Maybe I'm a little cynical, but Evangelicals are on the rise, and this documentary was only made last year.
Just when you thought the dangerous brainwashing from Jesus Camp was vile and dangerous...

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/gods_next_army.php

Seriously. I watched Jesus Camp, and I was disgusted and outraged.
But this... this is so, SO fucking wrong.

A theocracy would fail to be scary to us if we were unaware of what will happen. Theocracies have been the worst forms of governments in all of known history. God's kingdom on Earth was a disease infested shithole filled with the most uneducated ignorant people in history. Churches murdered humans by the village load.

Humankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

I haven't finished watching it yet but I have to say that I feel genuinely bad for the kids going to this Jesus College.

80% of the kids are home schooled, meaning they have never been exposed to any diversity. They are living in some fantasy land, dreamt up by their evangelical parents. They have been totally exploited from head to toe, and are satisfied with it.
I fucking hate organized religion.

The president of the school basically says in the welcoming orientation that the worlds knowledge and information is wrong and that they teach using the bible as a guide.

This college will breed sociopaths moreso than saints.

It gets better, you see them teaching Creationism at that college, meaning these fucktard kids will go on to be the sort of people campaigning for this shit to be taught in schools. Marvel as they demonize abortion and homosexuality.

I'd embrace their genocide.

Great, a college that prepares them to wage a subtle holy war on America.

Just what this continent needed! :rolleyes:

I only watched about half the video, but ... is it me, or are a disproportionate number of their student body from Ohio?

What's the deal with that?

And imagine if Islam constructed a college that made it's sole intent to prepare the students to participate in world government while wearing their jihads on their sleeve as an adornment?

Americans would be in an uproar. But it's cool for PHC to operate that way. They're Christians. And we can't dare infringe upon or belittle their beliefs. Especially not while they're subtly trying to make it the law of the land.

I lawled when one of the girls said that homosexual marriages provide nothing for society, or something along those lines. As if every heterosexual marriage provides to society.

Then the pres d00d of the college said they don't need the worlds education to guide them. So they are going to 'educate' these kids into bible verse spewing idiots? How is that something new?

Scary, but if you didn't know this kind of shit was going on, you're not paying attention. The evangelicals new battle plan is to out-breed rationality.

My favorite part though, was when the little tool was talking about the second amendment. Do you think he even realizes that his dream for America is just the kind of tyranny it was meant to prevent?

This is the type of thing that really could fuck America up.

They're going into this knowing that it's going to create a huge division between Christians and non-Christians. They can't be deluded enough to think that everybody will just want to convert, so they're just skipping the hard work and ignoring the fact that people will always have their own beliefs by trying to gain power within government.

Now what happens if they gain enough power to piss people off, but they don't have control? Rough situation. Inevitably, America will eventually become involved in another war. But even now, the army is desperately trying to recruit people. What happens when nobody wants to fight?

Or they could just keep the prayers at church, where they belong.

Great, a college that prepares them to wage a subtle holy war on America.

Just what this continent needed! :rolleyes:

I only watched about half the video, but ... is it me, or are a disproportionate number of their student body from Ohio?

What's the deal with that?

And imagine if Islam constructed a college that made it's sole intent to prepare the students to participate in world government while wearing their jihads on their sleeve as an adornment?

Americans would be in an uproar. But it's cool for PHC to operate that way. They're Christians. And we can't dare infringe upon or belittle their beliefs. Especially not while they're subtly trying to make it the law of the land.

I havent watched the clip yet as its almost 4 in the morning, but I will leave it for now saying that there is a more than slight difference between the wanton killing of yourself and dozens more in a bazaar in Bumfuckistan and the systematic takeover of a government through relatively peaceful means.

Just some preliminary thoughts....

meaning they have never been exposed to any diversity. They are living in some fantasy land,

Ironic, isnt it?

Diversity isnt all its cracked up to be Ms. John Raj Tyrone van Der Kamph.

Christianity is about to fuck america? How about looking a little deeper, into the people who CREATED christianity. THEY have been fucking america since the early 1900s, and the world more importantly for as long as they've been around. I posted about this a while back, about that stupid asshole on cnn (after all the bush bashing and "no more Iraq war" crap that goes on there) had the nerve to talk about how important it was for "good christians" to disreguard the words of Irans president, and support the state of Israel for "the holy people" :rolleyes: those blond haired blue eyed Israelites I was talking about.

For me, christianity, as long as you dont believe "jews" to be the actual jews the bible talks about, and you aren't one of these "love faggots and blacks" billy grahm types, you're ok. But that is the true form of christianity, and how it was meant to destroy culture. The jewish religion, was basically re-created by russian "israelites" (these white jews we see today) wich was originally like sun worship, and involved human sacrafice. They re-did it to make it more univerally acceptable, and created christianity as a spin-off to be their slaves. But Christianity did it's damage in Europe, today Micheal Eisner is the new Jesus that will destroy america, just like christianity did Rome. Those guys have the "hate faggots" part right. Abortion, and queers, are both things the establishment is for, that most christians are against.

^Sounds like another useless rambling from ACE on why he hates jews, homosexuals and black people.

:rolleyes:

^Yeah. Sigh. Not quite heinous enough to infract, though.

Where is neg-rep when you need it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-fbcy1tRoA

This is a much faster, and more in depth explanation of the theocratic movement at the American doorstep.

I posted this movie a while back

Heres the thread
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1814534

They Have To Die

I swear on the lifes of my entire family.

If people like these ever get the power in the country which I am a citizen of, I will do everything within my power to kill them. Even if it costs me my life.

And by that I do not mean regular Christians ofcourse, but the brainwashed zombies who'll try and turn the entire world into a 'godloving nation'.

And by that I do not mean regular Christians ofcourse, but the brainwashed zombies who'll try and turn the entire world into a 'godloving nation'.

It's funny how you created 2 different catergories. They're all insane

It's funny how you created 2 different catergories. They're all insane

If it weren't for the thousands of years of traditions, it'd be classified as a mental disorder.

But keep in mind, the scary thing is that these people cannot be reasoned with. If they ever do acquire the power to begin stripping rights and such from groups they disapprove of, frankly, killing people until they're no longer in power may well be the only solution.

there is a more than slight difference between the wanton killing of yourself and dozens more in a bazaar in Bumfuckistan and the systematic takeover of a government through relatively peaceful means.

Don't act like Christians aren't capable of using violence as a means to make their stand. What about the wanton killing of yourself and dozens more in abortion clinic violence (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/)? Is that "relatively peaceful means"?

I don't even have to call upon the bloody history of Christian violence from ages past to make a point here specifically. Christians have attacked their own fellow Americans on their own soil for decades when certain lifestyle practices of individuals don't mesh with the Holy Bible.

Newsflash:

The systematic takeover of any government by ANY one special interest group would not go down peacefully, by any means.

The Christians would still have the myriad of other non-Christian religious Americans to deal with, not to mention the American secular society. You're tripping if you think people would just roll the door mat out and let them take completely over. Then how would the new Christian government respond to that? Think they'll bring down abortion clinics, homosexuals and pornography by peaceful means if they had their theocracy in place and running full-force? Think again.

They might use "peaceful means" to slip their foot in the door, by grooming all these youngsters to infiltrate political offices - but judging by what history tells us about Christian theocracies, violence is usually a key ingredient to gaining subservience once that stronghold has been developed.

And judging from the statements made by some key figures who are bound and determined to get their gospel into every nook and cranny of the earth, they're prepared to do whatever it takes to get there:

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

(From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press)

Total and complete dominion can't be that easy to come by. You honestly think they could achieve this far-flung goal without one iota of violence? Let's be real here.

Argon's just desperate and is simply putting words in our mouths in a pathetic attempt to undermine our arguments.

My goal in life is to blow that college the fuck up.

Don't act like Christians aren't capable of using violence as a means to make their stand. What about the wanton killing of yourself and dozens more in abortion clinic violence (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/)? Is that "relatively peaceful means"?

And this has occured how many times? Exceptions are hardly a trend.

I don't even have to call upon the bloody history of Christian violence from ages past to make a point here specifically. Christians have attacked their own fellow Americans on their own soil for decades when certain lifestyle practices of individuals don't mesh with the Holy Bible.

Newsflash:

The systematic takeover of any government by ANY one special interest group would not go down peacefully, by any means.

By "systematic takeover" I mean the eventuality of having religious people come in to the government where over time the ratio of Christian to otherwise is diluted in favor of Christians. In such a case, there is no bloodshed.

The Christians would still have the myriad of other non-Christian religious Americans to deal with, not to mention the American secular society. You're tripping if you think people would just roll the door mat out and let them take completely over. Then how would the new Christian government respond to that? Think they'll bring down abortion clinics, homosexuals and pornography by peaceful means if they had their theocracy in place and running full-force? Think again.

They might use "peaceful means" to slip their foot in the door, by grooming all these youngsters to infiltrate political offices - but judging by what history tells us about Christian theocracies, violence is usually a key ingredient to gaining subservience once that stronghold has been developed.

Christian theocracy? When in the world has there been a theocracy other than Catholicism?

And judging from the statements made by some key figures who are bound and determined to get their gospel into every nook and cranny of the earth, they're prepared to do whatever it takes to get there:

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

(From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press)

Total and complete dominion can't be that easy to come by. You honestly think they could achieve this far-flung goal without one iota of violence? Let's be real here.

Yea. I literally believe that such a thing can happen without violence. Sorta like how we are teetering on a facist state as we speak and yet no violence has been inflicted on its citizens.

By "systematic takeover" I mean the eventuality of having religious people come in to the government where over time the ratio of Christian to otherwise is diluted in favor of Christians. In such a case, there is no bloodshed.

Eventuality, eh? We'll see. Let's pick this conversation up in about 10 years from now, compare notes. Whattya say?

Most would say the same thing about evolution, dont you agree?

I'm with ArgonPlasma on this one, I'm afraid. One of the reasons I can't stand Christianity is that it's fucking sneaky; it weasels it's way into power through subterfuge and politics. If and when fascism comes to America, there will be no violence. Nobody has the balls or the means to fight it anymore.

im admittedly not going to wait for this all to load cause it is taking forever on my comp. But let me just say that i believe in a creator god (AND evolution) and try and follow the moral teachings of Christ... but i really dislike the average bible thumper Christian, especially when i can quote verses from the bible better then they can to go against whatever intolerant thing they are trying to tell me.

These people who don't think for themselves at all scare me. I think it is vitally important to always question your own beliefs.


At the same time however the opposite of a 'right wing conservative Christian state' scares me too, because at the same time as these thumpers try and take over the country i see a strong push from the far left to take away similar civil liberties, through the cause of 'fairness' 'safety 'peoples feelings' 'fighting intolerance' and 'evening out the spread of wealth

Most would say the same thing about evolution, dont you agree?

I can't agree just yet ... because I don't know what you're implying. Do you mean that the theory of evolution may be a thing of the past 10 years from now?

I can't agree just yet ... because I don't know what you're implying. Do you mean that the theory of evolution may be a thing of the past 10 years from now?

No. Some people (myself included) argue that there has no been enough observation to conclude definitively that evolution exists because we have not seen first-hand that it works as a process.

The same applies here in such a way that some will offer counterarguements that such a time span is not required.

But think about it. If tomorrow we had fully Christian indoctrination in all school and in 20-50 years dont you think that we will have significantly more Christians in government than there are now?

No. Some people (myself included) argue that there has no been enough observation to conclude definitively that evolution exists because we have not seen first-hand that it works as a process.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Because we can't dare postulate what (scientific) discoveries will be made in the future, and because the theory of evolution offers many, many models for understanding biological processes, the theory of evolution works for now, and definitely works better than some of the theories postulated by the Christian society.

The entire world seems to be running with it ... except for America. In fact, the U.S. is main frontrunner in very few countries that politicize the teaching of evolution. The U.S. also has the highest percentage of fundamental Christians. Go figure.

Did science have to make a political uproar when evolution was introduced into academia? Nope. Why not? Because as a scientific theory, it's sheer elegance lied in the 'history of the universe' model it offered, which paved new ground for many scientific disciplines to make new, important discoveries that have in turn led to human advancement.

Here's how the paleontological society beautifully articulates what I'm trying to say:

The evolution paradigm has withstood nearly 150 years of scrutiny. Although the existence of evolution has been confirmed many times, as a science evolutionary theory must continue to be open to testing. At this time, however, more fruitful inquiries address the tempo and mode of evolution, various processes involved in evolution, and driving factors for evolution. Through such inquiry, the unifying theory of evolution will become an even more powerful explanation for the history of life on Earth.
Source (http://www.paleosoc.org/evolutioncomplete.htm)

But think about it. If tomorrow we had fully Christian indoctrination in all school and in 20-50 years dont you think that we will have significantly more Christians in government than there are now?

Sure we would. But that would come AFTER the extreme upheaval (and potential violence) - because I can promise you this, FULL Christian indoctrination in ALL of our education systems won't ever fly. As a hypothetical example, it's not even worth comparing.

By "systematic takeover" I mean the eventuality of having religious people come in to the government where over time the ratio of Christian to otherwise is diluted in favor of Christians. In such a case, there is no bloodshed.

No, that's when the bloodshed begins.

A list of crimes considered worthy of death according to the Bible:

* Hitting your parents -- Ex. 21:15
* Kidnapping -- Ex 21:16
* Cursing your father or mother -- Ex 21:17
* Killing an unborn infant -- Ex 21:22-25 (There is some discussion about the interpretation of the passage. I believe it means if a woman has a miscarriage and the baby lives there can be lesser penalties. If the baby dies or the baby and the mother die the death penalty applies as the KJV & NIV translate the passage.
* An animal that has the habit of injuring others and the owner does not destroy it -- Exodus 21:28-29
* Witchcraft -- Ex. 22:18
* Worship of other gods/goddesses -- Ex. 22:20
* Working on the Sabbath -- Ex. 35:2
* Adultery -- Lev. 20:10
* Incest -- Lev. 20:11-12 & 14
* Sodomy (homosexuality/lesbianism) -- Lev. 20:13
* Bestiality -- Lev. 20:15-16
* False prophesying -- Deut. 13:1-10
* Rape under some circumstances -- Deut. 22:25

...

I cant tell you how many times I've had to deal with this shit.

The people you are so afraid of are beer-drinking, tit grabbing rednecks who wouldnt know the Bible from Alice in Wonderland. Please spare me that Jewish bullshit. The only parallel is justice carved out of the Old Testament combined with homophobia, racism, and bitterness.

I'm fully aware of what the Bible says and what it does not. Why dont you become more familiar with it before you start quoting it?

...

You say all that to prove my point. I didnt say evolution was or wasnt true. If fact, the validity isnt even something I'm going to touch. I said "arguement", which is indeed something that people point out.

Many people will use such an arguement because there has been no observation of a trend of speciation. Last time I went over this with Rust, he was only able to find two examples of speciation, one of which the authors of the paper werent even certain speciation had even taken place! Additionally, neither of which provided speciation trends as of yet.

However, you yourself gave me several paragraphs of "why evolution is so right" even without providing speciation trends, thus disproving your comment on comparing notes in 15-20 years.

Thats all I'm saying! In fact, validity of evolution is derailing the thread. :p

The people you are so afraid of are beer-drinking, tit grabbing rednecks who wouldnt know the Bible from Alice in Wonderland. Please spare me that Jewish bullshit. The only parallel is justice carved out of the Old Testament combined with homophobia, racism, and bitterness.

I'm fully aware of what the Bible says and what it does not. Why dont you become more familiar with it before you start quoting it?

Wow, Argon - I've heard you use the Bible to help you support YOUR homophobia, and dare I say - you seemed a bit bitter when people argued with you about it. Do I need to pull a few threads up for demonstration purposes? *ahem* (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1987890)

You say all that to prove my point. I didnt say evolution was or wasnt true. If fact, the validity isnt even something I'm going to touch. I said "arguement", which is indeed something that people point out.

No, you said it didn't exist. Why argue against something if you believe it exists?

No. Some people (myself included) argue that there has no been enough observation to conclude definitively that evolution exists
:rolleyes:

Many people will use such an arguement because there has been no observation of a trend of speciation. Last time I went over this with Rust, he was only able to find two examples of speciation, one of which the authors of the paper werent even certain speciation had even taken place! Additionally, neither of which provided speciation trends as of yet.

The very nature of science is that it refines it's theories as new discoveries are made. And discovery is an ongoing process. If there were lists upon lists of speciation examples, science would STILL not stop the buck, so to speak - it would continue to examine natural processes using the theory of evolution (or any new, upgraded theories, if they are available) as a model in order to further refine it. Right now, the theory of evolution suffices as an acceptable model to examine the changes that happen during the course of generations.

Just because we're stuck in the present time and are forced to study the PAST as far back as our modern instruments will allow doesn't mean that new trends won't be recognized as our instruments become more finely tuned and the scope of our knowledge changes right alongside it.

However, you yourself gave me several paragraphs of "why evolution is so right" even without providing speciation trends, thus disproving your comment on comparing notes in 15-20 years.

No, I gave you several paragraphs of why the theory of evolution is so practical, as it's the most advanced theory we have right now to use as a model when observing natural processes at work. In 15-20 years, science will STILL be studying these natural processes in order to refine the theories that are in place right now. Science doesn't just stop examining the natural world when one model seems to present an elegant theory on the why's and how-comes of the origin of species.

One of the reasons I can't stand Christianity is that it's fucking sneaky; it weasels it's way into power through subterfuge and politics. If and when fascism comes to America, there will be no violence. Nobody has the balls or the means to fight it anymore.

Plenty of people have the balls, and the means, to fight it. The "balls" they acquire come from their disdain for believing in a superstitious religion that half the world seems to be grappling onto, and the "means" is their prerogative to opt out of being a part of such a baseless belief system. I highly doubt THEY will be the ones resorting to violence, because unlike the Christians that Argon seems to think will dominate society eventually, indoctrinating each and every citizen with to the point of no return, are the ones who will have to resort to violence when they realize that the whole world just isn't going to roll over and succumb to Christianity. I don't give a shit if the entire CONGRESS was made up of evangelical Christians... secular citizens are going to have to be FORCED into complying with their ridiculous laws, because they won't do it on their own accord. Well, some might do it without coercion. But you can count me, for one, out of that group of passive compliers. Surak, I'd like to think that you'd have the balls and the means to join me, should that ever become necessary.

Wow, Argon - I've heard you use the Bible to help you support YOUR homophobia, and dare I say - you seemed a bit bitter when people argued with you about it. Do I need to pull a few threads up for demonstration purposes? *ahem*

Perhaps you didnt understand a single word I was saying in that thread. The entire point of that thread was to show how homosexuals, regardless of the cause of homosexuality, can be dealt with under the religion through personal commitment.

I cant for the life of me understand why you suppose that I hate homosexuals. I suppose you can understand why someone would be bitter in their discussion when the group you are talking to refuse to understand a word you are trying to convey.... or perhaps not...

No, you said it didn't exist. Why argue against something if you believe it exists?

I try to not be sexist, but drop the emotionalistic BS and think about it. You used the exact same rationale as I did in expecting a trend to be observed at some time in the future. Compare my statement of wishing to see a trend with your statement of expecting to see a trend.

Now look at your tirade. Dont you think the same sort of thinking will lead to a similar conclusion on your original retort if I were to follow through, considering you believe in your counterarguement and I in mine?

You are too busy looking at words and not understanding the concepts I lay out in sentences. If you still cant understand what I'm tring to say then I will just have to throw my head into a wall.

I cant tell you how many times I've had to deal with this shit.

The people you are so afraid of are beer-drinking, tit grabbing rednecks who wouldnt know the Bible from Alice in Wonderland. Please spare me that Jewish bullshit. The only parallel is justice carved out of the Old Testament combined with homophobia, racism, and bitterness.

I'm fully aware of what the Bible says and what it does not. Why dont you become more familiar with it before you start quoting it?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how this is really a response.

The Christians in the video believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and I can assure that the Bible calls for the death penalty for the crimes I listed.

So please, do reread your Bible.

If they were literalists they would realize that God told the Jews to kill homosexuals and that Jesus let sinners be free from punishment on several occasions.

The people in the video are brainwashed dumbasses that indeed "couldnt tell the difference between the Bible and Alice in Wonderland".

I've already said it before, but I suppose it bears repeating since it is pertinant to this discussion and it is something most Christians completely overlook: Christianity is not supposed to be a form of government of people.

Jesus didnt advocate the overthrow of government to be replaced with his teachings. Recall that that is the main reason why most pious Jews didnt believe he was the Messiah because they were expecting someone that was going to overthrow the Roman Empire or at least drive it out of their land.

Contrast this to, say, the Hebrews whuping the asses of the Canaanites after they got back from Egypt.

Treaty of Tripoli
Article 11

Motherfucks.

Treaty of Tripoli
Article 11

Motherfucks.

...which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand...

...which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand...

What is this topic about?

A college that dedicates itself to throwing as much conservative christian oriented prolitcs into washington. That i believe is the video the OP posted.

I believe that is what the topic is about.

If they were literalists they would realize that God told the Jews to kill homosexuals and that Jesus let sinners be free from punishment on several occasions.

The people in the video are brainwashed dumbasses that indeed "couldnt tell the difference between the Bible and Alice in Wonderland".

I've already said it before, but I suppose it bears repeating since it is pertinant to this discussion and it is something most Christians completely overlook: Christianity is not supposed to be a form of government of people.

Jesus didnt advocate the overthrow of government to be replaced with his teachings. Recall that that is the main reason why most pious Jews didnt believe he was the Messiah because they were expecting someone that was going to overthrow the Roman Empire or at least drive it out of their land.

Contrast this to, say, the Hebrews whuping the asses of the Canaanites after they got back from Egypt.

It's called cognitive dissonance. The Evangelical movement in this country violates quite a bit of what would be considered "Christian" ethics, but like everything else with that little death-cult, they just reject reality, and change what they claim Christianity to be.

One out of nine verses in the Bible are about selflessness and helping the poor. Hardline Right-wing religious fundamentalists. If you just accept Jeebus as your badass, dinosaur riding Lord and Savior, you too can have 2+2 make 5.

Last time I went over this with Rust, he was only able to find two examples of speciation, one of which the authors of the paper werent even certain speciation had even taken place! Additionally, neither of which provided speciation trends as of yet.



Wrong. It was not two examples. It was a lots more than two. The fact that you got that so wrong should preclude you from opening your mouth on the subject - or at least from mentioning my name - until you get something right.

Perhaps you didnt understand a single word I was saying in that thread. The entire point of that thread was to show how homosexuals, regardless of the cause of homosexuality, can be dealt with under the religion through personal commitment.


"Dealt with"? Why should a natural, personal preference need to be "dealt with" at all? In that thread, you specifically spoke from a Christian perspective. You asserted that, as a Christian, it would be better to castrate oneself than be a sodomite.

You are a Christian. If you happened to have been a homosexual, you would be so full of self-loathing and disgust (as it contradicted with your Christianity) that you would see fit to cut off your own dick!! :eek:

I cant for the life of me understand why you suppose that I hate homosexuals.

I didn't say you hated homosexuals. I said you were homophobic, which denotes a natural aversion to and dislike of homosexuals. Your faith requires that you be homophobic, because in the Bible, homosexuals are regarded as disgusting, repugnant and abominable.


You used the exact same rationale as I did in expecting a trend to be observed at some time in the future. Compare my statement of wishing to see a trend with your statement of expecting to see a trend.

What trend do you think I'm expecting to see some time in the future? And could you clue me in to what you think my rationale was?

I don't "expect" the evolution to be around in 10 years, although that is likely. But I don't expect it. For all I know, a new, exciting discovery may come along that science finds that will make everything we're discussing obsolete. I do expect science to remain consistent in it's unwillingness to ever just decide something as a fact, therefore abandoning any further attempts at refining it. The beauty of them adhering to that tactic is obvious when you observe how we're no longer clinging to certain theories that have long since been proved useless.

You are too busy looking at words and not understanding the concepts I lay out in sentences. If you still cant understand what I'm tring to say then I will just have to throw my head into a wall.

Or maybe there's a chance that you're not communicating your concepts in a way that I'll understand them? :confused:

If you're frustrated with me to the point of having to harm yourself by head-butting a wall, then brother, let's end this conversation. There is absolutely no reason why you should have to suffer any undue harm or stress over an internet discussion.

Let peace be upon you, and all that jazz.

Wrong. It was not two examples. It was a lots more than two. The fact that you got that so wrong should preclude you from opening your mouth on the subject - or at least from mentioning my name - until you get something right.

Really then? Do refresh my memory.

Your faith requires that you be homophobic, because in the Bible, homosexuals are regarded as disgusting, repugnant and abominable.

Since when? Last I checked I didnt have to worry about it because it is only "disgusting, repugnant, and abominable" to God.

Let peace be upon you, and all that jazz.

Since when? Last I checked I didnt have to worry about it because it is only "disgusting, repugnant, and abominable" to God.

God must be mistaken, huh? While I agree it's not something to worry about, it would seem like a Christian would take it to mean that God condemning something should be something they agree with.

But hey! It's nearly 2008. Time to liberate the church, is it not?

Really then? Do refresh my memory.

The articles on TalkOrigins, which what I usually link to when responding to someone that claims there is no evidence for speciation (or just demands evidence), provide dozens of examples of new species evolving. I'm not going to link them and start a whole discussion on them because that's not really relevant to the thread. Suffice it to say, you were wrong in your original claim.

You are too busy looking at words and not understanding the concepts I lay out in sentences. If you still cant understand what I'm tring to say then I will just have to throw my head into a wall.

I have never read a post from someone who seems to ALWAYS have problems communicating ideas. I personally believe you DO communicate your ideas. Then, someone points out how full of shit those ideas are and you back track. Try to tell someone they are not following your "simple" concepts. You bog down and derail an argument with semantical bullshit b/c your ideas are foolish and you cannot accept that when someone points it out.

Either that or you just COMPLETELY suck at communication. One of the two. You pick which one to choke down along with your pride. Either way bash your head into your aforementioned wall.

If they were literalists they would realize that God told the Jews to kill homosexuals and that Jesus let sinners be free from punishment on several occasions.


Mathew 15 3-7, Jesus reminds his followers to stone rebellious children to death. By the way, he doesn't mention a word concerning homosexuality in the New Testament.

Mathew 15 3-7, Jesus reminds his followers to stone rebellious children to death. By the way, he doesn't mention a word concerning homosexuality in the New Testament.

If you look at CONTEXT witch people like you usually dont (because you get your arguments from the internet) you will see that Jesus was not endorsing it or saying its wrong he was simpling stating the scribes and pharisees were full of shit and need to look at their own misdoings before they point out others let me explain more in words you people can understand, the scribes and pharisees came up to Jesus and said " Your disciples arent washing their hands their disobeying our traditions" then Jesus replies saying " The tradition also states to kill disobedient children yet you do not do that"

Put like that you can clearly see he was wanting the scribes to look at themselves first.

Desperate Hair-splitting that didn't contradict jack shit

nicely done

nicely done

Hilariously, this shows that either:
a) Jesus actually wants you to stone your disobedient children, in accordance with the scriptures.
b) Jesus was a philosopher/guru type person who thought that religion was bullshit, and instead wanted people to have personal spirituality. Ironically, Christianity is now the largest religion in the world. This reminds me of how Che Guevara ended up on t-shirts.

Take your pick, Sammy, you fucking retard.

Hilariously, this shows that either:
a) Jesus actually wants you to stone your disobedient children, in accordance with the scriptures.
b) Jesus was a philosopher/guru type person who thought that religion was bullshit, and instead wanted people to have personal spirituality. Ironically, Christianity is now the largest religion in the world. This reminds me of how Che Guevara ended up on t-shirts.

Take your pick, Sammy, you fucking retard.

Its neither you ignorant shit this is why I dont like posting here because you people dont know what your talking about but ill give it a try. *sigh*

CONTEXT is also referring to (in this specific case) the life of Jesus he was constantly pointing out the shortcomings of the scribes and pharisees because they were supposed to be God's representatives and be an example but they were just corrupt, hypocritical, and money hungry (hmmm reminds me of most "religious" leaders today) and he was wanting them to shape up and stop bringing shame to the Jewish people.

... the scribes and pharisees came up to Jesus and said " Your disciples arent washing their hands their disobeying our traditions" then Jesus replies saying " The tradition also states to kill disobedient children yet you do not do that"

Put like that you can clearly see he was wanting the scribes to look at themselves first.

If they killed their own children for being disobedient I wonder what they did to outsiders who defiled their traditions.

That is not the point though is it? The point is Jesus said "Shit dude, you don't even follow every little ancient tradition you got here, why should we?".

The Sabbath is part of the covenant with God. The Sabbath's ORIGINAL date is on Saturday. As a Catholic priest fucks a whore and is about to be stripped of his priesthood for it, can he quote Jesus in this sense: "Shit dude, you don't even follow the traditional Sabbath, how can you enforce my tradition of celibacy?"

If the church argued against that wouldn't they be arguing against the teachings of Christ? Or was J.C. just being a semantical dick when he said what he said? A smart ass kinda thing?

If they killed their own children for being disobedient I wonder what they did to outsiders who defiled their traditions.

That is not the point though is it? The point is Jesus said "Shit dude, you don't even follow every little ancient tradition you got here, why should we?".

The Sabbath is part of the covenant with God. The Sabbath's ORIGINAL date is on Saturday. As a Catholic priest fucks a whore and is about to be stripped of his priesthood for it, can he quote Jesus in this sense: "Shit dude, you don't even follow the traditional Sabbath, how can you enforce my tradition of celibacy?"

If the church argued against that wouldn't they be arguing against the teachings of Christ? Or was J.C. just being a semantical dick when he said what he said? A smart ass kinda thing?

Just a point about your example, celibacy of the clergy was instituted in the dark ages to prevent members of the Church from passing land bequeathed to the Church to their own descendants. Infallibility semantics aside, it's kind of a whole different story :P