Sure, you could. In this case, I don’t see it as a huge difference; the religious service was overtly political and the political event was clearly grounded on religious postulates. But I grant that someone could argue that the signs clearly said “Church” in 2008 and “Rally” here, and therefore they are entitled to be analyzed differently.
When you look at it that way, vomiting hatred in the name of Baby Jesus isn’t so bad!
Are you warming up for denounce, renounce and condemn, or are you done?
Cite that Cruz et al like killing whole classes of people, please.
This one ought to be good. No wait, let me guess, it’s the Pit, so no cite, eh?
Good point! Simply because he has nothing pertinent to say on the issue doesn’t mean he favors executing gay people, he might be neutral on the subject, might have no opinion at all! He might even disapprove, in a mild sort of way, a “tsk! tsk!”, perhaps.
But we’ll never know because for some unexplained reason, he remains mute on the subject, despite having attended the session with Swanson.
Here’s a spin on it; Cruz is totally awesome, because if someone says something hateful and disgusting, he literally cannot hear it! The sound waves simply collapse before they reach his auditory nerve! That’s pretty amazing, you’ve got to admit.
Have you ever tried to get rid of the hiccups? It’s pretty hard.
To be fair, the guy spouting this nonsense (Swanson) is not a candidate.
This is false. There are nutcases in all religions- even atheism- *and this is also hate speech. *
Only a tiny % of Christians hate gays, and a vanishingly small number what them dead- and in fact either belief would take you outside the teachings of Jesus.
Most Mainstream Churches (and other faiths besides Christian) go for the “Hate the Sin, love the Sinner” teachings.
I will go along with this. But it does open up the question: If the number of this “type” of Christian is vanishingly small… then why are these presidential candidates going to rallys headed by these type of Christian, and why do they not distance themselves from them? What on earth do they have to gain from this association?
That’s a good point, but it vanishes in the hate-filled screed of the OP.
Thank you.
The only explanation I can think of is that these presidential candidates feel that the number of Christians who really, really hate gays is not all that small, particularly among the group of their likely primary voters.
Do you think it’s possible that the number of people with VERY negative views towards homosexuals might not be as vanishingly tiny as you think, and that these candidates with polls in hand might be “playing to their base”?
Outside the teachings of Paul, possibly, but that’s another debate. But there is no question that Jesus himself endorsed every iota of the Mosaic Law, which clearly states that gay sex is an abomination (thereby justifying hate), and that anyone caught having it is to be executed.
I agree with you that most Christians today try to pretend that those verses don’t exist, just as they ignore Jesus telling them to sell all you have and give it to the poor, or not to pray for an audience, so you’re right that the kill-the-gays people are on the fringe today. But you’re wrong when you say it contradicts what Jesus taught.
Hmm, it depends on what you mean by “VERY negative views towards homosexuals”. Do you mean “They will burn in Hell!”? That’s not uncommon. But if you mean “We should round them up and *kill *them” the number is so tiny they might not even fill a church.
It’s one thing to hate a minority, it’s all too human.
What is INhuman is to wish them all dead. Which is why we hung a number of Nazis.
Its not their number, its their necessity. The whole Pubbie strategy is built around just barely winning, by hook, crook, and gerrymander. The knuckle-walking right was always a given, always reliable. They might be no more than five percent of the American public, but they always vote and always voted Republican. Five percent can’t elect shit, but fifty one percent can, and forty six percent can’t.
The money Republicans have to give them what they want, they can’t do without them. A rough but useful analogy would be the influence of extremely Orthodox Jews in the parliamentary system of Israel.
Jesus taught forgiveness and washing away all sins. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
He brought forth a new Covenant: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times? “Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven
That’s no tiny church. And that’s just the attendees.
all of whom accept all of his crazy ideas? :dubious:
And you accept* his* figures?
They showed up at his rally.
And executing gays isn’t the only insane idea he has.
Where do you think I should go for accurate figures?
I don’t suppose you have, like, a cite for this?
So, he’s arranging the order of the rock throwers. Big deal. Many scholars consider that verse spurious, but whatever, he doesn’t say he’s repealing the Law. On the contrary, he makes the Law stricter. He says even mentally boinking a woman is adultery.
So this woman must have been a special case. Maybe he used his omniscience to know that she had been falsely accused, or that there were extraordinary circumstances. Maybe it’s OK for the Son of God to bend the rules, but not you. Or maybe the Bible just contradicts itself.
Not Jesus, and probably not even Paul. But it does reflect the assertions of both Paul and Jesus that the end times would occur very shortly, within the lifetimes of their audience. Clearly, they were wrong.
Said in response to ultra-strict Jews who thought that plucking grain to eat on the Sabbath was a sin. He doesn’t say not to honor the Sabbath, he just says they go too far if they don’t even let you eat.
He’s just repeating Lev 19:18 – “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” You know, the chapter right before the one that says to execute anyone having gay sex.
Here’s a passage you didn’t quote, from the Sermon on the Mount:
[QUOTE=Matthew 5]
18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
[/QUOTE]
Heaven and earth haven’t passed away. All things have not been fulfilled. In particular, the stars haven’t fallen from the sky, the dead haven’t risen into the air, and Jesus hasn’t returned in glory.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Find me a mainstream Christian church that preaches “Death to the gays!”.