Baptist preacher: "Stop burning flags, start burning fags."

[General Zod]

Whats this then:

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Anyone else smell horseshit?

The Leviticus quotes are Mosaic Law and no longer applies to Christians anymore than the Kosher dietary laws. And the Cornithian quote does not advocate violence against any of the sins indeed Christians should lead them to repentence.

Except for all those lovely commands about stoning anyone that God doesn't like. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/s ... oning.html

[Alyrium Denryle]

Whats this then:

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Anyone else smell horseshit?

The Leviticus quotes are Mosaic Law and no longer applies to Christians anymore than the Kosher dietary laws. And the Cornithian quote does not advocate violence against any of the sins indeed Christians should lead them to repentence.

Except for all those lovely commands about stoning anyone that God doesn't like. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/s ... oning.html

Bad argument. Everything about stoning people is Mosaic law and not applicable to gentiles.

[defanatic]

Bad argument. Everything about stoning people is Mosaic law and not applicable to gentiles.

Jews are supposed to stone each other? How barbaric.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bad argument. Everything about stoning people is Mosaic law and not applicable to gentiles.

Jews are supposed to stone each other? How barbaric.

Pretty much.

Judiasm 101: Jews are in a covenant with God. Provided they uphold his arbitrary laws (and yes, the jews view them as arbitrary.) God will keep and preserve them and one day send them a Messiah who will end all suffering. The levitical laws explicitly do not apply to non-jews. Gentiles are bound by seven rules laid out in Exodus that consist of "Dont worship objects, that is silly, and dont be an asshole"

Actually a lot of jewish rabbis at most consider the levitical prohibition against homosexuality to be a prohibition against anal sex only. All other forms of homosexual conduct are just fine, and a lot of interpretations view this prohibition (because of the translation and historical context in which it was written) to be a prohibition against gay prostitution or gay sex in the temple depending on who you talk to. It is only the crazy non-modern orthodox jews that view it in any stronger a manner than this.

[General Zod]

Bad argument. Everything about stoning people is Mosaic law and not applicable to gentiles.

The idea that Mosaic laws don't apply anymore always makes me laugh. How many Christians will backpedal the moment you mention the Ten Commandments? There's also that bit about how Jesus said he wasn't there to rescind the laws that were already in place before him.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bad argument. Everything about stoning people is Mosaic law and not applicable to gentiles.

The idea that Mosaic laws don't apply anymore always makes me laugh. How many Christians will backpedal the moment you mention the Ten Commandments? There's also that bit about how Jesus said he wasn't there to rescind the laws that were already in place before him.

No no no. You misunderstand. Mosaic law was never supposed to apply to gentiles At All. The christians fuck up their own damn religion. They screw up jewish theology, and thus screw up their own.

[Spoonist]

The Leviticus quotes are Mosaic Law and no longer applies to Christians anymore than the Kosher dietary laws.

Hmm, which denomination are you? Because your statement is false in all but the more cultist christian sects. It is a common misconception though on part of modern believers, so you are not alone, but church doctrine says otherwise.

It all depends on whether they where countered or advocated by JC or Paul.
The dietary laws was explicitly countered by JC when questioned by the priests. Thus church doctrine says they can be ignored. However sexual sin was mentioned by JC, but not explicitly what he refered to. So therefore the church doctrine seems to be going to the OT for that. Some where also explicitly mentioned by Paul and here church doctrine is usually strong.

The most obvious counter example to your statement would be the decalouge. They are part of mosaic law. For your statement to be true they would be ignored as well. Of course they are not because JC & Paul advocate them. (With the obvious exemption of the sabbath which should have been cut if doctrine where consistent, which it is not of course).

Edit didn't see GZ post there, sorry for the repetition.

[Thanas]

Bad argument. Everything about stoning people is Mosaic law and not applicable to gentiles.

The idea that Mosaic laws don't apply anymore always makes me laugh. How many Christians will backpedal the moment you mention the Ten Commandments? There's also that bit about how Jesus said he wasn't there to rescind the laws that were already in place before him.

No no no. You misunderstand. Mosaic law was never supposed to apply to gentiles At All. The christians fuck up their own damn religion. They screw up jewish theology, and thus screw up their own.

However, the modern argument is largely based on a NT text which notes that all old laws are still in force for his followers, as said by Jesus (and modified by what he said).

[Alyrium Denryle]

However, the modern argument is largely based on a NT text which notes that all old laws are still in force for his followers, as said by Jesus (and modified by what he said).

Sure. On the other hand, that part is screwed up too. Jesus was a Jew, talking to Jews. He was not talking to gentiles. So even if he met the criteria for being the Jewish Messiah (which he does not), that statement would only apply to Jews who are his followers. Which is consistent with the provision that the Jewish messiah was just that. The messiah for the Jews, who was supposed to bring about an end of death and war (jews become immortals... there can be only one), and universal joyful following of the law.

[Thanas]

Oh, there's no argument about that, however for that we have to thank the christian missionaries of the two generations after Jesus death, who took a local religion and spread it all around the Empire.

[Aaron]

The Leviticus quotes are Mosaic Law and no longer applies to Christians anymore than the Kosher dietary laws. And the Cornithian quote does not advocate violence against any of the sins indeed Christians should lead them to repentence.

First off, I'd like to apologize for my tone and behaviour, I had a little too much to drink last night.

Second, could you elaborate? I was under the impression that Jesus claimed he was to enforce all the laws.

[Gil Hamilton]

Of course these guys are Christians. They believe incredibly strongly about their religion. The notion that anyone from Torquemada on down to Hitler to the guy in the OP aren't Christians because they do or say heinous things is patently false. Every one believed in the Bible as the source of truth and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, quite possibly much stronger than most people.

Hell, take Torquemada. He was so devout that he confronted King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella when they were merely going to let the Jews in Spain pay what amounted to a non-Christian tax and instead supported a decree that ordered all Jews leave the country (leaving their gold and silver behind) or be killed/forcibly converted. There is absolutely no doubt that Tomas de Torquemada was an extremely devout Catholic. What all that makes them is horrible human beings in ADDITION to being real, true Christians.

That guy in the OP strongly believes in Jesus Christ as anyone and frankly, the Bible backs him on the issue. He's just taking it to its logical extreme. It's not shocking he has those opinions. What's actually shocking is that he was caught on tape saying them.

[General Mung Beans]

The Leviticus quotes are Mosaic Law and no longer applies to Christians anymore than the Kosher dietary laws. And the Cornithian quote does not advocate violence against any of the sins indeed Christians should lead them to repentence.

First off, I'd like to apologize for my tone and behaviour, I had a little too much to drink last night.

Its alright.

Second, could you elaborate? I was under the impression that Jesus claimed he was to enforce all the laws.

Jesus also violates the Law in many places and draws the ire of Pharisees for that. He also stops the stoning of a woman for adultery which was prescribed by the Mosaic Code. Finally Paul says the following

Galatians 3:1-25 (NIV):

Faith or Observance of the Law
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
The Law and the Promise
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

It is however true that much of the Law was affirmed by both Jesus and Paul such as the contents of the Ten Commandments.

[Darth Hoth]

Well, they DO betray a lack of empathy for their fellow humans. They demonstrate that they are incapable of rational tought.
Both are things most humans posess.

Are they really? Well, yes, obviously they are technically possessed of both. However, I have found in my days sojouring on this our island Earth that many, if not most, of its inhabitants are in fact idiots. Especially when it comes to politics. Most people I have talked with on such issues tend to base their political leanings on emotion, "gut feeling" and/or the popular consensus among their immediate friends and family. It is rare indeed for people to examine issues deeper than perhaps reading the morning papers (and many will not even do that), much less actually thinking things over logically and rationally. They may be capable of rational thought, but few make anything close to optimum use of this ability.

And, as far as I have been able to determine, there is little to no difference between people on the left and right in this, or between "tolerant" and "intolerant".

As for empathy, Christians obviously feel it. So do Nazis. So do Communists. So do people of every kind of political leaning on Earth. It is inherent in the human being, and the only people who lack it are actual sociopaths; that is, people who truly are mentally deranged. (Although there is a span of more or less empathetic among humans, like with most other things.) It is just that most people's empathy has limits. Which one can affect consciously. Depending on outlook on life there will be various groups that one will feel less empathy for than others - in extreme cases even none at all. Psychological mechanisms can also be used to create or enhance such a mindset - "dehumanisation" of opponents and all that. Such as depicting them as subhuman.

However, that is no what anyone claimed.
They ARE subhuman scum for these reasons - but that is an expression to express the disgust with which we (Temunjin, i, others) despise those people.

Now you go and claim that "you have them, therefore you are no better than them". Great, by that logic i am no better than a murderer if i hate a murderer (or kill him in self-defense). Or no better than a nazi when i despise him for being a nazi.
Either you are uneducated or ignorant about humanist morality and rational tought, you are incapable to grasp differing degrees of anything or you never had to deal with being discriminated against.

If the "subhuman" bit is just a slur, as you perhaps intended it, I suppose that is not quite the same as a Nazi thinking that you, as Jew/Russian/whatever, genuinely is subhuman. I do not in the least hold it against you that you are opposed to an ideology that thinks of you as such just because your brow is too sloped (or whatever).

However, if you really do think that a Nazi really is functionally subhuman just because of his political opinions, then you are as bad as the Nazi.

In the original writings, homosexuals and the effeminate are not even included. That is a modern interpretation that does not hold linguistic water as I have gone over before

For those of us who missed that bit, can you repeat? And are you referring to Leviticus or the arsenokoitas/malakos issue with 1 Corinthians?

[Alyrium Denryle]

For those of us who missed that bit, can you repeat? And are you referring to Leviticus or the arsenokoitas/malakos issue with 1 Corinthians?

1 corinthians.

I will note that the christian completely ignores the arguments I have put forth. Considering other threads this seems to be a pattern for him

[Night_stalker]

I'm Catholic, and I have to say that these religious fundamentalists give us good Christians bad reputations! For Pete's sake, stop using the OT as a justification and try using the NT instead. It's more mellow, and doesn't advocate violence against everyone. Remember the 6th commandment, "You shall not murder"?

[The Spartan]

I'm Catholic, and I have to say that these religious fundamentalists give us good Christians bad reputations! For Pete's sake, stop using the OT as a justification and try using the NT instead. It's more mellow, and doesn't advocate violence against everyone. Remember the 6th commandment, "You shall not murder"?

Actually, in the first book of Romans, Paul states that homosexuals are "worthy of death".

[General Zod]

I'm Catholic, and I have to say that these religious fundamentalists give us good Christians bad reputations! For Pete's sake, stop using the OT as a justification and try using the NT instead. It's more mellow, and doesn't advocate violence against everyone. Remember the 6th commandment, "You shall not murder"?

Actually, in the first book of Romans, Paul states that homosexuals are "worthy of death".

He thinks quite a few things are worthy of death.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[Flagg]

I'm Catholic, and I have to say that these religious fundamentalists give us good Christians bad reputations! For Pete's sake, stop using the OT as a justification and try using the NT instead. It's more mellow, and doesn't advocate violence against everyone. Remember the 6th commandment, "You shall not murder"?

Actually by biblical standards you're a horrible Christian. That makes you a decent person BTW.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

*sigh*

This really shouldn't be causing so much debate.

Chris·tian
   /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Show Spelled[kris-chuhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2.
of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3.
of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4.
exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5.
decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6.
human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7.
a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8.
a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9.
a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10.
the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11.
a male given name.

By the definitions 1, 2, 7, and 9, this guy is a Christian. By definitions 5, 6, 10 and 11, he isn't. The rest are debatable. Why don't we agree on which exact definition we're using here before getting into an argument about semantics?

[whackadoodle]

*sigh*

This really shouldn't be causing so much debate.

Chris·tian
   /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Show Spelled[kris-chuhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2.
of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3.
of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4.
exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5.
decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6.
human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7.
a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8.
a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9.
a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10.

Actually, part 9 demonstrates the difficulty of lumping Christians into one despicable dumpling.
I haven't been in a church since I was 18 years old. I ceased to believe at that time. Prior to that, I was an active member of a church of the Disciples of Christ. By lumping them in with the Plymouth Brethren, you do a number of Disciple congregations a disservice. At church camp - In Georgia, no less - I took classes in video journalism and transcendental meditation. There was a member of the youth GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Affirming Disciples) on the state youth board.

In Georgia. In the 1980's.

Just because D.o.C. churches are Most Likely To Be Steeple-Jacked, doesn't mean that they are equivalent to any Evangelical denomination.

[TithonusSyndrome]

The Leviticus quotes are Mosaic Law and no longer applies to Christians anymore than the Kosher dietary laws. And the Cornithian quote does not advocate violence against any of the sins indeed Christians should lead them to repentence.

"Christians", you say? You mean those people who are "only the lost sheep of the House of Israel"? I don't believe you or about 99% of North Americans or Europeans apply. That is, unless you're prepared to eat scraps from the masters' table.

I don't get what you're saying.

Jesus said to the Canaanite woman who came begging to him to heal her daughter that was ill that he was "sent only for the lost children of the house of Israel", and that the only context in which he would accept the presence of non-Jews like her was as "dogs eating scraps from the master's table." Basically, "love thy neighbor" only applies to those who qualify as your neighbor - to Jesus, it'd be debatable that you even qualify as human.

[General Mung Beans]

I'm Catholic, and I have to say that these religious fundamentalists give us good Christians bad reputations! For Pete's sake, stop using the OT as a justification and try using the NT instead. It's more mellow, and doesn't advocate violence against everyone. Remember the 6th commandment, "You shall not murder"?

Actually, in the first book of Romans, Paul states that homosexuals are "worthy of death".

He thinks quite a few things are worthy of death.

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

He means in the metaphorical sense-in the sense of divine punishment.

[General Zod]

He means in the metaphorical sense-in the sense of divine punishment.

That's a sorry load of whitewashing bullshit.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Even if it is a metaphor, how can you or anyone else possibly decide that you could know what it really meant? Once you open up the "metaphor" can of worms, you're heading down a road where you're going to eventually be forced to admit that the bible isn't reliable for anything.