Quoting Bible to attack gays is hypocritical

[Chrystalwuzhere]

By Leonard Pitts Jr.

An open letter to Donna Reddick:

I'm writing this for Desiree. She's a student at Miami Sunset Senior High, where you teach business technology. A few days ago, she sent me an e-mail recounting an incident that happened on campus last week.

It seems that on three successive days, the morning announcements, which are televised throughout the school, featured student-produced segments on the subject of gay rights.
On the first day came comments from students who took the pro position. On the second day came remarks from a counselor who spoke of the need for students to respect one another. On the third day came you.

Click here to read the rest of the article (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/14062835.htm).

[Brandli5]

Boy,

They sure will have a lot to learn some day. I hope and pray they learn it before its all to late. The bible taken litterally is the way God wants us to take his word. When he says its wrong, you better believe it is. Although, I do not think its right to put others in there place, because most of the time its not our business, I do think expressing why something is wrong is right. As long as they did not single out any one person and did not say that they could not like, or be with, or hated that group of people. We are to love everyone, not hate anyone. We can hate there sin, but who are we to judge?

THis world is something else and I hope it can wake up soon.

[eahaddix]

It seems that on three successive days, the morning announcements, which are televised throughout the school, featured student-produced segments on the subject of gay rights.

On the first day came comments from students who took the pro position. On the second day came remarks from a counselor who spoke of the need for students to respect one another.

This programming comes across as one-sided programming. Where was the opposing viewpoint? Objectivity requires the acknowledgment of the opposing viewpoint's arguments.

On the third day came you. You and a few students, actually. One told classmates homosexuality was ''unacceptable in the eyesight of God.'' Another said gays were ``unrighteous.''

The coup de grace, though, was you invoking Sodom and Gomorrah and telling students homosexuality was ''wrong according to the Bible'' because God ordered humanity to multiply, which gay couples cannot do.

Desiree was, to put it mildly, upset.

So? The 1st Amendment guarantees free speech rights for all viewpoints, not just people with your viewpoint.

In the e-mail, she accused you of bigotry and wondered how a gay student could feel assured ever again of fair treatment in your class.

"Bigotry" according to whose standard? If you advocate sociocultural relativism, then your argument is moot.

She also suggested that you crossed the line between church and state,[...]

Please substantiate this accusation with substantive evidence.

It seems to me there's a difference between proselytizing for a religion and explaining how one's faith has influenced one's opinion.

Agreed. However, how do you draw the line between proselytizing and expressing an opinion?

Moreover, what sources are you consulting for your opinion about this situation? Reliable journalism requires the consultation of multiple sources, as opposed to one biased email of one person.

You're entitled to think what you think, no matter how stupid it might be.

You are engaging in an ad-hominem logical fallacy.

But I'll leave those questions for others to parse.

Hold on a second. "Hit and run" rhetoric proves nothing. If you have time to issue criticism, then you have time to justify your opinion.

Put simply, I've had it up to here with the moral hypocrisy and intellectual constipation of Bible literalists.

Be careful with the usage of "paintbrush language." You are very close to engaging in a hasty generalization logical fallacy.

By which I mean people like you, who dress their homophobia up in Scripture, insisting with sanctimonious sincerity that it's not homophobia at all, but just a pious determination to live according to what the Bible says.

You are engaging in ad-hominem ranting. This rant proves nothing.

And never mind that the Bible also says it is ''disgraceful'' for a woman to speak out in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and that if she has any questions, she should wait till she gets home and ask her husband.

So? This argument is an argument of outrage, which is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

Never mind that the Bible says the penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

Wrong. Nowhere does Scripture equate the Sabbath day with Sunday.

Moreover, you are equivocating different Biblical dispensations (ref. John 1:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:17;&version=31;), see also Romans 11:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:6;&version=31;)). For instance, how do you deal with Colossians 2:6-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:6-23%20;&version=31;)?

Colossians 2 [NIV]
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

*See also Ephesians 2:14-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:14-16;&version=31;), Roman 10:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:4;&version=31;), Romans 7:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207:1-6;&version=31;), Romans 8:3-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:3-4%20;&version=31;), and Romans 6:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206:15%20;&version=31;).

In addition, how do you deal with Romans 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014;&version=31;)?

Roman 14 [NIV]
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

Never mind that the Bible says the man who rapes a virgin should buy her from her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and marry her.

Wrong. You are equivocating different Biblical dispensations (ref. John 1:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:17;&version=31;), see also Romans 11:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:6;&version=31;)). Consult the reply above.

I'm going to speculate that you don't observe or support those commands. Which says to me that yours is a literalism of convenience, a literalism that is literal only so long as it allows you to condemn what you'd be condemning anyway and takes no skin off your personal backside.

Wrong. Like atheists attempting to disprove the Bible, you are quoting verses out of context by casually skimming the Bible. However, the Biblical Scriptures teach systematic ideas, which are properly understood by constructing a systematic theology. Hence, you discredit your position by exposing your careless approach to quoting the Scriptures.

As such, your claim that God sanctions your homophobia is the moral equivalent of Flip Wilson's old claim that the devil made him do it.

Hold on a second. How do you determine when someone is "homophobic"? When a person disagrees with your viewpoint?

You resemble many of your and my co-religionists, whose faith so often expresses itself in an obsessive focus on one or two hot-button issues -- and seemingly nowhere else.

This statement is a red herring. This assertion has no relevance to the situational issue at hand.

They're so panicked at the thought that somebody accidentally might treat gay people like people.

This statement is a red herring. This assertion has no relevance to the situational issue at hand.

They run around Chicken Little-like, screaming, 'Th' homosex'shals is comin'! Th' homosex'shals is comin'!''

You are engaging in ad-hominem ranting. This rant proves nothing.

Meantime, people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass-murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that?

Hold on second. Where is Leonard's outrage over these things? How is Leonard setting the example?

If you love me, feed my sheep.

For the record, Ms. Reddick, the Bible says that, too.

Correct. Now, how do you interpret this statement?

[CoreIssue]

When looking for a posting name I chose CoreIssue because I was so tired of people arguing periphrials and such as if that addressed the heart of an issue.

Clearly the critics could not deny the Bible condemns homosexuality so they jumped to off topic arguments as if that proved something. Even worse, they took them out of context and distorted them.

Or, just said believe what you want but your position is stupid. A meaningless attack that states no reason as to why it is held to be stupid.

Finally some are standing up to the PC politics and education. And the PC folk are not coping well with it.

So much for their embracing of freedom, specifically as in freedom of speech.

[eahaddix]

When looking for a posting name I chose CoreIssue because I was so tired of people arguing periphrials and such as if that addressed the heart of an issue.

Clearly the critics could not deny the Bible condemns homosexuality so they jumped to off topic arguments as if that proved something. Even worse, they took them out of context and distorted them.

;) Yep, the red herring is a very popular pet. Many secular humanists own dozens of them.

[CoreIssue]

;) Yep, the red herring is a very popular pet. Many secular humanists own dozens of them.
Yepper!

[Sid]

By which I mean people like you, who dress their homophobia up in Scripture, insisting with sanctimonious sincerity that it's not homophobia at all, but just a pious determination to live according to what the Bible says.



The word homophobia has been heavily freighted by the gay activists to describe any manner of opposition to homosexuality, the gay lifestyle and the gay political agenda.

Does anyone really believe that disapproval of the gay lifestyle is based on ignorant, irrational bigotry?

The gay lifestyle can and should be soundly rejected on moral, ethical, medical, public health and Scriptural grounds.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Also, phobia means irrational fear of something.

I'm tired of being told I'm irrationally afraid of gays. :tsk:

[Jessie]

Also, phobia means irrational fear of something.

I'm tired of being told I'm irrationally afraid of gays. :tsk:

agreed. they are the ones who re phobic,
christianphobic.

not even willing to look at the truth of the matter,
sid went over several things that they do NOT want out.

[Brandli5]

agreed. they are the ones who re phobic,
christianphobic.

not even willing to look at the truth of the matter,
sid went over several things that they do NOT want out.



Yea!! Agree with you there.