National Geographic Harps on 'Intolerant Attitudes' in Bible
Adam Nicolson couldn't resist inserting a blast at traditional sexual ethics into an article about the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible in the December 2011 issue of National Geographic magazine. Nicolson labeled the Book of Leviticus's condemnation of homosexual acts a "troubling part of the King James inheritance: a ferocious and singular moral vision that has become unacceptable in most of the liberal, modern world."
The author devoted seven paragraphs in his article, "The Bible of King James," on the influence of the King James Bible on the non-Christian Rastafarian religion in Jamaica. He noted that "pious Rastafarians read the King James Bible every day," and contrasted the "gentle and welcoming" ambience found in the "Bobo Camp" community outside the capital of Kingston with "other Rastafarians whose style is the polar opposite of that, taking their cue from some of the more intolerant attitudes to be found in the Bible."
Nicolson continued that "several Jamaican reggae and dance hall stars have been banned from performing in Canada and parts of Europe for their violently antigay lyrics." He added that "the justification is there in the Bible ('If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They shall surely be put to death,' Leviticus 20:13)," and concluded with his "troubling" and "ferocious" phrase about the King James Bible's "moral vision."
This kind of secularist attitude, which frowns upon any religious-based criticism of homosexual behavior, is being actively promoted by many in the liberal media. CNN anchor Don Lemon, an open homosexual, complained about the influence of the Bible upon the black community in a November 2011 interview: "We have, in many ways, been a victim of the Scriptures and theology that have been used to keep us as slaves. It's been ingrained us (sic), and now we use it against gay people without thinking about things objectively." Lemon also claimed that he wasn't a homosexual activist during the interview, but is also on the record as saying "I hope to change minds."
Nicolson's skeptical treatment of traditional Christianity came out previously in a different venue. In 2004, he narrated a BBC documentary series titled "Atlantic Britain." As part of his sea voyage, he visited the island of Papa Stronsay off the coast of Scotland, where a community of Catholic religious brothers called the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer are based. When he arrived at the island, and the superior of the community disclosed their plans for a pre-dawn Mass, the author admitted to the leader, "I'm not confirmed in any church, and I'm certainly not a Catholic in any way." After the superior left, he also admitted, "I don't believe in God," and added that he suspected that the brothers were going to "try and get me," meaning try to convert him. At one point, he even debated one of the brothers about the existence of objective truth.
However, he later revealed that he was "very drawn by the conviction of the people here, and incredibly impressed by the discipline and rigor of what's happening here." He even got quite emotional when the community gave him a rosary as a parting gift. A convicted Christian would certainly hope that a seed was planted during Nicolson's visit to Papa Stronsay, and will, in God's time, bear fruit.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Adam, if there is no
Submitted by pilgrim4jc on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 6:17pm.
Adam, if there is no "objective truth" then who are you to tell us the KJV is wrong?
Those that claim there is no objective truth have no philosophical authority to argue that anything is wrong.
Ditto
Submitted by davehm on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:15pm.
I find his lack of tolerance for anything intolerant very intolerable.
And what's with the "King James inheritance" nonsense?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:20pm.
Does he honestly think ol' Jimmy commissioned the Bible himself?
And does he think the only references to sexual sins of any type are found in Leviticus?
For someone attempting to position himself as an authority, he's woefully ignorant about his subject matter.
--Mike
He left out
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:03pm.
a whole list in 1st Corinthians 6.
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Misterbee
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 5:54pm.
That sounds like the roll call for the House and Senate. ;-)
Nicolson,...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 8:32pm.
wipe your chin! You missed some!
COTD
Submitted by Junkfixer on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 8:25pm.
That was very well put, Pilgrim. Comment of the day.
Compare
Submitted by stanmo42 on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:13pm.
How does the KJV compare to hmmmmm "The Religion of Peace" ? When was the last time the author wrote a piece on the Koran?
just what I was wondering
Submitted by michiganruth on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 11:58pm.
I am not that familiar with the Koran, but I'm pretty sure Mohamed was against homosexuality.
of course, this writer isn't about to write about the Koran's intolerance, because he knows the Muzzies would try to blow him up. but Christian-bashing? hey, that's fine! he knows nobody's going to put a fatwa out on him.
it's kind of like beating a small dog with a very large club. you can bash to your heart's content: it's not going to hurt you.
Muhammad was against
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:06pm.
homosexuality between MEN. Little boys were ok. Still is.
Why is it that these twits
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:20pm.
Why is it that these twits constantly harp on the Christian belief, as portrayed in the KJV of the Holy Bible, that homosexuality is a sin, yet can never seem to muster the same amount of outrage over the oppressive cult of Islam that is, by far, much more intolerant towards homosexuals than are modern day Christians?
Oh I know why! It's because Christians don't routinely kill hundreds of innocents in indiscriminate suicide bombings nor do they slowly saw the heads off of those they see as "infidels". I guess if you want to whine and moan that a religion is treating you badly it makes sense to whine and moan to one of the ones that don't want to put you to death just for being you, but rather prays that you will see the light and repent of what they deem your wicked ways.
(Authors Note: I am not a Christian and do not agree with some of the tenets of the Christian faith but it simply infuriates me when I see things like this. It bespeaks of great cowardice when you are faced, on a nearly daily basis, with far more grievous examples of homosexual intolerance, yet chose to focus on the ones that practice the mildest forms of intolerance, rather than take on those that have in the past and continue, to this very day, to put you to death for simply existing)
What I can't stand is this
Submitted by ThatDude on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 8:29pm.
What I can't stand is this forced acceptance. You'll be censored for expressing Christian or conservative ideals, while leftist vitriol is accepted. It's completely hypocritical the way the left deals with disagreements and attempts to control the public. I'm a bigot to them because I don't support gay marriage or advocate their cause. I have my own reasons to disagree with homosexuality(I'm not Christian nor religious), and in a free country, I'd like the freedom to hold those thoughts and express them.
That being said, I have homosexual friends and acquaintances. I don't agree with or condone that aspect of their life just like I don't condone other things that heterosexual friends do and think. Leftists can't seem to get away from viewing people as a group demographic rather than individuals. It is the latter view that allows one to love the sinner and hate the sin. I find it completely hypocritical that someone can hate other people for their personal beliefs and criticisms. Is the irony not apparent?
A man that writes a political
Submitted by ant on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 11:15pm.
A man that writes a political blog with a Christian take had a pretty good answer for why the left solely attacks Christianity and not any other faith. Part of his answer he borrowed from Scripture, ".. a house divided amongst itself cannot stand..". In other words, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The left and Islam have the same goal regarding Christianity, to suppress, kill it. So they have become strange bedfellows.
As far as homosexuality and the 'forced' acceptance,it's almost a fool's errand, which is why, I think, the left are attempting to introduce the subject to younger and younger children. Maybe to ease them into the logical conclusion. Because, from my own point of view, it isn't even what they are, it's what they do. I find the sexual act that homosexuals must engage in to be repulsive, no matter how I may try to understand, the thought of myself with another man, not to mention the necessary intercourse in such instances, is disgusting to me. Sorry if that offends them, it's just the way a lot of us 'straights' are wired. I can 'tolerate' a person who pierces their genitals and lifts bricks with the bar piercing...but to me, it will always be a circus act and I will always shudder at the thought.
Fact is, noone is putting homosexuals to death here, but to hear this whining, you'd think we were.
Check the Archives
Submitted by xraynova on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 8:18pm.
"Nicolson labeled the Book of Leviticus's condemnation of homosexual acts a "troubling part of the King James inheritance: a ferocious and singular moral vision that has become unacceptable in most of the liberal, modern world."
"...some of the more intolerant attitudes to be found in the Bible."
"We have, in many ways, been a victim of the Scriptures and theology that have been used to keep us as slaves. It's been ingrained us (sic), and now we use it against gay people without thinking about things objectively"
Great... now I've got to search through my library's most ancient news archives to see if this guy plagiarized material originally written in the Sodom Times, or the Gemorrah Journal & Constitution.
...and if people masquerading as journalists insist on quoting the Bible, you'd think they would take the time to investigate the context of their Biblical quotes.
Nat Geo & the Quran
Submitted by Anneke9 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 12:08pm.
I read the article and thought the Rastafarian angle was weird and out of left field. I'm still waiting for National Geographic to do a historical analysis of the Quran.
Sigh
Submitted by Coldsnap on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 11:04pm.
Hold on a moment. Let's stop talking about how to reduce our national debt or focus on media fluffing up liberal nutters. Let's instead take a moment to talk about what some guy says about people who follow some old book because THAT's going to lead to my kid having a better economy when she's 18.
A little bit of Christmas magic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS4G2f2Xy3w
If your god is your wallet...
Submitted by stage9 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 1:34am.
then you're already doomed.
"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
Can't see the forest for the trees.
Submitted by cjk on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:37am.
Some people, no, a lot of people, no, many more people than we think can't seem to grasp cause and effect.
Just are blind to what's clear to us; our financial state is totally, not in part, but totally due to our moral state as a nation.
I don't understand because it's basic reality 101 to me.
National Geographic puffing away
Submitted by Herbster on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 11:08pm.
I think this guy was doing too much smoking with the Rastafarians......
In the conservative modern
Submitted by The Glen on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 11:36pm.
In the conservative modern world however, it's quite acceptable.
The thing that really fascinates me...
Submitted by stage9 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 1:38am.
about secularists is how utterly naive they are to think that they are somehow going to be excused from the requirements the Bible places upon them and their lives! It's amazing! They live their entire existence believing that their relativistic cultural whims are the final verdict in eternal matters! They can ignore the Word of God, mock the Church, criticize Christianity and bury their heads beneath the sands of their irrelevant presuppositions, but in the end they will STILL stand before the God whose eyes are like fire and whose Word will be fulfilled with or without mankind's allegiance!
God is not subject to the ridiculous and intellectually absent notion of moral relativism. Western culture makes it up as it goes along. One day something appears to be taboo, the next it's a virtue. What's virtuous is evil, what's evil is good. There is no moral objectivity in the world of the relativist who is essentially a cultural atheist.
And everyone knows that atheists have no consistent basis for holding to objective moral values anyway.
But if one wants to be objective in regard to homosexuality, then they should look no further than the mountain of overwhelming evidence that suggests that the homosexual lifestyle is irreducibly self-destructive.
Homosexuals are 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse, are less happy in general, are 200% more likely to commit suicide, are 6 times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men, live an average of 24 years less than heterosexuals, have double the incidences of domestic violence than that of heterosexuals; lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer, are 3 times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviors, a higher prevalence of smoking and obesity, and are more likely to have greater health problems than heterosexual women. Add to this the high rates of sexually transmitted disease and it is clear to anyone with a pulse that homosexuality is a self-destructive lifestyle, something the Bible confirms, over and over and over again.
The problem is that society would rather ENABLE this self-destructive behavior than cure it. As it is, more homosexuals will die because the high priests of relativism and social political correctness would rather endorse a cultural myth than face the cold hard reality of the consequences of this lifestyle.
And THAT is the real tragedy!
"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
So the reporter is saying
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:30am.
So the reporter is saying that black Rastafarians are homophobic? Isn't that racist and a culturally imperialistic statement to make? I also wonder why there is no bee in his bonnet about intolerance in the Quran which far exceeds anything in the Christian Bible. when was the last time someone was put to death for blasphemy or violating sharia law such as fornication and sodomy in Christendom? You dont even have to go back a year to find such murders as common.practices in muslim majority countries. But Christians are the real ogres of the world according to that nutcase.
It's the intolerant attitude that says...
Submitted by Order270 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:48am.
...we must live by the dictates of Global Warming and Socialism and be politically correct about it, too.
The Bible is intolerant of a
Submitted by Restless Legs on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 10:29am.
The Bible is intolerant of a lot of things: lying, stealing, murder, adultery, jealousy, strife, etc.
Apparently, this author somehow thinks he has the moral authority to decree what should be
deemed "tolerant" and "intolerant." Who died and made him God?
Biblical Intolerance?
Submitted by Rikki_Doxx on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 12:04pm.
Yeah, right. The Bible and Christianity is intolerant. Islam, Koran, not.
Obvious
Submitted by locomotivebreath1901 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 1:52pm.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." - G. K. Chesterton.
what scripture says
Submitted by feetxxxl on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 3:14pm.
scripture says we have to died to the law in christ and are raised in christ and are now under the love of his grace, because all grace is given in his love. under the new covenant, christ's love is our standard, the summation and the fulfillment of all new covenant law. therefore it is his love that determines what the law is of the new covenat. under the new covenant the purpose of the law is to affirm what we already know in christ, not the other way around. so all the laws of the new covenant must be tested as to whether they are of what we already know is of his love, as in forgiving a woman caught in adultry rather than stoning her, that healing on the sabbath did not violate the sabbath, and that slavery was an intolerable evil because it came against his love.
the 1946 transposition of homosexual into scripture was an attempt to put homosexuality under law. but we know we are not under the law, and that being gay does not come against christ's love. the fullness of christ's love is in lives and marriages of those who are gay in the same way it is in those of who are heterosexual.
to put someone under the law,is to hold a law up in front of the torn curtain of the holy of holies, and say you cannot enter in have a relationship with christ until you have followed this law, even though there is no violation of his love.
the law gives no life, christ is and gives life. how can we putwhat is life under what gives no life?
the 1946 transposition of
Submitted by Matthew Balan on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 5:12pm.
the 1946 transposition of homosexual into scripture was an attempt to put homosexuality under law. but we know we are not under the law, and that being gay does not come against christ's love. the fullness of christ's love is in lives and marriages of those who are gay in the same way it is in those of who are heterosexual
What are you talking about with this "1946 transposition"? Your interpretation cannot be defended by the Gospels, as Christ Himself preached about what makes up a marriage.
"Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19: 4-6).
Nicely put.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 9:44pm.
And Christ's own words, in Matthew 5:17-19, address the law: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
A variety of sexual sins have been identified as such in the Bible--and, amazingly, all of them before 1946. Trying to defend a "pet sin" is pitiable.
--Mike
cancelled
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 10:12pm.
I canceled my subscription to Nat Geo in the last century due to its ever increasing progressive inclinations.
I cancelled as well.
Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 10:11am.
There is no space for opinion in National Geographic. Politics determine borders, but you cannot move mountains, oceans or deserts. Only God can.