I can't say this on Twitter, because they have censorship for things like that. I can say it here. I'd like to take a big rock and crack his skull open, watching his brains spill on the ground. I think that would be "totally just".
The Bible also commands that a man who picks up sticks on the Sabbath should be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32–36). What does this idiot Republican have to say about that?
The Republican party continues to devolve into a religious denomination of its own nationalistic and violent making.
It can't be healthy to obsess over what consenting adults do with their genitals.
Indeed! As Sam Harris quipped, “The God that our neighbors believe in is essentially an invisible person. It’s a creator deity who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primate--lucky us! And he’s got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to, but he’s especially concerned with what WE do. And he’s ESPECIALLY concerned with what we do while naked.”
Oh that dude is a closet gay man. It's always the ones that talk like that that we find out later they themselves are gay. Over compensating in a way. He probably hates himself more than anyone else. Just my opinion.
Well this is some crazy shit this guy is putting out there, but it's not at all surprising. Christian nationalists don't even pretend to follow the teachings of Jesus. They're all about wrathful Old Testament retribution, patriarchy, and getting the AR-15 into the hands of as many white "Christian" men as possible.
It's not limited to the Old Testament...
Romans 1: 26-27
26 Because of this, God gave them overb to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous, but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
It’s easy to forget that the New Testament endorses the Old. Jesus is quoted as having said that not one ‘jot or tittle’ of the Hebrew Law should be altered (Matthew 5:18). In Christian theology, the entire canon is to be taken as one precept.
I live in Conneticut and the next town over was named "Stonington" because the glaciers dripped a bajillion of them here.
Where would you like your delivery dropped? When? And what size(s)?
Special Discounts for "special uses"!
Does the bible actually say you should stone gay people to death, or does it just say it's an abomination like shrimp or 50/50 cotton poly blend? Also, pretty fucking sure it says adultery and divorce are huge nono's, but that never seems to be mentioned.
Maybe not stoned specifically, but killed.
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Combine that with the fact that A LOT of the putting to death was done with stones, I think it's a fair bet that's how homosexuals were supposed to be killed.
I would love to see his reaction if he was told that all heterosexual people should be stoned to death.
Or just divorced people as Beowulfsfriend suggested. That rule is in the Bible. Rest assured, he would find (create) some excuse why he would be exempt from biblical rules.
Waiting for the douche nozzle who leaves a comment about how you're just as bad as that candidate because you're both advocating murder proving to everyone how stupid he is because he doesn't understand the difference between hating people for what's considered modifiable and non-modifiable characteristics. You know we have members that stupid...
I'd pray to win tickets to that show.
I agree completely with you. That would be just should he gain a position to actually stone us. Those without such positions need not worry about what's just when their life is threatened. Simply get rid of the offending danger and hope the legal process agrees. Outside of such a position it is free speech to agree with Biblical punishments and free speech to discredit god. I thought it law to keep religious concepts away from constitutional ones but, apparently, I was wrong. SCOTUS said so.
Oh, I've got another 6 days left in a week's Twitter Jail for doing exactly what you're saying. I don't do Twitter much, anyway, so it's of no big deal but the hypocritical nature of censorship doesn't escape me.
He was divorced due to his abuse of wife and kids, a real piece of shit. Also, if he so much wants to stick to his reading of scripture, his divorce isn't valid (while the supposed Jesus never railed on gays, he certainly railed against divorce), he is committing adultery now and should let himself and current wife be stoned for that.
God, and thus Jesus, did hate on gays plenty in the Bible, both Old and New Testament. When the WBC says, "God hates fags" it's because he does, in fact, hate homosexuals. This is why all gay people should abandon any religion based on the Bible.
@Barnie2years Jesus is god. God is Jesus. Omniscient. Omnipresent. Given the tenets of faith of Christianity, there's no legitimate way to claim he didn't. Any claim to the contrary is nothing but doublespeak, an attempted loophole to avoid the devastating consequences of the juxtaposition of the powers they purport he had and the text they claim he wrote and inspired.
God (and thus Jesus) did not mince words anywhere in the Bible about how detestable homosexuality was.
@ChestRockfield Maybe you should do some research and history of Christianity. The trinity was voted on in the 300s. You may have heard about the Council of Nicaea. If you attend most xtion churches, one may recite the Nicene Creed. There continues, even today, to be xtions that do not follow the trinity. Unitarians have existed for centuries. Some of the older Mideastern Christian sects aren't trinitarians; many died out and the people turned to Islam so as not to be praying to multiple gods, as some see Christian's attachment to the trinity. I think the largest, non-trinitarrian sect are the Jehovah's Witnesses.
@Flyingsaucesir Yeah, you are correct. I said in my first response, "supposed" Jesus. And, while he is a professed atheist, he is still using xtion arguments that aren't even "historically" true for xtions, just like so many evangelicals do. I once had an evangelical tell me there was no vote on the trinity, it was in the bibly and then spout the verses, that I pointed out were used by those who in the 300s used to argue for it.
@Beowulfsfriend Eh, I guess I wasn't counting JWs. They identify as Christians, I guess. I generally use the definition of Christian as one who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. The "definition" of Christian is one who believes in and abides the teachings of Jesus Christ, however, an exceedingly small percentage of people who identify as such actually follow any of what Jesus taught, so to me it only makes sense to use the definition that most accurately describes the largest percentage of that population. (See: countless memes of "Republican Jesus" ) I also generally don't care about what something was or how it started when it has drastically evolved since. Would you consider the Republican party to be an organization that cares about small government and individual liberty? I sure as hell don't. So why would I think about that definition when I say or hear the word 'Republican' if that's not what it means or stands for anymore?
As for the "he is still using xtion arguments" bit, you grasp that I'm not making the argument that god hates homosexuals or homosexuality, right? I don't believe in god, nor do I give a fuck about Christians, what they want, or what they believe. I'm not trying to advance their position or argue their side. The point is to show how horrific Christianity is and force people to pick a side. It is not dissimilar than pointing out all of the awful shit Trump has done to the religious right. e.g. "Hey, people who tout their belief in the sanctity of marriage and morality, that guy you're considering voting for cheated on 3 wives, divorced two, fucked a porn star then paid her hush money, etc. etc. Are you willing to compromise all of your beliefs to get him elected? If you are, I refuse to let you vote for him without facing the fact that you're betraying everything you claim you stood for."
So similar to that, I'm saying, to anyone who supports any Christian organization in any way, shape, or form, that they need to own all the ugliness of it. That their organization hates on homosexuals. That it funds methods of protecting child-molesting clergy. That it helps elect people that fight against equal rights, social progress, voting rights, general tenets of democracy, and about a billion other terrible things about that party. So please don't misunderstand the point of my words.
He is advocating murder. It is the type of rhetoric that will get someone killed. Then he will dismiss his own contribution to the killing by calling the one who committed the deed crazy. Isn't that it went down with Gabby Giffords?
Most people advocate murder all the time. They play games which train them how to carry it out and watch entertainment about people who have murdered other people so every reason to believe that they mean it, on some level, and it might make someone else carry out the deed. Very few are going to jail for these threats because they are considered American lexicon and free speech.