(July 14, 2018 at 2:32 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 14, 2018 at 2:26 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Of course don't because it would mean admitting i'm right and yes it totally follows but again you would have to admit i'm right .

Nope that’s not it.

Yes yes it is

---

(July 14, 2018 at 2:44 am)Astreja Wrote:

(July 14, 2018 at 2:21 am)Tizheruk Wrote: It can if the plan attracts unsavory people who cause it to fail  

Yes it does it as you must ask why your philosophy is so ripe for abuse and why it attracts abusers in the first place

If I might contribute my $0.02 CDN, a part of the problem comes from a sense of exclusivity, an "us versus them" mentality.  Whenever a group sees non-members as a problem to be solved, the group concentrates its resources to try to achieve that goal.  This creates a nexus of power that could be used beneficially, but all too often someone is attracted to the power and then proceeds to abuse it.  This can happen in any group, any philosophy, but IMO a sense of mission and urgency makes it easier to exploit and misdirect the group.

But i argue there has to be something more structural and inherent to the philosophy for the abuse to succeed and something about the ideology that attracts such people in first place or even gives them an inkling their plot will not be rejected  or countered .

But all you have said does play a role i'm sure it just isn't the central driver of the abuse .

Look, GC's has a slight point, Kit should not have that phrase in quotes. It's not an exact quote. Fix it Kit!
However, this is clearly the intent of what was said. So if the quotes alone are removed, the title is otherwise accurate.

“Jesus didn’t come to promote sin, He came to save us from sin,” and "The Bible is very clear. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality." and "God defines sin in His Word—it’s not up to our opinion, the latest poll, or a popular vote." These are direct quotes. He's wrong, naturally, and a hypocrite to boot, but that's not the point.

He stated that Jesus came to save us from sin, that God clearly defines homosexuality as sin, and that God's actions in the past were to kill whole cities full of people for this particular sin. Although he did not say the exact words quoted in the title, he did say things that meant those exact same words.

Jesus = God. God kills homosexual sinners = Jesus kills homosexual sinners. It's all right there. He's too coy to come right out and say it, but even without that, the meaning is clear as fucking day.

If you substitute the words Jew, or Blacks, or Catholics, or anything else where he says sin/homosexuality, you'll see my point clearly. Let's try, shall we?

Jesus didn’t come to promote blacks, He came to save us from blacks,” and "The Bible is very clear. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because they were black."

This is promoting the killing of the sinners. No question.

From the article:

Quote:Jesus wouldn’t bless gay couples, the far right minister says. Instead, God would kill them all.

It IS what Franklin Graham said.

(July 14, 2018 at 3:26 am)Kit Wrote: From the article:

Quote:Jesus wouldn’t bless gay couples, the far right minister says. Instead, God would kill them all.

It IS what Franklin Graham said.

But it wasn't what was said in the Facebook post 

But it's is clearly what he's trying to insinuate

(July 13, 2018 at 7:05 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 13, 2018 at 6:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't find the article particularly apt, given that it cites that marriage, according to God, is permanent, and divorce immoral.  Hardly something you'll find much adherence to among the Christian faithful, whose reasoning you are defending.

Regardless, neither passage even mentions gay marriage.  Where are the passages where God "unambiguously" forbids gay marriage?

You don't thing the very very clear prohibitions and judgements covers God's opinion on homosexuality and by extension gay marriage?

Well, at least now you're acknowledging that the Christian attitude toward gay marriage is "by extension" of what is in the bible, rather than an affirmation of something actually present in the bible. At least that's progress. I will also note that, contrary to the way you frame your question, the bible actually says nothing about homosexuality, but rather addresses specific homosexual acts, not homosexuality as an orientation. But thank you for acknowledging that the Christian complaint about hating the sin and not the sinner is essentially bullshit. But let's talk about what the bible actually does say. First of all, I have to ask which part of the bible we're referring to here. Because if you mean passages in the old testament, we no longer hold that people are abjured against eating shellfish or wearing cotton-polyester blends either, so I think we can ignore those prohibitions. That leaves us with Paul's statements in Romans, if I'm not mistaken. It's worth noting that neither Paul nor the writers of the old testament had any notion of homosexuality as an enduring sexual orientation, much less any concept of gay marriage as such. So by necessity, the comments against homosexual sex are referring to sex outside marriage. Is it right to extend these statements to statements as to how God feels about homosexual sex within marriage? Can we likewise extend the prohibition against heterosexual sex outside marriage to what it should say about heterosexual sex within marriage? I don't think so. So anyone making such an argument is being ignorant. But beyond that, even if we accepted that the new testament does say something about gay marriage, we need to look at how Christians actually apply the messages of the new testament in order to see if a coherent moral position is being advanced. We note that Jesus explicitly condemns divorcing and remarrying, and he also speaks without censure about slavery. Yet modern Christians take neither message to heart, ignoring what the bible says about divorce, and excusing Jesus' comments on slavery as being merely a product of the time (or perhaps progressive revelation). Yet how do they treat the passages referring to homosexual behavior? They zero in on those passages and extend them to things they weren't even talking about at the time. And why do they do this, but ignore messages about divorce and slavery? I contend it's because they like the messages condemning homosexual acts, and not the others. Christians are picking and choosing what to affirm and what not to affirm based upon prior prejudice, rather than upon anything the bible actually says. And cherry picking which parts of the bible to obey is not a rational procedure no matter how you choose to frame it. The contemporary Christian, rather than being motivated by any hypothetical argument such as you make, is actually motivated by one thing: anti-homosexual prejudice.

Pretty sure Jesus was a homosexual anyway. I mean he hung around all those guys all the time? I bet he loved giving Judas oral sex. Probably why he was REALLY crucified.

(July 14, 2018 at 3:09 am)Aroura Wrote:

---

Look, GC's has a slight point, Kit should not have that phrase in quotes.  It's not an exact quote. Fix it Kit!
However, this is clearly the intent of what was said.  So if the quotes alone are removed, the title is otherwise accurate.  

“Jesus didn’t come to promote sin, He came to save us from sin,” and "The Bible is very clear. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality." and "God defines sin in His Word—it’s not up to our opinion, the latest poll, or a popular vote." These are direct quotes.  He's wrong, naturally, and a hypocrite to boot, but that's not the point.

He stated that Jesus came to save us from sin, that God clearly defines homosexuality as sin, and that God's actions in the past were to kill whole cities full of people for this particular sin.  Although he did not say the exact words quoted in the title, he did say things that meant those exact same words.

Jesus = God.  God kills homosexual sinners = Jesus kills homosexual sinners.  It's all right there.  He's too coy to come right out and say it, but even without that, the meaning is clear as fucking day.

---

If you substitute the words Jew, or Blacks, or Catholics, or anything else where he says sin/homosexuality, you'll see my point clearly.  Let's try, shall we?

Jesus didn’t come to promote blacks, He came to save us from blacks,” and "The Bible is very clear. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because they were black."

This is promoting the killing of the sinners. No question.

First, I think that your substitution of “blacks” for sinners is nothing but sophism. There is no reason for it And it doesn’t make anything clearer.

Second, I don’t think that warning about the consequences of sin, or a judgement of sin that most Christians would use the word “promoting” I don’t think it’s anything to be happy about. I don’t think it’s appropiate anymore, than to say that you are promoting the actions of those in the account just before the destruction of the cities. I see atheists complain about God allowing evil, but then they also complain when he judges and removes it. They will complain no matter what, perhaps, because they think they should be God.

(July 14, 2018 at 10:31 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Second, I don’t think that warning about the consequences of sin, or a judgement of sin that most Christians would use the word “promoting” I don’t think it’s anything to be happy about. I don’t think it’s appropiate anymore, than to say that you are promoting the actions of those in the account just before the destruction of the cities. I see atheists complain about God allowing evil, but then they also complain when he judges and removes it. They will complain no matter what, perhaps, because they think they should be God.

You're calling gay people 'evil'.  Which means you are calling my daughter evil.

Personally, I think you're evil.  You're an evil little piece of shit who needs his bigotry to make him feel better and superior to people different from him because you have zero talent, zero positive influence in the world, and are totally and utterly worthless.  You'd suck god's tiny dwaf cock if he came down and offered it to you.  But you'll condemn gay people because of something written 2000 years ago.  Bigotry is what's evil.  Not gay people.  So get the fuck out of here with your evil shitty bigotted homophobic ways.  I guess I can't completely blame you though, your parents are shitty people too. They too have zero worth to this world and have contributed nothing positive to society.  Your whole family should be ashamed of their existence.

I’m not replying to the post above, because I don’t think that type of ignorance needs to be repeated. But I would like to point out, that I’m a sinner too. I’m not self righteous, and would be one of the first to point out, that I’m in need of Jesus to cover my sins.

1.Yes he is promoting the destruction of gays your bullshit excuses are just that 

2. Destroying a whole city because the people were gay is evil not the removal of evil 

3. Your god allows real evil to go unchallenged 

4. Any atheist here could do a better job

5. We can replace a city of gays with blacks and it still works and is just a awful and evil .

6. You are judgmental by definition and calling yourself a sinner does not excuse you .