Yes. Agreed. Some people are cherry picking.
No. That passage doesn’t mandate slavery. It says that in a society where slavery is legal, slaves should accept their status. You may – and should – argue that this is poor guidance in today’s society. But it’s not applicable where there are no slaves, so it cannot be a passage that is ignored. Nobody is refusing to follow the passage, in other words, since there are no slaves to whom it applies.
Well, if there were large numbers of people who were using the US Constitution, as originally written, to justify bigoted behavior against women, then it would be perfectly valid to point out that the Constitution, as originally written, accepted slavery also, and assuming they don’t try to justify slavery with it, that it’s just cherry-picking for them to use it for one form of bigotry but not the other. It’s pointing out that they already don’t use the Constitution (as originally written) for their standard of moral behavior.
It’s the cherry-picking here that he’s pointing out. People use the same parts of the Bible to justify bigotry against gays, that also would justify slavery, the oppression of women, etc. People are already picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they like, so don’t use the Bible as a standard.
Yes, that’s close, but there is still a vast gulf between “shameful” (women speaking in church) and “will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (the fate that supposedly awaits homosexuals). I agree that someone who ignores those bits has some explaining to do, but his explanation can exist: he may say, for example, that the woman’s long hair is a covering, with no other covering needed, just as the text says. and he may agree that long hair on men is a problem and long hair on women is just fine. Such a person has no real contradiction going on.
I agree that a person who favors bald-headed women in church but condemns homosexuals is at least somewhat arbitrary.
This is hilarious - what’s your profession again?
Yes. Got it. There is cherry-picking going on.
BUt I argue that’s due to ignorance, and that it is possible to construct a sola Scriptura argument against homosexual behavior without cherry-picking.
How is that relevant?
Now, now. Don’t try to misrepresent please. Just because someone is a Christian doesn’t inherently demonstrate any moral double standards.
But, should a person quote Leviticus 18 as proof that homosexuality is a sin, then they should also be deeply concerned about eating bacon (11:7) or shellfish (11:12), wearing mixed fibres ( 19:19), etc, etc.
Alternatively, any person who quotes Deuteronomy should take a very firm line with parental discipline (21:18-21) and be deeply concerned about testicular cancer (23:1). Oh, and there’s the whole mixed fibres thing again ( 22:11) and heaven help your wife if she likes jeans (22:5)
Seem fair?
There are no current Christian activists opposed to slavery and human trafficing? That’s not what I’ve heard…
The issue here is Judging others, which the Bible teaches is a sin as well. Adding to this, all sin is equal in Gods eyes. Thus, if being gay is a sin, judging them for being gay is a sin, and it an equal sin.
It is not a Christians job to judge others sexual preference. The Bible speaks to each person, and each person that accepts Christ has a personal relationship with Him. It is not a Christians place to judge that relationship
You can argue that it’s due to whatever you want, but the bottom line is that the cherry picking is coming from the side attempting to biblically defend their bigotry against gays. I’m not sure why you feel my argument didn’t address your point 1, it was addressing that specifically. Christians who use passages of the bible to defend hatred for gays use the old testament. I doubt this is done out of ignorance, because as Blake pointed out himself, the old testament also requires a whole slew of behavior modifications which Christians do not consider relevant to how they conduct themselves today. Therefore, to utilize the old testament to justify the prohibition on one behavior while simultaneously claiming the old testament has no bearing on the behavior of Christians is a hypocritical double standard.
But I suspect you could see that perspective already and were being intentionally obtuse on the issue.
And also, it’s not supporters of homosexuality who are trotting out the OT as a gotcha, it’s the opponents of homosexuality who are using those specific passages to justify their stance. The cherry picking is what we are pointing out as being unsupported.
No, cherry picking comes from all sides. Witness Savage’s rather selective application of the idea “bullying is bad” in this case.
Regards,
Shodan
Who was he bullying?
Yes, the definition of “bullying” has certainly stretched well beyond its breaking point if it encompasses what Savage did. Bullying isn’t just “airing a hostile opinion toward something.”
Additionally, I think Bricker’s argument is totally beside the point for the reason ladyfoxfyre gives.
Is the bullying you refer to him calling people “pansy-ass” for walking out?
Ah, I had forgotten the “pansy-ass” part. That could perhaps be bullying, and I agree is a very poor choice of phrase even taking into account the fact that it’s a turnaround of an anti-guy slur.
Sampiro, do you have any clue whatsoever how offensive statements like that are? I guess you don’t, or you don’t care: you just teed off on Savage for doing what you did.
Please learn the difference between right wingers and bigoted religious whackjobs and use the appropriate term.
Man, the worst move the right ever made was getting in bed with the religious loons. We stuck our collective dick in the crazy just to get votes and we’ve been paying for it ever since.
Here: <<And of course the religious bigots started chest thumping and masturbating immediately,>> Fixed it for ya.
If I recall, his remarks at the American Library Association’s General Conference last year were quite similar, by the way (not an audience made up of high schoolers.)
Absolutely.
Now, let’s talk about the person who quotes I Corinthians 6:9 for support of the proposition that homosexuality is a sin.
I agree that a person who uses the OT to justify his position that homosexual behavior is a sin is almost certainly guilty of a double standard.
Now, let’s talk about the person that uses I Timothy 1:8. Is he guilty of a double standard?