Orlando shooting 2
Extremism

Orlando shooting: homophobia.. Islamist terrorism.. sharia.. gun control.. Jesus just weeps with those who weep

 

An Orlando shooting in which 50 blissful LGBT people were murdered in cold blood. Politicians have tweeted their horror, and the entire civilised world is appalled. There is no apparent end to the column inches and broadcast hours which are being dedicated to analysis of the tragedy. And there is no end to the judgmental agenda-pushing, cause-appropriating, blame-apportioning, score-settling, guilt-inducing commentary. Some target society’s homophobic attitudes, some Islamist terrorism, and some Islam’s view of gays. Others focus on America’s corrosive gun culture, others on partisan delinquencies, and still others on those heartless Christians who seek to uphold the sanctity of holy matrimony. Thousands are offering up a prayer for Orlando, while some tweet their scorn at the futility of those prayers. Even enlightened atheist-secularists can grind an axe in the blood of suffering.

Jesus just weeps with those who weep. He doesn’t only weep with those who consider themselves a touch righteous or morally upright, or with those whose behaviour meets certain standards of chaste perfection. He doesn’t only weep with Christian heterosexuals who live each day by grace, or with repentant LGBT people who have earned his mercy. He weeps with those who weep, and mourns with those who mourn. There are no conditions on his compassion, and no limits to his love.

To weep with those who weep is a tender embrace. It is holding tight and wrapping in comfort in order to do nothing but be there. And if that warmth is a little warmer when cloaked in a rainbow flag, then that is what you must use, for compassion is spontaneous, selfless, generous and non-judgmental. It is the ultimate inclusion, for God’s love is unending and encompassing. He loves those who do not love, and believes in those who do not see, hear or believe. He is the Father of every one of those who died – gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Some straight people might also have died, for the Pulse Orlando Night Club and Ultra Lounge is an inclusive establishment, but we’re not hearing much about their fate. God loves them, too.

Those who died will never dance again. Their families, friends and lovers will never see their smiles or hear their secret whispers. They do not belong here any more; they no longer have a home, for death has come to them sooner than any expected, and their loved ones weep and wail all night long, lost beneath the shelter of memories; lonely in their bitter questions. We can observe dispassionately and churn out blame and contemptible comment, or we can consider God and humanity, misery and mercy, and bind the brokenhearted in a circle of love. There is infinite healing and everlasting forgiveness when we move beyond earning, deserving and rewarding. Look into the Father’s eyes, and you will see the pain and desolation of all our choices, failures and rejections. But look a bit harder, and you will see the heart that yearns for reconciliation, and know the peace that passes understanding. When you are on the verge of tears wrapping the grieving LGBT community in a rainbow flag, you come to the threshold of the Kingdom, for all the gospel is there.

  • The Explorer

    Since ISIS have threatened am atrocity during the European Cup, my first thought was that this had happened somewhere in France.
    One might say Orlando was planned to distract attention from the real target, but it’s far more likely to have been a lone-wolf action by someone ISIS had never heard of.

    • There is no “lone wolf” action. It is called carried out under one unifying banner. I’ll see if you can figure out what it is.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        It’s strange how the media tries to find comfort in the suggestion that the gunman acted alone, and had no connections to a particular terrorist group, as if that makes it all less painful and frightening. They seem to have forgotten about the several hundred “lone wolves” who acted before him. The media does this because they are generally too religiously illiterate to appreciate the power of shared belief, whether it is for good or for evil. Thus they focus on the irrelevant.

      • The Explorer

        The media would like to dismiss this as driven by homophobia or mental instabilioty. Anything but Islam.
        My point is ISIS’ opportunism.Suppose their main target is in Europe. They might have instructed this guy to carry out the shooting as a diversion, but I doubt it. My guess is that he was acting independently of ISIS, guided by Islamic precepts and claimed ISIS as his inspiration. ISIS then claimed the credit.

        • CliveM

          Which follows precedence. They have issued challenges to ‘true Muslims ‘ to do and act exactly like this killer. He may not have been a paid up member, but as far as ISIS is concerned he didn’t need to be.

          • The Explorer

            Yes. Good point.

      • Coniston

        I would guess that this attack was probably a ‘lone wolf’ deranged man (though motivated by Islamic beliefs). There have been other ‘lone wolf’ attacks, often by partly deranged individuals. The major attacks – New York, London, Madrid, Paris, Brussels – were however carefully planned by Islamic terrorists who knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it, even if some of the operatives they selected were deranged.

  • CliveM

    Before people jump to conclusions, grandstand or point score, with a tragedy of this scale, a moments reflection is needed.

    These people had mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones and they should be given a clean space to grieve.

    What is this rediculous bickering over whether it is a homophobic hate crime, or Islamic terrorism, when clearly it’s both. One doesn’t exclude the other.

    To argue over it for ideological or political purposes is demeaning for all involved.

  • preacher

    We follow a God who clearly stated ” Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ! ” – No one did !. Saul, Who watched & approved of the death of Stephen, after his Damascus road meeting with the risen Lord & subsequent repentance & conversion writes ” All have sinned & come short of the glory of God “.The World is in a state of terminal meltdown unless mankind seeks the Lord – Greed, Immorality, Hatred, War, Lies, Threats, the list is endless. But God still loves us enough to die for the worst of us. The worst of Sinners is still precious to Him.
    Fifty souls are gone. They have no chance now of finding Him if they hadn’t done so before this massacre. Weep with those that weep, because to be honest, none of us deserve God’s Mercy, don’t be proud or hard – remember the Lord’s parable of the Pharisee & the tax collector praying in the temple & which one went home forgiven.

    Ministers. Set aside political agendas. Custom & tradition are dead, – useless ! Stop entertaining your audiences every Sunday reach out with the untarnished true gospel of salvation. If some of the fifty had heard it, they might still be alive today.

    • pobjoy

      We follow a God who clearly stated ” Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ! “

      That is not actually a part of the Bible, as textual students are aware. It cannot be part of the OT, because sinners of Israel were indeed required to stone certain offenders. There were attempts to stone Jesus, as well as Stephen. It cannot be part of the NT, because the theocracy of Israel (what was left of it) ceased to exist at the moment that the curtain of the temple was torn in two, and Mosaic Law forever fell into desuetude.

      The purpose of Mosaic moral law was to demonstrate the superiority of the deity of the state of Israel. Stoning was the method used to deal with those who went too far in bringing that deity into disrepute. The church is not a state, it is an elective association within civil societies that operate under the rule of law. It therefore does not stone, or inflict even the slightest punishment on those who bring Christ into disrepute. It merely obeys apostolic command to exclude from membership such people, and also to refuse to recognise such people as Christians. Those who bring Christ into disrepute include homosexuals who claim to be Christians.

      • sarky

        The only people who bring christ into disrepute are people with attitudes like yours.
        It’s not a great leap from your lack of acceptance to what happened in Orlando.
        Now is not the time for your judgemental crap.

        • pobjoy

          The weird thing is that people who write like that actually expect to be thought of as Christians. It’s a sign of how far things have gone over the last century or so.

          • sarky

            Erm…I’m an atheist!

          • pobjoy

            Yet you are concerned for Christ’s reputation.

          • sarky

            No. I’m just sick of your god bring used as another stick to beat gay people with.

          • pobjoy

            Even if true, it does not justify breaking the law.

        • Inspector General

          Get a grip, man! You are just as dead when a plane goes down, as several have over the months. Unfortunately, those victims aren’t worth more than a casual mention because unlike the Orlando crowd, they were ordinary people, not members of todays version of the ‘holy of holies’…

          • sarky

            Think you will find there hasn’t been any more or less coverage than any other tragedy. It’s just you’re skewed view.

          • Inspector General

            Bullshit. The Inspector walked passed Gloucester’s city council offices today and there it was – their blasted paedo flag at half mast!

          • sarky

            So now you take offence to a token of respect?

          • Inspector General

            To fifty benders! What do you think…

          • sarky

            Words fail me.

          • Inspector General

            Do they now. Here, just for you…

            The Mayor of Orlando was busy giving a news interview when another camera team turned up. One of the mayoral assistants said he’d field their questions. The interviewer told him “Don’t give us a gloom talk. Give us something that is upbeat that will cheer rather than depress.” So your man thought for a few seconds and said “I’ve got it!”. “Right” said the interviewer “We’ll go, and remember this is going out live”

            “Can the mayor’s office of Orlando give the people of the United States some encouragement in the aftermath of this shooting?”

            {The Assistant breaks into a broad grin}

            “Why yes sir. It’s never been safer for vulnerable schoolboys in Orlando than it is right now!”

          • CliveM

            Not appropriate IG. Not funny either.

          • Eustace

            Why be shocked at hatred and spite openly expressed? At least we know where we stand with mad old bigots like the Inspector and can steer clear of them like we would a rabid dog.

            The really dangerous ones are the sweet-talking, compassionate “Jesus loves everyone” brigade. They want to lure us in with soft words about respect, tolerance and acceptance. Their aim is to get as close as possible and win our trust in order to accomplish by stealth and guile what blustering old fools like the Inspector don’t have the intelligence, ability and force of character to bring about by main force.

            These are the ones who should shock you. Christians like the fake archbishop and his words of fake compassion and insincere respect. Don’t be fooled: he hates gays just as much as the Inspector does. But he’s smart enough to hide his true feelings while trying to manipulate us into a position where he can do real harm.

            Nobody was ever seriously harmed by a posturing old idiot like the Inspector. But the fake archbishop and his ilk are responsible for uncountable numbers of gay lives ruined or even ended through psychological manipulation and abuse. The Orlando massacre is a terrible crime. But it’s just the visible tip of a much larger iceberg. The worst criminals operate by stealth, under cover of good intentions and pious claims of love and compassion.

            When a mad Muslim takes a gun and kills 50 gay people in psychotic anger, we call it an act of terror and reel in shock at the enormity of it all. But what about the thousands of young gay people manipulated into depression and suicide throughout history by Christian abusers? That’s every bit as much a crime against humanity as any overt Muslim attack.

          • Dreadnaught

            I’m sure there will be plenty of Christians calling the atrocity divine retribution or somesuch pious pronouncement.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Well if that is the case…and I don’t think it is…they should not call themselves Christians…as it is contra to Christian ethic.Some label themselves as Christian but in fact are not behaving accordingly. A true Christian could never gloat over a tragedy like this one. If the world wants peace ,the solution is
            to follow the way ,the truth, and the light.

          • Inspector General

            Do you know, Linus, there are times when you are knocking on the door of reality with stuff like that…but hate, no – we Christians leave that to Islam. you’ll be hearing more from them soon, one should think…

          • William Lewis

            Unfortunately, homosexuals have a higher rate of suicide and depression. Nothing to do with Christianity. Indeed, I know of no other sin where the sinner claims a higher rate of suicide due to the claims (parental or otherwise) of Christianity. Indeed, either its claims are mumbo jumbo, in which case you can consign God, sin and judgement to the dustbin or else it is true in which case you can throw yourself on God’s mercy through the sacrifice of his son. Or the third way, where you can roll out your pet prujudices on the gunned down backs of members of your, so called, community.

      • Sarka

        Gospel according to St. John, 8,7

        Perhaps you have a different Bible. Jesus was God, Jesus said this according to one of the Gospels. It’s in the Bible. Moreover it has been an important passage in the Bible for the development of Christian ideals and ethos.

        Of course, I believe that textual scholars regard the story as a comparatively late addition to Christian textual tradition (prior to creation of the canon), but there is plenty in the NT of that kind…

        • pobjoy

          Jesus was God, Jesus said this according to one of the Gospels.

          It cannot be said that Jesus said this if it is also said that ‘textual scholars regard the story as a comparatively late addition’. So you believe that Jesus did not actually say this, but you would like it to be believed that he did. Why? Your hormonal processes rule your cerebral ones.

          but there is plenty in the NT of that kind…

          But you have not quoted any of it. You are forced to use a spurious passage that actually damages John’s intended meaning. The latter would be desirable, for antichrists, of course. A double whammy for the devil.

          Do post when you have yourself in good, shipshape order.

        • carl jacobs

          The story of the woman taken in adultery is a very late addition with no provenance in the Alexandrian text type. It is included in Scripture more by Tradition but it should be viewed with great caution because there is no evidence that it would be found in the autograph written by John.

          • Phil R

            Come on Carl.

            You cannot just pick and choose bits of the Bible that are in or out to suit your own narrative.

            We call those that do, Anglicans!

          • pobjoy

            You cannot just pick and choose bits of the Bible that are in or out to suit your own narrative.

            Of course you can. What you can’t do is make a choice that differs from that of Christians, and expect Christians to accept one’s opinions on spiritual matters.

          • carl jacobs

            The story of the woman taken in adultery doesn’t appear at all until the 3rd century AD IIRC. If you examine the very early texts (circa 1st century) from which the modern translations (ESV, NASB, NIV) are derived, you won’t find it. That’s why these versions include the story but set it off by some marking with a note saying “Not found in earliest manuscript. ”

            The question is not “How long has it been in the Bible?” The question is “Did John write it?” There isn’t sufficient provenance to definitively answer that question in the affirmative.

            Btw. The reason it is in the Bible is because it is in the Majority text type. This is based upon Greek texts of the New Testament many of which date to 500-900 AD. That text type was the basis of Scriptural text for a very long time in history. It still is for some translations (RSV for example). Not KJV though. That is in its own special world.

          • pobjoy

            There isn’t sufficient provenance to definitively answer that question in the affirmative.

            With the (absurd) pericope removed, John’s intention becomes very clear.

          • Phil R

            Thanks Carl

            I did not know this.

            However, I do agree with Tim Keller and others that it was there as a morality lesson for the

            http://www.newlife-ct.org/sermons/sermon/2012-02-26/jesus-and-the-adulterous-woman:-the-heart-of-the-gospel

          • Phil R

            Thanks Carl

            I do like comment Tim Keller made on this passage

            “Jesus’ teaching consistently attracted the irreligious while offending the Bible-believing, religious people of His day. However, in the main, our churches today do not have this effect. The kind of outsiders Jesus attracted do not bother coming to our churches, even our most avant-garde ones. We tend to draw buttoned-down, moralistic people. The licentious and liberated or the broken and marginal avoid church. That can only mean one thing. If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did.”

            http://www.newlife-ct.org/sermons/sermon/2012-02-26/jesus-and-the-adulterous-woman:-the-heart-of-the-gospel

  • The Explorer

    Terrorism means using violence for a political, religious or ideological purpose.

    Thus not all massacres are acts of terrorism. The motives of Michael Ryan of Hungerford are unknown. Only he or his mother could have said what they were, and both of them were dead. Dunblane seems not to have been a terrorist action. Thomas Hamilton was told he could not work with children, and took his revenge.

    President Obama has said Orlando WAS a terrorist outrage. Fair enough. So what political, religious or ideological purpose does President Obama think was being served? The answer to that is far more elusive. There was a comparable problem in establishing the motive for the shooting at Fort Hood.

  • David

    The media live only in the now. It has the memory of a goldfish, which is why it can push the idea that there are genuine “lone wolf” attacks. Moreover few members of the media are educated in broader political and religious realities. Yes individuals can and do plan and implement their foul crimes as individuals, but that is to miss the main point – the underlying commonality and probably, ultimate cause of these appalling, criminal killing sprees. I suspect that many of these so called “lone wolfs” are all united in following a single unified political/religious system.

  • I don’t blame Islam or Muslims for this kind of attack. I blame those who first opened up Western countries to Islam, and I blame those who continue to flood the West with Muslims, hoping and trusting that diversity will wreck the West.

    Politicians and church leaders who are aware of Islam’s attitude to homosexuality—‘Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him’*—yet still sing the praises of diversity, and still press ahead with it, have blood on their hands.

    * Reliance of the Traveller section p17.3: The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.’

    • Ivan M

      If after all these years Allah has not either blessed or given peace to Mohammed, it is unlikely that he ever will.

      • Inspector General

        Don’t worry about Satan’s servant. He’s well accommodated…

    • Dreadnaught

      Of course you must blame Islam – you have the Koran that instructs and directs precisely what Muslims bind to themselves. Burn that damned book of of bad faith I say.

      • @ Dreadnaught—Islam is present in the West because it was brought here; without that act of treachery, it would still be confined to its own part of the world. That’s why I argue that ultimate blame rests with Western politicians. Islam cannot be uninvented—it isn’t practicable to track down and burn every copy of the Qur’an—hence the need to return Muslims to their homelands.

        • Dreadnaught

          Now look here Rottenbugger, letting Islam off the hook in this sad matter is the same crass stupidity as religious moral equivalence as endorsed by CoE and the all the rest of the followers of the Book.

          • Inspector General

            He’s right, you know. Personally, one blames the socialists. Labour party types, who have never truly ‘laboured’ in their lives…

          • Dreadnaught

            Can’t argue with that logic – please get the bosses of the god-squad to fall in line.

        • The Explorer

          I agree that the West is to blame. Minks were nicely contained in America until some idiots released them into the Norfolk broads with resultant ecological havoc. It wasn’t the fault of the minks: they were just doing what minks do. But they should have been left where they were.

          • @ The Explorer—Good analogy. According to the Norfolk Wildlife Trust:

            These animals, descendants from mink that escaped or were intentionally released from fur farms, are an ‘alien’ species and do not fit properly into Norfolk’s ecology. The American mink is a very undesirable resident in Norfolk and certainly not to be encouraged

            Muslims were intentionally released into the West and constitute an undesirable alien culture which will never fit properly into Western civilization. Churchill had no illusions about Islam and suggested ‘Keep England White’ as an election slogan. For all that, he was powerless to stop immigration: while still PM in 1955, he told Ian Gilmour that immigration ‘is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice.’ Our enemies have been in government ever since.

  • Dreadnaught

    A small point, but why has Cranmer used the expression ‘blissful’ in the opening line of the post?
    Simply an enquiry in the linguistic sense, why the author chose this particular expression.

    • Ivan M

      Where ignorance is bliss be blissful, though it did not work out that way for the partygoers at Pulse.

    • Royinsouthwest

      What makes you think that they were not feeling happy before the gunman opened fire?

      • pobjoy

        Why has ‘blissful’ been changed to ‘happy’?

  • Inspector General

    You talk about God’s love, Cranmer. Well, the Inspector can tell you right now that the idea of God’s love will only infuriate Big Gay further. To mention it in front of him is like pouring petrol on the flames. Big Gay hates the idea of God and denies his existence, or any possibility of his existence. Big Gay at the same times blames God for all his woes. From the disdain decent believers who live the Christian life have towards the homosexual scene lifestyle, and the fear that their children will be snared by it, to the diseases the Almighty has caused them to suffer, as well as the mental instability which so obviously afflicts a large portion of the wretches who record their madness’s in Pink News comments facility.

    Yet here you are. Dishing out God’s compassion with one enormous ladle of vicarious understanding. We know that Jesus asked the prostitute to ‘sin no more’. But what we don’t know is the fate that was in store for her if she continued sinning. Was that fate God’s compassion or his divine rejection of her on her death? We know that God rejects souls – “no one comes to the father except through me” – or in this modern ‘progressive’ age has he changed to fit in with our progressed liberal sensibilities?

    Let’s say this compassion reaches the militant gay community and they are heartened by it. What would be their response? “Hey everybody, God loves us, so it’s business as usual. Pass round the horse tranquiliser and the amyl nitrite. I need my sphincter relaxing.”

    Perhaps Jesus does weep over gay excessive types who flock to gay nightclubs. If he does, he will be crying over their reckless hedonism that mars their earthly existence, their physical health and mental wellbeing, and chance for wholesome happiness, and damns their soul for eternity. Nothing else.

  • carl jacobs

    And if that warmth is a little warmer when cloaked in a rainbow flag

    The campaign for diversity has nothing to do with creating diversity. It is a self-conscious effort to redraw the boundaries of human behavior according to the idea that man is a morally autonomous being – that the essence of man is his moral autonomy. The rainbow flag is a battle flag and it was included in the picture to show it as sanctified with the blood of martyrs. It represents the great struggle between the light of modernity and the darkness of reaction. So don’t kid yourself. If you stand against this moral redefinition then as far as they who carry that flag are concerned, you are as implicated in the crime as the man who pulled the trigger.

    The culture is redefining its religious basis around us. The acolytes of the new religion have no time for weeping Christs or yearning Fathers. They will instead set themselves upon the throne and issue their own judgments, for they image they can answer the questions put to Job. There is no Gospel here. There is only death and idolatry, and the terrible wreckage of the Tower of Siloam. Except in this case, the tower was destroyed by deliberate intent.

    • Martin

      Carl

      The rainbow needs to be reclaimed as the symbol of God’s promise never to flood the Earth again.

      • Inspector General

        Yes, the rainbow. A natural phenomenon beloved by little innocents from the beginning of man. Kidnapped and held hostage by sexual deviants who knew exactly what they were doing when they muscled into a symbol of children’s’ awe…

      • Merchantman

        And not the only symbol the LGBT are intent on misappropriating. Now it seems that unaware of the irony, LGBT are seeing their struggle for ‘Equality’ in terms of the struggle of the African-Americans.
        They are missing out on the baseline which was the Freedom from Slavery.

        • Martin

          MM

          Apparently the latest revelations are that th ‘shooter’ was one of their own.

          Indeed, it was a terrible event, one to remind us of how brief life is.

  • Eustace

    This is the kind of blog post that sickens me to the core.

    Christians who spend their lives condemning gays and consigning us to hellfire and damnation have no business offering condolences and sympathy to the LGBT community.

    If you believe that the victims of this massacre are now in hell and suffering for all eternity, what comfort do you think their loved ones will take in your pious and hypocritical “compassion”?

    Attempting to persuade grieving mothers that their murdered children now writhe in eternal torment is psychological torture of the cruelest and most vicious kind. Those who perpetrate it are psychopaths. There is no other word.

    The ravages wrought by one crazed religious fanatic with a gun will now be instrumentalised by countless others as a means of attacking, undermining and destroying the people they hate. And they’ll dress the whole thing up in love and understanding, crying crocodile tears of sympathy and compassion.

    The aim is to inveigle themselves into the lives of the survivors and teach them to hate and condemn their murdered loved ones. That’s the true goal of Christian compassion: to get close enough to those who suffer in order to twist the knife in their wound as an act of vengeance for having loved and supported someone whose life was lived in defiance of Christian homophobia.

    May those who lost loved ones in this massacre be spared the depredations of the Christians who now circle about them like wolves or vultures, waiting to pick off the weakest and most vulnerable and prolong their pain and suffering as long as they can. And may the rest of us see the fake expressions of compassion and solidarity from every Christian priest, pastor and blogger for the empty words they really are. “Bend the knee to the God who is made in MY image or go to hell” is the only message they’re capable of delivering. Let us not be fooled into thinking that all the honeyed words and soft blandishments mean anything else but that.

    • Inspector General

      Do you see, Cranmer. You’ve sent this blighter above doolally…

      • The Explorer

        If you had no other information and were trying to work out the details of the atrocity from what is said In Eustace’s post, you would assume a Christian gunman had been responsible. There is plenty of criticism of Christians, but not a single reference to Muslims. “One crazed religious fanatic” does not reveal the religion in question.

        • Inspector General

          That’s an easy one, Explorer. Despite Islam’s only too obvious hatred of homosexuality, it is not the main enemy to Big Gay in the West.

          Christ is…

          • Dreadnaught

            So it would have been OK if the murder was a gun-totin, hit-man for Jesus? I don’t believe you IG!

          • Inspector General

            Of course not, Dredders. We don’t want benders stiffened by fatal bullets, we want them to reflect on their erroneous choice of lifestyle…rather like we would with intravenous drug addicts…

        • Eustace

          Islam and Christianity are identical in their desire to eliminate homosexuality. But at least Islam is honest about it. That makes it a much more straightforward enemy.

          Who’s more dangerous: the enemy who identifies himself as such and with whom you know exactly where you stand, letting you take appropriate measures to protect yourself? Or the enemy who pretends to be a friend and tries to win your trust and confidence, the better to stab you in the back when you’re most vulnerable?

          • Ivan M

            So Linus, you are not bothered either about the killings except insofar as you can grind your axe on it, seeing that it is effectively Muslims who have engaged in all the killings.

          • The Explorer

            Who’s more dangerous? I suppose it depends on how you quantify it. Christians may be false friends, but they haven’t just killed fifty gays and wounded as many more. Nor have Christians flogged gays, crushed them under rocks, thrown them off high buildings, or hung them from cranes.

            And not all Christians pretend false friendship. Mundabor, in the post cited by Jack, is even blunter and more uncompromising than a Muslim imam.

          • Eustace

            We can introduce security measures to protect against Muslim attacks on gay venues. The danger will always be present, but we can do our best to protect ourselves against it, and such protection will, to a large extent, be effective.

            We can’t protect young gay people from their Christian parents though. We can’t protect them against the incessant homophobic messages they hear growing up. We can’t prevent the despair that makes so many of them take their own lives. There’s nothing we can do except hope those children will be strong enough to endure until they’re old enough to break free.

          • The Explorer

            Protection against Muslim attacks isn’t working too well in Amsterdam. Gays are fleeing the city.

            As for Christians, though, gays can surely take heart from the thought that there are now so few Christian parents? And surely homophobic messages are in decline? The education system is committed to sexual equivalence. It is true, of course, that British youth is singularly successful in resisting educational influences, but if it manages to evade education it is still confronted with overwhelmingly pro-gay images in the media.

          • Eustace

            Yes, the decline of Christianity is heartening. Long may it continue. Fewer gay children suffer homophobic abuse from parents, schools and the community at large, but it still happens. Pity the poor gay child of Catholic parents, for example. Or of strict Protestants in Northern Ireland. Or of Muslims or Orthodox Jews.

            Yes, action needs to be taken against all who intimidate the LGBT community, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish or anyone else.

          • pobjoy

            Should action be taken against those who describe as Christians those who abuse homosexuals? Legal action?

          • Eustace

            You go ahead and bring a case. There isn’t a judge in the land who would hear it.

            If you think you can get a judge to give legal substance to your idea of what constitutes a Christian, you’re an even bigger fool and narcissist than I already take you for.

          • Ivan M

            More so should action be taken against homosexual bums who intimidate the cake-making fraternity.

          • Eustace

            Why don’t you bring a case and let the courts decide?

          • Ivan M

            Omar the Muslim Baker would have been treated with the respect due to the insanely violent by your brothers. Court proceedings would be superfluous.

          • Maxine Schell

            Eustace, thy name is “Screwtape”

          • The Explorer

            Action will be taken against Christians, Jews and anyone else, but not against Muslims. The authorities are scared of Muslims.

          • Maxine Schell

            Islam and Christianity are most decidedly NOT identical in their desire to eliminate homosexuality. What a despicable thing to say! Shame on you!

            Christians pray they will be saved from hell…Islamists try to send them there.
            We Christians hope they repent, “…that they all may be saved”.

            You, Sir, are telling lies.

          • William Lewis

            He lies all the time. He’s an inveterate fake.

    • Martin

      Eustace

      There is no comfort they can gain, but you can avoid that same condemnation.

    • IanCad

      Eustace,
      We Christians have much to answer for in the perpetuation of the Hellenistic/Augustinian falsity of an eternal, never ending, ever burning Hell.
      It is not biblical, unfortunately, most Christians do believe it – to their eternal shame.
      How many souls – perhaps like yourself – have been repelled by the vile doctrine? We may never know. Jesus must weep.

      • Ivan M

        Jesus spoke of eternal hellfires and the Gehena. No getting around it for the literalists.

        • IanCad

          Ivan,
          The words Eternal, Everlasting and Forever are better understood if the suffix “Until” is considered. Jonah in the whale “forever” – three days. Sodom burning eternally – not any more.
          ‘You shall not surely die” was the first lie. “The wages of sin is death.”
          Can’t be dancing in the flames if you’re dead.
          I know, I know; tradition nearly always beats truth.

      • The Explorer

        Jesus spoke of the fire prepared for the devil and his angels to which humans might also be consigned. There are two ways of dealing with that (apart from accepting it).

        1. Christ didn’t say it, and the Bible is inaccurate in asserting that he did.

        2. Christ did say it, and believed it, but was mistaken to do so.

        • IanCad

          Sure there are fires prepared. They will do their job. That is to destroy the wicked. Eternal Hell confers immortality. God alone has that.

          • Ivan M

            I have a problem accepting eternal punishment for what are after all a finite number of sins. I think your argument based on the idea that only God can confer immortality is rational, Ian.

          • pobjoy

            I have a problem accepting eternal punishment for what are after all a finite number of sins.

            Punishment is not for sins. All sins have already been forgiven; except the unforgivable sin. This sin is refusal of Christ and his atonement for sins.

            The saints are chosen from before the creation of the world, so the reprobate must likewise be chosen. So everyone is immortal, in the sense that everyone has timeless existence beyond this ‘timey’ existence. So ‘eternal’ fate is one thing, or another, depending on attitude to Christ. That fate for any particular individual cannot be changed, because there is no time in which change can take place. But Jesus’ awful warnings about the fate of the condemned, to be avoided at any cost, including choosing martyrdom, cannot be too highly estimated.

          • Ivan M

            How can one be chosen for eternal damnation since the beginning of time , while at the same time try to avoid this destiny. Seems to be an impossible task.

          • pobjoy

            We are not chosen for eternal damnation by God. That is a horrendous Calvinist heresy. We choose our own destinies. That is why we are called gods, because we have sovereign control of our own destinies. God knows what they are, because he knows our natures, because he can see us as we actually are. We do not know our natures, so time is given us in which to choose; though, in time, we may get an inkling of our natures, especially if we are reprobate, as the Bible indeed confirms.

            One may say, “Well, why does God bother, if he knows all our destinies?” The reason for that must be because God cannot give glory to the saints, or punishment to the reprobate, without evidence. Otherwise, his judgements would seem to be favouritism or unjust prejudice. So all we do in this life, in time, constitutes that evidence.

          • Ivan M

            As far as I can tell you seem to be shifting the active principle from Will to Nature. This seems to be worse than predestination. For at least as a reprobate Calvinist I can revel in Hell that my willfulness had brought it to pass, but blaming this on a horrible endowed nature that is uncovered in time makes me a cosmic joke, a plaything of God.

          • pobjoy

            As far as I can tell you seem to be shifting the active principle from Will to Nature.

            One of the reasons that God created the internet was to show the great justice of h*ll.

          • carl jacobs

            FYI. Pobjoy is not a Trinitarian.

      • Anton

        What do you understand by the phrase eis tous aionas ton aionon (literally “to the age of the ages”, ie for ever and ever) which refers in Revelation 14:11 and 20:10 to the duration of the torment?

    • Is it because you are fearful of your own eternal destiny that you rage so dramatically against the Church? You are an instructed Catholic so presumably know scripture and Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

      Here’s a good Catholic perspective on this tragedy:

      Those who died in the most truly appalling events at Orlando … may they, through the all-atoning Sacrifice of our most sweet Redeemer and our suffrages, have remission of their sins: we pray this for them as we pray it for all the departed, since as Christians we believe that anyone who claims to be without sin is deceiving himself and the Truth is not in him. This, of course, goes equally for popes and for rent-boys and for you and for me.

      Humanly, we may surely hope that many of those killed in a situation which prima facie may have been at least a proximate occasion of mortal sin, may, through their own ignorance, not have had that full knowledge and consent which would render their deeds and intentions as lethal subjectively as they are objectively. It is a sobering thought that it may be easier for us, who are instructed Catholics, to go to Hell than it is for the uninstructed.

      And we pray for the wounded; for the families, friends, survivors, witnesses of those who died. Perhaps a particular prayer is appropriate for those who were not aware that their sons or daughters were being drawn into intrinsically disordered actions: parents for whom the horror of so dreadful a bereavement may even be increased by that realisation.

      And I think we need to be aware that the Hierarchs of the Spirit of this Age will use this fearful atrocity for their own purposes. Treating the victims of a deranged murderer as martyrs for a noble cause is likely to become a stock element in the perverted parody of the moral high ground which the Powers of Evil seek to inculcate. And it will become part of a campaign which, if it succeeds, will lead to the increasingly violent persecution of anybody who articulates the teaching of Scripture and of the Catholic Church (Catechism paragraphs 2357 and following).

      http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/requiescant-in-pace.html

      • Ivan M

        The availability of guns and the apparent fact that Omar was too effective a killer, has made this incident worse than it would otherwise have been.

        • Dreadnaught

          Dunblane, Hungerford, Paris still happened with all our Western limits on gun ownership. Its fudging the issue to suggest it was the fault of the stupid US right to bear arms laws: they simply made it that much easier.

          • Ivan M

            Nothing prevented the partygoers from being armed unlike the people in Paris. They too could have armed themselves with at least a pistol. It is the free availability of machine guns in the US that has led to this body count.

          • Dreadnaught

            Ever see the sign ‘Check in your guns at the bar’ in the old Westerns – guns and alcohol not a best of ideas.

          • Ivan M

            I did not realize this.

          • Dreadnaught

            Except of course for the Einsatzgruppen where every one of them was off their heads on vodka.

          • Ivan M

            Omar would have been high on speed or something similar.

          • The Explorer

            Heavy steroids user, according to sources

          • Dreadnaught

            Let’s have no limp excuses for the murdering scumbag.

          • The Explorer

            See the analysis by Peter Hitchens, for example.

          • Dreadnaught

            He’s a crack-pot blowhard. I’ll listen to his brother any day.

          • Ivan M

            Bro’ is gone to meet Jesus.

          • Dreadnaught

            I doubt that very much.

          • The Explorer

            Hitchens is merely citing the report by nbcnews that the Orlando gunman had a history of steroid use. Take it up with nbc if you think it’s inaccurate.

          • Dreadnaught

            Life’s too short.

          • Ivan M

            I tend to agree with Hitchens, except that marijuana is a ‘downer’.

          • Ivan M

            He seemed unnaturally self assured in his selfies. A typical narcissist made worse by as you report, steroids.

          • carl jacobs

            A fully automatic rifle is illegal in the US.

          • Ivan M

            Carl I am reading that he got his weapons legally.
            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/13/how-the-orlando-killer-omar-mateen-got-his-guns.html

            Though I don’t know if any of those would qualify as a fully automatic rifle.

          • carl jacobs

            These weapons must fire one round with each trigger pull. It’s the characterization of “machine gun” that is faulty.

          • Ivan M

            Yes agreed.

          • bluedog

            Now Carl, that’s where the gun lobby arguments always collapse. A little work with a file and and single shot self-loader becomes an automatic. If you’re planning a massacre in the local junior school or gay bar, the small print in the laws of gun ownership are of no concern. It never ceases to amaze that there are 4 million AR 15s in private ownership in the US. The problem with such an armoury is that within a population of 4 million AR 15 owners there are enough misfits to trigger a massacre roughly once every six months. And that’s pretty much the outcome.

          • IanCad

            ” stupid US right to bear arms”
            There is a good reason for the Second Amendment. It is the means whereby the government is constrained not to overdo its natural inclination to expand into every aspect of the lives of the citizenry.
            You of all people should be the last to trust in the good intentions of a powerful administration.

          • Dreadnaught

            I’m sure the Founding Fathers would say it seemed like a good idea at time and it probably was given the raw state of the new nation.

          • IanCad

            Still a good idea. The yearning of authority to expand its claw is Eternal, Everlasting, Forever.

          • Dreadnaught

            That;s pure rubbish!

          • IanCad

            You are not serious, surely?

          • Dreadnaught

            One gun ownership Yes.

          • IanCad

            How on earth are we expected to overthrow a tyrannical regeime if only the administration has the weapons?

          • Dreadnaught

            Do you believe in the power of prayer? (personally speaking – I don’t.

          • IanCad

            Sure. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

          • Dreadnaught

            I’m right behind you brother; right, right far back behind you 🙂

          • IanCad

            Custard is my name, Agitation is my game

          • carl jacobs

            A disarmed population is a docile population. A supplicant population. An infantilized population that has been taught to look to the government for protection and by implication many other things. But of course the Gov’t cannot protect in the general case. It can only punish after the fact.

            The armed man has both the right and the capacity to define his own enemies and choose not to be a victim. The unarmed man huddles in his basement when the police run away and the mob runs riot. I watched LA burn in April 1992. When the police ran away and 1000 buildings burned and 55 people died. When law and order was restored only by the insertion of the National Guard.

            The choice is between the assumption of different risks. It’s not simply a matter of “No guns and no massacre.” It is a choice of “No guns and no massacre but something else” … where the something else is not so visible and not so dramatic, and doesn’t serve the political interest of statists who want to disarm the population. Because a disarmed population is much more compliant in the face of the state.

          • Dreadnaught

            In a civilised society machine guns are not the perogative of the general populace. No ifs no buts.

          • carl jacobs

            You are correct. But if he had a fully automatic rifle, he was already in violation of the law. How then does this become a gun control issue?

          • Dreadnaught

            I don’t know much about the actual gun laws state to state, was this an illegal weapon in Fla? The interweb is full of sites in the US where such automatic weaponry is for sale.
            Such gear has no place outside the military or similar authorities; its just plain crazy to pretend that everyone who buys such weapons does it in case the US Administration turns rogue. No argument either for hunting where sustained rapid fire is method of choice.
            Surely the US must be in a better place to be divesting its civilians of a military standard gun ownership than say Afghanistan, where the rule of law is subservient to accumulated fire power of the war lords.

          • carl jacobs

            A civilian in the US cannot buy a military grade weapon. The M16 issued to a soldier can fire one round with a trigger pull, or three rounds with a trigger pull, or it can fire until the trigger is released. It’s not legal for me to own such a weapon. I can buy a weapon that looks like an M16 but it does not have the capability of an M16. It will fire one round per trigger pull just like any other rifle.

            When the shooter went into that club, he fully expected that he would be the only armed individual in that club. That expectation was crucial to his success. He could go in alone because he knew he wouldn’t be shot at. If there had been one other armed individual in that club, the shooter would have fired five rounds and been killed.

          • Dreadnaught

            So rather than ban them, guns should be given away with every packet of Cheerios … just in case. Home of the brave and land of the free – no thanks.

          • Anton

            Try reading The Good Guys Wear Black by a member of the Met’s gun squad. These guys train the SAS because the SAS in urban gun encounters because the SAS do one such mission every few years and they do it every day. The author believes that citizens should be free to carry arms and he has REALLY thought it through.

          • Dreadnaught

            These guys train the SAS in urban gun encounters because the SAS do one such mission every few years and they do it every day.

            Familiarisation with the logistics in specific areas or metropolitan locations is quite necessary for effective counter terrorism. Stating the the SAS need the guidance of the Met gun squad because they don’t get involved often enough on missions, is simply taking the piss and deluding the gullible. I’ve no intention of reading such a book if this is your synopsis.

          • Anton

            The SAS could train the Met in a zillion things, but there is one in which the Met can train the SAS and the SAS are humble and astute enough to recognise this and take the training. I have explained why this is so. My comment about that book was only a suggestion; you are free to continue in ignorance, if you prefer.

          • carl jacobs

            Is that your way of saying that people should accept victimization for the greater good? A silly straw man argument about Cheerios?

          • Anton

            How did he manage to shoot dead 50 people in a crowded space with a weapon that does not fire continuously when the trigger is kept depressed? If he’s set on killing everybody then each individual’s chances are best if you rush him.

      • Inspector General

        Good stuff, Jack. The Catholics, as ever, do it best…

      • Eustace

        Now I know you’re a true Catholic.

        There you are rubbing your hands in glee at the thought of so many Catholic Latino parents in Orlando who’ll now live haunted by the Church’s teaching that unrepentant gays go to hell when they die.

        You missed your calling in life. You should have taken holy orders. You have exactly the right personality type for it. Manipulative, psychotic, vengeful, contemptuous and controlling without the tiniest spark of compassion or smallest drop of the milk of human kindness. You would have gone far as a priest.

        • Inspector General

          I say, Linus, one does like your second paragraph!

        • You still have time, Linus.

          The day of the Lord came like a thief in the night; and no, nowhere in our religion it says that the day of reckoning must come through just, or even lawful ways. The “clients” of Mini-Sodom were, all of them, marching toward hell one minute, and many of them were – thinking soundly – already there in the next. That’s how fast it goes. This is the first thing I thought when I heard. This is what I am not reading absolutely anywhere in the XXI Century Sodom Press.

          Let every pervert who has ears hear. And let it this be a salutary lesson for him, and an infinitely better one than the sugary, emotional, self-satisfied sniffing and crying of those who will accompany them in the place of eternal torment.

          https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/today-we-are-not-all-perverts/

          • Eustace

            Mundabor? Really?

            Now I know I’m dealing with a madman. Do you believe the Pope is a demon too?

            ROFL!

          • Ivan M

            Francis I has Masonic tendencies.

          • So, you read Mundabor. Jack isn’t too surprised.

          • Eustace

            I know of Mundabor from various comments here. I’ve looked at his blog once. It was interesting to see as an exercise in understanding how crazy crazy can get, but otherwise no, I do not read Mundabor.

            From what I did see of it, two things were clear. Firstly, the man is certifiably off his head. And secondly, he really, really, REALLY hates the Pope.

            As a self-confessed Roman Catholic, I’m somewhat surprised you tolerate such abuse of the man you’re supposed to view as God’s vicar on earth. But then I know enough about Roman Catholics to understand that once you move past the lip service that each Catholic pays to the Catechism, Catholicism is what each individual Catholic decides it should be, and that the particular Catholic you’re talking to is always the world’s most perfect Catholic, whereas everyone else has got it wrong…

          • Cressida de Nova

            There is nothing remotely Catholic about Mundabor. He is deranged and full of hate.

      • Dreadnaught

        Sanctimonious crap dressed as compassion condemns the spirit of inhuman opportunism for what it is. Enjoy your schadenfteude you miserable wretch.

    • Uncle Brian

      Linus, the stuff you’ve written here today is so far off target it makes you look weak-minded. As Nick Cohen points out on the Spectator website, the Orlando massacre was “the biggest single homophobic killing in the West since the fall of the Nazis.” You must have realised by now that it was committed by a murderer without a drop of Christian blood in his veins. Calm down, Linus, and open your silly eyes.

      http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/homophobic-murder-will-gays-become-new-jews/

      • Eustace

        The Orlando massacre was committed by a Muslim. Where did I deny that?

        Christians have a less direct way of sowing death and destruction in the LGBT community. They prefer to avoid mass murder as it’s too messy and direct a method of destroying what they hate. It gets them in trouble, and they hate being in trouble. They prefer a more discreet approach that leaves them in the clear while inflicting the maximum amount of psychological suffering and pain on their victims, all with the ultimate aim of encouraging them to take their own lives.

        Christians don’t go on shooting sprees. Their preferred victim is the isolated and lonely gay child, often their own. Or, in the case of priests, any child they can get their hooks into. Bullying and moral abuse over long periods of time are their weapons of choice. The aim is to sap the confidence of the child and render it profoundly insecure and self-loathing by telling it how much God hates what it is and how evil, dirty and worthless it is. Only by changing to be exactly like them will the child be able to win the Christian’s and God’s love and approval.

        The outcome of this isn’t always suicide. But it rarely ends happily for the child involved. And the Christian perpetrator gets off Scot free to go on and bully other children at his leisure.

        I have a friend who works with men who’ve been driven to attempt suicide because of the feelings of worthlessness instilled in them by homophobic Christian parents and priests. They never get over it and several of them, including some I’ve met, have ended up taking their own lives. Muslim gunmen are lethal, but most of the time you can run from Muslim gunmen. Or avoid them altogether. You can never run from or a avoid a Christian parent or priest. They haunt your every step until you can no longer bear it. And even when they don’t drive you to your death, they validate the homophobia that makes Muslims feel justified and even supported in their hatred of the LGBT community.

        • Ivan M

          The ‘B’ in LGBT are bisexual perverts. Any one bisexual who justifies his behavior on account of an alleged neurological disorder ought to be shunned for the liars they are. We have to protect the vulnerable from these predators.

          • sarky

            You need correcting for a lot more than your grammar.

          • Ivan M

            I am not wrong about this. A bisexual is by definition and inclination a gross pervert. That the LGBT crowd revels in this shows the complete lack of seriousness of these people.

    • Anton

      Forget about us. Go read about Jesus.

      • Eustace

        No thanks. Jesus is dull. If I’m going to read about fictional saviour characters, Gandalf is much better written. Just as fictional as Jesus, but far more well-rounded, interesting and convincing.

        • Anton

          He underwent his own crucifixion to save others in Moria, you know.

    • CliveM

      It’s also sickening when people, feigning great moral outrage, use the deaths of nearly fifty people to indulge in a rediculous attack on a group of people who have no responsibility for the events in question.

  • Martin

    I don’t see Jesus weeping with those who weep, He wept over the death ofnHis friend Lazarus, but what did He say of those who died at the altar, killed by Romans, or those killed at the falling of the tower of Siloam:

    There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Luke 13:1-5

    There is only one way to avoid God’s wrath, that is to repent of our sin.

  • len

    Christian Watchmen have stood on the walls and warned people of the direction they were travelling but no one listened . These watchmen were abused and called’ bigots’ ‘Judgemental’ (and many far worse things) and ridiculed by those who were offended by their warnings.
    There will be those who blame God for ‘letting this tragedy happen in Orlando’ but it is US that is letting this happen because we have turned away from the God of the Bible and’ the god of this world Satan’ is energising those who are prepared to kill steal and murder in his name.

  • The Explorer

    The killer’s father has said his son should not have done it because it should be left to God to punish homosexuals. On the other hand, an American imam has said the only way to save homosexuals is to kill them; so the action was justified.

    Theological confusion and mixed messages are not, it would seem, confined to Christianity.

    • Inspector General

      One wonders if Cameron is encouraged to add to his list of ‘British Values’ from that…

    • pobjoy

      The Qur’an is a hopeless,nebulous, deliberately vague, ambiguous jumble; it has to be supported by hadiths to make any sense, and a hadith is only an opinion, can only be an opinion or guess.

      The Bible, otoh, provides the only systematic theology on earth, a fact that has needled wicked minds in every age since Pharisees tried to circumcise Christians in apostolic times. Also hot and bothered is a myriad of internet posters who never fail to contrive an opportunity to ascribe mixed messages to what they know has them accused, convicted and banged up.

    • steroflex

      Love the sinner, hate the sin…

      • sarky

        Quite possibly the most patronising phrase in the western world.

        • The Explorer

          Islam has no truck with it. Hate them both.

          • David

            Well aimed !

          • Anton

            Psalms 5:4-6 and 11:5-6 make it clear that God hates sinners (not just sin). It is the world that he loves (John 3:16), and for which he sent his son under whose blood we may be protected from his wrath.

        • steroflex

          Slick but no banana.
          For catholics, homosexual sex is a sin. Not so? And it is, I believe, too, for Muslims? So we all do not like homosexual sex.
          On the other hand, we are told to love our neighbour. And if the person sitting next to us happens to be “gay” then we are commanded to love that person.
          It really is not that difficult to understand.

          • sarky

            Could I love a Christian but hate Christianity?

          • Anton

            Love Nazis, hate Nazism.

            Love communists, hate communism.

            All are people.

          • sarky

            Come on Anton, you know it’s a b###cks statement and only used as a christian get out clause so you don’t appear bigoted.
            How can you profess to love someone when you hate the very fabric of what they are? It’s like saying ‘I love chocolate digestives, but I hate chocolate’, it’s nonsensical.

          • Anton

            It is emphatically not a bollocks statement and I am being entirely serious. Have you never met someone with whom you disagreed politically or about art or cinema or music yet whom you liked? It’s like that only more so. And Jesus is like that only much much more so. But that’s the idea.

            Or consider the logical extreme in the direction you are arguing toward: loathe anybody who disagrees with you, even fractionally, about anything.

          • sarky

            But we are not talking about disagreement, we are talking about hate.
            Me disagreeing with someone about music is not going to damage or harm them. You telling someone that their sexuality, which they have no control over, is sinful and can lead to eternal damnation, can lead to immeasurable harm, no matter how much you supposedly love them.

          • Anton

            But what if it is true? You are ruling that out a priori, which is not a useful way to argue (about anything with anybody).

            “No control over” is not something I’d accept without contention. I share with you the belief that matters are not as simple as some naive Christians assert, but as to what is really going on – I’d have to tell you over a beer, because my views would probably be deliberately misconstrued by some as hate speech, and sadly and disgracefully our land does not have freedom of peaceable speech any more.

            It ultimately comes to what prior model we have of human beings; I take mine from the Bible. Whence yours?

          • sarky

            Experience and interaction.
            I don’t need a book to tell me how I should or shouldn’t feel about someone. I have gay friends who I would trust with the lives of myself and my family. It’s so wrong to judge people on the musings of a bronze age tome.

          • Anton

            I have a gay friend too, and I don’t judge him. The Christian position is that everybody needs Jesus because everybody is a sinner. Some people do one sin and others do others but we are all in the same boat and it is going down. Jesus offers us all a (unmerited) lifeline.

          • sarky

            Some sins just seem to be more sinful than others.

          • Anton

            Any sin is enough to keep you out of heaven unless God forgives it through Jesus, because any sin messes up God’s world which was once perfect. But in another sense some sins are indeed worse than others. Committing murder is worse than getting drunk, for instance.

            If you are suggesting that Christians focus on homosexuality more than on other sins, I think the reason is not Christian fixation on the issue but the fact that we live in a democracy where the law is up for grabs, and Christians and gays have been fighting a cultural battle over what the laws regarding homosexuality should be, with both sides believing that they are trying to influence our land for the better. If we lived in a dictatorship in which there was no chance of either side influencing whatever laws about homosexuality there were, I doubt that evangelical Christians would regard it as different from any other sin. Certainly they should not single it out at the level of personal interaction rather than cultural battle. I hope that my gay friend is as happy to say to his gay friends “You might be surprised but I have an evangelical Christian friend” as I am happy to acknowledge him.

          • sarky

            Hmmm…that would probably be more down to you than your faith.
            Probably more likely to be-
            “Antons a good bloke, for a christian”

          • Anton

            That’s up to him, of course. My main point was in my explanation of why homosexuality is apparently a hot topic for Christians. In fact I believe the disaster for society since the sociosexual revolution of the 1960s lies in heterosexual promiscuity and its consequences.

          • Cressida de Nova

            It’s called civilised behaviour.

  • David

    Hhmm ! An exceedingly nasty business – most horrible !

    I imagine though that there will be more of this in the future, as both people who define themselves as “gay”, and act out such lifestyles, and Muslims whose numbers inevitably include the zealous, are increasing.

    The close juxtaposition of very different cultures, faiths and opposing ways of living was never going to produce peaceful harmony. Social conservatives pointed out that reality many decades ago, but few in power listened. But sadly for us all, this is exactly the nonsense that western politicians have not only claimed to believe in, but have actually acted upon ! It is quite incredible what trouble and suffering western countries have brought down upon themselves.

    Moreover this “cultural elite” and the politicians, still maintain that mixing up peoples of strongly conflicting beliefs and ways of life is a good thing ! I have long found this liberal naivety, coupled with an almost total ignorance of the belief systems that they have imported, almost unbelievable in its crass stupidity.

    In future few western countries will feel comfortable with themselves. What a mess the “cultural elite” and the politicians have made – what unbelievable foolishness !

    Yes God must weep at the choices made by many men and women. But ultimately each one of us is responsible for our own actions, and will one day be judged by God.

    • steroflex

      The elite which rules us mixes all the time with Europeans, with Muslim Sheikhs, with capitalists, with international and supra national people.
      So it just cannot understand what you are on about.
      They sit on the train, or fly in the air over people like you and me.
      And although their families suffer quite a lot, they have a very strong love of sexual freedom of all kinds. So you have to as well.

      • David

        I fear that you may be right. Modern technology and international capitalism insulates them very effectively from the day to day reality, the lot, of even relatively comfortable middle class types like myself, let alone the continuing struggles of the working class.

        One of the factors that made English society stable was its relatively homogeneous nature, with a relatively smooth series of small steps between the layers of society. Once the small steps become gulfs the whole edifice becomes unstable, and come tumbling down.

        In the past clothes demarcated rank. Nowadays we have the far more dangerous differences of attitude and belief. Differences of belief and attitude are more dangerous than visual markers because they are more difficult to see, lulling rulers and ruled alike into a false sense of stability.

  • chiefofsinners

    Cranmer – why do you repeat the image of wrapping oneself in the rainbow flag? It is not necessary to support a cause in order to sympathise with the relatives of its victims. That, surely, is the whole point of the article.

    • Royinsouthwest

      There is a time and place for everything and the aftermath of a massacre is not the time to complain about the rainbow flag.

      • chiefofsinners

        It’s not a complaint. I am declining to fly the flag of a cause I don’t believe in. I can sympathise with the victims equally well. Being injured doesn’t make them right.

        • Anton

          Exactly, Chief. No Christian should have said Je Suis Charlie last year either in view of an earlier Charlie Hebdo cover mocking the Trinity. But I deplore that massacre too.

  • steroflex

    Holding gay people in a close embrace… hmm.

    • sarky

      Why not???

      • CliveM

        We’re British, barely hold our own families in a close embrace!

        • Dreadnaught

          What a stupid comment.

          • CliveM

            Think so? Shrug, well there we go.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Cute !

  • wisestreligion

    The Anglican Archbishops put out a statement “After Sunday’s attack in Orlando as Christians we must speak out in support of LGBTI people, who have become the latest group to be so brutally targeted by the forces of evil”. Tragically the gunman’s victims had already been targeted by the forces of evil, and that is why they were in a homosexual venue.

    This was a tragic crime. But let us not be naïve about the consequences. The Liberal Ruling Class will now be even more zealous in promoting homosexuality and curbing – you guessed it – Christians more than Muslims. Our love of God and our desire to follow His commands is officially “Hatred” in Cameron’s Britain.

    Our first call as Christians is to advance the Kingdom of God. After an appropriate response of mourning, the leaders of our Church need to face the reality that God’s church in the West is under escalating pressure from the Progressive Establishment, particularly on sexuality. Do our bishops want to ingratiate themselves with an anti-Christian establishment while leaving their flock with the task of standing up for Christ?

  • Prof. Asoka Ekanayaka

    Archbishop Cranmer’s theology is quite wrong when he says that ” He ( ie.God ) is the Father of everyone of those who died . . .”, Professor JI Packer in his famous work ” Knowing God” clarifies this kind of common misconception ” The idea that all our children of God is not found in the Bible anywhere. The Old Testament shows God as the father not of all but of his own people,the seed of Abraham . . . The New Testament has a world vision but it too shows God as the Father not of all but of those who knowing themselves to be sinners, put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as their divine sin-bearer and master, and so become Abraham’s spiritual seed. . . Sonship to God is not, therefore,a universal status into which everyone enters by natural birth, but a supernatural gift which one receives through receiving Jesus. . . . The gift of sonship to God becomes ours not through being born, but through being born again” ( See Chapter 19 Sons of God ). Our revulsion at a crime however heinous and the heartfelt emotions of the moment must never blind us to the uncompromising truth of scripture.

    • David

      Thank you for that useful comment. Your concise explanation certainly chimes with my reading of the totality of Holy Scripture. Both theological universalism and politically led “diversity”, reject the Biblical truth that it is only through being reborn in Christ, by repentance and trusting in Christ, that God becomes our Heavenly Father. Cranmer’s version has more than a whiff of “cheap grace”.

    • chiefofsinners

      Eph 4:6 speaks of “one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” The parable of the prodigal son clearly portrays God as the Father of those who have wandered from him.

      • The Explorer

        The Father regards the Prodigal as his son. But does the Prodigal (while prodigal) regard the Father as his father?

        Ephesians 4:6 must, surely, be understood in the context of Ephesians 1:5: which, after all, precedes it in the epistle’s line of argument. “The adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself”, as the AV puts it: adoption being the key concept.

        • chiefofsinners

          The father of the prodigal son remained the loving father regardless of how the son regarded him.
          As for Eph 4:6, if you wanted to write a statement of God’s universal fatherhood, what more could you write than this?

          • The Explorer

            What’s your take on John 1:12: “To all who did receive him he gave the right to become children of God.”? Surely, given God’s universal fatherhood, they were children of God already?

          • chiefofsinners

            Yes, that is clearly also true. See reply to the Prof above.

          • Pubcrawler

            “what more could you write than this?”

            I might be a bit more specific about what I meant by πάντων, especially in the context of a passage focusing on the unity of the body of believers.

          • chiefofsinners

            Yes, fair enough. It could be referring only to the Church. But Eph 3:15 would support a broader interpretation: “the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name.”

      • David

        In the parable is not the son repenting and returning to his father ? The son went through stages. Firstly the desire to rebel and leave. Then he left in rebellion, squandered the wealth living a dissolute life. Next he suffered. Finally in repentance he returns.
        However I agree it can be interpreted with different nuances.

        • chiefofsinners

          The father remains a loving father throughout.

          • David

            Yes, which is why He is always ready to receive back those who recognise and admit their faults, repent of them and place their trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord, Master and Savior.

          • chiefofsinners

            Amen

      • Prof. Asoka Ekanayaka

        David is right. The prodigal son parable portrays God not as the Father of all indiscriminately, but of those who have ceased to be rebels and have returned to him with bitter remorse and abject repentence. As for Eph 4:6 it is important to set scripture in context. Chapters 1-3 leading up to it make it eminently clear that the reference to God being “Father of all” does not mean all humankind at all, but rather all those who have been ” called”. The words “call” “calling” and “called” appear 4 times in the preceding 3 verses !.So Paul is referring only to all who have been saved by grace through faith (the body of Christ), and indeed contrasts them with the terrible predicament of the “rest of mankind” who are the “children of wrath”, separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenant of promise, having no hope and without God in the world ( See Eph. Chapter 2 )

        • chiefofsinners

          No, the parable portrays God as father before, during and after the son’s rebellion. Nothing could be more clear.
          God’s fatherhood is portrayed two ways in scripture. In a general way as father of all mankind and in a specific Father-son relationship for those redeemed and adopted. Christ is the second Adam through we receive even more than we lost through the first Adam.

    • Anton

      In Acts 17:29 Paul tells a crowd of pagans that all are offspring (GENOS) of God.

      • Prof. Asoka Ekanayaka

        It is necessary to draw a clear distinction between being ‘made in the image of God’ and being called to be Sons ( ie children ) of God. All men are created in the image of God and that is the sense in which Paul tells the crowd of pagans that they are God’s ‘offspring’. But it is an entirely different matter to be born again through faith and repentence as regenerate Sons of God. They are the exclusive people of God, the body of Christ, his Church with whom Paul identifies in his letter to the Ephesians ” even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ according to the purpose of his will to the praise of his glorious grace . . In him we have obtained an inheritence having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph 1:5-6,11). Paul also refers to this exclusive community of Gods people in the famous passage in Romans 8:28-30). Clearly that does not include the whole human race !

        • Anton

          I agree with you. It is your statement, “The idea that all are children of God is not found in the Bible anywhere” which I was taking issue with.

  • The Explorer

    Western multiculturalism says that all nations can be brought together in any one country to live as one happy family.

    Western multiculturalism forgets that some families are not happy, and that families may quarrel. There is, indeed, such a thing as a family feud.

    In Orlando, we see the consequences of just such a family disagreement about priorities.

  • len

    There must come a time soon when the West wakes up and realises that it is at war with radical elements in Islam?.How do home grown Jihadists become radicalised?.Potential Jihadists are partially radicalised through the internet but mostly though a spiritual openness to evil demonic forces ; ‘For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.'(Ephesians 6;12)
    Secular governments (who deny the spiritual realm) are totally defenceless against these evil forces and the Only One who can restrain evil (God Himself )has been ordered off the battlefield , removed from the statute books, banned from the classroom as the secular man sought ‘to cast of his chains and to become free’.

    • David

      The west is a slow learner, or at least its secular leadership certainly is.

  • Anton

    This was a massacre of people holding New Age and/or secularist views and manifesting one particular behaviour, perpetrated by someone holding militant Islamic views. None of these belief systems is compatible with Christianity but that is not the point. I abhor the murders and had the gunman survived I would be calling for his execution.

  • IanCad

    Ok! The mourning is not over for the victims’ families. Maybe it never will be. As we also weep for the bereaved we should not be too ready to embrace the lifestyles of those executed.
    There is a danger here that the homosexual lobby will use this to promote, even more, their agenda of the corruption of the innocent. More schools will be pressured to adopt gender choice policies for young children, and the deification of the LGBTx2 members will ascend to further heights.
    Pushback should start now.
    Why is it that governments, in the interest of extending life expectancy, wage war on drinking and smoking, whilst the homosexual lifestyle, which shortens life spectaculaly more so, is catered to, encouraged, and generally held in the highest esteem?

    • Anton

      The war on drinking and smoking is halfhearted. Government would ban these things tomorrow if it really wanted, just as it has done with drug after drug. Tobacco and alcohol make too much tax revenue for them, while the shortening of life means less money to be paid out in pensions.

      • IanCad

        Anton,
        I would hardly describe the war on drinking and smoking as half-hearted. My goodness! look what has happened to pubs. What is it – two or three pints and an automatic license revocation? Groups of furtive smokers herded into “Designated Areas.” What about the war on sugar? Gov. seems to have no problems regulating any group it wants to. I’m not suggesting it should regulate sexual preferences but, at the same time, it should not be promoting unhealthy behaviours.
        I take your point re. Gov. saving money through early deaths. You’re not suggesting that they would be so callous as to encourage deviant behaviour in order to save money?

        • Anton

          I recognise that your main point is elsewhere, but I stand – with courtesy – by my description of the measures against drinking and smoking as being halfhearted, and why: tax revenues.

          • IanCad

            Given that Govs. have a history of regulating to excess then you are right. Problem is that when revenues from alcohol and tobacco decline further, new sources of revenue will be sought.
            Better the devil we know…..

          • bluedog

            Anton, you make a very cynical point about pensions (and that is not in itself a criticism), about which you are absolutely correct. Very few smokers ever live beyond the retiring age of 65. It follows that smoking has been an effective tool of population management that relieves the financial burden of an ageing population. This communicant recalls hearing that point being made by a life insurance operative. Government actuaries must curse the trend towards clean living.

          • Anton

            “Anton, you make a very cynical point about pensions (and that is not in itself a criticism)”

            Indeed, and I shall take it as a compliment!

        • magnolia

          Some of us think these should not be matters for government anyway. Government should have no say over the health or otherwise of anyone’s lifestyles. If someone wishes to live life in such a way that they are likely only to live till 50 what business is that of the Government?

          If it were fly fishing, skydiving, rugby, cricket, showjumping, ski-ing, the Grand National, all water sports and rock climbing would need an immediate ban. And much else that is fun.

          It is not their business to promote either healthy or unhealthy lifestyles. They should get out of people’s lives and let them make their own choices provided that they harm no one else in so doing. In this way they can be certain that they harbour no fascist or communist tendencies.

    • Dreadnaught

      You don’t have to embrace their lifestyle any more than they are obliged to accept yours – just leave them alone to get on with their lives. Not every homo is a ‘raving mincing queer’. What reference have you for the government plot to hide the ‘fact’ that homosexulaity shortens life.
      Surely you are not associating that claim with the Florida massacre?

      • IanCad

        I did not suggest there was a plot. Merely pointing out a glaring inconsistency

        • Dreadnaught

          Where did you get your information that homosexuality shortens life is the question.

          • Anton

            RS Hogg et al, Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men International Journal of Epidemiology 1997 vol 26 pp656-661.

            E. Wood et al, Modern antiretroviral therapy improves life expectancy of gay and bisexual males in Vancouver’s west end. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2000 vol 91 pp125-128.

          • Dreadnaught

            The references are nearly 20 years out of date and relate to a disease which can affect heteros just the same. It may suit your particular view to view this retrospectively but assuming that aids is exclusive to a sexual orientation today is just plain wrong. One only has to look at regions in Africa to see how aids has ravaged men women and children who are not homosexuals to see how misguided you are. Access to retroviral medical care has all but eliminated death from aids in the West and will soon tackle the African cases in similar manner as long as the JuJu religionists and Muslim clerics get back under their rocks.

          • Anton

            I responded to a request for sources relating to earlier death among homosexuals by giving two. I made no other comment whatsoever and your subsequent rant reflects on you rather than me.

          • Dreadnaught

            A RANT? – THIS IS A RANT! What I did was show you how your case had no substance.

          • Anton

            Where did I make a case, and what?

          • Dreadnaught

            OK – will you settle for ‘claim’

          • Anton

            I entered a subthread between others to give references relating to premature death among homosexuals. In this subthread I have made no comment in my own words whatsoever. I think you are confusing me with Ian or someone else. Please check the thread.

          • Dreadnaught

            If I have the wrong person I apologise for that. Having checked I wrongly aimed my responses at you instead of IC. I so do apologise.

          • Anton

            No problem!

          • IanCad

            The good old Inspector lists the distempers prevalent in the sodomite world.
            Near the top of the thread. Public health issues.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Good point. We need to remember that the last thing the LGBT community is seeking is sympathy from the Christian community. They will however, seek to exploit the tragedy to further their “cause”, which will include the further reduction of civil liberties for religious believers, Christians in particular, and the further imposition of the LGBT agenda on the rest of the population whether they agree with it or not. It will be easy for them to achieve all this because most politicians are willing to acquiesce to any LGBT demand because it signals their virtue and prevents a deluge of hate-tweets.

    • sarky

      Because drinking and smoking are a choice.. homosexuality isn’t.

      • carl jacobs

        Sexual behavior is always a choice.

        • sarky

          But sexuality isnt.

          • carl jacobs

            You aren’t seriously suggesting that the existence of a desire validates acting on that desire, are you?

          • Dreadnaught

            Apparently anal sex is open to heterosexual behaviour between consenting parties – what does your religion say about that? Correct me if I am wrong, but the ten commandments say nothing about it or paedophelia either for tha matter afaiaa.

          • carl jacobs

            Where did I mention that subject? It has nothing to do with anything I said.

          • Dreadnaught

            Nah – just something for you to consider.

          • carl jacobs

            I have considered it. I don’t think it is a moral issue per se. I think it is a health issue. Anal sex is dangerous. It becomes a moral issue when that reality is disregarded.

          • Dreadnaught

            I agree with the gist of your post.

          • sarky

            Hold on, wait for it…….here it comes………. peadophillia, bestiality, necrophillia.

            There you go, saved you the trouble.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s cute. I’ll take that as an evasive way of saying “No” because you knew you couldn’t say “Yes.” If desire doesn’t validate behavior, then it doesn’t matter where the desire originates. What matters is the moral licitness of the behavior that proceeds from the desire.

            So your assertion of “unchoseness” is not relevant. You have already made a determination about the behavior before you declare “They don’t have any choice.” You are saying “They want to, and they are adults, and they can do what they want, and it doesn’t hurt anything, and it’s none of your business. Oh, and btw it’s unchosen so you can’t call it perverse because it’s not prrverse for them, and you can’t condemn them for what they feel.” Everyone of those statements is contestable.

            Your real argument is an argument from consent and from the privatization of sex. It has nothing to do with nature. You had already made a moral determination before the word “nature” would ever be spoken.

          • Anton

            There was more homosexual behaviour in ancient Greece than in our culture today yet they didn’t have a noun for “a homosexual”, ie they did not acknowledge the concept.

          • sarky

            And??????

          • Anton

            Please see my reply to Pubcrawler.

          • Dreadnaught

            Same sex activity has been recorded in hundreds of life-forms. Go down the farm and check it out – you probably still eat their meat and drink their milk – it’s simply part of nature.

          • Pubcrawler

            “they didn’t have a noun for “a homosexual”, ie they did not acknowledge the concept.”

            Fallacy. Not having a single lexeme does not imply not having the concept. Language Log has a huge archive on this:

            http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1081

            One could just point to the way Cleishenes son of Sibyrtius is mocked by Aristophanes (passim). And then there is Kenneth Dover’s magnum opus:

            https://tajakramberger.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/k-_j-_dover_greek_homosexuality_updated_and_witbookfi-org.pdf

          • Anton

            I’ll withdraw that “ie” with thanks for the information, but it remains the case that secular society is the first to assert the category of ‘a homosexual.’ The gay community’s best known intellectual, Michel Foucault, observed this in his History of Sexuality (vol. 1, part 2).

          • Pubcrawler

            There I agree.

          • Anton

            You wrote it on that subject?

          • Pubcrawler

            It was about the use of ‘taboo’ language, saying what is ‘unsayable’. Sexual vocabulary is one component of that and, as I still considered myself a Classicist at the time, Latin and Greek featured quite a bit.

          • Anton

            I’ve recently read a little Martial in English translation, storming stuff! I knew of Ken Dover’s book and still remember my shock in the 1980s when he wrote openly of his joy that a troubled and troublesome Fellow of the Oxford college of which he was Master had committed suicide, in a situation which Dover had engineered hoping for that outcome. I read of this episode in one of the weekend newspapers and the story is in Dover’s autobiography, which the newspaper was presumably serialising. For sheer coldbloodedness I have yet to see that passage exceeded in print.

          • Pubcrawler

            Martial is propriety incarnate next to Catullus. E.g.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16

            (Note: You would not want your servants reading this sort of thing.)

          • Ivan M

            Thanks for all the links.

          • Dreadnaught

            Maybe they simply thought it too trivial a private matter to bother with.

          • Pubcrawler

            Except they didn’t. An adult male with a penchant for the ‘passive’ role in a homosexual male coupling was looked down upon as not fulfilling his proper duty to and role within the polis. A word often used is ‘kinaidos’. It’s not neutral, let alone complimentary.

            There was very little in classical Greece that they would consider a trivial private matter.

          • Dreadnaught

            There was very little in classical Greece that they would consider a trivial private matter.
            So thousands of years later one would have thought we’d have moved on a bit since that time in this respect.

          • Pubcrawler

            “one would have thought we’d have moved on a bit”

            Dunno. Depends on whether you believe in some sort of force called ‘progress’, and that it drives human societies in that sort of direction.

          • Anton

            We have. Sex has recently been privatised and family structure is crumbling and society is not far behind.

          • Dreadnaught

            Sex has recently been privatised

            You could still go dogging if you are feeling left out.

          • Royinsouthwest

            If bisexuality exists then people do have an obvious choice about whether or not to behave as heterosexuals or homosexuals.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Good point !

  • meema fields

    The balance has shifted. Whereas once, not long ago, simple logic, reason, and common sense could be expected to prevail to keep things somewhat upright, we are now upside down in a spiritual war with dark principalities in an era that is nearing 100% given over to antichrist spirit – I refer to it as the era of the last Beast.

    With only the smallest amount of spiritual discernment one can see there is an agenda here that cannot be attributed to mere societal and/or cultural evolution. Otherwise, all the contradictions, especially those that defy logic, could not be lifted high above the crowds on banners and shouted out as war cries on different days by the same people.

    – Women’s Rights! (except for those who are slaves, raped, stoned for being raped, abused and murdered in the name of religion. Do you hear the rabid feminists weighing in with righteous condemnation? I only hear crickets).

    – Gay Rights! (except for those who are shot, hanged or thrown off buildings in the name of religion).

    [cue crickets again]

    – Religious Rights! (except for those who are beheaded or arrested for not adhering or deferring to a specific religion).

    – Human Rights! (except for unborn humans).

    – Business Rights! (except for the CEO of Target who can take a stand for his principles, defying his customer base and stock holders, even as a Christian cake baker or wedding photographer cannot do the same).

    I read a headline that announced that the new mayor of London has banned sexy women from advertisements. And so it has begun. Soon those who think acquiescence to diversity is the way to prosperity will find all the compromises, the slow and subtle giving in to an ideology that demands complete devotion or death is the new normal.

    With this paradoxical new paradigm in place, our options are exponentially more limited now. The best fallback position is to stay correctly armored up, hide in the light of Christ, then stand when called to stand.

    Ready? Really?

    For Him,
    Meema

  • The Explorer

    The latest news is that the gunman had visited the club before the event and was thus probably a repressed homosexual. That’s certainly a possibility, and will appeal as an explanation to those who think that anyone opposing homosexuality must be a repressed homosexual. It’s also possible that he was gaining relevant information before making his strike.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Perhaps he just visited it to check what sort of security they had at the entrance.

    • Ivan M

      We are all homosexuals now.

      • The Explorer

        It was only the latest news at the time of writing. Things have moved on since.

  • Jon Sorensen

    1) Religions push the agenda against LGBT people
    2) Religious guy inspired by his holy text kills LGBT people
    3) Religions don’t take any blame and say this is “nothing to do with religion”
    4) Religions offer their sympathy and services for grieving people
    1) Religions push the agenda against LGBT people

    • William Lewis

      Who is saying this is nothing to do with religion?

      • Jon Sorensen

        His dad Seddique Mateen for example. Everytime Imam and Priest seem to deny any responsibility
        #notinthenameofmyreligion

        • Merchantman

          Most of the MSM and politicos seem set on denying Islam is responsible for these atrocities. Instead its all the fault of a madman or guns.

        • The Explorer

          ISIS has claimed responsibility in the name of Islam. ISIS supporters are under the impression that they are Muslims.

          • Jon Sorensen

            They don’t take any blame – they take credit.
            Understand the difference.

        • William Lewis

          Saying “not in the name of my religion” implies that the attack was religiously motivated, if erroneously. Also, are you aware of the imam in Florida who recently said that killing gays was the right thing to do?

          • Dreadnaught

            Lets not prat about here – its covered in the Koran and punishments are spelled out in the Hadiths – its what Muslims are supposed to do.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Saying “not in the name of my religion” implies that the attack was religiously motivated”
            Yes, but they don’t take any blame to their religion

            ” Also, are you aware of the imam in Florida who recently said that killing gays was the right thing to do?”
            They don’t take any blame – they take credit.
            Understand the difference.

          • William Lewis

            If they are taking the credit then this contradicts your original claim that they are saying “nothing to do with religion”

          • Jon Sorensen

            Now you start getting it. Religions always play both sides of the argument…

          • William Lewis

            I see. So your point is that religions are just like your arguments; self contradictory.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You still don’t get the blame part. Nobody in religion takes the blame.
            Either and individual claims that it has nothing to do with their religion or claims takes the credit for an event.

            Religions have always spokespeople claiming “nothing to do with my/our/real religion”

            No contradiction in my claim. You just might be too close to religion to see it clearly.

          • William Lewis

            If God is good then true religion must, necessarily, be good.

          • Jon Sorensen

            if.. if ..if.. where is the evidence

            I don’t see why true religion must be good if God is good. Why must it be so? Christianity seems to be pretty bad so how does that work in your world view…

          • William Lewis

            If God is good and true religion is from/of Him then true religion is good. Evidence for this is in the Bible.

          • Jon Sorensen

            How do you know the Bible is true?

          • William Lewis

            A number of reasons, including:

            My reason, experience, personal revelation, testimony and prophesy of others, historical documentation, observation of the world, reactions of non believers, fulfillment of Biblical prophesies …

          • Jon Sorensen

            I know the Bible is false because:
            My reason, experience, personal revelation, testimony and prophesy of
            others, historical documentation, observation of the world, reactions of believers, fulfillment of none of the Biblical prophesies ..

            Now could we find some evidence we both could agree that set the record objectively straight?

          • William Lewis

            Are you capable of discerning an objective record?

          • Jon Sorensen

            I’ll try. We can try to scientific method. It is the best objective tool we have…

          • Anton

            The scientific method is great for doing science (as I do), but not so good outside it. I note you have faith in the scientific method and I’d ask you to define what it is and why you have faith in it.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I don’t need faith in the scientific method. I have repeatable evidence. Faith is for weak minded wishful magical thinkers. The scientific method is great in every day use, pretty much the only way to get reliable and objective info. Not like your your “personal revelation”, “testimony”, “reactions of believers” and “fulfillment of prophesies”

          • Anton

            “I don’t need faith in the scientific method. I have repeatable evidence.”

            Trusting repeatable evidence IS the scientific method. but just because the sun has risen for the previous 10,000 days of your life doesn’t necessarily mean it will rise tomorrow morning, does it? What does the phrase “scientific induction” mean to you?

          • Jon Sorensen

            I always find it amusing to hear that all these faith people
            1) Want to undermine science while using the products of science.
            2) They advocate that we don’t really know if sun rises tomorrow, while they always plan for tomorrow
            3) They mock “scientific induction” while offering “personal revelation” and “testimony”.
            It’s rare to see such hypocrisy anywhere else

          • Anton

            I am a research scientist and I greatly respect scientific induction. You misunderstand me as usual. What I am doing – and what you are ducking – is why it works and where it comes from.

          • Jon Sorensen

            No research scientist promotes “personal revelation” and “testimony” while claim science is based on faith. So sad.

          • Anton

            Almost every research scientist trusts what he reads in research journals without repeating the experiment himself. And you still haven’t answered my question about why scientific induction works and where it comes from.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Almost every research scientist trusts what he reads in research journals without repeating the experiment himself.”
            Of course because there is very few people who have the skills, time and funding to check the leading edge studies. However if you had read any journals you would know how tentative conclusions often are and how researchers often try to find others to repeat the study.

            “And you still haven’t answered my question about why scientific induction works and where it comes from.”
            Why do you worry about it if you don’t know if sun raises tomorrow?

          • Anton

            Of course I believe it is very likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I plan my life accordingly. My question, though. which you continue to duck, is WHY previous risings of the sun are good cause to believe it will happen again tomorrow. After all, if I pull 30 good apples out of a bag, I am still not sure that the next apple won’t be rotten, am I?

            The other point which you also slid round is that scientists read journals rather than replicate experiments, and are therefore dependent on the word of others – just like Christians are, with the witness of the first Christians whose words are reported in the Bible,

          • Jon Sorensen

            I already danced many times with who offer me “personal revelation”, “testimony” and black swans, while using the fruits of science. I know you don’t see it but your own behaviour just refutes your argument.

            “scientists read journals rather than replicate experiments, and are therefore dependent on the word of others – just like Christians are, with the witness of the first Christians whose words are reported in the Bible”

            This is the fallacy of false analogy. Scientist don’t depend on the word of others. To become an accepted scientific theory or practice it has to be duplicated and verified. Jesus rumours can not be duplicated or verified, we even know some if not all were forgeries.

            You seem to have no idea how scientific progress happens while claiming to be “a research scientist”.

          • Anton

            Yes, accepted scientific results have to be duplicated, based on a single theory that is being tested. Then people read of the reports from different laboratories saying the same thing. That’s not so different from the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected and now his spirit is accessible to all humans, who report it from all over the world. It’s not material fact but the logic is identical, isn’t it? And rather better than a lot of your reasonings here, frankly.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “people read of the reports from different laboratories saying the same thing. That’s not so different from the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected”
            If you were familiar with science you would understand that these are completely different because of the foundation of that knowledge. In fact those are at the other end of the spectrum. Scientific method gives you the most reliable knowledge, religious stories are the least reliable speculations.

            The sad thing is that even you don’t believe what you advocate. You don’t believe written eyewitness reports of Mormon Golden Plates, or Allah’s miracles, or millions of living eyewitnesses of Sathya Sai Baba miracles, or millions of Ganesha miracle of 21 September 1995 eyewitnesses. I was in India 21 September 1995 when the whole country stopped. I talked to tens of people who gave me their testimony of that miracle. But you won’t believe any of those while advocating that these eyewitness reports are equal to scientific discoveries.

          • Anton

            I have written dozens of scientific papers; how about you?

            Scientific method gives you the most reliable knowledge, religious stories are the least reliable speculations.

            Scientific method gives good science. But WHY? That is the question you are carefully avoiding. Why is there order in the cosmos that man can comprehend? The laws of physics are real but they are not themselves material things; therefore real things exist that are not material. Why did science emerge in the only culture, out of dozens, to believe the Bible? How come cosmologists showed in the 20th century that the universe had a beginning – which secular scientists and pagans doubted – just as the opening line of Genesis says? 4000 years after God told us, man works it out for himself.

            Miracles is where science and religion clash: nowhere else. Some reports of miracles are false, some are true, and do bear in mind that the doing of miracles is not restricted to forces on God’s side.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Nobody who thinks that faith has something to do with science and think that value of personal revelation, testimony is same as scientific method has ever written a scientific paper.

            “But WHY?”
            But why people believe in “personal revelation” and “testimony”

            “Why is there order in the cosmos that man can comprehend?”
            No other option; evolutionary advantage

            “Why did science emerge in the only culture, out of dozens, to believe the Bible?”
            Well Muslims started 600 years late and managed to get a head of Christians by the year 1000. Christianity stopped science for over 900 years (the dark ages), so it can not take any credit for scientific advancements. And church fathers were against science.

            “How come cosmologists showed in the 20th century that the universe had a beginning – which secular scientists and pagans doubted – just as the opening line of Genesis says? 4000 years after God told us, man works it out for himself.”
            I think Richard Dawkins had the best response to this, but I’ll add to that OT creation story was copied from Mesopotamian creations story, so you should give them the credit.

            “Miracles is where science and religion clash: nowhere else.”
            LOL. Well that could be everything of course.

          • Anton

            Please prove that the OT creation story was copied from another, not vice-versa. (Especially in view of PJ Wiseman’s explanation of how Genesis got written.) Please also summarise Dawkins’ response to the agreement between Genesis and, 4000 years later, science, regarding the fact that the universe had a beginning.

            Evolution explains why man can see lions in grass, but does not explain why man can see beauty in the laws of physics. Nor why there is order in nature at all.

            So you think it is just coincidence that science got going in the only time and place where the culture took the Bible to be true? Pull the other one…

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Please prove”
            Remember you are a scientist. You know that proofs only exist in math, not historical investigations.

            I haven’t read PJ Wiseman, but he thought that Moses existed and “compiled Genesis from tablets handed down through Abraham and the other patriarchs” LOL. How about you read some non-Christian books like Enuma Elish.

            “Please also summarise Dawkins’ response to the agreement between Genesis”
            Dawkins paraphrased: There was two options; beginning or no beginning. If you guess that right it’s not very impressive. I would add that the Bible answer was even copied.

            “Evolution explains why man can see lions in grass, but does not explain why man can see beauty in the laws of physics”
            Why not?… and not sees beauty in the laws of physics.

            “Nor why there is order in nature at all.”
            Nothing to do with evolution, but maybe only universes with order sustain life.

            “So you think it is just coincidence that science got going in the only time and place where the culture took the Bible to be true?”
            Remember you are a scientist. You look repeatability. Science did not raise in Eastern Orthodox area where the culture took the Bible to be true. It did not raise in Ethiopia or Egypt where the culture took the Bible to be true. As a scientist you must conclude that an other factor(s) must be in play to explain science.

            Remember you are a scientist. Then you need to look at the timing. Did science raise when Christianity rose. Christians become powerful in the 4th century and science started to decline until the 13th century. As a scientist you must conclude that an other factor(s) must be in play to explain science.

            Nice try pushing your apologist agenda.

          • Anton

            OK, please demonstrate that the OT creation story was copied from another, not vice-versa.

            If “LOL” is your idea of a demonstration that Moses didn’t exist, I don’t have much to worry about.

            You are looking inside the institutionally Christian region (historically) and saying that science didn’t develop in some parts of it, only in one particular part of it (Western Europe). Certainly it is a valid question to ask why in Western Europe rather than in other parts of that region. But you are ducking my question about why in the Christianised region rather than in pagan India or China or other great pagan civilisations.

          • Jon Sorensen

            This is not really the place to show the OT creation story was copied from another. You can read books about Enuma Elish and compare those to Gen1.

            What? Do you really think Moses existing? What’s next? Soon you’ll claim Jesus existed too.

            “But you are ducking my question about why in the Christianised region rather than in pagan India or China or other great pagan civilisations.”
            I’m not ducking. I make two points to show it has nothing to do with Christianity, which your ignored. Galileo vs Christians highlight the anti-science attitudes…

          • Anton

            So, you refer me to books – not as backup, but as the response to my question. I suggest that you are unable to provide the summary of the argument which you say the books provide.

            Jesus and Moses not existing are as likely as Jon Sorensen not existing.

            I asked you why science emerged in an institutional Christian culture, not in any pagan culture. You point out that it emerged in only one part of this culture and ask why it emerged in that particular part of it. I am happy for readers to decide for themselves whether you are trying to avoid my original question by raising a different one.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You didn’t provided any details of PJ Wiseman arguments nor demonstrated how his view is right, but you get your knickers in a twist when I don’t provide the analysis from Enuma Elish.

            “I am happy for readers to decide for themselves whether you are trying to avoid my original question [re science emerging].”
            I answered you why Christianity had nothing to do with it except hindering science, but you just didn’t like the answer. You should have responded to my two points rather than incorrectly claiming that I avoided your claim.

          • Anton

            You didn’t ask me for any details of Wiseman’s argument. I’ll be glad to provide them if you do. But I DID ask you for details of Dawkins’ argument, and you failed to give any summary except one sentence to perfunctory to make much of.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “But I DID ask you for details of Dawkins’ argument, and you failed to
            give any summary except one sentence to perfunctory to make much of.”

            That was all he said in that TV interview. You keep on using “you failed” even I never did.

          • Anton

            TV interview? I thought it was a book. In any case it’s a truly lousy explanation, claiming it is mere coincidence that the Bible said there was a moment of creation and that time was not eternal backwards.

    • The Explorer

      Islam is saying it’s to do with Islam; Christianity is saying it’s to do with Islam.
      It’s the West’s political elites who want it to be nothing to do with Islam because they don’t want to admit they have created a problem by importing so many Muslims. So they say it’s to do with homophobia, drug abuse, mental instability or repressed homosexuality.

      • Jon Sorensen

        “Islam is saying it’s to do with Islam”
        Really? Which Imams blame Islam for this?

        • The Explorer

          Try Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar. That’s to say, he says Islam is responsible without saying Islam is to blame. Google him.

          • Jon Sorensen

            WUT? I googled and the first article says:
            Islamic cleric Farrokh Sekaleshfar leaves Australia after anti-gay comment controversy:
            A visiting Islamic cleric has defended his comments supporting the death penalty for homosexuals in certain cases before flying out of the country this evening.

          • The Explorer

            He also commented on the Orlando shootings by saying that the only way to save gays was to kill them. Murdering them was the compassionate thing to do.

          • Jon Sorensen

            They don’t take any blame – they take credit.
            Understand the difference.

          • The Explorer

            “3) Religions don’t take any blame and say this is “nothing to do with religion”
            You could say Islam was misinterpreted (because it lays itself open to misinterpretation) and that’s bad.
            You could say, Islam was correctly interpreted, and that’s good.
            Good or bad blame or credit, ISIS and the Sheikh are both claiming that the killings had to do with Islam.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “You could say Islam was misinterpreted (because it lays itself open to misinterpretation)”
            Just like any other religion…

          • The Explorer

            ISIS may have it all wrong, but if Islam didn’t exist they couldn’t misinterpret it.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Same could be said about Christianity and all other religions. So what?

          • The Explorer

            Absolutely. In which case, it cannot be said to be nothing to do with religion. Misinterpreting a religion is still to do with religion.

          • Jon Sorensen

            ” In which case, it cannot be said to be nothing to do with religion.”
            Nonsense. That’s what religious people say all the time. They seem to be able to do that.

          • The Explorer

            In this instance, the people responsible for importing Muslims into the West would like the killings to be the result of Christianity and not the result of Islam. So they both do and don’t want the Orlando tragedy to be connected with religion.

    • magnolia

      You fail to subdivide the word “religion”. This is a massive error. Why do you regard them as homogenous when they are anything but….?

      Categorisation error…beep beep…. Reorder dalek…..

      • David

        Hilarious !
        But I doubt whether training in Logic or Philosophy is his thing.

      • Jon Sorensen

        Didn’t your God gave absolute moral order in Leviticus 20:13:
        “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both
        of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death;
        their blood will be on their own heads”
        Or is that law relative to place, time and people?

        You perfectly demonstrated my point:
        3) Religions don’t take any blame and say this is “nothing to do with religion”
        Thanks!

        • Merchantman

          Jon.
          If you read Romans you will see that the Law (Judaic) is more nuanced and modified by believing in Jesus. Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. He said he didn’t come to condemn but to Save.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You avoided my moral relativist point
            And you avoided to say what Jesus said:
            “”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;”
            Bible does not say Jesus “modified” the law. Christians don’t believe Ten Commandments are not valid any more.

            Be honest now.

        • magnolia

          Religions of the world include at least:
          Babism
          Bahai faith
          Buddhism
          C

          • Jon Sorensen

            Thanks for letting me know

          • Dreadnaught

            Scientology! Hahahahaha

          • magnolia

            Agreed! But it has its adherents. Quite a number of beliefs have elements of startling peculiarity!

            Any list is difficult. What is a Christian or Islamic heresy and what is a new religious form, for instance? Where would one put JWs in that?

        • pobjoy

          is that law relative to place, time and people?

          Yes. The commands of Moses to Israelites were only for Israel, from the time of Moses until the moment Jesus died on the cross. But they applied in full, throughout that time; so the spurious story about the woman caught in adultery is nonsensical, because Jesus said that not the tiniest part of Mosaic Law could be removed, until he was crucified. Had he refused to be crucified, the Law of Moses would still apply. More seriously, natural law would condemn everyone, because there would be no salve for conscience.

          After that crucifixion, not one shred of Mosaic Law remained; the Ten Commandments included. What remains is what Abraham obeyed, less circumcision: natural law— that is, do as you would be done by. So that does not mean that murder and theft are now okay. They were accounted sinful before Moses. The same goes for child sacrifice, bestiality and homosexuality.

          (All this of course relates to the totality of Christian theology, that one
          may totally reject; but the widespread very poor understanding of that theology leads to needless confusion.)

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Jesus said that not the tiniest part of Mosaic Law could be removed, until he was crucified.”
            Yet another Christian lie. Jesus did not say that and you know it.

            Jesus said:
            “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

            Heaven and earth have not disappeared and Jesus will come back during end times and will accomplish more.

            Your “Christian theology” is not based on Bible

          • pobjoy

            How amateur, or malicious.

            There are two occurrences of ‘until’ in this statement, referring to different conditions and parameters. The first referred to well-known Scripture that said that the heavens and earth would disappear before divine utterance would alter, so Israelites need not hold their breaths in case of a divine change of mind. Jesus gave a reminder to the Jews of this, and his statement therefore showed them that his predicted crucifixion was of cosmic significance that went beyond any physical manifestation, anywhere. He confirmed this to them on the cross when he cried out, “It is finished!” There is nothing more for Jesus to do other than judge humanity according to its response to atonement, ‘payment’ for all sins, past, present and future.

            That Christians understood this to be so is shown many, many times in the NT: for instance, ‘You do not live under law, but under God’s grace’ Ro 6:14. That grace is the undeserved benefit of deity accounting sins null and void, on condition of faith in him. This was the benefit of Abraham, justified by faith in that same atonement, that lay in the future; Abraham, who lived long before Moses and Law.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I point out that you purposly misquoted your holy book and your response was:
            “How amateur, or malicious.”
            How telling that is about your Christianity.

            You said “There is nothing more for Jesus to do other than judge humanity according to its response to atonement, ‘payment’ for all sins, past, present and future.”

            Again not true. Jesus said:
            “”Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
            So Jesus will come back to accomplish more

            As you said “here is nothing more for Jesus to do other than… ” Agreed. Job not done.

            “Scripture that said that the heavens and earth would disappear before divine utterance would alter”
            Exactly. But earth has not disappeared yet. So law stand as Jesus said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets”

          • pobjoy

            Jesus said: “”Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

            That referred to the transfiguration just six days later.

            So law stand as Jesus said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets”

            Don’t stop there.

            “… I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.”

            It is precisely because Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, and the Law of Moses, as well as natural law, that he fulfilled those laws, because he obeyed them. So his righteousness is imputed to Abraham, Jacob, all the others mentioned in Hebrews 11, and all the saints since Jesus accomplished ‘everything’ by atoning for their sins. The Law of Moses no longer applies, to anyone, anywhere. Natural law applies to everyone, and those who lack the righteousness imputed by faith when they die or when Jesus returns will have guilty consciences that will condemn them for eternity. It’s ineluctable. This life will seem like ten minutes; and for many, it will seem like happiness, even bliss, thrown away for ten minutes of folly.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “That referred to the transfiguration just six days later.”
            That is not what the text or scholars say about it. What kind of prophesy would be to say that in “six days” “some who are standing here will not taste death”. LOL Surely God can do better predictions.

            “I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them”
            So you read that he abolished them. LOL.

            You said:
            “Jesus accomplished ‘everything’ by atoning for their sins”
            but Jesus said he will come back during end times… and that will not accomplish anything? Really?

            The mental gymnastic you have to make for your positions is the best advertisement for non-Christianity.

          • pobjoy

            So we are to believe the Bible when a homosexual says that Jesus made a false statement, but to ignore the Bible when a homosexual says that Jesus was transfigured? Does one have to be a registered idiot to believe ‘blissful’ homosexuals? They do pick and choose, don’t they. 🙂

            ‘Jesus went on to say, “I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power!” So six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up a high mountain to be alone. As the men watched, Jesus’ appearance was transformed, and his clothes shone whiter than any bleach could make them.’ Mk 9:1-4

            So you read that he abolished them.

            Which he did, which is what the gospel of Christ depends on. He was speaking about doing good works, works of faith, not works of duty, that the Law had failed to produce, as most of the OT, and the awful plight of contemporary Jews, demonstrated beyond a peradventure.

            But wicked believers in Jesus would have Christians return to legality, because it is ineffective. Then they can carry on sodomising without guilt feelings caused by Christians. But Christians are children of Abraham, who knew no Mosaic Law, though he witnessed the destruction of Sodom. Gang warily.

          • Jon Sorensen

            why does it matter if the person who says it is “a homosexual”. I smell bigotry… “Then they can carry on sodomising without guilt feelings caused by Christians.” Yes, I know it. Christian hate…

            Why would homosexuals pick and choose more that any other Christians. Half of the Christians are remarried or living together without a marriage.

            “‘Jesus went on to say, “I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power!” So six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up a high mountain to be alone”
            So who died during those six days?

            Christians never sees to amaze me. When Jesus said “I have not come to abolish the Law” the come to the conclusion “Jesus come to abolish the Laws”. Such is a religious mind.

          • pobjoy

            why does it matter if the person who says it is “a homosexual”.

            Because homosexuals have an interest in dissuasion of use of the Bible.

            Half of the Christians are remarried or living together without a marriage.

            If they are actually Christians, why this bother about homosexuality?

            So who died during those six days?

            Not many. The imminence of salvation was the point. It was in ‘six days’ that God created the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh. This showed to the three men a divine principle of action, after which, ‘It is finished!”

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Because homosexuals have an interest in dissuasion of use of the Bible.”
            And Christians like you don’t? Why the hate?

            “If they are actually Christians, why this bother about homosexuality?”
            Because equal right for all humans

            “So who died during those six days?” – “Not many. The imminence of salvation was the point.”
            The worst prophecy ever. Jesus couldn’t predict the next six day’s deaths. Funny.

          • pobjoy

            Why would Christians have an interest in dissuasion of use of the Bible?

            Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, before Moses, by Moses, and after the Mosaic dispensation. Homosexuals have lied about this over the last half century or so. The evidence is that they believe that the Bible is important enough to oppose; it may be that homosexuality is not actually their interest, but opposition to the gospel message is.

            People hate only because they hate themselves. They hate themselves because they know, or believe, that they cannot deal with the truth. People will feign incomprehension, twist the truth, or flatly contradict the truth, rather than face it.

            Because equal right for all humans

            Apparently not. If is it true, as you stated, that Christians are remarried or living together without a marriage, why are homosexuals who claim to be Christians not accepted as Christians? Or is the poster deliberately representing non-Christians as Christians in order to fool Christians into accepting homosexuals as Christians?

            Funny.

            People will feign incomprehension, twist the truth, or flatly contradict the truth, rather than face it.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “it may be that homosexuality is not actually their interest, but opposition to the gospel message is.”
            Nonsense. Christians have attacked gays 1700 years and now that there is a pushback Christians complain that it is about gospel. You have no idea.

            “[Homosexuals] hate themselves because they know, or believe, that they cannot deal with the truth.”
            Another Christian lie

            “If is it true, as you stated, that Christians are remarried or living together without a marriage, why are homosexuals who claim to be Christians not accepted as Christians”
            Some homosexuals claim it some don’t. All Christians are sinner, being gay seems to be a special sin for most Christians.

            “People will feign incomprehension, twist the truth, or flatly contradict the truth, rather than face it.”
            So true. Learn the truth about gays.

          • pobjoy

            Christians have attacked gays 1700 years

            False Christians (generally represented as Establishment religion) have prohibited homosexuality and other activities (usually outward matters such as sexuality) in order to give credence to their claim. So imposed legalism, that the NT condemns, displaced the inner motivation that the gospel provides.

            now that there is a pushback

            There can be no pushback; there is merely a change of tactic by antichrists. For reasons nothing much to do with homosexuality, false Christianity lost credence, a secular decline, after WW1. After WW2, while over 50% of British people were still churchgoers, established churches became liberal, rather than legalistic. So the restrictions originally imposed by the Roman Empire were played down, and adultery, homosexuality and a generally lax attitude to offensive behaviours were not only accepted, they were encouraged. So Anglicans, for instance, found themselves with homosexual vicars, and there was nothing that they could do about it. This had the effect of repelling or turning away more attendees than it attracted, and the decline in attendance actually increased to its present low level. Which may have been the original idea; maybe not.

            Jon Sorensen says that homosexuals hate themselves because they know, or believe, that they cannot deal with the truth. This is actually what the Bible says, and it therefore tends to support the comment that homosexuality is not actually the interest of homosexuals, but opposition to the gospel message is. It is apparently confirmed by the apparent evasion by Sorensen of this question:

            If is it true, as you stated, that Christians are remarried or living together without a marriage, why are homosexuals who claim to be Christians not accepted as Christians also?

            Some homosexuals claim it some don’t.

            Indeed. Many have expressed wonder that any homosexual would claim to be Christian. Most homosexuals have the sense to realise that this claim is absurd. So why do others claim to be Christians? Presumably, because homosexuality is not actually the prime interest of these homosexuals, but opposition to the gospel message is, as seems to be the case with Sorensen. And that absurd reaction is predicated on a firm belief that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. If a homosexual can be accepted, then there is not one line of the Bible that is necessarily true.

            being gay seems to be a special sin for most Christians

            Homosexuality is as permissible in the church as violence, adultery, theft, slave-taking, drunkenness and avarice. Not at all. Although Jesus did say that the men of Sodom would stand up at the judgement to condemn those who reject Jesus. Learn the truth about some homosexuals.

            So what does Jon Sorensen believe will become of Jon Sorensen? What will happen to those who not only reject Jesus, but lie about him, and his church?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “False Christians”
            True Scotsmen?

            “change of tactic by antichrists”
            antichrists? You are so Christianity centric

            You said:
            “Jon Sorensen says that homosexuals hate themselves because they know, or believe, that they cannot deal with the truth.”
            I didn’t sayd that. You did.

            “This is actually what the Bible says”
            Yes, but the Bible is clearly wrong

            “but opposition to the gospel message is”
            They want equal rights. If Gospel against it then we need to be against the Gospel message

            “And that absurd reaction is predicated on a firm belief that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. If a homosexual can be accepted as a Christian, then there is not one line of the Bible that is necessarily true.”
            Agreed. There is not one line of the Bible that is necessarily true.

            “Although Jesus did say… Learn the truth about some homosexuals.”
            Well Jesus was clearly wrong about gays. People 2000 years ago did not understand homosexuality like we do today.”

            “What will happen to those who not only reject Jesus, but lie about him, and his church?”
            Those who reject Jesus can become better people. They don’t need to discriminate against gay, women or people from other religions or denomination. They have a chance to become better people using better moral principles, and build more equal and prosperous societies.

          • pobjoy

            They want equal rights.

            They?

          • Jon Sorensen

            yes

          • pobjoy

            Ah.

    • The Explorer

      1) Religions push the agenda against LGBT people.
      In 1999 or thereabouts, there was a spate of nail bombings of gay pubs. The perpetrator was not a Christian or a Muslim. He was just someone ultra macho who didn’t like gays.

      • Dreadnaught

        But he didn’t have a holy book commanding the throwing gays off buildings either.

        • The Explorer

          Quite true. I’m simply pointing out that the statement ought to read as follows:
          1) Some religions, some Darwinists such as the Nazis, and some macho types who don’t like gays push the agenda against LGBT people.

          • Dreadnaught

            You know as well as anyone the Koran is a steal on the Bible as the Bible is on the Torah – you are all shaved from the same schtick.

          • The Explorer

            Absolutely: the monotheistic religions all oppose homosexuality. But I don’t know if the same can be said for Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto etc. Hence my statement:

            1) Some religions, some Darwinists such as the Nazis, and some macho types who don’t like gays push the agenda against LGBT people.

          • Dreadnaught

            Persecution of a minority was always a convenient catalyst for rousing the mob. The Nazis – Darwinists? – You’ve lost the plot ol bean; they were hell bent on world domination and their distortion of ‘survival of the fittest’ had nothing to do with the gentle scientist Darwin.

          • The Explorer

            The queer bashers of the 70’s were out-and-out heathens who had come from the local pub, not from the local church youth club.
            Jon’s point seems to be that if you could remove religion (by which he means the monotheistic religions) then hostility to LGBT’s would cease.
            My point is that it would continue, because monotheistic religion is only one cause of the hostility. Ask the queer bashers for their motivation and God would not have featured in the explanation.

          • Dreadnaught

            And queer bashing stepped up when homosexuality was removed from the statute book in the late sixties.
            And British Xtians were up in arms about its decriminalisation.
            What sort of religion is anything other than a man-made control tool?

          • The Explorer

            Are you saying the queer bashers were controlled by the Christians?
            How about they couldn’t care less what the Christians thought, but they did fell the Law had made an error and they ought to take things into their own hands?

          • Dreadnaught

            How about Christians couldn’t care less about queer bashing.

          • The Explorer

            We’re going round in circles. My point is that the queer-bashing instinct can exist independently of religious influence.

          • Dreadnaught

            Its not instinctive in me as it must be in you – now your back to Darwin again.

          • The Explorer

            Do we all have to have the same instincts? Mozart’s musical ability seemed instinctive. I certainly don’t have that.

          • Dreadnaught

            Instinct is directly attached to type otherwise it can’t be an instinct.

          • The Explorer

            Let’s substitute ‘impetus’ or ‘impulse’ or ‘tendency’ or ‘proclivity’ or ‘prejudice’ then in the original statement. Take your pick.

          • Dreadnaught

            Rather aggressive violent behaviour against the ‘other’ is more the point. No logic no reason – just like the Russian Ultras in France right now.

          • The Explorer

            Surely the Russians are picking their targets, and there’s a logic to that?

          • Dreadnaught

            Have you taken your tablets today?

          • The Explorer

            I wouldn’t be alive for long if I didn’t.

          • Dreadnaught

            me too. 🙂

          • IrishNeanderthal

            If you followed Dairmaid MacCulloch’s series on “Sex and the Church”, you would have learned that the C of E bishops were foremost among those arguing for decriminalization.

            Moreover, Henry Labouchere, who proposed the amendment under which Alan Turing was convicted, was an agnostic.

          • Dreadnaught

            I thought it was Leo Abse.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            I suspect what MacCulloch was referring to was its passage through the Lords.

          • Shadrach Fire

            I would not believe anything Dairmaid MacCulloch said about anything without first doing my own extensive research.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Darwin was certainly a gentleman, but he did go along with his times in his views about “superiority” and “inferiority”.

            When it comes to matters concerning race, Alfred Russel Wallace was the much better guy, and he is still held in high regard in Indonesia.

            It was Herbert Spencer, though, who came up with term “survival of the fittest”. Wallace urged it on Darwin, but probably had no idea it would be applied to human population.

          • sarky

            “Christians generally have the view that the New Covenant supersedes (i.e., replaces) the Old Testament’s ritual laws, which includes many of the rules in Leviticus. Christians therefore have usually not observed Leviticus’ rules regarding diet, purity, and agriculture”

            Funny how the new covenant doesn’t extend to homosexuality isn’t it?

            Smacks of overt discrimination to me.

          • The Explorer

            You’re blurring the difference between ceremonial law and moral law. The new covenant doesn’t say, for instance, that you may now murder, commit adultery, lie or steal Those moral prohibitions remain in place.

          • sarky

            The fact that you can differentiate and also take a pick and mix approach says it all really.

          • The Explorer

            How does it say it all?

          • sarky

            That it’s a man made construct that can be interpreted to push different agendas.

          • The Explorer

            What was the source of the quotation, by the way?

          • sarky

            Not sure exactly, just found it on Google.

          • Anton

            Some laws govern interpersonal relations, some govern relations between a person and the State. That was true then and now and I’m sure you understand that the distinction is not arbitrary.

          • Dreadnaught

            So now you are a murdering Muslim’s apologist.
            When Mose came town with his tablets, he mentioned idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, dishonesty, and coveting – not a lot about homos.

          • The Explorer

            “So now you are a murdering Muslim’s apologist.” No. The New Testament does not demand the killing of gays. Paul in ‘Romans’ suggests leaving them alone. The consequences of their actions will follow. Muhammad started off quite genial towards gays – flogging and exile – and only later hardened it into stoning them. The hadiths are the sources for the rough stuff. But I am under no compulsion to accept anything Muhammad said about anything: whether in the Qur’an or in the hadiths.

            The Ten Commandments are just a summary: the detail is given in ‘Leviticus’ and ‘Deuteronomy’. Thus ‘adultery’ is a blanket term for sexual sin. In ‘Leviticus’ it is seen to cover adultery, fornication, sodmy and bestiality. Proabably other things too; I don’t remember.

      • Jon Sorensen

        So other people do that too. So what’s your point?

        • The Explorer

          I’m simply pointing out that the statement ought to read as follows:

          1) Some religions, some Darwinists such as the Nazis, and some macho types who don’t like gays push the agenda against LGBT people.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Nazis were not Darwinists. Typical Christian lie.
            “The 1935 edition of the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, Die Bücherei, contains a list of banned books. One of the entries in this edition of Die Bücherei is “Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)”

          • The Explorer

            If you want to get technical, Darwin as filtered through Nietzsche’s view of the superman who would evolve through struggle.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Darwin as filtered through Nietzsche’s view of the superman who would evolve through struggle”

            Yet another Christian lie. Theory of evolution what Darwin proposed has nothing to do with “the superman who would evolve through struggle”

            “We know Hitler was always consistent. We know the Battle of Stalingrad never really happened because Hitler never really invaded Russia because he made a peace pact with Stalin”

            Are you trying to hide your lies with this fake nonsense? Somehow Hitler banning evolution books is liked him not being consistent and somehow he still supported Darwin. How desperate Christians are…

          • The Explorer

            Darwin didn’t say it. Nietzsche evolved it from Darwin. Hitler evolved it further from Nietzsche in ways neither Nietzsche nor Darwin intended.
            I repeat my question. Hitler made a peace pact with Stalin; so how could Hitler have invaded Russia?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Yet another Christians lie. Nietzsche was not a biologist and his writing has nothing to do with evolution. But somehow you try to link Darwin’s ideas to Nazis. Let me make it clear again. Hitler banned Darwin’s work.

            Do you admit that your statement
            “some Darwinists such as the Nazis”
            is a lie?

          • The Explorer

            1. Look at ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’ for the doctrine of thee merging superman. Agreed, it’s a philosophical rather than biological take on evolution.
            2. When the T4 euthanasia programme were asked for their inspiration, they said ‘Darwin’. They may have been wrong, but they saw themselves as Darwinists drawing their inspiration from ‘The Descent of Man’.
            3. What Hitler said to German crowds was not the same as what is recorded in ‘Table Talk’. Nazi words did not necessarily match actions, and what was said at one time might not have been said at another time. No single statement made by Hitler can be said to have validity. It must be seen in terms of other statements as well.

          • CliveM
          • The Explorer

            Thank you. Weikart’s vey good. I have his book ‘From Darwin to Hitler’. I think what Jon and I are arguing about is the view that because Hitler did or said something, that must be reliable. Whereas Hitler said one thing and did another, or said different things to different audiences.
            As I tried to point out to Jon, if Hitler had been consistent he would have made a peace pact with Stalin and kept away from Russia. Instead of which, he made a peace pact and then attacked. You cannot infer subsequent actions just from the peace pact.

          • CliveM

            With Jon, whatever you think you’re arguing about will ‘evolve ‘ as each point is addressed. Words and phrases don’t have a fixed meaning. They mean what they need to mean at any stage.

            I was curious as to his comment that “Nazis were not Darwinists. typical Christian lie”. It is clear that many Nazis where as this paper shows. But no doubt he’ll hide the ambiguity of his statement.

          • The Explorer

            Jon is quite right that there was a list of banned books in 1935. But what was banned was Haeckel’s version of Darwin, rather than Darwin himself.

            Also banned in a separate category were anti-Christian books. That does not mean (as some take it to mean) that Hitler was a Christian. It means that Hitler was a good politician and wanted to allay the misgivings of the Christians in the German population.

          • Jon Sorensen

            1) “Look at ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’ for the doctrine”
            Doctrine? Really? This is just someone’s opinion. Not a doctrine. Nothing to do with Darwin.

            2) So what. They incorrectly understood Darwin. Nothing to do with “Darwinism”. Inquisition was inspired by Jesus. So what?

            3) Do Christians still propagate ‘Table Talk’ lies? As if Christian ‘Table Talk’ somehow had the truth. Christians tell me always to read the original source unless they don’t like it. Then they ask me to read their 4th had interpretation book. Just read Mein Kampf. It matches his action and he even named his heroes in the book and talk about your God.

          • The Explorer

            “Doctrine? Really? This is just someone’s opinion.” Of course. Everything, according to Nietzsche, is just someone’s opinion. The opinion which prevails is determined by success in war.

          • Jon Sorensen

            If it is just and option why do call it doctrine?

            I see you dodged 2) and 3)…

          • The Explorer

            Why not? They’re just opinions, and I’m being a good Nietzschean.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I’m being a good Nietzschean”
            You need to fake to make your Christian point?

          • The Explorer

            No, but the discussion was going nowhere, and flippancy seemed as good a way as any to round it off.

    • Anton

      Suits you to lump religions together, doesn’t it? But secular humanism is a faith as much as theistic faiths are.

      • Jon Sorensen

        “Suits you to lump religions together, doesn’t it?”
        Don’t their holy text and leader share the view of LGBT people?

        • Anton

          I don’t yet understand the question. Which holy texts and leaders and what view, please?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Of course you know which holy texts.

          • Anton

            You want me to pose the question for you and then answer it myself while you make yourself coffee?

        • len

          We seem to have atheists making pronouncements on scripture on this blog(often) who seem to know little or nothing about scripture?.And their world view about Christianity is based on error at best and ignorance at worst.

          ‘Don’t their holy text and leader share the view of LGBT people?’

          Lets take Islam and Christianity.Islam has no saviour, there is no redemption , only a slim chance of getting saved on a whim of Allah, and a possibility of going to paradise if you are able to murder some people.Who would fall for a religion like that?.Islam cannot change it remains locked in the time of its founder Mohammed.

          Christianity had harsh laws to restrain evil until the time of Christ….
          After Christ ……Grace ….God no longer Judges sin, we judge ourselves in the way we respond to Christ….we are accountable for our actions…

          So to ‘lump all religions together’ is to show total lack of knowledge of Biblical Christianity and I am surprised anyone would base their worldview on such a lack of knowledge?.

          • DanJ0

            I thought it was a weighing of one’s good and bad deeds that got one into Islamic heaven or not?

          • len

            Partly but what are’ good deeds’ in Islam ? killing an infidel is supposed to guarantee Islamic salvation.

          • Dreadnaught

            So by that reasoning no one can question Islam except Muslims and that’s how they get away with murder.

          • len

            Not quite sure how you got there Dreadnaught?

          • Jon Sorensen

            As a typical Christians you avoid the straight question. So just answer the question: Does Quran and Bible state that homosexuals need to be killed?

            It’s a simple question. I can even give you the verses if you are not sure.

          • len

            As an atheist you cherry pick verses of scripture to back your claim .You answer my question… does Jesus Christ advocate murder?

    • Inspector General

      What a dupe you are, working towards gaying the world on their behalf. You’re not even in their pay, it’s voluntary work from you. Don’t you think their extremism has gone far enough? Take blood. We now have to suffer homosexual men’s dodgy stuff in the blood bank. That’s reassuring to know, isn’t it! And their diseases – you don’t just think it’s HIV do you? There’s a whole crowd of them…from Conservapedia…
      ———————–
      The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming: (Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.)
      Anal Cancer
      Chlamydia trachomatis
      Cryptosporidium
      Giardia lamblia
      Herpes simplex virus
      Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
      Human papilloma virus
      Isospora belli
      Microsporidia
      Gonorrhea
      Viral hepatitis types B & C
      Syphilis
      ——————
      Passed on to other gay men, young and old, through promiscuity and infidelity. STDs like herpes and HIV cannot be cured. Anal cancer is a killer. Also, there is a related article on that site for Gay bowel syndrome: “The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include condyloma acuminata, hemorrhoids, nonspecific proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, amebiasis, benign polyps, viral hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, shigellosis, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum.[8]”. Another article is on Homosexuality and Parasites. And let’s not forget Rectal Prolapse. Small wonder Linus is how he is. Happy reading…

      • The Explorer

        I once made a similar sort of post, though far less detailed, on an American website. My post was subjected to moderation, and then deleted. I was not, however, given a warning: acknowledgement that the information was quite accurate, but simply unsayable.

        • Eustace

          Did you also list all of the diseases transmissible or otherwise caused or aggravated by heterosexual sex? Did you point out that up to a third of heterosexual women suffer from vaginal prolapse, a direct consequence of vaginal intercourse? Did you mention uterine fibroids, thrush, vaginosis, yeast infections, cervical cancer, trichomoniasis and incontinence? What about vaginally transmitted gonorrhea, syphilis and HIV?

          Of course you didn’t. All you’re interested in is justifying your homophobia. If you had to admit that sex between men and women is every bit as dangerous as sex between men, and that virtually any condition a man can catch by having anal sex with another man, he can also catch by having anal sex with a woman, even his own wife (remembering that the Bible does not ban anal sex – it doesn’t even mention it), then your entire rationale for disapproving of gay sex collapses like a house of cards.

          Selecting only those data that favour your predetermined conclusions and wilfully dissimulating those that do not is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s also a Christian sin. Bearing false and misleading witness against your neighbour won’t earn you any Brownie points in heaven (in the unlikely eventuality that such a place exists). It also makes those you target with your lies and half-truths view you with contempt and derision. A true Christian, a liar and a slanderer: how can anyone tell the difference?

          • The Explorer

            We’ve had this discussion before: although when we did you might have been Findarato. I’m not going through it all again. I’d refer you back to the relevant thread if you hadn’t deleted the conversation.

          • Inspector General

            Of interest is that the Christian couple would not be subject to much of your list. It’s called fidelity. Not a word you or your boyfriend would be familiar with, of course…

          • Eustace

            Not so. Many of the conditions that can be contracted from anal sex have nothing to do with fidelity. Contact with fecal matter carries risks whether you’re gay, straight, faithful or unfaithful.

            And yet the Bible quite categorically does not forbid husbands and wives from engaging in anal sex.

            Your imaginary God can’t hate anal sex if he’s happy for husbands and wives to do it.

          • Inspector General

            Good grief! Your obsession with anus sex verges on the disgusting! Good job the Inspector is a man of the world. Desist immediately, you fiend. Only perverts are interested in that filthy habit…

          • Anton

            Drunkenness is condemned in the Old Testament – which believers take to show God’s attitude – yet there is no legislation against it in the Law of Moses. God does not legislate against things that carry their own penalties.

          • The Explorer

            He does tell husbands and wives to be fruitful and multiply. That does suggest which sexual method is His preference for the human race.

          • Cressida de Nova

            The Bible does not forbid husbands and wives engaging in sex through their ears or nostrils either…your argument is pathetic in your attempt to justify a dangerous perversion. The anus is designed for the evacuation of faeces. The reason the French are so obsessed with keeping the anus clean by use of the bidet ,enlightened, that areas faecal must in no way contaminate genitalia. A French person would understand that. Anal sex is a perversion. BTW women who have children before the age of 25 rarely suffer from vaginal prolapse.

          • Eustace

            I repeat: there is not a single condemnation of anal sex in the Bible. Apparently you’re more moral than your own God.

            Why am I not surprised?

            A penis can’t penetrate a nostril or an ear. It can and does penetrate a mouth and an anus, procuring a great deal of pleasure for both parties involved as it does so. They will of course weigh the pros and cons of any harm that may occur (although it rarely does) just as a woman weighs the pros and cons of vaginal penetration, knowing that it risks damaging her health and perhaps even killing her.

            She may do this because she wants children. Or she may do it as an act of physical intimacy designed to maintain her pair bond. Either way, it serves a purpose, both of which are acknowledged by the Bible as legitimate.

            Marriage was ordained to provide man with a helpmeet and support, that the one might take comfort of the other, after all.

            What I find particularly cruel in the Catholic attitude to marriage is the cold and calculating condemnation of gay people to a lifetime of solitude and alienation. We’re not allowed a helpmeet, are we? We must face all the vicissitudes and hardships of life alone. We’re allowed no comfort in each other. All we’re allowed to do is repent and pray to God to make us just like you.

            There is no love and no mercy for gay people in your unforgiving creed. Just a lifetime of alienation and solitude followed by a remaking in YOUR image, because of course there will be no gay people in paradise, will there? No, we’ll all be carbon copies of you and your airbrushed profile photo. Bland, self-satisfied, pouting and ever so pleased with ourselves.

            And that is perhaps the truest vision of hell I can imagine…

          • Anton

            Heterosex between a faithful man and wife carries no risk of disease. Is that true of anal sex (even when the relationship is sexually exclusive)?

          • IanCad

            Really Eustace, any married man who would choose an anus over a vagina must be a complete sicko.

          • Eustace

            And still your imaginary God doesn’t condemn anal sex even once in his “word”. You may think it’s sick, but he clearly doesn’t, otherwise the practice would have been banned.

            If anal sex between a man and his wife is not condemned by God, there can be nothing intrinsically wrong with the act. If it were a sin it would be identified as such in the Bible.

            No, anal sex is only a sin when engaged in by two men. It can’t be because of the hygiene aspect because this is a danger for both men and women – in fact you could say it’s even more dangerous for women given the highly infectible nature of the vagina.

            If a man can bugger his wife but can’t bugger his boyfriend, the problem with buggery can have nothing to do with the act itself. If buggery were wrong per se, it would be a sin under all circumstances and for all people. The fact that it isn’t tells us something quite profound about the Christian concept of God.

            The Christian God is a homophobic bully who gets his kicks by watching gays suffer. He gives us the same desire as straights for love, sexual intimacy and marriage, but forbids us these things even though he acknowledges that it is not good for man to be alone.

            Marriage is also a remedy for passion. It is better to marry than to burn. But gays cannot marry, except to someone of the opposite sex who can be no use to us at all as a remedy for passion, therefore we have no alternative but to burn.

            And this is the God we’re told to think of as merciful and compassionate. This is the father the Church claims is so loving and good.

            Tell me though: if your father refused to let you marry for no reason other than it was his will that you remain single, and if he threatened to torture you for all time if you disobeyed him, while letting your brothers and sisters marry whoever they liked and praising them for it and doing his best to shower blessings on them, what would you think of such a father?

            Would you love him, or would you come to see him as a tyrannical and selfish despot who cared only for himself and his own desires and wishes? And what would you think of your married brothers and sisters who flaunted their good fortune and their father’s favour in your face while attacking you as a rebellious ingrate who should shut up and put up and never dare question your fate?

            Most of us would walk away from such a situation and repudiate the authority of such an appalling family. We’d try to find happiness and contentment elsewhere, knowing that however elusive these things might prove to be, whatever happened would be infinitely preferable to a life lived under the thumb of a cruel and sadistic father and vicious and spiteful siblings who treated you like dirt and forced you to live as a slave to their will and their expectations.

            If your God really does exist then of course my escape from him can only be a temporary respite. But as his plan for my life equates to the living hell of indentured servitude lived out in solitary confinement, my final destination is predetermined anyway. Salvation is only offered to those who love God, but how can you love a cruel tyrant who denies you everything he gives to everyone else, for no reason except that his will must be obeyed?

            As a Christian I might believe in God, but I couldn’t love him. How do you love your torturer? So I’d be just as condemned as any atheist. As an unbeliever I get to live out my life in the hope of finding some form of love and contentment. Christians will say that all I’m doing is postponing the inevitable and that God will a catch up with me in the end, but if all that God has to offer is hell and damnation, I’m better off avoiding him while I can.

            I’ve seen how gay Christians live. I’ve talked to the human flotsam that haunts websites like Living Out and the Side B forums of the US GCN site. Their misery is palpable and the thin and brittle layer of piety they hide it with fools nobody, least of all them. They’re already in hell. I see no reason why I should follow them there until I have no choice left in the matter.

          • pobjoy

            If a man can bugger his wife but can’t bugger his boyfriend, the problem with buggery can have nothing to do with the act itself.

            In view of the general hygiene laws of Israel, that’s not a safe conclusion to draw; it may taken as a law ‘too obvious to mention’.

            However, if the hygiene aspect is ignored, it’s high time that thought was given to the above.

          • The Explorer

            I repeat, “Be fruitful, and multiply.” You can only do that via one particular orifice.

          • Eustace

            Jesus wasn’t fruitful and didn’t multiply.

            The terrible sinner! He’ll go straight to hell for that, won’t he?

            But no … it’s one law for God and another for everyone else. That’s divine justice for you.

          • The Explorer

            Quite. It doesn’t mean you’ve got to have a kid every time you have sex (which won’t happen even if you want it to). But it does mean kids should be an outcome of marriage (unless something goes wrong, as happens in a fallen world) and which orifice to use in order to achieve this.

          • Inspector General

            You really ought to take note of how the greater number of gay Christians conduct themselves. Mindful that they are not involved in the creating of the subsequent generations of future Christians and knowing their place. NOT picketing churches wrapped in that paedo flag with unreasonable and damn odd demands.

            Just think. People will start to like you coming here…

          • Eustace

            That’s the key to your attitude, isn’t it? Hierarchy. With you at the top and the gays way down the pecking order, dutifully subservient, and letting themselves be bossed around by you.

            Come to think of it, you’re not married and don’t have children yourself, do you? That would count against you in the power stakes. On the other hand however, you’re not a woman and you say you’re not gay. So the big boys would probably let you play on their team, and for someone with your personality profile, that would be enough, wouldn’t it?

            Yes, the role of hanger on and tale bearer would suit you. Cut to your size, as it were.

          • Inspector General

            Hard to believe! You’ve almost said there is another way, other than your preferred. Need to think about this!

          • Eustace

            One can recognize what motivates an enemy and understand how he believes the world should work without subscribing to the same philosophy.

            The sort of top-down hierarchical, patriarchal system you pine for disappeared for good at the end of the First World War. Your choice of profile photo is very telling. You’re living more than a century too late.

          • Inspector General

            If you are going to enjoy a happy old age, you need to appreciate your view is just one of many, and that by its very nature being that of an aggrieved homosexual keyboard activist, is unlikely to be well received. Cope with it!

            In other words, “adapt or die”, most likely by your own hand unless you continue to annoy your boyfriend with your unhappy attitude to the extent that he does for you instead.

            Savvy?

          • Eustace

            Projecting your own fantasies onto my life tells me a lot about who you really are. This isn’t the first time you’ve mentioned violence against gays. It seems to be something you visualize regularly in that sick old head of yours. Now you even admit to dreaming about seeing us die.

            You need help. Persistent fantasizing about the violent death of others is a telltale sign of psychopathy.

          • Inspector General

            From Wiki deaths: 13th June 2016. One of yours…

            Fred Caruso, 41, American writer and director (The Big Gay Musical), suicide.[20]

            Early forties is a popular time for intensive gays to cash their chips in. By that age, the youthful looks they traded on in the past are fading. But they still crave the younger man’s flesh as ever. The number of rejections they get start mounting, and that really hurts especially if you were a previous shining light in the movement and at one time could pick and choose who to sodomise to your hearts content. So there you have it. Violence against gays is usually self-inflicted, unless you are killed by your own kind courtesy dating sites, or by understandably self-loathing types like Omar…The rest of us keep our distance. We have to – we could catch something off the likes of you with your devotion to other men’s anus’ of all things…

          • Royinsouthwest

            You overlook the fact that heterosexual sex has important biological functions, Home sexual sex does not.

        • Inspector General

          One of the chaps from school became a doctor and told your man here that medical training videos emanating from the USA often have parts of the female breast greyed out lest the entire thing be seen in whole…

      • IanCad

        Thank you for that documentation Inspector. A terrifying list of ailments that cannot but elicit sympathy for the misguided victims.
        It will also serve to enlighten Dreadnaught who, earlier in the thread, implied that health issues were of small import in the homo community.

      • Jon Sorensen

        Typical bigotry against minority… We should judge our society by how we treat the vulnerable and minorities.

        And of course you get your info from Conservapedia. Such a great source of truth (not). Where else would you get your confirmation bias? And so what if your special list would be true?

        If we find that heterosexuals/Christians have higher rate to disease X would you support banning heterosexuality/Christianity. Of course not. You just want to justify your own bigotry while not believing in your own argument.

        • Inspector General

          Sod minorities. They either come into and be part of mainstream society or they shut up and put up with their lot. No special considerations, you hear!

          Minorities are minorities for a very good reason it seems. Trying to take over a lot of the time, so they are. But we have hope. The more decent people know about conditions like Islam, and your indulged pet, militant sodomy, the more they will reject them for what they are. Unpleasantries and corruption. The stuff of enslaved and weak, deranged humanity. But that won’t stop your support as you are beyond reason in your obstinate and unreasonable judgements – to wit, genuine bigotry at its worst.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Interesting that you support the suppression and elimination of Christians in Islamic countries… Well Christians are becoming a minority in the UK. Let’s see how your tone will change once your are in a clear minority with all your privileges removed.

          • Inspector General

            Your arrival on this site was greeted with interest by this man here. What an ignorant despicable arse you turned out to be…

          • Jon Sorensen

            I guess I need to take as a badge of honour when a person advocating suppression of minorities and rejection of equal right calls you “an ignorant despicable arse”.

    • len

      ….Atheist kills a person…. atheists are murderers….

      • Jon Sorensen

        …if an atheist [holy?] text would encourage killing. But the opposite is true.

        Not believing in X doesn’t generally make you to do Y. Belief in something generally make you to act.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Do you have trouble in distinguishing between singular and plural forms of nouns?

      • Jon Sorensen

        Sure. But I have bigger problems than that.

        However it’s nice to see that the grammar policing it the most important comment you can make…

  • Inspector General

    Red faces all around then at Big Gay HQ. He was one of theirs. The professional LGBT world sympathy extracting team have been sent home…

    Never mind, lots of normal people have hissy fits too, though not quite to the same intensity as those drama queens can achieve, what!

    • DanJ0

      the jihadi who took it up the arse, you mean? as with the ‘underpants bomber’ whose name no-one remembers, that should be his moniker from now on.

      • The Explorer

        Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. One can’t blame people for struggling with the name. The Nigerian with the condom is much easier to remember.

      • Inspector General

        Rather think the anniversary of Orlando was all set to become the most important day in the militant LGBT calendar. You know the kind of thing. Pink wreathes at schools. That’s not going to happen now…

  • Royinsouthwest

    Not all Moslems are opposed to homosexual behaviour.

    U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies.
    New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0

    “KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

    “At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

    Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.”

  • Inspector General

    Just been over to PN. They’re all confused there. Visiting a gay bar 12 times and meeting queer types on phone apps designed for that purpose does not a gay muslim make they would have it…

    • CliveM

      There is another scenario that no one seems to be considering, since the revelation that the murderer is Gay. That is, the club wasn’t targeted because it’s a Gay Club, but was targeted because he knew that it would be busy, that because he was a known face, his arrival wouldn’t arouse suspicion and that he would get in without trouble and that finally he knew his way around. So he would be able to find his victims quickly and easily.
      It is possible that this isn’t a homophobic attack, merely Islamic terrorism after all.

      • Inspector General

        As the great Patrick Moore was wont to say, monocle intact, “We may never know”. In the meantime, lets see it as a gay on gay thing, which will deny organised buggery the opportunity to make capital out of it…

        • Oh, but the homosexualists will, Inspector. If he turns out to be homosexual then his crime will have been triggered by toxic homophobia in society and in religion. He was made to hate himself.

          Homosexuality needs affirmation otherwise in a ‘homophobic’ world homosexuals will experience acute problems. We need affirmation programs that make homosexuals comfortable with being homosexual and the rest of us comfortable with the concept of homosexuality. Once everyone accepts homosexuality as “normal” and “natural,” homosexuals will achieve high self-esteem and healthy lifestyles.

          • Inspector General

            Not so, Jack. Rather too complex that for the public at large. They’ll understand why he DIDN’T want to be homosexual. Who does!

          • GKStudent

            In other words, we must also be of the same mind and inclination just as the confused man?

      • I can believe this scenario, but how did he get the gun passed security unless it was an inside job.

      • Dreadnaught

        It was both; and having read about his father’s beliefs and ambition we know why he did it. As a ten year old so it is reported, he talked about killing non Muslim classmates and cheered on 9/11.

    • Jack’s been hearing the excuses too. Perhaps he was selecting a target. Perhaps he was self hating because of toxic homophobia. Perhaps …..

      • Pubcrawler

        Believe it or not, there are even some who claim he was a MOSSAD agent.

        • Uncle Brian

          That would be Ken Livingstone, I presume

          • Pubcrawler

            I’m not sure even he’s that much of an addlepate.

          • Cressida de Nova

            LOL

          • Pubcrawler

            Via Guido:

            Ken tells the Home Affairs committee he offered to buy dinner for anyone who can prove he’s wrong, but no one came forward. Keith Vaz replies:

            “It may be no one actually wants to have dinner with you.”

            (Keith Vaz says something admirable shocker!!!)

      • Perhaps he simply had mass murder of the kufar on his mind. Masquerading as a homosexual whilst hatching a cunning plan to kill them.

    • Royinsouthwest

      But surely Inspector people don’t think that this wouldn’t have happened if Christian bakers in this country had been willing to bake a cake with a slogan supporting gay “marriage”?

  • carl jacobs

    The silence is suddenly deafening.

    • chiefofsinners

      Eustace? Any comment?

  • Uncle Brian

    Clinton 49 percent, Trump 37 percent, according to a new Bloomberg poll released today. The poll was taken between Friday and Sunday, so partly before and partly after the Orlando massacre.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-14/bloomberg-politics-national-poll-june-2016?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/WhiteHouse/product

  • carl jacobs

    So a funny thing happened on the way to achieving another step forward in the Great Western Cultural Revolution. In preparation for purging a little bit more of what little residual of Christianity yet remains in Western culture, the Red Guard was gathering Christians into the public square for “self criticism,” public shaming, and ultimately banishment. Torches and clubs had been carefully prepared. The script had been written.

    But then the shooter turned out to be homosexual.

    Damn!

    Can we get the script writers on the phone? Please?

    • Carl, Carl, he was a troubled, conflicted and disturbed person. Why? Because he has been taught to hate himself by religion – Jewish, Christian and Muslim. Being raised in a toxic homophobic culture was responsible. Homosexuality needs positive affirmation otherwise in our ‘homophobic’ world homosexuals will continue to experience these acute problems. Homosexuals must be comfortable being homosexual and the rest of us must be comfortable accepting homosexuality. Once homosexuality is accepted as “normal” and “natural,” homosexuals will achieve high self-esteem and healthy lifestyles and we can all live in harmony. As a first step, all negative comments about homosexuality must stop forthwith.

      That’s correct isn’t it, Linus?

      • carl jacobs

        You are entirely too benign in your understanding. Report for further self-criticism.

      • Ivan M

        Eustace, is that you?

        • len

          Jack has been kidnapped tied to a chair and Eustace has control of Jacks keyboard?

          • Ivan M

            Linus has repeatedly claimed, that if only the prevailing culture were celebrating homosexuals, they would lead happy well-adjusted lives. A homosexual club is as celebratory as it gets. Nonetheless, the homosexual man, Omar could not find peace.

  • William Lewis

    It seems that the biggest danger to the LGBT community is its own members.

    • Anton

      That’s true of the entire human race according to the Bible!

      • William Lewis

        Truly. No group has the monopoly on sin.

  • DanJ0

    i see the holy spirit is clearly doing its rounds again in the comments section.

    • The Explorer

      ‘His’, not ‘its’.

      • DanJ0

        Write what you want when you write it. I’m happy with what I’ve written. It’s merely a concept to me. My comment is a quiet reminder that it ought not to be for most of the people here. I don’t have much to relate to with the victims but I’m aware that there are 49 bodies with gunshot wounds in the morgue, and persumably hundreds of people deep in their grief and mourning their loss, and many more victims in hospital whose lives changed dramatically that night. If Christianity were true then it should be the Holy Spirit reminding those Christians here who are borderline gleeful and self-righteous to remember their humanity and alleged godliness, not a mere a-theist with his feet firmly on the ground and a slightly disgusted look on his face.

        • The Explorer

          If you had invented the concept of the Holy Spirit, you could determine the nomenclature. As it is, you are constrained by the views of those who did reveal/invent the details.

          If the killer had been a Christian, or had fired on a church congregation, Christians would be involved. As it is, this is an issue between gays and Muslims, with Christians involved only as all non-gay, non-Muslim citizens are involved: concern about the breaking of the laws of the land.

          Of course, death is death and grief is grief, and grief ought to be respected.

          • DanJ0

            Thanks for the frank and honest response. It’s a grim task coming down here at times but it’s useful as I get to see how lots of Christians actually behave and think when they forget people are watching. Perhaps I ought to point that the victims were foetuses once.

        • IanCad

          DanJ0,
          I have learned over the years to pay attention to your posts. You are fair, open, and usually right.
          No Christian is gleeful. They are deeply sympathetic over the outrage.
          Of course the subject of life choices emerges, and consequently, criticism of the increasing power and influence of the LGBT community will be front and centre. There is no doubt in my mind that our children are being encouraged to chose their gender identity – if there is such a thing – at far too young an age, and the negatives of non traditional relationships have not had equal billing.

          • DanJ0

            It’s a very different topic but I don’t know what to make of gender identity issues, especially when they apply to children. All I can say is that it must be very difficult to know what to do as a parent if one’s child appears to have dysmorphia (if that is the correct term).

    • Royinsouthwest

      We are all sinners. I suppose, however, you approve of the general tone of Cranmer’s essay? Some of the more critical comments made here that you disapprove of were probably partly motivated by the attempts by some gays in the media to link what happened in Orlando to opposition to gay marriage etc.

      • The Explorer

        There are some who would like to blame the atrocity on Christianity. They are those non-Muslims who are desperate that it should have nothing to do with Islam. For otherwise they are guilty of importing a population at odds with Western values, and in Orlando is a vision of the future.

      • DanJ0

        The blog owner is a very good writer, and he often puts something for everyone in his articles, and there are occasionally subleties that can be easy to miss. I note that the tags include love and mercy. The overarching theme is of course biblical, as one would expect. I certainly don’t disapprove of the tone, and if I did then I’d recognise it’s his blog and that I’m a guest. As for some critical comments being responses, I also recognise that their tone may be set by ‘Eustace’ and his strange interactions. But that’s not really an enduring excuse for a Christian to my mind.

        • Royinsouthwest

          I agree with you. As I said in another comment this is not the time to debate the pros and cons of displaying a rainbow flag. The families and friends of those killed in Orlando would probably be saddened by some of the comments, including I suppose my own about homosexual rape in Afghanistan. However I made that comment just to point out the hypocrisy of some militant Muslim organisations.

          Donald Trump has been criticised for his rather tactless opportunism (nothing new there) in congratulating himself for his earlier call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration into the United States. I do think that some gay spokesmen and supporters have also been opportunistic in using the atrocity to tar everyone they are opposed to with the same brush.

          However I suppose this is not really the time to argue about such matters.

        • CliveM

          You have made some reasonable points in a reasonable manner.

          I’ve often thought this blogs comments section is like a rowdy bar debate, where some have had to much to drink. Unfortunately it sometimes leads to comments that are badly thought out and misplaced.

          God knows I’ve done it myself, got wound up, annoyed and responded in a manner I’ve regretted.

          It’s not an excuse though.

        • carl jacobs

          Almost the whole of the interchange on this thread was about a narrative based on a lie. The narrative was “Religion causes people to murder, so you are guilty of murder whether you have any association with this shooter or not.” I said this would happen in the first post I made on this thread. It’s a cynical and sinister use of the fifty dead bodies in Florida, and its purpose was to discredit and silence. One does not justify murder by saying “That behavior is morally wrong.” But that was the naked assertion being made.

          The pre-condition for that narrative was that the shooter act for religious motives. His prior history now calls that into question. And where are the accusers who are now walking back their accusations of guilt by proxy? They are still trying to rescue their narrative, because it was never about the dead in the first place. It was about the ends for which the dead could be used.

          It is not wrong to point out the hypocrisy and cynicism of those who self-consciously built their accusations upon blood. Neither is it gleeful celebration. They were quick to accuse, and quick to rub their hands with thoughts of “We’ve got them now.” But they are caught by a snare in their own trap.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      This comment makes me feel a bit edgy.

      First, though, I must throw the book at those people you are referring to:

      But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. (Luke 9:55)

      However, my edginess arises from

      but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. (Mark 3:29)

      though to put that into context the next verse says:

      for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

      “they” being the scribes who came down from Jerusalem.

      • DanJ0

        I’m an a-theist.

  • len

    Christians are so obviously to blame for this tragedy. Nero burned down Rome then looked around for a scapegoat for his madness and decided the Christians were a soft target so he blamed them .
    Radical Islam is responsible for countless deaths worldwide but lets go for the soft target and blame Christians because the alternative is too dangerous…

  • Uncle Brian

    Sitora Yusufly, who was briefly married to Omar Mateen in 2009, told the FBI he had “gay tendencies” and the FBI told her, in reply, that she mustn’t give that information to the media. This has emerged from an unexpected Brazilian source, one Marcio Dias, who is now living with Sitora in Colorado.

    So the question is, Why would the FBI do something like that? How would their investigation benefit from this little exercise in news management?

    http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/mundo/ex-mulher-disse-que-atirador-de-orlando-tinha-tendencias-gays

    • Ivan M

      More likely some nonsense from Ms Sitora and Dias.

  • len

    Lets get one fact straight because as I have mentioned elsewhere Jesus is a friend of sinners and He walks amongst gays today as he walked amongst sinners 2,000 yrs ago. Jesus totally identified with’ sinners’ on the Cross of Calvary when He took OUR sin upon Himself and paid the price once and for all.

    ‘For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.’ (John 3:17)

    We alone are responsible as to how we react to Jesus Christ, we accept salvation through Him or we reject him and are accountable for our own sin before God.
    We judge ourselves …..and are accountable for our actions….

  • Politically__Incorrect

    As the facts of this case emerge, it seems that much of the media has distorted the story in its knee-jerk response to the initial event. On the Monday after the tragedy, Jon Snow of C4 News was playing the “homophobia” card for all it is worth. To him , and those around him, this was a case of “Man hates gays. Man kills gays”. As the facts filter through we are getting a picture of a disturbed man, with homosexual tendencies, who frequented the club he attacked, approached gay men online, and was shunned by many of those men because he was “creepy”. The Islamic element starts to look peripheral, especially as he only declared his allegiance to ISIL actually during the shooting. What seems more likely is that he may have been having personal issues with the club members (he had been seen arguing with them on several occasions) and used his ISIL “allegiance” as a pretext for the attack. He hated his victims, but probably not because they are gay. Thus Jon Snow has been used by the LGBT community as their useful idiot to push the homophobia angle. He played right into their hands.

    • The Explorer

      If the killer had been a humanist, he could not have used humanism as a justification for his actions. The same would have applied had he been a Christian. But as a Muslim, he could use Islam as a justification. That’s the difference.

  • Inspector General

    I say, I say, I say!

    The club ‘Pulse’ was created by a lady named Barbara Poma. “She opened the club as a tribute to her gay brother who died of AIDS related illness”
    (PN article 15-06-16: Pulse owner promises to reopen club: ‘We will not let hate win’.)

    One presumes the name is a tribute to when said brother had a pulse…

    Time to remind all of disease rates for homosexuals. Discussed yesterday if you missed it. Posts passim. By the way, an Inspector wonders how many hides the brother himself infected and sent to an early grave after contracting the killer virus…the question needs to be asked, you know!

  • Trevor

    killing and persecution of gay people cannot be justified.
    but neither can the encouragement of an alternative lifestyle which is out of kilter with Christian principles.
    taking someone’s life because of their choice of partner is wrong.
    only God reserves the right to take away the lives of those who fall short of his standards.
    and in fact god only ends a life if the person(s) refuse to accept his reproof
    not because he hates gay people.
    the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they refused to accept god’s reproof.
    the same applies to people today who refuse to accept reproof and change accordingly.
    the 49 people who were killed in the pulse nightclub will be resurrected
    but the difference is they won’t come back into a country or world that encourages lifestyles which ignore gods standards.
    because the world will no longer be under the invisible control of Satan and the Demons.
    therefore there wont be any moral pollution or lifestyles which encourage people to put their own desires ahead of god.
    because the heart is where it begins.
    no one is born gay,
    rather it is a case of people developing desires which they know are wrong
    and rather than fight against the desires they give in and then strive to justify a lifestyle which they know is wrong
    hence gay pride marches and festivals.
    for good reason
    god tells us via the bible The heart is more treacherous than anything else.
    and if anyone doubts it
    think about the heart of Eve.
    at one time she saw the tree in the garden of Eden as something to be avoided
    if she valued the life given to her by god.
    but once Satan gave her reason to doubt god
    her heart began to desire the fruit and it lead to her eating it
    which cost her life and ours.
    think too about the approach to smoking in the past.
    it was openly promoted everywhere and sold everywhere
    and people were seduced by it…only to find it cost them their lives when they died from lung and throat cancer.
    one thing I have learned in my 49 years on earth
    is that humans need guidance
    but humans don’t like guidance
    especially now that we are spoiled by the sin of Adam and Eve.
    we inherited their tendency to put our hearts desire ahead of god.
    they did and lost their lives…but god sent his son on our behalf and now we all have an opportunity to become reconciled with our creator.
    but we cannot be reconciled with him if we allow our sinful desires to override the desire to please god.
    we cannot please god by eating turkey every December 25th
    or by eating chocolate eggs in April.
    that is the way we have been taught by irresponsible men and women who say with their mouths that they believe in god
    but they show by what they teach and practice
    that they dishonor god.
    and because they refuse to accept reproof they carry on misleading people in gods name while kidding themselves that they will receive the wages given to Jesus Christ.

  • Anton

    The Americans don’t mess about… getting in by demolishing the wall and then engaging the guy in a gun battle is a quick way to end it.