Those bible quotes are not saying to condemn others. Per interpretations from two pastors, it's saying the exact opposite: When you're "spreading the word," if they aren't receptive, leave them alone. You've done your bit and now it's between them and God, and none of your business.
I won't comment on the punditry, as I feel it's fairly irrelevant. One person's radical interpretation does not condemn the whole. We don't condemn all of Islam for the actions of ISIS, and we don't condemn all of atheism because of the terrible actions of the anti-theist states in history.
Wiping the dust from your shoes is far, far more than simply leaving them alone. It means you're abandoning them to their fate and disassociating with them even to the degree that you reject the dust that falls from them. If that isn't condemnation, nothing is.
Nor am I condemning all Christians or churches for the views espoused by my former church or that of Kim Davis and her supporters. Nevertheless, these churches do exist and they've been actively trying to influence our laws and politics. In the past they called themselves the Moral Majority but these days they're more commonly known as the Christian Right. Christians who do not support them are not included in our criticism.
Nevertheless, the claim that the Bible doesn't support their brand of Christianism is refuted by those Christians and the Bible itself. The Bible offers several passages of Jesus being condemning and judgmental, but more moderate Churches try to ignore them or interpret them as something else.
I don't disagree with anything you said here. The Christian Right needs to be weeded out of the political landscape, along with numerous other non-christian theo-political groups in my personal opinion.
From my perspective I believe any political movement that frames itself in a theological context is an exploitation, and has no real connection to the espoused ideology at all. "Render unto Caesar" and all that.
And regarding unpalatable bible teachings... There are many, I acknowledge that. The ideals surrounding divorced women particularly have never sat well with me.
But my view on it is this - I can be as judgmental and condemning as I wish to be, there is nothing wrong with me being opposed to a others lifestyles, nor is there anything wrong with me speaking those opinions aloud or even distancing myself from those groups. That is the fundamental role of government - to protect my right to that opinion while simultaneously ensuring that my opinions hold no power over yours. So at it's foundation, the issue is a civil one... not a theological one. Attacking the religion itself is missing the point, and can rightfully be viewed as it's own form of prejudice.
Even within the context of the original discussion (Kim Davis) the problem is civil in nature. She should be fired for not being able to perform the responsibilities required by the job.... but she's an elected official. The problem, as is usually the case when you distill it down, is a governmental one, not religious.
Hell, the entire discussion surrounding marriage equality as a whole is a civil issue... Why do we need to license with the government in order to perform a ceremonial union of two individuals to begin with? If the state didn't claim domain over such an intimate and personal life choice, there would be no discussion necessary. But because they want to engineer society, they have. That is the underlying problem, not the fact that Christianity doesn't want to recognize homosexuality within its own doctrine (and there are denominations which do, anyway.)
That's the difference between you and the Christian Right. Having escaped from an evangelical, fundamentalist church I'm intimately familiar with the mindset.
I'm quite content to let Christians live Christian lives and worship in their church of choice. The same goes for Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and every other religious affiliation. I'm a big fan of secularism that way. My objection is when the religious think it necessary to compel others to do the same. Your church doesn't do that, so I have no beef with them. Kim Davis is trying to do that under the guise of "religious freedom" so I have a problem with her and whomever supports her actions.
You must have a different Bible than they do.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-14.htm
http://biblehub.com/luke/9-5.htm
http://apprising.org/2011/03/21/jesus-does-condemn-homosexuality/
Those bible quotes are not saying to condemn others. Per interpretations from two pastors, it's saying the exact opposite: When you're "spreading the word," if they aren't receptive, leave them alone. You've done your bit and now it's between them and God, and none of your business.
I won't comment on the punditry, as I feel it's fairly irrelevant. One person's radical interpretation does not condemn the whole. We don't condemn all of Islam for the actions of ISIS, and we don't condemn all of atheism because of the terrible actions of the anti-theist states in history.
Wiping the dust from your shoes is far, far more than simply leaving them alone. It means you're abandoning them to their fate and disassociating with them even to the degree that you reject the dust that falls from them. If that isn't condemnation, nothing is.
I'm not arguing the interpretation, I'm saying that's a drastically different interpretation than I've been exposed to in modern churches.
Again, we don't condemn all of Islam or atheism for interpretations espoused by certain sects.
Nor am I condemning all Christians or churches for the views espoused by my former church or that of Kim Davis and her supporters. Nevertheless, these churches do exist and they've been actively trying to influence our laws and politics. In the past they called themselves the Moral Majority but these days they're more commonly known as the Christian Right. Christians who do not support them are not included in our criticism.
Nevertheless, the claim that the Bible doesn't support their brand of Christianism is refuted by those Christians and the Bible itself. The Bible offers several passages of Jesus being condemning and judgmental, but more moderate Churches try to ignore them or interpret them as something else.
I don't disagree with anything you said here. The Christian Right needs to be weeded out of the political landscape, along with numerous other non-christian theo-political groups in my personal opinion.
From my perspective I believe any political movement that frames itself in a theological context is an exploitation, and has no real connection to the espoused ideology at all. "Render unto Caesar" and all that.
And regarding unpalatable bible teachings... There are many, I acknowledge that. The ideals surrounding divorced women particularly have never sat well with me.
But my view on it is this - I can be as judgmental and condemning as I wish to be, there is nothing wrong with me being opposed to a others lifestyles, nor is there anything wrong with me speaking those opinions aloud or even distancing myself from those groups. That is the fundamental role of government - to protect my right to that opinion while simultaneously ensuring that my opinions hold no power over yours. So at it's foundation, the issue is a civil one... not a theological one. Attacking the religion itself is missing the point, and can rightfully be viewed as it's own form of prejudice.
Even within the context of the original discussion (Kim Davis) the problem is civil in nature. She should be fired for not being able to perform the responsibilities required by the job.... but she's an elected official. The problem, as is usually the case when you distill it down, is a governmental one, not religious.
Hell, the entire discussion surrounding marriage equality as a whole is a civil issue... Why do we need to license with the government in order to perform a ceremonial union of two individuals to begin with? If the state didn't claim domain over such an intimate and personal life choice, there would be no discussion necessary. But because they want to engineer society, they have. That is the underlying problem, not the fact that Christianity doesn't want to recognize homosexuality within its own doctrine (and there are denominations which do, anyway.)
[This comment was removed]