservative Christians opposed to gay marriage do NOT hate queer people and that they sincerely try to separate what they view as a sin from the “sinner”.

Therefore I disapprove of John Shore’s strategy (Even if John might be a wonderful person in other areas) and think we should keep harsh words for those truly deserving them, i.e. self-righteous bigots.

Thus your correspondence with Perry was really lovely and I wish all actors of the Culture War would treat their respectful “enemies” in this manner.

As for marriage, I think it is clear that the Bible speaks with conflicting voices on many topics .

It is a culturally-conditioned text which contains both an awesome beauty and a utter darkness. Like our own soul.

Thus I think that enlightened Christians ought to understand it as people reporting their experiences with the Almighty and reflecting on them, in the same way C.S. Lewis and many others did.

Trying to follow an inerrant Bible is not only logically impossible (due its inconsistency) but also  very dangerous since it leads many people to pick and choose evil verses for building up their doctrines.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

Is there such a thing as “Biblical” marriage?

Rachel Ford recently published an article on the website of the “Friendly” Atheist arguing that the Bible is a morally consistent evil book presenting marriage coherently as a man possessing several wifes as objects to be used and maltreated.

**********************************

Biblical Marriage Isn’t About One Man and One Woman

Don’t fall out of your seat, but in an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson (below) had even more to say about homosexuality, premarital sex, and the Bible.

Most of it is his usual schtick of sex gives you cooties unless you’re married (presumably to a 15- or 16-year old?) and I won’t bore you with the details. What I do want to draw your attention to, however, is the blatantly false assertion he makes about what “God says” about marriage:

God says, ‘One woman, one man,’ and everyone says, ‘Oh, that’s old hat, that’s that old Bible stuff,’” he said.

Robertson was kind enough to erase any doubt as to which “God” he might be referring to: naturally, the God of the Bible. And since that God doesn’t grant interviews, the Bible is our only source for what God (allegedly) said.

The problem is that the Bible never claims that God said marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

Christians often turn to the New Testament to justify that claim. Paul writes about marriage in a seemingly singular (and often decidedly disdainful) fashion, such as in 1 Corinthians 7, and Jesus refers to two people when discussing divorce in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 (which is to be expected, presuming a husband doesn’t divorce more than one wife at a time). Despite that, it’s worth noting that nowhere is a clear proscription against polygamy given — Jesus referred to — but did not “correct” — first covenant law, which clearly allowed polygamy. Corinthians — written in a time when Pagan culture had already introduced the concept of monogamy — might use singular language to describe spouses, but it doesn’t actually define marriage as being between one man and one woman. In fact, nowhere does the Bible declare, on behalf of God or anyone else, does it use that precise definition.

So Robertson gets his Bible wrong when he claims to know what “God says.” Even if he had meant to say “the Bible says” one man and one woman, he would have still been wrong.

But “wrong” is too generous. He, in fact, settles on the opposite of what the Bible tells us about marriage. The Bible is full of specific examples of marriage — some of them allegedly directly sanctioned by God — that contradict the fairytale version of marriage that Christians claim as “Biblical” nowadays.

What follows is a list of types of marriage defined in the Bible, often by God. I have purposely avoided examples or marriage in the Bible that were supposed to have ticked God off, so as not to misrepresent the joy that was true Biblical marriage:

  • Biblical marriage is a man arranging to buy a girl from her father for an agreed upon purchase price (Genesis 29:18)
  • Biblical marriage is a wife “giving” her servant to her husband as a “wife” for sex and procreation, regardless of her maid servant’s wishes (Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9, etc.)
  • Biblical marriage is a raiding party murdering the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of a people but saving the young virgins because they want “wives” (i.e. women to capture and legally rape) (Judges 21:10-14)
  • Biblical marriage is a raiding party lying in wait to capture more women as “wives” (Judges 21:20-24)
  • Biblical marriage is God commanding the massacre of every male and non-virgin, and handing over the virgin women to his followers. Like the 32,000 women counted among the “spoils” in Numbers 31
  • Biblical marriage is a victim being forced to marry her rapist with no hope of divorce (but don’t worry — her father is suitably compensated in cash for the trouble, and this is only valid if the woman is not already another man’s property… so relax! No property rights are violated by this arrangement) (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
  • Biblical marriage is selling your daughter as a slave to be given to her owner or owner’s son for sexual exploitation as a “wife” (though denied even minimal protections) (Exodus 21:7-11)
  • Biblical marriage is one man taking multiple, even hundreds, of wives and concubines (see: David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc)
  • Biblical marriage is a woman as property whose own happiness is inconsequential, but whose property status is absolute (see: David and Michal)
  • Biblical marriage is for those who “cannot control themselves” and so must opt away from what is “good for them”: unmarried celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:1-9)
  • Biblical marriage is a woman marrying her dead husband’s brother (whether either party wishes it or not) so that she can have a kid in the dead husband’s name (Deuteronomy 25:5). Sometimes, it manifests as a woman seducing her former father-in-law in the guise of a prostitute in order to fulfill her God-ordained obligation (Genesis 38, Judah and Tamar). Sometimes, it manifests as a husband getting struck down by God, for refusing to impregnate his dead brother’s wife (Genesis 38, Onan and Tamar). Even according to the Bible, it doesn’t seem to have been a very happy implementation of the institution
  • Biblical marriage is neither partner being able to refrain from sex without the consent of the other (1 Corinthians 7:4-5)

That’s what the Bible actually says about marriage. In fact, when it comes right down to it, Biblical marriage is almost always two or more men deciding between themselves what woman an individual will take as a wife — be it a father selling his daughter into sexual slavery, a husband-to-be arranging with a father an agreement suitable to both parties (irrespective of the wife-to-be’s wishes) on how to dispose of/acquire the female in question, a party of soldiers or raiders murdering a woman’s entire family in order to claim her (sometimes supposedly at the direct command of God), a rapist grabbing an unattached female and at the same time getting himself a new wife, etc.

Marriage according to the Bible isn’t love and romance and butterflies in the pit of your stomach. It’s very, very far from it. You have to wonder whether Robertson ever reads the book he holds in such high esteem.

***********************

Fundamentalist assumptions

My answer follows.

http://theantitheistdotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/the_holy_bible1.jpg
How about this: the Bible does NOT speak with one voice but many conflicting ones?
Apparently anti-theists are utterly unable to grasp this basic result of historical critical scholarship as soon as ethical problems are addressed.

Jesus taught us to love our enemies, one of the psalmists taught us we should pray for the violent and atrocious death of their children .
No rational person can agree that both statements are consistent with each other.

The only ones who do this are Christian fundamentalists and English-speaking anti-theists, who interestingly enough most often turn out to be former fundies.

You’re light years away from a scientific study of religionS (which form an extraordinarily DIVERSE phenomenon).

What’s more I also strongly doubt it is meaningful to judge ancient texts according to our modern enlightened standards. After all, the fact that most writings of ancient Greek philosophers are full of scientific mistakes isn’t a reason to mock them, is it? So why should it be any different when morality is concerned?

Fortunately, the responses weren’t aggressive at all.

Someone retorted:

Two things. I think the anti-theists (as you call them) know that the Bible comes from many sources, but they argue as if it is one voice because Christian fundamentalists insist that the Bible is of one voice.
Second, it is Christian fundamentalists that insist that the Bible conveys immutable timeless moral laws. (I presume that some Muslims do the same with the Koran). So to pluck a Biblical moral lesson and to ask if it is still true, is to challenge the idea that the Bible provides these timeless immutable moral lessons.

To which I replied:

Thanks for your thoughtful answer, Rob.

As a progressive Christian, I also use this kind of arguments against fundies or generally Conservative Evangelicals. I certainly don’t believe that everything found in the Bible is “timeless and immutable”, although one can find such truths within its pages (like in other Wisdom Traditions).

But I find that most anti-theists present things as if showing that one book in the Bible contains wicked stuff attributed to God is sufficient for concluding that the entire Bible is hopelessly evil.
Worryingly enough, Nazi historians and scholars during the Third Reich used precisely the same tactic for showing that Judaism is irremediably wicked and egregious. They picked and chose the very worst passages in Jewish writings and interpreted them in the worst possible light.

For Reason’s sake , one has to be very careful. Going about this scientifically requires making a distinction between the incredibly diverse religious sects, movements and ideas out there and steering clear from overgeneralizations, binary thinking and prejudices.

I’d be delighted if anti-theists were to begin to act like that but they’d probably choose a new name pretty soon then 🙂

In hindsight I realize I should have directly emphasized that the authors of the old Testament itself don’t agree with each others about women and love.

I consider it extremely hard (if not impossible) to seriously argue that the author of the erotic and romantic “Song of Songs” just saw women as camels to be exploited.

“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for your love is better than wine.” Song of Songs 1:2

“Take me away with you. Let us hurry. The king has brought me into his chambers. We will be glad and rejoice in you. We will praise your love more than wine! They are right to love you.” Song of Songs 1:4“Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you graze your flock, where you rest them at noon; For why should I be as one who is veiled beside the flocks of your companions?” Song of Songs 1:7“Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves.” Song of Songs 1:15“Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, yes, pleasant; and our couch is verdant. “Song of Songs 1:16

“As a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.” Song of Songs 2:2

“He brought me to the banquet hall. His banner over me is love.” Song of Songs 2:4

“Strengthen me with raisins, refresh me with apples; For I am faint with love. “Song of Songs 2:5

“My beloved spoke, and said to me, “Rise up, my love, my beautiful one, and come away. “Song of Songs 2:10

“The fig tree ripens her green figs. The vines are in blossom. They give forth their fragrance. Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come away.” Song of Songs 2:13

“Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is as a flock of goats, that descend from Mount Gilead. “Song of Songs 4:1

“You are all beautiful, my love. There is no spot in you. “Song of Songs 4:7

“How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much better is your love than wine! The fragrance of your perfumes than all manner of spices!” Song of Songs 4:10

“I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride. I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk. Eat, friends! Drink, yes, drink abundantly, beloved.” Song of Songs 5:1

“I was asleep, but my heart was awake. It is the voice of my beloved who knocks: “Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled; for my head is filled with dew, and my hair with the dampness of the night.” Song of Songs 5:2

“Let’s go early up to the vineyards. Let’s see whether the vine has budded, its blossom is open, and the pomegranates are in flower. There I will give you my love. “Song of Songs 7:12

“Set me as a seal on your heart, as a seal on your arm; for love is strong as death. Jealousy is as cruel as Sheol. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a very flame of Yahweh. Many waters can’t quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man would give all the wealth of his house for love, he would be utterly scorned.” Song of Songs 8:6,7

The Song of Songs: A Photographer

Homophobia, Conservaphobia and legitimate criticism

I have no big problem with people respectfully disagreeing with each other abouthomosexuality.

I know there are Christian Conservatives who consider a homosexual relationship sinful but DO really love gay people as their fellow humans.

As I made it clear, I’m against any kind of discrimination due to their honest moral conviction.

What infuriates me are the Conservatives who passionately hate homosexuals and dehumanize them.

So I think that the following logo was a welcome move:

Bild

Given that, it is only fair that progressive Christians such as Michelle provided such an answer:

 

Bild

This is how I want societal debates to be carried out.

 

 

Crude’s concern: progressive Christians and firing political opponents

GayMarriage

As a progressive Christian, I have repeatedly argued that homosexuality is NOT a sinful lifestyle and that committed gay couples should be welcomed into the Church. This has clearly infuriated many of my Conservative readers who feel that they are being bullied into accepting gay marriage.

Crude wrote:

“I have seen the “progressives” defend laws that force Christians to take part in gay weddings – knowing full well that these Christians will be targeted by activists and forced to compromise their principles. They do it with glee, smiling happily and feeling all warm at the thought that somewhere out there a person who disapproves of gay marriage is going to have their feet put to the fire, and that if they don’t do as they’re fucking told, the government will step in and punish them severely. I see these “progressives” cheering when someone is fired from their job when they’re outed as having supported Proposition 8 in California, or if they disapprove of gay marriage. I do not consider these minor issues. These are situations where government – the men with guns and the power to take your property, your children, your livelihood – are being used as the tool of choice to advance a political agenda that ultimately comes down to requiring people to give their active blessing to any and all sexual acts deemed ‘good’ by the morality police. The “progressive” Christians know this. They embrace it. They say “Civil Rights!” and that’s all that needs to be said, as far as they’re concerned, no matter how goddamn inane it is to try and extend civil rights to a sexual act….”

 

Common ground between Conservative and progressive Christians

 

He further wrote

“But I will say one thing. Lothar has written critically about France’s historical attempts to purge the German language from their country, in the interests of having a nice, unified french-speaking nation. He has called this cultural genocide. But the fact is, cultural genocide is exactly what he ultimately endorses with regards to conservative Christians, more or less across the board. I say it with a heavy heart – it is hard to criticize someone who has been consistently considerate with me like this. But the idea of having common ground with “progressives” now truly appears to me as little more than the grounds for a work of fiction, one that is particularly fantastical – and it was that hope for common ground that drove a lot of my silence and hesitancy previously. The hope is gone.”

 

But Conservative and progressive Christians do have a strong common ground. We all believe that every good law should serve the well being and flourishing of mankind, an aspect which stands at the very center of Jesus ethical teaching, as I once argued.

GoldenRule

We might disagree about how this plays out (and whether some dogmas widely regarded as sacred are conductive to the blooming of our kind) but we certainly hold fast to the same principle.

Furthermore, we also believe that the main goal of our existence is to become increasingly better persons, to grow in our capacity to give and receive love and to fulfill the Golden Rule. Given this, it is extremely depressing to see people in BOTH camps resorting to a hateful rhetoric rather than trying to understand each others and having a constructive dialog.

It is never right to be  aggressive towards nice and respectful opponents.

 

With this all in mind, I’m going explain why progressive Christians ought to actively oppose firing people on the only ground of their being against Gay marriage.

 

The lovelessness of political liberalism

First of all, it is an extraordinarily unloving and disproportionate punishment for this alleged “offense”. Most people don’t do this because they are mean but because they are sincerely convinced it is wrong.

Even as I was a secular Frenchman, I was against a gay lifestyle because I had many prejudices, projected my own heterosexual disgust onto the objective reality and (more importantly) hadn’t read the story and suffering of committed and decent homosexuals. But I never had any evil intention.

 

Now let us suppose that John is a middle-class American worker who is sincerely convinced that practiced homosexuality is wrong yet also oppose violence and oppression against homosexuals. Let us now suppose it became known he refused to participating in a gay wedding in his enterprise and was consequently fired.
He did not manage to find a new job and livelihood and one year later he live in a poor apartment and his family has no longer access to any good healthcare.

Could you really look him and his children in the eyes and say: “You got what you deserve!” ?

 

Promotion of homophobia

In a previous post, I argued that by systematically refusing to recognize the reality of anti-white racism (and confusing criticism of multi-culturalism with incitement to racial hatred), the French political establishment fosters the racism of white people by making them resentful.

I think that bullying people (or even worse firing them) because they oppose homosexual marriage has pretty much the same effect: it increases homophobia instead of promoting tolerance towards gay people. This can also be observed in France where governmental pressure for defending gay marriage has led to an increased homophobia which is all too visible in many French forums, chats and social medias.

To reuse my example above, how would John now struggling with poverty react if he received a petition asking him to step in on behalf of persecuted Gay people in Uganda?

It is not implausible at all he would react by screaming “I don’t give a fuck about them!” whereas he would have been touched and supported them before getting fired.

 

Striving for a just and moral society

File:Brendan Eich Mozilla Foundation official photo.jpg

(Brendan Eich: former president of Mozilla fired for his past opposition to gay marriage)

 

Consequently, I exhort all my progressive Christian readers to speak out against the firing of opponents to Gay marriage and any other political persecution.

It is worth noting I am far from being the only progressive Christian with such an opinion.

Sheila, one of my regular commentators, wrote:

“I understand Crude’s frustration, however. I think it is wrong to go after someone’s livelihood because that person disagrees with your point of view. What’s not being reported enough about the Mozilla kerfuffle is the fact that the IRS leaked his tax return. That’s a clear violation of the law, but no one will be held accountable. (IMHO)

I am in favor of gay marriage. But I visited Chik-Fil-A on “CFA Day” because it is wrong to try to destroy a man’s business over his personal political views. If someone on the Right tried to destroy Starbucks, I’d waste my money on its overpriced coffee to show my support for its right to support gay marriage.

No one on either the Right or the Left ought to be targeted for total destruction because of a personal opinion.

This nation is about freedom. It gets messy when diametrically opposed civil liberties clash. But no one should seek the destruction of, or the power of the government against, another person based on political views. It’s abhorrent.

I am sure others will come out too.

 

Distinguishing between mere criticism and bullying

 

That said, I want all my conservative readers to know that I will keep arguing in favor of gay marriage in the months (and probably years, if not centuries) to follow. But I will try to do this in a respectful way, trying to guess how I would react if my ideas were criticized in a similar way.

Falling infinitely short of perfection, it is inevitable I will make mistakes and write things I will regret shortly thereafter (a problem which is gravely compounded by my own impulsive nature).

 

Therefore I’d be glad if one could then send me an email at: lotharson57@gmail.com_ (the final _ stands here for avoiding my email to get massively spammed as this recently occurred).