Ok, let’s be clear I am not defending a persons’ homophobia, nor saying we shouldn’t call them out on it. Indeed I say they should be included so that they can be CONFRONTED with a conflicting view and hopefully have it change over time. She was, extremely diplomatically, confronted on her view in this video. At least in that environment there would be a chance of such a confrontation.
First off, there already is a “little homophobia” in the Democrat party, let’s not pretend there isn’t.
Second, I don’t think it does. There is a difference between tolerating a woman like that and saying her view is ok. There is even a bigger difference between that and pandering to that person. No one is suggesting changing the platform to appease this person, to accept “a little homophobia”.
My reply to the poster I replied to was that “accept” might be too strong, but “tolerate” might be a better word. They had a valid point that politics is a numbers game, and it is dirty business. This woman is at least on the right side of the spectrum to at least want to vote for a left leaning candidate, which I believe most people would agree is preferable to voting for Trump or not at all. One would assume her view points may align with ones views in other areas, providing at least some common ground.
Think about this - there are gay Republicans who generally dislike the party’s views on homosexuality, yet like the other policies. Politics is a weird web of contradictions and strange bedfellows.
Any self-described Christian who cites the book of Leviticus to justify homophobia (of which there are many) can and should be called out for ignoring all the other parts of Leviticus.
so what? that doesn’t guarantee any of them would be retained; 2) rational choices are much better than impulsive choices, which is what we have now; 3) i’m just saying if he becomes the nominee, it’s better having him than trump in office, and i’ll happily vote for him.
I’m not here to get in a big argument, but that’s an interesting assertion you’ve made: that you understand the Bible better than me. Why do you think so? Because we disagree on this issue?
The verses you quoted were Jesus (a Jew) speaking to a Jewish audience. Those laws still apply, in some form, in the Jewish faith. That’s why Jews stay kosher and avoid pork, as I’m sure you know.
But Jesus - and the church leaders who came after, including Paul - had a different message for gentiles. Gentile converts didn’t have to be circumcised, for example. And Peter was given a vision with clear instruction to eat all animals, which was basically an invitation for gentiles to be grafted into “God’s chosen people” with a different set of rules from the Jews. “Do not call unclean what I have called clean” was the message. Paul even made it clear that a Christian could eat food sacrificed to an idol if it didn’t bother his conscience!
I personally believe many of the laws given to the Jews had to do with health and safety. “Don’t eat pork” is a good rule, given our 21st century knowledge of how many diseases and parasites are found in raw or under-cooked pork. “Don’t eat shellfish” is valid for similar reasons. “Stay away from blood” is wise too, as we now know. Those kinds of laws weren’t so much about obeying God as they were about keeping the Israelites healthy and “set apart” from other nations.
I know a lot about the Bible. I don’t know if I know more about it than you, because that assumption would be pure hubris. But I certainly won’t allow you to dismiss my opinion based on your ill-informed guess that you know more than me. I am 43 years old, I’ve studied the Bible my entire life, I have attended church “religiously” my entire life, and I attended two different Christian universities where I delved deep into the scriptures.
Like I said: I’m not here to argue. I will gladly cede the last word to you and won’t respond. But I would caution against thinking you are better than someone - or know more than they do - when your information about them is limited.
Forget who knows more about what’s in the Bible and set aside for the moment the question of whether Christians are beholden to the rules of the Old Testament.
Will you concede that a person who cites the Book of Leviticus as the basis for their objection to homosexuality is a hypocrite if they ignore all the other rules set forth in the Book of Leviticus?
Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox churches commonly cite such old testament laws as justification for their positions on gays, women, premarital sex, abortion/birth control and other topics.
Up to and including lines in Leviticus that are part of the Kosher laws. That being the section proscribing shellfish and mixed fabric.
Is part of the counter argument that other Christian sects use to push back on that theology.
You can foot stamp about how you ascribe to one particular read all you want. Plenty of Christians ascribe to the other one. They can be not real Christians by your estimation, but we still have to deal with them.
I thought I had already conceded that up above in my second post when I said “I know” in response. If that wasn’t clear, my mistake. However…
Consider for a moment a person who thinks the Law contains many different types of rules to follow. Some have to do with morality. Some with cleanliness. Some with honoring God. Some with being a “people set apart.” That person could argue that the Law about homosexuality was a moral law, thus it still applies, while a law about wearing different kinds of fabric was morally-neutral and thus changed over time.
I’m not making that argument, but I have heard it before and if someone genuinely believes it, I can see how they can believe in following parts of Leviticus while discarding other parts and not be hypocritical.
Look, those fucking fabrics gall me too, but still, if Pete wants to wear them…
I’d say that this lady puts paid to the idea of a well informed electorate. I mean, you can’t blame her; she’s a biblical scholar as well as someone who scours the news for the latest information on candidates…
I think there’s a lot more of them who call themselves Christian, than the folks you would consider to be “real Christians.” Ergo, they are the real Christians, at this point.
Also: If you are quick to call yourself a “real Christian” and reference portions of the New Testament that say homosexuality is wrong, does that mean you believe homosexuality is wrong?
I mean, he was one of two Republicans to vote for evidence in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Not to mention he’s been one of the most vociferous and ongoing critics of Trump in the GOP. I know I consider him to be by far one of the most respectable Republicans who’s still associating themselves with the party (which perhaps isn’t saying too much, these days).
Not to mention, from what I can tell, Bain (and Mitt) are pretty highly respected as far as management strategy is concerned, and private equity at large has essentially copied their model. I’m practically a communist myself (despite having worked in the private sector for many years, but this may be changing soon!) but they don’t appear to have been particularly virulent, as rich people with lots of money are concerned.
And if you really want to dig deeper, the word “abomination” as used in the Bible is a poor translation that is actually much closer to “something other people do, but not us”.
I 100% agree that the majority of people who claim the title aren’t actual Christians. Most haven’t even read the Bible, let alone tried to follow it. They just participate in the cultural norm of being “Christian” in America because it is easy and comes with social benefits. But just because there are more of them, that doesn’t mean they have become Real Christians™, although I totally get how it can feel that way in our current society.
(That’s not to say I consider myself a better person or more moral because I take the Bible seriously. I fall short of my own standards - and those in the Bible - on a regular basis. Being a human is hard and I think we are all hypocrites, honestly. But I do get frustrated by the faux-Christianity in our society.)
If you were asking my specific beliefs on the topic of homosexuality, they aren’t very interesting since I don’t have a dog in the fight. I’m not personally gay, and I don’t consider it my place to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn’t be doing when it comes to morality. Since I use my real name here, I can’t be specific (because it might out someone), but a family member who is very close to me, and whom I love a great deal, recently told me she is bisexual and dating a girl. She felt comfortable telling me because she knew I wasn’t going to make a big deal of it or judge her. And, if anything, we’ve been closer since her disclosure.
But the question is, does your understanding of Christianity lead you to believe that there is a nonzero chance she will go to hell, because of her sexuality?
Me personally, I think following the words and deeds of Jesus himself is a lot more appealing than following Christianity. You know, he went to India and learned all about Vedanta, which formed the basis of his philosophy, during those years that were edited out of the Bible.
