Murdock: Gays in the Islamic World

It is the gays, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, the Afro-Caribbeans who live side by side with the Islamic bigotry and intolerance in the West who will, finally, be the irrefutable proof of the menace of innate Muslim hatreds. These are the groups that the Left will have to smear, hate, despise, and marginalise in order to fit its Islamic countenanced world view that 'the war on terror' is a WASP inspired demonisation of 'the other' (that flaccid, idiotic phrase that shows an absent of thought, rather than any thought)

So the left will have to turn on those who the previously held to be their natural constituency. Lets watch them twist and turn and become impaled on their own sophistry and bigotry. The Left is heading down the road of absolute moral bankruptcy.

And still, those who are the most eager advodates of gay and queer rights in the gender and cultural studies' departments in the Western academia, are also, at the same time, fiercly infatuated with Islam and everything that goes with it. Not that it makes any sense, it doesn't. Obviously, that's just what being "progressive" means these days: the package just includes being pro Islam (and anti Israel, anti Western, anti-anti-terrorism etc.), it's not negotiable, in spite of facts and common sense; in spite of Islam being against everything that the progressives otherwise stand for.

It is hilarious when I see banners declaring

University of London Gay Lesbian and Transexuals for Palestine!

or

Feminists and Transvestites Unite Against Patriarchy and Oppression! Solidarity With Islam! Free Palestine!

This kind of thing you cannot make up. It exists out there, this myopia, this stupidity.

The LLLs and moonbats (to use LGF parlance) will reap what they sow. One only has tro look to '79 Iran to see quite how.
Iran's marxists and leftists and 'intellectuals' widely approved of and actively supported Khomeini's attempts to overthrow the Shah.
Once the ayatollah came to power though, these leftists were among his first targets. The targetting was brutal and certainly wasn't pretty for our rosy-eyed moonbats, am sure. History looks to repeat itself with islamism and modern day leftism, this time in the western world, seems like.

"Jerry Falwell and others like him do not call for the deaths of homosexuals, while these people do," Spencer tells me

But, Robert, were it politically correct for him and his ilk to do so, I really believe he would. I think he'd also re-enact those Massachussetts laws that permitted the hanging of witches and the execution of disobedient sons.

By my lights, the American Christian religious right is pretty much into the same social policy as the imams and ayatollahs of the Muslim right.

I'm into liberty. So long as you don't bother me or mine while doing it, or involve children in something depraved, or go into cahoots with persons opposed to Western values, I say live and let live -- and even --let's party!

Zico:

And yet a significant contingent of the gay community identify with the very homophobic "pro-Palestinian" cause and demonize very gay-tolerant Israel.

Well what do you know? It seems that religious conservatives EVERYWHERE hate homosexuals and homosexuality.

Zico, you're right. Let's see them go to any Muslim hellhole (including Spencer's "secular" Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. (as quoted above... did he really say that? I hope not.)) and traipse through the streets with their banners.

I'd be somewhat careful about drawing conclusions about gays and Islam (or pro-"Palestine" leanings). For years various fringe far-left (read: communist or socialist) groups appear at gay pride parades and events and attempt to co-op these events for their own purposes. Not that such stupidity doesn't exist in the gay world; of course it does (and it does with other groups as well: how many Christian groups ally themselves with Islamic groups?) Like everyone else, gay people are not overly stupid and understand the hatred that exists for them in Moslem countries. But the fringe groups do scream louder than anyone else and get a lot of attention way out of proportion to their numbers.

Now, in Leviticus, 20:13, it says (in the King James translation): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." So, I do wonder why the fundamentalist Christians, who do cite Leviticus as reason for condemning homosexuality do not call for the death of homosexuals?

Of course, once down that path, you would have to also follow this:

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

Leviticus 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Leviticus 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Now a lot of these are a little obscure, but this one:

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

would probably mean most of the country should be put to death.

Of course, Christians (or Jews) are not carrying these things out anywhere in the world. Just making a minor point is all.

Seymour,

Good point. That Leviticus is hellfire and brimstone. I know of no Christians that take that literally, but the apologists for Islam sure don't miss a beat to point it out.

The gays I know have a negative opinion of Islam. Although they are also broadly ignorant about Islam (like the vast majority of Americans), they know for sure that Islamic states shouldn't be on any of their vacation itenaries.

I think Muslim gays have an irreconcilable conflict - their religion wants to literally kill them and that's a big problem. Zero tolerance. There is the lesbian Irshad Manji from Canada whose book "The Trouble with Islam" has learned first hand the vitriole of the mainstream Muslim toward gays. She gets the same intense hatred and heckling that Pipes, Spencer and other critics of Islam receive at public speaking engagements. Beats me why she keeps on saying she is going to continue to be a Muslim. Ali in the Netherlands to me is more truthful because she said I cannot believe in the Western prinicples of equality and respect and be a Muslim.

One more thing. The Muslims (i.e. men) spew hatred at homosexuals, but homosexual sex is rampant in Islamic states - all hidden of course. Homosexual pedophilia especially is common. They are like Clinton - they don't really consider it 'sex.' It reminds me of that funny massage parlor promo line 'massage with full release.'

It's just further proof how twofaced and corrupt Islam has been and still is.

reset: I have heard that homosexuality is rampant in the Arab (or Moslem?) world. I have not the slightest desire to find out first hand (no pun instended!).

And you're right: Moslem gays have an irreconcilable conflict.

One bene from all of this is looking at the contortions an idiot like Red Ken, the Mayor of London goes through to pretend there is no conflict.

I noted a theme in this thread:

LLL screamers get a lot of attention.
They’re very tolerant of homosexuality.
They’re infatuated with Islam.

Homosexuality is unacceptable to most Christians.
Homosexuality is extremely unacceptable to almost every Muslim.
When it comes to sexual matters, Islam is too the right of Christianity.

LLL screamers are hypocrites.

That theme should be exploited.

Yeah,if you're gay you probably wouldn't want to move to the middle east.

However if you are into incest or child molestation you've found a new home where such abhorent behavior is acceptable.

JLP

Seymour wrote...One bene from all of this is looking at the contortions an idiot like Red Ken, the Mayor of London goes through to pretend there is no conflict. ..

I think you meant 'benefit' and I agree. I suspect the gay mayors of Paris and Berlin perform the same contortionist acts of dhimmitude, but Livingstone, well, he is a fool, what I call a 'deepender.' i.e., going off the deep end. I am sure those Imans laugh and laugh at the twits behind their back.

One of my male gay friends was involved with an exchange student from an islamic country. I remember him telling me that his boyfriend was going back latter that year and that he would have to get married to a woman when he got back to his country because he couldn't let it be known he was gay. His family expected him to marry , and so be it!

I have a feeling that this sort of situation is much more common that we would think.

Baltic Waves

It is amazing! I was told I was intolerant by some liberal on the east coast because of my posts against radical Islam and because I said gay marriage was unacceptable and immoral. I will have to post this on www.allempires.com and ask him now who is intolerant?????
For me, even though I do not accpet this lifestyle I would in no ways want them to face prison or a death sentence. The only time I believe they should go to prison is if they passed a disease on to another prison they knew they had, same with any straight person.

Help me understand this better.

Either moral equivalence is a much misused term or my understanding of its use is incorrect. When you accuse someone of making a statement which expounds the moral equivalence of Christianity and Islam you’re saying that person believes any difference between the two moral codes can be justified due to their separate sources. Or “It’s ok to be different because we have different cultures” kind of thing.

Moral Universalism or recognizing the common elements of the various moral codes and utilizing them is the basis for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn’t it? Seems to me if you’re not for moral universalism you’d have to make a stand for a particular group’s moral standards and promote moral absolutism. In this case, the morals of societies interpreted as originating from opposing religions conflict with one another.

A moral absolutist now must decide which religion really has the correct set of “absolute standards” even though the societies are not following the religions’ standards absolutely. Nations’ moral codes are only loosely based on religious codes unless that nation is run by a theocratic government.

Now, if both societies treated homosexuals as their scriptures suggest or mandate homosexuals would not be welcome in either society. In New Testament Christianity the good Christian waits for the active or passive wraith of God to deal with a person’s homosexuality (disease, misfortune, etc.) while “loving the sinner and hating the sin” (some may even attempt to curtail homosexual’s rights) but apparently the Islamic notion is to take a more active role in God’s dealing with the sinner (stoning, or death by falling.)

Is pointing out that both societies deny homosexuals equal rights with heterosexuals a case of moral equivalence? It wouldn’t seem to be. Saying that Islam has the right to stone homosexuals because their book tells them to would be moral equivalence. Finding fault with throwing stones at people is a very common sense issue. And even though I think it should be, it seems finding fault with depriving someone of their rights based on sexual preference isn’t such a common sense issue with some people.

The real story seems to be that some who practice Islam want to stone homosexuals for being homosexuals and some of those who practice Christianity just want to deprive them of an equal status in society. Certainly it is not the same kind of thing and saying that makes a case for moral equivalence doesn’t jive with my understanding of the term.

I personally don’t care about and don’t want to hear about someone else’s sex life. I’ve got enough to worry about dealing with my own. Again, it seems to me everyone would be much happier in life if they minded their own business and kept out of everyone else’s.

I have no problem accepting and using many of the social concepts put forth in scripture. Just because it has some supernatural mumbo-jumbo in there doesn’t mean you have to throw the whole thing out. You don’t have to believe Christ is the son of God to understand the overarching importance of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or the common sense of isolating lepers (Leviticus 13:46) nor do you have attribute these common sense statements to divine inspiration.

f.g.

Reset:

You have it right about the wall of denial that goes on -- the rationalize that what they are engaging in isn't what it is, when males who aren't exclusively homosexual engage in homosexual activity. Those who identify exclusively as gay, on the other hand, in places like the KSA, probably live in fear. (Some Arab gays have even sought safety in Israel.)

I recall lots of references on this site to Quoranic passages promises young boys like pearls in the afterlife along with the 72 virgins and also news of sexual abuse of students in Pakistani maddrassahs

I noted a theme in this thread: LLL screamers get a lot of attention. They’re very tolerant of homosexuality. They’re infatuated with Islam.

LLLs are infatuated with Islam? LLLs like George W. Bush, Grover Norquist, and James Baker?

Homosexuality is unacceptable to most Christians. Homosexuality is extremely unacceptable to almost every Muslim. When it comes to sexual matters, Islam is too the right of Christianity. LLL screamers are hypocrites.

Christians hate homosexuals, Muslims hate homosexuals. Christians can't kill them or whip them because of the ACLU and the Constitution.

Xtians are right-wingers and are "too" the left of Islam. Xtians are hypocrites.

That theme should be exploited.

Send it to Rove and O'Reilly for their "talking points" propaganda, hypoChristian.

I recall lots of references on this site to Quoranic passages promises young boys like pearls in the afterlife along with the 72 virgins

Isn't there just one reference? Even still, one is enough to establish your point: Muslims are rapists and would just as soon rape a little boy if a little girl isn't available, especially a light-skinned (or "white as a pearl" i.e. European) little boy. There are also promises (in the Hadiths I think) that the 72 virgin whores are so white that one can see their legbones under their skin.

...and also news of sexual abuse of students in Pakistani maddrassahs

and everywhere else perverted lecherous wretches hold absolute power over a bunch of little boys. And--of course!--if the victims try to seek help, they are probably branded as infidels trying to "declare war on Islam", and/or agents of some Zionist plot, and silenced pretty quick.

Do raped little boys require four adult male Muslim witnesses to win a Sharia court case? You know, like little girls and women do?

Islam... what a joke.

University of London Gay Lesbian and Transexuals for Palestine!

'Turkeys for Christmas!'

Yes, Islam hates gays and it is amazing to see gay/Muslim alliances here in the West. Muslims hate gays for their sexual behavior. They will use gays in the West as long as it is necessary to gain political or cultural power. At that time gays will suddenly find themselves on the other end of the knife (or rope).

Equally amazing at those alliances that pair Chrisitians and Muslims for Muslims hate Chritians for their unbelief. Similarly Muslims are using Christians to gain legitimacy in the West, trying to prove that "they are like everyone else," which they aren't. Cooperative Christians will eventually find themselves with three usual three choices: conversion to Islam with full rights as a Muslim conquerer, a Christian that understand that he is a dhimmi, conquered and subdued, or... dead. None of these unappealing choices are acceptable.

Equally amazing at those alliances that pair Chrisitians and Muslims for Muslims hate Chritians for their unbelief.

Conversely Christians think the Koran is the doctrine of demons and all the Muslims are going to hell.

Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive clubs. That is why hearing our “Christian President” talk about Islam in glowing tones is disturbing. It is just a political statement, nothing else and he is saying something that he personally couldn’t believe and be a Christian. So what is he really thinking? That’s the problem.

The obvious duplicity of both sides in their mutual manipulation is repugnant.

Wouldn’t a clear declaration of intent and motivation of both parties be more representative of messengers and witnesses of a God of Truth and Peace?

f.g.

kj and others:

The difference between Christians in the modern West and Muslims in the world is not merely a difference between religions.

It is also a difference between two civilizations.

What people forget is that Western Christians have gone through a tremendous "learning curve" over the past 300 years. The vast majority of them have learned to grow up and mature. The vast majority of them have learned to accept a world where the Absolute Truth is not imposed through a theocratic government. The vast majority of them have learned to relax and let individuals travel the path to God through their own free will and conscience and if they choose not to go to God, then so be it, the Christian will pray for them and be nice and civil and continue to mingle with them socially, but will not chop their head off or whip them with 100 lashes, or refuse to shake their fucking hands or harbor enmity in their hearts against "dirty Infidels" like the vast majority of God-Damned Muslims do.

kj, shame on you for not knowing this simple and massive fact about the history, and present, of your own modern West.

"And still, those who are the most eager advodates of gay and queer rights in the gender and cultural studies' departments in the Western academia, are also, at the same time, fiercly infatuated with Islam and everything that goes with it. Not that it makes any sense, it doesn't. Obviously, that's just what being "progressive" means these days: the package just includes being pro Islam (and anti Israel, anti Western, anti-anti-terrorism etc.), it's not negotiable, in spite of facts and common sense; in spite of Islam being against everything that the progressives otherwise stand for."

From a poster above.

Indeed!

Common sense is not common.

The naiveté of young people in the West is to blame for that. Nobody educates them in this regard, nobody tells them that homosexuality is most rampant in Arab countries where it is suppressed. Young gays in western Universities often get involved with middle-easterners, and to quote Hugh Fitzgerald: "The liquid brown eyes, the soft-spoken routine" and more often (oil-) money maks them easy prey for Mohammedan charms. If it workds for the women, why not for the men, why should the gays and lesbians immune?

Consequently they come out in support of those with whom they are aquainted, and the Arabs tell them what to think inspite of their "independent mindedness". The stupidity of their actions
is rarely confronted, since they know nothing about the ME, they don't read the Koran and they don't care to inform themselves.

Metaxi:

"It is also a difference between two civilizations."

I beg to differ. I reject any notion of "Arab Civilization".

There is none. The Arabs have simply followed Mo's terror-manual, the Koran and over 1300 years of conquest, slavery, pilfering and rape what is it that you call "civilization?"

Sometimes they used what they could steal from the conquered people to claim it as their own, mostly they simply destroyed what they found in other cultures since either they didn't understand it or they found it 'offensive' to Islam.

Our civilization is "offensive to Islam"- They want us Islamic.

We are dealing with Beduin-tribes that have succeeded with Mo'es formular: "Strike terror in the hearts of thine enemy"- ruthless barbarians, predators, in fact I would prefer dealing with Baboons then with these marauders.

We have to destroy Islam, nothing less.

The life they are leading gotta go. The way the Arabs squander the oil-money (which they don't deserve) is disgraceful

The proceeds from the oil should be put to better use for all humanity. It is irresponsible to leave this sort of wealth to an irresponsible clan of Desert-tribalists who do nothing but promote this collective insanity called Islam in the world.

Metaxi:

"It is also a difference between two civilizations."

I beg to differ. I reject any notion of "Arab Civilization".

There is none. The Arabs have simply followed Mo's terror-manual, the Koran and over 1300 years of conquest, slavery, pilfering and rape what is it that you call "civilization?"

Sometimes they used what they could steal from the conquered people to claim it as their own, mostly they simply destroyed what they found in other cultures since either they didn't understand it or they found it 'offensive' to Islam.

Our civilization is "offensive to Islam"- They want us Islamic.

We are dealing with Beduin-tribes that have succeeded with Mo'es formular: "Strike terror in the hearts of thine enemy"- ruthless barbarians, predators, in fact I would prefer dealing with Baboons then with these marauders.

We have to destroy Islam, nothing less.

The life they are leading gotta go. The way the Arabs squander the oil-money (which they don't deserve) is disgraceful

The proceeds from the oil should be put to better use for all humanity. It is irresponsible to leave this sort of wealth to an irresponsible clan of Desert-tribalists who do nothing but promote this collective insanity called Islam in the world.

Metaxi:

"It is also a difference between two civilizations."

I beg to differ. I reject any notion of "Arab Civilization".

There is none. The Arabs have simply followed Mo's terror-manual, the Koran and over 1300 years of conquest, slavery, pilfering and rape what is it that you call "civilization?"

Sometimes they used what they could steal from the conquered people to claim it as their own, mostly they simply destroyed what they found in other cultures since either they didn't understand it or they found it 'offensive' to Islam.

Our civilization is "offensive to Islam"- They want us Islamic.

We are dealing with Beduin-tribes that have succeeded with Mo'es formular: "Strike terror in the hearts of thine enemy"- ruthless barbarians, predators, in fact I would prefer dealing with Baboons then with these marauders.

We have to destroy Islam, nothing less.

The life they are leading gotta go. The way the Arabs squander the oil-money (which they don't deserve) is disgraceful

The proceeds from the oil should be put to better use for all humanity. It is irresponsible to leave this sort of wealth to an irresponsible clan of Desert-tribalists who do nothing but promote this collective insanity called Islam in the world.

Remember the story of when a woman was about to be stoned to death for adultery. Jesus said 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.
One by one the crowd dropped their stones and slipped away. Jesus then asked her 'Where are those who would condemn you?' She replied 'They are gone'. Jesus then said ' They do not condemn you so neither do I. Go and sin no more'.

The message in this is to condemn the sin but love the sinner.

Not so long ago there was a pro-'Palestinian' demo in London which was joined by a group which included Peter Tatchell called 'Queers For Palestine' who were attacked by Muslims in the protest. I think that this was an eye-opener for many of those involved.

University of London Gay Lesbian and Transexuals for Palestine!

Yes but how many of them had wooden legs?

Dear kj, f.g.

Could either of you bible experts provide scripture that would instruct a Christian to kill homosexuals today, or even scripture that would have a Christian wish ill against them?

Could either of you bible experts provide scripture that would support your accusations that the God of the bible “hates” homosexuals?

Here, I will even give you two a head start!

(Luke 6:32) "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
(Luke 6:33) And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
(Luke 6:34) And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
(Luke 6:35) But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.

I am sorry, I forgot that you two have an agenda and your not about to let the truth interfere.

kj,

Sorry about my typo. I suspect you've made one or two yourself.

And as I have not stated my religious preference, if any, I certainly hope you haven't assigned the label 'hypoChristian' to me.

I am concerned about the spread of Islam. Journalists, politicians and activists who simultaneously embrace the homosexual lifestyle and Islam are hypocrites, and stupid, and they should be reminded of that at every opportunity.

Christian hipocracy seems to be a subject that has your attention more than mine. I prefer to keep it that way, unless it is advantageous for me to do otherwise.

"But, Robert, were it politically correct for him and his ilk to do so, I really believe he would. I think he'd also re-enact those Massachussetts laws that permitted the hanging of witches and the execution of disobedient sons.

By my lights, the American Christian religious right is pretty much into the same social policy as the imams and ayatollahs of the Muslim right."

You are out of your damned mind.

Keith:

Forgive me for troubling your lurid fantasies with something so prosaic as "evidence," but I really wish you would provide some to support your oft-repeated contention that modern Christians want to kill homosexuals.

I won't be holding my breath.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Terminator,

When I used the word "civilizations" in the plural, I didn't mean to imply that Islamic civilization is civilized. The word "civilization" like the word "culture" can be used literally, or generically. I used it in the generic sense, to denote a massive coalition of peoples bound by complex traditions and rules. Just because Islam's system of complex traditions and rules is made up of evil barbarisms does not mean we cannot apply the generic term "civilization" to it as a convenient anthropological descriptor.

Islam, for all its history of ferocious military rapacity, is not exactly comparable to certain coalitions of barbarians that emanated out of Central Asia to pillage the West (like the Vandals, Goths, etc.) who had the rudiments of culture but were, like certain American Indian tribal coalitions, nothing more than roving gangs of looters and destroyers.

Let's not get emotionally juvenile and hotheaded about our mission here. Don't worry: we can still judge Islam to be evil and intolerable while at the same time using the descriptor "civilization" (in its generic, not its aesthetic and ethical sense) to denote their sociocultural cohesions.

Christians hate homosexuals, Muslims hate homosexuals. Christians can't kill them or whip them because of the ACLU and the Constitution.~ kj

LIAR.

http://www.bibble.org/gay/religious/bible_blabber.html

Present your biblical quotes, kj. Show me where Jesus said it- Because Jesus is the Last Word on all things biblical.

Show me where he says it, LIAR.

Gary: Present your biblical quotes, kj.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Romans 1:24-27
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Loxias~ Show me where Jesus said it, you f***ing idiot- Because Jesus is the Last Word on all things biblical.

LIAR.

Show me where Jesus said it, Loxias. Then go read the article about intolerance that Mr. Spencer posted above. And I will ask you again:

Show me where Jesus said it- Because Jesus is the Last Word on all things biblical.

Show me where Jesus says it. Don't avoid the direct question. Where does Jesus say it?

We've got a bug going around this part of Canada and I've not been well for 4 days, apologies to everyone (else) for my mood. I'm just curious to see where Loxias can find quotes by Jesus Christ Himself calling for death to homosexuals.

Oh, and Loxias: When you've finished quoting Jesus to your heart's content, please do what I asked samir81 to do yesterday:

Provide links to news articles where Christians are actually following those items you quoted (which, oddly enough, don't seem to have come from the mouth of Jesus).

Good night, Everyone (else).

There is nothing in Loxias's quotes of the New Testament that calls for killing homosexuals. At worst, there is one statement from Corinthians stating that sexual deviants will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and one from Romans outlining various bad things about them. Nothing there about calling to kill them.

*nods* You are correct, they don't say a word about it. Doesn't pay to be sick and trying to comprehend things here at the same time.

I still await your quotes from Jesus' own mouth, loxias. And the links I requested.

*nods* You are correct, they don't say a word about it. Doesn't pay to be sick and trying to comprehend things here at the same time.

I still await your quotes from Jesus' own mouth, loxias. And the links I requested.

What is the issue here? Whish religion's 'textbook' is more hateful toward gays or which religion practices actual violent action against gays?

Could either of you bible experts provide scripture that would instruct a Christian to kill homosexuals today, or even scripture that would have a Christian wish ill against them?

As soon as you quote where I said that it does. Do you still beat your wife b.t.w.?

New Testament believers are not under the law. However, uder the Law, the act was considered "worthy of death”. Leviticus 20:13. Romans 1:27, 32.
27…Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Receiving “the due penalty for their perversion” is a reference to the active or passive wraith (depending on your leaning) of God towards homosexuals. Surely you don’t need a Biblical lesson on the various schools of thought on the nature of God’s wraith in this dispensation do you?

Could either of you bible experts provide scripture that would support your accusations that the God of the bible “hates” homosexuals?

I will, just as soon as you show me where I made such an “accusation”, you less than careful reader you.

What I did say was Now, if both societies treated homosexuals as their scriptures suggest or mandate homosexuals would not be welcome in either society.

Being “not welcome” does not equate with murdering them at the various churches I have attended during my lifetime. Perhaps they do things differently in your particular hood homey.

God certainly doesn’t care to have the bunch around as the Bible clearly says those guilty of this transgression are unfit to inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10.

I am sorry, I forgot that you two have an agenda and your not about to let the truth interfere.

Bar, you obviously either misread or misunderstood me or you were deliberately misleading in your representation of what I said. In any case, your statements led me to believe it is your allegiance to the truth that is questionable.

f.g.

Most Christians accept that Leviticus represents an era that died finally in 70 AD, but that its disapproval of homosexuality (reflected in Paul's letters) reflects as well God's dislike of the same sin. This has not changed with the cahnge in marching orders from "exterminate the Canaanites" to "make disciples of all nations". Homosexuality is sin, whether I'm commanded to execute judgment on it now or wait for God to either convert or destroy its practitioners.

Has nobody noticed that there might be a very good reason for a Gay-Muslim alliance in Western "multiculturalism"? Both represent a violent and implaccable hatred for the Christian West and all it vere stood for (feeding the hungry as well as the crusades; limited government as well as intolerance of the "other") and would literally sell their own souls and those of their children (if the gays have any) to the Devil himself in order to destroy it. The fact that the Gay Rights movement does not choose to recognize that their Christian neighbors do not enter into judgement with them is further proof that it is no ally against jihad, but part of the general moral decay of the West that yearns for death. The jihadis thus see the Western homosexual as both an ally in the destruction of the West and future booty once the deed is done.

Frankly, I'm not in the least ashamed of what either Moses or Paul wrote. God spoke through those men. I'm firmly persuaded that the present furor Islamicus and its homophobia is God's exposure of the fatuousness of the "multicultural" scene.

Noxious Loxie, I'd rather stand with someone who's stood a few thousand years in spite of all the vitriol people like you pour on him than with some NYSlimes editorialist or Hollywood screenwriter who'll one day wake up after being mugged by reality.

reset: What is the issue here? Whish religion's 'textbook' is more hateful toward gays or which religion practices actual violent action against gays?

Gary is demanding that I quote Jesus; it seems he regards St. Paul's views as immaterial to Christian theology.

Kepha: Has nobody noticed that there might be a very good reason for a Gay-Muslim alliance in Western "multiculturalism"?

Try peddling that idea in a Mosque. You seem to contradict yourself, accepting that Muslims are homicidally homophobic on the one hand, then on the other insist their is an alliance between between gay Westerners and gay Muslims.

Noxious Loxie, I'd rather stand with someone who's stood a few thousand years in spite of all the vitriol people like you pour on him than with some NYSlimes editorialist or Hollywood screenwriter who'll one day wake up after being mugged by reality.

The only reality I've been mugged by is the reality of the religious right -- to include the wacko Christian right as well as nearly all of the Muslim world.

You are out of your damned mind. (AGAIN)

Carolyn2: You are out of your damned mind. (AGAIN)

Temper, temper.

Y'll don't like being lumped together with the wacko imams, but as a species of clerically-blinded sheep, that's what you are.

You can't pidgeon hole me, Loxias. I am not that easy to define.

pigeon (sp)

f.g
My apologies for including you with kj about God hating homosexuals.

In regards to me beating my wife, well, I do like danger but the odds of me surviving one night are slim to none, and slim just left.
Your hood may do it different, but I do believe our bibles will read the same, unless your hood made up its own?

Surely a far larger number of people in our society would be those guilty of adultery. Which the New Testament defines as merely looking at someone with lustful intent. Don't they get the same treatment as homosexuals in both Old and New Testaments?

Doesn't 1 Corinthians 6:9 make it clear that the sexually immoral, idolater, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers and homosexuals are all in the same boat, which includes myself (1 John 1:8). Believers are saved by grace, through faith, not of works, so that no man can boast (Ephesians 2:8). Those with "love your neighbor as yourself" and "treat others as you want to be treated". How could any "good" Christian await the wrath of his God on a sinners? Would that not be arrogant? which James 4:6 deals with. At the same time the Church cannot allow any person or group to enter and sow discontent, so if you are referring to them being unwelcome to that affect, I would agree and apologize for me misreading your comment. Otherwise I stick to my original contention that scripture doesn’t support the Christian in their mistreatment of others.

Homosexuality was a capital offence in Christian Colonial America, but they also included adultery, property crimes, any violent crime, and religious crimes such as heresy or blasphemy.

Bar,

Apologies accepted.

Your hood may do it different, but I do believe our bibles will read the same, unless your hood made up its own?

Well Bar, I neither feel the need nor the desire to produce a different version of the Bible. As I alluded to in my previous post, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, and others have done that for me. All have their own version of "The Bible", which often contradict one another. This doesn't even take in account the numerous translations available.

So how on earth could you be assured that our bibles would read the same? Granted I have several translations on my shelf and we probably could sink up but our views of the material would differ I'm afraid. Nevertheless your statement "scripture doesn’t support the Christian in their mistreatment of others" is mostly true other than labeling them unbelievers and "lost" and not associating with them. Of course people have a right to associate with whom they wish (at least in the US) and I hardly fault anyone for that other than the "us and them" attitudes this creates.

At any rate, I have found that it honestly impossible to reconcile the differences between the world's religions. It is quite often impossible to reconcile differences of interpretation within sects themselves.

The presence of a belief in the supernatural and the uncertainty and ambiguity generated by that (spurious revelation) make it impossible to say with any certainty which if any of the countless “revelations” are messages from a deity. There is nothing that says that a creative deity should exist conform to our concepts of right and wrong. Some believe that given the evidence of history and current events, that the deity or deities are malevolent rather than benevolent.

The evidence actually seems to indicate that we live in a hostile and quite impartial universe. As disappointing as this may sound to someone looking forward to going to heaven rather than oblivion I think seeing things as they really are is the only way to solve the problems of society. The more we look to the outside for help the more trouble we get into because quite frankly, it opens society up to the manipulation of ruthless men who masquerade as gurus, saviors, and spiritual giants.

f.g.

On topic comment: Allah is a cripple bitch.