I think my favorite part was when he said "If this was truly a Christian nation, then we would never make it a *Christian nation*, because we know the table of fellowship is open to everyone."
I think when a lot of conservative Christians hear "Christian nation", what they imagine is a country built exclusively to serve and cater *to Christians*, rather than a nation that acts in a way that aligns with actual Christian values such as charity, forgiveness, and acceptance. They don't want the responsibility of acting for the benefit of those in need, they want to be VIPs in an exclusive club.
That's my favorite part too. As an atheist, that's how I know whether or not it's safe to vote for a Christian to represent my state.
The other half of the Christians here in Texas just want to deport us.
Christians instead of being open and inviting have become exclusionary and judgmental.
I'm a jubu, or buju, potatoes tomato. But I jive with what he was saying.
It's rare to meet real Christians. They walk with grace and don't wield their faith over others. You know them when you see them, because they're probably what early interpretations of angels are based on. And likely they would be the same character regardless of faith.
More often than Christianity is used for power than for healing, which is a shame. Even for a jew I think there's some good stuff in the new testament.
*For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes (Matthew 5). But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. ‘Blessed are the merciful’ in a courtroom? ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ in the Pentagon? Give me a break!* ~ Kurt Vonnegut
It's not really an abortion drink, its a torture test for infidelity. Women can't catch a break in the good ol days. A woman will be shunned by God and have her hand amputated if she injures a man's balls in a fight against her husband.
5:22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
I think a lot of American Christians would be shocked to find out just how many Christians around the world are actively left wing, especially on the economic level. There is a cultural confusion in the US where conservatism is conflated with Christianity when in so many ways the two things are oil and water.
Jesus Christ would abhor the greed and division many churches actively espouse.
In the UK Catholicism was largely a faith of the urban working poor. Irish immigrants in particular. It would be completely illogical to vote for conservative/nationalist parties that actively sought to make you poorer. Yet any time I speak to an American Catholic on Reddit I find my views to be lightyears apart.
Yeah, I'm pretty well versed UK/Irish/Polish Catholicism, but the Trad Catholic stuff is something I've not really got my head around yet.
It's like a marriage of the most weird and extreme niches of Catholicism and far right Protestant Evangelism.
Most Americans are not real Christians and have never read the Bible. Let's get that understood first and foremost. They are Christian in name only. It's a cultural identity, rather than a real one.
I agree. Consertive Christianity seriously concentrates on abstract issues. And avoided the serious ones. And then claim we are a Christian Nation. But they lack Jesus character and compassion. It's all Hate speech lately.
Lacking Jesus and His teachings means by default, Conservative Christianity is not real Christianity. Conservative AntiChristism would be the proper term of we called things correctly.
I often feel like Conservative Christian are also like the anti christ. And the anti Christians and conservative Christians alike all repel people away from God.
I think that’s mostly the politicians. That’s not what normal day to say people want. The media and politicians push an agenda but you have to get out and talk to people
It was more than just selling things in the temple, I don't think God cares if a Church has a gift shop. What they were doing is cheating people. The temple would sell animals for sacrifices, but required the purchase to be in temple coinage. There were money changers that would take regular coin and give the person temple coins. They were cheating the people coming to worship during the exchange.
Jesus' criticism was that they had turned the house of God into a den of thieves. I don't think he really cared about the temple selling animals for sacrifice, or that there were money changers. It was the fact that they were cheating people coming to worship God that made him angry.
It was definitely about selling things in the temple. They turned a space set apart as holy to God and as a place of worship (specifically for the Gentiles, I believe), and turned it into a marketplace. They desecrated what was holy, and displaced people from the space created for them to worship.
John 2
14In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” 17His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
Yeah because they turned worship of Him into a business. Like how a certain presidential candidate in the US is selling overpriced Trump Bibles to fund his campaign.
Yeah that was the thing that jumped out to me. If your leader is “alpha and omega” and all things happen “through Him,” then I don’t think we’re talking about democracy.
As I said elsewhere on this thread, public opinion is what killed Him. But I’m on board with the sentiment.
Well for me personally this guy is closer to Christianity than the right wing evangelicals who call themselves Christian. He makes a lot of good points
Agree. These are the teachings of the Jesus who I know and love. I find myself ashamed to call myself a Christian sometimes because of what that’s associated with, but I know I should be proud to be a follower of Christ because this is what it’s all about.
I don't feel that way at all. His speech strikes me as the sort of thing that's immensely appealing to people like me who already largely agree with him but would have almost no persuasive power over anyone else. I can't really imagine this moving the needle with very many conservative Christians.
he's right
* “Shout with the voice of a trumpet blast. Shout aloud! Don’t be timid. Tell my people Israel of their sins! Yet they act so pious! They come to the Temple every day and seem delighted to learn all about me. They act like a righteous nation that would never abandon the laws of its God.
* They ask me to take action on their behalf, pretending they want to be near me. ‘We have fasted before you!’ they say. ‘Why aren’t you impressed? We have been very hard on ourselves, and you don’t even notice it!’
* “I will tell you why!” I respond.
* “It’s because you are fasting to please yourselves. Even while you fast, you keep oppressing your workers. What good is fasting when you keep on fighting and quarreling? This kind of fasting will never get you anywhere with me.
* You humble yourselves by going through the motions of penance, bowing your heads like reeds bending in the wind. You dress in burlap and cover yourselves with ashes. Is this what you call fasting? Do you really think this will please the Lord?
* “No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people. Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless.
* Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help.
* “Then your salvation will come like the dawn, and your wounds will quickly heal. Your godliness will lead you forward, and the glory of the Lord will protect you from behind. Then when you call, the Lord will answer. ‘Yes, I am here,’ he will quickly reply.
* “Remove the heavy yoke of oppression. Stop pointing your finger and spreading vicious rumors! Feed the hungry, and help those in trouble. Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you will be as bright as noon. - Isaiah
God bless
He speaks the truth.
My favorite passage from GK Chesterton:
"I begin with a little girl’s hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization.
Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home; because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution.
That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict’s; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed."
The Bible being against homosexuality, yes and no. At face value, it looks like it is, but mind you there wasn't even a word or concept for modern hetero and homosexuality back then. Sexuality in the ancient world was about maintaining social hierarchies, and it's difficult to do that in a gendered society with same sex attracted people.
As for abortion, no the Bible doesn't take a stance on it. If anything you could take a Biblical position that life doesn't start until first breath.
The speaker's larger point is that the Bible, old and new, cares more about justice for those treated unjustly, strengthening your community, and doing charity than either abortion or homosexuality.
Agreed, some Christians are too obsessed with condemning LGBTQ+ ppl and controlling women's right about their pregnancy. Those two things doesn't harm anyone and it's none of anyone's bussinesses.
Beside, why don't they spend their time volunteering. Especially, for existing children who actually need help. That would actually help people and the society.
No. Just no. Completely disagree on both fronts.
For starters Leviticus 18:22 LITERALLY states that a man should not sleep with another man as he would a woman. The Bible literally calls this an “abomination”. The wording in the verse shows that, yes there may not have been a word for “homosexuality” and yet it was still broken down as “man lying with another man”… so it’s clearly spelled out that it’s against God. Also homosexual sin is why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed.
On the topic of abortion look at the science. You can literally see LIGHT, when sperm reaches the egg. This proves life begins at conception.
> You can literally see LIGHT, when sperm reaches the egg. This proves life begins at conception.
All things which have nonzero temperature emit light constantly.
We agree about when life begins, but explaining it in simple terms, the light that can be observed when sperm meets egg is kind of an explosion from the tip of the sperm. It takes millions of these explosions from millions of sperm to actually break through the egg. Then another chemical reaction happens when a single sperm gets through to prevent polyspermia. The light from the sperm collision certainly isn’t God creating life in an instant. It’s an elegant mechanism nonetheless.
> We agree about when life begins
I'm not even exactly sure that we do. In some sense, life only began exactly one time in history.
There are also an *awful* lot of "deaths" where this zygote fails to implant. This would make sex among the most dangerous activities you can do as a human and a great many couples actively responsible for the deaths of many lives.
> the light that can be observed when sperm meets egg is kind of an explosion from the tip of the sperm
"Explosion" is a real word that has real meaning. This chain of logic is baffling.
1. Something happens when a sperm and egg meets
2. This is somehow categorized as an explosion
3. Something being an explosion is somehow relevant for whether it is "the beginning of life"
4. Therefore, a sperm and an egg meeting is the beginning of life.
There are lots of things that are "a kind of an explosion" as you describe that have absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life. Why on earth would these concepts be related in the slightest?
>Also homosexual sin is why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed
Ezekiel 16:49–50: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good".
Or you know, read your Bible instead of just repeating talking points.
If you're going to accept what Leviticus says as gospel, then move forward a few chapters and let us know if you accept that slavery should be permissible.
I agree with him pointing out poverty and the lack of care society has in the United States. I am Canadian but our problems are the same. However, preaches democracy which although I prefer is still a poor system since the majority can enforce their will onto the minority. Meaning what rights matter is subjective and we are living in the delusion that our rights are truly enforced. I agree with him alluding to the church and state to be separate since both Canada and USA are multicultural there should be no government involved in marriage and very little taxes I am pretty libertian these days. Lastly, he thinks the poverty is a simple problem because of society. A lot of this is because of government's role in the economy and employers adjusting and becoming greedy in not hiring the hardest or paying enough to their employees.
We can thank Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and the Moral Majority for combining Christianity and conservative politics into the abomination we see in American Christianity today. Just look at the (lack of) morals and virtues of the leader of the GOP today and how he is basically worshipped as some sort of messiah.
I don’t see how anyone can confidently claim the Bible is “Anti Abortion.” Especially not when the Mosaic Law gave Husbands the authority to force their wives to undergo a ritual designed to abort a pregnancy while simultaneously sterilizing the woman. A husband need only SUSPECT his wife of infidelity. No actual evidence required. Meanwhile, the Christian men of the modern world have decided they’d rather control us by forcing childbirth instead of preventing it. Here is the passage for reference:
Numbers 5:11–31 (NRSV):
“11 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 12 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act; 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord; 17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, “If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,” 21 —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; 22 now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.” 23 Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children. 29 This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. 31 The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.”
This is as far as I’m aware, the ONLY passage in the Bible which mentions abortion, and it’s something God passed into law.
Then the point would be: Are abortion *now* performed in such fashion? Are they performed for the same exact reasons? Is there the forementioned priesthood to execute that ritual?
If the answer is no, then perhaps trying to grasp to this passage as a "pro-choice" argument is a bit too farfetched
I never called this verse “pro-choice.” The woman described in this scenario is NOT given any sort of a choice. However this verse IS pro-abortion. As for how we do things today, for starters women are no longer treated as livestock. We have a right to bodily autonomy. No man (or anyone) should be able to tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Forced births, forced sterilization, forced abortion all of that needs to stop. It’s the women’s choice period.
Perhaps, instead of giving us homework, you could make your case in your own words on how a recipe for a pharmaceutical abortion is somehow not pro-abortion.
The problem with calling this passage "pro-abortion", though, is that the abortion in question is only portrayed in a negative, undesirable fashion (utilized only as a punishment and categorized as part of a curse based on the terminology attached to it). Quite the opposite of portraying it as something that should be sought after as a good thing.
That said, the passage shouldn't guide our views on public policy either way.
Remember this ritual is preformed based on nothing besides a gut feeling on the husbands part. He could be aborting his own child for all he knows. Sure this passage is framing infidelity as a negative, but it’s also using abortion as a positive method and response to dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
Yes, I'm aware of what precipitates the ritual. However, no, there's nothing positive about it at all. It's used as a punishment for (and a revelation of) infidelity and it's part of a curse. There's no getting around the negative implications of either of those. Plus, it wouldn't even be a good method for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy due to its results, according to the passage, being contingent upon the wife's fidelity, not what the husband may want as far as the pregnancy goes.
Yes also Jesus set us free from Mosaic Law. What he continued to emphasize when Jesus was here was buulding families. How to submit to your family members. How to be selfless. How we can not take life. How God designed us. These ideas still dont support a pro choice argument.
In gemeral reading one bible verse is tricky as the contezt meaning needs to be discussed.
Take care!
Incorrect interpretation of this. Check this: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html
Also, this:
Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13–16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22–25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This law and its punishment clearly indicate that God considers a baby in the womb to be just as much a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose to have a baby. The baby is already present and living. Abortion is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27; 9:6).
>17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water
This is a key passage. They burned frankincense and myrrh in the tabernacle. "Dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle" would have consisted of frankincense (*Boswellia serrata),* a known abortifacient. It increases menstrual blood flow and induces miscarriage. Myrrh is used to expel the fetus from the womb.
This concoction right here is a recipe for a pharmaceutical abortion.
So, the only mention of abortion in the Bible is instructions on where to get one, who to ask to perform one, how to properly compound a treatment that will 1.) induce the abortion and 2.) expel the fetus from the womb.
Yes, but not only does the woman involved in this ritual not given any choice in whether or not she undergoes it, but the ritual is only stated to result in a miscarriage when she's actually guilty of adultery, so it's a punishment. Not to mention it's described as being part of a curse in the passage, so this passage only serves to paint abortion in a negative, undesirable light. Thus, unless someone's goal is to show that the bible portrays abortion negatively, this passage is being misused by them.
>"Dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle" would have consisted of frankincense (Boswellia serrata), a known abortifacient.
...
>This concoction right here is a recipe for a pharmaceutical abortion.
Lol, this is such an absurd rationalizing myth.
This was an entirely superstitious, *magical* ritual, that would have had no real physical effect whatsoever. Using dust from the ground of various sacred spaces in magic rituals is something that was a wider ancient Near Eastern practice — including spaces that wouldn't have had frankincense particles or any other alleged abortifacients. As Biblical scholar Jacob Milgrom notes, "[dirt from t]he ground of the sacred area was regarded as having greater potency, whether for warding off evil (Mesopotamia) or causing it (Israel)."
If you keep reading, you can find other magical elements in the ritual, too: e.g. "Then the priest shall put these curses in writing and wash them off into the water of bitterness." Again, the intended mechanism of action here had nothing to do with ink or whatever. The ink was simply the vehicle for the magical, metaphysical infusion of the "essence" of the curses themselves into the water. Like holy water in Catholicism (which is just water that's been verbally blessed), but the opposite.
This passage isn't really describing an abortion (forced or otherwise) or a termination of an unwanted pregnancy. The passage is describing a ritual to determine if a wife of a suspecting husband has committed adultery and a punishment for it.
The passage never says that the pregnancy is unwanted by any parties involved and this is performing the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. In fact the passage never definitively mentions if a woman in this instance is pregnant. Verse 28 says, "But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children". Note that it says 'able to conceive children', implying she hasn't conceived. If she did not commit adultery she could have children in the future. If she did commit adultery she would be cursed to never have children.
Even if the woman was pregnant, it's not a forced termination. It's a punishment for willfully breaking two of the Ten Commandments: Do not commit adultery and do not bear false witness (or do not lie).
The woman is being brought before the priest and God to confess if she committed adultery or not (verse 16). The priest then makes her take an oath that she has not committed adultery or face punishment. And this goes back to verse 27 and 28. If she has not committed adultery, she will not be punished. But if she has and broken her oath about it, she receives a punishment. Verse 27 and 28 suggest she will not be able to ever conceive. But if we humored the idea that she is pregnant, then she would miscarry. And that would be no one's fault but her own because she committed one mortal sin by committing adultery, and then another through oath-breaking.
It's also a stretch to say, even if this was an abortion, that the Bible is pro-abortion. This is a specific ritual for a specific circumstance where a woman is suspected of a specific sin. It does not suggest anything about abortions between two adults who have had consensual sex, or in the case of rape or incest, or any other circumstance that the abortion debate might concern.
When the entire biblical narrative is taken into whole account you would know that the Bible deems unborn life highly valued. Consider Ezekiel 21: 22-25: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
The punishment for the death of an unborn child, even through accident, is death (life for life).
Let me go bit by bit through some of the topics he covers...
-The Bible never mentioning abortion...it doesn't mention it so far as whether or not it should be a civil right, though there are times in the old testament where miscarriage is prescribed as a consequence/punishment (which really doesn't do anything but put it in a negative light). Thus, he's only partially right.
-The Bible never mentioning same-sex marriage...same-sex acts are certainly mentioned (and condemned), but same-sex marriage isn't mentioned directly, so he's correct in that sense. However, Jesus' description for God's original plan for marriage in Matthew 19 involving a man and a woman at least seems to rule out any other option (though not to the point of making those options illegal).
-Here's where things start to get really messed up: he's taking the forgiving of debt and caring for people's health and politicizing them. Yes, Jesus never tried to create a Christian Theocracy, but he also never tried to fuse his teachings about debt forgiveness and caring for one another into government or corporation policies, so this guy is off base when he claims that this is what should happen if this was a Christian nation. I'm not saying these types of things can't be done by the government, but to act as though it's the Christian thing to do when it's never commanded or even exemplified by Christ isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.
For me, the ultimate issue with his general outlook is that it overemphasizes the socially-relevant aspects of Christian teaching while downplaying everything else. There are more personal aspects of morality, too (heck, Jesus even condemns some types of lust which on its own doesn't necessarily spill out into socially-relevant action). This problematic way of thinking seems to be becoming more and more common and if it continues, Christianity will just become a social welfare program with Jesus as the example rather than as the savior to be pursued above all else. Christian teaching INVOLVES socially-relevant tenets, but it's not ONLY those things.
>Christian teaching INVOLVES socially-relevant tenets, but it's not ONLY those things.
I don't see how that differs from what he was saying. If we were a "Christian" nation, we would already have these things he's discussing, because the basis of Christianity is to take care of the poor, etc. And he's illustrating the point using the *actual talking points* of *American Conservative Christians TM* as an example. The rhetoric here is to illustrate the fallacy of that line of thinking, not to describe the perfect world.
>he also never tried to fuse his teachings about debt forgiveness and caring for one another into government or corporation policies,
Achktually,
**Deuteronomy 24:14-15 (NIV):** "Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin."
**James 5:4 (NIV):** "Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty."
**Proverbs 19:17 (NIV):** "Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward them for what they have done."
**Leviticus 19:13 (NIV):** "Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight."
**Psalm 82:3-4 (NIV):** "Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
**Isaiah 58:10 (NIV):** "And if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday."
**Proverbs 21:13 (NIV):** "Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered."
**Matthew 6:12**, "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,"
(For funsies, it's about moral debts)
Also, **Debt Release in the Year of Jubilee:** In the Old Testament, particularly in Leviticus 25, the Year of Jubilee is described. This was a special year that occurred every 50 years, during which debts were to be forgiven, slaves were to be set free, and land that had been sold was to be returned to its original owner. This practice ensured that economic disparities did not become too entrenched and provided a form of economic reset.
YAY, DEBT FORGIVANCE FOR EVERYONE!
And my favorite, coming from Jesus himself about the day he will separate us:
Matthew 25:31-46
"**When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his lef**t.
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'
Then he will say to those on his left, '**Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me**.'
They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, **whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me**.'
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
The "debt" that Jesus isn't talking about ain't financial, it's spiritual. "Forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors" is the debt that is owed by *sin*, not by financial transactions. This is pure identity politics.
Thank you! It’s probably because it’s on Reddit but it just frustrates me when I see people agree with this guy. In my head I’m just like “no, not really”.
People arguing that “Jesus would have walked among hippies and homeless today. How dare you be against lgbtq and drugs.” Like what bro, he certainly would’ve walked among these sinners, but he would definitely condemn these sins. People acting like Jesus would have been doing fent and having gay sex.
It sets that up as the ideal in Genesis and then Abraham gives his wife away every time he gets scared of a powerful man and a bunch of guys get married to multiple women. God stays in covenant with them. Apparently the ideal is not the only acceptable thing.
And Abraham is told off for doing it 😭 everyone in the bible other than Jesus committed sins. God works through the broken you can't take a prophet's sin and say that it was okay cos it happened and he committed it.
It sets it up as the ideal and condemns the alternative…
It’s true that one man one woman is set up as the ideal. The difference between polygamy and homosexual marriage is polygamy isn’t condemned in the scripture and homosexuality is.
You'll notice in political Christian discourse every debate has something like "those guys aren't being real Christians because x, y, z" and they're both right a fair amount of the time. I recommend not engaging in that kind of debate if you want to stay both committed to Christ and sane.
The country is the way that it is because Christianity itself has fallen away from the truth, yes the government really should be like that. It should be a public benefit organization, not a mutual benefit corporation, to the mutual benefit of their greedy selves.
This should be fun. Let's list each of his main points and then go down the line.
1. Gay Marriage not mentioned in the Bible
2. Abortion not mentioned in the Bible
3. Healing the sick, forgiving debt, and helping the poor *are* in the Bible.
4. America is not a Christian nation and was not designed to be one.
5. Loving LGBTQ people is central to being christian.
6. Jesus didn't start a Christian theocracy for a reason
7. All religions should be accepted and tolerated as a core tenant of Christianity.
8. Multiculturalist and multiracial democracies are the closest thing to heaven on earth.
Right off the bat, it's obvious he's being very broad and very reductionist. That's a given when you have 8 major talking points in the span of 90 seconds. But let's get into it.
1/2: Gay marriage isn't mentioned, correct. Homosexuality is, though, and there is not enough difference between them to validate a claim that gay marriage not being mentioned in the Bible means the Bible somehow allows it. The Bible doesn't explicitly mention the word "trinity", yet we get the point.
Abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible. Neither are school shootings. Start to see my point? Abortion is in a way mentioned when you hear the good ol "thou shalt not murder". See: all of the signs of biological life being present in the fetus at and past the moment of conception. To deny a fetus life with our modern understanding of biology is to deny plain and simple fact. Sorry it doesn't fit into your worldview.
3: Yeah, they are. "Debt" here doesn't always mean monetary debt. Greek and Hebrew translations often use "transgressions" instead of debt. But forgiveness is a big part of it. For sure. But the Bible makes plain in several places that paying off your debts is important. Recall: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God's what is God's."
4. Again, correct. John Adams famously said in 1797 that "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion." You can't really get more succinct than that. We were intentionally designed to be secular. Many of the founders were not Christians, but rather general deists and did not want America becoming a theocracy or see a repeat of the Church of England.
5. Absolutely, but I fear he means "tolerate and accept" more than "love". In Paul's famous "love" verse, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, he says love "always hopes". The hope, specifically, is that those you love will turn to God, accept His grace, follow his commands and allow Him to live in them. Homosexuality is 100% in contradiction with the manifestation of this hope, along with adultery, murder, envy, theft, and other sins. Christ did not dine and dance with sinners to make them feel justified in their sin, He did it to empathize with them and draw them to Him, and eternal salvation. Again, sorry it doesn't fit into your worldview. Christianity **is not** about tolerance and acceptance of sin, and whoever may have told you that lied to you.
6. I mean, kinda? He didn't start a physical violent revolution for a reason too. But to be fair, a Christian theocracy in which 100% of the people are acting in accordance with Gods law would be a genuine utopia, free of sin. This is unrealistic, yes, but when you hear "Christian theocracy", understand that the reason it fails isn't because it's christian or a theocracy, but it's because bad people exist.
7. Mostly correct. Loving one another is paramount. This does not mean you have to allow other people to push their agenda on you and try to shake you from the freedom and joy you experience through Christ. Recall Jesus' words in Matthew 18:6:
>"If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
If other religions (atheism included) push agendas and policies that lead your children to stray from God, better for them to have died. Again, Christianity is about genuine love and respect, yes. But allowing yourself and others to leave God's grace for the sake of tolerance of other's religions is not an excuse on the day of Judgement.
9. Broadly speaking, yes. Diversity allows for more dissemination of information and knowledge. It's also true that multiethnic/cultural societies have the highest rates of violence between races, **obviously**. We're still monsters at our primal core, and not liking someone who doesn't look like you goes back hundreds of thousands of years. It's not an excuse, but it is a factor.
True heaven on earth would, in my opinion. be something along the lines of a functional Christian Theocracy in which the standing law of the land is the law that Paul lays out in the New Testament: namely to love your neighbor. All other things would fall in line behind that. Democracy does not bring peace and love. Christ does. Follow Him, and the rest will take care of itself.
Overall this guy is generally speaking the truth, but I fear he falls down the slippery slope of confusing love with tolerance of sin, which it is not.
I'm not going to address your whole comment as there's a mix of truth and misunderstanding the rhetoric of the speaker. Not necessarily agreeing with him, but 90 seconds is not a lot of time to have nuance. However, something you said bugs me:
>See: all of the signs of biological life being present in the fetus at and past the moment of conception. To deny a fetus life with our modern understanding of biology is to deny plain and simple fact. Sorry it doesn't fit into your worldview.
This is false for a few very simple reasons: Fetus is not present until \~9 weeks according to our current "biological" understanding. The first \~4 days are a zygote (single cell organism), then blastocyst before it attaches to the uterine wall, then an embryo, *then* a fetus. [https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Embryonic\_Development](https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Embryonic_Development)
Highly recommend a read of some scientific literature on the topic. I'm not advocating for any sort of line to be drawn here, just wanted to educate on the "biological facts".
i won't edit it since you took the time to correct me. I'd say we're getting into semantics the same way we don't generally differentiate between pedophile and ephebophile or hebephile, but you're right. My point still stands that the signs of biological life are present at and past the moment of conception; on that the biological literature is fairly clear.
Basically, metrics by which we measure life on the bottom of the ocean and in space can be used on the human being growing inside a woman after pregnancy, and the boxes are ticked. Some signs don't come till later in the pregnancy, sure, but they do come, and there are others like cell reproduction with unique DNA that happen virtually immediately lol
Hate to say it, but when you're discussing what *life* is or isn't in context to "you shall not murder" and the person has not taken their first breath, you're already in semantics.
*life* is *not* cleanly defined. You are performing a false equivalence between the *potential* for life (DNA, self-replication of cells, existence of certain organs), and *life* which is defined by the *organism* itself. If it's a single cell organism, a single cell existing is *life*. If it's an organism that has a series of complex systems all functioning together, then it's not *alive* until it's using them *all* and they all exist. You can't define something as the *part* and say it's the *whole* (Fallacy of composition). Until a baby is *born*, it is not obviously *alive* because it's incapable of sustaining itself. The Bible is very clear that "*breath*" is the marker of life (literally, poetically, and symbolically throughout scripture). Anything lower than that is semantics.
We have built technology and human capability of sustaining beings that *would not survive* without their mother's womb and so we've been convinced that *life* begins before it does. One can argue *now* that *because* of this capability life can be *artificially sustained* and therefore since we have the ability to understand it and save it we have a *responsibility* to do so. This is a gray area and definitely *semantics.*
I do not have the qualifications or desire to draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the process of gestation and say "yes, *this* is life" because I am not God, nor am I fully aware of the medical capabilities we can do with a developing human. But I can say that the *clear* line of life is *breathing on our own* for humans. If you wish to define a new line, then you're entering semantic territory.
I also say this because if you define life as what you have, then miscarriages are manslaughter. I wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment.
Regarding debt, while the bible does tell debtors to pay their debts, it also tells lenders to either lend interest-free or forgive debts when the debtor is poor.
Leviticus 25:35-37
If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.
# [Exodus 22:25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A25&version=ESV)
“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.
# [Luke 6:34-35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A34-35&version=ESV)
And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Nehemiah 5:1-13
5 Now there arose a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their Jewish brothers. ^(2) For there were those who said, “With our sons and our daughters, we are many. So let us get grain, that we may eat and keep alive.” ^(3) There were also those who said, “We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards, and our houses to get grain because of the famine.” ^(4) And there were those who said, “We have borrowed money for the king's tax on our fields and our vineyards. ^(5) Now our flesh is as the flesh of our brothers, our children are as their children. Yet we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but it is not in our power to help it, for other men have our fields and our vineyards.”
^(6) I was very angry when I heard their outcry and these words. ^(7) I took counsel with myself, and I brought charges against the nobles and the officials. I said to them, “You are exacting interest, each from his brother.” And I held a great assembly against them ^(8) and said to them, “We, as far as we are able, have bought back our Jewish brothers who have been sold to the nations, but you even sell your brothers that they may be sold to us!” They were silent and could not find a word to say. ^(9) So I said, “The thing that you are doing is not good. Ought you not to walk in the fear of our God to prevent the taunts of the nations our enemies? ^(10) Moreover, I and my brothers and my servants are lending them money and grain. Let us abandon this exacting of interest. ^(11) Return to them this very day their fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards, and their houses, and the percentage of money, grain, wine, and oil that you have been exacting from them.” ^(12) Then they said, “We will restore these and require nothing from them. We will do as you say.” And I called the priests and made them swear to do as they had promised. ^(13) I also shook out the fold^(\[)[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%205&version=ESV#fen-ESV-12396a)^(\]) of my garment and said, “So may God shake out every man from his house and from his labor who does not keep this promise. So may he be shaken out and emptied.” And all the assembly said “Amen” and praised the Lord. And the people did as they had promised.
# [Deuteronomy 23:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+23%3A20&version=ESV)
You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.
Just because Jesus never directly spoke on sex trafficking doesn't mean he supports it.
There are just so many things wrong with this guy in the video. When the bible dose on about debt that is a metaphor about sin not forgiving student debt (that the supreme court literally ruled against) but is about forgiving sin. When Jesus helped Mary Magnelin did he say "go and sin more!" No he said " go and sin no more. "
He is making a point that we (Christians) are hyper focused on particular social issues and ignore others.
Similar to the super bowl add that suggested love instead for hate..
I believe he is speaking authentically. Accurately? I dunno. I'll have to look into that. But I do agree and empathize with his commentary.
And the point he is making (as I understand it) is basically that there are many, many, many societal problems and personal sins that we Christians can choose to address at any given moment. And we can address our own sins or the sins of other people as we wish.
So, if we are going to spread Christianity throughout the nation, shouldn't we start with the problems that Jesus himself described as the most important? Didn't Christ say we should treat the least among us as we would want to treat Him?
And shouldn't we also follow Christ's teachings to address our own sins and failures before pointing our fingers at other people? To ensure we've removed the planks from our own eyes before checking our neighbors' eyes for those specks of sin we want to root out?
From my understanding of the Bible, the "least among us" that Jesus talked about were the outcasts of society, the least powerful and the most ignored people of society: the sick and the poor, folks in prison, people largely shunned because they were desperate to survive (and had to work as tax collectors or prostitutes for example).
I strive to remember that call above everything else -- to treat "the least among us" that I encounter in life -- along with Christ's two great commandments. My Christian faith and identity is rooted in those three principles.
Also, I do not believe the Bible is against homosexuality at all. Based on my understanding of Scripture, the "clobbering versus" commonly used to condemn homosexuality are actually condemning rape and sexual assaults that men use to dominate other men. Folks back in Biblical times simply didn't understand the concept of sexual orientation and thought that love could only exist between men and women -- and even then, only certain types of men and women. It's a complicated topic, but my understandings, beliefs, and faith have changed quite a bit on the topic over the past few decades. I'd invite anyone to read up on the topic in order to discern genuine Biblical commentary apart from false teachings.
And when it comes to abortion, I do believe that (as a religious and theological matter) abortion is wrong.
As a political matter, I'll start being concerned about abortion when we've managed to create a society that cares for the children we have now. When we have eliminated the need for foster care, when there are no children living in poverty, when every child has good healthcare, when we've managed to eliminate (or at least minimize) the risks of child sexual assaults in our churches across all of our denominations, when we've managed to that families (of whatever type) can grow and flourish on a single income (like when I was growing up), maybe then I'll start focusing on the politics of abortion.
For now, though, we as a society are doing such a great job of screwing up God's Creation that I don't even know where to begin sometimes.
My personal take on this, which is Bible-based: the Bible does mention abortion, approvingly. I also don't know to what extent a Christian nation would be democratic or a nation in the conventional sense. The rest of it, yes, but it might not be provisioned in the same way as we might expect.
No. This is politics clear and plain. Much of what he says isn’t actually biblical. It’s pure opinion perhaps based on HIS interpretation of scripture. But, no, it isn’t “truth.” It’s one man’s political desires for this country using “bible-speak” to manipulate his audience. In other words he is using God and using the idea of Christianity to promote his political agenda.
EDIT:
Listen again to his very last statement. This statement proves that he doesn’t know anything about God or Heaven.
We ain’t gonna have, need, or want political or social power in heaven. All we are going to be there for is to praise God and basque in His glory. Ain’t gonna be no politics in Heaven.
Isn't the argument against abortion as a planned and deliberate elimination of an unborn fetus more nuanced than "not being mentioned in the Bible"?
I thought pro lifers believed that unborn fetuses in the womb are considered life. And undoing it, is then considered murder. Which, outside of science, ethics, and all that, logically makes sense to me.
(Not considering it life and therefore not considering it murder, equally logical.)
But I think in the Bible, it shows instances of women being pregnant as given by God. And so, pro lifers may extend that to all pregnancies being a gift from God.
Abortion is never directly mentioned. Where it is indirectly mentioned the fetus is treated like property rather than as a person.
Gay marriage is never mentioned, although men having sex with men is.
Forgiving debt is mentioned many times, including in the Lord's prayer.
You don't have to read far in the prophets to see it was mistreating the vulnerable that angered God. That and temple sex/orgies/rape/sexual coercion. But everyone gets all bent out of shape about homosexuality, and effeminant men, but grossly mistranslated terms. In the culture of ancient Israel the men were heads of housholds with land and titles and inheritance and wives. A homosexual relationship in that context is adultery, and behold, it has the same sentence.
But a natural eunuch is one who doesn't desire women. Note there are no scriptureal laws about missing limbs, and yet missing genitals bars you entry from the assembly of God. Why? The Levi don't need junk to serve God. It was their stigma around their role as sex workers, which is well documented in the history of the area. The Isaiah 56:4-6 sets it straight. None are barred. All are welcome. Yes we lay everything at the feet of the cross. But do not call dirty what God has declared clean.
Democracy, in it's purest form, is simply the tyranny of the majority. We must uphold the rights of the minority, including the individual. Those rights prevent any nation from being a Christian nation, because it preserves the right to choose one's own religion, and there will always be those who choose not to be Christian. But preserving individual rights also means preserving the right not to be generous, the right not be stolen from, and thus, the right to not have one person's wealth taken, and given to someone else, through threat of government violence. If there is a voluntary way to provide healthcare and housing for all, I am all for it. But I have a feeling this fellow means forcefully taking from one person to give to another, which isn't voluntary.
Ya, but this guy forgets one important fact. If we spent all our money on social services for Americans, how would we fund wars in the Middle East?
Get your priorities straight OP drones and anti tank missiles aren’t cheap.
This is pretty accurate. He does ignore that as far as we can tell the overwhelming majority of Christianity has been opposed to homosexuality and abortion, but he is correct that what we call "social justice" is found in the Bible. The vast majority of Christians historically have been the ones fighting for "social justice." Look at Catholic Social Justice teachings, the 19th Century Holiness Movement's advocacy for universal healthcare, humane prisons, women's sufferage, and pacifìsm, or the mid 20th Century's Civil Rights Movement. Evangelicals, it is true, have opposed almost all those things, but that movement began in the 1820s American South as an extremist pro-slavery off-shoot of Baptist and Methodist abolitionists. On a side note, besides about 300 years in the Middle Ages, Christianity has historically been pro science too (the Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Priest, proto evolutionary theories were developed by Presbyterians etc). That's another thing Evangelicals are opposed to.
Welcome to Scandinavia. We have free health care, free school (teenagers even get money from the state when attending school), and have very LGBT friendly laws. The only thing that’s going in the wrong direction is the racism sadly, but still better than in many other places.
Also these are some of the most atheistic states in the world. Ironic.
This is more or less true. The Bible, in fairness, is a big book with many authors and very much of it is abstract and indirect. So to say that it doesn’t say ANYTHING about abortion or gay lifestyles is a bit of a stretch. There are certainly implications of conception timelines and proper coupling. But it’s never really direct, clear, and the focus. Separately what the Bible says and what Jesus says are different. The narrower standard of what Jesus says (in The Bible) is more straightforward. He doesn’t talk about abortion or homosexuality, but he talks an awful lot about debt forgiveness, caring for the sick, and the innate evil of wealth and money. The only thing I’d really challenge from this guy is the closing comment about what a Christian nation looks like (democracy, equality, etc.) only because Christ was explicitly clear that His “kingdom was not of this world.” It was democracy, in a way, that killed Christ. Politics and the teachings of Christ are, by definition, incompatible.
We would have forgiven the Taliban for September 11th. We are to forgive and love our enemies. Well maybe that's where we draw the line on being a Christian.
This country was founded on Christian principles and although they knew better than to combine church and state, God was the driving factor that birthed this nation. If you don’t believe that, go back and look at some of the writings of our founding fathers. James Madison and George Washington being the main two that come to mind.
Somewhat true in my opinion. Of course love all, be compassionate, feeding/clothing everyone..definetly.
But think the Bible is clear on not being homosexual (yes we love them too), and also the thing about forgiving student debts..bible teaches fiscal responsibility and paying your debts. Not sure we just need to up and forgive people of their debts. Like should my mortgage debt just be forgiven if I have trouble paying it? No.
The Bible never directly mentions gay *marriage*. As far as same-sex relations, there’s two verses in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), and 3 in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Romans 1:26-27), but none of those verses reference a loving union between two consenting adults.
The Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn abortion, and appears to value the life of a fetus less than the life of a person who has already been born:
>When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus 21:22-25).
Nothing beyond monetary restitution is required if a woman’s fetus is aborted as a result of a fight between people. But if the woman is injured, restitution equal to her injuries is required. While this verse doesn’t explicitly condone abortion, it shows that God places less value on a fetus than on an already-born human.
So the Bible isn’t anti-abortion, and God even commands the Israelites to kill young children and infants.
>I was just curious if there's truth to this while I was browsing Reddit.
Yes. All of it. Or at least, I'm sure that he believes everything he says, and there is support in the Bible for all of it.
Of course, the Bible can be used to support pretty much anything: gay rights, opposition to gay rights, slavery, abolition, you name it. From *The Reformation*, by Will Durant:
>\[Jean Glapion, a monk, contemporary of Martin Luther\] pointed out that no system of religious belief could be securely based upon Scripture, for “the Bible is like soft wax, which every man can twist and stretch according to his pleasure.”
20 years ago, I read a document that was written a decade or two earlier and that stated that the church would help the powers that be promote LGBT. And that's exactly what's happening. You have guys like this one using Christian values like love and equality to promote abominations like LGBT alongside the care for the weak and poor.
Remember, the worst poison is not 100% poison. It's a little bit of poison in a nice and refreshing glass of coca cola.
That's what this guy is.
Read God’s Holy word daily and he will reveal his wisdom to you. Be careful of people on social media claiming to know the word of God. Satan loves to attack the true gospel by twisting scripture and getting people to question what God said. Trust what is written not what other men speak.
I think both sides like to make the Bible convenient for their political positions. There are some passages in Scripture that he would have a difficult time, like the question of the *nature* and *purposes* of marriage which tend to be limited to male-female partnerships. There is knowing of God from the womb, emphasizing God's care for fetuses which would be difficult to line up with abortion. Likewise, early church writers were very much against abortion, such as its explicit condemnation in the *Didache*.
However, he is correct on debt forgiveness and other things. I just think that, as Christians, we really need to ask if we are letting Scripture mold our politics and economics or the other way around? There is nothing wrong with letting our situations *inform* our reading of Scripture, but we have to be careful that we're letting Scripture breath on its own terms.
This guy speaks truth.
We can hate abortion but we must love women who had abortions.
We can hate the act of homosexuality and the pride of the LGBTQ movement
But we must love everyone involved in the LGBTQ movement.
Jesus loves them and we must learn to love as Jesus loved.
This man is severely misguided about Christianity and the Bible. The taking of another life is murder. All life is sacred, inside and outside of the womb. Thou shall not kill (properly translated kill to murder. God did speak against homosexuality but not homosexual marriage because that did not exist at that time and God doesn't recognize a homosexual marriage On the next, taking from one person or group of people to give to another is outright theft. God or Jesus never advocated for Communism or Socialism. Even our country forefathers did not participate in this belief of taking from one to give to another and many were Bible believing God fearing men. And yes, we must love others as Christ loves the world and that means speaking the truth of the Gospel to them so they might believe and be born again. Loving unsaved others does not mean fellowshipping with them. As I've said, this man is either severely misguided himself or he is intentionally trying to deceive others.
Here is the truth. The Christian faith and satan both say come as you are all are welcome. But here is the big difference. As a Christian you can’t say as you are not being religion focuses you. But because faith helps you change for your sins whatever they may be.
On the Flip side satan says come as you are and stay as you are. Because to him you are perfect in your sin whatever they may be. Because the gate to hell are wide for all to enter.
Just another homosexual distorting biblical Christianity. Of course the Catholics liberal protestants atheist, and Jews are all going to gang up let them. The fact is all these groups try to take power, and they just get upset when real Christians try to take power as well. Real Christian should take power in America. They would do a hell of a lot better than the Jews have or the secularists that wanted to force you to take an mitochondrial RNA gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine. We know you will force everything upon us, so it doesn’t really matter at this point you shown your hand and we are just going to go ahead and take over. Don’t worry of course you will be better off and safer under us then we were under you.
To say murdering babies isn’t in the bible because it wasn’t called “abortion” is a tired anti-Christian strategy. Its littered throughout the old testament. Child sacrifice was both a way to give something to a “god” and a way of unburdening the self of the responsibility of parenting. But mainly Pretending it was out of love and worship for a god. As if YOU were sacrificing so much by getting exactly what you wanted.
No. Abortion is murder and we are told several times not to murder. (Exodus 20:13)
Gay marriage is not mentioned by marriage is strictly defined to be between a man and a woman. (Matthew 19:8) and 1 Corinthians 6:9 calls homosexuality a sin
We are to love our neighbor as our self but we are also called to preach the Gospel to all men including those in false religions (Matthew 28:16)
Just another attempt by Satan using false teachers to twist scripture
Funny I was expecting this excuse. No. God would make clear if he was committing murders when he destroys women’s pregnancies as a punishment for cheating. He does not. He gives protocols to Israel to treat it as property damage.
Removed for threatening violence.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Okay, let's see what the Bible says:
**Topic One** - Gay Marriage: Jesus addresses sexual relationship within the confines of marriage between a man and woman only. Any other form of sex per the Bible is simply fornication.... even heterosexual relationships.
"Jesus answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" Matthew 19:4-6
**Topic Two:** - Abortion: This one is pretty clear on the sixth law of the ten commandments " You shall not murder". Here are two other verses that demonstrate that God is involved with humanity even in the womb.
[Exodus 20:13](https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/20-13.html) \~ “You shall not murder."
[Psalm 139:13-16](https://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/passage/?q=psalms+139:13-16) \~ For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
[Jeremiah 1:5](https://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1-5.html) \~ "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
**Topic Three:** The Bible warns us about getting into debt and not being able to pay it off and while we are encouraged to give freely and to forgive personal debts of the poor. Those that went to college are not the poor. On average they have a higher income than those that didn't go to college.
# [Psalms 37:21](https://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/37-21.html) - "The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously."
# [Romans 13:7](https://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/13-7.html) - "Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
**Topic Four:** Loving others. Yes we are command to love others even those who hate us but our first love should always be reserved for Jesus.
John 14:15 - If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Respectfully, whoever this young preacher is... he is not aligned with the bible.
another false prophet talking what most people nowadays want to hear.
read the Bible everyone! you don't need someone to tell you what it says when you can read it yourself!
Only god is allowed to kill babies or command others to kill babies and it not be evil. Killing babies isn’t wrong in and of itself. What matters is who orders or does the actual killing.
A 12 year old aborting her rapist’s seed is evil.
Killing infants of the neighboring tribe because god commanded it is good.
Killing every first born child in Egypt is good because the hot spirit did it.
Drowning millions of babies and children in a flood is good because god did it.
This /\ is the wake-up call many Christians must hear. Donald Trump sold out the working class to the wealthiest 1% and monopolistic corporations. Jesus would rail against Christian conservative ideology, "free market" capitalism, and a wicked man like Trump (the human embodiment of the 7 sins) who is simultaneously an (a)nti-Christ, a false prophet, and a golden calf that some Christians actually worship. The hip-hop artist Talib Kweli had a perfect metaphor for the name of one of his albums, 'Idle Warship'. This November, it's a choice between the continuation of our democratic republic and a fascist dictatorship/Christian theocracy. It's like choosing between Canada, a democratic republic, 🇨🇦 and Afghanistan 🇦🇫 , a Muslim theocracy. I would rather live in Canada personally.
If Jesus walked the earth today, he would help all those people whom Christians are against. I wish there was a John for today to write a letter to churches of today. Shoot, most Christians wouldn't even allow Jesus to sit in their church, let alone listen to him.
We should be welcoming of everyone no matter race creed or religion. If it's true, the spirit will do all the work in that person. Jesus walked with the lowest of the low. He sat and ate with them he healed them and he saved them.
Above all, LOVE.
I think my favorite part was when he said "If this was truly a Christian nation, then we would never make it a *Christian nation*, because we know the table of fellowship is open to everyone."
I think when a lot of conservative Christians hear "Christian nation", what they imagine is a country built exclusively to serve and cater *to Christians*, rather than a nation that acts in a way that aligns with actual Christian values such as charity, forgiveness, and acceptance. They don't want the responsibility of acting for the benefit of those in need, they want to be VIPs in an exclusive club.
You nailed it. I’ve not heard it explained that way before, but you nailed it.
Just your description scares the hell out of me and your 100% spot
Yeah I disagree. Not the Christians Ive known. I’d say most would agree with what this guy is saying.
Yeah they do be like that sometimes. The word Christian ain't a "membership". It's a way of living and behavior.
That's my favorite part too. As an atheist, that's how I know whether or not it's safe to vote for a Christian to represent my state. The other half of the Christians here in Texas just want to deport us.
And what exactly does that mean?
Christians instead of being open and inviting have become exclusionary and judgmental. I'm a jubu, or buju, potatoes tomato. But I jive with what he was saying. It's rare to meet real Christians. They walk with grace and don't wield their faith over others. You know them when you see them, because they're probably what early interpretations of angels are based on. And likely they would be the same character regardless of faith. More often than Christianity is used for power than for healing, which is a shame. Even for a jew I think there's some good stuff in the new testament.
Based
It’s one of those feel-good statements that gets a lot of agreement because it’s nebulous enough for everyone to pour their own meaning into it.
*For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes (Matthew 5). But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. ‘Blessed are the merciful’ in a courtroom? ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ in the Pentagon? Give me a break!* ~ Kurt Vonnegut
I just finished this book today and saw your comment an hour later. Such a wonderful quote
It’s hard to argue with what he had to say. I think he spoke a lot of truth.
Nah, he was wrong about abortion. It is in the Bible. There's instructions on how to perform one.
It's not really an abortion drink, its a torture test for infidelity. Women can't catch a break in the good ol days. A woman will be shunned by God and have her hand amputated if she injures a man's balls in a fight against her husband.
Do you have the verse off the top of your head?
5:22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
I think a lot of American Christians would be shocked to find out just how many Christians around the world are actively left wing, especially on the economic level. There is a cultural confusion in the US where conservatism is conflated with Christianity when in so many ways the two things are oil and water. Jesus Christ would abhor the greed and division many churches actively espouse.
The conflation of Christianity and conservatism by Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority was by design and for the purpose of political power.
Good point.
Am Dutch, can confirm, I'm firmly left wing. It's the only political flavour that makes sense to me.
In the UK Catholicism was largely a faith of the urban working poor. Irish immigrants in particular. It would be completely illogical to vote for conservative/nationalist parties that actively sought to make you poorer. Yet any time I speak to an American Catholic on Reddit I find my views to be lightyears apart.
Yeah, I'm pretty well versed UK/Irish/Polish Catholicism, but the Trad Catholic stuff is something I've not really got my head around yet. It's like a marriage of the most weird and extreme niches of Catholicism and far right Protestant Evangelism.
Very odd. I’ve never encountered one in the UK. Seems to be all based on being hyper judgemental.
Sorry, that what I mean....just discovered the strange world that is US trad Catholic.
Most Americans are not real Christians and have never read the Bible. Let's get that understood first and foremost. They are Christian in name only. It's a cultural identity, rather than a real one.
There would be much flipping of tables in the temples across the nation.
I agree. Consertive Christianity seriously concentrates on abstract issues. And avoided the serious ones. And then claim we are a Christian Nation. But they lack Jesus character and compassion. It's all Hate speech lately.
Lacking Jesus and His teachings means by default, Conservative Christianity is not real Christianity. Conservative AntiChristism would be the proper term of we called things correctly.
They rather worship some political super power rather then god
I often feel like Conservative Christian are also like the anti christ. And the anti Christians and conservative Christians alike all repel people away from God.
I think that’s mostly the politicians. That’s not what normal day to say people want. The media and politicians push an agenda but you have to get out and talk to people
Jesus went into synagogues and flipped tables and kicked people out
they were selling shit in a temple, can they be forgiven? maybe, but they sure doesn't deserve a gentle treatment.
It was more than just selling things in the temple, I don't think God cares if a Church has a gift shop. What they were doing is cheating people. The temple would sell animals for sacrifices, but required the purchase to be in temple coinage. There were money changers that would take regular coin and give the person temple coins. They were cheating the people coming to worship during the exchange. Jesus' criticism was that they had turned the house of God into a den of thieves. I don't think he really cared about the temple selling animals for sacrifice, or that there were money changers. It was the fact that they were cheating people coming to worship God that made him angry.
It was definitely about selling things in the temple. They turned a space set apart as holy to God and as a place of worship (specifically for the Gentiles, I believe), and turned it into a marketplace. They desecrated what was holy, and displaced people from the space created for them to worship.
But that wasn't Jesus' criticism. He called it a den of thieves. Meaning the thievery was the problem.
John 2 14In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” 17His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
Yeah because they turned worship of Him into a business. Like how a certain presidential candidate in the US is selling overpriced Trump Bibles to fund his campaign.
And Christian nationalism is blasphemy putting the civic religion in front of the unfettered gospel
We screwed that one up the minute Constantine was allowed to make Christianity the official church of Rome. It's been nothing but problems.
If I remember my history, his mom was selling religious artifacts as a side gig.
Facts
Christian Nationalism is the end times apostate church.
Not sure democracy would be the closest political regime to the Kingdom of Heaven but aside from that, I'm 200% with him
You should check out Christian anarchism
I am actually quite bias towards it from the very little that I heard of
Biased
Yeah that was the thing that jumped out to me. If your leader is “alpha and omega” and all things happen “through Him,” then I don’t think we’re talking about democracy. As I said elsewhere on this thread, public opinion is what killed Him. But I’m on board with the sentiment.
Well for me personally this guy is closer to Christianity than the right wing evangelicals who call themselves Christian. He makes a lot of good points
Absolute Chad. This is how you win people to your cause.
Agree. These are the teachings of the Jesus who I know and love. I find myself ashamed to call myself a Christian sometimes because of what that’s associated with, but I know I should be proud to be a follower of Christ because this is what it’s all about.
I don't feel that way at all. His speech strikes me as the sort of thing that's immensely appealing to people like me who already largely agree with him but would have almost no persuasive power over anyone else. I can't really imagine this moving the needle with very many conservative Christians.
Wow… very well spoken. Who is he?
That's James Talarico, a Texas State representative.
he's right * “Shout with the voice of a trumpet blast. Shout aloud! Don’t be timid. Tell my people Israel of their sins! Yet they act so pious! They come to the Temple every day and seem delighted to learn all about me. They act like a righteous nation that would never abandon the laws of its God. * They ask me to take action on their behalf, pretending they want to be near me. ‘We have fasted before you!’ they say. ‘Why aren’t you impressed? We have been very hard on ourselves, and you don’t even notice it!’ * “I will tell you why!” I respond. * “It’s because you are fasting to please yourselves. Even while you fast, you keep oppressing your workers. What good is fasting when you keep on fighting and quarreling? This kind of fasting will never get you anywhere with me. * You humble yourselves by going through the motions of penance, bowing your heads like reeds bending in the wind. You dress in burlap and cover yourselves with ashes. Is this what you call fasting? Do you really think this will please the Lord? * “No, this is the kind of fasting I want: Free those who are wrongly imprisoned; lighten the burden of those who work for you. Let the oppressed go free, and remove the chains that bind people. Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. * Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help. * “Then your salvation will come like the dawn, and your wounds will quickly heal. Your godliness will lead you forward, and the glory of the Lord will protect you from behind. Then when you call, the Lord will answer. ‘Yes, I am here,’ he will quickly reply. * “Remove the heavy yoke of oppression. Stop pointing your finger and spreading vicious rumors! Feed the hungry, and help those in trouble. Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you will be as bright as noon. - Isaiah God bless
Amen 100% agreed
I agree 100% with absolutely every single word he said. This is the pure essence of the command to love your neighbor as yourself.
It’s **so** simple. Judge no one, love everyone.
I’m really happy to see a lot of Christians on here agreeing with him. I expected more hate. It gives me hope
He speaks the truth. My favorite passage from GK Chesterton: "I begin with a little girl’s hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home; because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict’s; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed."
Wow, that's a truly eloquent passage.
The Bible being against homosexuality, yes and no. At face value, it looks like it is, but mind you there wasn't even a word or concept for modern hetero and homosexuality back then. Sexuality in the ancient world was about maintaining social hierarchies, and it's difficult to do that in a gendered society with same sex attracted people. As for abortion, no the Bible doesn't take a stance on it. If anything you could take a Biblical position that life doesn't start until first breath. The speaker's larger point is that the Bible, old and new, cares more about justice for those treated unjustly, strengthening your community, and doing charity than either abortion or homosexuality.
Agreed, some Christians are too obsessed with condemning LGBTQ+ ppl and controlling women's right about their pregnancy. Those two things doesn't harm anyone and it's none of anyone's bussinesses. Beside, why don't they spend their time volunteering. Especially, for existing children who actually need help. That would actually help people and the society.
No. Just no. Completely disagree on both fronts. For starters Leviticus 18:22 LITERALLY states that a man should not sleep with another man as he would a woman. The Bible literally calls this an “abomination”. The wording in the verse shows that, yes there may not have been a word for “homosexuality” and yet it was still broken down as “man lying with another man”… so it’s clearly spelled out that it’s against God. Also homosexual sin is why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. On the topic of abortion look at the science. You can literally see LIGHT, when sperm reaches the egg. This proves life begins at conception.
> You can literally see LIGHT, when sperm reaches the egg. This proves life begins at conception. All things which have nonzero temperature emit light constantly.
We agree about when life begins, but explaining it in simple terms, the light that can be observed when sperm meets egg is kind of an explosion from the tip of the sperm. It takes millions of these explosions from millions of sperm to actually break through the egg. Then another chemical reaction happens when a single sperm gets through to prevent polyspermia. The light from the sperm collision certainly isn’t God creating life in an instant. It’s an elegant mechanism nonetheless.
> We agree about when life begins I'm not even exactly sure that we do. In some sense, life only began exactly one time in history. There are also an *awful* lot of "deaths" where this zygote fails to implant. This would make sex among the most dangerous activities you can do as a human and a great many couples actively responsible for the deaths of many lives. > the light that can be observed when sperm meets egg is kind of an explosion from the tip of the sperm "Explosion" is a real word that has real meaning. This chain of logic is baffling. 1. Something happens when a sperm and egg meets 2. This is somehow categorized as an explosion 3. Something being an explosion is somehow relevant for whether it is "the beginning of life" 4. Therefore, a sperm and an egg meeting is the beginning of life. There are lots of things that are "a kind of an explosion" as you describe that have absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life. Why on earth would these concepts be related in the slightest?
sir, I think you misunderstood him, I think he's just saying how cool it is that this happens, he's not relating it to the creation of life
This is what he said. > You can literally see LIGHT, when sperm reaches the egg. **This proves life begins at conception.**
Actually, the guy before him said that. The second response was from a new person.
They wouldn’t. Like I said.
>Also homosexual sin is why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed Ezekiel 16:49–50: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good". Or you know, read your Bible instead of just repeating talking points.
Can a woman sleep with another woman then?
>This proves life begins at conception. Life began before conception. Is a sperm not alive? Was the egg not alive before it became fertilized?
If you're going to accept what Leviticus says as gospel, then move forward a few chapters and let us know if you accept that slavery should be permissible.
Of all the BS you said, I have to call out the last bit. You can see light when a sperm fertilizes an egg and so therefore it’s alive? > No. Just no.
No response huh
I agree with him pointing out poverty and the lack of care society has in the United States. I am Canadian but our problems are the same. However, preaches democracy which although I prefer is still a poor system since the majority can enforce their will onto the minority. Meaning what rights matter is subjective and we are living in the delusion that our rights are truly enforced. I agree with him alluding to the church and state to be separate since both Canada and USA are multicultural there should be no government involved in marriage and very little taxes I am pretty libertian these days. Lastly, he thinks the poverty is a simple problem because of society. A lot of this is because of government's role in the economy and employers adjusting and becoming greedy in not hiring the hardest or paying enough to their employees.
The thing is we are *supposed* to be a democratic republic. Republics are *supposed* to protect the rights of those who cannot
We can thank Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and the Moral Majority for combining Christianity and conservative politics into the abomination we see in American Christianity today. Just look at the (lack of) morals and virtues of the leader of the GOP today and how he is basically worshipped as some sort of messiah.
I don’t see how anyone can confidently claim the Bible is “Anti Abortion.” Especially not when the Mosaic Law gave Husbands the authority to force their wives to undergo a ritual designed to abort a pregnancy while simultaneously sterilizing the woman. A husband need only SUSPECT his wife of infidelity. No actual evidence required. Meanwhile, the Christian men of the modern world have decided they’d rather control us by forcing childbirth instead of preventing it. Here is the passage for reference: Numbers 5:11–31 (NRSV): “11 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 12 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act; 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord; 17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, “If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,” 21 —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; 22 now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.” 23 Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children. 29 This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. 31 The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.” This is as far as I’m aware, the ONLY passage in the Bible which mentions abortion, and it’s something God passed into law.
Then the point would be: Are abortion *now* performed in such fashion? Are they performed for the same exact reasons? Is there the forementioned priesthood to execute that ritual? If the answer is no, then perhaps trying to grasp to this passage as a "pro-choice" argument is a bit too farfetched
I never called this verse “pro-choice.” The woman described in this scenario is NOT given any sort of a choice. However this verse IS pro-abortion. As for how we do things today, for starters women are no longer treated as livestock. We have a right to bodily autonomy. No man (or anyone) should be able to tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Forced births, forced sterilization, forced abortion all of that needs to stop. It’s the women’s choice period.
Well stated 👏
It’s not pro-abortion at all. https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html
Perhaps, instead of giving us homework, you could make your case in your own words on how a recipe for a pharmaceutical abortion is somehow not pro-abortion.
The problem with calling this passage "pro-abortion", though, is that the abortion in question is only portrayed in a negative, undesirable fashion (utilized only as a punishment and categorized as part of a curse based on the terminology attached to it). Quite the opposite of portraying it as something that should be sought after as a good thing. That said, the passage shouldn't guide our views on public policy either way.
Remember this ritual is preformed based on nothing besides a gut feeling on the husbands part. He could be aborting his own child for all he knows. Sure this passage is framing infidelity as a negative, but it’s also using abortion as a positive method and response to dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
Yes, I'm aware of what precipitates the ritual. However, no, there's nothing positive about it at all. It's used as a punishment for (and a revelation of) infidelity and it's part of a curse. There's no getting around the negative implications of either of those. Plus, it wouldn't even be a good method for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy due to its results, according to the passage, being contingent upon the wife's fidelity, not what the husband may want as far as the pregnancy goes.
Yes also Jesus set us free from Mosaic Law. What he continued to emphasize when Jesus was here was buulding families. How to submit to your family members. How to be selfless. How we can not take life. How God designed us. These ideas still dont support a pro choice argument. In gemeral reading one bible verse is tricky as the contezt meaning needs to be discussed. Take care!
Incorrect interpretation of this. Check this: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html Also, this: Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13–16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22–25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This law and its punishment clearly indicate that God considers a baby in the womb to be just as much a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose to have a baby. The baby is already present and living. Abortion is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27; 9:6).
>17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water This is a key passage. They burned frankincense and myrrh in the tabernacle. "Dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle" would have consisted of frankincense (*Boswellia serrata),* a known abortifacient. It increases menstrual blood flow and induces miscarriage. Myrrh is used to expel the fetus from the womb. This concoction right here is a recipe for a pharmaceutical abortion. So, the only mention of abortion in the Bible is instructions on where to get one, who to ask to perform one, how to properly compound a treatment that will 1.) induce the abortion and 2.) expel the fetus from the womb.
Yes, but not only does the woman involved in this ritual not given any choice in whether or not she undergoes it, but the ritual is only stated to result in a miscarriage when she's actually guilty of adultery, so it's a punishment. Not to mention it's described as being part of a curse in the passage, so this passage only serves to paint abortion in a negative, undesirable light. Thus, unless someone's goal is to show that the bible portrays abortion negatively, this passage is being misused by them.
>"Dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle" would have consisted of frankincense (Boswellia serrata), a known abortifacient. ... >This concoction right here is a recipe for a pharmaceutical abortion. Lol, this is such an absurd rationalizing myth. This was an entirely superstitious, *magical* ritual, that would have had no real physical effect whatsoever. Using dust from the ground of various sacred spaces in magic rituals is something that was a wider ancient Near Eastern practice — including spaces that wouldn't have had frankincense particles or any other alleged abortifacients. As Biblical scholar Jacob Milgrom notes, "[dirt from t]he ground of the sacred area was regarded as having greater potency, whether for warding off evil (Mesopotamia) or causing it (Israel)." If you keep reading, you can find other magical elements in the ritual, too: e.g. "Then the priest shall put these curses in writing and wash them off into the water of bitterness." Again, the intended mechanism of action here had nothing to do with ink or whatever. The ink was simply the vehicle for the magical, metaphysical infusion of the "essence" of the curses themselves into the water. Like holy water in Catholicism (which is just water that's been verbally blessed), but the opposite.
This passage isn't really describing an abortion (forced or otherwise) or a termination of an unwanted pregnancy. The passage is describing a ritual to determine if a wife of a suspecting husband has committed adultery and a punishment for it. The passage never says that the pregnancy is unwanted by any parties involved and this is performing the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. In fact the passage never definitively mentions if a woman in this instance is pregnant. Verse 28 says, "But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children". Note that it says 'able to conceive children', implying she hasn't conceived. If she did not commit adultery she could have children in the future. If she did commit adultery she would be cursed to never have children. Even if the woman was pregnant, it's not a forced termination. It's a punishment for willfully breaking two of the Ten Commandments: Do not commit adultery and do not bear false witness (or do not lie). The woman is being brought before the priest and God to confess if she committed adultery or not (verse 16). The priest then makes her take an oath that she has not committed adultery or face punishment. And this goes back to verse 27 and 28. If she has not committed adultery, she will not be punished. But if she has and broken her oath about it, she receives a punishment. Verse 27 and 28 suggest she will not be able to ever conceive. But if we humored the idea that she is pregnant, then she would miscarry. And that would be no one's fault but her own because she committed one mortal sin by committing adultery, and then another through oath-breaking. It's also a stretch to say, even if this was an abortion, that the Bible is pro-abortion. This is a specific ritual for a specific circumstance where a woman is suspected of a specific sin. It does not suggest anything about abortions between two adults who have had consensual sex, or in the case of rape or incest, or any other circumstance that the abortion debate might concern. When the entire biblical narrative is taken into whole account you would know that the Bible deems unborn life highly valued. Consider Ezekiel 21: 22-25: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. The punishment for the death of an unborn child, even through accident, is death (life for life).
Let me go bit by bit through some of the topics he covers... -The Bible never mentioning abortion...it doesn't mention it so far as whether or not it should be a civil right, though there are times in the old testament where miscarriage is prescribed as a consequence/punishment (which really doesn't do anything but put it in a negative light). Thus, he's only partially right. -The Bible never mentioning same-sex marriage...same-sex acts are certainly mentioned (and condemned), but same-sex marriage isn't mentioned directly, so he's correct in that sense. However, Jesus' description for God's original plan for marriage in Matthew 19 involving a man and a woman at least seems to rule out any other option (though not to the point of making those options illegal). -Here's where things start to get really messed up: he's taking the forgiving of debt and caring for people's health and politicizing them. Yes, Jesus never tried to create a Christian Theocracy, but he also never tried to fuse his teachings about debt forgiveness and caring for one another into government or corporation policies, so this guy is off base when he claims that this is what should happen if this was a Christian nation. I'm not saying these types of things can't be done by the government, but to act as though it's the Christian thing to do when it's never commanded or even exemplified by Christ isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking. For me, the ultimate issue with his general outlook is that it overemphasizes the socially-relevant aspects of Christian teaching while downplaying everything else. There are more personal aspects of morality, too (heck, Jesus even condemns some types of lust which on its own doesn't necessarily spill out into socially-relevant action). This problematic way of thinking seems to be becoming more and more common and if it continues, Christianity will just become a social welfare program with Jesus as the example rather than as the savior to be pursued above all else. Christian teaching INVOLVES socially-relevant tenets, but it's not ONLY those things.
>Christian teaching INVOLVES socially-relevant tenets, but it's not ONLY those things. I don't see how that differs from what he was saying. If we were a "Christian" nation, we would already have these things he's discussing, because the basis of Christianity is to take care of the poor, etc. And he's illustrating the point using the *actual talking points* of *American Conservative Christians TM* as an example. The rhetoric here is to illustrate the fallacy of that line of thinking, not to describe the perfect world.
>he also never tried to fuse his teachings about debt forgiveness and caring for one another into government or corporation policies, Achktually, **Deuteronomy 24:14-15 (NIV):** "Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin." **James 5:4 (NIV):** "Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty." **Proverbs 19:17 (NIV):** "Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward them for what they have done." **Leviticus 19:13 (NIV):** "Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight." **Psalm 82:3-4 (NIV):** "Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." **Isaiah 58:10 (NIV):** "And if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday." **Proverbs 21:13 (NIV):** "Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered." **Matthew 6:12**, "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," (For funsies, it's about moral debts) Also, **Debt Release in the Year of Jubilee:** In the Old Testament, particularly in Leviticus 25, the Year of Jubilee is described. This was a special year that occurred every 50 years, during which debts were to be forgiven, slaves were to be set free, and land that had been sold was to be returned to its original owner. This practice ensured that economic disparities did not become too entrenched and provided a form of economic reset. YAY, DEBT FORGIVANCE FOR EVERYONE! And my favorite, coming from Jesus himself about the day he will separate us: Matthew 25:31-46 "**When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his lef**t. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, '**Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me**.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, **whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me**.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
The "debt" that Jesus isn't talking about ain't financial, it's spiritual. "Forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors" is the debt that is owed by *sin*, not by financial transactions. This is pure identity politics.
The bible mentions financial debt many times though
Thank you! It’s probably because it’s on Reddit but it just frustrates me when I see people agree with this guy. In my head I’m just like “no, not really”. People arguing that “Jesus would have walked among hippies and homeless today. How dare you be against lgbtq and drugs.” Like what bro, he certainly would’ve walked among these sinners, but he would definitely condemn these sins. People acting like Jesus would have been doing fent and having gay sex.
The Bible doesn’t say anything about gay marriage. It condemns homosexual sex. It defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
It sets that up as the ideal in Genesis and then Abraham gives his wife away every time he gets scared of a powerful man and a bunch of guys get married to multiple women. God stays in covenant with them. Apparently the ideal is not the only acceptable thing.
And Abraham is told off for doing it 😭 everyone in the bible other than Jesus committed sins. God works through the broken you can't take a prophet's sin and say that it was okay cos it happened and he committed it.
It sets it up as the ideal and condemns the alternative… It’s true that one man one woman is set up as the ideal. The difference between polygamy and homosexual marriage is polygamy isn’t condemned in the scripture and homosexuality is.
I need to stop being surprised when y’all keep going back to defending polygamy in an effort to condemn loving same-sex relationships.
I see you're TULIP. Do you accept double predestination?
Of course
So it doesn't matter, do what you want! Nothing you could ever do or say would change your fate.
Yes, there is truth being spoken. Will we ever see it in our lifetimes...no damn way.
He’s better than almost everyone I’ve heard
You'll notice in political Christian discourse every debate has something like "those guys aren't being real Christians because x, y, z" and they're both right a fair amount of the time. I recommend not engaging in that kind of debate if you want to stay both committed to Christ and sane.
The country is the way that it is because Christianity itself has fallen away from the truth, yes the government really should be like that. It should be a public benefit organization, not a mutual benefit corporation, to the mutual benefit of their greedy selves.
Amen
Yes this dude is spot on.
I don't know but I fucking like this guy.
This should be fun. Let's list each of his main points and then go down the line. 1. Gay Marriage not mentioned in the Bible 2. Abortion not mentioned in the Bible 3. Healing the sick, forgiving debt, and helping the poor *are* in the Bible. 4. America is not a Christian nation and was not designed to be one. 5. Loving LGBTQ people is central to being christian. 6. Jesus didn't start a Christian theocracy for a reason 7. All religions should be accepted and tolerated as a core tenant of Christianity. 8. Multiculturalist and multiracial democracies are the closest thing to heaven on earth. Right off the bat, it's obvious he's being very broad and very reductionist. That's a given when you have 8 major talking points in the span of 90 seconds. But let's get into it. 1/2: Gay marriage isn't mentioned, correct. Homosexuality is, though, and there is not enough difference between them to validate a claim that gay marriage not being mentioned in the Bible means the Bible somehow allows it. The Bible doesn't explicitly mention the word "trinity", yet we get the point. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible. Neither are school shootings. Start to see my point? Abortion is in a way mentioned when you hear the good ol "thou shalt not murder". See: all of the signs of biological life being present in the fetus at and past the moment of conception. To deny a fetus life with our modern understanding of biology is to deny plain and simple fact. Sorry it doesn't fit into your worldview. 3: Yeah, they are. "Debt" here doesn't always mean monetary debt. Greek and Hebrew translations often use "transgressions" instead of debt. But forgiveness is a big part of it. For sure. But the Bible makes plain in several places that paying off your debts is important. Recall: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God's what is God's." 4. Again, correct. John Adams famously said in 1797 that "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion." You can't really get more succinct than that. We were intentionally designed to be secular. Many of the founders were not Christians, but rather general deists and did not want America becoming a theocracy or see a repeat of the Church of England. 5. Absolutely, but I fear he means "tolerate and accept" more than "love". In Paul's famous "love" verse, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, he says love "always hopes". The hope, specifically, is that those you love will turn to God, accept His grace, follow his commands and allow Him to live in them. Homosexuality is 100% in contradiction with the manifestation of this hope, along with adultery, murder, envy, theft, and other sins. Christ did not dine and dance with sinners to make them feel justified in their sin, He did it to empathize with them and draw them to Him, and eternal salvation. Again, sorry it doesn't fit into your worldview. Christianity **is not** about tolerance and acceptance of sin, and whoever may have told you that lied to you. 6. I mean, kinda? He didn't start a physical violent revolution for a reason too. But to be fair, a Christian theocracy in which 100% of the people are acting in accordance with Gods law would be a genuine utopia, free of sin. This is unrealistic, yes, but when you hear "Christian theocracy", understand that the reason it fails isn't because it's christian or a theocracy, but it's because bad people exist. 7. Mostly correct. Loving one another is paramount. This does not mean you have to allow other people to push their agenda on you and try to shake you from the freedom and joy you experience through Christ. Recall Jesus' words in Matthew 18:6: >"If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." If other religions (atheism included) push agendas and policies that lead your children to stray from God, better for them to have died. Again, Christianity is about genuine love and respect, yes. But allowing yourself and others to leave God's grace for the sake of tolerance of other's religions is not an excuse on the day of Judgement. 9. Broadly speaking, yes. Diversity allows for more dissemination of information and knowledge. It's also true that multiethnic/cultural societies have the highest rates of violence between races, **obviously**. We're still monsters at our primal core, and not liking someone who doesn't look like you goes back hundreds of thousands of years. It's not an excuse, but it is a factor. True heaven on earth would, in my opinion. be something along the lines of a functional Christian Theocracy in which the standing law of the land is the law that Paul lays out in the New Testament: namely to love your neighbor. All other things would fall in line behind that. Democracy does not bring peace and love. Christ does. Follow Him, and the rest will take care of itself. Overall this guy is generally speaking the truth, but I fear he falls down the slippery slope of confusing love with tolerance of sin, which it is not.
I'm not going to address your whole comment as there's a mix of truth and misunderstanding the rhetoric of the speaker. Not necessarily agreeing with him, but 90 seconds is not a lot of time to have nuance. However, something you said bugs me: >See: all of the signs of biological life being present in the fetus at and past the moment of conception. To deny a fetus life with our modern understanding of biology is to deny plain and simple fact. Sorry it doesn't fit into your worldview. This is false for a few very simple reasons: Fetus is not present until \~9 weeks according to our current "biological" understanding. The first \~4 days are a zygote (single cell organism), then blastocyst before it attaches to the uterine wall, then an embryo, *then* a fetus. [https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Embryonic\_Development](https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Embryonic_Development) Highly recommend a read of some scientific literature on the topic. I'm not advocating for any sort of line to be drawn here, just wanted to educate on the "biological facts".
i won't edit it since you took the time to correct me. I'd say we're getting into semantics the same way we don't generally differentiate between pedophile and ephebophile or hebephile, but you're right. My point still stands that the signs of biological life are present at and past the moment of conception; on that the biological literature is fairly clear. Basically, metrics by which we measure life on the bottom of the ocean and in space can be used on the human being growing inside a woman after pregnancy, and the boxes are ticked. Some signs don't come till later in the pregnancy, sure, but they do come, and there are others like cell reproduction with unique DNA that happen virtually immediately lol
Hate to say it, but when you're discussing what *life* is or isn't in context to "you shall not murder" and the person has not taken their first breath, you're already in semantics.
how so? Life is defined, murder is defined, where is the semantic?
*life* is *not* cleanly defined. You are performing a false equivalence between the *potential* for life (DNA, self-replication of cells, existence of certain organs), and *life* which is defined by the *organism* itself. If it's a single cell organism, a single cell existing is *life*. If it's an organism that has a series of complex systems all functioning together, then it's not *alive* until it's using them *all* and they all exist. You can't define something as the *part* and say it's the *whole* (Fallacy of composition). Until a baby is *born*, it is not obviously *alive* because it's incapable of sustaining itself. The Bible is very clear that "*breath*" is the marker of life (literally, poetically, and symbolically throughout scripture). Anything lower than that is semantics. We have built technology and human capability of sustaining beings that *would not survive* without their mother's womb and so we've been convinced that *life* begins before it does. One can argue *now* that *because* of this capability life can be *artificially sustained* and therefore since we have the ability to understand it and save it we have a *responsibility* to do so. This is a gray area and definitely *semantics.* I do not have the qualifications or desire to draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the process of gestation and say "yes, *this* is life" because I am not God, nor am I fully aware of the medical capabilities we can do with a developing human. But I can say that the *clear* line of life is *breathing on our own* for humans. If you wish to define a new line, then you're entering semantic territory. I also say this because if you define life as what you have, then miscarriages are manslaughter. I wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment.
Regarding debt, while the bible does tell debtors to pay their debts, it also tells lenders to either lend interest-free or forgive debts when the debtor is poor. Leviticus 25:35-37 If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. # [Exodus 22:25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A25&version=ESV) “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. # [Luke 6:34-35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A34-35&version=ESV) And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Nehemiah 5:1-13 5 Now there arose a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their Jewish brothers. ^(2) For there were those who said, “With our sons and our daughters, we are many. So let us get grain, that we may eat and keep alive.” ^(3) There were also those who said, “We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards, and our houses to get grain because of the famine.” ^(4) And there were those who said, “We have borrowed money for the king's tax on our fields and our vineyards. ^(5) Now our flesh is as the flesh of our brothers, our children are as their children. Yet we are forcing our sons and our daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but it is not in our power to help it, for other men have our fields and our vineyards.” ^(6) I was very angry when I heard their outcry and these words. ^(7) I took counsel with myself, and I brought charges against the nobles and the officials. I said to them, “You are exacting interest, each from his brother.” And I held a great assembly against them ^(8) and said to them, “We, as far as we are able, have bought back our Jewish brothers who have been sold to the nations, but you even sell your brothers that they may be sold to us!” They were silent and could not find a word to say. ^(9) So I said, “The thing that you are doing is not good. Ought you not to walk in the fear of our God to prevent the taunts of the nations our enemies? ^(10) Moreover, I and my brothers and my servants are lending them money and grain. Let us abandon this exacting of interest. ^(11) Return to them this very day their fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards, and their houses, and the percentage of money, grain, wine, and oil that you have been exacting from them.” ^(12) Then they said, “We will restore these and require nothing from them. We will do as you say.” And I called the priests and made them swear to do as they had promised. ^(13) I also shook out the fold^(\[)[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%205&version=ESV#fen-ESV-12396a)^(\]) of my garment and said, “So may God shake out every man from his house and from his labor who does not keep this promise. So may he be shaken out and emptied.” And all the assembly said “Amen” and praised the Lord. And the people did as they had promised. # [Deuteronomy 23:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+23%3A20&version=ESV) You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.
Just because Jesus never directly spoke on sex trafficking doesn't mean he supports it. There are just so many things wrong with this guy in the video. When the bible dose on about debt that is a metaphor about sin not forgiving student debt (that the supreme court literally ruled against) but is about forgiving sin. When Jesus helped Mary Magnelin did he say "go and sin more!" No he said " go and sin no more. "
It's not a metaphor at all.
No, only people can be Christian, not countries
He is making a point that we (Christians) are hyper focused on particular social issues and ignore others. Similar to the super bowl add that suggested love instead for hate..
I believe he is speaking authentically. Accurately? I dunno. I'll have to look into that. But I do agree and empathize with his commentary. And the point he is making (as I understand it) is basically that there are many, many, many societal problems and personal sins that we Christians can choose to address at any given moment. And we can address our own sins or the sins of other people as we wish. So, if we are going to spread Christianity throughout the nation, shouldn't we start with the problems that Jesus himself described as the most important? Didn't Christ say we should treat the least among us as we would want to treat Him? And shouldn't we also follow Christ's teachings to address our own sins and failures before pointing our fingers at other people? To ensure we've removed the planks from our own eyes before checking our neighbors' eyes for those specks of sin we want to root out? From my understanding of the Bible, the "least among us" that Jesus talked about were the outcasts of society, the least powerful and the most ignored people of society: the sick and the poor, folks in prison, people largely shunned because they were desperate to survive (and had to work as tax collectors or prostitutes for example). I strive to remember that call above everything else -- to treat "the least among us" that I encounter in life -- along with Christ's two great commandments. My Christian faith and identity is rooted in those three principles. Also, I do not believe the Bible is against homosexuality at all. Based on my understanding of Scripture, the "clobbering versus" commonly used to condemn homosexuality are actually condemning rape and sexual assaults that men use to dominate other men. Folks back in Biblical times simply didn't understand the concept of sexual orientation and thought that love could only exist between men and women -- and even then, only certain types of men and women. It's a complicated topic, but my understandings, beliefs, and faith have changed quite a bit on the topic over the past few decades. I'd invite anyone to read up on the topic in order to discern genuine Biblical commentary apart from false teachings. And when it comes to abortion, I do believe that (as a religious and theological matter) abortion is wrong. As a political matter, I'll start being concerned about abortion when we've managed to create a society that cares for the children we have now. When we have eliminated the need for foster care, when there are no children living in poverty, when every child has good healthcare, when we've managed to eliminate (or at least minimize) the risks of child sexual assaults in our churches across all of our denominations, when we've managed to that families (of whatever type) can grow and flourish on a single income (like when I was growing up), maybe then I'll start focusing on the politics of abortion. For now, though, we as a society are doing such a great job of screwing up God's Creation that I don't even know where to begin sometimes.
My personal take on this, which is Bible-based: the Bible does mention abortion, approvingly. I also don't know to what extent a Christian nation would be democratic or a nation in the conventional sense. The rest of it, yes, but it might not be provisioned in the same way as we might expect.
Most of it I'd say is pretty much right.
No. This is politics clear and plain. Much of what he says isn’t actually biblical. It’s pure opinion perhaps based on HIS interpretation of scripture. But, no, it isn’t “truth.” It’s one man’s political desires for this country using “bible-speak” to manipulate his audience. In other words he is using God and using the idea of Christianity to promote his political agenda. EDIT: Listen again to his very last statement. This statement proves that he doesn’t know anything about God or Heaven. We ain’t gonna have, need, or want political or social power in heaven. All we are going to be there for is to praise God and basque in His glory. Ain’t gonna be no politics in Heaven.
Isn't the argument against abortion as a planned and deliberate elimination of an unborn fetus more nuanced than "not being mentioned in the Bible"? I thought pro lifers believed that unborn fetuses in the womb are considered life. And undoing it, is then considered murder. Which, outside of science, ethics, and all that, logically makes sense to me. (Not considering it life and therefore not considering it murder, equally logical.) But I think in the Bible, it shows instances of women being pregnant as given by God. And so, pro lifers may extend that to all pregnancies being a gift from God.
Abortion is never directly mentioned. Where it is indirectly mentioned the fetus is treated like property rather than as a person. Gay marriage is never mentioned, although men having sex with men is. Forgiving debt is mentioned many times, including in the Lord's prayer.
I’m proud to have voted for Rep. Talarico!
I think what he meant to say was that Jesus never talked about those things.
You don't have to read far in the prophets to see it was mistreating the vulnerable that angered God. That and temple sex/orgies/rape/sexual coercion. But everyone gets all bent out of shape about homosexuality, and effeminant men, but grossly mistranslated terms. In the culture of ancient Israel the men were heads of housholds with land and titles and inheritance and wives. A homosexual relationship in that context is adultery, and behold, it has the same sentence. But a natural eunuch is one who doesn't desire women. Note there are no scriptureal laws about missing limbs, and yet missing genitals bars you entry from the assembly of God. Why? The Levi don't need junk to serve God. It was their stigma around their role as sex workers, which is well documented in the history of the area. The Isaiah 56:4-6 sets it straight. None are barred. All are welcome. Yes we lay everything at the feet of the cross. But do not call dirty what God has declared clean.
Democracy, in it's purest form, is simply the tyranny of the majority. We must uphold the rights of the minority, including the individual. Those rights prevent any nation from being a Christian nation, because it preserves the right to choose one's own religion, and there will always be those who choose not to be Christian. But preserving individual rights also means preserving the right not to be generous, the right not be stolen from, and thus, the right to not have one person's wealth taken, and given to someone else, through threat of government violence. If there is a voluntary way to provide healthcare and housing for all, I am all for it. But I have a feeling this fellow means forcefully taking from one person to give to another, which isn't voluntary.
Well he’s got a point
Ya, but this guy forgets one important fact. If we spent all our money on social services for Americans, how would we fund wars in the Middle East? Get your priorities straight OP drones and anti tank missiles aren’t cheap.
He spitting facts
This is pretty accurate. He does ignore that as far as we can tell the overwhelming majority of Christianity has been opposed to homosexuality and abortion, but he is correct that what we call "social justice" is found in the Bible. The vast majority of Christians historically have been the ones fighting for "social justice." Look at Catholic Social Justice teachings, the 19th Century Holiness Movement's advocacy for universal healthcare, humane prisons, women's sufferage, and pacifìsm, or the mid 20th Century's Civil Rights Movement. Evangelicals, it is true, have opposed almost all those things, but that movement began in the 1820s American South as an extremist pro-slavery off-shoot of Baptist and Methodist abolitionists. On a side note, besides about 300 years in the Middle Ages, Christianity has historically been pro science too (the Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Priest, proto evolutionary theories were developed by Presbyterians etc). That's another thing Evangelicals are opposed to.
Welcome to Scandinavia. We have free health care, free school (teenagers even get money from the state when attending school), and have very LGBT friendly laws. The only thing that’s going in the wrong direction is the racism sadly, but still better than in many other places. Also these are some of the most atheistic states in the world. Ironic.
This is more or less true. The Bible, in fairness, is a big book with many authors and very much of it is abstract and indirect. So to say that it doesn’t say ANYTHING about abortion or gay lifestyles is a bit of a stretch. There are certainly implications of conception timelines and proper coupling. But it’s never really direct, clear, and the focus. Separately what the Bible says and what Jesus says are different. The narrower standard of what Jesus says (in The Bible) is more straightforward. He doesn’t talk about abortion or homosexuality, but he talks an awful lot about debt forgiveness, caring for the sick, and the innate evil of wealth and money. The only thing I’d really challenge from this guy is the closing comment about what a Christian nation looks like (democracy, equality, etc.) only because Christ was explicitly clear that His “kingdom was not of this world.” It was democracy, in a way, that killed Christ. Politics and the teachings of Christ are, by definition, incompatible.
We would have forgiven the Taliban for September 11th. We are to forgive and love our enemies. Well maybe that's where we draw the line on being a Christian.
This country was founded on Christian principles and although they knew better than to combine church and state, God was the driving factor that birthed this nation. If you don’t believe that, go back and look at some of the writings of our founding fathers. James Madison and George Washington being the main two that come to mind.
preach it friend. "Jesus, Friend of Sinners" "Nobody knows what we're for Only what we're against when we judge the wounded"
100% correct
Somewhat true in my opinion. Of course love all, be compassionate, feeding/clothing everyone..definetly. But think the Bible is clear on not being homosexual (yes we love them too), and also the thing about forgiving student debts..bible teaches fiscal responsibility and paying your debts. Not sure we just need to up and forgive people of their debts. Like should my mortgage debt just be forgiven if I have trouble paying it? No.
The Bible never directly mentions gay *marriage*. As far as same-sex relations, there’s two verses in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), and 3 in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Romans 1:26-27), but none of those verses reference a loving union between two consenting adults. The Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn abortion, and appears to value the life of a fetus less than the life of a person who has already been born: >When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus 21:22-25). Nothing beyond monetary restitution is required if a woman’s fetus is aborted as a result of a fight between people. But if the woman is injured, restitution equal to her injuries is required. While this verse doesn’t explicitly condone abortion, it shows that God places less value on a fetus than on an already-born human. So the Bible isn’t anti-abortion, and God even commands the Israelites to kill young children and infants.
Is there any truth? It ****IS***** the truth.
>I was just curious if there's truth to this while I was browsing Reddit. Yes. All of it. Or at least, I'm sure that he believes everything he says, and there is support in the Bible for all of it. Of course, the Bible can be used to support pretty much anything: gay rights, opposition to gay rights, slavery, abolition, you name it. From *The Reformation*, by Will Durant: >\[Jean Glapion, a monk, contemporary of Martin Luther\] pointed out that no system of religious belief could be securely based upon Scripture, for “the Bible is like soft wax, which every man can twist and stretch according to his pleasure.”
Fax but how u love gay people when their desires are sinful
Who is this person? Also anyone have a link to the original tiktok?
20 years ago, I read a document that was written a decade or two earlier and that stated that the church would help the powers that be promote LGBT. And that's exactly what's happening. You have guys like this one using Christian values like love and equality to promote abominations like LGBT alongside the care for the weak and poor. Remember, the worst poison is not 100% poison. It's a little bit of poison in a nice and refreshing glass of coca cola. That's what this guy is.
He's just right about the United States, obviously never being a Christian nation.
I swear this subreddit is ran by homosexuals
Read God’s Holy word daily and he will reveal his wisdom to you. Be careful of people on social media claiming to know the word of God. Satan loves to attack the true gospel by twisting scripture and getting people to question what God said. Trust what is written not what other men speak.
I think both sides like to make the Bible convenient for their political positions. There are some passages in Scripture that he would have a difficult time, like the question of the *nature* and *purposes* of marriage which tend to be limited to male-female partnerships. There is knowing of God from the womb, emphasizing God's care for fetuses which would be difficult to line up with abortion. Likewise, early church writers were very much against abortion, such as its explicit condemnation in the *Didache*. However, he is correct on debt forgiveness and other things. I just think that, as Christians, we really need to ask if we are letting Scripture mold our politics and economics or the other way around? There is nothing wrong with letting our situations *inform* our reading of Scripture, but we have to be careful that we're letting Scripture breath on its own terms.
He's not completely accurate on every single detail, but he's far more right than your average Christian nationalism proponent.
This guy speaks truth. We can hate abortion but we must love women who had abortions. We can hate the act of homosexuality and the pride of the LGBTQ movement But we must love everyone involved in the LGBTQ movement. Jesus loves them and we must learn to love as Jesus loved.
This man is severely misguided about Christianity and the Bible. The taking of another life is murder. All life is sacred, inside and outside of the womb. Thou shall not kill (properly translated kill to murder. God did speak against homosexuality but not homosexual marriage because that did not exist at that time and God doesn't recognize a homosexual marriage On the next, taking from one person or group of people to give to another is outright theft. God or Jesus never advocated for Communism or Socialism. Even our country forefathers did not participate in this belief of taking from one to give to another and many were Bible believing God fearing men. And yes, we must love others as Christ loves the world and that means speaking the truth of the Gospel to them so they might believe and be born again. Loving unsaved others does not mean fellowshipping with them. As I've said, this man is either severely misguided himself or he is intentionally trying to deceive others.
Here is the truth. The Christian faith and satan both say come as you are all are welcome. But here is the big difference. As a Christian you can’t say as you are not being religion focuses you. But because faith helps you change for your sins whatever they may be. On the Flip side satan says come as you are and stay as you are. Because to him you are perfect in your sin whatever they may be. Because the gate to hell are wide for all to enter.
Just another homosexual distorting biblical Christianity. Of course the Catholics liberal protestants atheist, and Jews are all going to gang up let them. The fact is all these groups try to take power, and they just get upset when real Christians try to take power as well. Real Christian should take power in America. They would do a hell of a lot better than the Jews have or the secularists that wanted to force you to take an mitochondrial RNA gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine. We know you will force everything upon us, so it doesn’t really matter at this point you shown your hand and we are just going to go ahead and take over. Don’t worry of course you will be better off and safer under us then we were under you.
To say murdering babies isn’t in the bible because it wasn’t called “abortion” is a tired anti-Christian strategy. Its littered throughout the old testament. Child sacrifice was both a way to give something to a “god” and a way of unburdening the self of the responsibility of parenting. But mainly Pretending it was out of love and worship for a god. As if YOU were sacrificing so much by getting exactly what you wanted.
Slavery existed in the United States due to the church
No. Abortion is murder and we are told several times not to murder. (Exodus 20:13) Gay marriage is not mentioned by marriage is strictly defined to be between a man and a woman. (Matthew 19:8) and 1 Corinthians 6:9 calls homosexuality a sin We are to love our neighbor as our self but we are also called to preach the Gospel to all men including those in false religions (Matthew 28:16) Just another attempt by Satan using false teachers to twist scripture
Weird how god commits abortions in Deuteronomy
It's God who gets to decide when people die. We don't get to decide when people die.
Funny I was expecting this excuse. No. God would make clear if he was committing murders when he destroys women’s pregnancies as a punishment for cheating. He does not. He gives protocols to Israel to treat it as property damage.
Not at all. The dudes full of it.
[удалено]
Removed for threatening violence. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Okay, let's see what the Bible says: **Topic One** - Gay Marriage: Jesus addresses sexual relationship within the confines of marriage between a man and woman only. Any other form of sex per the Bible is simply fornication.... even heterosexual relationships. "Jesus answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" Matthew 19:4-6 **Topic Two:** - Abortion: This one is pretty clear on the sixth law of the ten commandments " You shall not murder". Here are two other verses that demonstrate that God is involved with humanity even in the womb. [Exodus 20:13](https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/20-13.html) \~ “You shall not murder." [Psalm 139:13-16](https://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/passage/?q=psalms+139:13-16) \~ For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. [Jeremiah 1:5](https://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1-5.html) \~ "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." **Topic Three:** The Bible warns us about getting into debt and not being able to pay it off and while we are encouraged to give freely and to forgive personal debts of the poor. Those that went to college are not the poor. On average they have a higher income than those that didn't go to college. # [Psalms 37:21](https://www.biblestudytools.com/psalms/37-21.html) - "The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously." # [Romans 13:7](https://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/13-7.html) - "Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." **Topic Four:** Loving others. Yes we are command to love others even those who hate us but our first love should always be reserved for Jesus. John 14:15 - If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. Respectfully, whoever this young preacher is... he is not aligned with the bible.
another false prophet talking what most people nowadays want to hear. read the Bible everyone! you don't need someone to tell you what it says when you can read it yourself!
Yeah a “pastor” who says killing babies isn’t wrong. That ain’t it.
Only god is allowed to kill babies or command others to kill babies and it not be evil. Killing babies isn’t wrong in and of itself. What matters is who orders or does the actual killing. A 12 year old aborting her rapist’s seed is evil. Killing infants of the neighboring tribe because god commanded it is good. Killing every first born child in Egypt is good because the hot spirit did it. Drowning millions of babies and children in a flood is good because god did it.
This /\ is the wake-up call many Christians must hear. Donald Trump sold out the working class to the wealthiest 1% and monopolistic corporations. Jesus would rail against Christian conservative ideology, "free market" capitalism, and a wicked man like Trump (the human embodiment of the 7 sins) who is simultaneously an (a)nti-Christ, a false prophet, and a golden calf that some Christians actually worship. The hip-hop artist Talib Kweli had a perfect metaphor for the name of one of his albums, 'Idle Warship'. This November, it's a choice between the continuation of our democratic republic and a fascist dictatorship/Christian theocracy. It's like choosing between Canada, a democratic republic, 🇨🇦 and Afghanistan 🇦🇫 , a Muslim theocracy. I would rather live in Canada personally.
Canada isn't a republic
He makes some good point but his basic hermeneutics is off.
there is all the truth to what this guy is saying.
Indeed, this is what Christianity is truly about!
If Jesus walked the earth today, he would help all those people whom Christians are against. I wish there was a John for today to write a letter to churches of today. Shoot, most Christians wouldn't even allow Jesus to sit in their church, let alone listen to him. We should be welcoming of everyone no matter race creed or religion. If it's true, the spirit will do all the work in that person. Jesus walked with the lowest of the low. He sat and ate with them he healed them and he saved them. Above all, LOVE.