.
.. pointed out, the article misrepresents what this dangerous "Pastor" actually said:
The article, and its headline, use language strongly suggests that this "Pastor" is indeed advocating death for gays.
The video appears to be edited in such a way as to omit the "Pastors" discussion of his view (as dangerous and flawed as it is) that such action applied to a different time: If you listen to the video, at approximately 1:44 there is an edit. This occurs just after the "Pastor" refers to "God's stance in the Old Testament". After the edit, the video breaks to a discussion of Paul's views as expressed in I Corinthians 6. If one listens to the remainder of the video, it is clear that the "Pastor's' views are not what is represented is the headline, and that the omitted portion probable contained his (misguided) attempt to rationalize what he views as "Old Testament law" (which the "Pastor" then feels free to selectively & whimsically apply to the present as he chooses).
What this "Pastor" is doing in promoting his detestable views is indeed dangerous.
He deserves be exposed for many things, including his selective use (and non-use) of Old Testament documents to condemn what he chooses (while ignoring prohibitions regarding the wearing of garments consisting of mixed fibers, the interbreeding of different stains of cattle, the advocacy of stoning of rebellious children, and the punishment of intercourse with a female slave which calls for whipping the female slave, but not her death, since she was not free and still owned.)
There is no need to overstate the "Pastor's" harmful views in order to expose him for the dangerous person that he is.
Selective editing, used as a means of misrepresenting by overstatement, is a tactic that should not be borrowed from the right wing propagandists.
Rather, we should combat them with truth, exposing their bigotry, and their falsehoods.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read