Thank God It is Up to the Faithful to Build an Electric Fence and Kill Gay People - video included

reply to post by The Sword

Maybe when people down there stop sleeping with their cousins long enough

Proof that some of the crudest and meanest things are spoken of by atheists to and about Christians. You are assuming that Christians in a particular region of the country all think in this manner, so you are therefore stereotyping according to locale. I have seen post after post after post of people hating Christians, and this pastor's rant is just another excuse to hate all Christians.
I have seen seculars and atheists rip all religious people apart and that pastor obviously does not have the market cornered in the hate and stereotype dept.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Like i said, it occurs naturally, Im not suggesting that people/animals are born with it however as the preference itself takes time to develop due to enviromental factors and brain chemical processes.

I wasn't born a psychopath...it took years of violence to create that within me....that influenced and altered the chemical reactions in my brain over time causing psychosis.

In most cases being gay can be thrown under the same bus. I have nothing against gay people, nothing against straight people. As far as gay animals goes...if anything, gay dolphins is nothing more than a fluke unless you hold them on par with humans. To me they just taste good in a tuna can.

As far as the preacher goes....well.....God will judge him like he will judge us all. I'll be willing to bet that the reverend will receive a larger damnation than any gay person would....Hell I dont even think jesus cared that people were gay...sure he shuned it, but he didnt go around bashing people over the head about it.

Its about freedom of choice, some people forget that.

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by denver22

 

chill out now i know that i am not stupid i am aware it is not just vicars.

Only the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

Yeah another one in sheeps clothing .

Well, he may or may not be, and that does not change the fact that he currently has the title of Vicar of Christ. Some say that Obama also must be respected for having the title of POTUS, but regardless of the fact that we have freedom of speech here in the States, some teachers evidently have rewritten the Constitution to reflect their desire to prop up said POTUS and scare students into believing they will be arrested for criticism of said POTUS.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Priests like to get rid of the competition, so by making their church gay unfriendly they are assured of their meat supply being kept fresh and unspoiled just for themselves. Poor choir boys.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Proof that it is true. In North Carolina you can marry your cousin just not your gay cousin.

I'll give Christians cred if they are the ones that organize to protest this man advocating putting fellow American Citizens into Christian Derived Concentration Camps. They won't get the cred though because they will not do it. The people that protest will be gays, family, friends of gays. The other churches will do nothing except whisper, "That is not us!"

Originally posted by toochaos4u
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Proof that it is true. In North Carolina you can marry your cousin just not your gay cousin.

I'll give Christians cred if they are the ones that organize to protest this man advocating putting fellow American Citizens into Christian Derived Concentration Camps. They won't get the cred though because they will not do it. The people that protest will be gays, family, friends of gays. The other churches will do nothing except whisper, "That is not us!"

You seem to be of the mindset that the law of being allowed to marry cousins originated with Christianity. Perhaps you are mistaken.

But a change in the location of weddings was only the start. Marriage customs themselves also began to adapt under the new influence of Christianity. And as I say, in the opinion of a number of historians, modifications seemed to evolve as a way of undermining the influence of powerful family dynasties in favour of Church power. The first development in this regard involved a steady extension in the prohibition to marrying cousins, with exclusions eventually extending to sixth cousins. This change began very early, during the time of the late Roman Empire.

But, how dare you criticize Queen Elizabeth

Family influence could then of course be replaced with Church influence. The Church also had a greater likelihood of winning endowments of land which had traditionally passed down through closely knit families. Clearly powerful families would want to resist this change, and indeed the law on marrying cousins was moderated from the eleventh century. In the British royal family the practice of marrying cousins has continued into modern times. Queen Elizabeth II married Prince Philip in 1947, and both share the same great great grandmother in Queen Victoria. The fact that it is lawful today for anyone to marry a cousin is due to royal influence - Henry VIII changed the law to allow his marriage to Catherine Parr, his fourth cousin, in 1543.

www.infobritain.co.uk...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Really don't care where it originated. It is there in North Carolina. Abraham though
had the blessing of being married to his half-sister so it is of no surprise. The discussion
though is about Christian Concentration Camps for American Citizens.

Originally posted by toochaos4u
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Really don't care where it originated. It is there in North Carolina. Abraham though
had the blessing of being married to his half-sister so it is of no surprise. The discussion
though is about Christian Concentration Camps for American Citizens.

This just shows your insistence on continuing to be uneducated even when people point out the obvious hypocrisy and lack of knowledge in your awareness of things, even a kind of strange willfully ignoring the truth when it is pointed out to you. You must want to keep your uneducated biases really badly.

Please tell me how discussing what this pastor said devolved into you and others insinuating that Christians in the South marry their cousins as a kind of slur to Christianity.

You also FAILED to get my hidden point about the Illuminati Bloodlines as well. So much for the conspiracy aspect of the thread.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


How very nice of you to say to me. The point of bringing that up was further back someone brought up about NC cousins sleeping with each other. . No matter where it started we know now today that inbreeding brings forth both our good and bad qualities and we all have both. It has nothing to do with where the origin of this came from. I really do not care relating to this conversation. My only bias is in regard to citizens behind fences today. I'm sure you will prattle on and insult me more but, that is ok. I'm going to work in a few minutes and don't have time to keep up with this thread.

I don't follow the Illuminati or whatever. Christian cousins marry in NC because I have met them you now living next door (state over). I was shocked.

Originally posted by toochaos4u
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

How very nice of you to say to me. The point of bringing that up was further back someone brought up about NC cousins sleeping with each other. . No matter where it started we know now today that inbreeding brings forth both our good and bad qualities and we all have both. It has nothing to do with where the origin of this came from. I really do not care relating to this conversation. My only bias is in regard to citizens behind fences today. I'm sure you will prattle on and insult me more but, that is ok. I'm going to work in a few minutes and don't have time to keep up with this thread.

It was meant as a slur against Christians when they said it and when you said it. Never mind the historical aspect of things. But who needs history when you can insult people based on your own bias.
Are you by any chance trying to walk back your statement about Abraham as well?

Christian cousins marry in NC because

If they are allowed to marry in NC it would be because all can marry their cousin but you qualified it as Christians, so if I am expected to be PC with you, you can forget it. Sometimes willful bias needs to be challenged.

Also the very liberal Colorado and California allow marriage of first cousins. People should really be more careful what can of worms they open.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


This is a state that openly allows the KKK to advertise in a local paper.

And you want to complain about how atheists treat Christians?

Try being an atheist and getting the "Repent or Die!" talk from Christians almost every time the topic of religion comes up.

And I've seen Christians say some pretty nasty # about atheists/atheism on here. Where were you when they did? Did you join them in their heckling?

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

This is a state that openly allows the KKK to advertise in a local paper.

And you want to complain about how atheists treat Christians?

Try being an atheist and getting the "Repent or Die!" talk from Christians almost every time the topic of religion comes up.

And I've seen Christians say some pretty nasty # about atheists/atheism on here. Where were you when they did? Did you join them in their heckling?

edit on 24-5-2012 by The Sword because: (no reason given)

What does KKK have to do with this? See you are just pulling all the garbage you can. Neo Nazis marched with OWS so do you really want to go there?

reply to post by nunya13


They will never be able to convince me.

I have met ex-Christians that thought it was perfectly acceptable to pull over on the side of the road and refuse to budge until someone accepted Christ.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I'm talking about ignorant people in NC that support oppression/violence towards gays. I used the KKK ad as an example of ignorance run amok in that state.

It's very valid because it shows that the people who printed that ad value bigotry and I'm sure that goes for the same folks that voted against gay rights in NC.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by nunya13

 

They will never be able to convince me.

I have met ex-Christians that thought it was perfectly acceptable to pull over on the side of the road and refuse to budge until someone accepted Christ.

Well that is still not KKK and STILL not Christians marrying cousins as if only Christians do it. What a piece of work!!!

Here is more info about how the anti cousin marrying laws came about

US prohibitions on cousin marriage date to the Civil War and its immediate aftermath. The first ban was enacted by Kansas in 1858, with Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Wyoming following suit in the 1860s. Subsequently, the rate of increase in the number of laws was nearly constant until the mid-1920s

It demonstrates that western states are disproportionately represented, reflecting the fact that either as territories or newly admitted states, they were writing their marriage codes from scratch and hence prompted to explicitly confront the issue. For the same reason, these states tended to be the first to prohibit cousin marriage.

Perhaps surprisingly, these bans are not attributable to the rise of eugenics

Nonetheless, in both the US and Europe, the frequency of first-cousin marriage—a practice that had often been favored, especially by elites—sharply declined during the second half of the 19th century [3]. (The reasons are both complex and contested, but likely include improved transportation and communication, which increased the range of marriage partners; a decline in family size, which limited the number of marriageable cousins; and greater female mobility and autonomy [4,5].) The fact that no European country barred cousins from marrying, while many US states did and still do, has often been interpreted as proof of a special American animosity toward the practice [6].

The laws must also be viewed in the context of a new, post–Civil War acceptance of the need for state oversight of education, commerce, and health and safety, including marriage and the family. Beginning in the 1860s, many states passed anti-miscegenation laws, increased the statutory age of marriage, and adopted or expanded medical and mental-capacity restrictions in marriage law [7]. Thus, laws prohibiting cousin marriage were but one aspect of a more general trend to broaden state authority in areas previously considered private

Thus it is folly of you and others to try to portray either Christians or conservatives in the South as cousin kissing rednecks.


www.plosbiology.org...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Do you have anything to contribute to what I posted?

Or are you just going to prattle on and on?

Do YOU think it's acceptable for Christians to literally FORCE someone to accept Jesus? DO YOU?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Nope it was sarcasm against North Carolina, well I'll add South Carolina in there too. Obviously all Christians are not inbreeding as my mother and father are not related. Try asking for directions in North Carolina around the western half as "Over Thar" is an official direction. See you guys later. EOH if you wish to discuss illuminati and when marriage laws regarding next of kin took place send me a U2U. I am friendly and I don't do gay conversions on Thursdays (more sarcasm).

reply to post by toochaos4u


Of course not. Each state has their own special group of residents.

In VT, we have NIMBYs and 2nd home owners that are a lot more annoying than the locals I know. Then again, I've never been fond of "flatlanders".

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Do you have anything to contribute to what I posted?

Or are you just going to prattle on and on?

Do YOU think it's acceptable for Christians to literally FORCE someone to accept Jesus? DO YOU?

I just like to clear up ignorant misconceptions stated by people who have clearly vicious intent behind their ideas. Why do you have a problem with that?
The answer is no I do not, and if it was me I would be most happy to let people go on their merry way as long as they are not making my child a captive audience for their own agenda.
But you clearly feel that making childish slurs is a responsible answer. Last time I checked two wrongs do not make a right.