I looked at the stoning gay people one through the link there and it isn't clear if he's advocating for it, against it, or just stating a fact about what the bible says. He used it to respond to a pro-gay Christian (Ms. Rachel from kids videos) who favored a law from Leviticus (love thy neighbor) and he pointed out that the same book also says to stone gays. He said that if you love God, you should love his laws, including that one (implying that Ms. Rachel should want to stone gays to be consistent with her stated belief). He described it as God's perfect law... but it's not clear if he actually condones or believes that or is just making a claim about what's true within the canon of the bible or what Ms. Rachel would believe to be consistent with herself.

Do you know if he ever clarified his position on killing gays anywhere else? If that's the only time he ever publicly mentioned it, on it's own, it's too ambiguous to call preaching hate.

So far, I can't find any hate preaching. I don't want to sift through everything just in case there's some hidden gem. You could just tell me which one is pretty clear if you knew about it. So I assume you're just repeating some popular opinion that isn't even true.

▲

mcphage 2 days ago | parent [-]

> He described it as God's perfect law... but it's not clear if he actually condones or believes that

How do you imagine that working? Do you call many things you don’t support “God’s perfect law?”

> just making a claim about what's true within the canon of the bible

I wonder why he chose that specific example, then.

> what Ms. Rachel would believe to be consistent with herself.

What do you mean here?

> Do you know if he ever clarified his position on killing gays anywhere else?

This is an amazing sentence.

▲

foxglacier a day ago | parent [-]

> How do you imagine that working? Do you call many things you don’t support “God’s perfect law?”

Imagine instead of the Bible, it's The Lord Of The Rings. Somebody examining it might describe the special master ring as being Sauron's perfect creation, or whatever. That doesn't mean they believe it is in real life. They're talking within the context of the story.

You're saying he preaches hate by promoting killing gays. If that's what he was doing, wouldn't he have been clearer about it instead of just using it as part of a smug retort showing somebody else's hypocrisy?

> What do you mean here?

She used Leviticus to justify her beliefs, but apparently cherry-picked the parts she wanted and neglected the stoning gays part. He's pointing out that the actual text says the opposite of what she believes based on that same book of the bible.

Since every example you've shown and I've looked at has been weak or nothing, I conclude that you're wrong about him preaching hate and instead you've just been fooled by media telling you that and you never bothered to look at the evidence. Really, it's that media that's been preaching hate - hence why he was so widely hated.

▲

mcphage a day ago | parent [-]

> That doesn't mean they believe it is in real life. They're talking within the context of the story.

So you read a bunch of his writings, or watched his videos, and didn’t pick up on the fact that he was a devout Christian?

> I conclude that you're wrong about him preaching hate and instead you've just been fooled by media telling you that and you never bothered to look at the evidence. Really, it's that media that's been preaching hate - hence why he was so widely hated.

It’s clear you started with your conclusion—very efficient, but a waste of my time. I’m done feeling the trolls, goodbye.

	▲	foxglacier a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yes I knew he was a Christian. So? Ms. Rachel is too and she somehow doesn't want to kill gays, despite quoting Leviticus. At the end of the day, you have no evidence that he was preaching hate. So you must have come to that conclusion by believing what someone told you without checking it yourself. If you were being skeptical, you could go and ask those people who told you that to explain their reasons and maybe they do have something, or maybe they don't.