Ya know lately I've been running into MORE AND MORE shallow, non-thinking pictures made to display apparent contradictions in Christianity and Christian thinking. Anyways, I must AS ALWAYS correct the MANY misconceptions and hopefully correct the thinking of anyone who would endorse this level argumentation as meaningful. So let's dive in.
For starters the wording is COMPLETELY off. If a Christians says "I am not against Gay people, I'm just for Traditional Marriage." then their wording is COMPLETELY off. Christians are called to preach the word of God and it is naturally antagonistic to sin. Since homosexuality is a sin, it's naturally that a Christian would be at odds with proponents of that lifestyle. We are NOT against Gay People as Human Beings and any Christian who would say that Gay People can't hold certain jobs ect. ect. is foolish and in error. I work with 2 gay people and in the context of my work place their sexual orientation has no bearing on their ability to do the job. Christian is called to "Hate the sin, Love the sinner.". Here's an example, If you saw a family member attempting suicide, you would HATE what they are doing but you would still LOVE that family member, love them enough to stop them from hurting themselves. We as Christians view homosexuality and every other sin as harming yourself (not always physically but spiritually) and we are called to inform people of that fact. I have nothing against Gay People as Human Beings and I wouldn't treat them any differently than how I treat anyone else, the people I work with can attest to that fact. But they want me to give my approval of their actions, that's not gonna happen. So let's get back on track.
The term "traditional marriage" is a misleading one, which is why I choose to say marriage as defined by The Bible (One Man, One Woman Matt 19:4-6). I say the term "traditional marriage" is misleading because it appeals to society, we as Christians shouldn't make appeals to society unless we're discussing a social issue. Gay Marriage is NOT a social issue for Christians, it's a moral issue. I want to preamble this by saying Pagans have done ALL SORTS of sinful things within the confines of their own churches. If Homosexuals established their own church where they performed gay weddings, that's out of our hands. BUT that's NOT what they're doing, they're coming into our churches and telling us that we have to compromise our beliefs to cater to them. I have proved time and time again that Homosexuality and Christianity CANNOT coexist, and we as Christians will not bend on that belief, so it would only behoove them to find other means to their goals. Civil Unions were brought to them and they shouted it down, despite the fact that Civil Unions would grant them the same rights would they were married.
Whatever the society deems as a marriage is NOT a standard a Christian should appeal to. God laid down the blueprint for what a marriage is and that is what we affirm as a marriage. So for anyone who says "traditional marriage" I have to ask, "What tradition are you referring to ?". So in order to clean up the language of the first panel, "I am not against Gay people as people, I am against their sinful lifestyle and I support Biblical marriage as God explained in The Bible." Moving on.
I'm gonna have to hold back my anger because ONCE AGAIN, people continuously make the comparison between "Gay Rights" and "Civil Rights" as African Americans have struggled for in the past. This makes me angry because essentially what they're saying is Sexuality is just like skin color and as I have proven that argument is foolish, as there are Ex-Gays but NO Ex-Blacks. Furthermore, and this is just a side-note BUT if one can experiment with their sexuality than sexuality is NOT akin to skin color, because I can't experiment being a different race. But I digress. Let's talk about slavery in The Bible and see if we get the 18th century style of African American Slavery, shall we?
First of all, The Bible uses the word "slave" to describe SEVERAL kinds of people. Mostly commonly the term slave was synonymous with "worker", "servant". In today's terms a "slave" would be a Butler or a Maid. During Biblical times slaves were often paid for their services, and were allowed to live with the family they worked for (Lev 22:11, Deut 23:16). Also during those times slavery was an economic last resort. For example if your family had fallen on hard times or were in massive debt and were unable to produce enough crops to support a quality of living, the father would either sell his son or himself into slavery to someone who could support the family financially. (Lev 25:39-43) Understand that at those times people didn't just go out and get a job like we do today, so the children being sold into slavery more than likely understood the reasoning behind their being sold and what would happen if they did not, their family would go broke and starve. Once someone is sold into slavery, a contract is made that that person will either be a slave for life or for a period of time, the maximum being 6 years (Ex 21:2, Deut 15:12)
Abuse of a slave was strongly discouraged (Ex 21:20, Deut 23:16) and despite the fact that slaves were considered property, often times slaves would find favor with their masters and gain a piece of the inheritance (Deut 15:14). Slaves were even COMMANDED to REST on The Sabbath (Ex 20:10, Deut 5:14). So with all that being explained for Biblical slavery, let's look at the verse the picture provides for us to explain "Traditional slavery", Lev 25:44.
"44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."
This is NOT a verse supporting kidnapping people and forcing them into slavery. The following verse Lev 25:44-45 says
"44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession."
The terms "gain acquisition" means "to buy". Slaves were not sold by slave traders, slave trading was NOT a good practice as it was forced slavery. Slaves were sold by family members or themselves, as I've stated before for the purpose of sending money home, paying off debts, or needing financial support. So The Bible is NOT condoning going into a country and kidnapping men, women and children and forcing them into slavery. FURTHERMORE Paul makes the following statements about slavery Eph 6:5-9.
"5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.9 And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."
and Col 3:22, 4:1.
"22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord."
"4 Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven."
Yeah, Biblical slavery sure looks terrible...I'll stop being sarcastic and compare Biblical slavery to African American slavery. First of all African American slaves were often tortured into submission, forced into incestuous relationships in order to breed "stock" off-spring, castrated, abused, forced into labor for long hours often without a day of rest, were NOT allowed to live in the master's home, nor treated to the master's food, were not allowed to be freed after a period of time, were not allowed to see their own families, retain their cultural identity, their names or language, they were raped, murdered, starved, had no financial support...so CLEARLY Biblical slavery is VASTLY different from The slavery African Americans endured. The image above merely uses the word "slavery" as a means to suggest that The Bible was in full support of African American slavery.
Secondly the format of Biblical slavery is talking specifically to The Israelites IN THAT CULTURE AT THAT TIME, so how Lev 25:44 can be applied to Spanish slave traders MANY YEARS later is beyond me. Clearly our economy is VERY different where we don't have to do things like sell ourselves or our children into slavery to support our family. The slavery endured by African Americans was due to the belief that African Americans are inferior to White People (which The Bible DOES NOT TEACH AT ALL). So when Slave Traders were using The Bible to support their cruelty against African Americans, they were MASSIVELY in error and behaving in a manner that is AGAINST Biblical principles.
The Sexism of The Bible argument is one that I have dealt with and dealt with and dealt with to the point where I am tired of beating that drum. So once again "Traditional gender roles" is being used to say that The Women's Rights Movement is equal to The Gay Rights Movement. Women were treated as second class citizens, they weren't allowed to vote, last time I checked, gay people were allowed to vote, I'm 100% sure they voted during California VOTE on Prop 8, so if Gay people want to complain about their rights, they got to vote for their rights and lost (not that it matters because Prop 8 was overturned anyway), BUT when I see gay people being denied at the voting booth because they're gay I'll say something but until then this comparison fails. But once again what "Traditional gender roles" is the picture referring to? Certainly NOT The Bible...oh wait, it is...and it provides a verse for us, Gen 3:16.
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”
I can imagine EVERY woman's Sexism alarm just went off. Geez, The Bible CLEARLY says it, Your Husband will RULE over you. How sexist! But WAIT! What does that exactly when it says "rule over you"? Let's dig deeper and find out. Eph 5:22-29
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,
Wait, I thought The Bible taught sexism, over here it's saying that Husband must be willing to DIE for their wives and it's saying that husband should LOVE their wives AS THEIR OWN BODIES! Oh but it goes on, 1 Cor 7:2-4.
2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
WHAT?! The Bible just said that The WIFE has authority OVER THE HUSBAND'S BODY!? WHAT!? I thought The Bible HATED Woman and said that Woman were inferior to men!
18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.
Wow, The Bible EVEN addresses domestic violence. So let me get this straight, The Bible tells us that a Husband should be willing to die for his wife, that his wife has authority over his body, and the husband should not be embittered against his wife. It seems like The Bible is laying out the standard of how a man is supposed to treat a woman, and surely if you loved her as your own body and was willing to die for her, you would care about what she thought, right ? 1 Peter 3:7
"7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered."
WOW! You're supposed to show your wife HONOR and UNDERSTANDING! I'm sure that means telling her to shut up and get back in the kitchen. This is once again a SILLY argument because looking at what The Bible teaches about Women AS A WHOLE rather than one verse taken out of context shows you that God did NOT co-sign the sexist attitude of men in the 40's and 50's. In The Bible there are CLEAR examples of women in HIGH places of Authority, Miriam and Huldah were both Prophetesses (Ex 15:20 and 2 Kings 22:14), Deborah was a JUDGE with governmental control over Israel (Judges 4:4-5). So the sexist attitude of the 40's and 50's were NOT Biblically supported.
The ONLY thing women are prohibited from doing is being a Pastor and Elder in the Church. Paul makes this clear in 1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:6 and 1 Tim 2:11-13. NOT because women are inferior to men and unable to preach BUT because of Federal Headship. If we can go back to The Garden of Eden, who was the first one to take a bite of the fruit? Gen 3:6. It was Eve. But notice, when God comes down who is the first person He asks for Gen 3:9. God asked for Adam. Why did God ask for Adam and not Eve? Simple, Adam was the responsible one. Adam was the one who was supposed enforce the rules God laid down and failed to do so, not only did he fail but he broke the rules himself. Eve was at fault, no question, but Adam was responsible. Eve disobeying God had no bearings on the situation but when Adam disobeyed we were all screwed. You wanna know how I know? 1 Cor 15:22.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
So when The Bible says that women are NOT to be Pastors and Elder it is NOT because women are inferior, it's because it is The MAN'S responsibility to uphold and enforce God's teachings, a blueprint that was laid down from the VERY BEGINNING! 1 Tim 2:11-14.
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The Bible says NOTHING about women being inferior to men or anything. The Bible doesn't support sexism AT ALL.
So in conclusion, what did we learn? Well we learned that slavery in The Bible was VERY different from the "traditional" African American slavery and doesn't support it and nor can it be supported by The Bible. We learned that The Bible is NOT sexist, nor does it support the "traditional gender roles" of the sexist attitudes of the 40's and 50's. As for Homosexuality, support AGAINST homosexuality IS Biblically based and Bibilically supported. Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
And 1 Cor 6:9-10.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
So yes, we do have Biblical support for our stand against homosexuality. I would like to state once again that I do NOT HATE Homosexuals, in the same fashion that I do NOT HATE ATHEISTS! I do hate the fact that they are Atheists because I think their ideology is SPIRITUALLY harmful and I urge them to abandon atheism. Homosexuality is not only spiritually harmful but physical harmful and I hate those actions, but I will NOT use my hatred of their ACTIONS as turn that into hatred of that PERSON.The Bible tells us to be at Peace with all men Romans 12:18, Hebrews 12:14. But this peace does NOT come at the expense of compromising our beliefs and endorsement of our God, and as long as we live in a society that allows us to vote and practice our faith freely, we will continue to vote for and support causes that endorse our world view. ALL PEOPLE do this, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, ect. ect. ALL people vote according to their world view, to deny that is to deny the entire concept of voting and free thought. As far as the image goes, please try harder, this was too easy.