Unpopular Opinion Puffin

There are many reasons someone is against something. I'm against homosexual marriage because it's a sin. Just as I'm against sex before marriage, sex with animals, sex with underage children.

Were you dropped on your head as a child? Do you not realize there is a massive difference between a consenting relationship between two adults, and some creep trying to rape a child/animal? Even if the "muh biblical belief" argument wasn't one of the weakest defenses of bigotry in history, then I guess that means you're okay with all of the shit here:

I don't care if it's two consenting adults. It's still a sin in God's eyes. Two consenting adults are sinning. But also, I don't judge their decision and I don't hate them for it. It doesn't make me a bigot to be against something I believe to be wrong. I could easily call you a bigot for not supporting my beliefs, but that doesn't make it true. You don't get to call people who disagree with your beliefs a bigot or a racist, etc...

And the template you posted has nothing to do with today's societies. What was law during the old testament, before Christ died to wipe away our sins, is irrelevant today.

Either gay people shouldn't marry, or the teachings of the old testament aren't relevant anymore. PICK ONE! Christ, your logic has more contradictions than the actual bible.

Romans (new testament) talks about the perversions of the flesh which include man sleeping with man. But I never said the old testament aren't relevant. The template you posted talks about relationships that were practiced before Christ came and died. Before Noah, brother with sister, etc was not a sin as it is now.

Whatever. Following a book of fairy tales written 2000 years ago by a bunch of old guys in the desert as constitutional doctrine does not a modern society make. There's a reason we have separation of church and state, and it's not just to protect ourselves from Sharia Law.

It isn't fairy tale and was written by God THROUGH man. The apostle John was in prison for his faith when he wrote much of the New Testament.

And we have separation of church and state so that government cannot make laws to put us in prison or have us executed for our beliefs. This is what they did in England when they left for the new world.

Spot on brother. :)
(Saved me a typing job.)

Yes, Paul. My mistake. Although John did spend some time in prison as well for his teachings.

Spurs does not have to 'pick one'. If he believes in it, then he can contradict any Bible teaching and agree with any other one. Just because Spurs does not agree with gay marriage, it does not mean he agrees with raping women. Stop pigeonholing people.

That is some of the most ridiculous tripe I've yet read on this site.

"If he believes in it, then he can contradict any Bible teaching and agree with any other one."

If he believes in it, then he canNOT contradict any Bible teaching and agree with any other one as it suits him at the moment because belief in a faith is belief in a faith and adherence to its tenets is adherence to its tenets and thus he cannot veer from them because that would be in defiance of the meaning and purpose of said tenets and the religion that teaches and enforces them in the first place.

Stop advocating hypocrisy and selective interpretation.

This is an ooooooollllllllddddd comment but I gotta say it, just because a historical account of something is given, doesn't mean the one who wrote the history condones everything in said account.

Fine words! I wonder where you stole them!

Alrighty then, let's examine the 'faith' and it's 'tenets'.

The 'faith' we are talking about is Christianity. To be a Christian, one must believe what is said in the Apostle's Creed. The Apostle's Creed goes:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Apostle's Creed is the tenets of Christianity. If you don't believe it, then you are not Christian. Now please go find the section where it says "I believe everything the Bible says to be true, and I cannot contradict it or interpret it in my own way". Spoiler alert, it's not there. The Bible is not law, it's there to help Christians be more like Jesus. There is only one I important thing to interpret from the Bible: to love God and your neighbors with all your heart, soul and mind. Everything else is for you to decide. Now go back to your stupid, judgemental little world and leave us to believe whatever we want.

Complains that I stole your words (satirizing them), then posts a copy of a creed not written by any apostle, and not reflecting their beliefs (except maybe the resurrection part, kinda).

That "creed" that exists nowhere in scripture speaks more about the very corruption I mentioned earlier, referring to Catholicism as a function of the Beast as described in Revelations.

I went to Catholic elemetary, high school, and college, therefore I'm an atheist.
Who said I was a Christian?

I'm not complaining about you stealing my words, it was just a joke about your intelligence.

And what on earth are you talking about now?! I thought we were discussing how it's possible for a Christian to contradict a Bible teaching.

I never said you were Christian, I was referring to Spurs.

Reread you're reply to me, although not sure why someone of your level would need to.

...what?

*your, and why do I need to read my reply to you? Is it because you are unable to comprehend it yourself?

It's a bit difficult to explain the biblical teachings of the Old Testament, since I am not even close to being a preacher or a learned Professor of religious studies. God commanded armies (whole societies) who defeated their enemies (those who were wicked and lived in sin and glorified it) to ravage their women and keep those who were not killed in battle, as slaves. God allowed wicked men to revel in their wickedness and those who were defeated were swiftly punished by being the victim of their wickedness, ie you live in sin, you will die in sin and have bad things done to you.

This was all done before Christ came to Earth and died and rose again for our sins. He essentially took the place of all the punishments (and most of the rules set by Him in the Old Testament) and we now don't need to be subjected to that. Are we still punished for our sins? Yes. But now we have Christ's blood to atone for.

As for what I think of bigotry meaning... If I dislike you because you're fat, dress differently, smoke, etc, that's me being bigoted toward you.I never said I dislike homosexuals. If I disliked homosexuals because they're homosexuals, that would be bigoted. I disagree with that lifestyle and I disagree with them getting married, but I don't dislike them for it.

You kinda say it for yourself. the atonement actually mended the Original sin, wich was "eatind the fruit of knowledge of good and evil". That implied two aspects: makind decision over what's good and evil for yourself AND dividing the world.
In fact, as soon as Adam eats the fruit, he's suddenly ashamed of Eve and later of God himself. That simbolizes loosing sense of unity and falling into a state of division, where the Other becomes a threat, a subject, an enemy, a sinner and so on. The Jesus came, and taught: love thy neighbour, love each other as I loved you (wich emans as far as to be willin to give your own blood for another). That is what mended the Original Sin, and that's the only thing that will ever make any atonement possible: recovering unity and rejecting conflict.

I'll try to answer some of what you're asking here Octavia.

So, why do Christians seem to pick which laws from the Old Testament that they follow now and others that they don't? This seems to be one of the questions that I'm seeing, if I misrepresented your point, feel free to correct me on that.

In the Old Testament, and especially the book of Leviticus, the casual read seems to be God setting forth all of these laws, and many of them Christians don't even know much about: Not wearing garments made from two different fibers, prohibitions on shellfish etc. However, there are different types of laws being established in the Old Testament. One type is what we think of laws as now, a code that governs conduct in society. These laws were to apply to the nation of Israel and include both the crime and the punishment for the crime. Another type of law was the ceremonial law. These laws were to establish how the people of Israel were to worship. Things like ceremonial uncleanness would fit under here, and when festivals were to be held. These two types of laws (national and ceremonial) were intended to set Israel apart from the nations around it because Israel was the nation that God had chosen to use to send his Messiah. Christians believe that these laws have been fulfilled by Christ through His life, death, and resurrection, and since these have now been fulfilled, they no longer apply (Galatians really goes into depth about this)

There is one more type of law that hasn't passed away, and that is the moral law. This is the 10 commandments type. These are things that are true for Israel the nation, and for all other nations. Theft, murder, fraud, etc. are just as bad for us as they were for the Israelites. All of the punishments that are attached to the moral law are part of the legal code for the Old Testament nation of Israel, and so don't apply, because the penalty for them has been paid by Christ. But that doesn't mean that Christians are just supposed to go around breaking the Law (Romans 5-6 explains this dichotomy well).

I hope that this helps you understand your fellow 'flippers better. I appreciate you taking the time to read this wall of text. And, if you want this explained in snarky video content, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI

I would rather have an honest conversation with somebody who doesn't agree with me than shout in an echo chamber all day long. So, thank you for being willing to have that conversation. :)

Let me see if I follow this line of reasoning correctly:

1. It's a sin because God said so in the Old Testament.

2. Jesus came to wipe away our sins even though they are still being committed to this day and people are suffering from it.

3. Somehow in the process the Old Testament became irrelevent even though Jesus preached it and when asked, "Teacher, what is your purpose, what are you doing here?" Jesus answered, "I am here to reaffirm the Lord's Covenant with His people"

4. Saul/Paul, killer of Christians, wrote a letter to Romans - the people who arrested, tried, judged, and executed Jesus.

5. His words thusly superseded God's own words which were written by other men who contradicted each other so what's the difference.

6. This was done just as was said in Revelations, where son of the Jackal, seated in Rome, would steal the religion of the Chosen, corrupt it beyond recognition, yet call it the true faith and now theirs.

7. Therefore, homosexuality is a sin even as you typed this in violation of the Commandment forbiding you to do so on the Lord's day of rest.

Gotta jump in on this old comment. God inspired men to write the Bible (essentially told them what to write). Ever wonder why it's called the Word of God?

Also the template is out of context. Clearly the person that made the template did not read the Bible, since most of the times the bad things mentioned there in the Bible shows as bad implications, not praising them. It is so way out of context. Just like in bboythekidstudios first response, you did not say against, you said you did not supported, but he twisted your words and said against, which is different and out of context. That is the way ignorant people behave, do not let your guard down.

I completely agree with everything you just said there.

I completely agree with everything you just said there.

Thank you, whoever you are. Imgflip needs more people like you.

So is cutting your hair.

You literally missed the whole point there. It doesn't matter if he doesn't support gay marriage, as long as he doesn't interfere with others who do.

It's a lesson both sides need to learn: You can have your own opinions, as long as you don't try to force them on others. Lately the liberals are even worse than conservatives have been in the past. It's getting to thinkpol levels.

Tolerance of bigotry only leads to more bigotry, and more bigotry leads to people like Mike Pence getting into the white house.

Seems to me you can't tolerate any opinions or beliefs that are different than your own.

So your answer is more bigotry? moron.

read what he's said throughout the thread. He's been bigoted against Christians the entire time. last I checked, two wrongs don't make a right. There is calling someone out for being intolerant, then there's screaming about magical sky fairies and acting like anyone who believes in a god is a raving lunatic. Sure I read his comment, but his preaching tolerance while acting with hate led to mine.

Gotta inject a few words in this old conversation. I don't see any comments in this thread where a Christian wants to discriminate and mistreat LGBT people.

God so loved the world.

Not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance.

By loving them not considering someone's life less important than someone else's. Treating others how you would like to be treated. God's kind of love.

1st off, I could say there are atheists who enjoy murdering children. I'm sure those exist, but does that mean all atheists want to do that? No, of course not. The vast majority would not do that. 2nd, not everyone who claims to be something is telling the truth.

Christians are supposed to love everybody, regardless of sin, because guess what, everyone sins. Yes, I believe being gay is wrong, but to not show love toward a gay person goes against the Bible.

You don't see ridiculing someone's faith as mistreatment? I see someone making fun of christians with "magic sky fairy" as bigoted as someone calling a gay a cocksucker or f*g. Neither should be acceptable. I guess the double-standard is real, though. It's sad to see.

I guess maybe it's semantics that has us at odds here. I consider discrimination to be along the lines of the definition I posted, after your reply I take it you were referring more to a legal definition. I guess I misunderstood the way you framed your response as well, and I apologize for letting myself get less than civil a few replies ago.

In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong. These include race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability, genetic characteristics, and convictions for which a pardon has been granted or a record suspended.[1] Discrimination consists of treatment of an individual or group, based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".

You would not consider mocking to be "worse than normally treated"?

By that reasoning, you wouldn't consider it discrimination when people ridicule trans people, saying that they're mentally ill for thinking they are whichever gender they choose to be? I hope to see some consistency here. Either ridicule of belief is acceptable behavior, or it isn't. Which do you choose?

Gender dysphoria is an actual diagnosable medical condition. Your backward-ass ideas are entirely on you.

And if Hillary had gotten in the white house, it would likewise have been due to bigotry. Don't act like you're innocent of being a bigot.

A person's personal beliefs should /never/ be what truly matters. What truly matters should be their actions. Abraham Lincoln is (usually) hailed as a hero in the movement to end slavery, despite the fact that he was both a republican and a racist.

A core principle in the west, especially the US, is (or was) the old saying "I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Perhaps you should return the favor, and help put an end to the liberal push towards "thought policing".

Mormon > Morman > More mans, get it? As in via procreation...

I agree, but they aren't making a big deal about it. There's a difference between disliking something and having such a lack of concience to harm, insult, or threaten someone with different beliefs

And I'm not going after you in any way, I'm just stating my own opinion

and he has no reason to support it either

It doesn't affect me, but it affects this nation's ideology and moral compass.

I'm gonna barf.

Good, I hope you choke on it.

aaaaand, now you're telling people you hope they die. now who's the f**king asshole?

How about human trafficking?

If you have any basis of human empathy, than yes that would affect you.

Exactly