General Question

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

How can a homophobe claim to be Christian when they are openly not following the God they claim to be following?

Asked by JeSuisRickSpringfield (4520points) June 27th, 2015

How do homophobes reconcile declaring they are Christian when they are not following or bypass the commandments of the God they claim to follow? What Bible are they using? If they earnestly say they are trying to be Christian but don’t end their persecution of others as God decreed, how can they say they are for God but be against His commandments unless they are in a religion (man-made) and not so much a fellowship with God? Do they expect God to make allowances for them, or do they believe they are supposed to change to fit God?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

73 Answers

ZEPHYRA's avatar

How do most Christians declare their Christianity when everything they ever say or do is against Christ’s teachings?

Kardamom's avatar

The same way they can claim that Obama is the anti-christ, or that socialists are sociopaths.

Anyone can claim anything. God and religion are both man made concepts. Even though a “Christian,” or someone of another faith, can say that they are following their (B)bible or The (B)bible, those books, or the adherence to them, is fluid.

It’s like the cute internet meme with the kitties: If it fits, I sits. If it doesn’t, then f*ck it.

kritiper's avatar

Remember that first of all, and all standard dictionary definitions specify, that a Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. A believer in God is a Theist. Otherwise, that’s the way people generally are. “Do as I say, not as I do.” Pure hypocrites. And religious hypocrites are the WORST!!!

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

I would say those who are scared of gays or are persecuting gays are in the same boat as gays who claim to be Christian, or they have a form of religion they call Christianity but lack the power thereof. A true educated Believer of Christ would not hate gays any more than murders, gossipers, those with pedophilia, racist, fornicators, liars, etc. In fact a true educated Believer would love them, but hate the sin, there is a difference, but here one cannot expect the correlation to be made. Seeing there are many who call on His name with their lips, but their heart and soul are far from Him. So I guess the answer to your question is they are maybe members of user friendly churches that are good at looking churchy but have no solid relationship with the Father.

basstrom188's avatar

This is the same god who condones slavery, treats women as property, stones stroppy teenagers and has cheeky children mauled by a bear.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
jerv's avatar

The same way both Protestants and Catholics both fall under the category of Christian.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@basstrom188 This is the same god who condones slavery, treats women as property, stones stroppy teenagers and has cheeky children mauled by a bear.
I guess you truly do not know the God of Abraham, so it is best you read up, gain some understanding, then try it again.

ibstubro's avatar

The smorgasbord Bible.
It’s bound to be in there somewhere.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
ragingloli's avatar

Well, the command to murder gays is in the bible, so homophobes are closer to being true christians than those who accept gay people.
The Westboro Baptist Church is probably the most christian group in all of the american continent.
@Hypocrisy_Central
He understands the abrahmic god perfectly.

Zaku's avatar

I guess followers of any ancient book are bound to get confused in the 21st Century, particularly when their wacko pastors summarize it for them, and some tell them to take it literally, and that the Bible was written by God and is an original work, when almost everything in it is actually borrowed and twisted versions of things from a variety of even earlier religions.

Response moderated
ibstubro's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central, Your response to @LostInParadise is gibberish.

I think @ragingloli refers to:
New International Version
”‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

New Living Translation
“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

English Standard Version
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

New American Standard Bible
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

King James Bible
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The comic version isn’t mentioned.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
jerv's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central “You can fly a 747 jumbo jet better than you can twist the scripture to make it say what you want…”

Actually, no. Unless you are pulling a “No True Scotsman”, it’s quite easy to twist scripture to say whatever you want. That was pretty much the point of my first answer in this thread. Maybe the twist is cherry-picking Leviticus in order to order to “justify” homophobia while wearing clothes that are a mix of polyester and cotton. (Leviticus is funny in that it bans many things that a lot of people do. For instance Leviticus 11:2–8 means that Christians are just as prohibited from eating pigs as Muslims, yet I’ll bet a lot of homophobes like pulled pork and/or bacon.) Or maybe the twist is adapting to modern times. Either way, there’ is quite a bit of room for interpretation.

Dutchess_III's avatar

(Ha ha! On Quora I mentioned in a comment that God is against divorce. Some Christian said, “Where did he say that?!” Oh, brother. Only found about a million scriptures.)

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@jerv Actually, no. Unless you are pulling a “No True Scotsman”, it’s quite easy to twist scripture to say whatever you want. That was pretty much the point of my first answer in this thread.
You can only if you don’t use it in context, and a thing about the Bible is that it backs itself up in a least three different places or more, of course, if one doesn’t study the Bible they never would know that. However, if you have scripture that says (A) homosexuality IS NOT sexual immorality; (B) that homosexuality is not a sin that keeps one out of Heaven, and ( C )That if it is a sin, homosexuals can still openly do it without repenting of it and have it excused, allowing them into Heaven. If you know the Bible so well, I am sure it won’t be hard for you to find it, if it is indeed in there….

Dutchess_III's avatar

It also contradicts its self over and over. Which is to be expected when you cobble something together that was written hundreds of years apart by different men with different ideals of morality.
Also, early in Christendom, the Catholic church decided which “books” should be included in the bible and which should be excluded.
It’s man. All man.

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Can you find me a scripture that says (A) eating lettuce IS NOT gustatory immorality; (B) that eating lettuce is not a sin that keeps one out of Heaven, and (C) that if it is a sin, lettuce eaters can still openly eat lettuce without repenting of and and have it excused, allowing them into Heaven? If you know the Bible so well, I am sure it won’t be hard for you to find it, if it is indeed in there…

And since you don’t seem to understand how sarcasm works, I’ll spell it out for you. Your answer seems to imply that anything that isn’t expressly allowed by the Bible is not allowed. So I want you to show me where eating lettuce is expressly allowed. If you can’t, then the argument reverts back to the debate over whether the Bible really forbids gay sex. I’ve read some good answers to other questions arguing that it does not.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The Bible forbids sex outside of marriage too. That didn’t stop most Christians!

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

And most of them don’t expressly repent for it. Maybe @Hypocrisy_Central doesn’t think that Jesus was sent to redeem humanity? If so, he should have a talk with John the Evangelist. 1 John 2 expressly says that Jesus intercedes on behalf of sinners.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Dutchess_III It also contradicts its self over and over. Which is to be expected when you cobble something together that was written hundreds of years apart by different men with different ideals of morality.
I already knew you were no knowledgeable of the Bible but that statement lets me know you do not even believe what you are trying to prove. If you don’t believe 2 Tim 3:16 then you can’t believe any of it without cherry picking, and that seems to be all anyone here is good for. That would be like me trying to debate a scientist on time travel using a Starfleet manual on the subject. If the scientist waste much time debating fiction, even when I know it is fiction and trying to bamboozle the scientist into thinking it is real, he would be nuttier than I. From here on out, I will just pray for you because if you can’t even believe the Bible you are trying to use to support whatever, you sure can’t convince me of anything. God bless you, another subject, eh?

@JeSuisRickSpringfield Can you find me a scripture that says (A) eating lettuce IS NOT gustatory immorality; (B) that eating lettuce is not a sin that keeps one out of Heaven, and© that if it is a sin, lettuce eaters can still openly eat lettuce without repenting of and and have it excused, allowing them into Heaven? If you know the Bible so well, I am sure it won’t be hard for you to find it, if it is indeed in there…

Acts 10:9–16
9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

Whoops, indeed it is there. Now that you tried to use a book you do not believe as @Dutchess_III to prove or legitimize a sinful point you do believe in and got caught, you will either
• Duck the question and try to find some other thing not mentioned, playing as if you are not intelligent enough to follow context of what you are reading.
• You will dismiss the Bible as being a ”cobbled work of men” and thus be inaccurate.
• Or try to twist the context of the scripture to make it say what you tried to get it to say but doesn’t.

Back to the question I asked. What can you find, I found mine, and can’t you find yours? I already know the answer, you can’t find it, that is why you have to duck and dodge to a question of lettuce which those who are Believers can eat and it is no sin. Just for good measure, let’s toss in this one too.

Romans 14:2
For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.

So, you are any of those others going to come up with scripture that tells me homosexuality is not sexual immorality and if it is it will still get them to Heaven? I would think if it was in there, you would be rushing to show me, so I can see the error of my ways. Quit thinking about lettuce and find those verses, educate me with the Bible. ~~

Dutchess_III's avatar

So, are you saying the Bible had only one human…“translator” and was written all at one time, @Hypocrisy_Central?

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated
jerv's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Have you ever eaten ham? If you cooked bacon, did you break up your cookware and stove afterwards? And, of course, shrimp. Leviticus 11 pretty much means that a lot of the US sins unrepentingly.

Now, since the numbers show that Christians (or at least those who self-identify as such) are the majority in America, it’s safe to say that we have at least a hundred million Christians eating shrimp and bacon, meaning that either many Christians have a different interpretation of passages that leave ZERO ambiguity, or Christians don’t even follow their own rules despite so many trying to get everyone else to live by their’s.

The plot thickens when you have the “wholesome family values” people that are all about traditional marriage getting caught with male prostitutes or molesting their little sisters.

And yes, the Bible DOES contradict itself, but no, while it hints homosexuality is a sin, I have yet to see where it really outlines any sort of real punishment like it does for, say, divorce.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@jerv Have you ever eaten ham? If you cooked bacon, did you break up your cookware and stove afterwards? And, of course, shrimp. Leviticus 11 pretty much means that a lot of the US sins unrepentingly.
Well, you as many seem to know of certain things in the Bible but missed the follow-through. I will humor but fist I need to know what game we are playing, you can’t discuss MLB rules if we are playing T-ball. I could explain why anyine can eat anything, but of you know the Bible, you should know that one already. The only thing you were fairly correct in completion is that in the US way too many people live with unrepentant sin. That is no surprise because I am sure, as well as you know the Bible to find what you are speaking of, you know where to find the verses that allude to that…where was it again, so I can take another look? Also, can you point out to me the passages that says saints can eat whatever they please in this dispensation of grace?

jerv's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central My point is simply that the Bible is open to interpretation, and that each sect does their own form of cherry-picking.

If the Bible were totally unambiguous, we would have no need of clergy; in days gone by, they were necessary as the Bible is a book and most people were illiterate, but in modern times, the vast majority are capable of reading it for themselves. Therefore, the only real justification for clergy is that the Bible is unclear enough to require specialists who have a deeper understanding than lay-people, just as our legal system is complex enough to require lawyers to interpret secular law.

However, just as the nine Supreme Court justices have differing interpretations of the US Constitution, each Christian has a different interpretation of the Bible. Some consider homosexuality a sin but realize that they themselves are sinners and thus unfit to cast stones and accept homosexuals as equals who merely sin differently, some leave the judging to Higher Authority than Man, some consider homosexuality a sin worthy of death, and many fall in between, often in a “hate the sin but love the sinner” way.

As an aside, the biggest reason I am an Agnostic is that I personally believe in the fallibility of Man. Among other things, the wide variety of English versions of a book originally written in languages outside of the Germanic family of languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) leads me to question the accuracy of any and all English translations, and the conflicting interpretations even amongst those who use the same version of the Bible leads to further doubt. We won’t even get into how creatively laws (religious or secular) get interpreted by those with an agenda except to say that greed and abuse of power are other ways that Man exhibits fallibility.

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

“Whoops, indeed it is there.”

Except that only mentions animals. No lettuce.

“Now that you tried to use a book you do not believe”

Excuse me? On what grounds do you justify this assumption? And in any case, whether or not I believe in the Bible has nothing to do with whether or not I can read it.

“For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.”

This seems closer, though it does suggest that vegetables are worse. And no express mention of lettuce. In short—as you yourself admitted—we have to infer that lettuce counts by understanding the context of what we’ve read. I agree that this passage answers my question, but it doesn’t do so explicitly. It does so implicitly. Fine, but that means your original request was badly formulated (since you wanted something explicit but weren’t able to give me anything explicit in response).

Now that you’ve admitted we have to rely on implicit messages the whole thing becomes reliant on interpretation. You have been given several explanations of how one could read the Bible differently than your bigoted version. And since the main message of the New Testament is love, forgiveness, and acceptance, I think it is very difficult to reconcile with your interpretation of hate, ridicule, and intolerance.

Your original question asked how someone can commit a sin and still consider themselves Christian. My question is about the same thing. You are a sinner because you are hateful and bigoted (and probably a lot of other things, too), but you have no problem calling yourself a Christian. Seems we’ve answered the question then. Luckily, as 1 John 2 tells us, Jesus intercedes on behalf of sinners like you, and me, and everyone else.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Kardamom's avatar

They actually do have some decent and specific passages about lettuce in The Bible. This is not the King James’ version, but I think this one is the best and the most accurate.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Dutchess_III's avatar

When people say homosexuality is “vile and disgusting,” are they imagining two men in bed? Is that the only thing they can imagine about a same sex marriage? Sex in general (unless you’re involved in it) is vile and disgusting!

ragingloli's avatar

Whenever someone says “hate the sin, not the sinner”, I think they are lying.
I am quite sure that they do hate the sinner with a passion, but claim to “hate the sin, not the sinner” to convince others and themselves that their seething hatred is somehow “noble”.

LostInParadise's avatar

Yes, we are only punishing you for your own good, which is a bit difficult to distinguish from punishment due to hatred.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
longgone's avatar

[Mod says]: The OP has posted this thread in General for a reason. Please stay on topic, guys.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther