3 ms·

The roots of the Bible are much more clearly: Romans 12 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible,

The roots of the Bible are much more clearly: Romans 12 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Christians who love the Bible know this passage by heart. Very few care to memorize the (no-longer-followed) legal code of Israel. The ignorant choose to take the Bible out of context to justify their hate. Please don't make the same mistake.

leereeves 11y ago
I meant opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, not Christianity in general.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that sexual immorality is harmful. It's a sticky proposition for one to call herself a Christian and reject Christ's teachings. It's stickier yet for someone who doesn't claim Christ at all to define what Christianity entails or what good or bad Christians do.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    I don't want to debate theology; I meant only that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, and it's easy to see how repeating and emphasizing that verse encourages violence. It's not much harder to see how defining homosexuals as "immoral" or simply as a lesser class of people not entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals also encourages violence.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      It's impossible to talk about what's moral and not without getting theological. The Bible defines homosexuals as immoral. It's not ambiguous about that. But it says everyone is immoral. And it says all rights are given by God, not by men. And, partly because of this, it also says, very clearly, that senseless violence is despicable. That is to say, at least part the problem is with theology, or at least bad theology. And Mozilla, perhaps unintentionally, has taken a theological position by removing Eich. Or at least it thinks it can't productively tolerate certain people. And some of those people are good people with genuinely held religious views. So, yeah, Mozilla is getting some blowback. And, no, it's not because being opposed to same sex marriage is the same ridiculous theology of the KKK.
      - leereeves 11y ago
        It's not impossible to discuss morality without theology (consider humanism) but that's irrelevant. My problem is with anyone who uses any excuse (including theology) to deny people equal rights. I do not object to Eich's religious views. If he believes gay marriage is immoral he should be free not to participate in one. I object to his attempt to impose his religious views on other people through the law and deny other people the right to choose for themselves. I believe that distinction is also relevant to Mozilla's decision.
        humanrebar 11y ago
        > It's not impossible to discuss morality without theology (consider humanism) but that's irrelevant. Humanism has massive theological implications. You can't be a humanist and a Christian at the same time, for example. The Bible encourages Christians to get along with humanists. Unfortunately, humanists have no holy book to encourage reciprocal behavior. > My problem is with anyone who uses any excuse (including theology) to deny people equal rights. You presume rights that are not natural rights. And they're not God-given. They're not even constitutional. (Yeah, the Supreme Court case was terrible law). They simply seemed like they should be rights, so they were "imposed" on "other people" through... well, not the law, but through the legal system. And in the process, the rights of many were violated (the right to due process before constitutional changes were made, for instance). > I object to his attempt to impose his religious views on other people through the law and deny other people the right to choose for themselves. ...and you want to punish him and his ilk by denying them the right to choose certain career paths. Judges, county clerks, wedding planners, JoP, etc. I guess CEO and other PR positions as well.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
How does that jive with comments like " He got shamed out of his job for having had donated money to a group that was against same-sex marriage. Basically, all people who hold Christian values don't deserve to have a job." elsewhere in this thread?

leereeves 11y ago

I meant opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, not Christianity in general.

humanrebar 11y ago
Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that sexual immorality is harmful. It's a sticky proposition for one to call herself a Christian and reject Christ's teachings. It's stickier yet for someone who doesn't claim Christ at all to define what Christianity entails or what good or bad Christians do.
- leereeves 11y ago
  I don't want to debate theology; I meant only that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, and it's easy to see how repeating and emphasizing that verse encourages violence. It's not much harder to see how defining homosexuals as "immoral" or simply as a lesser class of people not entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals also encourages violence.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    It's impossible to talk about what's moral and not without getting theological. The Bible defines homosexuals as immoral. It's not ambiguous about that. But it says everyone is immoral. And it says all rights are given by God, not by men. And, partly because of this, it also says, very clearly, that senseless violence is despicable. That is to say, at least part the problem is with theology, or at least bad theology. And Mozilla, perhaps unintentionally, has taken a theological position by removing Eich. Or at least it thinks it can't productively tolerate certain people. And some of those people are good people with genuinely held religious views. So, yeah, Mozilla is getting some blowback. And, no, it's not because being opposed to same sex marriage is the same ridiculous theology of the KKK.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      It's not impossible to discuss morality without theology (consider humanism) but that's irrelevant. My problem is with anyone who uses any excuse (including theology) to deny people equal rights. I do not object to Eich's religious views. If he believes gay marriage is immoral he should be free not to participate in one. I object to his attempt to impose his religious views on other people through the law and deny other people the right to choose for themselves. I believe that distinction is also relevant to Mozilla's decision.
      - humanrebar 11y ago
        > It's not impossible to discuss morality without theology (consider humanism) but that's irrelevant. Humanism has massive theological implications. You can't be a humanist and a Christian at the same time, for example. The Bible encourages Christians to get along with humanists. Unfortunately, humanists have no holy book to encourage reciprocal behavior. > My problem is with anyone who uses any excuse (including theology) to deny people equal rights. You presume rights that are not natural rights. And they're not God-given. They're not even constitutional. (Yeah, the Supreme Court case was terrible law). They simply seemed like they should be rights, so they were "imposed" on "other people" through... well, not the law, but through the legal system. And in the process, the rights of many were violated (the right to due process before constitutional changes were made, for instance). > I object to his attempt to impose his religious views on other people through the law and deny other people the right to choose for themselves. ...and you want to punish him and his ilk by denying them the right to choose certain career paths. Judges, county clerks, wedding planners, JoP, etc. I guess CEO and other PR positions as well.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

How does that jive with comments like " He got shamed out of his job for having had donated money to a group that was against same-sex marriage. Basically, all people who hold Christian values don't deserve to have a job." elsewhere in this thread?