The Daily Show Gives a Voice to the Voiceless

[PhDeac]

Do a little research on the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

This. Bake's post is like calling the Spurs and Heat hypocrites for shooting at different baskets after halftime.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Why is it hypocritical or unsettling for someone to believe that some biblical teachings were a product of their time and others are the product of eternal truths? There are very few who believe the bible is inerrant anymore, so for the bible to say anything, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. It's all a matter of line drawing, but I don't see why one person drawing the line at a different place from me is hypocritical or unsettling.

I think the prevailing opinion is that anybody who makes this distinction and then puts "homosexuality is a sin" into the "product of eternal trut" is a little bit off the reservation.

 

[Ball State Deac]

Pretty funny clip. I don't think conservative Christians are oppressed in their daily lives, however I do think there is a stream of thought that is perpetrated throughout the Democratic Party and most of the press that those who condemn homosexuality as a sin (or as wrong) are not to be tolerated. They are to be ridiculed, mocked, and named as a bigot. Some of you are probably reading this right now thinking 'that is because they are bigots' which probably proves my point.

Whether that has any real impact on the daily lives of conservative Christians is debatable (I doubt it does), but it is a clear verbal right now between progressives on this issue and conservatives on this issue. The conservatives are losing, and will lose the battle in the long run. Of that there is little doubt Societies always grow more liberal over time until they fall. For me that is not really the point. If you are convicted of a truth then you are convicted of it.

I read that and thought "because they're bigots." Shrug.

 

[Wrangor]

Tim Keller has an awesome book titled King's Cross, and I've been meaning to share this as I thought it very pertinent to the position of many evangelicals seeking power, forcing their beliefs on others, wanting a Christian nation, etc. Keller begins this section with Mark 10:35-45, the story of two disciples, James and John, making a request of Jesus.

"35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” "

Keller points out that the moment in which Jesus most reveals God's glory is on the cross, certainly not what James and John are picturing. You see how hard it is for them to accept the gift of humility.

"41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[d] 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave[e] of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”"

Keller says,

"Jesus is talking about how most people try to influence society, to get their way. They lord it over others. They seek power and control. If I have the power, if I have the wealth, the connections, then I can get my way.

When Jesus says "No so with you," what do you think he means? Is he saying we must withdraw and have nothing to do with society? No. Actually the principle that he's laying out rather explicitly here was already laid out earlier, in the book of the prophet Jeremiah in chapter 29. The Israelite nation had been destroyed by the Babylonian empire, and many of the people had been taken by force to Babylon. What was their attitude supposed to be toward the Babylonian society, in which they were exiles? They could have tried to keep to themselves and have nothing to do with it. Or they could have tried to infiltrate Babylon and use guerrilla tactics to take power. But what did God say to them? In Jeremiah 29:7, God said, "Seek the peace and the prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." That is, I want you to seek the prosperity of Babylon. I want you to make it a great city to live in. I want you to serve your neighbors--even though their language is different and they don't believe what you believe. And I don't want you to do this out of a sense of duty. "Pray for it" is another way of saying "love it." ...

"For you," God says, "the route to gaining influence is not taking power. Influence gained through power and control doesn't really change society; it doesn't change hearts. I'm calling you to a totally different approach. Be so sacrificially loving to the people around you, who don't believe what you believe, will soon be unable to imagine the place without you. They'll trust you because they see that you're not only out for yourself, but out for them, too. When they voluntarily begin to look up to you because of your service and love, you'll have real influence. It will be an influence given to you by others, not taken by you from others." Who is the model for that way of gaining influence? It's Jesus himself, of course. How did Jesus respond to his enemies? He didn't call down legions of angels to fight them. He died for their sins, and as he was dying he prayed for them. And if at the very heart of your worldview is a man dying for his enemies, then the way you're going to win influence in society is through service rather than power and control."

That is a great book, and some great thoughts. I have said it many times that the best thing for Christianity in America might be persecution. On this thread I was merely commenting on the realities of why Christians feel fear...it is nothing new. Times are changing and it is getting less and less comfortable to be a country club Christian.

 

[ChrisL68]

Why is it hypocritical or unsettling for someone to believe that some biblical teachings were a product of their time and others are the product of eternal truths? There are very few who believe the bible is inerrant anymore, so for the bible to say anything, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. It's all a matter of line drawing, but I don't see why one person drawing the line at a different place from me is hypocritical or unsettling.

Something I like doing=product of their time.
Something somebody else does=eternal truth

 

[09deaconX]

Something I like doing=product of their time.
Something somebody else does=eternal truth

Here's a pretty concise explanation from Tim Keller:

Making Sense of Scripture's 'Inconsistency'

 

[WakeandBake]

This. Bake's post is like calling the Spurs and Heat hypocrites for shooting at different baskets after halftime.

Oh, I see. So the things Jesus said about greed and amassing wealth and passing through the eye of a needle is just, you know, some shit he said back then without knowing about the awesomeness of capitalism. He was probably drunk on wine or something, so we'll ignore that. But two chicks getting it on? no way man, that shit is an abomination.

 

[WFFaithful]

Oh, I see. So the things Jesus said about greed and amassing wealth and passing through the eye of a needle is just, you know, some shit he said back then without knowing about the awesomeness of capitalism. He was probably drunk on wine or something, so we'll ignore that. But two chicks getting it on? no way man, that shit is an abomination.

Who is making this argument?

 

[09deaconX]

Oh, I see. So the things Jesus said about greed and amassing wealth and passing through the eye of a needle is just, you know, some shit he said back then without knowing about the awesomeness of capitalism. He was probably drunk on wine or something, so we'll ignore that. But two chicks getting it on? no way man, that shit is an abomination.

Do you think that the majority of Christians believe this? There are definitely sections of Christianity that might (Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel folks come to mind), but trying to pass that off as a mainstream belief seems like a stretch.

 

[WakeandBake]

Who is making this argument?

Do you not understand your own argument about my original post? What am I missing here?

I said Christians were hypocrites for following only the Biblical teachings that suit them and ignoring the ones that don't. You said I should learn the difference beween the old and new testaments. So I brought up a conveniently ignored tenet that Jesus taught about wealth, and you are incredulous.

Help me out here.

 

[09deaconX]

Do you not understand your own argument about my original post? What am I missing here?

I said Christians were hypocrites for following only the Biblical teachings that suit them and ignoring the ones that don't. You said I should learn the difference beween the old and new testaments. So I brought up a conveniently ignored tenet that Jesus taught about wealth, and you are incredulous.

Help me out here.

Step by step:

Your example was "So the things Jesus said about greed and amassing wealth and passing through the eye of a needle is just, you know, some shit he said back then without knowing about the awesomeness of capitalism."

You are using that example to try and refute the Old & New Testament differentiation argument.

He (and I too) are asking:
1) who has used that line of reasoning?
2) do you believe that is a mainstream Christian belief?

 

[WakeandBake]

Step by step:

Your example was "So the things Jesus said about greed and amassing wealth and passing through the eye of a needle is just, you know, some shit he said back then without knowing about the awesomeness of capitalism."

You are using that example to try and refute the Old & New Testament differentiation argument.

He (and I too) are asking:
1) who has used that line of reasoning?
2) do you believe that is a mainstream Christian belief?

sigh

Yes, I am using that example to refute the Old and New Testament differentiation argument. When I made my first post, I was told to learn the difference between the two convenants. I take that to mean "in the old testament there were draconian punishments for behavior that are outdated and unrealistic. We Christians refer to the new testament on the matter of homosexuality and therefore your argument is not valid."

So then, I posted about things Jesus said. Jesus is a New Testament dude. Jesus said that greed and amassing wealth were wrong, and that you should give it all away to the poor. (Luke 14-33), (Mark 10-21).

The part about Jesus saying that "without knowing the awesomeness of Capitalism" was a bit of snark added in for effect. It was meant to illustrate how Christians pick and choose the tenets of Christianity that fit modern man and suit their tastes - part of my original point.

Edit: yes, I do believe that Christians, American ones, ignore this piece of Jesus' teachings and put amassing wealth above everything else. They resent the poor and hold them in contempt. They accuse them of "freeloading" and "gaming the system" on a daily basis on this board.

 

[19deac92]

Edit: yes, I do believe that Christians, American ones, ignore this piece of Jesus' teachings and put amassing wealth above everything else. They resent the poor and hold them in contempt.

Why do you believe this?

Edited to add: I am an American Christian. I do not place amassing wealth above everything else. Likewise, I do not resent the poor and hold them in contempt.

 

[09deaconX]

yes, I do believe that Christians, American ones, ignore this piece of Jesus' teachings and put amassing wealth above everything else. They resent the poor and hold them in contempt.

I trust you've had some terrible experiences with Christians to make you paint with such broad strokes.

As for the teachings of Jesus, some of Jesus' strongest rebukes were towards those who chose greed over kindness, especially towards those who considered themselves righteous in the eyes of God. So the point that I (and I think WFFaithful) were making is that you will not find a sound Christian who would refute Jesus' teachings on greed as simply "out of context" or something that ought to be ignored.

As far as Christians in practice towards that standard, well yeah, we don't. At all. No argument from me on that point - that's pretty much the point in Christianity: recognizing that you fall way, way, short of living the life Jesus has called you to live.

 

[WakeandBake]

I trust you've had some terrible experiences with Christians to make you paint with such broad strokes.

As for the teachings of Jesus, some of Jesus' strongest rebukes were towards those who chose greed over kindness, especially towards those who considered themselves righteous in the eyes of God. So the point that I (and I think WFFaithful) were making is that you will not find a sound Christian who would refute Jesus' teachings on greed as simply "out of context" or something that ought to be ignored.

As far as Christians in practice towards that standard, well yeah, we don't. At all. No argument from me on that point - that's pretty much the point in Christianity: recognizing that you fall way, way, short of living the life Jesus has called you to live.

So why then are homosexuals singled out as abominations, and the words of Christ the basis of opposition to gay marriage? There are no other arguments postulated by the opposition except religious texts. If you are going to recognize that we all fall short, why do same-sex marriage opponents not want to make laws in our secular government prohibiting anything and everything Jesus taught us not to do? That's my point. The ones that suit them are singled out for outrage, and the others are just them 'falling short.' See what I'm saying?

Jesus also said that marrying someone else after divorce was adultery. Adultery is one of them 10 commandments. Why, then, are Christians not opposed to second marriages? Shouldn't there be, in the name of consistency and not being hypocritical, a constitutional amendment banning remarriage after divorce?

 

[PhDeac]

Why do you believe this?

Edited to add: I am an American Christian. I do not place amassing wealth above everything else. Likewise, I do not resent the poor and hold them in contempt.

Same here. Some Christians are the modern day versions of the religious leaders Jesus admonished and those Christians tend to be more visible to those who aren't Christians. Don't judge us all by their actions.

 

[WFFaithful]

Edit: yes, I do believe that Christians, American ones, ignore this piece of Jesus' teachings and put amassing wealth above everything else. They resent the poor and hold them in contempt. They accuse them of "freeloading" and "gaming the system" on a daily basis on this board.

This is idolatry. In the passage in Luke that you referenced, it is not just wealth that gets in the way. "26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." Anyone or anything placed above God is wrong. Jesus also tells a disciple in Matthew 8 not to bury his father. Does this mean that we are not supposed to bury the dead? No, Jesus was pointing out that the disciple had his priorities in the wrong place.

As for the second part of "resenting the poor and holding them in contempt," I agree with you that does not follow the gospel at all. Their argument would be that it is not the government's role to care for the poor. I personally think that is a very weak argument in that by making that claim, you are not following the spirit of the gospel at all which goes beyond caring for the poor to caring for your enemies. Should not Christians be supportive of helping the poor at all times regardless whether it be through government or personal means? In my opinion, many Republican policies directly contradict what is taught in the Bible.

 

[Wrangor]

So why then are homosexuals singled out as abominations, and the words of Christ the basis of opposition to gay marriage? There are no other arguments postulated by the opposition except religious texts. If you are going to recognize that we all fall short, why do same-sex marriage opponents not want to make laws in our secular government prohibiting anything and everything Jesus taught us not to do? That's my point. The ones that suit them are singled out for outrage, and the others are just them 'falling short.' See what I'm saying?

Jesus also said that marrying someone else after divorce was adultery. Adultery is one of them 10 commandments. Why, then, are Christians not opposed to second marriages? Shouldn't there be, in the name of consistency and not being hypocritical, a constitutional amendment banning remarriage after divorce?

Agree on all accounts. The American church has made peace with greed in some ways. I agree with that. It does not mean that there aren't churches and Christians out there who haven't and are fighting the culture. Totally agree regarding divorce. The bible is very clear on that and the American church has completely ignored it. Regarding homosexuality the reason that American Christians key on that is two fold.

1. Because homosexuality is an unrepentant lifestyle. If it is a sin (which is what we are saying), then those who openly practice it are not a greedy person who is striving to be more generous or an adulterous person who is striving to be more faithful. It is an open practice of wrongdoing with no remorse. This is a legitimate basis in my opinion.
2. Now comes the illegitimate - because I am not a homosexual it is easy for me to pick on that weakness. It makes me feel better about myself to find a fault in someone else and condemn them for it. To be honest homosexuality is not the one I normally choose. Racists are the ones I feel really good condemning and judging.

We all look for faults in other people that we can condemn in order to try to lift ourselves up. This is not uniquely Christian, it is a human trait. Bake - if you are honest with yourself I think you will see evidence of that in your own life. This does not make it ok, but to condemn Christianity as a whole because we are hypocrites (and we are) is pretty silly since it would be analogous to condemning humanity for breathing. Hypocrisy and arrogance run deep in all of our veins.

 

[WFFaithful]

So why then are homosexuals singled out as abominations, and the words of Christ the basis of opposition to gay marriage? There are no other arguments postulated by the opposition except religious texts. If you are going to recognize that we all fall short, why do same-sex marriage opponents not want to make laws in our secular government prohibiting anything and everything Jesus taught us not to do? That's my point. The ones that suit them are singled out for outrage, and the others are just them 'falling short.' See what I'm saying?

Jesus also said that marrying someone else after divorce was adultery. Adultery is one of them 10 commandments. Why, then, are Christians not opposed to second marriages? Shouldn't there be, in the name of consistency and not being hypocritical, a constitutional amendment banning remarriage after divorce?

I agree. It is very hypocritical. See my lengthy post of the previous page to see my thoughts on why the crusades against homosexuality and for religion in government are wrong.

 

[WakeandBake]

Agree on all accounts. The American church has made peace with greed in some ways. I agree with that. It does not mean that there aren't churches and Christians out there who haven't and are fighting the culture. Totally agree regarding divorce. The bible is very clear on that and the American church has completely ignored it. Regarding homosexuality the reason that American Christians key on that is two fold.

1. Because homosexuality is an unrepentant lifestyle. If it is a sin (which is what we are saying), then those who openly practice it are not a greedy person who is striving to be more generous or an adulterous person who is striving to be more faithful. It is an open practice of wrongdoing with no remorse. This is a legitimate basis in my opinion.
2. Now comes the illegitimate - because I am not a homosexual it is easy for me to pick on that weakness. It makes me feel better about myself to find a fault in someone else and condemn them for it. To be honest homosexuality is not the one I normally choose. Racists are the ones I feel really good condemning and judging.

We all look for faults in other people that we can condemn in order to try to lift ourselves up. This is not uniquely Christian, it is a human trait. Bake - if you are honest with yourself I think you will see evidence of that in your own life. This does not make it ok, but to condemn Christianity as a whole because we are hypocrites (and we are) is pretty silly since it would be analogous to condemning humanity for breathing. Hypocrisy and arrogance run deep in all of our veins.

Re-marriage after divorce is unrepentant by that definition.

And I'm not condemning Christianity as a whole. But on the homosexual issue in America, Christians make up the overwhelming majority of people actively crusading against their equal rights, so they naturally bear the brunt of my criticism. Also, that is the context of the Daily Show piece and of this thread.