MSNBC's Bashir, a Professing Christian, Throws Bible Under the Bus in Interview with Conservative Pastor on Same-sex Marriage
MSNBC's Martin Bashir -- who attends a New York City church pastored by a conservative minister who signed the pro-traditional marriage Manhattan Declaration -- yesterday maligned the Holy Bible in an attempt to defend President Obama from the charge that his support of same-sex marriage contradicts biblical teaching on matrimony.
The incident came in an interview with Dr. Robert Jeffress after the Dallas-area Baptist minister affirmed that he "absolutely" agreed that defending same-sex marriage "contradicts" the teaching of Scripture. "I think the president is violating the very teaching and words of the Jesus he says he follows," Jeffress noted. That's when Bashir sprung his "have you stopped beating your wife, yet"-style gotcha question:
Okay, so what, then, sir, is your view of slavery, because Ephesians 6, verse 5 says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear." Colossians 3:22 says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with sincerity of heart." And as you know, many Christians have historically claimed that Scripture supports slavery. Do you?
Jeffress answered Bashir's question and added that he wasn't sure what slavery had to do with the same-sex marriage issue, to which Bashir answered:
Here's what's interesting about what the president said yesterday. He used exactly the same biblical justification that William Wilberforce used to condemn slavery in 1807, when he wrote, and I'm quoting Wilberforce, that slavery is "contrary to that religion which commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to do to others as we would have them do to us."
Again, the president, like Wilberforce, was using the Golden Rule to justify equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. If it applied to slavery, why can't it apply to same-sex marriage?
Of course, as Jeffress noted, Jesus himself affirmed that "from the beginning," marriage was designed by God to be an institution joining one man and one woman for life. Marriage was God's idea (Gen. 2:24), Jesus affirmed that (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9), and it was instituted before man fell into sin in Genesis 3.
What's more, and practicing Christian Bashir most certainly should know this, the Bible, far from giving a moral green light to polygamy or slavery, presents a warts-and-all picture of the devastation and pain that those evils caused. And an honest review of the form of slavery permitted under the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament shows a picture much more akin to indentured servitude than transgenerational, inescapable slavery that existed in pre-Civil War America.
Additionally, and again, Martin Bashir should know this, the very same St. Paul he considers a supporter of slavery actually authored a letter in the New Testament in which he urges a fellow Christian to welcome home his runaway slave Onesimus, who has become a Christian, as a brother in Christ, not as a slave.
"[I]f you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account," Paul wrote Philemon, adding, "I will repay it" and "Confident of your obedience [emphasis mine], I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say" (Philemon 17-21).
As I've noted previously, however, Bashir has a penchant for taking Scripture out of context to serve his liberal politics. So perhaps it's not so surprising he attempted to throw the Bible under the bus in order to boost Obama.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What does the Bible really say about Slavery? FIND OUT!
Submitted by stage9 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 5:26pm.
Does the Bible condone slavery?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Godwin's Law Redux?
Submitted by tcm14 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 5:47pm.
Similar to Godwin's law (whoever draws a comparison to Hitler has lost the argument), we need a law for comparing things to slavery. Maybe Reducto ad Slaverium, whoever makes the comparison to slavery has lost the argument. Cause the left seems really obsessed with comparing everything to slavery lately.
Poor Martin
Submitted by KornKing on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 5:45pm.
An old line-being in a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car.
Social conservatives.
Submitted by Shreve on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:09pm.
Could the social conservatives explain to me their viewpoint on why they think marriage equality shouldn't exist?
~Typical liberal
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:17pm.
Make up a fake but nice sounding term like "marriage equality" and plaintively ask "What's so bad about it?".
Come back when you're ready to stop sucking your thumb and hugging your straw man.
She gets the mine
Submitted by CJohnson on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 7:27pm.
and he gets the shaft (= marriage equality?). I enjoy your retorts.
Couldn't edit original. How
Submitted by Shreve on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:23pm.
Couldn't edit original.
How I needed to word the question was "what is the social conservative viewpoint on marriage equality from a legal standpoint?"
What's a "social conservative"?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:26pm.
.
Me, for one.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 8:45pm.
I am risking all here, but... Marriage is defined as the union/partnership of a male and a female, the base purpose is to reproduce and nourish the resulting man children or women children to adulthood, whereupon they assume the mantel of personal responsibility for themselves. This is time and time again the proven definition of marriage, buy evolution or creation (take your pick). We only have one responsibility in this world, survive long enough to procreate. How we do that is up to us.
Now, to gay unions. Since the purpose of the union is not to bear children, then it is not a marriage, it is a partnership. J and I have been partners for over 37 years (we call it dating) because neither she or I wanted children. And since we can't see any reason for government or religion to give us permission to have a relationship, we told them to go away and leave us alone. Some may call it living-in-sin, but none of our religious friends do. Also, we do not need the label "married" to show off, be cool, be in the in crowd, or any other reason.
Now I've been saying this for the longest time (and you may quote me):
Fornication without Procreation is Masturbation.
Simple. If you are rolling around in bed having sex with someone of the same or different gender, and the purpose is recreational, then you are simply masturbating each other. Oh you can love each other as much as you want. You might even think you are doing a service for the other party, doing all the work for them, but it is still not anywhere near family making.
The reason that sex is fun is because, through millennia, people that don't have fun having sex do not generally have babies. The ones that did have fun procreated their brains out and all their descendents enjoyed having sex and procreated themselves silly. Now, mother nature is still using the joy of sex to trick men and women to have sex so they can make babies (I point out high school pregnancy as an example). When they don't make a baby, well, best not to upset mother nature.
What does the label "married" mean to a gay couple? Beside the legal rights that you can have anyway just for the asking. is it fashionable? Is it an elegant cache? Got a nice ring to it? Or is it just a signal to your friends and society that you are getting each other off? You don't have to be married to be in love, to move in, to sleep together, or any other thing you choose to do. When you start worrying more about what other people think of your relationship that you do, you're in trouble already.
Now, one last personal plea: Let us heterosexuals have marriage to ourselves. please? Leave us this one last vestige of our differences. Something that has survived thousands of generations. Is there really a compelling reason to toss it out?There are so few rituals and structures left to us straights, now the gays want to take this away from us too. We straights have not co-opted one single gay's only label or ritual or anything. Gays are trying to change everything that is considered hetero.
Why? Is this the gay way to try to fit in to society? Change society? Why don't gays change their attitudes to better fit in to society? Gays want acceptance, but won't accept that society is overwhelmingly straight. Straights don't want to run their lives by the gay's rules.
Finally, a word to libs and gays: You have your brain, nobody else. Take responsibility for yourself. Stand up and say "I'm me and no damn government program defines me! My skin color does not define me. I do not want any damn political party to define me! I am what I am and who I am and if somebody does not like that, then let them suffer in their ignorance!" of all the things this world has to offer, sex is the least of your worries.
(Whoo boy, am I in for it now!)
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
I thank you for that well
Submitted by Shreve on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:23pm.
I thank you for that well thought out reply on your viewpoint.
Generally, when I ask someone why they are against same-sex marriage, or marriage equality, I get the the reply of "God said so!" and they leave it at that.
Your welcome!
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 2:53pm.
Shreve,
I waited until today to see if there was any feedback. I wrote this Friday evening after getting bombarded with Gay Marriage stories from all sides. I am a very practical person and wrote what I think of the practical side of marriage.
I'm suprised I didn't get any negative responses. Maybe few read the post.
If I can remember my password, I'll post a copy of this on my long negelcted blog site.
Thanks again.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
People read the posts, but
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 3:48pm.
People read the posts, but oftentimes they move on without commenting.
In my case, the one comment I would make is that your statement in boldface should have the qualifier "openess to procreation," as it is God (or Nature, for those non-theists out there), who does the procreating, not us. The notion that we have control over our fertility is a complete fantasm, as the one out of six infertile couples out there (the 5 ton elephant in the room that nobody likes talking about) will testify. This also kind of gets at what is meant when we say that every human life is precious.
I disagree
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 8:00pm.
I wasn't looking at it from the religious view.
If religion calls masturbation a sin, shouldn't mutual masturbation be a sin too? In that case all relations, marital or not, that are performed without the intention of having a baby are a sin?
I know the Catholics consider any form of birth control a sin. But they did condone the rhythm method, which allowed (married) couples to have sex with only a small chance of making babies. But if the purpose of that sex was recreational, should not that be considered a sin as well?
See, this is why I left out religion in favor of the base mechanics of the issue. I'm not saying your point was not valid, I just choose not to add complex moral and religious arguments into the discussion.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
~Religion and masturbation
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 8:17pm.
(I can't believe I just typed that)
I've read the whole Bible, and I don't recall any references to masturbation. "Religion" may call it a sin, but God didn't put it in the Ten.
God undoubtedly made men and women to enjoy each other, and there's no way you could conclude that God frowns upon all spousal love-making that is not expressly for the purpose of making a baby.
Just FYI, hubby and I just had our fifth, so I'm not exactly against baby-making.
I don't think we really disagree
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 10:45pm.
My comment was primarily aimed at the fact that there are married couples out there who, for sometimes unknown reasons, are unable to conceive. But I reread what you wrote after I had posted and realized you said "fornication without procreation," not "marriage without procreation" (as I had thought), and obviously there's a big difference.
Good evening Jim
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:37am.
Oftentimes we as humans enjoy complicating the simple guidelines God gave us.
In Genesis 2:24God says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." That was the institution of marriage. The hebrew word here literally means "being". When my wife of 42 years died I fully realized the true meaning because part of me went with her. Here in Louisiana you and J would have been considered married by the state after 6 years. I believe that God would have considered you married after the first night together. You would be accepted in our church as a married couple. We are not free to redefine the words marriage, husband, wife to satisfy our selfish desires or opinions.
In Exodus 20:14 God said "Thou shalt not commit adultery". He meant sex with anyone other than your wife. We can complicate the details all we want but the instructions here are simple and straight forward. Jesus' main criticism of the jewish religious leaders had complicated God's laws to control the lives of the people to benefit the leaders themselves.
One old expression I particularly like is - "We can't see the forest for the trees".
If we would stop trying to see thet little shrub we could see the forest plainly.
God bless you,
Alton
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Marriage equality
Submitted by wingnut55 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:37pm.
Marriage equality already exists. It is when liberals want to change the definition of the word "marriage" that the problem come up. Just like they changed the definition of the word "gay" and made the word "mother" a dirty word. That is just two examples of what the left had done to the English language.
Clinton knew
Submitted by Blorg on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:44pm.
That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
First define "equality" then
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 7:07pm.
First define "equality" then explain in detail why two things with very little similarities can possibly be made "equal".
2+2 does not equal 5.
in answer to the question
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:20pm.
I dunno. What's the social liberal viewpoint on "marriage" as considered within the broader non-myopic viewpoint of the known 6000+ years of trans-cultural human history?
"Marriage equality" -- all adult citizens are free to marry, marriage being defined as it has always and everywhere been defined.
Next question... only this time please spare us the contrived social liberal framing.
One man, one woman.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:41pm.
They're equal partners in marriage, therefore there is marriage equality. Problem solved for you, Binky?
Another old line
Submitted by grammajane on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:14pm.
'Having a "show" on tv doesn't mean you are worthy of anything"
Bashwhore....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:24pm.
....Needs to have a Cage Match with Chrissy Tingles with the winner getting to proclaim his man love for Baracko unfettered and unchallenged...
Slavery
Submitted by CJohnson on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 7:22pm.
to be forced to work, to be bound to a life of toil or labor; a beast of burden, enslaved by the need to be fed and sheltered, or die. Anyone you know?
Oh, I'm sure Martin has
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 8:12pm.
Oh, I'm sure Martin has "evolved" beyond the Bible, just as Obama has "evolved" beyond HIS Christian faith, which led him to believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman
Martin being a "Professed" Christian is like a snake being a
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:07pm.
professed vegetarian.
I bet Bashir attends church twice a year
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:17pm.
Christmas and Easter.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Right along with Baracka and Mooooshelle,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:08am.
unless it's election season.
Bible out of context
Submitted by Netstatter on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:59am.
Since when have many Christians historically claimed that Scripture supports slavery? The Bible does nothing of the kind, only saying that slaves should cheerfully obey their masters, AND that masters should treat their slaves well, for they are also answerable to God (by the way, many Christians take this as a model for their life in the workplace). Also, the Bible does not support homosexuality; in fact, it is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, in multiple verses.
I can not see any person who claims to be a Christian supporting same-sex marriage. They are either ignorant of the Bible (and need to take that Bible's admonition to study it "to show themselves approved") or they are openly hypocrites.
It would be like a Christian supporting, say, adultery, or theft. It does not work.
No Problem - Toss the Bible
Submitted by Skip Barrow on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 5:03am.
Why everyone is focused on scripture is stupifying. Nobody needs scripture. While its true that scripture is the divine manifestation of the Word of God, the Word of God (the Logos) was Christ Himself. What these idiots are trying to say is that the apostles didn't "quote" Christ on homosexuality. For that matter, they didn't quote him on murder, theft or taking the Lords name in vain either. Does that mean they're okay now too ? Christ taught disciples, and those taught theirs and on down the line. Scripture is not the complete teaching of Christ as any validly ordained clergy can attest. Scripture, which was not even assembled and available to the public for 1500 years is nothing but the scribbled notes of the Apostles and some church fathers. The true and complete teachings are with the validly educated and ordained.
well
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 8:56am.
Thank you for your......opinion.
Baloney
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 11:21am.
And horse feathers too.
So, Martin Bashir Calls Himself A Christian
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 11:20am.
Well, Martin - here is something for you:
Matthew 7:21 [ I Never Knew You ] “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."
And Martin, do a little research. Slavery in Biblical and even Roman and Greek times was considerably different that the slavery we know. And, Martin, you also forgot about servants and bondservants. Oh, I'd love to debate this guy on theology.
If Bashir is a Christian, then I'm a Kardashian.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 11:40am.
.
Bashir a Christian ?
Submitted by Edward Cropper on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:45pm.
If Bashir is a genuine Christian and not just one in name only, then Barack Obama is a real golfer
Test the spirit
Submitted by Robersire on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 4:11pm.
A true Christian would not believe in abortion. [If you listen and you have the Holy Spirit, you will hear their cries]
A true Christian would never say my Muslim Faith.
A Muslim is told to lie so they would claim to be a Christian to deceive.
You will know them by their fruit. A good tree can't give bad fruit and a bad tree can't give good fruit.
Something smells in Washington and it isn't good fruit.
Of course Bashir will throw the Bible, Religion, and Jesus
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 8:15pm.
under the bus. To a Leftist, Liberalism is their only true religion.
That is why the majority of so-called Jews vote for Democrats. As Conservative author, radio host, and Jew Dennis Prager laments: "Liberalism has now replaced Judaism as the religion of the Jews."