Pro-gay Aussie PM Rudd asked why he’s not a good Christian, gives great answer

A great Q&A by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd about gay marriage.

Rudd, who is reportedly deeply religious, recently changed his position on the issue – he’s now in favor of marriage equality – and the questioner, a “good Christian” pastor, wanted to know why Rudd doesn’t “believe the words of Jesus.”


Of course, as every good Christian knows, Jesus didn’t say boo about gays or homosexuality.  Not a word.

You won’t find a single quote from Jesus in the Bible about gays.  Which is interesting, since the anti-gay Christian right treat being gay as one of the top two or three “sins” they care about.  Yet, of all the things Jesus talks about in the Bible, somehow He “forgot” to mention gays.

Perhaps Jesus had early-onset Alzheimer’s.  Or maybe he was a JINO (Jesus In Name Only).

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

109 Responses to “Pro-gay Aussie PM Rudd asked why he’s not a good Christian, gives great answer”

  1. Claessens1 says:

    Except we have no idea who the “beloved disciple” is. He may well be a purely symbolic figure. The names of the authors of the gospels were certainly later attachments, all scripture scholars are aware of this. By the way the 4th gospel never uses the word “apostle.”

  2. Claessens1 says:

    You are right. The conception of Jesus is celebrated on March 25th, the Solemnity of the Annunciation. The genius of the church’s calendar was to tie important events around high-points of the solar year. The great bishops of the first centuries of the church all used these solar events in their preaching.

  3. bpollen says:

    I refer to the Council of Nicea. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are part of the New Testament only because said council *decided* they were. There were MANY Christian texts in use amongst various congregations. Peter may have become the dictator of Christianity, as you suggest, but the Bible was compiled and edited by the Council of Nicea. Constantine, a recently “pagan” Emperor of the Roman Empire, set up the council and its agenda. To put it as simply as possible, the Bible did not exist before approximately 400 A.D. That’s not even touching on the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John almost certainly were not written by anyone who ever met Jesus. let alone eyewitness to the events depicted therein.

  4. kurtsteinbach says:

    I believe there may be a god, but only because he cannot be proven to not exist. You cannot prove a negative.

  5. kurtsteinbach says:

    We wrote the book that came before, and we have a country called Israel, and we do not run our little democratic-republic along literal biblical laws. We have evolved and developed. The U.S. has too, that is why Israelis and the rest of the World consider the U.S. a nation founded by Christians, not a Christian Nation just as the 1790s Treaty of Tripoli says…. Most of the West is that way, look at most of Europe.

  6. kurtsteinbach says:

    “Christians,” justify their hate in the name of Jesus, but disregard most of what he said. Jesus was a man, and as fallible as anyone. If he really said conflicting things (both loving and compassionate and angry) that just makes him human….

  7. kurtsteinbach says:

    As Spock once said, ” I would accept that as an axiom.”

  8. kurtsteinbach says:

    I don’t recall Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, being committee. Matthew wrote his gospel starting in 40 C.E., at least 5 years after the death of Jesus. John started writing after Matthew was dead and finished writing in about 120 C.E. There was no real committee once Jesus was killed by the Romans.Peter ended up taking over as the first Pope and decided everything, organizing the Christian-Jews along the lines of the Hierarchy of the Roman Empire. The Empire was a dictatorship, and the Church was too, it has now developed or devolved into an oligarchy in the modern era….

  9. Moderator3 says:

    You’re getting my reaction.

  10. kurtsteinbach says:

    King Solomon had 700 wives and over 300 concubines, not David.

  11. Jonwards says:

    [Hi, AMERICAblog. Saw the following on the web. Any reactions?]

    “Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality”

    When gays have birthdays, they don’t mention everything they don’t want but say positively what they do want.

    Likewise, Jesus didn’t negatively list every sexual perversion He
    knew mankind would invent but positively stated that marriage involves
    only a man and a woman!

    (Also Google or Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” and “USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans.”)

  12. mason hernandez says:

    Jesus is a myth

  13. I agree. In fact, it’s a syncretic attempt to cover up the Wiccan holiday of Yule, the birth of the Invincible Sun, and Saturnalia. I should have typed “Christmas is the celebration oft he birth of Jesus” but NOT his conception.
    “Christmas is the Jesus’ birthday” actually brings back to me a conflict I had with an arrogant nun nearly fifty years ago. Nuns NEVER admit they’re wrong, and the last encounter I had with a nun was a lie in 1992.

  14. oksirrrrr says:

    Christmas is not the birth of Jesus. It’s just a random day chosen for a random reason. His Birth Wasn’t anywhere near Dec 25th. But that’s ok.

  15. basenjilover says:

    Is there a transcript for video? It doesn’t give me the option to select close captioned. I would love to know how Kevin was made his point.

  16. Only problem is that Rudd is lying about his views on gay marriage in order to attract votes (Aussie polls show that the majority of us support same sex marriage). He ain’t pro-gay in any way and knows that the Christian Lobby has the majority vote against marriage reform locked up so he would never have to deliver. Look at what his campaign manager and his sister were recorded telling the Australian Christian Lobby last year in their bid to woo their preference votes:

  17. lynchie says:

    I am always drawn back to the obvious question who are gay people hurting? A church wedding is not valid without a marriage license so don’t marry anyone from the gay community. Gays are not trying to dissolve hetero concepts but simply want the same treatment under law, same rights, same liberties. I could care less what the bible says. The last time I checked it is not the law of the land. If you want to follow its teachings follow them all to the letter don’t pick and choose. And please don’t expect people to live by fictional word of some long dead people who cobbled together the Grimm’s fairy tales of its time.

  18. It may be that John was Jesus’s younger brother, which blows the Catholic myth that Mary was ever virgin. Of course, that idea came after Augustine of Hippo and the influence of Manichean dualism. Apparently any attempt of procreation became evil because of the Neo-Platonism that the physical world was evil and the spiritual world good. We saw that notion revive in the Albigensians in the thirteenth century.
    “Behold your son, behold your mother” could mean that Jesus was passing the care of Mary to his younger brother. James of Jerusalem was apparently not available at the time.

  19. Jesus also said nothing about abortion. In fact, Christmas is the birth of Jesus, not the conception of Jesus. Therefore, human life begins at viability, not conception. So, the end of human life also ends with the end of viability.

  20. Stev84 says:

    He also refused to heal a woman because she was a foreigner or part of the wrong tribe until she groveled before him.

  21. Butch1 says:

    He did leave the homophobe holding his head in his hands.

  22. atalex says:

    Also, the discussion of Paul below reminds me of the following quote I read years ago:
    Catholicism represents the victory of Peter’s views over those of Paul. Protestantism represents the victory of Paul’s views over those of Peter. Fundamentalism represents the victory of Paul’s views over those of JESUS!

  23. atalex says:

    If there were more Christians like this, I might go to church more often. I particularly enjoyed the look of barely restrained loathing on the pastor’s face as he realized that so many people rejected his entire understanding of what Christianity is.

  24. patricia666 says:

    My Uncle Anthony just got an awesome month old Lexus NX 200t SUV by working from a computer. webpage w­w­w.J­A­M­20.c­o­m

  25. EdA says:

    He also cursed the fig tree – or A fig tree — because it didn’t have any figs. Which has always struck me as being kind of mean. And then he went ahead and told his disciples that they could go around cursing stuff also.

    Matthew 21:19 And seeing a fig tree by the way side, he came to it, and found nothing
    thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit
    from thee henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered

    20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How did the fig tree immediately wither away?

    21 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have
    faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree,
    but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast
    into the sea, it shall be done.

    22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

  26. EdA says:

    Ah, OK. I wasn’t thinking so much of one man and one woman, although these Christianists are so concerned about a purported slippery slope to polygamy and marriages between dogs and lawn furniture. Although certainly even a vague sense of intellectual honesty didn’t deter Mitt Romney from constant shrieking about one man and one woman even though his own father was the fruit of a polygamous relationship between his own personal grandfather and his own personal grandmother.

  27. Badgerite says:

    Oh snap!

  28. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Hon, go read my reply to EdA.

  29. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    You missed my point. Shortie said that marriage was between a man and a woman. Since both David and Solomon had more than one wife, they didn’t fall within Shortie’s definition of marriage. It’s questionable that Abraham’s marriage fell within Shortie’s definition of marriage.

    My husband was always certain that David and Jonathan had something going on.

  30. EdA says:

    Yes, but not to each other. On the other hand, the situation of David and Jonathan was notorious and positively recognized, viz. 1 Samuel 18: Love at first sight, that lasted for the rest of Jonathan’s life.

    And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the
    soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved
    him as his own soul.

    2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.

    3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

    4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to
    David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his

    2 Samuel 1.26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: Thy love to me was wonderful, Passing the love of women.

  31. EdA says:

    As far as I know, nobody is trying to bar heterosexual marriage. After all, you can’t help the way that you were born. And Jesus did commend the Roman centurion who believed enough in Jesus that he thought that his “servant” could be healed remotely.

    Jesus had as much to say about same-sex relationships as he did about abortion and about whether the U.S. should return to the gold standard. But he DID say an awful lot about religious hypocrites, and he wasn’t much in favor of them.

  32. cambridgemac says:

    Nope. But David did have 300 wives and concubines…. That’s the Bible for you!

  33. Jordan says:

    I’m fairly certain David was Solomon’s father :)

  34. catherine751 says:

    My Uncle Lucas got an awesome metallic Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive
    Hatchback only from working part-time off a macbook. browse this site w­w­w.J­A­M­20.c­o­m

  35. bpollen says:

    Appreciate your viewpoint, and not challenging you here at all. Just felt it needed to be pointed out that ALL marriages are secular institutions. It is a legal contract. A church can perform weddings according to their own principles, and non-religious weddings are another choice for the potential couple. Churches can marry whoever the hell they want ( witness Warren Jeffs) but they are meaningless from a legal standpoint unless they have the imprimatur of the state.

    So, while I believe that churches have the option to not perform weddings they find objectionable, I find it disturbing that they appear to assume their rights trump the rights of those who don’t agree. I, for instance, find it hard to put ANY faith in a book that was compiled by a committee (chaired by a power-mad recent convert or perhaps opportunist,) but I don’t feel that I should be able to make ya quit reading it.

  36. jaklumen says:

    I tip my hat to you, sir– you’ve definitely done your homework.

    I know some folks have some real problems with Paul; he definitely had a zealous personality. He didn’t get along smoothly with others– I’m given to understand the assumed author of Mark (John Mark) could barely stand him. Anyways, I think you’re right to point out that Paul had a paradigm of Jesus returning very soon, and that does influence his writing.
    And this is a sentiment modern peoples have had, including my people of my denominational faith, when it got started (I’m a Restorationist and I’ll leave it at that for now).

    I’ve read the KJV version of the Bible cover-to-cover, and the scriptures of my faith. At some point I think I should get to the books of the Prophets (OT) Jerome categorized as Apocrypha (hidden, as NT authors did not reference them, yet they are Jewish canon). I’m trying to keep up with all the modern study of early Christianity and a new theory of modern Judaism and modern Christianity evolving from separate movements/factions of Judaism: Christianity from the Jesus movement within Judaism and then Paul’s interpretation, and modern Judaism from the rabbinical/Pharisee faction of the time.

    In short: I consider myself a disciple of Jesus, I believe in the god of Abraham (even one that wept before Enoch), and I believe that divine being allows humans to fumble, struggle, and work through their own failings. Religion is not perfect, no, not a bit, nor its organizations, but their human fallibility– I choose not to reject the principles because its adherents are flawed, were historically flawed, and so on– but I seek for truth, regardless of whether I am scorned for thinking inside or outside the box.

    I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. Personally, I do not have a problem at all with gay marriage as a secular institution. I would welcome it so people I know or have met would settle down a bit and/or stop trying to play the Ozzie and Harriet thing with me (I’m a breeder, but, my orientation actually isn’t heterosexual). Yet I also firmly believe that religions should NOT be forced to sanction or bless such unions. Again, separation of church and state. I don’t doubt that the line will still be rehashed, combed over, split finer and finer in the courts and legal interpretations, but… that’s my stance.

    Again, I’ve appreciated your studious, thoughtful comments.

  37. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Marriage is between a man and a woman? Weren’t King David and King Solomon married?

  38. Shurtie says:

    No one is persecuting Gays in Australia. Marriage is referenced in both Christian testaments and also in non Christian texts. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
    Rudd is a narcissist chasing every group that he may cling on to power which in God’s name we hope he does not as he is an unelected Prime Minister which only the Labor party of Australia can think is an election vote winning strategy. K Rudd the most destructive PM of this century.

  39. MyrddinWilt says:

    Most scholars believe that Mathew and Luke were written after Mark. Which creates a bit of a problem because Mathew and Luke are longer. Traditionally this is explained by the notion that Mathew and Luke both used a separate source Q that was sufficiently important for them to combine with Mark to write their gospels but not important enough to appear in any catalog of the early church or survive independently.

    One of the oddest features of Paul’s letters is that he never once refers to anything Jesus said (except in epistles known to be later fakes). If Q did exist, why didn’t Paul quote it?

    The simpler explanation is that the extensions in Mathew and Luke are simply fictions added to the tale written by Mark. Which means that the whole argument from biblical canon collapses.

  40. Rob Dowdy says:

    Wrong story?

  41. Rob Dowdy says:

    To me, at this point in my life, it’s either ALL sacred, or none of it is. And I acknowledge that in order to survive as part of all things, I must engage in the cyclic destruction of things like plants and some small amount of animal live or I will starve.

    Doesn’t this strike you as deeply narcissistic, this notion that it means anything at all that you ate some creamed corn for dinner last night? I’m not attacking you, so please don’t take it that way, but it just seems to me that it attributes far, far too much significance and ceremony and ritual to eating and pooping.

    We are organisms. It’s what we do, eat and poop, just like amoebas and starfish and gerbils do. There’s nothing numinous about it.

    I am somewhat guilty myself, since I am a vegetarian as much for health purposes as because I disagree with factory farming methods, but I recognize the ultimate foolishness of this choice, from a purely scientific perspective: if I wasn’t designed to eat the flesh of other animals, then how come I will die horribly of brain and spinal damage if I don’t since my body lacks the ability to derive B12 from plants or to synthesize it? Modern science has given me B12 in a convenient capsule form, allowing me to choose the unnatural human state of vegetarianism. But that doesn’t make me holy, does it? It certainly makes some holier-than-thou, come to think of it, but that’s not really the same thing.

    It is such a bizarre thing, watching other humans express this deep need to ascribe deep significance to every facet of existence and the human condition, to behave as if every bit of minutiae is sacred and vibrating with some deeper meaning.

    I am quite happy and fulfilled knowing I mean basically nothing at all outside my family and friends and I accept that when I die whatever it is that is “me” will most likely evaporate back into the quantum foam or whatever, gone as if I never was. I got to be for a little while, right, and isn’t that enough?

  42. nobonesl says:

    Here’s 2 hockey players who have problems with Russia’s anti-gay stance>

    Ofcourse, it would be best if they would BOYCOTT the games.

    Maybe they will. Keep your fingers crossed.

  43. Rob Dowdy says:

    Thinking some old book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of superstitious, misogynistic savages to an audience of like minds is the only proper guide to the infinite, transcendental notions of god and redemption (or even that the quest for those things makes any logical sense) is a disservice to the capacity of the human mind to supply its own existential context and deal rationally with its own finite nature.

    Maybe there are no answers. Maybe the answers are too big for us at this stage in our development. That doesn’t mean we have to invent something to tide us over in the meantime.

    Maybe the answers will always be too big and we too small, and maybe that’s a good thing because having all the answers would make life pretty boring, much like heaven or hell — eternal anything sounds just awful to me. I mean, really, imagine having an orgasm. Forever. After a few billion years I’m thinking I’d want, I don’t know, a paper cut or a cold or a mild headache or something, just to mix it up a bit.

    The Christian religion, like many others, is at its core wildly narcissistic, and yet it ritualizes the denigration of everything human (how better to control the flock than to hold the keys to the doors of heaven?). This grand old universe, it teaches — all of Creation! — is about and for lil old us, for the bible tells us so … and yet we, filthy imperfect sinners all, are all deeply unworthy before god — he who made us in his divine image?


  44. nobonesl says:

    Many people who label themselves Christian these days, actually, aren’t.

    The phony followers just can’t handle the “compassion” and “mercy” part.
    Even their concept of Jesus is phony and pathetic.

  45. nobonesl says:

    The only REAL Christianity is activist, LIBERAL Christianity that protects the weak, serves the poor, elevates the average person, and diminishes wealth and wordly power as blessings.

    Any other kind of Christianity is FAKE.

  46. Rob Dowdy says:

    Because Americans treat the Republicans and Democrats like two giant sports franchises and every 4 years there’s a super bowl …

  47. Rob Dowdy says:

    Neither did Paul. Unfortunately he wrote most of the New Testament.

  48. Rob Dowdy says:

    Yes, go back and re-watch that first Obama / Romney debate. It was ghastly, the way Obama seemed utterly disinterested and listless so much of the time. And then watch the one where Romney looked for all the world the entire time as though he just wanted to get up and leave. The look in his eyes was just … unhinged at times, as if his brain had been stuffed so full of crap that his eyes were going to pop out and land on his cheeks.

    I can’t for the life of me imagine, really, deep down inside, what those two men would say based on what they actually feel. Even as someone who supported Obama and reviled Romney, I have no idea what Obama really thinks. By the time we get to hear these guys talk they’ve been prepped and handled and focus grouped and sanitized and scripted so heavily there’s nothing left but fluff.

    Everyone has some thing they wish they could do, some superpower or whatever unique to them. One of mine is this: I’d like to have the chance to sit down with someone like Obama or Romney and ask him questions and I’d have the ability to make him answer openly and truthfully and until such time as I was satisfied with the answer.

    It would be fascinating.

  49. Rob Dowdy says:

    The thing is, comparing Biblical slavery as practiced by the Romans and others in Paul’s time to the slavery of the pre-Civl War American South is just factually wrong. It was an entirely different kind of thing. Roman slavery was actually the more civilized of the two, by far.

    So Rudd’s rebuttal wasn’t exactly accurate, but it made for a good sound bite.

    But that isn’t what astounds me about the entire episode. What astounds me is that we, in the year 2013, are still saddled with and expected to revere the teachings of this book written so long ago, by people who thought sickness was caused by wickedness and who couldn’t conceive of what lay beyond their flat earth.

    These people knew nothing about our world or the science that underpins our existence. They lived in a world of magic and superstition and the cruel realities of life without any of the modern conveniences (antibiotics, etc.) that make life tolerable for us and without which we would become savages once more. In Bible times life was much harder.

    When you saw babies dying left and right, either born dead or falling prey to disease in their cribs, when you knew you’d be lucky to make it much past 30 or 40 even if you somehow survived childhood … I can see why some would demand everyone make babies as fast as possible, because life was short and brutal and tomorrow wasn’t guaranteed. And I can see why others, like Paul, would recommend just giving up, becoming celibate, and praying until Jesus finally came back to put an end to all the suffering.

    But in 2013? It’s obscene that we should be expected to kowtow to the uninformed, superstitious teachings of ancient savages speaking to those trapped in a world of brutality and ignorance that is thankfully far, far in our own past. Those who pine away for a return to that sort of “innocence” make me question their sanity.

  50. Rob Dowdy says:

    As an American living in Australia, I can pretty confidently say that Conservative does not mean the same thing here that it means in the US. Abbott does seem like a tool, though. He’s a bit smarmy.

  51. Rob Dowdy says:

    I’ve lived here for about 6 months now. They get plenty fired up here, and have some great debates, but it seems a bit off to my American ears. In the US, national politics are all spectacle and glitz and anytime one side says something you wait to see how theatrically the other side will respond, right?

    Some US politician makes a little misstep and the other side is on TV claiming this minor faux pas is clearly a sign of deep mental instability and evidence of astonishing moral turpitude, and telling us that no one who’s been campaigning nonstop for weeks with almost no sleep who mispronounces someone’s name could ever be trusted to lead us.

    It’s like two big sports franchises in the US and “WE’RE NUMBER 1! WE’RE NUMBER 1!” It doesn’t matter how your team has behaved or what they actually believe, they’re your team, right? And they are so far apart, ideologically, that there’s no way most “fans” could ever switch sides.

    Here the politics are somewhat less polarized. Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott refer to each other by name, like actual human beings (and not always nicely!), and mention substantive and sometimes (that dreaded word!) nuanced differences in their views on issues. There’s silliness and ugliness and pomposity as well, but things just seem less showy here.

    I hear snatches of conversation, people talking in cafes or on the street about which side they support, and they mention things like the National Broadband Network, what to do about the boat people, etc.

    There doesn’t seem to be nearly the same degree of fatalism here, the sense that “it doesn’t matter who you pick, we’re screwed either way.” Or maybe I’m saying it wrong, because there does seem to be some of that, the sense that there’s just not really that much difference between the two choices, but that that’s more okay here because the politics over all are less volatile and the ideological divide is much smaller. In the US the divide is increasingly vast beyond bridging.

    Just look at how the House (and the Senate, regarding confirmations) has ground the entire governmental machine, not a finely tuned engine to begin with, to a halt (and is threatening far worse) not over some ideological disagreement but over an existential one: nothing less than the annulment of the Obama presidency and the undoing of all his works will satisfy them. How do you possibly move usefully forward from that?

    Here, on the other hand, there is no race to be the MOST PROGRESSIVE/CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE OF ALL TIME, so some subtlety is allowed to creep in. It is not considered a stunning defeat for one side to agree with the other, nor for two very similar viewpoints to be dissected and discussed at a deeper level (the NBN, for instance) than American 24/7 news channel talking heads will allow.

    They don’t have NEARLY as many professional pundits and talking heads here, as far as I’ve noticed. In watching the news coverage, they pretty much put Mr. Abbott or Mr. Rudd on TV, show what he has to say, then put up the response from the other guy, and move on to other news.

    There is also a much larger emphasis here on world events than there is in the US. The average news-watching Australian would tend to know far more about what’s going on in the world (politics, sports, entertainment, general news) than would her US counterpart, I think. And, of course, much of what’s shown on TV here is American and British as well.

    To sum up: Australia is cool. And they have Christmas in summer and eat seafood for Christmas dinner because it’s too damn hot to cook.

  52. Rob Dowdy says:

    Here’s what infuriates me: This pastor talks about a man going out from his father and mother and taking a wife and becoming one flesh, based on this passage from Matthew 19:

    And He 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’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Not one word. It is about marriage as an institution and about the permanence of it.

    It continues:

    They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

    So Jesus spoke very plainly about this. You get a quickie marriage and a divorce, you get remarried, you burn, burn, burn. So these “Christian” hypocrites wail about “protecting the traditional, Biblical institution of marriage” from us awful gays, while doing nothing more than half-heartedly tsk-tsking as half of all straight marriages end in divorce. I’ve always wondered, why are the souls of all these divorced heteros so worthless? They are going to burn in their teeming millions, yet we gays are your focus? That doesn’t seem fair! Go help the divorcees, really, we don’t mind. You’ve done so much for us already. Give someone else a turn. Really.

    Oh, what is that you say? A huge number of those helping to “save” the gays are themselves divorced? Oh, wow, that’s so selfless, the way they don’t care that they themselves are going to burn, that they do nothing to save themselves even as they work so hard to save us! I mean, Jesus never even said we were wrong or doomed or anything, but he pretty much said you guys are going to go up like the head of a matchstick and then burn for, you know, ever. Yet you ignore your own fate to focus on us. You’re all so selfless in your love!

    Look at that pastor’s face in the video when Rudd mentions “other things” the Bible teaches, such as the common acceptance of slavery as “normal.” These “pastors” spewing their loving hatred and intolerance are people who have read the Bible and know what it says (that way they know which parts to skirt, such as “Slaves, obey your masters,” rape being treated as a property crime, etc.). They are talking for the benefit of people who have not read the Bible but need a reason to feel secure in their distrust and hatred.

    Want to control your flock? Unite them against an enemy. I’ve always wondered how many of these “Christians” who’ve never read their holy book secretly think the Bible is a few stories about Adam & Eve, the tale of an old man with a really stinky boat full of animals, followed by 900 pages explaining that gays are just icky and make the baby Jesus cry.

    At any rate, you can safely tell these vile, self-proclaimed representatives of Christ (who have the unmitigated gall to put words into the mouth of the allegedly divine!) to sit down and shut up because there is no logic at all in their beliefs or behavior. None. Zero.

    They happily preach fire and brimstone about a single verse in the Bible while ignoring the verses before and after it. Their stated goal is to spread the good word and to save souls, yet they rail about what they insist is a deviant 2-3% of the population, while ignoring (abandoning, in their parlance) the 50%+ of heteros who will go on to become adulterers by Jesus’ own plainspoken definition. Even the Catholics skirt this issue with the whole annulment thing, because Jesus is totally going to wink and look the other way and pretend the whole thing never happened as long as you greased the right palms and uttered the right words.

    Jesus also plainly says that if you aren’t going to get married — for whatever reason — no sex for you:

    His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

    And then there are his filthy commie/hippy views on spiritual perfection, which he says one can not possess in conjunction with wealth (contrast this with megachurhes and their limo-riding multimillionaire pastors):

    Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

    For those for whom that passage is a bit vague, Jesus goes on to clarify how he feels about wealth and those who hoard it:

    Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

    Back to biblical marriage, Paul was pretty much against it. And sex? Well, Paul isn’t considered the father of fundamentalism for nothing. See, when you read Paul’s works in the Bible (he wrote more of the New Tesament than all the other writers combined, yet mentioned Jesus and his teachings only rarely) you have to understand that he thought Jesus was coming back very soon. Like, tomorrow. Next week sometime — hell, even as he was writing about it, here would come Jesus, right? He must have truly believed it, because he saw no point in people getting married or having sex (or children, by extension) (from 1 Corinthians 7):

    Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am [celibate]. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

    8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

    So, Paul would have ended the human race two millennia ago in anticipation of the return of Christ, if only people would have listened. Just be celibate, he says, as he is, and spend your days in prayer waiting for Jesus to get back. Because he’s coming. He’s on his way right now so, you know, look busy.

    25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

    29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

    32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

    36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning.They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.[c]

    39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

    And a final bit of Paul’s wisdom, from his instructions to Timothy, which will reduce by half the number of people eligible to tell me I’m wrong about any of this:

    “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

    “Now I permit a woman neither to teach nor exercise authority over a man, but let her be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived [when he sinned]; but the woman, having [first] been thoroughly deceived, became [involved] in the transgression [of Adam], and she will be saved by the Child-bearing [i.e., the bearing of Jesus Christ], if they abide in faith, and love and sanctification with self-restraint.”

    Got that, ladies? Everything, Paul assures us, would still be literally perfect if it wasn’t for you!

    Here, just in case it wasn’t clear enough, let Paul spell it out for you:

    “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

    There will be those who will refute all this with deep considerations of context and authorial intent relative to local political reality and social mores that were relevant to these people thousands of years ago, and to some degree they will be absolutely right.

    But unless those same apologists also refute the anti-gay passages based on the same contextual criteria … well, why don’t you just sit down and shut up, because you can’t have it both ways and people are finally beginning to understand that.

  53. gratuitous says:

    Yeah, “serve one another in love.” As if! Buncha propaganda is all it is.

  54. Rob Dowdy says:

    If you have a really good imagination, picture an executive-level American politician saying this.

  55. Rob Dowdy says:

    Those who choose to believe we are sick, rather than simply born this way, use the fact that it’s so difficult, that’s it’s such a bad “choice” to make (because they make it so bad, naturally), as further evidence that there’s something inherently wrong with us.

    And a trans person? They must be EXTRA sick/crazy/damaged to “mutilate” themselves that way! I once heard one of my cousins say, with a sad shake of her head, “At least that kind [trans] is trying to get back to the way god intended, but I don’t think he’s going to invite a ‘woman’ through the gates when he’s expecting a man.” Growing up in a very small town in the Deep South during the late 80s and early 90s was not very fun.

    But, back to the point, any evidence we offer to counter their delusion is instead simply incorporated into it, all the way out to the logical absurdity of: “Fine, I accept that you were born this way. God means it as a test for you and you should be lonely and celibate your entire life. Isn’t he an awesome god!!”

    As a great man once said, “If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people.”

  56. TheAngryFag says:

    and preacher gets obliterated….

  57. karmanot says:


  58. karmanot says:

    Who knew? America itself has become the anti-Christ.

  59. karmanot says:

    Belief in a anthropomorphic, Mr. Sky god is indeed an underlying mental illness.

  60. karmanot says:

    He also expressed loathing for hypocrites. 1 John 4:20; Matthew 15:7-9; and Matthew 7:1-5.

  61. cole3244 says:

    so true.

  62. BeccaM says:

    And it’s even worse for the transfolk.

  63. arcadesproject says:

    Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality but at least one of the gospels refers to the fact that Jesus loved John, the ‘beloved apostle’.
    So there.

  64. cole3244 says:

    forgetting science and genetics who in their right mind would chose to be gay if it was a choice (it isn’t) when they would have to deal with the obvious bigotry of the ignorant hateful morons who use choice as a reason to hate.

  65. 2patricius2 says:

    That didn’t seem to be big on the mind of the commentator. S/he was basically whitewashing the whole institution, and downplaying the evils – all in the attempt to rationalize away the complicity of the Christian churches in the system.

  66. AttilatheBlond says:

    He also encouraged people to pay their taxes. Not too many RW Fundy Xians ever remember that part either.

  67. BeccaM says:

    Aye… and some of them are even honest enough to admit it.

    Of course, they always assume they’d be the slave owners and not the owned.

  68. AttilatheBlond says:

    Always figured Religion was the way the class of rulers not interested in actually doing battle managed to gain and hold power over populations. When you think about it, Religion is much more economical; instead of spending money/resources on armies to get and hold power, you devise this mind control thing and have the population give money/resources to you. Much smarter.

    Yes, I acknowledge Religion and armies generally work in tandem. Well, some people are harder to convince than others. ;^)

  69. worfington says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but can only think of one time in the bible when Jesus lost his temper, lashing out both spiritually and physically, and that was when he forced the bankers from the temple, and chased them down the street. He had much to say on the subject of usury, and no patience for the James Dimons and Larry Summers’ of his day.
    He easily forgave Judas and his executioners, but threatened to whip bankers.
    Pretty sure he didn’t care wether the bankers were gay or straight.

  70. AttilatheBlond says:

    There are pre-school classrooms that function better than the US Congress. Direct personal observation of 1-6 year-olds leads me to conclude that the US Congress is operating at a two-year-old level

  71. 2patricius2 says:

    I know. I read John Boswell’s books about homosexuality and same sex couples when they first came out. I also heard him speak about the issue. What strikes me about the claim that Christian churches have always condemned same sex sexual behavior is that so much of the history has been expunged or explained away. So except for some of the documents that Boswell unearthed, we don’t have access to or awareness of a lot of the documents that undoubtedly exist(ed). But that is a tactic of those who want to erase the memory of people. They destroy the documents.

    Of course there is another factor that comes into play as well. One of my history professors made the comment that history is garbage. It is what is left over, often found in out of the way places, that forms the basis for much of history. And there is also the factor that a lot of people throughout history have simply lived their lives without leaving any record behind. So, much of the history we have is of kings and nobles, of priests and educated people, not of ordinary people.

    There is a key factor that those who want to believe homosexual activity has always been condemned try to explain away, however. That is that there is no record of Jesus having said anything about homosexual behavior or relationships. What makes this significant, is that it was common for Roman soldiers to have lovers in his day. He cannot have been unaware of this practice in a land controlled by the Roman military. If he had thought this was something to have been condemned, he would surely have mentioned it. And had his early followers considered that condemnation important, they would surely have stressed it. Paul, after all, never met Jesus. Indeed, there is no record that Jesus ever thought that sexual behavior was the most important thing. The only references to his speaking about anything sexual was when he was asked questions.

  72. AttilatheBlond says:

    Because we don’t have voters like Australians? My daughter has been to ‘Oz’ several times. The way she describes most people there reminds me a lot of how Americans USED to be.

  73. AttilatheBlond says:

    Dawkins’ comments are wonderful, both from a philosophic sense and historically. But, fundies hate history and don’t want us thinking about actual philosophy, they want us to be enslaved of mind and soul, probably body too, but they aren’t honest or brave enough to admit that even to themselves.

  74. AttilatheBlond says:

    Deep down, in the parts of their souls they would never give public voice to, I really think many of these xians are OK with the slavery thing and the women/children are property thing.

  75. AttilatheBlond says:

    Haven’t read Spalding. Thank you for the recommendation. And thanks for your kind words. So many of us get misunderstood that we often forget to even try to communicate with candor.

  76. AttilatheBlond says:

    Oh, I know. I tend to refer to the conditions and parameters the majority will use to define the term. Yes, many ‘Christians’ think all they have to do is mumble crap about accepting Jesus Christ as their savior and everything else they do is washed away. Generally, I refer to such wankers as ‘xian’. But I do think one sorta has to accept the notion that the man, Jesus, was more than just a normal chap, and frankly, I do not. I see him as a wise teacher, but know it is because he was a good student of other wise teachers.

    Me, I am a pantheist. I see the godhead in all things. To me, at this point in my life, it’s either ALL sacred, or none of it is. And I acknowledge that in order to survive as part of all things, I must engage in the cyclic destruction of things like plants and some small amount of animal live or I will starve. Most of my neighbors would be as surprised to know I do not call myself Christian as they were when I didn’t show up at the GOP dinners because I am a Democratic party member. And believe me, the responses to that have been funny as hell, up to and including the: “You can’t be a Democrat because I LIKE you!'”

  77. woodroad34 says:

    Excellent post. Religion is set up to be a political, self-serving and governing force. It lacks spirituality and mistreats those who come looking to them for spiritual guidance. They are at once child and adult-abusers. Also, if you haven’t, you should read Baird T. Spalding’s series of books on Masters of the Far East

  78. txiconoclast says:

    He and his party (Labor) look like they’re going to lose the election this Saturday to the conservative Coalition.

  79. BeccaM says:

    I loved PM Rudd’s slam-dunk rebuttal: “The Bible says that slavery is a natural human condition.”

    It also says that women are property, belonging to their husbands, fathers, or other male relative. This also was never contradicted nor changed.

    Anyway, what I find interesting is how the homophobes will take one remark attributed to this Jesus fellow on the importance of loyalty to one’s family — claim it means Jesus had to have been against gay marriage — but then must reach to Paul (who never knew Jesus) and to Leviticus to come up with their reasons as to why it’s morally wrong to be born gay. And therefore conclude they must sit in judgment against gay people — even though one thing that Jesus fellow was absolutely clear about was people must not judge each other. That the authority to judge another belonged solely to God, and not to any man.

    (Yeah, the staring eyes were kinda freaky, too. Those are the eyes of a zealot.)

  80. cheviteau says:

    Contrary to what you may think, you can be a Christian and not accept Jesus as a savior. I don’t. But, I still think of myself as a “Christian” because I subscribe to the teachings and philosophy of Jesus. You know, stuff that most “real” Christians forget: love your neighbor…do unto others…feed the hungry. Crazy stuff like that.

  81. woodroad34 says:

    Well, until you look at people like Baroness Knight, whose sole reason for being in the House of Lords is apparently some in-bred birth.

  82. woodroad34 says:

    Hence the Bible is not the “true” word of God and I’ve told people this before…it’s an amalgamation of bigoted earthly POVs

  83. woodroad34 says:

    Even more apropos to this idiot who wears the mantle of “preacher” as though he’s something better is Matthew 23:1-39

    23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

    13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a singleproselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves.

    16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

    23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

    25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

    27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

    29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,[f] whom you murdered between the sanctuary andthe altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

    Lament over Jerusalem

    37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

  84. woodroad34 says:

    I’ve seen that exact same look on Hannibal Lechter. In fact I remember Anthony Hopkins explaining that he made the choice to appear completely crazy by not blinking. Did anyone notice the tweet blurb that ran across the screen?: “the prime minister is talking but everyone has stopped listening”. When it came to the PM asking the “good revruhnnnnnnd” a question, the revruhnnnnnd wasn’t listening. You could see him shake himself out of his unchristian hatred to answer the question. That was the face of pure malevolence. And I’m pretty sure he was lying about having so many parishioners refusing to vote for the PM. He was there purely to dig and violate this candidate

    I do agree about the fake smile having been on the receiving end of that. And I love how the PM just blithely dismissed him and at the same time reminded him what a good Christian is. I almost expected the PM to look up in the sky and tell the revruhhhnd to move because there was a house about to land.

  85. Cletus says:

    “The pastor believes if he stares hard enough God will smite Kevin #qanda”

    Isn’t it amazing how the batshit-crazy fundie look is so universal? I think it’s indicative of an underlying mental disorder.

  86. BrandySpears says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where religious tests weren’t necessary to hold public office? Enough with the god-botherers on both sides.

    To find the bits and pieces you want out of the Bible to adhere to your version of morality, you have to skip over all the horrible bits.

    Richard Dawkins on the same Aussie show:

  87. Jimmy says:

    That is a great answer. I like that he says “good Christian conscience” on a couple of occasions. He making a good point that he came to this decision from a Christian perspective, which is a great way to toss that cherry-picking the Bible nonsense back at someone.

    Now, I will give that pastor a smidgen of credit. If that had been an American right-wing pastor he would have probably walked off rather than be challenged, but this guy kept his cool and made his case. When was the last time we had discourse like that in American politics.

  88. dula says:

    It is the deer in the headlights look of fear…fear projected onto those they don’t understand and therefore hate, and then the fear those people will attack back.

  89. KingCranky says:

    Their bible goes straight from the Old Testament to Revelations, none of that pesky New Testament “care for the least among you” stuff for them.

  90. Thom Allen says:

    “Christian churches have always condemned same sex sexual behavior and thus it can never be excused. ” That may not be true. Evidence exists that the early church DID perform and sanction same-sex marriages.

  91. Trip Affleck says:

    not to mention the civility on both sides and the quiet respect from the crowd. makes me want to move there.

  92. AttilatheBlond says:

    ‘Religion’ is a man-made construct, devised as a means of gaining/maintaining power over people. As mentioned above, the ‘bible’ has been edited many times by people with purse to buy influence. As power shifts, as the needs of the powerful shifts, so will the interpretation of scripture.

    ‘Religion’, is at opposition of genuine spiritual experience and thwarts true movement to self knowledge and personal evolution from self-serving beast to souls capable of understanding the connectedness of all things.

    ‘Religion’ is the cudgel you mentioned. The ‘bible’ that poor mistreated, over edited propaganda device is a lesser cudgel. Much of the world’s conflict revolves around the premiss that my particular cudgel is better than yours and I will kill you to make that point.

    I am not a Christian, in that I do not accept Jesus as my savior. No one but me can ‘save’ me. But I do think the words (edited tho they are) of Jesus have some merit as tools to open self-discussion and growth. Jesus, to me, is ‘master’ in the context of master = teacher. There have been so many great masters, and it seems likely Jesus, if he was ever a real historical figure, studied with some in the East during. There are still masters and there always will be. Sadly, Religion will continue to try to marginalize, silence, or kill them as they are the biggest threat to whatever particular power is on top in any given era.

    Rudd seems to be following the actual teachings of his chosen master much more honestly than the pastor whose heart is filled with hate and who wants to spread that particular virus.

  93. AttilatheBlond says:

    I was thinking ‘Huckabee Wannabee’ but yeah, now that you mention it, there is that Bachmannesq look too. Never noticed how much alike the Huckster and Bachmann look. Perhaps science can find out why that weird eye gaze that doesn’t see is so common to RWers who preach that Jesus was an Old Testament, hate filled guy rather than learn from the words in their dearly held Bibles.

  94. UncleBucky says:

    The eyes and the hands. They are reaching out (eyes at least in an Aristotelian/Superman X-Ray vision) to try to control the listener or destroy the opponent. Look at any christianIST minister/pastor and see how their fingers seemingly reach out. Likewise this bozo is staring so hard in the attempt to X-Ray the politician to ashes.

    The smile, of course, is related to that. He hates the politician so much but is trying to seem like a Christian. Naw. Inside the sucker is seething with hate.

  95. AttilatheBlond says:

    One could applaud Rudd for not doing it that way. Instead, his words were compassionate, not accusatory, and served to teach rather than score sound-bite points like US pols do. Rudd likely knows there is no way he will soften this cleric’s hard hart, but he was playing to a much wider audience, those people who ARE thoughtful rather than dogmatic. In short, his response was more like the conversations the Bible attributes to Jesus, teaching his followers: respectful, yet firm and consistent to the believe that love of each other should be our purpose.

    How I miss such leadership here in the US.

  96. Jim Olson says:

    Wow. I’d vote for him.

  97. beergoggles says:

    OMG, that guy has the same eyes as Michele Bachmann. What is it with fundies and those crazy eyes?

  98. TampaZeke says:

    Buddhism doesn’t teach that, but then again, Buddhism isn’t a religion.

  99. HeartlandLiberal says:

    What is most startling to me is the clear, concise, on point, factual and direct response of his answers. I cannot recall anything like this in American politics. Our presidential debates are nothing but hot air and buzz words, carefully crafted by consultants based on poling, and recited (or blundered through, q.v. Texas governor) by the candidates / politicians.

    For much of their bigotry, right wing Christians reference the Old Testament. There is a fundamental problem with that. Jesus was very clear in his teachings that the New Testament was a NEW Covenant, and much of his teaching replaced the Old Testament teachings and principles according to which one should live.

  100. UncleBucky says:

    Essentially the thumpers are “OT” and “Paulist” thumpers. Jesus? They don’t know who HE really is.

  101. TampaZeke says:

    An even shorter and more to the point answer would be, “Please quote me, chapter and verse, the words of Jesus that you are referring to”. The ones where he condemned homosexuality? No such thing. The ones where he condemned same-sex marriage? Nope! The ones where he didn’t judge and condemned those who did? BINGO! The ones where he chastised judgmental, busy-body, legalistic religious leaders of his time and admonished them to stay out of Caesar’s business? Oh, OK, now I’m starting to get it.

    Yes pastor, let’s talk about Jesus’ words.

  102. douglas01 says:

    Why don’t we have politicians like this? Amazing.

  103. Sally says:

    Except, to really get into ‘what it says,’ one needs to read the Greek. These translations have whatever verses in them the money men wanted to keep. Thus, we have King James extolling the wonderfulness of men and the obediant subservience of women through Paul, not Jesus. People who think the Holy Bible is anything other than a collection of propaganda are being seriously misled.

  104. soleri says:

    What religion teaches its adherents is absolute certitude, often based on little more than personal feelings coupled with vague scriptural references. At the same time, they espouse relativism about other doctrines they care less about. Hence, the specific condemnation of divorce in the New Testament is greeted with a shrug by virtually all Christians while sexual taboos seem to fully engage their sense of right and wrong. What is consistent here is the idea that the Bible can be used as a cudgel to punish some behaviors but not others. Religion serves bigots by indulging this selective fundamentalism in its worldly practice. There are tenets in the Christian religion I admire. But I’m not free to choose them at the expense of those I dislike. Sad to say, if you “buy” a religion, you buy the entire enterprise. The idea that we can tailor Christianity to our personal tastes seems benign except that religion by its very nature is absolutist. That’s why there’s always going to be a Pat Robertson attacking the least of us in order to serve the Caesars of power and privilege. The toxicity of religion never goes away, no matter how enlightened it pretends to be.

  105. samiinh says:

    Wonder what she/he thought of the slave masters raping their slaves? Probably approve.

  106. gratuitous says:

    And THAT’S why it’s important to get into what the Christian Testament says: work it over, wrestle with it, discuss it in congregational life, and live it out in our own lives. We’re talking about infinite, transcendent notions like God and redemption, and thinking that there’s one finite, concrete answer is a disservice to the text, a disservice to life together, and a disservice to our fellow human beings.

  107. Dave of the Jungle says:

    Our public discourse is far below the level set in the rest of the English speaking world.
    It’s true.

  108. keirmeister says:

    I watch this video, then I remember the British Parliament debating involvement in Syria, and I cannot escape a very sad thought: The United States congress is an offensive joke.

  109. 2patricius2 says:

    It’s amazing the Christians who hold tight to the belief that homosexual behavior is a horrendous sin, crying out to heaven, while downplaying Paul’s exhortation to slaves to be obedient to their masters. In fact, they fall all over themselves to say that the Christian churches didn’t really support slavery, or it was not part of their mission to address slavery, but the Christian churches have always condemned same sex sexual behavior and thus it can never be excused.

    I know this from discussions I have had with Christians (Roman Catholics in particular) on various threads. It became apparent from one commenter that s/he thought that the perceived evils of certain sexual behaviors were more serious in his/her mind than the horrendous evils of the institution of slavery.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS