HOME | DD
Andalitebandit-6 — The Morality of Homosexuality
Published: 2008-02-11 04:37:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 124534; Favourites: 568; Downloads: 172
Redirect to original
Description
A father picks up his newspaper the morning after he buried his son, a Marine Corps Corporal. He found the front page dominated by a story about protesters thanking God for killing another soldier.The protester's justification? Their message is supported by scripture: God is punishing America for being tolerant of homosexuals and the death of soldiers is a welcome sign of God’s wrath.
How is a parent supposed to feel when their beloved child, who happened to be different, dies fighting to protect a people who's only response is “You’re going to hell!” and “God hates you!” ?
The claim in question today is "Homosexuality is morally wrong, because God says so." I disagree. A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality.
Let's look at what parts of the Bible support this claim. A few sample translations from various publications include:
King James Version, first published in 1611: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."
New International Version, first published in 1978: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
New English Translation, first published in 2005: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act."
-Leviticus 18:22
William Tyndale is commonly called the father of the English Bible. He completed the translation of the New Testament in 1526. In doing so, Tyndale introduced new words into the English language, such as: Jehovah, Passover, atonement and scapegoat.
The Roman Catholic Church protested. Tyndale's translation used words like 'overseer' instead of 'bishop,' 'elder' instead of 'priest,' 'congregation' instead of 'church' and 'love' instead of 'charity'.
Let's look at the definitions of these controversial words:
An 'overseer' is a person who keeps watch over and directs the work of others whereas a 'bishop' is a senior member of the Christian clergy who wields spiritual and administrative authority, even considered in some churches to be successors of the twelve Apostles of Christ.
An 'elder' is an older, influential member of a family, tribe, or community whereas a 'priest' is a member of the second grade of clergy ranking below a bishop but above a deacon and having authority to administer the sacraments.
A 'congregation' is an assemblage of people, animals or things collected together whereas a 'church' is a body of people who attend or belong to a place for public worship.
'Love' is a strong positive emotion of regard and affection whereas 'charity' is something given to help the needy.
The wording in traditional Roman Catholic readings tends towards the clergy's divine right to rule others, to mandate attendance to their sermons and towards giving monetary gifts for the support of the church. They twisted scripture to suit their needs.
However, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that all the various Leviticus 18:22 passages really do mean the same thing and that the message it wants to get across is that homosexuality is an undesirable trait. Leviticus 20:13 goes on to say that it is punishable by death, coincidentally the same punishment given to murderers. Some would agree with Robert T. Lee, the founder of the Society For the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments. Robert says this implies that homosexuality is at least equal to the sin of murder and that all homosexuals should be regarded by every society to be just as much criminals as are murderers. If we take it that far, should every written law in the bible be enforced?
Lee says on his website, "Man has not been given the authority and power to define the nature of crime. That authority is rightfully reserved only by God. [...] Therefore it is God who can best define what is evil for man."
Let's take that idea and see where it goes:
"I do not let women teach. I do not let them have authority over men. They must be quiet." -1 Timothy 2: 12 (New International Reader's Version)
Does this mean that every woman in a position of authority should be fired and women in general striped of their right to vote?
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 'Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession." -Leviticus 25:44-45. (New American Standard Bible)
Does this give us permission to treat others as though they are less than human, even so far as to enslave them, simply because they are different?
"Withhold not from a youth chastisement, When thou smitest him with a rod he dieth not. Thou with a rod smitest him, And his soul from Sheol thou deliverest." - Proverbs 23:13-14 (Young's Literal Translation)
Does this mean that children should grow up thinking that violence is an acceptable form of conflict resolution?
One argument in defense of biblical law is that it is mainly passages from the Old Testament that promote slavery, sexism, child-abuse, and other vices now that were considered virtues in their day. When Jesus died on the cross, the believer's sins were covered by his blood which granted forgiveness and began a new covenant that made the laws of the old obsolete. This can be interpreted from Hebrews 8:8-13.
However, in Matthew 5: 17-18, Jesus says:
"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Jesus basically explained that every single law in the Old Testament is still applicable and his teachings have no impact on their relevance. He even reiterates that yes, disobedient children should be put to death (Matthew 15:4-7). Even if you choose to ignore that passage, Jesus supposedly died two thousand years ago. Why is it that less than two hundred ago, in 1865 when Congress passed the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery, people were still quoting those same Old Testament scriptures to justify keeping their black slaves? One could argue that those people were misguided, that the Bible was written for a different time, when it was culturally acceptable to do those things; that the Old Testament is not used by Christians for laws we must live by, and is instead more of a history book. In that case, my argument that there are no moral grounds for condemning homosexuality still stands since the book in which it is prohibited, Leviticus, is from the Old Testament.
Others continue to justify their condemnation of homosexuals by pointing out that it is carried over to the New Testament:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, nor cheats, nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God." -1 Cor. 6:9-10, (Amplified Bible)
"Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either—women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches." -Rom. 1:26-27, (The Message)
"We also know that the law is not made for good people but for those who are against the law and for those who refuse to follow it. It is for people who are against God and are sinful, who are unholy and ungodly, who kill their fathers and mothers, who murder, who take part in sexual sins, who have sexual relations with people of the same sex, who sell slaves, who tell lies, who speak falsely, and who do anything against the true teaching of God." -I Timothy 1:9-10, (New Century Version)
Now, it should be noted that all of these verses are excerpts from letters by the apostle Paul to their respective recipients. Before taking them at face value, listen to what the apostle Peter had to say about Paul's writings:
2 Peter 3:15-17 "You can be sure the long waiting of our Lord is part of His plan to save men from the punishment of sin. God gave our dear brother Paul the wisdom to write about this also. He wrote about these things in all of his writings. Some of these things are hard to understand. People who do not have much understanding and some who are not strong in the faith change the meaning of his letters. They do this to the other parts of the Holy Writings also. They are destroying themselves as they do this. And so, dear friends, now that you know this, watch so you will not be led away by the mistakes of these sinful people. Do not be moved by them." (New Life Version)
With this warning in mind, it should be noted that the very word 'homosexual' and phrases specifically referring to sex between people of the same gender for the previous condemning verses are NOT found in all Bible translations across the board.
Each translation reflects the world-view, beliefs, and mind set of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. It is therefore no wonder that many have wished to know what the original text actually said. The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) has analyzed the Leviticus verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination." That is, rather than forbidding homosexuality, it simply restricts where it can happen. This may seem like a strange prohibition to us today, but it was consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. Much of Leviticus deals with the "Levitical Holiness Code," a code of conduct that was part of a covenant that prohibited the children of Israel from participating in the religious rituals of the Canaanites once they entered the promised land. They were not to eat with, intermarry, worship with or in a similar manner to the Canaanites. They were to remain "holy" or set apart. In obeying this covenant, they would prove themselves to be God's chosen people.
Since women were thought to be unclean during certain times of month, they had beds of their own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only for the purpose of having sex with her. Any other use of her bed would have been a defilement. An argument against this interpretation is that it would not go well with the next verse that discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. However, in defense of the NGPA translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22 which prohibits children being sacrificed to Molech. So a second break between verses 22 and 23 would not be unreasonable.
The seriousness of this crime in Hebrew eyes was made worse by the belief that 'to lie with a man as with a woman' violated the dignity of the male gender. Women were considered property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thus, to violate the image of God.
Those who thump their Bibles against the gay community complain that the scriptures which attack women, children and people of color are being taken out of context. In the case against homosexuality, I accuse these people of the same crime.
Religion is supposed to help people. How does condemning homosexuality help anyone? Is it because homosexual couples can't produce offspring? Today people are growing healthier and living longer due to modern technology. Infertile couples have the options of in-vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and adoption. With the world population estimated to have hit 7 billion people in the year 2012, humans are hardly in danger of dying out.
Is it because the AIDs epidemic started with homosexual men? Why should the victims be blamed? If every homosexual in the world turned straight overnight, would the AIDs virus cease to exist? Of course not. AIDs isn't caused by homosexuality, it isn't transmitted by casual contact with homosexuals, it isn't cured by sexual intercourse with a virgin, and it won't stop spreading until people are educated about it, learn to practice safe-sex, and stop sharing contaminated needles.
The senseless fear and hatred of homosexuals has to stop. Otherwise we will continue to hear about tragedies like the police officer who denied a gay man CPR, the young boy beaten to death on the mere suspicion of being gay, and the gay teenager struggling with social hostility and isolation who turns to suicide as a solution to their pain.
Today, laws against homosexuality still exist around the world. The punishments range from a fine and 3 years incarceration in Algeria to being put to death in places like Saudi Arabia. There currently exist groups here in the U.S. like the Traditional Values Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association, that are dedicated to the promotion of anti-homosexual legislation: to prevent them from being a protected class against hate-crimes, from getting legally married, from adopting children or serving as foster parents, and even to deny their families health care.
As a country founded by people seeking to escape religious persecution, for having beliefs that differed from the norm, as a country that established a democracy proclaiming that "All men are created equal" why do we try so hard to make others conform to our personal way of life and scorn those who have the courage to stand their ground?
We need to give homosexuals the chance to live normal lives; to accept them for who they are without making them feel shame, guilt, or unworthiness; to address them and treat them in a civil manner and accord them their dignity; to give them back their unalienable rights guaranteed to them as human beings and under the United States Declaration of Independence, their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Chief Justice Earl Warren presided in the 1967 Supreme Court case "Loving v. Virginia" involving an interracial couple, and he wrote: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
I hope this provoked some thought, and that everyone will agree that there are no moral nor practical grounds to condemn homosexuality, that the biblical law is set to the standards of an out-dated code of conduct, and I hope that we learn, once again, that it is wrong to hate someone simply because they are different.
Related content
Comments: 1274
To prevent this from turning into a wall of text, I'll approach this one point at a time.
This sentence confused me: "The laws of the Ot have been fulfilled, but the things of the Old testament to refer to righteousness are to be observed."
What "things" are you talking about?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Things that tell ous how to live righteously
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a very vague answer. By what guidelines are you determining what is considered righteous living? As I mentioned before: slavery, sexism, and child abuse are all condoned (even encouraged) in the OT. There have been various individuals who have tried to live their lives strictly according to biblical laws and have found the lifestyle sorely lacking. "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible" written by A.J. Jacobs is one such personal account that testifies to this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually, child abuse is condemned in the Bible. There's a pagan god mentioned in the OT (I forget his name but it starts with an M; Malech I think??), and those who worshiped him frequently sacrificed their children to him. The Bible condemns that act several times. In the New Testament, when Jesus is talking with several other people, a group of children try to talk to him. His disciples tell the kids' parents that Jesus is busy and doesn't have time for children, but Jesus replies with "Let the children come to me, for the kingdom of God is such as this" which implies that Jesus loves children and that they are welcomed in his kingdom. And the Bible does not condone slavery; in Exodus, the Israelites are enslaved by the Egyptians and God frees them. Sexism is not condoned either. The story of Mary and Martha displays Jesus' kindness towards Mary, and he specifically praises her for her faith and spending her time listening to him, rather than busying herself like Martha. An important thing to remember is that during that time, women were not necessarily always considered equals by humans, but not by God. God specifically chose a faithful woman (Mary) to be the mother of Jesus. Sorry for the essay-length comment lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Rom. 2:14-15 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them
Rom. 6:14 -15: “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”
Rom. 8:2-4: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Yahuwshuwah HaMashiach has set you free from the law of sin and of death For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, Yahuwah{did:} sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and {as an offering} for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”
We arne't under the Old Testiment laws, that's true, but we are to live by the things that refer to living a righteous life.
How can a gay man be righteous?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You still have not provided a definition of the word 'righteous'. All you've said is that to be a righteous person, it's not necessary to follow OT laws. So how do you know if a person is righteous or not? Is a person righteous if they attend mass every Sunday? Are they righteous if they follow the Ten Commandments but not the laws of their home state? Is a law abiding citizen that has eaten red meat on Good Friday no longer considered righteous?
Unless there are specific criteria outlining what a righteous person does and doesn't do, the word is arbitrary and thus meaningless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A righteous person is anyone who listens to God's word and tries to do what is right, based on what is outlined throughout the Bible. Being righteous does not mean you will always make the right decision. All it means is that you try to do what's right, and ask for God's forgiveness and change your behavior when you make a mistake. Attending mass every Sunday is great, but it doesn't make you righteous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ok... that was a lot of words without actually saying much other than not to hate for "being different". First, let's throw out the argument of whether it's a sin. We'll be here arguing forever, and my only point on the matter is that sexual relations and the ability to procreate are ordained of God, and should be used appropriately - what is being "gay" other than participating in these actions with someone of the same gender under the justification that you "love" each other?
On to the important part, equality. In the end, the arguments gays have is that they want the stuff and recognition marriages get for being marriages, because they should be treated "equal". Well, then let me ask a question: what is equality? Why are women, who are treated equal under God and the law, separated in sports, fashion styles, etc? To answer both, all people should have equality in opportunity, and consequence under the and God. However, nothing in the world will ever make a woman equal to a man in strength, biology, psychology, etc. Guys and girls are different (shocker). The same goes with marriage; marriage is a religious institution invented since the creation of the world, and now you people come and expect to change it in 20 years? Benefits are given to marriages because the government sees them as capable of raising children and working and being a model for society... No matter what you say, a gay couple will never have children, and no adopted children will be raised as well as in a family where they can learn virtues from a mother and father.
"But gays are born this way, you bigot!"
Show the evidence. I am not saying gays can't choose what they want to. I'm saying to not call apples oranges.
"they can't see each other in a hospital! They need tax reductions!"
They can't see each other? Tell me, where'd you hear that? Tax reductions for what? What are they doing that deserves tax reduction?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your opinions are based on your holy text (one of many, I might add) which I've just explained is full of editor bias.
Of course males and females are different. I never stated otherwise in my essay. The point of equality is for equal opportunities. If a person is physically and mentally capable of something, he or she should not be denied the opportunity to do it for the ridiculous reason that they're the wrong gender/race/sexual orientation/etc.
What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not traditional at all. It's radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago. And if you want to talk about "thousands of years," you'll find that almost everything about marriage has changed.
Children are no longer a requirement in order to form a 'family'. Today fully half of all families do not meet the definition of nuclear family (a mother, father, a dog, and 2.5 children).
If you're asking me to find the 'gay gene', that's irrelevant to the conversation.
If you're saying that married people in general don't deserve tax reductions, I agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, the Book of Mormon has only one translation, and it was by inspiration of God, thank you very much.
Did I say anything about not having equal opportunities? Sure, we shouldn't punish them for that decision in this life, that is for God to do. The real problem with the whole gay thing is that you treat it as "just another option", when in reality, you have these feelings and body parts for the sake of both procreation and for physical bonding of man and woman. Gays can feel and do what they like, but you can't just put it down under the same category as an actual sexual relationship (yes I will be that bold).
"Children are no longer a requirement", then what IS a family other than two people saying they'll maybe maintain a long-term dating commitment!? (Dog is in a regular family?) Your argument here is that because half of families aren't considered average, and therefore society is changing, that it justifies changing marriage' s meaning. Society is changing, yes, but for the better? Look at the kids being raised in those one-half of homes. Are they growing up better, or worse? (The answer is worse)
Changing social standards on morality does not change morality- it is as constant as gravity.
Gays can already get together and crap, STOP SAYING THEY AREN'T!
Why do you care so much about them being called a marriage!? It isn't like they don't already get attention in the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My point wasn't how many versions of any given text exist. Every theist on the planet claims that their holy scripture is inspired by god. Every theist on the planet has proof. Every proof is supported upon weak foundations such as retrodiction or personal revelation.
It's true that sexual organs can be used for procreation. However, there is no compelling argument that they should ONLY be used for that purpose. To say that sexual union serves as a type of bond between a man and a woman, it is a very weak one. The sheer number of single mothers in the world should be proof enough of that.
Merriam-Webster defines a family as: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head. There are many more definitions for this word, however this serves to prove my point that there exists more than one type of family.
Yes, I am saying that because society is changing that it justifies changing marriage's meaning. Words change meaning all the time. This is the norm. The English you and I are speaking now is not the same as the English spoken by our ancestors, nor is it the same English that our decedents will speak. Society has its ups and downs, it's Dark Ages and Ages of Enlightenment. I believe that any advancements we make toward equality are changes for the better.
It's true that many children are living in dysfunctional families where the parents are abusive and/or negligent. However, neither gay parents nor single parents are inherently abusive or negligent.
To say that morality is constant is false. Morality is constantly changing as well. As I mentioned in my essay, slavery was once acceptable. Even the bible did not condemn it, but instead laid out rules on how to do execute it properly.
Minorities do not fight for equal rights to "get attention". If they remained meek and silently accepted their lowly social status, blacks would still be considered 3/5ths of a white person and women would still be bared from voting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, on personal revelation, what other way to prove One's existence than to tell it to somebody else, which is really what revelation is: God giving truth to an individual who legitimately wants to know.
And there IS a compelling argument that using sexual organs for selfish pleasure is fine? So prostitution is okay, because they agree to it? By the way, you say "sexual UNION" and then say that sex doesn't form a type of bond... okay. Like any bond, it can be broken, and many men working for their own selfish indulgences (and sometimes the women, too) don't properly have that bond to the PERSON like they should, and only to the activity; this constitutes many of the types of bonds between gays: they like what they feel (no I don't mean every one is like this).
See, you argue so much that marriage is just a word that changes meaning all the time. The problem is, I'm arguing for the integrity and the ability to be protected in my belief of what marriage means as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and so we come to a conflict: either religion is just being oppressive, intolerant, and as cruel as the Catholics in pre-colonial Europe, or, gays are angry at religion for having beliefs that aren't theirs, and want the government to back them up on it in the name of "equality", even though it would be unfair to the religions to tell them THEY are wrong under this logic. The answer is B.
"Advancements we make toward equality" I'll save that for later.
Another kind of dysfunctional family is one where the children do not have their birth mother and father to raise them, which is what single and gay families are. You learn things from your mother and father individually, that the other CAN NOT teach you. Being adopted by a married, man-and-woman couple, is the second-best thing to that, perhaps tied with single birth parent. Any scientific study will tell you that children grow up significantly better in homes with a mother and father than ones that lack one or the other.
"Morality is not constant". Well, then let me juxtapose that with this statement: "Advancements we make toward equality." Wait. Isn't "equality" moral? But, morality isn't constant, so then, what makes you any more "right" than any other human being on the planet about what is "equal", if morality is subjective, and "constantly changing"? The only thing changing is societies' care to moral law, which has always existed, even as long as physical law. "No it hasn't, humans made it up." We made up science, too, didn't we? Unless, of course, there is a God, and there is right and wrong...
Onward with moral relativism. Is what Hitler did wrong? Is what Stalin and Mussolini did wrong? Is what elementary school shooters do wrong? Again, is prostitution wrong? Is ANYTHING wrong? Because, according to your statements, the answer to all of these is NO. Now, I don't know many people on this earth who think like that, and haven't gone suicidal (or homicidal, for that matter), 'cause, that is their mindset: "nothing matters, and, c'mon, what's killing except changing the state of matter?" And, if nothing matters because there is no such thing as doing the right thing, or that it only matters that you feel good, then I have no more argument.
Equality does not mean anyone can do anything: we can't kill, for example.
"lowly social status" So gays have a lowly social status? Bullcrap. Notice how many pop stars, and people in cities, just so happen to be gay. Most of them are remaining meek, and honestly, I have one question left.
What do gays not already have that you want them to get so badly? Fame, check. Acceptable, check. Praised, check. Not officially called a marriage in order to protect the religious rights of the people... Oh. So that's it. Your whole argument: I want them to have a different word define their dating relationship.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The problem with personal revelation is that it is not proof for anyone other than you. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists - members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of their faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should anybody accept one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?
All healthy living things have a sex drive. This drive is incredibly powerful and difficult to ignore or suppress. You will have a hard time finding married couples who only have sex when they're actively trying to have a child. Desperately fighting the urge is one option, but not a very practical one as demonstrated by the large number of teen pregnancies. Teaching safe sex procedures seems a better alternative, in my opinion.
"Gays are angry at religion for having beliefs that aren't theirs" How do you explain gay chrisitians?
Birth parents are not inherently the best parents for a child. There are countless horror stories of abused children raised in their own biological families. The risk factors are largely due to poverty, unemployment, lack of education, domestic violence, poor parent-child relationships and negative interactions. You'll notice that marital status and sexual orientation are not part of this list.
I see no juxtapose with equality being moral. The definition of equality also changes. Jim Crow laws were deemed moral because the segregated facilities for blacks and white were deemed "Separate but equal". We've since made the proper social adjustments.
You are correct. Both 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective terms. Is genital mutilation (circumcision)'right' or 'wrong'? It depends who you ask. Does this mean that everything is permissible? Of course not, because one thing that is undeniable is this: consequences. What are the consequences for the actions taken? Do we, as individuals, find those consequences acceptable? If the answer is yes, we stay with the group of people that agree with us. If the answer is no, then we either pack up and move or gather like-minded supporters and create a revolution. I'm not saying this justifies the massacres done by jihadists, totalitarian regimes, and serial killers, simply that this is how they spawn and also how they are defeated.
"Equality does not mean anyone can do anything: we can't kill, for example." This is false. We can, and do, kill with our society's full support. This has to do with the social acceptability of the consequences I mentioned previously. Was the life of another person saved (killing in self defense)? Does it strengthen our national security (killing during a war)? Was it done with the victim's consent, such as in the case of a painful and incurable life threatening disease (euthanasia)? Everyone has the right to kill under socially acceptable circumstances.
The lowly social status of a group as a whole does not mean that individuals from that group cannot shine and be famous. For example, a self-proclaimed stripper will have a hard time finding a respectable relationship or friends. Even her employer might not see her as a human being. Yet you have Lady Gaga, a scandalous woman with a history of being a stripper, who is loved by millions and is an icon of today's pop culture.
Here is one example of a consequence rendered by the gay's lowly social status:
According to federal law, gays are not protected against workplace discrimination. A bill called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), would provide everyone in the country with equal employment rights, regardless of sexual orientation. However, this bill has been repeatedly denied due to certain groups expressing concern about the impact of this law on religious organizations. This is despite the fact that the letter of the law strictly refers only to employment in the private sector.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Which is why I invite you to legitimately search for truth and ask for our own personal revelation.
I never said sex is only for having children. I said that having and acting on the feeling with one of the same sex is disgusting, seeing as it is solely ideas to satisfy selfish means.
Sure, teach birth control (sad thing is that we have to), but encourage abstinence before marriage, PLEASE.
Gay Christians are people who twist or rewrite their religion's teachings so they can still believe the rest, and deny the part they don't agree with.
Really? Birth parents aren't the best for the child? You sure are good at listing the exceptions to the rule, though. Guess what they have a kitchen abuse? Immorality. Drinking. Besides, you again miss the point: would you not care that you were raised by two dads, rather than your birth mother and father? Would you be the same person?
Thank you for stating consequences. You at least understand this! What our apparently don't, is that right and wrong are NOT subjective. They are situational, as you so extensively pointed out about killing, which I had hoped you'd already know what I meant by it (murder); however, something that is wrong, is always wrong.
Before I go on, what lowly social status? If they are truly discriminated against in workplaces, fine, pass a law for that, whatever.
What I meant with the morality being subjective is stupid thing, is that if it is, then the only thing that makes anything you think correct is whether society says so, right? So, what about 100 years later, when society says stealing in all cases is fine? I would like to show the problem with the attitude of moral relativism through a videogame, Bioshock. The city of Rapture seems perfect: one can do anything he wishes, have sex with anyone, buy anything, own everything, whatever one wants. Oh, and the city goes to crap, because there is no morality.
Speaking of consequences, what is the consequence of gay sex? Probably, your answers are "love", "feeling good", "get what they want, because it is their right to do anything they want", etc. Well, how about these: loss of moral virtues, STDs, desensitization to sexual immorality, etc.
Now, the problem with those answers is that you will argue for all time and eternity that gay sex is not immoral, it's just different, blah blah blah. Honestly, I'm getting bored of your constant whining over such a small change (for the worse) that our want in our country: everyone already accepts gays except for religions (and not even most religions are holding their grounds), and for those crazies that say that killing gays is a blessing from God, there are millions of people who just wish to keep our rights protected.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Which is why I invite you to legitimately search for truth and ask for our own personal revelation."
Several Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have also done this. They ask me to close my eyes, put my hands together in prayer and sincerely ask Jesus to come into my heart and show me the truth. Each time I do this, I hear, see, and feel nothing. Therefore, when I arrive at a different truth (That there are no such thing as gods) I am accused of "not opening my heart" to Jesus or "not being sincere enough". Basically, I did something wrong because I didn't arrive at their truth. Thus the reason I sustain that personal revelation is a weak basis for any sort of reliable knowledge.
Whether or not an act is disgusting is irrelevant. What are the consequences? Is anyone being hurt? Is anyone being forced to do something against their will? Are anyone's rights being violated? I'd have to say no.
I agree with you 100% that, in addition to teaching safe-sex methods, abstinence before marriage should be encouraged.
"Gay Christians are people who twist or rewrite their religion's teachings so they can still believe the rest, and deny the part they don't agree with."
Yet Christianity itself is divided into approximately 41,000 different denominations, each interpreting scripture in their own way. Who is the better Christian? The fundamentalist who stones a gay man to death (such as John Joe Thomas) or the liberal that officially and unequivocally welcomes LGBT people and their families (such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America)?
Birth parents are not inherently best for a child. That's the key word. There is nothing about being related by blood that ensures good parent/child relations. A child does not care who the caregiver is, as long as she or he feels loved and cherished. The parents could be poor, ugly, and have bad smoking habits, but if they read the child a story every night, make him his favorite breakfast when he's sad, and give him plenty of hugs and kisses, that child will readily tell everyone that he has the best parents in the world. The problems only start when prejudiced peers and adults tell the child that he should be ashamed of his parents and start to tease and harass him.
I stand by my previous assertion that right and wrong are subjective. Not everyone is in agreement as to which situations merit being socially acceptable. Honor killings are popular in the middle east. It is the norm to kill a woman who refuses to enter into an arranged marriage, seeks a divorce (even from an abusive husband) or is accused of committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that "dishonors" her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life, with the consequence of her death being that her family's honor remains intact.
What do you mean by "the loss of moral virtues"? The fact that being gay won't be considered immoral anymore? I see nothing wrong with that, and honestly hope it becomes common sense in my lifetime. STDs? Unless you can make the argument that married gays will spread more STDs than unmarried gays, this point is irrelevant. Desensitization to sexual immorality? The Catholic church has already done plenty of that (priests molesting children and the ones preaching against gays found out to be engaging in homosexual acts) and yet you don't see Catholics leaving the churches in droves.
The only violation of rights on the table are those belonging to the gays. The right you seem to want to keep is the right to discriminate based on stereotypes, and nobody has that right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't even want to respond to all of this... geez, calm down.
Idiots, haters, and lovers exist on every side of every issue. You've obviously pointed out that there are stupid religious people, and people that break their own rules. Your side isn't free from evils, though.
What I've been saying this whole time about morality is that society DOES NOT determine what is morally correct, it chooses which moral laws are the ones they'll follow. Moral Law is just as eternal as Physical Laws. What, why shouldn't they be? Because humans invented them? Didn't we also invent science? Why aren't those laws "subjective"?
What right is being violated for gays? Discrimination? Well, for those who hate them for what they do, yes, give some punishment, especially when it becomes physical, but you are taking it farther than that. What law do you wish to give to gays that will make them equal? Nevermind, I don't even care.
What I care about is the moral implication. Obviously, you find no problem with people choosing to have their sexual urges satisfied with some random dude, I do. Neither of us will be convinced of the other, because I have set my foundation in my beliefs, and you have remained doubtful and at least now fully rejecting my very foundation, and have set up your own.
I do not discriminate on a stereotype, I genuinely feel sad that they, who just as much as I or you, are literal children of God, have chosen what they have chosen, and I will always invite them, if they will come. I'm sorry that you feel that religion as a whole is "keeping them from their rights", but I am still confused on what right they don't have that they should for being a human.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Aren't you the same? You said you invite me to investigate the truth for myself. I have done this already and have concluded that all religions are man-made fairy tales and should not be used to make decisions about civil laws.
What do you mean society does not determine what is morally correct? Of course it does. Christian society deems the god of the bible to be a just and moral being, whereas many non-Christians view your god as an immoral monster. Richard Dawkins said it best:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
You justify his horrendous behavior by saying things like "He created us, so he can do what he wants with us", or that he "works in mysterious ways". If anyone else committed any one of
Physical laws are not the same as moral laws. To say so is to admit to being ignorant of how science works. Science does not dictate the rules of the world, it is the tool used to discover what those rules are. Religion told us that being sick meant you were cursed with demons. Science took a closer look and saw that microscopic bacteria and viruses were the real culprits.
If you didn't care, you wouldn't have said anything. There are several laws that would help make gays equal, actually: employment discrimination, blood donation discrimination, adoption discrimination, housing discrimination, and marriage discrimination to name a few.
Unless they are having sex on your front lawn or in the streets and impeding traffic, what two consenting adults do with each other is none of your concern.
I believe I covered what rights they're missing with the paragraph about "What law do you wish to give gays that will make them equal?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see. Your problem with religion, is that you (and many religions) teach God wrongly. You use understandable and indeed very logical arguments, and you don't believe in God because (correct me if I am wrong): 1. There is no necessity to have a God, because science can describe how everything happens without Him. 2. God is cruel and His laws are... Well every thing the quote says.
I would show you that this is not at all who God is. The first question to answer is why He made us. He is our literal Father of our spirits, who has made us, and like any father, wants us to live, grow, and become glorious as He is, that we may be perfect. His work and His glory is to bring to pass the immortality and the eternal life of Man. Of course He is jealous, would you not want your father to be jealous of you? To be protective, and ever-caring? He truly loves ALL of His children, and He weeps when they do wrong, but He must exercise the Law, as any government must exercise Law. He set forth Laws for the world in the beginning, and let them run, and He sent us here, that we may choose Him, and follow His ways. He sent His first-born spirit child, and His only-Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ, that Christ may be the Mediator, who pays the debt which none else is able to, and that if we then can fulfill Christ's example, He can perfect us, and let us return to the presence of our Father and Mother in Heaven. We can become like God, and the eternal round of creation will continue. Those who are unable to follow the highest Law are given the kingdom ruled by the Law they can follow.
He is always willing to forgive, and always, He will show us the way.
You assert your disagreement with the moral laws that my religion believes. I ask two questions: why are some drugs illegal, if they only affect the person that uses it? Shouldn't people be allowed to choose what they want? Suicide is illegal, too, but it only affects that person... but they are illegal because they are protections from doing wrong. If people were not already addicted to wine and smoking, these would be illegal too. I do not wish to enforce the law because it will hurt me directly. I wish to hold it so that the morals upon which the Founders created this country may be protected. You say there is discrimination against gays, but there are reasons besides the fact that they are gay that constitute this "injustices". For employment, sure, this is unjust. However, blood donation is from the worry of blood problems caused by their actions; if you can prove there is no difference, then fine. Adoption discrimination comes from the fact that a man and woman are better options for parents than two men. It is a fact. There is also just discrimination against the quality of those parents, such as whether they smoke or have criminal records. The parents for a child are virtuous birth parents, followed by virtuous adoptive mother and father. Housing discrimination? Hmm. If this is truly so, it shouldn't. Marriage discrimination, in what? That they are not called a marriage? They can already be put together in a civil bond, which is all you are asking for, civil equality, correct? If you mean the benefits for being a marriage the government gives, then, understand that they are given for the purpose that they can better raise children in a strong home as loving parents. Show me some that you feel are unfair.
I ask again why there is no such thing as moral Law, if there are physical ones. I am fascinated, and absolutely LOVE science, and try to learn all I can in high school. It is brilliant, and can describe so many amazing laws in motion. Why are morals a mere worthless construct of human insecurity, and science a sure method? But I digress, and I can never convince you in such a way.
If you want to come to the knowledge of the truth, do not only sit and apathetically ask God for some few moments. First, give place for the Word, and test it. Live the moral law which I speak of, and then you know whether it is of God, or whether I speak of myself. I edit a previous statement; how can you know whether anything is true, whether in science, math, religion, etc., unless it is told to you, and tested, whether the test is in a lab, in the home, it matters not, if the materials and the precautions of the tests are met.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you honestly trying to convince me that jealousy is a moral virtue? Have you read what the consequences are of his jealousy? He KILLS people. I refuse to accept jealousy as a socially acceptable reason to kill anyone. There's no discernible difference between jealousy killings and honor killings.
Let me ask you a simple question. Is there anything your god could command, do, or condone that would make you think he was evil? If your answer is yes, what would it be? If your answer is no, if he could command, do, or condone murder, rape, and torture and it's all fine and he must have a good reason for doing it, even if you don't know what that reason is... then there is no further point to this conversation. If your god is except from the moral standards of human beings, then you might as well be worshiping a demon and it would make no difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I am trying to show that what we define jealousy as today (envy or coveting) is not what the original language of the Bible was using it for. Firstly, j and z are interchangeable, so zealous could also be what was meant in writing. Secondly, jealous meant to hold something in high esteem, to have strong care and emotion towards; it was not derogatory in any manner.
Have YOU read WHY He kills people? Who is it that He takes off of the earth? Well, extreme sinners, when no righteous are left among them, and after God has explicitly and often given warning of doing so. In short, those who have broken His laws wholly and completely. Even then, their death is not the end of their chance for redemption. Surely, as you have spoken to Mormons, should have at least heard of the Plan of Salvation, right? Well, after physical death, our spirits go to the Spirit World, to either Paradise or Prison (which most religions interpret as Heaven and Hell). However, this is not the end. From Paradise, missionaries come and continue to preach the Word to those who had not obtained it, or had denied it, and are in Prison. At any time, when the listener is ready, they can choose to believe in Christ, and repent. By baptisms for the dead done by proxy in our temples, the ordinance can be recognized by God's law, as baptism requires a body. To answer the misconception now, the baptism does not force a person to become Mormon, it rather completes the ordinance, and the person can accept or deny it at any time. God will give all of us many times to change, but He takes off of the earth those who would only be a hindrance to others trying to become as He is, by His own law.
Nothing He has, does, or will command is evil, because if it was, He would cease to be God. Therefore, He will never command rape, murder (unjustly, because of course there are just killings, like self-defense), or torture. Therefore, my answer is nothing He commands is evil, but there are things He will NEVER command.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I understand now.
How wicked it was of Lot's wife to look back! A woman should know her place.
How evil was Onan to spill his seed instead of impregnating his brother's wife! He might as well be a homosexual.
How vile was that old man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath! He should have suffered the cold without complaint just like everyone else.
How merciful is the lord, your god, to remove these extreme sinners from the earth!
Only a benevolent god would order Abraham to kill his only son! Imagine if Abraham had replied with something silly like, "I don't know who you are, but you are not my god, because my god would never ask
me to do such a thing."
Only a righteous god would accept Jephthah's offer to trade the life of his daughter for victory in battle. It's nothing at all wicked like if he had made the deal with the devil instead.
Only a kind god would torture Job with boils and sores, kill his entire family, take away his animals and home, just to win a bet with Satan.
Because, as you've so plainly pointed out, your god can do no wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have those prepared at a moment's notice, don't you?
Lot's wife looking back was her stating "I want the things in Sodom", and God had specifically said not to, for that reason, but she chose the evils of Sodom over God.
Please give me Biblical reference for Onan, the old man, and Jephthah, so I can study them in context, instead of a single sarcastic remark.
In the case of Abraham, he did have doubts and worries, but he remained faithful to God, because he knew all God did was for a righteous purpose. So, when he was prepared to do the sacrifice (which was to symbolize the death of Christ), an angel stopped him, because God had indeed made covenants and laws, and would not break them; the command was to see if Abraham was willing and faithful. Most of us, of course, are not put to such extremes.
In Job's case, it was not done as a simple bet, it was again testing Faith; this time Satan was put in as the catalyst of the events. Still, Job remained faithful throughout his trial, and so God blessed him even greater than before.
Again, I would invite you, instead of bickering on minute points, give place for these words, and live the laws, and then will you know they are true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who's bickering? I said I agreed with you wholeheartedly. Obviously those your god slew had it coming and tests of faith justify murdering someone's entire family.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And bringing them sooner into His rest, and out of this earthly and mortal life. He knows the end in the beginning; He will take them up unto Him in glory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course. It's not like human life is sacred or anything. Who wouldn't jump at the chance of having their loved ones slaughtered if it meant they'd be replaced by someone even better? I'm glad we've finally come to an agreement ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course it is sacred, I was not saying that the children were "better" afterwards, I was refering to the cattle and such, which he received more of than before. What you again seem to skip over is that human life doesn't end with the separation of spirit and body, and indeed all who have ever lived on the Earth will be ressurected to a perfect frame that never dies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course human life doesn't end with just that. This is what I always tell people who criticize holy men such as Adolf Hitler. It's obvious to anyone who cares to search for the truth that your heavenly father was working through him, and the concentration camps served as a type of purgatory to cleanse their souls before bringing the Jews sooner into His rest, and out of this earthly and mortal life. He knows the end in the beginning; He will take them up unto Him in glory!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you have it handy, read Alma 14: 9-11 in the Book of Mormon.
To summarize it, two missionaries in Ammonihah preach, and though some believe, most reject it, and they expel all men who believe, tie the missionaries up, and make them watch as the women and children are burned in fire. One asks the other why they do not exert the power of God to save the people burning, and the other replies: ...the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them... that the judgement which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just...
The Holocaust was not purely a purgatory, it was God allowing an evil man to make his own choices, and though many suffered severely, the sufferers were only brought to a more peaceful state, and the murderer's evils were now known and set, and the justice of the law would come upon them. God does not cause every pain; often, He saves us from many and we don't even know. But, He allows men to make their choices, and I know that He weeps when people do wrong, and hate Him, who is their own blood.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
An evil man? Hitler? What are you talking about? I called him a holy man. He was doing your god's work. He said so himself, several times. You must be confused. Hitler was clearly a prophet. This truth was revealed to me just now ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, I'm going to take it that you are not going to give a legitimate response, because you... don't have one, apparently.
If anything proves at least a portion of my argument, it is that you are now apparently saying that Hitler was a good person...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A response to what? I already said I agreed with you: Death is a wonderful thing that brings human souls to be with your god once more. When your god kills people, it's wonderful. When your god orders others to kill people, it's wonderful.
What about you? Why aren't you taking my revelation seriously? I'm telling you that your god personally revealed to me that Hitler was a prophet. God wanted a genocide of the Jews and Hitler was simply carrying out his divine will. What other way is there to prove it other than to tell it to somebody else, which is really what revelation is: God giving truth to an individual who legitimately wants to know. If your god is the one saying it, who am I to argue with the ultimate creator?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Perhaps the beauty of death is hidden from us, so that we better enjoy mortal life." I thought the quote applied.
I never called anyone who murders without just cause is good, or holy, as you do and claim I do. I simply point out that the person who dies is not always as a punishment.
I also do not say God only kills people for blessing, nor only for punishment. You simply are trying to put what I say into a faux statement, but what I know to be true is that God is merciful, and God is just.
God did not want a genocide, but He allowed Hitler to make his choices, and God took the afflicted and murdered and brought them up to a place of peace, until the first resurrection.
Thank you for insulting revelation, which I know you have not received. If you so strongly disbelieve mine, then I again ask you: have you lived it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hitler did have just cause. The Jews were the ones who betrayed Jesus. Is that not a prime example of extreme sinners? Of course they all deserved to die.
Wouldn't you agree that your god is a good person? Wouldn't you also agree that a good person leads by example? Your god wants to make a perfect world, so did Hitler. Your god's favorite method of punishment is death, and so was Hitler's. Your god governs his people using force and indoctrination, so did Hitler. The list of comparisons goes on and on. In fact, the only difference is that Hitler was human and his reign eventually ended.
I see that you are upset, but still do not understand why... and then you go and say my personal revelation is invalid? Aren't you the one insulting me?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
God doesn't want to make "a perfect world" by exterminating people, He wants us to become like Him. He could make, heck He loves, in a perfect world already.
You obviously do not understand scripture, because killing was not God's favorite punishment. Often, scriptures show the exception rather than the rule. Even in these instances, God feels the pain any parent would of children leaving them, and hating Him, and choosing what He knows will lead them ultimately to misery. Misery not because God puts a punishment on them, but because those choices legitimately lead to unfulfilled lives.
God does not use force, or makes them be indoctrined. The people of Israel in the Old Testament, with whom He had made a covenant, ofcourse were expected moreso than those who had not heard the gospel to live it, but He does not force. We are given agency.
Hitler didn't kill for any cause besides he could rally the nation behind it, and build economy and a war machine. God is our Heavenly Father, and He wants us to choose Him, and become as He is.
You focus so much on God's character, so I ask a question: who wrote the Bible, and why?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly! He wants us to become like Him! And he is perfect! Therefore, it only makes sense to punish human for being less than perfect.
I have a biblical death toll of over 2 million that says death IS your god's favorite form of punishment. I don't blame him. The best way to get the point across that you love someone and want them to choose you is to kill anyone and anything that tries to get in your way. There are countless people currently in relationships where their significant other has cut them off from friends and family and threatens to kill them, their children, and even themselves if they dare to leave. They can testify that this method is super effective!
The use of force takes away a person's free will, right? Your god repeatedly hardened Pharaoh's heart when Moses tried to set his people free, in order to show off his super powers! He said: “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians." I totally understand, of course! What good is having super powers if you don't get to show them off every once in a while? Ooo, I wish I could've seen the looks on those silly Egyptian's faces when the Holy Spirit slaughtered all their first born during the night! Teehee!
Oh, you misunderstand Hitler. Hitler felt the pain any ruler would of his citizens hating him, and choosing a religion that he knew would lead them ultimately to the concentration camps. Hitler even said:
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hitler is not Christian. He lied to get in power.
God does not punish us for being imperfect. He punishes those who willfully and knowingly deny truth, and goodness.
Death toll of 2 million eh? Out of how many people ever to live on the earth? More than 10 billion? Besides the fact that you obviously seem to look at the Bible (or more likely a source that excerpts it) only to find the details of the times God exercised strong judgement, and claim it to be proof of injustice... somehow.
I will get back to you on Pharaoh after study. Sorry.
Your blatantly sarcastic voice is really insulting, and only further proof of your lack of character; a bunch of pretty facts and twisted words under which you just want to rip apart everyone who has a belief in a purpose of life... which is apparently what you accuse me of doing, when all I am honestly requesting is to understand that I do not hate people that have homosexual thoughts, though it is sin to act on those thoughts. I request the understanding that I know of a beautiful, jovial, lively, loving, perfectly merciful and just, Heavenly Father. Obviously, you simply wish to put in every effort to convince me that I am an idiot, and you gloat in your satire and your insults.
But saying this will just make you try harder.
I do not have doubt in God nor his Plan of Salvation, through which ALL mankind may be saved, by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the power of His resurrection. In this I have hope to be raised unto life eternal, and this hope because of the faith which I have given place for in my heart. I try consistently to know charity, which is the pure love of Christ, and to do charity, and to be charitable. I know of the gospel's truthfulness because of my undeniable witnesses around me, from my life to my family's, to the Holy Ghost, and on. I claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own consciences. I believe in sustaining the law of the land, as far as it is good, and in obeying it but it be evil. I believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to ALL men.
What do you believe?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You were a personal friend of Hitler and know for a fact that he was not Christian? Well, then, I feel silly now!
So picking up sticks on the Sabbath is a willful act of denying truth and goodness? Well, I'll make sure to keep a pile of stones handy next time I see any old men doing so!
My sarcasm? I'm sure I don't know what you mean. Why is it so hard for you to believe that Hitler and your god have so much in common? You defend the atrocities inflicted upon humans when it's your god that does it, but call it evil when someone else does the exact same thing? If you simply switch the names "God" and "Hitler" everything they did and the reasons they did it are exactly alike. I'd even go as far as to say that if God really had a son, it was Hitler, not Christ.
I have no doubt that your faith is strongly indoctrinated in you since birth and has such deep roots that it's unshakable. I too want to share your blind faith!
In fact, I had another revelation just the other day with my infant son. He's about a year and a half old and I've started teaching him how to say grace during meals. Unfortunately, no matter how many times I tell him, he still won't say "Amen" when I reach the end. I've given him countless chances, but I'm afraid he has chosen to become wicked...
I was at my wit's end when I suddenly experienced an understanding, as though it were placed in my mind! It was not like hearing your god's voice, which I know must be both beautiful and terrible. This was a communication beyond words. Your god was testing me, just like Abraham! I knew what had to be done.
Tomorrow morning I will tie my son to his highchair and refuse to feed him until he says "Amen". Either he will starve to death or a miracle will happen and he will say the word. Although it pains me greatly, I must allow my son to make his own choices, and I will weep for him... Of course I did have doubts and worries, but you have taught me that all your god does is for a righteous purpose, so I am prepared to do the sacrifice!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I read history, and I know his character. He is not a follower of Christ.
To go back to Pharaoh first, funnily enough, it is a translation error. In the inspired Joseph Smith Translation of the King James Bible, it says 'he', not 'I'. So, Pharoah will harden his own heart.
The man who picked up sticks: the Mosaic Law, given as a preparatory gospel, was a law of strict order and performances and ritual. The man knew completely and whole-heartedly that he had been told not to do such things.
Again, God does not inflict atrocities on mankind. Disease, evil men and women, etc work on their own accord and choice. God permits some to occur, and many others he intervenes in without us even knowing. He will allow experiences to occur to us, for our benefit, as much as we can endure through. He rarely does action directly to mankind, and in those cases are done with just causes, like a death penalty in a court, for example. Is that wrong, when the accused did indeed do something evil and wrong? Hitler's cause to exterminate the Jews and others was just that: to exterminate them. They had no crime which he was justified in sending out punishment for. Let us take the flood. The whole earth but eight souls sounds harsh, right? Well, wouldn't it be more cruel to allow children to be born universally without a knowledge of truth available to them? Now, what you argue will be that today, most people never hear the word, and they don't get a chance. Again, this is what the spirit world is for. Look at it coming together like a logical Spanish burrito!
Faith and Hope make not one blind. The Light of Christ, which we all have inside, is focused like a flashlight focuses a bulb. Faith is things which are hoped for, and not seen, which are true. Faith makes everything ever easier to see.
First on your child, I don't follow how not saying amen is a sin... also, is grace like a prayer, cause I don't know what you mean in this context (must be a Catholic thing?)
Second, children are alive in Christ, innocent, and not yet comprehensive of good and evil. This is why infant babtisms make no sense. Children have no comprehension of doing wrong, and it is the same logic for why youth are treated differently in court: they do not understand fully the action that is wrong.
Please, I am not asking for you to convert, I highly doubt I will root out your feelings, just as I know you will not root out the gospel from me. But can you trim those thorns a bit?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Christ didn't trim his thorns. We should all follow his example.
Obviously your version of history has been tampered with by Satan. Like the biblical flood, Hitler tried to purify the human race. He lacked the ability to command the oceans, however, but still did his best to quickly and efficiently kill as many wicked Jews as possible, and succeeded in his holy mission!
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."
(Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler)
Isn't it funny how every single one of the 2,798 bible translations were wrong and nobody caught it for hundreds of years? Wow, such incompetent religious scholars were before Joseph came along!
Yes, breaking the law always warrants the death penalty, regardless of the crime! Those Muslims who only cut off the hands of thieves are much too lenient.
Faith is what allows a parent to put their child in mortal danger because a voice in their head told them to, without fear or guilt! I knew that you would understand.
However, my son's lack of comprehension is irrelevant to my expectations of him. Even Jesus cursed the fig tree for not bearing fruit, even though it was not yet the season/time for figs :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, most translations are secondary, and the King James is a mistranslation. Joseph translated it by the power of God.
I'm going to simplify your argument. You are saying: God is unjust, because He kills people. Everything else is a bunch of sarcasm and frills.
God is perfectly just, and perfectly merciful. He must abide by His own laws. To break it, to allow unclean things in His presense, would be against the nature of a God. But, He has a brilliant plan for all mankind, that all may be saved, no matter the circumstance. Saved from what? From sin, and from death, which are caused by the Fall. Because of the Fall, we can choose good, and become like God. But only with a Saviour to pull us up. Everyone will die (with some exception) and everyone will sin. Yes, God has killed. Yes, God has punished. Not doing so would break His own laws. But He sent His Son, who by choice paid the debt we can not. Through Him, God has given and will give everyone whether in this or the next life an equal chance to come back to His presense. Yes, God has executed justice. But He did so with mercy. Read 1 Peter 3:19-20 "By which He (Christ) went and preached unto the spirits in prison. Which some of whom were disobedient in the days of Noah, while the longsuffering of God waited, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
Christ visited those wicked people in the spirit world, and taught them the gospel, still giving them an equal chance of redemption as anyone. And this is how we see the mercy and justice of God. Now, as a caveat, knowingly denying truth in this life will make it significantly harder to change without a body in the spirit world.
God did not nearly kill every time someone broke the law; obviously, we are still here, Moses didn't get killed, and relatively, very few people really were killed by God as a punishment.
If you refer to Abraham with that statement of faith, then first recognize this -- Isaac was okay with it, too. He chose to follow the Lord, who they knew was very real. It was a type of Christ, a representation that if Abraham's seed was to bless the whole earth, as Christ would bless the whole saith through the Atonement, he needed to be willing, as did Isaac, to give up everything, for something greater.
Why is it irrelevant to your expectations? Should you expect him to run a mile before he is able to? Then why expect him to consciously choose what he can not understand?
You still insist on telling me that my faith is entirely based on being born in it. Well, my father is a convert, many children leave the church, many others join... being born is irrelevant to choosing it. It simply changes the exposure. You have a belief in what you were born into: atheism; why is that not blind faith also?
I know that this gospel is true, because I have seen it change the lives of so many, and they live such greater lives than before. They are happier, they stop drinking and smoking, they stay chaste before marriage and have fidelity after, and these things make them happy. I am happy from living the gospel. Okay, so yell at me all you want for me believing in a God, for having faith, for trying to live some semblance of standards, but I am the only one with the integrity to actually try it. Have you? Have you honestly attempted living the gospel, or have you simply blindly believed what you have been fed in your life?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So basically scripture is unreliable because it's full of mistranslations? I'm shocked.
I'm going to simplify your argument. You are saying: Hitler was unjust, because he killed people.
Hitler was perfectly just, and perfectly merciful. Germany's enemies maintain today that he was the greatest disturber of peace known to history, that he threatened every nation with sudden attack and oppression, that he had created a terrible war machine in order to cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword. They themselves compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the beginning: the security of his country. They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step for step for seven years the path to any peaceful discussion.
So you're saying that as long as both parties are in agreement, the sin of murder doesn't count? I see. By that same logic, when two homosexual men are in agreement, the sin of anal sex doesn't count either. That's wonderful news!
If the lord wishes it, then yes, I should expect my son to run a mile before he is able. The laws of nature fly out the window when it is your god himself that is making the demands. Allow me to tell you the story, since you seem unfamiliar with it, and so you will understand:
Jesus was leaving Bethany. He was hungry. He saw a fig tree with leaves. So he went to the tree to see if it had any figs growing on it. But he found no figs on the tree. There were only leaves, because it was not the right time for figs to grow. So Jesus said to the tree, “People will never eat fruit from you again.” His followers heard him say this.
The next morning Jesus was walking with his followers. They saw the fig tree that he spoke to the day before. The tree was dry and dead, even the roots. Peter remembered the tree and said to Jesus, “Teacher, look! Yesterday, you told that fig tree to die. Now it is dry and dead!”
Jesus answered, “Have faith in God. The truth is, you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, mountain, fall into the sea.’ And if you have no doubts in your mind and believe that what you say will happen, then God will do it for you. So I tell you to ask for what you want in prayer. And if you believe that you have received those things, then they will be yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, Hitler is a complete side-point to this. I will get to this later. But, it was entirely Hitler's intention to kill and dominate from the beginning. He used the economic depression that was heavily forced on them after WWI and Jews as the reasons for failure, and twisted truth to murder millions. But okay, keep defending one of the most evil men in history.
I never said that. God did not murder people. He never has. Is self-defense murder? Is fighting a war for freedom against aggressors murder? No. Murder is the slaying of an innocent person under no cause but for the sake of killing them; it is killing for the sole purpose of killing. God has never done that, ever.
God will never cause a person to do more than he is able. He will help and guide us when necessary, and of course He could let a child run a mile and not faint, if it was necessary. But, God does not willy-nilly throw out commands; He always has a purpose for them. I doubt God would ask your child to run a mile, and I know He does not condemn a person for not saying Amen. If you're okay with me having a higher respect for your own child than you do, then okay...
I am quite familiar with it. The purpose of the example given to the apostles was to show the power of the priesthood, and that it relied on faith. The fig tree was simply the example He used.
You keep bull-rushing me with scripture (I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; the JST helps reshift translation to be more accurate; also, I know the Book of Mormon to be the word of God), bit after bit, trying to 'prove' that God is unjust, or that scripture disagrees, etc. Well, I charge you with a challenge: read them. No, don't just skim through or look at some website, or take out blurbs and interpret them and twist them in derogatory manners, read them. Search them, ponder them, and pray about them. Read first the Book of Mormon, where plain and simpler doctrines are. Read the Old Testament, and see the causes and effects of Creation and the Fall, and of the choices of men. Read the New Testament, and see the higher laws of forgiveness and compassion Jesus taught, and see the fulfillment of the Old law, and the redeeming and enabling Atonement.
Insult my God all you want, but I have had the integrity to work at it, pray, live the gospel, and I have come to know the unwavering and impartial love of God, and that of His Son. Have you read them? Have you pondered them? Have you lived and strived for the gospel? No.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I find it amusing that your own arguments fail to convince you when all I do is switch the names of God and Hitler xD Was Job's family killed because they were aggressors in a war for freedom? Were all the first born in Egypt killed in self-defense? Was the fig tree killed for any other cause except that Jesus was pissed he didn't get his juicy fig? No. But you twist it around to shift the focus off the murderer by saying death isn't so bad, because the dead souls get to spend eternity living with their murderer in his swanky castle in the sky.
Make up your mind. Either killing the innocent is wrong or it isn't. If it is, then you can say Hitler was evil. If it isn't, then you can't say your god is good.
Of course you don't think your god makes willy-nilly commands. You yourself said that "nothing He commands is evil". By definition, he could command the death of anyone of a different religion, and that would not be evil, because... your god commanded it. See how that works? See how you have set up a system that makes your god immune from criticism, while you feel free to criticize those who act exactly like him? Like say, Hitler, for example.
Make excuses for why it's okay for your god to go around killing babies all you want, but I have the integrity to live a good life without needing to be threatened by a trigger-happy ghost daddy.
I'll accept your challenge if you accept mine: Replace your god with President Barack Obama, pretend you're reading about him in the newspaper, and tell me his actions are still socially acceptable to you. For example:
Today, President Obama negotiated the release of U.S. POW's with Egypt's interim vice president, Mohamed ElBaradei. When Mohamed refused, Obama ordered his secret service men to break into every Egyptian civilian's home and put a bullet between the eyes of the first child they saw. This brilliant military strategy had the desired effect. The next morning the soul-wrenching sobs of mister ElBaradei as he held his lifeless first born in his arms could hardly be heard over the agonized cries of his citizens. The U.S. POW's were sent home the next day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I find it sad that you think they are the same thing.
I am not going to take the time to go through every instance in which a person has died and explain why God let it happen, or in rare cases did it Himself. I've saide enough. But bringing them into Paradise for rest before the Second Coming, and massacring 6 million people with no intention for them to have any life whatsoever is completely different. To again refer to 1 Peter, God, through Christ, still lets all those who died in wickedness come unto Him, and be perfected. Murderers kill with no intention but to... kill them. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people can be redeemed, cleansed, and purified. Tell me that any murderer has killed for a good reason.
Killing the innocent... not sure I know any innocent that God killed Himself. Job's family? No, that was Satan. "But God allowed it" yes, but again with the spirit world. He allowed it to show the wicked even greater to consider His servant Job.
Actually, to go to Egypt, yeah, killing the first-born who were heirs to the throne of an evil nation, basically self-defense.
When did I say he could command the death of anyone in a different religion? There are millions, billions of good people on the Earth. Their religion doesn't define whether they are eivil or good, inherently. The misconception of many is the dichotomy that everyone but one religion is comepletely false. Well, no. All religion believes in God. That is true. Many believe in Christ. That's true. Many believe Him to be the Messiah. That's true. What I believe in my church is that it is the only one with the authority of God to exercise ordinances such as baptism, and has the fullness of the gospel.
I have yet to hear of a baby that God has killed. Nor is He trigger-happy: He doesn't create a massive flood every ten days of our lives. Also, He isn't a ghost, He has flesh and bone.
I find it repulsive for any man to do this. God never has nor will.
Again, do you expect to win an argument against the integrity of my God, who is the one and true God, who I have come personally to know? I am sorry for the blind trust you have in atheism. But earnestly search and ask, with real intent. God's work and glory is to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life. Give place in good soil for the seed (to get all metaphorical), and nourish it continually, and... I promise, you will know of its truth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When someone other than your god is doing the killing, it makes you sick to your stomach, eh? That's why you reject my challenge.
First you admit that your god killed all the first born in Egypt, then you "have yet to hear of a baby that God has killed"?
Next you call Egyptian babies heirs to the throne of an evil nation despite earlier when you said "Well, my father is a convert, many children leave the church, many others join... being born is irrelevant to choosing it."
I have absolutely zero respect for a religion that doesn't understand that intentionally killing babies is wrong, regardless of who does it or why. Scripture even praises your god for it:
1 Praise the LORD.
Praise the name of the LORD;
praise him, you servants of the LORD,
2 you who minister in the house of the LORD,
in the courts of the house of our God.
3 Praise the LORD, for the LORD is good;
sing praise to his name, for that is pleasant.
4 For the LORD has chosen Jacob to be his own,
Israel to be his treasured possession.
5 I know that the LORD is great,
that our Lord is greater than all gods.
6 The LORD does whatever pleases him,
in the heavens and on the earth,
in the seas and all their depths.
7 He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth;
he sends lightning with the rain
and brings out the wind from his storehouses.
8 He struck down the firstborn of Egypt,
the firstborn of men and animals.
And it wasn't only Egyptian babies that he killed:
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
If you don't see anything wrong with the above sentences, that's why I said that you might as well be worshiping a demon. You don't want to see your god as evil so you twist reality until you convince yourself that he had no other choice, he couldn't achieve his desired results any other way, and killing babies was the only reasonable action to take under the circumstances. Basically, the ends justify the means. The release of Moses's people justifies killing innocent Egyptian babies. Yes, I called the "heirs to the throne of an evil nation" innocent. The freedom of his people was worth the cost of their lives. Then you have the nerve to say you have more respect for children than I do?
So go ahead and keep twisting reality to make a monster into a hero. Go ahead and keep telling yourself that a god that kills babies is a good god.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First-born does not mean infant.
They chose it. They could have done as the Lord warned them to do: let the Israelites go.
AGAIN, the children that are young are... you know what, fine.
As you said, nothing I explain or emphasize will convince you of God, and the innocence that those children die in, to be blessed after this life and taught what their wicked parents rejected in life. So I have some questions. Why would anyone teach a religion that has a God that has killed? Obviously it only makes it harder to explain, it makes people turn away without looking at the point of the religion. So, wouldn't people making up some religion make it simple and easy to the ear, something casual and easy to swallow? Unless, of course, there is truth in it, which they will not deny.
I did take the challenge; I replaced Obama with God, and I found it disgusting, because the God I know doesn't immediately shoot children for something He wants for Himself. He has always adequately and excessively warned of the destruction He will set upon them, which destruction comes only from extreme and complete denial of the law.
It has less to do with reason, as it does justice.
So, as I have indeed taken your challenge, legitimately take mine. I'ge noticed your exclusive use of the Old Testament aside from the fig tree. I suggest reading the Book of Mormon first.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you're saying NONE of the first born were infants? Really?
I meant the children. They children get to choose whether or not to become "heirs to the throne of an evil nation" as you call them. Just as "many children leave the church" so too can the children in this story also choose to leave their nation.
Obviously they teach a religion in which the god kills along with the indoctrinated twisted logic that makes it okay. Those of us without said indoctrination can easily and immediately find fault with it.
You call that accepting the challenge? Admitting to being disgusted when a human does evil, but refusing to hold your god accountable for doing the exact same thing? I'm not talking about whether or not your god immediately goes guns blazing into the nearest nursery... the fact that the option is on the table at all is demonic. But, fine, I'll approach your challenge with the same amount of levity.
I read 1 Nephi 2, where your god tells Lehi in a dream to go into the wilderness with his family. I had to read it several times since the convoluted language is hard to understand. Several things stood out to me: unrealistic travel time, non-existent geographic locations, oppression of Native Americans...
My favorite part was in 2:16 "I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father"
I immediately thought back to Pharaoh's hardened heart. Your god could have softened Pharaoh's heart and helped speed up the freedom of his people and spare the lives of those first-born. That would be more consistent with the image of the merciful god you keep trying to tell me you serve. I thought back to what it says in Psalms, and "The LORD does whatever pleases him" so it must have pleased him to go with the option that let him kill babies.
My second favorite part was 2:11-13. Despite Lehi naming rivers after his sons, they remained so evil they were "like unto the Jews." Such antisemitism. Hitler would have loved the Book of Mormon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, you have an evil nation, raising children to be wicked, and the children growing up ignorant to good. The nation is repeatedly warned and does not repent. Their hearts are hardened, unwilling to even recognize God. If they would have come to Him, and have desire for change, then and only then could God soften their hearts. God will never force a change in someone.
What do you propose to do with the children? If the nation must be wiped from the earth, what should happen to these innocent ones? Leave them motherless, fatherless, shelter-less? Or, take them in innocence from the earth, where they no longer have to suffer. Sounds pretty merciful to me.
Unrealistic? Quite a few scholars have an accurate model of the family's journey, with every landmark included. It is very possible to travel the distance in the approx. 8 years allotted.
What about the challenge didn't I do? I applied God's name to the situation, and found it disgusting and insulting.
Convoluted? Easier than Shakespearean, but I suppose it isn't your modern day lingo.
So, calling people that are doing evil things wicked is anti-Semitism? So, if a black guy rapes someone, and I say he was cruel, I'm racist? Anti-Semitism is to have hatred against the Jews purely for them being Jewish. This is simply a statement that Laman and Lemuel were unrepentant and wicked like the Jews actually were.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you're old enough to understand that the concept of every single person of a certain population being evil only happens in cartoons and movies. In reality, that is never the case. Most people live their daily lives as best they can, working and raising families. The only time you see people intentionally raising children to be prejudiced and cruel is when you include blind faith and unquestioning loyalty to an all-powerful entity. Sound familiar?
Huge numbers of Eastern Orthodox Armenians were murdered by Muslims at the turn of the century. Much of Europe's history has been a nightmare of Christian-on-Christian killing, including the 30 Years' War, in which an estimated 7.5 million people--one-third of the European population at the time--died owing to Catholic-versus-Protestant slaughter. England's history is full of Protestants murdering Catholics; France's history is full of Catholics murdering Protestants; Spain's history is full of Christians murdering Jews. Pretty much all of Europe is to blame for the Crusades, in which Christians murdered Muslims. This inventory could go on at considerable length. King Olaf Tryggvason's declaration from about the year 1000--"all Norway will be Christian or die!"--sums it up.
Only a sadist would to refuse to help people in need because they didn't beg hard enough.
So you're saying that children who suffer hardships in life are better off dead? By that logic why not bomb children's hospitals and end the suffering of kids with cancer? Slice the throats of children who were victims of sexual abuse? Put a bullet in the head of every mentally or physically disabled child using crutches or in wheelchairs? That sounds equally as merciful as your suggestion.
Nowhere in that story did I read that it took them 8 years to get from Jerusalem to the Red Sea. It's 400+ km distance, humans can walk an average 3mph, Lehi's family was weighted down with tents and no beasts of burden to carry them, so that slowed their travel speed even more, and they supposedly crossed the distance in 3 days. That would mean they not only traveled 800+ km per day, they did so without stopping to rest. Make up excuses for how your god sent invisible angels to carry them in their sleep or whatever, real human bodies aren't built to withstand that kind of stress.
And yet you are not disgusted by things like:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."
If that is your idea of mercy it's no wonder you don't know the difference between a good god and a demon.
Shakespeare isn't full of mind-numbingly repetitive "And it came to pass"s, "Behold"s, and endless butt-kissing vocalizations to a mad god.
If you can show me a passage from the Book of Mormon where even a single Jew is spoken highly of, I'll take back my antisemitism accusation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, it is very rare to have a completely evil nation, and often the righteous are sent out by God or killed before the justice on the wicked is done. This is why it doesn't happen often. I don't suppose that children are intenrionally being raised wicked many times, because it is more that they are surrounded completely with it.
Lamentably, arguments of religion have caused terrible wars. Heck, even here with a fully functioning Bill of Rights, the Mormons were constantly beaten and mobbed until they left the country entirely. But I think you're old enough to understand that religion isn't the only cause of war.
Beg? It has nothing to do with begging, it is the people turning to Him, being righteous, and forsaking the crimes which put them under the punishment.
So you would rather God leave the children as orphans in desolation, who'll die of hunger in a few days/weeks anyways?
Ah, you refer to getting to the Red Sea. If you read it close, it says, "And he came down by (the shores) of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness... which are nearer the Red Sea... And it came to pass that when he had travellled three days..." The family reached the Red Sea after an unspecified amount of time, and then Nephi speaks of a specific events that occurred three days after they had started traveling by the Red Sea.
I still can't find that quote anywhere... where is it?
Well, I'm sorry that that is how the time period wrote.
2 Nephi 30:6 - "And then shall (the Jews) rejoice; for they shall know that (the Gospel) is a blessing unto them from the hand of God... they shall be a pure and delightsome people."
2 Nephi 29:5 - "Ye have cursed them, and hated them... I the Lord have not forgotten my people."
3 Nephi 29:8- "and ye need not hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews... for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them..."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>