Then I ask them where in the bible it sasy the “ceremonial law was repealed. Then they try and go into an abstract argument about how even though it doesn’t say it was repealed it actually was. That’s when I hit them up with Jesus saying “Its easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one jot or tittle of the law to fail. At that point they have no response other than to rather childishly claim the bible doesn’t mean what it says.

Well, then it is fair to ask why they aren’t doing anything to make divorce illegal, or why their church doesn’t bar people who have been divorced from membership, or why they don’t seek to “reform” divorcees by getting them back to their original partners, or why they aren’t as vocal about divorce, or why they don’t do a host of other things that they do to gay people. Of course, the fact that they claim that homosexuality and divorce are both “sins” shows how hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent they are in treating these two cases so differently, even though MANY MORE people are divorced.

“A better choice might be to ask them about usury.”

Interesting. I’ll try that some time.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Some will tell you, “oh i do oppose divorce”. A better choice might be to ask them about usury.

The Bible – old and new testaments – condemns usury in the harshest terms. It even defines usury as being as little as 1% interest. Evil evil evil. No excuses, go-to-hell kinda sin.

Yet I don’t know a social conservative with neither a credit card, car loan, nor mortgage.

First, I am quoting from gotquestions.org:

“The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies. If Christ fulfilled some it, such as the sacrificial system, He fulfilled all of it.”

Second, from the man Jesus who is the Christian’s God:

Matthew 22:37–40 (NIV)
37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

It is far better to talk about divorce. When asked why they exhibit such extreme animosity toward homosexuality, while (almost) none toward divorce, they can only muster a weak: “Well, that’s because divorced people aren’t forming lobbies to influence public policy and demand acceptance.” To which you will say: “That is because divorce *is* accepted, and divorced people aren’t targeted, assaulted and/or murdered, discriminated against and disadvantaged the way gay people are. Moreover, is the ferocity of your resistance to ‘sin’ really determined by the actions of the ‘sinful’?” This exposes them as hypocrites, because they can’t rely on the intellectual consistency that remain intact with the shellfish-argument.