Then there is the domestic violence of the homosexual community. How many are killed each year while in a "relationship'? How many have been killed in the "bath houses" of San Francisco?
Are you really trying to say that more people get hurt by gays in their relationships than in hetero relationships? 2.5% vs 95%, good luck with that, I notice you have no source or link to support your (obvious) rectal reclamation. Why don't you post a link to the thousands of deaths in San Francisco bath houses?
How about the attacks by homosexual gangs on churches specifically that of Mormons, and Catholics? What of the riots over Prop 8?
Another rectal reclamation! Got no link, got no source, just a well-developed persecution complex. But even if they had done so, why would you care? Catholic and Mormon churches aren't CHRISTIAN, remember?
And yet you say they have killed no one?
Gays in gay relationships are no more likely to kill people than anyone else. In fact if you look at stats on violence you'll find less gay men there than heterosexual men because gay men tend to be less aggressive.
Then there is "equal rights". Why is it that an employer cannot hire the one he chooses without concern over sexual orientation? Why is it a Christian cannot refuse to rent a house on the basis of sexual orientation? Why is it that the only "hate crime" is when one speaks against homosexuals, yet it is not the same when a homosexual speaks against a Christian heterosexual?
You guys have had a monopoly for so long that you have come to see it as a God-given right. Now that other religions are demanding equal treatment you are trotting out your persecution complex.
Why don't you tell us about how the law should be in your opinion? Should a Christian be able to cite Genesis 9:27-29 and deny a job or a place to live to a black person? Should a white Christian be able to deny jobs and homes to Jews because they killed Jesus? Being gay is a genetic condition that one is born with (the Bible in wrong in plaigarizing Hammurabi to condemn them) just as one can be born hetero or bi-sexual. This can be demonstrated in a number of ways. You, on the other hand, have nothing to support your hateful position except words in a book--a book that condones slavery, genocide, rape, etc.
Is that also not discrimination? Where does the Constitution forbid one from being a "bigot" is he so chooses? Are you not a bigot?
No, it's not un-Constitutional to be a bigot, but it can be un-Constitutional to act out one's bigotry on others.
You don't know the meaning of the word bigot, look it up.
Be kind of hard for one to have a sex change in Biblical times. However, that does explain a lot of your anger, and hatred.
Another rectal reclamation! How are your thumbs holding up to all this mileage? The fact that changing one's gender presentation was more difficult in the past has little impact on me today--so much for your "anger, hatred" reference. Being a transsexual is a birth defect that has been extant in humans for all of history and there isn't any word about it in the Bible--so why do you pick on us too? You can make a case for scriptural crap being the justification for gay hating, but why transsexuals?
Actually, you were the first one.
"It never fails, a so-called Christian with no real substantive education always quotes the KKK and has no knowledge of their faux pas."
There is no name calling in that sentence, you are a so-called Christian, you CALL yourself a Christian--thus you are, by your own words, a so-called Christian.
If I remember correctly you have said you do not believe in God.
Your memory is failing. The stupid thing is that I am a firm believer in a Creative Force (call it God or the Great Creator or the Great Spirit or whatever). I also think the good teachings of Jesus are excellent and that the world would be a better place if more people practiced them. But you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to ramming religious tenets down the throats of others.
However, that could be the same as your comments about my relationship with the KKK save in your situation it is just a lie, not an error.
It was not a lie that you quoted the KKK, we have it in print.
In leftwing States like Vermont where they refuse to pass Jessica's law they get probation, or maybe 6 months in jail.
Another rectal reclamation! Got proof of this ridiculous claim? Nope, I didn't think so.
Now, show me where the actions of Lot were condoned by God.
No one had anything to say about him having sex with and impregnating his daughters. If God doesn't say, "No" then it must be okay with Him. Remember, this is the same god who supposedly just killed everybody in two cities for breaking the law of hospitality--the same god would hardly quail at killing a man and his daughters for the heinous crime of incest.
No proof of Jesus's existence?
Nope, sorry to break it to you, but there is no independent proof of Jesus' existence or His miracles. None. We have records of 15 religions predating Christianity that share most of the tenets of Christianity: born on 12/25, virgin mother, star in sky, wise men, lowly status, savior of mankind, miracles, dead for three days, resurrected, etc. All of these things are very old and none of them originated with Jesus and Christianity. In the study of theology they don't look hard at history because they are teaching that their theology is correct and they don't want to look at the sand upon which the religious edifice is erected.
What does that have to do with your contention that David, and Jonathen, were homosexuals? In neither instance did it have to do with a sexual realtionship no matter how hard you try to pervert the meaning. It had ot do with a covenant between David, and Jonathen, when Saul was trying to kill David because he knew that David would replace Jonathen on the throne.
When you strip yourself naked to swear a covenant to your friend, when you lie on the ground kissing them until they "exceed", what is it that actually happens? How often do you publicly state that the love of your male friend far surpasses the love of women? (If you do any of that the AFA is going to be on you like white on rice.)
He obviously wasn't wearing one since the tunic is like a long undershirt and worn under the robe but over the girding cloth that covers the loins. Women wore a similar garment called a himation but without the girding cloth.
No one has denied that those events occured. What you have failed to prove is any homosexual relationship between David, and Jonathen; that God condoned the incest of Lot, the rape by Amnon (who was killed for his sin); that the sleeping with david's concubines by Absalom was incest; and that David's punishment of the women had anything to do with sin by David. All in all, your "proof" is highly speculative at best.
Sleeping with your father's wives or concubines was considered incestuous and as soon as David came home he put the soiled women away to die and never touched any of them again.
You make a good point: one cannot PROVE anything for certain with the Bible. That means that you cannot prove that your religion is right, that your interpretation of the Bible is right, or that God has condemned gay people, nor that you have the right to condemn them in God's name and pass laws to punish them. I would not think you such a huge hypocrite except you are not upset about adultery and women who were not virgins when they marry, it's only the 2.5 percent of the population who are male and gay that get your opprobrium--despite the fact that they do no more harm than any other group and much less harm than many. According to your holy book no sin is greater than another, being gay is no more vile than being an adulterer or not a virgin on your marriage bed, but you are such a hypocrite that you single out the tiny minority of gay men instead of courageously addressing the massive adultery of the 95% hetero population. What is it? The beam in your own eye before the speck in your brother's?
Not at all. I simply tend to heed the advice in Titus:
"But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first, and second, admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned".
BTW, the word used for murder in Hebrew is ratsach, and is found in Exodus 20:13 among several other places. It has always meant murder although some have attempted to use it as "kill" which defies logic when taken as a whole in scripture. Remember, line upon line, precept upon precept.
Wow, 2000 years of error in the Bible! You don't seem to be taking Titus seriously or you wouldn't still be here getting your ass handed to you at every post.
I do note however that you are no longer accusing me of not having read the Bible--so you can learn, albeit slowly. Do you realize the if God were truly just that He would rapture up all the life on Earth except people? He should leave people here on a bare dirt ball with nothing but the trinkets and paper that we have used for money.
