Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[alwight]

In Part 2, on page 204, post #3047 I talked about how the homosexual movement is reinterpreting/redefining Scripture to meet it's selfish perverted desires, and attached the link to the website "Gay Christian Movement Watch"

For most people I'd say that "talking about" is about more than just transmitting anti gay propaganda while ignoring reasoned contributions made by those without your particular suspiciously over-enthusiastic cause and purpose aCW.lain:

Without further adieu, here are [edit] 8 quotes from "TOL Homosexualist Christian Movement Watch List" :

Is this all simply a final, if long winded, goodbye aCW, say it's not so. :shocked:

 

[Nazaroo]

I am surprised that aCW did not quote me among the supporters of consentual sex.

Of course when I say consentual I actually mean it.

This sarcastic poster ought to make clear who's consent is missing from the equation:

 

[Nazaroo]

While Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter does seem to be very comfortable around the gay boyz, he is married (to a woman even!), just ask Vice President Joe Biden who as seen here, is pawing at his wife.

Don't go calling me biased TB, I show dirty old men like Home Depot Joe every chance that I get.

Wow I was surprised at the actual open boob grab. thats capital Smarmy

 

[Arthur Brain]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Oh but TracerBullet, the jack booted thugs of the LGBTQueer movement claim a trophy every day, here's their latest:

Ohio factory worker fired for recommending Christian movie to lesbian co-worker





How come you never give credit to the LGBTQueer source that you copy and paste from?

It just so happens that the full version of "Audacity" is free on the internet and I just finished watching the movie, which shows nothing but love towards sexually confused people who engage in homosexuality.



1 hour, share it with your friends.

Well, I managed about half an hour of this "movie" before the cringe factor got too much.

To be fair I wasn't expecting the acting to be up to much which is just as well because it isn't. The less said about the script the better. In fact the 'storyline' is little more than an excuse to show a lot of Ray Comfort "interviews" which as usual are very obviously and badly edited.

The 'story' as far I got. Man talks with woman. Man's Christianity is revealed. Woman goes on rant about his 'audacity' even though he isn't preaching. Man goes out to do delivery job. While in elevator two young lesbians about to get married talk to him. Man thinks about witnessing to them then changes his mind. Women get off elevator which then bizarrely breaks down. Man phones for help, is able to get off it and told by operative to stay by elevator as anyone else using it will likely die. Man says he can't as he has to make a delivery so he puts a danger notice on the door. A creepy dude walks to the lift and removes the danger sign and the two young lesbians get in elevator and plummet to their death.

It transpires that this is all the mans dream who then goes online to find out 'how to witness to homosexuals'. Cue footage of Ray Comfort 'interviews' etc. Man goes in store which is held up by gunman. Gunman takes woman hostage when police surround building. Man becomes 'hero of the hour' by walking up behind gunman and disabling him by hitting him on head with a tin of peas or something. Then I stopped watching...

I presume the whole elevator/dream thing was supposedly metaphor for the young women going to 'hell' because he didn't witness to them. Surely they would have turned straight on the spot if he had...lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, thought I may as well subject myself to the other twenty minutes or so and it did not get better. Woman friend of 'hero' man is watching Ray Comfort 'interviews' which now pretty much consist of Comfort talking and everyone saying "Yes, that makes sense" or some such. Man is invited by gay couple for a meal to say thanks. One goes ballistic when he says he's a Christian, leaves and the other one wants to hear his 'message'. Second gay man leaves with Christian pamphlets. Woman friend drives off to attend a family crisis and runs out of gas right on some train tracks without realizing it. Psychopathic looking man starts hollering at her from outside the car. She screams, man breaks window and drags her out the car just before a train slams into it. Cut to answer message on Man's phone where woman says she's thought more about his belief. Man visits her in hospital with flowers while news story runs in background about how she mistook her saviour for an enemy - cue end credits and exhortations to share the film with other people along with study guides for it.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Regarding the photo of Vice President Joe Biden manhandling Mrs. Ashton Carter:

Wow I was surprised at the actual open boob grab. thats capital Smarmy

In all fairness to Home Depot Joe, part of the photo was altered. The original picture showed both of his hands on her shoulders and if you notice in the picture that I posted, he's wearing boxer shorts.

 

[alwight]

Wot, no spoiler alert AB? :IA:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Wot, no spoiler alert AB? :IA:

Eh, pretty hard to "spoil" this 'film'...

 

[alwight]

Regarding the photo of Vice President Joe Biden manhandling Mrs. Ashton Carter:



In all fairness to Home Depot Joe, part of the photo was altered. The original picture showed both of his hands on her shoulders and if you notice in the picture that I posted, he's wearing boxer shorts.

I'm sure Naz wasn't really fooled, he can always spot phoney evidence I've noticed.lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Regarding the movie "Audacity" :

Well, I managed about half an hour of this "movie" before the cringe factor got too much.

If you watched the first half hour Art, you might as well watch the rest (it's another half hour).

To be fair I wasn't expecting the acting to be up to much which is just as well because it isn't. The less said about the script the better.

Anderson Cooper and Ellen DeGeneres were originally offered the main character roles, but turned them down due to other commitments.

In fact the 'storyline' is little more than an excuse to show a lot of Ray Comfort "interviews" which as usual are very obviously and badly edited.

Yeah, I was wondering why so many proud and unrepentant homosexuals that he interviewed acted respectful towards Comfort. In reality some would have verbally and even possibly physically assaulted him for having the "audacity" to question their immoral lifestyle.

The 'story' as far I got. Man talks with woman. Man's Christianity is revealed. Woman goes on rant about his 'audacity' even though he isn't preaching. Man goes out to do delivery job. While in elevator two young lesbians about to get married talk to him. Man thinks about witnessing to them then changes his mind. Women get off elevator which then bizarrely breaks down. Man phones for help, is able to get off it and told by operative to stay by elevator as anyone else using it will likely die. Man says he can't as he has to make a delivery so he puts a danger notice on the door. A creepy dude walks to the lift and removes the danger sign and the two young lesbians get in elevator and plummet to their death.

Didn't you figure out that the "creepy dude" was Satan?

It transpires that this is all the mans dream who then goes online to find out 'how to witness to homosexuals'. Cue footage of Ray Comfort 'interviews' etc. Man goes in store which is held up by gunman. Gunman takes woman hostage when police surround building. Man becomes 'hero of the hour' by walking up behind gunman and disabling him by hitting him on head with a tin of peas or something. Then I stopped watching...

You either missed or are neglecting to mention a major part of the armed robbery in the convenience store.

All of the customers in the store were told to get face down on the ground, including two homosexual males that were holding hands while they were in the prone position. The drug addicted armed robber put his gun to the back of the head of one of the men and the main character (Peter, played by actor Travis Owens) knowing full well that they were homosexual, offered to give his life in place of theirs.

If you don't get the meaning behind that act, you haven't been paying attention to any of the "Christ died for your sins" threads here on TOL.

I presume the whole elevator/dream thing was supposedly metaphor for the young women going to 'hell' because he didn't witness to them. Surely they would have turned straight on the spot if he had...lain:

Watch the rest of the movie. Two people who are openly homosexual are open minded to changing their immoral ways because of Peter's love and kindness towards them.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Well, thought I may as well subject myself to the other twenty minutes or so and it did not get better.

The desire to know the Truth drew you back to finish watching the movie.

Woman friend of 'hero' man is watching Ray Comfort 'interviews' which now pretty much consist of Comfort talking and everyone saying "Yes, that makes sense" or some such. Man is invited by gay couple for a meal to say thanks. One goes ballistic when he says he's a Christian, leaves and the other one wants to hear his 'message'. Second gay man leaves with Christian pamphlets. Woman friend drives off to attend a family crisis and runs out of gas right on some train tracks without realizing it. Psychopathic looking man starts hollering at her from outside the car. She screams, man breaks window and drags her out the car just before a train slams into it. Cut to answer message on Man's phone where woman says she's thought more about his belief. Man visits her in hospital with flowers while news story runs in background about how she mistook her saviour for an enemy - cue end credits and exhortations to share the film with other people along with study guides for it.

The main female character (Diana, played by actress Molly Ritter) was (unbeknownst to the viewer) stranded in her car on a railroad track with a train coming. The viewer was under the impression that the hitchhiking man (who looked like an ex con), was going to rob her or worse, but it turned out that he saved her life by breaking the window of her car and pulling her to safety.

It was revealed at the end of the movie that Diana was in a lesbian relationship. Had the man not saved her life, she would have died without repenting her sins and accepting Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.

I loved the messages that the movie brought out, it's just a matter of thinking about the scenes in the correct perspective.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you watched the first half hour Art, you might as well watch the rest (it's another half hour).

I have if you scroll back.

Anderson Cooper and Ellen DeGeneres were originally offered the main character roles, but turned them down due to other commitments.

Presumably that's a "joke".

Yeah, I was wondering why so many proud and unrepentant homosexuals that he interviewed acted respectful towards Comfort. In reality some would have verbally and even possibly physically assaulted him for having the "audacity" to question their immoral lifestyle.

Gee, maybe it's because most homosexuals aren't the rabid cussing monsters you'd have them to be? Considering that Comfort is selective where it comes to his editing then why would he not include those that would have cussed him out? After all, he could have beeped out the profanity.

Didn't you figure out that the "creepy dude" was Satan?

Well it was either that or Donald Trump. In other words: :duh:

You either missed or are neglecting to mention a major part of the armed robbery in the convenience store.

All of the customers in the store were told to get face down on the ground, including two homosexual males that were holding hands while they were in the prone position. The drug addicted armed robber put his gun to the back of the head of one of the men and the main character (Peter, played by actor Travis Owens) knowing full well that they were homosexual, offered to give his life in place of theirs.

If you don't get the meaning behind that act, you haven't been paying attention to any of the "Christ died for your sins" threads here on TOL.

Hmm, so the only reason he did that was because the two men were gay? He wouldn't have done so otherwise?

Watch the rest of the movie. Two people who are openly homosexual are open minded to changing their immoral ways because of Peter's love and kindness towards them.

I remember seeing one who was unconvincingly interested while his partner stormed off. Who was the second? Granted, Peter is certainly a lot more amenable in the film than someone such as yourself but if you think this "film" is reflective of reality then you're on drugs.

EDIT: I can only presume you're referring to the Diana character although her lesbianism is hardly 'open' and only revealed at the end.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The desire to know the Truth drew you back to finish watching the movie.

Er, no, it was more morbid curiosity.

The main female character (Diana, played by actress Molly Ritter) was (unbeknownst to the viewer) stranded in her car on a railroad track with a train coming. The viewer was under the impression that the hitchhiking man (who looked like an ex con), was going to rob her or worse, but it turned out that he saved her life by breaking the window of her car and pulling her to safety.

Yes, we have that scene right at the start of the movie and then clarified at the end. It certainly wasn't afraid to play with clichés and stereotypes.

It was revealed at the end of the movie that Diana was in a lesbian relationship. Had the man not saved her life, she would have died without repenting her sins and accepting Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.

I loved the messages that the movie brought out, it's just a matter of thinking about the scenes in the correct perspective.

But of course she's all contrite and gushingly apologetic towards Peter, and presumably ends her relationship and magically turns straight?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The desire to know the Truth drew you back to finish watching the movie.



The main female character (Diana, played by actress Molly Ritter) was (unbeknownst to the viewer) stranded in her car on a railroad track with a train coming. The viewer was under the impression that the hitchhiking man (who looked like an ex con), was going to rob her or worse, but it turned out that he saved her life by breaking the window of her car and pulling her to safety.

It was revealed at the end of the movie that Diana was in a lesbian relationship. Had the man not saved her life, she would have died without repenting her sins and accepting Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.

I loved the messages that the movie brought out, it's just a matter of thinking about the scenes in the correct perspective.

Okay, to be fair let's just recap this movie. It begins with an as yet unbeknown woman (Diana) stranded in a car (it being on a set of train tracks also unbeknown) and some burly angry looking guy hollering at her incoherently and then smashing the passenger side window in with a rock.

So far this is fodder for any bargain basement stalk/slash horror flick.

Cut to main guy protagonist (Peter) who just happens to have a bizarre dream about not only Diana going off at him for being Christian but how his failure to witness to a young lesbian couple results in them having a fast track elevator ride to "hell". Let's just disregard all the Ray Comfort promotional stuff and stick to the "story". Peter goes to a store that just so happens to be held up by a gunman. He tries to talk the gunman out of doing anything stupid and offers his own life when the gunman threatens all and sundry. When the building is surrounded by police and the gunman takes a woman hostage outside it suddenly appears to be a good idea to walk about behind the guy and crack him on the head with a tin of vegetables (that conveniently fell earlier) while he has a gun to the womans head.

Now...I don't think any cop in the world would recommend that as a wise course of action but I digress. In the middle of this fracas, Peter's friend's are aware of this (including Diana who has been encouraged to pray for Peter) and then the scene cuts to varying text photos of Peter being hero, bad guy looking sullen in cop car being carted off etc.

Next thing, Peter is being invited by the gay male couple for a meal because of his heroics etc, one goes ballistic, the other one listens and the rest has pretty much been covered: Diana is a lesbian who has the complete misfortune to break down on a set of train tracks but has the good fortune to be rescued by Norman Bates' twin brother before Amtrak's rogue freight train smashes into her Toyota or whatever car it was...then apparently relinquishes all love to her partner and turns completely heterosexual because she realizes her homosexuality was a sin.

On a rating of 0-1 I consider 0 to be quite complimentary, and as such award it -4.

To be fair that's still too high so -9.

Hmm, actually the film didn't portray homosexuals as slobbering monsters or predators of children so maybe -4 is rather more fair.

What say you aCW? Was Diana a bit too 'normal' for you considering how you generalize lesbians as 'butch' and the men as 'faggots'? Does Diana's character in the film have anything to do with promoting a "gay agenda" as such or just being a person who wants to live her life without infringing on others'? After all, she certainly doesn't flaunt her orientation throughout the film and neither do the gay men have an agenda to push. They just have relationships.

No doubt you'll have a fascinating response to this...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you watched the first half hour Art, you might as well watch the rest (it's another half hour).

I have if you scroll back.

You wrote that post while I was responding to the one before that.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Anderson Cooper and Ellen DeGeneres were originally offered the main character roles, but turned them down due to other commitments.

Presumably that's a "joke".

I prefer the word "sarcasm" over joke.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Yeah, I was wondering why so many proud and unrepentant homosexuals that he interviewed acted respectful towards Comfort. In reality some would have verbally and even possibly physically assaulted him for having the "audacity" to question their immoral lifestyle.

Gee, maybe it's because most homosexuals aren't the rabid cussing monsters you'd have them to be?

Yeah, we've seen how tolerant and understanding homosexuals have been when they didn't get their way (people of faith are fined, lose their jobs, are sent to jail and are subjected to all kinds of death threats for speaking up and defending God's Word).

Considering that Comfort is selective where it comes to his editing then why would he not include those that would have cussed him out? After all, he could have beeped out the profanity.

I can only speculate that Ray Comfort only included those that had an open mind and were willing to (at least on film) consider beginning a relationship with Jesus Christ, after all, what purpose would it have served to show those that weren't?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Didn't you figure out that the "creepy dude" was Satan?

Well it was either that or Donald Trump. In other words: [duh]

Then we both agree that Satan wanted the two lesbians in the elevator to die before they had an opportunity to repent their sins?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You either missed or are neglecting to mention a major part of the armed robbery in the convenience store.

All of the customers in the store were told to get face down on the ground, including two homosexual males that were holding hands while they were in the prone position. The drug addicted armed robber put his gun to the back of the head of one of the men and the main character (Peter, played by actor Travis Owens) knowing full well that they were homosexual, offered to give his life in place of theirs.

If you don't get the meaning behind that act, you haven't been paying attention to any of the "Christ died for your sins" threads here on TOL.

Hmm, so the only reason he did that was because the two men were gay? He wouldn't have done so otherwise?

Peter had made reference in the movie that he will spend eternity with God. While he didn't want to die, he didn't want two people who obviously hadn't repented their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to die and spend eternity in damnation.

This verse from Scripture comes to mind:

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.
John 15:13

Considering Peter was willing to lay down his life for two complete strangers...

Wow, now that's love.

Quote:
Watch the rest of the movie. Two people who are openly homosexual are open minded to changing their immoral ways because of Peter's love and kindness towards them.

I remember seeing one who was unconvincingly interested while his partner stormed off. Who was the second? Granted, Peter is certainly a lot more amenable in the film than someone such as yourself but if you think this "film" is reflective of reality then you're on drugs.

EDIT: I can only presume you're referring to the Diana character although her lesbianism is hardly 'open' and only revealed at the end.

Yes, the 2nd person was Diana who unbeknownst to Peter at the time they were talking about repentance and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, was a lesbian.

Back later with more responses to your posts.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The desire to know the Truth drew you back to finish watching the movie.

Er, no, it was more morbid curiosity.

Call it what you want, but at least you viewed the entire movie and are here discussing it with me.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The main female character (Diana, played by actress Molly Ritter) was (unbeknownst to the viewer) stranded in her car on a railroad track with a train coming. The viewer was under the impression that the hitchhiking man (who looked like an ex con), was going to rob her or worse, but it turned out that he saved her life by breaking the window of her car and pulling her to safety.

Yes, we have that scene right at the start of the movie and then clarified at the end. It certainly wasn't afraid to play with clichés and stereotypes.

What clichés and stereotypes are you talking about, the hitchhiker? If so, make your case.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It was revealed at the end of the movie that Diana was in a lesbian relationship. Had the man not saved her life, she would have died without repenting her sins and accepting Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.

I loved the messages that the movie brought out, it's just a matter of thinking about the scenes in the correct perspective.

But of course she's all contrite and gushingly apologetic towards Peter, and presumably ends her relationship and magically turns straight?

There must have been some questions lingering in Diana's mind (perhaps her homosexual relationship wasn't as happy as she expected it to be) in order for her to even consider change.

Back later with a response to your last post.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Okay, to be fair let's just recap this movie. It begins with an as yet unbeknown woman (Diana) stranded in a car (it being on a set of train tracks also unbeknown) and some burly angry looking guy hollering at her incoherently and then smashing the passenger side window in with a rock.

So far this is fodder for any bargain basement stalk/slash horror flick.

You have to admit Art that the viewer had no idea what the true meaning of the opening scene was about.

Cut to main guy protagonist (Peter) who just happens to have a bizarre dream about not only Diana going off at him for being Christian but how his failure to witness to a young lesbian couple results in them having a fast track elevator ride to "hell". Let's just disregard all the Ray Comfort promotional stuff and stick to the "story". Peter goes to a store that just so happens to be held up by a gunman. He tries to talk the gunman out of doing anything stupid and offers his own life when the gunman threatens all and sundry. When the building is surrounded by police and the gunman takes a woman hostage outside it suddenly appears to be a good idea to walk about behind the guy and crack him on the head with a tin of vegetables (that conveniently fell earlier) while he has a gun to the womans head.

Now...I don't think any cop in the world would recommend that as a wise course of action but I digress. In the middle of this fracas, Peter's friend's are aware of this (including Diana who has been encouraged to pray for Peter) and then the scene cuts to varying text photos of Peter being hero, bad guy looking sullen in cop car being carted off etc.

Next thing, Peter is being invited by the gay male couple for a meal because of his heroics etc, one goes ballistic, the other one listens and the rest has pretty much been covered: Diana is a lesbian who has the complete misfortune to break down on a set of train tracks but has the good fortune to be rescued by Norman Bates' twin brother before Amtrak's rogue freight train smashes into her Toyota or whatever car it was...then apparently relinquishes all love to her partner and turns completely heterosexual because she realizes her homosexuality was a sin.

On a rating of 0-1 I consider 0 to be quite complimentary, and as such award it -4.

To be fair that's still too high so -9.

Hmm, actually the film didn't portray homosexuals as slobbering monsters or predators of children so maybe -4 is rather more fair.

Wouldn't you agree that the theme of the movie is that unrepentant sinners (in this case two homosexual males and one homosexual female) were given a 2nd chance at life due to the compassion of two people they'd never met before? (the main character Peter and the "angry looking burly hollering guy").

Would you agree that many sinners die without being given that 2nd chance like the two homosexual males and Diana the lesbian were given?

What say you aCW? Was Diana a bit too 'normal' for you considering how you generalize lesbians as 'butch' and the men as 'faggots'? Does Diana's character in the film have anything to do with promoting a "gay agenda" as such or just being a person who wants to live her life without infringing on others'? After all, she certainly doesn't flaunt her orientation throughout the film and neither do the gay men have an agenda to push. They just have relationships.

No doubt you'll have a fascinating response to this...

One has to keep in mind that the theme of this movie was how to witness to openly homosexual (and non-believing) people. While some sinners prefer to be talked to in a soft gentle voice, others prefer that cold slap in the face.

Thanks, I needed that!

Remember that Jesus didn't speak kindly to all lost souls, as seen in Bob Enyart's "Nicer than God" article.

"The Bible sometimes ministers through ridicule, humor, sarcasm, name-calling, and even mocking."
http://kgov.com/nicer-than-God

That doesn't mean that the unrepentant sinner is not loved.

It would have been interesting to see what the response to Ray Comfort would have been had the theme of his movie been "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!", showing what the righteous role of government is, and what happens when government doesn't fulfill that huge moral responsibility (children are indoctrinated to the ways of sexual perversion, parental rights are stolen away from loving parents, invaluable institutions are redefined by immoral people, religious (i.e. Christian) liberty is denied to those who are followers of Christ, disease runs rampant amongst those who engage in homosexual behavior, etc. etc. etc.

Thoughts?

 

[alwight]

It would have been interesting to see what the response to Ray Comfort would have been had the theme of his movie been "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!", showing what the righteous role of government is, and what happens when government doesn't fulfill that huge moral responsibility (children are indoctrinated to the ways of sexual perversion, parental rights are stolen away from loving parents, invaluable institutions are redefined by immoral people, religious (i.e. Christian) liberty is denied to those who are followers of Christ, disease runs rampant amongst those who engage in homosexual behavior, etc. etc. etc.

Thoughts?

In essence aCW you and presumably Ray "Banana Man" Comfort are arguing for is the imposition of theocratic law, to supersede democratic secular law.
That secular society's laws must defer to Christian "law" because those like you say it must and because you deem it to be God's law.
Do you at least understand how many secular people, even many Christians, would conclude that you are being arrogant, dictatorial and controlling, and that you don't actually represent God on Earth, you only represent you? :nono:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

In response to Art Brain's earlier posts, aCW writes:


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It would have been interesting to see what the response to Ray Comfort would have been had the theme of his movie been "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!", showing what the righteous role of government is, and what happens when government doesn't fulfill that huge moral responsibility (children are indoctrinated to the ways of sexual perversion, parental rights are stolen away from loving parents, invaluable institutions are redefined by immoral people, religious (i.e. Christian) liberty is denied to those who are followers of Christ, disease runs rampant amongst those who engage in homosexual behavior, etc. etc. etc.

Thoughts?

In essence aCW you and presumably Ray "Banana Man" Comfort are arguing for is the imposition of theocratic law, to supersede democratic secular law.

It's interesting to note that you believe that Ray Comfort, because he wanted to share the love of Christ with unrepentant sinners, is for some kind of "theocratic law".

As far as my 4 part thread goes: Where does it say that in order to have righteous laws that there must be a state sanctioned religion? (which a theocracy is).

Granted, those laws come from Judeo/Christian doctrine, but as I've mentioned many times before, there is no way that anyone can be "forced" to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (encouraged, but not forced).

That secular society's laws must defer to Christian "law" because those like you say it must and because you deem it to be God's law.
Do you at least understand how many secular people, even many Christians, would conclude that you are being arrogant, dictatorial and controlling, and that you don't actually represent God on Earth, you only represent you? :nono:

Currently only you (someone who isn't sure if he's an atheist or eggnostic), let others speak for themselves.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, we've seen how tolerant and understanding homosexuals have been when they didn't get their way (people of faith are fined, lose their jobs, are sent to jail and are subjected to all kinds of death threats for speaking up and defending God's Word).

This is just you trying to vilify a group of people based on orientation alone. One thing the film does get right is that homosexual people are just the same as people in general. Diana isn't a sexual anarchist, she's just a regular person who happens to be gay.

I can only speculate that Ray Comfort only included those that had an open mind and were willing to (at least on film) consider beginning a relationship with Jesus Christ, after all, what purpose would it have served to show those that weren't?

It would have been more representative for a start. Selective editing is far from impressive and Comfort is notorious for it.

Then we both agree that Satan wanted the two lesbians in the elevator to die before they had an opportunity to repent their sins?

That would seem to be the crude story narrative yes.

All of the customers in the store were told to get face down on the ground, including two homosexual males that were holding hands while they were in the prone position. The drug addicted armed robber put his gun to the back of the head of one of the men and the main character (Peter, played by actor Travis Owens) knowing full well that they were homosexual, offered to give his life in place of theirs.

If you don't get the meaning behind that act, you haven't been paying attention to any of the "Christ died for your sins" threads here on TOL.

Peter had made reference in the movie that he will spend eternity with God. While he didn't want to die, he didn't want two people who obviously hadn't repented their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to die and spend eternity in damnation.

This verse from Scripture comes to mind:

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.
John 15:13

Considering Peter was willing to lay down his life for two complete strangers...

Wow, now that's love.

I would laud anyone who committed a brave and selfless act for the sake of others. I don't believe that people are condemned to your version of "hell" simply for being gay.

Yes, the 2nd person was Diana who unbeknownst to Peter at the time they were talking about repentance and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, was a lesbian.

Back later with more responses to your posts.

And still would be afterwards and hardly a monster because of it. You think in a sequel she'd have become straight?