Those who only believe in some parts of the Bible...

[Croconaw]

I’m really not trying to start something here, as I have been legitimately wondering this for quite some time. Why do some religious people only believe in some parts of the Bible? It seems like most people who are anti-LGBT, are for religious reasons and defend themselves by saying “the Bible this” and “the Bible that.” Those same people are unaware that the Bible also mentions that it’s sinful to apparently eat seafood, premature sex (which many are guilty of), and even dying your hair.

I find it ridiculous how people can just pick and choose parts of the Bible, while ignoring the rest of it. The Bible isn’t a justification for discrimination.

Thoughts?

Note — I am not religious, and I’m trying to better understand the reason behind this, as it seems to be a common thing.

[ska8er]

Cause some people like to nit pic. They find
excuses that some parts of the Bible they don't
like don't apply to them.

[Spooky_Eli]

Partly because, for many, the modern concepts of decent moral attitude and age old concepts of an all powerful loving god who sends you to a wonderplace post-death, are held concurrently; this leads to a pychological dissonance and compartmentalization.

Of course, for some, the pull of the god concept overrides many of the moral attitudes, especially in comunities that conform to, and embrace confomity within, based on biblical principles. Call it small town enursia, if you will.

[lliam]

This is because the books of the Bible, as well as all religious writings in general, are arbitrary.

This goes for human rights too. E.g., those who strictly believe in human rights must also be against the death penalty and also condemn the freedom to restrict such rights in the context of international terrorism.

But who really does it? No one, because it's all about security (of your own country). Therefore we sacrifice legally granted human rights in favor of a non-existent, feigned security. Freedom has been abolished and only exists as a dream in people's minds.

And this also makes the almost religiously propagated and celebrated human rights arbitrary too.


The principle in context of this threads topic is the same.

[HeyCameron]

Because citing a religious text is the ultimate appeal to authority. People love it when experts agree with them; it's even better when an omnipotent omniscient deity, the source of morality itself, agrees with them. So they cite passages to bolster their opinions and biases and ignore the context that could challenge that support. The text makes the argument for them; the citation means they don't have to say anything further. I've even met religious folks who say they don't personally have any problem with homosexuality, but the Bible is against it, so they have to oppose it.

[Stanley]

I just tend to take some of the bits in the context of their time- not all of it was god's word, some was written by man- and work my way from there... to be honest though, inconsistecies like these are sort of making me doubt my faith, which has always been very strong til now

[Pultost]

That's the beauty about the bible, it's got something for everyone. Just pick the parts you fancy and drop the rest. xD

[Zika]

qste

[Croconaw]

I believe what Pultost said was sarcasm. :lol:

[Emilyfox]

It’s hard to say when so many cultures and individuals have interpreted it for Millenia, how many morality tales and explanations have become official? The flood etc

[Pultost]

It’s hard to say when so many cultures and individuals have interpreted it for Millenia, how many morality tales and explanations have become official? The flood etc

Well, we did have quite a rainy day a little while ago, who knows. :lol:

[lliam]

I just tend to take some of the bits in the context of their time- not all of it was god's word, some was written by man- and work my way from there... to be honest though, inconsistecies like these are sort of making me doubt my faith, which has always been very strong til now


Everything that has been written in so-called sacred texts are just man-made. At best, these texts can be called interpretations of God's word and will. But they remain as they were understood by people, and therefore they are no longer texts that express God's Word directly, but without exception the will of certain individuals.

If you are really looking for divine answers, you should avoid reading in written texts. You simply should start learning to read and understand nature. Assuming, of course, that you really believe that nature is a creation that came from a divine will.

[PlasmaHam]

Given that no one has really given an answer from a religious perspective, I guess I'll give it a go.

If you study the Scriptures you will see that there are 3 general types of "rules". You had moral (dealing with morality), ceremonial (dealing with Jewish religious practices), and civil (dealing with the governance of Israel). Christians (in general) only believe the moral law still applies, as the ceremonial law has been superseded by Jesus basically voiding the Jewish religious practices, and the judicial laws obviously don't apply as we don't live in ancient Israel. Of those moral laws, those which are not contradicted in the New Testament and aren't contrary to Jesus' teachings are generally accepted to be still applicable. For instance, lust is still a sin, but the old ideas of "an eye for an eye" has been replaced with "turning the other cheek".

Additionally some things you have to interpret based upon culture. The Bible was originally written to an ancient Middle-Eastern people living in an ancient world. Obviously cultural practices were different then. Lets take modesty for instance. The Bible speaks clearly of both men and women being modest. But whats modest? In those times it was for women a full-covering cloth and limited jewelry, and for men it was a simple and clean robe. Is it really practical for us to still be going around in robes? No, of course not. So what is modesty? You just got to look at what modesty really means, and what it means is to not try to attract undue attention to yourself. So we apply that to us today, which is up to some personal interpretation, but typically it's that if you are purposely dressing in a way meant to draw eyes upon you (muscle shirts 3 sizes too small, impractically tight pants) that is wrong. I find it sometimes so funny how people get caught up in culture. To note, culture changes does not change the morality, it simply can change how it is applied. Some things will not change, murder is still murder just like it was during Moses' time.

I'm going to directly address the topics you brought up: LGBT, premarital sex, seafood, and hair dying. I'll come back to LGBT, lets start to premarital sex. To be clear, I see this as a sin. The Bible clearly speaks against having sex outside of marriage and describes sex as repeatedly something which should not be taken for granted. On seafood, there is actually a passage in the early part of Acts which Peter is told by God very clearly that the old dietary laws of the OT no longer apply. That's why Christians have no qualms about following eating pork and shrimp. The original reason for these laws was probably only applicable for the time anyways, as most of the banned animals were also animals which easily spread disease if not prepared and cook thoroughly. As for hair dying, I didn't see anything regarding that in the Bible. We could argue whether modesty would apply but that isn't the point. Now back to LGBT+. The Bible, OT and NT, repeatedly mentions that homosexual relations are not right, that marriage is exclusively between a single man and a single woman, and that attempting to deceive others is wrong. From that and other instances it is clear that the Bible does not condone the LGBT+ lifestyle. They are still people though and should be respected, however their choices are not right and shouldn't be applauded and accepted.

And to be fair, there are some things regarding guidelines that are difficult to understand, I'll admit that. Lets take the Sabbath day for instance. The Jews celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday as a day of rest. Does that still apply to Christians? I am not sure. There are people who say that the Sabbath is now Sunday and that the old laws about honoring the Sabbath still apply, but you can't really support that with Scriptures. Some things are just a matter of tradition. They aren't Biblical, but also aren't bad, they are just the way things are done. Some things in the Bible are unclear to us, that does not mean it is wrong, simply that we need to keep studying. Whenever you read a textbook for a class you don't instantly understand it. You got to keep reading it and reading it, and even then you don't understand everything. That's the way the Bible is sometimes. Wish I could give a concrete answer for everything for I honestly don't know it all.

Note: Yes I realize that not every other Christian believes exactly what I've said, and yes I realize that there are some blatantly hypocritical Christians out there. Don't start harassing me because you saw some child abuser think he was justified in judging someone for being gay.

[Uniquemind]

Might I also provide this scripture too

https://biblehub.com/mark/2-23.htm


Do note that the corn, was property of another person, and it was technically stolen, yet forgiveness and love were themes pushed into that verse of scripture for a lesson.


Makes you wonder a lot about morality and thief for survival’s sake, and choosing to respond with punishment or charity in modern day too.


Everything is a shade of grey and deeper learning when it comes to scripture and the faith.




Also from a historical perspective, I saw on a theologian documentary that the seafood line was made at a time of intense bacterial contamination of the seafood market, and given that people listened to religious authorities and had no understanding of science, the religious authority put “dont eat shellfish/seafood” line in the scripture so people would listen for their own safety. IT was an act of love.


A modern day equivalent of that scripture, is actually the reason why government regulations on the seafood market and fishery market for crabs and other shellfish exist today.

We understand more physical things now than ancient peoples did, and so now we understand shellfish can contain high levels of deadly bacteria that when consumed can kill a person.

So in some ways I very much think that scriptural verse still applies, because it was made from an act of love for your fellow human’s health.

[HeyCameron]

Re. the Sabbath: Jesus does say to “keep the commandments” which could be construed as supporting the keeping of the Sabbath by Christians since that is one of the commandments. When Jesus quotes some of the commandments, that isn’t one that he quotes, but one can assume he meant all of them, which I guess would be one exception to the idea that the “ceremonial” parts of the OT no longer apply. Paul is pretty adamant that the Law no longer applies, not "some of the Law", but that does not mean that one could not extract everlasting moral principles from the Law or that the Ten Commandments are not set apart from the rest of the Law.

I think the reason why some are not so keen on the quoting of Leviticus in a smug manner as evidence of the Bible's anti-homosexuality stance is that Leviticus calls many things "abominations" that we no longer view as such or that we ignore as being such: according to Leviticus, having sex with a woman on her period is just as wrong as homosexual intercourse, yet you never hear much about that. However, it is true that Paul's letters speak against homosexuality as well, so those who feel they can dismiss Leviticus outright must also contend with the lines against homosexuality in the Pauline epistles. Yet these epistles also say that women should be silent in church--we all know they are not followed to the letter.

[Emilyfox]

Yeah too many use it as a tool for their agenda
Apparently Jesus never said anything against LGBT people and the few passages on it are actually open to a lot of interpretation

I think there are some parts that maybe with thousands of years of re-telling and translations have become considered facts when they may have been some kind of morality tale or parable or whatever they call them, like Noah and the flood, it’s... a great story but 40 days/nights of rain shouldn’t be able to drown everything and other cultures have flood tales and the spread of humanity and biodiversity... they just don’t work out

I dunno

There are parts like rules that applied before but now because of the changes from thousands of years of development and advancement they don’t seem relevant

And no catfish, come on

[Spooky_Eli]

Yeah too many use it as a tool for their agenda
Apparently Jesus never said anything against LGBT people and the few passages on it are actually open to a lot of interpretation



This is nonsence. He who lies with another man should be stoned is not up for reinturpretation as being in favor of weed.

[Emilyfox]

This is nonsence. He who lies with another man should be stoned is not up for reinturpretation as being in favor of weed.

That’s Old Testament / Hebrew law, not New Testament / Christian
And yeah there is stuff in the New Testament but it wasn’t Jesus saying it, so if he didn’t care to bring it up, Christians shouldn’t put much emphasis on it either
Jesus loves everyone last i check and said not to judge

[Spooky_Eli]

That’s Old Testament / Hebrew law, not New Testament / Christian
And yeah there is stuff in the New Testament but it wasn’t Jesus saying it, so if he didn’t care to bring it up, Christians shouldn’t put much emphasis on it either
Jesus loves everyone last i check and said not to judge

Jesus and god are one in the same in the christian faith(wrong as that may be) and even if they wern't god trumps jesus, the bible is the inerrent word of god, and most christians beleve that the old and new testament go together.
Furthermore, the concept of the new covinent is vauge at best and says nothing about disinvowing the old testie.

[Emilyfox]

Not disavowing it but a new covenant was made, new rules that supersede
It’s safe to say old cultural homophobes wrote or translated it to their own bias
God isn’t the editor

[Spooky_Eli]

Not disavowing it but a new covenant was made, new rules that supersede
It’s safe to say old cultural homophobes wrote or translated it to their own bias
God isn’t the editor

Except he kind of is, what kind of god would let their msg be twisted other than a bad one?
The new covenant is still vauge, never quite outlining what to ignore and wat to keep.
Also, the new testie also damns homosexuals to death, so i don't see why livitical bigotry would be chosen to ignore.

Supersede/disinvow: Same sh*t

[Emilyfox]

Except he kind of is, what kind of god would let their msg be twisted other than a bad one?
The new covenant is still vauge, never quite outlining what to ignore and wat to keep.
Also, the new testie also damns homosexuals to death, so i don't see why livitical bigotry would be chosen to ignore.

Supersede/disinvow: Same sh*t

Society advances and changes
We learn and adapt

[Spooky_Eli]

Society advances and changes
We learn and adapt

Yes, exactly; that involves leaving the bible behind.
Ffs

[PlasmaHam]

Except he kind of is, what kind of god would let their msg be twisted other than a bad one?
A god who values free will. Even the Bible warns of people who would want to twist God's message into a self-serving one. Vigilance and conviction are important.
The new covenant is still vauge, never quite outlining what to ignore and wat to keep.
The new covenant isn't supposed to be a law book. Refer back to my previous post for a deeper dive into this topic.
Also, the new testie also damns homosexuals to death, so i don't see why livitical bigotry would be chosen to ignore.
Your wording here is very confusing, nevermind the annoying spelling errors. The New Testament does not damn homosexuals to death. The NT is based around forgiveness. There are consequences sure, but the OT punishments are no more. And if you are referring to death as in a sentencing to Hell, it also does not promote that. Homosexuality is a sin yes, but if you are saved then sin does not hold you back from Heaven. Homosexuals can go to Heaven, but then again so can murders, rapists, and thieves.
Society advances and changes
We learn and adapt
I'm assuming you are of the school that truth is relative to the age, that is no such thing as absolute truth. Ironically I find most people who claim to be that nevertheless have a personal idea of what truth is. Its not that societal changes requires the change of what truth it. Its that society must change to line up with my beliefs. I doubt you will have that same opinion if society eventually shifts away from your version of truth.

[Emilyfox]

A god who values free will. Even the Bible warns of people who would want to twist God's message into a self-serving one. Vigilance and conviction are important.

The new covenant isn't supposed to be a law book. Refer back to my previous post for a deeper dive into this topic.

Your wording here is very confusing, nevermind the annoying spelling errors. The New Testament does not damn homosexuals to death. The NT is based around forgiveness. There are consequences sure, but the OT punishments are no more. And if you are referring to death as in a sentencing to Hell, it also does not promote that. Homosexuality is a sin yes, but if you are saved then sin does not hold you back from Heaven. Homosexuals can go to Heaven, but then again so can murders, rapists, and thieves.

I'm assuming you are of the school that truth is relative to the age, that is no such thing as absolute truth. Ironically I find most people who claim to be that nevertheless have a personal idea of what truth is. Its not that societal changes requires the change of what truth it. Its that society must change to line up with my beliefs. I doubt you will have that same opinion if society eventually shifts away from your version of truth.

It depends, knowledge is power and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

Science doesn’t disprove God, but it does prove that how many interpret the Bible are wrong
Take the creation story, some are very literal that it happened during 6 Earth days and then God rested and that the Earth and the universe is only thousands of years old, not millions or billions etc
We know that isn’t true and that not everything is literal in the Bible, the people who were originally told by God / passing on the story orally had no concept of numbers and years in the millions, it was told to them by what they could understand and relay at the time
We also know from fossil record that there were many different long eras of dinosaurs and planetary ecological development that we’ll exceed the creationists timeline
Also we know dinosaurs and humans didn’t exist at the same time, so that adds to the creationists being totally wrong in their tiny time frame unless God is the biggest troll ever and planted dinosaur fossils all around the world to trick people

So one can believe in it, but not all of it because of generations of interpretation influencing parts of it and people not realising that some of it is just being told for people of the time and other parts are just examples

[HeyCameron]

Your wording here is very confusing, nevermind the annoying spelling errors. The New Testament does not damn homosexuals to death. The NT is based around forgiveness. There are consequences sure, but the OT punishments are no more. And if you are referring to death as in a sentencing to Hell, it also does not promote that. Homosexuality is a sin yes, but if you are saved then sin does not hold you back from Heaven. Homosexuals can go to Heaven, but then again so can murders, rapists, and thieves.

Well, the OT specifically mentions putting homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20:13), but I guess we could chalk the death sentence up to the "civil" part of Leviticus and extract from it only the immorality of homosexuality (without having the follow the specific punishment).

And while the NT doesn't exactly "condemn homosexuals to death" in Romans 1 Paul provides a list of transgressions (including homosexual lust) and then wraps it up by saying "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

[gromit]

Well, the OT specifically mentions putting homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20:13), but I guess we could chalk the death sentence up to the "civil" part of Leviticus and extract from it only the immorality of homosexuality (without having the follow the specific punishment).

And while the NT doesn't exactly "condemn homosexuals to death" in Romans 1 Paul provides a list of transgressions (including homosexual lust) and then wraps it up by saying "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)


Actually the sin of Onan was disobeying god's command to mate with the widow of his older brother. Onan disobeyed god's command and "spilled his seed" on the ground. There is no actual sin against masturbation. There is no actual sin of man on man sex either. It is an abomination for two men to lye together, if they intend to procreate. That is the abomination, not the act.

King Soloman's son Johnathan & David had a very special love affair & were not ashamed of their love & were not punished for it. In fact, their relationship is praised in the bible & David wrote a song about his love for Johnathan. He sings that he loved Johnathan more than he loved any woman. David had more than 20 wives.

I am quoting the Old Testament because the New Testament gets its ethics from the old but is troubled by misinterpretation and misstranslations.

[SouthernDude]

Actually the sin of Onan was disobeying god's command to mate with the widow of his older brother. Onan disobeyed god's command and "spilled his seed" on the ground. There is no actual sin against masturbation. There is no actual sin of man on man sex either. It is an abomination for two men to lye together, if they intend to procreate. That is the abomination, not the act.

King Soloman's son Johnathan & David had a very special love affair & were not ashamed of their love & were not punished for it. In fact, their relationship is praised in the bible & David wrote a song about his love for Johnathan. He sings that he loved Johnathan more than he loved any woman. David had more than 20 wives.

I am quoting the Old Testament because the New Testament gets its ethics from the old but is troubled by misinterpretation and misstranslations.

I will agree with you 100% on the story of Onan. The sin was trying to prevent a pregnancy by pulling put and "spilling his seed."

What I won't agree on you with is the David and Jonathan story. I did some research and it only seems as though that they had a platonic relationship. And the covenant they made was political, not erotic. David and Jonathan were the best of friends, and when it says David loved Jonathan more than any woman, it's not a romantic love, it's a brotherly love.

[gromit]

I will agree with you 100% on the story of Onan. The sin was trying to prevent a pregnancy by pulling put and "spilling his seed."

What I won't agree on you with is the David and Jonathan story. I did some research and it only seems as though that they had a platonic relationship. And the covenant they made was political, not erotic. David and Jonathan were the best of friends, and when it says David loved Jonathan more than any woman, it's not a romantic love, it's a brotherly love.



Read the old testament, David was 15 & Johnathon was 17. When they met, Johnathon declared he had never seen a more beautiful boy and stripped naked and handed David his princely garments. That's not the only description of their love. What you are quoting is spin.

[SouthernDude]

"1 When David had finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan committed himself to David, and loved him as much as he loved himself. 2 Saul kept David with him from that day on and did not let him return to his father’s house.

3 Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as much as himself. 4 Then Jonathan removed the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military tunic, his sword, his bow, and his belt."

(1 Sam. 18:1-4)

I can see where you misunderstand. The word "love" does not always mean eros. In this context, it means egapa; a familial or selfless love. Later in this chapter, the word "love" is used again:

"But all Israel and Judah loved David because he was leading their troops."

(1 Sam. 18:16)

If we stick to just one meaning of "love" as eros, does this mean that all of Israel and Judah wanted to have an erotic relationship with David? Of course not. My point is supported best by looking at the Hebrew for "love" in this context. The word used is "aheb," meaning a very close emotional bond. The word is used in the book of Genesis to describe Abraham's love for his son, Isaac (Gen. 22:2).

So, the evidence is quite clear that David and Jonathan weren't lovers, but extremely close friends, who loved each other like brothers, and like themselves.

[Surfergirl]

Actually the sin of Onan was disobeying god's command to mate with the widow of his older brother. Onan disobeyed god's command and "spilled his seed" on the ground. There is no actual sin against masturbation. There is no actual sin of man on man sex either. It is an abomination for two men to lye together, if they intend to procreate. That is the abomination, not the act.

King Soloman's son Johnathan & David had a very special love affair & were not ashamed of their love & were not punished for it. In fact, their relationship is praised in the bible & David wrote a song about his love for Johnathan. He sings that he loved Johnathan more than he loved any woman. David had more than 20 wives.

I am quoting the Old Testament because the New Testament gets its ethics from the old but is troubled by misinterpretation and misstranslations.

That’s really important for people to acknowledge

[gromit]

"1 When David had finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan committed himself to David, and loved him as much as he loved himself. 2 Saul kept David with him from that day on and did not let him return to his father’s house.

3 Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as much as himself. 4 Then Jonathan removed the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military tunic, his sword, his bow, and his belt."

(1 Sam. 18:1-4)

I can see where you misunderstand. The word "love" does not always mean eros. In this context, it means egapa; a familial or selfless love. Later in this chapter, the word "love" is used again:

"But all Israel and Judah loved David because he was leading their troops."

(1 Sam. 18:16)

If we stick to just one meaning of "love" as eros, does this mean that all of Israel and Judah wanted to have an erotic relationship with David? Of course not. My point is supported best by looking at the Hebrew for "love" in this context. The word used is "aheb," meaning a very close emotional bond. The word is used in the book of Genesis to describe Abraham's love for his son, Isaac (Gen. 22:2).

So, the evidence is quite clear that David and Jonathan weren't lovers, but extremely close friends, who loved each other like brothers, and like themselves.


Nothing is "quite clear" about religious dogma. Its purpose is to be deliberately vague.

I have not misunderstood anything. I study the Torah in its original language. The Torah is misquoted and has been badly translated & used by Christian dogma for their own agenda.

When David & Johnathan parted ways, David lay on Johnathan and "exceded". The word "exceded" has a few meaning but in this context, it is believed amongst scholars of the Torah, to mean "ejaculated".

It also states that David shared Johnathan's bed & they bathed together. Johnathon barley let the young David out of his sight. Hardly a clear & plutonic relationship.

[SouthernDude]

Please give references for all of these

[Surfergirl]

Nothing is "quite clear" about religious dogma. Its purpose is to be deliberately vague.

I have not misunderstood anything. I study the Torah in its original language. The Torah is misquoted and has been badly translated & used by Christian dogma for their own agenda.

When David & Johnathan parted ways, David lay on Johnathan and "exceded". The word "exceded" has a few meaning but in this context, it is believed amongst scholars of the Torah, to mean "ejaculated".

It also states that David shared Johnathan's bed & they bathed together. Johnathon barley let the young David out of his sight. Hardly a clear & plutonic relationship.

Totally makes sense
Especially with the translators bias

[gromit]

Well, the OT specifically mentions putting homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20:13), but I guess we could chalk the death sentence up to the "civil" part of Leviticus and extract from it only the immorality of homosexuality (without having the follow the specific punishment).

And while the NT doesn't exactly "condemn homosexuals to death" in Romans 1 Paul provides a list of transgressions (including homosexual lust) and then wraps it up by saying "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

It's also very clear about being put to death for disobeying your parents or committing blasphemy or adultery. Don't let a good cherry picking session get in the way to being self-righteous.

So easy to point to one passage or another so you can condemn one act or another. Didn't Jesus say " He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Before the 1860s, homosexuality wasn't a thing. It's another social construct to regulate behaviour. Before the 1860s man on man sex was between those doing it & has been practiced since the dawn of time. It's not new!

The Celts, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings & the American Indians recognised this fact of human nature.

[Zika]

It's also very clear about being put to death for disobeying your parents or committing blasphemy or adultery. Don't let a good cherry picking session get in the way to being self-righteous.


You certainly don't know how to disagree without throwing personal insults, do you?

You said you study Torah. Do you also study the Talmud? You should. You'd learn to respect others' opinions and express your own without attacking people.

Referring to HeyCameron as being self-righteous is about as far from what kind of person he really is as you can get.

[Surfergirl]

You certainly don't know how to disagree without throwing personal insults, do you?

You said you study Torah. Do you also study the Talmud? You should. You'd learn to respect others' opinions and express your own without attacking people.

Referring to HeyCameron as being self-righteous is about as far from what kind of person he really is as you can get.

I don’t think it was really a personal attack, it was highlighting the cherry picking that happens a lot to persecute gay people
There are so many things it says people should be executed for but are ignored despite being equally not a thing
They says Jesus never said anything against gay people or gay sex

[Zika]

I don’t think it was really a personal attack, it was highlighting the cherry picking that happens a lot to persecute gay people
There are so many things it says people should be executed for but are ignored despite being equally not a thing
They says Jesus never said anything against gay people or gay sex

It would be helpful if you read the whole thread before making a post like this. HeyCameron never advocated persecuting gays.

"Don't let a good cherry picking session get in the way to being self-righteous."

If referring to him as being 'self-rightous' isn't a personal attack, what would you call it?
My comment also refers, though I didn't express it, to some posts gromit made about me as well, displaying a similar inability to express a differing view without making personal attacks.

Again, read the whole thread.

[Surfergirl]

It would be helpful if you read the whole thread before making a post like this. HeyCameron never advocated persecuting gays.

"Don't let a good cherry picking session get in the way to being self-righteous."

If referring to him as being 'self-rightous' isn't a personal attack, what would you call it?
My comment also refers, though I didn't express it, to some posts gromit made about me as well, displaying a similar inability to express a differing view without making personal attacks.

Again, read the whole thread.

Roger that, will do