Daily Atheist Devotional #198 (Hate Crime Edition)

Except she, even in her eminent dimness, will know that she has to do the classic xian-fundy-two-step... you know the dance... the one where you spout hate fillED speech about LGBTs and quote bible passages about how they should be killed, then feign ~horror~ when a vicious, depraved member of their ilk actually does it.

"We never told nobody to kill gay people. JESUS is LOVE."

Yeah, right.

Fin, I have to point out that your outrage in terms of biblical canon is misplaced here.

"For some xians it is a sin to be gay, but it's fine and dandy to kill a gay person?"

YES.  A man who lies with another man as with a woman is to be stoned to death.  If you're arguing commandments, keep in mind not more than a few flips of a page away you're told (1) not to murder and then (2) to take god's vengeance out on gay men.

To be entirely strict about this, these people failed when they took up a torch instead of lobbing large pieces of granite at this guy's head.

Thank you.  This came to mind immediately, but I wasn't inclined to be 'argumentative' again.

These rants against Christians tend to be Straw men... basically badly stated and vague principles easily disproved.

Having said the above...

Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians told to do anything about Homosexuals.  They are told that Homosexuals should not be... Christians.  In fact, it doesn't say they can't be "Christians", it says they should not be allowed in the congregation.  Again, the New Testament is about how to be a Christian, and to avoid Christians that aren't "true" Christians.

The Old Testament DOES say to kill homosexuals (and unruly children), as part of "The Law".  Jesus fulfilled the law, so they no longer apply to Christians.  Thus, killing homosexuals, or unruly children, or anyone else that apparently displeases God, is not punishable by Christians.

God also did not CREATE Homosexuals (or unruly children).  God created PERFECT humans, and in the Abrahamic world view, homosexuality (and unruly children) are not perfect.  Such 'imperfections' where introduced with Adam and Eve's sins.

At the risk of really stepping in it.... It was Paul who said that Jesus fulfilled the law. The only time Jesus is quoted as referring to the Mosaic Laws he says that he did not come to change them and they would stand until the end of time. So, if you follow Jesus and not Paul, you really should be following the Mosaic Laws. Personally, I think Paul was a false prophet who sought to profit  from the rising popularity of Christianity.

Tonia

That statement is placed in Jesus' mouth in Matthew 5:17, KJV: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
 

But you have to place it in the context of the rest of the passage: 

¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Fulfill is one of those words that can have multiple meanings. It can mean to bring something to an end, but it can also mean to put into effect (execute), meet the requirements of, or to develop the potential of something. Christians have traditionally seized upon the "end" meaning as it is consistent with what Paul wrote. However, if Paul is a false prophet and you throw out his interpretation, then you can even more easily see the whole passage as saying the law continues.

Tonia

P.S. I prefer the NIV as it is a translation from texts that predate the texts used for the KJV, making it less likely to contain copy errors prior to translation.

I agree with every word you said :-). I was just pointing out that statement attributed to Jesus because it's one that Fundies like to use when it's convenient for them to insist that Jesus did away with the Mosaic Law by fulfilling it.

I, too, am an NIV fan. We use the NRSV in my current religious studies and theology classes, and I'm slowly making friends with it. In Germany in seminary, we primarily used the revised Elberfelder translation, along with another one....and of course the name just fell out of my head...that was along the lines of the Amplified Bible, one of those that attempted to give multiple nuances of translation.

I'm sorry now that I didn't learn any Hebrew or Latin, but I did have four semesters of Koine Greek, enough that I can stumble through the texts with dictionary and grammar key close at hand and get something out of the text.

I would love to go back to school to study theology, but I have way too many student loans from my doctorate to be able to afford it right now. I read a lot, and I have been reading a lot of sacred texts and works of textual criticism. When I read the Bible (cover to cover - I believe in context), I was very much struck by how Paul sounded like an attention ***** and how he contradicted the teachings of Jesus and the disciples.

Tonia

There are A LOT of aspects of Jesus that weren't mentioned by Jesus, but codified by Paul.  If there is an Architect of Christianity, it is Paul.

We really don't KNOW what Jesus, if he existed, said as the Gospels were not written by contemporaries of Jesus, but were created by the new sect to frame Jesus as the Messiah, shoehorning all of the O/T prophesies (and then some) into his life.  If you read the gospels, there are obvious signs of fiction righting, such as we are told his thoughts and his actions while he was alone.

Paul's role in Christianity is beyond dispute today.  Paul's words, like Jesus' and the prophets, are inspired by god, therefore true to Christians.  Only the apocryphal works are no longer accepted as inspired by Christians, though several doctrines come from those apocryphal works.  They are all apocryphal to Atheists and most Critical Thinkers.

I am with you there Greater Fool. While I am not an atheist, I am also not a Christian. I have spent a good amount of time studying the sacred texts of several religions, including Christianity. Regardless of a belief in God, it should be obvious to most people that the books were written by men and reflect the ideas of the men at the time (and at later times through interjections in translations).

Tonia