13 other things the Bible forbinds

Only two of the things listed were from the New Testament. Many Christians (me included) do not necessarily follow the Old Testament because we believe that that was only to be followed before Jesus died on the cross. Just so you know

I forgot to mention. . . there are also Christians that believe that Jesus' teachings trump all. That would invalidate the women speaking in church thing because Jesus never really discriminated against women in the Bible

There are a lot of different types of Christians that believe different things. Some interpret the Bible literally and others believe that it is all metaphorical. Lists like these don't work for all Christians because the Christian you may be going after may not necessarily interpret the Bible in the same way you do

 

Granted this isn't Jesus, but it is in the New Testament.
Of course, one might argue that because it isn't directly from Jesus, it's not quite as binding. Then the same can be said of Romans 1:24-27, which is often interpereted as being against homosexuality.

 

I know its from the New Testament. Sorry if that wasn't clear. When I said the 2 of the things were from the New Testament I was referring to the one on divorce and women speaking.

solarcat you're exactly right about the Romans verse. Some believe that it is not all that valid because it didn't come from Jesus' teachings. Like I said, the Jesus' teachings trumps all approach. Others believe that the Romans verse isn't referencing homosexuality at all. Christianity has so many different denominations and different interpretations of the Bible, it can be hard to keep up with who believes what.

Just for clarification, my point with my is that you can't just go flipping through the Bible and pick random verses like the article did. Many Christians believe that some verses are no longer in effect or that they were never in effect. The belief that all Christians think that every verse in the Bible is currently binding or historically accurate is not true.

 

I love how christians feel they can cherry pick the bible to suit their beliefs, yet when the very same collection of books - and indeed, same selection of chapters - is used to expose their flaws; they immediately claim it cannot be used; for it is no longer valid.

I seem to recall the whole damned, cursed book as being held as 'the direct word of god to man'.

Irony, that.

 

Like I said, there are many denominations that believe many different things. Not all denominations do what you are describing. I think you're overgeneralizing. If not all Christians believe that the Bible is accurate or binding and you use a verse that they do not believe is accurate or binding, then it is not a flaw to them. I pointed out that most of the things were from the Old testament. There are A LOT of denominations that believe the Old testament is no longer valid. Therefore, them taking the majority of the verses from the Old testament was a major flaw in what the article was trying to achieve. I personally do not find the Old testament currently valid. As in, I do not have to follow it. If you point out all the Old Testament verses to me, it would not be a flaw in my logic because I didn't believe that it applied to me in the first place. Anyway there is no irony because there is no flaw in logic. (At least in my case. Kirk Cameron is a different story and I can't speak for anyone else)

Yes, it being the direct word of God line is in there (2 Timothy 3:16) but like I said there is a Jesus' teaching trumps all approach. To my knowledge, Jesus never said that which makes that verse invalid. (I'm not an expert on the Jesus' teaching trumps all approach since my church doesn't practice it). Also just because it was the direct word of god doesn't mean that a certain Christian still finds it valid. (Like me not finding the Old Testament valid)

I go to a wonderful church filled with gay and straight people. Don't think all Christians hate gays and that all gay Christians are self loathing. It just simply isn't true (Just making a general statement here)

Also, I forgot to mention. . . the whole Christians thinking some parts of the Bible are more important than others comes from Matthew 22:36-40. In those verses, Jesus ranks two commands as being the most important.

 

I don't think making fun of a leading world religion, no matter how light-hearted and/or truthful, is going to get LGBT rights anywhere...

I don't like the implication of this that homosexuality is universally condemned by Christians. Also, this article doesn't give any context for where the bans come from. Whatevs.

 

Mockery has its place. By mocking something that is considered sacrosanct we say that those ideas are as open to public scrutiny as any others and have to be well-defended in order to be taken seriously.

 

OH I love the shrimp one, I've tried several times to get religious folk to picket Red Lobster, but I was called a fool

 

I actually found a documentary on Netflix that goes through the bible verses that are used to say that homosexuality is wrong and experts on the bible and pastors and bishops explain what the bible verses actually mean in great detail proving that those bible verses weren't actually about homosexuality and that people seem to overlook certain things the bible says not to do to benefit themselves.

 

They called you a fool? That was rude and unnecessary. Just so you know the majority of Christians believe that the dietary code is only for Jewish people because many believe that it was invalidated in the New Testament by Paul in the books of Romans, Galatians, and Colossians. Others believe that it was invalidated by Jesus himself in the book of Mark. Others believe that it was invalidated because the entire Old Testament law was invalidated (for those that believe that). Those that believe in Dispensationalist Theology usually believe that it was invalidated due to all the instances I mentioned (and any I forgot)

I can find the verses if you want them

Very few Christians (usually the ones that do believe in Covenant Theology) believe that God still holds humans under the law (what was in Exodus, Leviticus, and so on). Most believe that that changed after the death of Jesus because of verses in Romans, Galatians, Matthew, Acts, Colossians, and Hebrews (I'm most likely forgetting books. I'm doing this pretty much off the top of my head)

It can be really hard to talk about Christianity in general because of all the different beliefs within the religion. Some of them are so vastly different that it is hard to believe that it is all one religion. Hope that helps you out

 

I'm not sure how the word of God is infallible, but then everything he said before 2000 years ago is invalid [and wrong]. Don't you think God would have thought of that before making those rules? I mean God is not a human; he is all knowing and perfect. And Jesus is God. So Jesus came back to say "sorry, I was wrong before. Instead of hating everyone, I want you to love them."

Really, the bible makes God out to actually be a human with a human personality.

I don't like the implication (and assumption) that because a religion has a lot of followers it should not be made fun of. Or questioned. Or criticized. So can we make fun of smaller religions?

Also, I think it's implied by most people here that when posts like these are made, the Christians being made fun of (for being hypocrites) are those those who actually are hypocrites. I hope most people can see that this is not the case for everyone, and probably not the case for a large portion of Christians for that matter.

 

I think that you may be getting a bit confused here. It looks like you're either trying to combine two mutually exclusive beliefs: Covenant Theology and Dispensationalist Theology, or you're misunderstanding Dispensationalist Theology.

The following paragraph contains my own personal beliefs and does not encompass all of Christianity.

Jesus never came back and said He was wrong. (I was using the word invalid to mean not valid as in longer binding. I didn't mean to say anything was incorrect. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.) He was saying that things no longer need to be done in that way. The Mosaic law was only binding for those that lived between Moses and Jesus. Before Jesus and after Jesus were two different situations and that is why there were different rules. We have the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus, which is why we don't have to sacrifice animals or follow any part of the Mosaic law. They did not have the death of Jesus so they had the law. This is part of Dispensationalist Theology.

Also, for the last thing you said, regarding anthropomorphism and God, Christians tend to believe that it is the other way around. Most Christians (I haven't heard of a denomination that doesn't believe this but there are so many who knows) believes that we were made in God's image so we take after God not the other way around

I hope I cleared up any confusion regarding Dispensationalist Theology

 

Way back when during the first and second centuries, there was a huge debate among Christians as to whether you had to be a Jew to follow Jesus. In one camp there were people like Paul arguing that Gentile Christians didn't need to be circumcised or adhere to Jewish dietary law (among other things) in order to be a follower of Christ. In the other camp you had people who believed the opposite (I don't think any of them made it into the modern New Testament, although Matthew can be interpreted in that way, but since Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience it's more confusing as many early Christians thought Jewish followers of Jesus did have to follow Jewish law even if Gentile Christians didn't).

Paul won, in part because it was a lot easier to convince people to become Christians if they didn't need to be circumcised and adhere to strict dietary laws (which my religious studies prof thinks at the time probably included a prohibition on eating with non-Jews, which would have made life difficult for Christians in non-Jewish families). According to Bart Ehrman, had Paul not won, Christianity would probably have never become a major religion.

The was, incidentally, a group that believed Christians had to be Jews well into the middle of the first millennium called the "Ebonites." Nowadays Messianic Jews hold that Jewish Christians are still bound by Jewish law, but I don't think they think all Christians are.

 

One other thing the Bible seems to forbid, at least according to some narrow-minded & homophobic people's interpretation of the Bible anyway, that was left off of this list. Number 14, but probably #1 in the aforementioned people's lists, and that's the whole concerpt of thinking for one's self, which Im surpised The Vatican hasn't printed in large letters inside the cover. Must be an oversight on their part or perhaps the sheer, massive size of the bureacracy inside the Vatican is what the hold up on that one is...

 

tada.

 

I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. By including the word "major," I was saying that it had the potential to rub a bunch of people the wrong way, not that minor religions are fair game.

Religion is a touchy issue because it is something that the vast majority of the world's population holds dear to their hearts, so when you try to poke fun at it, it comes as an affront to their personal character. You can't just use the cop out of "Oh, we're just making fun of the bad ones."

The fact is, it doesn't matter how right or wrong or hypocritical or judgmental the opposition is, if you make fun of them, you're simply antagonizing them, which isn't helping anyone. In the case of Christianity, I think the type of attitude this article carries creates an "us versus them" attitude, that acceptance of homosexuality comes at the expense of Christian values, which isn't the case at all.

 

the problem is that your lumping fake christians in with real christians. Fundementalist (fake) christians dont wait for someone to criticize them to become antagonistic.

the existance of gay people, women who think for themselves, ethnic and racial minorities, and other religions is enough to work them into a orgy of facist hatred.

 

Ummm...Just how much exposure have you had to Fundamentalist Christians? Honest question, because right now I am writing to you from what is one of the most fundamentalist cities in the Western World. I'll say that while they are worthy of plenty of criticism, your entire post is untrue.