Monday, August 12, 2013

Cherry-picking adultery

We all know what liberals continually say about Jesus, other then their belief that He's got to stay out of school.

He's all full of love and tolerance!

Love?  That's a big-fat yes.  Jesus loved us enough to hang on a cross for our sins.  Wait, no, we can't talk about that...can't talk about the sins.  That's a no-no.  Have to tolerate them sins; doing otherwise would mean that we'is judging others, and only God can do the judging.

So why don't we all just look the other way, while the sinners can sin without any repercussions, and the Christians can just shut-da-$&%#-up!  That's what liberals seem to be doing these days, forcing Christians to shut up.  It's as if they - the libs - are the ones defining what is supposed to be Christian, rather than the Christians themselves.

Love and tolerance, right?

And the love and the tolerance we are supposed to be practicing, among other things these days, has to be in support of gay marriage.  "I now pronounce you husband"  says the confused priest, who then gets a letter in the mail from the newlyweds stating they are going to sue him for mangling their nuptials in front of their guests in the church where they forced the priest to hold the ceremony under the threat of another cake, anyone?  Yes, the baker was sued, too; she opposed gay marriage, wouldn't bake the cake, got sued and was forced by a judge to start baking the cake anyway, and this was recorded by the photographer who himself was sued for refusing to put the happy young gay couple in his studio because he opposed gay marriage, after the invitations were handed out and printed by someone else who was sued, ad infinitum.

Isn't liberal love and tolerance wonderful?

And getting back to Jesus.  Just where do the liberals justify their love and tolerance comes from, assuming they do pick up the Bible?  Don't tell me they cherry-pick the answers?

One of the cherries they pick comes from the Gospel of John.  Lessie, where can we find an example of Jesus just gushing with love and tolerance that liberals love to cherry-pick about the first eleven verses of chapter 8?  Here they are:

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Now, the "love and tolerance" part is this, according to lib-speak: we're supposed to love the sinner (check); we're supposed to tolerate the sin (say what?); we're supposed to let the sinner go do whatever makes her happy...and somewhere in the meadow a bunny hops.

But what is the point that the actual bona-fide, non-liberal Christian is making here?

First, we love and pray for the sinner, unconditionally.  Period.

Second, we don't tolerate the sin.  We tell the sinner what it's all about, and what the results would be if continued.  After all, just who was it that spoke more about - and against - sin in the Bible?  It was Jesus.  And that is exactly what Jesus said to the adulterous woman in verse 11: "Go, and sin no more."  Sorry to disappoint all of you liberals, but that's what's in the Bible.  Better quit the cherry-picking.

And what does that have to do with adultery and gay marriage?

For starters, didn't God call adultery a violation of His commandments?

Didn't God call homosexuality an abomination?

Is not the word "sodomy" a reference to the city of Sodom?  

And just what does this have to do with John, Chapter 8, and Jesus insisting that someone without sin cast the first stone?  Again, verse 4:

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

She was caught in the act.  Fine.  Where's the partner at?  Was the partner male?  Was the partner female?  Or did she not have a partner at all?  Jesus did say that someone commits adultery even by thinking about it.  So, if the woman was alone, was she thinking about a male partner, or a female partner?

And if the partner was female in this instance, was the crowd correct in calling it adultery?  Yes, they were.  Jesus didn't fault them for identifying what the sin was; He faulted them for a pre-judgmental, "we're-going-to-test-Christ-and-hang-this-girl" intolerant attitude.

If you're a homosexual thinking of calling this blog entry an example of hatred, what are you going to say to the Lord when you stand in front of Him?  Are you going to cherry-pick your answers?

The non-liberal, Christian version of Christ - the actual version - calls on those to abandon their sinning, just like Jesus said to that woman above, and accept Him as Savior.  It's a free gift, too.  Costs nothing but a few minutes and a private moment.  That's what the cross was all about.

Or you can face Him as your Judge.  Not a good prospect.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.