In ANY sense of the word. Peter has posted a letter from some character he’s calling “Priscilla Smith,” who may or may not be one of Peter’s drag alter egos (allegedly!), rebuking a Grove City College student, David Bier, for his “unbiblical” perspective on gay people (i.e., he doesn’t hate us with the methane emissions of a million wingnuts).* It’s all a part of Peter’s continuing torch-wielding-mob-of-two crusade against Warren Throckmorton, for daring to use his brain for thinking rather than as a paperweight, as the Christian Right recommends. Here are fourteen of “Priscilla”’s words for Mr. Bier:
Please advise Mr. Bier that Jesus Christ does not “accept others as they are.”
Thank you for posting this, Pete. It’s good to know that you’re now essentially admitting that you cannot claim the mantle of “Christian,” in any way, shape or form. (Of course, neither can Priscilla, if she exists.)
Because, you see, though I deconverted from Christianity several years back, I happen to know quite a bit about the religion, and about the text of the Bible. So, let’s see…
7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son[b] into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins.11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
13We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.19We love because he first loved us. 20If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
That would be 1 John 4:7-21. (Emphasis mine, not God’s…)
28“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Hmmm, nothing about “UNLESS UR A GAY” in Matthew 11:28-30.
35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
Hmmm, nothing about “UNLESS I HAVE PICTURES OF YOU IN LEATHER ON MY SECRET EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE” there, in John 6:35-37.
6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Huh! So in Romans 5:6-8, it sounds like Christ died for people without precondition, without them making themselves “acceptable” in any way! Crazy! So what the hell are Priscilla and Peter talking about?
Obviously not any accepted form of Christianity.
Shall I go on?
Oh, all right, I’ll quote one more, since it’s POSSIBLY THE MOST FAMOUS BIBLE PASSAGE OF ALL TIME!!!!!
*Ahem!*
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.[g]
Again, huh! No, “unless u likey the same sexy in a sexytime way.” No preconditions of any sort, except belief. Huh! By the way, Pete, in case you’re not familiar, that would be John 3:16-18.
You’d think for someone who prattles on ad nauseam about what a great and holy Christian he is, Peter LaBarbera would know the first thing about the Bible. I guess he only knows six verses, the ones he uses because he thinks they give his malevolent bigotry a prettier face.
The jig is up, dude.
Thus concludes your Bible Lesson From An Atheist.
Q.E.D.
*Grove City College senior David Bier wrote a letter to AFTAH, which is pretty great, so click here to read that.
Related posts
22 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
You *obviously* don’t have your super-secret RRRW Evangelical Fundamentalist Bible Decoder Ring. If you did you’d be able to see and properly interpret the Bible verses in which Jesus stipulates all homos will burn in hell, and that He only accepts those who ascribe to RRRW principles.
Comment by Buffy — March 10, 2010 @ 1:11 am
Excellent job! That’s a great way to expose sham Christians and counterfeit “religious beliefs.” If radical anti-gay activist LaBarbera were really a Christian, he would not be deliberately disobeying all these verses in God’s Word, period. He’s a flagrant sinner and he should be concerned about his own soul which is headed straight to hell due to his unchristian behavior.
And you are surely familiar with the verses that warn us and instruct us on how we recognize false prophets such as unrepentant homophobe LaBarbera. “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.” Betcha we could list all kinds of examples of the bad fruit grown on that tree!
Comment by Michael — March 10, 2010 @ 1:32 am
I would think it’s hard to grow any kind of fruit on wetsuits, no matter how much you water them…
Comment by Evan Hurst — March 10, 2010 @ 1:35 am
Hmm, interesting…but complete nonsense.
What you’re saying is that there is no aspect of repentance at all in the Bible. That is simply not true.
Irregardless of what Christians say about homosexuality, you have grossly misstated the message of the gospel itself.
Jesus’ first word when he started his work on earth was “repent.” How could he say this unless he meant that we need to turn from some type of behavior that is wrong. I’m not saying that it applies to homosexuality, but there are certainly some actions that are wrong – therefore your logic in this post is a little ridiculous.
Comment by Ethan — March 10, 2010 @ 9:28 am
Actually no, I didn’t address the idea of repentance. I never said there is NO aspect of repentance.
That’s different. I was rebutting the woman’s specific assertion that Jesus doesn’t accept people as they are. According to the text, she’s wrong.
Comment by Evan Hurst — March 10, 2010 @ 9:36 am
So you do believe in repentance then. The tone of your post made it seem like you didn’t think anyone needed to change anything to be a Christian. So what does it mean to be accepted by Jesus while still a sinner, and where does repentance come in (when it comes to being a true Christian)?
Comment by Ethan — March 10, 2010 @ 9:56 am
Commandment from the god of grammar: there is no such word as irregardless. ;-)
Comment by Gary (NJ) — March 10, 2010 @ 9:56 am
I mean, clearly Jesus does “accept people as they are”, which Romans 5 shows. You don’t have to “fix your life” before you turn to him and believe in him.
But when you do turn to him and believe in him, you have to repent. That involves turning away from sin.
Comment by Ethan — March 10, 2010 @ 9:57 am
Haha, ok Gary, I stand corrected:) That is kind of a double negative, isn’t it… Thanks.
Comment by Ethan — March 10, 2010 @ 9:59 am
RE: “Irregardless” from Dictionary.com:
“Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
At least I’m in good company:)
Comment by Ethan — March 10, 2010 @ 10:01 am
No, Ethan I don’t *believe* in repentance, because I’m an atheist.
But yes, in the Christian theology, repentance comes directly after coming to Christ. He says “come” without precondition, though, which is directly in conflict with whatever crap Peter is spewing.
Comment by Evan Hurst — March 10, 2010 @ 10:20 am
Ethan, I really dont want to go to heaven if its full of people like you. Thanks!
Comment by James — March 10, 2010 @ 10:26 am
Okay, there there, nobody has to go to heaven who doesn’t want to go.
Comment by Evan Hurst — March 10, 2010 @ 10:34 am
My idea of heaven– one without the people who positively know what is necsssary to get in.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — March 10, 2010 @ 10:43 am
@Evan – ok, I see what you’re saying with that, and I agree. I just got a different idea from the tone of the post.
@Everyone else: Haha a little reactionary, guys. Somehow you have interpreted me wanting to clarify the Christian doctrine on salvation as something offensive? I don’t get it. If we can’t have a civilized discussion of these things why are we even here?
@James What did I say specifically that bothers you?
Comment by Ethan — March 10, 2010 @ 11:07 am
Ethan, people who say “irregardless” are in the same class as those who say things like “I literally laughed my head off”. Lots of people may do it, but its still wrong and you are not in good company.
Comment by Priya Lynn — March 10, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
Ethan, neither you nor any other RRRW types who post here are interested in dialogue for you it is all monologue. We do not hold your beliefs, so go away and find somee self-loathing closet cases to dialogue with.
Comment by Merlyn — March 10, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
I have made a point not to say anything about homosexuality, so anything you’ve assumed that I believe is just that – an assumption.
What we’re discussing is the basics of the Christian idea of salvation.
So, Evan, I agree with you then, after hearing more clearly what you’re trying to say:
Anyone can come to God, freely, and exactly how they are. Repentance would be the *next* step if they were to pursue a relationship with the Christ.
I also do want to say that while I haven’t said anything negative about homosexuality, I do realize that some of my comments might be taken to mean that I’m someone who hates homosexual people. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I apologize for giving that impression.
I am a Christian so it bothers me to see the idea of salvation being misunderstood, which is why I started commenting – not anything about sexuality at all.
Anyway, I’m glad we agree Evan. It’s clear that anyone can come to God, freely, and exactly how they are. Repentance would be the *next* step if they were to pursue a relationship with the Christ.
Comment by Ethan — March 10, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
@Ethan
The problem is context. It is hard to imagine why you would even think of bringing up repentance as a response to the original post unless you believe that homosexuality is, in and of itself, something to be repented of.
Nothing you’ve said indicates anything else. And that is an extremely common – to the point of stereotype – Christian‚Ñ¢ knee-jerk response to any positive discussion of homosexuality. It’s called “concern trolling” – “Oh, I know that this is a discussion of homosexuality, but I just had to hop in and make sure that everyone understands the salvation of filthy, filthy, horrible, awful, evil sinners. Can’t imagine what would have made me think of that. Jesus loves you.”
If that’s your game, then be aware, any gay Christian has seen it over and over again, and we don’t buy it, and we see through it. If that isn’t your game, then be aware that it is something we’ve seen a lot, and what you wrote sure looks and smells like it. If you really want to make some other point, you’ll want to look carefully at your approach and take a different one.
Because it sure looks like you are trying to play “gotcha” and now that you can claim “agreement” on repentance, you are poised to leap and say that all gay people have to do is repent.
But being gay is not something anyone needs to repent of, any more than being straight, or bi, or any other natural sexual variation. It is something that just is. It is what we do with it, how we treat others, and how we stand before God that matters, and frankly, someone who can whip out Leviticus or a mistranslation of Romans and think that it stands in any meaningful way against a lifetime of direct lived experience of being gay is a bit of an idiot.
Or, like LaBarbera, a complete fraud.
Comment by Lymis — March 10, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
Well, and I’m not completely jumping into this fray, but I would point out that the only thing we have “agreed” on is how Christian theology generally works.
However, this not being a “Christian” website, and I being an atheist writer who deconverted from Christianity years back, what is NOT welcome is any sort of proselytizing. (I’m not accusing Ethan of doing so, for the record. Just putting it out there.)
My entire point in writing the piece is that these fundamentalist windsocks like Peter LaBarbera don’t even understand their own religion! And it’s particularly obnoxious since their religion is the only club they use to knock people down. So the point is — these aren’t Christians. There are lots of things about Christianity that I find grotesque, some of which are shared by Islam, and when I see them using their religions correctly, but still as clubs, I go after them on those terms. But in this case, that wasn’t necessary, because Peter LaBarbera is either functionally illiterate or too blinded by his own hatred (self?) to read his own chosen religious text with a clear head or any semblance of reading comprehension.
Comment by Evan Hurst — March 10, 2010 @ 6:06 pm
Ok, I see you point, Lymis, and it’s well taken. Actually, after writing that stuff this morning, I did feel bad about it later in the day. Why? Because I realized that I myself was being reactionary to the original post and by using very terse language in my reply I started a firestorm that was more emotional than logical. That was unhelpful. I do see your point about context, and I appreciate you pointing it out.
In regard to me now “claiming agreement” with Evan, let me say that I DO agree with him as he further explained himself. My problem is that a lot of well-intentioned people list off Bible verses about God’s love, yet completely ignore the context of those scriptures and use them to try to build a picture of Christianity that is simply not accurate. That is what I *thought* Evan was doing in his post, until he clarified himself in his later comment:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2010/03/7451/#comment-18628
Thanks for being civil, and I’ll try to be less reactionary as well. Again, I apologize for causing a stir, it just rubs me the wrong way to see the message of the Bible mis-characterized so I wanted to respond. As it turns out, it was a misunderstanding.
Comment by Ethan — March 10, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
@Ethan
Then just try for a moment to imagine how we all feel about the Bible being used to strip us of fundamental rights, actively harm our families, bar us from aspects of society, deny us jobs and housing, minimize our humanity, and in ever increasing cases call for our literal extermination.
And then imagine, how in that context, we feel about people who, refusing to even address the underlying issues, our freedoms, our humanity, our right to exist, and lay into us because of some supposed theological glitch with regards some fine point of salvation theology.
“I don’t give a flying hoot about your actual humanity, but I had to step in to clear up this doctrinal point.”
Check out Matthew 25:31-46 and think about it.
Don’t assume because I write politely that I am not livid about the abuse of Christianity that YOU are perpetrating.
Comment by Lymis — March 11, 2010 @ 10:22 am