Very few pregnancies result from anal sex. But really, where did you think little baby lawyers came from?
Since this has been moved to the Pit, I can happily say that anyone who points that out is an idiot, since there is no death penalty for eating shellfish (unless, like AIDS, shellfish allergies are God’s divine punishment).
And to the other fellow (assuming it was a different fellow) who wondered why homosexuality was considered a sin, since it’s only mentioned in the Bible a few times: if one of those mentions makes homosexual acts a capital crime, how many do you need?
As for the “New” eternal covenant, Jesus said that you should observe every jot and tittle of the Mosaic Law until heaven and earth pass away, so pretending that two thirds of your Bible is irrelevant doesn’t work, either.
MyFootZZZ: I am indeed a weekly church goer who tithes into the collection plate-- to a fairly conservative denomination no less. I am a lefty who believes that I should love my neighbor. There are a lot of things the Bible tells us that I just don’t think apply today. Eating kosher, for one. Not stoning people who do wrong, for another. Men keeping their hair trimmed short, for yet another. Believing that the universe instantly appeared about 6,000 years ago, for yet one more. I think a lot of people use the Bible selectively and narrowly to justify their already-formed narrow an/or hateful views, as opposed to doing the two most important things the Bible tells us to do: Love God and love each other, and ultimately encouraging others to do those two things. Hating, encouraging hate, spreading hate and discouraging love just ain’t my bag.
So while I don’t agree with every stance my denomination takes, or those that my fellow congregants take, the good, IMO, outweighs the bad. And the fulfillment I receive is also a net positive. That’s why I still attend and support the work of the denomination and local congregation. And even in my conservative denomination (and with many in my local church), the worm is turning on the issue of acceptance of gay people. Several of my friends at church have gay relatives and are extremely supportive and accepting of them in their relationships. And with time, people like me will further steer the church’s opinion on the topic; when moderate or progressive Christians leave the church, that just leaves the intolerant and conservative voices to run things, and then you get extremists like this representing “Christians” on national TV.
Neither this woman talking to Anderson Cooper, nor her pastor, would be tolerated in my church. That’s just pure hate.
Others in this thread have explained the Christian/tolerance thing, but I wanted to directly answer you too. And thanks for asking.
/end of hijack
If he does lose it won’t be down to Obama but to the complacency and misplaced optimism, as James Carville, called it, of many Democrats, convinced that an Obama win is a foregone conclusion. All the signs say that this will be a damned close-run thing whichever way it goes.
So if the fervor stoked by such tactics lead to laws passed that discriminate against gay people (in this case; you can extend it to any other class), that’s irrelevant to you? Or do you think the other laws that Republicans will pass will somehow make up for it?
As for the OP, my feeling is still that crossover between “would possibly vote for Obama” and “believes what the video says about homosexuals” (MyFootZZZ notwithstanding) is small enough to be functionally irrelevant. Weren’t there some polls taken that show that tolerance for gay marriage is increasing even amongst African-Americans?
Good point! I can only imagine you feel the same way about other acts the Bible believes should be a capital crime:
“Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.”
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”
“If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.”
The Bible wouldn’t make these capital crimes unless they were utterly repugnant, right? At the very least, you shouldn’t want adulterers or anyone who has cursed their parents to be able to marry.
So you’re using the Bible selectively and narrowly (rejecting all the stuff you disagree with) to justify your already-formed enlightened views. But you still contribute to a conservative church, and for all you know, your money will go toward supporting politicians who pander to people like the woman in the video. Can’t you find some organization that fills your social needs, that doesn’t worship a book so full of hateful precepts that you have to ignore half of it?
I’m interested in how you reply to TonySinclair. But I’m not trying to be a jerk, and I’m glad you answered me. 
- No one’s worshiping a book in my church. That’s not what Christians do. 2) Like I said, I try and live my life by these two rules:* Love God, love others*. Period. 3) I don’t go there for merely “social needs.” And 4) FYI: churches can’t contribute to politicians, conservative or liberal.
My views have shifted over time on many things. Ultimately, my views have been shaped by: Love God, love others. I haven’t taken a preconceived view and then searched the Bible to justify it. I look at a view and see how it fits in with: Love God, love others. For a long time, my views on gay people hovered much more conservative than it is now. Then I asked myself: How do my views fit in with Christ’s whole “love others” thing. They didn’t; now they do.
Do you also have a problem with my associating, donating and participating in Democratic party activities?
It seems you’re trying to force a gotcha ya situation where none exists. It would likely apply to the video subject, but not in the instant case. Would you prefer HL argued on her behalf?
It does seem odd to me that the person in the You Tube video is concerned about the procreation of homosexuals. Is she not aware of what the term means?
If homosexuals were treated the same as heterosexuals, then no homosexuals would be forced by societal norms to marry and/or procreate.
Assuming the twisted logic in place here is that the only way homosexuals come into existence is from the issue of other homosexuals, then it would be in their best interest to allow homosexuals to be completely accepted. In that manner, the homosexuals would not procreate and within a century, the ‘problem’ would be solved.
I wonder if we can convince them that this course of action is superior to the creation of electric fence Conventries.
Horseshit. The prophet Isaiah specifically warns shellfish eaters of direct annihilation by the sword of the Lord in flames of fury. From a Biblical perspective, eating unclean creatures is NOT a venial sin.
All Biblical “literalists” (except perhaps for certain extremely observant Orthodox Jews) and their apologists neglect certain parts of Mosaic law and attempt to handwave away the technical illegality of it (as per your own shellfish-abomination dodge above).
I have a lot more respect for Christians like baronsabato who conscientiously try to reconcile the Bible’s historical context with modern ethical principles opposing things like slavery and homophobia than for Christians who use it primarily as ammunition against what they like to see as other people’s sins.
Aside from the fact that it’s not even written by Isaiah, let alone Moses; that it’s a prophecy, rather than a prescribed death penalty; and that it is inveighing against a whole series of actions, rather than a single act, it’s a very apt verse.
What Bible passage are you referring to when you mention the death penalty? If it’s not in the Leviticus verse I’m referencing, then I don’t think it has much to do with my point, which was that the Leviticus verse by itself really isn’t that strong a proscription since it’s in the same terms as other verses that are regularly ignored. My point is that a Christian (which, to be clear, I am not) would need to look at other verses, and the interpretation and translation of the other relevant verses is controversial.
By the way, you know that in Exodus God instructs that a violator of the Sabbath be stoned to death, right? So even if you’re right that the Bible demands the death penalty for gays (again, what verse is that?), it’s hardly fair to say it’s being elevated over laws Christians readily ignore.
And how many Christians do that, exactly? If you’re trying to say any Christian who isn’t anti-gay is kidding themselves, that’s not saying much if every other Christian who doesn’t follow 100% of Mosaic Law is in the same boat.
Lev 20:13 (ASV): “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
And you’re right, working on the Sabbath is also a capital crime, so everybody who washes his car or mows his lawn on Sunday (or Saturday, depending on your denomination) should be stoned. And yet, you never hear the preachers calling for that. So how can you say they aren’t being inconsistent?
Yeah, I’ve thought since the beginning that this is one of the funniest parts of the whole thing: any group of only men or only women behind a fence are going to die out without reproducing.
Also, gay people are essentially already behind a fence because they don’t want to have the kind of sex that leads to reproduction. So, they should be happy–their goal of gay people not reproducing has essentially been obtained due to the very nature of gay people being gay people.
So the whole idea is just a ball with tightly woven stupid string in the middle and a big idiotic wrapper keeping it all together.
Obama will lose because of his feckless spending, inability to jump start the economy, and continued high unemployment.
Alternatively, Obama will win reelection because of continued growth, October unemployment under 8%, and the fact that Mitt Romney doesn’t excite the Republican base, let alone swing voters.
Whatever.
This whole attack on me in this thread is pretty ridiculous. It’s like where certain types of idiots seem to always want to call a politician a hypocrite or a liar just because they disagree with him/her. They aren’t happy just disagreeing, they must take it further and make terrible arguments to try to paint him/her as a hypocrite/liar.
Same thing here–some people aren’t happy simply disagreeing with me, they must contrive some charge of being a “partisan hack.” I may meet some definitions of that term (because it’s not like it’s a scientific element, that phrase could mean at least a hundred different things), but I don’t meet what I think of when I use that phrase.
So, if it makes you happy to think I’m a partisan hack, so be it, I don’t really give a shit. It doesn’t change the fact that you can’t argue your own ass out of a wet paper bag and therefore have to resort to these types of attacks against me.
Yawn. People like that are not too uncommon in parts of the southeastern USA. The severely anti-gay right fears a vengeful god will cause harm to all of society if homosexuality is deemed acceptable. If the so-called righteous are headed for heaven, then I’m not sure what there is to fear. None of them are among swing voters in North Carolina.
Various Christian denominations take different parts of the Bible seriously.
The snake handlers 'round these parts take this passage seriously…
Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because…
Not to mention preachers, ministers, priests, vicars, all of whom work on Sundays pretty much by definition.