Pastor Steven Anderson: “If You Executed the Homos Like God Recommends,” the World Would be AIDS-Free by Christmas
community » Discussions » Category » Religion & Ethics » Discussion » Pastor Steven Anderson: “If You Executed the Homos Like God Recommends,” the World Would be AIDS-Free by Christmas
This is an old video, but I posted it for a reason. Recently I learned that a YouTuber that goes by the name Skylar Fiction, was censored by YouTube for 'promoting hate speech'. The crime? Skylar posted a video interview with a young preacher (22 yrs. old) who was openly declaring that the government should execute all homosexuals. Skylar did this simply to bring light to the fact that there are seriously people in this country with such abhorrent opinions, and yet HE (Skylar) was the one accused of promoting hate speech. Skylar lost an appeal with YouTube over the situation, which would indicate that an actual human did look at the parameters of the situation and confirmed that it was the right move. Since then YouTube has apparently come to their senses and reversed the censoring, probably due to an uproar about how incredibly backwards their ruling was. My question is, how is it that a 2014 video of a guy wanting to execute tens of millions of people across the globe is not considered hate speech, when YouTube claims to have removed 8.3 million videos that exhibited hate speech?
See the 22 year old bigot with dangerous opinions here:
Countries that have anti-hate-speech laws define the topic very precisely, both to prevent abusive usage by the authorities, and to ensure conviction when charges are brought.
Application is not left to the appreciation of a Mod the police.
My point was that he isnt the only Christian that thinks that way. We know YOU don't but there are actually a lot of Christians that do think that way which isn't very Christian.
I got them to stop playing techno music in the gym at our local recreational center by mobilizing enough people to let them know we hate that crap.
I was also a big player in helping to kill disc music during the rock vs disco wars. Without the disco sucks bumper stickers we might still be stuck with it.
Incidentally, there is a really good tv series on Hulu called The Handmaid's Tale. The premise is an America that was overtaken by a movement of people with ideologies like those exhibited in these videos. It's a cautionary fictional tale of sorts. Come to think of it, one of the lead characters actually looks a lot like Pastor Anderson. I have to wonder whether that was intentional.
Reminds me of Josh Duggar whos father, ultra far right wing radicalized Christian father JimBob Duggar, yelled for years that pedophiles and homosexuals should be executed....only to find out his son was laying wood to his 5 year old sisters.
I guess i didn't get the memo from God saying homosexuals should be executed. Must be an oversite because we all know Stevens would NEVER make something like that up to suit his own hate filled agenda....
There is no such Christian teaching and anyone calling themselves a Christian or especially a pastor is demeaning and defiling the Gospel
there are no Christian civil Lawson the Bible. The Law of Moses is obsolete for Christians per scripture
The Law of Moses does not apply to Christians
“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.” Luke 16:16
Romans 10:3,4
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law .
Hebrews 7:22
by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, “A new covenant ,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
And importantly at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29)
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “ You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and Fromm sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
So he's another one of those non-christian christians? I wonder do other organizations get free passes when one of theirs does bad?
isn't it interesting that last week this particular poster would have proudly stood by this fellow Pastor and defended him as being religious until the day is done - but since this fellow Pastor is in the headlines for his religious views, suddenly all the "christians" are abandoning him and claiming he is now suddenly not a religious leader in the christian community (even tho this fellow Pastor in this article is still a religious leader who has plenty of people following him and a member of the same christian religion that the poster is) ??
Yeah, okay, but it certainly applied to ancient Hebrews, right? Even if you take the new covenant notion to the extreme, the fact remains (the biblical fact at least) that God (the every same God of the NT) did in the OT condemn males to death if they engaged in a homosexual act.
You can argue that the omniscient, omnipotent God had a change of heart, but you cannot hide from the fact that at one point in time (biblically speaking) the God character of the Bible supported the position of this pastor regarding killing homosexuals.
Under the new covenant there is no theocratic government to carry out God’s judgments. Nor will there be. Those laws and their punishments applied ONLY to Jews, no one else. God delays for the most part now until your death to give the judgment on sin
TiG @ 8.4 - Yeah, okay, but it certainly applied to ancient Hebrews, right? Even if you take the new covenant notion to the extreme , the fact remains (the biblical fact at least) that God (the every same God of the NT) did in the OT condemn males to death if they engaged in a homosexual act.
You can argue that the omniscient, omnipotent God had a change of heart, but you cannot hide from the fact that at one point in time (biblically speaking) the God character of the Bible supported the position of this pastor regarding killing homosexuals .
To wit, even if you go with the OC not applying to Christians that does not change the rules and acts of God in the past. This pastor no doubt justifies his extreme bigotry with the notion that at one time God demanded death too.
This new covenant old covenant is utter BS. A house is built on its foundation and without the OT, no one can proclaim Jesus was the Messiah. You can't refer to the parts that you like, and then not for the rest. Furthermore, Jesus never denounced being a Jew and James was very upset with what Paul who was giving up the old ways with the Greeks to get them to convert.
Logic people.. even when talking about faith, there is still an order to things that can't be denied.
Logic people.. even when talking about faith, there is still an order to things that can't be denied.
However, that seems to be lost on some who choose to make up their own belief based upon their own choice of what they choose to believe, no matter how ar out in the boonies from the truth is may be.
However, that seems to be lost on some who choose to make up their own belief based upon their own choice of what they choose to believe, no matter how ar out in the boonies from the truth is may be.
but i have to admit - the mental gymnastics involved for them to justify those beliefs is simply amazing !
You can argue that the omniscient, omnipotent God had a change of heart, but you cannot hide from the fact that at one point in time (biblically speaking) the God character of the Bible supported the position of this pastor regarding killing homosexuals.
If you assume that the Bible is the literal truth.
If you assume that it is allegorical... then... no.
I knew what you were going to say. The only thing I could not predict is how you were going to say it.
I knew you were going to pretend that my words meant that I advocate one actually believing the presupposition rather than establishing the presupposition as a premise and see if the argument results in a contradiction.
One would have thought that "... and see how well it fares." would have eliminated any question of my meaning.
For a "divinely inspired" work, one would think that the allegories would have been derived from situations that aren't better situated for a snuff film.
That might be how a Trumpster "Christian" would argue...
A follower of Christ might say, "Don't worry about whatever may happen later. 'Love your fellows' in this life, and the rest will take care of itself."
Not offering your daughters up to total strangers for a gang raping seems like a timeless concept to me. So doe not murdering the world, come to think of it.
Submission to the Master is also a timeless concept.
Sorry, but if I ever get the feeling that an invisible, noncommunicating entity would prefer that I hand over my daughters to be raped by strangers, I'm just not going to do it. Not today, not 2,000 years ago, not 2 million years ago. There is no scenario at any time in the existence of humanity when that is an appropriate response to the imagination.
Hinei, the days come, saith Hashem, that I will cut a Brit Chadasha with Bais Yisroel, and with Bais Yehudah; Not according to the Brit that I cut with their Avot in the day that I took hold of their yad to take them out of Eretz Mitzrayim; which My Brit they broke, although I was Ba’al (Husband) to them, saith Hashem; But this shall be the Brit that I will cut with Bais Yisroel; After those days, saith Hashem, I will set My Torah in them inwardly, and I will write ketuvim on their hearts; and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be My People. And they shall teach no more every ish his re’a (neighbor), and every ish his brother, saying, Know Hashem; for they shall all have da’as of Me, from the katon of them unto the gadol of them, saith Hashem; for I will forgive their avon, and I will remember their chattat no more. Yirmeyah 31:31-34
Or from the Messianic Jewish Bible
“Here, the days are coming,” says Adonai, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Isra’el and with the house of Y’hudah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for my part, was a husband to them,” says Adonai. “For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Isra’el after those days,” says Adonai: “I will put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will any of them teach his fellow community member or his brother, ‘Know Adonai’; for all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest; because I will forgive their wickednesses and remember their sins no more.” Jeremiah 31:30-33
That's an anachronism, too. The condition of women was similar all across the world back then.
In other words the good old days, a very sound foundation for an ideology.
Again, you're spotlighting Christianity, but the phenomenon is worldwide, and goes back to caveman days. Our efforts to give women equality are unique in human history. An anomaly.
So while you may criticize whatever you wish... singling out Christianity here just weakens your argument.
That's an anachronism, too. The condition of women was similar all across the world back then.
Actually I was referring to the master-slave relationship inherent in a Christian's relationship to his sky fairy, but you're right that these superstitions also perpetuated Bronze-age misogyny far longer than it should have been. Heck, some states permitted marital rape until 1993.....and some time after that Trump's attorney said that it wasn't even possible for a man to rape his wife. And there are still enough people who hold those views that we have a pussy grabber as Prez.
Let Skrekk know your beliefs. When you come across as a Bible believer (and you know that is the interpretation when you do not qualify) you should expect people to react accordingly.
Let Skrekk know that you do not believe the Bible is divine and that you are an agnostic theist Christian who defines Christianity as -in effect- 'adopting the good parts of the philosophy attributed to Jesus Christ'.
I suspect this would dramatically improve your ability to discuss Christianity with Skrekk, et. al.
What part of "I don't answer closed questions" did you not understand?
golly gee.. . if you only read my post and provided the " other options " for worship , then it wouldn't be a " closed " question, now would it ? (do i have to state that it's simply pathetic that i have to explain this to you ?)
It seems that you actually do not understand... So let's dissect your post.
I don't answer closed questions.
shocking /s
maybe the answer is a bit uncomfortable , eh ?
The topic of "worship" is a bit more complex than just two options.
oh good - please provide the other " options " . Thanks
shocking /s You begin with an aggressive demonstration of your disagreement. Sarcasm is aggressive. I use it a lot...
maybe the answer is a bit uncomfortable , eh ? Then you demonstrate that you've already come to a conclusion... so it's really pointless for me to answer at all.
oh good - please provide the other " options " . Thanks Finally, you laughingly ask a question that is boundless. Such a question is just as unanswerable as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I'm guessing that you don't actually wish to discuss anything, but being an eternal optimist, I'm always affording another opportunity.
If you want to discuss something: - A conversation is a collaboration , requiring an effort of construction from both parties. - If you are not polite, you're signalling that whatever else you may say, you really aren't interested. - Begin by agreeing on vocabulary. Differences in usage ensure differences in results. - Do not insult the other person's ideas, which is the same as insulting the person. An instant end to collaboration.
Yes, let's dissect, shall we ? you seem a bit off in your dissection (which is no surprise really)
shocking /s You begin with an aggressive demonstration of your disagreement. Sarcasm is aggressive. I use it a lot...
just a response to "i don't answer closed questions" which is rather aggressive and gives a standoffish attitude - if you give aggressive, you will get it in return. Sarcasm is a great thing, eh ?
maybe the answer is abit uncomfortable, eh ? Then you demonstrate that you'vealreadycome to a conclusion... so it's really pointless for me to answer at all.
ah, here's the misconception - you think i already have a conclusion. I don't. I have an idea of a possible conclusion (did you see the word "possible" ?) which would be uncomfortable for you. This is why i state that "maybe" the answer is a bit uncomfortable, of course you could have a different answer altogether which wouldn't be uncomfortable at all and i leave it open to that possibility - unlike you apparently who thinks he already knows what i'm thinking.
oh good - pleaseprovide the other "options". Thanks Finally, youlaughinglyask a question that is boundless. Such a question is just as unanswerable as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
so you are unable to provide other options for "worship" besides the two that i have laid out for you ? if this is the case then all you had to do was say so. The question isn't boundless - there are only a finite number of possibilities for reasons for worshiping someone or some entity or some thing. This looks like a way for you to avoid answering the question, usually tactics like this are done out of fear of the answer - is this your case as well ?
I'm guessing that you don't actually wish to discuss anything, but being an eternal optimist, I'm always affording another opportunity.
If you want todiscusssomething: - A conversation is acollaboration, requiring an effort ofconstructionfrom both parties. - If you are not polite, you're signalling that whatever else you may say, you really aren't interested. - Begin by agreeing on vocabulary. Differences in usage ensure differences in results. - Do not insult the other person's ideas, which is the same as insulting the person. An instant end to collaboration.
Have a nice day..........
yes, it requires both sides - which includes yours and so far you are the one who has been uncooperative and has assumed a lot (which i have corrected). If you don't feel i'm polite - that would be your issue, not mine. I deal with polite and impolite all the time on here - makes no difference to me, i can still be an adult and have a discussion with impolite people as well, it's not that difficult if you are in it to have a discussion.
Again - please provide the other options for "worship" besides:
1. Worshiping your "master"
2. Worshiping your "equal" (which i'm not sure you "worship" your "equal" - the act of worshiping is reserved for people or deities that you feel are "above" you, not your equal)
now, if you have other options you'd like to provide and be an adult by having a discussion - that'd be great. If you'd rather not discuss anything because it's too uncomfortable for you while simultaneously blaming everything on me - that's your decision to deceive yourself.
You obviously have a different definition of what a dominionist is that many other people do. I know more than a few nitwits who claim that the US was created as a Christian county and that the Bible is the basis of US law. David Barton readers eat that nonsense up.
This is an old video, but I posted it for a reason. Recently I learned that a YouTuber that goes by the name Skylar Fiction, was censored by YouTube for 'promoting hate speech'. The crime? Skylar posted a video interview with a young preacher (22 yrs. old) who was openly declaring that the government should execute all homosexuals. Skylar did this simply to bring light to the fact that there are seriously people in this country with such abhorrent opinions, and yet HE (Skylar) was the one accused of promoting hate speech. Skylar lost an appeal with YouTube over the situation, which would indicate that an actual human did look at the parameters of the situation and confirmed that it was the right move. Since then YouTube has apparently come to their senses and reversed the censoring, probably due to an uproar about how incredibly backwards their ruling was. My question is, how is it that a 2014 video of a guy wanting to execute tens of millions of people across the globe is not considered hate speech, when YouTube claims to have removed 8.3 million videos that exhibited hate speech?
See the 22 year old bigot with dangerous opinions here:
I'm sure it will be soon that we'll find the 'pastor' Anderson with his pants down with little girls, or little boys.
How does YouTube define "hate speech"?
Countries that have anti-hate-speech laws define the topic very precisely, both to prevent abusive usage by the authorities, and to ensure conviction when charges are brought.
Application is not left to the appreciation of
a Modthe police.Hopefully hate speech is protected. Next thing you know people will be getting locked up for sayin' I hate cancer.
In what way does hate speech benefit society?
Excellent example, Dean. It is precisely to avoid this kind of abuse that anti-hate-speech laws are strictly delimited.
My point was that he isnt the only Christian that thinks that way. We know YOU don't but there are actually a lot of Christians that do think that way which isn't very Christian.
I got them to stop playing techno music in the gym at our local recreational center by mobilizing enough people to let them know we hate that crap.
I was also a big player in helping to kill disc music during the rock vs disco wars. Without the disco sucks bumper stickers we might still be stuck with it.
I will take disco over rock any day.
Disco was a fad...rock lives on!!!!
It isn't protected on privately owned web sites like youtube. Bummer for you folks, eh?
So you are not in favor of free speech.....unless YOU like it. Got it, good to know.
Let me clarify... I agree that hate speech is protected speech...No argument there, my point is that it serves no useful purpose.
I thought that was rock & roll and Elvis was a communist agent sent to do just that?
What better way to avoid suspicion, right?
Agreed... Disco.....is dead...thankfully.
Yer pulling our legs....aren't you?
Facebook thought Declaration of Independence quotes were hate speech
Apropos.
Incidentally, there is a really good tv series on Hulu called The Handmaid's Tale. The premise is an America that was overtaken by a movement of people with ideologies like those exhibited in these videos. It's a cautionary fictional tale of sorts. Come to think of it, one of the lead characters actually looks a lot like Pastor Anderson. I have to wonder whether that was intentional.
It's an awesome show.
Don't get the show but I did read the book many, many years ago imo Margaret Atwoods best work
I'm on my 10th reading right now
It's a good rule book for wumminfolk to follow in Trump's Amerikkka.
Reminds me of Josh Duggar whos father, ultra far right wing radicalized Christian father JimBob Duggar, yelled for years that pedophiles and homosexuals should be executed....only to find out his son was laying wood to his 5 year old sisters.
I bet Jim Boob laid wood to all of his daughters.
And i wouldn't be surprised if josh was banging his mother....seriously...
Sex education, home school style.
I would have to agree - lots of those kids looked remarkably alike and lowbrow. Inbreeding at its' best.
I guess i didn't get the memo from God saying homosexuals should be executed. Must be an oversite because we all know Stevens would NEVER make something like that up to suit his own hate filled agenda....
.
/sarc
There is no such Christian teaching and anyone calling themselves a Christian or especially a pastor is demeaning and defiling the Gospel
there are no Christian civil Lawson the Bible. The Law of Moses is obsolete for Christians per scripture
The Law of Moses does not apply to Christians
“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.” Luke 16:16
Romans 10:3,4
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Galatians 5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law .
Hebrews 7:22
by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, “A new covenant ,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
And importantly at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29)
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “ You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and Fromm sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.
So you don't want to kill Teh Gayz, you merely want them denied the same civil rights you enjoy?
So he's another one of those non-christian christians? I wonder do other organizations get free passes when one of theirs does bad?
isn't it interesting that last week this particular poster would have proudly stood by this fellow Pastor and defended him as being religious until the day is done - but since this fellow Pastor is in the headlines for his religious views, suddenly all the "christians" are abandoning him and claiming he is now suddenly not a religious leader in the christian community (even tho this fellow Pastor in this article is still a religious leader who has plenty of people following him and a member of the same christian religion that the poster is) ??
Lol it is interesting, but not surprising as it happens every damn time something similar happens
Yeah yeah, we know Christians had to rewrite the rules for themselves because they couldn't play by the rules of the OT.
Yeah, okay, but it certainly applied to ancient Hebrews, right? Even if you take the new covenant notion to the extreme, the fact remains (the biblical fact at least) that God (the every same God of the NT) did in the OT condemn males to death if they engaged in a homosexual act.
You can argue that the omniscient, omnipotent God had a change of heart, but you cannot hide from the fact that at one point in time (biblically speaking) the God character of the Bible supported the position of this pastor regarding killing homosexuals.
Under the new covenant there is no theocratic government to carry out God’s judgments. Nor will there be. Those laws and their punishments applied ONLY to Jews, no one else. God delays for the most part now until your death to give the judgment on sin
You did not actually read my post.
To wit, even if you go with the OC not applying to Christians that does not change the rules and acts of God in the past. This pastor no doubt justifies his extreme bigotry with the notion that at one time God demanded death too.
This new covenant old covenant is utter BS. A house is built on its foundation and without the OT, no one can proclaim Jesus was the Messiah. You can't refer to the parts that you like, and then not for the rest. Furthermore, Jesus never denounced being a Jew and James was very upset with what Paul who was giving up the old ways with the Greeks to get them to convert.
Logic people.. even when talking about faith, there is still an order to things that can't be denied.
btw.. sorry, that comment was meant for LFOD
However, that seems to be lost on some who choose to make up their own belief based upon their own choice of what they choose to believe, no matter how ar out in the boonies from the truth is may be.
but i have to admit - the mental gymnastics involved for them to justify those beliefs is simply amazing !
It sure was.
Rarely see those two dots connected these days.
From the Christians perspective, one was the foundation and the other the fulfillment.
Why not?
The OT was written by many authors over many centuries. Why must it be treated as a single unit?
If you assume that the Bible is the literal truth.
If you assume that it is allegorical... then... no.
"(biblically speaking)" is key.
One can analyze the Bible with a presupposition of truth and see how well it fares.
Exactly.
That's why intelligent people never "presuppose truth"...
I knew what you were going to say. The only thing I could not predict is how you were going to say it.
I knew you were going to pretend that my words meant that I advocate one actually believing the presupposition rather than establishing the presupposition as a premise and see if the argument results in a contradiction.
One would have thought that "... and see how well it fares." would have eliminated any question of my meaning.
Oh, I knew what you meant. But we know each other pretty well.
I was covering the risk that some third party might misunderstand...
How convenient for Christians. Trust us, He exists but you only will find out for sure when you cease to be alive.
For a "divinely inspired" work, one would think that the allegories would have been derived from situations that aren't better situated for a snuff film.
Ummm..... Hal??
It was written three fucking thousand years ago , at the end of the fucking Bronze Age .
Are you really expecting to find modern standards of behavior?
That might be how a Trumpster "Christian" would argue...
A follower of Christ might say, "Don't worry about whatever may happen later. 'Love your fellows' in this life, and the rest will take care of itself."
Not offering your daughters up to total strangers for a gang raping seems like a timeless concept to me. So doe not murdering the world, come to think of it.
Submission to the Master is also a timeless concept. Probably more timeless than "daughters are precious"...which isn't true everywhere even today.
I believe the word you need is "anachronism".
Sorry, but if I ever get the feeling that an invisible, noncommunicating entity would prefer that I hand over my daughters to be raped by strangers, I'm just not going to do it. Not today, not 2,000 years ago, not 2 million years ago. There is no scenario at any time in the existence of humanity when that is an appropriate response to the imagination.
C'mon, Hal...
You know what an anachronism is. Three thousand years ago, women were chattel. Daughters were barter goods. Votive sacrifices were normal practice.
Things have changed since then, but the present is irrelevant to the past.
All the more reason to never, ever look to 3,000 year old dogma for insights of how to be a better human being.
Perrie you must have a different Tanakh
Hinei, the days come, saith Hashem, that I will cut a Brit Chadasha with Bais Yisroel, and with Bais Yehudah; Not according to the Brit that I cut with their Avot in the day that I took hold of their yad to take them out of Eretz Mitzrayim; which My Brit they broke, although I was Ba’al (Husband) to them, saith Hashem; But this shall be the Brit that I will cut with Bais Yisroel; After those days, saith Hashem, I will set My Torah in them inwardly, and I will write ketuvim on their hearts; and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be My People. And they shall teach no more every ish his re’a (neighbor), and every ish his brother, saying, Know Hashem; for they shall all have da’as of Me, from the katon of them unto the gadol of them, saith Hashem; for I will forgive their avon, and I will remember their chattat no more.
Yirmeyah 31:31-34
Or from the Messianic Jewish Bible
“Here, the days are coming,” says Adonai, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Isra’el and with the house of Y’hudah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for my part, was a husband to them,” says Adonai. “For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Isra’el after those days,” says Adonai: “I will put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will any of them teach his fellow community member or his brother, ‘Know Adonai’; for all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest; because I will forgive their wickednesses and remember their sins no more.”
Jeremiah 31:30-33
There are episodes that are worth retaining, but others that certainly are not.
Basically, we cannot subcontract our morality to anyone, alive or dead. We may take advice from wherever... but we remain responsible for our actions.
That's one of core aspects of Christianity and related superstitions which I find most objectionable.
.
In other words the good old days, a very sound foundation for an ideology.
That's an anachronism, too. The condition of women was similar all across the world back then.
Again, you're spotlighting Christianity, but the phenomenon is worldwide, and goes back to caveman days. Our efforts to give women equality are unique in human history. An anomaly.
So while you may criticize whatever you wish... singling out Christianity here just weakens your argument.
Actually I was referring to the master-slave relationship inherent in a Christian's relationship to his sky fairy, but you're right that these superstitions also perpetuated Bronze-age misogyny far longer than it should have been. Heck, some states permitted marital rape until 1993.....and some time after that Trump's attorney said that it wasn't even possible for a man to rape his wife. And there are still enough people who hold those views that we have a pussy grabber as Prez.
Apparently you don't know much about Christianity, and are satisfied with what you (imagine that you) know.
Be happy.
does someone worship their "equal" or does someone worship their "master" ?
He's not wrong.
Who's your "Lord", Bob? The language of all the Abrahamic sects is filled with that kind of subservient crap.
I don't answer closed questions. The topic of "worship" is a bit more complex than just two options.
I think he is profoundly wrong... but that's his problem, not mine. I'm not a missionary.
Why are you being purposefully unpleasant, Skrekk? Are you trying to ensure that we don't converse... exchange... discuss...
Why?
If you'd like to discuss... any topic... I'll be glad to collaborate. If you don't want to discuss... that's OK, too.
It's up to you.
Let Skrekk know your beliefs. When you come across as a Bible believer (and you know that is the interpretation when you do not qualify) you should expect people to react accordingly.
Let Skrekk know that you do not believe the Bible is divine and that you are an agnostic theist Christian who defines Christianity as -in effect- 'adopting the good parts of the philosophy attributed to Jesus Christ'.
I suspect this would dramatically improve your ability to discuss Christianity with Skrekk, et. al.
I'm sure you're right.
I'm working on it...
For the moment, about the best I can do is disengage.
shocking /s
maybe the answer is a bit uncomfortable, eh ?
oh good - please provide the other "options". Thanks
What part of "I don't answer closed questions" did you not understand?
What part of "I don't answer closed questions" did you not understand?
golly gee.. . if you only read my post and provided the " other options " for worship , then it wouldn't be a " closed " question, now would it ?
(do i have to state that it's simply pathetic that i have to explain this to you ?)
It seems that you actually do not understand... So let's dissect your post.
shocking /s
You begin with an aggressive demonstration of your disagreement. Sarcasm is aggressive. I use it a lot...
maybe the answer is a bit uncomfortable , eh ?
Then you demonstrate that you've already come to a conclusion... so it's really pointless for me to answer at all.
oh good - please provide the other " options " . Thanks
Finally, you laughingly ask a question that is boundless. Such a question is just as unanswerable as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I'm guessing that you don't actually wish to discuss anything, but being an eternal optimist, I'm always affording another opportunity.
If you want to discuss something:
- A conversation is a collaboration , requiring an effort of construction from both parties.
- If you are not polite, you're signalling that whatever else you may say, you really aren't interested.
- Begin by agreeing on vocabulary. Differences in usage ensure differences in results.
- Do not insult the other person's ideas, which is the same as insulting the person. An instant end to collaboration.
Have a nice day..........
Yes, let's dissect, shall we ? you seem a bit off in your dissection (which is no surprise really)
just a response to "i don't answer closed questions" which is rather aggressive and gives a standoffish attitude - if you give aggressive, you will get it in return. Sarcasm is a great thing, eh ?
ah, here's the misconception - you think i already have a conclusion. I don't. I have an idea of a possible conclusion (did you see the word "possible" ?) which would be uncomfortable for you. This is why i state that "maybe" the answer is a bit uncomfortable, of course you could have a different answer altogether which wouldn't be uncomfortable at all and i leave it open to that possibility - unlike you apparently who thinks he already knows what i'm thinking.
so you are unable to provide other options for "worship" besides the two that i have laid out for you ? if this is the case then all you had to do was say so. The question isn't boundless - there are only a finite number of possibilities for reasons for worshiping someone or some entity or some thing. This looks like a way for you to avoid answering the question, usually tactics like this are done out of fear of the answer - is this your case as well ?
yes, it requires both sides - which includes yours and so far you are the one who has been uncooperative and has assumed a lot (which i have corrected). If you don't feel i'm polite - that would be your issue, not mine. I deal with polite and impolite all the time on here - makes no difference to me, i can still be an adult and have a discussion with impolite people as well, it's not that difficult if you are in it to have a discussion.
Again - please provide the other options for "worship" besides:
1. Worshiping your "master"
2. Worshiping your "equal" (which i'm not sure you "worship" your "equal" - the act of worshiping is reserved for people or deities that you feel are "above" you, not your equal)
now, if you have other options you'd like to provide and be an adult by having a discussion - that'd be great. If you'd rather not discuss anything because it's too uncomfortable for you while simultaneously blaming everything on me - that's your decision to deceive yourself.
Have a great day !
[deleted]
Not much change because there are so few
You obviously have a different definition of what a dominionist is that many other people do. I know more than a few nitwits who claim that the US was created as a Christian county and that the Bible is the basis of US law. David Barton readers eat that nonsense up.
In fact that's exactly what Larry claims.
Anyone who makes such claims is flat out wrong too. But then, it's mostly christian dominionists or apologetics who make such claims.
This has to be the least 'Christlike' Christian I have ever seen. What a jackass.
For someone who is so obsessed with the sex lives of others, I bet that he has an account on Grindr.
Probably AFF too.
I forgot about that site. It an even scummier version of Ashley Madison.
Americans for Freedums?
Adult Friend Finder.