God wants gays dead, says beauty queen (2 Viewers)

[Bereie]

Baby 'starved to death' because he did not say Amen

lol

 

[zombie omie jay]

L
O
L

eh

 

[ilikebeeef]

Baby 'starved to death' because he did not say Amen

lol

What a sad story. Amen.

 

[tonyharrison]

can animals that are not humans sin?

 

[HumanDichotomy]

This chick is obviously an ignorant hick with no experience in life.

I mean, come ON.

Get with the 21st Century.

 

[Titburger]

How you can get the first law from that genesis quote is beyond me, that is seriously clutching at straws. Like I said you are simply looking at the bible with the hindsight of modern scientific knowledge. This is on par with me getting a copy of the oxford english dictionary, finding the word cunt and then saying:
"Look, oxford predicted in 1800 the existence of JKhoury over 200 years later!"

Diffusion of light (which is a debatable translation anyway), is not the same as dividing it.

You can't prove what you believe in because it is a fantasy.

It's called confirmation bias

YouTube - Psychology of Belief, Part 3: Confirmation Bias

check out the whole series, it's really interesting

 

[Riet]

It's called confirmation bias

YouTube - Psychology of Belief, Part 3: Confirmation Bias

check out the whole series, it's really interesting

ahhh of course, I knew there was a proper name for the concept but couldn't for the life of me recall it

 

[xeuyrawp]

m8 this thread is asking personal opinions of christfags

I think there might be a relationship between what people's opinions of Christians are and what their religions are. Just a guess though.

homosexuality is natural, what?

Um, I think you missed the point, but okay.

 

[Slidey]

This issue has already been humorously answered.

"Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim"

That's so fucking amazing.

 

[Name_Taken]

That's so fucking amazing.

Except anyone with even a basic understanding of Christianity can appreciate the fail.

It is only amusing since athiests and agnostics, who believe this complete and gross misunderstanding of scripture actually proves something.

 

[Name_Taken]

My bible pretty much has those contents word for word.

Please explain how it is a fail in any way other than hand-waving away the Leviticus stuff.

KTHX

Well I already have, like 5 times in NCAP but w/e.

Baiscally if you're Christian, you believe in the NT. The OT is still important, just not relavent. There are many passages within the OT which point towards Jesus. By Jesus commingo to Earth, and subsequently dying for mankind's sins, the OT is fufilled.

Christians as such follow the commandments of Christ and the NT, and not those which were given by God to the Israelites in the OT. The OT also contains many passages which give insights into moral living, still relavent today.

The NT is the measure by which we judge the OT. So say if in the NT, it says, say homosexuality is a sin (chosing homosexuality as it seems to be a hot topic on these forums), which it does. Now in regards to this, the OT, has a similar attitude towards homosexual sex, which makes such passages relavent for the modern Christian.

However, even on this issue, the OT and NT are not in perfect harmony. OT states that homosexual offenders should be put to death etc, wheras in the NT, Christ publically opposes the stoning of individuals for sexual immorality.

Where there is contention between the OT ad NT, the NT takes precedent.

(And in regards to the issue of homosexuality there shouldn't really be much dispute over the Bible's stance, as it condemns it around 6-7 times, both in the OT and NT).

In regards to that list of behaviours found within Leviticus, you would be better off asking an Othrodox Jew about why they no longer live by them, for Christians never have and have never been required to.

 

[Scorch]

Baiscally if you're Christian, you believe in the NT. The OT is still important, just not relavent. There are many passages within the OT which point towards Jesus. By Jesus commingo to Earth, and subsequently dying for mankind's sins, the OT is fufilled.

Christians as such follow the commandments of Christ and the NT, and not those which were given by God to the Israelites in the OT. The OT also contains many passages which give insights into moral living, still relavent today.

The NT is the measure by which we judge the OT. So say if in the NT, it says, say homosexuality is a sin (chosing homosexuality as it seems to be a hot topic on these forums), which it does. Now in regards to this, the OT, has a similar attitude towards homosexual sex, which makes such passages relavent for the modern Christian.

However, even on this issue, the OT and NT are not in perfect harmony. OT states that homosexual offenders should be put to death etc, wheras in the NT, Christ publically opposes the stoning of individuals for sexual immorality.

Where there is contention between the OT ad NT, the NT takes precedent.

(And in regards to the issue of homosexuality there shouldn't really be much dispute over the Bible's stance, as it condemns it around 6-7 times, both in the OT and NT).

You're an absolute fucking idiot and a liar.

Not only does Jesus at no point in the New Testament address the issue of homosexuality, but he states on several occasions that he has come not to override or abolish the Old Testament but to fulfill it, and that, indeed, “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17).

Basically what you are doing is picking and choosing to make your barbaric, bronze-aged fairytale evolve with the morality to which we all have access. You are saying that the Bible is important when it agrees with whatever position I feel like taking and irrelevant the rest of the time.

When you have to make up bullshit excuses as to why you must ignore two-thirds of your Holy Book, perhaps you might have to start thinking about what is wrong with your God's disgusting list of murder, slaughter, bigotry and hatred that you hold so dear.

 

[Slidey]

Except anyone with even a basic understanding of Christianity can appreciate the fail.

Enlighten us... if you can.

And don't refer to the NT and OT. Similar stuff is in the NT, but slightly rarer.

Do you only care about every second sentence of god's word? What about the fact that Jesus upholds the accuracy and importance of the Old Testament?

 

[Name_Taken]

You're an absolute fucking idiot and a liar.

So much hate, and for no reasons whatsoever. It would appear to be a common trait among many athiests today as well, oh well.

Despite the fact that it is me who subscribed the the "biggoted, bronze-age, homophobic, genocidal blah blah" religion, it is the unbelievers on this board responsible for all the ad hominems and threats. Irony has never been so well defined.

Not only does Jesus at no point in the New Testament address the issue of homosexuality, but he states on several occasions that he has come not to override or abolish the Old Testament but to fulfill it, and that, indeed, “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17).

So becuase Jesus didn't talk about it, He condones it? Christ didn't talk about pedophilia either, do you think the Bible condones that as well?

Not being binding on us today, does not make it invalid. A person who intends to live a morally righteous life, would be expected to follow the aspects of the Mosaic code which still relate to moral living in a modern context.

(Galatians 3:23-25 NIV)
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Under the OT, the following of the Mosaic law was what determined whether or not a person was saved or not. The law led to Christ. Under the NT, and the commandments of Christ, it is persons acceptance of God alone which grants salvation.

Basically what you are doing is picking and choosing to make your barbaric, bronze-aged fairytale evolve with the morality to which we all have access. You are saying that the Bible is important when it agrees with whatever position I feel like taking and irrelevant the rest of the time.

No I am not, and when have I tired to justify my own behaviour in front of you? You don't even know how I live my life.

When you have to make up bullshit excuses as to why you must ignore two-thirds of your Holy Book, perhaps you might have to start thinking about what is wrong with your God's disgusting list of murder, slaughter, bigotry and hatred that you hold so dear.

I already addressed the 3 first examples of God's apparent demonstration of immoral behaviour from your list (copeid off another website without ackowedgement but w/e) and found them all severely wanting and in cases blatently dishonest.

You also failed to respond to my post, but that was probably to be expected, as it was never your arguement in the first place, and as such was one which you were woefully inequipped to defend.

Before you continue to rely on google as a constant source of knowledge relating to the the interpretation of scripture, might I suggest reading the Bible itself? You cannot truly be making an informed decision on it without even exposing yourself to what it actually says.

 

[Slidey]

So much hate, and for no reasons whatsoever. It would appear to be a common trait among many athiests today as well, oh well.

The reason is that you're a cruel bigoted arsehole who we have no patience for.

 

[Name_Taken]

The reason is that you're a cruel bigoted arsehole who we have no patience for.

Then why are you here, listening to me?

 

[Ambition]

perhaps it wasnt mainstream due to fear of murder due to literal interpretations of the bible

im sure there were just as many homos back then as there are now (no doubt mostly repressed)

The Quaran I believe talks about a community that existed in those biblical times that consisted of homosexuals and what happened to them. So in fact homosexuality was probably mainstream.

 

[Slidey]

The Quaran I believe talks about a community that existed in those biblical times that consisted of homosexuals and what happened to them. So in fact homosexuality was probably mainstream.

Homosexuality was mainstream in Greek (and pre-Christianity Roman?) culture. It is also mainstream in, for example, Pacific Islander culture.

 

[Durga]

So becuase Jesus didn't talk about it, He condones it? Christ didn't talk about pedophilia either, do you think the Bible condones that as well?

Not being binding on us today, does not make it invalid. A person who intends to live a morally righteous life, would be expected to follow the aspects of the Mosaic code which still relate to moral living in a modern context.

Not condones it, just doesn't hold an opinion. Could you please give me the verse from the Old Testament were God, through Moses, tells us that once we're living in a modern context we can then cherry-pick from his great, perfect laws?

(Galatians 3:23-25 NIV)
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Under the OT, the following of the Mosaic law was what determined whether or not a person was saved or not. The law led to Christ. Under the NT, and the commandments of Christ, it is persons acceptance of God alone which grants salvation.

But God and Christ are one in the same person, no? This is starting to seem like a very shoddy plan on God's part...the ridiculousness of the justifications of the already ridiculous scripture is quite laughable.

I already addressed the 3 first examples of God's apparent demonstration of immoral behaviour from your list (copeid off another website without ackowedgement but w/e) and found them all severely wanting and in cases blatently dishonest.

I think I might have addressed this in the Homosexuality in Australia thread.

 

[Scorch]

So becuase Jesus didn't talk about it, He condones it? Christ didn't talk about pedophilia either, do you think the Bible condones that as well?

No. What it means is that you can't justify the hatred you spurt forth from the New Testament but rather the Old Testament. The logical implication of this is that you are either then enforcing the entirety of the Old Testament laws or cherry-picking the laws you like.

The fact that you then are not advocating the slaughter of your political enemies, infanticide, slavery, war crimes and other such absurdities shows that you are ignoring all the instances that God condones and in fact demands such behaviour and narrowing your focus onto the verse that fits the particular hatred you are trying to justify that particular day.

Before you continue to rely on google as a constant source of knowledge relating to the the interpretation of scripture, might I suggest reading the Bible itself? You cannot truly be making an informed decision on it without even exposing yourself to what it actually says.

I addressed this before but I'm most likely more knowledgeable about what the Bible says than you are, clearly. Statements such as this:

(And in regards to the issue of homosexuality there shouldn't really be much dispute over the Bible's stance, as it condemns it around 6-7 times, both in the OT and NT).

Show that you are woefully unfamiliar with the very book you use to justify your bigotry.