Maggie Lamond Simone, at the Huffington Post, uses the controversy over Chick Fil-A’s stance on gay marriage to make a broader point about the Bible:
Those who base their prejudice on the Bible’s teachings are cherry-picking their beliefs, which I would suggest invalidates them.
We at Holey Books have certainly focused many posts that are problematic for most believers’ daily lives—for example, not far from the passage of Leviticus that prohibits homosexuality, there is a passage prohibiting tattoos. Which makes one wonder if everyone with a tattoo also believes we can’t trust the Old Testament’s words on gay marriage. At least, I’d be willing to bet the two groups are not mutually exclusive.
Lamond Simone continues:
Until we see, for example, Mitt Romney selling everything he owns and giving the money to the poor, which the Bible instructs, his use of the Bible to deny gay marriage will never be valid.
Of course, this could also apply to the President (he may not be using the Bible to deny gay marriage, but as a Christian he is not exactly selling everything he owns). At our current pace, it’s going to be a while before we get to the New Testament—and the consistency issues there, both between the Gospels and between the Old Testament and the New.
Coming up next, though, is the story of the original Jesus (so to speak*):the Book of Joshua.
*“Jesus” and “Joshua” were the same name in Hebrew. If you watched The Passion of the Christ, you probably already knew this.