What is with Christians and gay people?

Because there's general agreement on the sub that the Prosperity Gospel is an abomination.

But your explanation insists that any conversation in which the sin in question damns one to hell and is horrible necessarily ends up badly. Why is it now an added criterion that there has to be a certain kind of disagreement? Did I miss that in your first draft of the simple explanation?

And why are you talking about the prosperity gospel? I'm talking about greed. Honestly, I'm losing track. I think you've only actually addressed me once in this entire conversation.

Let's cover lust. Some people here are illicitly lustful, and we're able to discuss that without getting as ugly as we often do over homosexuality. Lots don't agree, for example, that premarital sex is wrong, but we hardly see the level of vitriol tossed around that we often do when discussing homosexuality.

So there's a damnable sin and there's a lot of disagreement, and there's still not the level of hateful speech. Why does the simple explanation not work in this case? Is there a third criterion I don't know about?

For better examples, take a look at what's been written about abortion or Mormonism.

Do you know why those are better examples, though? My explanation says why. Yours doesn't. Yours views all of the above as damnable sins, and all conversations about them should be awful. Greed, abortion, Mormonism, or illicit lust. Simple explanation. But simple explanation doesn't work for all of them.

My appeal to tribalism explains the difference - abortion and Mormonism are/were both sociopolitical footballs, and the emotion that goes along with them is also, in most cases, better explained by tribalism than by appealing to the issues themselves.

Abortion is drawn almost perfectly down party lines and is used as a shibboleth. Mormonism has a fascinating political history, and even today it's still used in the political arena; e.g. Prop 8 and Romney.

/r/Christianity Thread Parent