When Someone Says, “America Should Get Back to ‘Biblical Principles’”

When Someone Says, “America Should Get Back to ‘Biblical Principles’”, this is all too often what they mean:

HT: Joel Watts

About these ads

8 Responses

  1. Here in Michigan, our idiots in Lansing want to pass a bill that would allow faith based adoption agencies to base their decisions on whether it would violate their “beliefs” and matters of conscience. I say fine; BUT…if a Roman Catholic agency places a child with a couple OTHER than a believing, obeying, Roman Catholic couple that follows every rule and canon of the Magesterium, than we know they’re just a bunch of lying hypocrites. Which we already know they are. This is just yet another blatant attempt to prevent gay couples from adopting. Same goes for Lutheran Social Services and any other Protestant agency out there.

  2. I have never met a Christian, particularly a fervent Bible believing one who actually knew what all of the Biblical principles were, or if s/he did, would want to have all of them enforced by the government. The requirements in the Bible are excellent in some places and down right horrific in others. I wonder how executing urban rape victims would go over? Or having to admit that mixing two different fibers together in clothing was on the same level of evil as homosexual acts? How about the one about killing any of your neighbors who changes religions? or drops out of the church? What about the verses that order the execution of children who disobey their parents? Wow, there’s lots of things to be found in the Bible, you could have an absolute bloodbath! And it’s all OK because God said to do it.

  3. Mariah Windrider, victims of urban rape were not executed. The case law presented in the Torah was just that: case law – examples of judgment. Victims of rape were paid damages (or their families were) and were given the option of marrying their rapist (to be supported) but could continue to live with their own families, because the rapist had no say in the matter, had to support his victim if she chose marriage, and was not allowed to divorce her. If the law determined that she could have called for help and did not, AND WAS BETROTHED TO SOMEBODY ELSE, she was executed (as was her rapist) because it was determined that they were complicit in breaking her vow of betrothal. Oath breaking under the Law was one of the most serious offenses. The capital offense was not in being raped but rather was using a false charge of rape to get out of her betrothal vow.

    Also, the New Testament expressly dismissed the Law, instituting instead “the Law of Love”, which did include restrictions against sexual immorality and also required charity to the poor, kindness to outsiders, mercy tot he imprisoned, etc.

    Fundamentalists cherry pick their way through the Bible, which is bad. But it’s also bad when others do it in an attempt to discredit the Bible. The Bible is a big book, and it requires a lot of study.

  4. Mariah, fervant, Bible-believing Christians understand that they are no longer under the law. The commands you list were for Israel. But when Christ came, He brought the Gospel, literally the good news, Part of that good news was that the law was satisfied in Christ. As Gentile believers, we are saved by Christ, but are not bound by Old Testament law.

  5. Ya know, I use this same comic strip when I try to get people to accept cannibalism. I mean, it occurs in nature, just like homosexuality; people in different countries accept it, just like homosexuality; and people in the military have secretly been doing for centuries, just like homosexuality, but those Christians refuse to accept cannibalism, just like homosexuality.
    Dang it! How can these Christians be so hard to accept what I want them to believe in! If they didn’t force me to belong to their religion I’d choose another! I hear Islam is very accepting of differences. Maybe you should change the tagline on this comic to “I’m joining Islam where my wants will be accepted!”
    Yeah.

  6. Eureka …you did it, found something we agree on. If those are the sentiments you feel Christians hold, And on behalf of all Real ” Christians” I would like to apologize. It appears you have encountered some ” impostors” . You will know a tree by the fruit it bears. For a ” Christian” to deny a responsibility to feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the sick & those in prison, show mercy, and be gracious to foreigners, and with every breath stand against injustice in the world…well I am not certain the title/label that is fitting, however I know with certainty it is not CHRISTIAN.

  7. Clever, but you are blind to your own logical fallacy.
    You’re simply inserting an unethical trait (cannibalism in this case, but you could say rape, murder, etc, as all of these occur in nature), and trying to draw a correlation without considering the reason why these are considered unethical in humanity. In cannibalism, you kill a victim and eat them. Rape = victim. Murder = victim. Your fallacy lies in the fact that you do not distinguish between acts that victimize a person and those that do not. And your fallacious substitution might sound impressive on the simple-minded (that same folks that equate homosexuality to incest and bestiality), but it is still fallacious.

    The cartoon asks if Christians are ignoring the core charge of their mission for the sake of condemning a sexual preference in which there is no victim.

    So while you appear to have done a great job regurgitating this attempt at an anecdotal refutation (although I’d likely believe you if you said you came up with it on your own), its fallacy only betrays your presupposition that homosexuality is inherently evil – as evil as cannibalism – despite the fact it has no victim.

    bc

  8. Interesting responses, especially since I listed several different types of biblical laws and people only responded to the rape problem. I just went back and re-read Deut. 22 where this is discussed. jeriwho says that the real issue is one of breaking vows. Rather, it read more like property crime to me. And, Deut. 22:20 requires execution of a bride whose virginity cannot be documented and her groom complains. Again, all the earmarks of a property crime instead.

    The real issue here, and one that several of our commenters have noted on is that it is a generally held Christian belief that Jesus set aside some of the laws. OK, but exactly which ones? I have noticed that many of the preachers who rail against homosexuality go home to a nice ham dinner. Maybe with a shrimp cocktail as an appetizer. So, in the matter of picking and choosing in the Bible for laws to follow and laws to toss, where is the line drawn? Follow Biblical law? Who gets to choose?

    The cartoon is excellent because it spotlights this problem of just what is a Christian supposed to do? With over 1 billion Christians in the world, it would be nice if the label actually meant something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,062 other followers

%d bloggers like this: