gcthomas
New member
Heterosexuals are most often the very group that abuses children. Would you now comment negatively about heterosexuals as a group please? Just for consistency, you understand.
Even Gays Say: Their Behavior is Sick
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Heterosexuals are most often the very group that abuses children. Would you now comment negatively about heterosexuals as a group please? Just for consistency, you understand.
TracerBullet
New member
its like saying that blacks commit most of the rapes in this country or that Jews commit most of the kidnappings. Both clams are horrible lies and both are repeated time after time to justify hate.
And no, gays are not often the ones abusing children, that is also a lie. Gays are far far less likely to be the ones molesting children.
TracerBullet
New member
Who said otherwise?
You claim to be a Christian but think it's just fine to sput off false witness. Pretty pathetic.
You can also show me where God says disobedient children should be murdered..I mean executed. You can also show me the dozens of other things God says people should be murdered for...i mean executed for.
Conservatives like "Clete" are engaging in "cherry picking" because just 4 verses before the "homos" verse to which he is referring (Leviticus 20:13) is Leviticus 20:9, which states that children who curse their parents also deserve death.
Why aren't good Christians, such as "Clete," out there stoning their kids to death because God hasn't "changed His mind" about including that verse in the Bible?
The portion of the Bible that best addresses this issue is John 8:1-11 - the Woman Caught in Adultery. Under Mosaic Law (Leviticus 20:10) adultery was also punishable by death, but instead of acting like the Pharisees, or modern conservatives, whose primary concern is about enforcing the letter of the law, Jesus showed compassion and refused to judge her.
Last edited:
If I'm pathetic then you're stupid.
Who said otherwise? You implied it with your argument!
You're the one drawing a moral equivalency between homos and black and Jews, not me!
God NEVER said that blacks, tall people or dwarfs or any other genetic variation of human being should be executed. He very clearly states that homos should be though! What does that tell you?
It can tell you only one of two things. Either being a homo isn't genetic or that God is unjust. Which do you pick?
You see, this comment demonstrates where your heart truly lies. You actually do think that God is unjust and that you are wiser than God.
And you call me pathetic! Ha!
God is no murderer and these last two sentences of yours are blasphemy. Perhaps you should consider changing your profile to say that you're something other than a Christian.
And no, there are not dozens of things that God considers capital crimes. I've named most of them on this thread already but there are others, many of which had to do with religious laws dealing exclusively with the nation of Israel and which therefore have no application outside of that context.
That's as far as I'm willing to go explaining God's justice to someone who doesn't seem to know the difference between murder and execution. The faith you claim to believe in is predicated on the inherent justice of the death penalty. There would be no gospel message if the death penalty was murder.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I do not cherry pick. Of all people, I am not the one you can accuse of that. It has been my experience, however, that this is the go to verse for people who, rather than really attempting to prove me wrong, are actually trying to discredit God. The implication of your quoting this verse is not that I am unjust but that God is!
If God is unjust then whats the point in going any further in the conversation? If God is unjust then there is no justice and its just majority rules and survival of the fittest.
On the contrary, He refused to fall into the trap laid for Him by the Sanhedrin who, after having gleefully put the prostitute to death, would have run straight to the Roman authorities to accuse Jesus of having commanded an execution without Roman permission.
The Law requires the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish guilt. No one was willing to testify against her and so Christ's judgement was according to the Law. Jesus brilliantly upheld the Law and defeated the plots of his enemies.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. No need to put my name in quotes, by the way. Its my actual name.
Um, in actual fact, it happens to be true that black people commit most of the violent crime in this country. But it has nothing to do with the color of their skin or any other genetic issue.
(I've never even one time heard the accusation that Jews commit most of the kidnappings, by the way.)
Wrong again moose breath!
Nearly all male homos were molested by a male between the ages of five and eight. Fortunately, the vast majority of male on male (homosexual) molestation victims do not grow up to become homos or child molesters themselves. If they did we'd be literally over run by perverts everywhere. Having said that, it really can be accurately stated that homosexuals reproduce by molesting children because being molested as a child is the primary cause of the perversion. If all you did was to start executing convicted child molesters, it wouldn't be long before there was hardly a homo left because their attrition due to premature death (i.e. disease, drug abuse, suicide, domestic violence, etc) would out pace their rate of production.
Resting in Him,
Clete
RevTestament
New member
Actually he didn't refuse to judge her, but forgave her while telling her to sin no more - the judgment. As Naz has recently pointed out about these verses, Jesus was appealing to the general law on idolatry that the one responsible for the house and catches the crime should be the first to throw the stone. Since this was not Jesus, He forgave her with the admonition to stop sinning.
Its their business when they are forced to agree with it.
Not true. It is like saying murderers commit the murders. "Homos" is a way of identify disgusting and evil behavior. Pigment in skin or an ethnic group is not comparable to behavior.
"The Woman Caught in Adultery" (John 8:1-11) does not appear in the Bible just to demonstrate Jesus' using His "brilliant" legal mind to extracate Himself from the trap set by His Sanhedrin opponents.
Christ was placed on earth for a far greater purpose and that includes providing a model for how we as Christians should conduct our lives.
The fact that He refused to condemn "The Women Caught in Adultery" is symbolic in that we as Christians should not emulate the Pharisees in the story or set ourselves up as judge and jury to judge her at a later date.
Christ saved His severest criticisms not for the "homos (who) cannot "get better", same as pedophiles, zoophiles and serial killers ..." but for those self-righteous religious zealots whose "unloving" nature turns people away from seeking God.
Last edited:
Which just demonstrates as I've said before you guys seem incapable of distinguishing between any kind of sexual activity that doesn't meet your approval. Anything outside of wedlock seems to strike you as pretty much the same in the grand scheme of things.
Which has of course nothing to do with what you responded to.
Please explain how behavior and skin pigmentation are the same things.
1. To be accurate, Jesus refused to condemn the woman (“Then neither do I condemn you,”) even though the fact that she broke the Mosaic Law on adultery was never in dispute.
2. There is no mention as to whom caught her in adultery, just that “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
3. Given that Jesus was the only one without sin, He could have thrown the first stone - but chose to show compassion instead.
4. The original Mosaic Law never actually states that only those without sin were allowed to throw the first stone, but Jesus was demonstrating His divine authority to introduce the proper interpretation of the Law.
5. Under Mosaic Law, her male partner was equally guilty of adultery but there is no mention as to why he wasn't brought to the temple courts.
gcthomas
New member
This has the ring of a self serving lie to me. Do you have any spend of this, or a link to the research?
When researching for papers on molestation, the word 'homosexual' simply means male on male. It doesn't mean the perpetrator is a homosexual, but you seem to have conflated paedophilia with homosexuality. Homosexuals are no more likely to be attracted to children than heterosexuals.
Child molestation had nothing to do with homosexuality, except that fundies and Republicans like to make people fear gays as it makes it easier to attack them politically. It is evil to misrepresent a minority just so you can vilify them.
To be acurate, He couldnt condemn her under the law since the witnesses testimony wasnt there and the man wasnt brought, guilt had not been established.
yes, because the "witnesses" didnt bring the man, hence they did not follow the law and were sinning themselves.
If He had done so, He would have been in violation of the law, because the law required 2 or 3 witnesses and also the man to be present right along with the women, that was not done, so there was no charge according to the law.
Yes, His proper interpretation was that these laws were not followed.
Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
Leviticus 10:10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
The "witness" said they were caught in the act, where was the man? Not brought, that was the trap. They werent following the law and wanted Christ not to follow it either.
He wasn't brought, because they didnt follow the law and thats how they wanted to trap Christ and Christ put it right back on them when He said the one without sin cast the first stone, the witnesses were breaking the law, hence in sin.
Since they left, there was no longer a way to establish guilt which required the testimony of 2 or 3, and would have also required the other party (the man) to be there, so guilt was not established, hence she was not guilty under the law.
To be acurate, He couldnt condemn her under the law since the witnesses testimony wasnt there and the man wasnt brought, guilt had not been established.
yes, because the "witnesses" didnt bring the man, hence they did not follow the law and were sinning themselves.
If He had done so, He would have been in violation of the law, because the law required 2 or 3 witnesses and also the man to be present right along with the women, that was not done, so there was no charge according to the law.
Yes, His proper interpretation was that these laws were not followed.
Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
Leviticus 10:10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
The "witness" said they were caught in the act, where was the man? Not brought, that was the trap. They werent following the law and wanted Christ not to follow it either.
He wasn't brought, because they didnt follow the law and thats how they wanted to trap Christ and Christ put it right back on them when He said the one without sin cast the first stone, the witnesses were breaking the law, hence in sin.
Since they left, there was no longer a way to establish guilt which required the testimony of 2 or 3, and would have also required the other party (the man) to be there, so guilt was not established, hence she was not guilty under the law.
Its basically like you get pulled over and a cop searches your car illegally and anything found is thrown out, because the law was broken by the unlawful search. Due to that, no law violation could be established.
And he said a parent should have their child executed who strikes them. By the way, where was the man caught in adultery?
Leviticus 20:10
10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
You mean like how you want to get with a goat like muslims do? Man and woman produces life. No other version does. In fact, research shows man and man produces death (not life) at astonishing rates. But you keep on pushing it. In fact, I beg you to keep pushing them to sodomize each other. Then we will be rid of them.
Last I checked "fornicate with a goat" wasn't on my Sunday to-do list.
"No other version"? What do you have, a twelve-year-old's mentality when it comes to sex? "Man and woman produces life"? You're seriously regressing. Frankly, you sound a little retarded right now.