Bonnie MacKenzie · Owner at Cen Cal Solutions
Why is it that Christians are called haters when they don't agree with something? I don't hate anyone. I have my beliefs concerning issues going on in the World, Country, State, County, Town, but if I express those beliefs there is a good possibility that many are going to say I am a hater, or worse a racist, which I am neither. I am just as entitled to my beliefs as everyone else. Yes, Christian's have rights too!
I'm of the opinion that it's a forest-for-the-trees situation. Almost anybody in the midst of antisocial behavior will opine of onesself an exculpatory detail that exhonorates them of culpability. Bullies don't see themselves as bullies. Theives have a reason why they must do as they do. If only at the moment of truth, even murderers are convinced they are doing what is left of them without choice. Haters don't think they hate. Haters are convinced their gaud commands them to act, righteously so, in ways that those who don't understand might misconstrue as hateful.
So, I offered her a test to see if she is worthy of a get out of jail free pass.
Nathan Garcia · Top Commenter · Big Fish in a Little Pond at Writer, Broadcaster, Entreprenuer
For anybody who truly cares if what they profess is actually true, Christians who condemn homosexuals as immoral on any level just for being gay would do well to examine for verity the fact that the two most often used verses in Leviticus to villify gays don't mention or even hint at homosexuality in the Talmud, the original Hebrew texts from which the Old Testement derives. The verse in Leviticus 18 actually refers to the use of Temple prostitutes, either male or female, which were quite common then. It was also a social misstep, a faux pas, not even close to an abomination. And, the capital punishment ascribed in translations doesn't even appear in the original.
The verse in Leviticus 20 refers to the common practice of spouses sleeping separately in different beds, and when possible not even in the same room. The only time a husband would occupy his wive's bed(s) would specifically be meant for procreative congress. The prohibition is the use of a woman's bed for any other use, whether it was sex with somebody else (including an alternative wife), or another man, or any other reason, just wasn't done. It, too, was frowned upon. An abomination? No, not in the Talmud. Frowned upon, not punished by stoning at the city gate.
My point is that every Christian who condemns the morality of homosexuality based on either passage in Leviticus is led astray, and every repeated utterance of condemnation of LGBTs is a repeated bearing of false witness, whether willingly or because they've swallowed, albeit in good faith, the traditional lie passed from generation to generation since King James II instructed his bevy of religious and language scholars to inject the Anglican attitude into their labors.
So, tell me, just how serious are you about being without a doubt that which you affirm is actually true? Will you give it an honest appraisal, check it out, prove conclusively through your own indepenant research whether what I've presented is indeniably, unequivocally true or false. If you fail to honestly, comprehensively and completely follow this up, then you are a hater. If you seek and answer to the end, then you are righteous and fully justified in denying you're one among the haters.
Whom among the righteous would move to prove me wrong? Of course, those who wouldn't could always claim they refuse out of faith, the universal catch all justification for doing evil. They can always claim that giving my suggestion the time of day would equate commission of the worst, the single unforgivable sin.