Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[Arthur Brain]

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

Well, it would be only fair to criticize the thing after watching it fully, but my reasons for doing so had nothing to do with expecting any 'truth' from it. It merely confirmed the expectations I had before actually watching it.

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

Helpless woman stranded in car out of gas. Threatening looking man acting threatening. Those are standard clichés in low budget stalk/slash horror and subverting those is not exactly original either. It was hardly a huge surprise that the man wasn't a psycho at the end of the film given its overall context frankly.

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

The "correct" perspective presumably being yours?

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.

Sure didn't look that way given the brief visual insights the film gives. A heart shaped pendant with a picture of the two of them, a photograph of Diana and her partner looking happy in a photo with 'forever love' written on it. There's nothing whatsoever shown to even hint that Diana is in an unhappy relationship.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

Well of course they wouldn't. Heck, even Diana herself has no idea she's parked on a train track (bizarrely).

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?

I'd say that the movie tries to portray homosexuals as such even if it doesn't vilify such people to the extent that you do. As expected it was pretty much a Comfort centred piece of religious propaganda.

In regards to your latter then what about the fate of those who don't have such 'good Samaritans' like Peter? Just luck of the draw?

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.

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?

What do you suppose would have been the response of those 'interviewed' by Comfort had he called them faggots and dykes? You think they'd have been receptive to him at all? Of course they wouldn't and you know that. You're simply trying to justify your own antics and as much as I don't particularly respect Comfort I reckon that if he were to peruse your ongoing thread he'd be appalled at how you talk to people, much like LMOHM has rebuked you for.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

Er, foggy memory much? It's hardly just alwight, it's most people just on this forum alone.

:freak:

 

[alwight]

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".

He might not admit that but instead would probably like to selectively enter individual theocratic laws into secular society rather as you do here in this thread.

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).

I see a theocracy more as a state run by a religion, rather like Sharia law does in Islamic states. They too decide what they think is righteous and then enforce it regardless of how individuals themselves feel about it.
So who should decide what is actually righteous, you?
Don't bother to tell me that God decides unless you can explain exactly how we mere mortals can know what that 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).

Yes, but they can still be criminalised apparently.

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

But I know exactly what I am aCW, I've never wavered, but I note that you would still rather like to be considered as God's bullhorn representative on Earth.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
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.

If my above statement isn't true, refute it.

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.

By God's standards Diana was a sexual anarchist, who without repenting her sins and accepting Christ as her Savior, would spend eternity in damnation.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
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.

I thought that the homosexual in the restaurant scene who was really angry at God represented the vast majority of proud and unrepentant homosexuals who were not portrayed in the movie.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
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.

Would it have helped Art if he had some horns sticking out of his head?

(But then Art would complain that they "stereotyped" Satan).


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

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.

Yet in the movie Peter the Christian was the only one to do so, and I explained his selfless reason.

I don't believe that people are condemned to your version of "hell" simply for being gay.

Your pagan opinion on failing to repent and eternal damnation is duly noted Art.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
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...

And still would be afterwards and hardly a monster because of it...

Why does it bother you so that many people who engage in homosexual behavior want to change Art?

 

[Arthur Brain]

If my above statement isn't true, refute it.

Even your beloved "movie" doesn't represent gay people as you do but rather regular folk who you wouldn't even know were homosexual. Got any idea how many times you'll have interacted in some way with a gay person and not even had an inkling?

By God's standards Diana was a sexual anarchist, who without repenting her sins and accepting Christ as her Savior, would spend eternity in damnation.

It would seem to be rather by your standards as your fixation has shown throughout your tenure here. In the film she's simply a person who happens to be gay and in a happy relationship. Not someone who goes around creating havoc etc etc.

I thought that the homosexual in the restaurant scene who was really angry at God represented the vast majority of proud and unrepentant homosexuals who were not portrayed in the movie.

A contrived and not a particularly convincing scene as with most of the film. It would have been more effective had Peter actually said that he believed that homosexuals burned in hell before the guy went on his diatribe. Furthermore, it would be obvious that most people would be angry at such a doctrine and ignorance rather than it being a case of "hating God".

Would it have helped Art if he had some horns sticking out of his head?

No, it would have helped had the whole clunky, ill written scene been left out altogether.

Yet in the movie Peter the Christian was the only one to do so, and I explained his selfless reason.

Well a non Christian doing so would hardly have fitted the films agenda though there's plenty of cases of "heathens" committing heroic acts.

Your pagan opinion on failing to repent and eternal damnation is duly noted Art.

Your one dimensional fundamentalist interpretation is noted just as much.

Why does it bother you so that many people who engage in homosexual behavior want to change Art?

Why does it bother you that some people are just gay and have no say in it?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Call it what you want, but at least you viewed the entire movie and are here discussing it with me.

Well, it would be only fair to criticize the thing after watching it fully, but my reasons for doing so had nothing to do with expecting any 'truth' from it. It merely confirmed the expectations I had before actually watching it.

The seed has been planted.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
What clichés and stereotypes are you talking about, the hitchhiker? If so, make your case.

Helpless woman stranded in car out of gas. Threatening looking man acting threatening. Those are standard clichés in low budget stalk/slash horror and subverting those is not exactly original either. It was hardly a huge surprise that the man wasn't a psycho at the end of the film given its overall context frankly.

You act as if those things don't happen all too frequently in real life Art.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I loved the messages that the movie brought out, it's just a matter of thinking about the scenes in the correct perspective.

The "correct" perspective presumably being yours?

Ray Comfort and the people who worked with him making the movie. Correct me if my perspective is skewed.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
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.

Sure didn't look that way given the brief visual insights the film gives. A heart shaped pendant with a picture of the two of them, a photograph of Diana and her partner looking happy in a photo with 'forever love' written on it. There's nothing whatsoever shown to even hint that Diana is in an unhappy relationship.

While it wasn't known that Diana was a lesbian until the very end of the movie, throughout the movie she showed a very keen interest in Christianity.

Diana knew in her heart that her homosexual relationship was wrong and intended to find a way out of it through Jesus Christ.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The seed has been planted.

The seed of cynicism was already there. This "film" merely watered it further.

You act as if those things don't happen all too frequently in real life Art.

Unfortunately they do although that's besides my point in regards to the 'film'.

Ray Comfort and the people who worked with him making the movie. Correct me if my perspective is skewed.

Your perspective on gay people has been shown to be skewed time and again.

While it wasn't known that Diana was a lesbian until the very end of the movie, throughout the movie she showed a very keen interest in Christianity.

Diana knew in her heart that her homosexual relationship was wrong and intended to find a way out of it through Jesus Christ.

In a completely unconvincing and poorly contrived manner then the film does 'manage' that sure. Realistically she's a person who just happens to be gay and in a happy relationship, like plenty others in real life.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
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").

I'd say that the movie tries to portray homosexuals as such even if it doesn't vilify such people to the extent that you do. As expected it was pretty much a Comfort centred piece of religious propaganda.

Yes, the theme of the movie is based on that "religious propaganda" known as Christianity. You could have easily played the angry anti-Christian man in the restaurant Art (if there is a sequel, you'd without a doubt get the part).

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarior
Would you agree that many sinners die without being given that 2nd chance like the two homosexual males and Diana the lesbian were given?

In regards to your latter then what about the fate of those who don't have such 'good Samaritans' like Peter? Just luck of the draw?

The point was that not everyone is given a 2nd chance when it comes to repentance and eternal life.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
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.

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?

What do you suppose would have been the response of those 'interviewed' by Comfort had he called them faggots and dykes? You think they'd have been receptive to him at all?

I've seen the inbreds of the Westborough Baptist Church in action here in Seattle and converting people to Christianity through their message isn't their forte'.

Of course they wouldn't and you know that. You're simply trying to justify your own antics and as much as I don't particularly respect Comfort I reckon that if he were to peruse your ongoing thread he'd be appalled at how you talk to people, much like LMOHM has rebuked you for.

We've seen the out and out HATRED that a great many homosexuals have towards Christians because Judeo-Christian doctrine doesn't accept homosexuality as sinless.

That being said: If homosexuality were criminalized, Ray Comfort wouldn't have to make a movie like this, as legislation would make certain that these proud and unrepentant sinners would get the help that they so desperately need while at the same time the behavior would go back into the closet where all sins belong.

Again, thanks for taking time to view the movie "Audacity" and give your thoughts on the film.

I'll pray that the seed planted inside your mind and heart is allowed to grow.

Moving on...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, the theme of the movie is based on that "religious propaganda" known as Christianity. You could have easily played the angry anti-Christian man in the restaurant Art (if there is a sequel, you'd without a doubt get the part).

No, it's based on a certain form of fundamentalism that doesn't encapsulate Christianity in general. I'd have no interest in playing such a cardboard character with a badly written script as I'm neither anti Christian or gay.

The point was that not everyone is given a 2nd chance when it comes to repentance and eternal life.

So it is just luck of the draw then? Nice.

I've seen the inbreds of the Westborough Baptist Church in action here in Seattle and converting people to Christianity through their message isn't their forte'.

It's not yours by any stretch either. In fact you do an 'astounding' job of uniting people of all sorts of affiliations/beliefs in taking issue with your "approach". So once again, do you think that Comfort would be impressed with the way you refer to homosexuals as 'faggots' and 'dykes' along with your innuendo towards people that aren't even gay? Is that what "love" does aCW?

We've seen the out and out HATRED that a great many homosexuals have towards Christians because Judeo-Christian doctrine doesn't accept homosexuality as sinless.

I rather suspect it's only towards those who would force them back into the closet on pain of death or incarceration.

That being said: If homosexuality were criminalized, Ray Comfort wouldn't have to make a movie like this, as legislation would make certain that these proud and unrepentant sinners would get the help that they so desperately need while at the same time the behavior would go back into the closet where all sins belong.

Because of course oppressing people never results in any sort of uprising does it? Suffragette movement? Your idea of "help" is akin to a religious tyranny.

Again, thanks for taking time to view the movie "Audacity" and give your thoughts on the film.

I'll pray that the seed planted inside your mind and heart is allowed to grow.

Moving on...

You're welcome, although if you think a seed is 'planted' by viewing a piece of fourth rate amateurish trash - and essentially a vehicle for Comfort himself is going to grow any then you're welcome to that thought, but ain't gonna happen.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes, the theme of the movie is based on that "religious propaganda" known as Christianity. You could have easily played the angry anti-Christian man in the restaurant Art (if there is a sequel, you'd without a doubt get the part).

No, it's based on a certain form of fundamentalism that doesn't encapsulate Christianity in general.

So the movie "Audacity" whose theme was repentance of sinful behavior by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior doesn't represent Christianity in general?

I'd have no interest in playing such a cardboard character with a badly written script as I'm neither anti Christian or gay.

Why on earth would anyone ever get an idea that you were either Art?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The point was that not everyone is given a 2nd chance when it comes to repentance and eternal life.

So it is just luck of the draw then? Nice.

It's a wakeup call for many Art, but this alarm clock doesn't always come with a snooze button.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I've seen the inbreds of the Westborough Baptist Church in action here in Seattle and converting people to Christianity through their message isn't their forte'.

It's not yours by any stretch either. In fact you do an 'astounding' job of uniting people of all sorts of affiliations/beliefs in taking issue with your "approach".

While I've never claimed to be a missionary in the sense that I go out and share the gospel with unrepentant sinners (my "missionary work" involves teaching people about the righteous role of civil government), I have done my fair share of showing homosexuals that there is a better way through spiritual and psychological therapy.

So once again, do you think that Comfort would be impressed with the way you refer to homosexuals as 'faggots' and 'dykes' along with your innuendo towards people that aren't even gay? Is that what "love" does aCW?

I would hope that Ray Comfort would acknowledge the important role that God gave civil government and like myself, knows that righteous laws are an act of love, not hate.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
We've seen the out and out HATRED that a great many homosexuals have towards Christians because Judeo-Christian doctrine doesn't accept homosexuality as sinless.

I rather suspect it's only towards those who would force them back into the closet on pain of death or incarceration.

How soon you forget the "tolerance" homosexuals have towards Christians who refuse to bake homosexual 'wedding' cakes, arrange homosexual 'wedding' bouquets, take photos at homosexual 'weddings" or issue a homosexual 'marriage' license.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That being said: If homosexuality were criminalized, Ray Comfort wouldn't have to make a movie like this, as legislation would make certain that these proud and unrepentant sinners would get the help that they so desperately need while at the same time the behavior would go back into the closet where all sins belong.

Because of course oppressing people never results in any sort of uprising does it? Suffragette movement? Your idea of "help" is akin to a religious tyranny.

Righteous legislation, which recriminalizing homosexuality is, only "oppresses" immoral and extremely harmful behavior as well as extinguishing an extremely harmful agenda.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, thanks for taking time to view the movie "Audacity" and give your thoughts on the film.

I'll pray that the seed planted inside your mind and heart is allowed to grow.

Moving on...

You're welcome, although if you think a seed is 'planted' by viewing a piece of fourth rate amateurish trash - and essentially a vehicle for Comfort himself is going to grow any then you're welcome to that thought, but ain't gonna happen.

I hope and pray that you find yourself sitting in front of your computer again and again viewing that "fourth rate amateurish trash" of a movie and realize what Jesus did for you and can do for you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So the movie "Audacity" whose theme was repentance of sinful behavior by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior doesn't represent Christianity in general?

Its 'theme' was homosexuality above all else.

Why on earth would anyone ever get an idea that you were either Art?

No idea. I could care less on either count as I'm neither.

It's a wakeup call for many Art, but this alarm clock doesn't always come with a snooze button.

So, once again, it is just luck of the draw then?

While I've never claimed to be a missionary in the sense that I go out and share the gospel with unrepentant sinners (my "missionary work" involves teaching people about the righteous role of civil government), I have done my fair share of showing homosexuals that there is a better way through spiritual and psychological therapy.

What you've "done" has probably achieved more to alienate people and drive them into that falling elevator in the film aCW if such were real. You know fine well that referring to people as faggots and dykes isn't going to draw anyone but push them away, so what excuse do you have for such pathetic name calling? How is that love? Love may not remain silent but you'd be better off being so. If there is a judgement day then how are you going to fare if people have been driven off because you valued your apparent "mockery" as opposed to the example that Peter showed in the film you admire so much? What excuse do you have for that along with your sexual slurs to those who just happen to disagree with you in general?

I would hope that Ray Comfort would acknowledge the important role that God gave civil government and like myself, knows that righteous laws are an act of love, not hate.

Do you think he'd support your insults and sexual slurs in general?

How soon you forge the "tolerance" homosexuals have towards Christians who refuse to bake homosexual 'wedding' cakes, arrange homosexual 'wedding' bouquets, take photos at homosexual 'weddings" or issue a homosexual 'marriage' license.

Oh cry me a river. These 'martyr' aspects are really getting old.

Righteous legislation, which recriminalizing homosexuality is, only "oppresses" immoral and extremely harmful behavior as well as extinguishing an extremely harmful agenda.

So let me know when you'll be cracking down on tobacco companies etc, else - horse...feathers...

I hope and pray that you find yourself sitting in front of your computer again and again viewing that "fourth rate amateurish trash" of a movie and realize what Jesus did for you and can do for you.

Dude, I'm not in the habit of sitting through crap films if I can avoid it even the once in general. It's safe to say - as audacious as it may appear - that 'Audacity' will not be in my 'to watch list' again any time ever.

:e4e:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So the movie "Audacity" whose theme was repentance of sinful behavior by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior doesn't represent Christianity in general?

Its 'theme' was homosexuality above all else.

A "soft core" theme at that. It's too bad that Ray Comfort didn't show the truth behind homosexual behavior (rampant disease, disorders, early death) and the child indoctrinating-jack booted thug agenda that stomps to the ground anyone that dares to get in their way.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Why on earth would anyone ever get an idea that you were either Art? [anti-Christian or a homosexual].

No idea. I could care less on either count as I'm neither.

I'm baffled that the subject even came up as it's never crossed my mind once that you are a God-hating homosexual.

(cue to the song "Liar liar, pants on fire!").

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It's a wakeup call for many Art, but this alarm clock doesn't always come with a snooze button.

So, once again, it is just luck of the draw then?

I wouldn't put it that way as it sounds like God is playing a game with humanity.
That being said: Wouldn't you agree that people who are given a 2nd chance at life and don't take full advantage of it are fools?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
While I've never claimed to be a missionary in the sense that I go out and share the gospel with unrepentant sinners (my "missionary work" involves teaching people about the righteous role of civil government), I have done my fair share of showing homosexuals that there is a better way through spiritual and psychological therapy.

What you've "done" has probably achieved more to alienate people and drive them into that falling elevator in the film aCW if such were real.

(It's my....

"method"...

not my message).

How about we do a review of two short documentaries and you can show me what these Christians did to "alienate people"?

Chased out of the Castro District

Homosexual violence and crimes in San Francisco

Between the two videos we're talking about 15 minutes of viewing time.

While you're thinking about what these soft spoken Christians did to deserve such HATRED from members of the LGBTQueer so-called "community", ponder on the meaning of these verses said by Jesus:

"You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Matthew 10:22

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."
John 15:18

You know fine well that referring to people as faggots and dykes isn't going to draw anyone but push them away, so what excuse do you have for such pathetic name calling?

Two things that need to be said (again) in all fairness:

1). I only mock proud and unrepentant homosexual activists, not those who are struggling with homosexual desires and youth that have been tricked into believing by LGBTQueer adults that they are 'gay' and were born that way.

2). I frequently use the terms "moral degenerates", "child molesting sexual deviants" and such, so please in your next victimization post do include those terms.

How is that love? Love may not remain silent but you'd be better off being so. If there is a judgement day then how are you going to fare if people have been driven off because you valued your apparent "mockery" as opposed to the example that Peter showed in the film you admire so much? What excuse do you have for that along with your sexual slurs to those who just happen to disagree with you in general?

(Isn't it amazing how atheists and pagans all of the sudden use Christianity when they think that it will benefit their cause?).


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I would hope that Ray Comfort would acknowledge the important role that God gave civil government and like myself, knows that righteous laws are an act of love, not hate.

Do you think he'd support your insults and sexual slurs in general?

Let's ask him that question when the day comes (and it's not far away) when it's illegal for Ray Comfort to make a movie like "Audacity".

That being said: You've shown your HATRED of Ray Comfort even though he's a soft spoken Christian, how could his mockery of proud and unrepentant homosexual activists like I do warrant even more hatred from people like you?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
How soon you forge the "tolerance" homosexuals have towards Christians who refuse to bake homosexual 'wedding' cakes, arrange homosexual 'wedding' bouquets, take photos at homosexual 'weddings" or issue a homosexual 'marriage' license.

Oh cry me a river. These 'martyr' aspects are really getting old.

So much for your earlier statement where you said:

Quote: Originally posted by Arthur Brain

I rather suspect it's [hatred by homosexuals towards Christians] only towards those who would force them back into the closet on pain of death or incarceration.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Righteous legislation, which recriminalizing homosexuality is, only "oppresses" immoral and extremely harmful behavior as well as extinguishing an extremely harmful agenda.

So let me know when you'll be cracking down on tobacco companies etc, else - horse...feathers...

Do you really want to talk about how homosexuals disproportionately smoke cigarettes (some estimates as high as 200% more than heterosexuals)?

BTW Art, how is your nicotine habit coming along?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I hope and pray that you find yourself sitting in front of your computer again and again viewing that "fourth rate amateurish trash" of a movie and realize what Jesus did for you and can do for you.

Dude, I'm not in the habit of sitting through crap films if I can avoid it even the once in general. It's safe to say - as audacious as it may appear - that 'Audacity' will not be in my 'to watch list' again any time ever.

If I didn't know better, based on your last statement alone I'd get the feeling that HATRED is oooozing out every pour in your body.

That being said: I look forward to your new assignment where you'll be pointing out what...

"method"...

soft spoken Christians used to draw the HATRED of LGBTQueer activists.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A "soft core" theme at that. It's too bad that Ray Comfort didn't show the truth behind homosexual behavior (rampant disease, disorders, early death) and the child indoctrinating-jack booted thug agenda that stomps to the ground anyone that dares to get in their way.

Well how about you get some funds together and direct your own magnum opus? Then you can lie and misrepresent a group of people all on your own film. At least Comfort didn't resort to caricaturing people to your ridiculous extent.

I'm baffled that the subject even came up as it's never crossed my mind once that you are a God-hating homosexual.

It seems to cross your pea sized brain that everyone who doesn't conform to your "ideal" is one or the other or both, so that's a bit more lying innuendo to add to the list.

(cue to the song "Liar liar, pants on fire!").

That songs been playing since you started this 'look at me' train wreck.

I wouldn't put it that way as it sounds like God is playing a game with humanity.
That being said: Wouldn't you agree that people who are given a 2nd chance at life and don't take full advantage of it are fools?

How else would you put it? If some people get a second chance and others don't then what else is it but luck of the draw?

(It's my....

"method"...

not my message).

A one that you've been roundly rebuked for and are just too proud to listen. If you believe that homosexuals suffer fiery burning torment for eternity then if you really cared you'd quit with the sexual and derogatory comments to anyone. But you don't really care do you? As long as you can chuckle at your inane little insults then what does it matter if you alienate people right?

How about we do a review of two short documentaries and you can show me what these Christians did to "alienate people"?

How about nope. Not interested in your deflection.

While you're thinking about what these soft spoken Christians did to deserve such HATRED from members of the LGBTQueer so-called "community", ponder on the meaning of these verses said by Jesus:

"You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Matthew 10:22

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."
John 15:18

Please, enough with the drama queen martyr thing aCW. It's really gettin' old.

Two things that need to be said (again) in all fairness:

1). I only mock proud and unrepentant homosexual activists, not those who are struggling with homosexual desires and youth that have been tricked into believing by LGBTQueer adults that they are 'gay' and were born that way.

2). I frequently use the terms "moral degenerates", "child molesting sexual deviants" and such, so please in your next victimization post do include those terms.

No, you refer to people as fags and dykes regardless so don't play coy. Your "mockery" is only amusing to you but then that's what's important to you overall isn't it? This thread is all about you really.

(Isn't it amazing how atheists and pagans all of the sudden use Christianity when they think that it will benefit their cause?).

It's no surprise at all that you couldn't even attempt to answer the question. Why is that?

Let's ask him that question when the day comes (and it's not far away) when it's illegal for Ray Comfort to make a movie like "Audacity".

Oh honestly, will you please dispense with this melodramatic martyr rubbish. It's soooooo boring.

That being said: You've shown your HATRED of Ray Comfort even though he's a soft spoken Christian, how could his mockery of proud and unrepentant homosexual activists like I do warrant even more hatred from people like you?

Wow, yet more melodramatic rubbish. I don't hate Ray comfort at all. I don't particularly respect the guy but I don't loathe him by any stretch. What you do is far different from him and you're not hated either. You don't warrant that type of emotion aCW, even if you wish you did.

Do you really want to talk about how homosexuals disproportionately smoke cigarettes (some estimates as high as 200% more than heterosexuals)?

BTW Art, how is your nicotine habit coming along?

I've no interest in your silly stats or the smokescreen and innuendo you're concocting in order to deflect from the point.

If I didn't know better, based on your last statement alone I'd get the feeling that HATRED is oooozing out every pour in your body.

That being said: I look forward to your new assignment where you'll be pointing out what...

"method"...

soft spoken Christians used to draw the HATRED of LGBTQueer activists.

Nope. Sorry dude, as much as you have this bizarre and melodramatic need to type hatred in caps and play martyr it's just not the case.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
A "soft core" theme at that. It's too bad that Ray Comfort didn't show the truth behind homosexual behavior (rampant disease, disorders, early death) and the child indoctrinating-jack booted thug agenda that stomps to the ground anyone that dares to get in their way.

Well how about you get some funds together and direct your own magnum opus? Then you can lie and misrepresent a group of people all on your own film. At least Comfort didn't resort to caricaturing people to your ridiculous extent.

The facts are out there Art showing how terribly unhealthy homosexual behavior is. In fact I've made it convenient for all to see by posting links from various reputable health organizations like the CDC in the index on page 1 under "Disease, Disorders and Death".

I always encourage people to refute any information that isn't true in my links or posts. When can I expect your refute of the CDC articles Art?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
(It's my....

"method"...

not my message).

How about we do a review of two short documentaries and you can show me what these Christians did to "alienate people"?

How about nope. Not interested in your deflection.

But Art, for a Christian pastor and his wife to have their church fire bombed and threats from homosexual activists stating that they were going to rape and murder their young daughter (according to the pastor's wife they went into great detail), these Christians MUST have done something to deserve such HATRED from those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Moving away from the Ray Comfort theme of evangelizing to homosexuals:

As shown in Ecclesiastes 3:8:

There is a "a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace."

While it's been shown that Christians love these lost souls so much that they don't want to allow them to self destruct, when it comes to fighting the homosexual agenda and the evil people behind it, it truly is

a time for war.

Hence the term the "culture wars".

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Moving on...

 

[TracerBullet]

I always encourage people to refute any information that isn't true in my links or posts.

We do.

You respond to facts you don't like by posting pictures of drag queens or trying to change the topic to NAMBLA.

And in a few weeks you post the same lies and fake research.

 

[Omniskeptical]

There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..

Say it like Dorthy in the wizard of oz.

 

[TracerBullet]

There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..

Say it like Dorthy in the wizard of oz.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I always encourage people to refute any information that isn't true in my links or posts. When can I expect your refute of the CDC articles Art?

We do.

You respond to facts you don't like by posting pictures of drag queens or trying to change the topic to NAMBLA.

And in a few weeks you post the same lies and fake research.

If there was information in your post showing that the CDC reports regarding those who engage in homosexual behavior are disproportionately afflicted with disease and disorders are not true, then I must have missed it.

Let me help you find page 1 where the index is.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112309

 

[aCultureWarrior]

There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..
There is no such thing as a non-bisexual homosexual..

Say it like Dorthy in the wizard of oz.

I prefer these words of wisdom Omini:

Back later today with the table of contents and perhaps even the opening post for the much anticipated segment on Education.