jbluhm86

Yet your conscience "permits" you to support an adulterer - simply because he advocates for positions you support - while, at the same time, railing against adultery because "muh Bible". So, i'd say your conscience may be a little suspect, at the very least. A quick question: if it was found that a scientific fact or principal went against what was written in the Bible, would you still accept that scientific principle or would you reject it - in the face of overwhelming evidence that supports it's being true - simply because the Bible said the opposite? We've already established from earlier that you believe the Bible to be the unequivocal truth of things, but yet here you are saying that some things in the Bible do not matter, might not be historically true, or an allegory. So, which is it?

Being a regressive Leftist doesn't equal being a liberal either, but that distinction seems to have been pushed aside by many political conservatives as well. It's hard to begin to have a dialogue with people on the other side of the isle of you when you're automatically demonized as a "fuckin' libtard" right at the jump.

Yes, except your "bigotry" against adultery seems to evaporate rather quickly when the one committing the deed happens to be the President you support. " "Christians hate the sin, but we love the sinner when they support what I support"....smh.

What utter bullshit. It's not a "matter of conscience" when the holy text these religious nutbags ascribe to clearly states that their God demands the death penalty for homosexuality. Once you use the presumptive moral authority persecute someone or kill someone for their sexual orientation solely based on religious diatribe, you cease to have a "conscience", because no rational human being would do such a thing as murder based on that.

Yes, because they've clearly remained strong on the whole "suffer the little children not" part of their mission. I'm sure Archbishop Bernard Law was just being the pillar of morality when he fled the US to hide out in Rome under the protection of the Vatican - who does not have an extradition treaty with the US - in order to evade facing his crimes in the court of justice; the only justice, btw, which his victims have on this earth and not some cockamayme final reckoning in some spiritual world. "If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!" (Matthew 18:6–7, NIV) Face the facts, the Vatican and Catholics abdicated what little moral authority they had a long time ago, and anyone who calls themselves Catholic today is knowingly and possibly financially supporting a religious pedo-mob. So your response here states a few things (highlights/emphasis is from me) The Bible is infallibly true and unaltered in its entirety, i.e: "The Bible is wholly reliable, trustworthy and true in all that it affirms". This establishes the idea that what is in the Bible, both good and bad, is the literal "truth" of things. One of these "truths" in the Bible is about homosexual acts and the prescriptions of what happens when you engage in homosexual behavior; "Scriptures that testify against homosexual behavior—including Leviticus 18:22 , 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10—are so clear and specific that they defy reinterpretation." This establishes the idea that God commands against homosexuality and homosexual acts, so we can logically assume that when God states that the punishment for homosexuality is death ("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". - Leviticus 20:13), it actually means that God does indeed commit homosexuals to death for being homosexuals, and desired for them to die because they were homosexuals. The prohibition of homosexuality and it's associated death penalty is not an allegory or misinterpretation of God's will on the matter; "It remains highly unlikely that Bible translators mistranslated five references to sexual ethics in two different testaments of Scripture. Even more unlikely is the possibility that they only mistranslated Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior" and "Scriptures that testify against homosexual behavior—including Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10—are so clear and specific that they defy reinterpretation" This means that the prohibition of homosexuality and the associated death penalty for committing homosexual acts are indeed what God willed and commanded, and are not up for interpretation any other way. God wills for homosexuals to die. The classic argument of "Well, that was the OT, Jesus in the NT would never condone such action" - or some variant of that, is not an out for you here either, because, quote: "The gospels are not more authoritative than those books of the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior. All authors of Scripture were inspired by God's Holy Spirit". This means that nothing in the NT gospels supersedes what God commanded in the OT; indeed, it even said that the absence of any remarks from Jesus on the topic of homosexuality is to be taken as confirmation of the OT prescriptions of homosexuality, which by extension, includes the death penalty. So, I don't exactly know what you were trying to accomplish here as some sort of defense, because it clearly demonstrates what many on here have been saying about the Bible endorsing hatred and violence against homosexuals and how the persecutions and acts of violence committed against gays in the name of God and Jesus are completely justified by what is in the bible itself.

I also heard through the grapevine that cat can ball.

For the most part, HBO does a really good job creating series shows, especially the mini-series ones. I still watch "Band of Brothers" around this time of year every year.

I think the correlation between the decreasing quality and scale of purported "miracles" coupled with humanity's steadily increasing scientific knowledge and understanding of our universe is pretty telling.

Just a reminder, OBF, homosexuals were, in many states, criminally liable for having intimate relations in the privacy of their own homes up until 2003, and it took the Supreme Court to overturn those laws. Those laws were written to legislate the morality of others and didn't allow them to be left alone to do their own thing. And since you brought it up, Christians in this country have a rather extensive history of attempting to legislate the morality of their fellow citizens. Hell, a grassroots Christian-based initiative even allowed our Constitution to be changed to ban alcohol via the 18th Amendment, bringing all the joys of Prohibition along with it. Or, more recently, how about the political crusades of the Moral Majority?

Sciencemag.org: Giant study links DNA variants to same-sex behavior - A study of hundreds of thousands of people uncovered four genetic variants that were more common in people who reported at least one instance of same-sex sexual behavior. Is there a so-called "gay gene", as in a single gene that would turn an otherwise straight person gay? No, probably not. There is, however, growing evidence that points to genetic influences over sexual orientation. So, it would be wrong to say that there's no biological basis for homosexuality.

"3.6 Roentgen...Not great, Not terrible".

NBC News: Tennessee DA under fire for saying he won't enforce domestic violence law for gays Another public official who refuses to do his job because his religious beliefs supersedes his duty as a DA. "Equal justice under the law...unless it runs against my religious beliefs".

Because the creators of the Bible didn't do proper proof-reading before publishing, obviously.

Some Christians say/do reprehensible shit based on verses/teachings in the Bible = "They're not TRUE Christians"/"That was just the Old Testament, it doesn't count"/etc... Some Muslims say/do reprehensible shit based on verses/teachings in the Koran = "Islam is a religion of hate" I'm paraphrasing here a little, but that's pretty much the paradoxical thinking of many religious people in this country. Crazy thought here, but how about NOT killing/persecuting/harassing homosexuals, because, idk, they're fellow human beings that deserve basic human decency? Even crazier, how about we can do these things WITHOUT having to be directed to do so by some mystical sky wizard?

I think that's all religions, tbh. It is pretty pronounced in the Christian variety in this country. The Old Testament is "the previous law" or "metaphor/not meant to be taken literally" when it doesn't fit the Christian narrative or presents reprehensible acts committed by God/in the name of God, but when it does fit their narrative, it suddenly matters. Which brings me full circle on the reasoning why the government is/needs to remain a secular entity, which doesn't allow theistic beliefs to influence it. The pastor/police officer in question is an armed public official who believes that gays should be summarily executed, so who knows how he'd respond to an actual emergency/situation involving homosexuals. How can homosexual citizens feel safe around a police officer who wishes death upon them?

I couldn't help noticing that, instead of addressing the issue of a law enforcement officer calling for the legalized execution of homosexual citizens based SOLELY on biblical "authority", the first - and only - thing you decided to focus on was "well, there's only 16 people...". Perhaps you're having trouble squaring the circle of your own religious beliefs with the fact that the Bible DOES in fact call for the summary execution of homosexuals?

https://allscripturebaptist.com/

I'm not saying that they aren't, and they are probably the most likeliest of suspects at the moment. Just the timing of the attack, the nationality of the stricken tanker, and the discrepancy between the official report and eyewitness testimony seems a bit odd to me.

NBC News: Japanese tanker owner contradicts U.S. officials over explosives used in Gulf of Oman attack The Japanese owner of a tanker attacked in the Gulf of Oman claimed Friday that it was struck by a flying projectile, contradicting reports by U.S. officials and the military on the source of the blast. U.S. Central Command said the two vessels were hit Thursday by a limpet mine, which is attached to boats below the waterline using magnets. U.S. Central Command released video it claimed showed an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps patrol boat removing an unexploded mine from one of the tankers, the Kokuka Courageous. But on Friday morning, the owner of the 560-foot Courageous, said that sailors saw something flying toward the vessel just before the explosion and that the impact was well above the waterline. "We received reports that something flew towards the ship," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokaku Sangyo Co. at a press conference. "The place where the projectile landed was significantly higher than the water level, so we are absolutely sure that this wasn’t a torpedo. "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship." U.S. officials have not yet responded to the claims. But President Donald Trump reiterated U.S. allegations that Iran was behind the attack, telling the Fox News Channel that the incident had "Iran written all over it." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Thursday that the weapons used and the level of expertise behind the attack suggested Tehran is the culprit..."

I'm not Jewish, but my ancestors were.

Cringy-wording aside, it's entirety possible. Iran is a major threat to the security of Israel, and the Mossad is among the best in the world at black ops, and the Saudis are major economic competitors in the region, coupled with all the joys that Sunni-Shiite conflicts bring with it. And neither the Israelis nor the Saudis have the military might to go it alone against Iran.

From the BBC article I posted earlier: What we know about the explosions "According to the US account of events, US naval forces in the region received distress calls from the Norwegian-owned Front Altair at 06:12 (02:12 GMT) and from the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous at 07:00, following explosions, and moved towards the area. It said the USS Bainbridge observed Iranian naval boats operating in the area in the hours after the explosions, and later removing the unexploded mine from the side of the Kokuka Courageous. The crews of both vessels were evacuated to other ships nearby. Both Iran and the US later released pictures showing rescued crew members on board their vessels. BSM Ship Management, which manages the Kokuka Courageous, said the ship's crew abandoned ship after observing a fire and an unexploded mine. Apparently disputing the US version of events, Yutaka Katada, the president of the ship's operator, Kokuka Sangyo, said members of the crew had reported "that the ship was attacked by a flying object". The Kokuka Courageous was about 30km (20 miles) off the Iranian coast when it sent its emergency call..." This isn't about Trump or "siding with Iran" to spite Trump; it's about pointing out the legitimate discrepancies in the accounts of what happened. Sad to say, but our government has a track record willingness to perform borderline black flag operations to draw us into conflict with countries we're at odds with, hence why I named this thread "Gulf of Tonkin 2.0". And with that track record, coupled with the tanker crew eyewitness accounts being different from what the official story our government is putting out, I think it's pretty reasonable to have a healthy dose of skepticism on what actually went down.