▲ | mcphage 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
> 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. | |||||||||||||||||
|