I just caught the last minute of Real Time: With Bill Maher while on the road recently. I think what he had to say about “Christians” in this country was so spot-on that I downloaded the show’s podcast and am, here, transcribing his rant. His comments are in response to the celebration of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
(note: Bill Maher openly celebrated, but then made comments about Christian hypocrisy on a previous episode).

If we learned anything from Pontius Pilate, it’s that our detractors often have shocking clarity about our plight.

Obviously this is meant to be funny, but some of these lines on their own are eerily poignant.

“If you’re a Christian who supports killing your enemies and torture, you have to come up with a new name for yourself….Capping thine enemy is not exactly what Jesus would do. It’s what Suge Knight would do.
Now, for almost 2,000 years Christians have been lawyering the Bible to try and figure out how ‘love thy neighbor’ can mean ‘hate thy neighbor’ and how ‘turn the other cheek’ can mean ‘screw you, I’m buying space lasers’. Martin Luther King gets to call himself a Christian, because he actually practiced loving his enemies. And Ghandi was so fucking Christian he was Hindu. But, if you rejoice in torture, revenge, and war you cannot say that you’re a follower of the guy that explicitly said ‘love your enemies’ and ‘do good to those who hate you’. The next line isn’t ‘and if that doesn’t work, send a titanium-fanged dog to rip his nuts off’.
Jesus lays that hippie stuff on pretty thick. He has lines like ‘do not repay evil with evil’ and ‘do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you’. Really, it’s in that book that you hold up when you scream at gay people.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but non-violence was kind of Jesus’ trademark, kind of his big thing. To not follow that part of it is like joining Greenpeace and hating whales. I mean, you know, there’s interpreting and then there’s just ignoring. It’s just ignoring if you’re for torture, as are more evangelical Christians than any other religion.
You’re supposed to look at that figure of Christ on the cross and think ‘how could a man suffer like that and forgive?’ not ‘Romans are pussies, he still has his eyes.’ If you go to a baptism and hold the baby under until he starts talking, you’re missing the message. Like, apparently, our president, who says he gets scripture every morning on his Blackberry. But who said on 60 minutes that anyone who would question that Bin Laden deserved assassination should quote ‘have their head examined’. Hey, Fox News, you missed a big headline: ‘Obama thinks Jesus is nuts’.
To which I say ‘hallelujah’ because my favorite new government program is surprising violent religious zealots in the middle of the night and shooting them in the face. Sorry Headstart, you’re number 2 now.
But, you see, I can say that because I’m a non-Christian…Just like most Christians. Hence, Christians, I’m sorry. I know you hate this and you want to square this circle, but you can’t. I’m not even judging you, I’m just saying logically, if you ignore every single thing Jesus commanded you to do, you’re not a Christian. You’re just auditing. You’re not Christ’s followers, you’re just fans. And if you believe the earth was given to you to kick ass on while gloating, you’re not really a Christian. You’re a Texan”

I’ve noticed when Googling “Christians and tattoos” that cogent arguments for the acceptability of Christians tattooing themselves under biblical mandate seem to be sparse. When recently challenged about my own tattoos by a self-recognized “Messianic Jew” (one who believes in Christ but attempts to retain the Jewish traditions associated with early Christianity) I answered with the following:

Note: I had initially misquoted the scripture as saying “do not cut your skin as the pagans do”. 

“26 Ye shall not eat with the blood; neither shall ye practise divination nor soothsaying.

27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor imprint any marks upon you: I am HaShem.

29 Profane not thy daughter, to make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness.

30 Ye shall keep My sabbaths, and reverence My sanctuary: I am HaShem.

31 Turn ye not unto the ghosts, nor unto familiar spirits; seek them not out, to be defiled by them: I am HaShem your G-d.”

-Lev. 19:26-31 (Tanakh; Jewish Virtual Library)

You are correct, I fully misquoted the verse in confusion with something that my professor, Rabbi Spiro, commented on the passage. He subscribed to the school of thought that the above passage is, in context, about the Hebrews requirement to stray away from pagan practices. Upon a second and third reading of this conservative, Jewish translation of the text I think, though my quoting of the scripture was off-base, that my original argument stands. 
Consider three things:
First, the scripture is grouped into pairs of instructions that the redactors deemed similar to one another. In this, we see the cutting of the flesh and adorning of “tattoos” as being in the same group. It could be argued that the practices were extensions of each other as the other groupings (namely verse 27) seem to be either repeated for specificity or simply redundant. If they are grouped together, then you could more specifically argue that this calls against the tattooing of ones body for the mourning of the dead (a pagan practice and one that is often practiced today through “memorial tattoos) and as none of my tattoos are in remembrance of anyone, then I stand vindicated.

Secondly, the framing of the single verse (28) by other pagan practices (specifically of mourning but also of temple harlotry) sets up the context of these verses as supporting the idea that the intention was to separate the Hebrew people from their pagan neighbors. To quote Pastor Chuck Gerwig, “The “tattoo” marks described in Leviticus 19:28 were clearly related to false religious practices. The word translated tattoo in our English Bibles is the Hebrew word “qa aqa”, this word appears only one time in the Bible, here in this passage Leviticus. The word “qa aqa” means literally “to cut” but taken with the surrounding words indicates a cutting that left a mark imprinted in the skin. This could have been a form of branding, scarring, cutting or a process where ink was inlaid into the skin; there is not enough data to fully define exactly what this word meant. However we translate the word “qa aqa” though, in this passage, it is certainly used in the context of cultic religious worship. The prohibition against “qa aqa”, (translated tattoo) was to keep the Israelites from being involved or affiliated with cultic worship practices.” In this, my original argument stands.

Lastly, if we accept that this is a cultic practice, and that it’s prohibition by G-d is meant to ensure that we as believers use our bodies as an outward sign of devotion to Him, then the argument that both circumcised and uncircumcised people can be saved comes into the equation. We are no longer under the Old Testament Law as Christians, circumcision is no longer required. This is brought out in a number of New Testament passages, among which are the following: Acts 15; Galatians 2:1-3; 5:1-11; 6:11-16; 1 Corinthians 7:17-20; Colossians 2:8-12; Philippians 3:1-3. As these passages proclaim, being saved from our sins is received through faith in Christ to save us from our sins, and it is this act of turning from our sin and self-righteousness and turning instead to reliance upon Christ’s finished work on the cross that makes us “circumcised of heart” and that the works of the flesh accomplish nothing. Thus, if someone who has tattoos already accepts Jesus and professes him or herself a Christian, then it is no longer that only Pagans have tattoos and the need for separation ceases to exist.

In closing I would say this, the strongest argument given in the context of this passage is to mark yourself in memorial may be prohibited, but the marking of ones skin simply for decoration (not unlike make-up or the styling or coloring of one’s hair) just does not seem to hold argument for those of us who find uncircumcised freedom in Christ.

An interesting write-up in Christian magazine Relevant about the emotional dangers of the prevalent Romantic Comedy genre and it’s effects on our perceptions of real relationships. In a world where divorce is the norm, those of us who think marriage is a good idea need to start looking for some answers.

Writer Joel NaSmith says this:

There’s certainly a war against the prevalence of visual pornography in many corners of our society—especially in the Christian culture. There is an attempt to expose pornography for its promotion of unrealistic sexual expectations and exploitation of human sexuality. And that attempt is a very necessary one.

But what about the unhealthy emotional and relational expectations portrayed in so much of our media? Is there really much of a difference in the hyperbolized sexual imagery of typical pornography and the hyperbolized momentary emotional high felt in a romance film or romantic comedy that sends us looking for a “love” that doesn’t exist?

I heard an interview on NPR with a female author named Elizabeth Gilbert. She was talking about the proliferation of the “Soul Mate Complex” in our modern culture and how the film Jerry Maguire served to reinforce it with the now illustrious line, “You complete me.”

I think this article takes a chip out of a major societal dam.

The presumably harmful aspect of pornography for the consumer* is the accumulation of unrealistic sexual expectations for their romantic and sexual partners, especially as it pertains to a long-term relationship. The same can be said for the consumer of the Rom Com. It works to generate unrealistic expectations in us about what a love relationship could and should be. 

as an example from the article:

As a result, we’re taught to crave the moment of romantic ecstasy or to live for the wedding day. We’re raised to think these are the real stories of love and relationship, and we’re confused when they are so few and far between that we aren’t sustained. So we turn back to that which led us to believe in this fantasy all along. And we’re left with an old woman sitting alone, in her love seat, in front of the television watching her “stories.”

Kids eventually understand that pumpkins don’t turn to glass carriages and Fairy Godmothers don’t grant wishes, but many girls never grow out of the idea that one day they will be rescued from reality by some magic and a fictitious prince. And little boys never live up to the fantasy of the mind or that they’re supposed to be that prince and that their spouse is an all-fulfilling princess.

I think this idea has special connotations for the Christian church. We need to stop battling things like pornography based solely on some misguided sense of morality and righteousness and start battling the larger social epidemic; addiction to fantasy. The Ten Commandments don’t say “Though shalt not visit Suicide Girls”, it says “though shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”. The warning here isn’t just about the base act of lust which occurs in an instant. The real affront is imagining yourself with something that isn’t yours, then eventually convincing yourself that you deserve that thing. That is covetous.

This is right at the heart of the issue. Watching “Twilight” or some porno isn’t the issue in and of itself, it’s the fact that those things eventually lead us to wish our wife had sex a certain way or to question our husband’s commitment because he’s never lied awake all night just to hear us breath. 

*for the creator the side-effects can range from sex slavery to financial dependence on acts stemming from psychological disrepair. Also, pornography often has a connotation of dominance and objectification that can be FAR more dangerous than any Rom Com.  

This is going to come as an upset to the Pat Robertson/Jihad crowd, but a recent PEW report of the Millennial generation (born after 1980) states that, of the 50% of Millenials that are for gay marriage, 45% of them are “Religiously Affiliated”. This reflects a very interesting turn in, not necessarily acceptance of homosexuals, but certainly (what I would refer to as) an even-headedness about the difference in what we believe to be right for our lives, and what we see as a burden on society as a whole.

I mean, if I’m going to go to a deomcratic vote about what’s best for the country, I’m not going to deny someone the right to visit a person they love in the hospital because of what he or she does with that person behind closed door. And with so many orphaned children on this planet, I’d rather allow gay couples to adopt and nurture that child then let the kid rot in one of those awful group homes. So what if they raise the kid with a different understanding of sexuality then I would raise my own with? I’d rather that child be loved and possibly gay (not that being raised by a same sex couple automatically makes you gay) then be tossed around in the system their whole lives.

Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but it seems that many others people of faith in my generation feel the same way.

Here’s a link to the report, see it for yourself.