Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[KingsGambit]

FYI guys - both had to first be legalized.

I know. Thus the wide-sweeping ramifications of that case (which had a very bizarre backstory).

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Devout, maybe, but also unquestionably unorthodox. Outliers are not a reasonable basis for arguments about orthodoxy.

Unless you consider strict Biblical inerrancy a point of orthodoxy, I don't see anything "unquestionably unorthodox" about it.

[Epoetker]

Unless you consider strict Biblical inerrancy a point of orthodoxy, I don't see anything "unquestionably unorthodox" about it.

What sort of people personally hold their scriptures untrue yet follow them anyway? Either they're slaves of a ruling class, or they're unserious people. Pretty sure it's the second one.

[One Bad Pig]

Unless you consider strict Biblical inerrancy a point of orthodoxy, I don't see anything "unquestionably unorthodox" about it.

As I said, and you agreed, divine inspiration is not equivalent to strict Biblical inerrancy.

I dunno, I wouldn't call Ben Witherington unorthodox. (He doesn't say it was completely pseudegraphical but has a more nuanced position.)

Does he consider it scripture?

[KingsGambit]

Does he consider it scripture?

Yes. He also thinks it authentically reflects Petrine teaching, but that he himself was not the compiler.

[Teallaura]

Unless you consider strict Biblical inerrancy a point of orthodoxy, I don't see anything "unquestionably unorthodox" about it.

Inerrancy, as OBP pointed out, is not the same thing as divine inspiration.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Inerrancy, as OBP pointed out, is not the same thing as divine inspiration.

I agree. However, the question of authorship has implications upon inerrancy, but not upon divine inspiration. It is entirely possible for a pseudepigraphical epistle to still have been divinely inspired. As such, I don't understand your claim that those who consider 2 Peter to be pseudepigraphical are "unquestionably unorthodox."

[Starlight]

Do you routinely defeat your own arguments? LPOT wasn't actually claiming that atheists cause Christians to commit suicide if they disagree with them. She was using your own argument (that telling a homosexual that their behavior is a sin caused them to commit suicide) to prove to you that if that does indeed happen, then there is something else going on, because no other group responds to criticism by going out and killing themselves. It is a sign that the person has deeper emotional problems and probably mental ones.

Thanks again for playing right into her hands and defeating your own argument.

It was amusing the first time one of you guys bizarrely asserted I'd 'defeated my own argument', but the joke's getting a little old with repetition.

Minority stress is a well-documented phenomena, both in the present and throughout history. In a society, when you place a pervasive social stigma on minority groups, and make it clear to them that their society regards them as the wrong kind of person, fundamentally flawed in their identity, or inferior, it has a massive toll. For example, see here for the American Anthropological Association's explanation of stigma to the US Supreme court and their explanation of how its effects apply to gay couples in the present day:

American Anthropological Association's US Supreme Court submission page 6-8 (pg 17-19 in pdf):

The concept of “stigma” refers to the phenomenon through which an individual with an attribute that is discredited by his or her society is devalued in society as a result of that attribute.5 The concept has been the subject of numerous empirical studies and has achieved nearly universal acceptance by social scientists.6 In modern usage, “stigmatization” refers to an invisible sign of disapproval that permits “insiders” to draw lines around “outsiders.” This demarcation permits “insiders” to know who is “in” and who is “out” and allows the group to maintain its solidarity by punishing those who deviate from accepted norms of conduct.7

Stigma is not inherent in any particular attribute; rather, it is the product of a collective social decision directed at individuals who possess an attribute. It has therefore been characterized as an “undesired
differentness.”8 Because stigma is a social construct, attributes subject to stigmatization will change over time and will evolve along with social norms and mores. Homosexuality in particular generates
a type of stigma that remains deeply embedded in American society today. Indeed, studies have shown that a significant percentage of the American public continues to harbor negative feelings and hostility toward gay men and lesbians.9 As Professor Gary Segura testified, “[t]here is simply no other person in society who endures the likelihood of being harmed as a consequence of their identity [more] than a gay man or lesbian.” (Trial Tr. at 1571.) The current reality of the prejudice directed toward gay men and women was captured in the trial testimony of Defendant-Intervenor Hak-Shing William Tam, who affirmed his belief that “homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest children” than heterosexuals (JA at 780-81) – a proposition that is entirely without scientific or other empirical support.10

(continues)

The negative effects of social stigma against minorities have been well-documented on people of color in the US and also on gay people. They have also been heavily studied against various minority groups in different cultures throughout history. "Social stigmas can occur in many different forms. The most common deals with culture, obesity, gender, race and diseases." (wiki). The question you guys are asking here seems to boil down to demanding to know why religion is not on that list. Here's a few reasons:

1. Christianity is not a minority in the US. To qualify for "minority stress" you have to actually be a minority, not a majority. Over 70% of Americans say they are Christians when surveyed. This is why wild claims that Christians in the US are being persecuted for being Christians are so hilarious. Whereas gay people are a tiny percentage of the population ~2%, which is a small minority.

2. Religion, by its nature, is about making a choice to believe and worship something. Whereas stigma largely focused on traits of the individual that are not generally considered matters of their free choice.

3. Religion, by its nature, is about belonging to a group or social network. People join a church, or participate within a wider group of believers, or at the very least view themselves as being part of the overarching body of believers throughout history. By contrast, stigma and minority stress are about being rejected from groups and social networks. The individuals feel alone and isolated, and disconnected from the wider society.

[Sparko]

It was amusing the first time one of you guys bizarrely asserted I'd 'defeated my own argument', but the joke's getting a little old with repetition.

That's only because it is not a joke and you suffer from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome

Minority stress is a well-documented phenomena, both in the present and throughout history. In a society, when you place a pervasive social stigma on minority groups, and make it clear to them that their society regards them as the wrong kind of person, fundamentally flawed in their identity, or inferior, it has a massive toll. For example, see here for the American Anthropological Association's explanation of stigma to the US Supreme court and their explanation of how its effects apply to gay couples in the present day:
The negative effects of social stigma against minorities have been well-documented on people of color in the US and also on gay people. They have also been heavily studied against various minority groups in different cultures throughout history. "Social stigmas can occur in many different forms. The most common deals with culture, obesity, gender, race and diseases." (wiki). The question you guys are asking here seems to boil down to demanding to know why religion is not on that list. Here's a few reasons:

1. Christianity is not a minority in the US. To qualify for "minority stress" you have to actually be a minority, not a majority. Over 70% of Americans say they are Christians when surveyed. This is why wild claims that Christians in the US are being persecuted for being Christians are so hilarious. Whereas gay people are a tiny percentage of the population ~2%, which is a small minority.

2. Religion, by its nature, is about making a choice to believe and worship something. Whereas stigma largely focused on traits of the individual that are not generally considered matters of their free choice.

3. Religion, by its nature, is about belonging to a group or social network. People join a church, or participate within a wider group of believers, or at the very least view themselves as being part of the overarching body of believers throughout history. By contrast, stigma and minority stress are about being rejected from groups and social networks. The individuals feel alone and isolated, and disconnected from the wider society.

Gays are not a "minority" like blacks or other races in the USA are. Everyone is a "minority" in one way or another. I grew up overweight and was bullied and teased as a kid. I was a "minority" - I couldn't help being overweight or change it either no matter how much I tried. Yet you know what? I did not commit suicide, or go on a killing spree. Usually when people react like that, they have other and more serious mental issues.

You keep admitting other groups don't commit suicide as a response to being ostracized. Not even minority races. So it appears the only group that routinely and in large numbers responds with suicide is the LBGT people, even though as this thread OP shows and others have stated, being "gay" is accepted in today's culture. Gay marriage is legal. Anything said against Gays is considered "hate speech." Most companies and cities have rules and ordinances against bullying gays (which I agree should not be done to them, but then nobody should be bullied).

So yes, you have defeated your own argument. And shown that for someone with the name Starlight, you are not actually very bright.

[KingsGambit]

Interestingly, I think the concept of minority stress sums up the theme of 1 Peter pretty well; it's about coping as an outsider in this world in a very hostile society. Obviously demographics were rather different there.

[Starlight]

Do you have any evidence that no ex-gay therapy program, will ever work, at all?

What we do know is that such programs have not worked for the vast, vast, of people who have undertaken them. The vast majority of participants outright admit on the completion of such programs that they are not cured. Of the small minority of participants who initially claim to be cured upon completing such programs, huge numbers of them either later admitted to having lied or get caught-out attending gay night clubs or similar. This has resulted in widespread skepticism toward the tiny number of remaining people who make claims that they have been supposedly successfully been cured: People tend to assume they are probably also lying.

The number of people who still claim to have been cured by such methods is tiny. Like, really, really, low. As an example, there was a planned ex-gay rally in front of the Supreme Court that was allegedly going to "draw thousands" of ex-gay people. Less than 10 people attended.

Having watched various interviews with some of these people who claim to have been 'cured' (eg most recently here), and read various articles by them over the years, my personal assessment of them is that (by and large) they were always bisexual and still are. They typically don't seem to understand what bisexuality is, and in my estimation it is their misunderstanding of bisexuality rather than deliberate deception on their part which drives their claims that they used to be gay and now have chosen to be straight. Because they seem to nearly always say that they have always been attracted to people of both the same and opposite sex and still are, but that going through therapy or coming to Christ led them to be convinced that they ought to choose to have sex and have a life with only someone of the opposite sex and not of the same sex and that it's a 'choice'. Of course it's a choice for bisexual people! (In the sense that they are attracted to both males and females so they can choose to look for a partner of the same sex or of the opposite sex, there's obviously no choice about which particular individuals they experience attraction to or which particular individuals they fall in love with.)

99% of cases? Where did you dig up that figure from?

Exodus International was the world's biggest single provider of ex-gay therapy. It treated tens of thousands of gay people, and ran for over 30 years and had over 250 branches in the US and Canada alone. In 2012-2013 the leaders of Exodus International publicly admitted that their therapies were not working, and that they themselves no longer believed it was actually possible to change people's attractions, and subsequently closed their programs down.

Here are some quotes from the president of Exodus International on the subject:

"The majority of people that I have met [who have gone through our programs], and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation,"

"I do not believe that cure is a word that is applicable to really any struggle, homosexuality included, for someone to put out a shingle and say, "I can cure homosexuality"—that to me is as bizarre as someone saying they can cure any other common temptation or struggle that anyone faces on Planet Earth."

"I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents."

Edited to add:
I just came across this:

October 28, 2014: Evangelical leader Russell Moore denounces ex-gay therapy

Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore denounced reparative therapy at a conference here, saying the controversial treatment that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation has been “severely counterproductive.”

Moore, who serves as president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, spoke to a group of journalists Tuesday (Oct. 28) covering the group’s national conference.

“The utopian idea if you come to Christ and if you go through our program, you’re going to be immediately set free from attraction or anything you’re struggling with, I don’t think that’s a Christian idea,” Moore told journalists. “Faithfulness to Christ means obedience to Christ. It does not necessarily mean that someone’s attractions are going to change.”

...
“The Bible doesn’t promise us freedom from temptation,” Moore said.
...
Moore joins a chorus of psychologists and religious leaders who have departed from the once-popular therapy.
...
(continues)

[Starlight]

Interestingly, I think the concept of minority stress sums up the theme of 1 Peter pretty well; it's about coping as an outsider in this world in a very hostile society. Obviously demographics were rather different there.

It also has massive applications to Jesus' ministry: He was all about seeking out the oppressed and the stigmatized and helping them offering them acceptance and a place to belong within the group he was forming. It's arguably the single biggest focus of his ministry.

That is why I find the notion of "Christians" persecuting minorities and being the cause of the minority stress faced by gay people to be so anti-Christian.

[Teallaura]

I agree. However, the question of authorship has implications upon inerrancy, but not upon divine inspiration. It is entirely possible for a pseudepigraphical epistle to still have been divinely inspired. As such, I don't understand your claim that those who consider 2 Peter to be pseudepigraphical are "unquestionably unorthodox."

Possibly because that wasn't what I said. I didn't actually say anything at all about Petrine authorship or inerrancy.

[Teallaura]

It also has massive applications to Jesus' ministry: He was all about seeking out the oppressed and the stigmatized and helping them offering them acceptance and a place to belong within the group he was forming. It's arguably the single biggest focus of his ministry.

That is why I find the notion of "Christians" persecuting minorities and being the cause of the minority stress faced by gay people to be so anti-Christian.

This would be the same Jesus that went after a bunch of merchants with whips for violating the Temple, right? The one that told the adulteress to 'go and sin no more'? Or the blind man to quit sinning so nothing worse happened? That Jesus?

Mercy doesn't overlook sin or pretend good is evil or evil good. Love doesn't let you continue to blithely destroy yourself - that is a total misrepresentation of both Jesus and Paul (1 Cor 13, remember?).

[Sparko]

This would be the same Jesus that went after a bunch of merchants with whips for violating the Temple, right? The one that told the adulteress to 'go and sin no more'? Or the blind man to quit sinning so nothing worse happened? That Jesus?

Mercy doesn't overlook sin or pretend good is evil or evil good. Love doesn't let you continue to blithely destroy yourself - that is a total misrepresentation of both Jesus and Paul (1 Cor 13, remember?).

From his comments, I don't think Starlight has actually read the bible for himself. He seems to just go by what he reads on liberal and atheist websites that claim what the bible says and teaches.