The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

[W|M]

Anti-racist, antislavery, anti-sexist, yet apparently we're still bigots

You're homophobic - See Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Spoiler :

You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.

If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God.

Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.

 

[_random_]

What translation are you using? I'd be suspicious of any that refers to "homosexuals." since the idea of distinct classes of people based on sexual orientation didn't exist in Biblical times.

 

[Traitorfish]

The New International Version uses "men who have sex with men" for the Corinthians and "those practising homosexuality" for the Timothy. Apparently in the case of the Corinthians, the original Greek uses two different words referring to tops and bottoms.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I am skeptical of "The bible doesn't disapprove of homosexual sex" claims. It's true that it doesn't mention homosexuality as we understand it, but I don't think that it's enough reason to dismiss these oft-quoted Biblical passages.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, the problem is that there's no such as "The Bible", there's just a lot of essentially disparate books that have been traditionally compiled into one or the other reading list. Most Christians flout Leviticus on a daily basis, so that's clearly nothing like an absolute authority, while Paul represents only one interpretation of the teachings of Yehoshua of Nazareth among several. (Even setting aside how many nominally Pauline texts probably had nothing to do with him in the first place.)

 

[Arakhor]

The usual get-out clause is "Mosaic law was overturned", but no one seems clear on what exactly remains or why everything you dislike happens to still be in force.

 

[Lone Wolf]

while Paul represents only one interpretation of the teachings of Yehoshua of Nazareth among several. (Even setting aside how many nominally Pauline texts probably had nothing to do with him in the first place.)

True, if you are not a biblical inerrantist, you being fine with gay sex isn't inconsistent. The people who want to preserve both their pro-gay stance and biblical inerrancy are, though.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, the problem is that there's no such as "The Bible", there's just a lot of essentially disparate books that have been traditionally compiled into one or the other reading list. Most Christians flout Leviticus on a daily basis, so that's clearly nothing like an absolute authority, while Paul represents only one interpretation of the teachings of Yehoshua of Nazareth among several. (Even setting aside how many nominally Pauline texts probably had nothing to do with him in the first place.)

I'm pretty sure Paul condemns gay sex in Romans, and I'm pretty sure Plotinus said that Romans was written by Paul.

True, if you are not a biblical inerrantist, you being fine with gay sex isn't inconsistent. The people who want to preserve both their pro-gay stance and biblical inerrancy are, though.

I believe in Biblical inerrancy and I believe that gay sex is a sin. I honestly don't see how that viewpoint can even possibly be seen as bigoted.

 

[Arakhor]

I believe in Biblical inerrancy and I believe that gay sex is a sin. I honestly don't see how that viewpoint can even possibly be seen as bigoted.

So, you believe that a group of people are sinful if they indulge in an adult past time that need not concern anyone else and you don't see any way that could be considered intolerant or divisive?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

So, you believe that a group of people are sinful if they indulge in an adult past time that need not concern anyone else and you don't see any way that could be considered intolerant or divisive?

Why don't you say the same for divorce, which is a sin in most cases?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think its extremely ridiculous to claim that anyone who thinks (X, Y, And Z) is wrong, he's a bigot, without any base for it. That its a "Popular Adult pasttime" means little, especially since I don't believe sex should be a "Pasttime."

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You're homophobic

Honestly, I find it sick that opposition to SSM is being compared to taking away basic rights from people because their skin is a different colour.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This...

 

[Arakhor]

Why don't you say the same for divorce, which is a sin in most cases?

Divorce is regrettable, but it's hardly a 'sin'. Ascribing qualities of sin to everything about which you disapprove is inherently lazy and allows you not to think about the moral implications (if any) of such an act.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Divorce is regrettable, but it's hardly a 'sin'. Ascribing qualities of sin to everything about which you disapprove is inherently lazy and allows you not to think about the moral implications (if any) of such an act.

Oh, yes, I'm always ascribing "sin" to things I don't like, it's not like I get my ideas about what sin is from the Bible or anything like that.

 

[Arakhor]

Is that supposed to be a telling response or does it just prove my point?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Is that supposed to be a telling response or does it just prove my point?

You claimed that I base what I think is sin on things I disapprove of. However, that is not the case.

 

[Leoreth]

Honestly, I find it sick that opposition to SSM is being compared to taking away basic rights from people because their skin is a different colour.

You don't consider equal treatment a fundamental right?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You don't consider equal treatment a fundamental right?

That's the thing, no one's being treated differently. In Kentucky, no one can marry someone of the same gender, if Kentucky were to legalize SSM, everyone could marry someone of the same gender.

 

[Cutlass]

Honestly, I find it sick that opposition to SSM is being compared to taking away basic rights from people because their skin is a different colour.

You don't like a group for some reason, so that group is denied the same rights that you enjoy.

There is no moral difference between between being an anti-gay bigot and a racial bigot.