What is your opinion of Christianity?

[The Arizonan]

What is your opinion on Christianity?

I think Christianity is full of ideas and tenets that are hostile towards human nature. For example, it says that being jealous, even slightly, is wrong. Being gay or bisexual is also considered wrong.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Too early to tell.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

gr8 banter, m8

[RFayette]

Above all, it is true. 

[Mopsus]

So if all of your human natures were jumping off of a bridge, would you do it, too?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

What is your opinion on Christianity?

I think Christianity is full of ideas and tenets that are hostile towards human nature. For example, it says that being jealous, even slightly, is wrong. Being gay or bisexual is also considered wrong.

Of course it's hostile to human nature, it teaches that humans are naturally evil, and it's easy to believe that. (At least some forms do.)

Also, being gay is alright in a few forms. It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part, and many believe that they don't appy anymore.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Mr. Smith]

What is your opinion on Christianity?

I think Christianity is full of ideas and tenets that are hostile towards human nature. For example, it says that being jealous, even slightly, is wrong. Being gay or bisexual is also considered wrong.

Exactly what is false about that? What's the virtue of envy exactly?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Very positive, largely for the same reason Rfayette gave.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

[DC Al Fine]

What is your opinion on Christianity?

I think Christianity is full of ideas and tenets that are hostile towards human nature. For example, it says that being jealous, even slightly, is wrong. Being gay or bisexual is also considered wrong.

Let's turn that around for a second. Given humanity's penchant for selfishness, violence, and sexual misconduct, why shouldn't a decent ethical standard be opposed to human nature in some fashion?

[RINO Tom]

This OP...

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

[The Arizonan]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

Did you seriously just [Citation Needed] Nathan about the Bible? Bold of you.

[Mr. Smith]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

It's only what we Mormons call The Pride Cycle, which is very much ingrained into humanity, no matter the society.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

It's only what we Mormons call The Pride Cycle, which is very much ingrained into humanity, no matter the society.

     Very much agreed. Anyone who pays attention sees the same trends repeating themselves in all societies to this day. If one thinks that the Israelites repeatedly straying are meant to be understood as some exception worthy of disdain and not a cautionary rule for us all to be wary of, then the point has been missed.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

It is hostile to human nature and that is why it is true.

[PSOL]

It was good in its early context, but has gone past its expiration date since the conversion of Constantine.

[McNukes™ #NYCMMWasAHero]

Good, but I prefer getting even more specific: Roman Catholicism.

[John Henry Eden]

Best thing since Bo rounds at bojangles

[John Dule]

The same as my opinion of all cults: An abusive indoctrination system that has wasted innumerable human lives with its insular delusions and anti-individualism. There were thousands of obscure desert cults in the ancient world, and the fact that this one happened to survive is the only reason why today we treat it any differently from Zeus or the moon goddess Nanna. It is a self-sustaining brainwashing organization that survives by emotionally abusing young people, making them feel as though they only have value as part of a greater community, and transforming them into unthinking, unquestioning followers of doctrine and scripture. The moment that we as a species banish it from our moral philosophy, our lives will be incomparably improved.

[The Arizonan]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

I can't tell if you're trying to be facetious.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The same as my opinion of all cults: An abusive indoctrination system that has wasted innumerable human lives with its insular delusions and anti-individualism. There were thousands of obscure desert cults in the ancient world, and the fact that this one happened to survive is the only reason why today we treat it any differently from Zeus or the moon goddess Nanna. It is a self-sustaining brainwashing organization that survives by emotionally abusing young people, making them feel as though they only have value as part of a greater community, and transforming them into unthinking, unquestioning followers of doctrine and scripture. The moment that we as a species banish it from our moral philosophy, our lives will be incomparably improved.

Eh, depends on what your angle is.

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

I can't tell if you're trying to be facetious.

You can't? Really?