Christians, about your persecution complex

[Underseer]

Jesus Christ says do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
How then would a Christian who dislikes being persecuted think it's ok to persecute others?

And yet they do.

For example, Chik-fil-A was donating money to a group that was pushing that kill-the-gays law in that African country. I know that you are Christian, but for most of us atheists, attempted mass murder of all the gays in a country counts as a form of persecution.

I know, I know. According to your Christian morals, it doesn't count as persecution because gays people are bad and therefore deserve to die, but for most of the rest of us, attempted mass murder counts as persecution.

So of course, Chik-fil-A got in lots of trouble because they gave money in an effort to cause the mass murder of African homosexuals in an African country, and the Americans who were involved in that clearly hoped to use that African country as a test to push the same thing elsewhere.

Did American Christians become enraged that Chik-fil-A gave money to try and cause mass murder?

Nope.

They got angry that anyone had a problem with any of this. They made a point of publicly going to Chik-fil-A and letting everyone know they went to Chik-fil-A specifically so that everyone would know how much they supported the mass murder of homosexuals in Africa. In fact, anytime anyone complained about the fact that Chik-fil-A was giving money towards attempted mass murder, most Christians argued that this was evidence that the Christians[ent]mdash[/ent]not the homosexuals[ent]mdash[/ent]were being persecuted.

So according to millions of American Christians, trying to cause the mass murder of all the gays in a given country does not count as persecution, but asking Christians to not cause the mass murder of all gays in a given country does count as persecution[ent]hellip[/ent] of the Christians.

And that's without talking about all the excuses we all heard American Christians make about bombing gay nightclubs and shooting doctors and all that ("I condemn this, I condemn this, I condemn this, but boy those victims had it coming, didn't they?" which is exactly the "sorta culpa" we get from many Muslims in the wake of Muslim terrorism).

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how you can possibly think what you think.

Time and time again, Christians persecute others, then if anyone dares to complain about it, they claim that they are the ones being persecuted. We see this same behavior over and over and over from Christians and Muslims.

 

[Underseer]

And mind you, the excuse I mentioned in the original post is how many Christians and Muslims excuse this behavior to themselves.

It's OK that they persecute others.

It's OK that they lash out at people who point out that they are persecuting others.

After all, they are the real victims after all, right?

That's why you and the Muslims have to constantly tell yourselves that you're the "real victims" through arguments just like the one mentioned in the original post, isn't it?

 

[Lion IRC]

I would argue that stoning gays or calling them bad people is unbiblical, unChristian, hypocritical and unacceptable.
It's the actions which are sinful. If we classified people by their sinful actions then ALL of us are in the same category - not just people who prefer a particular type of sexual behaviour.
There is no biblical warrant for calling gay sex any more or less sinful than lying or stealing or murder or adultery or....

 

[Underseer]

I would argue that stoning gays or calling them bad people is unbiblical, unChristian, hypocritical and unacceptable.
It's the actions which are sinful. If we classified people by their sinful actions then ALL of us are in the same category - not just people who prefer a particular type of sexual behaviour.
There is no biblical warrant for calling gay sex any more or less sinful than lying or stealing or murder or adultery or....

Yes, we've also heard that "hate the sin, not the sinner" excuse for persecuting homosexuals in this country. That's a very common one. We've also heard that  no true Scotsman fallacy many times before in defense of Christian immorality. Muslims also love pulling out that Scotsman fallacy quite frequently.

And it is quite telling that you consider being born gay to be just as bad as being a murderer. That says a lot about your morals and how Christians justify this sort of behavior to themselves.

How else could millions of you react to attempted mass murder by claiming that you were the "real victims" because someone criticized you for supporting attempted mass murder?

How did you respond to the Chik-fil-A controversy? Did you make a big show of going to Chik-fil-A and posting on social media so that everyone would know how much you supported them? Did you start eating there and giving them your money more often after the controversy than before? What was your response to attempted mass murder? Did you actively try to stop it or did you do things to encourage it?

 

[Lion IRC]

I would argue that stoning gays or calling them bad people is unbiblical, unChristian, hypocritical and unacceptable.
It's the actions which are sinful. If we classified people by their sinful actions then ALL of us are in the same category - not just people who prefer a particular type of sexual behaviour.
There is no biblical warrant for calling gay sex any more or less sinful than lying or stealing or murder or adultery or....

Yes, we've also heard that "hate the sin, not the sinner" excuse for persecuting homosexuals in this country.

I don't accept that.
Neither would I accept that adulterers are persecuted by virtue of the fact that society doesn't tolerate certain types of behaviour. Of course, societal values can and do change and adultery can gradually become acceptable and the stigma of promiscuity slowly disappears. This is also happening with sexual orientation and gender identity and LGBTQI folks might interpret this as a decline in 'persecution'.

...We've also heard that  no true Scotsman fallacy many times before in defense of Christian immorality. Muslims also love pulling out that Scotsman fallacy quite frequently.

If there really, objectively is no such thing as a True Scotsman then everyone is free to argue that they are a True Scotsman. And they wouldn't be commiting any logical fallacy because they would be saying little more than "my preferred ice cream flavour is better than yours". (Which doesn't violate logic)

But I would argue that there is such a thing as a True Scotsman (Christian) and that there must be at least one aspect of True Scottishness or else the word Scottish is totally meaningless.
Man born in Scotland? Wears a kilt? Loves haggis? Canny with finances? Are none of these relevant to the term True Scotsman? Can we really not discern how close someone is to the bullseye target that constitutes the zen of Scottishness?
Likewise Christianity. Obviously Christians can differ over doctrine but you know what all Christians agree on?
They agree on Who is the ultimate arbiter - the gold standard - of Christianity.

...And it is quite telling that you consider being born gay to be just as bad as being a murderer.

False! I don't think that. I never have.
I don't think people are born pedophiles or murderers or rapists either.

When a person uses the born-that-way defense they are playing a get out of jail free card which I doubt they would let others use as the same defense.

...That says a lot about your morals and how Christians justify this sort of behavior to themselves.

Strawman be gone!

...How else could millions of you react to attempted mass murder by claiming that you were the "real victims" because someone criticized you for supporting attempted mass murder?

Can you be a little more specific about which form of mass murder you think I support.
Abortion is mass murder. But I certainly don't support THAT.

...How did you respond to the Chik-fil-A controversy? Did you make a big show of going to Chik-fil-A and posting on social media so that everyone would know how much you supported them?

I think businesses (business owners) are allowed to exercise their political/religious/social conscience. Facebook certainly does. Google does. Amazon does. Apple does.
Oh wait. I forgot. It's only Christian businesses which get smashed when they exercise free speech.

...Did you start eating there and giving them your money more often after the controversy than before? What was your response to attempted mass murder? Did you actively try to stop it or did you do things to encourage it?

I'm confused.
Am I supposed to boycott businesses which support abortion on demand?
Chik-fil-A ? What mass murder did they fund?

 

[steve_bank]

I would argue that stoning gays or calling them bad people is unbiblical, unChristian, hypocritical and unacceptable.
It's the actions which are sinful. If we classified people by their sinful actions then ALL of us are in the same category - not just people who prefer a particular type of sexual behaviour.
There is no biblical warrant for calling gay sex any more or less sinful than lying or stealing or murder or adultery or....

The problem is that it is biblical.

Ancients Hebrews were not tolerant. The punishments in Leviticus are harsh. In modern context the Hebrews practiced a Sharia Law. The biblical god was hateful and vengeful. To see it today listen to Evangelicals on TV and radio.

 

[steve_bank]

Another thing. Christians cite Coptic Christians in Egypt as persecuted by Muslims. What I read is that the Coptic's are not innocent victims.

It was a Coptic in the USA who made that stupid movie mocking Islam which caused an uproar overseas.

 

[Lion IRC]

I would argue that stoning gays or calling them bad people is unbiblical...

The problem is that it is biblical...

Could you help me find the bible verse where a gay person is stoned to death. TIA

 

[Jobar]

I would argue that stoning gays or calling them bad people is unbiblical, unChristian, hypocritical and unacceptable.

Lion, the problem is that stoning gays is Biblical. Lev. 20:13, and all that. Fred Phelps wasn't just making up all those verses.

As to it being Un-Christian... you know as well as we do that there are plenty of people that think of themselves as Christians, that would stone gays, or at least persecute them and deny them rights because of their sexual preferences.

Hypocritical and unacceptable, I happily grant you.

 

[Lion IRC]

Jobar, could you help me find the bible verse where a gay person is stoned to death. TIA

 

[southernhybrid]

Jobar, could you help me find the bible verse where a gay person is stoned to death. TIA

Jobar is probably working today, but I'm retired, so I looked up the verse for you. http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

…12If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 13If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 14If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.…

That's the verse that Jobar was referring to in his post. Your welcome. Actually, that quote includes two other verses that demand death for certain sexual behaviors. Look at the link, there are numerous translations that say the same thing in different words.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wait a minute. Why is it that if you marry your wife's mom, you have to be burnt to death, but you just have to generically die in whatever way is convenient if you have gay sex? It seems to me that if you're going to specify the manner of death for capital offenses, you should either do it for all of them or for none of them. It's kind of weird to just throw a single specific manner of execution into the middle like that.

Also, WTF is with the next verse after that:

If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

So, if someone breaks into my house and rapes my dog, I have to kill my dog? That's some bullshit right there.

 

[bilby]

Wait a minute. Why is it that if you marry your wife's mom, you have to be burnt to death, but you just have to generically die in whatever way is convenient if you have gay sex? It seems to me that if you're going to specify the manner of death for capital offenses, you should either do it for all of them or for none of them. It's kind of weird to just throw a single specific manner of execution into the middle like that.

Also, WTF is with the next verse after that:

If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

So, if someone breaks into my house and rapes my dog, I have to kill my dog? That's some bullshit right there.

What, you want to be responsible for unleashing upon the world an abominable race of human/dog hybrids?

You disgust me.

 

[steve_bank]

I would argue that stoning gays or calling them bad people is unbiblical...

The problem is that it is biblical...

Could you help me find the bible verse where a gay person is stoned to death. TIA

When I was on forum in the past the relgion forum was pretty lively. A constant stream of theists. One thing I observed was atheists always seemed to be far more knowldeable on the bible than theists. Go figure.

The Muslim Sharia Law is part scripture and part accumulated practiced. The ancient Hebrews had a similar tradition.

Google the 613 Mitzvas(spelling?). It is a list of all the requirements in the Torah. Some are quite bizarre. On requirement to eradicate, genocide, of an opponent.

 

[Learner]

(Pardon me for interjecting Lion) I remember a similar discussion both Lion and I were in sometime back. What I'm pretty sure of, that Lion was asking is : "where in the bible does it mention the stoning was "carried out"?"

It seemed to us on that thread, people then actually heeded those deterent laws. Hence not recorded.

 

[Lion IRC]

Jobar, could you help me find the bible verse where a gay person is stoned to death. TIA

Jobar is probably working today, but I'm retired, so I looked up the verse for you. http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

…12If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 13If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 14If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.…

That's the verse that Jobar was referring to in his post. Your welcome. Actually, that quote includes two other verses that demand death for certain sexual behaviors. Look at the link, there are numerous translations that say the same thing in different words.

Not so fast.
That verse says IF (future tense) then they SHALL (future tense) be put to death.
Nobody in that verse is stoned to death. There is no...
Abimilech didst lie Himself down with Jehorim and verily didst he know him in a carnal way and thus it came to pass that they were both stoned to death

There is no...
Jokania didst find himself sorely vexed whether or not to cast the first stone forsooth he knew not clearly the exact process so he didst therefore conclude that God Himself would punish sinners.

We do see one noteworthy attempt at stoning in the bible. But the outcome is not as you would expect but rather as God expected - sinners aren't qualified to judge other sinners.

ETA - if I thought the bible (God) actually wanted me to stone sinners I would publically declare my willingness to obey God.

 

[bilby]

You are absolutely right. If an offence attracts the death penalty, then it stops being committed. That's why nobody ever gets murdered in Texas.



You don't half have to believe some truly absurd things in order to be a Christian.

 

[steve_bank]

I started a thead on the 613 commandments.

In a past thread a Jew said that after the fall of Israel to Rome a confernce was held to codify contents of the Torah and review it for rekevance. Such as outdated commandments and harsh punishments.

The problem with obscessed Christians is they have no clue of the Jewish context of the Old Testament.

I doubt many Christians know the Christian bible and basic theology was a geo-political process.

 

[Jobar]

Jobar is probably working today, but I'm retired, so I looked up the verse for you. http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm




That's the verse that Jobar was referring to in his post. Your welcome. Actually, that quote includes two other verses that demand death for certain sexual behaviors. Look at the link, there are numerous translations that say the same thing in different words.

Not so fast.
That verse says IF (future tense) then they SHALL (future tense) be put to death.
Nobody in that verse is stoned to death. There is no...
Abimilech didst lie Himself down with Jehorim and verily didst he know him in a carnal way and thus it came to pass that they were both stoned to death

There is no...
Jokania didst find himself sorely vexed whether or not to cast the first stone forsooth he knew not clearly the exact process so he didst therefore conclude that God Himself would punish sinners.

We do see one noteworthy attempt at stoning in the bible. But the outcome is not as you would expect but rather as God expected - sinners aren't qualified to judge other sinners.

ETA - if I thought the bible (God) actually wanted me to stone sinners I would publically declare my willingness to obey God.

I can't recall, just off the top of my head, if there's anywhere in the Bible where a witch was burned, because "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Still, I trust that you won't deny that many, many thousands of women, and men, have been burned as witches, because of that pronouncement?

I admit that I'm not sure there's anywhere in the Bible where an actual stoning, to the death, is described. But it's ridiculous to claim that therefore no stonings took place.

 

[steve_bank]

Jobar is probably working today, but I'm retired, so I looked up the verse for you. http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm




That's the verse that Jobar was referring to in his post. Your welcome. Actually, that quote includes two other verses that demand death for certain sexual behaviors. Look at the link, there are numerous translations that say the same thing in different words.

Not so fast.
That verse says IF (future tense) then they SHALL (future tense) be put to death.
Nobody in that verse is stoned to death. There is no...
Abimilech didst lie Himself down with Jehorim and verily didst he know him in a carnal way and thus it came to pass that they were both stoned to death

There is no...
Jokania didst find himself sorely vexed whether or not to cast the first stone forsooth he knew not clearly the exact process so he didst therefore conclude that God Himself would punish sinners.

We do see one noteworthy attempt at stoning in the bible. But the outcome is not as you would expect but rather as God expected - sinners aren't qualified to judge other sinners.

ETA - if I thought the bible (God) actually wanted me to stone sinners I would publically declare my willingness to obey God.

Are you arguing in the abcient nomadic turned farmers Hebrews there was no death penakty?

I've known Christian apologetics, but this surely takes the take.

I believe in the gospels there is a scene where Jesus intervenes in the stoning of a woman. Something about 'casting the first stone if your slate is clean'. Sheesh, I'm thinking I should have been a preacher. By now I'd have a mega church and be rich. Also look at the initiation of the priest class created by Moses, sprinkling animal blood.

The ancient Hebrews up through the NT had an obsession with ritual cleanliness. A menstruating woman was unclean.