Do MAGAtards understand that they're all going to hell?
Gehenna is a Jewish concept. There are no MAGA Jews.
and it would be a very unfashionable boomer too
Your argument is shallow and you don't care about the poor, the hungry, the sick. You cannot even find it in your heart to care about the raped or the murdered and turn your eyes away upon your perceived enemies instead.
Rabbi Yeshua confirmed libtard faggot.Heaven's for faggot dicksuckers who want to be nice to people.
>>84230718all christians are in hell except 21th century liberals. this makes perfect sense
>>84230718I find it strange the people who don't believe in God believe in climate changeThey have their own original sin, emitting carbon. They have penance, I am pretty sure carbon credits are indulgences. They just invented a new religion where Humanity is at the centre of everything and the Earths just our bitch. Which doesn't react unless we do somethingJust ask them what percentage of the Earth's atmosphere was carbon dioxide before the invention of the internal combustion engine and what it is today to really watch their heads explode
>>84230742>>84230749>>84230780Who are you people talking to?
>yeezus said you have to self-immolate and let the foreigners blood suck and rape you to death :^)
I'm talking to you obviously.
>>84230790Leftists repeatedly try to talk to the heckin' fascist right assuming they're Christians and find that most of them consider christianity to be jewish pigshit.
>>84230718>I welcomed the foreigner, but rejected the invader>I helped the poor by eliminating his competition, the illegal>I fed the hungry by reducing the amount of mouths to feed in this country>I cared for the sick that could pay for it
>>84230893Lmao "invader" Good one. People being given legal work permits aren't invaders but nice try
>>84230932The public doesn't consent to it. This is a primary contributor to Trumps falling approval ratings. Everyone is disappointed that he's just more of the same.
>>84230859You're not? If you guys went full atheist, dropped the fat diaper shitting emperor, and plowed forward with eugenics, I'd be on board.Most of your alt-right faggotry is full of no-fap anti-porn nonsense, references to Christ is King, and the phony concept of "goodness" that was born out of Christianity.Let's do a book burning and start with a few million bibles. That trash infects people's minds with wizard fantasies and Israel worship.
>>84230893>>84230941So cringe my brother in Christ. Off to a strong start but then you backed down into an appeal to democratic values.>But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.The Bible is an open text to be interpreted, "thou shalt not kill" does not mean killing is never allowed, and "feed the poor" does not mean give literally every single poor person food regardless of the pragmatic outcome. The leftist interpretation is just one bad and historically unattested one of many infinite possible interpretations.The leftist appeal to a contradiction in the Bible at all is extremely weak in general, you can just aggressively pursue a deconstruction of the text.
>>84230952Do whatever you want, imbecile. Go buy bibles and burn them in your teletubby masturbation statio..
>>84230941"The public" isn't a bunch of screaming retards you follow on Twitter fyi.
>>84230718As if the people who support chopping off little Timmy's dick are getting into heaven themselves
>>84230961>teletubby masturbation stationThe fuck is that? Something I missed on /b/?Here, it inspired a generated art picture. Enjoy.
>>84230987>"The public" isn't a bunch of screaming retards you follow on Twitter fyi.I don't use twitter and you shouldn't use reddit.
you guys are using century old texts for modern politics.....?
>>84230718Liberals be like:>God isn't real, we are all unconscious bio-computers on a floating rock in space, there is no afterlife.Liberals also be like:>OMG, you're going to hell for supporting Trump!!!!!!!! God will punish you in the afterlife!????????????????????
>>84230952you know we used to call em christfags around here and if you so much as insinuated you werent an atheist you were ruthlessly mocked for the rest of the thread. unfortunately they actually breed and atheists tend to abort their children and kill themselves. this is a numbers game.
>>84231335sometimes people say things that will rile up the other party specifically to play to their beliefs despite not actually believing in them.
>>84231008Why is using Reddit an insult again? Did Reddit become Facebook while I was gone?
>>84231021uh yeah mofo sun tzu had good shit to say in there about libtards
>>84230992Do Jews believe in Heaven?
>>84230987nobody uses twitter unc we blusky now
>>84231008Oooh, fiesty. Bringing up reddit out of nowhere shows you definitely do not use x and reddit does not live rent free.
>>84230997this will do numbers on r/4chan ty friend
>>84230955>thou shalt not kill does not mean killing is never allowedPretty sure this is exactly what a commandment means? When does God allow you to fuck thy neighbors wife
>>84230785uhm nigga its nearly doubled, are you retarded
well jews control the world, jesus was a jew, and there is no heaven or hell in judaism. so it does not matter at all.
>>84230893>>I cared for the sick that could pay for itstop worshipping Mammon and sacrificing the poor at his altar
>>84231401honestly if i could make any religions afterlife true, the Mormons win by far, everyone gets a pretty nice heaven, and the really good and moral Mormon people control these heavens and act as their own gods over themdid a whole presentation on this in my philosophy class
>LET ME TELL U BOUT UR RELIGIONNo thanks, liberal.
>>84231373oh, what did he said?
>>84231414Honestly that sounds like hell in and of itself. Imagine being ruled by polygamist teetotalersBtw Catholicism is the True Church. Protestants are cut off from sacramental grace and their salvation is doubtful even on a good day
>>84230955>The Bible is an open text to be interpretedoh my mega churcherino... you backwards hicks should be fucking lynched with your down syndrome "interpretation" of the bibleit's not open to interpretation, it has been interpreted and the meaning settled upon by people much more intelligent and far better educated than you and your hillbilly pastor
>>84230718This got them actually mad haha
>>84231371>>84231383>unironic reddit usersYou realize that it is completely censored and radical islamists were mass moderators of hundreds of subs right? The same is true of other interest groups. Maxwell was one of them lmao.Yet you tell me that twitter, which I don't use, is not a fairer representation of public opinion even though it is uncensored?
>>84230952This is the problem with leftoids, you don't actually read or consume other people's media. You are low IQ buzzfeed article headline consoomers who let Shlomey tell you what to think, no different from MIGApedes. No actual "fascists" like the orange zionist retard or what christoidism is today, which is just another jewish golem which is probably what it was always intended to be from the start.
>>84231886>you don't actually read or consume other people's mediaAnd you do? Which atheist book did you read this month?I read the "right" garbage that gets regurgitated on 4chan ad nauseam, and it sticks to a theme pretty closely.>actual fascistsYeah, I don't take fascism seriously when it's from anonymous boys on a porn website.The genetic guttertrash on /pol/ would be the first victims of eugenics should it ever return.
>>84231392>>84231751This is how you exercise basic literacy. When a text says:>Exodus 20:13>Thou shalt not kill.But also:>Deuteronomy 17:5>Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.Then you know de facto "thou shalt not kill" is not a prohibition of all killing, but killing undee certain circumstances. When this becomes>Romans 13:4>For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.It is a written proof that state-sanctioned violence is permitted when the violence is against those who violate the law. If your mom says:>No no no! No taking from the cookie jar!and>You can take four cookies from the cookie jar on tuesday.Then this doesn't mean there is a grand contradiction in the rules, it means>Don't take cookes (unless...)This is very, very basic literacy. I am both not a "Christian" and not whatever kind of illiterate imbecile you are.
>>84232573I don't know why you even (you)'d me I'm not involved in your little gay argument
>>84230718>jewsus said you have to feed the hungry or you get sent to a realm where demons will rape you for eternitystarting to think this jewsus guy wasn't very nice...
>>84232580Those are both replies to my post: >>84230955If one of them comes from you, then you are a certified imbecile.
>>84232614you just can't read moronI only mentioned that "open interpretation" of the bible is pants on head retarded, like you are
>>84232623No it isn't, all texts must be interpreted and the function of a text is its utility. I don't think a skydaddy wrote the bible, so there is no "inherent meaning," infused into the arbitrary words on the paper. This is unlike you who seems to believe evil skydaddy wrote it and that makes your tummy hurt very, very much.
>>84232655emotionally charged and infantile ad hominem attackwoman or low testosterone manchild detectedthe interpretation of the book is based on the church traditions of the catholic and orthodox churches, not any random hillbilly pastor or wannabe intellectual
>>84231764>>84231764My nigga.Youre not wrong. There is no humour to be found. My honest truth, I am furious. No score to tally up. No right or wrong. Just more anger to manage. Woooooow
>>84230718I don't believe in hell but I wish cartels and communists and muslims would end up there.
>>84232828An ad hominem is an argument which rests on the character of the opposition, so you need to improve your very basic grade school literacy. This is again unlike you who uses an appeal to authority:>the interpretation of the book is based on the church traditions of the catholic and orthodox churchesAnd:>An (appeal to authority) is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.Oh no no no little man. What an imbecile. Oh yes, this calling you an imbecile is not an ad hominem, because the argument in this post is a refutation of the appeal to authority and a reaffirmation of the argument here: >>84232655 and >>84232573 which is that a text has no fundamental meaning apart from the interpretation of the text.Too bad. Try again. Going to appeal to a church authority like a redneck hillbilly baptist? No no no.
woah why was jesus such a commie
>>84230893>I cared for the sick that could pay for itJesus offered free universal healthcare tho
>>84232926you are correct I was wrongI am silly
>>84230783>21th>twenty-firth
>>84232965Damn. I hate it when that happens. Now you can take the high ground if I want to argue more... Fuck. I'm gonna go look at anime feet.
>>84231398So what is the percentage of the Atmosphere is carbon dioxide now that it has doubled?
>>84232965>>84233001Marbury v. Madison.There is no hard-coded law. Judgement is the law.
>>84233019I will fart directly in your mouth.
>>84233033I guess you won't tell me what percentage of the atmosphere is C02
>>84230785You remind me of this post about blacks
>>84233038>He can't convert ppm to a p/100The sad sate of American education
>>84233033CO2 levels are still some of the lowest they've been in history.
>>84230785why would it be strange believing in raw data? there is no empirical evidence for god but there is for ACC, its entirely consistent.>noooooo muh carbon creditskek why are you bootlicking multinational oil&gas companies like a subordinate cuck, you're doing it for free arent you
>>84233104>mfw eventually co2 ppm is going to rise to toxic levels, likely in the next 20 years>nobody really cares at all because capitalists need to have billboards and labubus
>>84233113Enjoy burning in hell (earth during climate change)
>>84230785>>84233064There is an untranslated book by Jules Monnerot (ironically a Black far-right fascist and former Communist from France in the 20th century) that goes into the idea of the Secular Religion which appeared with the fall of Christianity and the rise of secular humanism. What you're seeing is very literally a form of religion, and it can be critiqued not only in its aesthetic form (nigger worship vs. "climate fundamentalism" vs. Communism) but radically at the point from which it grows (i.e., in James Fitzgerald Stephen's critique of Liberal ethics).But it is literally a religion, and you can trace the things which are said, even if true (e.g., the climate is being destroyed), to the dogmatic religious axioms of the Leftist (i.e., one has an obligation to ensure equality or least harm for the greatest number). I personally believe in environmentalism by the way, I am just explaining one small part of the secular religion.
>>84233090we aren't supposed to be spiking in co2 for such a minute period in earth's history, no major volcanic activity or any singular one in a million natural event has occurred>durr so what dinosaurs were doing just fine in the heatcope
>>84233156The biggest secular religion is American patriotism. I got called to the principal's office for sitting down for the pledge of allegiance in 2004.
>>84230785>>84233064>>84233156One of his best works and the one that goes over most of this is translated here: https://archive.org/details/sociologyofcommu0000jule/page/n8/mode/1up>It was Christianity, with the Greek tradition interpreted through humanism, that bestowed upon the individual in the Western world the ability to value himself irrespective of group judgments, though these were still powerful and in fact the last word is always with them. And in the 19th century the group judgment vigorously reasserted itself.I recommend it to begin the process of raping down leftism. If you're a heckin' racist, this is also evidence of substantial intellect from a black man.
>>84233167It is a form of secular religion yes, but it is neither the most totalizing nor the largest.
>>84230718we're all gonna go to our personal hell, all of us, forever. Me and you and him and her and it and them.anywayss what are you a christian libtard
>>84233162I mean there's two options hereEither A) make billions of people stop using fossil fuels and whatever else is causing the planet to warm upOr B) just adapt to hotter temperatures. People already live comfortably in Arizona where the temperature average is several degrees higher than normal.
>>84233206or C) stop subsidising big oil and move to renewable/nuclear sources>just adapt brothe problem is most of the economic hubs in the world are coastal which is entirely under threat from inundation, plus the bigger threat is from plants and insects failing to adapt and dying off leading to ecological collapse and mass starvation in the billionsthis is why it makes no sense comparing our current mammalian ecosystem to prehistoric ones
>>84233263Yet, New York is /still/ not underwater despite "scientists" continually saying that the polar ice caps are melting.
>>84230718hurr durr you christcuck magat didnt welcome in droves of retarded third worlders who came here with the sole intention of raping your wives and daughters??? you must be leckin bigot and are going to hell!! no i DONT know anyhting about your religion and i think its retarded but i DO think your god would agree with me and not you!! hmpf!
>>84233206NTA but I am "far-right" and my argument against oil can be from the perspective of energy independence and pragmatic benefit. Suppose:>The climate is fine and oil causes no problems.Then reducing reliance on non-renewable resources is a benefit from a nationalistic perspective.>The renewables are not renewable.In this case, what you are doing is improving resilience against oil embargoes, supply chain failures on oil, etc.>Energy decentralizationCurrently the grid is has a major fault in reliance on coal or oil, and if these fall in relative share with a greater number of decentralized solar/wind/hydro/nuclear farms, single attacks on the supply chain or grid won't take out so much.But I of course also believe that no person can be fully right wing unless they want to protect both the blood and soil of their nation, and the environmental losses of coal and oil harm blood and soil. Even if the other forms of energy did as well, and in just the same magnitude, it would still be beneficial to fund research into alleviating any problems associated with reliance on this form of energy and increasing energy independence and safety of future survival. An aggressive anti-oil policy is not necessary, but a pragmatic a la China's would be very beneficial. I think climate fundamentalists are a detriment to rational discourse about energy, so I understand what your problem is.
>>84233303>Al Gorehe isn't a scientist, he's a sensationalist former politician. No serious scientist said we'd submerged by now, inundation will be gradual and take place in 100-200 years from now at the current rate (if it somehow doesn't accelerate), with some places more prone depending on their current ground/sea level.
>>84230718Why are there so many different fonts? Is this edited?
>>84233325>I think climate fundamentalists are a detriment to rational discourse about energy, so I understand what your problem is.and somehow ideologically motivated individuals like yourself aren't detrimental to rational facts based discourse.
>>84233354Just pump all the excess water into deserts then. That's a win for everyone right? All the water is being wasted by being trapped in ice when 1/3 of the earth is desert.
>>84233206>>84233325As an example, I would class things like carbon taxes, fossil fuel bans, and electric car subsidies as climate fundamentalism or suicidal policies. In contrast, redirecting funds from oil to energy research and development or infrastructure being effective and pragmatic boosts to national self-reliance.>>84233382Ideology is not perceived from the perspective of the ideologue, but becomes the highest Truth. Ironically, this is similar to a quote from the book I just referenced:>A religion is seen as such only by those outside it. For its adherents it is simply the highest form of truth. For the true believer Russia no longer exists as such; but he does not believe he is a believer; he believes he possesses the truth. In fact, he is possessed by something which he believes to be the truth; and for this truth he feels an active attachment of a kind which truth (at least scientific truth) does not usually inspire or demand.What Monnerot is doing is comparing the Marxist definition of ideology with that of Communism. Your ideology includes the axiomatic dogma:>We MUST save the environment!or>We MUST increase human felicity!These are dogmas no different from the ideologies of Monarchists, Communists, Nazis, or Fabians. It's just ideology which tells you to take these actions.
>>84230718You can't mental gymnastics your way to defend illegals OP. 2/10 poor effort
I'm not going to listen to biblical arguments from people who haven't read it and don't believe in it. Especially given how many support things like homosexuality, which is explicitly a sin.
>>84233394>yea man lets pump trillion tons of salt water into empty deserts its that simple! oil cucks will literally argue for anything except the cheap and obvious solution
>>84233408>Your ideology includes the axiomatic dogmastrawman much? my position isn't ideological like yours, its based on real world data>As an example, I would class things like carbon taxes, fossil fuel bans, and electric car subsidies as climate fundamentalism or suicidal policiesHow is it 'suicidal' if countries that have imposed cabon taxes or EV subsidies (or emissions trading for that matter) still exist and are functioning?>redirecting funds from oil to energy research and developmentif anything is suicidal its this, oil&gas subsidies should be going to proven technologies, not some grand R&D initiative, otherwise its going to cause a national, even global, energy crisis.
>>84233560>strawman much? my position isn't ideological like yours, its based on real world dataNo, this is not a strawman. Real world data (the facts about the world, the "is") do not provide you with a moral "ought." For example, it is a fact-about-the-world that if you kill people then they die; this in itself is not a moral reason to or not to kill. The ideology is where you bridge this gap between the facts and what you ought to do, as the facts themselves do not provide you with the imperative. In a most extreme example, it can be a fact that you are dying of treatable snake venom. Ought you to take the antivenom? The data shows that the antivenom works, you believe it absolutely, yet, it is solely a personal decision as to one wishes to or does not wish to take the antivenom. Such a decision is not even irrational if one is okay with the outcome of death.The straw man would be if you had quite literally no beliefs, but you do. You believe people "should" do so-and-so, and you push this ideology here.>SuicidalSuicidal behavior does not mean it will immediately kill whoever does it.
>>84233560>>84233652The last move of someone with no argument is a desperate thrust to sophistry, as, for example, if you want to claim ideology is solely a rigorous set of doctrinal axioms and nothing more. Actually, I specificied the sort of ideology I meant here: >>84233408>What Monnerot is doing is comparing the Marxist definition of ideology with that of Communism. Your ideology includes the axiomatic dogma:And we should fish the definition of ideology from Marxism like so:>Ideology is a system of concepts and views which serves to make sense of the world while obscuring the social interests that are expressed therein, and by its completeness and relative internal consistency tends to form a closed system and maintain itself in the face of contradictory or inconsistent experience.I.e., that of "rational ethic" is an ideology that obscures the class interest of preserving liberal property rights, or your use of environmentalism and its facts to obscure the interest you have in maintaining the planet and (ostensibly) improving human happiness. Marx had a very strong belief that "his" ideology wasn't a true ideology, but it of course was, and Alvin Gouldner very aptly critiques Marxism as an ideology within the framework of Marxist critique itself. I don't have a pdf on hand but I can get my book if you want.Or in other words, if you want to say that I am possessed by ideology, my only argument is that this is no less than your ideology, or if you want to say that you are not, then I am not. There is an equivocation because my beliefs are built on my values (as yours is in the axiomatic "Do good!") and my practices are from a pragmatic observation of the facts (no rigid doctrine), etc. There is no straw man but your imagination.
>>84233033>>84233104https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_EarthSince you guys wouldn't post it. Carbon Dioxide is 0.03% of the Atmosphere
>>84233206What if we just cut carbon emissions in Western Europe and North America and let India and China spew as much pollution as they want because criticizing non-white people is racist?
>>84233733>specificiedspecified*>I.e.E.g.*>>84233560Further, ideology as such is already widely accepted to involve not only the conscious but unconscious doctrines which motivate practical behavior, as in, of course, your belief in liberty, equality, or least harm. These are the moral tenets of a very ideological "faith" rather than some facts-based science. To claim that your ideology is somehow more real because it bases itself on some fact is no more valid than a person killing a retard because the retard has a low IQ. These are both actions taken based on objective facts that stem from moral axioms derived from ideology.
>>84233770Would you drink water that was 0.03% diarrhea solids?
>>84233424>homosexuality, which is explicitly a sin.One sentence in Leviticus.There are entire chapters in the Tanakh about which animals to sacrifice on which day for Yahweh.The bible explicitly tells you to never shave your beard and never eat pigs.Jesus was unmarried at 33. I'm not saying he wasn't straight, but he would have had a hard time proving it.
>>84234664When critiquing a religion, you must do so within the framework of that religion. Pic related is from another "debate" I had explaining to some retard the difference between ceremonial and moral law. Within the Christian religion (i.e., within its framework), the Jesus figure comes to explain that the Jews placed the oral (Talmud, for example) and ceremonial laws (Shellfish, etc) above the moral law, and came himself to abolish the ceremonial. Even within the Jewish religion, there is a distinction between "unclean acts" which are not "morally" wrong but are instead violations of the covenant to distinguish the Israelites from the gentiles. These are things like shellfish, pork, and the prohibition on wearing cloths made of mixed fabrics. How is this known? Because Jesus himself comes to say>Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.And then promptly breaks the ceremonial laws (working on the Sabbath, for instance) several times, explaining that the ceremony is meant to serve man and not the man the ceremony. "Oh!" you say, working on the Sabbath was a violation of the Ten Commandments! But this is not so, as the text is not at conflict with Jesus' interpretation, namely, that the Sabbath was not a prohibition on all activities (like turning on a light switch in halakha).What about the episode with the adulterer permitting adultery:>John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?Yet it does not, as this proceeds right after:>She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.And the moral imperative to enact the law is expounded upon here:>if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
>>84234664>>84235137The last quotation is a very real and very aggressive threat that evil (violations of the Moral Law) can be punished with the sword; it is not borne in vain. Could this be a contradiction? No. As stated here,>If your mom says:>No no no! No taking from the cookie jar!<and>You can take four cookies from the cookie jar on tuesday.>Then this doesn't mean there is a grand contradiction in the rules, it means:>Don't take cookes (unless...)This is how the most basic form of literacy works. It isn't clever to say>Well mommy, I ate all the cookies because your rule contradicted itself!That's not how it works, except to a child trying too hard or an imbecile with a child's intellect.To illustrate, it is possible to reinterpret Marxism in many ways, including as a very functionally pro-capitalist text as Schumpeter kind of does in his CS&D. The interpretation is no more valid than any other, but the existence of another interpretation does not invalidate the extant ones; i.e., pointing out a contradiction in the historical materialist tension between the Asiatic mode of production and class warfare does not invalidate Marxism, and does not prevent mainline Marxism from accounting for the apparent contradiction by means of interpretation.In this case, the contradiction literally does not exist. Jesus himself violates the ceremonial law, Peter receives a vision from "God" instructing him to eat unclean animals (another violation) etc., it is both the plain fact of the text itself, the historical interpretation used by Christians in the past and present, and even without reference to historical interpretation, no additional reinterpretation can invalidate the others. The contradiction doesn't exist outside of reddit pseuds and their straw men.
>>84234664>>84235137>>84235148As in the image,>The Biblical name for ceremonies appears to be "edut" ("testimonies," Deut. iv. 45; vi. 17, 20; see Nahmanides on the last passage), in distinction to "mishpatim" ("judgments," "ordinances," Ex. xxi. 1, and elsewhere); while the term "hukkim" ("statutes") is applied to both moral and ceremonial laws (Ex. xii. 14, 43; Lev. xviii. 4, and elsewhere). The Rabbis distinguish between mishpatim, moral laws--which are dictated by reason and common sense, such as laws concerning justice, incestuous marriages, and the like--and hukkim, those divine statutes to which the "Yezer ha-Ra'" (the evil inclination) and the heathen object, such as the prohibition of pork or of wearing garments woven of wool and linen (Sifra, Ahare Mot, xiii. on Lev. xviii. 5; Yoma 67b).>Jewish EncyclopediaA precedent for the distinction between ceremonial and moral law exists even in Judaism, and there is no contradiction in how it is used within the NT and Christian theology.
>>84234664>>84235174Further, just to clarify:>homosexuality, which is explicitly a sin.>One sentence in Leviticus.Also false. You need to get your facts straight before you try to be a pseud, and the following is not the only other place it is referenced:>1 Corinthians 6:9>Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,It exists as well in the NT. Then should it not be punished? Again,>Romans 13:4>For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.A distinction between the state-sanctioned violence against evildoers (violators of the Law) and the Christian imperative to forgive them (evildoers and homosexuals) exists in the text. There is no contradiction. Forcing the contradiction is only the creation of a new and flimsier interpretation that comes from someone who says something objectively and textually false because they saw a reddit comment one time that said it, instead of... you know, reading. You can, you very well can, but it does not refute the extant interpretations on any level.>One sentence in Leviticus.Nope. Too bad.
