Posts tagged ‘crazy Christians’

Christian? You are probably in trouble….

Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 08:40:40 PM PST


I am Jewish and gay.

And I am sick and tired of seeing homophobic asses using my bible to base their attacks on my life.

Many of them do not understand what they call the “Old Testament” yet they continue to use it to justify their hate.

When people come on DK and attempt to do so I often engage in various discussions of both Torah and Talmud law and they move on… but I thought what if I look just at the Christian bible?

This is NOT an attack on Christians.

This is, however an attack on Christians that use my Bible to base their hate of me to produce events such as


I admit I am not a Christian.

What the heck, though… they are not Jewish yet they use my Bible. So I say “No harm, no foul”


Let’s talk about Jesus and some of his views.


I looked and could not find a single thing uttered against slavery by Jesus in the entire book. Slavery was around at the time, so I’d think it would be odd if Jesus was unaware of slavery as he lived in a world and a time where and when slavery was common.

So.. what did I find on slavery?

“Those who are slaves must consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching. Slaves belonging to Christian masters must not despise them, for they are their brothers.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2).

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism. (Colossians 3:22-4:1)

So slavery is OK…just don’t ummm..treat the slaves too bad?

And I like the part starting with “work at it with all….” so.. what it is saying is Mr or Ms. Slave, work as hard as you can as a slave, like a duty of some kind?

Ok….some other good ones.

Don’t call someone a fool. If you do, wear a fire-proof suit….

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall be angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22).

But it is just us the gays going to hell, right? I mean…for having the sex, right? Nope. ‘fraid not. Huh?

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7)

So all you not married heteros having sex…shame shame shame. Hell-fire awaits.

Have YOU ever been drunk or jealous? Uh oh. Doomed as Doomed can be.

Ruh roh.

“Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21).

Well, at least, thank G_D, Christians are not like ‘those other religions’ that tell people everyone else is going to Hell…er…wait…

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

And last and not least.

If you are a woman and decide that you will not have children….or if you are a woman and for whatever reason you cannot have children, tough luck.

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (1 Timothy 2:15).

So….I guess I feel so much better. I mean, since some Christians use my book to tell me I am going to a place called Hell, I can use their book and tell most of them that THEY are going to hell.

November 19, 2008 at 3:29 pm 4 comments


A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of being on a panel for a joint conference of the Indiana Muslim Alliance and the Islamic Society of North America. The topic of the panel was social justice from the perspective of the three Abrahamic faiths. My Muslim and Christian colleagues both gave eloquent, passionate speeches about our respective edicts to help the poor, feed the hungry, take care of widows and orphans, etc. All three Abrahamic faiths have strong social justice components – in both Islam and Judaism to do so is mandatory.

After our presentations we took some questions from the audience. The first question posed to us was ‘can you relate your faith’s social justice perspective to the war or politics?’ My colleagues were thoughtfully quiet, but I jumped t the chance to speak about something that’s been bothering me.

During this election season (which is thankfully almost over) I’ve heard much said about taxes – how both candidates will cut taxes for me (a middle classer). At the same time I hear the voices of supposed ‘people of faith’ saying we need to take care of others, but at the same time they refuse to pay more taxes. My question is, if we cut taxes, how do they suppose we take care of those who have less?

I admit, I’m a liberal, at least when it comes to social justice issues. My faith teaches me that it’s not an option to provide for those who are needy – it’s an obligation. I also understand that government is not always the most reputable source of aid and I agree with those who say we need to hold social programs accountable, both fiscally and programmatically. But what I cannot reconcile are those who purport to be ‘good people of faith,’ (especially in my own state) who uphold ‘family values’ and then flat out refuse to financially support programs that aid those in need.

Many say we need to rely on our faith communities to provide this aid. I agree. But the reality is they cannot do it and we have ample evidence of their lack of success. If churches, synagogues and mosques could provide all the aid necessary, we wouldn’t still need government programs. We do.  

The Republican principle of less government is not a bad idea except when it becomes exclusionary, particularly for those least able to advocate for themselves. When it does it is elitist, exclusive, self serving and discriminatory. If that’s what people want, I advocate their right to say so. But don’t call it an expression of any faith – it’s not.

I can hear conservatives labeling me a bleeding heart liberal. If that’s so, I gladly accept their critique and will paint myself pink. When did caring for others, doing the right thing, and loving justice become a weakness or a shortcoming?

October 28, 2008 at 11:50 pm 1 comment

Another reason I hate Hanukkah!


Check out The Holy Observer for their monthly church sign of the month.

January 2, 2008 at 9:59 pm Leave a comment

Battle over religion in the public square: Round 2?

A local pastor decided to use my letter to the Star as a springboard for his comments – Some try to limit our personal faith to a private world. My reply:

I think Pastor Barry misunderstood my point. I stated in my letter, “The issue is not about prayer in a public venue as much as it is the majority religious view – Christianity – flexing its muscle over the minority – non Christians.” I find it both arrogant and insensitive that one would publically pray in a manner knowingly offensive to others. I certainly respect everyone’s right to their religious beliefs, just don’t assume they’re mine!

I don’t know what else to say – check out the online comments. Fortunately, most are rational rebukes of Pastor Barry. Thank God!

November 30, 2007 at 9:20 pm Leave a comment

Battle over religion in the public square: Round 1

Russ Pulliam, the associate editor of the Indianapolis Star, wrote the following:

The drive for a religion-free public square has been set back by an appeals court ruling about public prayer in the Indiana General Assembly.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which wanted to banish prayers in the name of Jesus to open legislative sessions.

But the ruling hardly settles the long-term debate over whether the public square ought to be stripped of diversity in prayer or religious references from the Bible.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to file the suit.

For those opposed to federal court censorship of prayers in the legislative chambers, the ruling was a victory, even on a technicality.

“We’ll take the win anyway,” said House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis. “A hole-in-one is a hole-in-one no matter if it hits a tree or you hit it right in the cup.”

To extend Bosma’s golf analogy, there are still many rounds to play in this debate over the right relationship between personal faith and government in the public sphere.

On one side, the ACLU and its allies have waged a 60-year campaign to make the public square barren with respect to religious faith. Behind this campaign is an assumption that faith belongs to a bygone age of superstition and that it should be confined to the private sphere or individual expression in the marketplace.

From another side comes the argument that the Jewish and Christian faiths are the foundation of representative government, providing the basis for the best strengths of Western civilization.

In the middle of this debate is the question of who should be the referee.

Advocates of a religion-free public square look to the federal courts to manipulate the Constitution on behalf of their cleansing campaign.

The First Amendment prohibits a federal religious establishment, or a state church, such as the Church of England. But a divided Supreme Court has been tempted to swallow the notion that religious faith is a problem in American life, instead of a foundation for solutions.

Thus the justices have encouraged this campaign with a bewildering series of rulings about when prayer is acceptable or not, or when Bible verses can be cited in public and when they can’t. The court’s rulings have only invited more lawsuits instead of providing for civic harmony.

Clearly, the authors of the Constitution would not object to prayer in the name of Jesus. In starting the nation, they prayed together, cited the Scriptures for wisdom and authority, and looked to the Bible and Christian faith for the roots of a new nation.

Maybe the Founding Fathers were wrong. Maybe the Constitution is wrong. But if that is the case, opponents of public prayer need to propose a direct constitutional amendment to advance their cause instead of tying up the courts with their efforts to outlaw religious expression in public places.

In Indiana, critics of prayer in the Statehouse have an option that works much quicker than the federal courts. Members of the House of Representatives stand for re-election every two years.

Here was my reply:

I guess I shouldn’t be shocked at Mr. Pulliam’s flagrant misstatements and generalities, but I am. I see no evidence that the ACLU has ever made any attempts to “make the public square barren with respect to religious faith.” I would argue the contrary – the ACLU protects each religion’s right to express itself in its own way.  The argument at hand is not prayer in the statehouse – it is sectarian prayer in public.

I would also take issue with Pulliam’s statement that “Clearly, the authors of the Constitution would not object to prayer in the name of Jesus.” While most were Christian and this would have been their  method of prayer, America was founded on religious tolerance, not Christian doctrine. A few Google searches will net numerous quotes from the Founding Fathers about upholding religious neutrality and tolerance. George Washington even thanked the Jewish community for reminding him that plurality was more important than unanimity.

The Constitution is not wrong. It upholds the rights of everyone, especially those in the minority. We don’t need an amendment to outlaw public prayer. What we need is a good old fashioned dose of common sense, decency, and respect for others.

Sometimes I’m embarrassed to live in such a backward state!

Added 11/15/07:
Check out the online conversation – unbelievable!?

November 10, 2007 at 9:01 pm 1 comment