Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpark | Hacker News Reader

> I’ve never heard of any such group in my entire independent Southern Baptist life.

I grew up in the South and distinctly remember the Southern Baptist preachings against interracial marriage based on selective (mis)readings of the Bible, against homosexuality based on selective readings of the Old Testament (pick and choose indeed; hate gays while eating your BBQ pork). I remember the constant calls for boycott of Disney parks because of “gay days”.

I don’t know what it’s like I’m a Southern Baptist church now, but I seriously doubt it’s changed much.

View on HN

Well, that’s quite a bit of baggage to unpack.

In regards to “miscegenation” we have Galatians which largely renders that point moot, highlighting everyone’s love of cherry-picking scripture.

In regards to homosexuality, you have Leviticus, I assume you’re referencing. Given the widespread practice of man-boy relations as famously highlighted by the Spartans and of course recent special military operations in Afghanistan I have an incredibly hard time believing this piece of scripture is at all misinterpreted.

Regarding BBQ, I assume that’s a presence to kosher law and subsequently an attempt at calling hypocrite on the congregation. In that regard we have quite a few pieces of scripture, e.g. in Mark, effectively redefining and negating much of kosher law thereby making that issue moot.

Overall - your assumption around Southern Baptists largely stands. Our last church, my wife had to constantly deal with snide remarks because of her having previously been married to a man that went and overdosed on fentanyl. Meanwhile half the grandparents in the congregation are raising their own grandchildren for the exact same reason…

Which leads to our currently being “unchurched” as they say, because the worst part of Christianity is the other Christians ;)

> Given the widespread practice of man-boy … I have an incredibly hard time believing this piece of scripture is at all misinterpreted.

I’m struggling with this statement. Are you saying that Leviticus is actually only anti-pedophile and not anti-gay (and so all these conservative Christian preachers are willfully misrepresenting it), or are you continuing the long tradition of falsely linking homosexuality with pedophilia? Is there some other interpretation I’m missing?

> Regarding BBQ, I assume that’s a presence to kosher law and subsequently an attempt at calling hypocrite on the congregation. In that regard we have quite a few pieces of scripture, e.g. in Mark, effectively redefining and negating much of kosher law thereby making that issue moot.

I mean, pork is only one of a million things forbidden in Leviticus that modern Christians ignore. Why is charging interest on loans okay now? Where’s the part where Mark says that’s cool? What about period sex? Seems that rule is gone, too. Where is the passage that says “Pretty much everything in Leviticus is irrelevant except the gay thing”?

If you read Mark and the entirety of New Testament in good faith you would know the answer :)

It’s your actions and not your culinary habits. If you chose to fornicate you’re sinning. Nothing in the New Testament reneges on that. Intentionally endorsing lifestyles that promote such acts are bad per the scripture.

If you don’t believe that and choose to”good feels” and statism as your God, that’s your choice.

> If you read…

Nah. I will decline to (re)read several hundred pages to try to find the answer you cannot provide.

You didn’t even answer my straightforward question about what you meant with your seeming homosexuality-pedophilia link.

> If you chose to fornicate you’re sinning.

Then can I assume you support gay marriage?

It’s not like people don’t know the references, they just don’t want to engage in a public argument with you.

Old Testament: Lev 18:22, Gen 19:1-7, Judges 19:22-23, Jude 7:7

New Testament: 1 Cor 6:9, Romans 1:26-27

And your accusation about Hypocrisy in eating pork etc:

Laws of Moses superseded: Gal 3:23-25, Romans 10:4, Col 2:14, Col 2:16-17, Romans 6:14-15

by New Testament principles: Acts 15:28,29 and Acts 10:9-16

And what about this?

Luke 6:34–35 - And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

I hear a lot of anti gay preaching but no preaching against charging interest. Cafeteria Christianity indeed.

It is also super weird to hear Christians say that the Old Testament is superseded but then keep quoting it when it’s convenient.

If you lend without expecting repayment, it’s charity. Here he encourages people to lend money to people who cannot pay them back (ie to poor people to clear their debt) and he will personally pay you back. Luke 14:12-14, Matt 25:34-46; the latter explains someone’s obligation to help someone in dire need.

The law against charging interest was under Moses’ law so it was abolished along with the rest when Jesus died. Useful principles added, covering not interest specifically, but condemning greed (which is foundational to late stage capitalism…); 1 Tim 6:10, Matt 6:24

Indeed. Lending without expecting any repayment would not be lending. It would be giving. This could be interpreted as a call to generosity. Plain reading seems to rule out interest though. (The more nuanced reading seems to rule out lending at all.)

There are plenty of other examples of modern Christians picking and choosing though. Starting with ignoring the above call to charity (if we read it that way). There are many calls to give freely, yet most modern Christian’s are content with pretty minor giving overall. Or we could talk about how “turn the other cheek” aligns with the distinct non-pacifism that permeates modern Christianity. Or we could talk about taking oaths, divorce, head coverings by women in church, embrace of community property. Etc.

Christian scholars regularly debate how to interpret portions of the Bible. I’m not sure what they are doing if it’s clear and easy to adhere to.

> It’s your actions and not your culinary habits.

Is eating no longer an action? Do you not have a choice of what you eat in most circumstances?

You seem to be conflating Abrahamic religions.

I’m curious what you mean by this. Leviticus is specifically included in the Christian Bible.

Yes, the Jewish Bible is included in the Christian Bible, to use common parlance. Have you asked Christian scholars why, or have you perhaps just insisted on some naive explanation of your own?

Two of these snarky, hand-wavey responses in a row is sufficient to establish that you have nothing valuable to add here. Take care

"much of"?

I find the condemnation of people like me based on a few things in the old testament amusing, because like. You know you're supposed to ignore that right? Are you Jewish? No? Then that covenant doesn't apply

Reply on news.ycombinator.com