At 8/3/12 09:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
OK, back to point A, because this is getting annoying.
Because I'm right? Yeah...I hate that too. It's off topic anyway, but this thread has been pretty swingingly wildly anyway.
If the plain text of the Bible is the source of Christianity,
Which was your argument. My argument is (and has always been if you bother to check any post I've ever made when someone tries to say all you need for Christianity is the Bible) that it is only PART of Christianity and the teachings of whichever church or sect the Christian(s) in question belongs to.
than these same folk who claim the Bible and Christianity as support against homosexuality are failing when they eat shrimp, or by outlawing child slavery, or by outlawing the stoning of women. By not maiming their adulterous wives they are going against the Bible.
True, but not necessarily their church or what they have been taught to believe, or have been taught is Christianity. Since many Churches teach things that are not explicitly in the Bible text, but they interpret from it. That's been my whole point. You can't boil Christianity to the Bible.
Therefore, they are cherry picking which text of the Bible to use and which to not use. They fail at following the text of the Bible.
This is not the argument you initially made...you initially charged that Christians could not hate or discriminate on gays because the Bible wouldn't back it (but must now admit it does), you also fail to address the argument I continue to make that The Bible is not the be all end all of Christianity, and continue to treat the religion as a unified field theory. That's what's annoying me right now and why the argument is worthless really. You won't play fair and address points that shoot your thesis to hell.
Then there is the Spirit of the Bible (faith, devotion, and the teachings of Jesus). By choosing to restrict the rights of others purely out of dislike for their lifestyle,
Actually, it's because God says he doesn't like that lifestyle and will punish it with Hell.
they are directly going against the teachings of Jesus, and thus they are not following the spirit of the Bible.
There's a lot of stuff Jesus said that they don't follow. Jesus didn't want churches really and they ignored that completely. The Bible isn't the unabridged Jesus anyway...it's a committee made "greatest hits" collection.
The only way the Bible can be legitimately used to go against homosexuality would be following the text 100%,
No, the only way the Bible can be legitimately used to go against homosexuality is to point out the parts where it says God is against homosexuality.
including the massive amount (vastly outnumbering the anti-homosexual portions) of scripture that preaches the virtues of live and live, and being kind to all others regardless of their choices and deeds.
So? There's still explicit and uncompromising prohibitions in there as well that believers can absolutely use to condemn and sanction actions and ideas they don't fucking like. Then there's whole institutions that do the same. I think it's wrong as fuck and it sucks...but I can see WHY they might get the idea to do such shitty asinine things.
That would lead a person to disapprove of homosexuality and believe it's a sin, but would lead them to do nothing about it as the rest of the Bible commands them not to.
Nothing? The Bible and The Church has taught marriage is always between a man and a woman, and they believe only God can sanction a marriage. So that leads a believer to think that while it wouldn't be cool to say, murder a gay person...it WOULD be ok, and in fact perhaps a religious imperative to make sure that gay marriage never, ever, occurs...or God will be pissed and the Bible is full of examples of how bad God can act when He's pissed.
Like I said, I think Dan Cathy and people like him are wrong as hell and their arguments are piles of crap that have no place in a logical discussion about what should be a matter of secular law. But I can follow the logic that would lead them to form such opinions, and because I like my freedom of speech and other rights, it must unfortunately mean I have to be in defense of speech and the exercising of the rights of others I don't like.