Originally Posted by divot dave
With a fuller context in mind, I can't possibly interpret Bubba's tweet as anything other than commending a member of his faith for speaking boldly on a controversial topic.
Let's be real for a second: you don't show general support for an action while at the same time condemning the merit of the action unless you make that clear. And the same goes for a message. If you say "well-done speaking your thoughts" there is an implied support for the message. If not, there should be a clarification or qualifying statement supplementing it. I have no doubt that Bubba concurs with Broussard's statements. If he doesn't, he will say so.
Likewise, Broussard's context was clear: Collins is a sinner who may not call himself Christian, because he is not Christian by a standard that Broussard defined. It can very well be assumed that since Broussard has never condemned other athletes for their adultery, that the primary goal of this message was to let people know that gay people are not Christians, and vice versa....which he has every right to believe as long as his religious doctrine corroborates that.
Originally Posted by divot dave
Last thought... there's been far more contempt demonstrated toward those embracing the christian faith, in this thread alone, than what can be detected from Broussard's words or Bubba's tweet.
That's a pretty common tactic attempted by evangelicals which is pure bull nine times out of ten. First off, if they can't handle people pecking at the merits of their beliefs they need to grow thicker skin or simply ignore it. That is not contempt. And the contempt that IS shown is for those that would use their religious beliefs in attempts to alter public policy in hypocritical or discriminatory ways, which deserves as much contempt as possible.
Originally Posted by Jasonbolt
Out of curiosity, what is ignored?
One of the biggest ones I find ignored is that passage which reads "love your neighbor as yourself" as well as a common phrase associated with Jesus known as "turn the other cheek."
Originally Posted by iacas
I think the science on that is inconclusive at best. People might be born with a bit of a tendency but the latest info seems to be that a person's sexual orientation is set fairly early, but not pre-birth or genetically.
Agree. One thing that IMO really hurts the whole LGBT agenda is pretending that there is anything conclusive about some genetic predetermination on sexual orientation. Really, it doesn't friggin matter, so I wish that aspect of it would at least be discussed from a speculative perspective rather than from one of scientific fact. It undermines the issue.
Originally Posted by saevel25
There isn't much you can go wrong if you do this. If you base your dislike of christianity on the people of the church who decide to live outside this statement, then that is very wrong.
Here is the problem, though. Whether it's a minority or majority segment, there are very vocal and high profile Christians who regularly live outside of those statements. They preach war, hatred, exclusion, judgement, and violence towards people they simply don't agree with, while at the same time pretending to be followers of a person who preached the opposite...even for his enemies. Even if we assume they are the minority of Christians (which I would contend they are not), they are sometimes high-ranking members of the faith or at least are high profile and hold a platform with which they influence others.
The reality is that bad people will cling to a religion in order to justify some of their beliefs and personality traits, and religious doctrine is so inconsistent and vague at times that it lends itself well to people like that.
Originally Posted by NM Golf
This always brings me back to the quote often attributed to Gandhi, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."
Originally Posted by 14ledo81
How about bestiality? (although I guess you could say that harms the animal??)
Common argument that is misused by evangelicals. Animals would fall into the same "lack of consent" category that young kids would.
Originally Posted by Paradox
it can't be ok if you say someone else is wrong for doing the same thing, lol.
It's not about it being okay for both people, it's about whether or not it's okay for the person who claims to subscribe to a belief system where it's not okay. This is about hypocrisy for the individual, not universal morality. People obviously subscribe to different belief systems. What we're talking about here is people that have no problem getting on a high horse to condemn things they don't like in the name of religion, while at the same time not following that religion according to their own publicly available religious doctrine.