Bigotry, how hard is it to define?

Bigotry - based on ignorance, its drives a dogma on, despite data or facts...well that's my view at least. First person to yell bigot somehow isn't a bigot somehow. Its a debate closer. Any discussion on feminism that goes places with full sunlight to search out more facts can from some people urge the yelling of "Sexist pig". Other debates "Capitalist dog", "Agrarian Socialist", "Lazy Bludger scum" "Scab". The derogatory name tag of unfair bias, immoral hypocrite etc is meant as a convenient shut down button to discourse and free thinking by the plain dim witted. Its using bias to shut the differing opinion.

Radical vegans will call hunters "Murderers" and dairy workers "rapists"

Its a bizarre Year 3 logic tanty tactic that's slowly taking over & taps into people's fear of being branded "offensive"...the bigot is the offensive bigot therefore they are to be railed, ridiculed and prevented from exploring anything on the subject.

Now this came up in a twitter feed of a well known, very well regarded Journo. I don't always agree with him, but he challenges people's thinking, challenges mine. He's been accused of being a Liberal Stooge & a Labor Stooge. How that works I don't know but it works in his favour as far as journalistic credentials. Badge of honour whether he know, cares or not.
So even though we disagree from time to time, I hold him in some high regard.

Now on his feed the topic of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) came up. This journo's only comments were about where we'd be in years to come looking at the plebiscite. He made no comment about Christians, but another person in the feed did. The journo did well not to get drawn in.

But I did.

In short, genuine Christians would not shave beards & would avoid shell fish if they were true genuine Christians. The premise is "times have changed" and you should never cherry pick some things to be ok for change. Its all or nothing. If you prefer to be clean shaven or decide its ok to chow down on prawns, crays or yabbies you must also be ok with SSM. Its about being consistent

Extended, if shaving is ok then so too is eating shell fish or having a same sex relationship because all Leviticus must either be maintained or dismissed.

Here's where it runs aground badly.

The shaving, shell fish thing, that's Levitical/Mosaic Law. It was still in effect when Christ was born, lived and even as He died, but when He became the New Covenant it was already gone. It stayed on in practice, but as far as God & Christ were concerned, it passed away before Christ did. So its not in effect today so no one has to feel the need to avoid shell fish or never shave.

Christ was clear, what comes out of the mouth is what defiles a man, not what he eats.

Secondly, Levitical & Mosaic Law ONLY applied to the Hebrews, not Gentiles then nor Christians at anytime. Using it now as some sort of twisted leverage device to allow Same Sex Relations within God's Word is wrong. 100% Scripturally wrong. 100% False Exegesis.

When the Temple was destroyed, around 78AD, it was definitely 100% gone for Jews as well.

Then up comes the clobber clause, which says in Luke 7:1-10 that the centurion came to Christ to get his "slave" healed, which Christ did. The claim is that in the Greek, in which the New Testament was written, the word slave should be replaced with the word "lover" because in the Greek it uses the word "pais" which translates to lover.

The contention is, the sick servant on the edge of death was the centurion's same sex lover. True or not we don't know, but this is held up as Christ being quite ok with Same Sex Relationships.

Thing is, it doesn't.

What it says is Christ will be there for anyone wanting to be saved. None of us are worthy, all of us are sinners. That no matter who you are, you cannot get into Heaven without Christ. The Bible is clear that forgiveness is there for anyone who genuinely asks for it, even murderers, thieves and adulterers.

So yes, Christ being Christ he healed the "slave" without even seeing him.

So why mention this slave being healed at all? He saved a centurion's servant but what's the big deal, what's the big point, why is it so relevant?
Christ referred to the centurion as having the greatest faith in Israel. It has to be more than that.
Its possible the slave and the centurion were lovers & this is showing even people on the widest extremes of sinning have a chance of salvation & redemption. After all the Scriptures describe homosexuality as an "abomination" before God. He Hates it.

If the centurion had the greatest faith in Israel, its most likely he was no longer in a homosexual relationship with the slave. He called Christ "Rabbi", he was clearly a follower of Christ so its not hard to think God was showing that any sinner, even those guilty of "abomination" before God could, if they asked, be saved. Christ didn't do things for the sake of doing things. There was meaning and instruction involved.

Levitical & Mosaic Laws were gone, but God's Law was not. If it was an abomination before God in the beginning, it still is today as it was when Christ walked the earth.

The thing that some people don't get, can't answer and don't like being pointed out to them is this...

If God has changed His mind and is now perfectly ok with homosexuality well he's going to have to apologise to everyone from Sodom & Gomorrah. At no point did He say someone is devoid of hope or salvation. Those that aren't saved are those who don't ask for it. Its become this "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach that spells it out most eloquently. If there was a same sex turn around by God or Christ, it has huge implications and would not have stayed as something that's inferred , it would be clearly spelt out. It is not because that's not how it is.

Here's another very clear comparison. Christ saved a prostitute from being stoned to death, he didn't do that to say young school leavers today, short of a few dollars, are now ok to enter into the sex trade.

Now if you're pushing a doctrine that's based on ignorance you can call it bigotry. The doctrine of twisting Scripture you don't believe in nor understand to somehow call Christians "bigots" is sadly full blown bigotry itself.

If I could I'd challenge this Scripture twisters to the simplest of tests, a simple question.
How many wise men visited Jesus in the manger?

Now I bet London to a brick, that despite all the nativity plays at school, despite all the nativity scenes on Christmas cards and in shop windows most would get it wrong...

Maybe not always. Some will get it right after cohorts get it thoroughly wrong and are embarrassed.
But regardless if they're relying on Shell fish & beard arguments to somehow undermine Christians as hypocrites they're going to come unstuck...or they'll continue along falsely believing that which isn't so and deceiving others who are not sure.

I think ALL humans are hypocritical. Moral high ground has few if any full time residents and generally those who think they possess it the most, probably possess it the least.

If you're game, go to the comment section below & say how many wise men you think visited Jesus in the manger. Just a number will do or if you're a more private person PM/Email me a number. No prize or penalty.

And you won't get called Bigot ;-)