Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[alwight]

Paraphrasing the recent words of a defender of sodomy:

"Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt." (I have to admit Al, you had me roaring with laughter with that one).

Check out the very first word that is listed in the tha tha tha thesaurus Al under horrific.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/horrific

If you're still having problems go back to Leviticus where God uses that word (remember that Jesus is the Son of God/God in the flesh).

Face it aCW "horrific" is only your own descriptive opinion (embellishment), nobody else's and not Jesus'. :nono:
Your double standards mean that in your mind anyway lobster isn't "horrific" at all, because you like lobster, even if God does say it is an abomination.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS, LIEUTENANT ACW!

Please daddy, please!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Paraphrasing the recent words of a defender of sodomy:

"Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt." (I have to admit Al, you had me roaring with laughter with that one).

Check out the very first word that is listed in the tha tha tha thesaurus Al under horrific.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/horrific

If you're still having problems go back to Leviticus where God uses that word (remember that Jesus is the Son of God/God in the flesh).

Face it aCW "horrific" is only your own descriptive opinion (embellishment), nobody else's and not Jesus'. :nono:
Your double standards mean that in your mind anyway lobster isn't "horrific" at all, because you like lobster, even if God does say it is an abomination.

With you being an expert on Holy Scripture (what atheist isn't?), have you ever noticed that God didn't assign a penalty to those who ate shellfish, yet He ordered the ultimate penalty (death) for those caught engaging in homosexual behavior?

http://biblehub.com/niv/leviticus/11.htm
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

Whaddaya make of that ole wise one?

 

[alwight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Paraphrasing the recent words of a defender of sodomy:

"Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt." (I have to admit Al, you had me roaring with laughter with that one).

Check out the very first word that is listed in the tha tha tha thesaurus Al under horrific.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/horrific

If you're still having problems go back to Leviticus where God uses that word (remember that Jesus is the Son of God/God in the flesh).




With you being an expert on Holy Scripture (what atheist isn't?), have you ever noticed that God didn't assign a penalty to those who ate shellfish, yet He ordered the ultimate penalty (death) for those caught engaging in homosexual behavior?

http://biblehub.com/niv/leviticus/11.htm
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

Whaddaya make of that ole wise one?

Well..

Leviticus 11 Da roolz: sum food kleen, sum dirty 1 Teh Ceiling Cat saiz to Moses and Aaron,2 "Plz saiz to teh Izrulites: Doodz! To make cheezeburgerz liek awesumly, youz need to use theez:3 U shuld use animulz wiff hoofz n hornz and goes Moo (beefz cowz! lol). 4 Camelz dont mak teh good cheezeburgerz, w*f u thinkin man?!?5 Badger burgerz are teh sooper-gross 2!!!6 Wunce, I tryz bunnyz-burgerz, but tehy haz a flavor and it no r gud .7 Pigz r not for cheezeburgerz, unless they r teh BACON Cheezeburgerz lol.8 If u eated NE of theez burgrz, ur doin it rong wai u eated nasty cheezeburgerz? lol, u frow up now.9 Okiez, if u no can has wantz cheezeburgerz (w*f, y, r u hai?) maybez u wantz feeshez instead? 10 Fine, u go to teh Macdonaldz and u can has feel-lay (lol) O feesh sandy-wich.11 Eeew, y u want shrimp basketz? It r BLECH, trust me.12 It r serously DO NOT WANT. 13 O hay, go bai KFC, wen y go, kthx.14 But dont get orijinal reshpy, get teh x-tra krispee!15 Doodz, reely, only eatz teh chikenz.16 No eated teh eagulz or owlz plz.17 O RLY?18 Y RLY!19 Also, batz for baseballz lol, not for can has eatingz. 20 O hay, so lemme tell u aboutz bugz:21 Criket = DEELISHIOUS22 Grasshoppa = MOAR DEELISHIOUS23 Beetulz = BLECH 24 If u eet teh nasty thingz, yur teh stoopit.25 We - O I mean Ceiling Cat demands u take bath now, k? 26 Lol, dont be eeting othercatz harblz.27 Paws also BLECH. Scratch dog? K. No eet.28 I meen, serously, y u no eet cheezeburgerz noob? 29 O yah, evan tho we iz catz, u no can has ratz-burgerz eithur.30 U no can eated teh gecko on the TVz eithur, he can has save u monies on car inshurance.31 Oh noes! Who iz noob that spilled cheezeburgerz on floor???32 U gots teh speshul saucez all ovar mai new shirt! U go wash it now cuz no shooz, no shirtz, no cheezeburgerz.33 If teh cheezeburgerz falls into toilet, forgetz it dood.34 Toilet cat wunce tellz me that, 'It are still deelishus,' but I think it are BLECH.35 Also, plz to be carefullz with teh cheezeburgerz!36 Just eets them rite away, k? lol.37 Wtf man, we order friez with that!38 We Ceiling cat no eet cheezeburgerz that have touched ONYUN RINGZ, BLECH. 39 Wash yur pawz before eeting teh Cheezeburgerz noob.40 I meen, I iz watching u fap wiff teh same pawz!!! 41 O yah, like I sayz before: no can has cheezeburgerz that fell on teh floor!42 Ceiling cat sayz ther are no ten second rulez, lol.43 U eated cheezeburgerz off floorz? Lol, u r so ded, u noob!44 I am teh Ceiling cat, so be respektable when u can has cheezeburgerz.45 I am teh Ceiling cat, who watches u fap. So u shuld be happy I no post piktures on interwebz, lol!

​

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Leviticus_11


From your link:

20“ ‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

​

Just how many legs do insects have aCW?
Is this a leg thing?
But if any walk around on "all fours" then steer clear apparently, horrific?.:liberals:

 

[GFR7]

Please daddy, please!

'Daddy'?.....'daddy'......... :think: .......:think:.....Daddy!!! :jawdrop:

aCW can be my Big Daddy!!! :BRAVO: :Wamba::roses:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

With you being an expert on Holy Scripture (what atheist isn't?), have you ever noticed that God didn't assign a penalty to those who ate shellfish, yet He ordered the ultimate penalty (death) for those caught engaging in homosexual behavior?

http://biblehub.com/niv/leviticus/11.htm
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

Whaddaya make of that ole wise one?

Well..
[Just how many legs do insects have aCW?
Is this a leg thing?
But if any walk around on "all fours" then steer clear apparently, horrific?.:liberals:

Somewhere in that worthless atheist rant of yours Al I must have missed your answer as to why God didn't punish people (other than telling them to wash) for consuming food that was deemed unclean for the Jews, yet gave the maximum penalty (death) for anyone that engaged in homosexuality.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

'Daddy'?.....'daddy'......... :think: .......:think:.....Daddy!!! :jawdrop:

aCW can be my Big Daddy!!! :BRAVO: :Wamba::roses:

No, but I'll be your friend and tell you to go find a good reparative therapist.

Your video with the Pee Wee Herman look alike was typical homosexual filth, but then that's what homosexuals call 'humor' isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYXxMO_mTBY

 

[alwight]

With you being an expert on Holy Scripture (what atheist isn't?), have you ever noticed that God didn't assign a penalty to those who ate shellfish, yet He ordered the ultimate penalty (death) for those caught engaging in homosexual behavior?

http://biblehub.com/niv/leviticus/11.htm
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm

Whaddaya make of that ole wise one?



Somewhere in that worthless atheist rant of yours Al I must have missed your answer as to why God didn't punish people (other than telling them to wash) for consuming food that was deemed unclean for the Jews, yet gave the maximum penalty (death) for anyone that engaged in homosexuality.

Your God seems to think that insects walk around on "all fours" aCW, need I look any further for rationality within your particular ancient scripture?
If a real god exists then I'm quite sure at least that any connection to it is purely coincidental.

 

[GFR7]

No, but I'll be your friend and tell you to go find a good reparative therapist.

Your video with the Pee Wee Herman look alike was typical homosexual filth, but then that's what homosexuals call 'humor' isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYXxMO_mTBY

1. You can still serve as a father-figure as a friend on TOL. I've always seen you as a father, anyway. :AMR1: And don't be ridiculous and insulting. Puh-leeze. :nono:

2. What I wanted to know (and btw, that 'PeeWee' is a nationally acclaimed gay advocate with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation - GLAAD) was what you think of his argument on the 365 day restriction, Dad. :angel:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Your God seems to think that insects walk around on "all fours" aCW, need I look any further for rationality within your particular ancient scripture?
If a real god exists then I'm quite sure at least that any connection to it is purely coincidental.

Yet again I missed your answer as to why God didn't dole out punishment to those who touched or ate animals that were deemed unclean, yet gave the maximum penalty of death to those who engaged in homosexuality.

Regarding 4 legged insects:

Did the Bible Writers Commit Biological Blunders?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2731

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
No, but I'll be your friend and tell you to go find a good reparative therapist.

Your video with the Pee Wee Herman look alike was typical homosexual filth, but then that's what homosexuals call 'humor' isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYXxMO_mTBY

1. You can still serve as a father-figure as a friend on TOL. I've always seen you as a father, anyway. :AMR1: And don't be ridiculous and insulting. Puh-leeze. :nono:

2. What I wanted to know (and btw, that 'PeeWee' is a nationally acclaimed gay advocate with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation - GLAAD) was what you think of his argument on the 365 day restriction, Dad. :angel:

It would be insulting to your father to have his son call someone else "dad"...UNLESS...

2. Family abnormality, including the following:
•a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother
•an absent, distant, or rejecting father
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3393262&postcount=17

In addition to that, I'm not old enough to be your "dad".

Regarding Pee Wee's look alike attempt at an argument?

Obviously the CDC (when it comes to diseases disproportionately contracted by homosexuals) tells no lies.

Now about that reparative therapy I was suggesting...

 

[alwight]

Yet again I missed your answer as to why God didn't dole out punishment to those who touched or ate animals that were deemed unclean, yet gave the maximum penalty of death to those who engaged in homosexuality.

Regarding 4 legged insects:

Did the Bible Writers Commit Biological Blunders?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2731

I didn't read all of your link aCW, but at least they seem to be attempting to be somewhat rational with their apologetics, well they can't really argue against what is clearly reality and still be credible, which they don't unless I didn't read that part.
Do point it out if I did, but I suspect that I actually read rather more of it than you did, or wanted me too.
They agree that insects have six legs aCW, so for me at least the Bible is clearly not inspired by any god and clearly neither is it infallible, it's just stuff written by ancient middle eastern people who didn't know any better. Some clearly found homosexuality unpleasant and said as much, the homophobes of their day perhaps. :think:

 

[GFR7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
No, but I'll be your friend and tell you to go find a good reparative therapist.

Your video with the Pee Wee Herman look alike was typical homosexual filth, but then that's what homosexuals call 'humor' isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYXxMO_mTBY






It would be insulting to your father to have his son call someone else "dad"...UNLESS...

2. Family abnormality, including the following:
•a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother
•an absent, distant, or rejecting father
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3393262&postcount=17

In addition to that, I'm not old enough to be your "dad".

Regarding Pee Wee's look alike attempt at an argument?

Obviously the CDC (when it comes to diseases disproportionately contracted by homosexuals) tells no lies.

Now about that reparative therapy I was suggesting...

1. A father figure is not about age, but about quality of character. My father died under tragic circumstances when I was young. Besides, you kept drumming it into my head that you were in fact older than I, all last summer - and kept calling me, 'Son'. Things are too fixed to change them now, and you are my father, my real father. :roses:

2. Yes, Mr. Cumming seems to view the 365 day ban as absurd, and yet the CDC is hesitant even with that celibacy ban- and who can believe them? :think:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Regarding 4 legged insects:

I didn't read all of your link aCW, but at least they seem to be attempting to be somewhat rational with their apologetics, well they can't really argue against what is clearly reality and still be credible, which they don't unless I didn't read that part.
Do point it out if I did, but I suspect that I actually read rather more of it than you did, or wanted me too.
They agree that insects have six legs aCW, so for me at least the Bible is clearly not inspired by any god and clearly neither is it infallible, it's just stuff written by ancient middle eastern people who didn't know any better. Some clearly found homosexuality unpleasant and said as much, the homophobes of their day perhaps. :think:

Being that common sense isn't your forte' Al, obviously you missed this in the article:

The very idea that the Israelites, who during various plagues saw untold millions of insects at a time (e.g., locusts; cf. Exodus 10:1-20; Joel 1:4; Amos 4:9), were clueless about how many legs these creatures had, is outlandish—“people in biblical times could count legs just as easily as people today” (Hutchinson, 2007, p. 57). As Petrich mentioned, the Israelites not only saw insects, but they ate them (cf. Mark 1:6; Leviticus 11:22), which means they would have seen them “up close and personal.” Are we to believe that when the Israelites caught, cleaned, and put locusts up to their mouths, they never realized how many legs these insects had? The writer of Leviticus would have known this as surely as Americans know that beef comes from cows which walk on four legs.

I know steak better than lobster Al, and a juicy medium rare ribeye comes from a 4 legged critter.

Now where were we before your latest smokescreen blew into the thread?

That's right, you were going to tell me why God only told people who touched unclean animals to wash after doing so, but told the Israelites to punish those who engaged in homosexual behavior with death.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...and you are my father, my real father

I just called Peter LaBarbera and he agreed to be your real father (sorry Peter, but in times like this, it's every man for himself).

2. Yes, Mr. Cumming seems to view the 365 day ban as absurd, and yet the CDC is hesitant even with that celibacy ban- and who can believe them? :think:

What is absurd is that we're even having this discussion about whether or not those who engage in a deadly disease ridden behavior should have to be celebate for a year before donating blood. In a sane society these people would be getting the help that they so desperately need so that they woudn't have to worry about tainted blood.

 

[GFR7]

What is absurd is that we're even having this discussion about whether or not those who engage in a deadly disease ridden behavior should have to be celebate for a year before donating blood. In a sane society these people would be getting the help that they so desperately need so that they woudn't have to worry about tainted blood.

You are so right. (Thanks for being the wisest father in the whole world, Dad. :roses: )

In addition, the gay advocacy appears to have little concern for the fact that the primary responsibility of the FDA is public medical safety. :nono: They are too busy trying to push identity politics (validation) and even ask the "is it only us?" question:

Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?

Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. From 2007 through 2010, among adult and adolescent males, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to MSM increased, while the numbers of infections attributed to other risks among males decreased. Among adult and adolescent females, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to injection drug use and heterosexual contact both decreased.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

 

[alwight]

That's right, you were going to tell me why God only told people who touched unclean animals to wash after doing so, but told the Israelites to punish those who engaged in homosexual behavior with death.

I don't believe your God tells anyone anything aCW, though that doesn't seem to stop some being his self-appointed representatives on Earth.
Human people wrote about the perceived risks involved with certain foods, not gods. Humans are quite good at learning from their mistakes and don't need a supposed supernatural deity to spell it out for them (on reflection maybe they did back then? :idunno.
Despite what your apologists might say the term "on all fours" is imo probably just a bad English translation of the real meaning.
They wouldn't admit that of course, since the Bible must remain supposedly "inspired by God".
However, while I agree that people back then could count they wouldn't have exactly had a comprehensive knowledge of all invertebrates and how many legs were involved.

What is probably more noticeable is that you apparently need the assistance of professional apologetics rather than being able to explain it for yourself. But perhaps you are never critical of the Bible and simply accept what it says literally without question, like a true fundie would? lain:

 

[GFR7]

I just called Peter LaBarbera and he agreed to be your real father (sorry Peter, but in times like this, it's every man for himself).

I don't want him. :AMR1:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What is absurd is that we're even having this discussion about whether or not those who engage in a deadly disease ridden behavior should have to be celebate for a year before donating blood. In a sane society these people would be getting the help that they so desperately need so that they woudn't have to worry about tainted blood.

You are so right. (Thanks for being the wisest father in the whole world, Dad. :roses: )

In addition, the gay advocacy appears to have little concern for the fact that the primary responsibility of the FDA is public medical safety. :nono: They are too busy trying to push identity politics (validation) and even ask the "is it only us?" question:

Save your pseudo conservative personality for another thread, as I'm not buying it here. Either you want those who proudly engage in homosexual behavior to be treated like 2nd class citizens or you don't, and as we've seen in your numerous posts defending LGBTQueer supposed "rights", recriminalization isn't on your agenda.

 

[alwight]

I don't want him. :AMR1:

They are, as I said before, perhaps one and the same person. :think: