A wonderful response to biblical objections to homosexuality.

[Esquilax]

So, a transgender woman brought a rock to a council meeting... and offered to let a homophobic city councilor stone her to death, on the off chance that he actually believes in the things the bible has to say.

Needless to say, the councilman backed down rather than obeying his bible and committing murder.

This, to me, is one of the more effective tactics to take against opponents of gay marriage who claim to root their positions in the bible: just point out what a complete non sequitur that position actually is. At the end of the exchange, you've either got a person fully demonstrating how little they actually believe in the bible, or you've got someone admitting that they'd commit murder, in which case their status as a rational, moral human being disappears.

Honestly, I don't see why the anti marriage equality side gets such a free pass on such a glaring issue with their position.

[Violet]

What if I was the homophobic city councilor?

Well, obviously: you'd have quite the lump on your head.

edit: oh, and I'm offended, if you didn't catch that

[Drich]

What are you talking about? The only people obligated to stone gay people were Old Testament Jews. So unless your being persecuted by OT Jews, your stones will go un used and only highlight what Jesus said in John 8 about he who is without sin cast the first stone. (At the sexually immoral woman) if the consul member was a Christian he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Because homosexuality is a sin just like any other. We are all slaves to sin. The only difference is some seek attonement for sin and others seek to justify it with their own brand of morality/righteousness. For those who have their sins forgiven must I turn forgive sins and show those who remain sin the way to obtain forgiveness.

[Esquilax]

What are you talking about? The only people obligated to stone gay people were Old Testament Jews. So unless your being persecuted by OT Jews, your stones will go un used and only highlight what Jesus said in John 8 about he who is without sin cast the first stone. (At the sexually immoral woman) if the consul member was a Christian he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Yep, because everyone is bound to follow Drich's interpretation of christianity, or none at all.

Because homosexuality is a sin just like any other. We are all slaves to sin. The only difference is some seek attonement for sin and others seek to justify it with their own brand of morality/righteousness. For those who have their sins forgiven must I turn forgive sins and show those who remain sin the way to obtain forgiveness.

Given that Jesus said approximately nothing about homosexuality, the only call to any action you have against them is in the old testament, and hence, either one stones gay people if they're dead set on enforcing biblical responses against them, or they shut the fuck up and let god sort it out in the afterlife.

My point still stands.

[Minimalist]

What are you talking about? The only people obligated to stone gay people were Old Testament Jews.

Jesus says "Fuck You, Drippy! You'll burn in Hell because you doubted his words!" BWHAHAHAHA!

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matty 5:18

[Drich]

Yep, because everyone is bound to follow Drich's interpretation of christianity, or none at all.

drich's interpretation is simply known as Christianity. I do not know of any Christian who see himself as being bound by all the rules and regulations of OT Judaism.
As such clearly in John 8 Jesus clearly states what we should do about people found in sexual sin concerning stoning. The context is very clear and speaks exactly to this particular situation. You and apparently the gay rock woman don't seem to understand the basics of biblical Christianity.

Given that Jesus said approximately nothing about homosexuality, the only call to any action you have against them is in the old testament, and hence, either one stones gay people if they're dead set on enforcing biblical responses against them, or they shut the fuck up and let god sort it out in the afterlife.

My point still stands.

Christ's silence is not permission, as Christ only endorses sex with in the context of a Sanctified marriage. Bottom line there is no context where homosexual marriage has been Sanctified by God In the The new or Old Testament. And, as with any sin outside the confines of a Sanctified marriage, homosexual sex is a sexually based sin just like every other sexually based sin.

[Minimalist]

Christ's silence is not permission, as Christ only endorses sex with in the context of a Sanctified marriage.

What the fuck are you talking about, Drippy? Are you still pulling this shit out of your ass?

Who "sanctified" anything?

[Drich]

What are you talking about? The only people obligated to stone gay people were Old Testament Jews.

Jesus says "Fuck You, Drippy! You'll burn in Hell because you doubted his words!" BWHAHAHAHA!

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matty 5:18

He also said what I quoted in John 8. There is a resolution between the two, but it clear you are not wanting to concern yourself with it as you refer to your stock Arguement every time this subject comes up.

---

Christ's silence is not permission, as Christ only endorses sex with in the context of a Sanctified marriage.

What the fuck are you talking about, Drippy? Are you still pulling this shit out of your ass?

Who "sanctified" anything?

Gawd.

[EgoRaptor]

Didn't Jesus say he came to fulfil, not abolish or change the OT?

[Minimalist]

Jesus says "Fuck You, Drippy! You'll burn in Hell because you doubted his words!" BWHAHAHAHA!

He also said what I quoted in John 8. There is a resolution between the two, but it clear you are not wanting to concern yourself with it as you refer to your stock Arguement every time this subject comes up.

---

What the fuck are you talking about, Drippy? Are you still pulling this shit out of your ass?

Who "sanctified" anything?

Gawd.

Bullshit. Early jewish marriage contracts were exactly that. Contracts for the sale of property by the family of the bride to the family of the groom.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Rel....shtml?p=4

Marriage in ancient times was a negotiated match involving an agreement on conditions, payment of a bridal price, and the groom's

The xtian derivation of this bullshit was even worse. Time for you to get your head out of your ass and learn some stuff.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/sacraments.html

The Chains of Marriage

Matrimony

Marriage was not, of course, invented or even practiced by Jesus, nor was it a rite especially important to the early Christians. In pre-Christian times the marriage ceremony might be sanctified by a priest but essentially mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses was the only prerequisite. A high-status wedding would involve banquets, dowries and property transfer and among the peasantry, an acclamation at a sacred grove or shrine might dignify the occasion.

For the first Christians Judgment Day was imminent and in the eternal Kingdom some form of celestial celibacy would be the norm. However, in the fallen world in which Catholicism was extending its writ, marriage was both a politically and economically useful "holy sacrament," a valuable addition to its instruments of dominion. It certainly set the Catholics apart from the sectarians who appraised "purity" and wished to keep their bodies "unsullied" by carnality.

In the dogmas of Holy Mother Church sexual intercourse was a concession from spiritual purity made solely in the interests of procreation. Under the bizarre smokescreen that marriage expressed "Christ's love for his Church" a ritual for Christian marriage was eventually developed, patterned after the sacrament of baptism. Led into the Church in procession, the soon-to-be-wed received blessings and solemn advice as to their duties and commitments. The raison d'être of marriage was the procreation of children, who were to be raised in the faith and would become, in turn, loyal servants of the Church. Hence a fierce opposition to the control of conception, abortion, or the exposure of infants. More babies meant more Catholics.

You're never going to discover reality if you stick to sites like "isuckedjesus'cock.com"