20 March 2008

CNNN: Which bits of the Bible are we still to believe?

CNNN: The issue that's threatening to split the church in two: That's right, the controversy over gay bishops just won't go away. And it's good to see Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen maintaining the position that he's had for years.

Dr. Peter Jensen: The Bible does forbid us to bless homosexual unions or practicing homosexuals from joining the ministry of the church.

CNNN: Unpopular sure, but he's got something there, I think. The Bible is very clear on this in Leviticus that a man should not lie with another man.

(Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22)

Oh yes, and who could question Leviticus? Laws like putting to death those that curse their mother and father ...

(For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9)

... are just good old-fashioned common sense. We'd have a whole lot less lip from teenagers if we had more respect for God's word on that one.

But which bits of the Bible are we still to believe? We asked Archbishop Peter Jensen to help us out.

CNNN: I just wanted to congratulate you on returning the church to the Bible.

Dr. Peter Jensen: Very kind of you.

CNNN: I was just wondering Dr. Jensen, do you agree with Exodus 35 that we should put to death those that work on the Sabbath?

(Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2)

Dr. Jensen: Thank you. I always believe that the Bible is the truth and the word of God.

CNNN: So we should put to death those that work on the Sabbath.

Dr. Jensen: Well, no, because you have to read the whole Bible, and when you read the whole Bible you see that that's not true.

CNNN: Where's the part in the Bible that says Exodus is not right?

Dr. Jensen: We don't do that anymore.

CNNN: You're wearing glasses, Dr. Jensen. Doesn't it say in Exodus Leviticus 21:20 that those that have defective sight cannot take the communion of God?

Dr. Jensen: Now you know...

CNNN: Nor dwarfs nor hunchbacks, I think.

Dr. Jensen: Shall we look it up?

CNNN: Sure, you're more than welcome to look it up. Here it is, Leviticus...

Dr. Jensen: You're so good looking.

CNNN: You don't want to say that because a man shouldn't lie with a man like he would a woman, otherwise he's an abomination. That's Leviticus 18 isn't it?

Dr. Jensen: You are obviously well educated. (Begins walking, almost running, away.)

CNNN: I'm seeking more information, Dr. Jensen, as to why is it that Leviticus 18 is still relevant, whereas Leviticus 21, 22, and all these others aren't relevant.

Can you put out a new Bible with the true bits highlighted? I'm just so confused. Which bits do I follow?

Dr. Jensen: (Getting into his car.) I'm very impressed. I do congratulate you.

CNNN: He tried to pick you up I think, Craig?

Yeah, Lucky I had Leviticus to protect me.

14 comments:

Darren Delgado said...

I am surprised he didn't come up with the usual pat answer, the one about how Jesus negated the silly Old testament laws.

Leatherdykeuk said...

Ho! I loved it. This has been brought out many times, of course, but it still brings amusement to see the vicar's face.

ER said...

Funny that the labels for this blog were Bible, Homosexuality, Levitcus. It would be more appropriate for Church or a Person (Dr. Peter Jensen) to be labeled.

Ryan said...

"You are very good looking."

HAHA this is made of so much win.

Aquaria said...

Funny that the labels for this blog were Bible, Homosexuality, Levitcus. It would be more appropriate for Church or a Person (Dr. Peter Jensen) to be labeled.

Yet another example of a failure in Reading Comprehension 101. It's apparent that the blogger deemed the critical factor for labels as the CONTENT of the article not who/what was involved.

Thomas said...

The excuse that Jesus negated the Old Testament won't work, because the anti-homosexual laws ARE part of the Old Testament!!!

the christian-teen said...

We no longer have to sentence people who work on the sabbath to death because christ fullfilled the law

Steve Wells said...

But it was the right thing to do back in the good old days, eh Christian Teen?

Tammy said...

My GOD have mercy on all your souls....those who question and do not believe.

jazz said...

Those who don't question, are fools.What better way to keep a flock close to you and control their thinking? teach them that they must not question what you tell them, just believe it. I quess its eaiser than checking things out your self.

As far as I am concerned, I havent been convinced of god ever showing mercy to anyone. And what really bothers me also is .....If there is a god, he is very obsessed with others suffering for some reason. And all the arguements go out the window about its because we are sinners and blah, blah,blah exspecially when he supposedly created all the animals too, Im guessing again is because he wanted to have them suffer needlessly.....they have no choices, no freewill, no understanding of god, yet they suffer terribly at the hands of who? man? Yes!! made by god? (according to christians) then it pretty much concludes to me that pain and suffering is needed for god to amuse himself. So on that, I can't say if he is or isn't, but I can say if he is, hes not very nice and stadistic really.

Anban M said...

"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers." - Bruce Calvert

player congratulator said...

This has got to be a fake video, but let me straighten out the NT law about homosexual behavior for you...

Romans 1:26-32 tells you all you need to know about how God feels about homosexual behavior. Besides that reference, up until the mid-70s, the American Psychology Association still considered homosexual behavior to be deviant sexual behavior. That is until LGBT groups pressured them into changing it.

Finally, I didn't need the APA or the Bible to tell me it was sick, creepy, and unnatural when a childhood friend tried to persuade me to be gay with him and showed me homo-erotic pictures. I immediately knew it was sick.

Why didn't you? Now you can amuse yourself with fantasies about what you want to believe really happened to my childhood friend. But the fact remains we are not friends any more. It ended that day.

I killed him. (gotcha)

Still, gay behavior is unnatural in any species for a reason. Quit trying to bash Christians and the Bible. Even those that don't go to church STILL think it's sick and should remain private.

Michael said...

Yo, Player-dude, if you still surf this blogs then realize this, homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom. As a populace grows, the hormones can grow thin, resulting in all kinds of different results. Bonobos are an example of creatures that exhibit homosexual behavior on a regular basis. There's also a lizard species that is entirely female and reproduce through natural cloning that is stimulated by achieving orgasm with another of the same species.

I'm sorry that your ex-friend made a bad judgment in thinking that you were gay, too. Instead of breaking ties with him, you should have simply said 'Sorry man, but I'm not gay." A pity that you made an enemy out of someone over something so small.

Also, the APA was ran by Fundamentalist Christians for years, as was most of the country. As such, they made the laws to fit their beliefs. With influence from both growing Secular and LGBTQ organizations,but mostly from the Secular organizations, the APA changed some of the oudated research tactics that were used to verify mental illnesses. With the new procedures, new mental illness that were ignored for a while were classified and some of the older ones, including homosexuality, were either changed or eliminated from definition altogether.

I know I just wasted my time trying to explain this to someone who will most likely twist my words or ignore them altogether just so that they can continue feeding there own beliefs.

Xaratherus said...

@player congratulator: "Still, gay behavior is unnatural in any species for a reason. Quit trying to bash Christians and the Bible. Even those that don't go to church STILL think it's sick and should remain private."

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

For something that's unnatural, there sure are a whole lot of natural species that practice it.

Would you also like to comment on the fact that the original Greek phrase translated as "vile affections" has multiple meanings, and in this context is most likely to not refer to "affections" at all, but rather to the drug- and wine-induced frenzies common to Roman fertility cults of the time?