Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H
Gormley


THE GOD OF THE BIBLE FORCES THE PEOPLE TO KILL THOSE CAUGHT IN GAY LOVE MAKING


The Infallible Word Speaks!

Christians believe that God inspired the Bible and is so tough on certain sins because he has high standards.

The Old Testament, especially the Book of Leviticus, teaches that God commanded that certain sinners must be stoned to death without mercy. Christian belief is that God wrote the Bible as much as man did. Some go as far to say that God dictated even the words. But all agree that the Bible is infallible.


The talk of Old Testament and New Testament is only a practical one. In reality the Bible claims to be a simple testament. Jesus actually spends more time affirming the authority of the Old Testament than his own doctrine! There is no room for pretending he gave a licence to abandon and ignore the Old Testament.

Jesus claimed to have inspired the Old Testament. The Bible claims to have two authors, God wrote it as much as man did.

Christians use speculation not argumentation to show that we must not stone people today. That they have to use opinion in a matter so serious is itself telling. A truly good religion makes it fact that it is wrong to stone gay people or adulterers or whoever. Opinion is not enough. And today's opinion is yesterdays opinion tomorrow.

Hebrews 6:4-6 warns that it is impossible for some sinners to repent. The same idea recurs in the First Letter of John. The logic is that the sinners will not repent because they are being put to death which leaves it too late. If a sinner is dying in his bed then the Christian thinks God is taking his life as in death penalty and thus is endorsing the death penalty by proxy. Or did stonings to death still happen?

The Church

Pius XI, in his encyclical letter, Casti Connubii, stated that God detests deliberately sterile sex even between man and wife "with the deepest hatred and has sometimes punished it with death." He goes on to indicate his approval of how God put Onan to death for preventing conception. If contraceptive sex between a husband and wife is so bad imagine how bad gay sex must be! The letter logically proves that the Catholic faith even if it does not execute gay men does not think it is intrinsically bad to put them to death. Catholic teaching that a doctrine accepted as correct by the whole Church is necessarily infallible for God protects the church from error in such matters. The whole Church did accept the doctrine. It has only been met with dissent in more recent years.

Catholic teaching is that Jesus is still with us and teaches through the Church. So to reject the Church is to reject Jesus. The Church teaches that in a real sense, the Bible is Christ.

The New Penalties are not lighter

The New Testament says that penalties are worse under the New Testament not lighter.

"Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctifies him, and has insulted the spirit of grace? For we know God who said, "It is my job to avenge and I will repay!" - Hebrews 10.

The text will consider gays to be among those who reject the law. It has no sympathy for those who died. It implies that the law is from God for it cannot be an example of how God gets revenge unless it is from him.

The Law is said to be no longer obligatory for us in the sense that we want to obey it so it is no longer like a Law and in the sense that if we fail Jesus has obeyed the Law for us in our place so we are still counted as obeying the Law perfectly. The fact that we need Jesus to do some of the work for us indicates that the Law has his sanction as being fair and correct.

The Roman Church argues that God will punish all unrepented sin. But there are four sins which cry to God for vengeance - they try to provoke him. They are then necessarily sins of self-destruction. One of those sins is sodomy - having unnatural sex with another person. Sodomy most often refers to anal sex between gay men. What if the sin is not intentional? The Church says that if you do something forbidden without knowing it is evil, you do a grave evil yes but you are not intentionally evil or sinful thus you will not be punished. Evil results will follow but they are not punishment. Suppose the claims about sodomy are true. Suppose it is calling down evil and suffering - even when its not meant to provoke God. The sodomite cannot say he doesn't intend to do evil. It would follow that the sin is always intentional. The gossip may tell herself that her evil is unintentional but she is aware of the consequences of her chatter so she cannot expect us to think she is not intentionally evil.

The New Testament promises hellfire to those who die in unforgiven homosexual sin. Any rational person would prefer to be stoned than tormented forever!

The excuses for not stoning

The Christian cannot give you a single text that shows that the command to stone is done away. The door is opened for stonings to resume.

They give nonsensical reasons for why the law does not apply any more. Thus they are still to blame if somebody sees through them and then starts stoning.

The Law of Moses is not for the Hebrews alone but for the world. The law says that it is a wise and good law meaning that non-Hebrew nations should learn from its principles at least if they won't follow all the laws. And one principle is that people viewed as very bad should be stoned to death.

Some argue that we cannot interpret the Bible God as urging the killing of gay people for as God is love we must take the most charitable interpretation. But that does not change what the text says. You simply cannot interpret the law for killing as charitable unless you are going to say that gay men are better off dead. And it is possible to think you are being charitable by killing gays when God tells you to for God knows what is best.

Why do members of a religion argue that a violent interpretation of the word of God in the holy book is possibly valid? They cannot say that unless there are violent texts in that book. And it could be right or if wrong then it is still a reasonable or understandable interpretation. If God likes violence and you engage in it in a way he does not approve of then it is hardly a huge mistake considering he is usually okay with violence anyway. Violent scriptures give an excuse for violence. A religion with violent messages from God be it Islam or Christianity is giving evil people an excuse for violence - giving the means to make an excuse. The less chance there is for making an excuse the better. Excuses should not be enabled by religion. The better the excuse, the more the religion is to blame.


If a tyrant tells you to murder people will blame the tyrant for telling you even though it was your choice to listen. Yet we have to endure people who say that if you obey evil scriptures it is all your fault not the fault of the scriptures. Its just a perpetual double standard.

I recall how the New Testament teaches that the Jewish Law wherein God commanded that homosexuals be stoned to death is right. The New Testament is said to favour mercy over such "justice". But even if it does it still regards it as justice. Mercy is not a repudiation of the executions but only means the criminals are being forgiven. It is not true that the executions were based on Torah civil law - the Torah claims to be a religious law not civil law. So Christians cannot say, "It was only the law for the Jewish theocracy so it does not apply to us for we have no Jewish theocracy today."

And what about the violent God who Christ gave allegiance to? God commanded that brides who didn't seem to be virgins on the wedding night be stoned to death. And there were many other "sins" that got that fate. Christ never apologised for the murders carried at at Godís behest in the Old Testament and indeed insisted on believing in the Old Testament as having been written by God through men. The fact that most Catholics today do not obey these commands only means the following: that they think they don't apply in current circumstances, that somebody else can put them into action instead - not everybody has the same job to do in life, that they don't have enough faith. None of these reasons are praiseworthy. If their faith is too weak for them to consider killing then it is proof that they refuse to kill in so far as they are not touched by their faith. They are not being very Catholic if they would refuse to kill if God commanded them to. It would be foolish to point to them as proof that people as Catholics are not enablers or doers of violence.

The stoning of gays still in force

God declared in the Bible that a man lying with a man is an abomination and they have nobody to blame but themselves for being stoned to death. They are killed simply because it is retribution. It is not about any social good or anything else. The rule cannot be done away for it is about principle and not about anything else.

Jesus said he advocated love your neighbour as it was in the law of God - the law is clear that this law does not exclude killing adulterers or homosexuals. He was not taking the command out of context. He said he was using the commandment as the law gave it. The command comes from Leviticus 19 the most murderous book God ever allegedly wrote. The rule is about how people should act from day to day not about how the law should be applied. So the commandment in essence means, "Be good to your neighbour except when the law tells you." And the rule specifies that you must not hold a grudge against your kinsman but love him as yourself meaning that the law of love does not apply to non-Hebrews or those who excommunicate themselves and become ex-Hebrews such as gay men.

Jesus stated that he had no intention of relaxing any law of God in the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not - not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

Jesus told the Jews off for giving people who cursed their parents a light penalty and not the death penalty as required by God's law (Mark 7).

Jesus did not say that it was wrong to stone the adulteress to death. He said if you were any better than her it was okay to cast the first stone. That is saying the death penalty is right in principle even if not always practical or possible. Obviously if it is not wrong in principle it is not the worst sin if you go out and murder an adulteress! He did not even declare the stoning to be a necessary evil but something that is a mark of sanctity.

Jesus did not say, "I abolish the laws of the Old Testament commanding that homosexuals be put to death." You need that in such a serious matter and if you want to say Jesus was all about peace and love.

Jesus never apologised for the deaths.

Jesus even if he did not demand stoning to death of people made it clear that he is going to murder them himself. Vengeance is mine I will repay - Romans 12:19. Jesus keeping the law for us means the law is still in force. See also Romans 1:31 "Godís righteous decree is that those who do such things deserve death". The decree refers to the death penalty in the law of Moses.

Jesus says in the gospel he authorises the apostles to be his voice. That was why he wrote nothing. authorised Paul's teaching and Paul taught that gay sex is a serious sin and results in everlasting damnation.

Finally

The Bible is an evil book that deserves to have its pages torn out and used to shine windows. Any other use is criminal. Stop calling it the good book. It should be banned for it opposes social order and commands religious murder. Liberal Christians tend to argue that the Bible only condemns gay people using each other lustfully instead of desiring each other as partners in love. But a condemnation of lust would cover that! And it is still attacking the vast majority of gays who have one night stands. And why single gays out when most lust is heterosexual? If homosexuality is okay if it is done in love then why put two men to death for having loveless gay sex? The Liberals are distorting.