If we're using old testament justification,I think I have never heard a Christian speak to me about the sins of eating pork or shellfish, thus evidence clearly tells us that the vast, vast majority of modern-day Christians are in fact completely fine with ignoring the laws of Leviticus.

If we're using New Testament justification, I think I have never heard a Christian complain to me about public prayer, lending people money or swearing an oath. Thus evidence also tells us that the vast, vast majority of modern-day Christians are in fact completely fine with ignoring The New Testament.

Meanwhile, even many moderate Christians seems to view homosexuality as a problematic topic. Thankfully, given what we know about the other laws of the Bible, we can safely conclude that Christian persecution of homosexuals is just carefully curated bigotry, and not really born out of some reverence for the supposed words of God. It might be borne out of some misplaced "respect" for Church teachings, but this isn't a theocracy.

What would the signs read, if Christians picketed Red Lobster restaurants?

"Stop shoving Endless Shrimp down our throats"

"Marriage is one man + one woman, not surf + turf"

"Bacon-wrapped prawns are a delicious abomination"

There are three broad categories of Old Testament laws: Ceremonial, Judicial and Moral.

The incarnation of Christ, and his subsequent death, burial and resurrection, eliminated the need for the ceremonial laws. Jesus Himself was the final, perfect sacrifice for sin. The various dietary laws can be followed or not, at the discretion of each individual and their conscience.

The Judicial laws were in effect during an Old Covenant theocracy, so given that there is not currently an Old Covenant theocracy anywhere, the judicial laws no longer apply.

The Moral Law is still in effect in the sense that it reflects the righteousness of God that we are to emulate. The keeping of the law has no salvific value.

Unfortunately, the bolded is all too true.

Not sure many so-called "moderate Christians" are even Christians at all.

No, "we" cannot "safely conclude that."

I agree, this isn't a theocracy.

lagtight, the NFL just came out with an ad stating that football is gay. Do you agree?

Hey, Lagtight. Ask Jesus what's the deal with homosexual practices in the animal kingdom and hermaphrodites in the human race. He obviously must have created the ambivalence and variety of sexuality for some reason. Then tell us exactly what he said and how he said it. Since that's apparently how your world works it would be enlightening to hear straight from a channeler of almighty god how this works.

Or is it just that you think about it and then your brain comes up with something, instead of Jesus telling you? And what is the difference between the two? How do you know when it is Jesus/God talking? Does he say "Hey, Lagtight, this is Jesus speaking not just your own thoughts" ... or what?

I neither agree or disagree with the claim that the NFL has just came out with an ad stating that football is gay. This is the first I've heard of it.

Whenever I've gone to an NFL game, I've always had a "gay old time."

Just to be clear, is it football that is gay, or is it the football that is gay?

Yup we can. It is not anyone's else's fault that you or other believers like you choose to persecute homosexuals.

How much time/effort had you put into your previous position?

This is a genuine question, I'd appreciate your response.

Given that even after that post he has continued to use the term "****-predators" when referring to paedophiles, it's hard to believe that his position has actually changed at all.

The context was whether or not homosexual behavior should be illegal.

Even the Satan-inspired "Progressives" at least publicly denounce pedophiles.

The vast majority of the reported sex abuse cases in the Catholic Church have been perpetrated against boys by men. So, ****-predator seems fitting.

Still noteworthy that the Satan-inspired "Progressives" are more outraged by my language than they are about the raping of boys.

Once someone firmly holds the position that a woman has a right to have her unborn baby slaughtered in the womb, pretty much anything goes at that point.

Not much.

FYP

Ok, good.

What about the counter argument that appeared to quickly change your mind: if you had spent some time thinking about your "lock up the gays because of the pedos" resolution, do you think you could have come up with the same counter-argument, and changed your position all by yourself?

If the answer is yes...then why didn't you?!

Bigotry usually results from ignorance. With a few extreme exceptions, bigotry diminishes greatly when it's no longer supported by ignorance.

If the answer is no:
...well there's nothing good down this road, it's where ignorance LIVES.

Wrong. Pedophile would be fitting.
Did you read my post?



What might be noteworthy would be to see you try to support any of your ridiculous hyperbole. Go!

I didn't change my mind quickly. Please note the timeline of the posts on this topic.

I suppose I could have.

Probably an unanswerable question.

Curiously, based on the technical definition of pedophile, the term pedophile would often not be the most "fitting" term, given that many of the victims were not prepubescent.

Every post that supposedly resulted in you changing your opinion made it explicitly clear that homosexual behaviour and pedophilia are not related, regardless of the sex of those abusing and being abused. Continuing to use **** as part of a descriptor for pedophilia is not in the slightest bit fitting.

If you insist on using a ridiculous descriptor rather than just calling them pedophiles or child abusers then might I suggest "Christian-predator", which while still ridiculous would at least be more accurate.

I agree that homosexuality and pedophilia are not related in the sense that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children and teens.

But, as I noted in a recent post above, many of the victims were young teenagers, in which cases it would be technically inaccurate to refer to the abusers as pedophiles. However, the vast majority of reported cases were men victimizing boys, hence my use of the term ****-predator.


In my opinion, "Christian-predator" is possibly problematic because it isn't at all clear that all of the abusers were in fact Christians. In my opinion, it would be fine to use the phrase "Confessing Christian predator", but I think that is already implied given that the context here is abuse within the Catholic Church.

It's wild that you can post this and still not see the point. The reason "****-predator" is definitely problematic is that there is no evidence that the abusers were homosexual. There is far more evidence that they were Christian and that is why I said it would be more accurate, notwithstanding the fact that either is still ridiculous.

As for the point about pedophile not being accurate, it's true that technically a lot of the abuse could more accurately be described as (ep)hebephilia. However that doesn't mean pedophile is an inaccurate description, since in colloquial speech and even in many legal terms, it is used to refer to all sexual abuse of minors, regardless of pubescence.

Thank you for thoughtfully engaging me on this topic.

Maybe if you can answer the following two questions, then this nomenclature issue can be resolved:

1. What term would you find technically accurate to identify a male adult who sexually abuses 12-year-old boys?

2. What term would you find technically accurate to identify a male adult who sexually abuses 12-year-old girls?

I'm asking for terms that differentiate the two groups.

Thanks.

I can't think of a single reason that you would ever need to differentiate between the two groups so I don't know why it would be necessary to have completely separate terms. If for some reason you do want to specify one or the other then simply saying that a person sexually abused boys/girls, as you have written out yourself, would be sufficient and still require no need for another term.

In the vast majority of child sexual abuse cases the chosen victim is purely a factor who the abuser had access to and unrelated to **** or heterosexuality. Inventing terms that either explicitly or implicitly suggest that the abuse is related to either does nothing except cause problems.

Nah, I'm hardly alone in noting Abrahamic religion's tendency to persecute homosexual people.

If we hadn't largely abandoned Christian theocracy to the scrapheap of history, I'm pretty sure it would still be hurting and killing plenty of victims.

I agree a lot of people agree with you.

Good thing Europe walked away from Christianity so it could enjoy the fruits of Stalin and Hitler instead.

The Satan-inspired Left here in America are not only on board with the "hurting and killing" of millions and millions of unborn babies, but it is actually deemed a right for the woman to do so to her own unborn baby. Such a notion is utterly demonic.

I appreciate that you're stating your opinion of the American left but I think it would be awesome and courageous for you to be more upfront with with your opinion on women and homosexuels. I know what the opinion is of those folks and you aren't that one outlier. It would speed up the conversation instead of making the big studded move on identifying the left but then retreat when when it goes a little deeper on the women and gays when literally no one i've met holds those two seperate views.