# Pastor: "Put homosexuals in an electric fence"



## Sofos (May 23, 2012)




----------



## highlordmugfug (May 23, 2012)

His logic is so dumb 

So, if we lock them all up they'll disappear because they can't reproduce.
Well, they wouldn't be able to do that running out and about either, so... how does this help anything along?
And if gay's producing is the only way there'd be more gays: THE FUCK DID ALL THE ONES WE HAVE NOW COME FROM?!?!?!


----------



## Razzy (May 23, 2012)

I can't even be mad at this it's so ridiculous.

I'm going to make fun of this guy forever.


----------



## Church2224 (May 23, 2012)

Is this guy bat shit insane? 

He gives most Christians a bad name...


----------



## Randy (May 23, 2012)

Out of context, that sounds pretty kinky, actually.


----------



## Blake1970 (May 23, 2012)

This guy reminds me of a movie I rented awhile back called "Red State."


----------



## Oxidation_Shed (May 23, 2012)

So by putting them in a large enclosure they will no longer be able to reproduce... you know, by having intercourse with the opposite sex? 

Good work, my friend.


----------



## SenorDingDong (May 23, 2012)

Randy said:


> Out of context, that sounds pretty kinky, actually.



Reminds me very much of Ren and Stimpy:


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 23, 2012)

I agree


----------



## Necris (May 23, 2012)

Church2224 said:


> Is this guy bat shit insane?
> 
> He gives most Christians a bad name...


I'm becoming more and more convinced that at it's core this _is _Christianity and no-one wants to be the one to admit it.

Look at any branch of Abrahamic religion and you'll see indefensible and outright anti-human positions be portrayed as acceptable due to their belief in god and their unquestioning acceptance of his supposed word after years of indoctrination. People like this preacher expose these religions for being the thought controlling fascist death cults that they truly are.


----------



## Sephiroth952 (May 23, 2012)

"Agint it"... Is this guy Elmer Fudds inbred cousin?


----------



## nojyeloot (May 23, 2012)

The Lord loves all sinners.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 23, 2012)

Fuck em...


----------



## ry_z (May 23, 2012)

nojyeloot said:


> The Lord loves all sinners.



That sounds nice.

Except that what you're saying is "There _is_ something wrong with you, but god loves you anyway."

Fuck that.


----------



## Jakke (May 23, 2012)

Necris said:


> I'm becoming more and more convinced that at it's core this _is _Christianity and no-one wants to be the one to admit it.
> 
> Look at any branch of Abrahamic religion and you'll see indefensible and outright anti-human positions be portrayed as acceptable due to their belief in god and their unquestioning acceptance of his supposed word after years of indoctrination. People like this preacher expose these religions for being the thought controlling fascist death cults that they truly are.



Í will have to agree, and it pains me to do so. Apparently the "no true scotsman"-fallacy is seeing a lot of use currently, in both christian, muslim, and jewish congregations.

I think the religions have to recognize this, and devalue their holy books. The bible is a repugnant collection of murder, rape and inhumanity, the quran likewise, the values in there are not acceptable in a modern society. So therefore, the assholes like this guy are those that follow more closely their holy book, they are more "true believers". To get rid of that, I think believers have to realize that these books are fallible documents, not the word of god, otherwise I have a hard time seeing religion surviving in the long run.


----------



## pink freud (May 23, 2012)

We should put all the gays, lesbians, trannies, liberals, and pretty much anyone who isn't a close-minded fundy behind a circle of electric fence. 

Keeping in mind of course that I never said which _side_ of the fence they should be on


----------



## Jakke (May 23, 2012)

pink freud said:


> Keeping in mind of course that I never said which _side_ of the fence they should be on



Well played good sir


----------



## Waelstrum (May 23, 2012)

pink freud said:


> We should put all the gays, lesbians, trannies, liberals, and pretty much anyone who isn't a close-minded fundy behind a circle of electric fence.
> 
> Keeping in mind of course that I never said which _side_ of the fence they should be on



 like Wonko the Sane.



There's going to be a lot of this kind of thing for a while, especially now that Obama might be about to legalise gay marriage. All we need to do is wait it out, because all these bigots will die eventually, and whilst they can reproduce, they can't pass on their bigotry, because each generation has been more accepting and less prejudiced than the last.


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 23, 2012)

Blake1970 said:


> This guy reminds me of a movie I rented awhile back called "Red State."




*WHY HAVEN'T I SEEN THIS YET*

But back on topic, I agree with Necris. I work with a Ron Paul supporter whom takes the bible completely seriously and I cannot fathom how someone can think like she does.

She claims that the United Nations were mentioned in the bible as the New World Order.

You can't make this shit up.


----------



## Demiurge (May 23, 2012)

nojyeloot said:


> The Lord loves all sinners.



Even the jackass in the video? It's been quite some time... sure god is looking to lay down a good smiting


----------



## Xaios (May 23, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Í will have to agree, and it pains me to do so. Apparently the "no true scotsman"-fallacy is seeing a lot of use currently, in both christian, muslim, and jewish congregations.
> 
> I think the religions have to recognize this, and devalue their holy books. The bible is a repugnant collection of murder, rape and inhumanity, the quran likewise, the values in there are not acceptable in a modern society. So therefore, the assholes like this guy are those that follow more closely their holy book, they are more "true believers". To get rid of that, I think believers have to realize that these books are fallible documents, not the word of god, otherwise I have a hard time seeing religion surviving in the long run.



Something I have to point out. Yes, the Bible does contain a hell of a lot of violence and unsavory things. Four thousand years ago, that's how the world was. And yes, some of it was done because "God said so." However, please make note that just because something is "word of God" doesn't mean it's the "final word of God." We've got different things in store for us. And while saying this also invokes the aforementioned "no true scotsman" argument, any Christian who isn't a raving lunatic knows this.



Treeunit212 said:


> But back on topic, I agree with Necris. I work with a Ron Paul supporter whom takes the bible completely seriously and I cannot fathom how someone can think like she does.
> 
> She claims that the United Nations were mentioned in the bible as the New World Order.



This is a textbook case of someone with an already delusional opinion twisting the scriptures to support her claim in a way that was never intended. There's no passage of the Bible that supports her view. Nor is there any passage of the Bible that supports the notion that Bush/Obama/Elton John is the Anti-Christ.

(And just so we're clear, the Left Behind series is a result of the same misguided thinking. There's absolutely no theological support for how that series presents things.)



Demiurge said:


> Even the jackass in the video? It's been quite some time... sure god is looking to lay down a good smiting



Take comfort in the fact that there's support in the Bible for the notion that "he'll get what's coming to him:" 

*1 John 2:3-6*
We know that we have come to know him if we keep his (Jesus') commands. Whoever says, &#8220;I know him,&#8221; but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

I'd hardly think that calling for the genocide of all homosexuals is something Jesus would have condoned.


----------



## Jakke (May 23, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Something I have to point out. Yes, the Bible does contain a hell of a lot of violence and unsavory things. Four thousand years ago, that's how the world was. And yes, some of it was done because "God said so." However, please make note that just because something is "word of God" doesn't mean it's the "final word of God." We've got different things in store for us. And while saying this also invokes the aforementioned "no true scotsman" argument, any Christian who isn't a raving lunatic knows this.



But then, how do you differentiate? Christians seems to take pride in deriving morals from the bible (and thus, the word of their god), but then there is really no distinction between what the "good" and the "bad" morals are. A lot of christians seems to want to forget about OT, and Leviticus and Judges contain a lot of nastiness (among them verses against homosexuality.. And witches.. And shellfish...), so I can't blame them for trying. However, for all intents and purposes, Leviticus is still in power today, so to say. There were only minor alterations to the old law when Jesus came (among them changing eye-for-an-eye to turn the other cheek), the rest is still very much endorsed by JC (Matthew 5:17). 

If there is an amount of deciding for yourself what is acceptable from the bible, I see no point in claiming morals come from the bible. It shows that you obviously have a moral judgement of your own, which any sane individual have.
Humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, and we have no need for a book to tap into that.


Just a long-winded thought


----------



## Waelstrum (May 23, 2012)

Xaios said:


> I'd hardly think that calling for the genocide of all homosexuals is something Jesus would have condoned.



You know gay isn't a race, right? 

Don't mind me, I'm just being an arse-hole.


----------



## Xaios (May 23, 2012)

Jakke said:


> But then, how do you differentiate? Christians seems to take pride in deriving morals from the bible (and thus, the word of their god), but then there is really no distinction between what the "good" and the "bad" morals are. A lot of christians seems to want to forget about OT, and Leviticus and Judges contain a lot of nastiness (among them verses against homosexuality.. And witches.. And shellfish...), so I can't blame them for trying. However, for all intents and purposes, Leviticus is still in power today, so to say. There were only minor alterations to the old law when Jesus came (among them changing eye-for-an-eye to turn the other cheek), the rest is still very much endorsed by JC (Matthew 5:17).
> 
> If there is an amount of deciding for yourself what is acceptable from the bible, I see no point in claiming morals come from the bible. It shows that you obviously have a moral judgement of your own, which any sane individual have.
> Humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, and we have no need for a book to tap into that.
> ...



You actually answer your own question for me. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says that he has come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Jesus was "the lamb of God," come to take mankind's sin and make it his own. The old laws were in place so that sins could be atoned. However, with Jesus having "fulfilled the laws" by dying on the cross, he atoned for any sin man could ever commit, thus making the old laws a moot point because they will always be fulfilled.

As for the notion that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Human conscience as we regard it now has historically been overwritten by the societal norms of the time. 2,400 years ago when Plato wrote "The Cave," that was an entirely new way of thinking. People haven't always had our modern, "enlightened" (YMMV) views.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 23, 2012)

Sounds like some body's excuse to get some glory-hole action swinging.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Sounds like some body's excuse to get some glory-hole action swinging.


I'm sure he'd have to go in daily for a few hours to make sure they're all "staying in line."

No calls.


----------



## Xaios (May 23, 2012)

Thread seriousness meter has officially flatlined.


----------



## Waelstrum (May 23, 2012)

Did you expect people to take this guy seriously? He's not saying anything new, he's not saying it in a clever way, and he's not saying anything intelligent/worth being said.


----------



## Xaios (May 23, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Did you expect people to take this guy seriously? He's not saying anything new, he's not saying it in a clever way, and he's not saying anything intelligent/worth being said.



Well, to a degree, yes. I expected there'd be more of the requisite moral indignation (which would have been perfectly justified, in this instance). But hey, if we want to skip that round this time around, that's cool too.


----------



## Jakke (May 23, 2012)

Xaios said:


> You actually answer your own question for me. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says that he has come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Jesus was "the lamb of God," come to take mankind's sin and make it his own. The old laws were in place so that sins could be atoned. However, with Jesus having "fulfilled the laws" by dying on the cross, he atoned for any sin man could ever commit, thus making the old laws a moot point because they will always be fulfilled.
> 
> As for the notion that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Human conscience as we regard it now has historically been overwritten by the societal norms of the time. 2,400 years ago when Plato wrote "The Cave," that was an entirely new way of thinking. People haven't always had our modern, "enlightened" (YMMV) views.



Ok, let us work from that (I am not entirely sure you are correct, but we'll go with that). Why are then the ten commandments still universally revered? They are also part of the old law (although not mosaic), so is there a degree of personal judgement that you employ to pick what you find accepatble?

I am not claiming that human morals has anything to do with modern thinking, we can observe altruistic behaviour in other "higher" animals, it is clear that morals do have an evolutionary advantage, a pack becomes weaker (especially in a species like humans that have a long regeneration time) if members of the pack kill other members. An evolutionary imperative against stealing could be a way of keeping the trust up in a pack, you would not have to be on your guard against your own packmates. Evolution tells us to not kill people, and to not steal shit.

Your point against evolutionary morality is however just as usable against the notion of a god given morality. 
Has not extremely devout religious nations and people put aside morals as well when it has been deemed suitable. Let's not forget the bloody wars fought by King David (and this was when god supposedly talked directly to people), he did not intervene either when the virgins of Jabesh-gilead were "taken" to camp. (judges 21:10-24)
I also think of the bloody massacre by Moses on the Midianites, here Moses where furious on his soliders for showing mercy on the women, he even commanded his soldiers to "keep" the virgins for themselves (and kill all the non-virgins), and I'll let you interpret the meaning of "keep". (Numbers 31:7-18)
This was the man to whom god had said "Thou shalt not kill", moral relativism at its finest. 

A third point, would not the human sacrifice on the cross (come on, that's exactly what it was) be like paying yourself for something? And as if an omnipotent being would need some sort of loophole to forgive people (but that is entirely another matter).


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 23, 2012)




----------



## nostealbucket (May 23, 2012)

and you know what, since I really like coffee,  Mmmm damn, that coffee's good 
Haters gon hate.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (May 23, 2012)

nostealbucket said:


> and you know what, since I really like coffee,  Mmmm damn, that coffee's good
> Haters gon hate.





Anyway, it's not worth getting worked up over this guy- much less launching yet another religion debate. These threads never seem to end well.


----------



## Xaios (May 23, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Ok, let us work from that (I am not entirely sure you are correct, but we'll go with that). Why are then the ten commandments still universally revered? They are also part of the old law (although not mosaic), so is there a degree of personal judgement that you employ to pick what you find accepatble?



In Matthew 22, when questioned by the priests about what the greatest commandments were, Jesus said that the greatest was "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Then he said the second was "Love your neighbor as yourself." The first directive he gives is reflected in the first four of the Ten Commandments, while the second is reflected in the other six. Thus, they are still relevant.



Jakke said:


> I am not claiming that human morals has anything to do with modern thinking, we can observe altruistic behaviour in other "higher" animals, it is clear that morals do have an evolutionary advantage, a pack becomes weaker (especially in a species like humans that have a long regeneration time) if members of the pack kill other members. An evolutionary imperative against stealing could be a way of keeping the trust up in a pack, you would not have to be on your guard against your own packmates. Evolution tells us to not kill people, and to not steal shit.



And yet, animals and people ignore the advantages of altruistic behavior that evolution has supposedly built in to us in favor of other evolutionary imperatives. If an animal has no food and another member of its pack does, he may try and steal it. If a male animal wants to mate with a female that's being courted by another male, he will often challenge the other male in order to humiliate it, sometimes even to injure or kill it. "Collective good" doesn't stop animals from jockeying to be king of the hill within that collective. If there was no advantage from a biological standpoint to being alpha male, then there wouldn't be alpha males, and yet there are. 



Jakke said:


> Your point against evolutionary morality is however just as usable against the notion of a god given morality.
> Has not extremely devout religious nations and people put aside morals as well when it has been deemed suitable. Let's not forget the bloody wars fought by King David (and this was when god supposedly talked directly to people), he did not intervene either when the virgins of Jabesh-gilead were "taken" to camp. (judges 21:10-24)
> I also think of the bloody massacre by Moses on the Midianites, here Moses where furious on his soliders for showing mercy on the women, he even commanded his soldiers to "keep" the virgins for themselves (and kill all the non-virgins), and I'll let you interpret the meaning of "keep". (Numbers 31:7-18)
> This was the man to whom god had said "Thou shalt not kill", moral relativism at its finest.



Just as evolutionary morality doesn't keep animals and people from committing acts contrary to what evolution would supposedly point to as being the right course of action, God-given morality doesn't keep people from sinning, because we have free will.

(And regarding the fifth commandment, that translation has been contentious for a very long time. It's also possible to translate as "thou shalt not murder." The difference between murder and killing to the Israelites was a concept called "bloodguilt." We have similar concepts today. If a man kills another man in order to steal his wallet, it's murder. If a man kills another man on the battlefield as part of an army defending a country or putting down an oppressor, or if a government executes a murderer or war criminal, it's not necessarily seen in the same light.)



Jakke said:


> A third point, would not the human sacrifice on the cross (come on, that's exactly what it was) be like paying yourself for something? And as if an omnipotent being would need some sort of loophole to forgive people (but that is entirely another matter).



Mind rephrasing the first sentence? I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 23, 2012)

Xaios said:


> This is a textbook case of someone with an already delusional opinion twisting the scriptures to support her claim in a way that was never intended. There's no passage of the Bible that supports her view. Nor is there any passage of the Bible that supports the notion that Bush/Obama/Elton John is the Anti-Christ.
> 
> (And just so we're clear, the Left Behind series is a result of the same misguided thinking. There's absolutely no theological support for how that series presents things.)



I find this Ironic because of your avatar.


----------



## Xaios (May 23, 2012)

All glory to the Hypnotoad, motherfuckers.


----------



## Jakke (May 23, 2012)

Xaios said:


> In Matthew 22, when questioned by the priests about what the greatest commandments were, Jesus said that the greatest was "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Then he said the second was "Love your neighbor as yourself." The first directive he gives is reflected in the first four of the Ten Commandments, while the second is reflected in the other six. Thus, they are still relevant.



I would not go as far as saying all them are reflected. How is honour thy father and mother reflected in love thy neighbour as thy self? (I love thise olde english!) 




Xaios said:


> And yet, animals and people ignore the advantages of altruistic behavior that evolution has supposedly built in to us in favor of other evolutionary imperatives. If an animal has no food and another member of its pack does, he may try and steal it. If a male animal wants to mate with a female that's being courted by another male, he will often challenge the other male in order to humiliate it, sometimes even to injure or kill it. "Collective good" doesn't stop animals from jockeying to be king of the hill within that collective. If there was no advantage from a biological standpoint to being alpha male, then there wouldn't be alpha males, and yet there are.



Yes, while evolution is a very stupid process (it really is, have you seen the rabbit's digestive system? So much for intelligent design...), it's not that stupid. If an animal had no self-preservation, how could they then procreate? 
There are often alpha males in a pack to reduce casualities, the alpha most often has all the mating privileges, thus eliminating unecessary bloodshed over females. Animals that have alphas are usually forming small groups (wolves, lions, most other carnivorous pack-animals do this in fact). With animals forming larger herds, like bovines, open competition is more common. Herds of wild bovine are often enormous, they can take casualities without weakening the herd, a pack of wolves cannot. A wolfpack (for example) also has a system of surrender, where a male who have won spares the life of the looser, thus he maintains his dominance (natural selection can do its magic), and the pack does not loose a valued member.




Xaios said:


> Just as evolutionary morality doesn't keep animals and people from committing acts contrary to what evolution would supposedly point to as being the right course of action, God-given morality doesn't keep people from sinning, because we have free will.



Evolution as opposed to religion is not black and white. We can only reason in terms to what is preferable, life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness etc. If there is a good reason to kill someone, it might be preferable to do so.

Ah, free will... May I ask, in your opinion, does god sentence people who have not followed his commands (me for example, I completely reject the notion of god, which is a big no-no) to hell?



Xaios said:


> (And regarding the fifth commandment, that translation has been contentious for a very long time. It's also possible to translate as "thou shalt not murder." The difference between murder and killing to the Israelites was a concept called "bloodguilt." We have similar concepts today. If a man kills another man in order to steal his wallet, it's murder. If a man kills another man on the battlefield as part of an army defending a country or putting down an oppressor, or if a government executes a murderer or war criminal, it's not necessarily seen in the same light.)



Yes, war has always apparently been a convenient exeption. 
Both judaism and islam (and to some extent christianity, well, until the middle ages where it became commonplace there as well) were spread with the sword, even though the religions claims to love everybody. Then, how does the war exception work with "love thy neighbour?"

Possibly eh? Shame that all the recent translations says "kill", yet there are no shortness of devout people who happily slaughter their fellow men. What the original commandment said is not very relevant, because right now it says "thou shalt not kill".



Xaios said:


> Mind rephrasing the first sentence? I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.



Whn Jesus died on the cross, he did so to atone for the sins of humanity, correct? Jesus is the same as god within christianity (as part of the trinity), so therefore, where he not in fact atoning to himself?


----------



## Treeunit212 (May 23, 2012)

I'd just like to point out that this church is Tax exempt.

*Tax. Exempt.*


----------



## Xaios (May 24, 2012)

Jakke said:


> I would not go as far as saying all them are reflected. How is honour thy father and mother reflected in love thy neighbour as thy self? (I love thise olde english!)



In a nutshell, the first four of the ten commandments deal with our relationship with God, as reflected in Jesus' first commandment to the priests. The other six commandments deal with our relationship with other people, which is reflected in Jesus' second commandment.



Jakke said:


> Yes, while evolution is a very stupid process (it really is, have you seen the rabbit's digestive system? So much for intelligent design...), it's not that stupid. If an animal had no self-preservation, how could they then procreate?
> There are often alpha males in a pack to reduce casualities, the alpha most often has all the mating privileges, thus eliminating unecessary bloodshed over females. Animals that have alphas are usually forming small groups (wolves, lions, most other carnivorous pack-animals do this in fact). With animals forming larger herds, like bovines, open competition is more common. Herds of wild bovine are often enormous, they can take casualities without weakening the herd, a pack of wolves cannot. A wolfpack (for example) also has a system of surrender, where a male who have won spares the life of the looser, thus he maintains his dominance (natural selection can do its magic), and the pack does not loose a valued member.
> 
> Evolution as opposed to religion is not black and white. We can only reason in terms to what is preferable, life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness etc. If there is a good reason to kill someone, it might be preferable to do so.



But further still, life for the whole pack is preferable to life for only some of the pack. Health for the whole pack is preferable to health for only some of the pack. And while there might be a good reason to kill someone, it's just as conceivable that it might not be preferable to do so. However, a pack is composed of individuals, and an individual will support a pack only so far as a pack can support the wants and needs of an individual.



Jakke said:


> Ah, free will... May I ask, in your opinion, does god sentence people who have not followed his commands (me for example, I completely reject the notion of god, which is a big no-no) to hell?



Good question. The answer is deeply rooted in semantics, and I doubt I'll be able to give you an answer that satisfies you. Ultimately, the question is whether or not you believe not allowing a person into heaven is the same thing as condemning them to hell. Entrance into heaven is determined by one's faith in and acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ. All people sin, but if you accept Christ, your sins are passed over when God sits over you in judgment. (The "faith versus works" argument is another bag of snakes, and I'm not getting into that here.) However, if that option isn't available due to a person not accepting Christ, there's really only one other direction to travel now, is there?

(Discussion of Purgatory aside. )



Jakke said:


> Yes, war has always apparently been a convenient exeption. Both judaism and islam (and to some extent christianity, well, until the middle ages where it became commonplace there as well) were spread with the sword, even though the religions claims to love everybody. Then, how does the war exception work with "love thy neighbour?"



I think you're forgetting your history. In the Old Testament, Judaism was pretty much reserved for the Israelites, as "God's chosen people," and aside from moving into the Promised Land, they weren't particularly expansionist. The Bible describes workers building the wall around Jerusalem as holding tools in one hand and a sword in the other, to combat the constant stream of enemies attacking the city. Heck, Israel was conquered a few times by the Persians, Babylonians and finally the Romans. It wasn't until Paul came around that "Christianity as a religion for all people" really became a big thing.

But I digress. It's entirely feasible to love your neighbor and have to kill him if he attacks you.



Jakke said:


> Possibly eh? Shame that all the recent translations says "kill", yet there are no shortness of devout people who happily slaughter their fellow men. What the original commandment said is not very relevant, because right now it says "thou shalt not kill".



I'll be honest, now I think you're baiting. The average person is not a biblical scholar, nor am I. And as history has proven quite well, religion has oft been used as a tool for people with less than pure motives to achieve personal gains. The Catholic Church itself used to sell indulgences to shorten one's time in Purgatory, which is one of, if not THE chief reason that Martin Luther published the 95 Theses. But if I kill a man by beating him to death with a shoe, does that make the shoe evil? Of course not, it was only a tool. So too is it with religion. (At least, most religions.)

As to the notion that "what it originally said doesn't matter," that's simply untrue. While the translation as to how it's written in the Ten Commandments is muddled, the New Testament supports the interpretation that they were referring to "murder" as opposed to "killing."



Jakke said:


> Whn Jesus died on the cross, he did so to atone for the sins of humanity, correct? Jesus is the same as god within christianity (as part of the trinity), so therefore, where he not in fact atoning to himself?



Heh, that's a topic that's going to be debated until the end of time, but let's look at some facts. In a manner of speaking, the answer is both yes and no. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus beseeches God to spare him from the Cross, and yet accepts his fate should it be God's will. Then while on the Cross, he cries out "Father, why have you forsaken me." And yet, there are several instances in which Jesus is explaining to the Jews his relationship to God that he says that "I and the father are one."

Christ is a part of God that God made separate from himself in order to be born into the world, and rejoined when Christ ascended into heaven. Another way of looking at it is that he was an avatar of God.

(Apologies to everyone for getting way off topic.)


----------



## Explorer (May 24, 2012)

Xaios, since you're expounding on the subject of the Bible, I have to ask... how did you solve the riddle of the two Nativities (one with Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, the other with Jesus born during the rule of Herod Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great, while Quirinius was governor)?

I know we had some discussion about it at some point, when you were trying to explain something about Scripture being factual and me using the two Nativities as a counterexample. I believe you said you'd have to do some research. Since you're talking about the Bible and trying to make it work... how'd the reconciliation of the Tale of Two Jes-i go?


----------



## Xaios (May 24, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Xaios, since you're expounding on the subject of the Bible, I have to ask... how did you solve the riddle of the two Nativities (one with Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, the other with Jesus born during the rule of Herod Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great, while Quirinius was governor)?
> 
> I know we had some discussion about it at some point, when you were trying to explain something about Scripture being factual and me using the two Nativities as a counterexample. I believe you said you'd have to do some research. Since you're talking about the Bible and trying to make it work... how'd the reconciliation of the Tale of Two Jes-i go?



Hunh, to be honest, I don't remember that discussion. It does remain a point of contention among biblical scholars. I know that Quirinius only became governor of the the geographical area that Judea comprised of after Herod Archelaus was expelled from the Tetrarch, and the Gospel of Luke mentions the census. However, Luke's gospel also mentions Herod the Great, as does the Gospel of Matthew, who supposedly died about 10 years before the census.

So, my answer is a resounding "I don't know."


----------



## Necris (May 24, 2012)

Jakke said:


> I think the religions have to recognize this, and devalue their holy books. The bible is a repugnant collection of murder, rape and inhumanity, the quran likewise, the values in there are not acceptable in a modern society. So therefore, the assholes like this guy are those that follow more closely their holy book, they are more "true believers". To get rid of that, I think believers have to realize that these books are fallible documents, not the word of god, otherwise I have a hard time seeing religion surviving in the long run.


I can tell you that the majority of Christians I've debated with are quick to bring up the fact that the Bible; while "Inspired by God" to use their words, is written by man and therefore inherently flawed when questions about the negative effects of religion come up. However where they see that statement as "checkmate" so to speak that seems to bring up more questions than answers in my eyes. 
If God were omniscient and omnipotent as they claim it would have no problem relating it's word to the world, it knows every language that ever was and ever will be and knows a perfect means in which to do so without leaving any room for misinterpretation.
Why did an omniscient being have to use a go between to relate it's word to the masses largely through parables that are so widely open to interpretation? Clearly it would have known the negative effects this could have had long beforehand, and I can only see choosing the lesser of the two options as a malignant act, unless of course it couldn't know in which case it is not omniscient.


----------



## Explorer (May 24, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Hunh, to be honest, I don't remember that discussion. It does remain a point of contention among biblical scholars.



Actually, "point of contention" is understating it by quite a bit. Only scholars who insist on fundamental inerrancy insist that the Bible has to be correct and create apologetics for this point. Others are okay with the Bible having factual errors.

The problem, of course, is that if there are *any* factual errors, then it's impossible to *know* which parts are *not* in error. There is no way to know other than personal revelation, and no way to claim the Bible has any more authority than the Koran, or Hinduism, or any other religion. 

One more point: The best one can argue for the Bible being factual or not is that it was written with the best understanding of the audience of the time... which means it's not absolute, but culturally relative. Jesus didn't say the mustard seed was the smallest seed as far as the listeners knew. He said it was the smallest seed, absolutely. We know of many seeds which are smaller. Thus it is demonstrated. 

After all that, arguing that someone was right or wrong to put aside the various Levitican and Mosaic laws still leaves the problem of whether those "laws" are actually what any source of the Bible meant to say, given that it would pass through interpreters who would have done just that, interpret, and therefore have introduced their cultural errors and viewpoints.


----------



## Deadnightshade (May 24, 2012)

It's enraging how people with such immature and/or dangerous ideas get to actually speak in front of other people and get respect.


On a funny note: Why doesn't he want the lesbians and gay men to be in the same fence?Some of them may reproduce


----------



## Oxidation_Shed (May 24, 2012)

Lesbians, queers... And homosexuals?
Why don't we just throw all the unnecessary words and tautology in there too?


----------



## tacotiklah (May 24, 2012)

^why stop there? Let's add shemales, fairies fruits, fags, and peter puffers in there too. 

Seriously, why can't they just leave it as gay?


----------



## Powermetalbass (May 24, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> His logic is so dumb
> 
> So, if we lock them all up they'll disappear because they can't reproduce.
> Well, they wouldn't be able to do that running out and about either, so... how does this help anything along?
> And if gay's producing is the only way there'd be more gays: THE FUCK DID ALL THE ONES WE HAVE NOW COME FROM?!?!?!



Its the same logic they use for everything else...or lack there of.


----------



## Waelstrum (May 24, 2012)

Well, to be fair to this nut, there is a theory that homosexuality is hereditary, and all this homophobia forced ancient gays into hetero relationships which lead to it being passed on (ironically meaning that institutionalised homophobia itself caused the spread of 'the gay'). It's one of a few theories, but I find this one the funniest.

Here's Dicky Dawkins:


----------



## BrianUV777BK (May 25, 2012)

This pastor makes me embarrassed for my race and country.


----------



## Randy (May 25, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


>




Excuse me but... wut?


----------



## Jakke (May 25, 2012)

Xaios said:


> In a nutshell, the first four of the ten commandments deal with our relationship with God, as reflected in Jesus' first commandment to the priests. The other six commandments deal with our relationship with other people, which is reflected in Jesus' second commandment.



Ok, sounds resonable.



Xaios said:


> But further still, life for the whole pack is preferable to life for only some of the pack. Health for the whole pack is preferable to health for only some of the pack. And while there might be a good reason to kill someone, it's just as conceivable that it might not be preferable to do so. However, a pack is composed of individuals, and an individual will support a pack only so far as a pack can support the wants and needs of an individual.



Yes, that would be preferable, but nature is not black and white. There are animals that won't work in packs, and therefore they challenge authority to the point of being killed, see it as a way of getting rid of members who are not team-players (we do it too, but among us we use prisons to get rid of such elements). I would however not go as far as claiming a pack is only one meal away from anarchy, look at dogs for example, it would take incredible amounts of pressure for a dog to leave or to put their own interests above the pack's. Elephants will maintain their herd even through the toughest of times, and they only abandon a member when they have died (after a period of something that can be interpreted as mourning).



Xaios said:


> Good question. The answer is deeply rooted in semantics, and I doubt I'll be able to give you an answer that satisfies you. Ultimately, the question is whether or not you believe not allowing a person into heaven is the same thing as condemning them to hell. Entrance into heaven is determined by one's faith in and acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ. All people sin, but if you accept Christ, your sins are passed over when God sits over you in judgment. (The "faith versus works" argument is another bag of snakes, and I'm not getting into that here.) However, if that option isn't available due to a person not accepting Christ, there's really only one other direction to travel now, is there?
> 
> (Discussion of Purgatory aside. )



What I am going for is the logical leap for most of religion. 
See, a divine creator alledgedly gives us life, he also gives us the ability to formulate abstract thoughts (which separates us from the other animals), he gives us logic and reason. He then formulates his holy book in a language of a small desert tribe in the middle east, a place that is pretty remote to most parts of the world (which he apparently wants to save). This language is never going to be big, and is today almost dead (guaranteeing that the original meaning of his book will be lost). 
He then wants us apes with critical thinking skills to accept that he exists based on circumstances and hearsay, and baits it with a promise that no one has been able to give any substance to. 
Then when some of us do not see any use in believing in things without evidence, using the skills he gave us, he will torture us forever. 
Does that sound loving?

Would you torture your children in the basement for not loving you?




Xaios said:


> I think you're forgetting your history. In the Old Testament, Judaism was pretty much reserved for the Israelites, as "God's chosen people," and aside from moving into the Promised Land, they weren't particularly expansionist. The Bible describes workers building the wall around Jerusalem as holding tools in one hand and a sword in the other, to combat the constant stream of enemies attacking the city. Heck, Israel was conquered a few times by the Persians, Babylonians and finally the Romans. It wasn't until Paul came around that "Christianity as a religion for all people" really became a big thing.



Yes, how strange that a document written to maintain the unity of a people portrays that particular people in a very good light. 
The bible is rife with with historical inaccuracies and fabrications, I would not consider accounts only occuring in the bible as factual.

There are for example no accounts (outside of the bible) of the egyptians having jewish slaves, of the jews walking in the desert for some forty years, of Herod killing all the male children, or of the great sensus.



Xaios said:


> But I digress. It's entirely feasible to love your neighbor and have to kill him if he attacks you.



I suppose it is, without going into what constitutes "love"



Xaios said:


> I'll be honest, now I think you're baiting. The average person is not a biblical scholar, nor am I. And as history has proven quite well, religion has oft been used as a tool for people with less than pure motives to achieve personal gains. The Catholic Church itself used to sell indulgences to shorten one's time in Purgatory, which is one of, if not THE chief reason that Martin Luther published the 95 Theses. But if I kill a man by beating him to death with a shoe, does that make the shoe evil? Of course not, it was only a tool. So too is it with religion. (At least, most religions.)



Well, neither am I, just an interested layman. I would never dream of baiting, it would spoil an informative and interesting discourse.


No argument there, religion has done much evil (and please note that it is not evil in a teological sense) in the world.

However, there is no note on the shoe saying: "Use me to beat that guy to death". If it were I would hold the writer of that note responsible (together with me for being so easily lead that I did what the note said). The bible in this case have a lot graphical descriptions for what do with certain people, I therefore blaim the system itself, since it did write that "note".




Xaios said:


> As to the notion that "what it originally said doesn't matter," that's simply untrue. While the translation as to how it's written in the Ten Commandments is muddled, the New Testament supports the interpretation that they were referring to "murder" as opposed to "killing."



But it does matter if the original translation is lost! If there is only one reference to what it says, then that is the reference used.




Xaios said:


> Heh, that's a topic that's going to be debated until the end of time, but let's look at some facts. In a manner of speaking, the answer is both yes and no. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus beseeches God to spare him from the Cross, and yet accepts his fate should it be God's will. Then while on the Cross, he cries out "Father, why have you forsaken me." And yet, there are several instances in which Jesus is explaining to the Jews his relationship to God that he says that "I and the father are one."
> 
> Christ is a part of God that God made separate from himself in order to be born into the world, and rejoined when Christ ascended into heaven. Another way of looking at it is that he was an avatar of God.
> 
> (Apologies to everyone for getting way off topic.)



Interesting perspective...

And apologies for the OT, thanks Xaios for indulging me





Necris said:


> I can tell you that the majority of Christians I've debated with are quick to bring up the fact that the Bible; while "Inspired by God" to use their words, is written by man and therefore inherently flawed when questions about the negative effects of religion come up. However where they see that statement as "checkmate" so to speak that seems to bring up more questions than answers in my eyes.
> If God were omniscient and omnipotent as they claim it would have no problem relating it's word to the world, it knows every language that ever was and ever will be and knows a perfect means in which to do so without leaving any room for misinterpretation.
> Why did an omniscient being have to use a go between to relate it's word to the masses largely through parables that are so widely open to interpretation? Clearly it would have known the negative effects this could have had long beforehand, and I can only see choosing the lesser of the two options as a malignant act, unless of course it couldn't know in which case it is not omniscient.



Ah yes, and if the negative aspects of the bible are explained by flawed humans, what guarantee is there that the positive ones are not flawed as well?

Also, I always wonder what makes the bible more of a true document than the Edda, for example. I have not seen more evidence for virgin births and people rising from the dead than I have seen infinitely long cats and an enormous snake under the sea.


Not to mention that Zeus impregnated a woman while he was disguised as a bull, it does sound more believable than what Yahwe did. Yahwe is after all apparently immaterial, and outside our universe.


----------



## Xaios (May 25, 2012)

Jakke said:


> And apologies for the OT, thanks Xaios for indulging me



Hey, no problem. I've always got time to debate this sort of thing with people who don't share my beliefs, so long as the rationale is more intelligent than "hurr, fuckin religious fags and their fairy tales, Jesus can suck my dick!"

Outside of this forum, that tends to be the prevailing attitude, at least where I live.


----------



## Jakke (May 25, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Hey, no problem. I've always got time to debate this sort of thing with people who don't share my beliefs, so long as the rationale is more intelligent than "hurr, fuckin religious fags and their fairy tales, Jesus can suck my dick!"
> 
> Outside of this forum, that tends to be the prevailing attitude, at least where I live.



Oh yes, some atheists are prone to be douches. The problem with being a dick is that everyone benefit from seeing other people's perspective, and one deny oneself that by being an asshat.

It's also nice to explain the motivation of what seems to be most atheists, so maybe the old "hurr you're just mad at god hurr" will go away

The reaction you describe is also why the mods monitor religious threads extra... If we would want to see monkeys throwing feces at each other, we could just as well go to the zoo.


----------



## Xaios (May 25, 2012)

Jakke said:


> The reaction you describe is also why the mods monitor religious threads extra... If we would want to see monkeys throwing feces at each other, we could just as well go to the zoo.



But... but I don't have a zoo where I live.


----------



## Jakke (May 25, 2012)

Xaios said:


> But... but I don't have a zoo where I live.



Me neither, that is why I frequent youtube comment sections


----------



## Xaios (May 25, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Me neither, that is why I frequent youtube comment sections



Touché. For me it's a toss up between Youtube and Blabbermouth.


----------



## Jakke (May 25, 2012)

Xaios said:


> Touché. For me it's a toss up between Youtube and Blabbermouth.



Oh Blabbermouth.... What would we do without thee?


----------



## Explorer (May 25, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Ah yes, and if the negative aspects of the bible are explained by flawed humans, what guarantee is there that the positive ones are not flawed as well?
> 
> Also, I always wonder what makes the bible more of a true document than the Edda, for example. I have not seen more evidence for virgin births and people rising from the dead than I have seen infinitely long cats and an enormous snake under the sea.
> 
> Not to mention that Zeus impregnated a woman while he was disguised as a bull, it does sound more believable than what Yahwe did. Yahwe is after all apparently immaterial, and outside our universe.


 
I think the crux of the matter is, all religions are relevatory... meaning that they ultimately rely on revelation and faith of the truth of that revelation, as opposed to having observable fact at the core. That's why you get exhortations about having even the faith of a mustard seed, or blessed are those who believe without proof/seeing, etc. 

(Incidentally, speaking of people's involvement in writing the Bible, textual analysis holds that everything after the women arriving at the tomb was written by someone else, including seeing the resurrected Jesus, was added by another author quite a bit later. Why? Probably to make it a better read, but the point is, the rolled-back stone, the doubting Thomas thing, all inventions after the first writer was done.)


----------



## Jakke (May 25, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I think the crux of the matter is, all religions are relevatory... meaning that they ultimately rely on revelation and faith of the truth of that revelation, as opposed to having observable fact at the core. That's why you get exhortations about having even the faith of a mustard seed, or blessed are those who believe without proof/seeing, etc.



You're right of course.




Explorer said:


> (Incidentally, speaking of people's involvement in writing the Bible, textual analysis holds that everything after the women arriving at the tomb was written by someone else, including seeing the resurrected Jesus, was added by another author quite a bit later. Why? Probably to make it a better read, but the point is, the rolled-back stone, the doubting Thomas thing, all inventions after the first writer was done.)



Well, people were not more stupid back then, they obviously knew what made a good story


----------



## groph (May 28, 2012)

&#3232;_&#3232;


----------



## tacotiklah (May 28, 2012)

Randy said:


> Excuse me but... wut?




Exactly. 
I watched that whole thing and it sounded like an old man waffling and spit-balling, but nothing concrete in his ramblings. Not a single thing he has said has ever been proven, and many of the "theories" he mentioned are complete bullshit. The only thing he very briefly touched upon that has been a prevailing theory in psychology is the story of the native american wenkte who were entrusted to take care of the children (such as nieces/nephews) as midwives while the men went off to war. Wenkte were homo/bisexual men and many of them were also referred to as "two-spirits" because they exhibited both male and female tendencies. There are many two-spirits in existence today in the transgender community. (like yours truly.  )
Outside of that, he is just taking random nuggets of truth and compounding upon them to sound like he has the first fucking clue as to what the hell he is talking about.

This is the guy that's supposed to be spearheading the argument for atheists? Time for a better spokesman people.


----------



## Odinvader (May 29, 2012)

I like this guy, because he made a bunch of faggots butthurt without sodomy.


----------



## pink freud (May 29, 2012)

Really? That entered into your brain and you took the time to write it out and post it, and not once in the whole process did you think it might not be a good idea?


----------



## Odinvader (May 29, 2012)

pink freud said:


> Really? That entered into your brain and you took the time to write it out and post it, and not once in the whole process did you think it might not be a good idea?



Me, or the OP who thought we should care about what some obscure religious nut (IMAGINE THAT) said to a minute portion of the population?


----------



## Necris (May 29, 2012)

Odinvader said:


> I like this guy, because he made a bunch of faggots butthurt without sodomy.


I'm sure this will come as a shock to you but despite the letter S being present in the name of this website this isn't Stormfront, I'm sure they'll love you though.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 29, 2012)

Well that moron is gone, thank you mods


----------



## Waelstrum (May 29, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Exactly.
> I watched that whole thing and it sounded like an old man waffling and spit-balling, but nothing concrete in his ramblings. Not a single thing he has said has ever been proven, and many of the "theories" he mentioned are complete bullshit. The only thing he very briefly touched upon that has been a prevailing theory in psychology is the story of the native american wenkte who were entrusted to take care of the children (such as nieces/nephews) as midwives while the men went off to war. Wenkte were homo/bisexual men and many of them were also referred to as "two-spirits" because they exhibited both male and female tendencies. There are many two-spirits in existence today in the transgender community. (like yours truly.  )
> Outside of that, he is just taking random nuggets of truth and compounding upon them to sound like he has the first fucking clue as to what the hell he is talking about.
> 
> This is the guy that's supposed to be spearheading the argument for atheists? Time for a better spokesman people.



I'm pretty sure he said these were possible theories (it has to be proven to be a theory), yet to be proven (or something to that effect). The trouble is that it is very hard to test what 'causes' homosexuality, because for most of history, most homosexuals (and other non-heterosexuals) have been in the closet. It might be genetic, it might be from environmental factors, we don't really know. (Actually I vaguely remember hearing that someone had isolated the 'gay gene', but I can't remember if that has been proven or not.)

tl;dr: Don't take him too seriously, he was, as you said, just spitballing.


----------



## Goatchrist (May 29, 2012)

Bigoted Church Member Defends Pastor Worley - YouTube


----------



## devolutionary (May 29, 2012)

Neither the 10 commandments nor any of the teachings of Jesus say shit about homosexuality. Anything else is political grandstanding, propaganda, and the editing of man on the word of God. If the churches stuck to those points, I think they'd be better PEOPLE by a massive margin.


----------



## Jakke (May 29, 2012)

I just remember that a podcast I love brought this up, and they tore that church-member to pieces, while insulting the whole american south


They also pointed out that there are sexy southern accents, her? Not so much, it sounds like she actually picked an accent to sound as stupid as possible.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (May 29, 2012)

Razzy said:


> I can't even be mad at this it's so ridiculous.
> 
> I'm going to make fun of this guy forever.



I feel the same way. I can't really be mad at this because it's so farcically ludicrous I can't think of it as anything but a joke.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 29, 2012)

Goatchrist said:


> Bigoted Church Member Defends Pastor Worley - YouTube


I love seeing stupid people trying to defend stupid ass viewpoints.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 30, 2012)

Wtf did I miss in this thread? 
Also, did the mods change his avatar to the rainbow flag, or was it originally like that? If the latter, it makes his post twice as hilarious! 

Anyway, yeah I briefly read your post on fb about that Kent. The whole time I read about it, I was like wtf?
Apparently it's okay to rant and rave all kinds of bigotry, but the minute someone in a position of power says something negative about Christianity, those people will be all up in arms about how they can't speak that way. I remember reading that hypocrisy is highly frowned upon the last time I read the bible. Funny how I remember this crap, but they conveniently forget.


----------



## Necris (May 30, 2012)

Kansas pastor calls on U.S. government to kill LGBT people | The Raw Story


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 30, 2012)

Im going to start referring to gays as children of sodom 

Wtf


----------



## Jakke (May 30, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Im going to start referring to gays as children of sodom
> 
> Wtf


----------



## Necris (May 30, 2012)

Churches like this should be viewed as what they are, terrorist groups. They should lose their tax exemption and the leader of the church should be held legally liable for any violent actions perpetrated by his congregation.
If this does not happen then the gay community should stop looking to a government that is either actively opposed to equality or at best too weak willed to advocate for the rights of it's citizens for fear of bad press and begin actively defending themselves.


----------



## highlordmugfug (May 30, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Im going to start referring to gays as children of sodom
> 
> Wtf


And people who go to churches like that, and/or support the things being said as Children of So-dumb


----------



## wlfers (May 30, 2012)

At first I thought the congregation was too smart for his nonsense, and then the "Amens" started rolling in. The guy and his demeanor gave me a laugh though.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 1, 2012)

Necris said:


> Churches like this should be viewed as what they are, terrorist groups. They should lose their tax exemption and the leader of the church should be held legally liable for any violent actions perpetrated by his congregation.
> If this does not happen then the gay community should stop looking to a government that is either actively opposed to equality or at best too weak willed to advocate for the rights of it's citizens for fear of bad press and begin actively defending themselves.




We need our own Malcom X, but with a limper wrist. 

And brb, going to go arm myself.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jun 1, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> We need our own Malcom X, but with a limper wrist.
> 
> And brb, going to go *arm myself*.


Fisting, masturbation, or guns? 

Or all 3


----------



## Waelstrum (Jun 1, 2012)

Can you fist with a limp wrist?

Also, gross.


----------



## ry_z (Jun 1, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Can you fist with a limp wrist?
> 
> Also, gross.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 1, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Can you fist with a limp wrist?
> 
> Also, gross.



Only one way to find out...


----------



## guitarister7321 (Jun 1, 2012)

There's a big flaw in this bastard's twisted method of getting rid of homosexuals. What about all the people being born outside of the fence theat will eventually become gay? Fucking dumbass.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 1, 2012)

guitarister7321 said:


> There's a big flaw in this bastard's twisted method of getting rid of homosexuals. What about all the people being born outside of the fence theat will eventually become gay? Fucking dumbass.



Them there religious folk don't take kindly to that there logic talk.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 1, 2012)

guitarister7321 said:


> There's a big flaw in this bastard's twisted method of getting rid of homosexuals. What about all the people being born outside of the fence theat will eventually become gay? Fucking dumbass.



Come on now, we all know that gay people are recruited into their sinful lifestyle by other homosexuals. We have to make it impossible for our children to make this sinful choice, and what can be better than removing gay role-models?
If we put all of them in a fence, there will be no gays to recruit our innocent children. That will be the final solution on the gay problem, so to say.


----------



## heilarkyguitar (Jun 1, 2012)

Prolly should look into Zionist. Directing energy towards dumb people, christain or not, never got anyone anywhere.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 1, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> Fisting, masturbation, or guns?
> 
> Or all 3



YOLO man, so fuck it. I'm gonna go for the gold and do all three. It's the American way...


----------



## Necris (Jun 2, 2012)

Four-Year-Old Sings &#8216;Ain&#8217;t No Homos Going To Make It To Heaven&#8217; &#8211; Receives Standing Ovation (VIDEO) | Addicting Info

I'd love to see what reaction this child would have gotten if instead of "homos" he used the word "niggers" in his little song. I feel sorry for him honestly, he can't even read and is only repeating what he's been taught.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jun 3, 2012)

Necris said:


> Kansas pastor calls on U.S. government to kill LGBT people | The Raw Story



First, I was like



Then I was like 



Now I'm like this







Douchebag pastor in article said:


> You say, Oh, I cant believe you, youre horrible. Youre a backwards neanderthal of a person. Is that what youre calling scripture?"



Umm... yes. Yes it is.


----------

