There was a stark contrast between the rather vengeful god of the Old Testament and the message that Jesus preached. I think that Gandhi said it best: "'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"
Yeah, God just changed His entire character.
Let's see if you can give examples of Jesus contradicting God as represented in the OT.
And then demonstrate how we are unlike Christ.
Of course it was germane. The fact it needed to be asked was your own fault for being such a pedant. You asked for back up where it came to how killing people for their sexual behaviour would be barbaric so I asked whether it would be cruel to torture an animal by way of comparison. The answer, as you know, is obvious - at least to anyone with a sliver of a brain or conscience.
So you admit that you can't explain it. As expected.
When your only argument is "It's obvious," then you have no argument.
Of course it doesn't, unless for some unfathomable reason you think our present way of living is even remotely comparable to life thousands or even hundreds of years ago? Life was a lot harsher back then, not like the relative luxury we presently have in the West. Certain practices which would be considered barbaric by present standards were commonplace. Girls having children at 12/13 would be considered practical due to low life expectancy being one such case for example.
That doesn't change anything. Barbaric is barbaric, regardless of the circumstances of surrounding society.
This is the reason you are a waste of time.
Most just disagree with you on the matter.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. Show me where I've explicitly stated that you endorse the invasion of privacy and I'll concede the point. I've accused you of being naive to think it wouldn't happen but we both know that isn't the same thing. So either quote me or drop it.
Fool.
Really?
It may have been in another thread, and I misspoke in making it seem as though I gave it directly to you.
Here
You have a reputation for it doofus.
I'm waiting for your evidence...
But all the evidence on you suggests it won't be forthcoming.
Well how do you suppose the police gather enough evidence to warrant breaking into homes? There'd have to be reasonable grounds for suspicion but in this type of state it wouldn't be that difficult. We already have CCTV everywhere and surveillance would likely increase all the more. Add to that word of mouth, busybodies and homophobes filing reports of suspicion and you're on that descent into an Orwellian dystopia.
Hearsay is not probable cause.
And you still haven't shown how surveillance would increase. You just keep claiming it would, without showing how.
Yeh, typical 'comeback' from you when you've got no counter, which you haven't on this. You misread so your mistake.
Care how to show I misread anything?
Hey, don't feel too bad about it.
What do I have to feel bad about? I'm not the one supporting my argument with conjecture.
And another irony meter meets an explosive demise...:chuckle:
:yawn:
No it wasn't.
Yeah, I'm done.
Look, all I was saying is I'm sick of hearing the "but I don't want homosexuals to be executed, I want them to repent, but if they don't repent they should be executed, but I don't want them executed, I want them to repent, but if they are homosexuals, they should be executed, but... " argument. I've heard it so many times over the years. You've given that argument to me yourself, Delmar (even though here you seem to be saying differently). If someone advocates that homosexuals are executed, they want homosexuals executed.
I get it. Folks want homosexuals to repent. They want homosexuals not to be homosexuals. Fine. But if people are homosexuals, they think they should be executed. And that means wanting homosexuals put to death.
I'm saying it's a cop-out argument, and that if people want homosexuals put to death, they ought to have the backbone to stand behind it.
That's the way I feel about murder. Why would I feel any different about any other act I believe should be a capital crime?