Homophobia: The truth is out there.

[Ryanbible]

What you are saying is that an evil motive to hurt someone is homophobic but telling what one believes to be true based on motives to help are not homophobic.

If it were only always easy to tell the difference. Which is of course why laws to punish those who hurt gays need to be based on actual assaults without regard to the motives.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMIMATION. get over it already

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMIMATION. get over it already

And the Bible also says it's okay to sell children... so much for it being the Word of God.

 

[Lagboltz]

And the Bible also says it's okay to sell children... so much for it being the Word of God.

I bet in today's market selling homosexual children brings in about the same profit as other children.

 

[PLC1]

And the Bible also says it's okay to sell children... so much for it being the Word of God.

God is OK with selling children, with slavery, and with war. Just don't plant two kinds of crops in the same field.

 

[Dr.Who]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMIMATION. get over it already

For any Jew who follows the entirety of the Torah it would be. For many other people it should be evaluated in an entirely different way.

You obviously figured out that I would not be advocating what most people think when they say it is an obomination.

What I don't get is why you would say it is, in response to my other post which was not relevant to the question of whether it was or was not an abomination but was about what does or does not constitute gay bashing.

 

[Dr.Who]

God is OK with selling children, with slavery, and with war. Just don't plant two kinds of crops in the same field.

The vast majority of people on the planet are "OK" with war in the right circumstances - for example as an imperfect solution to an even less perfect problem. In a world where people are full of sin sometimes the best solutions we can manage are pretty bad.

Would anyone ever be "OK" with slavery? Well George Washington was opposed to it but when he inherited a group of elderly slaves rather than set them free to split up their families and starve he kept them and treated them well.

In biblical times slavery was far less like the slavery of early America and far more like employment. Employment for people who often would starve otherwise. It was far from perfect but perhaps it was the best we as a race could manage. No government was going to provide welfare. Most people lived on the edge of starvation much of the year even when they were not poor. There was not enough food to share with people who would not be productive. But institutionalizing indentured servitude so that the poor could be both productive and be fed was better than the alternatives. Perfect - far from it. We could think of it more like a work in progress for the human race. No one was commanded to have slaves but they were allowed to, perhaps in the hope that they would do the best with it rather than the worst. Like George Washington how many slave owners in ancient times did do their best with it? And for those who would do their worst with it - their were restrictions. Should the restrictions have allowed less room for abuse? Who am I to second guess laws written for a time that I have never experienced? The bible does not condone slavery (and certainly never even permitted anything like the slavery of Early America) but it does set limits on what can be a part of it. The worst I have seen is that one of those limits did not limit more the punishment that an owner could inflict on a slave. Punishments that I would add were not worse than what many parents at the time would inflict on their own children - not that I would like to see that either.

 

[Openmind]

The vast majority of people on the planet are "OK" with war in the right circumstances - for example as an imperfect solution to an even less perfect problem. In a world where people are full of sin sometimes the best solutions we can manage are pretty bad.

Would anyone ever be "OK" with slavery? Well George Washington was opposed to it but when he inherited a group of elderly slaves rather than set them free to split up their families and starve he kept them and treated them well.

In biblical times slavery was far less like the slavery of early America and far more like employment. Employment for people who often would starve otherwise. It was far from perfect but perhaps it was the best we as a race could manage. No government was going to provide welfare. Most people lived on the edge of starvation much of the year even when they were not poor. There was not enough food to share with people who would not be productive. But institutionalizing indentured servitude so that the poor could be both productive and be fed was better than the alternatives. Perfect - far from it. We could think of it more like a work in progress for the human race. No one was commanded to have slaves but they were allowed to, perhaps in the hope that they would do the best with it rather than the worst. Like George Washington how many slave owners in ancient times did do their best with it? And for those who would do their worst with it - their were restrictions. Should the restrictions have allowed less room for abuse? Who am I to second guess laws written for a time that I have never experienced? The bible does not condone slavery (and certainly never even permitted anything like the slavery of Early America) but it does set limits on what can be a part of it. The worst I have seen is that one of those limits did not limit more the punishment that an owner could inflict on a slave. Punishments that I would add were not worse than what many parents at the time would inflict on their own children - not that I would like to see that either.

Yes. . .and if we follow the GOP's agenda. . .we are on our way back to "economic slavery," just to "protect" the poor, obviously. . .give them a very low paying job, so they don't starve to death!
With your views on slavery and on the Bible's you might actually make some people believe that slavery was a type of welfare!

 

[PLC1]

So, I suppose that means that slavery and war are OK.

How about selling children? Couldn't that be justified as well? The child gets a home, the parents get enough money to feed the rest of their children. It's a win- win, right?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I worked on the Sabbath...Kill me!

 

[ProudLefty]

I worked on the Sabbath...Kill me!

I would, but I ate some shrimp so I will need to be killed before you.

 

[clarkatticus]

All right!! Let's let the athiest in here! So, what your telling me, Igor, is that not only will I be going to hell for all eternity for not believing in god, but my unrepentant repeated devouring of shrimp ceveche buys me a ticket also. Your argument that the christian religion is the arbitor of all things large and small strike me as a little smug. But, I too can go on a rant. Igor, and all like you, I cannot wait for the last day of your life when you find out that you are going to rot in the earth like me with no more future afterwards than the roach you crushed falling off your Hoveround. It strikes me a gratifying end result of a lifetime of following instead of leading. Realistically, you will not remember anything, however, since your brain cells will die with you. Maybe I wish there were a Christian god who would judge you in the fashion you judge others, if Jesus taught anyone anything (if indeed there was a Jesus), it was love. you cannot believe the extent to which I sneer at your pseudo-Christian vapid pronouncements and relish in the eventual deserving end you and those like you will have.

 

[clarkatticus]

I mean that in a nice way.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes. . .and if we follow the GOP's agenda. . .we are on our way back to "economic slavery," just to "protect" the poor, obviously. . .give them a very low paying job, so they don't starve to death!
With your views on slavery and on the Bible's you might actually make some people believe that slavery was a type of welfare!

Just to be clear, when the dems want to confiscate private funds that violates the concept of economic freedom. when the pubs want people to be able to make a contract with an employer for whatever wages he wants that actually is economic freedom.

the gov is not in the business of giving jobs - that is up to an employer to offer and a worker to freely accept or reject.

 

[Dr.Who]

So, I suppose that means that slavery and war are OK.

Nope, but in the right circumstances each might be better than the alternative. I assume you are not an absolute pacifist, right?

How about selling children? Couldn't that be justified as well? The child gets a home, the parents get enough money to feed the rest of their children. It's a win- win, right?

Adoption for money happens all the time.

 

[Dr.Who]

I worked on the Sabbath...Kill me!

Are you an observant Jew?