Kissing in public

[Retorth]

Well, the apologetics article has done a poor job properly explaining the stance of homosexuality in the bible but it doesn't surprise me either way.

[fr0d0]

Whilst I've seen plenty supposedly biblically based homophobia I've never seen any stand up to scrutiny. Those people just fade away in serious discussion. Their stance never ever holds water. These people act out their own fear and insecurities and attack homosexuality. It's more about their problem/s than a logical, thought out position. Like a lot of things this is an example of the bible being abused.

[Edwardo Piet]

You seem to have missed the point of what was said in the link Retorth. In serious discussion I've never seen anyone able to decide either way. Plus Those extra links you provided say exactly the same as the others. The links they provided were the most contentious ones.

Something like that can't even be decided either way according to you, and yet the Bible is apparently not ambiguous and it's a clear and well written book, huh?

This is a clear example of cherry-picking. Is it just a coincidence that since nowadays homosexuality is more accepted (and it should be of course), that you're now getting Christians pointing to parts of the bible and interpreting it in certain ways to say, "see, it's not anti-homosexuality, or at least...not necessarily - it could be argued either way."??

What about the part in the OT about how homosexuals should be stoned to death? What do the good Christians say to that? Add up all the good bits of the Bible and all the bad bits, and say it could be argued either way? What a clear and holy Holy Book that is(!) Definitely not a case of cherry-picking eh(?!)

I'm sorry but I found that funny.

EvF

[Retorth]

What about the part in the OT about how homosexuals should be stoned to death? What do the good Christians say to that?

They'll probably say that the OT should be disregarded I reckon.

[Edwardo Piet]

In which case they'd choose the NT because it's Jesus' book, and be cherry-picking out the parts when Jesus himself says he supports all the OT I guess.

Roll-up roll-up, pick your cherries, pick your cherries. Win a free particular Christian denomination.

EvF

[fr0d0]

No you can't dismiss the OT as it's integral. What christians do is read the OT & NT in conjunction . It is why it's called Christianity after all. And it was Christians that agreed that the whole bible represented their faith completely and without contradiction. Just because you don't get it (and it says that you won't (as a non believer)) doesn't make the facts change.

Your comment is laughable Evie. You have no idea what the meaning is. I have told you the facts, and yet you still come back at me with that ignorant viewpoint. You're as bad as the fools that use the bibles to justify homophobia. Both of you see it the way you want despite the evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

So how, then, do Christians avoid the nasty stuff in the OT, like where it says Homosexuals should be stoned to death?

I am only half-serious when I come up with ways Christians could justify their cherry-picking, because my point is I can't think how they can logically justify it. They make their own personal preferences when they do their picking, which difference from Christian to Christian.

As for my comment about Christians choosing the NT, I was responding to Retorth and was half-joking, because my point is that it all differs from Christian to Christian. And some indeed do do that, and once again, I am not sure how they justify it all.

As for your allegation that I am just as bad as the fools who use bibles to justify homophobia...I'd say: No, I'm not. Because I'm not justifying homophobia. Nor anything immoral for that matter. I'm merely commenting on the diversity of Christian views in the world, and finding it quite amusing how I have never heard a reasonable explanation to how they can either just cherry-pick out the horror in the OT, or how they can just brush the OT aside (not saying that you do, as you are saying, you don't, and the Christians you agree with don't either (but some Christians do)).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Yeah you and your incredibly uninformed and wildly inaccurate understanding of what constitutes 'Christian'. Why should I have to counter that??

Address my point and I'll get back to you.

[Edwardo Piet]

What constitutes as Christian is disagreed upon by Christians, or am I wrong in thinking that? Do 100% of Christians all agree upon what exactly constitutes as Christian?

If they don't, then for you to say that those who believe and agree that they are Christians are not Christians, because you disagree with their definition, is NTS.

So, how can 100% of Christians agree on the exact definition of Christianity?

I accept the fact that I could easily be missing something here. So I am ready to hear a response to this.

EvF

[fr0d0]

What constitutes as Christian is disagreed upon by Christians, or am I wrong in thinking that? Do 100% of Christians all agree upon what exactly constitutes as Christian?

Yes