LGBTQ and the Bible

I don't assume your prejudice you have stated it.

 

Same logic applies to racism, sexism, and any other sort of nasty hateful thinking. If it doesn’t manifest into action, and isn’t spread to others in whom it manifests into action, no harm done. Of course it often does manifest into action though.

I strongly oppose “hate speech” laws and strongly endorse freedom of speech. But we probably shouldn’t pretend that preaching hate and calling people who are born a particular race or sexual orientation abominations or sinful by nature isn’t going to do any damage.

That makes perfect sense. Tolerance of difference. But to what extent should that include tolerance of intolerance.

 

You did assume it. You projected that he would declare anyone who disagrees with him on religions must be immoral. But that’s not what he said.

what he said was that fundamentalist Christians are less moral than other Christians. He asked you for exceptions and you provided none.

Perhaps Mennonites or Quakers would be a best example? He has a point that many fundamentalist Christians (and Muslims) tend to hold to the most surface level and explicit writings in the bible, which are usually nasty. Unlike the other Christians, many fundamentalists don’t ignore verses telling them to be intolerant of infidels etc.

 

are you suggesting religion only exists to create hate?

quantify the damage.

You'll have to Define what you mean by intolerance. I take that to mean the desire to exterminate. And such behavior is illegal.

 

I'm not interested in your answers to questions I asked him he can speak for himself thank you.

I'm not aware of any Christians running around trying to exterminate infidels.

 

No. You were talking about how homosexuals are regarded. Were you not defending the Christian’s right to view homosexuality as a sin? If you were, would that not apply equally to the Mormons of yesteryear who held it as a religious tenet that black people are inferior? Would it not also equally apply to the handful of Christians today who still take the misogyny in the bible as instructive? Women to obey men as men obey the lord, etc? If these people don’t act on their bigotry, no harm done?

More difficult to do if the person never acts on the religious prejudice. Still a worry if they instruct it to children. There is some heightened risk even if they oppose the parts of the bible that says these things, yet distribute the bible to others who may take it as more instructive.

I oppose censorship generally and don’t endorse hate speech laws because I recognize the slippery slope this sends us down, but I am not blind to the risks. History has shown it become deadly.

Is murdering people the only intolerance you have seen or heard about Christians doing to homosexuals, women, minority cultures and races etc? You don’t see anything being said by the far right fundamentalist preachers even today that causes you concern?

It was only half century ago that atheists could give testimony in court. It was only a decade or so that homosexuals could get married. Not too long back women were not allowed to vote or own property

Such intolerance isn’t by any means unique to or blameable on the writers of the bible. It was written in a different, much less tolerant time, and it even endorsed some progress over the norms at that time, such as restrictions over how much you can beat your slaves, etc. But we have long since progressed beyond that time and have become more tolerant of our differences, and the codification of this backwards thinking in the bible holds many people back, and as the OP stated, it is usually the fundamentalist sort of Christian who is the most held back and who holds the most intolerant views.

He asked you for exceptions to that observation, saying he doubts it but maybe he is wrong. Your response was to straw man him as saying anyone who disagrees with him on religion is immoral. He tried to correct you that that’s not what he said. You responded saying that shows HIM to be prejudiced. The irony of it all is palpable.

 

You ignored the answers he provided and substituted in your own. If you accept yourself speaking for him, why not others?

And again, not running around killing people doesn’t mean you are being tolerant of them.

 

Very clearly. And with good reason. If they take it literally, their morals and ethics will be not so good. Because the morals and ethics in the Bible are terrible and are exactly what we would expect from the ignorant, terrified, superstitious people who wrote it.

 

why do you only care about Christianity doing this you know Islam does this too?

so you can't quantify the damage how do you know there is even any?

but what is it specifically about Christianity that doesn't exist in any other form of rhetoric?

you mean the provocateurs? you do understand they're saying provocative things to be provocative right. They don't do anything. one of the worst things I've heard of them doing recently was they were planning to show up to a pride parade in protest for the death penalty for gays I don't know that they ever did. But they're just doing that to be provocative. I don't know that they even went there.

I consider intolerance not tolerating something. Tolerating something and accepting something are two different things.

Religious groups have to tolerate it by law. They're to Fringe and two few and numbers to do anything it's like worrying about white supremacists.

 

you are just a fundamentalist of a different stripe you are equal to them. Extreme ideas aren't any better because you view them as opposition.

The morals and the ethics of the Bible have such far-reaching influence over the morals and ethics of Western culture that it's almost impossible to overstate it.

 

I made a judgment based on what he said.

so Hitler was tolerant of the Jews?

 

Is that what you think? Or you think that's what I think because I said not killing people doesn't equate tolerating them? Tolerance takes more than not murdering somebody.

Reading this and the post before from you towards me, I suspect you are not conversing in good faith, so I'll move along.

 

False. I can argue exactly which morals and ethics derived from literal interpretations of religious texts are poor, and why. And if they declare to be literalists, i have made no assumption or deferred to any fundamental principles. They have declared to take the immoral and unethical instructions literally. Try as you might to paint your pearl clutching as anything but reflexive defense os religious whimsy, that is all it is.

If someone declared that they take every line of the quran literally, you are well and correct to know and point out that their morals and ethics will leave a lot to be desired. You can get defensive and try to disparage me all day over this, then embarrass yourself afterward by agreeing 100% with me. Up to you.

 

you can call it whatever you want I just don't have the knee jerk reaction to dislike people or think of them as immoral because of their religious beliefs. As long as they're respectful I can be respectful and get along.

I just don't have any room in my life for this bigotry.

I don't even agree with that. If someone takes every bit of the Quran and the hadiths literally, yet doesn't participate in extremism I would say their morals are at least bare minimum of acceptable. This goes for every religion or every belief you can imagine as long as you don't pick up a sword against the non-believers, your morality is acceptable.

I haven't embarrassed myself once I have thought about this sort of thing quite a bit I've had quite a bit of experience with it. I know exactly what I think. And I'm not a fundamentalist you can be right too even though I disagree with you about one thing.

I'm adult enough to tell you when I agree with you about something. It's called amicable discussion.

 

I don't dislike them. I clearly said we will know their morals and ethics will leave something to be desired, if they declare them to be literally dictated by ancient religious texts. Please respond to my actual comments and thoughts instead in inventing your own strawmen.

 

I don't believe you. It's clear you dislike them.

I'm not sure their morals and ethics leave something to be desired, so far all you've said is that they're old. That's an appeal to novelty. The golden rule is an ancient maxim and it's as good an ethic now as it ever was.

How long ago morals and ethics were created has nothing to do with how good it bad they are.