Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Threat? Projecting? Like I said, leftists are stupid. Indeed, evil, tyranny, in the final analysis, really is mindless, banal. My statement goes to the nature of your political agenda. Obviously, it's true, as any sane or sensible person can see, in light of the video and the mindless response of the leftist thugs on this thread.
Numbers?
Your laws, both real and imagined, contrary to divine, natural, constitutional and case law?
Your meaningless blather about facts?
Evil loses in the end. You're a fool. It's not my problem that you're too stupid or corrupt to acknowledge the truth.
Rant when confounded with the truth, huh.
You do not interpret for anyone else the divine, natural, constitutional, and case law.
You have enough trouble remembering to take which meds at what times.
Sonny, don't be stupid enough to threaten anyone.
Liar.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).
"But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
So tell us about the last time you had some shrimp or lobster, sinner.
Why would the Mosaic dietary laws apply to Christians of the New Testament era?
But in any event. . . .
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
From the link.
Really? So forced outings? and coming out are about minding your own business? hmmmmmmm that does not compute
Of course your logical fallacies don't compute: Faulty generalization
"But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
So tell us about the last time you had some shrimp or lobster, sinner.
Why would the Mosaic dietary laws apply to Christians of the New Testament era?
But in any event. . . .
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
Homophobes selectively quote from the Old Testament when speaking out against gays, not the New Testament. Perhaps you should be quoting Romans 5:8 to them.
Your laws, both real and imagined, contrary to divine, natural, constitutional and case law?
Nobody gives a shit about your "divine law". Take your problems to Jesus.
You're a thug, a fascist, a statist bootlick, a lawless monster.
M. D. Rawlings incorrectly interprets scripture and pretend he has authority in the matter. He reminds me of the devils, who ALSO know Jesus and tremble.
Yes. I know you don't care about divine law, and you don't care about its sociopolitical ramifications (natural law) and, therefore, you don't care about constitutional or case law either.
That's my point. You don't care about the inalienable rights of others. You're a thug, a fascist, a statist bootlick, a lawless monster. Yours is the law of mob rule, not the rule of law.
You guys keep making my point as if you were refuting me, and it just flies right over your head again and again.
Let me help you understand why, as I, like all sinners, used to suffer from the same problem.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . . (Romans 1:28).
This may be difficult for some of you to cipher, as none of you are very bright, but, in practical terms, what Paul is talking about here is the idiocy of disregarding the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (the truth held in unrighteousness, see above). Though human beings cannot always know what is ultimately true about any number of given problems apart from divine revelation, what they do know in every instance is that two diametrically opposed ideas, for example, are rationally irreconcilable; that is to say, intellectual relativism is utter madness, gibberish.
No one can explain how two diametrically opposed assertions could possibly be true at the same time, in the same way within the same frame of reference.
The law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of excluded middle are rationally unassailable, the indispensable mechanisms of making distinctions between categorically different things, ideas or assertions.
Apparently, that's why none of you can distinguish the point at which your rights end and those of others begin, a very simple matter really, hardly the stuff of rocket science. But, of course, evil never merely demands its "rights", but necessarily demands acceptance or else.
You're a thug, a fascist, a statist bootlick, a lawless monster.
Tell us more about how you want to force your religious beliefs on others at the barrel of a gun.
You're a thug, a fascist, a statist bootlick, a lawless monster.
Tell us more about how you want to force your religious beliefs on others at the barrel of a gun.
You're a liar.
As I've said before, the only things that homofascists and their straight fascists allies will ever understand about the point at which their rights end and those of others begin is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
Tell us more about how you want to force your religious beliefs on others at the barrel of a gun.
You're a liar.
As I've said before, the only things that homofascists and their straight fascists allies will ever understand about the point at which their rights end and those of others begin is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
So... tell us more...
Tell us more about how you want to force your religious beliefs on others at the barrel of a gun.
You're a liar.
As I've said before, the only things that homofascists and their straight fascists allies will ever understand about the point at which their rights end and those of others begin is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads.
So... tell us more...
My, my, my. Look at how upset some people get when gays ask to be able to file a married tax return and enjoy all the exact same government presents we straight people do!
All this violent talk. Clearly they don't want anyone else getting government gifts but themselves.
Hypocrites. Worse than hippies, really. Hippies don't care if everyone gets government presents. But the homophobes don't want anyone but themselves getting stuff from the government.
The only ones into "government gifts" are the Liberals. I don't want anything from the government, but thank you anyway.
Marriage = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN
Why would the Mosaic dietary laws apply to Christians of the New Testament era?
But in any event. . . .
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
Homophobes selectively quote from the Old Testament when speaking out against gays, not the New Testament. Perhaps you should be quoting Romans 5:8 to them.
New Testament
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For even their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:24 - 27).
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And you were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:9-11).
"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine . . ." (I Timothy 1:9-10).
There are many more; however, the Greek term for homosexuality is also variously translated in the English versions as abomination, uncleanliness, perversion, strange flesh and the like.
Yes. I know you don't care about divine law, and you don't care about its sociopolitical ramifications (natural law) and, therefore, you don't care about constitutional or case law either.
That's my point. You don't care about the inalienable rights of others. You're a thug, a fascist, a statist bootlick, a lawless monster. Yours is the law of mob rule, not the rule of law.
You guys keep making my point as if you were refuting me, and it just flies right over your head again and again.
Let me help you understand why, as I, like all sinners, used to suffer from the same problem.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . . (Romans 1:28).
This may be difficult for some of you to cipher, as none of you are very bright, but, in practical terms, what Paul is talking about here is the idiocy of disregarding the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (the truth held in unrighteousness, see above). Though human beings cannot always know what is ultimately true about any number of given problems apart from divine revelation, what they do know in every instance is that two diametrically opposed ideas, for example, are rationally irreconcilable; that is to say, intellectual relativism is utter madness, gibberish.
No one can explain how two diametrically opposed assertions could possibly be true at the same time, in the same way within the same frame of reference.
The law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of excluded middle are rationally unassailable, the indispensable mechanisms of making distinctions between categorically different things, ideas or assertions.
Apparently, that's why none of you can distinguish the point at which your rights end and those of others begin, a very simple matter really, hardly the stuff of rocket science. But, of course, evil never merely demands its "rights", but necessarily demands acceptance or else.
You sure know how to say a lot that translates into gibberish.
From the link.Really? So forced outings? and coming out are about minding your own business? hmmmmmmm that does not compute
Of course your logical fallacies don't compute: Faulty generalization
A faulty generalization is a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, we may generalize about all people, or all members of a group, based on what we know about just one or just a few people. If we meet an angry person from a given country X, we may suspect that most people in country X are often angry. If we meet a lazy recipient of social welfare benefits, we may suspect that all welfare recipients are lazy. Faulty generalizations may lead to further incorrect conclusions. We may for example conclude that citizens of country X are genetically inferior, or that poverty is generally the fault of the poor.
Expressed in more precise philosophical language, a fallacy of defective induction is a conclusion that has been made on the basis of weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced. This inductive fallacy is any of several errors of inductive inference.
