I think it is because you have no taste politically.
Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
- Status
I think it is because you have no taste politically.
jsjohnnt
New member
For Christians, it is not about ancient history or a legal system that was intended for the Jews, only. It is about what Christ would do, what he asks of us, his all inclusive sacrifice. You have nothing to support your moronic, hateful agenda when you do not have a New Covenant theology for your position . . . . and you don't, of course.
So you go with ancient history and name calling, and wannabe tough-guy rhetoric, and think you have established an argument here on TOL.
Indiana Pizza Place Forced to Close Doors After Refusing to Cater Gay Wedding
Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:
Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Uh, because he's a Libertarian?
Don't get me wrong, not all people who are Libertarians adhere to the drug pushing perverted ideologies of Daddy and Jr. Paul, there are some that lean towards that ideology and political party because of economics.
For those people, Ted Cruz is your man.
I covered Libertarianism extensively in Part 2. Rand Paul is a nutcase like his daddy, but has better handlers (advisors).
When it comes to the topic of homosexuality, Rand Paul is wishy washy.
Rand Paul and the ‘Moral Crisis’ of Gay Marriage: A Timeline
March 28, 2015
October 19, 2009
In an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal‘s Joe Gerth, candidate Paul says he’s not interested in passing federal laws against gay marriage.
“I think marriage should be taken care of at the state level,” he says. Asked if states should legalize gay marriage: “I don’t really have a position that I’m willing to make on that.”
March 3, 2013
At a roundtable with reporters, I ask Paul about how his ambition of winning back voters in blue states clashes with an issue like gay marriage.
“I’m not going to change who I am or what I believe in,” Paul says. “I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults—I’m not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn’t mention the word marriage, then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is. We just don’t have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don’t we not define them by marriage? Why don’t we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don’t have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the southeastern part of the country, we don’t have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral.”
http://conservativeread.com/rand-paul-and-the-moral-crisis-of-gay-marriage-a-timeline/
Why I won't vote for Rand Paul
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95628
Uh, because he's a Libertarian?
Don't get me wrong, not all people who are Libertarians adhere to the drug pushing perverted ideologies of Daddy and Jr. Paul, there are some that lean towards that ideology and political party because of economics.
For those people, Ted Cruz is your man.
I covered Libertarianism extensively in Part 2. Rand Paul is a nutcase like his daddy, but has better handlers (advisors).
When it comes to the topic of homosexuality, Rand Paul is wishy washy.
Rand Paul and the ‘Moral Crisis’ of Gay Marriage: A Timeline
March 28, 2015
October 19, 2009
In an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal‘s Joe Gerth, candidate Paul says he’s not interested in passing federal laws against gay marriage.
“I think marriage should be taken care of at the state level,” he says. Asked if states should legalize gay marriage: “I don’t really have a position that I’m willing to make on that.”
March 3, 2013
At a roundtable with reporters, I ask Paul about how his ambition of winning back voters in blue states clashes with an issue like gay marriage.
“I’m not going to change who I am or what I believe in,” Paul says. “I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults—I’m not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn’t mention the word marriage, then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is. We just don’t have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don’t we not define them by marriage? Why don’t we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don’t have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the southeastern part of the country, we don’t have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral.”
http://conservativeread.com/rand-paul-and-the-moral-crisis-of-gay-marriage-a-timeline/
Why I won't vote for Rand Paul
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95628
You failed to respond to this post (I wonder why?).
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4275735&postcount=6835
I was kinda hoping we could talk about OT punishment.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4276953&postcount=6853
Post from Part 2 on Michael Jackson
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3479078&postcount=957
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hmm, well I hope her 'beauty' outshines her intelligence aCW as given her sig and her monumentally laughable "website" she doesn't exactly have everything rolling around in the ole' noggin etc. Just look at her latest with TH on the 'rock music' thread...:freak:
Well yes, it's shown that there's some rather fixated loons about...
:e4e:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As beautiful and intelligent as sd is, she does have a stubborn streak to her (she often times refuses to listen to the wisdom of her friend aCW).
You really are quite impressed with the unemployed lawyer/proud defender of the communist founded American Civil Liberties Union aren't you? I'm thinking of making an award next January entitled "The homosexualist with the best 50 cent vocabulary". I know who has that award nailed down.
Quote:
There is a reason that Christian legislators during the first 2,000 years of Judeo-Christianized western civilization didn't legislate the ultimate penalty of death against those who were caught and convicted in the act of homosexuality, and redemption was the reason.
On the same note there was a very good reason why Christian legislators during the first 2,000 years of Judeo-Christianized western civilization did see the act of homosexuality as a very serious offense, charging those who were caught engaging in it with a felony.
This 3 part thread has shown what has happened since that very serious offense was decriminalized.
2,000 years Art. They knew what they were doing when they saw the importance of criminalizing the absolutely filthy behavior that God detests.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As beautiful and intelligent as sd is, she does have a stubborn streak to her (she often times refuses to listen to the wisdom of her friend aCW).
You really are quite impressed with the unemployed lawyer/proud defender of the communist founded American Civil Liberties Union aren't you? I'm thinking of making an award next January entitled "The homosexualist with the best 50 cent vocabulary". I know who has that award nailed down.
Quote:
There is a reason that Christian legislators during the first 2,000 years of Judeo-Christianized western civilization didn't legislate the ultimate penalty of death against those who were caught and convicted in the act of homosexuality, and redemption was the reason.
On the same note there was a very good reason why Christian legislators during the first 2,000 years of Judeo-Christianized western civilization did see the act of homosexuality as a very serious offense, charging those who were caught engaging in it with a felony.
This 3 part thread has shown what has happened since that very serious offense was decriminalized.
2,000 years Art. They knew what they were doing when they saw the importance of criminalizing the absolutely filthy behavior that God detests.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh dear, you're obviously smarting over the numerous same kind of maulings your good friend SD has just suffered from even if the pair of you bring it on yourselves. You're really just not that bright...
Anyway, I happen to think you're a sock puppet of Aikido7 as you both have vowels in your username...stop that.
Then you wield that mighty sword oh 'warrior' and make darn sure you don't cut yourself on it while you make no difference whatsoever on anything particularly anywhere.
:e4e:
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding eternity in Hell: I hear that is a very very long time (why not repent and spend eternity in Heaven?)
Congratulations Bruth, you just made "the list".
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3649754&postcount=3120
So you believe that Jesus is always right, except when you don't like what he says. Nice
alwight
New member
Since 1967 in the UK (homosexuality was decriminalised) there ensued the oil crisis, the miner's strike, the three day week, Thatcherism, Punk rock, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the internet, cell phones, sub-prime debt, greedy bankers, jihadi John...
All happened since homosexuality was decriminalised, gay people have a lot to answer for. :IA:
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Congratulations Bruth, you just made "the list".
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3649754&postcount=3120
The fag movement has used Jesus Christ in many ways:
To mock Him (Easter Sunday marks 30+ continuous years where the cross dressing Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence mock the Son of God with their "Hunky Jesus Contest").
Atheist Dan "the doorknob licker" Savage started the "Not All Like That" (NALT) movement for God-haters who want to have Christianity meet their own perverted desires.
But I don't recall hearing a sodomite ever us the eunuch line before.
You are aware that a eunuch is a man that either has been castrated (usually done to someone who guarded the Queen) or whose testes never developed aren't you?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eunuch
In any event I'd tell you to look in your Bible and read in Genesis what God intends for man and woman, but without a doubt the Queen James version doesn't bother with such doctrine.
What does the Bible say about asexuality?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-asexuality.html
Congratulations Bruth, you just made "the list".
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3649754&postcount=3120
The fag movement has used Jesus Christ in many ways:
To mock Him (Easter Sunday marks 30+ continuous years where the cross dressing Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence mock the Son of God with their "Hunky Jesus Contest").
Atheist Dan "the doorknob licker" Savage started the "Not All Like That" (NALT) movement for God-haters who want to have Christianity meet their own perverted desires.
But I don't recall hearing a sodomite ever us the eunuch line before.
You are aware that a eunuch is a man that either has been castrated (usually done to someone who guarded the Queen) or whose testes never developed aren't you?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eunuch
In any event I'd tell you to look in your Bible and read in Genesis what God intends for man and woman, but without a doubt the Queen James version doesn't bother with such doctrine.
What does the Bible say about asexuality?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-asexuality.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
This 3 part thread has shown what has happened since that very serious offense was decriminalized.
Fixed that for ya Al.
Indeed they do Al, indeed they do.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
This 3 part thread has shown what has happened since that very serious offense was decriminalized.
Fixed that for ya Al.
Indeed they do Al, indeed they do.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
What is a mere 80-years of 'happiness' in this lifetime compared to eternity in hell?
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
A eunuch and a homosexual are completely different. There is no evidence that homosexuals are born that way but even if there were, that would only indicate that they were born with a genetic disorder. Having the proclivity towards something does not justify acting on that proclivity.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
One can choose to pervert scripture all you want. It still does not change a thing. There is no scriptural justification for anyone to act on their homosexual desires. Believe me, I know that for a fact. When I was younger I desperately wanted to find some kind of scriptural justification for the life I was living. But it's not there. So I came to accept the truth and accept Jesus as my Lord.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
No. It's just that he doesn't want to accept your blatant twisting of the scriptures to try and make Jesus say what you want him to say.
Jedidiah
New member
Post from Part 2 on Michael Jackson
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3479078&postcount=957
But by all means, pull out the one sentence in that post that was among the least interesting. :AMR1:
When you'd like to be right, you will agree with me. :idunno: Your little horns are showing. :devil:
Too bad you wish to change God's law (Dan 7:25).
"Too bad." :chz4brnz: ~ Seth Brundle, The Fly
Repentant Transsexual Crusades Against 'Quick Fix' Reassignment Surgery Deut 22:5, Mt 19:4 :vomit:
- Status