The Bible's most politically incorrect teaching (you won't like it)...

[Michie]

*You are in the Catholic forum*

If the Bible has a single most politically incorrect teaching, it won't be about sin only a few people commit. It won't condemn something you and your friends aren't going to do anyway. It won't command something you would do anyway. And it definitely won't be a sin or commandment you can use as a weapon in a culture war...

Continued below.
The Bible's Most Politically Incorrect Teaching (You Won't Like It) | The Stream

 

[antiquarian]

I don't know about this. It's true that most people don't do nearly enough to help those in need, but just about everyone thinks that helping people in need is a good thing to do (though they may disagree about the methods and forms of help). No one gets called a "miserphobe" (see, there's not even a word for it). They might get called a "bleeding heart liberal", but that's only if they go on to say that the help must be in the form of government money or new laws, which is a question of methods and forms of help, and not opposition to the ideal. But people who say that homosexual activity is a sin get called homophobes on a regular basis.

 

[Michie]

I posted a video not too long ago where a woman pushed a priest off the stage that was discussing homosexuality. She was called a "queen." The comments about Christianity were satanic. People celebrated this. This is the love is love movement.

I don't know about this. It's true that most people don't do nearly enough to help those in need, but just about everyone thinks that helping people in need is a good thing to do (though they may disagree about the methods and forms of help). No one gets called a "miserphobe" (see, there's not even a word for it). They might get called a "bleeding heart liberal", but that's only if they go on to say that the help must be in the form of government money or new laws, which is a question of methods and forms of help, and not opposition to the ideal. But people who say that homosexual activity is a sin get called homophobes on a regular basis.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What is the Bible's most un-p.c. teaching? What does it say that offends and challenges pretty much everyone? We being such sinners, we have lots of possibilities.

I'd suggest one, at least for Americans and Europeans. It's Matthew 25:31-46. You'll remember the passage. Jesus tells the people about the judgment to come. The king says to some: "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."

Why them? He says: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." When did we do that? they ask. The King tells them: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Some did not do that for the least of these. The king tells them: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Why did I choose this passage? Because few of us like this idea. As a lovely ideal, yes, but not as a truth to be lived. We don’t want so radical a change in what we do with our stuff. And not just our stuff, but our time, our energies, our space, our company, our affections even.

Also, this column is meant to be a response to somebody else's idea of what the most un-PC part of the Bible is, by Alan Shlemon.

Frankly, I don't see any rational argument against Alan Shlemon's point in today's LGBT-obsessed America.

Iow, I don't think I agree with David Mills on this.

 

[antiquarian]

Also, this column is meant to be a response to somebody else's idea of what the most un-PC part of the Bible is, by Alan Shlemon.

That makes me wonder what Mills was really going for, because what the article seems to be going for at face value just doesn't work, and it's not even clear how someone could think it would work. Or does he really think that helping people in need is seen by someone (I'm guessing Republicans) as immoral?