Democrat for Senate: Kill practicing 'gays'

World Net Daily ^ | March 7, 2006

[jjmcgo]

I wonder how I could have read that line and quoted it accurately when you know for a fact, for a fact, I'm telling you, that I didn't study Leviticus?.
Aren't you special to know what I've read and what I haven't?
And who else do we know that thinks he's SPECIAL? WHO?
SATAN!!!

[nonsporting]

The point is, only God is to judge.

This is a popular but incorrect understanding. Those who favor relativism and non-judgementalism love to quote Matthew 7:1, but fail to read though verse 5. These verses deal with hypocrisy. Verse 5 says "You hypocrit, first take the log out of your own eye, and THEN you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

We can judge, but we must do so while not engaging in disqualifying behaviors.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

You seem to forget that God has ordered the destruction of the unrighteous - read the Bible.

[NJ_gent]

"Apparently the poster 'Conservative Coulter Fan' IS "biblical" enough to kill homosexuals."

Takes a special kind of 'biblical' to endorse the mass murder of children.

[DBeers]

I suggest not feeding the trolls...

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

See post 60 for reply..

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

I'm not backing off of anything..

[NJ_gent]

"You seem to forget that God has ordered the destruction of the unrighteous - read the Bible."

If we put to death every single person who should be put to death as per the Bible, just how many out of the 6 Billion+ men, women, and children on this Earth do you think would be left?

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

That's patently absurd - you will find liberals using the same line I encountered multiple posts ago - you justify homosexuality or or you downplay the Holiness Code by going down a list of objections about wearing cotton and wool clothing, etc.

[evets]

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...we should have laws against immoral conduct..."

When can we expect him to execute himself?

[cvq3842]

oh my

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search

"Democrat for Senate: Kill practicing 'gays'..."

A dummycrat once again takes a page out of the leftist handbook in an attempt to incite rage and disparage a morally conservative Republican...

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Pork is not eaten because it was unclean - for goodness sake pigs will devour anything including their own - not to mention they wallow in their filth, excrements, and dirt. Beef was not prohibited, but you'd know that if you bothered reading, but you have a pitiful understanding - those that ate of unclean foods were merely required to make an offering at the Temple - they we're not condemned like those of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[NJ_gent]

You haven't responded as to whether or not you, personally, support the stoning of children who curse their father and mother, nor have you explained that answer.

[Northeastern_Realist]

He may have advocated it in specific situations to some people, but he did not give a blanket command to destroy the unrighteous. In fact, if you ever get around to reading the words of Jesus, you'll find out that we are commanded to love those who persecute us, as this is the best way to spread God's love to others.

[ALWAYSWELDING]

Actually Jesus referred to that in the scriptures. Say what you will about the command, but it always gets misrepresented as one of "rebellious children" without going into detail. It is for "children" who are drunkards and beat their parents.

When read in context. These are not children at all. Children can't beat up their parents after drinking too much booze.

[Mr. Brightside]

Takes a special kind of Bible to endorse killing homosexuals and children who curse their parents.

I don't see it in mine.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

"First, the person in view is a not a small child but a grown "son." The Hebrew term for "son" (ben) employed here is indefinite. It is sometimes used of children of both sexes (Ex. 21:5) but most often of the male offspring of parents, and that is clearly the sense in this text. Of itself, the word "son" does not give any indication of age. It can refer to a child or a young man (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4; 19:1; 1 Kg. 1:33); age must be determined from the context. In this case, the son in view is not a child, for the sins brought forth in testimony to show his contumacious manner are gluttony and drunkenness (v. 20), hardly the sins of the average 6 or 10 year old! The case also indicates that the parents have tried to restrain their son, but all their efforts have failed (vv. 18, 20); specifying that he is physically beyond their control. Furthermore, the parents bring their son to the magistrates to judge the matter (v. 19); hence, the son would have opportunity to speak on his own behalf. All of this indicates that the "son" in question is no mere child, but, rather, a young man at least in his middle teens or older. As Wright observes, "The law is not talking about naughty children but about seriously delinquent young adults." --Rev. William Einwechter

[oldleft]

Allow me to rephrase:

Only can may PUNISH. Of course I myself, by saying that sin is wrong, am judging. But it's my RESPONSIBITY to try to get them to judge themselves.