• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Liberal Christians: Why is it bigoted for Christians to believe they’re part of the true religion

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Your definition of homophobia is dogmatic. That anyone who thinks it’s a sin and still thinks gay people should be treated like human beings is still evil
Treating someone like a person is literally the barest minimum. If you believe women are intellectually inferior to men, and shouldn't be in leadership roles, but you still treat them like a person, that doesn't absolve the sexism. That's not dogmatic, it's literally the definition of the term. The same is true of homosexuality. 'Homosexuality is bad because my religion says so' still isn't rational.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you treat them like people. Plenty of people don't. But being better than the worst doesn't make it best.
 

SinSaber

Member
Treating someone like a person is literally the barest minimum. If you believe women are intellectually inferior to men, and shouldn't be in leadership roles, but you still treat them like a person, that doesn't absolve the sexism. That's not dogmatic, it's literally the definition of the term. The same is true of homosexuality. 'Homosexuality is bad because my religion says so' still isn't rational.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you treat them like people. Plenty of people don't. But being better than the worst doesn't make it best.

Are defense attornies worse for trying to get murders out of the death penalty, even when they think they commit immoral acts? Like Ted Bundy?
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
A hydrophobic chemical isn’t capable of acknowledging something humanity, moderate Christians are

Are moderate Christians those people who would vote for candidates who promise to cut aid to the millions of people who already have so little, while simultaneously cutting taxes on the very people who already have so much? While also purposefully bankrupting the nation.

Are moderate Christians those people who would vote for candidates who promise to enact laws to oppress various groups in society? While separating people instead of including everyone in society?

Not particularly Jesus like behavior.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Obviously he thought she was or he wouldn't have called her one. This isn't that hard. I don't know if Jesus became less racist as time went on (the parable of the Good Samaritan shows he or at least someone telling the story thought we shouldn't be that racist), but he was definitely racist on at least two occasions.


He was proven wrong. And if he didn't really mean what he said, what else did he teach that he was just spitballing? And what is the point to be made?
His point was she wasn’t a Jew, her point was that god doesn’t care. He seemed to agree and I don’t get the idea that she somehow changed his mind.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
They don't agree with what the murderer did, but will fight for their right to live. Do you think less of them for this?
People who harm others especially intentionally isn’t even in the same realm. Why would anything be a sin unless there is harm? There has to be a good reason since the the law is said to be summed up by love.

John 13
35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
 

SinSaber

Member
People who harm others especially intentionally isn’t even in the same realm. Why would anything be a sin unless there is harm? There has to be a good reason since the the law is said to be summed up by love.

John 13
35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

That’s the point, if you don’t think less of the man who defends the one who caused harm, why think less of the person who disagrees with a behavior but still defends their rights
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
That’s the point, if you don’t think less of the man who defends the one who caused harm, why think less of the person who disagrees with a behavior but still defends their rights
I’m saying comparing murder to having a sexual orientation which causes no harm is a bad comparison.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I think non-liberal Christians are great people with a very positive heritage that they share with liberal Christians. We're all liberal to some degree and to someone. I don't agree with a lot of liberal Christians. What some call liberal is to me too shapeless. I am absolutely against abandonment of Bible study. I am against it for all concerned, but I'm also not happy with the level of Bible engagement I'm seeing in churches in general. Sunday schools are letting us down too often. I think this lack of understanding almost guarantees a very divisive church. Hopefully this past century of divisive and judgmental confusion is temporary, and all of the churches will get together and dedicate themselves to real change including a real dedication to studying what has been mostly ignored as boring: Torah. I'm not at all saying we need to become messianics, but we can't continue to thrive in ignorance like we have been. Anybody who is going to talk about the Bible ought to have a solid basis in this most basic of texts, and that has not been the case. The New Testament letters have been handed out like popcorn to people who just don't have the background to deal with the matter. Often they start by reading John and then wind up hating Jews and arguing with other Christians about the trinity...then trying to understand Revelation without having the necessary background they feel chagrinned and ignorant and retreat from study.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
They don't agree with what the murderer did, but will fight for their right to live. Do you think less of them for this?
If they're trying to get their client off above establishing truth of guilt or innocence, yeah I would.
I certainly don't think very highly of the late Johnnie Cochran.

But that's hardly comparable, imo, for reasons pointed out by others.
 
Last edited:

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
His point was she wasn’t a Jew, her point was that god doesn’t care. He seemed to agree and I don’t get the idea that she somehow changed his mind.

Samaritans are Jews.. But why would he bring that up in opposition?
 

Islam Al Mahdi

New Member
Because it's alright to bash Christians left right and centre, but religions like Islam and Judaism are protected species. Regressive leftist politics in action as usual.
Segregation is a malleable form of despotism. I am a political member of the muhajahdin, i prophet suffrage knows no color, crime or religion. it only has form, derision... a moment of activity a position left available for its creativity. Islam abounds to bring means by which all men can exist in fundamental freedoms, and religious right. Resistance is potent in change to any future.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Not according to other Jews at the time. They were hated, LOATHED, for not being Jews.

This is why it is the parable of the Good Samaritan, not the parable of Random Jewish Guy.

It wasn't because they weren't Jews. It was because they stayed, and made slightly different compromises with the religion. -To say they weren't Jews, was a convenient slur.

John 8:48
 

Spice

StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Not according to other Jews at the time. They were hated, LOATHED, for not being Jews.

This is why it is the parable of the Good Samaritan, not the parable of Random Jewish Guy.

It wasn't because they weren't Jews. It was because they stayed, and made slightly different compromises with the religion. -To say they weren't Jews, was a convenient slur.

John 8:48


My understanding is that Samaritans were the Jews left behind, or missed, by the Babylonians, therefore in the first century they were not considered as "worthy" as those families that had endured captivity.
 

SinSaber

Member
If they're trying to get their client off above establishing truth of guilt or innocence, yeah I would.
I certainly don't think very highly of the late Johnnie Cochran.

But that's hardly comparable, imo, for reasons pointed out by others.

I’m talking about simply avoiding the death penalty
 
Top