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
You know, as an European outsider looking in to the Christian US world, I never cease to be puzzled by the ovservation that for so many Americans the bible seems to consist of only three books: Genesis (Adam&Eve, the flood&Ark, Giants&Nephilim), that particular bit of Leviticus (disregarding the rest of Leviticus — great point #8!), and the Apocalypse (oh, how we wish for the Antichrist to appear!).
Or maybe I am coming across the wrong megachurch preachers on Youtube?
The bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. However it also says that genocide, rape, murder and slavery are justifiable.
I think that we should stop caring about a book that was written by a bunch of politicians in a primitive society two thousand years ago.
I think that what the church should know about homosexuality is what homosexuality/non-heterosexuality actually IS, not how to respond to it. Treating people you don’t understand with respect and love, though it should come naturally, is aided by attempting to understand what their life is like. The ideas in this article are all rules that seem like common sense to people who are already familiar with certain aspects of the queer community, but they will not come across as such to many people who aren’t.
I’m late to the party, but I love this.
Hi David Can gay and lesbians get married in church in your country? Where I live, they can get married but not in the church. Many want the right to get married in church. It means a new ceremony with different words. And of course it also means that priests and bishops agree on this new change. Around 50% of the bishops say yes the other 50% say :”not over my dead body….we are not rewriting the sermons for marriage in church..” It is an interesting debate to follow,especially when a priest explained that the man and the woman are… Read more »
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.
Check out the viral video by Matthew Vines regarding homosexuality and the Bible, if you have not already seen it. Very interesting take on the subject.
It all boils down to, for me, that if the only reason someone doesn’t support marriage equality is because of their religious views, that is fine; just don’t seek to legislate those views to others.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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….
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.)
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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’d have to agree that the apostles aren’t necessary. Supplemental, sure. But not necessary.
Churches that constantly talk about what Paul said drive me nuts. I’m trying to be like Christ, not Paul. I don’t call myself a Paulian.
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.
Erin, as a Canadian I feel the need to correct your misconceptions about my country. We definitely have not legalized polygamous marriage. Same sex marriage is legal though. And where is it a felony to live with someone other than your spouse? That doesn’t seem right to me, what about people who rent rooms out? If it were a felony then every college student should be locked up.
Polygamy is accepted in several cultures. As long as people are consenting, I would not have it problem with it.
Polygamy in pretty much every culture is arranged marriages of teenage girls to older men until the man can no longer afford to keep more wives. It does not mesh with the modern ideas of consent.
“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.