Jerry Falwell, RIP
by Jason Godesky
The Reverend Jerry Falwell
De mortuis nihil nisi bene, Cheilon of Sparta said (or at least, Horatius quoted him): “Nothing but good about the dead.” So, I won’t say anything. Instead, I’ll simply leave it to the words of the late reverend.
And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, “You helped this happen.”
— Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, quoted from John F Harris, “God Gave US ‘What We Deserve,’ Falwell Says,” The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)
AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.
— Rev. Jerry Falwell (attributed: source unknown)
The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.
— Rev Jerry Falwell, Sermon, July 4, 1976
This is probably as bad a day as the court has had on social issues since “Roe v Wade.”
— Rev Jerry Falwell, reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Texas sodomy case, “Lawrence v. Texas,” wherein the high court upheld an individual’s (or a couple’s) right to privacy; “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter,” said Justice Anthony M Kennedy, for the majority in an opinion “as broad in its constitutional vision as any ever issued by the court,” wrote Charles Lane for The Washington Post; in his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, an extremist Evangelical Christian, complained that the justices voting to uphold the right to privacy were creating a new constitutional right, that they were not upholding the Constitution, quoted from “Planned Parenthood Federal Action Report” (July, 2003)
I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
— Rev Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 pp. 52-53, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom
I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war.
— Rev Jerry Falwell, in an interview given on September 30, 2002, for the October 6 edition of 60 Minutes
Jimmy Carter’s “message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This ‘turn the other cheek’ business is all well and good but it’s not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us.”
— Rev Jerry Falwell, in a radio interview on March 4, 2002, Falwell said of former President Jimmy Carter
I think he’s a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa.
— Rev Jerry Falwell, regarding Archbishop Desmond Tutu, while supporting Apartheid South Africa
I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations.
— Rev Jerry Falwell
There are almost as many alcoholics as there are negroes.
— Rev Jerry Falwell
I know a few of you here today don’t like Jews. And I know why. He can make more money accidentally than you can on purpose.
— Rev Jerry Falwell
I listen to feminists and all these radical gals—most of them are failures. They’ve blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That’s all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they’re mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They’re sexist. They hate men—that’s their problem.
— Rev Jerry Falwell
“What are you afraid of?”
“Offending people.”
“Who? Our legions of viewers who take Jerry Falwell seriously? Charo’s got a bigger fan base.”
“Casey!”
“No, I know I’m alone on this. I know the vast majority of people consider Jerry Falwell a spiritual pillar of great and gentle wisdom. I know that most people consider him a scholarly and tolerant man who would never judge others harshly just because they were different. I know that most people find his calm leadership to be a gentle soothing beacon at a time of great social chaos. His guidance, for instance, on the great purple Teletubby matter was fraught with the kind of theological sophistication that only Jerry Falwell and a cafeteria full of sixth graders could devise. I know, I’m going way out on a limb, but I think Jerry Falwell’s a fat-ass. Who did I just offend? I’m eager to talk to them.”
— Dialogue between Casey and Dana in Sports Night episode #21, “Ten Wickets”
Yes, the last one wasn’t from Jerry Falwell. That’s from Sports Night, but it’s probably the most cogent thing ever said about Falwell.
No—I take that back. There was something more cogent once said about him, and others who continue to carry on his legacy.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
— Matthew 23:23-33
Farewell, Mr. Falwell.
We will miss all of your wisdom and tolerance. I hope your death will lead you to a place where everything is good and pure. Where there are no more feminists, homosexuals, Muslims, peace activists, and abortions. Where you are surrounded by others just like you. You know, the rich, white, God-loving men who do no harm to anyone around them. To a place where you, as man, have dominion over all other things and living beings.
I think you belong in a place like that. You see, you don’t belong here in the real world where all people are given a chance regardless of who and what they believe in.
Enjoy it Mr. Falwell, because I will personally enjoy the fact that your body is now fodder for the earth and its many wonderful creatures to use as they please.
It kind of smacks of justice, don’t you think?
Thank you, Jason, for putting together this collection of quotes from a man that too many have viewed as holy.
It’s time he is viewed in a new light. The horrible, but accurate, one portrayed here.
Comment by david preslicka — 15 May 2007 @ 10:15 PM
Here’s to the death of the man who has done as much in modern times to malign the message of Christ as Paul did in the first century. May he rot in his whitewashed sepulchre.
Comment by Rix — 15 May 2007 @ 10:54 PM
See now, that’s why I thought it better just to quote the man–otherwise, I’d write pretty much the same thing as you, Rix.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 May 2007 @ 9:35 AM
Loved the “Falwell on Carter” quote.
Now I have a little prayer for him.
Dearest Satan, please smite Rev. Falwell with your wickedly forked penis, yea, forever and ever, or at least until his rectum resembles a cheese grater.
Comment by Rory — 16 May 2007 @ 2:36 PM
I appreciate your conglomeration of quotes–much more sophisticated than my outburst.
I would love to see the sources that Jerry got some of his information from. Especially the claims he makes about 9/11, the Devil, Jews, and alcoholics.
–signed, Casper Milquetoast
(a member of Charo’s, Sports Night’s and Anthropik’s fan base)
Comment by Rix — 16 May 2007 @ 2:39 PM
Charo, Sports Night and Anthropik? Rix, you have the hat trick. Welcome, my brother!
Rory — I really, really get bent out of shape when the same people who are able to torture something about homosexuality out of the Bible then turn around and dismiss something that takes up the majority of the book. Like “turn the other cheek.” “This ‘turn the other cheek’ business is all well and good but it’s not what Jesus fought and died for.” ??? WTF? I mean, you know who first said that, right? Or immigration. The Bible takes whole books talking about how important it is to take in strangers, aliens, foreigners, etc., and then I see on Lou Dobbs some evangelical minister saying the Bible doesn’t say anything clear-cut about illegal immigration, like it does on homosexuality?????
Have these people ever seen a Bible? I mean, you can get a better grip than that looking at the illustrated cover of a Children’s Illustrated Bible Stories!
For those of a non-Christian background, particularly evangelicals (which is about as non-Christian as you can get), no, the Bible never says anything about homosexuality. Ever. Not once. Best you’re going to get is the King James translation of Paul, and y’know what? That was a deliberate mistranslation. Deliberate. It’s not that the Greek word Paul used was obscure. It’s all over the place. But in every other context, every other context, it always means “temple prostitute,” and once again, had to do with pagan sex rites. Yet in Paul, we’re to believe, this common Greek word suddenly develops a completely heretofore unused meaning of “homosexual,” even though Greek had a word for “homosexual” that Paul could have used if that’s what he meant, but he didn’t use it. And that’s the biggest thing you’ll find in your Bible about homosexuality. The book just isn’t concerned with it. It doesn’t care.
What it cares about is how you treat immigrants, whether or not you’ll defy the law to help someone who needs it, if you’ll be there for those in need, and yes, in the Old Testament, bacon cheeseburgers and cotton/nylon blends. Those get a considerable amount of play. Homosexuality does not.
So yes, clearly, I cannot even consider such egregious insults without getting pretty worked up.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 May 2007 @ 2:51 PM
“…the Bible never says anything about homosexuality. Ever. Not once.”
Can you give a cite for this? I would like to investigate this for myself, being about the only non-christian out of my whole bible-thumping family. I get sick of hearing about the “evil gay agenda” and would appreciate some ammunition.
I’d especially like to know about the passages that do not explicitly use the word “homosexual.” A lot of stuff like this shows up in both the old and new testaments:
“[26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (From Romans, authored by Paul, NIV translation)
I mean, that seems pretty clear to me.
There are also other words, like “sodomite,” that show up instead of the word “homosexual” in regard to sexual “impurity.”
In any event, the world is a less evil place now. I must admit to feeling relief when I first heard the news.
Comment by Paula — 16 May 2007 @ 3:43 PM
Here’s an interesting article on homosexuality from the pastor of University Baptist Church in Austin, TX (which raised quite a ruckus back in the 90s for electing a gay deacon).
I lived in Austin shortly after the “controversy” began, and I started going to the church because of it. I really appreciated the congregation there and how little they let their “disfellowship” from the state convention affect their attitudes.
I also appreciated the pastor Larry Bethune for having the spiritual balls to take an honest look at what the biblical text was really getting at–as you mentioned in your comment above, Jason.
Homosexuality and the Church
Comment by Rix — 16 May 2007 @ 3:51 PM
Hehe, “having the spiritual balls” never heard that phrase before…
I’ve been following this site for quite a long time now, although I rarely post anymore. I do believe that this year will be the year where the economic realities of ‘peak oil’ will hit hard. By next winter we should be consistently consuming more globally then we produce.
Will this site transform to a more focused discussion problem solving-forum? I just think that after such an amazing article, it seems pretty irrelevant to follow up with an article that gives anymore attention to someone like J.F? Talking about the ills of ideology/religion may be some sort of catharsis, but it would be nice to see more important things.
But party on…The titanic is starting to take water, I suggest not being to worried about the actors playing the roles of leaders.
Comment by Bubba — 16 May 2007 @ 5:19 PM
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 18:22-23 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
i got these from the god hates fags website (i know, bad source, but that have lots of zesty bible quotes that i use against people). what do you think of the quotes? are they accurate?
Comment by skot — 16 May 2007 @ 10:49 PM
I think the first step in trying to understand how a piece of ancient spiritual text applies to us in the modern world lies in trying to figure out what it meant to the original audience. In this case, start by looking at the verses around them to see what the context of the passages indicate:
In other words, don’t act like Molech worshipers, act like the good Hebrews that YHWH wants you to be.
You find the same thing in chapter 20:
In other words, “Seriously, dudes. Don’t act like these Molech-loving scum I’m about to send you in to evict. I mean it.”
As for the specific passages skot mentioned, I’d like to quote the Larry Bethune article I mentioned before:
In other words, “Dude, don’t take it up the ass. That just makes you a pussy.”
Bethune also comments:
So my previous slang translation could be modified to read more accurately: “Dude, don’t take it up the ass. That just makes you a dirty pussy.”
Bethune also states:
Which comes right back to what Jason was saying. It’s not about dude on dude action. It’s about how YHWH wanted worship to happen and how He wanted his chosen people to be different (”holy” is probably better translated as “set apart”) from the people they were going to go steal land from.
Bubba, I think these religious/ideological posts server more than catharsis. The best thing we can do to get ready for when the civ breaks down is stop thinking like civilized people–tear ourselves away from the whisperings of Mother Culture. Rewild your mind, your language, and your beliefs as well as hone your primitive skills.
Comment by Rix — 16 May 2007 @ 11:50 PM
Rix really nailed it on the Leviticus passages. Any honest reading, in context, will show you immediately that this isn’t about homosexuality, it’s about bizarre pagan sex rites. And you get the same thing in Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The Greek words he uses are malakos (μαλακός ) and arsenokoitai. Wikipedia: “The Greek word for an effeminate man is μαλακός – malakos (literally ’soft’), which is still used in modern Greek in that derogatory sense.”
So what about this word Paul apparently made up? Once again, it has less to do with homosexuality, and more to do with pagan sex rites:
And that passage you cite, Paula, from Romans 1?
Again, it’s about worshipping other gods. So even in Paul, what you have are injunctions against pagan sex rites, not same-sex marriage, or any lasting, homosexual relationship.
On the other hand, the Bible does have some oblique, positive stories of homosexual relationships, such as David & Jonathan, or Ruth & Naomi. Here’s another point, where Jesus says in Matthew 5:22 -
Concerning the translation of raca, Wikipedia says:
So again, the safest conclusion would be that the Bible is entirely silent on the subject of homosexuality, but if you really wanted to press the matter, an honest assessment would be that the Bible is slightly positive about homosexuality. All verses used by the homophobes Jesus may have been damning to hell are, as we’ve seen, deliberate mistranslations.
And what of the story of Sodom and Gemorrah, from whence we get the term “Sodomite”? Rather than repeat myself, I’ll copy and paste from the last time:
As for references, Giuli’s the one that really knows about that, but I do know that What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality is supposed to be pretty good.
Bubba,
Good to see you around again! But don’t mistake placement for priority. Especially after a big article like that, it’s sometimes important to take a break. A good blog needs to be regular, but you can’t expect a 50-page treatise each time–sometimes, you just post a quickie. Sure, I’m under no illusion about this being important, but it was also easy to write up.
I think you’re right about production, but I think you’re wrong about realization. It’ll be a reality for some time before it’s widely recognized as such. Inertia is a powerful cultural force. I’ve tried to write up some hands-on, primitive skills articles before, and I found them (1) boring, and (2) nothing more than you could get from a descent field guide. The REWILD.info wiki is amazing, and especially with that, why would I duplicate the effort when there’s so much effort needed? I agree with Rix: “The best thing we can do to get ready for when the civ breaks down is stop thinking like civilized people–tear ourselves away from the whisperings of Mother Culture. Rewild your mind, your language, and your beliefs as well as hone your primitive skills.” In my own life, learning and practicing primitive skills takes a high priority, just after my immediate survival needs. On this website, I’m not sure how useful they are. I’ll post things I think others might benefit from: the permaculture design we’re working on, for instance, and maybe what we think of Kamana once we’ve finished the first package, but there’s too much other stuff that needs to be done for me to really justify doing the same thing that so many other people have already done better. Doesn’t mean it’s not important, it just means it’s not something I can really help with much.
Ultimately, I think an open source primitive living school, with the full immersion you get at Teaching Drum, but without the cult of personality you get from Tom Brown, or the mess of cultural appropriation at Teaching Drum, would be something very worthwhile, but we’re still a few years from being able to pull together anything like that.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 May 2007 @ 10:42 AM
“Have these people ever seen a Bible?”
Come on, Jason. We don’t get our theology around here from reading about it. We get it from feeling about it. Bible’s aren’t for reading. They’re for thumping!
Comment by thistle — 17 May 2007 @ 12:57 PM
Hence my contempt. Mike tried to get me to be more “open-minded,” and I told him I’d give evangelicals as much respect as I give Catholics as soon as he shows me the evangelical equivalent of St. Thomas Aquinas. At least the other religions have a body of theology that’s at least internally consistent, to some degree.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 May 2007 @ 1:32 PM
Here’s a quote from a past post I made in response to somebody else on a different thread:
Jason already answered the Leviticus question in, But G-d Hates Dem Queers! (An earlier version of this post, which he posted as a comment to a different blog entry.)
Books you should read:
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. A classic.
The Children Are Free. Less popular, but better-written and argued, in my opinion. You should get these two as a pair; they compliment each other, one filling in the other’s gaps.
Stealing Jesus. It’s a fascinating historical and critical look at the origins and rise of fundamentalism. It’s mainly about biblical literalism in general, but it does delve into issues of homosexuality and Christianity, though not in as direct a manner as the first two books I linked to.
What Christians Think About Homosexuality. Denser and more scholarly than the other books I’ve listed, “What Christians Think…” objectively describes six basic Christian viewpoints on the subject, their theological basis, what their critics say, and how they answer their critics. If you only read one book on this list, make it this one.
Or, for free, web-based theology:
Homosexuality and the Bible by Bruce L. Gerig
Same-Sex Marriage and the Bible by Robert Nguyen Cramer. (You should also read the other three related Q&As linked to from that page.) Unlike the others I’m pointing you to, Cramer is convinced that the Old Testament explicitly forbids homosexuality. However, he still argues that homosexuality is not morally wrong - or un-Christian. He supports his argument by pointing to the new covenant, among other things (eunuchs, etc.).
Anyone can read the Bible to you. I promise to feel the Bible at you.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 17 May 2007 @ 3:05 PM
Wow, do you hear that? Sounds to me like somebody just dropped the hammer and dispensed some indiscriminate justice.
Rix, Giuli, great job—this thread is now a 2×4 to the back of the evangelical skull. A thing of beauty, it is.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 May 2007 @ 3:13 PM
Oh, btw, here’s Mel White (who is teh bomb diggity) talking about Falwell on Larry King Live and Anderson Cooper:
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 17 May 2007 @ 3:39 PM
I think it important to point out that few among us are Hebrew or Greek scholars and thus are not prepared to argue the translation of certain words or phrases based on first hand knowledge. And I think any of us making an argument based off of that is placing oneself on a slippery slope especially when establishing ones arguments based on wikipedia information which few accredited institutions use as source material for accurate education. The truth is, the vast majority of recent scholarly bible translations(there are exceptions), based on a plethora of manuscripts that enable error checking based off of sheer redundancy, do state moral guidelines in a variety of circumstances that make individuals uncomfortable. This would include condemnation of a number of things that are generally accepted.
It seems to me that the real issue with individuals in the evangelical movement is their blatant hypocrisy when it comes to application of biblical instruction. The difficulty when discussing these topics is disassociating certain political agendas from scripture. This is in large part due to individuals like Mr. Falwell and others who have maligned and dishonored the sacredness of scripture. I find this to be their greatest blunder that no doubt has removed credibility, in the view of the public, from the bible and religion in general.
Comment by Rymnel — 17 May 2007 @ 8:36 PM
As an addition to my last post it is also of interest, after watching the videos, that Mr. Falwell never once referenced scripture while expressing his extreme viewpoints.
When stating what is “Christian” or not, should not one be able to base their religious statements firmly on established scripture, not on person opinion? Personal opinion is appropriate in other discussions but not when discussing biblical principles or law.
It brings to mind the words of Jesus again, “‘Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you realize that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?’
He replied, ‘Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be pulled up by the roots.
Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If one blind person leads another blind person, both will fall into a ditch.’” (International Standard Version)
Comment by Rymnel — 17 May 2007 @ 11:14 PM
Bill O’Reilly thinks people are being too hard on ‘ol Jerry Falwell. He even invoked freedom of speech in order to get people to be more respectful. I love how some people think that freedom of speech guarantees you freedom from critcisim.
Comment by Peter D — 18 May 2007 @ 12:53 AM
It seems to me that the real issue with individuals in the evangelical movement is their blatant hypocrisy when it comes to application of biblical instruction. The difficulty when discussing these topics is disassociating certain political agendas from scripture. This is in large part due to individuals like Mr. Falwell and others who have maligned and dishonored the sacredness of scripture. I find this to be their greatest blunder that no doubt has removed credibility, in the view of the public, from the bible and religion in general.
Succinctly, my comments: fuck “biblical instruction”, fuck “political agendas”, fuck “sacredness of scripture”.
Sure, there’s some useful stuff in there, jesus ‘n all, but back of the dogma, geez…
And just for full coverage (though not specifically mentioned), fuck “missionaries” of any kind.
Comment by JCamasto — 18 May 2007 @ 2:19 AM
And now for something to make you all feel good. I, and many others in this wide brown land had never even heard of Falwell until his death. He was thus irrelevant and will remain so. The amount of knowledge I will carry about him is equivalent to the amount of information the average SUV-driving, overweight, ’stick and ball game’ loving fucktard will remember about permaculture. BTW, when it comes to religion and homosexuality, our local priest gave us a sermon once about paying lip-service to being ‘tolerant’ and then ‘drifting’ away from people once they came out, i.e. don’t be a hypocrite. Some religious people do still try and rattle the ole mental cage…
Comment by Steve Z — 18 May 2007 @ 8:28 AM
Interesting comments, and I understand why you don’t post more primitive skill “how to” type posts. And like you said, there are a few people doing this already…and lots of good old media to refer to.
Perhaps just having a feeling of connectedness with others as the titanic picks up inertia is enough. Economic realities and how to manage them in the next few years remains a more short-term concern for me & my family. Making enough Fiat money to stay afloat in the system while it goes through its fluxuations, meanwhile back at the ‘bat cave’ trying to learn horticulture/foraging…I think will be a challenging adventure.
I would think that alot of folks here would be happy with someone like Jerry, someone whose derisive words did as much to harm his movement as help I would imagine.
Comment by Bubba — 18 May 2007 @ 9:54 AM
Yup. I’m right there with ya.
Comment by jhereg — 18 May 2007 @ 10:37 AM
This information is great, thanks! Rix — thanks especially for that link, that just may just end up on my ‘required reading’ list.
Just want to throw something else out there, fwiw. An orthodox Jewish guy I recently had an email conversation with pointed out that Levitical law was given to the ancient Hebrews, not the whole world. No one has ever been bound by that covenant except Jews. Meaning, Evangelical attempts to apply these laws to everyone is actually contrary to the original intent, and a great blasphemy in some Orthodox Jewish traditions. I thought it was a theologically interesting point.
Comment by Paula — 18 May 2007 @ 1:49 PM
That’s a really good point, Paula. At most, Evangelicals can pretend they are the progeny of that tradition, but if they want to consider themselves that way, then they should embrace the rest of the Levitical law–especially the commandment in Lev 19:18 (ironically, right between the two so-called anti-homosexuality passages) that says “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. Jesus seemed to think this one was pretty important. In fact, along with loving God with all you’ve got, it was the only other commandment on his list of “how to have eternal life”.
But this commandment begs the question (as a certain “expert in the law” asked) “who is my neighbor.” Jesus responded to this answer with the parable of the good Samaritan. That is to say, the parable of the “guy you really hate and want nothing to do with” or the parable of the “guy who you would be least likely to help, but it turns out he helped you.” [Luke 10:25-37]
If Jerry Falwell had asked Jesus this question, would Jesus have responded with the “parable of the good homosexual”? I think the analogy is pretty fitting. Gays are the lepers and Samaritans of our time. They are the ones Jesus would be spending time with, having dinner with. And the evangelicals are the Pharisees of today.
Comment by Rix — 18 May 2007 @ 2:59 PM
Levitical law was given to the ancient Hebrews, not the whole world
That’s true, but christianity was originally a sect of judaism. In Acts 15 the church leaders are trying to decide whether gentiles should have to be circumcised. This is there conclusion: Acts 15:19-21 “It is my judgement, therefore that we should not make it difficult for the gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogue every Sabbath.”
I don’t agree, but there are some who could interpret “sexual immorality” as homosexuality.
It’s funny you should mention “The Parable of th Good Homosexual,” Rix. We listened to that very parable in church a while ago :). I think one of the most important things Jesus taught was obeying the spirit of the law rather than the letter.
Comment by Vicky — 19 May 2007 @ 9:03 AM
The prayer offered by Rory was the most important part of this discussion. Let us recite:
“Dearest Satan, please smite Rev. Falwell with your wickedly forked penis, yea, forever and ever, or at least until his rectum resembles a cheese grater.”
Awesome.
Comment by Dan Bartlett — 19 May 2007 @ 3:58 PM
This was going around the net a couple of years ago.
Rob
The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that (Leviticus 18:22) clearly states it to be an abomination.
End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in (Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. (Lev. 25:44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
7. (Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev.19:27). How should they die?
9. I know from (Lev.11:6-8) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates (Lev. 19:19) by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan, Jim
Comment by RobWindt — 20 May 2007 @ 9:29 AM
This is my main beef with Bishop Shelby Spong: he makes it look like the fundies have a much better case than they actually do by going with their interpretation of scripture and then arguing to change Christian thought on various subjects based on appeals to “common sense” and modern scientific discoveries.
This was particularly apparent—and particularly irksome—in his book Sins of Scripture that I read a little while back. He kept saying stuff like, “Well, the Bible says this, and that’s awful, and we all know that it’s wrong now, so let’s just ignore that part.” It was making me feel really down on Christianity until I realized, “Wait, no, the Bible doesn’t say that—why aren’t you pointing out the mistranslation?”
What is morally right and what is Christian are two very different categories. You can appeal to logic, philosophy, etc. to prove what is right, but that doesn’t make it Christian. You’ve got to appeal to something in Christian traditions and/or scripture to support your case. (And, of course, the opposite goes too: what is authentically Christian is not necessarily morally right.) If you really think all these awful things (homophobia, sexism, anti-environmentalism, etc.) are an inherent part of Christianity and you disagree with all of them, then don’t be a Christian. Hell, I seem to have more admiration for the religion than Spong himself, and even I’m not even Christian myself.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 May 2007 @ 8:38 AM
I’m not exactly sure what you’re driving at here, but Biblical translations have long been a particularly political study of Greek and Hebrew. King James gave his translators some instructions on how certain words were to be translated, regardless of what they actually meant, in order to make the King James Bible a proper bedrock for the monarchy. If they meant suppressing what the Bible actually said, that was not considered any great loss to bolster the monarchy. Today, Biblical scholars remain much less reliable for answering these questions than simple Classicists. In Biblical studies, it is perfectly reasonable to translate malakos as “homosexual,” yet that would not be an acceptable translation in any other Greek work. Doesn’t that suggest something? To say that we should simply leave it to the experts and not question it is an argument from authority—a logical fallacy.
The last I checked, I’m not a government body, and I was never in a position to stop Falwell from saying what he had to say—and thus causing the deaths of countless innocents, killed by homophobes or taking their own life from the toxic social atmosphere he created.
That’s certainly the Jewish viewpoint, but Christians consider themselves “the true Israel” (just like, by the way, every other Second Temple sect), and thus they consider the Law initially binding: except then you have Paul, in Galatians, arguing that Jesus’ sacrifice has made the Law null and void (even though Jesus said heaven and earth would sooner pass away than a single letter of the Law become invalid, but if we were going to catalogue all the times Paul contradicts Jesus, we’d be here a while). So, it’s really Galatians that makes me wonder where they’re cherry-picking through the Torah.
Oh, it’s better than that. The parable of the Good Samaritan loses a lot without its proper cultural context, because the first two who pass by aren’t just ordinary people: it’s a priest, and a Levite, both bound by those very Levitical laws we were just talking about, which much more than homosexuality are really big on ritual uncleanness, like not touching corpses, etc. So they were commanded by religious law not to help the wounded man. The Samaritan wasn’t just hated, he was also the first one to come along who wasn’t bound by purity laws against helping the man. Kind of puts a much sharper point on the story, doesn’t it?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 May 2007 @ 11:47 AM
Howdy Jason! This post and comment thread is an oldie and a goodie.. I thought you might be intrigued to consider that gays are in the New Testament Gospels.. but not where most people are led to expect them:
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:12 KJV)”
Discuss:
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm
For the ancient world, today’s “gay men” were a third sex, not male, and so the injunction against a male receiving a male sexually didn’t apply.. maleness was a matter of function in fertility and desire and not anatomy. It took a lot of effort and propaganda over centuries to change this view, so that today we take for granted the penis=male, vulva = female equation.
While being “male” did confer certain social advantages, the thing is, being a “eunuch” was itself an honored position, most of the pagan priesthood were “gay” and the propaganda of making gayness singularly shameful was an attack on pagan institutions. Also in the East only gays/eunuchs could be palace guards and so on because of the need to protect the modesty of the women from hetero male “lust”.
This sheds new light on Acts where you have the Ethopian eunuch who was converted by Philip — ie the first gay saint (if you ignore the cuddling of John and Jesus at the dinner table):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+8:26-40
Then there is this tongue in cheek exercise in Bible literalism:
Becoming a Eunuch for God’s Kingdom.
by Matthias
http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/becomingaeunuc179057.html
Enjoy!
Comment by Mike Rock — 20 May 2008 @ 2:16 AM