"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Tyo]

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

I'm editing this because the distinction is important. Homosexual orientation is not a sin.

The Vatican denies entry into the priesthood based solely on orientation.  I would imagine that there are Protestant sects that operate the same way.

[Amarok]

I'm editing this because the distinction is important. Homosexual orientation is not a sin.

The Vatican denies entry into the priesthood based solely on orientation.  I would imagine that there are Protestant sects that operate the same way.

And as i said the fact they are condemned for having a relationship it might as well be a sin .

[KevinM1]

No one is trying to stop people from doing anything behind closed doors.

So, sodomy laws were never a thing then. Cool, cool.

Also, you do realize that Christians don't have the monopoly on marriage, correct? That when people are arguing for gay marriage, it's not to force churches to conduct ceremonies or otherwise acknowledge these unions (although, I'm sure there are some extremists who want that), but rather that they want the same kind of marriage that the state itself recognizes with traditional couples? Put simply, that it's not a religious recognition, but rather a governmental one?

I mean, I don't see Christians protesting people of other religions getting married or, even worse, atheists getting married. I don't see any Christians fuming that people who choose not to procreate get married. It's only when non-standard gender relationships are involved that it's suddenly an issue of the institution being eroded and redefined. Curious, that.

If marriage is so important to Christians, they should look to their own house first. Divorce rates are rather quite staggering among those who purportedly take it oh so seriously. The institutional rot is coming from within, but I guess LGBTQ folks make for easier targets.

[Amarok]

No one is trying to stop people from doing anything behind closed doors.

So, sodomy laws were never a thing then.  Cool, cool.

Also, you do realize that Christians don't have the monopoly on marriage, correct?  That when people are arguing for gay marriage, it's not to force churches to conduct ceremonies or otherwise acknowledge these unions (although, I'm sure there are some extremists who want that), but rather that they want the same kind of marriage that the state itself recognizes with traditional couples?  Put simply, that it's not a religious recognition, but rather a governmental one?

I mean, I don't see Christians protesting people of other religions getting married or, even worse, atheists getting married.  I don't see any Christians fuming that people who choose not to procreate get married.  It's only when non-standard gender relationships are involved that it's suddenly an issue of the institution being eroded and redefined.  Curious, that.

If marriage is so important to Christians, they should look to their own house first.  Divorce rates are rather quite staggering among those who purportedly take it oh so seriously.  The institutional rot is coming from within, but I guess LGBTQ folks make for easier targets.

Not to mention it does not have to be legal control social control is just as damning .And opposing gay marriage is legal control i don't care if they say it's redefining (that's a BS appeal to tradition a tradition they lost all rights to dictate ) it's still a legal attempt to control marriage .

[Huggy Bear]

Problem being, 4000 year old "morality" that would allow for the killing of disobedient children, has no place in the modern world.

Neither do those who claim to speak for an imaginary beings.

What if that disobedient child was a mass shooter?

[Amarok]

What if that disobedient child was a mass shooter?

Not the same thing

[Huggy Bear]

First of all an adult is still their parents child (seeing how there is a designated age when kids become responsible adults), were clearly not talking about little kids.

Secondly, disobedience covers a broad range.

[Aroura]

---

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.

I don't see how your first point addresses the issue at all.  Don't like my substitution of words?  Fine. Graham still said the things that indicated God (and therefore Jesus) kills gay people as punishment.

Your second point makes no sense what so ever. Graham literally used the word "promote".  I didn't put it in there, he did. I said nothing about "most Christians", nor is this topic about that.  It is about what one particular Christian said and believes. Also, we don't complain about god allowing evil, we point out that it is a logical flaw in the claim of his supposed all goodness that means either he isn't all good, or he does not exist.

I notice that despite your wordy quibbling, you still support what he said, though.  You right here equate the evil referenced in the problem of evil (the murder of babies, wars, the deaths of innocents in natural disasters, suffering and illness of all sorts) to gayness. 

You are the perfect example of the loving Christian.  Well done.

[Amarok]

First of all an adult is still their parents child (seeing how there is a designated age when kids become responsible adults), were clearly not talking about little kids.

Compared to the judo Christian god we would all be children 

Secondly, disobedience covers a broad range.

And none of that range equals exterminate a whole city because they allowed homosexuality .

---

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.

I don't see how your first point addresses the issue at all.  Don't like my substitution of words?  Fine. Graham still said the things that indicated God (and therefore Jesus) kills gay people as punishment.

Your second point makes no sense what so ever. Graham literally used the word "promote".  I didn't put it in there, he did. I said nothing about "most Christians", nor is this topic about that.  It is about what one particular Christian said and believes. Also, we don't complain about god allowing evil, we point out that it is a logical flaw in the claim of his supposed all goodness that means either he isn't all good, or he does not exist.

I notice that despite your wordy quibbling, you still support what he said, though.  You right here equate the evil referenced in the problem of evil (the murder of babies, wars, the deaths of innocents in natural disasters, suffering and illness of all sorts) to gayness. 

You are the perfect example of the loving Christian.  Well done.

There was  nothing wrong with your substantiate he just does not like the implications because they expose uncomfortable truths .And your right he did promote it as what else can one draw from the approval of annihilating a city that allowed  gays in it . And we can both point out the inconsistency and complain about gods apathy of evil were it counts . And your point is spot on he calls gayness evil what more does one need to say .

[SteveII]

No one is trying to stop people from doing anything behind closed doors.

So, sodomy laws were never a thing then.  Cool, cool.

Also, you do realize that Christians don't have the monopoly on marriage, correct?  That when people are arguing for gay marriage, it's not to force churches to conduct ceremonies or otherwise acknowledge these unions (although, I'm sure there are some extremists who want that), but rather that they want the same kind of marriage that the state itself recognizes with traditional couples?  Put simply, that it's not a religious recognition, but rather a governmental one?

I mean, I don't see Christians protesting people of other religions getting married or, even worse, atheists getting married.  I don't see any Christians fuming that people who choose not to procreate get married.  It's only when non-standard gender relationships are involved that it's suddenly an issue of the institution being eroded and redefined.  Curious, that.

All valid points and are part of a civil discussion. Here's the question, who has the right to redefine an institution that predates history itself? 5 people? 

If marriage is so important to Christians, they should look to their own house first.  Divorce rates are rather quite staggering among those who purportedly take it oh so seriously.  The institutional rot is coming from within, but I guess LGBTQ folks make for easier targets.

They should. Surely this is a sign of a relativistic, self-centered society which in turn does unfathomable damage to its very fabric.