Same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to God who created marriage.

Years ago, I posted a link and excerpt from a blog entitled:

True Discernment: Jesus, The Days of Noah, and Same Sex Marriage

Excerpt:

Jesus said in Luke 17:26-30, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when Son of man is revealed.”

Jesus being a first century Rabbi, like most Jewish teachers, coupled Sodom with the flood generation as a typical image of evil. His intent was to inform his audience that at His second coming the conditions of the world would mirror Noah’s days and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

As in the Days of Noah

The Midrash Rabbah Genesis is a specific form of rabbinic literature of ancient Judaism commentaries of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is based on the interpretation of the Torah (Old Testament). It speaks about the subject of same-sex marriage during the days of Noah.

The rabbis wrote in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis that the flood in Noah’s day was primarily triggered when males starting writing marriage deeds with other males, and between men and beasts (bestiality). Based on the account of Midrash Rabbah Genesis, same-sex marriages took place during the days of Noah. There was nothing new under the sun and this is stated by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:9. Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah is synonymous with the destruction of the flood generation in Midrash Rabbah Genesis. It states in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis that Lot pleaded all night for mercy for the Sodomites, and that the angels permitted him to plead for them. But once the people said, “… bring them out [the angels] so we may have sex with them,” mercy ran out. The angels told Lot, “for now on you have no right to plead anymore.” Judgment was sent upon Sodom. Flood water was the judgment of God on the people in Noah’s day. Fire and brimstone was the judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah.

The blog author explains that the book of Enoch is not inspired, and thus not part of the canon of Scripture, however the book of Jude contains some quotes from it. Enoch is being used by the author as a good reference resource.

Excerpt:

The book of Enoch was written before the birth of Christ and although it is not an inspired book, it is a good resource. Parts of it are quoted in Jude 14-15. 2nd Enoch 34-1, 3-4 states, “God convicts the persons who are idol worshipers and sodomite fornicators, and for this reason he brings down the flood upon them. And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities, wickedness and abominable fornications. That is, friend with friend in anus, every other kind of wicked uncleanness which is almost too disgusting to report, and the worship of the evil one. And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth, and shall destroy everything, and the earth itself will collapse in great darkness.” Second Enoch states that perverse homosexual relationships were the main cause of the flood. Both Midrash Rabbah Genesis and the second book of Enoch state that God frowns on homosexuality in cultic prostitution, and in so-called “loving consensual” homosexual relationships. So don’t believe the liberal Christian theologians, gay-affirming churches and inclusionists. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are an abomination in God’s eyesight.

Today’s post there:

What Does the Bible Say about Same Sex “marriage”?

Excerpt:

The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Hat tip: True Discernment

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to God who created marriage.”

  1. GMpilot Says:

    Let the quote wars begin.

    Why Marriage Equality Is A Win For Conservatives Too
    Edward Clint, June 26, 2015

    The platform of the official Republican Party¹ lists 14 principles and positions that it holds as what it “means” to be republican, which is partly based on what republicans have said about themselves.

    Of these, 7 are not relevant to this issue. The remaining 7 are reasons why conservatives (or at least republicans) should be just as pleased with the recent SCOTUS ruling as anyone else:

    [I believe that our…]
    Country is exceptional
    Today it truly is. Most countries in the world deny the freedom that is today upheld. Even Europe, ordinarily seen as far more politically progressive than the US, has a long way to go. There is no marriage equality in Italy, Poland, or Greece, among others. Germany, Austria, Switzerland and others have special “civil union” sort of arrangements instead of full equality.

    Constitution should be honored, valued, and upheld
    There is no better definition of what happened today than this.

    Families and communities should be strong and free from government intrusion
    The marriage equality ruling overturns many laws, federal and state, that sought to impose restrictions on families and communities. That means less intrusion, not more.

    Government should be smaller, smarter and more efficient
    One of the ways to do this is to not busy it with intrusive laws attempting to regulate personal affairs.

    Health care decisions should be made by us and our doctors
    Which includes decisions about spouses and children. Previously, de facto parents and spouses have been denied medical rights, responsibilities, and privileges.

    Military must be strong and prepared to defend our shores
    During the second Gulf War, the Department of Defense kicked out several Arabic translators because they were gay people. There are very few people with the skills those soldiers had; they are worth their weight in gold. Such discrimination hurt the war effort substantially. Openly gay people have been at liberty to serve for several years, but the prospect is now much more attractive because gay spouses can now be dependents. If we want the very best soldiers and leaders, we can’t ask them to be treated as second-class citizens and not enjoy equal benefits.

    Institution of traditional marriage is the foundation of society
    The word “traditional” seems to demean the idea of marriage. Traditions are relatively arbitrary things a people decides that it likes enough or finds useful enough, to make a staple. Pancakes are for breakfast. Jackets and ties denote formality. Attempt self-improvement at the start of the year. Conversely, consider how absurd it sounds to attach the word to other prime virtues:

    The institution of traditional freedom of speech is the foundation of liberty.
    We support the traditional view that murder is wrong.

    Traditions are fleeting. They are born, they can radically mutate, and they die- they all die, sooner or later. Shouldn’t basic liberties and foundations of society be much more robust than capricious traditions only temporarily useful or favored?

    But, let’s take this statement as it is: traditional marriage is a foundation. Since traditions evolve constantly, and so does society, it seems to me that what “traditional marriage” is must change over time for the statement to remain true. We’re America, a nation born by rejecting old and broken political ideas and drafting newer, better versions. Isn’t that as much an American tradition as anything?

    1. I realize that the GOP and conservatism are not synonymous. I am merely using it as a convenient example that is roughly typical of political conservatism.

    Bravo Zulu to: Skeptic Ink

    I don’t agree 100% with what the author said, but I agree with it a lot more than your point of view. Obviously.
    Bring your lunch; this may take a while.

    Like

  2. christinewjc Says:

    Well, GM…as usual I can write that after more than 10 years, I will not convince you of your errors and you will not convince me to ever reject the truth written in God’s Word and revealed through His Living Word – Jesus Christ.

    I just reblogged a post from Oil For Your Lamp. Hopefully, readers who come here to read this post and thread will also read that linked post entitled, “CONNECTING THE DOTS: It’s Not Really About Health Care or ‘Equal Rights’ For Homosexuals.”

    Like

  3. GMpilot Says:

    Well, after more than 10 years, I’ve never convinced you of your errors either, so we could just let it go at that. But we both know that won’t happen.

    I’ve read your reblogged post. Maybe I’ll respond, maybe not. I’m only allowed to clean one cesspool, not all of them. But if I agreed with it, all three of us would be wrong.
    Just wanted you to know.

    Like

    • christinewjc Says:

      Well, GM…I might surprise you with this comment. I must thank you for never being so vile as to “think” about me in such a vicious and hate-filled way that you would ever agree with the post below. I could be wrong, but if you were on Face Book (where it was first found by another member of my family since I’m not on Face Book anymore), I don’t even think that you would ever even “like” a post like the one below.

      On second thought, perhaps you might hate the list of people being cursed out in the article? And your referral to “clean[ing] out one cesspool” might be referring to my blog? Of course you will ultimately decide where you might stand on this one.

      http: //gawker.com/ why-the-scotus-ruling-on-gay-marriage-feels-so-good- 1714248458

      You will need to copy and paste it (remove spaces, too) in your browser in order to read it. I cannot link to something so absolutely disgusting that it makes my skin crawl. [Caution to readers: filthy language and terribly hate-filled rhetoric at link.]

      To any Christian readers who read that and cringe, I apologize. I just felt the need to share the fact that someone who I thought I knew was tolerant towards my faith (and even claimed to ‘love’ me and our Christian family) exposed himself as being one of the most vicious kinds of Christian conservative bashers! I must admit, it came as a complete shock to me and I will probably never feel the same way that I once did about this person.

      Only two days later, I noticed in a newspaper article that homosexual activists already want to engage in the next battle. Religious conservatives who opposed legalizing same-sex marriage (and who now see the protections of what they call religious liberty as their most urgent task) know that this new law will be used to force religious people and institutions to violate their beliefs, whether by providing services for same-sex weddings or by employing gay men and lesbians in church-related jobs.

      See? It wasn’t just in our imaginations that it would come to this. It will be a battle of homosexual civil rights overtaking natural, U.S. Constitution First Amendment guaranteed protections for religious rights and liberties.

      Seeing the viciousness of the writer of the gawker column, I’m sad to say that it’s most likely going to get really ugly.

      Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        Well, GM…I might surprise you with this comment. I must thank you for never being so vile as to “think” about me in such a vicious and hate-filled way that you would ever agree with the post below. I could be wrong, but if you were on Face Book (where it was first found by another member of my family since I’m not on Face Book anymore), I don’t even think that you would ever even “like” a post like the one below.
        Considering that you’ve called me an “ObamaBorgBot” among other things, I’m wondering why you’d get so upset about having vile things slung at you, rather than from you. As you said not two days past, Jesus said that the world hated him before it hated you.
        I’ll repeat what I said years ago: I don’t hate you, and I don’t hate your god. AFAIC, that being does not exist. I am your opponent, not your enemy. There’s a difference, and if you don’t know what that is, you should learn.

        On second thought, perhaps you might hate the list of people being cursed out in the article? And your referral to “clean[ing] out one cesspool” might be referring to my blog? Of course you will ultimately decide where you might stand on this one.
        Yes. I am.
        You’ve repeated all of the Obama birther blather for seven years and more without a shred of proof, accusing him of being a Muslim, a criminal, and worse—and whenever you did, your blog became a cesspool. Sometimes it went on for weeks. It never stayed that way, but the intervals between have grown shorter recently.
        Few—if any—of those people will ever affect me personally, and I’m not going to lose sleep over any one of them. Why should you? You’ve got someone behind you who’s greater than they are, right?

        You will need to copy and paste it in your browser in order to read it. I cannot link to something so absolutely disgusting that it makes my skin crawl. [Caution to readers: filthy language and terribly hate-filled rhetoric at link.]
        You mean you’re ashamed to be called a bigot? Now that’s a surprise.
        I can (and have) read similar rhetoric at some of your blog buddies’ sites (and, occasionally, here). Explain the difference, please.

        To any Christian readers who read that and cringe, I apologize. I just felt the need to share the fact that someone who I thought I knew was tolerant towards my faith (and even claimed to ‘love’ me and our Christian family) exposed himself as being one of the most vicious kinds of Christian conservative bashers! I must admit, it came as a complete shock to me and I will probably never feel the same way that I once did about this person.
        You mean you put your trust in men again, instead of Jesus, as you were told to do? You know how jealous he is!

        Only two days later, I noticed in a newspaper article that homosexual activists already want to engage in the next battle. Religious conservatives who opposed legalizing same-sex marriage (and who now see the protections of what they call religious liberty as their most urgent task) know that this new law will be used to force religious people and institutions to violate their beliefs, whether by providing services for same-sex weddings or by employing gay men and lesbians in church-related jobs.
        Tell me, please: just what does “religious liberty” mean? Does it mean that everyone is free to worship as they like, or to not worship as they like, or to worship only as a given faith denomination wants people to? I don’t hear of any Buddhists or Hindus or even Mormons calling for religious liberty. It seems to be strictly an alarm from evangelicals. So in case I’m missing an important point, tell me what that term means IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Please!

        See? It wasn’t just in our imaginations that it would come to this. It will be a battle of homosexual civil rights overtaking natural, U.S. Constitution First Amendment guaranteed protections for religious rights and liberties.
        If First Amendment guaranteed protections were natural, there would never have been any books being banned, locked away or burned. It if were natural for ‘religious rights and liberties’, Quakers would never have been hanged, Joseph Smith would never have been lynched, and the Anglican church would never have needed to be disestablished from Virginia’s government. But there are always people who want to deny others the rights they themselves enjoy.

        Seeing the viciousness of the writer of the gawker column, I’m sad to say that it’s most likely going to get really ugly.
        You’re probably right about that. California fired one of the opening rounds a few months ago. Although it was shot down in the courts, it shows just how eager some are to be allowed to practice (their) God’s word in this country.
        But that’s not MY idea of ‘religious liberty’. What say you?

        Like

      • christinewjc Says:

        Sigh…

        Putting my “trust in men” had nothing to do with this. I can see that you just want to banter back and forth, rather than acknowledge what I wrote as something concerning to me. So be it.

        It’s late and I’m tired. Go here to read about the differences between natural and civil rights.

        Two religious liberties were mentioned in my comment and as a result of this ruling, will be taken away.

        “This new law will be used to force religious people and institutions to violate their beliefs, whether by providing services for same-sex weddings or by employing gay men and lesbians in church-related jobs.”

        Forcing Christian churches that don’t believe in homosexual marriage to place homosexuals in ministry positions would be a violation of the religious beliefs of the church community.

        Religious belief violations had already begun in states where Christian business owners were sued because they didn’t want to use their services to participate in same-sex weddings. Christians believe that natural marriage is a sacred institution and here on earth it is only meant to be between one man and one woman. This reflects the relationship between Jesus as the Groom and the church (all believers) as His Bride. After the Rapture, there will be the “marriage supper of the Lamb (Christ).” Some call this a “great mystery.” Obviously, it has nothing to do with sex, but is a celebration for those dressed in “the fine linen [which] is the righteous acts of the saints.”

        Rev 19:7

        “Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.”

        Rev 19:8

        And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

        Rev 19:9

        Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’ ” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.”

        A longer explanation of the meaning of “the marriage supper of the Lamb” can be found in David Guzik’s commentary.

        Religious liberty refers to what is written in the Constitution.

        Amendment I

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        The judicial branch is not supposed to make new law (as it did with the sweeping gay marriage decision). That is the job of the Congress! The States are also supposed to have their individual say on the matter but again, many court cases struck down the will of the people in the states (I believe it was 30 states where voters within each state affirmed that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman); but because of judicial activist judges who apparently agreed with homosexual activists, what
        We The People voters decided in those majority of states were struck down by 5 pro-gay judges in the Extreme Court. This left only 13 states with the one man, one woman definition of marriage intact that were in place before the Extreme Court took AWAY the rights of such states to decide for themselves through We The People voting measures.

        When the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade also swept away the choice of states rights to ban abortion by making it legal in all 50 states, the same judicial activism was done. The deaths of 57 million babies in the womb has been the American holocaust ever since that dreadful decision.

        The supposedly “Supreme” Court is not always correct in its decisions. Recall the Dred Scott case. Fallen man often makes rogue decisions that go against God’s Word and that’s a real shame.

        The CA case that you sited demonstrates how true the title that is often humorously given to Californians as “fruits and nuts” really does apply. Although, if Muslim sharia law takes effect here, such deaths of gays and other infidels would probably start becoming common.

        Time to sleep.

        Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        CJW: Putting my “trust in men” had nothing to do with this. I can see that you just want to banter back and forth, rather than acknowledge what I wrote as something concerning to me. So be it.
        Horse puckey. You said ”…someone who I thought I knew was tolerant towards my faith (and even claimed to ‘love’ me and our Christian family) exposed himself as being one of the most vicious kinds of Christian conservative bashers! I must admit, it came as a complete shock to me and I will probably never feel the same way that I once did about this person.”
        That’s the language of betrayal of trust. As for the banter, I was wrong. Jesus isn’t jealous, but his father is. So be it.

        Two religious liberties were mentioned in my comment and as a result of this ruling, will be taken away.
        “This new law will be used to force religious people and institutions to violate their beliefs, whether by providing services for same-sex weddings or by employing gay men and lesbians in church-related jobs.”

        If you’re one of those people who believes that gays should be killed—you know, like Matt McLaughlin apparently does—and you don’t do that, then you’re already violating your beliefs. But you’re not being ‘forced’ to do anything.
        Popular rhetoric says the SC “legislates from the bench”, but of course that isn’t true. The Court’s job, as you know, is to interpret the law, exactly as clergymen interpret their lawmaker. The Fourteenth Amendment has been in place quite a long time, and it says that all citizens are to be afforded equal protection under the law. It’s a great ideal, and it’s far from being perfectly practiced, but it means that there is no privileged class of people when it comes to legal matters.

        Perhaps you don’t think there already are gay men and lesbians in church-related jobs. You may be surprised. They probably had to lie about their sexual orientation to get the job in the first place, and probably didn’t like doing that, but gay people got bills to pay too, just like you. I find your example enlightening, since your old associates the RCC probably asks such questions in the first place when it’s none of their business—and when so many of its officials turned out to be gay themselves.

        Basically, the Court is saying it’s legal for a certain group of people to do something they couldn’t do before. You know, like allowing slaves to walk around unsupervised.

        Forcing Christian churches that don’t believe in homosexual marriage to place homosexuals in ministry positions would be a violation of the religious beliefs of the church community.
        The ‘church community’ has a variety of stands on this. Some believe in trying to convert them, but how can that be done if the church refuses to even admit them through the doors? Some welcome them, believing that sinners are the issue, not sin. Some eschew the trappings of church dogma altogether, looking at it from a strictly humanistic point of view, and realizing that everyone should have a shot at personal happiness. And of course, some others believe that all gays are damned by god, and want nothing whatever to do with them.

        The supposedly “Supreme” Court is not always correct in its decisions. Recall the Dred Scott case. Fallen man often makes rogue decisions that go against God’s Word and that’s a real shame.
        Don’t forget Prohibition, which was backed up by the 14th Amendment. It made criminals out of millions who only wanted a beer. It made millions for men like Capone. It certainly didn’t make us a more righteous nation. And after 14 years, it was finally overturned—not by ‘activist judges’ but by active legislation.

        The CA case that you sited demonstrates how true the title that is often humorously given to Californians as “fruits and nuts” really does apply.
        Are you taking that “fruits and nuts” remark humorously? Why or why not?

        Although, if Muslim sharia law takes effect here, such deaths of gays and other infidels would probably start becoming common.
        Probably, because Christians and Muslims agree: all infidels must die. Of course, who qualifies as ‘infidel’ depends on which side of the chopping block you’re on. Meanwhile, your fears, like your hopes, appear to hinge on the word “if”.

        Hope you got enough rest.

        Like

      • christinewjc Says:

        Once again, you display your intentions to side-step any or all issues.

        First, you bring up something that doesn’t match with the discussion (e.g. “If you’re one of those people who believes that gays should be killed”). It’s truly sad that you continue to use the liberal leftist “talking points” that you have already acknowledged as not being truthful. “Sigh….”

        Second, you missed the point when I stated that homosexual advocates should not be in ministry positions in churches that teach the Bible, but of course they are welcome to attend any church. There are plenty of “gay Christian” affirming denominations out there so they can choose to stay in their sin rather than be forgiven through repentance at the cross of Christ. Notice that their title (“gay Christians”) puts their behavioral label before their devotion to Christ.

        Third, you are assuming that Christians believe that all homosexuals are “damned by God” and “don’t want anything to do with them.” You know what is said about that term “assume,” don’t you?

        Fourth, your example of the repeal of Prohibition actually makes my point. Such changes to the Constitution should be done legislatively, not judicially. The Legislative branch of our government is supposed to make the laws. Judicial branch is supposed to interpret existing law. In this case, since marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, 5 of 9 judges created a law for same-sex “marriage” out of thin air. Take the time to read the dissenting opinions of the 4 justices and you will discover many more reasons why this decision was wrong.

        Look, we are never going to agree on this issue. So, it probably doesn’t make sense to continue to argue about it.

        Oh…one more thing. What you don’t know about the difference between Muslim beliefs and Christian beliefs IS A LOT! Read Islam and Christianity Present Two Very Different Deities.

        Jesus said that the signs of the times of his return will be “as in the Days of Noah and Lot.” This bad ruling came as no surprise to most Christians who know end times prophecy and the words of Jesus regarding the signs.

        Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        …you continue to use the liberal leftist “talking points” that you have already acknowledged as not being truthful.
        You better point that one out to me. Where did I say that?
        I saw that part about “church-related jobs” and didn’t fully realize that you’d meant ”ministry positions”. For that, I apologize. I only know that a church survives on more than just its minister, and those employed staff members see the congregation far more often than the guy at the top does.
        I don’t think it matters if a lesbian wants to work in the church kitchen.

        Third, you are assuming that Christians believe that all homosexuals are “damned by God” and “don’t want anything to do with them.” You know what is said about that term “assume,” don’t you?
        Uh uh, ma’am. I said “some” Christians believe that.
        I also said some others believe that sinners are the issue, not sin. You, OTOH, assume that ‘religious people and institutions will be forced to violate their beliefs’. What does that mean–that a Federal marshal will be ensconced in every place of worship to enforce that ruling? Want to provide “book, chapter, and verse” concerning that?
        Despite your screeching it’s not a new law, but a revised interpretation of an already existing one.

        Notice that their title (“gay Christians”) puts their behavioral label before their devotion to Christ.
        Yeah, exactly like the title “Christian bigot”. The adjective supports the noun.

        Look, we are never going to agree on this issue. So, it probably doesn’t make sense to continue to argue about it.
        Well, we agree on that, at least. You knew that, but you had to have your say; and I also had to have mine. So in one of the few times in our long association, we agree to disagree. If you stop here, I will.

        Oh…one more thing. What you don’t know about the difference between Muslim beliefs and Christian beliefs IS A LOT!
        Oh, there are many differences, but that isn’t one of them. Christians—most of them—are willing to let the infidel live out her natural life, secure in the belief that their god will deny them immortality. Muslims—most of them—are a bit more proactive, doing what they believe their god would do if he knew the whole story. One man’s infidel is another man’s zealot.
        But either one would gladly see me perish.

        Like

      • christinewjc Says:

        “Christian bigot”…huh? So typical.

        I take back what I said about you at the beginning of this thread.

        You wrote:
        “But either one would gladly see me perish.”

        It think that the genuine truth is that you just like to say that and don’t really care one way or the other.

        See ya.

        Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        “Christian bigot”…huh? So typical.
        I take back what I said about you at the beginning of this thread.

        You’ve used terms such as “gay Mafia” and “Sodomite Empire” in the past, so it’s your own fault if the label sticks so well to you.
        “Take back”, huh? Where do you think we are, fourth grade?

        You wrote:
        “But either one would gladly see me perish.”
        It think that the genuine truth is that you just like to say that and don’t really care one way or the other.
        See ya.

        You can of course think whatever you like. If someone’s determined to kill me, it matters not at all if the killer is a Muslim or a Christian. Since I don’t believe in either of their gods, believers on both sides are ‘justified’ in having me perish.
        Once again, you display your intentions to side-step any or all issues. I don’t suppose I’ll ever find out your definition of “religious liberty” now. So be it.
        Good night.

        Like

  4. Frannie Says:

    Bravo GMpilot…bravo!

    Like

  5. Cry and Howl Says:

    Holy Moly! If Mr. Pilot could just get past his “gotcha” mentality he might be able to demonstrate some intellectual prowess. For years I’ve been reading the back and forth, back and forth and Mr. Pilot’s entire aim (it seems) is to get a “one up” on Christine. Judging from Frannie’s comment, I think I’m right.
    Oh, and at least the Christian would let you “perish” from natural causes … the Muslim … not so much.

    Liked by 2 people

    • GMpilot Says:

      Holy Moly! If Mr. Pilot could just get past his “gotcha” mentality he might be able to demonstrate some intellectual prowess. For years I’ve been reading the back and forth, back and forth and Mr. Pilot’s entire aim (it seems) is to get a “one up” on Christine. Judging from Frannie’s comment, I think I’m right.
      Usually there’s no cheers for the visiting team, and I was surprised and flattered by her comment. But I wasn’t seeking it.
      The paladin might have to take the matter up with Frannie if he really wants to know. I don’t think he’s interested.

      Oh, and at least the Christian would let you “perish” from natural causes … the Muslim … not so much.
      That’s exactly what I told her, and she began raving about how I “just like to say that and don’t really care one way or the other.” Her righteous fury blinds her to the words on her monitor, I think.

      Like

    • christinewjc Says:

      Good points Steve! We already know “the Pilot’s” modus operandi here and when you confront him with his errors in logic, all he can do is spit out more hate against God and lies towards us.

      I recently heard some disturbing information about what radical Islamist terrorists believe. I might need to do more research on this, but apparently, they see every killing of each infidel as a method of “salvation” for 70 members of their family! And when the “warriors” are martyred “for the cause of allah” – that’s when they get their 72? virgins.

      I knew about the “72 virgins lie” but had not heard of the “salvation” method for members of their family. Could this be a reason why the so-called “moderate Muslims” don’t speak out against the atrocities of beheadings, burnings, crucifixions, and homicide bombings being done by these radicals? The moderates are taught that such actions benefit them with “salvation?” What a creepy, evil, disgusting, and satanic cult!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Cry and Howl Says:

        I’m not sure about the salvation of 70 family members Christine. It’s probably true seeing their Imams can probably promise anything they want. I do know Muslims are allowed to lie if it furthers “the cause.”
        I hope you and your family have a great holiday weekend!

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: