A few questions for Christians

When asked a question about slavery in the Bible and in American, Pat Robertson said, “like it or not, if you read the Bible in the Old Testament, slavery was permitted.”  Robertson then concluded that despite what the Bible says, “We have moved in our conception of the value of human beings until we realized slavery was terribly wrong.”

OK, if you all know that slavery is wrong and do not follow that part of the Bible, like some of our slave owning ancestors did, then why do some (not all Christians, of course) of you support bigotry against homosexuals to the point of trying to deny them human rights?  Why are some of you against women’s health care and rights?  Why are some of you so hateful, sexist, prejudice, misogynistic, and bigoted?  Why are some Christians upset with some churches, such as the Episcopal Church, and even calling them names, such as satanic, for allowing gay unions and ministers?  The amount of hateful emotions I see towards churches who fully accept LGBTs, allowing them to marry and be ordained, is horrid to me.

Lastly, if you can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, then why can you not ignore the other things in the Bible that are anti-human?  It seems to me, that if Christians, like Pat Robertson, can figure out that slavery is anti-human, than why can’t Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians figure out that denying two people who love each other the rite of marriage is also anti-human.  Why can’t these same Christians figure out that denying women healthcare and other rights is also anti-human and misogynistic?  Do you really do something just because the Bible says so?  If that is the case, then I point again to the fact that you not only ignore what it says about slavery, but you also mixing of ethnic groups too, especially now that anti-miscegenation laws were repealed by the Supreme Court in 1967, with the Loving v Virginia case.

In fact, during the Supreme Court hearing of the Loving case, Christians were actually pointing to the Bible and saying, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."  Now, denying an interracial couple the right to marry is illegal.  Thus, Christians ignore the separation of people in the Bible.

It seems to me, you only ignore the things in the Bible, which society will not allow you to practice and follow, such as slavery and miscegenation.  If not for laws, you would probably still have slaves, deny human rights and deny some couples marriage…  Well, actually, you still do in the case of gay people and women, which started these questions.  Will you ever decide that bigotry, sexism, misogyny, among other things, are terribly wrong?

Things that make you go humm…

Mriana

Mriana is a humanist and the author of "A Source of Misery". She has two grown sons and raises cats. She enjoys writing, reading, science, philosophy, psychology, and other subjects. Mriana is also an animal lover, who cares for their welfare as living beings, who are part of the earth. She is a huge Star Trek fan in a little body.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

  • Pingback: A few questions for Christians – God Discussion

  • Young and Tired

    Let's start with defining words, shall we? What do you mean by "slavery"?

    • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

      Young and Tired, I'm not a complicated person, but I am surprised you need "slavery" defined. It's very simple, in that you do not need to be a "word nerd" to grasp my words, and you can pull out your Webster's dictionary for confirmation:

      1. Drudgery, toil 2. submission to a dominating influence 3. a: the state of a person who is chattel of another b. the practice of slaveholding.

      If you have any further need to figure out what words mean, please pull out your nearest dictionary. It's that simple.

      • Young and Tired

        It's not that I cannot use a dictionary Mriana, I have at least three sitting within arms' reach; two of which I use quite regularly. The reason I asked to define the word is that the slavery presented in the Bible is quite different than the slavery we typically think of when hearing the word.
        So, yes, God when setting up the nation of Israel, did indeed allow slavery, but, no, not the slavery that first comes into our minds when we hear the word.
        I should have been more clear in my original post, sorry about that.

        • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

          Actually, not it wasn't that much different and many slave owners prior to 1860s not only used the Bile to justify slavery, but also to guide slavery. They practiced definitions #1, #2 #3 and #4 just as the slave owners in the U.S. did. To say it was different is to twist things in order to justify it.

          • Young and Tired

            Probably a bit late by now, but unfortunately work has kept me away.
            I must still maintain that they are different for the time being, as:
            1) Israelite slaves were freed every 7th year.
            2) Israelite slaves/freemen were forgiven their debts every 7th year.
            3) Israelite possessions (land) were returned every 50th year.
            4) Israelite slaves were not allowed to be ruled with vigor
            5) You could not have sexual intercourse with your slave unless you married them.
            7) Slaves were able to rest every 7th day – sundown to sundown.
            8) Kidnapping, to sell another into slavery, acquired the death penalty.
            9) If a man beat his slave so as to cause him to lose an eye, a tooth, etc, the slave was set free.
            Amongst others, among the Israelites, slaves were people; they were owned, yes, but not in the same manner as slaves in other nations throughout history.
            As with all things, claiming that the Bible justifies the abuse of slaves, like we witnessed in the early days of our nation, does not mean it does… A man is not a doctor simply because he claims so, he has to prove it; likewise, taking a few verses and saying "the Bible says…" does not mean it is so, one must take all verses within context.

  • COinMS

    As a non-orthodox 'arian' christian, my example, my pattern is Jesus. He never owned slaves, he never hated anyone, and he never commanded his followers to take up arms on behalf of any nation. Right Wing Christianity currently bears no resemblance to the simple, pure early faith of the pre-nicea church.
    These televangelists do not speak for God. They speak for the powerful, for the rich. They speak for big corporations and big (pentagon) government.

    • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

      Yes, that is what I call Gospel theology and not Pauline theology. I rarely take issue with that type of theology, but the Religious Reich or Right Wing, as you say, is the theology (Pauline theology mixed with OT theology) at issue, including amongst many liberal Xians. You are right that Jesus never commanded followers to take up arms, own slaves, or hate anyone, including homosexuals. In fact, the Gospels never talk about homosexuality and even Bishop Spong hypothesizes that Paul's "throne in his side" was probably homosexuality and it is probably where Conservatives (besides the O.T.) get their ideas about homosexuality. Not only that, Jesus lead a communal or socialistic group of people, which makes me wonder where the Right wing gets their ideas about Socialism. In fact, the five fish and two loaves of bread in Luke 9:16 is a good example of socialistic behaviour, of which I think, if it were reality, the large group contributed in order for there to be enough to go around.

      However, none of that actually answers the questions and such evangelists (TV or not- see WBC) would say they do speak for God and refer back to the OT for most of their dogmas, stating that those who do not agree with them are not Xians. Liberal, Progressive, and sometimes even moderate Xians do not, as a rule, refer to the OT for their views. IMHO, such hate filled theology leads to a heart (metaphorically) filled with hatred, so much so that they cannot even love themselves.

      So the questions I ask would probably best be directed at far right Evangelical Fundamentalist, such as WBC, Palin's church and sect, Bachman's religious sect, Pat Robinson (who my relatives adore), Billy Graham people (who my relatives also adore(d), and other like groups OR even the Conservative branch of the Episcopal Church. The Conservatives of the Episcopal Church would be good ones to answer these questions too. These are the groups that point the finger back at you and say that your views are not Christian, thus you end up with fingers pointing both ways. However, I seriously doubt they would dare to tread onto a site such as this, but if they did, how long they would stay civil in the conversation is questionable, in part because I'm asking questions that go to the very core of their hateful dogmas.

      Yes, I could write in to Robertson, refer to this clip, and ask my questions, but I doubt he would respond or if he did, it would not be on live TV. However, I would like answers from those Xians who follow such contradictory theology and say they are true Xians following Christ, when in actually, they religious people following the god of the OT, ignoring some parts of it, because society demands it of them. Seriously, I think if some could get away with it, they would stone people who are gay, have abortions, even women who do cover themselves, or commit adultery, much like Islamic extremists, because "the Bible/God says so", but for safety sake, someone like Robertson (in personality) might be safer than someone from WBC, concerning these questions. Pat Robertson or Conservatives like the Conservative Episcopalians, and those like them, are less likely to stone me, than someone from WBC. WBC people, if they thought they could get away with it, would probably stone someone for asking these questions, because "God hates people who think and ask questions." lol I also seriously doubt a Conservative Episcopalian would stone me for asking these questions.

      • COinMS

        I think Paul gets a bad rap. Here's the deal: Christianity was never meant to be a world religion that controls nations and conquers other countries in God's name. It was only meant for a few, a 'little flock' that would separate themselves from the world. Paul wrote TO THE CHURCH at Corinth, or TO THE CHURCH at Thessolanica. His letters, his doctrines, his teachings, were to a very specific group of people… not to everyone. The nominal church, interested in institutional growth instead of personal growth opened wide the doors, and so watered down the emphasis on spirituality, replacing it with an emphasis on obedience to the priest, or preacher.
        The Great Commission has been distorted. It was really only meant to give a witness to the world, no to convert everyone; obviously , if world conversion was the measure of success, it has failed. The modern theocrats in the U.S. care little about the BIble, or becoming a more spiritual person. They want power, pure and simple, and because of that they disqualify themselves as spiritual leaders and reveal their true nature as authoritarians.

        • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

          Unfortunately, that does not quite explain conservative and extremely religious people's hatred based on their Biblical views. It could explain part of it, but not all of it. It does not explain why they can ignore some things in the Bible, but not all things.

  • http://www.donnyrothbardt.vpweb.com/ Donny

    Finally, Pat Robertson shows that he can think for himself when he says to ignore slavery's approval in the bible. Outside of some of good ideas, the bible has just as many irrational passages. IMO, no loving God would ever have written such nonsense. But then again, many bible scholars do say it was written by man. DUH!
    IMO, Jesus was murdered because of the "miracle" fantasies the apostles rumored about him. He never was any savior nor what they wanted him to be…and so he died for things he himself never claimed to be…the messiah and King of the Jews.
    Being non-religious, still I thank Jesus for pointing out where I (we) can find God…within ourselves. And so my search for God is complete. So I celebrate my Divinity…and yours.
    Donny (Life Coach)

    • Penfold

      Pat Robinson doesn't know how to THINK, much less think for himself. If there is gross and obvious flaws in his logic – which there are! – he isn't thinking, by definition.

      Pat Robinson and others like him are products of a very specific mental dogma – do not confuse him, or others like him, with anything Jesus taught, represented, or demonstrated during His lifetime.