Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[stvdv]

Could you point to some passages which you believe indicate that? Thanks

In another reply I shared a story I once read explaining this (was a story from the Buddhist spiritual wisdom if I remember correctly)

 

[stvdv]

Or maybe that's because it started in the homosexual community, and the easiest way of transmission is through sex, so the rate of it leaving the homosexual community is reduced.

NO, I don't think so, according to the info in the link below:
HIV/AIDS Statistics News
"Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.(1) "

 

[Dan Mellis]

Sexual sin is a major root of societal dysfunction. Unstable families result in unstable, atomized and state dependent adults. The conspiratorial side of me suspects that the sexual revolution was always planned as a means not for anyone's 'liberation' but for the long term expansion of state power. It's the classic scam of fixing the very problem you created. We're also facing the very real possibility a future of venereal diseases no longer treatable by antibiotics. It's going to be interesting to see how and if people's sexual behaviors change if something like a syphilis superbug emerges.

In any case, it's not simply a question of direct or immediate harms caused by actions, but how those actions relate to moral truth. If sexuality holds real teleological purpose then its misuse is an intrinsic evil. And every time one commits an evil, no matter how seemingly trivial, the conscience is darkened slowly but surely. People no longer see sexual sin as sin because their consciences have been darkened by both personal sin and a popular culture which has very cleverly and subtly normalized what would have horrified most not that long ago. I expect the next gradual push to be an attempt to normalize pederasty (adults having sex with teenagers) and not beyond possibility, infanticide. (They'll call it 'after-birth abortion').


The New Testament neither condones or condemns slavery in itself. However, remember that the New Testament was immediately addressed to those living in late antiquity, when slavery was an unquestioned reality. Nonetheless, it was Christian civilization, with its recognition of an innate human dignity shared by all that would go on to stamp out slavery as an institution. Yes, the transatlantic slave trade was a terrible tragedy, no one is claiming the colonial powers acted morally, but moral assumptions about human dignity that make slavery morally untenable can really only take root in a civilization imbued with Christian moral presuppositions.

Hang on - you don't get to claim that sexual sin is the cause of unstable families. You're undoubtedly referring to open relationships and potentially things like homosexual parenthood - both of which would be classed as sins but neither can be shown to be at all harmful to the idea of a nuclear family. I have experience of both; a friend who is a wonderful father despite being married to another man, and a couple who have been swinging for decades and raised two kids perfectly fine. If someone cheats on their partner, that's just a breach of a promise they made, not a 'sin' as your bible would define it. Secondly, the whole thing about antiniotics is caused by overprescription, not sexual behaviours. Yes, a syphillis superbug might occur - but a chest infection is much more likely due to method of transmission and infection rates. To suggest that its perpetuated at all by sexual behaviour is dishonest (although I'm not saying you're intentionally being so)

In your second parargraph, you make some really bizzare predictions. Of course murdering kids isn't going to be ok (despite your god seemingly being fine with demanding it of his followers). Of course having sex with teenagers will never be ok - although the religious legal "marry your rapist" loophole in some US states tries to make it so.

So not only do you get to cherry pick if the NT kind of contradicts the OT, you also get to do so when the NT makes no comment on sections of the OT? I wasn't referring to the transatlantic slave trade (although the confederates undoubtedly used scripture to justify this) but slavery in the bible, condoned by the old testament and ignored by the new.

You don't just get to claim moral suppositions for your religion. If the south had won in the civil war, slavery and segregation may well still be present and that society would still be based on "christian moral suppositions."

Besides, lets look at Ethiopa and Rwanda. Both countries founded on your suppositions. How is it working for them?

Humanist morality is vastly superior than abrahamic morality, as it doesn't rely on a 'chosen people' or mindlessly following dubious instruction on who to favour in society. It's position is: Everything is ok until it can be shown to have an adverse affect on someone else." As opposed to "only things that we're told are ok are ok, and we cannot question it or we'll go to hell". You also state that Christianity has ideas of human dignity being present from birth - but it also teaches that everyone is born a sinner. So which is it? Are we all basically worthwhile as people (which is a view shared by humanists) or are we all sinners and need to repent to be worthwhile?

In the west, we have moral societies despite religions best efforts; not because of them.

 

[Dan Mellis]

NO, I don't think so, according to the info in the link below:
HIV/AIDS Statistics News
"Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.(1) "

Birlliant! So its a curse on straight people? Can't have it both ways I'm afraid

 

[stvdv]

"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."
I mean, what context am I missing here?

2 important conclusions:
1) Man can not have sex with man in the same way as with woman, so the whole verse means nothing (is untrue)
2) God, being omniscient, could never have made such a mistake, so this proves that the Bible is NOT 100% truly God's word

Oh c'mon, we know what is meant by that. To try and twist it any other way is disingenuous.

If it isn't 100% gods word, how do we tell what is and isnt correct? The whole thing becomes unreliable as a source.

Glad you mention this. Bible is not written by God. Verses are inspired by God, that might be. So the medium getting the info can easily hear or interpret the verse wrong. Then writing down, 2000 year ago, was not as easy as it is now. Then translating into english etc is another source of error.

Then again many verses are NOT literal, so we do not know what they mean. It's all personal interpretation, hence so many churches/views arose.

I did not twist it. Many Christians take similar verses VERY critical and exact, and we "non-Christians" are expected to accept this. Now I take it literal and you accuse me of twisting. What you do is twisting. What I did was giving my personal opinion, exactly as you asked in your original post (I even added "in my humble opinion"). Feels very bad that you call this "you try and twist it".

If taking a verse literal is "twisting it" then Christians do it all the time themselves. Christians are well known to take Bible verses literal and even impose them on "non Christians" and even go as far that Bible verse also apply to all humans, so they judge and belittle others and their religion.

To be clear, I do not judge them doing so, I just make an observation.

 

[stvdv]

Birlliant! So its a curse on straight people? Can't have it both ways I'm afraid

NO, I don't believe in "curse" as I explained. Believing in "curse" leads easily to judging others. And Jesus warns us not to judge.
Of course you are free to believe in "curses", I rather stay away of it.

 

[Skreeper]

The Hebrew scriptures were written for the nation of Israel, no one else was obligated to follow God's laws but them. The trouble was, they couldn't keep the Law because the Law was perfect and they were not.

Hold up, doesn't that mean that the law to execute homosexuals is "perfect"?

Shouldn't you then try to follow this perfect law as closely as possible?

 

[iam1me]

I disagree - this is the slavery I am familiar with... and I think it's inherently immoral to own another human as property regardless of how you treat them. You're also conveniently omitting some of the less palatable quotes about slavery - back to cherry picking...

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property"

Are you honestly trying to sanitize slavery as it's depicted in the bible? It's also loaded with bigotry and sets out different rules for different classes of slave. For example, a woman should be sold for less than you sell a man, and you can only keep a Hebrew slave for 7 years before releasing them. If they aren't Hebrew, you can keep them indefinitely.

I'm interested in hearing your justification for this, but we're coming very close to an abhorrent conversation in which I will not be a party.

I'm not omitting anything, we can and should look at all relevant verses. The permitted version of slavery in the OT is fundamentally distinct from the horrors we hear about in school with American Slavery and the like. A slave legally belonged to the master, but was also a person with rights who had to be treated well. Killing, injuring, or otherwise not fulfilling one's duties towards one's slaves/servants would result in, at minimum, the loss of said slave - and could result in the master suffering vengeance as a result. If the master mistreated a slave such that they ran away - no one was permitted to return the slave to the master, but had to welcome them and treat them kindly. The scriptures even speak of spoiling one's servants such that they become as a son. Under the OT Law, a slave was as family. Indeed, the whole of Israel is said to be bought/redeemed by God, and they are his servants/slaves.

You are simply being intellectually dishonest if you don't see how this is any different from the horrors of slavery in America and the like. You can act high and mighty and refuse to talk about the matter - but it was you who insisted upon digging into issues like this to begin with.

Slavery has its place in the world. For example: if one kingdom or nation conquerors another, what becomes of the people? They don't generally become first class citizens of the new nation overnight - but instead are placed under the rule of the victors and must do what they say. They belong to the victor. And this is preferable to simply being killed. A good and smart conquering nation will seek to assimilate these people overtime as its own - but it would simultaneously be foolish to assume that the vanquished will immediately forget their old allegiances and pride. Yet over a generation or two these things will die down providing they are treated well.

And, if you want to get down to it, America and these other nations never truly got rid of slavery - it simply transformed. It's chains are debt, and there is little to no escape.

Is slavery the ideal? No, of course not. I completely agree in that regard - the ideal is that we be equals. Indeed, under Christ, this is the reality:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
​

This gets back into the fact that the scriptures recognize that we as individuals and as a society don't live up to the ideals. To a degree, the Law permits things which are not the ideal but are a reality. War is not ideal, but it happens. Slaves result from war. Slaves also result from severe poverty - they sell themselves in order to live. We should strive for peace, but we cannot prevent all war. We should strive for a socialist society where we don't allow extreme poverty to exist (America certainly has that capability), but it is unlikely that any society - even if it has such the ability - will properly devote its resources to carrying for those in need such that no one has to work for slave labor. In America this takes the form of minimum wage: a wage so low that you can't live off of it, but you also can't afford to not do it. The majority of the citizens in the US make minimum wage. Most of the rest have crushing student loan debt.

Even if you have no debt, you yourself likely work for some company. You have sold yourself as a servant/slave to the company for your wage+benefits. You go there nearly everyday and do their bidding.

In truth, there is no getting away from the master/servant relationship in this world. However, the specifics of how this relationship is manifested can make a huge difference between being viewed as something evil and something you don't even think about.

 

[Dan Mellis]

NO, I do believe in "curse" as I explained. Believing in "curse" leads easily to judging others. And Jesus warns us not to judge.
Of course you are free to believe in "curses", I rather stay away of it.

I don't believe in curses either, but you seem to believe in them in all but name. If a disease exists solely to punish a certain section of society, that is a curse.

I'm not omitting anything, we can and should look at all relevant verses. The permitted version of slavery in the OT is fundamentally distinct from the horrors we hear about in school with American Slavery and the like. A slave legally belonged to the master, but was also a person with rights who had to be treated well. Killing, injuring, or otherwise not fulfilling one's duties towards one's slaves/servants would result in, at minimum, the loss of said slave - and could result in the master suffering vengeance as a result. If the master mistreated a slave such that they ran away - no one was permitted to return the slave to the master, but had to welcome them and treat them kindly. The scriptures even speak of spoiling one's servants such that they become as a son. Under the OT Law, a slave was as family. Indeed, the whole of Israel is said to be bought/redeemed by God, and they are his servants/slaves.

You are simply being intellectually dishonest if you don't see how this is any different from the horrors of slavery in America and the like. You can act high and mighty and refuse to talk about the matter - but it was you who insisted upon digging into issues like this to begin with.

Slavery has its place in the world. For example: if one kingdom or nation conquerors another, what becomes of the people? They don't generally become first class citizens of the new nation overnight - but instead are placed under the rule of the victors and must do what they say. They belong to the victor. And this is preferable to simply being killed. A good and smart conquering nation will seek to assimilate these people overtime as its own - but it would simultaneously be foolish to assume that the vanquished will immediately forget their old allegiances and pride. Yet over a generation or two these things will die down providing they are treated well.

And, if you want to get down to it, America and these other nations never truly got rid of slavery - it simply transformed. It's chains are debt, and there is little to no escape.

Is slavery the ideal? No, of course not. I completely agree in that regard - the ideal is that we be equals. Indeed, under Christ, this is the reality:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
​

This gets back into the fact that the scriptures recognize that we as individuals and as a society don't live up to the ideals. To a degree, the Law permits things which are not the ideal but are a reality. War is not ideal, but it happens. Slaves result from war. Slaves also result from severe poverty - they sell themselves in order to live. We should strive for peace, but we cannot prevent all war. We should strive for a socialist society where we don't allow extreme poverty to exist (America certainly has that capability), but it is unlikely that any society - even if it has such the ability - will properly devote its resources to carrying for those in need such that no one has to work for slave labor. In America this takes the form of minimum wage: a wage so low that you can't live off of it, but you also can't afford to not do it. The majority of the citizens in the US make minimum wage. Most of the rest have crushing student loan debt.

Even if you have no debt, you yourself likely work for some company. You have sold yourself as a servant/slave to the company for your wage+benefits. You go there nearly everyday and do their bidding.

In truth, there is no getting away from the master/servant relationship in this world. However, the specifics of how this relationship is manifested can make a huge difference between being viewed as something evil and something you don't even think about.

You're right, I refuse to engage in this. You're still trying to insist that slavery is justifiable in certain circumstances, even swapping the terminology from 'slave' the the entirely different but easier to swallow 'servant' - that is baseless and immoral. You're sanitizing and twisting your argument as you go.

The fact of the matter is that the definition of 'slave' is the same regardless of the time period or how they were treated.

Thanks for your replies and I appreciate the challenge, but I won't give you any further forum to make this form of argument which is so obviously incongruent with any position of morality.

 

[iam1me]

You're right, I refuse to engage in this. You're still trying to insist that slavery is justifiable in certain circumstances, even swapping the terminology from 'slave' the the entirely different but easier to swallow 'servant' - that is baseless and immoral. You're sanitizing and twisting your argument as you go.

The fact of the matter is that the definition of 'slave' is the same regardless of the time period or how they were treated.

Thanks for your replies and I appreciate the challenge, but I won't give you any further forum to make this form of argument which is so obviously incongruent with any position of morality.

First off, servant and slave are synonyms. Hence some translations of the bible will use servant and other will use slave in these passages. Use a thesaurus sometime.

Secondly, the definition is very different - as I have demonstrated from the scriptures. Accepted slavery in the OT wasn't something driven by hate or bigotry - rather the scriptures teach to treat them as family. You yourself are likely someone's servant.

Third, get off your high horse. If your morality is based in reason and logic then you can discuss and defend your views without the platitudes.

 

[Dan Mellis]

First off, servant and slave are synonyms. Hence some translations of the bible will use servant and other will use slave in these passages. Use a thesaurus sometime.

Secondly, the definition is very different - as I have demonstrated from the scriptures. Accepted slavery in the OT wasn't something driven by hate or bigotry - rather the scriptures teach to treat them as family. You yourself are likely someone's servant.

Third, get off your high horse. If your morality is based in reason and logic then you can discuss and defend your views without the platitudes.

servant


NOUN

• A person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

Synonyms: attendant, retainer.



NOUN

• (especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
  

Synonyms: bondsman, bondswoman, bondslave, serf, thrall


They are not the same in modern use, which is why interchanging them in an argument isn't representative of what is meant and is why I see doing so as sanitising.

I cannot make this any more clear

Owning another human as a piece of property is wrong on a basic level. If I was to buy a slave and treat them well, it does not change the morality of owning my slave.

Is owning a human as property immoral? That is the only issue at play. Dont confuscate by quoting scripture which makes it seem any less than it is.

 

[iam1me]

servant


NOUN

• A person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

Synonyms: attendant, retainer.



NOUN

• (especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Synonyms: bondsman, bondswoman, bondslave, serf, thrall


They are not the same in modern use, which is why interchanging them in an argument isn't representative of what is meant and is why I see doing so as sanitising.

Got it: you are incapable of using a Thesaurus or understanding what a synonym is. You think a retainer or attendant of a noble was free to do as they wished? No - they did the wishes of the one they served. If they angered their lord, they would beaten or worse.

How about men and women in the military? Do you think they are free to do as they wish? We don't generally refer to them as slaves, but they are forced to do as they are told or face the consequences - which could include death depending upon the circumstances. They are slaves for the period of their enlistment. This is especially so in the case of a draft.

Also, since you are concerned about the modern usage of the terms, how about citing the modern definitions of slave?

the definition of slave
slave
noun
a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property
a person who is forced to work for another against his will
a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence a slave to television
a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay

1. a device that is controlled by or that duplicates the action of another similar device (the master device)
2. (as modifier ) slave cylinder

A slave could refer to being owned as property - but it can also simply apply to being forced to work for another, or to being dominated by someone or something else, or to working for unreasonable wages and/or in harsh conditions, etc. It all boils down to being required to do the will of another - which is precisely what a servant does, carries out another's will.

I cannot make this any more clear

Owning another human as a piece of property is wrong on a basic level. If I was to buy a slave and treat them well, it does not change the morality of owning my slave.

Is owning a human as property immoral? That is the only issue at play. Dont confuscate by quoting scripture which makes it seem any less than it is.

You can assert it, but it doesn't make it so. Again, consider some of the various cases I put forth: survivors on the losing side of the war. What should be done with them? Should they be killed? Or should they be taken in by the conquerors as their servants, to do their will?

Faced with extreme poverty, is it better that people starve to death or that they be permitted to sell themselves as slaves to survive? (Example: an elderly McDonalds employee)

Slavery isn't ideal, but it is preferable to death providing they are treated well and have protections under the law.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think the person is saying "Why focus on those bad parts while ignoring the good parts? That is Cherry Picking."

I honestly don't think it works when pointing out the negatives and asking "Why does it say this?" That's not "cherry picking."

Let's say an author wrote a self-help book that contained some of the greatest information ever compiled, but then in one particular chapter, wrote a blatant bit about how you shouldn't consider anyone else's feelings or desires when going after satisfying your own? Should someone not point out that that is very negative advice? Since the rest of the book is "so great," should we just ignore that bit?

And on the contrary - how many times do you EVER see people pointing to the GOOD in a book and asking "Why is this in here?" I'll answer for you - you don't. Which is why it doesn't make sense when pointing out the negative to call it "cherry picking."

We merely accept the good, but question the bad - as it should be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Birlliant! So its a curse on straight people? Can't have it both ways I'm afraid

Everyone but lesbians and bi women who only have sex with women, apparently.

 

[dybmh]

I honestly don't think it works when pointing out the negatives and asking "Why does it say this?" That's not "cherry picking."

Let's say an author wrote a self-help book that contained some of the greatest information ever compiled, but then in one particular chapter, wrote a blatant bit about how you shouldn't consider anyone else's feelings or desires when going after satisfying your own? Should someone not point out that that is very negative advice? Since the rest of the book is "so great," should we just ignore that bit?

And on the contrary - how many times do you EVER see people pointing to the GOOD in a book and asking "Why is this in here?" I'll answer for you - you don't. Which is why it doesn't make sense when pointing out the negative to call it "cherry picking."

We merely accept the good, but question the bad - as it should be.

It's a good point. I was being brief in my answer. Cherry Picking really is something that happens on a case by case basis.

"how many times do you EVER see people pointing to the GOOD in a book and asking "Why is this in here?" I'll answer for you - you don't."

I actually did this recently. And come to think about it; I do it all the time.

Disclaimers. Caveats.

Do you know what I mean?

Disclaimers give the speaker a way to preempt criticism. This preemption if employed it is Cherry Picking the positive. When someone makes a disclaimer, people naturally point at it and say, "Why is this in here?"

Does that make sense? Cherry Picking happens on a case by case basis, and I think it can be valid for both positive an negative criticism.

Again, I'm being brief. But I don't want to bombard you with words

 

[Dan Mellis]

Got it: you are incapable of using a Thesaurus or understanding what a synonym is. You think a retainer or attendant of a noble was free to do as they wished? No - they did the wishes of the one they served. If they angered their lord, they would beaten or worse.

How about men and women in the military? Do you think they are free to do as they wish? We don't generally refer to them as slaves, but they are forced to do as they are told or face the consequences - which could include death depending upon the circumstances. They are slaves for the period of their enlistment. This is especially so in the case of a draft.

Also, since you are concerned about the modern usage of the terms, how about citing the modern definitions of slave?

the definition of slave
slave
noun
a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property
a person who is forced to work for another against his will
a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence a slave to television
a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay

1. a device that is controlled by or that duplicates the action of another similar device (the master device)
2. (as modifier ) slave cylinder

A slave could refer to being owned as property - but it can also simply apply to being forced to work for another, or to being dominated by someone or something else, or to working for unreasonable wages and/or in harsh conditions, etc. It all boils down to being required to do the will of another - which is precisely what a servant does, carries out another's will.



You can assert it, but it doesn't make it so. Again, consider some of the various cases I put forth: survivors on the losing side of the war. What should be done with them? Should they be killed? Or should they be taken in by the conquerors as their servants, to do their will?

Faced with extreme poverty, is it better that people starve to death or that they be permitted to sell themselves as slaves to survive? (Example: an elderly McDonalds employee)

Slavery isn't ideal, but it is preferable to death providing they are treated well and have protections under the law.

Fair enough, the modern definition of slave can be softened. However, am I wrong in saying that the bible literally refers to slaves as property amd that you can beat them as long as they live for two days? Can the biblical definition of slave be softened?

The answer is no. Saying 'well they were sometimes nice to their slaves' just doesnt cut it.

As for your question about conquerers in war - the local population shouldn't be taken as slaves! This is immoral, and I'm just speechless that you're having trouble grasping that.

A poor person who sells themselves as a slave isnt wrong. The person who buys them is.

I don't think you can honestly refer to mcdonalds employees as slaves. Sweat shop workers, maybe, but then again we all kmow that sweat shops are immoral.

Why are you so defensive of slavery? You're arguing over how we can soften its definition in a historical sense when its overwhelmingly clear what it actually meant?

"Slavery isn't ideal, but its better than death." Well so is torture, false imprisonment and persecution. If that's your moral standard, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Did you actually just say that owning a person isn't immoral? That it was just an assertion on my part?

You didn't answer my question. Is it immoral to own another human as your legal property? Commit to an answer instead of flapping.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Disclaimers give the speaker a way to preempt criticism. This preemption if employed it is Cherry Picking the positive. When someone makes a disclaimer, people naturally point at it and say, "Why is this in here?"

I would question whether "preempt[ing] criticism" is "good." To me it very well might look like compensation for a guilty conscience. Knowledge that your point isn't all its cracked up to be tends to make people put all sorts of caveats out there first. I guess I would need to see an example of decidedly positive/good "disclaimer" in order to understand fully.

 

[dybmh]

I would question whether "preempt[ing] criticism" is "good." To me it very well might look like compensation for a guilty conscience. Knowledge that your point isn't all its cracked up to be tends to make people put all sorts of caveats out there first. I guess I would need to see an example of decidedly positive/good "disclaimer" in order to understand fully.

I appreciate your feedback.

OK... here's the example. This is true.

I am watching a video. It is anti-Islam. The video admits it. In the middle of the video, there's some rather fair-minded information that arguably puts the whole video in perspective and shifts it from being outright 100% propaganda to anti-Islam criticism.

Because of the middle part, I can't go back to the person who posted the video and say, this is propaganda. 50 minutes of it is propaganda, but the 5 minutes in the middle is not.

However, I think the opinion that the video is propaganda has merit. Why?, because 50 minutes vs. 5 minutes is overwhelmingly onesided.

If someone goes back to the person who provided the video and says, "This is propaganda", the obvious counter is "Did you watch the whole video? The middle part qualifies the rest."

The counter to the counter is, "Well... yeah but, that was only 5 minutes of a 55 minute video, you are Cherry Picking the good parts out of the bad."

I agree... in this example, I think the person who posted the video is Cherry Picking. But maybe not. What do you think?

But... this is just an example. I actually think the video I am speaking about is remarkably fair minded and also at the same time it is anti-Islam. Strange, but true.

In fact, I may choose to use some of the data in the anti-Islam video as evidence to support my pro-Islam bias if needed in the future.

However, I can't use the video as the source. Because... by ignoring the anti-Islam material in favor of the 5 minutes of fair-minded data that is in the video, I am Cherry Picking the good parts out of the anti-Islam video.

But again, based on your feedback, maybe that isn't Cherry Picking... I don't know.

What do you think?

 

[stvdv]

If a disease exists solely to punish a certain section of society, that is a curse.

I never said this, you misinterpreted my words. I did not say that a disease exists solely to punish a certain section of society.
I said: "Maybe it's a glimpse into Aids. Homosexuals (new infections in US) are more vulnerable to getting aids (blood contact when having Aids can lead to Aids to death):"

 

[leroy]

"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."

I mean, what context am I missing here?
.

I have 2 responses

1 nor the truth of scripture nor the truth of a particular verse is dependent on whether if you personally like it or not. (this response would apply as an answer to all the controvertial verses in the bible) you can’t conclude that the bible is not inspired, just because there are some verses that you personally don’t like

2 the verse is probably talking about “gay sex” in a context of adultery or promiscuity. And the author is clearly using exaggerated language, If I say something like “I would kill for some Oreo Cookies” you would know that I am not literally willing to kill someone for an Oreo Cookie. In the same way nobody is claiming that gays should be put to death literally. After all there are no historical records of ancient Jews making a holocaust with gay people, so clearly ancient Jews knew and understood that the text is not meant to be taken literally.