Originally appeared at JimRigby.org
1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teachings.
2. You are not being persecuted when prevented from persecuting others.
3. Truth isn’t like wine that gets better with age. It’s more like manna you must recognize wherever you are and whoever you are with.
4. You cannot call it “special rights” when someone asks for the same rights you have.
5. It is no longer your personal religious view if you’re bothering someone else.
6. Marriage is a civil ceremony, which means it’s a civil right.
7. If how someone stimulates the pubic nerve has become the needle to your moral compass, you are the one who is lost.
8. To condemn homosexuality, you must use parts of the Bible you don’t yourself obey. Anyone who obeyed every part of Leviticus would rightly be put in prison.
9. If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.
10. When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.
Jim Rigby is a Presbyterian Minister in Austin Texas. In 2007, Jim was named “Texas Public Citizen of the Year” by National Association of Social Workers for his work on gender, economic, and racial issues. Jim has written for Huffington Post, Common Dreams, and other sites, but now his focus is on his blog, as a place for a deeper discussion of the relationship between religion and politics.
Crown of thorns illustration courtesy of Shutterstock
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
“To condemn homosexuality, you must use parts of the Bible you don’t yourself obey. Anyone who obeyed every part of Leviticus would rightly be put in prison.”
Very well put. And if you obeyed every part of Leviticus you’d never eat a cheeseburger or wear a cotton/poly blend, and THEN where would this country be? Downright un-American that would be.
“Downright un-American that would be.”
This was good for a giggle, Wellokaythen. Nice.
It’s a very important point to make, when you consider that the USA is obviously God’s favorite country. Godly, American, same difference.
Based on this polygamy should also be legalized.
Yeah. …Is that a bad thing?
Bad? No. But, it is crazy.
It’s not only not legal, it’s felony to even live with someone other than (or in addition to) your spouse, even if you haven’t actually married the second person. Nuts. Canada has legalized same sex AND polygamous marriage with no ill effects.
“1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teachings.”
First time I’ve heard a minister say that the writings of all of the aposltes (Peter, Paul, James, and John), and all of the Old Testament, including the Psalms and Proverbs aren’t necessary.
He’s not saying they’re not necessary, he’s saying they aren’t JESUS’s teachings.
His words: “cannot be essential to his teachings.”
Essential: “absolutely necessary; indispensable.”
Hence, if it’s not essential, it’s unnecessary.
By definition the rest of the scriptures, according to him are unnecessary (“not essential”). He’s completely entitled to his opinion. I’m just pointing out that I have never heard a minister say that the rest of the Bible is unnecessary.
You said: and all of the Old Testament, including the Psalms and Proverbs aren’t necessary.
Not all of the Bible is the teachings of Jesus. That doesn’t mean they aren’t essential. But they aren’t all the teachings of Christ.
You’re equivocating essential text with Jesus’ teachings, but they are not the same. Unless you believe Jesus wrote the Bible. But Jesus wasn’t born yet.
Perhaps you believe Jesus is the embodiment of God, and God wrote the Bible. But that still doesn’t hold up because “Jesus” is the physical embodiment of God, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. When we talk about Jesus’ teachings we are NOT talking about the Old Testament or the gospels.
Joanna,
Respectfully, Jesus explicitly says in 5 Mark that the Hebrew Law (the Old Testament) is to be upheld. He later taught that several aspects of the Old Testament had been misunderstood, and then instructed as to the proper understandings (a good example of this is 7 Mark).
So Jesus’ teachings literally included the old testament: he explicitly stated that he was not abolishing the Hebrew Law.
I personally believe that other statements Jesus made can be interpreted as modifying our understanding of the harsher aspects of the Old Testament, but this is very different from claiming that Jesus did not say that the Old Testament should be followed.
You made this statement last but I must address/correct it first.
“When we talk about Jesus’ teachings we are NOT talking about the Old Testament or the gospels.”
Er, uh, the Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are where Jesus words are quoted. No other books (with the exception of a few words in Acts) contain direct quotations of Jesus.
Now, for your initial statement. . .
“You said: and all of the Old Testament, including the Psalms and Proverbs aren’t necessary.”
No, the minister said that since they aren’t ‘Jesus teachings.’
Hence, per his statement, Proverbs and Psalms aren’t any more ‘essential to Jesus teachings’ than those controversial about mverses in Leviticus.
“Not all of the Bible is the teachings of Jesus. That doesn’t mean they aren’t essential. But they aren’t all the teachings of Christ. “
I’m not arguing one way or the other, just noting what the minister said. He said that if “Jesus didn’t mention a subject, it was not essential to his teachings.”
Well, there are a lot of subjects mentioned in the OT and NT that Jesus didn’t mention. Hence, they, in the view of the minister, such matters not essential to Christianity (i.e. Jesus’ teachings)
“You’re equivocating essential text with Jesus’ teachings, but they are not the same.”
No, simply noting the minister’s statement. According to the minister, the only “essential text” are based on subjects Jesus mentioned, which excludes the Psalms, Proverbs, most of the rest of the Old Testament, and most of the rest of the NT.
I’m not here to argue theology; I’m only drawing attention to the very surprising statement made by the minister. That philosophy must really limit what books and verses he can use in his sermons.
Haha, that’s a really ridiculous typo! I hate when I do that!
With the Gospels I meant to say “like with the Gospels” but clearly was very tired!!
Obviously the Gospels are the Gospels because they’re the express teachings of Jesus, hence “the Gospels” haha.
The Bible is a collectively agreed version of historically distant perceptions of events. Considering how much is also left out of the bible, what is included is only a small amount of material that is considered “on message”. What I do find curious is, if I choose to do something that another thinks is worthy of damnation, why is it anyone’s business but my own? I thought a key point of religion was the various names for god gave us free will.
“The Bible is a collectively agreed version of historically distant perceptions of events. Considering how much is also left out of the bible, what is included is only a small amount of material that is considered “on message”. ”
Yes times infinity plus one. What’s included in the Bible and not included in the Bible is in large part a product of the Council of Nicaea in 321 C.E.(A.D.). The Council’s decisions were in large part politically motivated, designed to expel some variants of Christianity and standardize the remainder. Ironic that diehard evangelical Protestants would be so trusting of decisions made by Catholic bishops….
That book in your hotel room is a product of 2000 years of politics, ideological disagreement, re-interpretation, editing, and theological change.
Whenever you say “the Bible says ____,” what you are really saying is “this current version of a book labeled The Bible on my shelf says _____.”
There is actually evidence that the canon was decided before the Council. The Council was more about religious doctrines, but not the bible text itself
I always thought the “Jesus didn’t mention it” argument was never a good one. Jesus’ audience already thought it was wrong. He didn’t mention slavery, idolatry, or false gods either.
Good point. Also, presumably the historical Jesus did have conversations not specifically mentioned in the Bible. It is possible he said something really important and profound that never made it into any bibles. (The gospels were all written decades after his death, so some teaching could have been lost.)
Not to worry, though, because biblical silence is really no barrier. People put opinions in Jesus’ mouth all the time. I’ve heard that Jesus was a firm believer in modern-day corporate capitalism and supported the use of English in school.
Doesn’t really matter. It could say anything. People believe what they want to be true and do what they want to do.
Exactly Eric. People will believe what they want to, including certain delusional Christians. YOU pick and choose what you want to follow from both the New and Old Testament. WTF? Eat shrimp lately? Why? Sell your daughter for a fair price recently? Why not? Hypocrite. You can’t pick and choose what you will follow and then pretend your CHOICES are the “right” words of God. You, just like everyone else, are just throwing darts in the air hoping to land close enough to what is good and decent so you can say you have lived an honorable life. So STOP assuming you have it right. Humanity, dignity, love and compassion. Those are the darts that I throw. What do you throw?
Casey,
1. Your comment is a personal attack (e.g.., name calling – “hypocrite”). That is a violation of the commenting policy. Hence, knock it off.
2. Nothing in my comment is about what I “picked.” I pointed out an error in the list. If you disagree with my comment, provide your evidence showing where I am wrong.
3. It is true that people who claim to follow Jewish Law should abide by it, including not eating BLT’s, for example. However, this article addresses “the church” and Jesus’ statements which refers to a Christian denomination, not Judaism.
4. I haven’t commented on any of my choices. Therefore, it’s not possible for me to pretend that they are right.
5. “Humanity, dignity, love and compassion. Those are the darts that I throw. ”
A comment filled with personal insults isn’t throwing “Humanity, dignity, love and compassion.”
6. I am not sure why some feel the need for the approval of “the church” if that church’s views and theirs are so fundamentally out of alignment on important issues. Why try to change that church when it’s not hard to find churches that welcome people of all lifestyles, orientations, choices, views, etc.
Eric –
The commenter was using the hypothetical “You” not you directly. Notice that in the very first statement the commenter says “Exactly Eric” meaning that they’re agreeing with you. You may want to reread Casey’s comment and retract your statement as Casey said nothing about you but made a generalized comment directed at the common public.
I would be happy to adjust my comment after s/he clarifies who “you” refers to. Using the pronoun you, immediately after naming an individual suggests a reference to the named individual.
If the pronoun “you” was not meant tlo refer to me, they should have used “they”, “people” similar to what the prior commenter did.) or “certain delusional Christians” as s/he put it.
CORRECTION.
Speaking of using pronouns correctly, I should have said:
If the pronoun “you” was not meant tlo refer to me, S/HE should have used “they”, “people” similar to what the prior commenter did.) or “certain delusional Christians” as s/he put it.
You were being a hypocrite.
Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many “wrong” things you do on a daily basis based on Hebrew law? Study it and then you will realize what an idiotic statement that was.
I’d like to point out that much of what’s being mentioned in so far as scripture is in the Torah as well as the Koran. People automatically jumped on the “Christian” side of things whereas most of what’s being argued can be argued against other religions as well.
In so far as the “picking and choosing” what people want to follow, I agree, people tend to do that and it bugs me.
Tom B (Undoubtedly a sinner.)
Ok, lotta loose talk about Hebrew law being thrown around here.
Hebrew law, like most law, is hierarchical. Some laws are, in fact, fundamental principles. Other laws are technical “purity laws” having more to do with group identity and cultural practices that make ‘us’ different from ‘them.’ That was Paul’s fundamental point, time and again. Look for example how Paul used this distinction when he argued that circumcision was not mandatory for Romans and Greeks to join the early church.
Consider this passage, quoted from Wikipedia:
“In the Gospel of Matthew, a rich young man asks Jesus what actions bring eternal life. First Jesus advises the man to obey the commandments. When the man responds that he already observes them, Jesus adds:
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.[4]
“The Gospel of Luke has a similar episode and states that:
“When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”[5]
“The disciples then ask Jesus who then can be saved, and Jesus replies: “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” ”
Note that Jesus emphasizes the Commandments. Not every aspect of the Hebrew purity laws.
Indeed, the Gospels recount other episodes where Jesus specifically disregards the purity laws and holds up the purity laws as what we might call the “hobgoblins of little minds.” Think of the miracles performed on the Sabbath to the horror of the religious lawyers.
When one follows technical laws blindly one is, essence, violating the First Commandment: “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me.” Slavishly following and enforcing technical laws, rather than the principles behind the laws, one is setting up the technical laws as a god. Fervent worship of technical laws hides God from us.
Consider this passage: Mark 12:28-34:
“28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, `Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he; 33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any question.”
“Sh’ma Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adoni echad…” First and foremost.
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Second. And there is no commandment greater than these.
Who is my neighbor? Well, I think Jesus answered that one pretty clearly in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan was the one who acted like a neighbor.
Given that we no longer feel, in our guts, the loathing that many Jews of Jesus’ time would have been taught to feel toward Samaritans, consider substituting other names for Samaritan in the parable, pick an example of a person you really can’t stand, and think of one of them being a neighbor to you:
The Good Faggot
The Good Lesbo
The Good Feminist
The Good MRA
The Good Muslim
The Good Hetero Cis White Guy
Thus endeth an overlong sermon.
God bless you all.
JustASinner
“It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” ~ Mark Twain on the Bible.
I appreciate the perspective this writer brings to the discussion. Funnily enough, I also agree with it. Might be why I like it.
Anyways, I might be getting a little off topic but I think that the number of inherent inconsistencies and fallacious points of logic in the Bible just might be a clue that, if there is a God who “divinely inspired” this book, he/she/it intended it to be taken with a whole bag of salt.
As far as I can tell, the basic message of the New Testament is incredibly simple: take care of others, and I’ll take care of you. It’s practically a call to communism. As for the rules and laws and whatnot, I can’t really see the point of following the things the Bible says that directly contradict this underlying message. And if you want to strictly follow the Old Testament, well, here’s another Twain quote:
“The two Testaments are interesting, each in its own way. The Old one gives us a picture of these people’s Deity as he was before he got religion, the other one gives us a picture of him as he appeared afterward.”
PCUSA, I expect. Some years ago, a PCUSA cleric or other hierarch got into a bit of trouble by remarking that his friends thought Presbyterians looked “as if they’d been weaned on pickles’.
WRT #7, I presume there’s an age qualifier lurking around….
Here’e my take on your points Jim:
“1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teachings.”
If you wish to place the recorded words of Jesus above the rest of Scripture, you’re doing it wrong.
“2. You are not being persecuted when prevented from persecuting others.”
Since when is seeking to preserve the current form of marriage a form of persecution? Sure, some take it too far, but if someone says “I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman” that is not persecution.
“3. Truth isn’t like wine that gets better with age. It’s more like manna you must recognize wherever you are and whoever you are with.”
Heck yes. We all need to recognise truth, especially the truths that God has given to us.
“4. You cannot call it “special rights” when someone asks for the same rights you have.”
Some things are exclusive in life. Can you take the same argument to underage sex, smoking, drinking?
“5. It is no longer your personal religious view if you’re bothering someone else.”
Personal views don’t just stay in the private.
“6. Marriage is a civil ceremony, which means it’s a civil right.”
This is where I’m weakest. I’m happy for same-sex unions, but not for same-sex marriage.
“7. If how someone stimulates the pubic nerve has become the needle to your moral compass, you are the one who is lost.”
If you make it the be all and end all, I’d be counseeling them to remember that Christian ethics go beyond the pants. But if it’s but one part of seeking to persuade people to live according to the Christian ethic, then no.
“8. To condemn homosexuality, you must use parts of the Bible you don’t yourself obey. Anyone who obeyed every part of Leviticus would rightly be put in prison.”
Romans 1 ring a bell? Seeing as almost all of the teaching on sex in the Bible is placed in the context of a husband and wife, I guess that it would have covered this.
“9. If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.”
I call shenanigans. In Australia, same-sex couples are granted every the same legal status and rights as married couples. They’re on a very good wicket.
“10. When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.”
Ah, this old chestnut. If someone call others out on what God calls people out on, it’s not judging. If someone calls others out without being willing to listen to the rebuke of a brother or sister in Christ, it’s hypocrisy. Judging is only when you ‘measure out’ the punishment from your own standards. If I say that adultery is a sin, I’m calling it for what it is. If I say that someone who commits adultery is going to get cancer, that’s judgement.
Do you follow all the rules and laws in Leviticus?
No. And I don’t have to. It’s a poor understanding of how the Bible is meant to be read that leads to thinking that Christians must follow the Mosaic law. In the same way, if I want to show why God is against homosexual sex and same-sex marriage, I may start with parts of the Old Testament, but I cannot end there. Jesus’ death changes the way that people are made right with God. I no longer have to keep the whole of the law, but there are many parts of the law that are affirmed (or expanded on) in the New Testament. Likewise, some things are specifically put aside or not affirmed, and they are no longer binding. So I can eat prawns and bacon and wear a shirt made of two materials, because they are no longer binding. But when Jesus and other NT writers affirm that marriage (and sex) is for one man and one woman, I can’t let that one go.
It’s a book, a work of fiction – a collaborative novel. Jesus is a composite character. And ‘Jesus’, the character, loved gay people. He said so in Matthew. Google is your friend – and don’t click on a gods-bothering site.
“And ‘Jesus’, the character, loved gay people. He said so in Matthew.”
In what chapter and verse of Matthew does Jesus say he “loves gay people?”
His only discourse about marriage is specifically about men and women.